January 9th, 2008
10:19 AM ET
3 years ago

New Hampshire's surprise

ALT TEXT
CNN's Candy Crowley takes a look at how the results in New Hampshire reshaped the presidential race. (Photo Credit: AP)


Filed under: New Hampshire
soundoff (144 Responses)
  1. Poli

    STB wrote: "whats really wrong of Bill Clinton standing on his wife's side for public support ? Can't get it why do people object ?"

    There's nothing wrong if Bill would stand BY Hillary's side and "act" like a good supporter. But standing in FRONT of her or DIRECTLY BEHIND her with his hands on her shoulders does not portray support – it portrays DOMINANCE. That's what people object to!

    Go Hillary! The first BOO HOO president!

    January 9, 2008 05:18 pm at 5:18 pm |
  2. Freddie

    Laugh now HIllary supporters but your day is coming. I talked with a whole lot of minorities today and all of them said they will sit this election out if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

    I couldn't find one minority who supports Billary Clinton now. Here is a chance for the Republicans to grab African American voters and win the election.

    Let me tell you, my African American neighbor said the New Hampshire Democrats just plain LIED about voting for Obama. Just tell the truth, folks.
    You don't want to be known as a state full of LIARS do you? Just tell the darn truth, please. Nobody will blame you for choosing white over black. That's your right to do so.

    HILLARY, YOU BEST NOT COUNT ON THE BLACK VOTE TO PROPEL YOUR FAT BUTT INTO THE PRESIDENCY. IT WON'T HAPPEN!!!!

    I HOPE HUCKABEE, ROMNEY OR JOHN McCAIN STOMPS YOUR FAT BUTT IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

    January 9, 2008 05:38 pm at 5:38 pm |
  3. Anon

    [quote]Joe Ossai, Bedford, NH January 9, 2008 11:48 am ET

    This election was rigged. You heard it here first. She was down by double digit in both regular poll and internal polls. Both Obama and Hillary internal polling show her losing by double digits the day of the election.[/quote]

    FYI: There are silent majority.

    January 9, 2008 05:50 pm at 5:50 pm |
  4. jack, ny, ny

    jack, ny, ny January 9, 2008 3:02 pm ET

    stephanie- you have one vote and you are allowed to do whatever you want with it. Others also have the same right. People don't have to listen to you on this matter.
    Yes you can vote republician if you want. No one is going to stop you. same way no one is going to stop others to vote for Hillary. Please grow up!!! you sounds like a some spoiled brat.

    ps she is allowed to speak her heart and she does make some valid points, that all these candidates ought to be subjected to proper scrutiny,i suggest you use your vote wisely and end the lies, pretensions and deceit around us and washington! we need to restore some dignity to washington!
    ____________________________________________________

    Stan- another one blinded by love for obama. I don't tell anyone who and how to vote. I do think people are stupid who are hooting for obama. Obama is like those american idol wanna who talk alot however when it comes to showing the goods fall right flat.
    SO I am going to vote on who shows me the good NOT someone who reading poetry to the audience. May be Obama should start counducting seminars like Tony robinson.....lol

    January 9, 2008 06:11 pm at 6:11 pm |
  5. kai92106

    You people amaze me in your narrow vision, of history and of the candidates.
    Everyone gets all up in arms about how calculating, how cold, how divisive, how manipulating and power hungry the Clintons are, but if you look back in time most of our effective Presidents were seen in the same way. Abraham Lincoln was divisive. His own party hated him, and he wasn't what you call "electable" seeing that half the country was on the other side. Did he bring about change and results? FDR was divisive and calculating. He didn't do a lot for this country, did he? JFK, as history sees it, was a womanizer from a politically HUNGRY family with motives of their own whom the other party hated and thought would incite the other base. Which didn't happen, and to my recollection he left lasting impressions on our globe. Did anyone attack Bobby for being power-hungry when he ran after his brother's death like they are attacking Hillary?
    And Ronald Reagan? You don't get more calculating then pandering to Christians in the name of religion to get a vote. It's the Republican playbook now, thanks to him. And to some with common sense, against the First Commandment. The term neo-con didn't exist until 1982. But he did some pretty good things, according to history despite his divisiveness.

