Earlier, John McCain won the Republican presidential primary with a substantial lead, media projections indicated.
Observers say it seems to have been a record-breaking turnout, with some half a million people having cast ballots.
Candidates are aiming to build momentum before more than 20 states hold polls on 5 February, known as Super Tuesday.
Mrs Clinton told a cheering crowd of supporters that: "I come tonight with a very, very full heart.
| | Now together let's give America the kind of comeback that New Hampshire has just given me Hillary Clinton |
"I want especially to thank New Hampshire. Over the last week 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 echoed her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who in New Hampshire's primary in 1992 called himself the "comeback kid".
"Now together let's give America the kind of comeback that New Hampshire has just given me," she said.
Turning point?
In conceding victory Mr Obama said: "I want to congratulate Senator Clinton on a hard fought victory here in New Hampshire. She did an outstanding job, give her a big round of applause."
Mr Obama had gone into the vote with leads of up to 13% in opinion polls following his impressive victory in Thursday's Iowa caucuses.
| | McCain supporters chanted "Mac is back, Mac is back". McCain victory speech |
He achieved a surge in the polls after trailing Mrs Clinton's lead for much of the campaign.
Mrs Clinton having closed that gap may, says the BBC's Kevin Connolly in New Hampshire, be down to an extraordinary moment during her campaigning on Monday when she appeared close to tears as she talked about how much public service meant to her.
John Edwards, who came third in the Democrat contest, reminded supporters in Manchester, New Hampshire, that there were "48 states left to go".
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney came second in the Republican race with 32% compared to Mr McCain's 37%, according to ABC.
'Fighting on'
Former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister Mike Huckabee and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani came in with 11% and 9% of the vote for the Republicans, according to ABC projections.
| | REPUBLICAN RACE John McCain - 37% Mitt Romney - 32% Mike Huckabee - 11% Rudy Giuliani - 9% Source: ABC |
Mr Giuliani said he planned to stay in the race and was looking forward to Florida's 29 January primary.
Mr McCain has staged an impressive fight back after seeing his campaign nearly derail several months ago.
At his campaign headquarters, Mr McCain thanked his supporters, saying: "My friends, you know I'm passed the age where I can claim the noun 'kid', no matter what adjective precedes it. But tonight we sure showed 'em what a comeback looks like."
Mr Romney conceded victory and congratulated Mr McCain.
"Well another silver... I'd rather have a gold, but I got another silver.
"But tonight congratulations go to Senator John McCain for running a first class race. Congratulations for the gold senator, great job, let's give him a round of applause."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7178168.stm
12 comments:
My thoughts on the results real quick:
Rep:
McCain - Meh... meh... could be worse I guess (see the next two Republicans).
Romney - Ha - Ha (Nelson style).
Huckabee - Take that nutbag!
Guiliani - ...
Paul - ?
Dems:
Clinton - Ah shit!
Obama - Keep up the faith! You're still 50-50!
Edwards - Well...
Kucinich - A blind world we live in :-(.
Richardson - ?
As Edwards said, there are "48 states left to go". We'll see.
Last night while watching the coverage of the primaries I had one of those cold shudders when I realized that I was agreeing with Fox news. I'll start by saying I was watching Fox because that jerk-ass, xenophobic, windbag Lou Dobbs was covering for CNN--Christ I hate that pompous jerk. Anyway, I digress. So what I found myself agreeing with was that they were framing Hillary's win as "squeaking by" or "barely" taking the election by a handful of votes. CNN and MSNBC kept talking about a huge turn around for Clinton and a decisive victory....She won by 2%. Oh well, the media...what are you going to do.
What I found really interesting, though, is just how many of the independents voted in the Democratic primary. With some 80% I counted up the totals and looked like about 180,000 had chosen to vote Republican and 220,000 (I can't seem the actual numbers now, though). Anyway, the point is 1/2 the state is independent and they can choose which primary to vote it. So given the relatively smallish number of Democrats in the state, it is surprising to see such a big turn out for the Democratic primary. Looks like New Hampshire is not happy with the Republican party at the moment. Just an observation.
And Pope, you failed to mention Mike Gravel's worthy performance of 400 votes. That's his largest net to date. Go Gravel!
Looking Back, New Hampshire has an interesting voting record... With the exception of Reagan in 1984 and Clinton in 1992, they have a tendency to vote against the incumbant party.
2004 - Kerry
2000 - Bush
1996 - Clinton
1992 - Clinton
1988 - Bush
1984 - Reagan
1980 - Reagan
Well, that's not much of a sample size to draw a conclusion from, but if I had to guess right now, I'd expect New Hampshire to vote democratic anyway, since they've already expressed their displeasure with the incumbant party in 2004. In fact, from that sample set, it also looks as if New Hampshire has a tendency to vote for winning candidate (the exception being Kerry, who, of course, couldn't help but lose).
