December 1st, 2007
03:43 PM ET
6 years ago

Winter weather keeps candidates off the stump

Bad weather in Iowa forced Mitt Romney to cancel campaign events on Saturday..

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) – A winter storm that's been coating cars and roadways with a layer of ice Saturday has kept Sen. Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton out of Iowa, and it's caused former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to cancel his campaign events for the day.

Sen. Clinton was scheduled to speak at the Heartland Presidential Forum in Des Moines, but, according to her campaign, the Democratic presidential candidate will now be giving remarks via telephone. She is also set to participate in the Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum in Des Moines Saturday evening. As of this posting, a spokesman with the campaign says they're currently monitoring the airports, and there is no word on whether she'll make that event either.

Former president Clinton was scheduled to attend a rally on his wife's behalf in Norwalk, Iowa, but the campaign has cancelled that event due to "inclement weather."

But weather is bipartisan.

A spokesman for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in a press release that their entire day's schedule in Iowa has been cancelled because of "severe weather, numerous closings, and adverse road conditions."

Des Moines International Airport was closed for about 6 hours Saturday morning but has since reopened.

UPDATE: Delaware Sen. Joe Biden's flight to Des Moines from Chicago was also cancelled Saturday. According to the campaign, he decided to brave the roughly six hour car ride instead.

-CNN Iowa Producer Chris Welch


Filed under: Hillary Clinton • Iowa • Mitt Romney • Race to '08
soundoff (19 Responses)
  1. Anne - Detroit, MI.

    It is pretty bad. a United plane skidded off the runway in Des Moines, Iowa.

    December 1, 2007 03:44 pm at 3:44 pm |
  2. Charles in Salt Lake City, UT

    Mitt Romney’s endorsement of a marriage amendment (defining marriage as between one man and one woman) raises warning flags for a good many reasons – not the least of which is the outrageous sense of hypocrisy such a position has for any practicing Mormon.

    Mormons today blandly refer to their polygamous heritage as something almost “quaint” that took place long ago, and stress merely that “they don’t do that anymore.” And yet, the doctrine of Plural Marriage is still a deeply ingrained principle of Latter-day Saint faith that has never been renounced.

    Few people outside of Utah today realize that Mormons who advocate this “one man, one woman” definition to marriage are doing so not so much to address the idea of gay marriage as they are to continue to prosecute their crusade against modern-day fundamentalist Mormons who still try to practice a polygamous lifestyle out of a sense of religious conviction. Not all of these people are crazed control freaks like Warren Jeffs, by the way – the vast majority of them are simply otherwise normal folks who happen to like very large families. But in attempting to live as their conscience dictates, they have also committed the unforgivable offense of embarrassing the Orthodox LDS church – thereby incurring official wrath and persecution.

    Very ironic, really, for the LDS to wage persecution against people today for doing the very thing they believe their ancestors were persecuted for over a century ago.

    I would be more inclined to take Romney’s position seriously if the LDS church were to utilize its own perceived authority to perform ordinances on behalf of the dead (such as eternal marriages) and posthumously annul all polygamous marriages that had taken place during the 19th century between roughly 30 women and Joseph Smith; the 27 or so women and Brigham Young; and all other polygamous pioneer Mormons – including Romney’s own ancestors.

    Until then, it is no wonder Mitt Romney doesn’t want to publicly discuss his religion.

    December 1, 2007 03:58 pm at 3:58 pm |
  3. JD, des moines, iowa

    Where is Obama? Is he not trying to campaign in Iowa at all?

    No one that the last Iowa polls shows that Obama lost out to Hillary who was considered working the hardest of all candidates in Iowa.

    December 1, 2007 04:08 pm at 4:08 pm |
  4. DS, Trenton, NJ

    Is the weather really bipartisan? Seems to have been raining on the Democrats in both 2000 and 2004 elections...

    December 1, 2007 04:17 pm at 4:17 pm |
  5. Jimenez - Texas

    You wanta know where Obama is JD Des Moines, IA. He's in Harlem w/Chris Rock laughing off racial comments. As I quote Mr. Rock: if Obama won and they had been backing Clinton instead. "You'd say, 'I had that white lady! What was I thinking?" Now tell me why did Rock have to mention race when we all know there is only one lady running. Boycott Chris Rock.

    December 1, 2007 04:58 pm at 4:58 pm |
  6. John

    He lived when he said he believe in the Bible Mormons don't have the same Jesus which the Bible or do the follow the same Jesus which in the Bible. The Jesus they have is created not god and Jesus is the brother of Santa . They also believe in new gospel and Jesus clearly say anyone who teach a new Gosple after him is a false teacher. Come on Mitt tell the truth please.

