Obama's Race Speech Didn't Matter, More Democrats Now Say They Want Clinton Not Obama

The one question that coursed across everyone's lips in the ad nausea yak over Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's so-called race speech was: Did the speech help or hurt him? A Gallup poll stretched from March 14 through March 18. It was released two days after his speech. While it did not fully measure Democratic voter sentiment on the effect of the his speech, the responses in the poll on March 18 may have reflected some voter sentiment about the speech.
The results offer no cheer to Obama. In fact there are two things about the results that should cause much worry for him. One is that arch rival Clinton now tops him among Democrats and Democratic leaning voters.

This is less a stunning turnabout than it seems. Obama's much ballyhooed string of victories have come in mostly red states that the Democrats don't have a prayer of winning in the general election anyway. Meanwhile, core Democrats have continued to consistently and quietly (they're not chic, exciting, and mediagenic to the loathe Hillary pack), backed Clinton. They, not young voters (too fickle), the independents (GOP leaning anyway), and cross over Republicans (not reliable) are the backbone of the Democratic Party. No Democratic or Republican presidential candidate can win the White House without the solid backing of their core supporters. They are the ones who will loyally trudge through rain, sleet and snow to cast their votes, and pony up the cash and people the phone banks for their party.

They have kept Clinton in the hunt for the nomination at the times when it seemed that the Obama surge would sweep her away. They were the ones that have insured that her win the big states strategy has paid off and will continue to pay off for her in the final showdown for the nomination at the Democratic convention.

The second and maybe even more worrisome thing for Obama is that most of the respondents in the Gallup poll gave the nod to Clinton three days before his speech. This could only mean one thing and that's that the sands of popular Democratic voter support had already quietly but decisively begun to shift back to Clinton.

The Wright and race speech was then just a sideshow event. A majority of Democratic voters had already pretty much made up their minds that Clinton was the far more bankable choice than Obama to win in a head-to-head face off with McCain.

The Gallup poll further bolstered that conviction when it found that Obama not only had slipped badly among Democrats, he also had slipped behind McCain in a face off with him. Polls earlier had shown Obama slightly nudging out McCain in the general election. Clinton by contrast was in a statistical dead heat with McCain in the Gallup poll.

Obama's poll tumble came at a terrible time for him. The Pennsylvania primary looms on April 22, and polls show that Clinton not only holds a commanding lead over him in that crucial primary, but has widened her lead. The need for him to talk about Wright and race made it even worse. Pennsylvania has virtually the same voter demographics as Ohio. Apart from its two big cities, it's heavily blue collar, rural, and socially conservative. No matter how eloquently Obama addressed Wright and race it was the last thing that Obama needed to wave in front of the voters in the Pennsylvania hinterland. A loss in Pennsylvania will more than boost Clinton's contention that she, not he, can win the big states, including the must-win swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. This is the only way to insure that the Democrats can make the election a real horse race with McCain.

Obama's Wright and race speech was clearly designed to accomplish two things. One was to silence the waverers and doubters about his racial sentiments. The other was to shove the issue of race as a contentious issue quickly off the nation's and voter's table. Time will tell whether he succeeded. The Gallup poll, however, showed that more Democrats than ever now say they want Clinton and not Obama as their candidate. Talk of Wright and race didn't change that one bit. Or put another way, thank God sometimes the people can cut through the garbage and deception and get it right.

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).

Comments

[JohnFromCensornati]

"Pennsylvania has virtually the same voter demographics as Ohio."

Really? I was under the impression that one is reliably RED and the other BLUE.

"Or put another way, thank God* sometimes the people can cut through the garbage and deception and get it right."

Earl, it is very deceptive to keep citing McCain vs Democrat polls. They tell us nothing as the GE is NOT decided by the popular vote. It's decided by the electoral college.

* There is no God.

[larry278]

When a blog on HP cites a poll-I think of the anti-polling pretition which HP posted & I signed, I also think of a poll sposnored by a publication called LITERARY DIGEST taken in the 1930's. That poll predicted that Alf Landon would beat FDR & become POTUS. We didn't get a Pres Landon. LITERARY DIGEST folded. I think that I'll wait to see who the Democrats nominate in Denver & pass on the polls.

[HBeachbum]

How come there is no mention of Obama's "typical white person" comment on Huffpost? What would have happened if Hillary said "typical black person"? All hell would be breaking loose.

[democraticjack]

I think we already know the answer to that one, don't we? Whenever something the least bit negative gets published about Obama here, the Obama trolls come out en masse and browbeat the blogger and any poster who dares speak out against their precious. Witness the character attacks against Mr. Hutchinson just for talking about polling trends. It's pretty pathetic.

