Clinton’s win shows race is up for grabs

NASHUA, N.H. — As the first returns came in from the 1992 New Hampshire primary, Bill Clinton proclaimed himself “the comeback kid.”

His audacity helped to convert a second-place setback into a victorious campaign for the White House.

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton produced a comeback of her own, stunning the pollsters, pundits and even her own campaign by upsetting pre-primary favorite Barack Obama.

Her victory upheld New Hampshire’s reputation for political independence, making a mockery of polls that showed her trailing, some by double digits.

It also suggested there may be political mileage in her determined effort to galvanize women voters and question his experience and consistency.

Clinton’s triumph increases the pressure on Obama and means that a Democratic race that seemed to be hurtling toward an early conclusion is again very much up for grabs. In coming weeks, the fierce verbal combat that flared here this weekend is likely to intensify.

But given the underlying public mood that favors change, Clinton, the once-inevitable Democratic front-runner, still faces a formidable task in coping with Obama, who some label as more phenomenon than traditional candidate.

She still could face a difficult next three weeks. Indeed, before Tuesday’s results were known, there was talk that recent developments might prompt her to bypass the next two contests.

Union backing

In Nevada, a key union is backing Obama, probably dooming her in that state’s Jan. 19 caucuses.

In South Carolina, which votes Jan. 26, polls show its large black population swinging decisively to the Illinois senator.

But then comes the biggest day of the campaign season, the Feb. 5 primaries in 22 states, including the mega-states from New York to California. It is there that the contest ultimately may be decided.

“If she can make it through to Feb. 5, and her polls hold up, she can still make it,” said a veteran Clinton hand. “But it will be tough.”

By winning here, albeit narrowly, Clinton also prevented Obama from scoring the Iowa-New Hampshire double that, for more than 30 years, has ensured the winner of the party’s nomination.

Still, it remains unclear whether her success in New Hampshire means her experience is a winning characteristic in the long run or whether her hopes of overcoming Obama may still depend on something dramatic, like a big mistake or unexpected disclosure.

Indeed, many believe the former first lady’s basic problem remains the fact that she is simply on the wrong side of her husband’s famous “bridge to the 21st century,” seeking a restoration when a dissatisfied public wants something new.

Some voters expressed similar concerns.

“There’s that whole thing with Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton,” said Lucy St. John, 47, a Concord, N.H., city planner who heard Clinton on Saturday in Penacook. “Maybe we need a new face in there.”

Still, Clinton sought to convert her experience into an instrument of change, talking of “making changes in people’s lives for 35 years,” while Obama spoke of forging a new coalition of Democrats, Republicans and independents to go beyond past battles.

He drew many votes from independents that way, but many others in New Hampshire chose to vote for Sen. John McCain in the Republican primary, propelling him to victory there just as they did eight years ago against George W. Bush.

Increased scrutiny

And Obama’s failure to add New Hampshire to his Iowa victory means that he will face increased scrutiny of his vulnerabilities, especially the fact that he is inexperienced, in office and as a candidate.

As to the question of whether Americans would elect a black candidate, as polls have indicated, that theory won’t be fully tested until one is actually elected. And it’s one aspect of the campaign that is unlikely to form much part of the formal debate.

X Carl P. Leubsdorf is Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune.