.
January 3rd, 2008
05:45 PM ET

A 3rd place finish for Clinton?

ALT TEXT

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Remember when all we heard from Hillary Clinton was, "When I am the president… when I am elected president… etc.? Funny how things change. Don't hear that from her so much anymore. These days it's more like, "If I am the nominee…"

Ever since Hillary Clinton was asked if she favored giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens, she's been struggling.

And it couldn't be more obvious to anyone who is paying attention. Quick… Get mom and the kid out on the campaign trail. Try to convince the voters I'm all warm and fuzzy instead of the cold calculating political machine many of them think I am.

Is it working? We'll know if it's working in Iowa in a few hours. But going into tonight's caucuses, Hillary is nowhere near the juggernaut and presumed nominee she once was. In fact, one major national poll now suggests Clinton could finish third in the Hawkeye state behind Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Granted losing Iowa isn't like losing California, but consider this. Momentum's a funny thing. Have it and you can do no wrong. Lose it and you can lose everything. Hillary still has the lead in some New Hampshire polls, but Barack Obama is now leading in others. New Hampshire votes next Tuesday. That's where that momentum thing comes in. And what if she doesn't just lose in Iowa. What if she finishes worse than second, behind both Obama and Edwards?

Here’s my question to you: What would a third place finish in Iowa mean for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Jon writes:
If Hillary Clinton comes in third place in Iowa, she is finished. You may put a fork in her because her goose would be cooked. She has brought this upon herself though. She’s the one that used the strategy of running as the presumptive nominee with an aura of inevitability. This strategy has made her expectations so high that if she comes in third it will be considered a very major loss.

Joshua writes:
Well, as you stated, Clinton has already begun to lose the air of invincibility in this campaign. A 3rd place finish in Iowa, coupled with her frigid demeanor at times, and she will mostly likely be in hot water. She plays "old school" politics regardless of how much she talks about not being included in the "boys’ club", and simply put Iowa is integral in that system.

Carlos from Phoenix, Arizona writes:
Hillary lives to fight another day. A loss in Iowa does not represent the end; it's the beginning of several contests where she can continue to prove that she's ready on Day One.

Annelis writes:
A third place finish for Hillary tonight will mean the voters of Iowa (much like those in the rest of the country) were able to see through the Clinton machine’s rhetoric and games and resoundingly said “NOT AGAIN.”

Nate writes:
A third place finish is not a death blow to the Hillary campaign, but the nations eyes will soon turn to the N.H. primary. Should Hillary place behind Obama in New Hampshire after a third place finish in Iowa, she will probably not be able to recover.

Terry from Chandler, Arizona writes:

What would a third place finish mean? Well, Jack, for one thing it will mean that those close to her had best be quite careful about what they say. I'm betting Hill has a bit of a temper. Husband Bill be on the receiving end of a tirade.


Filed under: Elections • Hillary Clinton • Primaries
soundoff (329 Responses)
  1. CD

    A third place finish for Clinton would be devastating for her campaign. If she finishes third, Barack Obama would likely win the nomination regardless of whether he is first or second since John Edwards has little support in the rest of the U.S. The Clinton campaign is relying on an aura of inevitability. For that to continue she has to at least place second in Iowa and then win New Hampshire.

    January 3, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  2. Terry OFlaherty

    Jack
    When all is said and done in Iowa, unfortunately Hillary will still be ahead in the polls. There is not much to choose from !

    January 3, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  3. David of Natchez

    I don't think she will be in 3rd place but, it would mean the voting system is broken.

    January 3, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  4. ginger

    A 3rd place in Iowa for Hillary would probably mean "dead in the water".
    The American people are really tired of the corporate prostitutes- all of them. We want our country back.

    January 3, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  5. CAROL FROM MAINE

    Dearest Jack:

    I realize that some popular political 'Issues' take precedence over others during this campaign season, but many of us, who actually believe the earth is older than 6,000years, and that the Bible is an historical, mythical tome, want to address some of the 'concerns' of those who literally believe every word written in it.

    Please ask your viewers to submit, in detail, every heterosexual marriage that has been destroyed because a gay couple was allowed to wed.

    You might want to sing along to a little ditty I penned, to the tune of 'Camptown Races (doo-da).'

    "You cannot pray the gay away; homosexuals are born that way! Oh, doo da day!"

    Sexual orientation is determined in utero. Ignorance is a choice!

    I have tons of other topics; , about Medicinal marijuana being packaged for the sick who need it, and water pipes included so the acrid smoke won't sear their lungs.

    After all, we are not forced to grow our own mold if given a prescription for penicillin!

    Talk later, Big Guy! You're the only reason I actually enjoy watching 'Situation Room.' But then, it's been snowing in Maine, and we haven't lost power, yet!

    January 3, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  6. andyk

    Jack, do you seriously think that for someone of Hillary Clinton's talent anything would thwart her march forward? Iowa failure is not a critical path issue for her. Put it behind her and go for the next one, and the next one.......She is a fighter afterall and has the experience.

    January 3, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  7. Don p.

    It may mean that the sovereignty of the USA is held intact ie: no amnesty for "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS"!

    January 3, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  8. Reid Graham

    It means the citizens of America really do want change, plus New York State will again have two senators. It means Bill can play more golf and we as citizens can only hope that a good man or woman wins Iowa has too much influence on the election of a President. O

    January 3, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  9. Rich, McKinney Texas

    Hillary Clinton will declare victory in Iowa no mater which place she comes in. She always claims success and is just as delusional as Bill Clinton when he denied on public television about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. The Clinton's do not care what kind of attention they get negative, positive or otherwise as long as the Media are talking Clinton. They are legends in their own minds and honestly believe they can do no wrong, even in failure.

    January 3, 2008 at 2:53 pm |
  10. Tim Thames

    I guess it would mean that America has decided on who the nominee will be for the Democratic party. The way CNN has hyped the Iowa caucases it make s one wonder why any other State would bother to have a primary. Iowa rules and we will all eat corn dogs. If Clinton has the audacity after Iowa has spoken to even run in eccentric New Hampshire she might as well not think about whistling Dixie because it will already be over for her. I just hope Iowa gets it right for both parties because according to the news media they are the deciders.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  11. W B in Las Vegas

    I means she will have to learn to LIE more effectively.

    for all her talk about "change", she is the candidate of the Wall Street Weasels and Corporate Quislings who are poring money into her campaign. they know that if elected she would do NOTHING to derail their gravy train. any of the Republicans vs Hillary would mean that the voters would have the choice of Republican or "Republican Lite" (just like her hubby) in November. anyone with half a brain think the would REALLY do anything about unfair trade (remember, her hubby gave us NAFTA)? really fight for universal healthcare insurance at a reasonable cost, IF it was to hurt drug company, HMO or health insurance industry profits? you think she would take on the oil company gougers? I don't THINK so!!!

    John Edwards is the ONLY one of the top three that would really FIGHT for American workers.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  12. Scott

    nothing now that the other candidates have asked their people to poll for obama
    Feb. 5th will send both parties to there conventions undecided. that will tell them all were fed up with thier bickering, we the people.
    bowling green, mo.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  13. Daniel

    We could only hope that it means that she will not be our next president, I am tired of hearing President Bush and President Clinton....we need new people with a new way of thinking running this once great country called the United States Of America, not the same old with a different face and a worse set of policies!

    January 3, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  14. Ed

    It could help her campaign. She could get discouraged and talk less. Everytime she says universal health care I cringe and think of the department of motor vehicles.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  15. Patricia

    How Sen. Clinton finishes in Iowa doesn't really matter. What really matters is how she tries to change her campaign in South Carolina & Florida...

    January 3, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  16. suzie from atlanta, GA

    Probably not much. If anything it might get her supporters in NH and the other states to come out in droves.
    She has the money to keep on going for the duration, she has the experience to know that a caucus is not the end of the road for her, since Bill came in 4th when he first ran, and and she has the name to still be viable in other states.
    Frankly, I don't think Polls mean too much in this case, since the real deciding factor will be the turnout. If the college kids come back to caucus then it will help Obama. If not, then he will not be 1st, or maybe not even 2nd. If the older voters come out, then it helps everyone else BUT Obama.
    But the real question is who will come in 4th, 5th and 6th. I am curious to see how Dodd and Biden do. If either one of them come in ahead of 3rd place or at 3rd place then all bets are off. Frankly, I would love to see that happen. I will give all of you something else to "predict".

    January 3, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  17. Ron K - San Diegp

    Hi Jack:

    If Mrs. Clinton came in third, it wouldn't mean much. It is a close race with no clear front runners. It is too early to say.

    Ron K.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  18. Bill Williamson

    For Hillary to come in 3rd would be a body blow. The momentum she's been trying to build for over a year would come to a screeching halt and shift immediately to Obama and Edwards, and she would have to make an enormous effort just to get back to the perception she had 2 months ago that she was the front runner. She's the kind of person you have respect for but just know that having dinner with her would be awkward and the conversation stilted because her mind is really elsewhere.. certainly not on you. That makes it easy to shift your alliances to someone you DO feel you could be comfortable with over dinner or just in a short conversation.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  19. Azprint

    Ain't gonna happen, Jack, ain't gonna happen.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:49 pm |
  20. Melonie Franklin

    Well Jack,
    I am a small town girl.i grew up in a town called Lancaster. It is about 20 minutes south of Dallas,TX. I have learned one thing about presidential elections and that is that no matter who isrunning for president you have a choice of either a douche or a turd. you have to choose the best of the worst. no president in history has ever lived up to what they say. the only president i had any respect for was JFK. he was a good president. i will never vote again. i will probably move to canada if Hilary Clinton is elected. we are not ready for a woman president. i wish she would come to Lancaster so i can ask her what she is going to do about the way the country has become. i doubt she will because Texas is a republican state. thank you for your time. have a wonderful 2008.
    melonie franklin!

    January 3, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  21. Larry from MO.

    Jack,
    This would be a devastating blow to the Clinton campaign. It would mean all the money spent, all the negative adds, all the negative rhetoric, all the experience??,
    all the flip flopping and all the endorsements would have failed to make her a front runner. Even Bill Clinton working overtime would have failed to dazzle the crowd.

    January 3, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  22. Tom Bulger

    These campaigns are all about marketing or selling a person to the voters. Presentation of the product is key. Presenting Hillary as the inescapable choice of America was a sales gimmick that should be kept to used car lots. It is not a tactic honorable people should use in a democracy. It is a question of respecting the process. I bet she wasn't even comfortable with it and was sold the technique by the campaign pros.

    January 3, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  23. ken

    Jack; It would mean that the people understand that all we can expect from her is the same old song and dance!! She has enough money and feels she has the right to be president so she won't let that set her back . Besides, who ever gets the nomination in either party nothing is going to change. The only way to change things is to shake up the system and elect an independent. Democrats refuse to hold individuals to account and republicans feel that corporations are above the law. Any democrat is going to push for amnesty for illegals,and any republican is going to push the bush policy in the middle east, so we need a independent that will stop the warmongering and deceit , but also end illegal immigration without giving amnesty to anyone that broke our laws. The constitution should set the parameters of our government not the other way around!!!!

    January 3, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  24. Thomas, SC

    It would be about as insignificant as a Huckabee win in Iowa. Clinton's huge national lead isn't going to evaporate overnight because of a 3rd place finish in Iowa, and Huckabee's chances nationally won't be any less laughable if he pulls off a win.

    January 3, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  25. Ron Brackman

    Love your show Jack, but what are you saying? Hilary Clinton in 3rd place? Put into prospective, it would be like the Giants being down 21-0 to Tampa after the first quarter this Sunday...not a chance big guy!

    January 3, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  26. Jenny from New York

    It would mean she lost the biggest advantage she had-the air of inevitability.

    January 3, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  27. Bert

    Clinton lost luster because of her continued support for The Religious Reich's war. She deserves nothing better than third place.

    January 3, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
  28. Karen

    Wasn't she encouraged to skip Iowa as she wouldn't do well? Now she's tied and this is represented as a bad thing. For those who feel the candidates don't represent them, it isn't the policitians with the problem. Look in the mirror. Don't like the media coverage? Look in the mirror. It isn't the candidates that are petty and spewing hate, it's you. Stop repeating what the pundits say and representing it as your own ideas. Go look up a voting record, research positions. Here's a thought, read some books and develop your own thoughts regarding foreign and domestic policy instead of making a decision on who to vote for based on 30 second clips from cable news. In other words.. get a life. Sorry Jack, I don't care about your opinion of those running either.

    January 3, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
  29. Sarv

    Jack,

    This will mean that people no longer can be pleased the way politician talk. They know how much she is involved with the big fish pharmaceuticals, and health care/insurance providers. A REAL CHANGE will not be there if she goes to the white house.

    January 3, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
  30. jim

    Com'on folks, there are a heck of a lot of states that make up the union. How can the media & the pollsters get so hung up on the reaction of one state? I thought a horse race wasn't over until they crossed the finish line...

    January 3, 2008 at 4:59 pm |
  31. Dennis in Gwinn, MI

    She'll probably go back to OZ and melt like her sister.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:12 pm |
  32. Rich, McKinney Texas

    Hillary Clinton, by trying to be something to everyone ends up being nothing to anyone. In her six years as senator she has done nothing but attempt to position herself for the presidency and now she is about to blow that.
    Just goes to show you that sometimes the dragon wins. Kudo's to the Dragon. Burp

    January 3, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  33. Ruby Coria

    Jack, I don't think it makes a differance, she will win every where else, we all do get to vote at some time right?..we the people will get to speak to not just (what do the call them selfs? FOLKS ) those folks in no mans land.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  34. jeanette rechtenbach

    Jack, in answer to your question, I am sincerely hoping that Hillary won't be around after the caucus.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
  35. Dolores Ward

    Hey Jack, Iowa is only one state. Sure Hillary would like to come in first or second, but as we all know, the Clintons don't quit. If Iowa decided it all, then we should just forget about all of the other primaries and just let Iowa tell us who is going to be President. I for one, would like to cast a vote too. I think Iowa is as important as any state but not more important. Lets give this primary process a chance to work in ALL states for ALL Americans.

    Also, if Hillary is so unlikable, then why is she the most admired woman in the world. You can't have it both ways.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:30 pm |
  36. Ron

    I don't beleive it will even break her stride. She'll fight till the end.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:42 pm |
  37. Alex

    A third place finish for Clinton is worst case scenario, and Obama clearly would be the man to beat, and would swing his momentum into NH and probably SC. The one wild card that's not being mentioned here is Edwards. A second place finish in Iowa for Edwards could, though a slight possibility, move him to be competitive in NH, maybe even past Clinton, and then Hillary would really be in trouble. You'll see independents come in and vote for Obama, and Edwards will be blown out of the water. But I wouldn't be shocked if Obama takes on Edwards as a VP choice over Clinton. I think though that if Clinton somehow wins the nomination, which is starting to look bleak, she would probably take Obama as her running mate. Apparently "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doesn't resonate well with everyone in politics.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:42 pm |
  38. Josh (MI)

    Do you hear that screech, Jack? That's the momentum train changing conductors.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:46 pm |
  39. Jacob Wilson in IW

    Jack, I meant reporting by other agencies. CNN is being the most thorough out of all of the News Networks. Much love; keep it up.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:57 pm |
  40. Ken KS

    Hillary is too well an oiled machine. She has organization, money and the backing of both ordinary citizens who believe her baloney and Corporate America who funds her because that's who they want if the DEMS take the White House. Whether she places third, second or wins in Iowa is irrelevant. A loss in Iowa won't even be an equivalent to a knockdown. Unfortunately, she'll most likely go all the way, unless she underestimates Edwards, who is in a dead heat with her, though he is outspent by 6 to 1. Interesting for sure.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:58 pm |
  41. Sean Jin, Oregon

    Hillary Clinton's lust for power and control will not stop at a third place finish in Iowa. She has the money and the ambition to keep going, and if asked about her third place finish, will reference 2004 how Howard Dean had a running start but fell behind to John Kerry later.

