Will New Hampshire Hurt Obama?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, New HampshireOverall, I don’t think so. Here’s why.
Sure, there will be a few pundits here and there who talk about Hillary’s amazing comeback and how badly this has hurt his chances, but ultimately I think it’s going to swing back in Obama’s favor.
See, the poll numbers are what set the expectations. As such, the pollsters will be blamed for raising them so high for Obama and setting them so low for Hillary. To his credit, Barack played it cool, predicted a good night and that’s exactly what he got. There’s no doubt that Hillary had a GREAT night and she should get praise for really bringing it home down the stretch, but to blame Obama for faulty poll numbers just doesn’t seem like something the media can credibly do. Not that it’s really stopped them in the past, but to follow up amazingly bad polling with “We were incredibly wrong so you’re now weaker?” doesn’t seem like an argument they’re going to make.
And to the point of this helping Obama, well, the story will be that there was a bounce after Iowa and it pulled him into a very close, very strong 2nd place. The reason he can make this case is he’s a strong candidate who can inspire and if you saw his speech last night, you’ll know that he still mops the floor with the other candidates when it comes to election night speeches.
“Yes We Can” sets him up for the next contest, the caucuses in Nevada. In fact, he received the endorsement of the SEIU in Nevada after he lost last night and we’ll see if the Culinary Workers Union jumps on board today. Also, there’s word that his campaign has raised $8 million in the last 8 days, with another $500,000 coming in the hours after last night’s defeat.
What this means for Hillary is all that New Hampshire did was stop the bleeding. Remember, she was supposed to win Iowa, New Hampshire, etc., and by her campaign’s own admission they had been running as if this were a reelection campaign, as if she had already had the job. So yes, it was a great night for her, but she’s going to have to pull off some major, decisive wins before she can credibly knock Obama off the top spot, because that’s where he still remains today.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 9th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary, New Hampshire. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Actually, Mr. G., she wasn’t ’supposed to win Iowa’ as u suggested. They thought Edwards was the front runner in Iowa according to loving husband, Bill. It was discussed in detail during a recent interview on Charlie Rose. According to their earlier expectations, she should’ve been disapointed with the results being so close in New Hampshire, while, as she tried to say but nobody listened, Iowa wasn’t too bad, since she knew it was gonna be an uphill climb. I think it points out how easily we are ALL influenced by the media.I guess it was WHO won Iowa and the overwhelming response from the voters, as reported by the media. Then the polls leading up to N.H. raised evrybdy’s expectations to the point of writing off Hillary altogether- a bit premature, maybe? How does the saying go- reports of her death were greatly exaggerated!
January 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
RE: Voter Fraud in New Hampshire
It looks like voter fraud may have been responsible for the Clinton win in NH. The Obama camp has been approached by a number of parties that are asking him to request a recount of the votes.
There is a statistically significant discrepancy between exit polls, actual votes counted by hand in the various voting districts, and those tabulated by Diebold tabulator machines. The exit polls and hand counted votes indicate Obama should have won NH by at least 2% to 5%, but the votes tabulated by the Diebold machines (the ones fingered in the 2004 election fraud) had the result flipped to favor Clinton. In addition, several pre-election polls were right on the money for the results of ALL the other candidates in BOTH the GOP and democratic race – except the Obama/Clinton match-up and Ron Paul.
Also, NONE of the Ron Paul votes were counted. As of right now, NH is still reporting that Ron Paul got NO votes, which is not true. He was polling at 5% to 10% before votes were cast.
The Centre for Research on Globalization:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7753
Boston Now:
http://www.bostonnow.com/blogs/boston911truthorg/2008/01/09/major-allegations-of-vote-fraud-in-new-hampshire
The Ben Mosely Blog:
http://benmoseley.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-nh-primary-statistics-show-election.html
Product Reviews
http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/01/09/new-hampshire-vote-fraud-confirmed-ron-paul-votes-not-counted/
Malta Star:
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/msFullArt.asp?an=17896
January 9th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Seems like somebody has been drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid. How anyone can take on faith what either Bill or Hillary says is a mystery. Reports of her experience were greatly exaggerated. Thirty-five years? Since when does being the Governor or President’s wife count as experience? Should the Bulls sign Michael Jordan’s wife to play point guard? The only thing Mrs. Clinton experienced at is mudslinging, and she’s winning that contest against an opponent who has chosen the political high road.
