January 8th, 2008
10:49 PM ET
1 year ago

CNN: Clinton winner in NH Democratic primary

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) – After a disappointing third in the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Hillary Clinton will win the nation's first Democratic primary, CNN projects with 72 percent of precincts reporting.

CNN based the projection on those New Hampshire precincts that have reported results, exit polls and other statistical models - including the number of votes outstanding in areas where Clinton is expected to do well.

Clinton held 39 percent of the vote to Obama's 36 percent.


Filed under: New Hampshire
soundoff (218 Responses)
  1. Mike in Kentucky

    From a post above:

    "Why do Republicans WANT to run against Hillary? She is one of the most divisive and polarizing figures in the political spectrum today"

    The Republicans you write about are the talking heads of the Republican party and they will tell us this over and over again. Gee, lately the same talking heads have been singing the praises of Barack Obama.

    Can we be so naive as to think they have the best interests of Democrats at heart when they say or write these things?

    No it's because they think they can manipulate Democrats into choosing the weakest candidate to run against them.

    Hillary is too divisive so vote for someone else.

    Barack is a "new" kind of force so vote for him!

    The Message is really, anyone but Hillary, and this comes from the Republicans...ever wonder why?

    January 9, 2008 03:28 am at 3:28 am |
  2. republican

    Cry me a river hillary, you go girl!

    January 9, 2008 04:15 am at 4:15 am |
  3. carol

    Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

    Thank you God!

    She will do us proud.

    January 9, 2008 06:40 am at 6:40 am |
  4. Susan

    She might have won NH, but she has many other states to win.......she will NEVER overcome the OBAMA WAVE........SHE IS MORE OF THE SAME DOESN'T ANYONE SEE THAT! DO YOU REALLY WANT MORE OF WHAT HAS COME BEFORE?????

    January 9, 2008 07:34 am at 7:34 am |
  5. Nancy

    You know, I have read Sen Clinton's book and despite that there is nothing that any woman can do to convince me that "strength" is shown by doing anything necessary to propel your career. Riding the coat tails of your husband whom embarrassed his position and embarrassed his family in the full view of the public in a position that should be the pinnacle of moral standing, is not the kind of message that the right woman for the presidency should be sending. I am embarrassed that women have grouped together and decided that any woman in the white house is better than a man and who have blinded themselves to the fact that we as women have suffered enough black eyes in our pursuit to level the playing field by "doing whatever it takes" to get the top job all in the name of ambition. Personally if that's your view of the strength of a woman, hey great for you. But could we not as women do it right in whom we pick for the president of the United States? I would love to have a woman president in office but I would want that woman to either be a woman who has a husband and family whom she supports and whom supports her whole heartedly throughout their lives and not just for the sake of a candidacy or a single woman or mother who has defied the odds and with her own two hands climbed to the top of the mountain.

    It is not ok for a woman to represent my gender in the position of president in this manner. It is not ok for any of us as women to tell ourselves that using her husband is a way of vindication of his shame in his position and to his family. It is not ok for us as women voters to tell ourselves that this type of perception is ok and that all rules are thrown out of the window as long as we can get one of ours in the White House.

    That's not the way I wish to be represented. That's not the way I think women should be represented in the highest office.

    January 9, 2008 08:18 am at 8:18 am |
  6. Tim Calhoun '08, Moreno Valley, CA

    Virgian said:

    "Watching to the debate (ABC) all were asked if they would bomb another country harboring terrorist without a blink Obama said yes. Hillary gave an excellent answer spoken with knowledge of consequence of such an act."

    Hillary? The one who authorized use of military force in Iraq? The one who voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Act, declaring the Iranian military a terrorist organization?

    She has consistently failed to show good judgment on such issues.

    January 9, 2008 08:22 am at 8:22 am |
  7. J

    Hillary, congrats on your victory!!! you showed them you are tough and the right person for the job. I will see you in the White House in 2009. Hang tough and stick to the issues.

