Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Is Shot in Tucson, Arizona--And We're All Responsible!

Joshua Lott for The New York Times
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at an event in Tucson in October.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?ref=global-home

Editor's Note: This was my initial reaction on saturday morning, January 8, 2011 to the horrific shooting in Tucson, Arizona that severely wounded Congresswoman Giffords, killed 6 other people including a 9 year old girl, and wounded 14. I leave my first impressions intact as I initially recorded them.

All,

I and many other people in this country have been saying for quite some time now that the demagogic anti-Latino rhetoric and vile, organized racism behind the endless number of public events where hundreds of white men came openly armed to the teeth at anti-Obama and Healthcare rallies throughout 2009-10 and the fierce anti-Latino and immigration reform rallies throughout the country and especially in the state of Arizona which passed a vicious racial profiling law aimed at Mexican Americans/Chicanos just six months ago was going to inevitably lead to the white supremacist madness we see in today's violent attack on government officials (BtW: It was just reported a couple minutes ago that the gunman--a whitemale in his mid-20s KILLED a federal judge at the same event in which he shot the Congresswoman and a small child, among others, was also shot by this maniac at the event and is now in critical conditionat a Tuscon hospital!). Meanwhile democratic Congresswoman Giffords is in very serious condition and is in surgery as we speak...

Make no mistake folks: This shooting is tied to a huge national network of racist/white supremacist anti-immigrant organizations and groups who in turn have an intricate web of formal and informal connections to various Tea party and other far right wing organizations. Mark my words: The only "good news" in this entire horrific tragedy is that the white man who did the shooting is still alive (and we all better pray he "accidently" doesn't die or is killed in any coverup attempt) and is thus going to be subjected to a massive thorough investigation of this heinous crime--(OMG!! AS I'M WRITING THIS THE CHILD WHO WAS SHOT JUST DIED!!)...I can't go on for the moment. I'm going back to the TV right now for further updated news reports...Will continue later today...

Kofi


Congresswoman Giffords Shot in Tucson
By J. DAVID GOODMAN
January 8, 2011
New York Times

Gabrielle Giffords, a congresswoman from Arizona, was shot in the head on Saturday at a public event held at a grocery store in Tucson, her spokesman, C. J. Karamargin, said. Others at the event, including members of her staff, were among the injured.

Her condition was unknown. She was taken to University Medical Center in Tucson, the trauma center for the area, about 10 miles away. Even though NPR and CNN reported that she had been killed, Darci Slater, a hospital spokeswoman, said that Ms. Giffords was in surgery.

CNN quoted a public information officer for the sheriff’s office as saying that 12 people had been injured in all and that the shooting had occurred around 10 a.m. local time.

Dr. Steven Rayle, a former emergency room doctor who now works in a hospice, said that he had witnessed the shootings. He said the congresswoman was standing behind a table outside the Safeway greeting passersby when the gunman approached her from behind, held a gun about a foot from her head and began firing.

. “He must have got off 20 rounds,” he said. Ms. Giffords slumped to the ground and staff members immediately rushed to her aid, Dr. Rayle said.

Dr. Rayle said he performed CPR on some of the victims. He said one of the victims was a young child and appeared to be in critical condition with a gunshot wound.

He said that one of the staffers tackled the gunman and that he and others helped detain the suspect. The doctor described the gunman as a white male in his mid-20s with short hair and “dressed in a shabby manner.”

An employee at a nearby store told CNN that he heard a steady stream of gun fire that appeared sustained and “random.” Shortly after, emergency vehicles filled the parking lot around the grocery story and cordoned off the area.

The shooting occurred at a Safeway supermarket in northwest Tucson as Ms. Giffords hosted an event, called “Congress on Your Corner, to allow members of the 8th Congressional District to meet her individually. She has held several events since first taking office in January 2007. At one such event in 2009, a protester was removed by police when his pistol fell on the supermarket floor.

Last March, her Tucson office was vandalized a few hours after the House vote overhauling the nation’s health care system, the authorities said. Earlier events in Tucson, Oro Valley, Green Valley, Sierra Vista, and Douglas had attracted between 75 and 150 people, according to a statement announcing the event. This was her first event since her re-election to a third term in November.

