[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/15/art.clintonmichigan.ap.jpg caption=" Clinton won less than a quarter of support from black voters."](CNN) - Hillary Clinton faced a grim statistic in Michigan Tuesday night, despite her primary "win" there: results revealed that she may have reason to worry about her grasp on the African-American vote.
The Michigan primary vote was essentially meaningless: the national party stripped the state of its delegates because it held its contest too early in the election season, and Clinton was the only major Democratic contender whose name appeared on the ballot.
Even so, roughly 70 percent of Michigan’s African-American voters - a group that makes up a quarter of Michigan’s Democratic electorate - did not cast their votes for Clinton, choosing the “uncommitted” option instead. Yet these voters weren’t uncommitted at all: in fact, according to CNN exit polls, they overwhelmingly favored Barack Obama, whose name did not appear on the ballot.
Had Obama’s name been on the Michigan ballot, CNN exit polls show that he would have won an overwhelming 73 percent of the African-American vote, in contrast to 22 percent who say they would have voted for Clinton under those circumstances. If South Carolina’s large African-American community votes as Michigan’s, Hillary may not be feeling much ‘southern hospitality’ in that state.
Related: Blacks, youngest voters choose 'uncommitted' over Clinton
- CNN Political Producer Alan Isenberg
In my opinion, Obama is clearly the best candidate of all three when judging by debate performance. I would rate Edwards second and Hillary last. When asked a question, Obama provides a direct answer. Hillary cannot do this and she demonstrated her lack of ability to answer questions at yesterday's debate. Specifically, when asked about the long term effects of freezing interest rates on the economy, Hillary totally avoided answering the question and instead talked about her economy plan. We are not stupid people. We can tell who knows what's going on. Obama was infallible last night as always. The man has voted well for everything in the past. We need a president who can SPEAK and convey his or her thoughts effectively. Moreover Obama seems a bit more moderate (I would effectively call it "realistic"). Finally, to me Hillary seems phony and malicious and this was demonstrated when she attacjed Edwards last night on the matter of him voting for yucca mountain (he counterattacked about Hillary's big business firends). Although likable enough as Obama mentioned I don't think that she is genuine enough. A simple exemplification to this is that she is married to a previous president and that is the reason she is running for president now, while Obama came out of nowhere to serve his country.
We need a new president who is pure of the past. We need a president with new and genuine ideals and values for a fresh start. Hillar has too many ties to politics through Bill and although she translates this as experience, I feel it is negative. Obama has to be the next president, for everyone's sake.
Shame,Shame CNN is this a Corprate thing break away from your prouders and lets get to the real debate.
Why does CNN insist on slanting their coverage of this stuff???? If Obama had run in Michigan and gotten 57% of the vote you'd be trumpeting the outcome as an important symbolic victory and that would be your headline. Stop trying to interpret the news for your readers; that's not your role.
The media should stop heating up the polity with this anti-Clinton agenda and popping up of the race card.. If this continues it will likely polarize the democratic electoral divide between blacks and other voters. Obama will definitely be the loser. Non-black voters far out number blacks in the Democratic party. Bill Clinton was a great President and I believe Senator Clinton will equally make a great American President. The media should please give her a break. This woman is very articulate and experienced, race and gender not withstanding.
I watched about half of the "debate" last night and have been following this race fairly closely for a few months. On policy, there is virtualy no difference between Clinton, Obama and Edwards. The main points:
Universal Health Care, Universal Pre-K, Mortgage bail-out, billions to "stimulate" the economy, carbon taxes to prevent weather, pull out of Iraq, the list goes on.
Each candidate seems to back the same major policies, the only real differences being to what degree the policy will be enacted and how the implementation will take place. There are a few side issues that are unique to candidate A, B or C, but in essence the plank is the same.
With all three endorsing essentially the same platform, it comes down to which candidate do you choose to enact these government programs? Which style do you prefer?
All three have legislative experience in the senate and can tout different legislation they have been involved with, none really have a significant edge on the others when it comes to actual experience in a responsible position (elected office).
Hence, it comes down to personality and style.
All of the economic proposals I heard last night involve an increased tax burden "on the wealthy Americans", but I ask you ,when is the last time you asked a poor person for a job? These increased fees and taxes will no doubt be passed on to the middle class Americans that they are trying to help. Raising the minimum wage sounds good on the surface, but with increased labor costs mandated by the government, the $9.50 @ hr high-schooler at McDonald's will lead McD's to make your BigMac a $6.00 sandwich.
If GE has to pay cap and trade carbon credits, your electric bill will go up. Who's going to pay for Pre-K and Universal Health Care? I don't think any of these candidates are going to dip into THEIR pocket to do so, it will come from us.
I was scared watching Hillary discuss some of these programs last night, she didn't even bat an eye when using the word BILLIONS (as in dollars). Speaking as if it were Monopoly money. (Bush and the current crop of Republicans have strayed so far away from their roots on fiscal conservatism that the currency is becoming Monopoly money, but that is another issue altogether).