[jeg]

As opposed to the caps-lock brigade of the Hillary supporters that rarely have anything substantive to their argument, besides volume? :)

[JohnFromCensornati]

You can't be serious.
Browbeat?
At least they allow negative comments about Obama.
Try going negative on Pelosi and see how far you get.

[YellerDawg]

Need you ask?

[camb94]

Since you seem to be so enlightened, maybe I can illuminate a couple of things. 1. BARACK IS HALF WHITE! 2. He was referring to his grandmother, not to insult her, but to say that she was typical, not a racist, but that race still affected her. 3. When Hillary has a black grandmother, we will all welcome, with open arms, her ability to say "typical black person".

[LeftRight]

Why don't we remember the ONE cardinal rule about polls:

THEY CAN BE WRONG!

Vermont polls showed Obama not just winning Vermont, they showed him CRUSHING her. Then there were tha California polls showing Obama winning. Those ones were wrong. This particular election cycle seems to have more polls being wrong than any that I remember, so I'm not worried about his numbers being down in the polls!

[OrangeSam]

Er, I think you meant New Hampshire. Obama won in Vermont.

[LeftRight]

Yup, you are correct, thank you for pointing that out! I always confuse those two for some stupid reason! To all those from Vermont, I'm sorry, and to all those from New Hampshire, I'm also sorry! I will learn your two states better before I post again!

[desmirl]

How much DO the Clinton's pay you to write your blog? And, where can I get a gig like that?

[Principe]

Nonsense. I'm an Obama supporter and I have to admit that the more liberal branches of the media (NYT, HuffPo, the Daily Show) are performing insane contortions to play down the electoral damage of these film clips and play up the 'triumphant' speech. It was an excellent speech, wise, inspirational, learned - but we have to accept that it proves Obama is a gamble, simply BECAUSE the media have been so in love with him. They think they've served the progressive agenda by giving the guy an armchair ride thus far - in fact, they've harmed it, by not asking him tougher questions, sooner.

The only media conspiracy is that they think they're cleverer than the public. The liberal press think they understand Obama, but Americans don't. They think he's a Boston liberal they can sneak into the White House under the radar. If they don't get wise, they will be caught out, and I fear we'll get McCain. if

[arthuride]

What is "the liberal press"? The Washington Post? The Cincinnati Inquirer? The Dallas Morning News? I have yet to find a liberal press. McCain will win the White House--you are correct--but that is because older Democrats will vote against the racism of Obama and his wife who has never been proud of the USA.

[OrcinusOrca]

"Obama's Wright and race speech .... was to shove the issue of race as a contentious issue quickly off the nation's and voter's table."

How sad, Mr. Hutchinson, that you lost your ability to look beyond the question of who will win the Dems nomination. Your anger over the status of the campaigns has made you blind to see the larger picture. Obama's speech about race is here to stay, to help us discuss the state of our society and of our ability to live together as a people.

[Lon]

Wouldn't it save you time if your blog was just a link to the Clinton campaign site?

Actually Obama's tumble comes at a pretty good time for him. There are no primaries scheduled for more than a month. I believe that is the biggest gap in the schedule for him. He has already built up a pretty insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. And the successful Clinton strategy of injecting race into the fight is something that is probably better at working in the short term than the long term.

The key to winning Texas and Ohio for Clinton was that the fear mongering and the misleading NAFTA story both hit just a few days before the election. Otherwise things moved steadily in Obama's direction. Now Obama still has a month to campaign in Pennsylvania, and Clinton will have to come up with a new hit for a month from now.

[democraticjack]

It would also save time if your post linked directly to Obama's website. I love how every loss by Obama is Hillary's fault. He is always the victim of some nefarious going ons. This is a man who will do anything or say anything to gain power. From his days in Illinois when he shoved Alice Palmer under the bus to his eloquent speech shoving two white elderly women under the bus, Mr. Obama has been ruthless. People are now catching on.

[rojo7449]

It was Obama who created the national news stir on Jack and Jeri Ryan. In his race to get to his current seat in the Senate, he managed to get their divorce records unsealed and used the most successful known tactic in politics...sex to bring down Jack Ryan.

[Massconfusion]

Black and white folks DO get along - just look at Earl and Lanny Davis!

[jhamm1]

Granted as one who both supports Obama and agrees with almost every one of Reverend Wright's previous assertions, Hutchinson may have a point in terms of electability of the respective candidates, considering that growing suspicions about Obama's "patriotism", however ill-founded, may have shattered his dreams of swaying independents and moderates to his side.

In fact, sometimes, I find myself favoring a prospective oval office under the rule of Clinton, if only for the pleasure of gloating to her followers "I told ya so!" when she runs this country further into the ground.

