Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Why Hillary Clinton Trumps Barack Obama -- and Will Continue to Trump Him

[wyldwolf]

The recent news that Hillary Clinton had appreciably widened the gap over her fierce arch rival Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nod wasn’t surprising. In fact, the only ones that it surprised and infuriated were those who have put a fervent, almost messianic faith in Obama as the savior of the Democratic Party, and for the even more starry eyed, the nation. That’s a terrible burden to dump on the shoulders of a novice candidate who, by his own public admission, is still at the very front of the learning curve on foreign and national domestic policy issues, gropes for an edge in the candidate debates and is still figuring out how to identify and target a solid constituency.

Obama has, in a sense, been both a victim of and pandered to those inflated expectations. What else could you call it when he presents himself as the guy who will rattle the system by being anti-party establishment, anti-corporate domination, and a visionary on the folly of Iraq war and how best to wage the war on terrorism? Obama’s record in the Senate, his stint in the Illinois state legislature and his relentless chase of corporate dollars belie that claim.

Clinton, in contrast, plays it close to the vest, and other than the ritual and obligatory attacks on Bush’s war, and his domestic policies, she has said and done nothing that will create blown-up illusions among voters. Progressives and ultra-liberal Democrats hate that, and they pound on her harder than Republican ultra-conservatives and the professional Hillary haters among some hyper-religious fundamentalists have. But Clinton knows what Obama is slowly discovering 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 the USA Today poll that proclaimed that Clinton gaps Obama, voters gave her top marks on experience and strength (They gave 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. They’re not inclined to make that mistake again or at least make it knowingly.

Hillary gave a vivid glimpse of her experience in the now defining debate in which Obama flatly said he’d meet with Hugo Chavez, and the Iranian and North Korean leaders. There was nothing inherently wrong with that, and good foreign policy is made and leadership shown as much by talking to enemies as friends. It’s just that Obama was far off in his timing in making that declaration and badly misjudged the public perception that it left. A seasoned presidential candidate or experienced public official who has had long experience in dealing with foreign policy matters and is recognized as such by the voters might have gotten away with that. But Obama is not that candidate or official. It looked and sounded like the brash and rash boast of a naive, and horribly green candidate trying to score foreign policy brownie points at the expense of his rivals. Clinton quickly spotted the faux paus and leaped all over it and quickly said she wouldn’t make that same pledge.

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. Democratic party leaders know that the 2008 presidential race will come down to a showdown in Florida, several of the key Western states, and for the more optimistic, unhinging 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. They also know that the key too snaring those states is the Latino and black vote. Hillary easily trumps Obama here. Polls show that Latinos overwhelmingly back Hillary against Obama and even take her by big margins over Bill Richardson.

To win Florida, and a Southern state or two, will take a top heavy and inspired turnout of black voters. Clinton runs neck and neck with Obama among wide swatches of black voters. In recent polls, she handily tops him in bagging the support of the majority of black women voters.

Obama brings a fresh face, new voice and energy to the Democratic presidential derby. That’s welcome and much needed. But the Clinton machine is a well-honed, heavy cash generating, smooth running machine. In the crush and heat of a long campaign, that’s what it takes to win votes and ultimately elections. That’s why Clinton trumps and will continue to trump Obama.

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/stateof/hutchinsonreport817

[KittyWampus]

1. whoever wrote this is delusional. Obama NEVER presented himself as "the guy who

"What else could you call it when he presents himself as the guy who will rattle the system by being anti-party establishment, anti-corporate domination, and a visionary on the folly of Iraq war and how best to wage the war on terrorism? "

That is bullshit.

So why should I even bother to give a crap about what else this asshole wrote?

Although skipping to the bottom I note he mentions Clinton's "well-honed, heavy cash generating, smooth running machine."

and then goes on to say that's "what it takes to win votes and ultimately elections."

That's ALL it takes?

If I were a Clinton supporter, I'd be embarrassed to post this.

[wyldwolf]

2. are you serious? Obama hasn't presented himself that way?

The claims on superior judgement on foreign policy? The threats of going into Pakistan? The promise to "clean up Washington" and that his administration would be the most "transparent" ever?

Sure sounds like "he presents himself as the guy who will rattle the system by being anti-party establishment, anti-corporate domination, and a visionary on the folly of Iraq war and how best to wage the war on terrorism."

:eyes:

[Myrina]

3. Do a little research on EO Hutchinson ...

... asshole? Just because he doesn't like your candidate?

:eyes: Whatever.

