Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

With her victories in Texas and Ohio, Clinton shows that she is the stronger candidate.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Clinton Proves the Pundits Wrong, Again

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, deleted. Posted March 5, 2008.


With her victories in Texas and Ohio, Clinton shows that she is the stronger candidate.
Advertisement

This was the worst night yet for the packs of obsessive charter members of the hate Hillary Clinton club. Their first bad night came back in January when despite the gleeful, hopeful but totally false and overblown anticipation of the wrongheaded pollsters that predicted a smash Obama victory, Clinton bagged New Hampshire. Tuesday's outcome was much worse for them. The same gleeful, hopeful, but just as wrongheaded pollsters and even more wrongheaded pundits deliriously wrote the epitaph for Clinton ("the end is in sight," "her Waterloo," "will Clinton stand down?" and on and on the blarney headlines screamed.

They didn't matter. This writer flatly predicted a Clinton win in Ohio and Texas. It wasn't hard to do. Despite the 'Clinton is finished' doom and gloom predictions, what the Clinton haters missed, or rather deliberately omitted was that she was never out of the hunt for the nomination. Clinton ran no ads, had only a token campaign staff, and spent virtually no time in the string of primary election states that she lost. The reason was simple. She smartly concentrated on winning the two states that she had to win, Texas and Ohio. The losses in the smaller primary states meant little since she still had an ample number of delegates and super delegates in the bank. In fact despite the loss in these eleven primary states she was still about five percentage points behind her rival in the delegate count. Losses in the Democratic primary meant even less still in states such as Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, and Montana. They are safe Red States and the eventual Democratic nominee doesn't have a prayer of winning them anyway in the general election. The victories in Texas and Ohio, coupled with the wins in California, and New York prove one thing and that's that Clinton can win the big states. This is the absolute minimum requirement for a Democratic nominee to have any shot at beating John McCain.

Clinton's wins in Texas and Ohio does even more. They demonstrated that she can be competitive with one powerful constituency and maintain a solid grip on the other; one that a Democratic nominee must either win the majority vote from or a sizeable percentage of their vote. The two constituencies are Latinos and blue-collar whites. Bush got more than forty percent of the Latino vote in 2004. As other GOP presidents and candidates dating back to Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bush got the vote of the overwhelming majority of blue-collar whites, especially white males. Ohio is the bluest of blue-collar states and Clinton got a smash win there. That's a hint that Ohio could be competitive for the Democrats -- that is, if she's the nominee. The Democrat's lock on the Latino vote is solid, again, only if she's the nominee.

The charter hate Hillary club members also delight in constantly harping on the supposed mounds of Clinton negatives. The point supposedly is that this alone is enough to set the Democrats on a train wreck course with her as the nominee. But the polls also have consistently shown that voters like her for her strength and experience. When they assess her positions on health care, jobs and the economy, and in dealing with the sub prime crisis, without the filter of distortions and twisting, her positions are sound, reasonable and workable, and much better than anything offered by any of the other candidates.

The polls show something else and that's that in a head to head race with McCain Clinton loses by a few percentage points or is statistically even with him. This too is supposedly proof that Clinton will sink the party. But these are the same polls that showed Clinton losing virtually every contest in every primary. These are the same polls that did not factor in that Clinton tactically and strategically picked the primaries that she chose to make a major effort to win and then proceeded to do just that.

There are more primaries ahead, but despite all the fervent hopes and delicious dreams of the hate Clinton club members, she will win more primaries -- Pennsylvania being the most likely. That will further strengthen the case that she can and should boldly make and that's that she can win the big states and make the White House race a real contest. In other words, there are more bad nights in store for the hate Clinton club members.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: clinton, obama, election 2008, ohio, texas, primary

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). Ethnicpresidency.com

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hillary won't take Texas in the general election
Posted by: onevoter on Mar 5, 2008 1:49 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Losses in the Democratic primary meant even less still in states such as Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, and Montana. They are safe Red States and the eventual Democratic nominee doesn't have a prayer of winning them anyway in the general election. The victories in Texas and Ohio, coupled with the wins in California, and New York prove one thing and that's that Clinton can win the big states."

