View Story | 194 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
As a Mexican-American I enjoyed your analysis on the Latino vote. Anyone who thinks Latinos won't vote for Obama for racial reasons is mistaken or otherwise in wishful thinking. =/ I enjoyed that you touched on it since it's not talked about a lot. I think it's only a matter of time before Texas is competitive, again.
March on. =)
by Giodude on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:08:20 PM PDT
just go sit in an event organized by and for Latinos.
Or visit a blog like Latinopundit or the Unapologetic Mexican.
It's perspective inducing.
Get involved...VOLUNTEER...yes.we.can.
by kid oakland on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:36:17 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the link.
by Giodude on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:01:57 PM PDT
that for quite some time, certain Obama supporters have been pushing the line that Latinos prefer Hillary because of racism.
I am not sure why they think repeating that is helpful to their candidate.
John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:40:21 PM PDT
someone who is not me. And this is my diary.
Sheesh, your participation in this thread, while welcome, has been janky, imo.
Relentlessly negative and, at times, misinformed, is not the "A Game" we all strive for in the sphere.
by kid oakland on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:45:37 PM PDT
of yours in a "discussion" he tried to have with me to show how horribly mean I was to certain Clinton supporters--i.e. the ones who've race-baited and smeared Obama.
The "Dem" doth protest too much, methinks.
Sic transit gloria mundi - ancient Roman proverb
by kovie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:22:27 PM PDT
is a progressive activist in Iowa. That's a good thing.
There's no way I'm going to support battling DMD.
I just happen to disagree with how this comment thread has worked out...it seems way too confrontational and negative for a thread about, in part, what we can do as progressives to have an impact in 2008.
by kid oakland on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:27:04 PM PDT
such as Merritt, Armstrong and BTD, and they've engaged in some of the most vicious and dishonest smearing of Obama during this campaign. You can't be a progressive, or at least a useful and effective one, if you're going to engage in smears, attacks, lies and cheap shots--especially against your own side. People have to either play fair, or stop calling themselves progressives. Negative campaigning and progressivism are incompatible and mutually exclusive in my mind.
by kovie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:34:10 PM PDT
but naturally, you are not offended by it, and you may not even be aware of it, because you support him.
Big Tent Democrat wrote many diaries advocating for Obama in late 2007 and early 2008. If he has become disillusioned with the candidate, that makes him no longer a progressive?
This was the key passage from one of kid oakland's diaries that I am trying to communicate to you:
First, I will never, and would never, attack or discourage Senator Clinton's sincere supporters and activists, be they bloggers or phone bankers or voters at the polls. I may well disagree with them, but I can respect them. My understanding from the exit polls is that the two overriding aspects that drive most of Senator Clinton's support are this. 1. a sincere and powerful belief that Senator Clinton would be an effective President 2. a sincere and powerful desire to elect a woman President of the United States Given that, I reject rhetoric that ascribes negative motivations to Clinton's support. I've spoken to plenty of Clinton supporters and those two rationales are the most common responses one hears on her behalf. I respect them even if I prefer Barack Obama.
First, I will never, and would never, attack or discourage Senator Clinton's sincere supporters and activists, be they bloggers or phone bankers or voters at the polls. I may well disagree with them, but I can respect them. My understanding from the exit polls is that the two overriding aspects that drive most of Senator Clinton's support are this.
1. a sincere and powerful belief that Senator Clinton would be an effective President
2. a sincere and powerful desire to elect a woman President of the United States
Given that, I reject rhetoric that ascribes negative motivations to Clinton's support. I've spoken to plenty of Clinton supporters and those two rationales are the most common responses one hears on her behalf. I respect them even if I prefer Barack Obama.
You simply cannot acknowledge that some well-informed, well-meaning progressives might prefer Clinton to Obama. They have to be ignorant or blind to her true nature, or they have to be dishonest or racist.
The best you can do is say you don't hold it against the rank and file Clinton supporters who don't understand what she's doing. You only hold it against Jerome or SusanHu or BTD who should know better.
You do not have a monopoly on the truth about Clinton or Obama. Good Democrats have reasonable differences of opinion about the merits of these candidates. Some Obama supporters, such as Carnacki, understand this, but you seem unable to do so.
by desmoinesdem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:43:08 PM PDT
whatever policy differences they might have, which while relatively minor, are not insignificant (and on which I actually prefer Clinton over Obama on several), and whatever flaws Obama might have (which he does), or unfortunate things that he's said and done (which he has), all of this pales given the direction that the Clinton campaign took shortly after Iowa, in which they decided to not just go negative, but in a way, and to an extent, that in my mind totally obliterated her moral legitimacy and viability as a DEMOCRATIC candidate, and which neither Obama nor his campaign have even begun to approach. It's like comparing jaywalking in an empty intersection to running a red in a busy one. Not even close. Thus, whatever valid policy and other reasons people might have for preferring Clinton over Obama, these have been totally made moot given her and her campaign's despicable behavior since Iowa, which her supporters either deny, are unaware of, or have no problem with.
