January 4th, 2008
11:19 AM ET
10 years ago

Clinton: I have enough time


At her first stop in Nashua, New Hampshire, after a third-place showing in Iowa, Hillary Clinton expressed confidence in Tuesday's upcoming primary, five days away: "It's a short period of time, but it's enough time." (Photo Credit: CNN's Mike Roselli).

Filed under: Hillary Clinton • New Hampshire
soundoff (185 Responses)
  1. Joyce

    I still think Hillary Clinton has a chance to be the President of the United States. She can still win a lot of other states besides Iowa. I think this country needs to have a woman for President. This woman could be a good president and lead this country well. I hope and pray that Hillary Clinton gets the nomination for President. I also think that Bill Clinton would make a very good Supreme Justice if he is elected. Keep up the good work Hillary and I wish you all the luck. God Bless you.

    January 4, 2008 07:40 pm at 7:40 pm |
  2. May

    Hillary is the best presidential candidate. Obama is all popular theatrics. Obama claims he can bring about change – can he be more specific like what change has he brought to Ilinois? Did he define what change he will bring about? Change is an attractive word – but change needs experience, skill, qualifications and deep heavy connections in Washington. Obama's word are attractive and good to the ears, but it is empty. Hillary is the best candidate for the Presidency for the simple reason that she does not have any vested interests, she just want to serve the country equally as best as she could. Hillary is real, she is down to earth, she does not gab about roses and paradise about change that Obama does. She is for the real change. And she can do it.

    January 4, 2008 07:41 pm at 7:41 pm |
  3. Cicie

    can someone tell me what exact change can Obama bring? What has Obama done in the past to show his capability. What real huge impact he done to the society? give me specifics! action speaks louder than words and talk is cheap.

    January 4, 2008 07:53 pm at 7:53 pm |
  4. Dan, Minneapolis, MN

    I have noticed that remarks generated by men offer caustic remarks directed towards Senator Clinton i.e. Mark wilkes barre pa, Anther Steve, Steven, Robert Bell, et al. Their remarks underscores their instutional misogynism and illustrate infantile response to their respective worlds. It is time gentlemen to sit in the playpen and play with one another instead of offering childish remarks.

    January 4, 2008 08:07 pm at 8:07 pm |
  5. J. McKinney SW MO

    The Clintons are respected by leaders of most other countries. I have friends in Europe in several countries, and they can't believe the way we made a huge deal about Bill's sex life. It is/was none of everyone's business but Hillary's. If Hillary is elected we will again become a respected country by the world, like we were when Bill was president.

    January 4, 2008 08:10 pm at 8:10 pm |
  6. amos

    Hillary says she is the agent of change but the same person voted to authorize Bush to go to war. How can she tell the world that she can change the washinton?
    How can an inmate be a prison guard?

    January 4, 2008 08:17 pm at 8:17 pm |
  7. kenneth green

    I pray and hope that the world, united states would realize that hillary is the best person for the job because she have proven to be a strong leader with understanding and experience, Knowledge and not to be pimped by the high diplomatic society for ever owing favors. I hope and wish that everything will be alright. It's because your a women that there never had.

    January 4, 2008 08:26 pm at 8:26 pm |
  8. Mark R. Fort Lauderdale FL

    Hillary won't give up. It may take until Feb. 5th, but she is going to win this nomination.

    January 4, 2008 08:33 pm at 8:33 pm |
  9. Kevin Topeka, KS

    Barack Obama has been changing his position over the years on everything from the death penalty to the Patriot Act to Cuba, a review of his record shows.

    The Illinois senator's views became markedly more conservative as he drew close to running for president.

    On the death penalty, for instance, Obama was a strong foe back in 1996 when he ran for the Illinois state Senate, according to a questionnaire from a political activist group that he filled out at the time. The answers were reviewed by The Associated Press.

    But this year, he's pandering to pro-execution voters around the country by saying he supports pulling the switch on those who commit particularly heinous crimes.

    On gun control, Obama changed direction since 1996, when he called for a ban on all handgun possession and sales in Illinois.

    In 2004, on another questionnaire, he backed off, saying a ban is "not politically practicable."

    Taken together, the shifts could suggest a liberal, inexperienced lawmaker gradually adjusting to the realities of what could be accomplished, first in the Illinois Legislature and then in the US Senate.

    On the other hand, political rivals could accuse him of abandoning potentially unpopular views or of trying to disguise his real positions. Many of the old views came from answers he gave to a list of questions submitted to him in 1996 by an Illinois good-government group known as the IVI-IPO.

    Aides claim Obama did not fill out the questionnaire, and instead it was handled by a staffer who misrepresented his views on gun control, the death penalty and more.

