After reading Hutchinson's article I still don't know "why" he says, "Hillary trumps Obama with Black Voters."
I frankly do not understand why black people are so enamored of the Clintons. What has Bill or Hillary Clinton either one ever done for black people to warrant such adulation? Bill Clinton's greatest domestic achievement as president was the abolition of welfare "as we know it" and NAFTA -- the free trade agreement which ushered in the demise of good paying Union jobs for ordinary folks right here in America in exchange for cheap labor aboard that puts more money in the pockets of the corporate fat cats currently funding Hillary's campaign.
Somebody tell me what"s the deal with Clinton and black folks? During his presidency the minute white people gave him some flak Bill Clinton completely bailed on both Joycelyn Elders (former Surgeon General) and Lani Guinier (nominee for Assistant Attorney General for civil rights) -- two black women. And recall it was Sister Souljah, a young female rapper at the time, who Clinton chose to brandish his southern white boy credentials just in case any white folks thought he was a little too cozy with blacks.
I also want to clarify the misconception surrounding Toni Morrison's statement that, "Bill Clinton was the first black president." As I understand it Morrison made that statement not because Bill Clinton was such a great friend to blacks, but because Bill Clinton was so poorly treated by whites. From the moment Clinton was sworn in as president white folks in the Republican party set out to demean and destroy his presidency. They were looking for anything they could find to bring him down -- just as if he were a black man. That's what I understand Morrison was getting at when she made that statement.
Barack is in a position to transform American politics. I am confident black people in this country will see that as they learn more and more about Obama.
Why Hillary Trumps Obama with Black Voters
It had the earmark of an old 1960s civil rights revival and rally. But it was the 91st annual NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet in Charleston, South Carolina in September. And there was Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton with arms linked on the dais, swaying, rocking, and belting out a rendition of "We Will Overcome." Clinton then proceeded to give a rip roaring speech in which she publicly vowed to do everything from aggressively fighting hate crimes to strengthening voting rights. It was the kind of civil rights speech that top Democrats in campaigns past have sprinted from like the plague.
A couple of months before Hillary's South Carolina love fest, she uttered a word that top Democratic presidential contenders in the recent past have virtually exorcised from their vocabulary, the word: racism. During a debate at Howard University she intimated that racism drove public policy in how Americans dealt with the HIV/AIDS plague. Clinton told the mostly black audience that if young white women were dying at the rate young blacks were from AIDS there would be a national outcry. That kind of blatant point the finger at racism talk wasn't heard from Democratic presidential contenders in two failed presidential campaigns against Bush. The audience went wild at hearing that.
Clinton's real aim was to send a big, forceful message to chief Democratic presidential campaign rival Barack Obama that she, not he, is the real civil rights candidate. Judging from the polls the message has been received. During the early months after both tossed their hats in the presidential ring, Clinton and Obama ran side by side in the avowed admiration and loyalty blacks gave the pair. In a June 2007 Gallup poll, blacks by 8 to 1 margins had favorable views of both them.
When it comes to who they'll actually vote for, it's no contest. Hillary gaps Obama with black women voters, especially lower income, working class black women. Nearly three times more black women say they'll back Hillary over him. She is a woman, mother, and most importantly is regarded by many black women as a strong advocate for health care and women's interests.
But Hillary also runs neck and neck with Obama in the race to net the overall votes of blacks. It's no surprise why Hillary has outflanked Obama on the civil rights front. Start with Bill, that's hubby Bill Clinton. Despite his centrist, and at times very race neutral and hostile policies, especially his emphasis on crime, middle-class tax cuts, and his proposals to overhaul welfare without significant boosts in spending on job, education and child care, Clinton was seen as the only president with the arguable exception of Lyndon Johnson who did more for blacks than any other president.
The nostalgia and fond remembrances for Bill and the Clinton name still sends shivers up the spines of many black voters. "The name is magical in a lot of black communities," notes South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn," and some of those residual emotions are still there. Clyburn wasn't measuring Bill for his place in American history; he was eying the lift that he could give to wife Hillary, and Clyburn, as expected, was on the dais in an arm lock with Hillary at the Freedom Banquet.
Hillary hasn't rested solely on Bill's laurels and his gargantuan fund raising capacity. She has carefully parlayed a strong network among black ministers, politicians, and Democrats within and without the Congressional Black Caucus, and state black elected officials. In addition to the goodwill of blacks and the endorsement of legions of black politicians, she has a heftier campaign war chest than Obama and will spread money around to sweeten the pot to bag other potential political endorsers.
