Everyday Voters, Not Celebrities, Rally for Hillary

If you turned on a TV in the days before the voting began in the Super Tuesday states, you would have thought that Barack Obama was headed for a landslide. On every cable news channel, and on the nightly network news, as well, there were reports of crowds gathering around the country to cheer on the Senator's campaign. Flip on one channel and there was California's First Lady, Maria Shriver, joining her cousin Caroline Kennedy and talk-show host Oprah Winfrey in Los Angeles to sing the praises of the Illinois senator. Push another button on the remote and there you would find Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, joining Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick at a rally in Boston. Still on another channel, you could catch Oscar-winning actor Robert DeNiro and former senator and presidential contender Bill Bradley, flanking the candidate in the Meadowlands Sports Complex, all urging Garden State voters to get "Fired Up!"

What you didn't see in those TV reports or in the cheering crowds were the millions of ordinary Democrats who didn't manage to get on television but did go to the polls and vote. These are the voters whose lives and livelihoods depend on the outcome of this year's election -- the voters who care more about real results and a better economy than celebrity endorsements. They're the folks struggling to make ends meet, the people who have been hurt by seven years of a president who just doesn't care about them. And millions of America's working families turned out on Super Tuesday, just as they have in earlier contests. They handed election victories to Senator Hillary Clinton all across the country including a stunning upset in Massachusetts.

These are the voters who are working paycheck to paycheck, trying to make ends meet while health care, energy and food prices continue to climb. These are the folks who work hard and play by the rules and are trying to get ahead. They are the people in America who feel invisible, who feel that no one really cares about their problems. Celebrity endorsements and a candidate with a rock star persona are not what motivates them. Rather, they want a candidate who has solutions to the problems they face day in and day out, who hears their concerns and speaks for their interests. They have found that candidate in Hillary Clinton.

That's why when the votes were tallied late last night, Senator Clinton emerged victorious, including huge victories in New York, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Senator Clinton's message is working, in big states and small states, in red states and blue states. She carried states from coast to coast, from Liberty Island to San Francisco Bay. Even in states where she trailed in tightly contested contests, such as the bell-weather state of Missouri, Senator Clinton demonstrated that she can appeal to rural as well as urban voters. She carried 110 of the 115 counties in the "Show Me" state.

Senator Clinton's victories in New York, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey are tremendously important, because all are reliable blue states that Democrats must win to gain a victory in November. While the media may focus on celebrities and endorsements, the voters on Super Tuesday and in earlier contests this year have focused on issues, substance and solutions. In the states most important for a Democratic victory, they have chosen Hillary Clinton as their candidate. Delegates at the Democratic Convention will do the same.

Comments

[RunningDog]

I think if Obama is the nominee he puts Kansas, Nebraska, South Carolina, Virginia, and Florida in play in November, and wins Ohio. He got more votes in the SC primary than McCain and Huckabee combined in the GOP primary.

In Red States, Senator Nelson of NE and Governors Sebelius and Kaine of KS and VA, respectively, have endorsed Obama because they know he A) brings coattails to those states where downticket Dems would RUN AWAY from Hillary, and B) makes those states competitive at the top of the ticket.

ND Senator Conrad and SD Senator Johnson have both endorsed Obama for the same reason, however, neither of these states will be in play in November.

Winning a primary in a safe Blue State-- which is the measure of electability touted by blogger McEntee (who is an admitted partisan for Clinton)- is an accomplishment of dubious merit. The Dem nominee is going to win California and New York and Massachusetts in November, regardless of whether the nominee is Obama or Clinton.

Obama expands the Democratic base , while Hillary mobilies and energizes the (currently dispirited) GOP base. The ONLY way the Dems could lose in November is to nominate Hillary.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

In Massachusetts, Barack Obama may have run into what Jim Rice, Ellis Burks, and Carl Everett ran into as black baseball players in Boston.

But set that aside for the moment. People with college educations, people under 35, white males in Idaho, and people who are, well, black (of any age, gender, education level)-- they're "everyday people" too. They don't have their own daytime talk shows. They aren't the daughters of handsome, legendary ex-Presidents.

Just when I thought we were through with John Edwards' line about the American dream to be to get up early and work all day in a mill. I thought we wanted to be millionaires. Americans are big dreamers. We want to be movie stars like Robert De Niro.

