This was the worst night yet for the packs of obsessive charter members of the hate Hillary Clinton club. Their first bad night came back in January when despite the gleeful, hopeful but totally false and overblown anticipation of the wrong headed pollsters that predicted a smash Obama victory, Clinton bagged New Hampshire. Tuesday's outcome was much worse for them. The same gleeful, hopeful, but just as wrongheaded pollsters and even more wrongheaded pundits deliriously wrote the epitaph for Clinton ("the end is in sight," "her Waterloo," "will Clinton stand down," and on and on the blarney headlines screamed.
They didn't matter. This writer flatly predicted a Clinton win in Ohio and Texas. It wasn't hard to do. Despite the "Clinton is finished" doom-and-gloom predictions, what the Clinton haters missed, or rather deliberately omitted was that she was never out of the hunt for the nomination. Clinton ran no ads, had only a token campaign staff, and spent virtually no time in the string of primary election states that she lost. The reason was simple. She smartly concentrated on winning the two states that she had to win, Texas and Ohio. The losses in the smaller primary states meant little since she still had an ample number of delegates and super delegates in the bank. In fact despite the loss in these eleven primary states she was still about five percentage points behind her rival in the delegate count. Losses in the Democratic primary meant even less still in states such as Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, and Montana. They are safe Red States and the eventual Democratic nominee doesn't have a prayer of winning them anyway in the general election.
The victories in Texas and Ohio, coupled with the wins in California, and New York prove one thing and that's that Clinton can win the big states. This is the absolute minimum requirement for a Democratic nominee to have any shot at beating John McCain. Clinton's wins in Texas and Ohio does even more. They demonstrated that she can be competitive with one powerful constituency and maintain a solid grip on the other that a Democratic nominee must either win the majority vote from or a sizable percentage of their vote. The two constituencies are Latinos and blue collar whites. Bush got more than forty percent of the Latino vote in 2004. As other GOP presidents and candidates dating back to Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bush got the vote of the overwhelming majority of blue collar whites, especially white males. Ohio is the bluest of blue collar states and Clinton got a smash win there. That's a hint that Ohio could be competitive for the Democrats, that is if she's the nominee. The Democrat's lock on the Latino vote is solid, again, only if she's the nominee.
The charter hate Hillary club members also delight in constantly harping on the supposed mounds of Clinton negatives. The point supposedly is that this alone is enough to set the Democrats on a train wreck course with her as the nominee. But the polls also have consistently shown that voters like her for her strength and experience. When they assess her positions on health care, jobs and the economy, and in dealing with the sub prime crisis, without the filter of distortions and twisting, her positions are sound, reasonable and workable, and much better than anything offered by any of the other candidates.
The polls show something else and that's that in a head to head race with McCain, Clinton loses by a few percentage points or is statistically even with him. This too is supposedly proof that Clinton will sink the party. But these are the same polls that showed Clinton losing virtually every contest in every primary. These are the same polls that did not factor in that Clinton tactically and strategically picked the primaries that she chose to make a major effort to win and then proceeded to do just that.
There are more primaries ahead, but despite all the fervent hopes and delicious dreams of the hate Clinton club members; she will win more primaries, Pennsylvania, being the most likely. That will further strengthen the case that she can and should boldly make and that's that she can win the big states and make the White House race a real contest. In other words, there are more bad nights in store for the hate Clinton club members.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008). Ethnicpresidency.com
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Another great Blog EOH! I'm almost ready to join the Anti Hussein folks! I'm almost feeling it, almost there!
But it was a great night for the Hate Obama Clubbers, so cheer up, Mr. Hutchinson!
Did you fail to notice that Clinton _barely_ won Texas, and that only because of dirty tactics. Did you see that coming, too, Nostradamus? And if so, please tell me how the superdelegates are going to react when she resorts to more of the same or worse as she tries to cling to Penn. Do you think they'll let her tear the party apart?
"The polls show something else..."