If you're saying that Obama's just as or nearly as bad, that's rediculous.
If you're saying that she hasn't been that bad, that's just dishonest.
If you're saying that it's ok to support someone for valid policy and other reasons even though they've discredited themselves utterly in other ways, then that's Rovian.
So yes, I'm saying that anyone who still prefers her at this point despite all that she's said and done, is either stupid, ignorant, delusional or cynical. Or a very close friend or relative, whose blindness one can, I suppose, excuse, or understand.
And btw, note the following key modifiers in the KO excerpt that you cited above:
First, I will never, and would never, attack or discourage Senator Clinton's sincere supporters and activists, be they bloggers or phone bankers or voters at the polls. ... I've spoken to plenty of Clinton supporters and those two rationales are the most common responses one hears on her behalf.
I do not doubt that she has many sincere supporters, who aren't racists or into smears. But while I mostly respect their stated preferences for supporting her--i.e. ones having to do with policy, experience, etc.--I do not and cannot respect their overall support for her at this point given all the other stuff that she's engaged in, not only during this campaign (race and class-baiting, lying egregiously), but as a senator (Iraq vote, Kyl-Lieberman), and as first lady (totally, arrogantly and unnecessarily screwing up health insurance reform, supporting NAFTA and welfare reform).
I was never an Edwards supporter but I NEVER had the kinds of problems with him and his supporters that I do with Clinton and hers. The two cases are not comparable, because he never went negative to this extent and in this way. She's in her own league with her negative campaigning, pandering and dishonesty. And her supporters are in their own league with their ignorance, denial, delusion and/or cynicism. I wouldn't have said this before Iowa, but a lot has happened since then that has totally changed my view of her and her supporters. I was ignorant, deluded and/or in denial myself about her then. Not any longer. My eyes are wide open now, and I do not like what I see. I can only hope that more and more Clinton supporters open their eyes as well.
by kovie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:28:44 AM PDT
Giodude said this:
Anyone who thinks Latinos won't vote for Obama for racial reasons is mistaken or otherwise in wishful thinking.
which I interpreted as suggesting that Republicans and/or Clinton supporters are pushing this "wishful thinking" that Latinos won't vote for Obama for racial reasons.
As I said upthread (or maybe it was in JedReport's thread, I can't remember), Obama did well among Latinos in Iowa, where his campaign had time to do sustained outreach. I have never bought the argument that Latinos largely prefer Hillary because of racism.
You don't have to spend a long time in the Obama threads to run across Obama supporters who dismiss any demographic group that favors Clinton as ignorant or racist.
I have had personal e-mail correspondence with friends who are for Obama and respond to every primary victory of Clinton's by saying they're disgusted by how prevalent racism still is in the Democratic Party. As if that is the only possible explanation for Obama losing this or that state's primary. These friends specifically have accused Latinos and white Catholics of not supporting Obama because of racism.
by desmoinesdem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:34:45 PM PDT
Because I thought that it was mostly the fake controversy-loving corporate media that was spreading this particular lie, for ratings.
by kovie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:47:48 PM PDT
oops - you can't!
Know the Facts about Barack Obama.
by Elise on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:14:29 PM PDT
Because we prefer Senator Kumbaya, we are therefore guilty of the worst possible sins, like not supporting Senator Inevitable and her Projection '08 campaign.
by kovie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:24:39 PM PDT
trying to talk Democrats out of supporting Hillary than you have.
I have told you many times that I didn't support Clinton, yet you continually try to discredit my opinion by saying I am a Clintonite.
All I am saying is that reasonable people have different opinions about which candidate is the best. I don't like Hillary or Obama, and frankly, I wish Hillary had never run for president (because then I think Gore would have gotten in and Obama would have stayed out).
You are the one who implies that all informed, right-thinking Democrats would naturally reach the pro-Obama conclusion.
by desmoinesdem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:51:53 PM PDT
I'm ok with Dems having supported Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, etc. But to support her at this point is simply rediculous, not only because of what she's said and done during this campaign--or before then, as senator and first lady--but because she LOST.
