- BIG NEWS:
- Terrorism
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
- Blackwater
- |
- Health Care
- |
Another Horrible Night for Hate Hillary Clubbers and More on the Way
Read More:
Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ohio, Presidential Primaries, Republicans, Rhode Island, Superdelegates, Texas,
Home News
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
Loading comments…
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
"It's clobberin' time!!!"
-Ben "The Thing" Grimm
Maybe, if she were the least bit honest, she wouldn't be so hated. Maybe, if Bill hadn't left the Whitehouse in disgrace, she wouldn't be so hated. Maybe, if special interests were not the main contributors to here otherwise bankrupt campaign, people would like her more. I know I would! I don't hate her - but I do hate the idea of her as president, because I have no reason to trust her. Additionally, I have taken the time to compare their senatorial records, and Obama is the clear winner.
The main reason many Dems don't like Hillary is that she voted for the Iraq war and refuses to admit her vote was a mistake. The war has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including more than 3000 US soldiers. The reason she voted for the war was, most likely, because she felt she had to in order to have a reasonable chance of eventually winning a national presidential election.
Some Democrats believe her vote was an extraordinarily self-serving act, endangering the lives of countless people to forward her own political ambitions. I am one of the Democrats who feels that way. Does this make me a Hillary Hater, as Mr. Hutchinson might say? No. I just believe that she made a horrific and profoundly selfish decision that should discount her from consideration for the presidency.
Perhaps your complete support of Mr. Obama has made it difficult for some to seperate the spin from the logic.
To say that Mrs. Clinton's vote for the Iraq resolution was solely based on an advantage in the presidential election may make a smart snarky dig against her but it holds no water.
This would mean that ALL of the democratic senators that ALSO voted for that resolution had alterior motives as well, or simply have no concern for our military men and women. I don't believe this and I don't think the majority Americans do either.
Some Democrats believe that at the time Senator Clinton made her decision to support the resolution, there was plenty of evidence to support the action (Bush lies are still in place as we now know) and fabricated intelligence (did anyone really think Colin Powel was lying with that vile of white powder?).
I want my Senator and POTUS to respond to threats accordingly. is a far reach. If anyone wa
As a military family, we have no problem understanding Mrs. Clinton's vote. And we trust that she will be equally responsive as POTUS.
Neither Mrs. Clinton nor any of the other Senators that believed we were under imminent threat based on what our own government was telling us are responsible for the war that Bush fabricated. Unless, of course, you believe that Colin Powel is a major liar and Clinton like the rest of us, should not have believed his UN testimony.
23 senators didn't vote for Iraq. Many have since apologized for their vote. Someone who wants to be president should at least read the intelligence report, which she didn't,. even after Bob Graham, urged the senators to read it (once he read it he voted against the resolution). By the way, I did think Colin Powell was lying, and he disappointed me greatly because I thought he would be the one person on the Bush cabinet we could trust.. None of this made any sense to me, but then I was part of the less that 25% of this country that didn't think we should wage a pre-emptive war against a country that wasn't a threat to us.
I am sure those of you who were on board with the war from the beginning can now imagine how Congress could have been tricked into allowing Bush to go to war. The reality is, Congress gave away their Constitutional authority to declare war. It was one of the most costly mistakes (literally and figureatively) of our generation. Our children and our grandchildren will pay for this mistake as we bleed billions of dollars a month into a war we shouldn't have fought. How many of our economical issues could be addressed if we weren't spending millions each month on Iraq? Our position in the world is weakened. We have lost 4000 soldiers and many more have lost limbs. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths and injuries numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Hillary just doesn't get a pass from me on that vote.
Obama all the way said: (In a post espousing the use of logic) "Again, your basing your logic on this primary and not on the realistic points of fact that someone was going to win...Clin
What is wrong with a 50 state strategy? The 51% strategy the Dems have put forth in the last elections have gotten nowhere. If we aim for 51% we'll get just what we have today, a government completely divided. Every time I hear about the big states I wonder if the Hillary supporters actually buy that she is the only Dem who can win them. I think that Obama and Hillary would win NY, CA, IL, NJ & MA. Bush didn't win CA , NY, IL, NJ or MA or PA. He won TX and a whole lot of small states and was able to win two terms.
He also won OH and FL. The 50 state strategy just doesn't work in the GE.
More on the way? You mean in Wyoming and Mississippi? I guess we'll see...
TINY, INSIGNIFICANT RED STATES
EOH:
You've been a huge anti Obama Hillary-ite since day ONE (TM) Everyone knows it. You're on her payroll of black attack dogs and it's painfully obvious that you'll pick up your poison pen at the drop of a dime to regurgitate Hillary approved talking points, while conveniently dismissing the fact that the delegate math simply does not bode well for pulling off the nomination in the long run.
I sincerely hope you acquaint yourself with reality sometime soon for your sake.
Sure he's been her attack dog from day one. That's why he floated the meme/lie that blacks didn't think Obama was "black enough". Remember that one? He was one of the main malefactors in that bit of anti-black racist ugliness. Yes, I said anti-black racist.
An excellent analysis Mr. Hutchinson. It may not make some people happy, but facts seldom do.
Mr Hutchinson, I can't help but admire your command of the English language. When you intend to drive home a nascent point, it is done with the presicion of a surgeon. A beautifully written piece which indisputably lays out fact after fact after fact, sewing it all up with irrefutable logic.