Which polls, Earl? Please cite your sources.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson needs a lesson in civil discourse. Guess what, Mr. Hutchinson? You don't convince anyone, or render your argument more powerful, by repeatedly asserting that anyone who disagrees with you is motivated by irrational hatred or stupidity.
I think Hillary Clinton is a brilliant, hardworking woman. She is my Senator, and I voted for her. I think she would be a good President.
I also think Barack Obama is brilliant and hardworking. I think he would be a good President. And I think he has the potential to be transformational, edging the center of discourse in this country in a more progressive direction, and reaching and energizing a new group of voters. I also think, notwithstanding the fact that my opinion concurs with the polls (which, according to you, are always completely wrong), that Barack Obama has a better chance of winning against McCain than Hillary Clinton does. That's based on my personal experience, not on the polls. No, I'm not sure she'll lose. But my lifetime of experience tells me Obama has a better shot, even if your experience tells you otherwise. And perhaps you'll notice, here, that I attribute your opinion to your experience, rather than implying that you've drunk Kool-Aid, or that you just despise my preferred candidate.
So, why don't you try to have the common decency and respect for others not to dismiss everyone who feels as I do by calling us members of the "Hate Hillary Club." Yours is exactly the approach that I heard from Republicans when Bush was challenged on anything. Any argument against his policies could be dismissed as the ravings of the "Bush Haters." This tactic is intellectually and rhetorically bankrupt.
And, as I read your words attributing to pure malice and bitterness the beliefs of everyone who holds a different opinion from yours, it occurs to me that you might want to examine the source of that assumption.
batspaul:
Where was the "pure malice and bitterness... to anyone holding a different opinion from Mr. Hutchison" ? As for you being offended with his "Hate Hillary Club" -- if that is not the way you feel, then he was obviously not directing the article toward you. So why are you taking offense.
You must admit, that there are an overwhelming amount of anti Hillary hate rhetoric goin on on - not only the Huff - but with most of the MSM outlets as well. I mean, the public both nationally and internationally (I live in Canada) have been drowning in it for the last 2 and a half months. so much so, that I was compelled to post my objections about it. Now, if even the Canadians are awestruck over the anti Hillary hate machine... then one must assume the US anti Hillary hate rhetoric must be stunning! I know for a fact that CNN and MSNBC have become nothing more than pro Obama advertising vehicles . The whole world is talking about it at this stage of the game.. and think you'd have to agree, given you're not deaf or blind...
So I don't believe Mr. Hutchinson is doing anything other than - telling the truth; something the US public has been short changed of in this election.
why exactly is the author a Hillary Clinton supporter?
are you proud of Sen Clinton's non deinal denial on Obama's religion on "60 Minutes"?
are you proud that in Sen Clinton's hierarchy after herself John McCain is better suited to be in the WH than Sen Obama?
are you proud of any senate legislation Sen Clinton has actually authored and passed to help your community? (answer: none)
are you proud of the scorched earth strategy of Sen Clinton's campaign and her putting her personal quest to win over the best interests of th Dem Party winning in Nov 08?
are you proud that the last three days of this campaign were about:
(a) fear
(b) race and religion
(c) slander -- yes slander "Nafta"; "Rezko"
are your proud that the strategy that worked for your candidate was the politics of personal destruction to her opponent?
are you proud of your candidates lack of transparency on her finances?
are you proud of how your candidate has run her campaign?
So what exactly is the reason - factual supported reason - for you to support Sen Hillary Clinton?
Just curious
Amen. Finally someone speaks the truth. Thank you.
Anyone who wants to kid themselves that wins in LA, Alaska, AZ, and basically every state in Obama's column except IL mean anything in the general election for the Democrats are either kidding themselves or don't understand how presidents are elected.
For the last freaking time, just because I don't want to vote for her doesn't mean I hate her. I don't hate her, I don't love her. I don't love Obama, I have not been brain-washed by Obama. I just prefer him because I am a progressive and he is closer to those values than Hillary. Is that so hard for you to understand? But I tell you this much, posts like this are beginning to make me want to hate her. And I don't think you want to do that, because I am a voter and if she is the nominee she'll need my vote in November.