Ms. Giffords, 40, was interviewed on Fox news on Friday to talk about a bill to cut to congressional salaries by 5 percent.

She married Cmdr. Mark E. Kelly, 46, a NASA astronaut and Navy pilot from New Jersey, in December 2007 at a wedding attended by Robert B. Reich, the former Labor secretary.



Marc Lacey contributed reporting from Tucson.


This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 8, 2011

An earlier version of this article misstated Gabrielle Giffords's condition. While several news reports had said she had died on the scene, a hospital spokeswoman said that the congresswoman was undergoing surgery.

White Supremacy Thinks It Has Defeated the Rise and Triumph of Brown Power in America--But It Is Mistaken!

Drew Angerer/The New York Times

Supporters of the "Dream Act" measure consoled each other Saturday after senators blocked it

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19immig.html?ref=politics

All,

Just how relentlessly cruel, racist, stupid, and oppressive is the Republican Party? As always it is clearly a rhetorical question. There are obviously no limits to their vicious demagogic attacks on the human and civil rights of immigrants-of-color in the United States. And with 63 new Republican representatives in the House and 6 new Republican senators due to take their seats in Congress in January, 2011 this reactionary rightwing opposition to millions of Latino American citizens will not only continue but increase in intensity. The only good news in this entire rotten and outlandishly unjust outcome is that this criminal action by the Senate is certain to further ignite an already dynamic and rapidly growing national civil rights movement of Latino youth and adults across the country in support of genuine immigration reform and political, economic, and cultural justice, freedom, and equality for the unconscionably marginalized 45 million Latinos in this country (an exploding demographic in which 60% of its national population is now under the age of 30!). So look out America, Brown Power is coming to a community near you VERY SOON and like its very determined African American counterpart of the 1960s and '70s NOTHING is gonna stop it (especially not a bunch of clueless old racist white male politicians with delusions of the maintenance of white supremacy tottering in their decaying brains). When I saw and heard Senator Robert Menendez (Democrat from New Jersey and one of the leading supporters of the defeated bill) say on C-Span tonight after the vote that not only "Latinos would remember in the national elections in 2012 how senators had voted" but that "This is a vote that will not soon be forgotten by a community that is growing not just in size, but also in power and political awareness” I knew in my bones the fight had escalated to a whole new level and that the national Latino American population was more than ready to take their enemies on and defeat them come what way. What really cinched my conviction that this new emerging movement would not be turned around at this point in history is when Senator Menendez then quoted the following lines from a famous poem ("Harlem") by the legendary black poet and former revolutionary activist Langston Hughes (1902-1967):

What happens to a dream deferred?
does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?
...Maybe it sags like a heavy load

or does it explode?

So despite what the reactionary white senators may ignorantly think, they haven't stopped a damn thing; they've only ensured that the struggle will continue with even more energy, power, and determination than ever before and that they, the senators, will lose and the human subjects of their hatred and indifference will win. As history (and Bob Marley) always reminds us: "None of them can stop the time." Watch and see in the days, months, and years to come...

Kofi


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/politics/19dream.html?_r=1&hpw


Immigration Vote Leaves Obama’s Policy in Disarray
By JULIA PRESTON
December 18, 2010
New York Times

The vote by the Senate on Saturday to block a bill to grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant students was a painful setback to an emerging movement of immigrants and also appeared to leave the immigration policy of the Obama administration, which has supported the bill and the movement, in disarray.

The bill, known as the Dream Act, gained 55 votes in favor with 41 against, a tally short of the 60 votes needed to bring it to the floor for debate. Five Democrats broke ranks to vote against the bill, while only three Republicans voted for it. The defeat in the Senate came after the House of Representatives passed the bill last week.

The result, although not unexpected, was still a rebuff to President Obama by newly empowered Republicans in Congress on an issue he has called one of his priorities. Supporters believed that the bill — tailored to benefit only immigrants who were brought here illegally when they were children and hoped to attend college or enlist in the military — was the easiest piece to pass out of a larger overhaul of immigration laws that Mr. Obama supports.

