How Obama Swept Hillary Away

One analysis after another has been put forth as to why the original, presumptive democratic nominee for President, Hillary Clinton, ultimately lost her bid to Barack Obama. There are dozens of explanations, some more plausible than others but, the bottom line is, Clinton lost primarily because Obama was able to raise the kind of money necessary to be competitive with and, eventually, overwhelm her.

There should have been sirens going off a year ago in Camp Clinton, when Hillary was deemed the inevitable nominee, yet Obama was raking in phenominal amounts of cash. Obviously, Obama couldn't run his campaign on Clinton's turf, but the money gave him and his strategists the means and foot soldiers to be competitive with her where it was necessary and outgun her everywhere she didn't compete, namely, small caucuses, mostly held in republican strongholds, where no Democratic candidate will win in November. Those blowout caucus wins effectively amounted to Obama's entire pledged delegate lead over Clinton.

Once Obama had the insurmontable pledged delegate lead, the Super Delegates fell in line as the repercussions of overturning the winner of the pledged delegates would have been a far bigger problem for the party, and certainly right now, then stepping back, taking a collective breath, and supporting the candidate who ultimately won the popular vote, was more competitive in traditional battlegrounds, and had an easier path to victory in November, but who came up just short, per the nominating rules.

For naysayers who point to John McCain as evidence that a candidate could be flat broke, or at financial disadvantage, and come back to claim their party's nomination, this is a false argument. There was general agreement that the slate of Republican primary candidates was weak. Other than McCain, only Mitt Romney had the stature and financial means to compete yet, for all his flip flops, Romney's biggest problem was religion. The Republican base does not appear to be ready to nominate a Mormom just as they would not nominate a pro-choice, pro civil union supporter like Guiliani. With no obvious, competitive social conservative in the field, McCain slipped through by virtue of experience, a disputable maverick reputation and seemingly more establishment support then the rest.

Looking back, I believe Mike Henry was right, that Clinton should have skipped the Iowa Caucus, like her husband did in 1992. Had she done that, Edwards would have won there, Clinton would have won New Hampshire and we would have had a completely different overall outcome.

What we learned in 2008 is that if a black candidate can win a white state out of the gate, he/she will immediately be deemed viable by the black populace, and the entirety of their vote will shift to the black candidate regardless of how much love and support they previously provided a more qualified white candidate who has repeatedly advocated for their causes.

For all the flak white working class voters have taken this cycle for alleged racist tendencies, there is still no legitimate discussion or questioning of the blatant racism expressed by blacks in this cycle against Hillary Clinton. Had she attained the same level of support among blacks that Obama received among white working class voters, Clinton would have won this contest in a walk.

In 2008, left wing liberals got lucky and found a candidate who waxed poetic and could deliver the black vote to their cause. Coupled with the money, this was just enough for Obama to limp over the finish line and claim the Democratic mantle.

This union will not be enough to win in November but, as with Clinton, the big advantage Obama will have over McCain is money and gobs of it! Financial resources will allow Obama's strategists to find yet another unconventional way to win.