Another Horrible Night for Hate Hillary Clubbers and More on the Way
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
Mr. Hutchinson comes back to spin again. Since February 5th, Obama gains 41 Supers, Hillary loses 6.
Sir, people can hate her or love her all they want. That is not the issue. This country's direction shouldn't be guided by a party that is saying Mine is Bigger than Yours. You place a moral virtue on big states, that same way some place a moral claim on Clinton's right to the Presidency. This not only undemocractic but the very essence of a Monarchy.
Ironically, your arguments are all style. The big flashy industrial states that show' s she can win big. "Show" is the operative word her for you. Things have to show and look big to you sir? This is style over subtance sir. What is it that these big states have that are so important to the United States, that the remaining 26 states, including Alaska, Illionis, Colorado, Virgina, WIsconsin, Hawaii, Louisiana, Alabama, that Senator has won, do not have? The industrial states are just that industrial Democratic states.
Im sure if you took the accumulated personal wealth, education, and land mass of the states Obama won, they would be larger in every context, than all states Hillary won combined. This is what matters, because it is a United States, not a United Industrial States election.
I'll tell you what, the Republicans will eat up this indecisive infighting that's always plagued the liberal party. They are going to say, gee "this party pretends to be so open minded and all they do is fight about petty things, with eachother about wanting get what they deserve." Sound familiar. At least the Republicans can say and will show in their actions, that they can make sacrifices - Romney, Guiliani, etc. and stick to them, and move forward. Decisive!! People will respond better to this in a time of a War mentality and unease about everything else, socially and economially. They''ll go for a strong party that is decisive and exercises tough love not a petty party that likes to show what they can do. Not a party that is saying, Mine is Bigger than yours.
Sir, people can hate her or love her all they want. That is not the issue. This country's direction shouldn't be guided by a parter than is saying Mine is Bigger than Yours. You place a moral virtue on big states, that same way some place a moral claim on Clinton's right to the Presidency. This not only undemocractic but the very essence of a Monarchy.
Ironically, your arguments are all style. The big flashy industrial states that show' s she can win big. "Show" is the operative word her for you. Things have to show and look big to matter to matter to you sir? This is style over subtance sir. What is it that these big states have that are so important to the United States, that the remaining 26 states, including Alaska, Illionis, Colorado, Virgina, WIsconsin, Hawaii, Louisiana, Alabama, that Senator has won, do not have? The industrial states are just that industrial Democratic states.
Im sure if you took the accumulated personal wealth, education, and land mass of the states Obama won, they would be larger in every context, than all states Hillary won combined. This what matters, because it is a United States, not a United Industrial States election.
I'll tell you what, the Republicans will eat up this indecisive infighting that's always plagued the liberal party. They are going to say, gee "this party pretends to be so open minded and all they do is fight about petty things, with eachother about wanting get what they deserve." Sound familiar. At least the Republicans can say and will show in their actions, that they can make sacrifices - Romney, Guiliani, etc. and stick to them, and move forward. Decisive!! People will respond better to this in a time of a War mentality and unease about everything else, socially and economially. They''ll go for a strong party that is decisive and exercises tough love not a petty party that likes to show what they can do. Not a party that is saying, Mine is Bigger than yours.
It wasn't a horrible night for the 'hate Hillary" folks, it was a horrible night for the 'we don't want to see John McCain elected" folks and it wasn't a particularly good night for those of us who justifiably loathe the DLC 'third way' spineless robots. The GOP and social conservatives are delighted to see her continue. They're pleased because they know that she is helping McCain immeasurably and because if she does get the nom she will lose badly in the general while split the partyt. Unlike McCain and Obama her unfavorables are enormous and she loses in every head to head poll against McCain.
Lots of people dislike Hillary and justifiably so; the Clinton style of politics and governance is so unpleasantly republican.
I heard you on KTLA this morning, Earl. Where was all of that venom then? Were you afraid to show how biased you really are on television? You aren't fooling anyone, man.
I read your post, but it honestly came across as something akin to a 5 year old chanting, "Ha, ha, nanny, boo-boo." Not a good look at all, Earl.