His administration has pursued a two-sided policy, coupling tough enforcement — producing a record number of about 390,000 deportations this year — with an effort to pass the overhaul, which would open a path to legal status for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. Now, with less hope for any legalization measures once Republicans take over the House in January, the administration is left with just the stick.

Part of the administration’s strategy has been to ramp up border and workplace enforcement to attract Republican votes for the overhaul. The vote on Saturday made it clear that strategy has not succeeded so far.

Mr. Obama will now face growing pressure from immigrant and Latino groups to temper the crackdown and perhaps find ways to use executive powers to bring some illegal immigrants out of the shadows. Latino voters turned out in strength for the Democrats in the midterm elections, arguably saving their majority in the Senate.

The Republicans in the new Congress are especially keen on tough enforcement. The presumed incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration is Representative Steve King of Iowa, a vigorous opponent of legalization measures, which he rejects as amnesty for lawbreakers. Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, who will be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is also an outspoken and well-versed opponent of such proposals.

Groups favoring reduced immigration cheered Saturday’s vote as a watershed victory marking the end of a period when they have been on the defensive. Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, which lobbied hard against the bill, said the new Congress “has the strongest pro-enforcement membership” in at least 15 years.

“Now, we look forward to moving aggressively to offense,” Mr. Beck said.

During the last year, administration officials considered proposals to allow immigration authorities to use administrative powers to halt deportations of illegal immigrants who might have been eligible for legal status under the student bill. They also sought ways to ease deportations for other illegal immigrants with no criminal record.

Republican lawmakers criticized those proposals as “backdoor amnesty” and pledged to stop the administration from carrying them out.

The administration’s efforts to manage its policy dilemma played out this week. Speaking on Friday before the vote, John Morton, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the agency would continue the brisk pace of deportations, focusing on immigrants convicted of crimes. On the same day, the agency released from detention an 18-year-old Guatemalan student from Ohio, Bernard Pastor, granting him a one-year reprieve from deportation to continue his education.

Despite the defeat, Democrats who supported the bill said they would continue to push for it. “As long as these young people are determined to be part of this great nation, I am determined to fight for them to call America home,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the bill’s main champion.

Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, another sponsor, said Latinos would remember in the elections in 2012 how senators had voted.

“This is a vote that will not soon be forgotten by a community that is growing not just in size, but also in power and political awareness,” Mr. Menendez said.

Yet much pressure on the administration may come from immigrant organizations. Despite their illegal status, several hundred immigrant students watched the vote in the Senate gallery. Afterward, they held a somber prayer vigil in the basement of the Capitol, but moved on to a news conference that turned into a pep rally.

“They did not defeat us, they ignited our fire,” said Alina Cortes, a 19-year-old Mexican-born immigrant from Texas who lacks legal status. A self-described conservative Republican, she campaigned for the student bill, saying she hoped to join the Marine Corps.

The movement has been driven by thousands of students who “came out” to reveal that they did not have legal status, and to recount their academic achievements and the barriers they faced. Now that their status is public, they have nowhere to hide. Meanwhile, an estimated 65,000 illegal immigrants are graduating from high school each year.

“We have woken up,” said Carlos Saavedra, national coordinator of the United We Dream Network, a student group. “We are going to go around the country letting everybody know who stands with us and who stood against us.”




Senate Blocks Bill for Young Illegal Immigrants
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
December 18, 2010
New York Timea

The Senate on Saturday blocked a bill that would have created a path to citizenship for certain young illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children, completed two years of college or military service and met other requirements, including passing a criminal background check.

The vote by 55-41 in favor of the bill, which is known as the Dream Act, effectively kills it for this year, and its fate is uncertain. The measure needed the support of 60 senators to cut off a filibuster and bring it to the floor.

Supporters said they were heartened that the measure won the backing of a majority of the Senate. They said they would continue to press for it, either on its own or as part of a wide immigration overhaul that some Democrats hope to undertake next year and believe could be an area of cooperation with Republicans, who will control a majority in the House.

Most immediately, the measure would have helped grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant students and recent graduates whose lives are severely restricted, though many have lived in the United States for nearly their entire lives.