[KittyWampus]

14. Obama isn't "my" candidate. And my assessment is hinged on the man's writing.

[SaveElmer]

4. And Bingo was his name...

(I'm channeling Dan Rather)

[DURHAM D]

5. Good article. Thanks for posting.

I hope that Obama runs a disciplined balanced primary campaign. Hill picks him as her #2. Obama gets good on-job-training as V-P and the country see him as ready for the top spot in 8 years.

Note: If he returns to the Senate for 8 more years he will have a longer voting record and that usually spells problems for national candidates so he needs to be on the ticket as VP.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Jeez. He really nails just what it is I love so much about Hillary:

"Clinton, in contrast, plays it close to the vest, and other than the ritual and obligatory attacks on Bush’s war, and his domestic policies, she has said and done nothing that will create blown-up illusions among voters. Progressives and ultra-liberal Democrats hate that, and they pound on her harder than Republican ultra-conservatives and the professional Hillary haters among some hyper-religious fundamentalists have."

She ain't threatening to rock no corporate boats, ain't threatening to inconvenience the rich in order to lighten the burden of the downtrodden, ain't threatening to crap up any industrialist's life with bothersome environmental regs, ain't threatening to take any profits away from the health insurance industry, and ain't threatening to actually pull the troops out of Iraq.

When you come right down to it, she's the least threatening Democratic candidate a Republican could ask for.

[DURHAM D]

7. Hillary knows she is running for just the one position -

not for all of the seats in the House and Senate. You know - that other body of the government that you have to work with to change things.

I watch BO, JE and DK pontificate about what they will do about a variety of things and know it is just a laundry list of empty promises. I yell at my tv - Did you forget about the congress?

Honestly, I think it is a gender thing. Girls have always known they have to work well with others to get things done - its a committee process. Boys act like they are God. The country is sick of this little boy God thing.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. The candidate most likely to collect votes from neo-cons.

Do you think the Republicans will consider that a threatening issue?

[MannyGoldstein]

13. She Has Never Taken a Stand On Anything Since HillaryCare

Simply glommed on to noncontroversies like healthcare for children.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Yes. Voting To Attack Iraq Showed Experience.

And she masterfully put nuking terrorists on the table. And off the table.

:applause:

[DURHAM D]

9. You do know your posts are not helping your candidate don't you?

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Interesting. And Which Candidate Would That Be? (nt)

[Jackpine Radical]

15. I think you are dealing with someone here

with a very high specific gravity, if you take my meaning.

[DURHAM D]

17. I assume BO - perhaps DK...

On the other hand - it could be Fred Thompson.

At any rate - you show up everywhere to trash Hillary so I guess your candidate is ABH.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Mrs. Clinton Should Be Proud Of Here Record!

Aren't you? Heck, she's even said that voting to go to war with Iraq was the right decision. Don't you think so too?

[maximusveritas]

10. He doesn't seem to understand much about polls or Obama supporters

Hillary has not "appreciably widened the gap". I'm not sure what "news" he's referring to, though I assume he's talking about the USA Today poll since he references it later. Trying to use a single poll as "news" of a widening gap is just ignorant.
The race is still very young. If you look at the long-term trends, the race hasn't really changed much since it started. Hillary has picked up some support, while Edwards has lost some, and Obama has stayed relatively constant.

[Colobo]

16. Fuck this guy, whoever he is. He can vote for whoever he wants

I will vote for Obama.

[populistdriven]

18. DLC Pablum Puke

[wyldwolf]

19. LOL! Clueless.

[populistdriven]

29. You must think the entire blue state of Oregon is clueless then

Hillary is a highly trained highly financed political machine.

Most Americans can't stand her.

[wyldwolf]

34. no, you're clueless for thinking Earl Ofari Hutchinson is DLC

Most Americans can't stand her.

Proof?

[zulchzulu]

21. This OP's points are full of flaws, follies and faux-knowledge

He writes:

"...a novice candidate who, by his own public admission, is still at the very front of the learning curve on foreign and national domestic policy issues..."

What part of his derriere did this fool pull that out from? Obama certainly can point out about Musharraf, not using nukes and meeting World leaders and Senator Clinton is ON RECORD agreeing with him on those matters. What she remembers what she has said in the past is the real issue. Was she for it before she was against it...

Obama is the Chair of the Subcommittee on European Relations and serves on the Subcommittees on African Affairs; East Asia and Pacific Affairs; and International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection, giving him knowledge about Asian, African and European issues. He, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, has visited Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan in Asia; Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, and the Palestinian Territories in the Middle East; and Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa in Africa.

"Clinton, in contrast, plays it close to the vest, and other than the ritual and obligatory attacks on Bush’s war..."

Excuse me, but didn't Senator Clinton, in her infinite wisdom, vote to give Bush authority to GO to war? Did she vote for the war before she decided to say she was against it?

