Barack Obama | Election 2008 | Hillary Clinton | John Edwards | New Hampshire | News

In New Hampshire, Obama Rides Wave of Iowa Success

The clip most circulated from Friday night's post-Iowa caucus debate was the clip above of Hillary Clinton defending her record as an "agent of change" which is clearly the message Obama has had such success in communicating thus far. As Jake Tapper noted, she's angry, with good reason. Nearly every recent poll out of New Hampshire shows Obama with a double-digit lead.

ObamaThe Toronto Star reports on the scene at a Derry, NH Obama campaign stop: Inside, teenagers, mostly young girls, slouched over the security barricades, digital cameras dangling from their wrists, cellphones clutched in firm grips. When he finally arrived, more than 90 minutes late, adding to the excruciating wait of the long afternoon, flashbulbs popped from all directions and for a couple of moments Pinkerton Academy gym was awash in strobe lights like some cheesy '80s disco.This is the wave Obama has ridden into New Hampshire, but it is a wave Hillary Clinton is mightily pushing back against, challenging voters to look beyond the rhetorical crescendos offered by the Illinois senator and probe beyond the words."

CNN-WMUR poll: Obama 39, Clinton 29, Edwards 16
ARG poll: Obama 39, Clinton 28, Edwards 22
Rasmussen: Obama 39, Clinton 27, Edwards 18
USA Today/Gallup: Obama 41, Clinton 28, Edwards 19

Bill Clinton told MTV news that Hillary underestimated the youth vote in Iowa: "I think historically young people have not voted in the Iowa caucus because they are from other states. This time we had a lot of students who did come back and I think, frankly, thousands and thousands of them came back from Illinois to support Senator Obama, and they had a very aggressive outreach. And we haven't made that mistake here; we've reached out to young people here and I think we just have to keep trying."

On the Republican side, McCain is coming on strong: "Wide open and intense, the race for the Republican nomination has gotten ever tighter ahead of Tuesday's voting. A new USA Today/Gallup poll showed the Republican race tied in New Hampshire. McCain had the support of 34 percent of likely voters, up from 27 percent in mid-December. Romney was at 30 percent, down from 34 percent, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee - the Iowa caucus winner - was third at 13 percent. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had 8 percent, while former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was in the low single digits. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas - who had 8 percent - was excluded from the debate by the sponsor, Fox News Channel, and the New Hampshire Republican Party dropped out of the forum to protest the exclusion."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. A president needs intelligence, character, and charisma. (And we sure know which category Bush comes up very short in!) Obama exceeds the other candidates in all three categories and the voters are finally getting it. A vote for Obama is the strongest vote one can cast to correct the wrongs of the last 7 years IMHO. I'm delighted to have a candidate for president that I can actually get excited about for a change.

    The other important thing is that Obama mentions gay people even when he's not talking to gay audiences. I think this is very significant.

    I also just can't help thinking that a lot of people voting for Hillary Clinton are actually voting for Bill Clinton again. Hillary Clinton is *not* Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton cannot run on the record of Bill Clinton's administration.

    Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 7, 2008 8:23:33 AM


  2. There are rumors circulating fast and furious that after the early 4 (FL and Michigan don't count due to their breaking formerly agreed upon party rules)if the Obama wave rides through them all, the party will force hillary out before super tuesday.

    The superdelegates (only 20% have declared for her so far) are very fluid and supposedly are already switching over as well as some of her top early endorsers but the Obama camp is keeping mum on the names so as to not totaly humiliate Hillary (she is doing that on her own) because in the end she is a fellow dem.

    the early 4

    Iowa = obama land

    NH = looks like it very well will be Obama land after tuesday

    Michigan and Fl don't count (own faults) besides nobody has done polls in eaither place since december. It would be funny to see michigan have "Uncomitted" beating Hillary since neither Obama nor edwards are on the ticket.

