September 2nd, 2007
05:28 PM ET
7 years ago

The Clinton show hits New Hampshire

The Clintons in New Hampshire Sunday

(CNN)–Returning to the state where he was dubbed the 'Comeback Kid' in 1992, former President Bill Clinton began a Labor Day weekend campaign swing through New Hampshire with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton as she campaigned for her White House bid.

Standing before a crowd on the lawn of the state capitol in Concord, the former president said the 2008 election was consequential. "We have to elect the best President this time. This is not about politics, this is about the future."

He declined to criticize any of his wife's competitors for the Democratic nomination. "I like being a Democrat in this election because I like all the people running. So if you came here expecting me to say something bad about the others, you might as well go home now," he said to a comment greeted by laughter from the crowd.

But he left no real doubt for whom he would cast his vote. "In the forty years I have been voting in presidential elections," he said, "Hillary is the best prepared to be president of any non-incumbent I ever had a chance to vote for in my life."

"Ultimately, to bring change, you have to know when to stand your ground, and when to find common ground," Senator Clinton said after taking the stage. "You need to know when to stick to principles and fight, and know when to make principled compromises."

Under fire from other candidates for appearing too cozy with special interest groups, she said no other candidate had more experience fighting them like she did. "I've been standing up to special interests and taking all their incoming fire for 15 years," the Democrat from New York said. "And guess what, I'm still standing, and proud to fight every step of the way."

The Clintons were also scheduled to visit the Hopkinton state fair in Contoocook, New Hampshire on Sunday, as well as an evening rally in Portsmouth. They are scheduled to campaign together in Iowa on Monday.

– CNN Political Desk Editor Jamie Crawford


Filed under: Bill Clinton • Hillary Clinton • New Hampshire • Race to '08
soundoff (58 Responses)
  1. Mark Billingsley, Sacramento, Calif.

    David from Salinas...man, where to start on your post...hmmm...how about Obama saying he'd bomb our friends – which he never said, of course. He said he'd chase after Bin Laden if he had actionabvle intelligence. After Hillary blustered and hissed she admitted too that she'd go after Bin Laden...once again, she followed and didn't lead. Sitting down wand having supper with our enemies? Nope, didn't say that either. What he did say was that he'd have talks with our enemies just like we did with the Russians for 50 years during the Cold War. He's not afraid to do that because we come from the moral and idealogical high ground. There's video out there if you care to check that has Hillary saying the same thing while she blames Bush for NOT talking to our enemies. And then during the debate she blustered and hissed some more...Nice flip-flop Hill. Way to follow and FAIL to lead again...and now, she waited until after Obama and Edwards signed the pledge not to campaign in those states who have been messing with the order of primaries – the same people who wanted the primaries moved up to help her so she wouldnlt have to campaign so hard...you know, because her nomination is so ineveitable right? Well, the DNC, Obama and Edwards called her on that B.S. and forced her to sign the pledge alomst a day after Obama and Edwards did. I guess she waqs consulteiong her pollsters again, or tea leaves or that Hsu guy that's so cosy with her. Anyway, Hillary followed again instead of leading. So if anyone is trembling it's Hillary. But we'd never know it from the Clinton News Network coverage or their CNN/Gupta polling. Who's Vinod Gupta you ask? Here's a start: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/4/210922.shtml

    and here:

    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/14/ap4019806.html

    September 2, 2007 11:06 pm at 11:06 pm |
  2. JimmieFromDayton

    Obama 08! Coming soon to a town near you, Washington has to change. And as for the cumbaya comment, we expect to get the same dirty racist, fear mongering politcs from the repubs that we're getting from clinton but then at least they don't cowher when they do it. I don't agreed with it but I can repect them for it. As an Independent I'd vote for any of the republican candidates before I let this country go through that garbage that the clintons are trying to bring back into my White House. That family disrespected our national symbol. They are part of the problem with this country. They will never get my vote. Doesn't matter anyway I doubt she can steal this election although I know she will do her best. She's no different than Bush/Rove so bring it own.

