Democrats Pose Greater Peril to Obama or Clinton than GOP
There was absolutely no surprise at the results of Super Tuesday. This writer flatly said days before the first vote was cast that Super Tuesday would be anything but super for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, and that neither would or could deliver the knockout punch.
There are two colossal reasons that virtually preordained the muddled, confused and frustrating outcome for the two Democratic presidential contenders. The first is the Democrat's winner-not-take-all proportional system and the system of super delegates that they have dumped onto the primaries. Super delegates are at large delegates and can pretty much vote for whomever they want, and under the proportional system delegates can be divvied up according to the vote total that the respective candidate gets in Congressional districts. The idea behind that is to bring democracy with a small d to the vote process and snatch the decision about who gets the big prize out of deal making party bosses at the national convention.
But the first reason for the Democrat's Super Tuesday muddle pales when stacked up against the second reason. And that's the fast emerging and much alarming polarization among Democratic voters, or put another way, the hard lines between those backing Obama and those backing Clinton and the reasons why they're backing them. Exit polls showed two clear things. The overwhelming majority of African-Americans in the South back Obama. The overwhelming majority of Latinos in the Western states back Clinton. The other is that white men in increasingly bigger numbers are backing Obama. And Democratic voters are supporting their picks with passion and zeal.
Latinos and blacks are the two big, strategically placed, and dependable voting blocs for the Democrats. In every election back to Lyndon Baines Johnson's smash victory over Barry Goldwater in 1964, blacks have been the loyalist of loyal foot soldiers for the Democrats. With the surge in Latino voting numbers in the past two decades, Latinos have been just as important to the Democrats and have been nearly as loyal to them as blacks.
The tormenting question for Clinton then is if she eventually gets the grand Democratic prize will African-American voters who have virtually turned their tout of Obama into a messianic crusade back her with the same fervor and more importantly numbers? A lackluster and lukewarm turnout by blacks for her would spell big trouble for her and the Democrats in November.
The equally tormenting question for Obama is if he eventually gets the Democratic grand prize will Latino voters back him with the same fervor and numbers as they did Clinton? The same rule applies to him as Clinton. A lackluster and indifferent turnout by Latinos would spell big trouble for him and the Democrats in November.
Then there's the question of white male voters. They make up nearly forty percent of the American electorate. In every election dating back to Ronald Reagan's big wins over the Democrats in the 1980s and since, they have powered GOP victories in national elections and more importantly have been the sure ticket of GOP presidents to the White House. Bush got a whopping sixty four percent of the white male vote, and he did even better among white males in the South. Their sudden like of Obama then is suspect. The perplexing question is are they voting for Obama because they are truly sold on his message of hope and change, or is there a darker reason? And that is that they hate the thought of a woman bagging the highest office, especially if that woman is named Hillary.
A dirty secret little of the campaign just may be that in this age of supposed gender enlightenment when men profess profusely that they have no problem backing a woman for president many secretly do. This is not idle speculation. Polls have consistently shown that while whites are virtually unanimous in saying that they have no problem voting for an African-American for president, far fewer say the same about a woman.
When the dust finally settles in the fall, the eventual GOP presidential nominee will do his internal fence mending in the party, and will placate the warring other presidential opponents and competing factions. He will have the usual king's ransom campaign chest, the spin of Fox and other major cable TV news outlets and conservative talk radio jocks, the solid backing of millions of conservatives and Christian evangelicals, the sure electoral votes of most of the South and the heartland states, the X factor of race and gender working in his favor against Hillary and Obama, and the hunger to maintain Republican dominance.
The last thing that the Democrats need is a fractured Democratic Party that's hopelessly split into two feuding, finger pointing and irreconcilable factions. That could pose an even greater peril to their bid to take back the White house than the GOP. That possibility is looming bigger and bigger.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).
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
Earl, you have just said every negative thing known to man that could go wrong with either candidate.
Get a grip! As a 57 year old white man, I have hoped for years to vote for Hillary. Just top stick it in the ass of the limpbaugh hate group.
Also as a liberal voter, I am backing Barack Obama as my candidate for President.
He should start putting forward the things he did do for the poor people for most of his life.
He should also tell America that not only was he presidnet of the Harvard Law Review, but he also taught Constitutional Law.
This man can do the things which need to be done to bring America back to the fine country I grew up in.
I think I will go send Senator Obama some of my Social Security Disability funds!
Escellent column, Earl.
Yesterday in the light of Tuesday's outcome, I was desperately trying to imagine some scenario in which we Democrats would be able to win in November. I agree totally that whether Hillary or Barack receives the Democratic nomination, he/she is going to have a gigantic problem with white males. I am a white male, and I have talked to several of my similarly situated friends. Even some of my most died-in-the-wool liberal friends are now rather eagerly talking about voting for McCain. This is really very strange.
I appreciate the fact that you are laying this problem out there for all to see.
As I was thinking about all this, it became clear to me that the Democratic candidate will have a big advantage on two issues: the economy and the Iraq war. But it became increasingly clear to me that in the general election Hillary will be the best candidate, because of her support in the Hispanic comnunity and because of potential cross-over voting from Republican and independant women. Whether any of us are comfortable with this kind of breakdodwn along gender or not, it does seem clear to me that we should think about this kind of a possibility.
Thanks for giving me this chance to share my thoughts.
"White men" do not comprise a monolithic group. Many of the white men voting for Obama in Democratic primaries are - surprise - liberal male Democrats. I'm one of them and I know many others.
The problems some of us have with Hillary is not that she's a woman, but that she's not really a liberal Democrat. Like Bill, she's middle-of-the-road. She's poll-driven. She triangulates.