Young Hispanic men and women filled the spectator galleries of the Senate, many of them wearing graduation caps and tassels in a symbol of their support for the bill. They held hands in a prayerful gesture as the clerk called the roll and many looked stricken as its defeat was announced.

President Obama had personally lobbied lawmakers in support the bill. But Democrats were not able to hold ranks.

Five Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the bill. They were Senators Max Baucus of Montana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Jon Tester of Montana.

And three Republicans joined the balance of Democrats in favor of it: Robert Bennett of Utah, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Mr. Obama, in a statement, called the outcome “incredibly disappointing” and said that he would continue fighting to win approval of the bill.

“It is not only the right thing to do for talented young people who seek to serve a country they know as their own, it is the right thing for the United States of America,” Mr. Obama said. “Our nation is enriched by their talents and would benefit from the success of their efforts.”

“The Dream Act is important to our economic competitiveness, military readiness, and law enforcement efforts,” he said, adding, “It is disappointing that common sense did not prevail today but my administration will not give up.”

In a floor speech, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, a main champion of the Dream act, urged a yes vote. “I want to make it clear to my colleagues, you won’t get many chances in the United States Senate, in the course of your career, to face clear votes on the issue of justice,” he said.

“Thousands of children in America who live in the shadows and dream of greatness,” he said. “They are children who have been raised in this country. They stand in the classrooms and pledge allegiance to our flag. They sing our ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ as our national anthem. They believe in their heart of hearts this is home. This is the only country they have ever known.”

At a news conference after the vote, Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado and a former superintendent of the Denver school system, said he was thinking about all the students he knew there as he cast his vote in favor of the bill.

“Please don’t give up,” Mr. Bennet said. “Don’t be disappointed because we couldn’t get our act together.”

But opponents of the measure said it was too broad and would grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.

“As part of this legislative session there has been no serious movement to do anything that would improve the grievous situation of illegality at our border,” said Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who led the opposition to the bill as the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “Leaders in Washington have not only tolerated lawlessness but, in fact, our policies have encouraged it.”

Mr. Sessions added, “This bill is a law that at its fundamental core is a reward for illegal activity.”

Ms. Murkowski, in a statement, chastised Democrats for bringing the bill to the floor when it was “doomed to fail” but said that she broke with most Republicans because the legislation was important.

“I support the goal of the Dream Act which is to enable children who were brought to the United States by their parents to earn citizenship through service in the armed forces or pursuit of higher education,” Ms. Murkowski said. “ I do not believe that children are to blame for the decision of their parents to enter or remain in the United States unlawfully. The reality is that many of these children regard America as the only country they ever knew. Some were not even told that they were unlawfully in the United States until it came time for them to apply for college. America should provide these young people with the opportunity to pursue the American dream. They have much to offer America if given the chance.”

Ms. Murkowski also expressed an openness to dealing with the wider immigration issue. “ I firmly believe that Congress needs to embrace the wider immigration question, starting with securing our borders, and I plan to work with my colleagues on this issue in the new Congress,” she said.

The Politics of Racism, Obama, and the Latino American Voting Bloc

http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff05292008.html

All,

Refreshing and honest truth-telling from political journalist and cultural historian Nikolas Kozloff about the real politics of 'race and class' among Latino voters in Puerto Rico and throughout the United States and its continuing major impact on American politics today. This article appeared today in one of the best and most consistently hardhitting political journals in the country, Counterpunch magazine...

Kofi


May 29, 2008
It's All About Vagueness

Puerto Rico, Obama, and the Politics of Race

By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF

The longer the Democratic nominating process goes on, the more the issue of race exposes ugly fissures within the party. With his early wins in Iowa and Wisconsin, two states with a predominantly white electorate, Barack Obama hoped that he would be able to transcend racial divisions.

Then we got Jeremiah Wright and the unflattering media coverage which followed. The Illinois Senator started to lose primaries in white states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. In particular, race played a critical role in the latter state, with one in five admitting that the issue affected their decision once they got into the voting booth.

At the same time, Obama has been racking up the black primary vote in record numbers: in South Carolina he got 78%, and in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. he received nearly 90%.

The media has made much of this white- black split. But what about other racial divisions on the campaign trail?

Latinos: Obama’s Achilles Heel

In Texas Latinos made up nearly one third of the vote. According to CNN’s exit poll, they supported Clinton over Obama by a margin of two to one in the state’s primary. In the Nevada caucus, Clinton nailed the Latino vote two to one. In California, where Latino voters make up 30% of the Democratic electorate, Clinton had an even bigger blow-out: the New York Senator won 67 percent of the Latino vote to 29 percent for Obama.

Surely, Clinton benefited from high name recognition within the Latino community whereas Obama by contrast was little known. But given the lopsided numbers, it seems logical to wonder whether Latino voters, like the whites in Kentucky, may have voted at least in part on the basis of race.

These are very sensitive questions and, not surprisingly, we haven’t heard much discussion about such issues in the U.S. corporate media. While white pundits have occasionally mentioned white racism towards blacks they have ignored racial tensions between blacks and Latinos, perhaps because they feel awkward wading into the discussion. And yet, as we near the Puerto Rico primary on June 1st, Latino-black race relations could play a vital role in the nominating process.

Puerto Rico: Determined to Make an Impact

Puerto Ricans are used to feeling disenfranchised in the electoral process. Island residents are U.S. citizens but they cannot vote in the general presidential election. They have no voting representation in Washington, D.C. though the island sends a symbolic, nonvoting delegate to Congress. Because Puerto Rico is a semi-autonomous commonwealth and not a state, only Puerto Ricans living on the U.S. mainland may cast ballots for president in November.

Determined to make an impact upon the nominating process this year, Puerto Rico, an island of about 4 million people, has made some important electoral changes. The island has scrapped its traditional caucus in favor of a primary in which 55 delegates will be at stake. In addition, Puerto Rico has moved its primary up to June 1st, which means that Montana and South Dakota will vote last on June 3rd.

Puerto Rico Democratic Chairman Roberto Prats said that caucuses were fine in previous years, when the party nominee was settled by the time Puerto Rico voted and the only task was to choose delegates to the national convention. "Now it's different," he told the Democratic National Committee's rules panel in a conference call. "This is the first time in decades that Puerto Rico will be participating in an event of this magnitude."


Obama and Clinton: It’s all About the Vagueness

Puerto Rican politics largely revolves around the long-standing question about what the island’s future relationship to the U.S. mainland should be. To this day, Puerto Rico is divided between one major party advocating statehood and the other favoring a continuation of the current arrangement, known as a “free associated state.”

If Puerto Rico were to become a state, then the island would receive voting rights and equality under U.S. law. However, it would also mean that Puerto Ricans would be subject to federal income tax, a fate which statehood opponents are determined to avoid. The island has voted on and rejected statehood four times.

At a recent campaign rally on the island, Clinton said, “I believe you should have a vote in picking the president,” even before the issue of the island’s status is resolved. Taking questions in the city of Bayamón, Obama heard an array of concerns from residents who said they felt like second-class citizens. “What it comes down to is respect,” he said.

For the most part however, both Clinton and Obama have tried to remain neutral on the overall issue of Puerto Rico’s future political status.

“I believe all people are entitled to a representative form of government at all levels of government, and that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine by majority vote the status you choose from among all the options,” Clinton said while campaigning. “I have no preference. My only commitment is to work with those from all factions and with the congress to give you the right to make that decision. I want that done within my first term as president.”


Advantage: Clinton

Will Clinton continue to rout Obama amongst Latino voters once Puerto Rico votes in its primary? No opinion polling has been conducted on the island so it is difficult to predict the electoral result. As the junior Senator from New York however, Clinton probably has the advantage in Puerto Rico. About four million Puerto Ricans reside in the U.S., with the largest concentration in the three-state New York City metropolitan area. While campaigning on the island, Clinton refers to herself jokingly as "the senator from Puerto Rico."