However, the warm fuzzy feel for Bill, her contacts, her money, and her civil rights pronouncements by themselves wouldn't necessarily guarantee her political one-upmanship over Obama with blacks. Polls consistently show that she's light years ahead of him on the experience and qualifications scale and that translates out to electability. That means volumes to black voters. The loath of Bush by black voters is so deep and implacable that they are desperate for a Democrat who can snatch back the White House. The hard reality for Obama is that in a head to head contest with the Republican nominee, he would need the backing of a near majority of white and Hispanic voters in several key swing states, and that includes Louisiana and Florida, to win those states and the general election. At this stage of the presidential game, that's virtually impossible for a black candidate.
They are not naïve about Hillary. They know that GOP hardliners are licking their chops at a Hillary candidacy and will load up their barrels to tar her as evil incarnate. Yet, she still seems a far better bet than Obama to beat back the assault and to be the Democrat that will raise her hand to take the oath of office in January 2009. That's no knock against Obama, but it tells why she trumps him with black voters.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book The Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and Hispanics (Middle Passage Press, October 2007).
Comments for this post are now closed
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
I am really disappointed with Black folks who continously look towards the "great white hope" to solve our ills. All Hillary have to do is to repeat the civil rights mantras Blacks have come to know and she have our vote. She then gets into office and ignore our issues for the next four years. It never fails.
On the other hand, we have a viable candidate who is one of us and yet we do not think he is good enough to address our issues as Black folks. What about standing by Barack and give the brother a chance. Afterall, what lasting benefit have we received from White Democratic presidents. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose if we support Obama. Even if he was to lose the race for the presidency, we would come out looking and smelling good.
Imagine how motivated Black kids - especially Black boys - would be to see someone like them having a serious opportunity to be the most powerful person on the planet. The act within itself would spark a generation to want to excel and lift itself from out of the pits it's in right now.
HILLARY BRINGS NOTHING NEW TO THE TABLE FOR BLACK FOLKS. OBAMA WILL.
Hillary does not exhibit much moral courage, that I've seen. But in 2002, Sen. Obama spoke out publicly & strongly against this 'rash, dumb, ideological war of choice'. He did so even though it could have jeopardized his Senate run. He had the moral courage to speak out, when Congress was banging the drum to go to war.
Judgment - Zbignew Brzezinski, one of the most distinguished foreign policy experts in America today, has endorsed Obama because of his good judgment. He noted how Pres. Kennedy was advised by those close to him to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet, this young, wise president had the judgment to say no & use a naval blockade, instead, saving us from nuclear war! THAT is the good judgment Brzezinski's talking about.
The wisdom that Obama has shown is what our country needs. In contrast, Hillary voted for the war, not even taking the time to read the 90 page Nat'l. Intelligence Estimate, even with 10 days to read it, before casting the most important vote of her life. Not reading it, before sending other people's kids off to die or get maimed in a war is gross dereliction of duty. Planning her run for prez. & fearing looking weak, she made a POLITICAL CALCULATION & voted for war.
Also, if being first lady in the governor's mansion for 8 years & 8 years in the White House qualifies as relevant 'experience' to be prez, then why not Laura Bush for prez? How preposterous is that? This is how the Clinton Machine spins perceptions, with Bill going around calling her 'the most qualified non-incumbent in all his years of voting'. I guess if you repeat something enough times, people believe it. They piggyback each other & blanket the MSM airwaves 24/7 in their tag team operation to saturate American's minds with their images & voices, everywhere.
The single most important quality in a president is judgment. Obama's got it.
Time served in Washington does not equate to good judgment. In Obama, we have someone who will unite our country and the world.
Like all ethnic politicians, I think Obama has a quiet need to show that he will represent all Americans equally. Hillary can put on a phony act with black constituents as if she's going to make black issues a priority. The truth is if she ascended to the presidency, which I think is unlikely cause the plutocrats will have much more than swift boats as salvos to hurl, the only priority will be getting reelected. That can't be good for people of African or any other descent.
It almost sounds like it is your belief that black voters are more interested in the candidate who reminds them that they are the "downtrodden, forgotten, discriminated against masses" rather than the "uplifted, surviving, future." Is that right?