I will say I hate how she's campaigned - fake newscasts and passing out photos to incite bigotry are the stuff of Neocons. Maybe you can take that message back to her camp.
Clevelandchick, thank you for clarifying that you have not been "brain-washed [sic] by Obama". Glad to hear it. I am surprised, though, that you would allow a post on this blog to make you want to hate Hillary.
You are correct, if Hillary is the nominee in November, she will need every vote (including yours) she can get.
Where is your PROOF that it was NOT the Obama campaign that advanced fake newscasts and passed out photos to incite bigotry?
You don't hate her. You hate how she's campaigned. That sounds a lot like hate the sin, but not the sinner. Christians use that one to condemn gay people all the time. You are way off base if you think that Mr. Hutchison's column in any way can compare to the endless praise and deference usually accorded Obama on Huffpo, you must not visit here often. We all know that you alone are responsible for untold inches of overheated prose dedicated to the canonization of Barack Obama. The Hillary hating by some of Obama's most vocal and verbal fans (like you) has made me lose respect for Obama. That may not be fair, but Obama will need my support if he gets the nomination, and, so far, he has been smug, superior, condescending, and dismissive toward those of us who support Hillary. Respect is a two-way street, Chick. Obama is not blameless. He fights just as dirty as anyone else. Fortunately for him, he has an amen corner of devotees like you to excuse his every misstep and destroy anyone who refuses to recognize his status as the Chosen One.
clevelandchick:
Want REAL change? Vote for NONE of the candidates. They're all corporate sponsored, and don't care about you as a voter, or citizen.
PNG, too real--cleveland will hear you, but most others want the warm safety of "my daddy can beat up your daddy!"
Thank you, Mr. Hutchinson, for your cogent piece. That those of us who wish to better this country could be so divided does not bode well. Hatred has no place here and does not further our goals.
This sounds an awful lot like a Mark Penn conference call. Obama has won 27 states to Clinton's 14. This article is a bald-faced denigration of those 27 states. I suppose the popular vote is unimportant as well? Should we legitimize the Soviet-style Michigan and Florida delegates while we're at it? Please, explain to me the unimportance of these states: Alabama, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Louisiana, Washington, Maine, Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
efranklin:
You say "Should we legitimize the Soviet-style Michigan and Florida delegates while we're at it?"
i say... well why on earth not! After all you've already legitimized a Soviet - style Main Stream Media - that's had control of this election - for the past 3 months.
Soviet style?
What nonsense,
News for uninformed: USA is NOT a direct democracy, but was set up as representational democracy republic. Hence, winer-take all system. Same way representatives ( super-delegates) will decide the nomination, not direct vote counting.
Hillary in 2008, Obama for Secretary of Interior.
Soviet Style - as in there was only one person on the ballot in Michigan.... get it now?
And by the way, I think you meant to say "winner" take all, albeit incorrect in this instance, or perhaps you were thinking wishfully as a Clinton supporter that it's "whiner take all" in which case you're home free. Just the same, thanks for informing we the uniformed and hate filled Obama supporters, you should be on Earl's research staff.
Obama '08 Billiary for Secretary of Horse's Posterior
Wow! Going back over your last dozen or so pieces, I am reminded that you must be a member of the Hate Obama Club. What IS your problem with him vs. Hillary? What has she ever accomplished that makes her superior? It's always about "political viability" with the Clintons, to the point where she's willing to tear her party - my party - into shreds in order to attempt a coup with the super delegates. Any Clinton victory after her recent behavior won't be worth a damn thing.
I don't have any more proof of this than Earl does of most of his anti Obama slams, but i get the feeling often with him that he just doesn't want to see another Black Man get ahead--of him, of the system, or maybe put one tiny nail in the coffin of racism in this awful country that Earl has made so much money off of...? I don't know, but it makes me feel uneasy.
