New Hampshire history lesson
Manchester, N.H. -- It once was a given: To make it to the White House, a candidate first had better win a primary in New Hampshire. And the victors in Tuesday's Democratic and Republican contests here no doubt will wrap their minds around that thought.
Intriguingly, though, the last two White House occupants lost the first time they were on the ballot in the Granite State primary.
In 2000, George W. Bush got swamped by John McCain (who's now hoping for the same short-term result but a better long-term outcome for his presidential candidacy).
In 1992, Bill Clinton finished second in the primary (he famously proclaimed himself the "comeback kid" because he had been looking at a much worse showing as the vote neared). It was Clinton, in fact, who broke what had seemed since 1952 -- the first year the primary became a serious player in the nomination process -- an ironclad link between winning in New Hampshire and winning the presidency.
Here's the primary scoreboard over the years (candidates who won both in New Hampshire and in the general election are in bold-faced capital letters; those New Hampshire victors who went on the claim their party's nomination but lost in November are in regular-face caps; those who won here but did not get nominated are in upper- and lower-case: ...
2004: GEORGE W. BUSH (R) — JOHN F. KERRY (D)
2000: John McCain (R) — AL GORE (D)
1996: Patrick J. Buchanan (R) — BILL CLINTON (D)
1992: GEORGE H.W. BUSH (R) — Paul E. Tsongas (D)
1988: GEORGE H.W. BUSH (R) — MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS (D)
1984: RONALD REAGAN (R) — Gary Hart (D)
1980: RONALD REAGAN (R) — JIMMY CARTER (D)
1976: GERALD R. FORD (R) — JIMMY CARTER (D)
1972: RICHARD M. NIXON (R) — Edmund S. Muskie (D)
1968: RICHARD M. NIXON (R) — Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
1964: Henry Cabot Lodge (R) — LYNDON B. JOHNSON (D)
1960: RICHARD M. NIXON (R) — JOHN F. KENNEDY (D)
1956: DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (R) — Estes Kefauver (D)
1952: DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (R) — Estes Kefauver (D)
-- Don Frederick
Johanna Neuman is a veteran Washington correspondent for both The Los Angeles Times and USA Today, having covered presidents and politics as far back as Ronald Reagan. A former president of the White House Correspondents Assn., she authored a book on media and foreign policy, “Lights, Camera, Wars.” Most recently she was co-author of the
Hillary Clinton has been working hard to keep the US focused on the issues that are important to our future: health care, security, international diplomacy, the environment, children and family issues, etc. etc. She is a leader in the Democratic Party among her colleagues looking at what is important to the mainstream voter. As a single mother, I feel she represents the change and leadership we need in the United States.
Posted by: Mary Jane Parks | January 07, 2008 at 01:56 PM
As an independent voter in my 20s, I am an admirer and supporter of Hillary Clinton for her intellect, her command of policy, her discipline and dedication, and much more. I am alarmed at the masses of people tripping over themselves for someone spouting out a simplistic mantra of "hope" and "change" without the vaguest notion of what concrete solutions are needed. Obama is just a pedagogue, a mere symbol of some vague notion of change, a fabrication of the media and its darling du jour, nothing more. Further, I fail to see the supposed "charisma" this man has--he stutters like he can't put a sentence together and most of hist statements contain nothing of substance. I only say this because he's made out to be some great orator. I hope and pray people will realize this before blotching yet another election.
Posted by: arthur | January 08, 2008 at 12:18 AM
As an independent voter in my 20s, I am an admirer and supporter of Hillary Clinton for her intellect, her command of policy, her discipline and dedication, and much more. I am alarmed at the masses of people tripping over themselves for someone spouting out a simplistic mantra of "hope" and "change" without the vaguest notion of what concrete solutions are needed. Obama is just a pedagogue, a mere symbol of some vague notion of change, a fabrication of the media and its darling du jour, nothing more. Further, I fail to see the supposed "charisma" this man has--he stutters like he can't put a sentence together and most of hist statements contain nothing of substance. I only say this because he's made out to be some great orator. I hope and pray people will realize this before blotching yet another election.
Posted by: arthur | January 08, 2008 at 12:24 AM
I am a mid-forties native NH independent voter. I generally vote in the Democratic Primary but have also voted in the Republican primary a couple of times. I agree with many of the bloggers that Hillary is an intelligent, hard working and dedicated public servant. But I am pretty sick of what has gone on in DC over the last 15 years. I believe that another Clinton in the Whitehouse will just start all the investigations over again and divert our attention from the important issues that need to be addressed now. I want an Administration that is focused on the problems of the country, not the artificial drama of what is going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I have seen Sen Obama twice in person, he is charismatic, he doesn't have the crust of too many years inside the beltway. I will support him later today in the Democratic Primary. And I hope that all voters listen and feel inspired by his message and ideas.
Posted by: Rick | January 08, 2008 at 02:33 AM
As an independent voter, I am an admirer and supporter of Hillary Clinton. Although I also see positive attributes in both John Edwards and Obama, and along with many others, hope for a change, I feel that Hillary Clinton has the intellect, the insight, and the experience to bring about that change. In the NH debates, I felt that Hillary had the best answers, showing knowledge about the many issues that are important to our country and world. One questioner remarked about Hillary not being able to get through the health plan that she wanted to get through as a First Lady. However, I don't consider that a failure. I consider that a learning experience that will help her to formulate an even better plan that is likely to succeed in the next effort. She has done an excellent job as a senator in New York, and has worked well with members of the Republican party there as well That's because she truly wants our country to be a better place.
Posted by: Sarah Boelter | January 08, 2008 at 08:13 AM
So many of these comments are too well composed - and in the same tone and diction that makes it look like the same person composed it. I think we're seeing plants by the Hillary campaign.
(Not just them)
Posted by: Paul | January 08, 2008 at 02:02 PM