    Nevada was trending Hillary but it is shallow and 2 wins followed by possible "uncomitted" in michigan beating hillary will kill her in nevada turning it into obama land

    SC is straight out Obama land since the last poll as African American voters realize white america will vote for a Black man so they are leaving clinton in droves.

    The other day saw people bringing up false info. This is the PRIMARIES!!!!!!!!!!!! for the dem nom. This is not about the general!

    This is who will win the dem nomination and Iowa and NH have been pretty spot on in the past with doing that. Bill didn't win iowa because he didn't campaign there. NONE of the dems did since native son Iowa Senator tom harkin was a shoe in.

    2004 Kerry beat Dean the presumed front runner pre primaries (like hillary)in iowa and NH to win the dem nomination

    2000 Gore won iowa and NH

    Pre tom harkin vs Billy bob boy clinton repub-lite Iowa and NH were very spot on at picking the dem nominee.

    I personaly have an issue with Obama still over the rev closet case "god healed me" hypocrite flap, but it appears that Obama will be our Dem nominee. I for one will support him against the repubs and hope he takes Edwards (Elizabeth is very gay friendly) as VP

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jan 7, 2008 9:08:18 AM


  3. I hope Obama crushes Clinton in New Hampshire. Seeing her onstage in Iowa with a very tired looking Bill Clinton was sad. And now she's turning negative.

    Posted by: Roger Newcomb | Jan 7, 2008 9:08:25 AM


  4. Roger

    It is kind of funny that the only demograohic she won in iowa and seems to have in her pocket in Nh is the 65+ age group.

    She is definetly the sad, worn out, tired, old style politics of the past.

    obama swept the young, women (SURPRISE!!! he snagged what was considered hillary's prime group) indies and all the other groups.

    America is hungry for change, hope, and the new

    Hope always wins out over the old tired status quo.

    people are genuinely tired of the bush clinton bush clinton time period.

    This is turning into the clinton's farewell tour.

    DODD for Senate majority leader! Oust reid and don't allow Hillary in.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jan 7, 2008 9:16:20 AM


  5. PS

    It should be added that Obama brough unprecedented NEW voters into the dem tent in iowa and appears to be doing so elsewhere.. Hillary drives voters out. Her negatives are known, firm, and many.

    Each dem politician is selfcentered in the end = new voters means big wins for dems and building larger majorities = power. The oarty will solidify behind Obama before Supertuesday and force Hillary out if she can't salavge her campaign.

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jan 7, 2008 9:22:35 AM


  6. I understand the campaigns need to run on sound bites and memes, but has Obama talked about any specific ideas? All I keep hearing from him is 'change, change, change'. OK, I get it, your different. Now what are you going to do if elected?

    Posted by: wetcnt | Jan 7, 2008 9:25:05 AM


  7. Wetcnt

    His detailed stands and policies are at his website

    :-)

    here is a link to Obama's "issues"

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

    A lot of reading because of the details, but details is what you asked for.

    :-)

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jan 7, 2008 9:29:29 AM


  8. In the past few weeks to counteract the question of experience and ability to lead from day one, Obama has pretty much taken a page from Bill Clinton's playbook. Indeed, he has invoked Bill almost more than Hillary has. He has rightfully extolled the fact that Bill was not any more experienced that he is, and despite the scandals that sour people to this day, we all pretty much look fondly back on the 8 years of the Clintons. However, I think most forget just how rough the first year was for Bill Clinton. He was NOT ready to lead. After an initial victory with the Family and Medical Leave Act, he ran into terrible staffing issues in the Department of Justice. Lani Gunier was considered too radical to lead the Civil Rights Division, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood were both withdrawn from consideration for Attorney General because they were not properly vetted. Then the big stumbles occurred. Inexplicably, Bill Clinton wasted a majority of his political capital on gays in the military. Then, on April 19, 1993, the destruction of the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX after a 51 day siege still leaves a bad taste in people's mouths, and also was the key ingredient behind Timothy McVeigh's anti-government attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