Secondly, aside from the race & NAFTA smear-induced Ohio result, are you honestly asserting that Obama can't win the big states you referenced. Have you check the actual vote totals...y
As for the Hillary-hating label, I find it to be incredibly dismissive & inaccurate for the large majority of people (like me) who simply see her decision and actions as running counter to honesty, integrity and a true commitment to resolving the conflicts, corruption, and disenfranchisement that keep us stuck. She is unacceptable as a choice for those reasons. It has nothing to do with blind hatred.
sure sure saint obama is the paragon of honesty ... hence his lies on NAFTA-GATE ... that his campaign never had contact with the canadians.
keep on drinkin more of the kool-aid..
Mr. Hutchinson,
I don’t think you have heard yet from the "hate Hillary Clinton club". If she wins the nomination, wait until the GE when the Republicans who are cheering her win today come out against her with full force. If you think her wining against Obama by whisper campaign and fear mongering was well earned, wait until the tables are turned. Those White House papers will be published; the Bush Administration will start leaking damaging info after another. The Marc Rich pardon and other questionable Clinton actions will be revisited. They will also have rich new material- try library donors, President Clinton’s shady business connections, and the list goes on and on. Obama might not attack her but the republicans will.
It is amazing to me that anyone can still regard ANYTHING done during the entire 2-term Bill Clinton administration as being scandalous, when there are 2 terms of a Bush administration rife with corruption, war-mongering, war-profiteering, blatant violations of the Constitution.
What more could they possibly dredge up that they didn't throw at the Clintons back then?
Just let them dare -- and let Clinton fight back by reminding the American public of any of the Bushista crimes....
I'm so sick of hearing the "big states" argument..
Texas and Ohio haven't been won by democrats in a very long time.
It was no mistake that Hillary stood in RACIST OHIO and said...mee
The truth is..if Hillary is the nominee...
The other side of the coin is also...spi
So get a clue.....a
bill clinton won ohio in 1992 and 1996 ... Dems didnt carry OH in 2000 or in 2004 else we'd never had bush....
Kerry lost OH by 2% of the vote there.....
GET IT ????? As goes OH so goes the nation !!!!!!!!
I thought it was MO that was the bellweather state.
oh and i forgot to add.. Obambi will be toast in PA a traditionally blue state...
So not only will he be able to win swing state OH , but he will lose a blue state with PA ...
There is no chance John McCain will win the big states of California and New York no matter if Hillary or Obama is the nominee.I really wish some one would call Hillary on her life of experince,She was a governors wife for tweleve years and a presidents wife for eight years.What does that twenty years quallify her for.Hillar
I liked Hillary a lot more till she said she had a life time of experince and John McCain had a life of experince and Brock Obama made a speech in 2002.Right at that time I said to my wife I didn't have to vote for a jerk and won't.
What the hell has Obama done up till now that makes him more experienced than Hillary ,or even her equal.
dbredes:
Read your history. The nominees that can get Ohio in the mix, whether for the Party nomination, or for the Presidency, will get it. The only real reason that Clinton/Obama will win is not so much the acceptance among 'RedNecks' as you suggest, but that McCain is highly polarizing, and has done what Mitt Romney did: flip-flop. These groups do remember some of the spew that emitted from his gob about the religious right, and some of the egregious comments about the more conservative groups that infiltrate the Republican Party.
They HATE him. And they will let him know it come November.
Hey Earl:
This is exactly why I am a fan of yours. The Obamaniacs don't wish to hear it and the Clintonistas think your pro-Hillary,. So, Earl, if I may be so bold,let me help you with this:
Let me preface this by stating that I AM NOT A CLINTON, OBAMA, or McCAIN supporter. What does this matter? I have something you 'blind faith' supporters don't have: OBJECTIVITY.
Aside from the fact that ALL these candidates are 'product' of corporate sponsorship and special interest lobbying, let's just expand on Mr. Hutchinson's observation. Firstly, Barrack Obama rise to the pantheon of the American imagination as a leader of change, and a breath of fresh air, was media sponsored and created. Before Obama threw his hat in the ring, it was all about Hillary. Obama brought something that Clinton didn't possess, and doesn't have even now: likability, and the media (in particular, Ted Turner's group) began to canonize the Illinois Senator.. and the 18-27 group were all over it. How could they not be? Good looking, charismatic, young, and full of 'hope', Obama resonates with this group, presenting himself as the ultra-idea
So, the media began to paste Hillary at every turn, even considering her a washout before the New Hampshire primaries. The result? She won. N.H. has had a deep history with being rock-solidly stubborn with their support, and it was already predestined Clinton territory.