    January 3, 2008 at 5:58 pm |
  42. A J

    The rest of the United States doesn't care what
    people in Iowa think. Iowans are just a bunch
    of arrogant hicks who have no clue what's going
    on in the real world.

    ======================================

    According to Lewis Carroll, The Iowa Caucus is
    just a bunch of Dodos.

    Lewis Carroll mocked the complexity of caucuses in Chapter 3,
    "A Caucus-Race and a Long Tale," of Alice in Wonderland.

    After handing out prizes to others, Alice receives a thimble
    from a Dodo as her prize from the caucus race.

    I guess Hillary will get her thimble tomorrow.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:00 pm |
  43. A J

    The rest of the United States doesn’t care what
    people in Iowa think. Iowans are just a bunch
    of arrogant hicks who have no clue what’s going
    on in the real world.

    According to Lewis Carroll, The Iowa Caucus is
    just a bunch of Dodos.

    Lewis Carroll mocked the complexity of caucuses in Chapter 3,
    “A Caucus-Race and a Long Tale,” of Alice in Wonderland.

    After handing out prizes to others, Alice receives a thimble
    from a Dodo as her prize from the caucus race.

    I guess Hillary will get her thimble tomorrow.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
  44. Jordan, Cedar Rapids - IA

    There are people who are scoffing at the idea of Hillary in third place, they simply assume that if she doesn't take first, she'll take second behind Obama. What supporters in both those camps outside of Iowa fail to understand is that at caucus, we get a second chance if our first choice doesn't make it.

    Edwards has the overwhelming support when it comes to being the 2nd choice for many supporters of lower tier candidates in Iowa. So while the counts might have Edwards in 3rd place after the first round, watch for the groundswell of support when those who find their first choice is not viable, start heading to the Edwards camp.

    Consider that along with the massive momentum Edwards has built which is peaking at just the right time, and all of a sudden Edwards taking it all over the front runners doesn't sound so crazy.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:02 pm |
  45. Ross

    Jack if she is 4th it means people have good memories of her Bush votes in support of war on Iraq and want to go to war in Iran.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:02 pm |
  46. Rich, McKinney Texas

    Caucus once shame on you, Caucus twice shame on me, Hillary a president? That, we will never see.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:04 pm |
  47. tom

    what's the value of the Iowa caucuses?

    January 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm |
  48. Abrar

    A third place for Hillary will just make things harder for her campaign. I saw your historical mapping of Iowa Winner and Party Nomination, and according to that its quite rare for Democratic Pary Nomination to go to a candidate who lost in Iowa.

    But I think the previous Clinton also faced a similar hickup in star but went ahead to win the nomination....... so its not all that bad!! There would still be hope in the Hillary campaign.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:08 pm |
  49. Matt Bondy

    Jack
    Hillary place 3rd..Not A chance! I am from Windsor Ontario Canada and I know and feel that a lot of us Canadian's would like to see a woman president (Hillary Clinton) She is very experienced at what she's done and has does for so many... the family has been in the house and has ran it before! I also think that all the bad stuff that happend in the Clinton Family should be put behind like everyone else's problems. Let it be! It's done and over with Time to move on! Go Hillary! She will have no prob placing 1st!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:10 pm |
  50. Kent

    That we will see alot more Bill than Hillary...

    January 3, 2008 at 6:11 pm |
  51. Martin

    That is a bogus question, we know she is the most experienced to lead this nation and she will win. Full stop

    January 3, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  52. Frank

    If Hillary finishes 3rd place it will show that all that "hot air " is in her campaign, not The Great Lou Dobbs.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  53. Ian J. Heuer

    Clinton sucks everyone should like Ron Paul.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  54. Taylor

    If Hillary finishes 3rd in Iowa then she is DONE, that would give Obama and Edwards way to much momentum, especially sense both of them are gaining ground on Clinton in a lot of key states. Iowa will be interesting!!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  55. Jason from New Jersey

    If Hillary finishes in third, her campaign isn't dead, but it will be struggling. What would be more destructive to her campaign is if one person wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and gets the other "non-Hillary" major candidate to drop out and support him. Then her campaign will be an afterthought.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  56. jose

    You don't know, Jack! Why do you keep saying she was a "juggernaut" when she was polling in third place in Iowa months ago? Obama is from a neighboring state and John Edwards never left after the 2004 loss! I think Iowa's importance is overstated in this race. The real deal will come down on Super Tuesday – the de facto national primary.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  57. Tomas

    Its strange that a 3rd place finish for a candidate like Hillary means a tremendous loss of momentum and could cost her any chance of nomination. While a 3rd place finish for a candidate like Ron Paul would be such a tremendous gain of momentum it could actually launch him.

    Why is 3rd place so bad? Its relative to where you started I guess.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  58. Bill Crandall

    Poof !

    January 3, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  59. Nicholas Mudd

    I can tell you what it will mean Jack. It will mean bye bye to the Bush-Clinton monarchy that has drove this country into the ground the past 27+ years.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  60. Mike Eaden, Decatur Ga.

    That Americans might not want a possible 28 years of Clintons and Bushes.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  61. Kate

    If Hillary can't win this presidential race, given her credentials, strong record in the Senate, and generally acceptable Democratic stances, I fear I will not live to see a female president. I am 27.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  62. MPinSC

    A loss in Iowa does not hamper Hillary much at all. Republicans and Independents are not going to choose our Democratic nominee – DEMOCRATS are. And Democrats love Hillary, especially Democratic women, no matter how often the boys club media tries to tell us we don't.

    On to Super Tuesday, ladies!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  63. Linda Arden, Stamford CT

    It would mean that progressive womenof all ages have finally come to their senses!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  64. Amanda

    I think that a third place result in Iowa would mean that Hillary is less electable than the two candidates who finished above her.

    I think it would also reflect the history of our nation where equal rights among races have come faster than equal rights among genders.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  65. Jon

    If Hillary Clinton comes in third place in Iowa, she is finished. You may put a fork in her because her goose would be cooked. She has brought this upon herself though. It is her that used the strategy of running as the presumptive nominee with an aura of inevitability. This strategy has made her expectations so high that if she comes in third it will be considered a very major loss.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  66. Joshua

    Well as you stated Clinton has already begun to lose the air of invincibility in this campaign. A 3rd place finish in Iowa coupled with her frigid demeanor at times and she will mostly likely be in hot water. She plays "old school" politics regardless of how much she talks about not being included in the "boy's club", and simply put Iowa is integral in that system.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  67. S.C.U

    I don't believe she will come in less than second place but even if it does happen, I still believe she will be the democratic nominee.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  68. Duany gurl

    A third place finish means the race moves on to NH....then more white rural folks get to vote, then it moves on to a state near you....she has a national campaign, this is just the beginning. I hope she goes all the way!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  69. Joe

    If Clinton took third in Iowa, it wouldn't be the end, but it would be pretty close. Look at Howard Dean in 2004. He lost all momentum, and it was the end for him. Also, it would probably be a sure shot the rest of the way for Obama. He has more money and more support in other states.

    John Edwards is a sitting duck. Just like it was in his 2004 campaign. If he takes 2nd, good for him. However, it probably won't be enough to overtake Obama, just like it wasn't enough to overtake Kerry.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  70. John Nowlan

    Toast.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  71. Mary from Decatur, GA

    I shouldn't mean a thing. Since before 1972 (the earliest I could find on the internet) no Democrat who has won the Iowa caucus has gone on to become President unless they were an incumbent.

    The Iowa Caucuses have become a media ratings event that doesn't have much relevance for the rest of the country – or at least to those of us who are truly informed.

    Hillary Clinton is the best Democratic candidate and time will tell on February 5.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  72. Matt White

    Hilary says shes not playing the female sexism card but even so it still affects the voters decision drastically. So many Voters dont even look into her beliefs or her backround but blindly vote for her regardless. I dont think shes a good candidate, she talks like she has experience but in her time as a senator she didnt get much accomplished. Im a democrat and this election is a tough desision for me but its obvious to me hilary is not right for america.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  73. Troy Hawkins

    Clinton deserves to loose! Her answers during the Logo debate on gay and lesbian issues were unacceptable! It's because of her husband we are having to fight this ridiculous Defense of Marriage Act. She refuses to acknowledge her husband threw us under the bus. She wants to waste time defending his record instead of saying, "I'm sorry we did you wrong please let me make up for it". Obama isn't much better. He refuses to acknowledge that the discrimination gays and lesbians face would be just as bad as the segregated south. The only difference is that you can't tell sexuality by skin color. Edwards has got it right. He's not perfect but at least he acknowledges the way gays and lesbians are being treated is wrong.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  74. Abdi Osman

    The American people might not be fully aware of it, but they are not only voting for the next president of the United States, but also the closest thing to the world's president. Hilary is viewed as the best candidate throughout the world, so anything but a first place finish might leave us a bit downhearted.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  75. Annelise

    A third place finish for Hillary tonight will mean the voters of Iowa (much like those in the rest of the country) were able to see through the Clinton machine rhetoric and games and resoundingly said NOT AGAIN.

    Considering the fact that the Clinton campaign is supposedly already preparing their spin for a loss as due to Iowa being inhospitable to her, it's not surprising Iowans will speak out loud and clear against her. (What will her excuse be in NH, NV, SC and all the other states?)

    January 3, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  76. Franco

    If Hillary comes in 3rd, look out for the bloodbath that will be unleashed by the DLC types, towards the other candidates. Hillary only cares about Hillary, if she loses she wouldn't think twice about dragging the whole Democratic party over the cliff with her. Look out

    Franco
    Ft. lauderdale

    January 3, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  77. rich

    hill is just another bush waititng to happen if they push her ahead now,as soon as she get elected she will be another i am right and the american public dont know president

    January 3, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  78. Tom T.

    If Hillary Clinton finds herself in third place in Iowa, The Clinton Camp will announce that it is due to another "right wing conspiracy" against the royal Clintons. Iowans are smart enough to know that Americans do not owe the Clintons anything.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  79. Kevin

    A third place showing shows she's not quite the change candidate. She would lose New Hampshire and South Carolina for sure. I wonder if this third place talk is a strategic move by her campaign because they expect to finish second...that way she could "exceed expectations" at second place. Let's be real. If she finishes second, she has failed.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  80. Tony Elswick

    Hopefully she does lose, I'm done with the Clinton/Bush government. Go Obama! As far as Republicans, Ron Paul is going to take it and the media as well as the rest of the GOP is going to get scared.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  81. Garry Gooldy

    Jack You seem to forget that on the same debate Obama said that he would give Illegals Licenses. You seem to want to attack Hillary because she was ahead, Why don't you just tell the facts! Stop spinning everything like Karl Rove and the rest of your idols.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  82. LINDA SHEVLIN

    If Hillary finishes third, you can gloat and smirk. Your hate & venom on your news (News?) program has worked. Yay! You are a success. But our poor country will lose again.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  83. Art

    Jack,

    A third place finish for Clinton means that America will be looking for someone else as the Democratic "experience" candidate. I believe someone like Biden, Richardson, or Dodd will all of a sudden emerge as the "alternative experience candidate", and possibly surge to win the nomination.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  84. Anne

    Get over it Jack, you must hate women leaders. Clinton is going to win everyone already knows this except you and the media... what a surprise you bought the talking points of the Republican controlled media.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  85. Nick Cavallo

    Hopefully, wherever she places, it will be the end of her and her abnoxious campaign. Don't bet that NH will be any better for her either way. Tomorrow, all the pundits will be talking about a totally different set of "electable" candidates, per media standards anyway.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  86. JOHN FEDAKO

    To a good politician it will mean nothing. She and Bill will explain to the American voters why it was the best thing that happened. Why everything she is proposing now, she and Bill never did. And Americans will believe her.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  87. Zee

    I think finishing third will hurt Mrs. Clinton, but its irrelevant because Mr. Obama will win the democratic nominee. He is the best candidate, and maybe Mrs. Clinton can be Vice President (if she is lucky).

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  88. Thomas Davie

    If Hillary Clinton finished third in Iowa (with presumably Obama first and Edwards second), it would not end her spirations to become the Demcoractic nominee, but it would give her opponents more momentum heading into New Hampshire. And *that* is the important one. If Hillary loses there as well as in Iowa, her campaign will be spiraling downwards heading into South Carolina. Stll not over, but perhaps approaching the ropes.

    God, I woulsn't have this being competed any other way.

    Thomas Davie

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  89. Nate A

    A third place finish is not a death blow to the Hillary campaign, but the nations eyes will soon turn to the NH primary. Should Hillary place behind Obama in New Hampshire after a third place finish in Iowa, she will probably not be able to recover.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  90. LeeAnn

    It will only be of siginificance if the media blow it out of proportion. Seems the media is only saying negative things about her – even this question you ask about her is essentially negative. When she is ahead in the polls – nothing is said then she "falls behind" and its like shes out. She is a strong candidate and should be treatly fairly.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  91. Debbie

    It ain't so bad, heck Bill Clinton came in third with only had 2% in 92' and look what happened to him. Beside, maybe all those massive number of minorities in Iowa just won't show up!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  92. Tom from Hamilton, NJ

    She will be more done than a burnt piece of toast.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  93. Candace Tulacz

    If Hillary ends up with a third place finish, I think it will add fuel to her fire to fight harder for the nomination in NH and then SC. She won't go down without a fighting try. I personally support Barack Obama, but Hillary just isn't the giving up type.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  94. Kenneth

    3rd for Hillary means the wheels are OFF the bus! Its funny how the inevitable nominee has changed her tune to say she doesn't need to win Iowa. Since when? She has changed her tune all through this campaign. Obama first spoke of change, then she started talking about it. Every time he raises an issue that resonates with voters she steals it for her own. The Clinton train has derailed.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  95. Dolores Ward

    Jack, I just heard you pose the question about Hillary coming in 3rd. I believe there are 9 candidates and it is obvious that you would like for her to come in 10th. You are suppose to be impartial but it is obvious and has been since the beginning that you just plain DON'T LIKE HILLARY. That is your option, but in your position you should be a little more unbiased. I would swear, if I didn't watch CNN almost all day, everyday, that sometimes when you get on, I would think I was watching the Unfair and Unbiased FOX NEWS. That is beneath you Jack. Be fair to all candidates whether they are your choice or not. There are certainly candidates that I don't like but I believe they should all have a fair chance and let the voters make the decision and it won't JUST be the Iowa voters. As far as I am concerned, CNN has been Hillarys worse enemy.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  96. Laurie, Southampton, NY

    Hi Jack,

    I don't think it would be the end of the world if Hillary finishes third tonight. Let's try not to buy into too much this "momentum" thing. If we want campaigns based on the issues, it would be good if you guys could keep trying to distinguish what separates the candidates on the issues, and not so much on who has "momentum." As we know the country is influenced by that. If Hillary comes in third tonight, that just means she's not for Iowa. There's 49 more States left.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  97. JS

    If Hillary comes in third in Iowa then it means that the Midwestern Democrats may have actually smartened up and are looking to nominate someone with an actual chance to win the presidency. Hillary is the equivalent of electoral kryptonite to Democrats like me down here in the South and her nomination will only serve to drain the will of mainstream Democrats to vote in the general election.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  98. Justin, NC

    Well, Jack, I think the outcome is obvious. With the Clinton political machine, anything is possible. As a Hillary supporter, I'm confident she'll pull through with wins in New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and California. As far as I'm concerned, Iowa doesn't adequately represent the values of the American people on the whole. If Hillary loses in Iowa tonight, it'll certainly give Obama's campaign a little boost of energy. Ultimately, though, I think New Hampshire is the ticket.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  99. Gary

    Jack – A third place for Hillary would mean we might see her playing more to her base (liberal Christians, gays, minorities, etc.). She has huge guns in the arsenal that she hasn't even tapped!

