In New Hampshire, Many warming unexpectedly to Clinton

[wyldwolf]

Don Schwartz, who describes himself as "a super-Deaniac progressive type," decided to back Hillary Clinton - whose centrist views, he concedes, do not necessarily match his own - for a simple reason. He wanted, finally, to be with a winner.

When Schwartz, the vice chairman of the Londonderry Democratic committee, started to contact his neighbors, with a goal of reaching 100 people per week, he thought he would have to appeal to their respect for her rather than their affection.

"I was actually surprised how many people said they were for Hillary," Schwartz said. "Now, they're getting to know her, and they're starting to like her. She is a nice person!"

That reaction to the kind feelings the New York senator is able to generate has been a common one in New Hampshire, where a range of Democrats said last week that they are amazed to find themselves falling for the presidential hopeful.

For at least a decade, the inflexibility of voter attitudes toward Clinton had come to be treated as an immutable law of American politics. On the question of Hillary, strategists of both parties concluded, voters had become split into two camps, pro and con, with firmly defined opinions, leaving few undecided and those on all sides generally unsusceptible to persuasion.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/09/many_warming_unexpectedly_to_clinton/

[usrbs]

1. I can attest to that.

I'm far to the left of Hillary so when I went up to NH to see her speak in a high-school I was not expecting to like her but I came away very impressed. Add to that her toughness and her efficient campaign, and while I still am not a Clinton supporter (waiting, hoping for Gore), at least I won't be miserable if she wins it. And of course, I'll work for her in the general election, but I'd do the same for any Democratic candidate. But, surprisingly, I'll do so willingly.

[bluetrain]

2. Are you trying to convince us or yourself at this point? /eom

[wyldwolf]

3. Neither. Why do you ask?

[Alegre]

4. The More People Know About Her Record & Proposals

the more they come to like and respect her.

[CoffeeCat]

9. I would say that the opposite is true...

Her record, which includes an Iraq War vote, and a ton of pro-Iran-war rhetoric--
is downright frightening to me.

Her pro-Iraq war vote was especially irresponsible, because she knew---BETTER THAN
ANYONE--that Bush and the neocons were lying their way into war. However, she
was front-and-center talking about how dangerous Saddam was and that he must be
stopped. She enabled the liars. She hocked that war just as much as any neocon
did, and SHE KNEW it was a lie because the very same neocons/PNACers who
spearheaded it--went to her husband when he was President and asked HIM TO GO TO WAR
AGAINST SADDAM when he was in the Oval Office.

President Clinton declined--declaring that he wanted to do it, but it wasn't
the right time, since he was embroiled in the Lewinsky matter. He didn't want
to appear to be "wagging the dog"---were his exact words.

Hillary Clinton knew damn well that the neocons had been shopping around war with
Iraq for years. She new Bush was using 9/11 to scare our country into war. She
said and did nothing to stop it. She continues this nonsense with Iran.

Hillary knew this then. She knows it now. Instead of exposing these truths, she parrots
the neocon talking points and has said, "War with Iran is not off the table".

Furthermore, when you TRULY examine Hillary's record of SILENCE--you can't help but
be disgusted. She has DONE NOTHING and BARELY SAID A WORD about our country
sliding into Fascism. As a powerful New York senator, she has allowed Bush to
illegally wire tap us with little protest from her. Where is she on torture? What
are her views on Habeas being destroyed? What about Bush abusing his power
with signing statements, by ignoring subpoenas and by conducting government
actions in secret? Why wasn't she screaming from the mountain--during the Valerie
Plame disgrace?

She had the power to expose them all. She's exposed nothing.

Hillary has had plenty of opportunities to stand front-and-center--and reveal the
BushCo crimes for what they are---an assault on our Constitution, our civil right
and on "We The People".

She has failed. Her silence is deafening.

In addition, if you examine further--you will see how big corporations own Hillary.
She receives money from big banking, big pharma, the insurance industry. Wall Street
loves Hillary. She's one of the corporatists who puts big business ahead of the
American people.

You might be able to get some small satisfaction from her views on children's healthcare
or some nice ideas she has about paying teachers more. However, those details are like
throwing a few pieces of glitter on a giant pile of mud--when our entire democracy
is on life support.

I don't get you people. I don't get why you support a candidate like this.

I find it very disturbing. The closer you examine Hillary--the worse it gets.

