by David Lightman
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton heads into tonight’s Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H., with a huge, commanding lead in the latest CNN/WMUR state poll.
She is favored by 43 percent of likely Democratic voters in the nation’s first primary state.
Trailing are Illinois Sen. Barack Obama at 20 percent, 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards at 12 percent, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson at 6 percent and Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, tied at 3 percent each.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who is waging a vigorous campaign in the state, drew just 1 percent in the survey, the same as “other.”
“Obama is now a lot closer to the pack than he is to Clinton,” said Dante Scala, associate professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire. “Clinton is now the frontrunner, beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Voters were polled by telephone. Margin of error is plus or minus 5.6 percent. See the poll here, and read more:
In the last survey, taken in July, Clinton was ahead by 9 percentage points over Obama.
There is one glimmer of hope for Clinton’s rivals. Only 17 percent of the state’s Democratic voters said they have definitely made up their mind on a choice—a point Dodd’s campaign keeps stressing.
In addition, some 56 percent said that debates like the one tonight are “somewhat important,” while 24 percent called them “very important.”
But Clinton looks tough. She is viewed favorably by 77 percent of the likely Democratic voters, and only 15 percent had an unfavorable opinion—a better showing than in the last poll.
The news for Dodd continues to be sobering. His favorability rating climbed to 40 percent this time, but that still trailed almost every other candidate. He was viewed as “most likeable” by only 1 percent—Obama led in this category at 39 percent—and only 1 percent saw him as the candidate with the “right experience.”
Dodd, a 26-year Senate veteran who chairs the Banking Committee, stresses his experience as a key reason he should be nominated.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
BTW 55% of the people were undecided. So she had a lead based on 45% of 307 people polled
Yeh real big lead...why don't you state all of the facts
Posted by: Lyn | September 26, 2007 10:36 AM
She will be the Dem nominee, the sooner people exceopt that the easier it will be for the ones who do not like her. I think she is the best Dem by far. There are some others I like, but none are in the race. Edwards is ok but he doesn't seem to have a realistic shot. Obama is a joke, Richardson has no chance either. Rock on Hillary!
Posted by: Vinny | September 26, 2007 10:57 AM
Please, anybody but hillary.
Luckily there is still time left and Polls don't measure primary voters.
Posted by: nisleib | September 26, 2007 11:22 AM
Yes, Obama, her only rival, is definitely toast. Despite that high-priced staff and the iconic David Axelrod. Maybe Obamba should have made a few more of his own decisions instead of letting the liberal left run him. Everybody out here in America doesn't want higher taxes and more giveaway govt programs and huge govenrment patronage bureaucracies.
It's not too late to put some pressure on Hill and Bill on the war, though, and that's what we need to be doing. Because that flurry of news stories that she's not going to change much in the "war on terror"
are right on. Unless we want to keep paying $9 to 12 billion a month indefinitely (like, the next eight years min) to save the Iraqis from themselves. Alas, a huge number of Americans appears to be prepared, even willing, to do just that.
Posted by: Helena | September 26, 2007 11:42 AM
as is aid before clinton has the right epreince we had a good america in the 9o almost everydoy happy-
iwant the clnton again please god. good america/good jobs and everything.its hillary year 2007-2008 as well.
obama is 90%good next year
hillary is 99%good next year.//ur shychic lady comments.
Posted by: laura | September 26, 2007 11:47 AM
Yes it is looking like Senator Clinton is going to be the nominee, but there is still time and I truly hope not. If we want real change in our government Clinton is not the one to provide it. For that you would need Obama, Edwards or Richardson. Senator Clinton is a hardened politician in a time when we need an idealist. I also feel that she is the only Democrat running that would have a hard time defeating the Rebublican nominee. That being said she has some positives. Her helath care proposal, while not going nearly far enough, is at least a step in the right direction and her plan to use former President Clinton as an "ambassador at large" is also good news. We all just need to understand that if she does win the nomination the deep divide in this country will only grow wider. If you can accept that hard fact well tehn she might not be that bad.
Posted by: Dean G. | September 26, 2007 2:14 PM
Oh my, those 300 people polled all know the Clinton name. What a surprise!
Posted by: RuthieM | September 26, 2007 5:00 PM
Since Barack Obama also has high name recognition, why is he trailing so badly in the polls?
Could it be the messenger? Or the message?
We here from Obama's media friends that he is the greatest communicator since the Prince of Peace, as well as being "brilliant", "charismatic" and "eloquent".
So if it isn't Obama the messenger Dem voters are rejecting, what is left except the Obama message? Evidently Dem voters don't like his message.
Can some Obama supporter explain this?
Posted by: Bruce | September 26, 2007 5:20 PM
The Dem primary is far from over. In '04 Howard Dean was the favorite until he lost his mind and Kerry took over. The two realistic challengers, Obama and Edwards, need to realize that campaigning against Bush policies is not the answer; Hillary would like nothing more than her lagging challengers to be in lockstep with her in focusing on Bush. Maintaining the status quo will favor the leader. Obama and Edwards need to distinguish themselves from Hillary, and so far, they haven't been effective in doing so.
Posted by: Herbie H. | September 26, 2007 5:22 PM
She doesn't have any lead. Polls don't count toward putting someone in the lead. Only votes count. That’s because being in "the lead" means one has more votes than the next candidate. And, as I often remind you folks, not even a single primary vote has been cast yet.
This is all just a little bit of psychological fluff to help push people off the fence one way or another. Ethically, it is a questionable practice at best.
Posted by: John W. | September 26, 2007 6:20 PM
The Blue State is holding a live chat during the Democratic presidential debate. Chat with fellow progressives as you watch live on MSNBC. Just enter a nickname and you are set. http://www.thebluestate.com
Posted by: Todd | September 26, 2007 9:03 PM