I hope not but, if they're voting for Hillary, maybe so. Everytime I hear her talk in front of a black audience, she always makes sure to remind them of how they are being used and blamed by those of other colors.
For sure.
All any white politician has to do is say the word "racism" and they have our vote.
Surefire standing ovation for Hillary, TALK about race.
Our votes are really cheap. It's pathetic.
versus Barack, who was a community organizer who HELPED people get involved in their own communities, who gave up the opportunity for a six-figure salary after Harvard Law to go BACK to helping poor black folks.
And he's "not black enough" and "doesnt' address racism" ... puhleez.
Oh spare me this B.S. She talks. That's all she does, and the crowd goes wild.
Exactly WHAT has she done about Katrina other than issue a 10-point doo-hickey that she will only implement once she becomes Prez, and call for a commission to investigate?
That doesn't prove anything. Any one with even half brain function knows that Black folks are the scapegoat for all that goes wrong in America. Why do you think white folks continue to pat themselves on the back for "Birth of a Nation".
She is not as dumb as she looks...and she keeps that big dumb kid Willie somewhere around everywhere she goes.
Are the black people - particulary the young women - so naive that they will vote on rhetoric and not record ?
Unfortunately this seems to be the case.
"independent_voter", if you value "research", you'd know that Obama has both "rhetoric" AND "a record".
This article was on CBSnews.com, before Obama became a candidate: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml.
This article says that as a state senator, "He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives."
It also said that "hot-button issues were the exception in a legislative career that focused more on building consensus to improve the justice system and aid the poor." The article also touched on "Obama's leadership on legislation requiring police to videotape interrogations in murder cases. It started out as a controversial idea but ended up passing the Senate unanimously."
The article notes that Republicans and Democrats who served with Obama said he "listened to those who disagreed, cooperated with Republicans and incorporated other people's suggestions for improving legislation."
These are the last three paragraphs of the article:
"During his last two years, Democrats controlled the chamber and he (Obama) was the go-to guy on a variety of issues. He helped pass legislation overhauling Illinois' troubled capital punishment system and was a key figure in requiring a massive statewide study of traffic stops to look for signs of racial profiling. Although police groups opposed the legislation, they say Obama listened to their concerns and accepted some of their suggestions to improve the bill.
"Even when he was in the political minority, Obama sometimes played a critical role. He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in a state known for government corruption and worked on welfare reform with Republicans.
"He sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he helped create a state version of the earned income tax credit for the poor. Obama also led efforts to reject federal rules that would have put workers' overtime checks in jeopardy."
Another article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?ex=1343448000&en=cbc7b0776b11e9bb&ei=5088.
Well, gee, that's what the polls say and they never lie.
Like, who doesn't???
The premise is correct that Hillary can take more aggressive positions on civil rights and issues specific to the black community than can Barack. Imagine the noise of the pundits if Barack made some of the pandaring speeches that Hillary has made to get black votes (in addition to buying the support of local black elected officials to their everlasting shame). Bill Clinton could champion black issues affecting the black minority population and become the so-called "Black President". Obama on the other hand can't take similar stands without further alienating white folks and particularly white males who might otherwise vote for him.
What I don't understand is why black voters can't be more aware of this dilemma rather than further burdening his campaign with unrealistic expectations that he is not "black enough" and go support Hillary. I don't think black folk are obliged to vote for Barack simple because he is black but they ought to be sophisticated enough to find in his background, not in hid campaign rhetoric that he is more than black enough, more than qualified enough and that he deserves their vote all other things being equal. WAKE-UP Black people, Hillary talks the talk but Barack has walked the walk just like the rest of us. The last reason not to vote for him or to vote for Hillary is that he isn't "black enough". Garbage!
"OBAMA '08
I haven't made up my mind about the Democratic primary field yet, but I'm going to have to disagree with your logic. What you're saying is that Blacks should vote for Obama even if he can't promise us anything without being perceived as "too Black" by white voters. How would this differ once/if he wins office? According to your logic, wouldn't he then be unable to act on behalf of Black interests because of the fear of losing white support? It sounds like the only benefit for Black voters would be the symbolic victory inherent in a Black presence in the highest elected office. Nope, that's not going to get it done for me.