Speaking of which, California-- 42% of the vote was determined by people who decided at least a month before Feb. 5. And Hillary won 65% of that vote. In other words, early voting killed Obama. It wasn't "everyday voters" rallying for Hillary. It was "everyday voters" asking in December 2007 "What's an 'Obama' and can I really vote for Bill Clinton again?" as they filled out their mail-in ballots. (I exaggerate for effect).

This whole thing with demographics gets old after a while. In a democracy, we only function when we think for ourselves, not follow the herd because everyone else in the herd is following the herd. Well, maybe Republicans in a democracy do that, but still . . .

[janeb]

Personally I like both Clinton and Obama. I will vote for either one of them with a big smile on my face. I prefer Clinton, but I am not going to put Obama down, just because I think Clinton would be better. Let the republicans pick our side apart. Do we have to do it for them? I know we have to make a choice and we have every right to have opinions, but some of the things I read here make me not want to vote at all.
I think Clinton-Obama 2008 sounds like a winning team. They could do great things! I just hope that by the time this thing is decided that we're not all at each other's throats. Who needs the republican party to defeat us , we do such a great job of it ourselves.

[lgillooly]

Clinton/Obama would be the best combination!

[jhamm1]

Indeed "these voters" may be predisposed to reap the economic benefits from the good Senator, but in terms of foreign policy issues, either don't care or simply haven't been doing their research.

[Aaror]

Before the Kennedy endorsement Mass was going to Clinton by 20 points, how is her still winning a historic victory?
Also, how is winning states that always go Democratic proof of electability. New York and California will vote for Obama if he is the candidate.
Another fear I have...
If Clinton is the Dems candidate, a lot of Repubs will come out to vote who otherwise would have skipped, just to vote against her. Those voters are probably predisposed to vote for the other repubs on the ballot. Expect Repub gains in the House and Senate if Hillary is the candidate, regardless of the presidential result. Expect Democratic gains in both houses of congress if Obama wins.

[EspressoAtNoon]

Obama is getting ALL of his financing from individuals. Hillary is getting MOST of her money from Lobbyists, PACs, and Special Interest groups.

So it's hard to make the case that Hillary is for the people getting affordable healthcare when the Health Insurance Industry gives her more money than ALL OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES COMBINED!!!

Just more rhetoric from the dishonest Clinton spinners.

[azn1011]

like it or not, Hillary's victories in Massachusetts and California prove that endorsements mean nothing to most voters. Ted Kennedy's name wasn't on the ballot, nor was John Kerry's or Oprah's. in the end, it was between Clinton and Obama, period.

And it is true that most people who are trying to make ends meet voted for Hillary. She won people who listed the economy and health care as the most important issues. I don’t think celebrities living in the hills of Hollywood have to worry much about either.

Please note that I have nothing against celebrities living in the hills of Hollywood or elsewhere. They’re Americans just like everyone else and have a right to voice their opinions and they should be listened too. I’m just making a point

[detriangulation]

This is pure unadulterated Clintonian spin. Super Tuesday was a tie for delegates and popular votes. Obama won more states (13) than Clinton (8 + NM?). Your argument about Clinton's victories in bigger Blue States, while factual, is completely COUNTERINTUITIVE. We need a candidate that can attract Red State voters in BOTH Red and Blue/Purple states. If these Independents and cross-over Republicans are already supporting Obama it's not likely they'll switch to McCain in the general. It's far more likely they will choose McCain if Clinton's the nominee.
It's "ordinary Americans" making small donations that constitute the bulk of Obama's advantage over Clinton's bankrupt machine of maxed-out Establishment fat cats. Your definition of "ordinary" seems to be the Working Class and the Blue Collar vote. She does have the advantage there; it's how she broke even with Obama in the popular vote. This is not because these voters are examining the issues or the candidates; it's because they're voting on name recognition. Otherwise you are arguing that college-educated voters (strong Obama supporters on average) are more receptive to rhetoric and celebrity than substance?! Hardly. It is working class voters who are voting on the celebrity of the Clinton name. The more they see Obama and the more they realize who is electable, they'll start to break more toward him.
Media coverage accurately reflected Obama's huge crowds and surging momentum, which was proven by the results. Not long ago Obama was behind consistantly, for months, by 20-30 points in many many Super Tuesday states. The fact that he closed that gap in California and elsewhere, tied NM, and overtook her in Connecticut, Missouri, etc. shows who has the momentum. The way you distort Missouri is laughable! Appeal among "urban voters"? Don't think so. Obama's win in urban Missouri reached as high as 70%. He's already shown he can appeal to white rural voters when they have exposure to him, e.g. Iowa. And he continues to in Georgia, etc. despite your complicity with the Clintons' Rove playbook race baiting.