Clinton is familiar to most Puerto Ricans as a result of her stint as first lady. Under husband Bill, she got involved in disaster relief after Hurricane Georges and met with protesters seeking an end to the U.S. Navy’s use of the island of Vieques for bombing practice. In an effort to make her mark in the last stages of the campaign, Clinton has dispatched not only Bill but also daughter Chelsea to Puerto Rico.

Obama by contrast is less well known. Until his arrival this past weekend, Obama had visited just once, for a fund-raiser last year. To level the playing field, he has sent wife Michelle as well as New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to Puerto Rico to campaign on his behalf. In seeking to appeal to Puerto Ricans, Obama emphasizes the fact that he was also born and raised on an island far from the U.S. mainland.

Meanwhile the island’s political establishment seems pretty split between Obama and Clinton. Puerto Rico’s Governor Aníbal Acevedo-Vila has endorsed Obama. However, other members of Acevedo-Vila's Popular Democratic Party, as well as politicians from the opposition New Progressive Party, are reportedly leaning towards Clinton.


Hardly a “Racial Democracy”

With no clear ideological differences between the two candidates, race may enter into the political equation. In an interesting article in the New York Times, the paper remarked that “Obama’s biracial identity is perceived as working to his advantage” in Puerto Rico. The article goes on to quote Juan Manuel García Passalacqua, a political commentator: “On the mainland, Obama is black, but not in Puerto Rico. Here he is a mulatto, and this is a mulatto society. People here are perfectly prepared to vote for someone who looks like them for president of the United States.”

On the surface at least, the New York Times would seem to be talking some sense. African slaves were imported into Puerto Rico to run the island’s sugar plantations during the colonial period and mixed with the native population. To say however that Puerto Ricans identify as blacks or mulattoes is overly simplistic and ignores the fact that racism has long characterized social life on the island.

Many scholars agree that Puerto Rico is stratified along color lines, ranging along a color continuum from white to brown to black. Puerto Ricans of darker skin color have faced racial discrimination in private schools, the University of Puerto Rico, private enterprises, voluntary associations and residential areas. Loiza, the town with the largest proportion of black people, is one of Puerto Rico's poorest and has been plagued by complaints of police brutality.

According to Jorge Duany, a leading Puerto Rican sociologist, “Although the empirical evidence on racial politics in contemporary Puerto Rico is still scanty, several studies have documented that blacks are a stigmatized minority on the Island; that they suffer from persistent prejudice and discrimination,” and that they concentrate in the lower classes.

Puerto Rico Primary and Racial Identity

Duany writes that Puerto Ricans have developed an elaborate racist vocabulary to refer to racially stereotyped characteristics. Kinky hair, for example, is referred to as “bad” (“pelo malo”). Meanwhile racial prejudice is apparent in folk humor, beauty contests, media portrayals, and political leadership. “In all these areas,” Duany says, “whites are usually depicted as more intelligent, attractive, refined, and capable than are blacks.”

All of which is not to say that racism in Puerto Rico works in the same way as the United States. However, the island is hardly a “racial democracy” as some of the island’s boosters have claimed. Indeed, many Puerto Ricans deny their cultural heritage and physical characteristics and buy into an ideology of “whitening” through intermarriage with light skinned groups. Interestingly, a whopping 81% of Puerto Ricans called themselves “white” on the 2000 U.S. census.

What does all this racial politics portend for the territory’s upcoming primary? Obama has swept U.S. states with sizable African American populations like South Carolina. Puerto Rico however could be another story however as it is by no means clear that island residents self identify as black. On June 1st, we may see Latinos continue to vote en masse for a white candidate over a black one.

Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan)

L.A. Times on Latinos and Obama

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-obama17feb17,0,3776094.story

Please juxtapose this article in today's L.A. Times to others I've sent today. Very interesting indeed...

Kofi


Hola, Obama

Latinos may have had their doubts about his candidacy. But he deserves a second look.
February 17, 2008

'Yes, we can."

The chant made famous by Sen. Barack Obama's presidential bid captures the senator's infectious optimism and movement candidacy. It also neatly translates into Spanish as "Si, se puede." That slogan, as any politically conscious Angeleno realizes, is the rallying call of this region's labor movement and its largely Latino leadership. And yet, despite Obama's surging national popularity and rhetorical identification with Latino political strength, many Latinos continue to harbor doubts about his candidacy. As this race enters its final stretch, Latinos owe Obama a second look.

Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton differ on few issues and generally agree on the matters of principal concern to Latinos. Both support comprehensive immigration reform; indeed, Obama promises to press that cause even more aggressively than Clinton. Both support significant revamping of the nation's healthcare system. Both favor economic, tax and job programs that would help poorer Americans, many of Latin American descent.

One of their relatively few policy differences places Obama in allegiance with many Latino leaders -- and Clinton on the other side. She opposes the issuance of driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, while Obama favors licensing those drivers. In part, his reasons are practical -- unlicensed drivers are more likely to flee the scene of an accident -- but the result puts him closer to what might be described as a predominantly "Latino" position on this issue than Clinton.

Nevertheless, Latino voters have given Clinton overwhelming support in some contests, notably California, where they favored her over Obama by roughly 30%, contributing significantly to her victory here. Partly, this may be because Latino voting power in this country owes much to Bill Clinton, who as president tapped several prominent Latinos -- Bill Richardson, Federico Pena, Henry Cisneros -- for positions of influence. Also, Latino voters traditionally have valued experience over soaring rhetoric. And some Latinos -- like some Anglos -- sadly have shown distaste for African American candidates, a reserve exacerbated by tensions between blacks and Latinos in many American cities. That last factor -- prejudice -- is rarely addressed directly, but it stalks this campaign.

The combination of history, loyalty and bigotry has hurt Obama, but there are signs that it may be ebbing. La Opinion endorsed Obama and specifically praised his "inclusive message of hope." The Service Employees International Union, with its huge Latino membership, on Friday backed his candidacy, and a number of prominent Latino officials have joined his campaign in recent months. Those endorsements have been trickling in and appear to be registering with voters. Obama lost California and other heavily Latino states on Super Tuesday. But he held his own among Latinos in Virginia, and his support is unmistakably broadening.

We in Los Angeles occupy the glorious center of Mexican American life. Our polyglot culture -- its language and institutions, politics, parades and street life -- is being shaped daily by the rub of black and white, Asian and Latino. Our mayor was elected by an inspiring cross-cultural coalition. It is, as we well know, a uniquely American joy to be immersed in the fast currents of cultural change.

Now the nation has the chance to experience a bit of the excitement that we enjoy in Los Angeles. It can set aside its prejudices and predispositions and join in support of a new kind of candidate. Texas, with its large Latino population, goes to the polls on March 4. Latino voters there and across the country should give Obama a chance. His victory could be theirs as well.

Si, se puede.

SF Chronicle on the Latino Vote

Click here for a very interesting and informative article in today's SF Chronicle

BTW: The middle of the article not only talks openly about the Latino vote in this election and its actual relationship to the African American voting bloc in the U.S. but also makes the open admission that I've been making since Day One in these daily missives that it was the heavy national Latino vote of 43% for the Bushwhacker in 2004 that constituted the REAL margin of victory for the Republican's presidential victory (and NOT--as have been relentlessly and ERRONEOUSLY asserted by far too many people who you would think know better --the fault of Ralph Nader)...

As far as I recall this is the FIRST TIME EVER that a major American newspaper has ADMITTED the fact that the Latino vote (and the 45% endorsement of the Bushwhacker by Asian American voters in 2004) is what actually led to Kerry and the Democrats being defeated in the last election. I also hope that this article's analysis of the Texas primary is on the mark and that the black voting bloc and (possibly) YOUNGER LATINO VOTERS can make the difference there for Obama (having said that however I gotta admit that I'm not yet personally fully convinced that Obama will triumph in Texas by pulling off a much larger percentage of the Latino vote there than he has anywhere else--California and New York alone gave Clinton 75% of their votes.

If there was ever a classic example of that deadly flaw in American politics of a voting bloc that CONSISTENTLY votes AGAINST its own self interest in presidential elections it's the Latinos--very sad to say. Let's truly hope THEY WAKE UP IN TIME to realize that NEITHER Obama NOR the national black community is their political enemy--unlike the majority of Republican white voters AND many white Democrats as well (as quiet as it's kept). As the beautiful (and politically savvy) Mexican American actress Eva Longoria said in an interview in 2005 "My people have to realize who our REAL FRIENDS AND ENEMIES ARE in politics and stop voting for people who mean us nothing but harm." AMEN Eva!