If Obama wants this Black woman's vote, he's going to have to earn it like any other candidate, and part of earning it is that I will be paying attention to what he says and how he says it. Any candidate that won't take a strong rhetorical and policy-driven stand for racial equality and against racism obviously doesn't want my vote.
Finally, what seems to be implied in your argument is that Obama has made a political calculation that he can count Black votes in the automatic column but that white voters have to be courted. Obviously, you don't speak for his campaign, but if that is his calculation, I think that it will prove to be a bad mistake.
Hilary and Bill have and continue to pander to blacks, women, hispanics, working class, etc. The only group either one of them has truly been a friend to is rich, old white men. Any benefit the rest of us got was purely accidental and short lived. Voters as individuals or as block groups should look at what the Clintons actually accomplished and what they are actually doing now and ignore the lovely the rhetoric. Nice words means squat if thats all they are.
MJ; 're u 4real? I suppose D non-benefit we all get under Bush / Cheney is accidental too since they only pandered to the rich old-oil white men, the phamarceutical industry and, the privatalized military crowd. As a matter of fact, there is a saying as to why we couldn't pull out of Iraq; because if we did, then a hundred & sixty thousand private company employees we have over there will be out of work!....lol.
They DO look at what the Clintons "actually accomplished"! That is why Hillary is trouncing fluffy Obama in every State! And speaking of "pandering", look who is pandering to the far-left-lunatic-fringe?!
The only reason Hillary would trump Obama is that black people don't think White people will vote for Obama, therefore the vote for Obama would be wasted. If Obama can break that barrier, he is hands above Hillary. The fact that Bill raised all boats allowed Blacks to rise also. That is not the economic model in play now. All or most of Bill's legacy has caused as much heartache and heartbreak to Black people as Bush has. Wait until White folks start noticing that the Volunteer army is killing White boys, that less white children will be born, that the jodies left at home will be brown and black, then this travesty will be over.
"black people don't think White people will vote for Obama, therefore the vote for Obama would be wasted."
Well, this white man will vote for Obama, and I know many who will. Maybe not the white supremacist types, but they're too busy hunting illegals at the TX border to bother voting. :-)
It's high time we had a black man in office. I read a poll the other day by one of the majors that said 75% couldn't give a damn whether the Prez is black or not. And Obama would get out the youth vote if he is nominated. That is for certain. Because then they would know that their vote makes a difference: they could get him elected. Who in God's name wants Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? A 30-year dynasty to be run by a woman who would use nukes on Iran. Insanity. We risk WWIII with Hillary, who will say anything to get elected.
Hellooo; The economic model of Bill Clinton is enpowering Americans -- through job programs, childcare programs for single mother who want to go to school or learn a trade. NAFTA was suppose to freed up Americans from the low income jobs that we can afford to bring people from the poorer country to do while training our own people for the 21st century jobs. Unfortunately, the reverse is what we got when the Bush administration rolls in. "THEY" undermind everything Clinton did in moving the country toward the 21st century and they actually, exported all the good paying job over-sea while claiming that the illegal immigrats picking lettuce or, the gays who want to marry each other are the one to blame. And, if that did work, just raise the TERROR alert to Orange -- that has always worked for them.
that's why we have the primaries!
you vote for who you want!
then comes the election when you vote for the candidate who will do the least damage to the country - the past should teach us that this is always a democrat for the forseeable future.
LOL. Remember "Putney Swope"?
Listen, Bill and Hillary have been making the luncheon round of the black powerful elite for years. Everyone knows that.
Hillary fully expected an across-the-board signed, sealed, and delivered endorsement from the black community.
Obama has really messed up her game plan and is throwing a wild card into her carefully crafted black voter sweep.
Also, one thing that never gets mentioned is how many black community/church leaders are supporting Hillary because they have either been promised, or are expecting a nice gov't contract for their little nonprofit should she get elected. So, the Clintons are truly "business" as usual.
Even if these leaders don't come out in favor of Hillary, they will keep silent about Barack and won't actively support him.
The main problem I have with this is that many people have become personally wealthy off this kind of gov't sponsorship, which suits them just fine. But the majority of black PEOPLE aren't aware of this.
But Barack's candidacy is different and is all about empowering communities to get involved, with the larger benefit being that the campaign will have created people who feel that they can make a change in their own lives.
Thanks Mr. Hutchinson! Not only is your article right on the money but it is even more worth it to see the Nader-herd squirm and scream! They prefer to be delusional rather than handling the truth!