I'm sorry if some of you find her speeches so electrifying and her personality
so "nice" that you are willing to ignore all of this. I'm sorry for our party,
for our country, for our future and for our democracy.

[wyldwolf]

10. so you have statistice showing her approval dropping as the campaign goes forward?

[CoffeeCat]

13. You can't address Hillary's warmongering, can you?

You just can't do it.

No one can explain to me why it's ok that Hillary marketed
the Iraq war with the same gusto that any die-hard neocon
would.

No one can explain to me why it's ok that she's using the
same talking points as pResident Bush--when it comes to Iran.

No Hillary supporter wants to talk about this or address this
because they can't.

You support a warmonger. You support a corporatist hack.
You support a powerful New York senator who has the power
to stop the neocons in their tracks, but she's done nothing
or said anything that has made one bit of difference.

Your inability to explain your cheerleading for this walking
disaster is truly revealing--but go head--give it your best shot.

We're all listening.

[wyldwolf]

16. I don't have to. The thread isn't about "warmongering." LOL!

[MGKrebs]

20. There have been many, many discussions about the IWR vote and

the Iran rhetoric too. If you are not convinced, that's fine, but the discussion has been had many times over. You've already made up your mind, and that's cool, but you can stop pretending that no one has ever responded about this. I've responded to it twice in the past 2 days.

[CoffeeCat]

24. Again, another Hillary supporter sidesteps the issues...

Unbelievable...

Just help me understand how you can support a candidate and look the
other way when you know that your candidate:

1. Knew very well that Bush was lying his way into the Iraq war--but
helped to make that war happen by standing on the Senate floor and
pontificating about the evils of Saddam. The neocons wrote a letter to
Bill Clinton, when he was pResident. The letter is up on the PNAC Web site
and it requests that the pResident attack Iraq. Hillary knew the PNACers
were peddling war for years. She said NOTHING about them approaching her
husband. She hid that fact, as she stood on the Senate floor and droned
on and on about how we needed to invade Iraq.

2.) Continues the warmongering with Iran. She's playing into the run-up
of war with Iran. She's helping to further the PNAC plan of widening this war.
This doesn't have to happen. She could stop it.

Help me to understand how Hillary's actions, as noted in points 1 and 2---are ok
with you.

I'm just trying to understand how any Democrat can think this way. I'm drilling
down to the facts that we know about her record, and asking you to help me
understand why you still support Hillary, knowing these facts.

That's all.

The only truth that the Hillary supporters are revealing is that they cannot even
comment on her Iraq and Iran warmongering. You have no answers! I'm very patient
though, and I look forward to an honest dialog--if you're willing to at least
address these issues.

[wyldwolf]

27. again, a "progressive" tries to divert a thread's direction or maybe you just can't stay on topic?

[CoffeeCat]

35. It's normal to wonder why Dems support a warmonger...

You act like we're following Robert's Rules here.

If it pains you THAT much to discuss Hillary's Iraq- and Iran-war cheerleading
--then I guess we should leave you alone to avoid rational discourse on
Hillary's neocon propensities, which are CLEARLY overshadowed by her sparkling
personality and prom-Queen-esque tendencies.

Why just look at that bounce in her step, and the precious smile on
her face as she flits around the country--with little blue birdies
circling her head--as she touts more bloody war.

It's like Richard Perle in a Disney Princess costume!

[wyldwolf]

36. but not normal to obsess over it and try to make every conversation about it.

[MGKrebs]

32. You have a star, so I know you can use the search function,

but since you need help, the links are below.

You didn't even look to find the threads I referred to, and yet you choose to insult and draw unfounded conclusions. Not a promising path toward "honest dialog".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3591091#3591447
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3587600#3589696

[ginchinchili]

22. I've seen little that earns her our support for the presidency

Just because she married Bill Clinton is not enough in my book. If she is made the nominee all the political air in this country will be sucked out of any agenda to move the country forward and will be used up in the continuing "Clintons vs the Republicans" battle. We can do better. A Clinton nomination will be throwing away a golden opportunity for the Democrats to win the country over for a long time to come. It's not worth it. We can do better.

[wyldwolf]

29. "our" support? Who are you speaking for? Not me.

[NewHampster]

5. That's me.

WooHoo I'm almost famous.

[Alamom]

6. k&r

[Apollo11]

7. BREAKING NEWS: Some people see Hillary as a "nice person"!

Who cares about Iran?

Issues - Schmissues!

Look - she's smiling!!