As far as my impressions:
I wasn't surprised to seen McCain do well. New Hampshire has been good to him in the past. Take that, Romney! Muahahahaha
As for the Dems, I was shocked. I'd already written off Hillary for dead, and turned the TV off. Afterall, Obama was trouncing her in the early polling. In fact, I must admit that part of me did feel sorry for her... It's hard thing to run so strongly for so long, and then be rejected outright at the start of the race. I don't care how cold, callous, and manipulating you are.
But then I open up Al Gore's Interweb, and find that she WON the damned thing... So I'm back to hating her again. So much for early polling. Again.
Here in the computer science department, we have a saying: "Statistics are great for projecting how things will happen, until they don't."
Overall, it's an exciting race... but I was really hoping the democratic side would have been sealed. Afterall, no candidate in our history failed to get the nomination if they carried both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Oh well. 48 more states to go.
...and just out of curiosity, Reed, why do you think Lou Dobbs is a jerk-ass, xenophobic, windbag?
For starters, he seems to use "illegals" as a primary scapegoat for all the evils that befall the middle class. While he does thumb his nose at Wal-Mart, free trade, and globalization, I find his diatribes against immigrants misleading, biased, inaccurate, and hardly up to snuff in terms of journalistic quality (he is a commentator, not a journalist). His "Broken Borders" series bordered on populist nationalism in my opinion. He also gives unabashed support to those nut-job, racist, militia groups that police the borders and "assist" the immigration services in capturing border crossers. Maybe you are inclined to disagree, but those guys are scary nationalist xenophobes masquerading behind the mantle of "national security." Lastly, he is hypocrite. Champion of the middle class my ass! When was the last time he had to "make ends meet" or give up a vacation because his kids needed braces or to pay tuition. Honestly, it's for the some similar reasons as why I don't like Edwards. It seems phony to go around championing a cause when you are so far removed for the plight of the aggrieved group you represent. Not to say you can't offer support to said group, but I want to see some action and not just a lot of hot air. Besides, if he wanted to champion the middle class he would be calling for some major structural changes in the social and economic systems in the country and not blaming easy targets like "illegals" or Wal-Mart (though Wal-Mart can suck it!).
When was the last time you did any of those things, Reed? It's one thing to live from paycheck to paycheck as a single grad student manwhore, but it's another entirely when you are responsible for the welfare of another human being.
BUT: It doesn't make you a hypocrite to champion these causes for other people. If you had access to a television spot of your own design that you knew would reach tens of millions of homes every single day, and could say anything you wanted to say on it, what would the content be?
Despite all of his other positions which seem to be right up your alley, it seems to me that you're turned off by his belief that illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be resolved. Fine and dandy, we get it: You rub one out every night thinking about the millions of undocumented people sneaking into this country every year. Great, I'm glad that the current state of affairs pleases you. :P But seriously, it seems that when someone disagrees with your position, you are very quick to pull the xenophobic racist blowhard fascist closeted self-loathing homosexual card.
Do you listen to Lou Dobbs?
First, I have never said that illegal immigration was not a problem. I think, though, that it is a complex issue that goes well beyond the immediate effects to the US economy or to national security. It is a common by-product of the opening of markets and globalization in general. All of those economic models that predict the benefits of global trade liberalization for everyone also show (though pro-liberalization policy makers will never tell you) that the free movement of people is one of the KEY components for successful liberalization. If you want liberalization to work you have to allow more movement of people to where the jobs are.
Trade liberalization and economic integration also change the nature of domestic economies, so as jobs dry up in Mexico or the country can't keep a reasonable pace of development, then people are naturally going to go where jobs are and go the easiest route possible--right across to the land of plenty, the US.
Given that the US has been beating the drum of free markets for years and forcing liberal economic reforms on nations around the globe , but then refusing to allow for greater legal immigration is antithetical and hypocritical, as is our agricultural policy (which is also related to increased immigration demands).
Now, policy makers that want to open borders to trade and not make any change to immigration policy and then blame the immigrants for what is basically a natural economic (not only human response) are feeding US citizens a line and unfairly scapegoating the immigrants.
As for why I cry racism, bigotry, etc....sometimes "a spade's a spade." :p. But seriously, when you want to fix a problem go to the source: policies or climates that have created the condition. Then look for a way to fix those underlying causes. Laying the blame at the feet of people trying to better their lives is erroneous and unfair. Crying racism might be a little extreme, but scapegoating a group of people reflects either ignorance of the complexities of the issues or an irrational disdain for the group supported by some ad-hoc anecdotes and observations. But I hope that most people really are ignorant and not racist.
On one count you're right. I have a relatively comfortable life in my grad school poverty. But let me correct you, if I were a manwhore I would make lots more money. Then I might also be able to have my own show.