Rule:
Your "feeling" about Earl is the same one I've heard for many years from some (certainly not all) black people who want to see "a black man get ahead", without due consideration of the individual's qualifications.
You engage in pure victim-based-attack-the-messenger whining when you accuse EOH of "anti-Obama slams ... because he doesn't want to see another black man get ahead--of him, of the system ... in this awful country..."
If this country is so "awful", why are you still in it? It is people like you who make me "feel uneasy". People who are so devoted to a cult-like personality that they take everything even remotely critical of His Highness as a personal attack, after which you respond with the kind of hogwash you just posted.
Let's face it. Obama is not qualified to be president -- perhaps later - not now. If he gets the nomination and fails miserably, will you still be proud that he "got ahead"?
I really want to like Hillary--she's brilliant and right on most issues, but every time I start to like her, she does something repugnant, like 'innocently' letting the question of Obama's muslimness hang in the air even though she's been to prayer breakfasts with him in the senate. I can't accept that kind of fearmongering. I don't hate her, I just want her to go away.
Just as "innocently Obama let the baseless accusations of Hillary racism let hang out there.
Obama would be better off sticking to city-level community service work with his 'hope of change" nonsense.
Obama has more pledged delegates. End of story. As for the "Big States," Obama will take them all without another Democrat (in this case, a household name) to run against. Bottom line, he has more pledged delegates. If the party caves to the Clintons, well, what can I say, except "b'bye."
Reading some of the responses here, it is clear you've stirred up the nest. The Hillary haters are in full fury. Many here after there usual anti-Clinton ad hominems have turned on you as well.
I voted for Hillary Clinton yesterday. I really want Al Gore as the nominee, but I supported Edwards when Gore said no way. What turned me off of Obama was the behavior of the Obamanuts. It's fine to disagree with Bill and Hillary Clinton on some issues, but if you start trashing them like the Obamanuts have, you lose my vote. Clinton was a very good president. Hillary Clinton would be far better than ANY Republican. Yet the Obamanuts smear her and Bill using all the Republican lies. The Obamanuts aren't Democrats.
If Obama is the nominee, the Republicans will slime him into oblivion. The softball criticisms Hillary Clinton has thrown at him won't prepare him for what is coming. The Democrats need Florida or Ohio to win the White House. Obama won't win either of those states in November. Hillary Clinton can win them both.
I hear you Bill.
I completely understand not liking a candidate but the level of hate I have seen rivals even that I witnessed coming from the Republicans in the '90s.
I feel that our system is in flux as a direct result of the information revolution we are still in. The Republican party of my fathers and my youth no longer exists and it is yet to be seen what will emerge from the Reagan ashes they seem to be stoking.
Perhaps we are too deep in it or too close to see it, but it is obvious that the Democratic party is also fracturing. I certainly don't see the Democratic party I used to know in this contest. What I see is a contest that mirrors more the Republican v. Democratic nomination race. And while I believe both candidates are playing hardball politics, it has been obvious to me for some time that the Obama supporters' " you are either with us or the enemy" mentality is troubling at best. And it doesn't help Mr. Obama.
And if this is the way the Democrats feel politics should be run, then I am obviously no longer a Democrat.
I have never been a Democrat, though I've voted for them consistently for the past 15 years, after seeing the error of my ways (or the ways I was raised in) back in 1990, and boy, am I glad! However, I feel like a better Democrat than some who are registered, since I will vote for whomever the party chooses.
I love it. You talk about Hillary haters and then call Obama supporters Obamanuts. Why is your trashing of Obama any different than the "trashing of the Clintons" by the Obamanuts?
You just answered your own question. Being critical of Obama fanatical supporters does not mean to hate Obama. To hate Hillary means exactly that - to hate Hillary personally.And it is really not the same.
"Obamanuts" seems like an endearment compared to the vile epithets thrown at the Clintons. Pick any post on Huffpo and you will see comments that would disgust any reasonable person.
Only in big states where there is a friendly and/or motivated board of elections. Like Texas and Ohio.
Posted March 5, 2008 | 09:22 AM (EST)