LONDONDERRY, New Hampshire (CNN) - Republican Mitt Romney Monday referenced former president Bill Clinton's 1992 second-place showing in New Hampshire when asked what a loss in the Granite State would mean for his presidential bid.
Romney expressed confidence in his New Hampshire position, but left room open for a less-than-frontrunner finish by pointing to former President Bill Clinton's successful presidential campaign - even without a New Hampshire primary win.
"A defeat in New Hampshire, I'm not hoping to be able to understand fully personally," Romney told reporters.
He then asked out loud, "Did Bill Clinton win New Hampshire?
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-New Hampshire, who stood by Romney's side answered, "No, he came in second."
Romney continued, "He came in second here, so the political wins and the implication of them is something I'll leave to others."
Romney holds a comfortable lead in New Hampshire according to several recent polls. But he has lost his once significant lead in Iowa to Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
– CNN New Hampshire Producer Sareena Dalla
"REFERENCE" IS NOT A VERB! What is this, wikipedia?
Romney REFERRED to BC's 1992 New Hampshire showing.
Is our reporters learning?
Now I know Romney has lost his mind because that comment/reasoning is ridiculous! Why? Because Bill Clinton had the entire South in the palm of his hands! He did not even NEED NH ...BUT Romney? ALL he has is the hope of NH !! I am still Lmaorofl here!
Who was it that used his own money to finance a campaign again...wait...it was John Kerry...and how successful was it again....oh...thats right – it wasn't – the country doesn't need the right wing as much as it doesn't need the left wing of either party....we need a moderate...vote for the only one running...Giuliani
go hillary yeah bill we go it babe!!!!!!!!
I generally don't humor silly whims about grammar on posts, but decided to make an exception due to the fact that Peter seemed to have nothing better to do with his time than argue about something that is rather superfluous.
Actually, reference can be used as a verb. While referred would have been more appropriate to some eyes, referenced is grammatically correct. It seems to be more accepted when used directly associated with sources and citations. In the end, it's a style thing. I've seen worse here and in other news sources, including papers of record such as the New York Times and Washington Post.
I hope someone buys Peter a dictionary, and a bit of perspective.