January 4th, 2008
11:12 AM ET
7 years ago

Huckabee, Obama carry momentum into New Hampshire

Barack Obama greets supporters in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Friday, fresh from his Iowa victory.

Barack Obama greets supporters in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Friday, fresh from his Iowa victory.

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) - The newly-minted front-runners arrived in New Hampshire early Friday, hoping to take advantage of momentum created by their wins in Thursday night's Iowa caucuses.

Results out of the Iowa caucuses saw the emergence of two new front-runners - Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrat Barack Obama - and showed that the message of change resonated with voters in both parties.

The test of whether the front-runners can carry the momentum will come quickly, as the New Hampshire primaries are only five days away on January 8.

Full story


Filed under: Uncategorized
soundoff (61 Responses)
  1. Dave, California

    Romney vs. Huckabee vs. McCain. We'll see how it plays out in the debate next week. Now that we've gotten past this religious junk I'm sure New Hampshire will think of some intelligent questions to ask. And when it comes to the debates, who clearly rings out on top? Romney!!

    We have yet to see a debate where Huckabee is a front runner (remember his rise came AFTER the democratic infiltrated YouTube debate). I can't wait to see his record ger trounced my Mr. Romney. He has yet to answer to the voters on the hard issues (pardons, clemencies, reduced tuition for illegal immigrants, "fair tax") and you better believe Romney will bring it up!

    Although it would be kinda cool to see Chuck run up on stage and kick some @$$.
    Ron Paul, you better cower under your podium now.

    January 4, 2008 02:21 pm at 2:21 pm |
  2. ZsaZsaATL

    A President worth believing in and one who can bring about change for this country and the world. I see a brighter future for my children and I with the election of Barack Obama for President in 2008!!!!!!

    January 4, 2008 02:23 pm at 2:23 pm |
  3. Andrew, Baltimore, MD

    Way to go, Barack

    January 4, 2008 02:24 pm at 2:24 pm |
  4. Brian

    Keep cruising on.........What a sobering night I had!

    January 4, 2008 02:29 pm at 2:29 pm |
  5. jim, chicago, illinois

    question: what's the difference between walking the walk, and just talking the talk?
    answer: barack obama.
    hillary clinton please take note...

    January 4, 2008 02:39 pm at 2:39 pm |
  6. hawk

    Clinton Supporters,

    What experience does Hillary has? Is it taking more money from coporate lobbyist than republicans, is it voting to authorize war in Iraq without reading the national intelligence report, is it voting to give Bush and his NeoCons the power to authorize war in Iran, is it not realizing that elections in Pakistan is parliamentary not Presidental, is it to nominate Bill Clinton to be a Supreme Court Justice. Are you kidding me! Obama/Edwards 08 a winning ticket. Hillary has no chance in a General Election to polarizing. Obama/Edward 08

    January 4, 2008 02:39 pm at 2:39 pm |
  7. Mary

    I don't just like when Obama wins, I also like when he make me feel included in that win!

    January 4, 2008 02:50 pm at 2:50 pm |
  8. jill

    Obama all the way!

    January 4, 2008 02:54 pm at 2:54 pm |
  9. TRG - San Diego, CA

    These two will go the distance to the respective conventions. They arppear to be the BEST "moderate" choices that have the even-headedness to address America's current and future challenges.

    Some think that Hillary Clinton will drop out before the Democratic Convention. That viewpoint is obviously naive and not politically informed. Such simple expressions are about personal feelings without any concept of how the American political game is played. That's why many Democrats feel "cheated" of the election by Bush in the last two elections. Those who feel cheated are not paying attention to REAL political strategy (as did Karl Rove) and simply make a lot of "noise" based on skewed personal views of "democracy". Taking a local community college course ("Introduction to Political Science – 101") and discovering how elections in America are ACTUALLY CONDUCTED would prove useful. So would actual PARTICIPATION in a campaign !! Then, perhaps, many views and commentary would make more sense in attempts to persuade a look at other candidates. Not much is to be said for "blowing a lot of hot air".