[momorune]

I wonder why, if Hillary is the one with more experience, does she have to chase Obama's message?

He's formed his opinions on the basis of getting to know people and their issues openly. He HAS accomplished a lot for his constituency, and the Clinton side's overstatement that he has accomplished nothing seems very ideological - too much of the Hillary show and not enough delving into the facts. I feel like Clinton supporters keep squawking the same lines like parrots.

But really, "change" was Obama's original platform. Hillary saw that he had the buzzword of the election, and hopped on the wagon. Now if she's supposed to have her finger on the pulse of what's important in this country, why does she have to repeat every statement of his about 5 minutes after he makes it? She's cribbing his lines. That is really embarassing to me.

[polcomm]

It will be 1972 if Obama gets the nomination. Anyone who was around for that knows what happened. The left courted a "feel good" candidate because of Vietnam who crashed in November. The stunning defeat of McGovern was only historically balanced by the stunning defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964, where the right got a hold of the Republican party. The Republicans have learned their lesson, the Democrats obviously have not. Bill Clinton won the White House for 8 years because he was NOT the darling of the left, but a moderate. You are not voting for agreeing with everything a candidate does or says. You are voting for judicial appointments, and people in the cabinet that know what they are doing. Hate the Clintons all you want, but Bill delivered the White House for 2 terms, the only one to do so since FDR. If Obama wins, he will crash and burn and the left will be happy because they got their man, but the right will be happier, because they got the White House.

[finally]

Interesting! The champion of lower-income working people (hah! and lobbyists, i would add) is paying $7,500 for a voice coach and $4.3 MILLION to Penn, but regular staffers, i.e. the hard-woring regular folks, are going without pay in January?

[sethcohen1]

Completely agree! Thank you for finally posting the reality of this fiasco - I am so tired of seeing Hillary bashing on the blogosphere. With Obama I once again see "ideological" voting (similar to why people voted for Bush) rather than voting based on substance. Hillary has substantial experience, intelligent, is offering a truly universal health care plan - I do not see these things in Obama and it's lame to see celebrities pull everybody on the bandwagon just because he talks about "change" all the time.

[JackWOrf]

Why? Because the DNC is a bunch of idiots.

Now Howard Dean is saying that the candidates should declare a winner among themselves because the Democratic leadership has more important things to do than sit around and listen to them.

Is Howard Dean a scream, or what? After his BRILLIANT idea to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan, I didn't think he could come up with any more stupid ideas, but I underestimated him.

And the funny thing is, if the IDIOTS at the DNC had not DISENFRANCHISED Florida and Michigan, the primary would be OVER now. Hillary's clobbering of Obama in Florida and Michigan would actually have counted, rather than being a "beauty contest" (LOVE that phrase!, one that will go down in HISTORY!), then Hillary would be the nominee and the DNC would have accomplished their goal of establishing a candidate early.

Now, they are going to be very, very, very lucky if this does not go to the Supreme Court. Guess what, Howard, it is UNFAIR and UNCONSTITUTIONAL to DISENFRANCHISE the SOVEREIGN STATES OF FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN.

[JackWOrf]

Very true. I would agree that the hype backfired on Obama, and we may actually see him begin a decline. People are getting BORED with OBAMA. Same old, same old, every speech. Sounds good at first, but gets boring quick.

Lack of qualifications and lack of substance.

I think that the ad comparing him to JFK may go down as a classic, comparable to Michael Dukakis riding in that tank. Obama looks ridiculous compared to Kennedy. He looks like a monkey.

Yes, Fat Ted Kennedy lives in his family's modest ocean-front estate in Palm Beach. And that certainly qualifies him to tell us who to vote for!

No need to bother with white (n-word)s like me. I am just a totally unimportant Florida Democrat who is occasionally allowed to vote, but only for pre-approved, government­-inspected candidates, like Osama Bin Hussein.

But seriously, Florida and Michigan together represent 44 electoral votes from a potentially BLUE state. That puts us second only to California in importance. So why are we treated like white (n-word)s? Why do they spend 6 months in Iowa and NH and then DISENFRANCHISE us?