    September 2, 2007 11:12 pm at 11:12 pm |
  3. Chris, Fort Worth, TX

    VanReuter... to answer your question about what Republicans would think of the other Democratic candidates, take a look at the hypothetical general election polls – the same hypothetical situations that predict Hillary winning the Dem ticket. In every case against a Republican, Obama comes out with a larger margin of victory. Why then do you choose to support someone of a more polarizing figure, that woulder reduce the Democrat's chance of victory? Obama 08

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

    September 2, 2007 11:22 pm at 11:22 pm |
  4. xtina chicago IL

    I think the right way to vote is to ask which candidate represents a strong military and lower taxes (for all people, not just lower-income people). After all the main role of federal govt is to protect us from enemies.

    September 2, 2007 11:29 pm at 11:29 pm |
  5. xtina chicago IL

    because Hillary Clinton barely acknowledges that we HAVE enemies, despite our fine local police and federal FBI and CIA agents continually finding evidence of Muslim extremist terrorist plots.

    September 2, 2007 11:32 pm at 11:32 pm |
  6. Uma, mpls, MN

    I can't wait to vote for Hillary, she is such a brilliant person.
    Go h
    Hillary!

    September 3, 2007 12:16 am at 12:16 am |
  7. Bill W, Coatesville, PA

    David in Salinas also forgot about the radical Muslim groups we are fighting around the world. You think Radical Islam hate us NOW?

    These are people who make women walk one step behind them, cover their faces, keep their mouths shut, and many of these women have been forcibly sterilized. And this is in the non-radical Muslim world. They do not think highly of women.

    So yeah, why don't we just go ahead and elect a woman president.

    All that aside, I'd vote for a woman president – but not Hillary Clinton. Not with her history, and not with 20 years and counting of either a Clinton or a Bush in the White House. Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. Now you want Cliniton again? Then why don't just have a monarchy and not bother to vote?

    Also, the Clintons are absolutely no better than the Bushes. In fact, they hang out and vacation together (you can easily search the web for the photos) And have numerous ties, finiancial and otherwise.

    Mrs. Clinton, by the way, also voted for the war before she was against the war (Flip-flopper, [...] they shot down John Kerry with, isn't it?), she voted for the joke of an immigration bill that the entire country was opposed to, and she has brought the number one outsourcer of US jobs to India into her state, and giventhem a sweetheart deal so they can send millions more of our jobs overseas.

    No, I'll vote for anybody else but her, thank you. But if you people want more of what we've had for the past 8 years, you just go ahead and vote for her. I'm hoping for change, real change. And Hillary Clinton does not and never will stand for real change.

    September 3, 2007 12:19 am at 12:19 am |
  8. Michael James -- Illinois

    If you take the time to actually examine his experience credentials, Barack clearly has enough experience and, especially in the case of Clinton, Barack’s experience is definitely more impressive:

    http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/sg_distro/comments/how_much_experience_does_hillary_really_have/

    "...Obama, who is fourteen years her junior and has only been in the Senate since 2004, has a much more impressive record–as Senator he sponsored 152 bills and resolutions and co-sponsored 427. He has an even longer list of achievements from his previous days in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He can therefore easily smash Hillary's latest illusion..."

    Even if one were to concede that Clinton has more experience (which I do not), let's talk about the record of those with experience in terms of the Iraq vote. Iraq is a case study on the kind of decision-making a president faces - serious consequences at stake, imperfect information, and passionate voices on both sides. Despite all of that, Barack had the foresight to know that it was a bad move. Hillary didn't even bother to read the entire National Intelligence Estimate. Hasn't her "experience" taught her that you need to read the fine print? Or was she not “strong” enough to think for herself instead of following the polls? We don’t know all of the tough decisions the next president will face, but we do know that Barack has what it takes to make such decisions.

    Barack has been a community organizer, civil rights lawyer, constitutional law professor, and legislator. He can help to improve America’s image abroad and bring people together at home. He’s a leader and he knows how to work with people to find practical solutions. He’s inspiring, yet substantive. He’s a man of integrity and strength. He’s authentic.