    January 9, 2008 08:37 am at 8:37 am |
  8. Ressa from Florida

    No she will not do us proud. Out with the old crap and in with new fresh ideas.
    Hilary isn't for the people, Hilary is for herself!

    January 9, 2008 09:33 am at 9:33 am |
  9. JJ

    I have been reading some of these blogs. I didn't realize how ignorant some people are. I narrowed my choice between Obama and Hillary. I ended up choosing Obama. If Hillary gets the nomination for presidency, my vote was going to her. But, after reading comments like "college girl" - she needs to go back and regroup/rethink of the ignorant comments she has made. Also, Hillary will need Obama supporters to help her win. I don't know if I would want to be associated with Hillary supporters such as "college girl".

    January 9, 2008 10:22 am at 10:22 am |
  10. Jim

    and if you believe all this then I have nothing but dread for the future of this country. the fix is in. gotta love those Diebold machines. especially you, Hillary. news article today from journalist Paul Watson (and it makes clear sense considering what went down with these same machines in the 2004 election and the clear need of the Clinton campaign to win one before her bid continues a downward spiral):

    Major allegations of vote fraud in New Hampshire are circulating after Hillary Clinton reversed a mammoth pre-polling deficit to defeat Barack Obama with the aid of Diebold electronic voting machines, while confirmed votes for Ron Paul in the Sutton district were not even counted.

    According to a voter in Sutton, New Hampshire, three of her family members voted for Ron Paul, yet when she checked the voting map on the Politico website, the total votes for Ron Paul were zero.

    It's not as if Sutton had a handful of voters like some other districts – a total of 386 people voted yet we are led to believe that not one voted for Ron Paul? Judging by the Iowa results, around 10% of residents would be expected to vote for the Congressman, returning a total of around 38 votes in this district. Let's be ultra-conservative and say just 5% support Paul – he'd still get 19 votes – but he got absolutely none whatsoever. Is there something wrong with this picture?

    Greenville also tallied 144 votes yet not one for Congressman Paul.

    Anyone else in Sutton who voted for Ron Paul needs to go public immediately with the charge of vote fraud and make it known that they were cheated out of their right to vote.

    Diebold voting machines also did Congressman Paul no favors last night – compared to hand counted ballots Giuliani gained just short of 0.5% from electronic voting whereas Paul lost over 2%, which was the difference between finishing 4th and 5th.

    Mitt Romney profited the most from the Diebold swing, he received 7% more votes compared to hand counted ballots.

    In the Democratic race the Diebold voting machines clearly swung the primary in Hillary Clinton's favor at the expense of Barack Obama, who had a commanding lead over the New York Senator going into the contest.

    Zogby polling numbers had Obama leading Clinton by a whopping 42/29 per cent, yet Clinton eventually took the primary by three per cent.

    "If I was Barack Obama, I'd certainly not have conceded this election this quickly," writes The Brad Blog. "I'm not quite sure what he was thinking. And as far as offering an indication of whether he understands how these systems work, and the necessity of making sure that votes are counted, and counted accurately, it does not offer a great deal of confidence at this hour."

    "While I have no evidence at this time — let me repeat, no evidence at this time — of chicanery, what we do know is that chicanery, with this particular voting system, is not particularly difficult. Particularly when one private company — and a less-than-respectable one at that, as I detailed in the previous post — runs the entire process."

    Clinton would not have beat Obama without the aid of Diebold voting machines. In precincts where electronic voting machines were used, Clinton got a 7% swing over Obama, having gained 5% in comparison to hand-counted ballots and Obama losing 2%.

    As we reported yesterday, the contract for programming all of New Hampshire's Diebold voting machines, which combined counted 81 per cent of the vote yesterday, is owned by LHS Associates, whose owner John Silvestro has gone to great lengths to deflect accusations that the machines can easily be rigged.