    Mario Cuomo once said that "We campaign in poetry, but we govern in prose." The first year of Bill Clinton's presidency is evidence of this. Bill Clinton, the greatest orator of our time, was able to sweep people up into the bosom of his poetry about the need for America to change, but he was not quite ready to take command of the beast of Washington, DC. Barack Obama is the same. I know people are fed up with government. I know people are afraid for our futures. I get it. However, I will not be fooled by silver tongued platitudes and raised expectations. To change Washington is to know Washington. You cannot ride in on January 20, 2009 and believe with the wave of your magic pen you will be able to change the fundamentals of a system that has a life of its own. Indeed, the president has very little power to change anything without the help of Congress.

    After 8 years of listless leadership, where America has been set adrift, we need a leader who can govern from day one, who has the experience not only to play the Washington game but the fortitude to change it. For me, the only candidate that can successfully negotiate this is Hillary Clinton. She has had successes and failures in Washington. She knows how to build a coalition. Unfortunately, she does not have Bill or Obama's ability to convey hope through her speaking. She is hard edged and a policy wonk, which frankly, we need in 2008. I just wish that we would, for once, think, not feel our way through a campaign. We must make a cognitive choice as to who our next president will be, and we should not make a rash decision, valuing poetry over prose.

    Posted by: Nick | Jan 7, 2008 9:39:51 AM


  9. Jimmyboyo,
    I'm not so sure that hope wins over the status quo. I think people vote their fears, and although IMHO the status quo sucks lots, those with the money will pull to protect it. Bush won, twice. Sort of. Anyway, I'm cynical enough to contend that Obama can't make the image that he can protect us from the big, bad, evil-doers out there that are a threat to democracy and blah blah blah. If you think America is smarter and less apathetic than that, well, I hope you're right.

    Posted by: justincredible | Jan 7, 2008 9:42:58 AM


  10. Nick,

    Lani Guinier wasn't too radical at all. She was the victim of a Republican smear campaign. Guinier had written an essay called "The Tyranny of th Majority." The Republicans, ever willing to use the racist Southern Strategy, went after the African-American Guinier because she defended Affirmative Action. The Republicans labeled her the "Quota Queen." Bill Clinton, being Bill Clinton, threw her to the wolves.


    As for Zoe Baird and Kimba Woods, they got hit by the smear machine because one had been a waitress at a Playboy Club and the other had a nanny who turned out to be an illegal immigrant (just as Mitt Romney and god knows how many others have as landscapers).

    Clinton made mistakes, but it is well documented that Clintons were the victims of a well organized smear campaign. This was documented from a former member of campaign, David Brock (Republican operative turned progressive leader).

    Posted by: noah | Jan 7, 2008 9:57:37 AM


  11. Nick

    BUT Hillary own't be able to govern from day one. The repubs will dign in hard and resist all the way against her.

    With Obama the repubs are leaning we disagree with you on policies, but we feel you will include us and we can deal.

    Justincredible

    I have hung with cynicism myself, but this feeling of hope that is sinking in feels damn good.

    :-)

    I still thoroughly repudiate Obama on the rev closet case fiasco though

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Jan 7, 2008 9:58:59 AM


  12. I'm one of those dreaded Independents who is anxious to support Obama for president. An contest with Obama vs. McCain facing off could result in an important issues-based dialogue.

    Posted by: Jack Scribe | Jan 7, 2008 10:21:48 AM


  13. Interestingly, Hillary is leading in the states that have closed primaries, where the independents and Republicans won't play as large of a role.

    Michigan and Florida do matter, because ultimately the Democratic nominee will seat those state's delegates. If our delegates are not allowed into the convention, what type of message will it send to America when there is a big group of empty chairs where Florida's delegates should be? If Florida and Michigan's delegates are not allowed inside, they will be protesting outside. The Dem nominee cannot lose both Michigan and Florida and win the general election. Florida Democrats are already being urged by Senator Nelson to boycott fundraisers by the DNC.

