October 21st, 2007
08:38 AM ET
11 years ago

Clinton: I'm no frontrunner in Iowa

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, campaigned in Iowa Saturday.

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) - Democratic White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, said Saturday that she looks at her campaign as if she were "ten or twenty points behind."

Clinton–ahead in the latest national polls by as much as 30 points–made the comments to reporters when asked if she considers herself the frontrunner in Iowa, a state where she holds a much smaller lead.

"No," Clinton said. "I consider myself someone who's working as hard as I can everyday to earn the support of Iowans, and that's what I'm going to keep doing."

"I'm well aware that no one has voted. No one has caucused. We have a long way to go before that happens and I don't take anything for granted."

In the latest Des Moines Register poll among 399 likely Democratic caucusgoers Clinton was in the lead in the Hawkeye State with 29 points. Former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, sat at 23 points, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois followed closely with 22. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

-CNN Iowa Producer Chris Welch

soundoff (161 Responses)
  1. Brittany, Chicago

    I want a president who can win by his or her own merits. I have no doubt that Hillary is the frontrunner, but I do believe that her lead comes from the familiarity of her name rather then the content of her policies. I loved Bill Clinton, but the hope for bedroom politics isn't enough to win my vote.

    Obama '08

    October 21, 2007 10:19 pm at 10:19 pm |
  2. Sarah

    This may very well be the most manipulative woman on the face of the earth.

    Don't fall for the polls conducted by Mark Penn (HRC's chief strategist). Women are too bright to fall for this act that Hillary Clinton is selling.

    We will not vote for you Hillary. We will not vote for a mother who didn't care enough about the children of other women to read the intelligence made available to you before voting for the Iraq war.

    And now, HRC, as you position yourself with the republicans who are itching to attack Iran, we will not stand with you.

    You do not represent me, or my views and I will never vote for you.

    October 21, 2007 10:26 pm at 10:26 pm |
  3. John Adkisson, Sacramento, California

    As are almost all Americans - I am all for female candidates, male candidates, candidates of all backgrounds. That is why I am taken aback by Senator Clinton constantly referring to her primary opponents as "the men," as in "I am getting a lot of attention from 'the men' in this race" - when she is criticized. I have heard it repeatedly.

    I know she is just trying to rally the women's vote– which is fine and good–but imagine if Senator Obama were to say– "I am getting a lot of attention from those 'white' candidates." I speculate that his campaign would be over.

    I find it odd that this sort of gender divisiveness is not the subject of critical comment.

    October 21, 2007 10:44 pm at 10:44 pm |
  4. Rex, Toledo, Ohio

    "Hey Rex, I am a Democrat and I agree with many of things Ron Paul says. How can his website say this, however:

    "Americans are justifiably concerned over the government’s escalating intervention into their freedom to choose what they eat and how they take care of their health." AND "I have been the national leader in preserving Health Freedom."

    Yet, he has voted on several occasions to interfere with a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions. I am strongly against abortion, yet I don't believe it is the government's responsibility enforce it. Do you know how much that would cost? Also, banning abortion will NOT decrease the amount of abortions there are! The only way abortions can be decreased is through knowledge and (gasp) birth control. I don't understand why this country is so scared to discuss sex education.
    Posted By Jesse, Burnsville, MN : October 21, 2007 7:44 pm"

    I don't know. I,like you consider myself a liberal. However, I'm pulled in opposite directions regarding the abortion issue. My opinion really doesn't matter here, now. And I can't answer for Dr. Paul, but I can assume that perhaps the fact that he has practiced ob/gyn medicine and delivered over 4,000 babies might have something to do with it. Do doctors that routinely deliver babies also perform abortions? I really don't know. I'm not certain how someone could do both. Here is a break down of his voting record in regards to abortion and other issues.