Here's a clue for you, Mr.Hutchinson: Texas is a "red state". Although it was Democratic for many years, the Repugs have had a lock for the past 15-20 years. Hillary will not win Texas in the general election. She will probably not win enough states and votes in the Electoral College to beat McCain. Look to Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004.

I'm a Texan and not a "Hillary hater", but am a realist who has lived here nearly my whole life. I voted and caucused for Obama yesterday not because I hate Hillary or don't want a woman President. I believe that it is time to leave the two-family political dynasty of the past 28 years in the pages of history.

Obama has energized the electorate in a way I haven't seen in this state in 30 years. Hillary will bring out the vote all right; plenty of those who want to see her defeated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton's Math Problem
Posted by: ianrey on Mar 5, 2008 2:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"In fact despite the loss in these eleven primary states she was still about five percentage points behind her rival in the delegate count."

And so she remains. After the Texas caucus delagates are sorted out, Sen. Clinton may have made up a dozen delegates against Sen. Obama's lead, or it may be only single digits, despite the 3-state win. But those 5 percentage points are not insignificant. Sen. Clinton remains at least 100 pledged delegates behind, with only 661 remaining to be voted for.

That's just about insurmountable, especially considering that all but one of the remaining primaries are in what you and the Clinton camp refer to as inconsequential states. Sure, there's Pennsylvania, and it's more and more likely (and fair, from a democratic and Democratic standpoing) that Michigan and Florida will revote, but Mississippi has a noteworthy 33 pledged delegate count, North Carolina has 115 (!), and these are likely Obama states, by wider margins than Clinton won Texas. So, unless the superdelegates decide to break Heavy for Sen. Clinton, Obama is the nominee.

I'm far from a Hillary-hater, as you term them, in fact, I voted for her and would gladly and proudly do so in the general election were she the nominee. But it's vastly improbable at this point, and it's important that we in the reality-based party understand that and temper our discussion in consideration of that reality. By that, I'm referring to mudslinging, namecalling, Rovian tactics, and generally dragging down the party, which is where this seems to be leading based on the last week in Ohio and Texas.

To people on both sides, I say exuberantly support your candidate, but please refrain from tearing down the other; we have to work together when this is over, and it is over in all but name.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and all she had to do to 'win'.....
Posted by: foreverhope on Mar 5, 2008 3:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was throw as much shit at her opponent as possible, an old political tactic when losing. The kitchen sink? more like the toilet bowl.

Hillary was up in Texas by about 20 points only a few weeks ago. Obama did a FABULOUS job coming up from behind closing that difference to a narrow margin. He isn't any further behind in delegates or the popular vote than he was yesterday.

Fear, hate, slander, panic, last minute votes, these are the things that warm the cockals of politicos like The Clintons. Anything goes in The Clinton's self-serving world. However, in the long term it won't help them, and most of all long term it won't provide the leadership or bi-partisanship of President Obama. His campaign is well-managed, on message, and directly on track.

Estimated at a worth of 100 million $$$$$, it is long past time for HillnBill to give up their tax records, or are they afraid?

Hillary's 'victory' rally in Ohio was over-the-top. Over-the-top, like everything else about The Clintons. She lost 12 and won three, Texas by a narrow margin, and that was cause for a mini-democratic convention, confetti falling, as if declaring her nomination. Lame, wonder what people would say if Obama had confetti at his rallies? The Clintons will do anything, say anything, to win what they want, not for us, but for THEMSELVES.

They can already smell the furniture polish in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Putrid and pathetic Posted by: jmooney
pundits = idiots
Posted by: MobileSucks on Mar 5, 2008 3:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, Hillary did prove the pundits wrong again.

It makes me think lowly of pundits, not highly of Clinton.

