January 3rd, 2008
11:00 PM ET
7 years ago

For Clinton in Iowa - The party is over

ALT TEXT
CNN's Mike Roselli captured the mood at camp Clinton Thursday night.

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) – Long after the local and national TV outlets had turned away from her headquarters, Hillary Clinton was still going.

She worked the stage full of supporters that had assembled behind her. She hugged and shook hands with prominent backers such as Madeleine Albright and Terry McAuliffe and stopped to talk with Iowa surrogates who had become constants on her travels across the state. One woman decked out in full AFSCME regalia commanded the senator's attention until they were practically alone on the stage.

Sen. Clinton descended from the stage and worked the remaining fans pressed against the bunting clad ropeline, posing for pictures and signing autographs. She outlasted President Clinton, not one ever to leave a ropeline early.

Once the candidate had exited the ballroom, the campaign soundtrack looped for the umpteenth time as supporters milled about picking up signs, swilling beer, and posing for pictures at the podium where their candidate had just spoken.

–CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson


Filed under: Hillary Clinton • Iowa
soundoff (265 Responses)
  1. Salita, SC

    The funniest thing I see on these blogs are people wanting change but dont think a woman running and has a strong possiblity of winning as change. It laso amazes me people are all waving their pompoms but no one has looked past the primaries to the national election and the electorial college.

    Secondly for you Obama people, how in the world do you expect to get to 270 electorial votes to win the white house? Oh yea you all forgot about that little jewell. Obama is Carter all over again with Reagan running him down with the States rights southern strategy. It is easy for Hillary to over chuavinism and some jealous females....not so easy to over come racism on a National scale.

    You folks better get out a map and start counting the electorial votes. For Obama you need to use the 1980 map becausee those are the tactics the republicans will use on him.........For us Hillary supporters we can use the 1992 map or the 1996 Map.....Edwards folks you need the 2004 map. Ask yourselves who can get to 270 the fastest and easiest? Enquiring dems BETTER know from which they draw the almight electorial vote, wasnt 2000 enough of a lesson?

    January 4, 2008 09:29 am at 9:29 am |
  2. Jen Cedar Falls, IA

    Judging from these entries on all of CNN's political articles, Hillary has earned the title of candidate loathed by most people. She simply will NOT be able to reunite the country. Division throughout the USA would be inevitable with her, as it has been with Bush2.

    Those of you who think Hillary HAS to win need to look at the state of the country, not just Hillary's intent to be the first woman president, or getting Bill back in DC. This is about become the UNITED States once again.

    Huckabee couldn't unite us either, I believe he'll fall on his face soon.

    January 4, 2008 09:34 am at 9:34 am |
  3. Jeff

    The people in Iowa did speak for change, and maybe it wasn’t about where the front runners stand on issues, but more about running the same old tired power hungry Washingtonians out.
    It just doesn’t appear to be about issues, or heaven forbid, representing the people. Every election it seems to be more about fund raising, front runner backing, inter-party back biting and total political rhetoric. Where is Government for and by the people?
    What is really disheartening is that good candidates, with valid positions on important issues, are already dropping out because they are not viewed as front runners, and their pockets are not deep enough to compete. Who will pick up their voices and challenge the status quo?
    When will Americans realize the playing field needs to be leveled….WITHOUT special interest monies leveling it. Is this really what the Founding Fathers had in mind? Can this process really represent all the people is claims to represent? It just looks like rich people making decisions that help other rich people be richer.

    January 4, 2008 09:40 am at 9:40 am |
  4. Sondra

    I think all of you have the wrong "O" here. That was a vote for Oprah, not Obama. He'll never be a credible candidate until he can do it without her stumping for him.

    We've been suffering through two terms with a president in the White House who lacked experience (on oh so many levels), why vote for someone else who doesn't have experience? He has no real idea what goes on in the White House. How many candidates have been elected who said they were going to make all these massive changes and when they got there...oops! Where'd the changes go?? Duh! They have to deal with Congress. If the Constitution is followed, the president has no real power.

    He can talk all he wants about change, but it's going to take someone with experience who knows their way around to really get things done, and I think it would better serve our country after the past 7 years to have someone take over who has that experience so we can start digging out of the mess that's been made. Give it a term or two and THEN put a fresh face in there.