    As for Hillary, we know she lived in the White House for 8 years, has sponsored a lot of bills in the US Senate that resulted in naming post offices and has been tainted by scandals at every stage of her and her husband’s public life. Why will she not release her tax returns? Why will she not release her earmark list? Why is the documentation of her years as First Lady being kept hidden from us when she is counting those days as part of her experience? I know the 90’s were quite good in many ways, but why do so many people want to return to the days of travel office firings, special prosecutors and partisanship afflicting virtually every policy discussion? We can do better than that and we will when we elect Barack Obama.

    September 3, 2007 12:28 am at 12:28 am |
  9. Bill W, Coatesville, PA

    And by the way, I cannot stand to listen to any Fleetwood Mac song without wanting to gag anymore, thanks to the Clintons.

    September 3, 2007 12:46 am at 12:46 am |
  10. Bill, Roanoke, Virginia

    This country has suffered enough with the Bush and Clinton families at the wheel. There are no differences on issues that matter to hard working Americans. They are owned by Drug companies, Insurance companies,Oil companies and lobbyists. NOTHING will change if Hillary is elected. Why in the hell have a democracy, if we are going to let big business and the media shove these two elitest families down our throats?

    September 3, 2007 12:52 am at 12:52 am |
  11. Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky

    Providence, I like your post and agree with you. David from CA has a better vision than some people.
    Steve, if you are right, why voters didn't support McCain? he is out of gas physically and mentally.
    Scott, a new century exists because yesterday. New food and clothes are good but yesterday friends are better than new. Like "the former governor is a wise magistrate".
    Pl, may I answer you why Obama's wife is hiding(you said)? She opened her big mouth "you can't run your family, certainly you can't run White House" Michelle is practicing how to run family:).

    September 3, 2007 01:10 am at 1:10 am |
  12. Mrs. America

    Of all the presidential candidate spouses, Bill Clinton is best suited to serve the country in a support role. Hillary is tough which is I think why so many are afraid of her. But we need someone tough and smart in the Oval Office (Hillary) and someone who can fix America's tattered reputation abroad (Bill). Anyone thinking beyond the shores of America would see they are about the only chance the U.S. has to give any hope that the U.S. will regain its pre-George Bush stature. Unfortunately, there are many who will go to the polls and vote based on a candidate's standing on abortion and gay marriage, as the country continues to tumble further out of superpower status.

    September 3, 2007 03:51 am at 3:51 am |
  13. tungsten

    Take another look at the picture of the Clintons in New Hampshire Sunday
    "standing up to special interests and taking all their incoming fire for 15 years," ... " still standing, and proud to fight every step of the way"
    - don't they look like they are in deep debt ??

    September 3, 2007 03:52 am at 3:52 am |
  14. David, Washington DC

    To Steve in Washington– come out of the 60's, Steve!! My sister is a recently retired Major General, and trust me, she never had ANY problem getting her subordinates to follow her orders. RHIP. I think most in the military today know you better da– well follow the orders of your superior. And last time I checked, Commander in Chief outranked everybody else.

    September 3, 2007 05:03 am at 5:03 am |
  15. Lillian , Barstown Cal

    HIllary wants to turn America into Cuba, socialists everything, medicine etc. The woman scares me and we would never ever vote for her . Let her go to Cuba, or mexico with Bush and La Raza and Obama and leave our freedoms Alone

    September 3, 2007 05:59 am at 5:59 am |
  16. Larry Williams. New Hampshire

    Clinton, Obama, Richardson, will be just like Bush, they will destroy america . All have already swore to assist La Raza and Mexico. They will continue things like these Unsafe Mexican Trucks into our nation, they will bring More and More child molestors from Mexico. In the last day there have already been four child molestors , Illegals, with children as young as 3 yrs . Bush has already proven he Hates Americans and has set out to Destroy it. I believe any of these Three will be just as bad if not worse. And when Obama & Clinton Promise to support La Raza and Illegal to be given most American Jobs, I fear for our safety and our Nation. I don't want to see us become a third world country

    September 3, 2007 06:22 am at 6:22 am |
  17. tungsten

    Amazing the arrogance not to realize the emptiness of phrases like
    "to bring change, you have to know when to stand your ground, and when to find common ground," …. "You need to know when to stick to principles and fight, and know when to make principled compromises."
    “I've been standing up to special interests and taking all their incoming fire for 15 years," … “And guess what, I'm still standing, and proud to fight every step of the way.”
    "We have to elect the best President this time. This is not about politics, this is about the future."