Plus, for all the reasonable reasons to prefer Clinton over Obama--and there are more than a few--these are all wiped out by these other reasons. THIS is the argument that I have been making, and which you have either failed to grasp, or pretend not to.
And I utterly reject your implication that Obama, because he's done and said some things that he shouldn't have, is therefore no better than Clinton. That's simply absurd. Voting to fund the war does not even begin to compare to voting to authorize it in the first place. Not taking an active leadership role against telcom amnesty does not even begin to compare to not even bothering to vote against it. McLurkin does not even begin to compare to all her race and class-baiting, lies, and other smears.
I'm saying that all informed, right-thinking Democrats would naturally reach the not-Hillary conclusion. Especially now, seeing as she's LOST.
by kovie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:37:01 AM PDT
like Gore (as most of us do), but as far I have seen your commentary and diaries, Edwards has always been your candidate for 2008.
Al Gore's progressive 2000 GE Democratic Platform:Prosperity, Progress and Peace
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:55:25 AM PDT
I was waiting to see if Gore would get in. By the end of 2006 I decided that wasn't going to happen. My husband waited several more months before giving up on Gore.
by desmoinesdem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:08:51 AM PDT
Now you are telling me that there aren't any Kossacks for Obama who have said Latinos prefer Hillary because of racism?
Not only have I read that analysis on threads here, I have heard it from some Obama supporters I know in real life. If Obama does poorly among this or that demographic group, it's because of racism.
by desmoinesdem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:47:04 PM PDT
Feel free to stop spreading misinformation ANY time now.
And why did Obama supporters know that Latinos wouldn't have a problem voting for Obama? Because they have supported him in large numbers in several states.
Of course...anyone from IL (as I am) could have told you Clinton's campaign was lying from the start on that. And I was staying in West Liberty, Iowa the night of the caucus...heavily Latino area where Richardson and Obama did well...and Edwards was the candidate that was barely viable. I doubt any of it had to do with race...and I think it's insulting to suggest people would vote for a candidate based solely on race. The fact that some CLinton supporters...like the one cited in this diary are making their choice because they FEAR the black candidate is pathetic...and my position is that we'll win anyway...because I have faith that most white people aren't ignorant and racist assholes...and that the ones who are can go to hell or stop being assholes.
In other words...you've brought up yet another example of the Clinton campaign attempting to sow the seeds of racial division...(they wouldn't have done it if they didn't see a benefit for themselves in it). As usual...Clinton attempts to appeal to the absolute worst in people and Obama has faith in the good in all people.
by Elise on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:09:03 AM PDT
Do you not accept that in California and Nevada, among other states, Latinos have on the whole preferred Hillary to Obama?
by desmoinesdem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:34:46 PM PDT
Illinois - Obama 58% of Latinos, Clinton 41% of Latinos.
Arizona - she won 60-37, but when asked about issues like citizenship, immigration, they tie when asked who can better handle those issues.
California - Clinton won 60-40. Today, California voters would choose Obama by over 10% of the vote. I'm sure some of those voters switching sides are Latino...just like I'm sure some of them are white, asian, etc.
Colorado had caucuses - so there are no exit/entrance polls, but he won with 65% of the vote, and I'm sure he wouldn't have won by that margin while performing poorly in Latino areas. County results are here.
Maryland - Clinton 56-44 with Latinos.
Virginia - Obama won Latinos 54-46
In other words - there is zero evidence that Latinos won't vote for Obama because he's the black candidate.
Oh! And don't look now...but New Mexico was one of those places where Hillary did well with Latinos, but where Obama WON THE WHITE VOTE!! OMG! I thought that wasn't possible!! And yet, there it is. And that was hardly the only state where that happened.
Obama will win the Latino vote in November. He will win many white voters in November and he will win African Americans in November. He'll win because voters want change and he can provide that. He'll win because he has the message that voters want to hear.
And it's a lie because Clinton's pollster said,
"The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."
Clinton pollster Sergio Bendixen
It's a lie because Latinos have been voting for black candidates as long as there have been black candidates and Latinos in the area to vote for them.
Without Latino support we wouldn't have black Congressmen like Charlie Rangel or Bobby Rush...or many many many more.
by Elise on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:00:51 PM PDT
with malicious claims.
There are various types of racial tensions at a given point in the country at large (in a melting pot that's not unusual) but instead of understanding those tensions and working towards uniting people, you're employing race-baiting much like the Clinton camp repeatedly has topped off with HRC's incendiary "white people" bit recently.
A very disappointing comment from you, desmoinesdem.
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:49:51 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 194 comments