Shame on those who have let the Clinton’s frame the story once again, with Hillary starring as the second “Comeback Kid.” The reason that the 1992 primary resonates with the media even today is that President Clinton was an underdog. As for Senator Clinton, being the frontrunner for the entire run up to primary season, finishing third in Iowa, and then edging out a win in New Hampshire where she held a steady double digit lead in polling up until less than a week ago is by no means miraculous, and by logical standards a disappointment.
Credit should be given to Mrs. Clinton for her first place finish, but as quick as the media was to establish Senator Obama the new Democratic Messiah, they have just as quickly bowed down to the Clinton media machine. The fact that their marriage is one of political convenience is once again obvious, as it was when she “stuck by her man” through the scandalous end of his presidency, and now “defends his lady” as she slowly burns away his political credit and tarnishes what legacy he left behind.
Since 1980 a Bush or Clinton has held an Executive post in this country (that’s 28 years for all you non-math majors) and electing Senator Clinton puts that number at least at 32 with a shot at 36. Something about that makes me profoundly uncomfortable. The status quo candidate will maintain the status quo in Washington.
Need examples?
The go-to negative campaigning is a good start, but lets take it point by point:
Bill’s truncation of Senator Obama’s 2004 comment on the Iraq War vote in which he stated, ”I’m not privy to the Senate intelligence reports, What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.” President Clinton has called Obama’s stance a fairytale, but who’s spinning tales here?
Senator Clinton has made references to Senator Obama comparing his appeal to that of President George W. Bush, ““I think it’s good to have a likeable president. But if I remember right, many people said they wanted to have a beer with George W. Bush. Maybe they should’ve left it at that – have a beer, don’t vote him in as our president.” But with her lobbyist support, Washington connections, and a family history at the White House, who deserves that comparison?
As to the 35 years of experience, which was previously referenced, if Mrs. Clinton can claim her years in the Arkansas Governor’s mansion as experience then how can she categorize Mr. Obama’s years in the Illinois State Senate as inconsequential. And if her years as a lawyer and political coordinator are to be counted, then how are his years of law educator and community organizer not legitimate resume material.
As the candidate of experience, a mantle which Senator Clinton was as quick to dismiss as she was to assume, she can’t have it both ways. And for all those who wish to hearken back to the old days of the Clinton years, where a fresh voice brought us hope, then the intelligent argument would be as follows:
Don’t recycle the same old people, embrace the new voice again.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
BenG is an idiot. all signs pointed to Hillary winning in Iowa… and she lost. Outright. Yes there were some that said Edwards could make a run there but the fact is that a large part of the opinion was that she’d kill it. And she didn’t. as for NH, it was that stupid, weak assed crying episode that got her those votes. I can’t even believe that bullshit. It makes me want to throw up.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
So Hillary wants to examine records, run on her 35 years of “experience” fighting for the American people and conquering Republicans? If I were OBAMA I would say “Bring it on.” Hillary and Bill are shape shifting sociopaths that are a cancer on the American political system. These pariahs are like a worm that lodges itself in the gutt and bleeds you dry. Such analogies only begin to explain the FRAUD which emanates from the Clinton Camp. The Clinton machine began gearing up and preparing in earnest for HRC’s run shortly after the Clinton Impeachment. Before leaving office Clinton set up the Clinton Global Initiative, a philanthropic networking vehicle which allowed him to network with the most affluent on the planet to raise money for his Presidential Library and Hillary’s run for office in NY. The CLINTON LEGACY: (i) never captured majority of vote in 1992 or 1996 (ii) failure to pass HillaryCare (iii)SCANDALS: From Arkansas to Whitehouse, bank fraud, billing fraud, bimbo eruptions, rape, sexual harassment, suspension of Bill’s law license for fraud (iv) Last Minute Pardons to felons for $$ (v) loss of both houses of Congress (vi) stood by idly as Republicans descended on Florida to assist Bush/Cheney while AL GORE flew solo (vi) elected Senator of NY where Hillary has backed the Neo-Con agenda from 2001-2007. The Clintons failed to look into questionable activity surrounding the deaths of PAUL WELLSTONE & JFK, Jr. Ironically, Al Gore, Paul Wellstone or JFK, Jr. are those that stood in Hillary’s path to the Senate and the Whitehouse. WAKE UP AMERICA: Hillary & Bill are not who you think they are. Their historical connection with BUSH, CIA, Cocaine, Bank Fraud (BCCI) is rather troubling.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Back to the point of the post, I really doubt that NH really hurt Obama too much. Right now I’m planning on voting for Senator Obama in the Missouri primary but if Senator Clinton should win the nomination I won’t have any hesitation in voting for her over any of the Republican candidates come November.