    Gary
    Chicago

    January 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  100. Dean, Pittsburgh PA

    Jack, a third place finish for Hillary will mean the same as a first and second for Obama and Edwards. It will mean the Democratic Primary has become an actual election, instead of an appointment.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  101. Rob Carraher Lincoln, NE

    Although, I find it hard to believe that she would finish 3rd, I do believe that it would be detrimental to her campaign. She already is in a tight race in New Hampshire and if she can't pull off a top 2 finish in Iowa, that probably won't bode well with New Hampshire democratic voters. If this is the case, the momentum will likely move toward Barack Obama. If she would go down 0-2, that just might finish her off.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  102. Mike

    Jack,

    It would mean nothing. Bill Clinton finished 4th (if you count "uncommitted") in 1992 and we still had to deal with his shenanigans as President. Hillary will be the Democratic nominee, which is great news for Republicans in 2008.

    Mike (Texas)

    January 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  103. amos

    I think a third place finish would be devastating for the clinton campaign. Having had so much momentum and confidence in the beginning, her campaign would be badly hurt. But then again, it is a clinton we're talking about, for all we know she might randomly finish first.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  104. Eric

    Personally Jack, I don't see such event occurring. But, should Clinton come in 3rd behind both Obama and Edwards, it would be a clear message to Americans that we are not ready for an aristocracy to arise in our country. GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Hillary Clinton, who's next, Jeb? As well, it would be astonishing to see Clinton finish between 3rd or 4th with someone such as Biden or Richardson ahead of her.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  105. Robert

    Sen. Clinton has wide support throughout the country. If the Democratic race comes down to Obama and Clinton, more people will begin wondering what kind of change is Obama offering and what are his chances of achieving it? With Hillary, we know she can deliver on what she's promising.
    The race won't be decided until February 5, when large states weigh in.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  106. Gabe Polson

    A third place finish for Hillary Clinton would simply mean a third place finish. She is the only candidate with the national strategy. She is actually the only candidate,according to most political pundits, strong enough to lose the first couple of contests and still win the nomination. Not a single pundit has used the words "must win" for Hillary in Iowa.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  107. Ranaldo

    If Clinton finishes 3rd in Iowa, her back is against the wall! If, between Obama and Edwards, one finishes first in Iowa and the other finishes first in New Hampshire, she could conceivable bounce back to capture the nomination. But if either Obama or Edwards finishes first in both Iowa and New Hampshire, their momentum may be unstoppable and Clinton would be done.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  108. Mary McDavid

    I do not understand why so many political pundits are against Hillary. She can do nothing right and even the positive is spinned by pundits like you as negatives. I do not know if I will support Clinton or Obama in the Missouri primary but I detest the biased commentary on Clinton.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  109. Amadu Toure

    Jack
    If Hillary finishes 3rd in Iowa this means the end of the Clintons hope until Chelse is ready to run for the White House. Now Hillary knows running for president is not won because your name is Clinton, but to show and describe what you have done, and what you will be doing when you are a the NOMINEE not the next PRESIDENT.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  110. Al from Georgia

    Jack, I am wondering just how Hillary got this far? She has NO experience. She won't get her husband to release scheduling records or any records for that matter until 2012? Maybe these records would show Monica spent more time with her husband than she did.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  111. Elmer

    Hillary finishing 3rd in Iowa means little to her campaign, as she averages 21 points ahead of Obama in many states and nationally. Her next firewall is new hampshire where she is leading by 16 pts over Obama in the latest poll. The bet is that Feb 5 will guarantee her nomination win. On the other hand, if she wins tonight, obama and edwards will be history.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  112. Tucker H.

    Jack

    A bronze medal for Clinton will be the coup d'etat that Obama is looking for. It's no surprise that people like voting for someone who's already winning, and the Iowa polls are going to be all over CNN. I think Clinton burned out too early with her revolutionary rhetoric, and being third place will put the nail in the coffin regarding her campaign.

    Or maybe it just means Edwards isn't a pushover! We'll find out soon.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  113. D Ramsey

    It would mean the beginning of the end of Bush, Clinton, Bush domination of politics...and thank God for it. It also means Hil is no Bill. Bill was a great president. For most democrats like myself, Hil is no Bill. Obama has taped into issue that is important to many democrats. Experience is not the trump quality. Judgement is more important than experience. Perhaps, Hillary will now learn something new. You can not play the center of politics without voters seeing you as a bible verse would say as "neither hot nor cold."

    January 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  114. Jon

    If Clinton finishes 3rd in Iowa, she must win in NH to continue in the race.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  115. Terry Sprague from Westbrook Maine

    Remember that scandalous Obama scoop that the Clinton campaign was poised to release a while ago, but then denied having any such information? If Hillary finishes third in Iowa, she will turn negative so quickly it will make your head spin. And that Obama scandal that supposedly didn't exist? It will mysteriously materialize. Things will get ugly. Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy ride. But will the people of New Hampshire have the stomach for a bitterly negative campaign? We have five days to find out.

    -Terry Sprague
    Westbrook, Maine

    January 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  116. Hod Sanders

    Jack,

    Who the hell cares what Iowa thinks? Are Iowans supposed to be able to look these candidates in the eye for a few months and tell the rest of the country which ones are telling the truth? Didn't anyone ever see The Music Man? Iowa fell hook, line and sinker for that guy and he even seduced a virginal librarian in the process. In short, no it doesn't matter.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  117. Jose Sanchez

    I don't believe that it will be devastating. Remember, losing Iowa didn't kill Bill Clinton campaign as he eventually won the nomination.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  118. Daniel

    Jack jack jack are you kidding me? She woudn't take any defeat sitting down..Why blow publicity after all isnt there another election chance in 4 years? Hey, Jack maybe she’s counting on a predecessor bungle-up..After all she’s gotten close to messing this one up. Shes lucky your not running Jack

    January 3, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  119. Michelle

    It won't be a fatal blow if Clinton finishes third in Iowa. Wasn't she originally supposed to skip Iowa all together? IF Edwards, Clinton and Obama will all finish close to one another, there will be no decisive "winner," or "loser" except in terms of the expectation games created by the media.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  120. Marvin

    If Hillary finishes third in IA, it might indicate that the majority of Iowans think she's cute but probably the antichrist.

    (reference to what one of your reporters said earlier today on-air about a pair of women commenting on John Edwards)

    January 3, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  121. l berglund

    Be careful you biases don't show!!!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  122. Nick B.

    Jack, a 3rd-place finish by Hillary Clinton at the Iowa Caucuses would ruin any chance she currently has at making a run for the democratic nomination. When someone is an early frontrunner in an election and they fall once, they are considered to be running a losing campaign, and they lose momentum and votes in other parts of the country. This is exactly what happened to Howard Dean in 2004 with his 3rd-place finish, and the same will happen to Clinton if she, too, places third at the caucuces.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  123. David

    If she finishes third? She will finish third, if she is lucky or cheating second. As an elitest you can't get away with lie after lie to the American people without getting caught. There is just too much exposer today. Nothing could be more applicable today than the holding the opinion "The truth will set you free". I think everyone agrees we need an honest leader that has the American peoples interest in mind this time, unlike the presidents last 20+ years.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  124. MaryAnne Greyerbiehl

    Jack your ego is showing. In your comments tonight it was so obvious that you do not want a woman to win. I thought news reporting was suppose be just that and not campaigning for ones favorite. Neutral is the word. Shame on you. mag

    January 3, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  125. Kevin in Alabama

    Jack, I think it's clear that Barack Obama, the continually rising star, and John Edwards, the dark horse, will relentlessly exploit a Clinton third-place finish. I, and many young people across America, truly believe that a third-place finish for Hillary will cripple her campaign and officially dethrone the reigning frontrunner in the Democratic race. More importantly, we don't mind at all. Increasingly, a Clinton run is seen by more pragmatic liberals as the weakest of the three possibilities. If Hillary can't pull in enough undecided votes in Iowa, a state she heavily led in throughout this campaign, to place first or second, what's to say she'll get enough independent voters to pick her in the general contest?

    January 3, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  126. Jessica

    A third place finish would prove that the youth are actually getting out to caucus. I'm an 18-year-old Obama supporter in Iowa, and I've yet to be polled.

    She very well may have both money and ambition, but she doesn't have the youth support. We hate her. Several underdog GOP candidates are more appetizing to young democrats than she is. She has the senior citizen vote, but unlike all of them, we're actually capable of getting out to the caucuses.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  127. Bettina

    Although third place would be hugely disappointg to the Hillary Clinton Campaign, the Iowa Caucus is just the first step (finally) in the 2008 Race. Hillary's campaign has been strong and successful to date. She has consistently topped polls nationwide. Hillary is valuable to the Democratic Party (to both women and men) around the nation, to improving the current failing system. I must note her success is a first for women in America - and I am confident her success will continue to gain momentum after 8:00 PM tonight, first or third.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  128. Kenneth Mabuchi

    I think you're all nuts.
    Iowa and New Hampshire have a total population of 4.6-million people, which would almost be enough to fill a suburb of Los Angeles, New York or Dallas.

    From this population, only about a hundred thousand, white, christians will make the decision about choosing the next president of , 300-million Americans.

    That's crazy by itself. But for the whole nation to accept this nonsense is true insanity.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  129. Mike from Jackson, NJ

    Iowa is important but it isn't the campaign make or breaker many make it out to be. Win Iowa or come in third, Hillary Clinton will ultimately prevail. And that's a very good thing for this country!! My hope is that rather than being lead by what the media says, Americans take their right to vote seriously and do the research needed to responsibly select our nation's next president.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  130. Robert

    Hillary Clinton wasn't expected to compete and be able to win in Iowa. The fact that she is in a statistical tie with Edwards and Obama is astounding, and is a sign of the strength of her campaign despite being outspent by Obama. She'll be fine, however after playing all his cards in Iowa and the media hype an Obama loss would equal game over for him.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  131. Sarah

    A 3rd place for Hillary might not kick her out of the contest, but maybe deflate her ego. She obviously has had many high points in this campaign season and we cannot instantly rule her out because of one single caucus, but this will make her realize that she has more competition. As John Edwards commented earlier in your broadcast, his sudden spike in support has not had to do with money; This would be a wake up call for Hillary that money is not always the benefactor, but it still would not end her presidential hopes.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  132. Lauren from Hamilton, NJ

    A third place finish for Hillary will certainly be encouraging for the other candidates, but they won't be able to take anything for granted in the Granite State. Clinton will fight back in New Hampshire.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  133. Warren Kreiser

    I hope a third place finish for Queen Hillary will mean the end of her once and for all ! Warren R. Kreiser

    January 3, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  134. Daniel in KY

    Jack jack jack are you kidding me? She woudn’t take any defeat sitting down..Why blow publicity after all isnt there another election chance in 4 years? Hey, Jack maybe she’s counting on a predecessor bungle-up..After all she’s gotten close to messing this one up. Shes lucky your not running Jack

    January 3, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  135. Philip (Chicago)

    Even with a third place finish, Sen. Clinton will not retire from the race until it is absolutely clear that she is NOT a viable national choice for the Dems; I don't think a third place finish in Iowa will cause that. A loss in Iowa and NH may, though.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  136. owl06

    Wishful thinking on your part. She is made of strong stuff, and you are afraid of facing her in the general.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  137. Arleen

    Well, Jack, it means Hillary will move on to the other 49 states! Why Americans have allowed one of the least populated states to determine who will be the choice for the rest of the states in the Presidential election is beyond me! Thank god for Super Tuesday and Wild Wednesday and any other day when any state other than Iowa will have an opportunity to exercise their right to choose, er, vote. Iowa results will not change my vote for Hillary – I'll just wait my turn to be a part of history.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  138. Matt

    Hillary still has the name recognition and reputation (for better or worse) to remain relevant. In 30 years, people will remember that Hillary Clinton campaigned in '08 – I doubt the same could be said of almost any of the other candidates unless they become the nominee. A third place finish would sting, but most people have decided already how they feel about her – Iowa or not.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  139. Lisa

    Iowa is not the final deciders. I really don't know why the media has made them the end all to the election. Hilary is a fighter and no matter what place she comes in tonight she is more qualified then the other candidates and will kick butt in the long run. I am really tired of your personal opinions getting in the way of good candidates and a very long election process.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  140. Mark Herrera

    If Hillary loses Iowa and New Hampshire, David will have taken down Goliath. And Goliath didn't get back up.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  141. Gary

    A third place win for Clinton would be a terrible setback for the Demacratic Party . If Obama was to win the nomination it would assure another four years for the Republicans. This country has too many rich white people who will never let a black man be president , never mind the red necks, and the clan."" They would pull out all their forces to stop him.He is a nice man but they would rip him too shreds.Opra or no Opra. If Clinton doesn;t win we better pray for Edwards.""

    January 3, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  142. Belinda Baker

    I think the country will be very pleasantly surprised with the outcome of the Iowa Caucus tonight. The only hope of America…Ron Paul in 2008 will become a front-runner, and Dr. Paul will hold the light of America in his hands.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  143. Ted, Florida

    Jack– A 3rd place for Hillary in Iowa would only mean that all the SMART voters came to Florida to avoid the frozen tundra.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  144. Ben

    Oh, Jack, if Hillary finishes third i will be just happy. All she does is talk critize and laugh i am tired of it. I will throw a party if she finishes third or below. I hope she finishes third so i can get my party on.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  145. Doug

    I hate to disappoint you Jack, but the "cold calculating political machine" is going to be the next President. (Wouldn't it be great if reporters reported facts that weren't tainted by their personal opinion?)

    2nd and 3rd place are the same.... she'll play it to her advantage. It will make her look like she had to earn it. 1st place and Obama and Edwards can go home.

    Honestly, anyone that picks a President based on "authenticity" is hilarious. Thats like Bush saying he looked into Putin's heart and could just tell he was a good guy. Try picking a President like you'd pick a lawyer or a doctor. Get the best there is, and thats it.

    Hilary will do the best job, starting on day one, hands down.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  146. Ted Kalal

    Remember when Hillary had three names, "Hilary Rodam Clinton"?

    Now she's Hilary Clinton.

    How come?

    January 3, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  147. William Hryb

    ...Hillary Clinton has shot her self in the proverbial foot... preaching the "when I'm president" dictum to the "if I'm president" has given savvy sophisticated voters especially in Iowa, a chance to smell 'blood'. Iowans hate inconsistency... ask them about the 'ups and downs' of grain prices !!!

    ... like frenzied sharks they'll eat her up... what a blunder ! Where was Bill ?

    William Hryb
    Thunder Bay, Canada

    January 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  148. Luis

    Jack,
    if it happens, a 3rd place finish in Iowa will not trigger Hillary's campaign to hit the panic button. It would mean big momentum for Obama and/or Edwards but, remember, Hillary can still tap into the power of Bill Clinton's campaigning prowess. If her camp does it right and is not too timid to use him, she could come back from any disappointment in the primaries.

    It's fascinating, so I'll just sit and watch what happens tonight. Right now, it looks like a toss-up anyway.

    Luis.
    Minneapolis, MN.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  149. Diane Woods

    Well, she might be in deep doo doo as a former president might have put it. She may be able to recover but then again she might not be able to do so. She'll be in a lot better shape if she finishes at least 2nd. Personally , since I'm a Jim Hightower progressive and a TX yellow dog Democrat I prefer Edwards. I hope that he suprises everyone.

    Diane, Houston TX

    January 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  150. Danny Speagle

    Hillary in 3rd would be a good dose of humility for her.

    Ironic how her argument of opponents' electability made me wonder about her. Ironic because this is why I changed my vote from Clinton to Obama.

    Careful what you wish for, I suppose.

    Danny Speagle
    Denver, CO

    January 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  151. lisa p

    Jack, If you think that you can assume that you know how this Iowa primary caucus is going to shake out, you are way off!!! Hillary Clinton will always have my (and others) votes because not all voters are swayed by commentators like yourself and others!!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  152. Vimal

    What would a third place finish in Iowa mean for Hillary? Nothing! As her husband would be quick to point out, he only won 2.8% of the caucus vote in 1992. Look how things turned out for him. A loss in Iowa would just be a sequel to Bill performance in 1992. It would be just "The Comeback Kid Part II".