    September 3, 2007 06:48 am at 6:48 am |
  18. Rocco, Wellington, FL

    We the people elected President Bush for Two terms under the emotion of family values, conservatism and fear. The handlers for the Bush administration were undeniable extraordinary at fooling the American people into voting in the most important job on the plant a “MAN” incapable of the tasks he needed to confront. Lets vote the next President without emotion of fear, and soap opera and political sleaze, lets vote the most capable, most experienced, and the one who will fight for the rights of the middle class. Let’s get behind Hillary Clinton and make this election overwhelming in numbers. An overwhelming election for Hillary will set the tone for the next 8 years not only in America but around the World

    September 3, 2007 07:15 am at 7:15 am |
  19. dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD.

    D. Gorham: Each of the candidates has taken (actually) MILLIONS in "special interest" money. John Edwards, for e.g., from trial lawyers, and Obama from many of the exact same donors who have contributed to Hillary. Also, his wife quit working last year or earlier this year: after years of collecting very nice money (and nothing wrong with that), she suddenly discovered an uncontrollable conflict within herself between her well-remunerated job and her inner stay-at-home Mom.
    Arshad: AS FIRST LADY, the right-wing attacked and investigated her mercilessly, intimated that she'd killed one of her husband's longtime political allies, hauled her before a grand jury and Congress to answer specious questions, and hinted that she'd engaged in insider trading. Not only did Sen. Clinton beat back this witch's brew of gossip, innuendo, and serious legal jeopardy, but she emerged victorious in her Senate campaign - the only former first lady to do so - and then ran an overwhelmingly successful re-election campaign. That shows the kind of political smarts, resilience, and sheer endurance we need from Democrats in the White House because, believe me, no matter who is elected, the Republicans will be shooting those same bullets.

    Trisha: Sometimes when you lead as Sen. Clinton did on healthcare, you fail. Now, (I believe) that the majority of Americans want to see healthcare reform. Since her failure, Sen. Clinton has backed a number of incremental steps in improving and extending healthcare– like expanding S-CHIP and improving electronic record-keeping - which enjoy wide electoral support. These steps are helping to prepare the way for more fundamental reform, should we ever get our fiscal house back in order. That's called building political consensus.