    A GREAT idea would be Obama & Huckabee or McCain. Too bad American politics (and we Americans...) think we MUST vote a "straight ticket" and NOT make the kind of noise that might get us the TWO BEST PEOPLE for the top job. This Hobson's choice (picking an IDIOT and friend) from ONE party is what kills us. (GHW Bush & QUALYE?; Nixon & AGNEW?; GW Bush & CHENEY?; Carter & MONDALE?; Truman & WHO??? – BARKLEY??)

    Americans ought to DEMAND the right to split the final ticket and pick the BEST person we feel can fill the respective positions. But, again... that is NOT how the American political game is played...

    January 4, 2008 02:55 pm at 2:55 pm |
  10. Allen, Newton MA

    Why is it that people seem to view Romney's wealth as a handicap? People tend to forget that many of these candidates are at least double-digit millionaires. McCain is one of them. So what's wrong with spending money? By spending some personal money, Romney has actually shown some personal interest and some sacrifice in his campaign. What about Hillary and John? Check out the "Millionaires-In-Chief" on CNN. If effort makes anything, Romney deserves the highest grade in the class. I believe he'll make a great President and he has my vote.

    January 4, 2008 02:56 pm at 2:56 pm |
  11. ann

    Obama in his Iowa victory speech said, "instead of lifting each other up we are tearing each other down!"
    That alone was so refreshing because if the debates were done in a professional way, I believe Obama could have been an American History in the making!

    January 4, 2008 03:02 pm at 3:02 pm |
  12. thepoliticalpost

    Is there enough momemtum behind Barack Obama's win to deliver victory in NH? There would have to be a good deal of it. NH is no Iowa and Mrs. Clinton is better situated there and has the advantage in the pre-Iowa polls. The "machine" will be in over-drive and Sen. Clinton will most likely regain her footing.

    I have a post on the topic. For anyone interested...

    http://thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/hillary-clinton-third-place-in-iowa-what-next/

    January 4, 2008 03:02 pm at 3:02 pm |
  13. karen

    when obama pointed at his wife, I just remembered, she said if they don't win in Iowa then they just had a dream.......I would predict if Obama doesn't win nationally, then we just had a dream!

    January 4, 2008 03:05 pm at 3:05 pm |
  14. john williams san diego, ca.

    I hear that Clinton is already trashing Iowa, saying that they have always had a bad record choosing Presidential candidates....New Hampshire voters better not cross 'her royal highness' or else you'll be next.

    January 4, 2008 03:08 pm at 3:08 pm |
  15. Gavin

    Gavin January 4, 2008 2:54 pm ET
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    I can't believe how gullible and naive some of you commenters are about Hillary. You're all playing out of the republicans handbook: "Hate Hillary," ….Why?

    I have not run into one singler person that can give me a substantive and practical reason…it's all just a big misconception, and it's showing how dumb some of us Americans can act.

    Wisen up! If Hillary is not your choice, fine, but drop the whole "Evil Hillary" charade….THAT'S GETTING OLD!

    And, the reason Hillary virtually tied for 2nd (in a state that was never strong for her to begin with) and the reason why she is dominating the polls in New Hamphsire, is BECAUSE people are starting to realize that this "Hate Hillary" game is tired already….

    Hillary Rodham Clinton, a historic run and probable win will be GOOD for this country. She's strong, experienced, cares out children and health care, can beat the GOP machine, and more…….

    OH, see, there you go again…I can hear you now, "I hate Hillary"

    …..but you still don't have an reason…

    Get over it.

    January 4, 2008 03:09 pm at 3:09 pm |
  16. george

    Obama's campaign proudly announced today the endorsement of former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges who will join his campaign as a national co-chair.

    Hodges is, in fact, a registered federal lobbyist, a search of the Senate Office of Public Records Lobbying Disclosure Act Database shows. He registered as such on June 1, 2007.