    But please...let's get sensible and start helping the next president dig out by being smart with our vote. Don't base it on popularity or personality. Step back and take an objective look at things. Then decide.

    January 4, 2008 09:40 am at 9:40 am |
  5. Tom W - Dedham, Mass

    The "message" of change indeed reasonates with many, they just don't think she can be the agent for the change to happen.

    Though I was disappointed that the Hucksters got out the bible thumper vote to beat Romney, I was happy as hell that the DEMOCRATS in Iowa showed that even with a small minority population, white folks will look passed the color of ones skin and make the choice that is best for the country.

    The Republicans on the other hand chose a religioun and not a candidate.

    Very sad indeed.

    Not too worry though, that hicks bible touting message only reasonates in certain states, he will go away real soon.

    Before you start bashing, I am a Conservative and a Christian, I just don't make every decision based on what "God" would do.

    January 4, 2008 09:44 am at 9:44 am |
  6. Rio

    why such a big fuss? I hope Americans learn from the setback of electing BUSH #2 in office for second term as his ratings are the lowest ever in the history how he is handling the country....media says all
    I want to see the best Candidate win and run for the President. America needs a President who will have integrity and vision to bring the country a real change and help American people not just talks and rosy pictures ...will do this and that. Who will execute from day one for the good of America.
    God bless people of America!

    January 4, 2008 09:44 am at 9:44 am |
  7. Clark Lowery Fair Lawn NJ

    I would think most of these responses are from Democrats interested in removing the Bush influence from our national conscious. It would better serve our purpose if we stopped bashing our own candidates and focused on supporting our favorite(s) in the real contest: the November election.
    Any of the democratic candidates is a wonderful choice compared to the other party’s offerings – do we really want to see Rudy, Mitt, or Mike as our president?
    Maybe we should try to congratulate Barack on his great effort, and appreciate the work of Edwards and Clinton for energizing the race, attracting not only the die-hard dems, but first-time caucus participants, and also drawing independents and crossover young republicans.
    Having strong candidates who provide us with a real choice is so much better than the situation in the past two races, and can do nothing but strengthen the eventual nominee for the (assuredly) coming republican attacks.
    Congratulations to all of the candidates, and let’s keep the turnout, interest, and excitement high.

    January 4, 2008 09:56 am at 9:56 am |
  8. Mike Longview, TX

    Hillary stumbled in Iowa, but she is going to take NH.
    Then this frontrunner status of Obama will be just a memory!

    January 4, 2008 09:57 am at 9:57 am |
  9. Maggie, Charlotte, NC

    Anyone who believes Hillary is honest and experienced is living in a dream world. Honest? I remember her questionable billing practices in her former law firm, land deals, commodity trading, etc. Experience while in the White House? She didn't talk with Bill for years except to hear him say "Honey, I swear, I never had sex with that woman." Do you think she was allowed to attend national security sessions or any other meeting? She relied on Bill to tell her what went on in those meetings and we all know he never told her the truth about anything. Any woman who would stay with a cheating husband for years and years (starting at the very minimum in Arkansas), tells me she is after something, be it wealth, celebrity status or the white house. It's obvious she didn't stay with him for love but for love of something else. Is that honesty? In no way. Sorry but she has neither honesty nor experience. And I'm sick to death of hearing how many times she can say Ahhhhh when she's talking. Hesitation while speaking is like saying "Wait, give me a minute so I can think of a lie." NO VOTE FOR HILLIARY.

    January 4, 2008 10:05 am at 10:05 am |
  10. larry buchas, new britain, ct

    Experience doesn't matter IF YOU MAKE THE WRONG DECISIONS. Obama called it correctly regarding Iraq & instability in Pakistan before the invasion. And he will move us forward on foreign & domestic issues.

    I have total confidence Obama will get things done & so do many Independents & Republicans. Hillary would only keep the country divided between red & blue & legislation will not get done.