    Mark: What Obama said was that he would PROMISE to meet with Chavez, Castro etc. within the FIRST YEAR of his administration WITHOUT first ensuring that these leaders are serious about negotiations on subjects as important as nuclear proliferation. So, if Chavez wants to come on over to the White House and detect sulphur emissions there, as he did in the U.N. after a Bush address, in an Obama Administration, he appears to be welcome. Sen. Clinton has always championed the need for robust diplomacy while insisting on the same reasonable, sensible negotiating conditions any prudent would require. Sen. Clinton reiterated her consistent position in her VERY FIRST RESPONSE TO OBAMA. She stated, that while willing to talk to these leaders, she would FIRST send high-level envoys (a big deal in diplomatic parlance) to make PROPER DIPLOMATIC PREPARATIONS before putting U.S. prestige and bargaining power on the line. This is called DUE DILIGENCE, and as a lawyer, Sen. Obama should know all about it. As for announcing that we would violate the sovereignty of Pakistan, where many do not love us, whenever he felt we had actionable intelligence, this is just imprudent. I mean, Iraq much anyone? Whatever our actual policy toward Pakistan, it's unwise to rub our power in the country's face. Particularly when Pakistan's people seem ready to dump their brutal dictator, why should a U.S. presidential candidate give them any reason - as Bush did to Iranians in their election - to cling to him as a source of strength against American domination? Plus, Obama's Pakistani announcement seems so at odds with his professed willingness to promise to talk to U.S. opponents (apparently about just anything) that one suspects he was trying to reedeem one political blunder by, unfortunately, committing another.
    Chris: Sen. Obama has a larger margin of victory in the general election - although not a very significant one –because NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT HIM. "The politics of hope" can mean everything or nothing. However, we cannot hope for this enviable state of ignorance to continue. In the general election, the Republicans would turn their attack machine on him, filling the airwaves with details of scandals, fake-scandals, (gasp) replays of some of the nonsensical things he's said on the campaign trail, and choice tidbits from his time as an Illinois legislator. The very Independents who profess to like him now are the ones who know the least about him or anything else. So, they'll be the most easily influenced against him by the "new" information the Republicans will be more than happy to provide for him.
    To everybody who claims Sen. Clinton has less experience than Sen. Obama: although much of Sen. Clinton's experience hasn't been as an elected official, she's been the chief political advisors to one of the most successful presidents (despite EVERYTHING the Republicans could do) in the second half of the 20th Century. She helped get him elected in Arkansas and advised him when he was Governor there. She helped him to the presidency and shaped many successful initiatives from the White House. The proof of the pudding etc. If she hadn't learned a thing or two about a thing or two, she wouldn't have been able to become the only First Lady ever to win election to the New York Senate, even after all the terrible things that have been said about her. And if she'd been an incompetent legislator, she wouldn't have been overwhelmingly re-elected to the Senate, including in the more conservative up-state areas where they HATED her before she ran the first time.
    Sen. Clinton is a fighter and a winner and just what Democrats need to re-take the White House.

    September 3, 2007 08:23 am at 8:23 am |
  20. pl, at the UN, for a while.

    This is all good stuff. I have no say on who wins or should win. But I have assiduosly been asking for reasoned comments. Finally we are getting on with them. No more one liner ridiculous slogans. Thanks.

    September 3, 2007 08:44 am at 8:44 am |
  21. Anna

    I think she meant to say, "taking all their incoming payoffs for years". Hillary is a joke.

    September 3, 2007 08:56 am at 8:56 am |
  22. Kenny, Tulsa, OK

    Trisha in New York: You can add this one to your list: Two weeks before the November mid-term, Senator Clinton was asked what she thought about a voter-ID bill (prove to us that you're a 'legal' US citizen before you get to vote in 'our' elections), and her response was, "I don't agree with a voter-ID bill because I feel it would undercut the integrity of our electoral process."

    September 3, 2007 01:15 pm at 1:15 pm |
  23. Jim Las Vegas

    Dumb and Dumber together once again.... This is two people that continuously lie to the american people. Do we need more of this?

    September 3, 2007 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  24. Tom Dedham, Mass

    Fighting special interests, is this "person" serious"?

    Are you Clintonista's serious?

    She takes more from special interests than any other candidate, period.

    Anyone else says these bold faced lies, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and the rest would have staff digging up the facts and it would be a lead story or maybe part of a special report.

    Just like she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who was a nobody when she was born.

    Wait till the political ads come out against her, there is so much materila to work from, this is going to be great theatre.

    "Right-wing conspiracy theories", "Men who are afraid of strong women", blah, blah, blah, I can hear the excuses now.

    Biden is twice the candidate this "person" is, but he doesn't have the dough or the MSM behind him.

    September 3, 2007 04:19 pm at 4:19 pm |
  25. Bill W, Coatesville, PA

    Hey David: Her "accomplishments" are that:
    a) she spent 8 years a house wife, just happened to be married to Bill Clinton
    b) She managed to get elected senator of New York, with no previous ties to New York, again by the strength of her husband's name.
    c) She is running as a presidential candiate, once again on her husband's name. 99% of the people who wil lvote for Hillary Clinton believe they are re-electing Bill Clinton.
    d) She is good friends with the Bush family, and she and Bil; vacation with them. Maybe they can rig the voting machines for her, too.

    Sad, but true.

    September 3, 2007 05:44 pm at 5:44 pm |
1 2 3