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

For Clinton in Iowa - The party is over

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. Ali

    Linda? Not living up to your demographic? What about all those surrogates Hillary was with?

    The Clintons are just Blue Bushes.

    January 4, 2008 08:28 am at 8:28 am |
  2. ifymens

    I dont understand why Matt does not think that Barack Obama is power hungry. This is a man who has not finished his first term in the senate. Can anybody tell me one good thing that he has done.Do we americans think so little of this country that anybody regardless of their lack of experience can be president.I guess the mess that is George Bush has not taught us a lesson.When are we Democrats going to learn.We dont need another experimentation.Please people wake up Hillary is our girl.

    January 4, 2008 08:28 am at 8:28 am |
  3. Bill W

    Still the die-hards insist Hillary is the "candidate of change". No. Hillaryis "more of the same". She is virtually the same as G W Bush. And she's a bigger flip-flopper than John Kerry. She voted FOR the war before she was against it. First she said she wants to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens, then she said she never said that. She can't give a straight answer on anything without a poll in hand showing what the majority approves of. Even her name – it was Hillary Rodham Clinton when she wanted to distance herself from Bill Clinton. Now that she wants his support to run for president, notice we don't see Rodham Clinton anymore – its now just Hillary Clinton.

    Change? Yeah, she changes her stands and opinions every time a new poll comes out. What a phony. She'll never get my vote. My only wish is that she shoul dhavr had to give up her senate seat to run, then she wouldn't be president or senator.

    January 4, 2008 08:29 am at 8:29 am |
  4. unclebubs

    You know in November all of this will be a bleep on the radar screen and we will be left with two names to choose from or let an independent split the vote again. Everyone who votes should be more interested in the future of the country .... not in personal attacks as evidenced by these comments.... and it is interesting to note the very thing we are against in politicians, we ourselves do when discussing them. It is time to really think about the state of our country and what things are most important.
    If we are united in our efforts no matter what party we are affiliated with then there will be change. Keep in mind that our congress plays a big part in what a President can do and after 06 we all thought that there would be a tremendous change ....umm so far that hasn't happened. Its Jan and Nov is 10 months away ..... lets keep asking questions, read and think before we carve things in granite.

    January 4, 2008 08:29 am at 8:29 am |
  5. Frank

    We live in a country where Blacks are still tried and convicted and given harsher sentencing than whites who commit the same crimes. We live in a country where politiicians still create programs and pork subsidies for rich or affluent white neighborhoods and leave black communities wanting often neglected for decades. We live in a country where Katrina Victims were 2nd class citizens yet the California Fire Victims get immediate help. Barack is a fine candidate but not one that will win in our country at this time. Its just would give the republicans the white house again and we cant let that happen.

    January 4, 2008 08:29 am at 8:29 am |
  6. Sgt David A Tartaglia

    My heart sunk when I heard the news that Hillary did not come out on top in Iowa.
    I strongly feel she has the most life experience not only the political experience to
    deal with what could come her way as President. Also, she has been a fighter for change for a very long time and her and Bill have brought chage both in Arkansas and in Washington eventhough the Republicans have done a good job at keeping the focus on non-political issues by their campaign to slur the character and personal values of the Clintons. To this I say George Bush has been allowed to break the lw and violate the constitution which is far worse than a moral lapse. Also, we have never heard of Chelsea being involved in a scandal of any kind but the Bush girls have been, drinking etc. We know if Chelsea did anything it would have been first page news. My point is the Clintons raised an exemplorary daughter. Ergo their values cannot be that bad, can they? Barak neither has the life experience or the political or foreign affairs experience to be President. At this crucial time in history we do not need a trainee on the job. Hillary knows the players and the history of the hot spots around the world coupled with Bills experience she will be able to deal with problems from day one. Bill I am sure will breif her on areas she may be a little weak on and so will her staff and she does read newspapers. Using Bill as an ambassador of good will she may very well restore us to the place of respect we once held in the world. She has a compassion and an empathy for the average American which has been lacking for the last 8 years. Barak talks a good game but what does he offer? He offers another 8 yeras of Republican rule. He is not electable across the country whereas Hillary shows she can pull off a victory over anyone the Republicans throw at her. So on to New Hampshire and let's hope a Clinton victory and the return to sense and the desire to win the General election.

    January 4, 2008 08:34 am at 8:34 am |
  7. HILLARY 2008

    All that means Obama goes into this state's compressed contest with a target on his back a situation he has managed to avoid due to media bias against Clinton. "Obama, through an unprecedented convergence of luck has never before faced serious attack yet, now he's earned the right to be mercilessly scrubbed and scrutinized. Will show he is something of a phony, someone whose lofty rhetoric isn't born out in his own public record. His lack of foreign policy experience and showing he isn’t ready to lead in a dangerous world. His votes in the Senate to fund the Iraq war even as he tried to position himself as the strongest anti-war candidate will finally come into play nationally; facts show he always supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. Votes for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. Voted with Bush on posturing S 433 which allows the Bush Admin to suspend any troop withdrawal! keeps our troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Record also shows Obama faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from Bush admin and corporate lobbyists. Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, increasing hardship for families. "He talks about change but has no real record of making change. Lastly his use of the race card will not play well nationally…

