It was a bad night for Hillary Clinton haters in New Hampshire. First, the woman that they love to loathe did what they dread most: she won. But that was just the start of their dismal night. She held two powerful constituencies together: older women voters and core Democrats. They, not the much overblown independents, are the true ticket to the Democratic presidential nomination and beyond that the White House. The night got even worse for them. The big smile on Clinton's face told why. It wasn't a gloat or an I-told-you-so, the smile was a visceral and defiant expression of a rejuvenated and even more ready to do battle Clinton. The night sunk finally into the pits for the haters who had glibly and gloatingly assured one and all that Barack Obama would steamroll Clinton in New Hampshire and beyond.
Predicting inevitability is a terrible burden to dump on the shoulders of a novice presidential contender who is still at the very front of the learning curve on foreign and national domestic policy issues, talks of hope and change but is vague on just what that hope and change will be, and is still pounding out a program on health care, education, tax policy, not to mention trying to figure out what and how to get us out of Iraq.
The Hillary haters got another hard lesson in American realpolitik in New Hampshire. It's risky, no dangerous, to predict a knockout of a seasoned political fighter before the first bell even sounds. That was pretty much what they did. But they forgot many things about Clinton and the campaign. Obama had won a grand total of one state, Iowa, and even that was less than met the eye. Iowa is a mildly Democratic leaning state, with a strong independent, even contrarian tradition among many voters.
Nominations, let alone, presidential contests are seldom won based on a candidate's showing in one state, or even a handful of early primary states. There have been countless examples in recent presidential campaigns where a candidate has won big in some states, and then lost the nomination. One example is Jesse Jackson. He, not Obama, has won more state primaries than any other black presidential candidate in 1988. Yet, Jackson's candidacy ultimately floundered over the course of a long and grueling campaign. New Hampshire, not Iowa, was the first true primary state where the popular vote, party loyalties, and a candidate's campaign savvy can be measured and tested.
Clinton knows what Obama has discovered, and her legion of loathers are to blind to see, and that's that elections are won not in early popularity polls, but in tough, gritty work in the state party caucuses, recruiting crack field organizers, and dedicated volunteers. Voters elect presidents that they feel will do three things: bring stability, strength, and experience to the top spot.
In every poll, and that includes the ones that have shown Obama gaping Clinton in popularity and likeability, voters give her top marks on experience and strength (They still give Obama short shrift on both). That's another way of saying that they don't want someone in the White House that will stumble and bumble on policy issues. Bush was elected and re-elected precisely because voters got conned into thinking that they were putting a guy in and back in the White House who was tough and experienced and would not fall on his face on policy issues. They were terribly wrong. Core Democrats won't make that mistake again.
Then there's the issue of constituency strength, or more particularly, who can do the best job in identifying where their strength is and corralling it. The 2008 presidential race will come down to a showdown in Florida, several of the key Western states, and the ability to unhinge one or two Southern states out of the GOP orbit. Victories in these states can seal the White House for the Democrats. Democrats won none of them in 2000 and 2004. The key to snaring those states require a big turnout from core Democrats, women, Latinos and blacks. Clinton divvies up the black vote with Obama and beats him handily with older women, core Democrats, and Latinos in those states.
Obama did well enough in New Hampshire. He handily won the independent vote and the youth vote (although they voted in far less numbers than expected, and that's not a good sign either for the candidate that banks on riding the crest of young voters to the nomination). But it's Democrats, lots of them, that seal nominations and potentially elect presidents. New Hampshire taught the Hillary haters that, and in the process tarnished the myth of Obama inevitability. It was truly a richly deserved bad night for Hillary haters in New Hampshire.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book The Ethnic Presidency: How Race decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).
Let's begin with hate radio talk shows - Rush Limbaugh comes to mind fueled by Newt Gingrich - remember his mother used the "b" word on Hillary when she was First Lady for no reason that I can think of. [none of these 'Hate" radio shows were particularly welcoming to Blacks or Hispanics - and Hillary was just an icon for verbally battering all women on the airwaves "feminists"]. These hate radio shows of the 1990's helped to elect the Republican Congress by giving voice to sexist and racist Southern white males - representing the vast "right-ring conspiracy" that impeached Bill Clinton".