    What you people don't realize is that there will never EVER be a candidate to fully UNITE this country. It's not possible – we're a population full of entitled, celebrity-obsessed, self-satisying ADD citizens who flip from the news in Iraq to watch whatever reality show is on at the moment. People don't unite simply by being eloquent or poll driven. Great people unite when the times and the world are bearing down on them to lead with vigor, compassion and a national vision.
    George the 43rd squandared his moment in history after 9/11 when the world was with our country in solidarity. Maybe it was because the majority of this country (or was it the Supreme Court?) voted for a man who talked BIG IDEAS and who they thought was charming enough to have a beer with, but didn't produce anything but a sham, corrupt government. True, there were scandals in Clinton's presidency. But ones that affected our national security, our Justice system, or our adherence to the Geneva Convention and repect of basic human rights?

    The Dems have only one person to thank for their party NOT being thrown into obscurity after Reagan and Bush 41, and that person is Bill Clinton. He understood that a true leader LEADS down the middle, much to the dismay of his Party at the time who wanted to play partisan politics. As much as he had a problem being faithful in his marriage, he was faithful in his duties as POTUS (lying under oath aside) to try to steer us in the direction our country needed to go. And no matter the public opinion, he ran a tight ship and a balanced budget (1st one since Andrew Jackson, also cited as being terribly divisive and calculating), because he knew he had to reach across the aisle to give and take with Republicans to get his own agenda accomplished while letting them feel they had victories of their own. Yes people, for as much as "Clintonian Triangulation" has been derided by most critics, it was taken from the playbook of the masters (read any biography of FDR, JFK, John Adams, the Reagan Diaries, and Lincoln's bio "Team of Rivals," which was fittingly enough Bill Clinton's bible).

    It's all nonsense – this talk of how calculating, cold and divisive Hillary is. She understands the need for triangulation. She understands the give and take nature of big government. She has worked her entire life (yes, even before Bill) for public service, for children's health initiatives, and for education. She appears cold because if she weren't there would be critics who say she doesn't have the balls, with all the prejudice towards women. She appears calculating because she understands that deals are made out of public view, that some legislation is passed easier in the cloakroom than in a publicized battle with Congress.
    She appears power hungry cause she is driven to become President, like the indifference to be a leader is the requirement. And all that anyone will say concerning what she did with Health Care was to have a bill fail during her husband's term? Do you think Edwards or Obama or the Dems would have Universal Health Care as their issue that seperates them from the GOP in 2008 if she hadn't been the first to fall on her face in 1992? Sometimes, defeat is necessary. The thing no one can take away from Hillary is her grit – this woman loses a battle but will sustain the test of the war.

    Politicians who bring hope and don't deliver don't stay around for long.The ones who matter, in this time of our country's history, are the ones who have been battle-tested and who have the mindframe that change of government can only come from within the government, from knowing the importance of bipartisan alliances and political deal making, not for the sake of their party's standing but for the sake of our standing in this world. I don't want politics of hope. I want politics of hard fought results, because that's the only way D.C. works. Inexperience is eaten alive and spit out in the corridors of power, not nurtured into fruition and action with time and patience.

    I am an Active duty military member. You will be surprised at the military vote she will get in the primary and in the general, with all the work she has done for our quality of life and for the medical benefits battle she won against the Pentagon's indifference. She recognized Dems were perenially seen as being weak on defense, so she stole it right out from under the Republicans and made it her strongest suit. For all this talk of how calculating she is, A SMART PERSON KNOWS WHAT SHE DOESN'T KNOW. So she has the common sense to surround herself with advisors that produce results. Get over it....It's not glad-handling – it's what works.

    My great uncle is a legend in my (southern) state as a member of the Republican legislature. I saw the deal-making and operatives close up from a very young age. And the only thing that has ever made them shake in their boots and drive them mad with resentment, since I was 10 years old in 1992, was anyone with the last name of CLINTON, because they didn't know how to beat them. They won control of Congress because of ethical issues, not the policies (which were sound) of the Clinton administration. And anyone who doubts her influence on Bill, not the other way around, is badly, badly misinformed.

    And I'm casting my vote for Hillary Clinton come November 2008. Because she is the only one with a shot in hell to beat them. Most of you spewing hate on this message board need to pick up a history book and find fact-based reasoning to dislike her. Otherwise, you just end up sounding like the last kid who got picked on the play ground or ends up at the bottom of a promotion list because hard-working, intensely driven people turn you off. That's why she's in the run for President and none of us are. We don't have her discipline.