Hello Americans if the ballots are incorrect than the outcome is incorrect...despite this nations history of inequality it's primary allegience is still for equality. So to keep the conflict down they should not run primaries when all the main candidates names are not on the ballots; plain and simple, there is no argument. This situation was no one candidate's crying or whinning, it is about bad processes.
Hey CNN (I almost said FOX), don't forget that you are hurting your favorite (Obama) as you try to damage Hillary's campaign. Moron...you lost my respect long time ago. He supposed to win a large portion of black people in his neighboring state. Do you even know that you posted this article twice on the same page?
Looks like Andrews Young, Robert Johnson, John Lewis and the ultimate windbag, Charlie Wrangell are dead wrong. African-Americans, like all of us, have their own minds and can see through a phoney when they see on. It is my hope in all the subsequent primaries that all voters regardless of race, creed, national origin, sexual orientation or whatever, vote with their minds and not because some self-appointed leader thinks they're too stupid to make the decision for themselves.
We are at a historic crossroads with the Obama candidacy. He won in a state, Iowa, that's 98+% white, came to a virtual dead heat winning the same number of delegates in another "Ivory Snow" state, New Hampshire and now shows up as the overwhelming preference in Michigan. There's something great happening here no matter whom you're backing. This is that finally in this country, people are looking past outward appearance. Hooray!
I cannot wait until all the Democratic primaries are over, so we will no longer be subjected to distorted journalism. CNN used to be somewhat objective in its reporting – obviously those days are over. Enough with the heavy-handed bias towards Obama. Clinton will win anyway because she's the best candidate!
have to admit that I saw the 73% stat and asked – of how many? 100, 1000, 10,000?
now i know as a brit it has squat all to do with us but here is my query about Hilary – can you really take her seriously when she hasn't kicked out the lying philandering scumbag of a husband that she has? He was a great president, but hell I would be castrated by my missus if I had done an eighth of the philandering that has made it into the public domain.
Strikes me that the woman knows her ticket to the white house can only be validated with ol' teflon slacks beside her.
Michingan was meaningless bring on South Carolina
The only 2 candidates that can back up their "policies" with past actions are Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee in that order. The rest of them are career politicians who, regardless of what they say, cow-tow to lobbyist's, special interests, and who ever helps them in the giant popularity contest called capitol hill. Wake-up America,secure the borders,eliminate welfare, remove affirmative action, put slackers to the work illegals are doing and there will be less reason for them to enter, stop rewarding actions that americans would be jailed for. The Dems. are All puppets and bleeding heart liberals and besides the two above the Republicans are big business, war mongers. Most of the postings on this site are emotionally driven instead of intellectually driven, but if you take the time to do some research into the issues and make an informed decision there may yet be some hope.
yaaaawwwwnnn.... the anti-hillary crap is getting soooo ooold.
I am a white, female, independent voter who lives on the west side of the state. I voted on the democratic ballot for "uncommitted." I know many others in this area who did the same–all white.
Please don't think that only African Americans voted "uncommitted." That's not true. There are a lot of us on the other side of state who support Barack Obama. too.
Shame on those in our legislature and government who took away our voice.
Please oh please CNN... stop being so biased against democrats...
Wait... that is an oxymoron...
You people are a joke!
Your democrat congressional job approval 24.7%... LOL!
I wish they (Clinton & Obama) would work together for the common good of the American people and not fall into the "tit" for "tat" trap. It's not really Obama vs Clinton. Both want to make this country a better place. I'll be happy if either one ends up in the white house.
I wish that Bill would stay out of this and let Hillary speak for herself. After all it's Hillary on the ticket to be president not Bill.
Lastly, if the candidates don't have anything nice to say about each other they shouldn't say anything at all. They should concentrate on the issues at hand.
I wish both the best of luck and look forward to 2009 when George Bush makes his grand Exit.
As a person who lives in Michigan, the Michigan Democratic Primary Ballot
was rigged to insure a Hillary victory.
After reading the above response comments, it appears that people don't realize
that those who wanted to move the MI primaries forward are Hillary supporters
(Gov. Jenny Granholm and Sen. Carl Levin according to the Macomb Daily)
AND that because MI pulled their primary forward, the DNC forced Obama, Edwards and a few others off the Michigan Primary Democratic Ballot. Edwards and Obama were originally on the ballot....for some odd reason only Hillary's name remained unchallenged in the end. This left Michigan an easy "win" for Hillary because it guaranteed that in Michigan Hillary would lose 0 momentum
from going from NH to Nevada, and at best only gained momentum.
No news organization wants to dig into the DNC for their actions against Obama
and Edwards, and for recent rule changes that favored Hillary.