After hearing it explained how Obama would almost assuredly win Texas from somebody on NPR I actually believed that Obama would probably win Texas. That makes me an idiot and I don't like that. I'm going to try harder to not listen to these oracles so much. I think I learned this time. But I thought that after New Hampshire .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» look again Posted by: jwg
Hillary shows her true colors
Posted by: isnamthere on Mar 5, 2008 5:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like many others, I was blinded by the aura of "good times" during the "Clinton decade." I voted three times for the Clintons: '92, '96, and 2000. However, since that time my political knowledge of current events, Hillary's Senatorial record and my awareness of Bill Clinton's fiscal/international policies have turned my attitude about the couple. I have come to view their political orientation to be "republican light" more than progressive and liberal.

With this latest media attack on Obama, Hillary has shown her true colors. She has basically said that she thinks McSame would be a better president than Barack:

"I will bring a lifetime of experience to the Whitehouse, Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the Whitehouse, and Barack has a speech he gave in 2002."[paraphrase]

Between herself and Obama, she may have shown herself to have MORE campaign STRENGTH than Barack with her wins last night(as the author has opined), but she has also shown herself to be MORE REPUBLICAN than any PROGRESSIVE candidate should be by the use of her Rovian smear tactics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton:Pro War and Anti-Liberty
Posted by: left_libertarian on Mar 5, 2008 5:45 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will never vote for her because Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mary in Shoreline
Posted by: Mary in Shoreline on Mar 5, 2008 8:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting re Hillary haters. I work in an office where the majority of the (well-educated) people support Obama. There are a couple of "feminists" who think anyone with female DNA is worthy of being president.

Most of the Obama supporters were, as of last year, willing to vote for Hillary should the worst case scenario happen and she win the nomination. But today, in talking to six of these folks, I learned that none of them were any longer interested in "holding their noses" to vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, solely because of the tactics she has employed. Some won't vote; some will vote for McCain (count me in that group).

So I do wonder, should Hillary pull this out using typical Clinton dirty politics: will she win the battle but lose the war? I think, most likely, that will be the case.

Maybe, at least, it will be the end of the Clintons in the White House?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mary in Shoreline Posted by: AltB
» RE: Mary in Shoreline Posted by: jareilly
» RE: Mary in Shoreline Posted by: RobNLA
Actually, Clinton Will Lose the Delegate Contest in TX
Posted by: Homer on Mar 5, 2008 9:35 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like most people discussing the results of the March 4 Democratic contest in Texas, the author of this column neglected to pay proper attention to the fact that the Texas primary vote only accounts for a portion (65%) of the delegates to be awarded from Texas.

The remainder, 35%, will be awarded based on the results of the TEXAS CAUCUS, a contest in which Obama is ahead by 12% points with 40% of precincts reporting.

Clinton won only 6 more delegates than Obama in the primary, with 99% of precincts reporting. Simple math tells us that Obama is very likely to not only erase but reverse Clinton's lead in delegates gained in Texas after the final caucus results are announced.

So I'm not sure what "victory" the author is crowing about for Clinton in Texas. She desperately needed to win MORE delegates, not fewer, in Texas, to keep her near mathematically impossible dreams of a Democratic nomination alive, but she failed to do so.

By the only measure that matters, delegates, Clinton lost Texas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No one has addressed cross-voting by RepubliThugs
Posted by: PaulC on Mar 5, 2008 9:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A week or so ago, the major/sole regional northeast Ohio paper, the Plain Dealer, encouraged RepubliThugs to cross over and vote Democratic to give Hillary a boost since McCain had the RepubliThug vote sewn up (yes, you heard right, the lone voice responsible for maintaining objectivity was explaining in detail how to undermine and distort the system - welcome to Ohio). The assumption is that McCain can beat Hillary but not Obama.

After the election the paper reported that up to 10 percent of the vote may have been such cross over voting, although some of it may have been legitimate. This would beg the question of who really won Ohio and by how much.