    After purchasing a Diebold 1.94w machine, the same system used in New Hampshire, a computer repair shop employee picked at random by Black Box Voting was able to zero in on the system's vulnerable memory card within just ten minutes. Hacking expert Harri Hursti testified in front of the New Hampshire legislature that the machines were wide open to fraud.

    January 9, 2008 10:54 am at 10:54 am |
  11. Steve

    HE WON IOWA because he has class!
    [As in freshman?]

    HE WON IOWA because he can deliver a victory speech without looking at his notes every 10 seconds!
    [All he has to remember are slogans.]

    HE WON IOWA because he speaks from the heart- not with squeezed out tears, pouting, or raising his voice at a debate!
    [Poker faced = speaking from the heart?]

    HE WON IOWA because he knows how to inspire people!
    [Only the gullible ones, unfortunatelty sheep are the majority]

    HE WON IOWA because he care about children and their healthcare!
    [What about the rest of us?]

    HE WON IOWA because when he speaks you can tell HE is speaking, not the speech writers!
    [All he has to remember are slogans]

    HE WON IOWA because he unites ALL people- I'm white and a woman!
    [No white women in NH?]

    HE WON IOWA because his wife won't disgrace the whitehouse and the U.S. with a sex scandal!
    [Hillary had an affair in the WH?]

    HE WON IOWA because all the Richardson & Biden supporters knew he would be the real winner come November- by the way we had 2 min. political talks after the first vote and Biden & Richardson people were the ones that moved. There was no do-over or schemes! We DO have brains!
    [So there was a conspiracy. You have brains, but are you using it?]

    HE WON IOWA because knows how to cross party lines!
    [He's going to betray the Democrats?]

    HE WON IOWA because he won't play games with all the boys in Washington!
    [He will only play with himself?]

    HE WON IOWA because in the heartland we know a genuine person when we hear them!
    [Genuine does not equal governing ability]

    January 9, 2008 01:42 pm at 1:42 pm |
  12. angel

    Women need to support women. This is a great day in America for our daughters.
    Let us vote for Hillary and let us be the example to our daughters of how to support women.

    January 9, 2008 05:34 pm at 5:34 pm |
  13. Bob Lessard

    How can anyone have disrepect for the American flag and feel they aredoing the right thing for the american people
    Why isn't the media getting on board and having a series on your network ane get some answers to the question.I presonally think your afraid or chicken.
    you seemed to be so polerized its a crying shame.
    Whats happened to Cafferty,he should be front and center on it since he loves that kind of information,come on Cafferity get with the program,kick up some dust or are you too timid,youn seem have calls on the thing you wnat to hear,I think it would be too much for you ,you can't handle it

    Bob

    January 9, 2008 06:32 pm at 6:32 pm |
  14. brad

    The women in the military get less respect then the men. Cant wait to see her cry up a storm when al quida threten to bomb the U.S. Please dont do it. I will give you all our countries money. She cant negotiate

    January 9, 2008 08:43 pm at 8:43 pm |
  15. dennis

    Hillary has found her voice, now can she tell us what voice she has been using, and which is she going to use if she is the president, biggest flip flogg

    January 10, 2008 09:34 am at 9:34 am |
  16. amaya

    lol DENNIS thats funny...her voice good point...and why does it seem like she is changing her CHANGE like Obama?? I tell you some people just want to be like others and then claim its them who came up with things...such liars...I mean who are we supposed to belive?It seems so obvious that the "CHANGE" thing occured...I just hope and PRAY that whoever is the next president will be one who follows God and helps the nation and world than hurt it more and make up lies to thing they are doing something good.

    January 10, 2008 01:57 pm at 1:57 pm |
  17. googs

    OBAMA 08!!!! If Barack does not win this election America will have made a huge mistake. Just imagine Hillary trying to negotiate with another country and if the country does not listen to her she will start to CRY!!!!!!

    IRON MY SHIRT!!!!

    January 17, 2008 05:34 am at 5:34 am |
  18. olin head

    Whoever makes the most promises will get the black vote.

    January 18, 2008 04:23 pm at 4:23 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9