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

8. so your contention is every thread in this forum should be about Iran?

[Apollo11]

11. In fact I do think discussing the issues is more relevant than which candidate is a "nicer" person.

But hey - youknow - maybe that's just me? :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

17. and you've made this clear in every other nice candidate thread?

[CoffeeCat]

12. No, the contention is that....

...you Hillary supporters need to be explaining why you support
a Democratic candidate who propagated war with Iraq---and is
now sauntering around the country perpetuating Bush's war with Iran.

Her rhetoric on the Iraq war (which she refused to denounce) and her
recent rhetoric on war with Iran---are identical to what Bush and
the neocons are saying.

Can you please explain--as a Democrat--how this is ok with you?

Can you answer this question for once--instead of
attacking people who ask these very important questions?

Again, why is Hillary's warmongering ok with you?

[wyldwolf]

18. "Us Hillary supporters" don't need to "be explaining" anything.

LOL!

[CoffeeCat]

23. I'm just trying to understand...

...why and how any Democrat would support a warmonger--who touted
war with Iraq and now beats the drum for more war with Iran.

I gave you the opportunity to help me understand why it is
that you support a Democratic candidate who is following
the neocon agenda and furthering the PNAC plan.

You're right. You don't need to explain anything.

You can support Hillary's IRAQ warmongering---and avoid
explaining why she touted war with Iraq when she knew that
the war was a lie--because the same neocons tried to get her
husband to attack Iraq several years earlier.

You can also support Hillary's continued IRAN warmongering--and
her rhetoric which aids and abets Bush's desire to widen the
war in the Middle East--which could spark WWIII, by the way.

It's duly noted. You not only cheerlead for and support a
Dem warmongering candidate--you declare yourself amused
when someone asks for a better understanding of why that is.

We've got loads of superficial Hillary support here, but we've
got absolutely no one who can address or explain how a Democrat
can support Hillary's Iraq and Iran warmongering.

Interesting, isn't it?

[wyldwolf]

25. why don't you begin by fact checking the things you're typing and giving yourself a reality check

[CoffeeCat]

33. You know that everything I have said is accurate...

Every morsel of information I've written is written record.

Hillary touted war with Iraq while knowing that the neocons
were lying about their reasons for war. FACT. She knew
the neocons tried to cajole her husband into war with Iraq.
The letter from the neocons to Bill Clinton is up on their
Web site.

Hillary is now spouting Iran-war talking points that absolutely
mirror what Bush and the rest of the neocon gang are saying.

All I have is historical record, facts and Hillary's own words.

Exactly which of these facts do you dispute?

[wyldwolf]

34. "Exactly which of these facts do you dispute?"

Democratic candidate who propagated war with Iraq---and is
now sauntering around the country perpetuating Bush's war with Iran.

Links to show she "propagated" war with Iraq and is "sauntering" around the country perpetuating Bush's war with Iran.

We'll start there.

[CoffeeCat]

38. Hillary Links Saddam with Al Queda....

In Clinton's October 10, 2002, speech about her Iraq-war vote she said of Saddam:

"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Link to the speech where she said this, on the Senate floor: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[wyldwolf]

40. you missed a vital part of her quote. Let's look at the WHOLE quote...

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

Hillary was paraphrasing Intelligence reports.

Next?

[CoffeeCat]

39. Hillary accuses Saddam of developing NUKES...

October 10, 2002--Hillary insisted--during the run-up to Bush's war-- that Saddam was bent on "developing nuclear weapons". She practically paraphrased Condi Rice's and Bush's "mushroom cloud" fearmongering...

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

Link to Hillary's speech
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[wyldwolf]

42. nope

She paraphrase intelligence reports:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

Next?

[CoffeeCat]

43. Hillary disparages the UN and the Security Counsel...

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Hillary criticizes the UN and the Security counsel--
questioning their effectiveness and pointing out their failures--in an effort to convince
the American people (just as Bush did) that the US has the right to act
unilaterally and go to war with Iraq--the world be damned.

Hillary's quote: "The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs...In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons".

Again, she touts Saddam carrying out attacks with weapons that he DID NOT HAVE--and she again
suggests that he might use (God forbid!) nuclear weapons.

Link to Hillary's speech on the Senate floor
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[wyldwolf]

44. so? What was incorrect in that statement? Nothing. You're 0-3!