On voters, "they don’t want someone in the White House that will stumble and bumble on policy issues."

Perhaps the writer forgets exactly what the Clinton administration did when they started off the block with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy as well as the utter failure of trying to get insurance companies richer with the "healthcare reform" attempt. Or perhaps again we should look at the infinite wisdom of voting for a war as a template for how to exactly the WRONG thing. That's not even including the baggage dealing with Clinton's husband's failure to keep his wanker in his pants.

"Obama brings a fresh face, new voice and energy to the Democratic presidential derby. That’s welcome and much needed. But the Clinton machine is a well-honed, heavy cash generating, smooth running machine..."

Obama is out-pacing Clinton on getting contributions nationally and in some states at a four-fold pace.

Name recognition is certainly in many ways a reason blacks and latinos don't know much about Obama yet. But with the first votes five months away, that story will change.

[wyldwolf]

22. the first votes are still 10 months... 8 months... 6 months... 5 months... away... HEY!

Hillary MUST have cheated. No way she won. (Barack O'droids in denial)

[zulchzulu]

23. I guess you haven't heard they have this thing called a primary season

You really should check it out and take off your Hillary dunce cap.

:crazy:

[wyldwolf]

24. of course, hence your denial of how they're shaping up.

[zulchzulu]

28. Primaries "shaping up" five months away...

Political eternity, my friend. Political eternity.

[wyldwolf]

31. but you've been saying that month after month.

[Ethelk2044]

25. You pulled the link however you did not pull the comments from the blog

This is how people feel about the hutchinson article on BAW

JUST VOTE FOR WHO YOU WANT!
By: dminor
8/17/2007 11:02:11 AM


Forget what the media SPIN, or, your feelings of what you think America want, or will do. Just vote straight

Forget what the media SPIN, or, your feelings of what you think America want, or will do. Just vote straight up for the one u want. My money is on OBAMA and my vote is for OBAMA

By: Jay_Mac
8/18/2007 2:08:21 PM


Hillary is "shrewd", but has accomplished nothing tangible that we can examine and judge.

I sincerly believe that

"Hillary is "shrewd", but has accomplished nothing tangible that we can examine and judge.

I sincerly believe that there are some so desparate to get Bill Clinton back in the White House, they are willing to sacrifice the country and hand the keys to his wife, who is not qualified to lead this nation.

She is not President material and the in-fighting among Democratic candidates will end up helping the Republicans gain the foothold they need to win the White House again."

My response: Can you TYPE that again? : )


Study polling would you Hutch?

http://www.pollster.com/08-CA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

They vary so much depending on who polled how many and who for. But Hutch is hatin' on Obama and lovin' his Hil, so can't stop him from going ga-ga over one poll not substantiated by any other anywhere. Fine, honey, California just got our Camp Obama this August, it was live and we are ready. Over a hundred new field coordinator volunteers have already multiplied times five and it ain't been a whole week yet! There are 23 weeks until Super Tuesday, 22 if you count early voting in California, so don't even think her contrived numbers with only 400+ polled are gonna worry us! Obama's got between a quarter to almost a third of the voters already and he's only workin' it in the first four primary states and South Carolina, so puh-lease, she should've had a real 30-40 pt lead long ago over such a newcomer. She's worse for Dems in the general election than Black Barack Obama, all the Dems up for reelection in 08 dread Hillary getting the nod 'cause she'll drag them down and bring the right-wingers dancing to the polls to beat her and every Dem on the ticket.
By: tgn512
8/17/2007 9:27:03 PM


i don't believe in these so called polls saying that hillary ahead of obama in the race for the

i don't believe in these so called polls saying that hillary ahead of obama in the race for the whitehouse.she saying all the right things to black voters to butter us up.we will find out in 2008 who the better candidate.my vote is for my man OBAMA!!!!

[wyldwolf]

32. LOL! Wait. is there now a rule for that?

[eweaver155]

26. Hillary's position is all illusion and media spin.

His position is strong on the issues and his stance on foreign policy is common sense and strong. His opponents know that. That's why his opponents are so critical. Everyone's talking experience but none of the so called "seasoned" candidates have done anything in their political careers to shore up foreign relations, just blame George Bush, including Hillary, who sides with Bush now she wants to oppose just to get votes. No one buying that shit. Yes, she trumps Obama, only in the minds of the media and the spin machine. That's what they want you to believe. :crazy:

[FlaxieB]

27. Hillary Clinton: All spin and no substance.

[ProSense]

30. This guy is full of

shit!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-will-follow-democra_b_41118.html">Obama Will Follow Democrat's Flawed Script on Race

Posted February 13, 2007 | 11:31 AM (EST)

But the other reason Obama downplays race has nothing to do with what the polls say about white voter attitudes. He's simply following the well-worn political script that Democrat presidential candidates Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 followed.