    January 9, 2008 07:39 pm at 7:39 pm |
  6. Patriot

    If you want a change Fred Thompson's the only way to go. All Clinton cares about is herself and what the presidency can do for her, her husband and their friends. Those tears are ones of joy as she quietly duped everyone that thought for a moment that those tears were sincere. Has everyone forgotten what they did in the past? Obama has his own agenda which doesn't include helping you and I. Don't waste you vote people, this isn't American Idol!

    January 9, 2008 10:05 pm at 10:05 pm |
  7. Gabby

    OK, If you looked at the news tonight, why is Bush trying to start something with Iran? Seems to me he is trying to start a self induced fight. To make things worse before he leaves office............. any thoughts??

    January 9, 2008 10:25 pm at 10:25 pm |
  8. Patricia Gracian, San Diego, CA

    Anyone who believes the election media circus is loony.
    The moment I saw the ballots being fed into the opscan "counters"- aka vote shredders, I knew the fix was in. Be an idiot if you want, but Hillary did NOT win New Hampshire. Go count the votes for real by hand if they have not been tampered with yet, if you want a real election.

    The media coporations have the intent and the power to HIDE the candidates they do not want us to see. That would be the ones leading the fight against a permanent war- Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel. The media has effectively CREATED the reality they want us to see, and the voting machine vendors have made it so.

    DON'T FALL FOR THEIR LIES!
    URGE YOUR CANDIDATES TO KEEP GOING!
    GIVE THEM ALL YOUR SUPPORT.
    SAY NO TO THE MEDIA DARLINGS THAT GET GARISH 24/7 COVERAGE.
    THAT in itself should tell you how you are being corralled into accepting the ultimate result they are aiming for- a NEW corporate-backed President.

    January 9, 2008 10:31 pm at 10:31 pm |
  9. ZQ

    Many democrats, almost all independents, and every single republican will never, ever, ever, ever vote for her.

    Ever.

    She is reviled by 47% of the US. That’s 47% of the vote instantly gone. Add on the sizable portion of people that start disliking her after they learn or hear more about her and you have insta-landslide loss.

    I have yet to have a Hillary supporter give me a good reason on how she can win the general election when everyone except a fanatically minority despise this candidate.

    How can she possible win? People do not vote for those they do not like (except for Nixon).

    Please, please convince me. Because at this point, this life long dem plans to sit on her hands if Hillary is the nominee.

    January 9, 2008 11:57 pm at 11:57 pm |
  10. Ann Aloha, PA

    Same Ole...Same Ole
    Until we are treated equal and fair in every aspect of our agreement to be PEOPLE OF THIS FREE NATION, we will never be able to move forward. Senator Clinton is more criticized negatively for being a woman, seeking the Democratic Presidential nomination than Senator Obama is for being African American for seeking the same nomination..Why?, mainly because of a male dominated upper-tier of businessmen, along with the anti-feminist(most whom are married to these businessmen), where sexism is more noticeable and practiced than racism.
    The mistreatment of Senator Clinton by the media, after her loss in Iowa and the very fact that EVERY media branch called her out of the race for the nomination was unfair and misrepresented the journalism that is truly expected by we the people. Stop the one sidedness and you will gain more viewers for longer periods of time, therfore increasing you ratings with dignity and truthfulness. All these male commentators that continue to try to discredit Senator Clinton mainly due to them disagreeing with the former Bill Clinton years and the policies that it held. Well guess what...this is 2008 and time to move on and catch up to modern politics.
    Until the media as a whole respects more women in higher-teir business positions such as Senator Clinton and genuinely accept the fact that she EARNED her place in the Senate, we will continue to see this mistreatment. Darn if she does and darn if she doesn't, male candidates challenge other male candidates and they are veiwed as tough on issues, Senator Clinton challenges male candidates, she is considered non womanly or too tough.
    In my opinion, I feel the media should educate this group of people to update them on equality and fairness, not just for this election but for life in general.
    Ann

    January 10, 2008 03:09 am at 3:09 am |
  11. Richard, Mckinney, Texas

    It's all about power to them...The Clinton's are about power and nothing else matters....people that voted for them are fools or communists...