    January 4, 2008 08:38 am at 8:38 am |
  8. tony

    Hilary clinton is Canada's choice for president not America's because they haven't had to put up with her already having two terms in office

    January 4, 2008 08:39 am at 8:39 am |
  9. CW, Columbia, SC

    Lori wrote:
    Come on – Why does Iowa always start off the primaries? What makes that state a leader in the decision making for who the whole country should vote for? I don't get it? Give me a break, Iowa is a nothing state with people who don't have much – intelligent people would not live there. They would live in more expensive states like New Jersey! Or New York, or California! Obviously they are not very intelligent since they didn't vote for Hillary and voted for the Muslim guy instead!

    You seriously need to rein in both your arrogance and stupidity. Do you really think that intelligent people only live in "expensive states"? It could just as easily be argued that only those of less intelligence would want to live in New Jersey, New York, or California. You should understand that wealth does not necessarily correlate with intelligence. Also, your arrogant attitude does nothing to lessen the serious divide between religions that is the cause the cause of so much violence in the world today. Thankfully, Iowans see Obama as more than just “the Muslim guy”.

    January 4, 2008 08:41 am at 8:41 am |
  10. JB Boston MA

    There is no way Hillary can win NH. I am there everyday, driving from one end to the other. Obama has huge support. And surprisingly Paul.

    Obama wins in NH. Hill places 3rd again, and she is done.

    I continue to hear, "Hillary is the only one witht the expereience". . . .WHAT EXPERIENCE? Just saying she has experience does nto make it so.

    Hillary is too polarizing. She will say and do anything to get elected.

    She reminds me of every blond haired evil underhanded chick on soap operas. ie. Heather Locklear on Melrose Place, minus the good looks!!!

    January 4, 2008 08:41 am at 8:41 am |
  11. Mark

    Obama is Jimmy Carter two. Jimmy Carter is a great person, but he was a terrible leader because he was so inexperienced. He came from a state government, ran on change and was a disaster because he didn't understand how to make change work. Change for change sake is not smart (though I am talking to a country that overwelmingly supported the Iraq war and rather than making things right wants to cut and run. Note I was against the war day one, but now we need to fix what we screwed up.) Hilary Clinton may be an insider, but look at what she has done as a Senator, not just her vote for the war, but look at other programs. Her initail attempted at healthcare reform was a disaster, but that was because she lack experience. The same lack of experience of Obama.

    January 4, 2008 08:44 am at 8:44 am |
  12. GH Smit

    Hillary, I like you. Don't give up. You'll be a better president than your husband, and he was good ...

    January 4, 2008 08:45 am at 8:45 am |
  13. Bob - Texas

    Lori is right and wrong. Iowa is not a good representation of America...true...but the people are just as intelligent as anyone else in any other state. In fact, many people refer to New Jersey as the armpit of the America! Anyway back to Politics. I'm not surprised Hillary didn't place on top in Iowa...but Obama just doesn't have the experience to be president. I don't think anyone wants things to continue as they are now under the Bush mess. However, without the right experience there is little one person can do in Washington. Obama just tells people what they want to hear. I think Huckabee or Romney or even Hillary can get more done to bring about real change long after Obama's lip service has met reality.

    January 4, 2008 09:00 am at 9:00 am |
  14. Paul - Columbus Ohio

    Wow, she just might lose the nomination. I didn't think it possible. Hope is rising.

    January 4, 2008 09:03 am at 9:03 am |
  15. Lisa from New York

    Some of the comments on this site are appalling! what is wrong with you people. If you are represenative of Obama supporters (calling Clinton a harpie, talking about her personal life) I'm glad I'm not. You represent the candidate of change and a new brand and breed of politics? It sounds like the old kind of politics to me The kind that you seem to abhor when you accuse others of engaging in these tactics, but happily embrace when it's your candiate. And by the way, Iowa was not a coronation of Obama. Believe it or not many other states do not want the Iowa caucus to determine who will be the standard bearer for their party.

    January 4, 2008 09:03 am at 9:03 am |
  16. Al, Los Angeles, CA

    Canadians are so afraid of change the men get panic attacks when they leave the toilet seat up.

    January 4, 2008 09:05 am at 9:05 am |
  17. Joseph

    I think this loss was perhaps another Right Wing Conspiracy.

    January 4, 2008 09:10 am at 9:10 am |
  18. Todd in PA

    I echo Vance's criticism of Lori in New Jersey...

    The main reason Iowans put forward for being first is that those who attend the caucuses in Iowa take their politics very seriously and do their research. For instance, they wouldn't make the mistake of claiming Obama is muslim (or even making some lame joke about it if that is your claim).

    Whether Iowa really has the right to make this claim is another story. I have an idea...if the state which takes the issues and politics most seriously should have some early say, why not make the order of the primaries (and caucuses) dependent on the percentage of voter turnout in the last election! This might encourage people to vote even if their state is not in contention and give a real benefit to those who show that they take it seriously.