    January 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  153. John in Honolulu, HI

    Jack, I think Hillary will just put all of her machinery into New Hampshire, her last stand if ever she lose in Iowa very poorly on Tuesday, now if she wins New Hampshire, she's the "Comeback Lady", now if she still finishes there still poorly, she should just think about a run for the Democratic Vice Presidential nomination. Come on - reality check, Jack, I think she will not be on the distant third in Iowa.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  154. bonnie horchen

    if Hillary has a 3rd place finish, you newscasters will be delighted. only Tim Russer sounds impartial. The newspeople determine who wins by the way they report 'news'

    January 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  155. Robert

    Jack,
    Hopefully it means that American's have finally woken up and have done something about "say anything to get elected politicians". I hope Barack Obama and Ron Paul win Iowa and that would motivate all of us that have been on the sidelines of American Politics.

    Robert O
    Fort Lauderdale, FL

    January 3, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  156. Kathie

    Jack:

    Clinton will win New Hampshire and the majority of states on Feb. 5th because she is the candidate with real experience contrary to the Obama who has virtually NO foreign policy experience and little domestic policy experience since he's only been a Senator for

    January 3, 2008 at 6:25 pm |
  157. Sally

    Jack – you are so transparent! Your anger about Hillary reflects your fear about a woman president – and one who is intelligent and powerful. Shame on you. Men haven't gotten it right yet –
    Maybe if you could get beyond your fear and anger you could give e more unbiased report on these excting elections!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:26 pm |
  158. iThink

    As it comes down to the wire in Iowa, Jack has decided to take a cheap shot at Hillary Clinton, not to be outdone by all the daily cheap shots Chris Matthews on a rival news network delights in taking. What are so many of you middle-aged white guys afraid of by having a woman President? You two populist pundits just can't stand the thought of it, can you? If you don't like her positions, just say so. But quit attacking her just to be insulting. Of COURSE she has been taking the posture of "when I am President." That's the way it's always been done by the several hundred white males who have run for POTUS before her. Find something more substantive to attack the woman for. Otherwise you and Matthews just sound like ill-mannered good old boys.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:26 pm |
  159. Matthew

    A third place finish for Clinton would suggest that the Clinton-Bush dynasty is approaching its end, and that the people of Iowa, like the rest of America, are hungry for real change, and not the same old story in Washington. Hopefully it will mean that more inspiring candidates like Richardson have a shot at ascendancy, and Obama at continued success.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:26 pm |
  160. art

    Jack, you are such an outright misogynist pig! Anytime you can; you take a potshot at Hillary.... and how low to do this on the night of the caucuses... how blatant and shameful... There is no factual data that you offered to even back up this claim or supposition of 3rd place... it's actually amusing when searching through the CNN site the pole results clearly show Hillary at the top of the list. I hope Hillary wins, and in the face of putting up with a no policy weak president like Bush, it would be a refreshing change to see Hillary come out and win the Democratic nomination. You are old and tired and way too cynical and i repeat a misogynist... I am amazed at the clear bias against Hillary. If she is a cold calculating political machine... it will be more than you as a man could ever dream of being... You are a second even third rate reporter that should go back to wpix but then the show improved grately without your sour puss on the air each night... i only hope CNN will make another sweep and get all you old men off the air... you take a hopeful democratic process and make it into sour milk... shame on you!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:27 pm |
  161. Roland Madore, Fort Collins, CO

    "How do you spell relief?" I'd be relieved if Hilliary Clinton comes in third in tonight's Iowa Caucuses because I want Obam to win and win big. The Clintons are old news; whereas, Obama represents a new brand of politics that brings all Americans along if they want onboard. Obama inspires a new generation like JFK did for his.

    Hillary Clinton is too manipulative, phony, and passe. Many Americans are tired of the negative politics of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty of the past. Hilliary Clinton represents the old "busines as usual of the past." It's time to make a break and really turn the page with Barack Obama, a 21st century leader for the world.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:28 pm |
  162. Adrian

    Why Ask us jack, You and wolf should ask your bosses. The media works there magic once again. How much air time and reporting about the candidates running for office, fair and balance you think? kucinish kept out of debates? Is Ron paul running for a third party? 20 min of debate time for one candidate and 5 min for another during a debate. I thought you guys learned the last time with the Dean scream, guess not.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:28 pm |
  163. Maxime Jean-Louis

    Hillary in 3rd place! Guest what the democrats would lose the November elections again.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:28 pm |
  164. Lecia

    Are you a journalist? When did swaying opinions rather than reporting the news become your job. You say things like this on air and it's like a campaign pitch against Hillary. Hillary is a poised, intellectual, well-informed and well-spoken leader. Just because she doesn't sound like some boy next door, does not make her unlikeable or insincere. On the contrary, she sounds like a leader, not like some guy off the street trying to convince you that he is like you or is your best friend, like the other candidates are trying to do.

    She understands the issues and knows the difference between what is real and can be accomplished versus what is not, and that is what she is pitching. It is unfortunate that some people are not intelligent or informed enough to be able to see this and to see where she is coming from.

    I think it's highly unlikely that she will come in third, even though you, and other television personalities like you, are trying your damnedest to disway people from voting for her. If that were to happen, she would just move on and win in New Hampshire and would then regain the momentum that she needs.

    She is, by far, the best presidential candidate out there, and WILL make an outstanding president. And I can't wait to see the positive change that she will bring to our country.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  165. Dan in Charlotte

    I live in North Carolina where my primary is so late that my vote won't matter in who becomes the nominee, I believe Senator Clinton is the most qualified to become President from the first day. I will vote for whichever Democrat is nominated. I personally hope it's Senator Clinton. The former President as First Gentleman or perhaps as a Supreme Court Justice would be a great thing for the country also. It seems to me that at least six Democratic candidates are head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates. They seem to be either Bush LIght or Bush Heavy. We can't drink that stuff again

    January 3, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  166. Linda B

    You've got to be kidding. 10% of Iowa's population actually goes to caucuses. So you think 150,000 people can tell the 320 MILLION people in this country how to vote? Get real! Iowa has a grand total of 4 delegates to give. That's absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. Don't forget that on Feb. 5th, the real fat lady sings. And it ain't Iowa!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  167. Cheryl

    Hillary's placement after tonight's caucus will have no bearing on whether she gets the nomination. It's a long, long way to the DNC.

    Also, I can't believe that sexism is still so rampid in this country. Well, actually I can. This quote from another blogger "Hillary Clinton’s lust for power and control..." actually made me laugh. As if every other candidate running doesn't have a lust for power and control. Of course, that's ok though. They're men.

    Women, the chance finally exists that one of us may run our own country. A country where more than half of us are female, yet females still only earn about 76 cents for every dollar earned by men. Finally. There is a lot hinging on this election. Think of your daughters. Although you probably never do – think of YOURSELF. We need to all get out and vote! (Regardless of Jack Cafferty's well timed nay-saying – less than two hours before the caucus closes. Nice, Jack.)

    January 3, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  168. Al from NH

    If Hill comes in third (or worse), some staffers may see a side of her that only Bill has seen. Yes, that side.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  169. Les Townsend

    What would a third place finish in Iowa mean for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign?

    Nothing Jack, because Hillary Clinton is by far the best presidential candidate in 08.

    Les

    Huntsville, Alabama

    January 3, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  170. Jon from Washington, D.C.

    A third place finish for Hillary Clinton would mean that the "heat" is broken. Unfortunately for her, it won't be an easy fix...

    January 3, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  171. dianna, ormond beach,fl.

    You are a moron. This is the best you could come up with?

    January 3, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
  172. Kathie

    Rest of my message:

    2 years. Obama espouses a simplistic message of "change" (which polls well with Democrats) without giving tangible examples of what changes he would make.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
  173. James Chicago, IL

    It would be a disater for the campaign, but not impossible to come back from. I personally think her foreign policy is just as awful as the republican "front runners" such as Huckabee, Romney and Guiliani and would challenge everyone to try to refute Ron Paul's foreign policy using ANY evidence in history to do so.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:30 pm |
  174. Sharon Campbell

    Jack, a third place finish will mean she competed in a state she didn't have to, and didn't win. I think it says more about her work ethic and responsibility gene than it does about anything else. That's why I want her to be my president- she goes all out. She has heart. She's not a machine, no matter how often you repeat it. Many candidates want the JOB of president. Hillary wants to DO THE JOB of president. There's a difference.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:31 pm |
  175. Bill in California

    what it says is the one thing none of these "change candidates" have the courage to say ... democrat or republican ... after 20 years of gridlock and partisan politics the country is yearning for a president whose name is NOT Clinton or Bush ...

    January 3, 2008 at 6:32 pm |
  176. Pamela

    I am so sick of you Hillary Hating media guys I could puke. Iowa is necessary for Obama & Edwards, it is not I repeat not a do or die situation for Hillary. Frankly I think it was wrong to let you in the media sucker her into thinking was all that important. She was never suppose to win Iowa. She started out in the single digits.
    Who you need to be focused on instead of Hillary is Edwards. This guy has been in Iowa since Jesus was a baby & he is in a 3 way race????????? Come on Jack, why are so guys so threatened by Hillary? Give it a rest, find somebody else to pimp slap on, somebody like oh I don't know maybe your golden baby Obama.

    Never has a women been so vilified & dumped on than Hillary Clinton & when someone asks you idiots to give them specifics as to why the hating you sit & look stupid.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:33 pm |
  177. Alice

    Your networks campaign to try to influence the outcome of the Iowa caucas is sad, and transparent. Hillary Clinton is 20 points ahead nationally, and in no way is finished regardless of what place she takes in Iowa. Why your network and you are trying terribly to push Obama as the winner before the caucas is even held is the question. Clinton is ahead in many polls leading up to the election, yet you attempt to focus on only the Register's poll. That poll was questionable to say the least and picked apart flaw by flaw by many but accepted word for word by you. Your lack of critical analysis in this election reflects poorly on you, and your partisanship is evident. When Hillary wins the presidency I hope she kicks your ass. I think that's what you are afraid of. If Obama wins, then we can once again thank the press for pushing yet again an inexperienced, inept candidate into the presidency. Thanks for Bush by the way.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:33 pm |
  178. Gordon Cole

    3rd place (or worse) for Clinton would mean the media chose the wrong candidate to promote with their precious air time. Here's a novel idea, give all candidates equal air time instead of having corporate sponsorship push their candidate down our throats.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:33 pm |
  179. John from Greenwich, CT

    Good Riddance!!!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:33 pm |
  180. Sebrina

    Senator Clinton is quite resilient; therefore, placing 3rd in the Iowa Caucus is not a serious threat to her. Hopefully, that will not happen. If it does, it will serve to bring out the best in her.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:33 pm |
  181. Richard

    Dear Jack:
    Third place finish for Hillary? She'd be dead. It would not be because she she did not gain experience by osmosis, it would be because she did not get a download of the 'experience' from Bill when he came home after a hard day at the office. Remember Monica and Jennifer shared those downloads too. Maybe they would like to run on their 'experience.'

    January 3, 2008 at 6:34 pm |
  182. Sledge

    Jees Jack,

    The way you put it one would assume that Hillary has no chance at all to win the Iowa caucus. Talk about unfair media coverage.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:35 pm |
  183. Janet from New Jersey

    If past caucus results are an indication of how the candidates do in their party, then the person who wins the caucus will surely Not be the winner of their party nomination. So I hope Hillary does not win. So much for all this hype with Iowa.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:36 pm |
  184. Brenda Cassell

    Jack, you're trying to make a "what if" story.....Ask the people of New York State about Hillary Clinton as a Senator....She is overwhelmingly supported....She's smart...she has the experience.....Third or Fourth is not going to make this Woman Quit.....She's in this race for the full ride.....I support her.....I know in my gut that She is the only person that can turn this country around.....

    January 3, 2008 at 6:36 pm |
  185. Sandra Atkins

    A third place finish for Mrs. Clinton wouldn't surprise me. She is neither likeable nor experienced, but rather is one of the most ambitious and ruthless politicians of our time. Moving beyond the extreme partisanship of the Clinton/Bush years is what this country needs if we are to focus on the serious issues facing our nation.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:36 pm |
  186. Leslie in La Crescenta

    As someone who is still undecided between Clinton and Obama (and I'll bet there are many voters in the same boat), I'd be willing to bet the farm that a third place finish will send Clinton's numbers south faster than a duck in winter as undecideds jump to the winning ship.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:36 pm |
  187. TheInsider

    The winner will only be 2,075 delegates short of the nomination, and only 2 candidates have enough money to run the TV based campaign that will be after NH, so all the emphasis on the repercussions of placement in Iowa is pretty silly.

    If Obama wins without carrying the majority of democrats, the win will be seen as being less than decisive. If Edwards finishes less than 10 points behind, he'll be able to declare victory because of the massive expenditures of the top 2.

    If Clinton wins, that's all she wrote. Unless someone suffers a Dean-like collapse (He was almost THIRTY points behind Kerry) they'll all be able to spin their finishes into, "victory", and depending on the leanings of the, "journalist", so will Big Media.

    So, unless the winner CRUSHES the others, it's all been, "Much ado..." in the Frozen Fields...

    January 3, 2008 at 6:37 pm |
  188. Bill Ross

    Jack,
    To think that 150,000 caucus participants should not be allowed to determine who has the momentum and who does not.This is another reason for our country to throw out the current primary system and have all the primarys on one day. Haven't we heard enough from all of the candidates to make our own decisions? Are Iowans really that much smarter than the rest of us? If Senator Clinton finishes 3rd it will simply mean that she is less popular than 2 others at this moment in Iowa.
    Bill
    Georgia

    January 3, 2008 at 6:39 pm |
  189. Jeff

    Jack,

    If Hillary takes 3rd in Iowa I think that frontrunner Ron Paul will have a more difficult time upsetting Obama in the General Election.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:39 pm |
  190. Jared

    What would a third place finish in Iowa mean for Hillary's campaign? The end I of it hope....

    January 3, 2008 at 6:39 pm |
  191. Tyrone

    Jack, in answer to your question. I really don't believe Bill Clinton will take lightly Hillary losing in Iowa (3rd place showing). Bill will in no way allow her to derail his bit for a third term as president. Bill Clinton will find some way of insuring that Hillary will become the new come back kid.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:39 pm |
  192. LVPAM

    Hi Jack,
    This is my first time responding to one of your questions even though I watch you all the time!!!

    So Here's what I think it means if Hillary comes in 3rd. SO WHAT!!!
    She will still win the Democratic nomination. There have been alot of candidates who have won in Iowa and lost the nomination (John Kerry and Gary Hart). At the end of the day she will still win in NH, NV and the states that participate in Super Tuesday.

    Pam

    Las Vegas, NV

    January 3, 2008 at 6:39 pm |
  193. Jon from Washington, D.C.

    A defeat for Hillary would be a defeat for the corrupt everywhere.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:39 pm |
  194. Linda Potter

    Jack: Are you trying to influence the Iowa caucus at this late date? You should be ashamed of yourself! About the time I think you are an O.K. journalist you ask a biased question like this. Linda Austin

    January 3, 2008 at 6:40 pm |
  195. xena

    What would it mean if Hillary came in third place?

    I think you would be perfectly qualified to answer that, Jack. Seeing that you are a third rate reporter.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:40 pm |
  196. Linda Troxler

    Hillary could win even if she gets third place–Bill did.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:40 pm |
  197. Eugene L. Fahngon

    Jack, Hillary started with experience as her weapon. Barrack continued with the torch of change. Now that it is clear that we desire nothing less than change, Hillary can continue her coporate journey in third or tenth place. This election is all about change.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:41 pm |
  198. Richard Litten

    If Hillary Clinton finishes 3rd in Iowa, stick a fork in her campaign – it is DONE!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:41 pm |
  199. Donald, Butte Montana

    The results of the Iowa caucuses are over-rated and I'm tired of hearing about it there and in NH.