Maybe Lou does care about the middle class and feel for them, reflect their values. Would you be willing to believe that maybe Edwards, despite being a wealthy and smug lawyer (though he was born working class), really believes all his own populist rhetoric and wants to give America back to the middle and working class, constrain corporate greed, and even the playing field between the "two Americas." You talk about him with disdain, like he's just slick lying politician trying to weasel himself into office using appeals to the middle and working class. What's the difference between that and portly Lou Dobbs firing up Americans by blaming "illegals" for the fact that they lost their jobs or their health care as a means to attract viewers. I am sure you would not have railed against me if I went off on Edwards. Why is that? Maybe you "rub one off every night" thinking about a hulking, glistening Lou Dobbs kicking all the Mexicans out of the country and making the country safe for real Americans. :P.
Lastly, Jesus man. Reading that last post, who is the frothing zealot now? At least I have yet to make any allusions to...oh wait I just did.
Hmmmmm, Dobbs... *finishes rubbing one out*
Ok, back to business:
As a matter off act, I do occasionally watch Lou Dobbs, and I find most of what he has to say absolutely dead on.
The problem is, you're associating almost anyone's call for immigration reform with xenophobia and "scapegoating", and that's just so off base, it's rediculous. It's as if you and the rest of the far left aren't even listening to what anyone else has to say.
Dobb's (and the rest of us calling for greater border security and immigration reform) beef is with the current state of affairs, which most any reasonable person finds unacceptable. We have millions of people pouring into this country every year, and we have absolutely no idea who or where they are.
We should NOT just blindly reward illegal behavior with money from government programs, blanket citizenship, so on and so forth; that's precisely the opposite of what we in the business call "smart".
However, if we want cheap labor provided by Mexican immigrants, what we SHOULD do (and Dobbs agrees) is institute a program that will allow them to come into the country legally to do so. And if they're already here, we can put them on this program as well. And if they meet the criteria for citizenship, fabulous! If not, well, keep trying. But the point is, we need to stem the tide of folks sneaking across the border.
And yes, sometimes a "spade is a spade"; but most of the time, it turns out it isn't. And when one calls everything under the sun a spade, eventually people have a hard time taking him or her seriously. In the end, they only wind up looking just as intolerant and bigoted as the people they are accusing. And make no mistake, those who describe themselves as Liberals are just as susceptible to intolerance and fear mongering as any neocon right winger.
LOL, speaking of smart...
"Rediculous" - What does that mean? Diculous all over again?
*sigh*
Need...edit...button....
Good, I am glad people are generally just ignorant as opposed to racist. I believe in controlling borders as much as anyone else. It is clearly preferable that people enter this country legally, but there are not nearly enough visas to meet the demand; plus it is difficult to go from a visa to citizenship for those who want to stay once they establish themselves. I have not heard ol' Lou call for any of that. He wants reform, but I don't hear him talking about how broken the visa system is one thing to do is issue MORE of them to meet the demand. and provide good people who prove themselves with an easer way to become citizens. God knows a lot of immigrants deserve it more than a bunch of chumps that happen be born here. Anyway, that's another rant.
You completely miss characterize me (and the left in general) by saying that any call for reform is met with cries of xenophobia. Reform is one thing; security is one thing. Building a fence and giving tacit acceptance to groups like the Minutemen is quite another. Making claims that immigrants are bankrupting public services, ruining schools, costing American jobs, and turning the US into a Spanish speaking language is quite another. It plays to a base element that is based more on fear than on fact.
Look at the official language issue. Bull shit. Who cares if 10 or 20 or 50% of the country speaks Spanish, whether we adopt two official languages or none? It's about time that Americans learned another language besides English. The people that seem most in favor of the national language issue want to retain the traditional Anglo character of the country. They (e.g. many Republican candidates) are also the ones that are most in favor or immigration "reform". I see the two issues as joined.
Again, reform is good. Border fences and deportations are not reform. Reform, and I hate to say this, is more in line with the programs Bush proposes. For all his fuck ups at least he realizes how much the economy depends on the "illegals" and wants to move them into the legal category and acquire some tax revenue.
And one more thing. I am not a liberal. I am a progressive independent. And a card carrying member of the Trotsky fan club...not Pol Pot. He was a genocidal nut-job. That's like saying you think the sun shined out of Reagan's ass. Oh wait, we had that discussion already.
I see I can't leave you two alone for minute can I? Settle down ;-)
Lou Dobbs has his pet issue just like any other commentator. Glenn Beck's issue is "Islam-o-fascism" - whatever that is, Keith Olbermann's is how Bush and Bill O'Reilly suck, O'Reilly's is the world is after me and everyone hates Christians, Hannity's is that Liberals are destroying the world. All of these things can be seen in different lights depending on your political and ethical views, not to mention the delivery of the commentator.
I find Dobbs' delivery terrible and his show boring, and even though I have watched his show a number of times, I am not positive about Lou Dobbs' views, he seems to say a lot but little of any substance, so I am staying out of this. I could honestly care less about Lou Dobbs. Oh, and he wears TOO MUCH MAKEUP! That bugs me.
Why did this become a discussion about Lou Dobbs?
I do enjoy the childish and hyperbolic insults flung back and forth though. I feel like I am in fourth grade again :-D
Post a Comment