    Though Obama has said that he won't take federal PAC and lobbyist money on his campaign, he does take money from state based lobbyists as previously reported by First Read.

    Obama, however, has justified taking money from state based lobbyists and working with them.

    it is ridiculous!!!

    January 4, 2008 03:09 pm at 3:09 pm |
  17. Bob, Seattle

    America could do a whole lot worse than participating in an Obama vs Huckabee campaign in '08.

    Imagine two candidates that apear to promote inclusiveness in such a natural fashion fashion.

    Imagine a campaign that focuses on the issues and not on the 'dirt' that private investigative teams dig up.

    Imagine the great issues of the day being approached from a base that is of a high moral and compassionate foundation.

    Imagine a President that is not beholding to the special interest groups.

    Imagine a President that is 'of the people' who actually understands the people.

    The folks want to take back America and Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee appear to satisfy their hunger.

    Good Luck fellas.

    January 4, 2008 03:19 pm at 3:19 pm |
  18. Adole, Oxford MS

    I'm so excited for Barack. Finally, some tangible evidence that change is on the horizon!

    January 4, 2008 03:21 pm at 3:21 pm |
  19. george

    Young people ae more emotional than objective. If Obama is the choice of young people, than he is the wrong choice.

    January 4, 2008 03:21 pm at 3:21 pm |
  20. Michael Thies

    I'm very suprised and impressed with the results in Iowa. Usually I don't pay attention to things like this but after the past several years of New York having only one true senator and a throw away seat to "she who shall not be named," I'm quite excited at the prospect that the future of this country could be headed somewhere that may actually affect some positive change in the long term.

    As a non-aligned voter I'm torn as to who I would vote for. At the moment Huckabee and Obama are both candidates I would consider the best choices from either party.

    Of course, the power of Chuck Norris may just overwhelm those of us under the age of 30 and force us to vote Huckabee! :)

    January 4, 2008 03:34 pm at 3:34 pm |
  21. Baker

    The dogs have barked for the last time in Iowa and the vast caravan has moved on to New Hampshire, leaving us in an exquisite vacuum of heady uncertainty in the contest to be the next president of the United States.

    The more one reflects on it the more impressive and intoxicating Barack Obama's victory seems. Here he is, a generation after civil rights legislation swept away the last vestiges of America's great racial sin, a black man of humble origins on the brink of becoming the favourite to be president. Think about that for a moment because it ought to induce no small sense of awe.

    It's not to say you need necessarily approve of his policies. It's quite reasonable to object – as many conservatives do – that if you listen to what Obama says he's not really distinguishable in policy terms from any other left-leaning American politician. He's pro-choice on abortion and pro-mushy multilateralism and seems to think government is the solution to most of what ails us.

    But that is not and never was what his candidacy was about. He is a symbol of a changing America. Not just because, after 20 years of Bush-Clinton hegemony, he's a refershing new name, but because his own very person and provenance offer hope for change for Americans who have become, polls suggest, very disenchanted with the path their country has taken of late. That is why independent voters flocked to his banner in unprecedented numbers in Iowa.

    That – together with the rhetorical talent (see his speech last night) is why people now – sober, serious, wizened old political pros – are invoking the name and spirit of Bobby Kennedy to describe the Obama Phenomenon. It's unpleasant to say it, but those old enough to remember will recall the pain they felt at RFK's assassination – pain borne of the crushing of what were, perhaps, quite unreasonable hopes.

    The impossible expectations of Kennedy were never realised because of his death. Obama will – it is devoutly to be hoped – actually have to meet those absurdly high expectations – surely by any measure a tough, if not impossible challenge.

    And of course in any case he's a long way from being guaranteed of the Democratic nomination.

    The Clintons will resist with fury this challenge to their birthright and Bill's last chance at power. Hillary will fight and – we are already starting to see – will fight very hard. New Hampshire – unlike Iowa – is a state where voters have unsentimental views about negative camapigning. In 1988 Bob Dole swept to an iowa victory in the Republican primary race and then got brutally assaulted by George Bush Senior in New Hampshire – and was crushed. In 2000 Al Gore finsihed off Bill Bradley with an unrelenting attack there.

