Inside Clinton's Narrow Comeback

The Nation: Coming Off N.H. Win, Hillary Clinton Must Now Decide Whether To Compete In Nevada And South Carolina

(The Nation)  This column was written by Ari Melber.

---

Hillary Clinton has eked out a crucial win in New Hampshire, a state her aides have long staked out as the "firewall" in her quest for the Democratic nomination. At roughly three points, the margin of victory is far smaller than her lead in state polls over the past 11 months, which often topped 20 points. But Clinton's success will surely help stabilize her presidential campaign, which was rocked by infighting since her loss in Iowa. Rumors of a major staff shakeup had percolated for days: Campaign Co-Chair Terry McAuliffe already announced that the campaign would "bring in more people to help," while James Carville and Paul Begala spent the primary day denying rumors they were taking over. On Tuesday afternoon, a Democratic source told The Nation that Team Hillary was still debating whether to hand the reins over to Steve Richetti, who served as President Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff - the strategic post that Karl Rove made famous.

Yet Clinton cleared away the doubts and struck an inspiring note in her victory speech, telling New Hampshire voters, "I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice. I felt like we all spoke from our hearts and I am so gratified that you responded!" She was met with roaring applause. Clinton likened the narrow victory to her husband's famous "comeback" in 1992, when he battled back to a surprising second place finish in New Hampshire. Then she offered a much more important parallel, vowing to give America the "kind of comeback" that New Hampshire just gave her.

The Clintons shared another political asset in New Hampshire, though farther offstage. Michael Whouley, the most respected field strategist in Democratic politics, was dispatched to overhaul the mobilization program in the state. Clinton aides had debated whether to deploy him in Iowa, where he had helped engineer John Kerry's huge comeback in 2004, or task him with fortifying the famous "firewall." Some feared that his efforts would simply be wasted in New Hampshire if Clinton lost Iowa, but the "Plan B" advocates won, and now they look pretty shrewd.

Obama took the narrow loss in stride, congratulating Clinton and delivering a dignified iteration of his stump speech. Reminding voters that he was "far behind" for "most of this campaign," Barack Obama repeated his call for a bipartisan "new majority who can lead this nation out of a long political darkness." He did not shy away from reiterating his contrasts with Clinton, claiming the mantle of a different, bolder campaign that is "not just about what I will do as president -- it is also about what you, the people who love this country, the citizens of this country, can do to change it. That's what this election is all about!"

If the boisterous beginning of this presidential campaign proves anything - and elections still do officially start with voting - it's the empirical fact that a year of polls and predictions were flat wrong. Clinton was not an inevitable frontrunner, as her chastened aides now rush to emphasize; "cash on hand" is not even a rough predictor of political viability, as Mike Huckabee and John McCain are celebrating; polling remains unreliable, as every candidate says when the "second tier" comes calling; and while Iowa is powerfully pivotal, even the sum total of its caucus wisdom cannot dictate democracy in other states.

So Obama can only take cautious solace from his strong position in the next two states. I'm not talking about polls, of course -- especially since Nevada's tiny caucus electorate is inscrutable to surveys (its 9,000 attendees were 1% of the voting population last cycle) -- but rather his political and organizational footing. Obama will receive the endorsement of Nevada's most influential union, the Culinary Workers, and Iowa demonstrated his organization's prowess in a caucus state. His aides have also built a strong network in South Carolina, the first primary with a significant black population. Meanwhile, John Edwards could reemerge with a strong finish in his birth-state of South Carolina, which he won in 2004. Clinton has no clear foothold in either state; this week her aides debated whether to surrender both and focus on regrouping for Super Tuesday. But even after winning New Hampshire, ceding two weeks to a delegate fight between Obama and Edwards would be dicey, potentially undermining claims that she is a fighter with national appeal. (Democrats want a nominee who can compete everywhere, including pivotal southwestern swing states like Nevada, which reelected Bush by a scant 21,000 votes.) Yet if Clinton competes and loses both states, she would be heading into Super Tuesday on two weeks of losses. That's a tough slog either way, but then again, she'll have more than five days to turn things around.

[guysdigdirt]

Now that she''''s played the boo-hoo card her bag of tricks is empty.
Posted by logicanada

I would hate to see her manipulative arse in the role but if she were the pres and one day found herself in talks with the leader of Iran, no- can''t do that as the leaders of many nations would not take her seriously. Let''s say she was in talks with the leader of some nation and did not get what she wanted, would she cry then too?

[guysdigdirt]

You believed their arse! Fools! When her husband left office, she ran for Senator in the State of NY, and has been a legislator ever since and served her state and our country well.

Now do you want to compare that experience and ability to a kid like Obama who has a law degree, taught Constitution law to law school students, put together some neighborhood plans in Illinois and been a Senator for two years and sponsored six pieces of legislation?
Posted by RowdyTexan2

You are right about Obama, neither he nor Hillary is experienced enough to be in office.

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by rational_1 at 10:48 AM : Jan 10, 2008

Laura Bush has never been anything but a housewife and librarian.