Then Hillary screwed up..in South Carolina. In this portion of the country, where race plays a strong factor given the controversial history, it was extremely stupid for both Clinton and Edwards to pile on Obama as they invariably did during the debates. it looked of bullying, in particular, against a strong, intelligent, African-American candidate whose motto was unification among all 'stripes', verses the 'white establishment': the 'old guard'. The voters didn't appreciate that, especially black voters who voted accordingly.
This is where the media played a hand in Obama's ascension. Clinton got ROASTED for this attempt, alongside her husband, questioning Obama's 'blackness' (?!?) and her campaign entourage, who did more of the same. It backfired, and the collective mainstream news outlets crucified Clinton, and made Obama look the victim of straight-up racism. Clinton looked finished, as Obama went on a twelve-state tear.
Pay attention, this is where it gets dicey. Clinton, just before this incredible run by the Obama camp did something that ASSURED her the nomination: She won California, New York, Florida. and Michigan..
Hence why she pummeled Obama, particularly in Ohio, a swing-state, and narrowly defeated him in Texas. And why she will go on to crucify Obama in Pennsylvania, which is very similar in its vox populi like Ohio: Blue collar, racially and politically diverse. Clinton does well in these situations, and will continue to do so. Obama will lose, albeit narrowly, as the superdelegates will be reassured of Clinton's viability to crush McCain as Option 1. Obama has so far proven he can not be as viable in critical swing states, as he is not been victorious thus far in any of them. But, must be part of the democratic campaign as her running mate as he has garnered so much support on his own, and has seemingly started a real grass-roots movement for change, particularly among younger voters.
Clinton, as she already demonstrated, knows this. So does Obama.
They will run McCain over in November. He is too willing to bend to the will of the Far Right, adjust his views to garner support, and has change his stance on Iraq too many times, and has NO understanding of the economy..a
Interesting analysis, well-reasoned and relatively objective (refreshing on these Huff 'n' Puff blog postings) :-D
I do wonder, though, why Clinton keeps getting characterized as overly-ambitious ("her visible lust for ascension") when no one seems to consider the naked ambition demonstrated by Obama in getting to the US Senate and immediately jumping into the Presidential campaign? Not saying it's wrong or he isn't entitled to as much as anyone else -- but he sure is in a rush to the top.
Probably just as well, because the more time you spend in the Senate actually voting on difficult issues, being forced to compromise, etc, the more it can be used against you in a later campaign.
Regarding the energizing of the "youth" group voters -- it's true, but is it ephemeral? So many of that demographic seem to be voting for the personality, not the politics -- because so many of them claim they'll "stay home" or "vote for McCain" if Hillary, not Barak, is the nominee.
Even though there are very few, minor distinctions to be made between Clinton and Obama on their records and agendas, and both are very much opposed to the Republican agenda.
dmaci:
Good point! I did want to expand on that, but the post was lengthy, and I was in danger of running over the limit. There are FEW distinctions between the two, hence why I'm considering not voting at all. They are both power-mad, and willful products of corporate sponsorship, which has done nothing for the voter, and everything to push policy in favor of Big Business. We do not matter as the current process stands.
Often I have screamed that many Obama supporters are 'drunk off his charisma', settling for platitudes and sloganeering, and not cognizant to the fact he has ZERO for substance.
As far as the 'Republican Agenda' is concerned; thats illusionary, as 'democrat' and 'republican' have become meaningless nomenclature. They are the same: CORPORATE PRODUCT.
Hi, PNG: Brave and overly-long attempt at something or other. I'm not quite sure what. Anyway, congratulations for trying and never, never, never give up.
Hey Prittfumes:
Yeah, it's lengthy. Some stuff I wanted to get to, but ran out the limit, unfortunately. Lemme run something at you that's key as to what I am about:
"ALL these candidates are 'product' of corporate sponsorship and special interest lobbying"
..It's at the top. Thanks for taking the time to read it and respond. Thanks for the neutral response as well. It is appreciated
"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."
For your information, one of the reasons us Hillary haters have been "harping on the (not supposed but actual) mounds of Clinton negatives" has nothing to do with believing that such arguments are likely to sway the ignorant masses of HIllary supporters who merely hear what they want to hear. We recognize HIllary for the egocentric, war mongering lunatic that she is, but simultaneously realize that no amount of the truth is garanteed to compete with her sleazy attempts to masquerade her so-called credentials with fear-mongering, slander, and scare tactics.