    "Barack Obama has a consistent record on the key issues facing our country," spokesman Ben LaBolt told the AP. "Even conservative columnists have said they'd scoured Obama's record for inconsistencies and found there were virtually none."

    A spokesman for the Illinois group said the excuse is ridiculous because they interviewed him in person.

    Some of the candidate's other changing views include a marked shift on health care, from supporting a single-payer, government-run health system, to opposing such a "socialized medicine" plan.

    He also has changed many views in just the past few years.

    He went from calling the anti-terrorism Patriot Act a "shoddy and dangerous" law to voting to continue an updated version of the law in 2006. He also said he would normalize relations with Cuba, but on the campaign trail has opposed such rapprochement with the Communist regime there.

    In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

    In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

    Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.

    The record has become an issue on the presidential campaign trail, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, has seized on the present votes he cast on a series of anti-abortion bills to portray Mr. Obama as a “talker” rather than a “doer.”

    Although a present vote is not unusual in Illinois, Mr. Obama’s use of it is being raised as he tries to distinguish himself as a leader who will take on the tough issues, An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote yes or no on a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted present on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence. On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote. State Representative Jim Durkin, a Republican who was a co-sponsor of the bill, said it was intended to bring state law in line with a United States Supreme Court decision that nullified a practice of introducing new evidence to a judge in the sentencing phase of the trial, after a jury conviction on other charges. The bill sailed through both chambers. Out of 174 votes cast in the House and Senate, two were against and two were present, including Mr. Obama’s.
    “I don’t understand why you would oppose it,” Mr. Durkin said. “But I am more confused by a present vote.” Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate.

    January 4, 2008 08:40 pm at 8:40 pm |
  10. Pat from Iowa

    Hillary is the real deal. She's experienced, extremely intelligent, and cares about the middle class. She will excel, as did Bill Clinton, in domestic issues, and be better than Bill, in international issues. She will stand strong for our country!!.

    January 4, 2008 08:42 pm at 8:42 pm |
  11. Anthony

    A lot of you have made valid points on Hillary's strengths. Obama does have a challenge ahead of him however I am confident that He will become the next President of the U.S.A.

    Take time to look at his stand on the issues and listen to what he has to say. You'll quickly stop supporting Hillary.

    I have a lot of respect for Bill Clinton but Hillary does not have "experience". If she did, then ask her to release all of the papers while they were in the White House so we can really see what, if any "experience" she has.

    January 4, 2008 08:49 pm at 8:49 pm |
  12. Iekje Smit

    I love a good media circus as much as anyone and the Iowa Caucus certainly delivered! But it looks like people are actually starting to believe that the mouse is in fact the elephant and THAT is scary!
    If anyone truly believes Hillary Clinton is worse for wear based on the outcome of the IOWA caucus, they live in a Mickey Mouse world.
    The majority of the Dutch vote is for Hillary, who has enough empathy and insight into international affairs to be able to revitalise the leading role the US should play in the world. The US really needs Hillary to restore its very badly damaged international reputation.

    January 4, 2008 08:49 pm at 8:49 pm |
  13. Carole CA

    I hope the people of New Hampshire really listen carefully to Obama. And then listen carefully to Hillary. One is spewing empty rhetoric and the other a detailed agenda for bringing our country back to its greatness. One survives by empty words and missed votes; the other by actions and hard-work. One is an elitist who feels he'll be out of touch with "ordinary" Americans in 8 years and "in a different orbit" from us. The other has the passion to fight everyday to make life better for every American and all our children. One can whip a crowd into a frenzy with superior oratorical skills while the other speaks calmly and sincerely about an agenda for restoring our country's greatness and it's people to health and prosperity. Not too hard to figure out which is which, especially if you listen really carefully to both Obama and Hillary.

    January 4, 2008 08:49 pm at 8:49 pm |
  14. Anthony Petrizzo

    All this talk about Obama being an agent of change is silly. He gives a great speech and is an attractive candidate, but does he really ever say anything substantive? I like the idea of a new beginning as much as the next person, but I also want to know that my candidate is not just an idealist but someone who knows the ins and outs of politics. I'm not sure Obama has what it takes yet.

    January 4, 2008 08:56 pm at 8:56 pm |
  15. disgustedvoter

    What else does she have to do, its not like we're paying her..., oh wait.

    January 4, 2008 09:05 pm at 9:05 pm |
  16. David

    I said in '92 that America will elect Bill Clinton and that we will get what we deserve by doing so. What frightens me is that Zohre may be right: Hillary may be the one we deserve to have as president.


    January 4, 2008 09:06 pm at 9:06 pm |
  17. TIMMI

    did bill win in iowa.....noooooooooo did bush win in iowa nooooooooooooo............get the point people. HILARY IS THE REAL DEAL>

    January 4, 2008 09:15 pm at 9:15 pm |
  18. Patrick

    The Republicans tried in past and present elections to scare the country with comments of terror attacks. Hillary is trying to scare the Democrates with the "Republican attack machine" to come.