Maybe we could get Jimmy Carter to come in and oversee our elections for us so we could actually at least pretend to be a democracy.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yea until the election
Posted by: g50 on Mar 6, 2008 12:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are a world class moron if you think Hillary can win this election in November. Do you really think that? Because if so, you are living in retardedland.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yea until the election Posted by: voicefromafar
What victory???
Posted by: voicefromafar on Mar 6, 2008 2:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Victory? Sorry, don't think so. That's just SPIN bro. As a result of yesterday's primaries, Obama's delegate count INCREASED, in relation to Clinton's, according to what has been posted by news organizations.

SPIN bro, SPIN.

And, btw, people don't hate "Hillary", they hate her behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Baseless assertions
Posted by: SBean on Mar 6, 2008 4:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Democrat's lock on the Latino vote is solid, again, only if she's the nominee."

One of several. I agree with MobileSucks about pundits. You're a pundit, Earl.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you all just dont understand EOH
Posted by: Drclaw on Mar 6, 2008 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..he is a one trick pony with little abilitity or inclination to actually analyze the positions and examine the needs and concerns of the electorate. Ergo..anyone who dislikes Hillary is an irrational Hillary-hater, and going further, any view that Hillary is the weaker or unelectable candidate is by the same facts, incorrect. Hence the attempt to use any result to continue to build a case for HRC.

He's as biased and unreliable as they come as an analyst, and he proves it yet again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ohio - yes - Texas - not so much
Posted by: jebpgh on Mar 6, 2008 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry to rain on your parade but it looks like HRC's net gain after three primary wins is 4 or 5 delegates. In Texas, where 3 million votes were cast, her margin of victory was a slim 40,000 votes. That comes from blowing about a 20% margin of victory lead just two weeks ago. As it is Obama was substantially ahead in the latest caucus count with 40% in.

HRC has demonstrated that time and time again she will lose considerable ground in every primary race to Obama given enough time to campaign and build an organization.

We are talking about a woman who has been effectively running for president since 2000. This is her time to win and frankly she is disappointing us. Worse, because she is probably going to end up behind in pledged delegates by the time of the convention - her only hope is to derail the nomination and force a negotiated settlement. The costs of which will be the independents and the young voters who have joined Obama's campaign over the past six months. HRC is practically assuring us that the Bush presidency will go for at least another four bloody years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I wonder Posted by: jwg
I Don't Want A Republican in the White House
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 6, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary would be another term for Bush. I had Clinton fatigue a long time ago. She will lose against any Republican. Of course the DLC crowd thinks she's just sooo wonderful and misunderstood (sniffle, sniffle).

No Sale.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» She will turn on the DNC Posted by: AltB
Felon!
Posted by: The Populist on Mar 6, 2008 2:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton is a Felon!

Earl,
I am waiting for you to write something that will make me believe you are not a total goof.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you want a Democratic president, your only choice is Hillary
Posted by: fjstratford on Mar 6, 2008 4:21 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama will not win the Presidency if he cant win the BIG SWING STATES like Ohio and Florida - which Clinton and McCain won. And Pennsylvania - which Clinton and McCain will win.

If we want a Democratic president, we want Clinton to run against McCain. That is the only choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Clinton won Florida??? Posted by: Drclaw
Concerned citizen
Posted by: minjiwe on Mar 7, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rumor has it that Clinton won the Texas primary, and that Obama will most likely win the Texas Caucus(s).

So, as of yesterday (3/6) we still did not know who won Texas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A logic bomb of crass dysfunction.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 7, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In fact despite the loss in these eleven primary states she was still about five percentage points behind her rival in the delegate count. Losses in the Democratic primary meant even less still in states such as Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, and Montana. They are safe Red States and the eventual Democratic nominee doesn't have a prayer of winning them anyway in the general election. The victories in Texas and Ohio, coupled with the wins in California, and New York prove one thing and that's that Clinton can win the big states. This is the absolute minimum requirement for a Democratic nominee to have any shot at beating John McCain.