The hate radio shows moved to the cable TV during the Bush years and we've all had to suffer listening to Chris Mathews, Dennis Miller, Tucker Carlson etc. etc. More bias white males that wouldn't allow any point of view other than the White House's, that gave us the War in Iraq. They give us exclusive bias white male points of view, and trash Hillary using sexism only because they can't openingly use racial remarks unless talking about "illegal immigrants" code word for Hispanics or Muslims.
Now to Huffington Post bloggers - many use sexist terms to reject Hillary - giving away hatred of all women and not just Hillary Clinton with the verbal abuse. Not all bloggers do this, but enough to be regarded as "Clinton-haters" by the hateful language that is sexist.
Whether a bloggers is a Clinton hater depends upon the hate and venem in the sexism language used to describe Clinton versus some thoughtout reason for not wanting her for President. You would know if the shoe fits.
So what do your numbers mean then, Earl?
Nada!
At least now that you don't vote for any candidate with even a remote chance to win, we don't have to concern ourselves with you. Oh, did you vote for Ralph in' 00 and '04? Then you would have managed a proxy vote for GWB. Hmm
Wrong. Bush had the presidency bestowed on him by the Supremes using contorted and surreal reasoning in 2000. Then in 2004, the bush regime stole the election outright in Ohio and Florida. Those two scenarios do not constitute a valid election.
That being said, I too am glad that the smug and self-righteous MSM were dead wrong. I like Obama, and I like Hillary. Either one would make a fantastic president. Both can fix what king george and his minions broke, misused, and abused. But when the press jumps into the fight, like they have done since the Clintons came onto the American scene, it was time teach them a lesson. It’s the votes that count. Not the incessant spin, and rampant propaganda of the MSM and the right wing megaphone.
We the people voted. We the people won. It is great when America has a real election with a real vote count. America becomes the real winner.
I have nothing personal against Hillary Clinton. However, her only political experience is 1 1/2 terms as a Senator. In those 1 1/2 years, she did not take strong positions on the issues that mattered to me, i.e. ending the Iraq war, fighting against the Patriot Act and other intrusions into our privacy, fighting against the idea of an Iran war. In fact, her actions were the exact antithesis of my values - she voted to go to war with Iraq and for its every budget, for the Patriot act, for telephone company immunity, and to declare the Iran guard a terrorist organizations.
When it comes to defending the Constitution and getting us out of the middle east, she is a non-starter, that is why I, and everyone else who I've talked, are not interested in a Clinton Presidency.
Obviously, Barak Obama also has not been a champion on these issues - he may have been against going to war with Iraq at its inception, but he's approved the budget for it ever since, he said he was against telephone company immunity, but didn't have the time to leave the campaign trail to support Dodd in his filibuster, he voted for the Patriot Act. He also has no executive experience (though he has a longer political history, albeit at the state level, than Hillary).
But on whole, he has been less hawkish than Hillary, and if it comes down to him or Hillary, I trust him slightly more on the issues that matter to me.
My first choices were Richardson, Kucinich or Dodd (in that order). But we'll see any of them are still standing by the time my states primary roles around.
In the meantime, calling everyone who disagrees with Hillary a "hater", doesn't make me support her anymore, but it makes me dislike her name-calling supporters even less.
You might suggest, Earl, that people can be liar haters, shrill haters, haters of war mongers, thief haters, fake people haters, dumb blonde haters, cuckold haters, or things not so immediately and obviously directed or attributed to a personage.
Most of us don't know her personally. Can't hate who you don't know, seems to me.
Even though she is not my first pick - I would still love to see the Hillary Haters have the mother-of-all-bad-nights on the first Tuesday in November! That would be sweet.
And Dems have to really learn that when you find yourself agreeing enthusiastically with Bill Kristol & Co. - it might be time for a rethink!