    October 21, 2007 11:31 pm at 11:31 pm |
  5. Charles in Orem, Utah

    Colin742: You're preaching to the choir, but what's your point supposed to be? It so happens I voted for Bill Clinton - twice, as a matter of fact (different elections of course) - but like a lot of people I wasn't the only person who came away from his Presidency with a bad taste in the mouth. When the country was being all at each other's throats and he was lying directly to us - not to protect some great national security matter, but to protect his own sorry self - I lost respect for him. Gore would have made a fine President, but he should have been sworn in upon Clinton's resignation, THEN gone on to be elected easily in 2000. Again, the fact that he wasn't is Clinton's fault and no one else's. Hell, even Nixon had the grace to leave office rather than put the country through the sort of turmoil that Bill Clinton did.

    And what's with the IQ shtick? The man has a high IQ; so what? Mine's 142, yours sounds about the same. Kennedy's was 117. I understand even Hitler's was well above average. Bush's IQ... well, I'm sure it can probably be measured. But so what? Means nothing.

    If I may return to the original point I made, where I attempted to answer the lady's question about why so many of the posts were so angry: It began with Clinton being a putz. Personally I am sick to death of the anger and animosity we've endured for the past ten years, and would like to see an end to it. As I've pointed out before, ANY of the other Democratic candidates would likely be a shoo-in, and a couple of them are even outstanding, but Hillary Clinton is a divider and not a healer.

    Be well.

    October 22, 2007 01:42 am at 1:42 am |
  6. sen d , santa fe n. m.

    just read that hillary once dumped her cat Socks. ! This is going to be her downfall once the story hits the major newscasts ! On man

    October 22, 2007 02:21 am at 2:21 am |
  7. ronnie knoxville tn

    you Democrats scream about the country being DIVIDED but listen to you! Why don't you start with yourselves ?

    October 22, 2007 02:30 am at 2:30 am |
  8. sf, ca

    Charles from Utah said this " Hillary is a divider , not a healer".

    I am wondering if Hillary is divider or prejudiced hatred filled people are the real divider. You see a person as a divider, when your heart is filled with hatred.

    May be Charles, you should look inside yourself and you may find you are a divider, not a healer. May be that will change the world around you.

    It is the people who hate, who see Hillary as divider. They rely on every bit of hearsay to justify their prejudiced thought process.

    October 22, 2007 04:32 am at 4:32 am |
  9. Yvonne- Franklin Grove, Illinois

    Hillary is and will continue to distroy family values,she can't seem to keep her own house in order, how do we expect her to run the White House? she does not have my vote or my family votes

    October 22, 2007 07:25 am at 7:25 am |
  10. Rod, SC

    Clinton has serious credibility and accomplishment issues. I will vote for Obama.

    October 22, 2007 08:15 am at 8:15 am |
  11. Karen,nj

    Hillary can keep her house in order, if your talking about Bill's "affair", well she handled it very well. Regular people would have done it a whole lot differently. The man would have regretted that incident for the rest of their foolish life and then some.

    October 22, 2007 08:38 am at 8:38 am |
  12. Cal Netarts, Oregon


    October 22, 2007 08:39 am at 8:39 am |
  13. Karen,nj

    Were you aware that IQ actually stands for idiotic questions? That garbage is about as reliable as ink blots.

    October 22, 2007 08:51 am at 8:51 am |
  14. R. C. NY

    Hillary Clinton has my vote.

    October 22, 2007 09:17 am at 9:17 am |
  15. GaVoter

    Due to her national hate factor, I'll be switching over to vote for her in the primary. She will make it easy to get another Republican in 08.
    Go Hillary!!

    October 22, 2007 09:46 am at 9:46 am |
  16. George A. Ortiz, Hoboken, NJ

    Hillary may not be the "front runner" but EVERYONE including Obama's own camp have come to realize (as much as they won't admit it) that she will win the nomination. She's no Howard Dean and the fact that Democrats nationally are rallying around her is proof of that. The Republicans spent all their time in the debate attacking her? Why? Because they are AFRAID of her because they know they can't beat her! Obama and Edwards weren't even mentioned in passing because the GOP will beat them easily! Hillary Clinton is tough enough to take any of those RepubliCANTs on!