    One final comment...why the attack on Iowa? I am a professor and have lived all over the country and have seen no reason for any one region of the country to claim some sort of intellectual supremacy over any other region.

    That said, while I don't think the people in NJ are intellectually inferior, I do wonder about Lori's comment that intelligent people would choose to live there as opposed to elsewhere. As a former resident of NJ I can tell you, I am glad to be out. NJ is the only state which charges a toll to get out of the state, but not one to get in. The reason for this is they know that people will pay to get out!

    January 4, 2008 09:11 am at 9:11 am |
  19. Karen, NYC

    What a mess..... it's all down Hill from here...... but look at the bright side, we don't have to listen to her stolen campaign slogans

    January 4, 2008 09:12 am at 9:12 am |
  20. Paul - Columbus Ohio

    Oh, forgot to add, why does everyone keep talking about Hillary's "experience"

    Being first lady is NOT experience. Do you see business hiring the CEO's wife to run the company because their husbands were in charge? It's quite different hosting white house tea parties and meeting with the wives of foreign leaders vs. actually doing the job.

    If she wants to talk about her experience as a Senator, then that is perfectly fine, but she doesn't ever seem to want to answer questions about that. All this talk about "experience" is just hogwash. Being the first lady is NOT a qualification to be president.

    January 4, 2008 09:18 am at 9:18 am |
  21. John

    I don't really think the caucus system is an adequate way to determine a candidate. I think the primary system is far more effective in reflecting the true political will of the people. Barack's two big weapons are that 1) he has raised a boat-load of money and thus can maintain an effective on-the-ground campaign machine; and 2) he enlisted the support of Oprah Winfrey, a national celebrity talk-show host and financier of causes close to her heart whom women nationwide listen to and hang on her every word. Barack is a very articulate man and smooth as silf in presenting his ideas. He is certainly several rungs above W in intellect from the word go. But I have to admit he doesn't strike me at all as an original thinker. His one big issue that he hammered home time ang again was that he had the "judgment" to vote against the authorization to use troops against Saddam, something the other Democrats voted for. As a veteran of another quagmire war, I certainly want the troops to come home as soon as possible, but unlike Biden, Barack has not tried to formulate any original plan that deals with how to govern Iraq and help them stand on their feet after we pull our troops out. He has a history in the debates of making general statements about change but doesn't really offer any on-the-spot concrete plans as to HOW to bring about the change regardless of the subject. I am not a big Hillary fan, but she does have a built-in policy advisor in her husband Bill - regardless of their marital bliss or strife and while I discount some of her claims of "experience" going back to the Clinton presidency, she seems to have certainly served the people of New York well in the Senate. At least that's what I think after reading and hearing so many positive comments about her service from democrats and republicans alike. But, she is a very polarizing figure and the Republicans would try to murder her campaign with every dirty trick in the book. John Edwards has a lot of positives and negatives - but I truly admire his battles against corporate greed and standing up for the middle class of this country. I was a Joe Biden supporter. I truly think he was the best candidate. He had the best ideas on Iraq and he actually formulated well thought-out plans for health care, education, the war, etc. The problem was the mainstream media not giving any air time in the debates to anyone but Obama, Clinton or Edwards. They anointed these three as the only candidates worth supporting and moved the others off the stage of public discourse. To me, I don't think the Iowa caucus system is the best way to start off the new year. I'll be more interested in the results of the first two or three primaries, because they are more like actual elections. Just my humble opinion ...

    January 4, 2008 09:19 am at 9:19 am |
  22. brenda

    I am a Democrat, but Obama scares me, we don't know that much about him.
    I think at least one of his parents are not american. He is also very arrogant.

    Edwards, I cant go for his $400.00 hair cut or his ill wife trashing other people.

    I may very well vote for Huckabee.

    January 4, 2008 09:19 am at 9:19 am |
  23. Joe, SoCal

    Hillary backers, time to back someone else. Your candidate is finished. NH has 40% Independents compared to just 20% for Iowa, and Obama got most of that vote. It very well could be a landslide in NH. Once Obama wins there, the people of South Carolina, where blacks make up most of the Democratic voting pass, will not stand in the way of an Obama nomination. After he wins three states, Hillary is DONE. Finished. Thanks for coming. Now go away.

    January 4, 2008 09:24 am at 9:24 am |
  24. Bill W

    "Hillary, your husband's political machinery is too rusty to run on. Be a winner and give your campaign funds to Edwards in exchange for a VP position."

    Not even as VP. She'd probably try to poison the president. She is not fit to be on the ticket, period.

    January 4, 2008 09:25 am at 9:25 am |
  25. Infonomics

    The people of Iowa preferred the democratic candidate with the least amount of experience. Apparently, Obama's experience living abroad as a pre-teen was convincing. Normally, you would assess such thinking as absurd; however, if you consider the other viable choices–Clinton and Edwards–the most likely mental state was desperation.

    January 4, 2008 09:27 am at 9:27 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11