    I thinks its pretty damn bad that what, less than .006% of voters in this country could jump-start or destroy a viable candidates' status. There is nothing about this caucus that should be taken seriously, and what's worse, is the restricitons placed on those participating in it.

    BEWARE IOWANS!!!! Because of the disappropriate emphasis placed on th outcome onf your caucusing tonight you may be handing the Republicans a lock on the White House in the general election.

    Obama might be rising in your polls, but he is unelectable!!!!

    Sure, Clinton may not be the best of all, but come on, ALL the candidates have their negatives!!!! But, only Clinton has proven her electability over any Republican nominees.

    Go ahead and give the nod to Obama, but be prepared to hand the White House back over to more of same we've had for the past seven years. I can't foresee another 4-8 years of this country weathering another idiot like Bush - McCain, Romney or Huckabee.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:42 pm |
  200. chris

    now.. dems increasingly support hillary.. independents and republicans obama.. now.. what primary is hillary and obama running in?

    iowa is important for pundits like you but for a hillary supporter like me, its merely noise!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:43 pm |
  201. Anonymous

    Of course she won't finish first. The Iowa polls can't be rigged!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:43 pm |
  202. A.J. from Windsor

    As strong a candidate as Hilary is, a 3rd place finish will be very bad news to her campaign. Much time, money, and effort has been spent in Iowa so far. No matter what happens in Iowa tonight, it will reshape things next week in New Hampshire where a close race is also being fought. Howard Dean went from front runner to almost back of the pack in 2004 because of a similar situation.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:44 pm |
  203. Landon G

    She has more money than support, and she knows it. 3rd place will just unleash the inner demon, and you’ll see attack ads until your retina is burned out. It will be pure fun until New Hampshire. Time to switch to Canadian cable and avoid all her sad and pointless ad attempts to be something she’s not.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:46 pm |
  204. L. Thomas

    Hopefully, a third place finish for Mrs. Clinton means she is out. I simply will not vote for her even though I am a woman. She has no idea what problems the average middle class family are facing. I do not want illegal immigrants to get amnesty; certainly no driver's licenses. I do not believe in socialized health care. There are other ways to make sure lower income families can get health care. I want our troops home, but not an immediate pullout that leaves Iraq in total chaos. I certainly do not want her husband running things again!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:47 pm |
  205. Brenda Cassell

    I do not get Hillary Clinton as Cold, Calculating, ruthless....What has she done??? I get Ambitious, Smart, Strategist, Global Thinker......I think people who use very negative, judgemental terms can never be specific about her....they just hate....it's almost a sickness......Go Hillary!!!!!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:48 pm |
  206. Duane Maddy

    I watched Fox News for years. After they excluded Ron Paul from the debate, I switched to CNN. I can't believe it took me this long to discover how much I LOVE CNN!
    I really enjoy watching you and Blitzer. You guys make a lot of sense and give everyone a fair view. Your reporting is phenominal on this election.

    Thank you.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:48 pm |
  207. Brian

    A third place finish for Hillary would mean the public has not swallowed the artificial lure she has been using for the past year. The media has cast it time and again for her but the smart ones just will not bite.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:48 pm |
  208. Carlos in Los Angeles

    Jack,

    A third place finish in Iowa means nothing to Hillary Clinton, she will fight on all the way to California. I can't believe that this has come down to a popularity contest. In California, we care about the issues not about who is more likeable. If this is what it comes down too, then America deserves what is coming. I think California need's to detach it's self from the union. You are right, it's getting even uglier out there. Love the show.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:48 pm |
  209. linda

    If she finishes 3rd, .... she will have been truly vetted.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:50 pm |
  210. Jerry

    Jack:

    If Hillary comes in third it will be thanks to the media who hates her and bill. The likes of Mathews and others who want a better story to tell or just hates them. The media hatred is overwhelming and yet nobody in the media is talking about it. Why? Seems only CNN is willing to give her a fair shake and god knows if the Dems can find a way to screw up the election they will do it...modern history is the proof. Can you say Carter? Obama – Carter. Same result?

    January 3, 2008 at 6:51 pm |
  211. Jim Watson

    What would a third place finish in Iowa mean for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign?

    She would not be the best Democrat nominee in the General Election. She crystallizes too much oposition among Republicans and Independents. The Democrats need a candidate who will draw many votes from those groups.

    Obama is a Lincolnesk candidate. He's tall and lanky. He's from simple origins.
    He's from Illinois and he's from the Illinois Legislature. Much is said about experience. Lincoln didn't have a lot of experience, either. I'd rather have someone with common sense and vision than someone with a lot of experience that will follow the same old paths with the same old results or lead us to oblivion.

    Let's look up!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:51 pm |
  212. Richard Walden

    If Hill is 3rd in Iowa and if then she loses New Hampshire and South Carolina she may go "poof". She needs at least 1 of the 3 states and then gets to the safety of Super Tuesday where she wins big in NY and California and gets the nod. Unhappily, she appears vindictive towards Obama and Edwards and won't likely put either one on the Ticket, preferring hacks like ex Gov Tom Vilsack (D-IO)a or Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

    January 3, 2008 at 6:52 pm |
  213. Dave

    Jack, if Hillary comes in third it will be good. She thinks she is the front runner but in my case Barrack Obama is. She spends so much time on telling how bad her opponents are and less time on what she is willing to do. if she comes in third she might think and do something right.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:53 pm |
  214. Samuel

    Jack
    Don't under estimate the lady. I am really impressed how she handled herself. For someone who has treated badly by the corporate media the entire campaign. I think she will survive and win the nomination..

    January 3, 2008 at 6:53 pm |
  215. Rob

    Who cares what 8% of the hicks from a hick state like Iowa think. Having them make these decisions has given us memorable candidates like John Kerry. I'm personally tired in having these little states, like Iowa and New Hampshire, selecting the national candidates. There a bigger issues that affect all Americans, this is like the electoral college in reverese

    January 3, 2008 at 6:53 pm |
  216. Citizen Kate

    Hillary is a tough lady, the toughest, the smartest and least likely to quit.

    If she finishes third, she moves forward with her campaign. Her machine has been putting itself together since I was a baby.

    She moves forward because she can.

    Citizen Kate

    January 3, 2008 at 6:54 pm |
  217. Lecia

    I just love how you proved my comments exactly right. Not a single woman's comments and all derogatory e-mails were read.

    That is just really sad.

    January 3, 2008 at 6:56 pm |
  218. LeeAnn

    Even the responses you read from this blog on TV were all negative but one and the opinions here are not that skewed. TV Jounalism should be impartial!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:57 pm |
  219. Cathy Norem

    I don't think a 3rd place finish would mean the end of Hillary's campaign. I think she needs to listen more intently to the "little guy" whose busting his butt to earn a lilving in these hard times of high gas prices, high food prices, sub standard medical care, etc. I, myself, barely make it from one paycheck to the next. While so many of us in this country are struggling we see high profits and greed being enjoyed by corporations. This adminstration and Congress continue to do nothing.

    I think simply put, all the candiates just need to SHUT UP and LISTEN !!!!!!!!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:58 pm |
  220. Kathy LeBlanc

    Jack, I love you....even bought your book! But you've got to lay off of the hyper critical attitude toward Hillary. I'm OK with the criticism of Pres Bush. He's had 7 years of performance for us to watch and become sickened while doing so. He deserves the criticism. But Hillary's performance as a NY Senator has been applauded by New Yorkers, and I see her as a brilliant and strong potentially great leader. I've got to wonder if it isn't her strength that just doesn't "click" with many men. And it does seem like that's where the UNlikeability factor is most evident. Sorry, but I think your attitude is just wrong!
    Kathy
    Gainesville, FL

    January 3, 2008 at 6:58 pm |
  221. Lisa from Virginia

    IF she comes in third, it doesn't mean a thing. Iowa is an all-white, nearly all-rural state, scarcely reflective of the national electorate. Even if it were, only a minuscule fraction of the voters come out for the caucuses.

    I'd like to see pundits be more honest about what Iowa means... and by that, I mean you, too.

    The real lesson of Iowa is going to be that Romney can't win, no matter where he runs, no matter what he spends.

    January 3, 2008 at 7:07 pm |
  222. David P. Vernon

    Iowans are known for their common sense, fiscal conservatism, and liberal social policies. Winners in the caucuses are usually not the big spenders, nor the mud throwers, but the people who seem to be most able to respond to Iowans concerns, behave nicely, and have earned personal credibility in small public meetings. The "top" three Democrats are all Senators and ex-Senators, with not one whit of administrative experience among the three of them. Each of them, when asked what they would do, respond with what they will say, or propose to Congress. The highest ranking candidate with an actual program of executive actions to take promptly is Governor Richardson. He will withdraw troops from Iraq and instead convene a regional diplomatic effort to bring the parties together. He will take steps, concrete steps, using the powers of the Presidency and the procedures in the Constitution to change the face of the US government at home and abroad. Contrary to the assertion of Hillary Clinton, he, not she, is the candidate with the most relevant experience. Unlike Obama and Edwards, he is able to change not just the the speeches coming out of the White House, but the decisions coming out of there too. No more government by ideology – pragmatism will be the chief characteristic of a Richardson Presidency, as it has been of his Governorship. He will bring the only real change we need – competence based on experience in the White House! If the US is really lucky, Richardson will win in Iowa and New Hampshire, in Nevada and the rest of the west, then take the White House.

    January 3, 2008 at 7:11 pm |
  223. Mike

    The people of Iowa are very smart–they did not go for Bush in 2000. They won't go for Hillary in 2008. It is time for new blood and a progressive change in America. The Republicans are licking their chops for a chance to take on Hillary. They have a plan to make us re-live the personal fiascos of the Clinton administration. Clinton fatigue.
    Mike, Bloomington, In.

    January 3, 2008 at 7:18 pm |
  224. California voter

    If Hillary Clinton finishes 3rd in Iowa it means that she finished 3rd in a state that has about 150,000 voters in the Democratic primary. I think far too much significance is given to a very small number of voters, and I for one don't vote for someone based on "momentum" or media hype. Personally, I think Barack Obama has been given a free ride by much of the media and has not been challenged to go beyond his inspirational speeches.

    January 3, 2008 at 7:37 pm |
  225. Paul Ojeikere

    I have to agree with some posters that Iowa is not the end of the world for Hilary. Most political pundits see things from a rose colored specs, sometimes betraying their biased leanings on choice of candidates. You get the impression that most of you guys subconsciously try too hard to sway potential electorates to your own thinking.

    As an avid observer of American politics, I have to say she's the most electable democratic candidate currently. Obama is not ready now: may another 8 years would do the trick. And Edwards? I don't think he has a prayer.

    Paul Ojeikere
    Lagos, Nigeria

    January 3, 2008 at 7:39 pm |
  226. Dan Fiebiger (Pronounced "Feebeeger" first syl accent, long "e"s, hard "g" as in girl

    Whether they are rich to begin with, or raise a lot, from ANY source, the fact that money determines who gets saturation TV ads to manipulate voters eliminates all ethics from politics to begin with, so we're always left with only a choice between Nero and Caligula in the final vote.

    So no matter who we vote for, big business wins and the people lose, and that's the way it's been since elitist Alexander Hamilton fouded the Treasurey department skewed toward business and John Rockerfeller Sr. taught American big busines how to exploit that to their own benefit. 80 % of America knows this and so 80 % of America doesn't even bother to vote, making it easier for all the equally-corrupt candidates to get elected, which is just the way they want it, and millions of votes don't even get counted anyway.

    So no SUBSTANTIAL reforms will ever happen and TRUE democracy is dead in America. No POOR schlep with the right TOTALLY NEW ideas to re-start America as a TOTALLY NEW NON-CORRUPT COUNTRY has a chance as long as big money and big media controls who we get to vote on.

    I voted for political comic non-candidate Pat Paulson in my first election in 1968, and ever since, and he will continue to get my vote until we have a totally new NON-BIG-BUSINESS-CONTROLLED America to live in.

    It makes no difference what happens in Iowa or New hampshire or anywhere else, all the candidates are the same when money and media controls all of them.

    And I can tell from the looks on Jack's face that he believes in the same thing (as much as working at CNN ALLOWS him to believe it).

    Go GET 'em, Jack !

    Dan Fiebiger
    Portland, Oregon

    January 3, 2008 at 7:46 pm |
  227. Chris from California

    I don't think it means a lot in terms of her overall chances, as Iowa is a very small state with very little diversity – hardly representative of the real America in 2007 – more like 1957. And I don't think it will shake her either. She's a smart, tough lady. What I don't get is why Edwards just can't get more support. I think he's the best candidate. I also think Bill Richardson is very underrated – he was ambassador to the UN and has more foreign policy experience than almost all of the other candidates on both sides. What really counts is Super Tuesday when Ca and so many other states vote.

    January 3, 2008 at 7:57 pm |
  228. Victoria Francis

    Dear Jack and the Media,

    The simple fact that Iowa is so important means our primary system needs an extreme overhaul. I, as a Californian, am upset that the tiny state of Iowa is so important to the process that the Iowans have the ability to control the election process of the entire country.

    I believe, the media is mostly to blame for this situation. If Hillary Clinton comes in third then the media is also to be blamed for so many times creating a picture of her that is extreme and negative.

    However, if she comes in 3rd, I will work the harder for her campaign which up to this point, I have not done. Although a life long progressive Democrat, I was not a fan of the Clintons, but have in past few years become a strong supporter of Hillary.

    She has been a wonderful Senator and has voted more often than either Barrack
    Obama and Joe Biden have this year.

    The media has given Barrack free reign by not bringing up his weak points which he certainly has. This was the media behavior when George W. Bush ran as the Teflon candidate.

    Thank you

    January 3, 2008 at 8:07 pm |
  229. CJ Wausau Wi

    Jack;

    Some of us out here realize that we have to endure the proceedure even though we might question the candidates qualifications.

    History teaches us that the facts and the figures do not lie, but all to often, after the fact, it seems that too many of us come to realize that the liars know how to figure the facts.

    Just give us a candidate that will actually represent the American people.

    January 3, 2008 at 8:10 pm |
  230. john ryan

    never mind clinton Rudy is going to finish third or lower. As a fellow New Yorker i am tired of him using 9/11 in his ad's as a stepping stone.I think in iowa he will slip on that stone and break his neck (God Willing).

    January 3, 2008 at 8:10 pm |
  231. Victoria Francis

    Dear Jack and the Media,

    The simple fact that Iowa is so important means our primary system needs an extreme overhaul. I, as a Californian, am upset that the tiny state of Iowa is so important to the process that the Iowans have the ability to control the election process of the entire country.

    I believe, the media is mostly to blame for this situation. If Hillary Clinton comes in third then the media is also to be blamed for so many times creating a picture of her that is extreme and negative.

    The media has given Barrack free reign by not bringing up his weak points which he certainly has. This was the media behavior when George W. Bush ran as the Teflon candidate.

    Thank you

    January 3, 2008 at 8:11 pm |
  232. Seth in VT

    I think when it comes down to it America needs someone experienced and backed by our most recent credible leader to return us to international respectability and domestic sanity. First, second or third, Clinton seems the only logical choice. Of course we did elect Bush twice...

    January 3, 2008 at 9:02 pm |
  233. iThink

    I really am tired of Iowa and NH getting to pick the candidates we all can vote for weeks or months later. The fact that the top 3 candidates each got about a third of the vote speaks volumes. There are no winners and no losers in Iowa tonight for the top 3 Dems. It just shows the strength of the field! I, myself, can't decide which of the top 3 to vote for, I like them all so much.

    January 3, 2008 at 9:32 pm |
  234. Robert Dal Porto

    Earlier today, you told Wolf that if Edwards comes in 2nd, tomorrow the media will only talk about Obama being 1st and Clinton coming in 3rd (Edwards will be left out of the discussion).