    We learned a valuable lesson in Connecticut supporting Ned Lamont in his Senatorial run. He won the Democrat votes but not Independents & certainly not Republicans. We're still feeling that loss with the traitor Lieberman around for another 6-year term. The moral of the story is YOU HAVE TO GATHER THE INDEPENDENTS & FENCE SITTERS TO WIN ELECTIONS.

    Don't blow it again, Democrats.

    Obama 08

    January 4, 2008 10:07 am at 10:07 am |
  11. Bill W

    Shows what happens when there are no voting machines to rig. Maybe all the states should caucus.

    January 4, 2008 10:11 am at 10:11 am |
  12. Tom

    The ABC's of 2008 – Anybody But Clinton.

    January 4, 2008 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
  13. AJ; Montpelier, VT

    Hillary Clinton can and will take this nation back to a time of peace and prosperity. Obama? Well we have a president now who is an empty suit. Do we really need another?

    January 4, 2008 10:13 am at 10:13 am |
  14. Marco

    Hillary:

    What does it say about you're ability to judge those close around around you, and more importantly about your character, that you put up with Bill's infidelity?

    I cannot respect someone that for all practical reasons, when it really counts, can not respect themselves!

    January 4, 2008 10:14 am at 10:14 am |
  15. ammeh, las vegas

    I love hearing about how much "experience" Clinton supposedly has. I guess if you're an idiot, you could see the pathetic sham of eight years of reading to kids and puppeteering for her husband as making her fit to figurehead the USA. HRC has *ONE* more term in the senate than Obama. Her touted experience is at best questionable, and at worst a complete lie.

    Notice I said "figurehead", because as the people on here have apparently forgotten, the president HAS LESS POWER THAN CONGRESS. The only trump card the president (note- president means "to preside over", not "to rule", and that's one hell of a difference) has is the veto, and even that can be overturned by congress.

    Perhaps what this country could really benefit from is limiting congressional terms the same way we've limited presidential- two terms per lifetime. That would really get the "change" we're looking for.

    January 4, 2008 10:15 am at 10:15 am |
  16. Americans for America

    When you get right down to it, I need Hilary Clinton as my President like I need Mike Tyson as my mailman. Whatever strengths that she has. I don't really care about and certainly DO NOT want her representing me or MY COUNTRY ~ EVER. She was a crappy first lady... and a crappy WIFE. When the President needs the FULL support of a Laura Bush or Jackie Kennedy type at his side – who needs a Hilary to have her own agenda and leveraging her husbands clout to try to "shove" her self ill-conceived master plans through. Hers is not the agenda of the people... and SHAME on the great state New York for bringing her into your Senate – what has she done for YOU ? The reality is if she did not get the NY seat, we know that she would have pandered for Arkansas then Illinois till she did steal a Senate seat for herself – but ultimately who does she represent other than herself? I simply don't TRUST her, and I don't LIKE her. Any-who... thank you, God ... for steering us away from Hillary Clinton in Iowa.

    January 4, 2008 10:18 am at 10:18 am |
  17. Steven

    Lori in NJ,

    Your comments are the most ignorant I have read in a long while. Iowans exercised their right to vote for whoever they wanted just like that is your right. A nominee was nor elected last night, the race is just getting started. Iowa has spoken but 49 other states are awaiting they turn as well. You want to elect Hillary, then do something about it other than degrade an entire state population just because you didn't get your way. Sour grapes makes the best whine!

    January 4, 2008 10:22 am at 10:22 am |
  18. Scott, Madison, WI

    This candidate for change had to "manufacture" a party atmosphere just for television media consumption. Yes, Queen Hillary, this is that nasty thing we call an election process that has impeded your air of self-entitlement to the thrown.

    Is your crown a little askew this morning? A little surprised at the percentage of (new and inactive) Democrats and Independents that surfaced to remind the country how you, with the unfortunate help of your husband, have already squandered our trust with your slash-and -burn politics of destruction?

    We are not here to help you serve vindication to the Bush Dynasty on a silver platter. Please settle that on your own a leave us out of it.

    So, when do the attack dogs start their hunt to kill at any cost?