[CoffeeCat]

45. Hillary trusts George Bush in matters of war...

Despite Hillary knowing very well that Bush wanted war with Iraq for years, she told the
American people that she trusted that George Bush and would "take him at his word...that he
will seek to avoid war"---when she knew he and the neocons had been shopping THIS VERY WAR
WITH IRAQ for years.

She knew. She gave him the green light anyway. She could have stood up and told America
about the neocon's advances on her husband and how they tried to sell him the VERY SAME
WAR.

She could have. She didn't.

"Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible".

Link to her speech:
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[wyldwolf]

46. Well, gosh, there's a list of Democrats who said that...

..Howard Dean being one of them.

Next?

[CoffeeCat]

47. Hillary uses FEAR of SEPT ll to justify Iraq war...

Here we see Hillary wrapping the Iraq war around September 11th,
a tactic usually reserved for the pathetic neocons who assume
that Americans are dumb, traumatized sheep.

Direct quote from Hillary's speech on the Senate floor, during the run-up to
the Iraq war:
"And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am".

Link to speech:
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[wyldwolf]

48. you're still ignoring the context

...here's what follows the piece of the quote you typed:

A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Next?

[CoffeeCat]

49. Hillary touts war with Iran, during Bush Iran-run up...

Friday, Feb 2, 2007 Clinton told some 1,700 AIPAC supporters that the US must take any step to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table...We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force."

During that very week, Bush began a marketing blitz--propagandizing touting war with Iran. Hillary's
comments mirrored Bush's propaganda.

[wyldwolf]

50. That isn't touting war with Iran.

:shrug:

Did you miss THIS part? --- "We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic..."

[DURHAM D]

52. I am exhausted ...

It was nice of you to try to respond to the diversion - I would not have bothered.

Boils down to this - facts were delivered but facts were not received.

[CoffeeCat]

51. Hillary touts Iran-nuclear threat despite EVIDENCE...

Again, we have BushCo saying one thing--to incite war--and the facts demonstrating otherwise. Hillary choses BushCo talking points and inflames the case for war with Iran, instead of
shining the light on the facts---that imminent war with Iran is unnecessary and foolish.

--Sy Hersch reported in a New Yorker article that "a classified CIA report has found there is no 'firm evidence' Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons".

--A 2005 US National Intelligence Estimate stated that Iran was ten years from making a nuclear weapon. Washington Post (2005). Retrieved on 2007-09-20.

--In 2006 Ernst Uhrlau, the head of German intelligence service, said Tehran would not be able to produce enough material for a nuclear bomb before 2010 and would only be able to make it into a weapon by about 2015. Reuters October 24, 2006

--According to the IAEA, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, or even weapons-grade uranium. On March 6, 2006, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported that "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices ... however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran's nuclear programme. (Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei (2006).

[wyldwolf]

55. AH AH! The "evidence" on Iraq WMDs came from the same sources you now believe in.

:rofl:

[CoffeeCat]

53. Rupert Murdoch hosts fundraiser for Hillary!

May 9, 2006--The Financial Times--

"Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.

The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch."

Down the rabbit hole we go---where bloodthirsty, neocon war proponents raise money for
Democratic candidates, and in turn--those Democratic candidates attend parties that
honor propagandist news organizations that sold America a war based on lies.

Nothing to see her folks...nothing at all. A candidate like this is the BEST we've got.
Believe it. :eyes:

Not one of us would take money from Murdoch. We'd just as soon eat nails as attend a party
that honors Fox News (makes me laugh!!). However, Hillary will do these things.

I wonder why?

[wyldwolf]

54. yeah, for her NEW YORK Senate campaign. Where does Murdoch live? New York

Howard Dean and John Kerry took loads of Murdoch money, too.

NEXT!

[CoffeeCat]

56. Hillary Clinton pegs herself as a warmonger...

I've demonstrated--through Hillary's own words--the main points
of my posts, that Hillary:

--Fueled the Iraq war run-up with rhetoric that parallels
the neocon talking points

--Continues to parrot the neocon talking points, as she incites
us into yet another war--this time with Iran.

Every time I tried to show you--through her own words--what your
candidate is doing, you refuted my points by giving the same
excuses that the Freepers used to explain away Bush's behavior.

When I showed you that Hillary claimed that Saddam had ties to
Al Queda, or that Hillary played the "Saddam has nukes!" card--you
argue that she is the victim of faulty intelligence.