That may have been a winning formula in the 90s. It isn't in 2008. Instead, we need a clear, progressive leader who can articulate our core values. That's Obama and, thankfully, some white men seem to know it.
I agree. The DNC is about to blow another election. Face facts- both Obama and Hillary are unelectable. The candidate should have been John Edwards, whether he had many delegates or not- the DNC could and should still have put all of their resources and support behind Edwards. A ticket like Edwards-Biden would have been unbeatable. Why do you think Republicans are salivating- they know that even a lunatic like McCain will crush Hillary.In
Mr. Hutchinson, I'm glad that it's still up in the air. Here it was, in California in February, and, again, most of the Presidential candidates on the ballot had left the race. I suppose that means I think too much has been decided too soon. As to your main point, had the white males voted for Senator Clinton, then there would be a basis to conclude that race and not gender was guiding the ballot choice. Personally, I felt good about my Tuesday vote, because I was voting for a candidate I've been looking forward to voting for for years. And I think the other leading candidate will be worthy of my support when November rolls around, so it wasn't a defensive anyone-but vote.
We are humans, and as such will vote consciously or subconscioulsy for the person we feel we can trust the most, and we feel a connection to.
I like Barack because he IS black, not because it's okay or acceptible that he isn't white. His unique experience growing up black will ADD to the oval office, and open doors to other nations in new ways. I like Hillary because she IS a woman, not because she's not a man but just as competent, because of course she is, and her unique experience being a successful woman in a male-dominated world will ADD to the oval office. Rather than play by the rules they've been restricted to, they will both change the rules, and it really isn't until that happens that we will get a really good picture of who they are.
I like Barack because he's like the big brother I would want to have around, to inspire me and whom I could turn to for advice, and support, and hope. I like Hillary because she's the aunt I love to have visit who shows the only boundaries are those you create yourself, and it takes a soul that is both forgiving and strong to rise above the hatred you may experience with grace and class.
I don't want to ignore gender or race, because they both offer a depth we've not had before in the White House. Now is the time to celebrate diversity, and look at the benefits of our differences. We are all equal, but not the same. We are all unique, and it's not just acceptible; it is awesome.
While Obama may be the current media darling. They will turn on him as soon as that gets boring. That will not be his fault.
However, there is absolutely nothing concrete the man has done to show any ability to be an effective president. If he is elected to the office and shows himself to be as incompetent as the current White House occupant, that will be his and the irrational electorate's fault.
Like Jesus, Barack Obama can't swim, and it'll take a whole lot more than mere walking on water to impress the likes of this columnist.
You may think that super tuesday was a defeat for Obama, but the record says otherwise. From a standing start, Obama erased a 20 point lead to finish narrowly ahead of his opponent in a little less than 2 weeks.
That's a spectacular achievement, one with little precedent in modern political history.
Earl is very close to talking about this white male who voted for Obama.
The differnce is I have no problem with a woman in the white house, but I have a huge problem with Hillary in the white house.
I admittedly have Clinton Derangement Syndrome, so I crossed party lines and voted for Obama.
Earl is right about this though, in the general election I will be supporting the republican.
Ah Democrats and their constant quest for purity, damn the consequences. If we had a winner-take-all system this ridiculous contest would be over by now, and we'd be no worse off than we will be when Clinton wins the nomination in a couple months.
Keep talking about race and gender -- never mind issues like health care, the war, and the economy.
That's certainly a winning combination for an informed electorate come November.
I had to laugh about two weeks ago when the NY Post endorsed Obama for the Democratic nominee. They don't care about Obama or the Democratic party: they simply foam at the mouth at the mere thought of Hillary. And they're disappointed that Rudy won't be President.
That said, I think Chachi is right. It's not a matter of gender or race: Hillary is simply not the right woman for the job and Obama just happens to be the sort of man any man worthy of the name can respect. He's not a macho warmonger; he's someone who respects--and genuinely likes--the women around him and sees it as his responsibility to be present for them, and for children. What I said about Obama is, by the way, the real meaning of "macho": something akin to "mensch."
And, as a woman, I respect him for the very same reasons I've mentioned. I also like him because he seems like an empathetic listener. If you saw him on Oprah's show--especially if you paid attention to his body language--you could see what I mean.
Mrs. Clinton has suffered attack, after attack, after attack it was understandable from the Rightwing they hate her, but she must also fight the misogynistic males of the so-called “Progressive” movement.
Perhaps now it is time to dispel two myths one is that women have achieved fairness and equality in America and number two that “whites” are the perpetuators of racism in America. With 85%+ of the “African American” vote going to Obama the primary is all about race despite your willingness to ignore it.
Perhaps you are not willing to expose this or to perform your due diligence and investigate Mr. Obama’s problematic past and connection and allegiance to a racist anti anyone but “African American” church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Illinois and that church’s adherence to a racist policy known as “The Black Value System”.
If you think the Republican slime machine will let these things go un-noticed you are dreaming, they are salivating over the prospect of an Obama candidacy so they may crank up the “Angry White Male” right wing vote that carried George H. W. Bush to victory in his election bid.
Unless you put them on the same ticket, The Dream Team, which isn't so far fetched. If you think that Obama's wins were in Republican states, which wouldn't serve him in the general election, but he can carry the south,which will work against McCain/Huckabee. And that HRC's strengths are in the big states, plus she brings the women, the Latinos, etc...toge
Halli Casser-Jayne
THE CJ POLITICAL REPORT
http://www
Ain't it the truth Earl.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