    January 4, 2008 10:28 am at 10:28 am |
  19. Neil McCleod

    Caution folks. Just remember that about a month ago on Dec. 2nd , Karl Rove published an article in the Financial times indicating a set of stratagies that Obama could use to beat Hillary. Why did he do this? It is quite simple. Republicans feel that they have a fighting chance to regain the White House if they are running against Obama. The Republicans instinctively know that they could be finished if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee. I personally think that both Obama and Hillary are equally excellent choices for the next president.
    However, we need to pick someone that can beat the Republicans and that could be Hillary. There is a huge price to pay for electing a Republican president. Just look back over the last seven years and go figure.

    January 4, 2008 10:31 am at 10:31 am |
  20. Dan, NJ

    Great win for Obama. Especially impressive how he beat Clinton across social, eoconomic, gender, and age demographics. Equally impressive how he beat Clinton among Democrats and Independents alike. Add "electibility" to the list of "virtues" Hillary prematurely claimed as strengths.

    That said, Hillary has the resolve and resources to stick around through super Tuesday. Obama needs to carry this momentum through NH and SC.

    Too bad CNN doesn't have anything up about Obama's speech last night. It was the best speech by an American politician since... Obama's speech at the 2000 DNC. It was very remeniscent (sp?) of JFK/RFK/MLK. This country hasn't had a politician we can really believe in since 1968...

    January 4, 2008 10:31 am at 10:31 am |
  21. Victor Canas

    There's a good man in Arizona, I want John to be my Son's President since I'm not an American Citizen and GOD Bless the United States of America.

    January 4, 2008 10:33 am at 10:33 am |
  22. JD

    Go Hillary! Iowa is only a minor setback for the Bill Clinton Presidency Part II. So what if all those elderly white ladies couldn't find their way to the caucus locations – the calculating "Re-elect Bill Clinton" campaign rolls on with plenty of celebrities and news media attention. After all, isn't a vote for her, a vote for her husband too? After all, they acted like "co-presidents" the first time.

    It'll be very interesting to see what happens if Hillary is ultimately elected president. After the novelty wears off, how will she handle her husband? Has she explicitly stated that he will have no position in her administration? No? Do you really think that Bill won't be trying to play "puppet master" behind the scenes? After all, he's a popular, former-president that still commands a lot of respect. I can't wait to see how their "marriage" handles 2 gigantic egos. :)

    Unfortunately, Hillary (as a spouse of a former president) will always have to wonder whether she was elected for her own ideas & abilities or those of her husbands.

    Hillary for Proxy President!! Hillary for Puppet President!! You go girl!!

    January 4, 2008 10:35 am at 10:35 am |
  23. RightyTighty

    CNN's Hillary supporters, I mean, “political commentaries” looked like deer caught in the headlights of the Obama bus. It was a priceless night in Iowa..
    Best political team...., Ha Ha

    January 4, 2008 10:45 am at 10:45 am |
  24. Harold

    The Clintons should stop being so greedy for power. They've had 8 years – that's enough.

    Hillary and Bill looked so poker faced during her losing speech.

    But I don't want to be cruel to Hillary or her supporters.

    Truth is, we need change, and Barack Obama is the man.

    January 4, 2008 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  25. g-dog

    It's understandable that people are sick and tired of the Bush administration because of the arrogance, deceit, secrecy, unethical behavior, quasi-despotism, international hegemonism, illegal actions, nepotism and cronyism, polarization, cynicism, jingoism, dirty tricks, kowtowing to special interests, and completely selling out to the millitary/industrial complex. But why in the world would they vote for four more years of the same by voting for Hillary? With Hillary you have a supposed democrat with republican behavior. She's an agent for change in the same way that Karl Rove was an agent for change – loathsome, completely unethical, and totally self-serving.

    If being First Lady is enough experience to qualify a person to be President of the United State, then does that mean that Laura Bush is also qualified to become President? Maybe the American people should totally embrace the dynastic approach by electing another Clinton and then when she's done, electing another Bush (Jeb or Laura, it doesn't matter). Or, maybe Chelsea will be ready to run by then. First the Clintons need to put the vaunted Clinton Machine to work on getting Chelsea elected senator from New York. It's only a matter of time, if Hillary gets in the White House again.

    January 4, 2008 10:48 am at 10:48 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

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.