[cheforacle]

Earl , I have been a consistent critic of yours but I saw you on Jim Lehrer News Hour and I thought you edited yourself and appeared reasonable. Now I see that you are back to your usual blogging self. The notion that six or seven days of Gallup polls in Hillary's favor are a decisive shift in her favor is laughable. You should know how those daily tracking polls are very transitory. Also you reassert the canard that, because Clinton wins the so-called "big states" that Obama can't. In many of those same states, head-to-head polls with Obama and McCain show Obama doing better than Hillary would. Obama would win NY and CA just as easily as Clinton, would probably win OH and MI but may have trouble in FLA or PA. I suppose the TV Hutchinson is not as unreasonably partisan as the blogging Hutchinson.

[YellerDawg]

If the polls are so transitory, why does Huffpo trumpet to the heavens every poll that puts Obama in the lead?

[inthenitemare]

What's been putting Obama in the lead is the voters. Voters who have given him the lead in delegates, popular vote and states won.

Now that's not some arbitrary poll with who knows what kind of leading questions, to bring about what ever results.

They're just facts.

[MPeter]

Ofari, it is loonies like you who have been left looking stoopid. You have shown how uneducable you are each time you have come out selling the unsellable Clintons. It is over for her and hung-ons like you whose entire life's work has been pimping victimhood. You want the Clintons to continue the divisive posture so you can keep benefitting. Too bad, America has decided it is time to unite. Ofari, you lose again!

[YellerDawg]

Pimping victimhood? Isn't that Rev. Wright's job?

[nomobull]

and you know this how . oh yeah that's right two clips from a lifetime.

[democraticjack]

Again, another Obama supporter inspired by Obama to spew hatred and personal attacks. Ofari has as much right to comment on the polls as you do. He was not talking about you.
And if you are going to call someone stoopid, try spelling it correctly. The real loser is you because you are pimping hatred.

[syllepsis]

"The need for him to talk about Wright and race made it even worse. Pennsylvania has virtually the same voter demographics as Ohio. Apart from its two big cities, it's heavily blue collar, rural, and socially conservative. No matter how eloquently Obama addressed Wright and race it was the last thing that Obama needed to wave in front of the voters in the Pennsylvania hinterland. "
So the Pennsylvania countryside is filled with Democratic bigots?
Why not just say the Democratic party is filled with bigots, period?
This is sickening. I hear Chuck Hagel is talking about a new political party. It's about time.

[YellerDawg]

Why must you jump to such extreme conclusions? PA is not filled with bigots. It's fill with Americans who can't get past something as appalling as "God damn America." So many of you Obamaniacs just can't seem to wrap your little brains around the fact that when most Americans hear words like that, something inside clicks off. Obama's unfortunate association with his racist, anti-American pastor will doom him in the general election. It may not be fair, but at least Earl recognizes the obvious.

[tscurry]

How about you visit YouTube and view the entire Wright sermons instead of basing your opinions on what the MSM is feeding you. Mr. Hutchinson dislikes Mr. Obama for some reason. Maybe because Obama went to Harvard or has a nice family, I don't know. His vitriolic rhetoric is tiring. Instead of fighting against the Repubs, he's denigrating a fellow Democrat. Hutchinson is part of the problem and not the solution. Keep yapping about how much you hate the Clintons or Obama and McCain will two-step into the White House. Do you want your fellow citizens fighting war after war? Do you want to pay $6 for a gallon of gas? Can you stand by and watch your neighbors, family, friends lose their homes? If the answer to these questions is "no" then get with the program and push like hell to get a Democrat elected, even if it's Obama.

[BubbaC33]

Democratic voters are not bigots. A decision to support Ms. Clinton does not make someone a bigot. And by making this argument you are making the speech given by Obama a lie.

[syllepsis]

A decision to support Mrs. Clinton does not make someone racist.
However, I am disturbed by Mr. Hutchinson's statement that his brilliant speech on race (which, to take only one of its themes, explicitly repudiated racism) "was the last thing Obama needed to wave in front of the Pennsylvania voters."
Obama's speech on race proves his thesis of a few months ago, that Reagan was the most astute politician of the last 30 years. How did Reagan kick off his 1980 campaign, in which, as I remember, he was a relatively long shot? By going to Philadelphia, Miss., and giving a speech on states' rights.
Reagan was astute because an appeal to festering resentment, coupled with the implication that we have found a convenient scapegoat, is the most potent of political brews.
We haven't gotten past that. Obama referenced the white resentment Reagan appealed to, and he recognized that color is is hardly the sole determinant of the experience of disenfranchisement. That still isn't enough for many, who are far more easily triggered by Reaganesque appeals to our worser instincts (it is the genius of Obama to see that those were not the ONLY instincts Reagan appealed to, or he would have been his confrere at Philadelphia, Trent Lott).
Obama, ironically, is proving over and over that Reagan was right- the way to win elections is to use race as a wedge issue. Maybe there was something symbolic in his choice of Philadelphia, PA, as his venue for his speech. It certainly was apt.