    January 10, 2008 06:30 am at 6:30 am |
  12. AK

    Gabby January 9, 2008 10:25 pm ET

    OK, If you looked at the news tonight, why is Bush trying to start something with Iran? Seems to me he is trying to start a self induced fight. To make things worse before he leaves office…………. any thoughts??
    __

    It scares the HECK out of me, Gabby. I hope he American people do not buy into this.

    January 10, 2008 06:50 am at 6:50 am |
  13. The Observer

    My instincts are not to trust Obama – not that I trust Clinton that much either. But I suppose at least with Clinton you know what you are getting and you know how she stands on the major policy issues – even if you disagree with her.

    Obama is an altogether different matter – there is something of ex British Prime Minister Tony Blair about him – all style and no real substance – a superficial politician whose campaign strategy seems to be based on election because of who he's not and because he is "young" – that last one really gets on my nerves.

    It is similar to the strategy that the young fogies Cameron and Osborne have adopted with the Tories here in the UK – say little about policy, elect me because I'm not X, vote for me because I am younger (in comparison). The reality is that Obama, Cameron and Osborne have as much in common with young people as I have.

    It is symtomatic of the all style and no substance approach not just of politicians but of anyone who is in the public eye.

    January 10, 2008 09:03 am at 9:03 am |
  14. Anonymous

    Does anyone think it is possible that the polls had a lot to do with the outcome of the NH primary? It seems to me that with the polls showing Obama having a double digit lead, it would make sense to vote for a republican candidate you like even if Obama is your candidate. One might think "Obama is safe, so I'll vote for McCain, since if there is going to be another Republican President it will be one that I like." I can't seem to find any data about voter breakdown in terms of actual numbers (not percentages). It would be interesting to see how many independants voted for McCain and Obama, and how many Democrats voted for McCain. I know I saw at least one interview in which a voter said he thought Obama was safe, so he was going to vote for McCain because he liked him the best out of the Republican candidates. If anyone knows where some raw number data is on the election, I would really like to see it.

    January 10, 2008 09:15 am at 9:15 am |
  15. Tom Dedham, Mass

    "Gabby", if we wanted to start a war with them, we had every chance and EVERY RIGHT to blow their boats out of the water this passed week as they challenged US.

    Sorry to let facts get in the way of your "argument".

    Go ahead and vote for Sillary and she can IGNORE any threats to our country just like her "busy" hubby did and we can then have more USS Cole, Khobar towers and World trade Center bombings etc, etc................

    Yeah, I know everyone loved us when Bill was in office and just ignore all the US installations that got bombed while we were being "loved", this veteran has NOT forgotten.

    January 10, 2008 09:32 am at 9:32 am |
  16. Mirror

    Waoh, double bluff swift boat. One explains the other. Genius if a little too dangerous...............the chicken comes home to roost. Tragic.

    January 11, 2008 04:35 pm at 4:35 pm |
  17. Brandon

    NH made a huge statement this week by supporting Hillary. They voted for 4 years of partisan politics, as well as woke up the republican machine. The neo-cons can't wait to make politics in Washington as devisive and nasty as ever. Do New Hampshire voters really expect anything other than the hatred for the Clintons to cease? Obama if nothing else represents a chance for the democrats to fulfill their agenda. The congresional republicans will fight tooth and nail against any piece of legislation that Hillary supports. I really am surprised that the usually savy New Hampshire voter fell for a few tears and typical rhettoric. I will pull the democratic lever for whoever the party puts up, but Obama represents a chance for the democrats to have some backbone and say we are tired of the state of our political system. We the people want change. Not just on issues, which Hillary certainly can provide, but we want change from the political influence that every lobbying firm on K street has.

    January 12, 2008 12:00 pm at 12:00 pm |
  18. Jaime, Nashua NH

    One word reason why Hillary won: IRRITATION!

    Voters moved toward Hillary because of irritation with political pollsters and pundits who said she was out of the race before we'd even taken to the ballots! I know of at least two people who were uncertain whether to pick her, Obama, Edwards, McCain or Paul (registered "undeclared" aka Independents) and it came down to their irritation with the pundits that swayed those votes in her favor.

    Don't tell me how I'm gonna vote before I do it!

    January 12, 2008 03:33 pm at 3:33 pm |
  19. E

    NOW THAT NEW HAMPSHIRE IS UPSET W/HILLARY...I WONDER WHAT WILL HAPPEN COME ELECETION TIME IF SHE WINS

    January 30, 2008 04:24 pm at 4:24 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6