It's the exact same argument that the Freepers use to explain
away Bush's warmongering. He was a victim. It wasn't his fault.
He didn't know. Does Bush's argument really hold water for you?
Because if you use that argument to rationalize Hillary's behavior--
then you must believe that George's behavior is also excused away.

At the crossroads of this entire argument is the fact that Hillary
has always known that the neocons (including Bush and Cheney) are
full of shit. I'll say it again. The PNACers tried to goad
Bill Clinton into war with Iraq. He didn't bite. So they repackaged
the Iraq war around 9/11--using fear--and sold it to the American
people. Are you actually going to suggest that Hillary had no
knowledge of the game that was being played? I'm a stay-at-home
mom from Iowa and even I knew that the game was "fixed around the
intelligence".

She knew. She spouted the Iraq-war talking points anyway. Kerry,
Kennedy and others have denounced their Iraq-war votes, but Hillary
refuses. Nice.

I wonder...do you believe the Freepers when they claim that George was a
victim of "bad intelligence." Does that argument hold water for both
Hillary and George?

[Tellurian]

14. Kudos, Don..

Hillary's numbers Nationwide are reflecting exactly what your article reveals:

Rasmussen Daily Poll

10/08/07

Clinton...42%....Obama.....26%....Edwards...12%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

NATIONWIDE:

"For the month of April, just before the first of way too many Presidential debates, Obama’s support averaged 31% in the Rasmussen Reports weekly national polling update and he seemed poised to audition for the role of frontrunner (see summary of weekly poll results).

But, those April numbers represented a peak for Obama. His numbers slipped to 27% in May, 26% in June, 25% in July and 23% in August. He managed to stabilize in September and hold steady at 23%. For the week ending October 7, his numbers have inched back up a few points. It’s too early to tell if this is a turnaround, but it is worth watching.

One possibility is that Obama is gaining ground at the expense of John Edwards. The 2004 Vice Presidential nominee has struggled in both polls and fundraising. He recently announced that his campaign will accept public financing and all the restrictions that entails.

Through it all, Hillary Clinton remains the Democratic frontrunner. As noted a week ago, her nomination is not inevitable. However, she has gained support throughout the year and is showing no signs of letting it slip away. Rather than a sudden surge of support, Clinton’s approach has been slow and steady. She was supported by 33% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters in April. Her support then increased to 35% in May, 36% in June, 39% in July and 41% in August. It slipped a point to 40% in September but is up to 42% in early October.

For the seven days ending October 7, 2007, Hillary Clinton earns 42% of the vote. Barack Obama is second at 26% followed by John Edwards at 12%. Bill Richardson attracts 4% while Joe Biden is at 3% and Dennis Kucinich at 2%. Chris Dodd is supported by 1% Mike Gravel less than half a percent. Ten percent (13%) of Likely Democratic Primary Voters are undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

[Tellurian]

19. Hillary softens hardened hearts.. (from OP link:

Now her favorability rating nationwide stands at 49.8 percent - on the cusp of the 50 percent threshold widely viewed as a prerequisite for a successful candidacy, according to the analysis.

The change has surprised many polling specialists who believe that it's difficult - if not impossible - to change the public perception of a very well known figure, especially reducing the numbers who view that person negatively.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unc70]

21. And his posts at DU make it really sad.Schwar

Schwartz, aka New Hampster, has posted about having his 15 minutes of fame/attention. Wants to be with a winner.

"He who casts no shadow, has no shame." -- Mary Ann Madden (compilation)

[Renew Deal]

26. That's a DUer?

Ugh

[goodgd_yall]

28. "She is a nice person"

Doesn't say much for the converts. So, if I understand, they didn't support her because she didn't seem to be a nice person---falling for the stereotype of the "ice queen" I suppose. Sounds like some heavy analysis is going on there. :sarcasm:

[bpeale]

30. they said the same thing about Bush & look how that turned out

[Poll_Blind]

31. "...for a simple reason. He wanted, finally, to be with a winner."

Ugh.

PB

[Forkboy]

37. It was just the weather.

:hide:

[Enrique]

41. I don't know anyone who supports Hillary

:-)

[SOS]

57. Anyone remember these NH primary winners?

2000: Senator John McCain
1996: Pat Buchanan
1992: Senator Paul Tsongas
1984: Senator Gary Hart
1972: Senator Edmund Muskie
1964: Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.
1956: Senator Estes Kefauver
1952: Senator Estes Kefauver
1948: Governor Harold E. Stassen