    October 22, 2007 10:01 am at 10:01 am |
  17. Ralph,nashville T.N.

    Im going to vote for the person with the least amount of cash.they owe less to the rich.

    October 22, 2007 10:26 am at 10:26 am |
  18. sean, des moines, Iowa

    What I really respect about Hilary Clinton is that she really seems to be in it for the right reasons. I also like that she talks to people on a one-on-one basis. I think she's putting her viewpoints out there, and a lot of people are siding with her on the major issues. I also think that Hilary seems to me to be an incredibly hard person to break or beat; I trust that she will be able to defend our country against terrorists while not talking down to us the way republicans do.

    October 22, 2007 10:38 am at 10:38 am |
  19. Karen,nj

    I don't know why everyone insists on talking about Howard Dean because most of us never paid attention to any news about him. We've heard his name before, but that's it.

    October 22, 2007 10:54 am at 10:54 am |
  20. Lance in Monrovia CA

    If 50 percent of the electorate hasn't chosen you, they're not going to, Mrs. Clinton. You've had several years of riding Bill's coat tails to prove yourself to them and you have not. You consistantly play it safe and play to the corporate money men to make you competitive against Barack Obama, and that's about it.

    I hear you're holding a "Rural Iowans" party, in Washington D.C., at a Lobby firm for Monsanto Inc., the worst evironmental polluters of pesticide and genetically modified foods in existance, a company that has been banned in Europe, a company that is the definition of corporate greed and irresponsibility.

    Barack Obama has passed more bipartisan bills on more meaningful legislation, including the first ethics reform in a generation which is the reason you can no longer use that Monsanto provided jet, Mrs. Clinton.

    While you were on the board of Wall Mart in the 80's getting Wall Mart to fund Bill's campaign, Barack Obama was out hitting the streets of Southside Chicago on behalf of out of work steel mill workers, getting them new jobs and better homes. He turned down several six figure salaries to do that Mrs. Clinton. Have you ever done the same?

    Who is calling you the front runner? The ESTABLISHMENT, those that stand to benefit from your being the nominee. If you win, then Rupert Murdock and his Fox cronies will be happy that you were in their pocket. But then, your new buddies over at fox aren't telling you some things, like for example, that they're hoping you're the nominee because they believe that you WILL LOSE.

    Barack Obama is looking ahead, 30 years of BUSH and CLINTON is not what this country needs. WE need to turn the page and look forward, look to a real leader of substance and integrity instead of one mired in ego and greed the same way that our current misfit and chief is.

    Obama in 08. Obama can make a difference and change the status quo. Obama will restore us to ourselves again.

    October 22, 2007 11:56 am at 11:56 am |
  21. Emily, Cambridge, Mass

    To Dave, Cheverly, MD

    Sweetie...you are fantastically condescending. Maybe Kelly from AZ shouldn't have muddled the issue of Hillary with that of gay rights but likewise, you should not be belittling in such a way. Keep it up; oh, and keep saving the free world too...with a personality like that I'd wager to say you're well on your way.

    October 22, 2007 12:06 pm at 12:06 pm |
  22. Jill, Detroit, MI

    Hey Sarah,

    "We" is an awfully strong and presumptuous, blanket pronoun..."We will not vote for you..."

    Well, Hillary, I will vote for you.

    October 22, 2007 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  23. Lakeisha Matthews Iowa


    October 22, 2007 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm |
  24. Daniel SLC

    2009 can't come fast enough!


    October 22, 2007 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm |
  25. Jon, Pittsburgh, PA

    Amazing how dumb people are. All one has to do is read these blogs and find how misinformed people really are. They have strong opinions that are baseless.

    Go Hillary!

    October 22, 2007 01:02 pm at 1:02 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7