    December 1, 2007 06:07 pm at 6:07 pm |
  7. Marti, Plano, TX

    Very interesting comment by Charles of Salt Lake – it reminds one of how shallow today's reporting is, and how, if one is to be informed (which, apparently, is not desirable), one must dig deep. It truly is unconscionable that the Fourth Estate, once so highly esteemed, cannot or does not, help in the quest.

    December 1, 2007 06:23 pm at 6:23 pm |
  8. Jonathan, Holiday, Florida

    I get the feeling the someone is going to say that the snow is just part of "Hillary's tactics."

    Mark my words.

    December 1, 2007 06:27 pm at 6:27 pm |
  9. No One, No Where

    Joe Biden seems to not worry about the weather and is dedicated to getting to Iowa to speak.

    December 1, 2007 06:30 pm at 6:30 pm |
  10. Garrett, Provo, UT

    Charles in Salt Lake City,

    "Few people outside of Utah today realize that Mormons who advocate this “one man, one woman” definition to marriage are doing so not so much to address the idea of gay marriage as they are to continue to prosecute their crusade against modern-day fundamentalist Mormons who still try to practice a polygamous lifestyle out of a sense of religious conviction."

    You are completely full of crap. Homosexuality is definately the reason Mormons advocate for marriage between one man and one woman. Your reasoning proves my point.

    December 1, 2007 06:38 pm at 6:38 pm |
  11. Charles in Salt Lake City, UT

    Garret of Provo:

    Wrong. The original proposed wording of the so-called "marriage amendment" was that marriage was to be defined as "between a man and a woman" - which unintentionally appeared to leave the door open for a person to perceive that marriage could also exist between "a" man and "a"nother woman. It was due to a push by LDS lobbyists that the wording has been altered to read "between one man and one woman."

    Frankly, I happen to know and respect a good many fundamentalist Mormons, who I find every bit as moral and likeable ad the regular Mormons I know. I feel that they are every bit as entitled to live their faith as they choose as anyone. So why should it be that they so persecuted by the orthodox LDS church?

    Image. It's all about image.

    December 1, 2007 08:29 pm at 8:29 pm |
  12. Aaron, NYC

    @ Charles of SLC

    You are retarded. I wish your comments had some sort of relevance.

    Mitt Romney has intentions of restoring the moral fiber of this country. Perhaps you are affected by the proposed amendment that denies marriage to gay couples. Heres an idea: get out of SLC, move to San Fran, and vote for Ron Paul. You'd do well there.

    December 1, 2007 10:53 pm at 10:53 pm |
  13. Reality Check

    To John:

    If mormons believe in a different Jesus, then why do they believe in the Bible, New Testament, Old Testament and the Pearl of Great Price (as well as the Book of Mormon)?

    Your comments sound very illogical and confusing. You also are incorrect in your comments. Perhaps a little education on your part would be helpful.

    December 2, 2007 01:55 am at 1:55 am |
  14. Louise Romey Iowa

    Obama is certin (in his mind) that all he needed was Oprah??? that great IOWANS will support him for that reason...this guy thinks we all are idiots!
    Again this guy is showing lack of good judgement,sense and experience...
    HOW DARE YOU OBAMA THINK IOWA IS STUPID ENOUGH TO SUPPORT YOU ONLY BECAUSE OPRAH SAID SO...

    CLINTON has been working extremly hard and sucsessfully reaching out to those of us who are interested in the issues and fixing this mess bush/chaney has made in 8 yrs, not the color of her skin when it benefits her. Obama trys to be a black man in Harlem, but wants to be a white man everywhere else...
    HE IS THE ULTIMATE EXAMPLE OF A FLIP FLOPPER!!!

    send this guy to HARPO Productiosn, not the White House!