    Don't you see that the media is shaping the choices We the People are limited to in the electoral process? We need the to get back to the old days of the media reporting the news, not making it!!!

    Let's see some change there at CNN (as well as the other media conglomerations) - it might eventually help us to get back to a true democracy of the people, rather than of those with money and power!!!

    Thanks for listening...

    January 3, 2008 at 9:53 pm |
  235. Hugh

    c'mon Jack and fess up.

    You lived in Iowa as an anchor.

    You know they are smarter, better educated, and about the least rascist state
    in the union.

    January 3, 2008 at 9:59 pm |
  236. Melissa

    Tell me something. Why is it that everybody in politics talks about "If I were President I would..." Would what? Lie more than you already have? Hilary talks about Health Care, John Edwards talks about Health Care. They all talk about Health Care. What Health Care!!!! Most Americans can't even afford health care to even know what it is. I'm a Republican myself but what does it matter if all Nominees Lie? Some say they will do away with abortion, gay marriage,will put prayer back in schools, and make sure that we have a better economy. They ask for donations during election campaigns, they make people believe that fianally, something will be done to actually make things better for lower class citizens. HA! We lower and middle class citizens are working our butts off, struggling to make ends meet and barely making it from pay check to pay check , wondering which bill we can let go to pay the other one. Why should we give our hard earned money that is used to support our families to someone who uses it for their own good instead of using it to help the American people. So what if Hilary Clinton comes in 3rd in Iowa! I could care less. I'm a woman, but I know where my place is in certain things and she has no business in politics alone, much less the presidential election. All the American people need is a good God fearing president who will actually be honest to the people for once. Economy my tail end. There are jobs leaving the United States left and right. Here in NC alone there aren't jobs to be found anywhere.Everywhere you look people are turning to drugs to make a living. It makes me sick to my stomach that a president or a presidential hopeful could stand there and say that they care about the american people when they know that all they care about is another dollar in their pockets. Tell me when they will actually care about anything other than themselves then I will cast my vote.

    January 3, 2008 at 10:00 pm |
  237. wly

    Well I put no small part in for the media in promoting Obama, way to sway those that have no vision. If Mr. Obama somehow through saying "are you fired up", wins the nomination; He will lose as the wimp posterboy for the Democratic party. I won't even bother to comment on the black issue which the media pretended did not exist. Us hicken states like Missouri will not vote for a black canidate. Not a slur but just the truth.

    January 3, 2008 at 10:03 pm |
  238. Dolores Ward

    Jack, you keep saying that Hillary always said "when I am your President" That is exactly what obama said. "When I am your President" "When I am your President, over and over...they all do that when they are running. Why do you not criticize him for saying what you are criticizing Hillary for. You are suppose to be impartial when you are in the media. but since you aren't, you could at least try to pretend to be. And as far as Barack HUSSEIN obama winning big in Iowa, I wouldn't say a 150+ votes is a landslide and like I said before, Iowa is only the first, not the last. Don't count Hillary out as much as you would like to.

    January 3, 2008 at 10:05 pm |
  239. Dolores Ward

    Right on Chris from California...Iowa is just the beginning, Not the final vote. Super Tuesday will be the big day....I am in AR now but lived in CA most of my life and I am sure Hillary will do great there and in a lot of the bigger states.

    January 3, 2008 at 10:10 pm |
  240. John

    A third place finish in Iowa doesn't mean anything definite for the Hillary campaign. What it means is no one has the race locked up. Anything could happen. This is going to be an exciting primary, and an exciting election.

    ...just as long as it doesn't get too negative.

    January 3, 2008 at 10:11 pm |
  241. tom provost

    I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW 37% OF THE VOTE IS A HUGE VICTORY WHEN IF YOU TURN IT AROUND THAT MEANS 63% OF THE VOTING PUBLIC DID NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. SO THAT IS NOT A CLEAR CUT VICTORY AND SO MUCH BEING SAID ABOUT IOWA BEING 97% WHITE AND VOTING FOR A BLACK MAN....THEY DIDNT....OVER 60 PERCENT DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM. RACE DOESNT MATTER AND IT NEVER SHOULD BUT PLEASE DONT TRY TO SKEW THE RESULTS LIKE OBAMA WAS THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS.

    January 3, 2008 at 10:12 pm |
  242. Jeffrey

    Hey Jack,

    I am an Independent with no loyalty to either the red or blue parties and I believe it is worth noting that over the past year comments about how Hillary Clinton from the CNN Political Democratic team consistantly described Hillary as the defacto Democratic Winner. All you have to do is run the tapes during the sit room and my point is clear. America is tired of the same old politics so how does Hillary Clinton fit in to American view of politics? We arejust sick and tired of the status quo and the voices of America sent a clear message tonight to all the canidates, "Give us change or get out!" Hillary still has plenty of time to change her message but I dont think America is ready for 12 years of Clinton's.

    Jeff

    January 3, 2008 at 10:24 pm |
  243. Ramona

    Political miracles that can give Hilary Clinton a victory in New Hampshire:

    1. Edwards drops out and endorses her.
    2. Al Gore jumps in the race and endorses her.
    3. Oprah Winfrey turns out to be a pathological liar and reveals that she is secretly a Republican.

    All considered, none of these possibilities seem to be happening in the next five days.

    January 3, 2008 at 10:32 pm |
  244. Slav

    Ms Clinton, talking about changes and surrounded by Madlen Albright, Wesley Clark and similar old loosers – there is something wrong there. I am not surprised she finished third.

    January 3, 2008 at 10:57 pm |
  245. John Krakowsi

    Jack...

    Let me be the last person on the planet to edit your brilliance but stating Rodham Clinton was speaking the "inevitable" when she states "When I am the President.." or such is just so, so wrong. Arrogance is the word to describe her language choice.

    I suggest the junior US Senator from New York proved this point during the Katie Couric interview where "not winning" was not in her frame of reference or thinking.
    Katie restated the question, I think, to give a second chance for a better answer.

    Perhaps the plane trip to New Hampshire will is a good time for her to reflect what really happened in Iowa this evening.

    Just my two sense from NY.

    January 3, 2008 at 11:04 pm |
  246. Ramona

    Not only is Hilary going to New Hampshire, she's going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and she's going to California and Texas and New York …

    And she's going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then she's going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeaaowh!!!

    January 3, 2008 at 11:19 pm |
  247. Chris Loveall

    This one's for Cafferty... Can we discuss how Iowans voted in the past and who won the Iowa Caucuses versus who actual won in Iowa and then went on to win their respective party's nomination? Iowa is not always the indicator of which candidates will survive the cycle and earn their party's nomination.

    Below is a list of previous Iowa Caucus winners vs. Actual Party Nominees... but what about historic elections of the past?

    1980
    Iowa: George Bush (R), Jimmy Carter (D)
    US: Ronald Reagan (R), Jimmy Carter (D)

    1984
    Iowa: Ronald Reagan (R) (no Republican Caucus), Walter Mondale (D)
    US: Ronald Reagan (R), Walter Mondale (D)

    1988
    Iowa: Bob Dole (R), Richard Gephardt (D)
    US: George Bush (R), Michael Dukakis (D)

    1992
    Iowa: George Bush (R) (no Republican Caucus), Tom Harkin (D)
    US: George Bush (R), Bill Clinton (D)

    1996
    Iowa: Bob Dole (R), Bill Clinton (D) (no Democratic Caucus)
    US: Bob Dole (R), Bill Clinton (D)

    2000
    Iowa: George W. Bush (R), Al Gore (D)
    US: George W. Bush (R), Al Gore (D)

    2004
    Iowa: George W. Bush (R) (no Republican Caucus), John Kerry (D)
    US: George W. Bush (R), John Kerry (D)

    January 3, 2008 at 11:33 pm |
  248. Tom

    Jack, nothing was going to surprise me tonite; but I'm still waiting for you to ask these candidates how they're going to pay for this engagement in Iraq. My grand daughter will be paying for their healthcare, I'm a 24 year Navy vet in the VA healthcare system. There is no excuse for these guys and gal not to tell us how they're going to pay for this. Love listening to you and miss you on Sat for " In the Money", your humor made that a great program....Tom Wegler, St Paul MN

    January 3, 2008 at 11:33 pm |
  249. Johnnie Carlisle

    if the democararted party think that white america will elected a one year black senetor you are sadly mistaking. if we want to win back the white house , Hilllary, Hillary , Hillary.

    January 3, 2008 at 11:36 pm |
  250. lena s

    Hillary needed a W in the worst way and tonight she just didnt get it. I live 30 miles from Hope Arkansas birthplace of Bill clinton and mike huckabee...............and im shocked that anyone would ever consider huckabee presidential material......i didnt like him as our states governer and i wouldnt like him for president so therefore John Edwards will get my vote............

    January 3, 2008 at 11:47 pm |
  251. Jim Jensen

    First of all, the Iowa caucus is not the final word on the Presidential election. However, what we seem to be seeing is that the voting public has deserted the "old guard" in both parties and are supporting new people who are promising them the mandate they made in the last election. The current members of Congress have not fulfilled that mandate and they have failed to do that at their peril. Besides a new President, we may also see a lot of new Senators and Representatives after the election in November. So far as King George and his abysmal foreign and domestic policies are concerned, the King is dead and long may he stay so.

    January 4, 2008 at 12:01 am |
  252. Marcus in Michigan

    So she became third but does it matter are vote don't it's the electoral college that elects them in office so all this hyped up media don't matter so you tell me when will people notice that and get a clue ?

    January 4, 2008 at 12:06 am |
  253. Jim Jensen

    First, Hillary Clinton is not her husband and does not have his abilities. Second, she is "old guard" and the Iowa caucus tells us that the old guard has been abandoned by voters in both parties. Third, Hillary is a woman and that still seems to be something that keeps Hillary stopped at the glass ceiling. Even in what is allegedly a "red state" that is predominantly white, Obama seems to have enough appeal to decisively win for his party and win a higher percentage of the caucus vote than anyone in either party. Even more women voted for Obama than for Hillary. While Iowa is not the whole election and the campaign is far from over, we are seeing that the once invincible Hillary is very open to defeat after all. While I am unabashedly an Edwards supporter, I can see how someone as "out of the box", as Obama, can come in and wow everyone, and I see no reason why he won't continue to do so in other states as well. The question is, "Is Obama for real and, if elected, does he really posses the ability to hit the deck running and not fall flat on his face when he runs into a business as usual Congress who is adverse to radical change regardless of party affiliation.”

    January 4, 2008 at 12:14 am |
  254. Adriano

    Well, she finished third in Iowa. What now?

    January 4, 2008 at 1:15 am |
  255. Michelle Cubas, www.positivepotentials.com

    Hillary is a smart lady. Being smart may be feeling the humility that comes from losing a confidence vote.

    If I were her coach, I'd encourage her to get off the "meme" messages and focus on the benefits and outcomes of her being in office, how having her there somehow improves our lives and future plans.

    By the way, "it's" not about gender. I want to hear her share
    how the experience of BEING a woman, one who has journeyed through the life cycles she's experienced. This transcends the gender issue.

    January 4, 2008 at 1:36 am |
  256. tom fouts

    hey jack, my guess is that democrats are going to get buyers remorse pretty fast on this obama thing. he's what, a 1/2 term senator and so green behind the ears he has mold growing there. the problem is now our fallback candidate is hillary clinton who just came in 3rd in iowa, has 50% negatives and who almost nobody likes. we're doomed......tom in tennessee

    January 4, 2008 at 2:02 am |
  257. LJ fm Florida

    Mr Cafferty, setting aside all the political promises that comes with the season of election year, has anyone ever taken the time to look at the manerisms of the democratic candidates? Obama seems not as mechanical as most candidates, Edwards reminds me of a corporate salesman and Clinton reminds me of an actor who is on a set just going through the motions. I have respect for all the candidates, but I am having a hard time trying to understand Clinton. She can't even laugh naturally for fear of breaking her facade of being serious. When she genuinely speaks of concerns, you don't hear it in the inflections in her voice, it's scripted, Edwards is just pitching a line like he is "selling" himself. For once, I see in Obama a person that is not "selling" but sharing his ideas and beliefs. He is not afraid to speak from his heart about what alot of people in this country for years have felt. I am tired of hearing about experience from Clinton, she acts as if she ran the White House during her husband's tainted stint there. Unless you have been a president, NO BODY, has the experience, it is a job like none other and it's time we stopped talking about experience. Do these candidates think we believe that the President can just walk into the White House and do a "Tuna" job like was done with the Miami Dolphins? Hell no, the congress is there to keep the President in check for most things. Let's stop worrying about experience and start working on cooperative working with the congress. It's not just the president that can turn this country around, we have to get those lazy, money grubbing congressmen on the right path as well. You want change? Put Term Limits on congress and make them pay into social security and not sit on our tax money for the rest of thier lives. Change? sure change the way they work and get thier retirement money. Make them do as we all do, EARN IT ! As a veteran I spent more time working for my country then most of them, put my life on the line and my retirement pay does not even equal the tax they pay on thier retirement check.
    I love this country and i want someone in all political offices that are not there for the "position" or "the title" i think Obama is that person and I hope this country finally stands up and says. Its time to Clean out or political system. its broke, dont try to fix it. REPLACE IT with new blood.

    January 4, 2008 at 7:01 am |
  258. Katy Hill Prescott, Az.

    Hopefully it means an end to the Clinton/Bush dynasty and a change in government but I would vote for Clinton any day over another evangelical christian like Huckabee.

    January 4, 2008 at 7:02 am |
  259. lee biggs

    Finally! We are hearing from someone who makes us proud to be American's again!
    (Barak Obama) We are a nation that has become tired of of devisiveness and political correctness and the status quo in Washington, amd I personally believe he is our best hope for a new day to dawn in history!

    Lee Biggs/ White/female/middle class/Independent/North Carolina

    January 4, 2008 at 7:08 am |
  260. Joe Tyrrell

    Iowa is no more importantthan a good photo op. Obama's win was a plus for him specially since to was being called very close. However he did not get a majority of the votes.

    We will now see if Huckabe has support outside the angelicial belt.

    January 4, 2008 at 8:13 am |
  261. Robert Barron

    Out with the old (Clinton, Biden and Dodd) and in with the new (Obama and Edwards).
    I don't think even Democrats want another four years of the Clinton's bad marriage on display in the White House.
    Has Bill given up cheating on his wife for good?
    Oh I'm sure he'll behave preelection but afterwards, who knows?

    January 4, 2008 at 8:19 am |
  262. Julie Tyrrell

    A thrid place finsh in Iowa will not derail Hillary.

    The Democratic caucus in Iowa is chatotic. A seceret ballow is essential to democracy.

    January 4, 2008 at 8:20 am |
  263. Hal Clifton

    Hi Jack-
    Just a few comments-first my demographics-older southerner living in the north, Southern Baptist-and an Independent. Don't believe in abortion-but don't think the government should legislate morality.

    Hillary is just more of the same thing we have had for years-and as far as the experience thing-being First Lady doesn't qualify as significant experience.

    Mitt Romney-like vanilla ice cream-bland

    Edwards-I agree that corporate america has a stranglehold on changing anything not in their favor.

    Huckabee-I like the guy-even if I know the world is over 6.000 years old-something new-like the fair tax idea-he needs to down play the religious angle-yes his faith is a factor-but we don't need another change the supreme court crusader. He is going to have to broaden his appeal.

    Obama-a breath of fresh air-his unite america across religious and ethic lines plays well with me-he kind of reminds me of JFK-although I wasn't for JFK at the time. Going forward-downplay any racial angle-keep Jessie Jackson and those folks out of sight-making this a "Black Thing"-which Oprah did-will destroy his message and his chances.

    We need some fresh faces and new ideas-we also have to clean house in the Congress at the next opportunity.