    Hillary, If you can't handle Obama and Edwards, how are you going to handle the Republicans. Change your tune and folks might give you a second look.

    Don't worry about Obama and Edwards, the people have faith in them to fight their battles when the time comes. And by the way, when are you going to stop fighting and start reconciling?

    January 4, 2008 09:15 pm at 9:15 pm |
  19. FAIR TAX,LA.

    FAIR TAX!!
    GEAUX HUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    January 4, 2008 09:18 pm at 9:18 pm |
  20. gus fernandes

    No, enough is enough. Clinton's arrogance will cost her democratic nomination.
    It is time for the USA to have someone who truly cares about WE THE PEOPLE.

    again... "WE THE PEOPLE". Obama seems to be the man for the Democratic Party. As a republican I wish Clinton was the nominee... She would be easily defeated as she is handling the caucuses and primaries with too much negativism....

    WE THE PEOPLE MRS Clinton! You forgot that!

    God Belss America

    January 4, 2008 09:18 pm at 9:18 pm |
  21. Rose

    If I were Hillary and CNN and other media outlets invited me on I would say forget about it. She has been lambasted by CNN. They ask other people what she should do. Dah, you think she can answer for herself rather then the ridiculous invite tonight on CNN for Edwards. He was granted a gift by CNN to bash Hillary Clinton and no one asked him to answer the questions asked. It is as though he handed Blitzer what he was hoping for. Edwards AKA hedge-fund king is putting Hillary in a corporate greed accusation.. Dear John, you are the epitome of corporate greed. The very people he claims to suddenly care about are the ones he made his millions over. Dodd was correct when he told Edwards he was mean and liked him better before he got ugly.
    Hillary, you have many supporters who will defend you. You have no baggage and the only person CNN has on as a pundit id David Gergen. Too bad there weren't more as fair as he.
    As I watch and wait for CNN to moderate my comments, I hope they will stop resembling FOX before "The Best Political People on Television" falls from grace.I go back and check my comments to be sure freedom of speech is still a right.

    January 4, 2008 09:22 pm at 9:22 pm |
  22. Robert, Gastonia, North Carolina

    What scares me is that we democrats are not looking at the big picture. First our nation is very sick and in need of a doctor who can heal its wounds. If I were the patient who would I choose? Theres the young attractive, suave, visionary fresh out of medical school who gives a great pitch or the older, wiser, more mature, professional who has been tried and tested over and over again. If it were my body going under the knife I want the mature doctor. He/She may not be as exciting, but they sure know what their doing and dont have to read the manual as they operate. Hillary Clinton is that mature doctor. Dont gamble the health of this country on a novice. Second, what becomes of all this support for obama ( disheartened republicans and independants ) the first time he screws up? They go bye-bye. They are not loyal to him or the party. it's a false sense of security and its all smoke and mirrors. We need a candidate who can garner the support of the democratic party and speak for all. That is Hillary Clinton. Look at her huge following in Florida, California and New York. She has the support and is not a fad or fly by night operation. Democrats, it's time to get smart and get serious. Dont make another mistake like last time. Elect a nominee who can win and can get the job done. Vote for Hillary!

    January 4, 2008 09:23 pm at 9:23 pm |
  23. Antonio van Assen

    Wether or not one is for or against Ms. Clinton. The fact is: she has far more governmental experience than any of the other candidates, not to mention the most important parts of her experience as Senator and First Lady. She alone would make an excellent president. The fact that former president Bill Clinton would also be in the white house is a great assurance, and naturally,(as in most any marriage) Hillary would use Bill's advice and assistance when deemed useful.
    Women of America are you going to allow our social culture (subjugating to women)pressure you into a not so well thought out candidate with no clue how to run the Good Ol' Boys of DC???
    Or will it be the the clearest.........most logical...........most capable of candidates,Ms Clinton?

    January 4, 2008 09:24 pm at 9:24 pm |
  24. Larry E.

    CNN raised the question whether Hillary Clinton might nominate Bill to the Supreme Court. A more interesting question is whether Obama or Edwards might nominate Hillary. At this point she does not seem able to connect with voters or earn their trust. as a presidenital candidate. However, she might be a very good fit as a Supreme Court justice where she would have to do neither.

    January 4, 2008 09:26 pm at 9:26 pm |
  25. Rose

    Bill Montgomery is one of those who is threatened by the very idea a woman powerful and strong finds it all to intimidating.
    Hillary Clinton is an intelligent capable woman to run the free world and do it well. Woman have been cleaning up after men for centuries, perhaps one should do it again.

    January 4, 2008 09:29 pm at 9:29 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8