A brilliant piece.
I daresay you have ruined the day of those sad, onerous people of singelminded purpose; to hate and despise anyone who does not fit their narrow vision.
The only thing that's certain is that the "big" states are filled with voter irregularities -- and further that the candidate that doesn't support the war will not be "elected."
Popular votes do not count in the Presidential elections. It's all about the electoral college. The bigger states bring in more electoral college votes so Earl has a point. Democrats need to stick together. We cannot let this election slip away if it even means a Obama/Clinton Ticket!!!
Unless those popular votes are for Obama right? hmmm
You meant a Clinton/Obama ticket... I am certain of that.
In my opinion that shouldn't happen, as it would cause Mrs Clinton to restrict herself from a far better candidate. I'd like to see her with Mr. Fiengold as a running mate; a REAL winner for true blue Democrats.
(perk)
You mentioned Mr. Feingold? Ah, well, yes. What a fabulous choicre for VP he would be.
I don't support a Clinton/Obama ticket. I feel Senator Clinton can do better and Mr. Obama comes with too much baggage.
Though I admit, it would go a long way to unifying the People.
I was thinking more along the lines of Senator Ford. I have always liked him and his demeanor.
But my dream ticket (dream being the operative word) would be Diane Feinstein for VP. Okay, I would want Senator Feinstein as POTUS!
This country may be ready for its first Woman or Black POTUS but I don't think they are ready for the first Jewish one.
Yes, a real liberal to balance out her conservative corporatism.
Obaama camn win the big states too. I most of the contests to date the second place democrat has hjad more votes total than all of the Repubs combined
Hillary wins the "big blue states" by winning the rural areas. Do you happen to know how those rural areas go in a general? REPUBLICAN
In nearly every state, Obama has won the urban/heavilly populated counties. These are the areas that matter and the ones Democrats need in a general.
And don't get too carried away on this argument..
The Clinton campaign today maintained that “the vetting of Barack Obama has just begun.” The truth is, more than a year into this campaign, some very simple vetting of Hillary Clinton has yet to start.
In the face of her unwillingness to release her tax returns, Hillary Clinton has made the false case in this campaign that she is more electable because she has been fully vetted. When it comes to her personal finances, Senator Clinton’s refusal to release her taxes returns denies the media and the American people the opportunity to even begin that process. Though her campaign has tried to kick the issue down the road, Democratic voters deserve to know, right now, why it is she is hiding the information in her tax returns from last year.
The Clinton campaign has said that they have released copious amounts of financial information but there are many questions about their private dealings that could be answered in their tax returns but not in the information that is currently available. For example, here are eight pieces of information that could be learned from her tax returns, the accompanying schedules, and attachments:
Effective tax rate – including whether or not any tax shelters were used to reduce it
Amount of income for spouses by source
Amount of stock gains and losses
Gross income for the couple
Amount earned from stock dividends
Amount of household employment taxes paid
Personal exemptions taken
Charitable contributions made
Senator Clinton has also claimed that she is too “busy” to release her tax returns. Given the fact she is able to loan her campaign $5 million, you would think the Clintons would be able to hire an accountant. The reality is that she wants to keep this information hidden from voters. The people of Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and the rest of the country should wonder why.
The Clintons’ record on releasing tax returns:
FEBRUARY 2008: Clinton Reiterated That She Would Not Release Her Tax Records Until She Is The Nominee
The major metropolitan areas of North Dakota and Alaska must figure into this logic.
And by the way, what are they?
It wins the Establishment states is all it means.
Perhaps you are NOT aware...bu
I trust that clears things up for you.
I get it Earl. I have read your work on Blacks and the prison system (first in one of Ishmael Reed's anthos) , I have read your work debunking crime stats and such. Slick Willie put so many Black people in jail, you'll be writing forever. I guess you suspect that Hillary will just finish the job that her husband started.
I don't wonder about you anymore. I get it now.
EOH is Hillary Clinton's own personal Jesse Lee Peterson.
What was horrible about it? Oh yeah, Clinton managed to eke out a last minute bump through negative ads that came out to near the vote to get a full news cycle. I will remind you that Obama came from very far behind to make Texas and Ohio a competitive race. The momentum in this campaign has not shifted anymore than Huckabee's collection of good showings altered the outcome for Republicans.
...and in order to come from very far behind to just finishing short of success, Obama dumped millions and millions of dollars into Texas, and to prove what? That he can come up short on the big elections just like Al Gore or John Kerry? Are you friggin' kidding me? Competitive races are the names losers give to elections they DIDN'T win. Nothing more.
I will repeat what Cesca has said on his posts here on Huffington, only twisted. There is no way Obama can win enough delegates in the remaining primaries to clinch the nomination. He should go ahead and bow out gracefully now and stop tearing the Democratic party apart. !!! :-)
Aren't elections fun?
Again, logic goes out the window. The only states that matter are the ones where Obama comes up short. How about all of the states she lost by double digits. If she could have competed in those states Obama wouldn't be so far ahead in pledged delegates at t his point.
News flash -There is no way Clinton can win enough delegates in the remaining primaries to clinch the nomination. She should go ahead and bow out gracefully now and stop tearing the Democratic party apart. !!! :-)
phillipin, you should know I guess, Clinton dumped 100 million dollars into the campaign only to lose a 25 point lead and 22 states. So I guess Clinton has been "competitive" in lots of places.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