    January 4, 2008 at 8:50 am |
  264. Sam

    Jack, Now that we have survived the Iowa campaign, I wonder what in the world Wolf will select to continue his constant ranting and raving. The man does not stop to take a breath and many times interrups the other person so he can get in his view point. In other words he talks too much.

    Sam

    January 4, 2008 at 9:17 am |
  265. Mary

    Jack; I know from first hand the male mentality of women ruling, but what in the world is wrong with the women. Have most forgotten that men have ruled this country for over two hundred years and look at the state we are in. Even the bible speaks against women owning property or having any rights. I also know how hard it was for women to achieve the right to vote. Exercise IT for goodness sake.
    Young Mothers if you want your children to have a decent life and want your daughter to grown up proud and strong. Please vote for a woman.
    Even Nazi Germany became a democracy and now has a woman ruler. Isn't it time we moved to the 21st Century.

    The news media is just boosting their ratings. They will have a job no matter what, because it is dominated by Men.

    January 4, 2008 at 9:20 am |
  266. Bill Williamson

    Dear Jack,
    I like you Jack because you have a good sense of what’s real, a healthy streak of cynicism, and you don’t take yourself so damn seriously. You seem to realize that your job is to report or comment on the story but not be the story. So let me bring up a couple of observations I’ve made. Senator Edwards beats Senator Clinton in Iowa, and CNN focuses on Clinton losing to Obama. OK, but at least 3 times this morning I’ve heard comments from “the best political team on television” to the effect that despite losing to Obama, Edwards has decided not to withdraw but try it again in New Hampshire, as if he really should face reality and pack it in like Dodd and Biden. There seems to be an underlying view in all CNN’s reporting that Edwards is an afterthought, not a “real” contender. Where does that B.S. view come from, if I might ask? If “the best political team on television” has decided that Edwards doesn’t have a chance then please explain how you arrived at that conclusion so those of us who actually think he just might be the guy to take this country back from the corporations can come to our senses and just let you guys make our decision for us. And by the way, please tell “Wolfie” that when you walk around telling everyone every 60 seconds that we’re the best we’re the best we’re the best, it makes everyone else pretty damn nauseated. Every time he says that I want to click on the Golf channel. Not that he’d listen. I get the impression he doesn’t listen to anything except his cue.

    January 4, 2008 at 9:58 am |
  267. Rick from Colorado

    The Death Knell of Des Moines.

    Hillary ( and Bill ) are fading wannabe Icons of an era inextricably bound to the past.

    Hillary is finished. They would "Monica" her to death anyway.

    Where exactly do finished wannabes who don't know they are finished go to?

    January 4, 2008 at 10:27 am |
  268. Anne

    I hope Hillary and Bill enjoyed their slices of humble pie. Go Obama Go!

    January 4, 2008 at 10:43 am |
  269. Joe Shea, Editor-in-Chief, The American Reporter

    It won't mean anything except in New Hampshire, where it will slow her down
    a little. But it will be meaningless by the time Florida rolls around and
    awards its 210 Democratic delegates – more than all the previous primary and
    caucus states together. Oops, I forgot! Florida's votes won't count
    because of DNC rules. Okay, then it's on to California and the big Feb. 5
    roster of states. If she's as strong there as she is in Florida, she's got
    a lock.

    http://www.american-reporter.com/3,330/1.html

    Bradenton, FL

    January 4, 2008 at 11:26 am |
  270. David May

    Unfortunatly for her, Clinton is going to have to win and at least take second place, otherwise she will lose out on the Democratic nomination.

    January 4, 2008 at 11:57 am |
  271. Nick

    Well Jack a third place finish means that Clinton was right that this is a nation wide campane and that you can not spend so much money and time in one state. The media makes a big fuss over iowa when they do not need to. I think Florida is going to play the biggest role in these elections. Jack i love your show keep up the good work.

    Nick Louisburg NC

    January 4, 2008 at 12:12 pm |
  272. David May

    Unfortunatly for her, Clinton is going to have to win and at least take second place, otherwise she will lose out on the Democratic nomination. Added to this, Clinton will become forced to escape the stagnate shell she has put herself into. The day of standard, up standing, and avidly Democratic and Republicanican candidates is over. The direction for today, as far as Clinton is concerned, is to become more of a moderate than staying purely Democrat, if she wishes to succeed in gaining the nomination. Doing so would allow her to regain momentum in her campaign. and then she would become a plausible candidate. Otherwise, I'd agree with my assosiates, she is dead in the water.

    January 4, 2008 at 12:15 pm |
  273. David May

    Unfortunatly for her, Clinton is going to have to win and at least take second place in the New Hampshire primary, otherwise she will lose out on the Democratic nomination. Added to this, Clinton will become forced to escape the stagnate shell she has put herself into. The day of standard, up standing, and avidly Democratic and Republicanican candidates is over. The direction for today, as far as Clinton is concerned, is to become more of a moderate than staying purely Democrat, if she wishes to succeed in gaining the nomination. Doing so would allow her to regain momentum in her campaign. and then she would become a plausible candidate. Otherwise, I’d agree with my assosiates, she is dead in the water.

    January 4, 2008 at 12:16 pm |
  274. Linda

    When I heard someone on television asking about what the cabinet would be like, as well as vice-president, in a Hillary government with Bill in the background. He would be trying to interfere with everyone. When I thought about this situation, that is when I knew I could not support Hillary. It would be a unorganized mess. I have decided to really support Obama all the way.

    January 4, 2008 at 12:28 pm |
  275. Jim Jensen

    Whether it is Hillary or any other candidate, one caucus does not a political campaign make. New Hampshire will produce results different than those in Iowa and other primaries will produce results different from that. The United States is too big and too diverse to call the election after the first scrimmage. We have until the parties hold their national conventions until we really know who will be the presidential candidates and who will be their running mates. One thing that bothers me about this is that it is the political parties, not the American people, who decide who will run. Past conventions have given the country a candidate that was not the favorite of a majority of the people, but the favorite of a majority of the party. So lets not count anyone out of the race until the race is over and won.

    January 4, 2008 at 1:11 pm |
  276. Sharon Bowman

    Jack...

    I have not heard any commentary yesterday evening from the news media about the Oprah factor with respect to the Obama win. Does the media beleive that she helped or hurt him? It would seem that she was indeed a factor. After all, he won the women over Hilliary.

    January 4, 2008 at 1:21 pm |
  277. Matt

    Jack, its gettin' ugly out there.

    January 4, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  278. tim

    it means she thinks we all forgot how bill disgraced himself and the office she is trying for.get him out of the picture and maybe voters will look at her and her qualifications only and not monica, purgery and impeachment.how can all that be a help, duh!

    January 4, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  279. Donald, Butte Montana

    It means that all other candidates sold their souls and campaign to try to stop her here in hopes of keeping their ineffective campagins alive for another state.

    They used the archane caucus system and low turnouts to sabotage her campaign from placing first or a second to Edwards.

    Its all politics as usual in way this was accomplished.

    Obama and Edwards are not the winners, but the losers for having to win in this format instead of a face-to-face contest.

    Take the 15% viability test and late hours of the caucus and put them where the sun doesn't shine. Its a meaningless test in which Iowa and NH want unprecented attention and power.

    January 4, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  280. tim hammer

    Jack so Hillary got blowed out of the water ! Still what do we have, we have Dems,
    and Repub. that still will not address the Problems, war, aliens, infrastructure,
    national debt, china, Iran, afganistan, a dollar that's worth nothing, gas prices,
    there is no one out there that will address these issues, why ? THEY DON"T KNOW HOW ! They would rather bash each other, and here we are, stuck again.
    How could anyone DESTROY a GREAT nation in only 7 years what a JOKE!!!!

    January 4, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  281. Elise

    Just a few observations..I find it interesting that Ed Rollins made a call to Lou Dobbs saying he's ready to talk to him about Hillary.I watched a bit of msnbc last night.There was Chris "I hate the Clintons" Mathews and Andrea Mitchell salivating in the clinton loss.It's fine to hate a candidate but I find it curious that Ed Rollins again finds himself in the picture.Once again Ed seems to have been on the phone with Andrea calling her sweetie several times.Is Andrea doing Rollin's bidding?
    Ed Rollins..the same Ed Rollins who jokes about flying the conferate flag over the South Carolina state capitol.I haven't thought of voting for Hillary but I may just have to now.....the games begin....

    January 4, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  282. Tohidul New York 14yrs old

    clinton will comeback as the new comeback kid. Her husband has been campaning on N.H and NC so it might help Hiliary win those states. NC is total win because former pres was has been there fw times. Obama might be second. Communtiy in NC was very supported of Bill Clinton and that really helps Hiliary.
    I wish i could vote i would voted for Hiliary bec she knows what she is doing.

    January 4, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  283. Bill in St. Petersburg, FL

    Hillary should never have run in the first place and now she's going to watch her campaign self-destruct. Sadly, a politician's ego makes them do things that will ultimately bring them down. She is a brilliant person and good in her role as Senator, but the many political enemies she and her husband will always have should have told her that her she could never unite this country as president and leave the job up to someone who could. Experience and change are both possible but not with someone so divisive? Would Joe Biden done better if she had not commanded so much media attention? We'll never know...

    January 4, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  284. KEVIN

    JACK! PLEASE READ:

    I believe that BOTH Clinton and Obama are electable. However, If I was a political strategist for Clinton, I would do the following: Contact Barack Obama and throw my efforts behind OBAMA with the understanding that Clinton will be his running mate. There is no doubt that we stand to gain as a Nation and a people with Barack Obama as President. The world will look at us differently, we will see ourselves differently and the politics in America would forever be Changed. An OBAMA/CLINTON ticket is unstoppable. But the question is, do the Democrats want the White House for the next 8 years, or the next 16 years? Barack will hold the office with Hillary as V.P. for 8 years and Hillary will have the resume and time to become beloved to secure it for the next 8.

    This should be a long term strategy in which Clinton and Obama need to work together to tear down the Republican machine which has destroyed our nation.

    January 4, 2008 at 6:02 pm |
  285. E Sider

    If Hillary looses the first two, great; Canadians and Americans celebrate together and get on with the real thing...... OBAMA

    E Sider
    Waterloo, ON, Canada

    January 4, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  286. Lisa

    I think that the ticket should be Clinton-Obama since Obama doenst have the experience on International issues this would be his hands on training and then we can see what he is really capable of doing. At this point I havent he hasnt demostrated or said what he would do except for sayng that he wouls meet with the leadears of other parties. After being in the VP position for 8 years he would have the knowledge that a presidential canidate should have..... Young people dont lose sight of the big picture........It's a crazy world we are living in and we need experience not a persone that needs on the job training. Let's get it right this time and let's stop waisting time on the whole CHANGE if there's no exprerience to go along with it.....

    January 4, 2008 at 8:38 pm |
  287. mariama

    Jack,
    I am amazed at how you guys in the media are hell bent on destroying Hillary just to boost your own ratings. You hyped the Obama win because that is more interesting for your kind of job. I am a journalism student but people like you in the media make me rethink whether i should be studying this field at all. You are really a shame to this proffession. The last time the press went for a new face and a uniter, we got Bush. It is inspirational to give good speeches and wow the crowd for one thing but being the leader of a free world is a much more larger responsibility that requires experience and accomplishments to say the east. You will propel Obama to the White House like you did for Bush and then any mistakes he makes along the way, you will blame his party for it. It is time that you guys who have the platform to put it to best use. Atleast use the platform to vet everyone out like you do with hillary. I bet if every candidate's skeletons are out of the closet, then we will not be talking about Obama any longer. I do not think the media should be in the business of selecting candidates for people but rather give us the fact as they are and be fair. We do not need you to elect presidents for us. You look real ugly when you do that.

    January 4, 2008 at 11:26 pm |
  288. Gane

    Dear Mrs. Clinton,
    Please, please DO NOT GIVE UP!
    I am Canadian watching your election very passionate.

    Like outsider I KNOW that based on the current situation in America and Abroad you are the ONLY answer!
    The elder understand it. The yang people are just being rebellious.
    I really thing that you best bet is to talk from the heart. Outline them the problems and ASK them: "So, now is in you hand to decide hwo could deliver ? After this administration we can not have the luctury even of a hunny day!" And because you deeply feel about the future of America you insist americans to dig deeper and choose very RESPONSIBLY.
    Thay not like you?!Remind them somehow that the current President was elected based on a "likability"!

    P.S. Last night everybody else but B.Husein Obama finished there speech with:"GOD BLESS AMERICA"!
    Is that the beginning of the "Change" in America?

    Gane
    Toronto, Canada

    January 5, 2008 at 2:50 am |
  289. Paul

    Take away the cameras...the spin doctors....the celebrity factor.....and all the stump B.S. and what are you left with???.....Reality!....and the reality is, that at least in Iowa...they`re not buying into Hillary and Co. But Hillary is a wears a coat of many colors and she`s showing them. Start writing your swan song Hillary.

    January 5, 2008 at 2:12 pm |
  290. Mary Steele

    Don p. and the rest , that are "not " in favor of amnesty, the voting records of Obama and the other Democrats, and all but 2 maybe 3 of the Republicans clearly show their intent to allow some form of amnesty.

    Why should we allow over 11-20 million illegals to shirk our laws and be put ahead of the ones that applied legally and are legally waiting their turn outside of our country?

    January 5, 2008 at 6:42 pm |
  291. Bob W.

    Sung to the tune of "The Happy Wanderer"

    Hilla-reeeee
    Hilla-rahhhh
    Hilla-reeeee
    Hila-ra-ha-ha-ha -ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

    It means that the "Clinton Machine" isn't as influential as they think it is, and that the voters are "fed up" with anyone, in any party, connected to the "Old Boys Club" and with indebtedness to the ruling corporations instead of the people they are supposed to represent. The "Experienced" politicians with corporate loyatlies, come election time, decide that they have to pay lip-service to what the people really care about, like health care and education. What they say in both main parties is just rhetoric, forgotten after the election supposedly because other "terrors" have seized their attention. This is the same election after election after election. How long before the voters catch on? Hopefully this time they have.

    January 5, 2008 at 10:04 pm |
  292. tommy

    I think it is safe to say that if Hillary is elected president our country is screwed!!!
    I will move to the U.K for 8 years or 4 how ever long she is president but, hopefully she won`t!

    January 5, 2008 at 11:13 pm |
  293. tommy

    look at what a wonderful job her husband did he let osama bin laden go when we could of assinated him! It is bill clintons fault that 9/11/01 even happened!
    on top of all of this he slept with an intern.

    January 5, 2008 at 11:25 pm |
  294. diane stead

    After watching both sides and all of the Hew Hampshire debate, there was clearly only one president ever on that stage and his name is Hillary.

    January 5, 2008 at 11:55 pm |
  295. DIANA SCHMITT

    JOHN EDWARDS BEAT HILLARY AND I WANT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT. JOHN EDWARDS HAS EXPERIENCE, FOR FIGHTING FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS ALL HIS LIFE.
    JOHN EDWARDS WOULD BE THE BEST MAN FOR THE POSITION OF PRESIDENT AND STOPPING THIS WAR.

    January 6, 2008 at 10:45 pm |
  296. John Denis

    Hi Jack- A third place for Hillary would concretize that the voters in the USA are walking away from status quo. They have caught the fever in Iowa, will in New Hampshire and no amount of antibiotics is going to stop this from becoming a nationwide epidemic. Good for my American neighbours – and Good to you, CNN.
    Your faithful coverage of the news, of the nation's pulse is exciting and unbeatable. Congrats to the network for having the Cafferty's, the Wolfe's, the Verjee's, the Malveaux's, the Crowley's etc. Kudos for teaming up John and Kiran. What a duo! And she, so knowledgeable, well spoken, always alert, always a dazzling smile.
    Keep it up! You are giving the voters a clear picture. Now, it's up to them.
    I think having Obama as President is an exciting prospect. John Edwards would also serve you well. God, it's so hard to choose between the two!

    John, your Canadian neighbour.