    December 2, 2007 07:32 am at 7:32 am |
  15. David MTL Ca

    This guy will suck the blood out of America like Dracula

    December 2, 2007 11:40 am at 11:40 am |
  16. Steve Blaine Washington

    Is John from Salt Lake City been changed now from Editor of http://www.exposeromney.com.
    Poligomy was ordered originally because
    all previous dispensations including the
    the one Jesus Christ establised nearly 2000 years practiced poligamy. The Mormons were told that since the Mormon Church was a Restored Church
    poligamy had to be praticed. It was stopped when the law forbid it anymore and the Articles of faith require Mormons to follow the law. Additionally it caused many problems
    with original marriages and there were many divorces. By the way one of the reason it was used in Utah was that there were more women than men originally and they needed husbands. The wives under this arrangement resided on separate farms.
    Jesus Christ established the Mormon Church under Acts 3 verses 19,20, and 21 and he still runs the Church today. All Church doctrine of the Mormon Church came or comes directly from Jesus Christ even today. The Mormon Church is even mentioned in Isaish 28 verse 12 when he says in the days of refreshing few people will listen which certainally has been proven true. How in regard to this people should remember that Jesus Christ is the Judge of all people and the Bible mentions at least 3 place people will go to in the next life. Look at 1 Corinthians 15 verses 40 and 41.
    Malachi 4 verses 5&6. Elisha came to the first Mormon temple on 3 Apr 1836
    which was 1803 years after Jesus Christ was Crusified with Elias, Moses and Jesus Christ to accept the Mormons first temple and to provide the keys of salvation. There were also numerous other angel all over the place. How do I know this. My relatives were there and saw it all. Mormons conduct baptisms for the dead, endowments and sealing to parents and children of their kindred death in temples. They also perform live marriages which are for eternity and endowments for the living. Temple work is only valid in the next life if and only if all parties accept it in the next life which is why you will find the Mormon husbands and wives treat each other with tender care and trust.
    One thing all these anti Mormons will find out is there is no second chance theory. If the reject Mormonism in this life they will not have the chance
    to accept it in the next life. A worse fate can happen to Mormons who accept the Gospel and do everything they can to torpedo the religion. It is called the Unpardonable Sin but this is Jesus Christ's call so i will not say anymore about it.

    December 2, 2007 12:46 pm at 12:46 pm |
  17. Charles of Salt Lake City, UT

    Well finally - a Latter-day Saint contributor who is willing to speak frankly and forthrightly about the tenents of his faith without feeling the need to resort to slander, innuendo, or personal attacks upon those who believe differently. Thank you, Steve Blaine of Washington. All you others: that wasn't so difficult, was it?

    Now if only Mitt Romney could feel capable of doing the same.

    December 2, 2007 02:32 pm at 2:32 pm |
  18. Karen Houston TX

    To the moderator. I would like to have more open discussions about the political points of view of this man. I am sick of you allowing the uneducated bigots of this world to make this their Mormon bashing forum. Please be more responsible.

    As far as Mitt Romney goes. I think that he would make a good President for the following reasons.
    #1 He is a patriot who wants to return the United States to its legal citizens. He is one of the very few candidates that takes a strong stand on the illegal immigration problem which is severe and only getting worse.
    #2. He is described as a financial and business genius. Our economy needs a man who actually understands how to balance a budget. He has the necessary experience to even out the free trade industry.
    #3 He is obviously smarter than the "military expert" McCain, as he tried to point out in the recent debate by telling the United States that he was "not going to give away our interrogation secrets" to the enemy. Only a moron would assume that he was endorsing torture!
    #4 He is one of the few candidates that I have heard speak about the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and has actually laid out a plan to do so. Do you all like paying those outragoeus prices at the gas pump?
    #5 He has spoken openly about the need to educate and return our nation to basic family values.
    Is there anyone out there who has the ability to discuss these political ideas?

    December 2, 2007 05:11 pm at 5:11 pm |
  19. Shelley Watkins/ Charles City, Iowa

    I appreciate that Mitt Romey mentioned that he was prochoice until legislation concerning abortion rights came across his desk as a governor. He decided he was prolife. What I am deeply disturbed by is that both the media and the candidates fail to recognize the common sense that only people who have experienced abortion should make direct comments on it and be involved in bringing about change. I underwent an abortion when I was 16, it wasn't my choice, it was more the choice of the man, who I learned was a repeat offender of statutory/date rape. He was, according to my spouse who knew of him, planning to become a priest, of which he did. A requirement, he wasn't to have any living children. The abortion was both physically and emotionally painful. I don't understand why common sense doesn't occur in the discussions that media present. Roe v. Wade was likely long before reliable birth control. I have been in control of my body since that teenaged abortion. I don't understand why parents wouldn't want their teens daughters to take birth control, mostly for the medical benefits of regulating their menstrual periods to eliminate severe cramping. I'd rather see a teen protected from an abortion resulting from a rape, of which she can focus on prosecuting the rapist. The importance in privacy is the right for all females to take birth control, and never have a need to use abortion as birth control. I would like to see laws concerning responsibility over the control of our bodies and reproduction. Any female engaging in sexual activity should bear the responsibility to protect themselves with reliable birth control, such as Ortho Novum pills, and the Depo shot. To play around with the act that begins another life is wrong, Americans need to become legally liable for these actions. Abortion should become a procedure that is outdated. No one needs 9 months to decide to destroy the innocent life growing inside their body.

    Sincerely,
    Shelley Watkins
    Charles City, Iowa

    Prolife means to support life that includes the economy and keeping America's young adults out of foreign wars, unless it is on strong moral issues like the liberation of the Nazi Holocaust camps, issues like that. We don't have any right to kill other nations populations over frivolous dependence on oil and greed.

    December 2, 2007 05:37 pm at 5:37 pm |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.