So...the small states are irrelevant because were Clinton to have lost Ohio, Tejas, and Kahleefahhneyah, those democratic voters would have voted for McCain?

In case you aren't in on the loop, the "primary" season is a giant flecking game played by power brokers in the two parties, for the purpose of perpetuating a two party system of government by collecting enough money to start campaigning 18 months ahead of schedule. Show me the passage in our Constitution relevant to a Demobot/Republicrat "primary", and I'll eat my hat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Looking for blind Hillary haters? Look no further than the comments section!
Posted by: ravi on Mar 7, 2008 8:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The majority of the comments demonstrate Earl's point handsomely. After reading piece after illogical piece of Maureen Dowd's spleen-venting in the NYT (just one of the hit job torrent from the media), its nice to read someone who can say it as it is. Some facts may be of interest to Obama fanboys since their camp likes to argue that the will of the voter must prevail: Floridian Democrats had no say in their primaries and cannot be, by that very principle, be penalised. And while it is true that Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, as the numbers stand now, Hillary has the lead in the popular vote. Not that you would hear much of that. And if you take away Republicans and the so called "Independents" (whom Bill Maher calls "morons"), we should have a very clear picture of whom the Democratic voters want.

It is interesting that it is richer, younger liberals who can adopt this hip post-feminist, post-partisan pose, such as the commentor who casually writes that the hard-core feminists would vote for anyone with any female DNA in them. Well, in all his or her hip ignorance, she may not realise that we all do. Biologically and politically speaking.

A last comment: I have as little interest in Hillary Clinton winning the nomination as I have for Obama. If at all we can consider a Democratic candidate other than Kucinich (who isn't "mainstream" enough), that person exited the race a while ago because he was making everyone uncomfortable with his partisan position on fundamental issues of class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is pathetic
Posted by: progdem on Mar 9, 2008 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. This is straightforward horse race coverage. All that goes into Clinton being a stronger candidate in Hutchinson's eyes is her ability to win. Whether she is likely to support policy that helps latinos and working class whites doesn't enter into the discussion, because all that matters is who is winning.

2. Considered as horse race coverage, it is also just pretty lousy. Hutchinson appears not to be able to do the simple math concerning what Clinton has to do to win (without MI and FL having their delegates seated. With regards to MI there is no way an intellectually honest person can support their delegates being counted). He says she was smart for focusing on the states she had to win (Texas and Ohio) apparently not taking into account the proportional allotment of delegates (the Texas and Ohio victories made up an exceedingly small percentage of the delegate lead Obama had built with those states where Clinton didn't really try) or that complex arithmetical operation, addition.

3. Quotes like this 'When they assess her positions on health care, jobs and the economy, and in dealing with the sub prime crisis, without the filter of distortions and twisting, her positions are sound, reasonable and workable, and much better than anything offered by any of the other candidates,' show either that Hutchinson doesn't know anything about policy analysis, or is just another apologist for corporate democrats. This is the kind of crap you expect on DLC.org or PPI, not alternet. Also, it is the kind of thing you might want to back up. If you take 'any of the other candidates' to mean, well, what it means, then he is saying that Clinton's policy proposals are better than Edwards' and Kucinich's. That is absurd, especially with regards to Kucinich (if he meant only to be comparing her to Obama and McCain, then he might have wanted to use the word 'either' instead of 'any'. Even there this shows either duplicity or colossal naivete. Look at who advises Clinton, who her political allies are, and who her donors are. Anyone armed with honesty and intellect knows that the likelihood of her leftward swing since Super Tuesday being genuine is small.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you kidding!?!
Posted by: writemrbond on Mar 10, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can anyone claim that someone who was 6 years on the board of Walmart is pro-worker? I can't believe that anyone on Alternet could support Hillary when we finally have a smart, indepedent, eloquent candidate in Obama! Come on people, Clinton is so fake she changes her message with the winds of politics. Just a few years ago, she was one of the biggest hawks in congress. Remember? She's only sounding the way she's sounding now because of the successes of Edwards and Obama. And when it comes down to it, if she is elected president she is going to do the bidding of the corporations for sure. And all the women out there voting for her simply because she is a woman. Come on, open your eyes. If she were a man there's no way in hell you would vote for her. Show that you are really not sexist by looking at her a person, not as a woman, and then decide, for all of our sakes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Todd
Posted by: ToddSmith on Mar 10, 2008 10:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congratulations Mr. Hutchinson on your excellent article regarding the irrational hatred directed toward Senator Clinton and the premature obituaries that the belt-way pundits have been touting prior to the Ohio and Texas primaries. I think that her victories are testaments to her perserverance and her eventual electability.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Win in Texas?
Posted by: RobNLA on Mar 10, 2008 2:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just another columnist parroting the Clinton campaign about their candidate winning Texas.