    January 7, 2008 at 11:50 am |
  297. blanca

    How dare you cafferty, I am a hispanic woman suporting Hillary and I get furious every time one of you male reporters smirk with glee at Hillary's loss, if you want to emphazise change, why not remark that, that a first woman president will be the biggest change in America, but the male news stablishment does not seem ready or willing to have a first woman president. I know Hillary as a fightter for a better change, on the other hand Obama is a big unknown, and the republicans are goin to have a field day with him, so please stop pushing his cart already and be fair to a woman, you know how hard is for a woman to reach as high as Hillary has done so far. Please print this e-mail.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
  298. jezail.org

    CNN and the rest of the news biz has written quite a few political obituaries and seem to be continually wrong. Mrs. Clinton needs to hang in there. I was not a great fan of hers until after a couple of debates. I think it was appropriate for her to get a little testy when the rest of the pack mugged her. I had a gut check moment last night and I realized that she has a record of caring about the American people. You may have a difference of opinion about how we get to health care, but from day one, after her husband became president, she was on it. Please hold the cookies, snotty comments, catty critiques about style and get back to substance. My differences with the Clintons had to do with foreign policy and not what pundits continually foist as substance. I hope she hangs in there and doesn't fold like Joe Biden, another fine candidate for different reasons. This is the best presidential election in my voting lifetime and I really wish CNN would get back to the higher standards of journalism that I have come to expect from them. Please get back to substance, Jack. Just the facts please.

    January 7, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  299. blanca

    Cafferty, why do you look so happy every time you mention Hillary is behind in the polls, it does not say very much about your objectivity and imparciality, and please tell me why you dislike Hillary so much? Does it have anything to do with the fact that she id a woman?. I think that of all the candidates Hillary stands more than the others for change, mainly because she is a woman, and it it time for a woman to have the chance to become president and bring real change. I know what Hillary is capable of doing and Obama is a Big Unknown, so why push his cart so much? Hi has proven nothing so far, other than he seems to be a very skillful politician, and we don't need one more!. Remember Bush said he was a uniter also! Please be fair. Blanca from El Paso

    January 7, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  300. Armando G

    I think it will hurt her. She is NOT the right person for change in the Whitehouse. She is only saying that now because it's working for Obama. The real Hilary is the angry- I'm right and you are wrong" person we all saw today....

    January 7, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
  301. JoeyB

    Hillary is the best person for the job. If you vote for a man with maybe 2 years of experience in serving the public instead of a woman with many more productive years of serving the public in the capacitites that she has such as the First Lady of Arkansas ,the First Lady of the United States, and a state senator, you are absolutely nuts. This country is in real trouble if gender instead of experience is how a president is picked. Everyone needs to think, really think about who is the best person for the job and who will support the middle class based on experience.

    January 7, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  302. Nancy Pugh

    Hillarys Tears...Who is she kidding ,there not for the country,but for herself loosing and rejection is never easy and most always stirs a persons emotions...tears, I cannot think of any I would rather see knocked off their high and mightypedestal then her....Good going Barka

    January 7, 2008 at 7:36 pm |
  303. Pat Morianos

    Yes Hillary can come back and win she is the greatests agent to improve the average persons lot in life.She is being double teamed by the good ole boysThe color of the faces don,t matter there is a distain in this country about a woman leading. We are behind the times in this country .I say
    she is WOMAN HEAR HER ROAR.Look at her record not as a first lady she has always thought about other people and has a terrific record on childrens issues.
    Reporters are supposed to report the news but Russet ,Mathews, Morning joe have a constant drumbeat against Hillary.I respeceted Russet until he had the
    nerve to ask Hillary why she was staying with Bill. That was a new low a woman in pain .what if someone had asked his wife that Question.He was the bum not her. Good ole boys at work again.
    Get with the program..I wouldn't vote for bloomberg for Dog catcher He has no Ideals He was a Democrat and he couldn't get the nomination so he turned Republican and now he is willing to buy the white House sorry that is not change . ( a man who would sell his soul if he has one for power.
    God help us all (Talk is cheap read their hips not their lips) its how they walk not how they talk )

    January 7, 2008 at 7:54 pm |
  304. Dorie : CA

    I watched the debate on ABC. The men tried to stick it to Hillary. They lost. Hillary held her own and then some. Its time for a woman to be President. Hillary come across strong, like the strong person she is. Personality be damed. Look at George Bush. He got elected twice. Hello, where is your brain.

    January 7, 2008 at 10:41 pm |
  305. Dale Jones

    What I don't understand is how can the media legitimately say that Hillary has lost momentum when the first vote was only cast last week (where she came in third). If she comes in second today, then she has improved. Anything else was the ethereal world of polls, spin and hypothesis. Hows that for a reality check? Voters still decide elections and not media favoritism.

    January 8, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
  306. Gerald J Maynard

    I have not been much impressed with Ms. Clinton until the debates when she dealt thoughtfully with some tough international questions. Her grasp of the complexity of the issues was impressive. I think she should knock off the experience line and focus on where and why she wants to lead this country now. I liked that part of her disclosure. I don't want her to be less tough. She will need that.

    January 8, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  307. Bonnie Nipple

    Jack – Hillary should absolutely toss the script and let all of America see the real Hillary Clinton. She has a soft side as well as the tough side and we need to see that.

    January 8, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  308. marianne Copple

    Hi....I'm just a little ol lady and first voted for the first time for JFK... I was so enthused and excited....as much as I hate to admit it over the years I have been lax due to never feeling that way again...I started out this year for Hillary but lost my enthusiasm...since seeing her become real and showing her emotions I feel more hope once again...it would be great...the last 7 years have been so depressing...we need a break...thanks for listening

    January 8, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  309. Steve

    Go Mitt Romney!!! My vote is 100% Mitt Romney. Mitt has the leadership, personal qualities and proper priorities to lead our great country! God bless Mitt Romney!!!

    January 8, 2008 at 5:13 pm |
  310. Tom

    Why Don't YOU, WOLF, and CNN Start just reporting the NEWS instead of
    trying to slant the NEWS, Democratic and Republican Primarys your way. No wonder
    Fox New is taking the Lead in News Reporting.

    January 8, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  311. Sue Johnson

    Over the past 20 years, we have had almost 12 years of the Bush family and 8 years of the Clintons. I am ready for a change. Obama vs Huckabee would be our our best choice in November. Let's get rid of the career politicians.

    January 8, 2008 at 5:20 pm |
  312. Kevlin

    I agree that President Clinton stumping for Senator Clinton would not be my advice if I were Hillary's Campaign Adviser however the notion that in the climate created by the current President, we need someone who truly understand the magnitude of negotiations that the United States must adopt after Bush. Hilary Clinton is intelligent and experienced enough to accomplish these task. We can fall in love with a dream, hey I'm there as well but I'm not willing to place my family in harms way because someone knows how to talk.

    Senator Clinton will do well when she talks to us from her heart. Lastly, under no circumstances should Hillary skip South Carolina, the Black vote for Obama is not a given. Jesse Jackson was a very popular personality yet didn't get the Black vote as he had hoped. Hillary knows more about struggling through hard times than Obama does.

    January 8, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  313. K. Rhodes

    I just can't believe that people want CHANGE and then turn their backs to Ron Paul, because he's actually the only one that truly stands up for the American people and keeping his oath to the Constitution seriously and not trying to lead us into a socialistic way (anything "universal" i.e. health care, isn't a good direction, sure France's universal health care sounds good but it really isn't, there is a long waiting period up to years and plus social ranking is involved so either way the poor and the middle class will still suffer). Btw socialism is another way of saying BIG government. Ron Paul is saying let's do things the constitutional way so that there's more power to the people locally. So we as individuals have a voice again to say yay or nay to construct those laws. Let it be our children's school issues to our roads, bridges and such. Why should we, as American tax-payers have to keep funding a war–where we go bomb them, and use more of our money to build their bridges when we have our own bridges and levies breaking. Most of the American population are now becoming aware that we are not the super power of the world when we are borrowing from China, Japan, and the Saudis. Also not to mention our dollar is devaluating at a rapid rate that even the Canadian dollar is worth more than our dollar. Also, Ron Paul is the only one saying that we should go to the gold standard and still keep our paper money, instead of having our fiat(loaned) money, it will be like the receipt like it was before 1913. Federal Reserve was created in 1913 by the questionably passed 16th amendment. (which btw, Ron Paul will repeal). More fiat money we print–the more it will cost for us to buy things.

    January 8, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
  314. violet montgomery

    Jack: What a great country the United States would be with Obama as President and Colin Powell – either as his running mate or certainly in his cabinet.. Talk about change and safety for the U.S.

    January 8, 2008 at 5:38 pm |
  315. Kevlin

    Wolf, sorry to say this but the more I listen to you the more you typify what we refer to as the Brain Washing Attempts by the Media. You are just saying Obama over & over as if you bought Share in his candidacy or looking for a Cabinet position. I have to say, President Clinton is correct, you are truly giving him a free ride. Even the other Talking Heads who have no idea what it's like to run for Office other than Joe Scarborough seem to be such experts about what this process is like ..

    Back Off ... you are not relating my opinions and probably not reflecting the opinion of the Country either

    January 8, 2008 at 5:41 pm |
  316. mackenzie

    is no one getting this?

    Obama and Edwards are working together, thats going to be the ticket. Obama sits on the sidelines while Edwards acts like his attack dog!

    The republicans could beat this ticket, look at there voting record and get a grip people!

    The right wing media are pumping Obama only to drag him down and get there guys back in!

    This coming election is for the Dems to lose, and the Republicans to take advantage of a very Left Ticket!

    January 8, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  317. CLIFF ROBINSON

    JACK

    Obama's Message to Incumbents? Get ready for the ride of your life!

    The time for change has arrived and we who the congress represents are feed up with the status Quo and Washington in General.

    For me as a republican My own party disgusted me and shows me that there is a time for change.

    GHBush Lost my support and I and Many republicans helped Clinton sweep into Power.

    Obama indeed may well be the New Kennedy of Change and He is the Only One running who is articulate and offers a real chance for a change in the status Quo.

    His willingness to cross the Line and get republican support and tap into the Best person for the Job no matter what the party and bring in those who can effect change is exciting.

    I am almost ready to help Him and support him. no republican moves me that way what does that tell you?????

    Change is on the way!

    January 8, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  318. Matt Low

    This is the first time that we have seen the best of our people who wants change
    it is now clear that 90% of us are fed up with this whole old people who have been in power and still want to remain in power, but for me i think we should make a real change so we can see if is better for us and if not then we can make a change in the next four years.

    Matt low

    January 8, 2008 at 7:02 pm |
  319. Alcaris Gonzalez

    I think that CNN political team has been very tough on Mrs. Clinton's run to the white House, going in to New Hampshire, it seems for the first time as if they were on the side on Senator Obama, It is just like president Clinton Said, Obama is getting a free ride, CNN is the most powerful political team in the world people listen to what CNN says.. Please lets be partial here..let people decide

    Thanks..
    Alcaris Gonzalez
    Florida

    January 8, 2008 at 7:09 pm |
  320. fred

    Can't even put his name in the pie, even though he's even with Gulliani.Why can't you speak his name? Why can't you speak of him? Why can't his name be written on the screen? Why can't we hear his views?

    His name is Ron Paul.

    January 8, 2008 at 8:20 pm |
  321. Edward Stein

    I watch you and considered you a fair man until you lost your fairness with the Dem. elections. Today President Clinton said the media gave Cum Bi Ya Obama a free ride on the issue of the votes on the war. You comment was He should not have done that. If the comment had come from Ms Edwards or Obama and was true as this was you would have excepted it and agreed. Can't Mr Clinton act as his wifes spouce. More important why did the media allow Cum Bi Ya Obama get away with such a deception. If H. Clinton had done that you would have jump all over her for being deceptive. I guess you and CNN do not believe in fairness.

    When the Republican made a comment about the issue that in his opinion Cum Bi Ya Obama had no foregn policy experience, your comment was President Bush had none. I rest my case unless you think America needs more Foreign Policy based on minimal experience such as with Bush. I hope not.

    The last time we had a feel good Cum Bi Ya President was just before Reagan and we all know how that turned out. I agree falling in Love is great, but I think we need a hard nose President with experience. Just be fair

    January 8, 2008 at 9:00 pm |
  322. karla taylor

    I have been watching these elections and listening to what people want in a president. It seems to me that people (especially the younger set) are mesmerized by Barack Obama's charm and believe he will change everything. Many of these young people are recent voters and are very naive to the complexities of the presidency. In our volatile world today we can't elect someone who is all smiles and charm, but we need someone with experience. We need a person who will be able to handle the Middle East, China and Russia. I certainly would be fearful of Obama next to our nuclear weapons. I believe Mitt Romney would make an excellent president. He certainly is very presidental looking and has a wealth of experience in solving problems for major companies. My main concerns are our health care system, immigration and the economy and Mitt would be a strong leader on these issues.

    January 8, 2008 at 11:20 pm |
  323. moureenin Bloomfield

    The reporters of the news have gone too far in expressing their personal, biased opinions as facts. It is going too far from their job descriptions to give so much of their personal opinion to the detriment of the process and people who are looking to make an informed decision.

    January 9, 2008 at 12:43 am |
  324. DIDI

    For the past two weeks, I have sat and watch CNN stumped all over Hillary. John Edwards and Osama shamelessly tag team against Hillary on the LAST debate. I thought they were sleeping together the way they were acting on stage in front of America. After witnessing all this, I start to wonder if obama made any promise to the CNN staff or they are just afraid of the Clinton machine. Who is Hussein anyway? CNN and the rest of the news media should focus on that as Super Tuesday approaches. As you can tell, no matter how you slice it and dice it, NH spoke and so will the rest of America. You the media, you know who you are, should back off Hillary and do your job AND STOP TAKING SIDES.

    January 9, 2008 at 8:44 am |
  325. Lee Laidlaw

    Jack, I'm a Republican, but even I am getting sick and tired of the Clinton bashing. Is there anything this couple could do to please? In my opinion, there is nobody running that would make a better president than Hillary. Therefore, I am going to vote for her simply because she is a woman. It would help put to rest this idea that men make better leaders than women and that "submissiveness" is a proper and admirable trait for a woman. It's time we women put aside our jealousy and bias and stood together. A win for Hillary is a win for all women.

    January 9, 2008 at 9:58 am |
  326. Jaqueline

    Jack you have become one nasty guy since the election cycle has rolled around.
    You lead your little piece with insulting Hillary for saying "When I am the president." Well last night your buddy Obama after his shocking loss to Hillary said the exact same thing. What do you have to say about that Jack? Cat got your tongue? I thought so.

    January 9, 2008 at 10:52 am |
  327. Jaqueline

    Obama is a politician. And every politician on the face of this earth is dirty. Edwards with lies about not taking a dime from a lobbyist ever. Give me a break. He has lobbyists working for him. They do the exact same things lobbyists do, they just avoid the label by not registering in Washington D C. The only politician that isn't dirty, is one that no one has ever heard of.

    January 9, 2008 at 11:06 am |
  328. Jaqueline

    Who was the last person running for President that said he worked across party lines? And would contiune working across party lines in D C. And that is why you should elect him instead of Al Gore. Becasue Al Gore was a washington insider. And is cousins to Obama. Hum???? George Bush. What a great family tree. The only way it could get any worse would be if Dick Cheney was also your cousin. Oh that's right. He is.

    And what a outstanding job Bush has done breaking the dead lock in D C. Sending Obama to D C is just like sending another George Bush. God knows we need that.

    January 9, 2008 at 11:22 am |
  329. miles zaremski

    With victories by Obama, Clinton, Huckabee and McCain to date, forget the word "change"; the American electorate is yelling out loud and clear that the status quo of a do-nothing Congress is totally unacceptable; that partisanship is totally unacceptable and whoever can lead by bringing together those on both sides of the aisle will become the next president.

    Miles Zaremski
    1-9-08

    January 9, 2008 at 1:14 pm |