The script called for them to try out shout Republicans on national security, defense spending and preparedness, the war on terrorism, and stay mute or cheerlead the war in Iraq. Obama will alter that script a bit this time on Iraq only because the majority of Americans want out. Meanwhile, Democrats said next to nothing about affirmative action, racial profiling, the death penalty, and drug reform. Their great fear is that this would fuel white anger by reinforcing the old perception that Democrats tilt toward minorities and the poor.

Clinton wrote this original flawed script for Democratic Presidential contenders when he virtually excised all talk of racial issues from his election campaigns in 1992 and 1996. But Clinton also hinted that a big part of his winning strategy was to shake the Democrats loose from the grip of Jesse Jackson and the civil rights leaders.

Gore followed Clinton's script to the letter. He spent most of his campaign avoiding appearances in black communities, and was mute on issues such as urban investment, health care for the uninsured, fixing lousy inner-city public schools, racial profiling, affirmative action, the racial disparities in prison sentencing, and the racially marred drug enforcement policy.

Gore got away with this blatant racial patronizing by playing hard on the terror and panic that a Bush White House win in 2000 stirred in many blacks. The Democrats dangled the nightmarish vision of Bush packing the Supreme Court with more avowed enemies of civil rights and civil liberties such as Supreme Court justices Anton Scalia, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas. But when blacks scurried to vote for Gore out of fear of a Bush win they gave the Democrats another free ride.

Gore said little about lack of abortion funding for the poor, drug enforcement reform, the glaring race iniquities in the death penalty, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, health care for the poor, increased spending for housing, business development and failing inner city schools.

more

Obama: Not For President?

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet. Posted September 29, 2006.

He simply hasn't been on the political scene long enough to sell the Dems' message and open the money spigots.

A presidential candidate also must raise mega millions, get their party's official stamp, and appeal to conservative, white middle-class voters outside the South. Obama showed in his walk over Senate race in Illinois in 2004 that he can corral the big bucks. During the campaign he raised a record four million dollars in a three-month span. But that was a state race. A presidential bid is far different. To prove that he's a viable candidate, and bag the money, he must preach a centrist, conservative message of family values, tax fairness, and military preparedness. He simply hasn't been on the political scene long enough to sell that message and open the money spigots. And he'd need every penny he could get. The Republican contender will have a united party behind him (or her) and have mountains of cash.

Obama won't send conservative evangelical Christians scurrying to the barricades to defeat him. That dubious distinction, if Jerry Fallwell's recent Devil reference to Hillary Clinton is to be believed belongs to her. But as a liberal, and African-American they will be hyper wary of him.

Then there's the issue of race. Obama did reasonably well in neutralizing, if not totally breaking down the reservations of many whites in Illinois to vote for a black candidate. But his opponent was the lightly regarded, fill-in outsider, Alan Keyes, who also is an African-American. Many Republicans in the state sat that one out. It will be a far different story if Obama hits the national campaign trail. While polls show that more whites than ever are willing to vote for a black candidate for state and local offices, there is yet no evidence that that openness extends over to a vote for a black candidate for the presidency.

In fact, white males more than any other group have bought the Republican's anti-government, anti-liberal line. Bush bagged more than sixty percent of the white male vote in 2004. The percentage of the white male vote that a white male Republican candidate likely will get won't change much in 2008. If Obama is the Democrat of choice, that percentage the Republican might get might jump even higher. Colin Powell found that out when he briefly toyed with a presidential run in 1996. Despite his enormous popularity, and cross over appeal, he ultimately decided not to run, and one of the reasons was his concern that race would be an issue and a liability.

The Republicans will likely pour millions into beefing up their diversity pitch among blacks and Latinos. They will tout Bush's minority business, homeownership, and education initiatives as a better deal for minorities than anything the Democrats have to offer. That claim won't convince the majority of blacks to vote Republican. But it could pare down the number that dash to the polls to vote for Obama. Even if Obama got the overwhelming majority of black votes, which is likely, that's not terribly significant. Any Democrat that runs will do just as well with black voters.

The Democrats hope to retake the White House rests on their ability to find a white male candidate populist enough to convince a significant number of swing state voters that a Democrat in the White House is a real alternative to the GOP policies on the war, the economy, health care, immigration and energy issues, and centrist enough to convince them that he is as tough on terrorism and as big an advocate of a strong military as the GOP.

more

edited typo

[wyldwolf]

35. ...credentials?

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.