Texas was basically a tie, not a clear win for either Clinton for Obama. Clinton won the popular vote and the primary. Obama won the caucus and likely more delegates as well.

Bottom line: Clinton needed to make up more ground than she did in with the second super Tuesday. She only gained an estimated 4-7 delegates...in states she was leading by huge margins just weeks before those primaries. So if anything.

So even if she wins more states, if it's by very small margins, she will still end up around 100 delegates behind Obama. And many superdelegates have already indicated they will back the delegate winner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not Really
Posted by: pdxstudent on Mar 11, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"With her victories in Texas and Ohio, Clinton shows that she is the stronger candidate."

At best, it shows that she won Texas and Ohio. Anyone presumptuous enough to say stuff like what I quote aren't interested in politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not Really...I agree Posted by: RobNLA
Earl, Are You There
Posted by: desidid on Mar 12, 2008 6:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can't wait for your next column, I'm sure you will find a way to excuse the conduct of your candidate's campaign. Tell me though, if Hillary is as qualified as you keep telling us she is, why does her campaign feel the need to malign Obama, and drop that race card every other week? Shouldn't you be able to win the people's vote with a stellar personality, a history of good governance, and trustworthiness?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guess what, Earl -- she lost!
Posted by: xi_people on Mar 13, 2008 3:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How do you feel now, Earl? Your arguments belong in the toilet because the fact has emerged that your "candidate" actually lost Texas.

You slimy little sell-out. How much did "Hillbilly" pay you to shill for them? Not that you have to favor Obama because he's of your race, but you -- and every other black person -- should be absolutely outraged at the overt race-baiting tactics that Hillbilly has resorted to at every turn. Do you agree with Ferraro's racist statements of the last few days about Obama? I'd like to see a future column from you condemning them, but I'm sure that won't happen.

I thought racism was something you were supposed to be against, but just like the CBC, when money beckons all scruples get thrown out the window.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Huh?
Posted by: abstractmachine on Mar 14, 2008 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did I miss something?
I'm a long time fan Earl. I'd sometimes risk being late to class so I could catch every bit of Tuesday Live back in the 90's. I haven't always agreed with you but I almost always appreciate your fresh perspective.

I'm not getting what there is to get so excited about Hillary. I respect the woman but I don't recall the Clinton years being particularly progressive and I haven't seen much from Hill to indicate that she would be any better for us.

I'm just not getting why you'd stick your neck out for Hillary. Even seeming to gloat at a time when her defeat, saving an uprising from the ruling class, seems most likely.

Maybe I missed that column. I should do my research.
Either way ... I think you are off base here. I don't think Obama is God or that it will be some kind of great coup for progressives. I do find his campaign to be somewhat fresh and he seems intent in moving politics in a new direction. Finally, he seems like someone that will INSPIRE activists to move the government toward change. I don't really get that sense from Hillary. As brilliant as she and Bill are I think that they are basically top down leaders who dance on the fluctuating tip of public opinion as a way of trying to get what they see as good things done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]