Keep writing Sir and keep telling the truth!
You can slice and dice it any which way you want. Anything Hillary does is "an act" and Barack Hussein is "all that". The fact remains that the Clinton Presidency was easily the best in almost half a century and he was justifiably called "America's First Black President"
Hillary has experience, she has vision and a true sense of compassion for the 'have nots'. Barack Hussein is all fluff and he is not even really black! No wonder his numbers just keep going down. You can fool only some people all the time and those I see ranting on this board ...
Sensible American in did. This is what is great about this wonderful country of ours that have been undermind repeatedly the last six & a half yrs. However, make no mistake, if Dems don't unite we will loss again.
So Obama is not really black but Bill Clinton was justifiably called "America's First Black Presdident?" Perhaps you should consider changing your username because that makes no sense at all.
Everybody gets the juvenile "Hussein" joke. Enough already. And who made you the arbiter of who is "really black"? Fox News likes to repeat the silly Hussein bit, and Rush Limbaugh made the same remark you did about Obama not being black enough. Are they the people you want to line up with? Hillary would disapprove.
Arbitration has nothing to do with it. It is about interpretation. Misappropriation, even.
It is a bad act, that's all.
Good points all, i haven't been here long and so far i have seen nothing sensible from sensible in terms of campaign rhetoric. Let's stop talking rhetoric and start talking WHO has PROVEN that they are interested in getting things back in balance, and who is really interested in keeping their pockets lined; who has PROVEN it? I couldn't care less about the polls, and who fights whom over what just for the media circus; I want to know who is honest and trustworthy; thus far I see one front runner who is honest, one who is mostly honest, and two that media won't even give a minute to in the last month. I'd rather have someone who i KNOW will be out there trying to do their best for ALL OF US and NOT themselves, and disagree a bit with them, than put my vote behind someone that i can't trust who says the right things, no matter what. Look at their ethics, forget the rhetoric. PS: where was your American flag lapel pin made? i bet it was made in china...
that's numbers 24 and 25 unless I missed some - in the past 5 days.
Senator Clinton's troll calls Senator Obama, 'Barack Hussein' 5 times a day on average.
She ardently supports Senator Clinton's policies without ever discussing them. For that matter I've never seen her mention anything positive about her obviously favorite candidate. But plenty negative ranting about any other candidate for sure! Interestingly enough she seems like a decent person on other issues, even agreeing separately with Senator Obama on many points. But get her going on politics and Barack Obama in particular and she turns into a hissy cat, dragging out the 'I'm Barack's Mama act and I can and will use his middle name whenever I talk about him' and not addressing him with the respect he has earned.
So, until she decides to behave like a respectable person I would suggest heeding the 'Do Not Feed the Trolls' sign.
The worse part is, you know, that whoever wrote/writes that stuff ain't Black, it isn't even a good act.
One of the primary problems that I see on this topic -- and on many topics such as this in general -- is that people here want to assume that black people are all of one mind on nearly every issue that is raised.
Some black people like Hillary, some black people like Obama, some like myself like Kucinich, some like Edwards, a few even like Bush.
I notice many white people will ask questions like "why do blacks support Hillary" or "why don't blacks think Obama is 'black enough'" as if every single black person thinks this way.
Let me put it this way -- do all whites support any one candidate? Do all whites think alike? Why do so many people assume that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson speak for black people on the one hand, but don't assume that any one white activist speaks for all white people?
Why the double standard?
To put it simply -- rather than generalizing about entire groups of people, try approaching the situation on an individual level. If we say we want to end racism, how can we do so when all we do is divide society up by race?
Its fair that so many here see the need to ask what they feel are important questions, but I honestly think you'd get much better feedback by asking individual black people that you know these questions directly, if possible.
Anything you get from an message board is going to be biased and incomplete, and will not tell the whole story.
It is one of the older tricks in the book. It is the reason that you never see anyone Black on Sunday morning punditry TV. (ok, there is an exception now and then, but..) Either we have no opinion or we all have the same opinion, thus no qualification to speak on the world stage.
I think that the whole thing is much ado about nothing. I remain convinced that there will be on election for POTUS not much beyond a show, at any rate.
All the money spent, all the speculation for what is likely going to be a "b" movie...
Posted October 9, 2007 | 07:13 PM (EST)