Sens. Clinton, McCain Win New Hampshire Presidential Primaries

Exit polls of New Hampshire voters on Tuesday found that among Democrats, the economy was the most important issue, followed by the Iraq war and health care, while Republicans were about evenly divided among those who cited the economy, the war, terrorism and undocumented immigrants as their top concerns, the New York Times reports. The polls, conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for the National Election Pool consortium, included responses from 1,914 Democrats and 1,472 Republicans (Kirkpatrick/Thee, New York Times, 1/9). Among Democrats, 39% in the exit poll cited the economy as the most important issue in the election, followed by 30% who cited the war in Iraq and 26% who cited health care (New York Times graphic, 1/9).

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) won the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary with 39% of the vote, followed by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) with 37% of the vote. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) won the state Republican presidential primary with 37% of the vote, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 32%, CNN.com reports (CNN.com, 1/9). According to exit polls, Democrats most concerned about health care and the war in Iraq supported Obama and those most concerned about the economy supported Clinton (New York Times, 1/9).

Opinion Pieces

• David Leonhardt, New York Times: All Republican presidential candidates "talk about opening up the market for health insurance to make it function more like the market for new cars or televisions," but "McCain goes further," columnist Leonhardt writes in the Times. According to Leonhardt, McCain "also suggests changing the incentives around medical care" and "wants Medicare to pay doctors and hospitals less for procedures that don't improve health -- like unnecessary surgery -- and more for effective low-technology care." McCain "has managed to sketch out an economic platform" that "represents the very beginnings of a Republican response to middle-class anxiety," Leonhardt writes (Leonhardt, New York Times, 1/9).
  
  
• Robert Reich, Wall Street Journal: "Democrats should be celebrating" that their "three major candidates have put health insurance front and center ... with plans that are remarkably similar ... at a time when the public seems readier than ever before to embrace universal health insurance," but they have incurred a "self-inflicted wounds" because of "squabbling over" whether the plans should require all U.S. residents to obtain coverage, Reich, a professor of public policy at the University of California-Berkeley and a former secretary of the Department of Labor, writes in a Journal opinion piece. According to Reich, by warring over a health insurance mandate, which "may not make much difference anyway," Democrats "are leading with their chins." Democrats "need to start building a movement in support of the big and important reforms universal health insurance requires -- and on which they happen to agree" -- to expand health insurance to all residents after January 2009, he writes (Reich, Wall Street Journal, 1/9).
  
  
• Robert Samuelson, Washington Post: "The big lie of campaign 2008 -- so far -- is that the presidential candidates, Democratic and Republican, will take care of our children," columnist Samuelson writes in a Post opinion piece. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security "already represent more than 40% of federal spending," and, without "implausibly large deficits, the only way to preserve" the programs "would be huge tax increases," he writes. According to Samuelson, "Workers and young families, not retirees, would bear the brunt of either higher taxes or degraded public services." However, "facing these facts would expose candidates" to "daunting problems," he writes. "Lightening the burden on the young requires ... raising eligibility ages" for benefits for seniors, "being less generous to richer retirees and making beneficiaries pay more for Medicare," Samuelson writes. In addition, although "individuals' benefits can be responsibly trimmed, the growth in the elderly population," as well as "rapidly rising health care costs would still expand total spending," he writes, adding, "The longer we delay ... the more likely that eventual 'solutions' will be unfair to both young and old" (Samuelson, Washington Post, 1/9).