As for "racism"...many Senators and Representatives are against the "racial" and
"ethnic" profiling systems by the FBI and CIA. But the Democratic National
Committee pulled South Carolina's primary forward to give more importance
to the Black voters, Nevada's was pulled forward because the DNC wanted
to appeal to the Hispanic voters, the DNC allowed another state to pull
their primary forward because of another demographic group, etc.. The DNC
didn't want Michigan and North Carolina's black vote going to Obama and
deflating Hillary's inevitable Presidency. The above information came from a
DNC representative on NPR (National Public Radio). So who exactly is the
"racist" and anti ethnic organization now? And if the FBI and CIA can't use
profiling, why did the DNC's actions follow racist and ethnic marketing
The 2008 Michigan Democratic Primary was a farce and an embarrassment
to the election process envisioned by the founding fathers. Ballot rigging
isn't just happening in 3rd world countries, its happening here in the USA.
As for "writer28"...since Hillary "won" Michigan, the DNC will probably now allow
MI delegates to help Hillary hit the delegate requirement.
mmmmm. looks like we have quite a few comments from The Clinton Machine.
You can't "win" when you're the only one on the ballot! The story is that 47% voted against her...even with all of the confusion of the Primary.
That 47% is also important for the dividing of the delegates...it is NOT winner-take-all...
She did NOT get 60%...she got 55%....that is important...because she needed that 60% to "woo" her financial backers.
If you're the only one on the ballot...why couldn't you get a plurality for yourself?
That 60% is also important because that is what the Dems need in the Senate to pass bills.
If you can't get 60% all by yourself, how can you ever unite the country to get anything done?
Oh, I forgot...she doesn't have to unite the country...she's gonna do it all by herself...it's all about HER...that's why she left her name on the ballot...no integrity for the Democratic Party...
But the REAL story is all of the endorsements and support (especially from Red State Dems) for Barack Obama since his 2% "loss" in NH. Since last Wednesday the endorsement count is: Clinton–ZERO; Obama...so many it's hard to keep up!
Two more overnight!!
This says that only Obama can unite the country, win in the Red States, and actually get something done for ALL of America...not just the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasty!
Every time I watch CNN or visit this web site, I am more deeply saddened by the so-called news. Clinton is a viable candidate, and it is a historic moment to have a woman as the front-runner. Why, then, must CNN (and other news outlets) continue to tell us she is not? Clearly, Obama is the preferred candidate of the liberal news media. Maybe CNN should issue a statement to us explaining why. Meanwhile, let Clinton have her victories – she's a smart, successful, and capable woman, and the more CNN and others tell me otherwise, the more I lean toward watching a certain other news channel that, while I disagree with its views, at least treats all of the dems with an equal amount of hatred and ridicule.
If you need someone to ridicule, run a few more Britney stories.
Kudos to the commenters here who recognize this piece of news frippery for the yellow journalism it is. Shame on you CNN.
"Mitt Romney scored his first win in the 2008 presidential race Tuesday with a victory in the Republican primary"
This is the first sentence of CNN's lead story this morning, too bad it is incorrect. Romney won Wyoming. He referred to his performance as "two silvers, one gold". Now he has another "gold". Please check your basic facts, before writing headlines.
Hillary's numbers in Michigan were still higher than the uncommitted voter. It seems a bit strange that CNN would report that the Michigan vote was "grim" for Hillary. Stop the spin and just let the primaries play out. It is hard enough to figure out who will be the best president without the media constantly spinning stories.
I'm not a mathematician, but it seems like to me Clinton would have still won even if Obama and Edwards were on the ticket.
How about the story being," Clinton Refuses to Abandon Michigan Even Though There is No Political Gain in it for her" – Try that CNN.
I used to like CNN, but I'm beginning to wonder if Fox News is even more "fair and balanced" than you are now.
CNN- why won't you post my opinion? I have tried twice to get my post up and it disappears...
Might it be that I have real news and you don't want it reported????
Might it ruin your darling Obama?
I won't stop posting until voters see eho he really is and how BIAS you really are!!!!
CNN is bias and won't post my opinion becase I have something that voters MUST SEE!
Please Educate yourselves...I will get my information accross...LOOK AT THE POSTINGS ABOVE AND READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH of the posting by SUPER TUESDAY VOTER and follow up on the suggestion! PLEASE Go to the about us page on the website. It is true. It is factual and it is astounding if you are an American citizen voting for a President of the WHOLE USA!!!!!
PLEASE DO IT AND POST, POST , POST. We ahve to educate people because CNN and the rest will not die to their horrific bias!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CNN rarely disappoints me: it screens out 80% of my comments. CNN pushes the agenda of 30% of the population. hmmm... sounds familiar, people? remember: if you're reading your comments on CNN blogs, it's because your ideas are either lame or they belong to the conscience-less, brain-less bottom 30% of the population. OK, just every now and then, you manage to fool the CNN "moderators"... none the less, want to know what's wrong with the state of the Union? just read CNN blogs.