    Of course the danger for Hillary is obvious. Her high negative ratings have always reflected one ovewhelming fact about her – a lot of people really don't like her. If she opens up on St Barack of Iowa it might prove unedifying even to the hard-bitten, no-nonsense voters of New Hampshire.

    January 4, 2008 03:34 pm at 3:34 pm |
  22. Henry

    Kennedy effect?

    January 4, 2008 03:35 pm at 3:35 pm |
  23. sal lincoln nebraska

    I dont think were a very good example for democracy....Now a monarchy yes...Corporate dictatorship absoultley....If you listen to all the radio stations during the day you hear nothing but negative things about Ron Paul, since the announcers on the show cant slander out right, they take calls from people calling him a communist....They call his supporters computer geeks living in their parents basements, and Bill Richardson has been on TV quite a bit over the last few days, besides raising no significant amount of money, never stating a clear policy on anything and not even polling its interesting how Kucinich and Paul can be completley ignored, especially Paul raising all that Money....If i didnt know better i wouldnt even think there was any other states to vote in, if i would listen to what the news tells me and the radio Iowa is the only state that votes for president...Even though i know other states are going to vote, and living in Nebraska the electoral college makes us completley worthless...What kind of electoral system are we promoting here? Ignoring legitimate canidates with the support of millions of people, people who pay taxes and way too many of them...People who go to work and dont get payed enough...The majority of americans are do disinfranchised and its amazing to watch all these news organizations just disinfranchise them even more, ignore the people they support...They pay for cable TV you think the least that the cable news stations could do is give some air time to every canidate....What right does the radio people and the tv news agencys have brushing off these canidates and picking and choosing who to show the most of....How can you claim any realistic credibility? Whats even worse is how can the American people feel good about this or have any trust what so ever in their news agencys, this is america at its worst

    January 4, 2008 03:36 pm at 3:36 pm |
  24. Keith L. Wheaton

    Go Barack Go. I think that change can finally be brought to America's poor, displaced and underrepresented by a President Obama. It is my hope that he can turn this country around and awaken it from this long Bush led nightmare.

    January 4, 2008 03:37 pm at 3:37 pm |
  25. ike

    If anyone has seen any of my posts, I am obviously not a Huckabee supporter. I have seen a lot of pro-Huckabee posts that tell all to find out the truth at mikehuckabee.com. This made me laugh since no candidate is going to point out there own faults. I have gone to the site to see what Huckabee says about the negative things said about him. Obviously it is the exact opposite of what other people are saying about him. So hey, why not do my own research. Good idea, right? Well not so good if you are a Huckabee supporter. One of my main concerns about Huckabee is his battle with the Ethics board. His site, under the link "Truth Squad: Ethics" says, "The overwhelming majority of ethics complaints filed against Governor Huckabee in the state of Arkansas were regularly dismissed and / or proven to be frivolous." I checked to see if this was true. A majority of them have been thrown out, but not ALL. I find it disturbing that the EVANGELICAL RIGHT voted for a man who had, by his own admission, ethics issues. He never said all of them were thrown out. I wanted to know what wasn't thrown out. I wanted to know in what areas he had ethics issues. I would suggest that all others do the same. He also tried to get a statute of limitations on ethics issues? Why would he do this. If he had so many issues with ethics why is anyone voting for him? That is a legitimate question. I would like an answer. I assume the answer will be that he will get rid of the IRS. I have done my research there too. It won't happen. It isn't possible. Even if the Fair Tax was possible, which i doubt it is, the IRS must still exist to collect that tax. SO why, why is the RIGHT voting for a man that doesn't have a fiscal conservative record? Why is the right voting for a man that has ethics issues? Can some one answer this?

    January 4, 2008 03:43 pm at 3:43 pm |
1 2 3