People are ignorant, which is why many of us are infuriated, but not surprised that HIllary has been coming precariously close to impending victory.
Wow, it's people like you that make me realize I'm backing the right candidate--Hilary. McCain and Obama backers can't simply disagree with Senator Clinton's political policies; they have to bash her personally as well. It's silly, given that none of them know what the hell she's actually like in private though even many staunch Republicans like Joe Scarborough say she charming and warm. Those who damn her personally are the ones who show how truly "sleazy" they themselves are, so keep it up--you make everybody else look good.
This past week has caused me to leave the Hillary camp and become a Hillary hater. Seeing a pro war democrat morph into a bush clone has gagged me. Will we be given two prowar candidates when 70% of the people want out of Iraq?????????
Wow you sure are volatile in your opinions! one week and you swing from being a Hillary supporter to a Hillary hater?
Sorry if I doubt the reality of your supposed "support."
The fallacy of your argument - which is one made by other Hillary partisans - is that because she won Ohio, N.Y. and California that only she could win those states in the general. I think that any objective observer believes that the Democratic nominee will win NY and CA in the general, that McCain will win Texas and that the Dem nominee, because of the current state of the economy, will win Ohio. For you to peddle the canard that only Hillary can win these big states in the general indicates you don't understand contemporary politics.
Second, you suggest Obama supporters are gleeful when we proclaim that Hillary's high negatives will help McCain. No we are not gleeful; we are scared that Hillary will ruin what should be an automatic victory for the Dems after 7 years of Bush. McCain was a smart choice by the GOP: he appeals to independents. Let's not give the GOP an advantage of give them an opponent 40 to 48% of the country will not vote for. I do not hate Hillary; I strongly believe she is beatable; hence my preference or Obama.
This false argument has been perpetuated too long, assuming that Hillary is the only democrat that can carry the big states - NY, NJ, MA, CA, etc. Did she win these states by 40 to 60% margins, I think not. Didn't these big states support Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000.
Earl, stop repeating this tale. As if McCain will beat out Obama in these blue states. Let's get real. What is amazing is the turnout of democrats and independents in 'red/purple' states for Obama. This is where the story is. Why don't you writers spend time researching and reporting/writing on the massive turnout of these people.
To perpetuate this 'Hillary-hater" nonsense is so republican like that it should be benealth you and any other wrter/reporter that regularly writes their views/opinions on this blog. Why don't you elevate the discussion to a higher level, try educating people on some history by comparing this campaign season with other ones.
We want our democrats to win w sizable majorities in the House and Senate. We love our democrats, and we don't want our democrats while on the campaign trail jumping in bed with the opposition to degrade a fellow democrat. Some things you just don't do, and that's one of them.
Ofari is worthy our time. He is a est that feeds off pimping AA victimhood. He has been a Clinton hang-on all his life, he has no clue how to make a living on his own. Obama's new brand of politics debunks victimhood because it empowers everyone, thus exposing the parasites like Ofari and those who claim to be leaders in the AA community but all they do is to promise to deliver the vote by hook or crook, and they get the crumbs in return. He is not worth your intellectual investment. That is why he will eat crow when Obama is sworn in as President.
There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that Obama would not carry those "big" states in the general. You are advancing a false dichotomy if you equate Hillary winning them with McCain winning them. However, there IS ample evidence that Obama can win crossover votes, independents and even red states. She can't.
Your argument is pointless cheerleading.
Well said, Mr. Hutchinson.
Too bad that in the event she does get the nomrination, the Hillary Hate Club members still have the option of voting for someone else. She might be able to steal the Democratic Nomination but it is hard when people from your own party hate you to the point they would rather vote for someone else.
Great strategy, admitting your candidate is hated, and then saying she has the better chance of winning. Should we start hanging the mission accomplished signs now?
This big state thing just doesn't seem to hold water for a number of reasons that others have already posted here. In fact most of the arguments I've seen being made on Hillary's behalf don't seem to hold much water. Experience and knowing how to use the powers of government are her strengths. Most of the rest is nonsense.
On the other hand, I believe she will win the nomination because while people say they want change, what they mean is that they want to want change. When it comes time to actually make the leap of faith that real change requires, they almost always step back and go with the same old thing or a minor variation of it. Remember Bill talking about voting for Obama being a roll the dice? To people who really wanted change that would not be a warning, it would be an invitation. Hillary will win the nomination precisely because she not very different and voting for her doesn't require much courage.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