Hillary Clinton has been an activist since here college days. She went to school and became a lawyer and was active in politics in Arkansas when her husband was Governor there. When he was elected President, she didn''t sit in the White House and pick out a new pattern for China for the dining room...she got out and actively supported his political efforts. When her husband wanted to propose legislation, Hillary was out there working with him to convince other politicians to support him. Using her influence, intelligence and position to talk to people to find out their needs. She was part of the eyes and ears for his political initiatives. When she wasn''t even in office herself, she put together a plan for universal health care for the American people. But the republicans cried SOCIALISM and stopped all avenues for funding it. And of course, all the republican voters went HOW HIGH when their party leaders said LEAP FROG!!!! You believed their arse! Fools! When her husband left office, she ran for Senator in the State of NY, and has been a legislator ever since and served her state and our country well.

Now do you want to compare that experience and ability to a kid like Obama who has a law degree, taught Constitution law to law school students, put together some neighborhood plans in Illinois and been a Senator for two years and sponsored six pieces of legislation?

[rowdytexan2]

Folks, the polls are a game...remember months ago they predicted a huge landslide for HIllary in New Hampshire, as they did in Iowa...

Well, Iowa came out and proved all their polls wrong. Nobody wants their polls to be wrong!

Say you yourself are going to go out and poll a thousand people. But you have an agenda and you want your poll to point a certain direction.

So what you do is go out and actually poll 1500 or 2000 people. And you pick out the answers that you want to hear, and throw the rest away. Voila, you have a thousand polled people with the answer your wanted. And you have the poll sheets to prove it.

After Obama won HUGELY Iowa, the media didn''t want their polls to be wrong...so their polls showed Obama with a swift margin in NH...and once again, votes count, polls don''t.

And remember polls only poll a certain amount of people. Only the people in the polls exist.

There were record breaking turnouts in both these states that the pollsters couldln''t predict.

Vote your candidate. Screw the polls!

[tbweb]

I don''t know how you can call this a "narrow win" ... when just like this article all the pundits were worshiping Obama and negating Clinton''''s campaign. She didn''''t just win against Obama .. she won against the biased U.S. Media which was trying to run the political train in this country .. but Hillary derailed it!

Posted by paris1969 at 06:06 PM : Jan 09, 2008,,,

I have a different view on this, leading up to the first Votes being casted many were complaining how the News Media was favoring Hillary Clinton. If thats true, the best way to get Voters out in force for your favored Candidate is to report they will be crushed by double digits! Even Sen. Obama mentioned on the evening news today he did not like being cast that way, as a predicted double digit winner, he thinks it hurt him and it did!

[logicanada]

Now that she''s played the boo-hoo card her bag of tricks is empty.

[cgruenk]

May we please have some information on the various polling sites in NH, indicating whether voting was done by paper ballots or machines? The machines have been proved unreliable in tests done by several states.

[rational_1]

I''m surprised that neither Obama nor Edwards has pointedly asked Clinton to clarifies exactly what she means by her vast experience. I agree with a previous poster that just because she was in the White House while her hubby was getting Lewinskied does not necessarily translate into political experience. It''s not like she was in on all the meetings Bubba was running. Jeez, maybe Laura Bush should run for President - she''s only 1.5 Senate terms behind Hilary. So, what exactly has Clinton accomplished, for the children (as she likes to say)? Compare her to someone like Biden, Kerry or McCain and she comes off looking like a complete lightweight.

[ucimright]

mrs. clinton is still ahead eith delegate votes 184 to 115. i hope she holds on and doesn''t get too run down! the only woman with all those other candidates is really reasserting herself the best way. slow it down and let someone else play their hand first.

[mcv57]

Place on your ballot: Bozo the Clown, at least he will make you laugh on the way down.

[adiant-2009]

Narrow? Are out of your mind? According to the pundits --you included-- and the pollsters, she was behind 39 to 29. He comes first 39 to 36. Is that narrow? You just wait. Our next president will be Hllary. She has more of everything of what is needed than the other candidates, and on top of that, she is a woaman. A GREAT woman, indeed! After Iowa Edwards said that the message to Clinton was for her to drop out of the race. Iowa was not a primary, but a simple caucus. Now that THE PEOPLE of New Hampshire has said that they pick her and Edwards does not merit more than a third place, what does he say about himself? Or is it that there should be two standards? Edwards, GO AWAY!

[paris1969]

I don''t know how you can call this a "narrow win" ... when just like this article all the pundits were worshiping Obama and negating Clinton''s campaign. She didn''t just win against Obama .. she won against the biased U.S. Media which was trying to run the political train in this country .. but Hillary derailed it!

[guysdigdirt]

Hillary has not qualifications for being President. If you ask her she will say her 8 years in the white house with her pathetic husband qualify her. If that is the case maybe the pastry chef during Billy''s stay would be just as qualified.

If she is elected I will watch anxiously to see if she cries during a confrence with the leader of another nation when she does not get what she wants, like she did the other day on teh news.