    Pay attention to Florida and Michigan, because their delegates will be seated.

    Posted by: Ian | Jan 7, 2008 10:31:00 AM


  14. IAN, interesting point. I've made the same argument to friends, "who do Democrats really support?" If you polled Obama supporters in Iowa & New Hampshire, how many of them are actually Democrats? But the Obama camp can counter, "isn't this what we want? Independents and progressive Republicans voting Democratic in November '08?" Just as the Democratic Party has been accused of taking blacks for granted for decades, it's as though the Obama Campaign is saying to the liberal wing of the Democrats, "...trust us, vote for us in November no matter what we say during the primaries...you have no choice."

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jan 7, 2008 10:46:25 AM


  15. If there are still those so naive to think that compromise is possible with this current Gingrich crop of Republicans, I'm afraid you're in for a shock. Republicans are ruthless and manipulative and not prone to compromise, ever. The Republicans will eat Obama alive before he realizes it. Unless the next Democratic President is given a veto proof progressive (not DINO) Congress, not much will be done. With Reid and Pelosi at the helms, I think we'll continue to be disappointed.

    The next Democratic President will have to go into office on the offensive and beat the Republicans at their own games. Until the Republican party is given a beating they will remember for decades, not much will change. Can Obama do this? Is he willing to go for the political jugular? I just don't know. And believe me, if he is the Democratic nominee you will see the race card played as never before. It will be asked if the American voter is really ready to turn the country over to, not a black man, but "the blacks". A "black agenda" as sinister as the "gay agenda" may take on a life of its own. The Republicans excel at divide and conquer, slash and burn politics. They are ruthless, desperate and will do anything and I do mean anything to win. If divisive enough, they can still win by losing just by picking the scab off our nation's racism.

    I thought Hillary might have the "sterner stuff" it will take to take it to the Republicans, but since Bill's cozying up with poppa Bush and the rumored desire by the GW camp for a Clinton win trouble me. I remember Bill squashing investigations into poppa Bush's illegal activity while VP and POTUS. He gave the Bush's a free pass. I think Hillary will do the same with W. Murdock and Scaife seem to have backed off the Clinton's, perhaps to assure a quid pro quo from Hillary to protect them and Bush/Cheney from possible investigation and/or indictment? Who knows?

    I know politics makes strange bedfellows, but Bill really seems to want into the Bush family circle. That troubles me, a lot! I don't like or trust Hillary or Bill. I think they really do want to be part of the "Kennebunkport Corleone Family" as I call them. Plus, in the end they'll do whatever is best for the Clinton's, not the nation.

    I don't trust Obama. I don't think he has the guts to play down and dirty with the Republicans. Edwards, a trial lawyer, might have an advantage here. I'm just not sure. At this point I lean towards Edwards. I know I won't vote Republican. I just hope I can vote Democratic. Because I'm a gay man, I trust the Democrats will take my vote for granted. I'm tired of rewarding a politician with my vote because they think "I have no place else to go." Wrong. I can always keep my money and just stay home. In the meantime, I'll continue to wait and watch very closely.

    Posted by: Bob R | Jan 7, 2008 11:08:23 AM


  16. Bob, you make the point for Obama.

    Hillary turns off voters and hurts down ticket candidates

    Obama brings out voters and thus ensures that majority in congress you mention.

    Ian, Michighan and Fl will be seated AFTER the nomination is already decided. there is a difference between the 2 breaking the foremrly agreed upon rules and thus being penalized by the agreed upon by them punishments when the rules were set and not being allowed to be at the convention

    A Huge difference

    Not counting but being allowed at the convention AFTER the affirmation of the nom are 2 seperate things

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Jan 7, 2008 11:23:20 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Rearview Mirror: Looking Back at the Week on Towleroad« «