Speaking of Eva who's widely considered by many to be one of the most beautiful women in the world check this out (from Wikipedia): Eva Longoria Parker was born Eva Jacqueline Longoria in Corpus Christi, Texas, the daughter of Mexican-American Catholic parents, Enrique Longoria, Jr. (born in Rachal, Brooks County, Texas) and Ella Eva Mireles (married in Falfurrias, Brooks County, Texas). Her ancestry traces to Southern Mexican immigrants who immigrated to the United States. She has three older sisters: Elizabeth Judina, Emily Jeannette, and Esmeralda Josephina. The family lived and worked on farmland that had been handed down to them from past generations, but they often had very little money; Enrique and Ella struggled for many years to give their children a decent upbringing.

Eva showed viewers an introspect into the hardship she faced in her formative years growing up poor on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2006; she took cameras on location to the family farm, and showed how spartan they were still living. Longoria admitted that things looked slightly better for them financially, only when she made it in show business. In an interview with Dateline's Stone Phillips, Longoria also revealed the snubbing she received from her siblings. She said "I grew up as the ugly duckling. They used to call me 'la prieta fea,' which means 'the ugly dark one.'" That's right folks: RACISM NEVER SLEEPS... NOTE: Ironically In 2007 Ms. Longoria married her boyfriend Tony Parker--a black man born and raised in Paris, France who is a famous guard on the world champion NBA basketball team San Antonio Spurs...

The Name Recognition Argument in the Democratic Party Election

A comment from Regina:

I just heard a Hispanic woman on CNN say that the Clinton's would be making a mistake if they think all Hispanics are automatically going to vote for Hillary...conversely, she said Obama would be making a mistake if he thinks the Hispanic vote is out of his reach.

She said Obama just needs to campaign in heavily Hispanic dominated areas (especially in the upcoming primaries of Ohio and Texas) and he could get big votes from Hispanics...she said the only advantage Hilary has over Obama is "name recognition."

She believes the more people hear directly from Obama the more they will support his vision for the country. She also said it would be helpful for Obama to mention Ceasar Chavez and Dolores Huerta amongst others, when he talks about civil rights and the progressive movement. He said too often he only mentions Martin Luther King and the Kennedys.

There was another analyst on the program who added that it is insulting for people to talk about the Hispanic or Black vote as if it's a monolithic vote. She also said people are forgetting that some Hispanics may also vote for a Republican candidate - so by no means is their vote a slam dunk!

P.S. The Hispanic woman also said she wanted to ensure that folks understand that the Hispanic vote is NOT a vote against Blacks but rather a vote (in the instance) based on name recognition - at least up until this point. She said she know this to be true because historically Hispanics supported many African American candidates including: Harold Washington, Tom Bradley, Wilder etc..etc...

My response:

Well sister as you know I don't buy the "name recognition" argument at all. In fact that argument is not only ridiculous but INSULTING (to both blacks and Latinos). You mean to seriously tell me that the Latinos in this country "don't know" who Obama is? That makes NO SENSE whatsoever. Just think about an assertion that IDIOTIC for a moment. People are currently holding mock U.S. elections ALL OVER THE WORLD in favor of Obama (Europe, Asia, Africa, even Latin America) and are "voting" for Obama in the millions--yet Latinos who live in California and New York and Nevada and Texas and Arizona and New Mexico (to name only six major states where there are very large Latino populations) don't really know who he is and what he stands for. Give me a break!! You KNOW that ain't true. You would have to live on MARS to not know damn near everything there is to know about Barack Obama at this very late date.

THE MAN HAS BEEN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT FOR OVER A YEAR NOW. He is one of the MOST FAMOUS and RECOGNIZABLE PEOPLE ON PLANET EARTH at this point (many nations have even taken well known polls on who Obama is and what his campaign is about). So for ANYONE--but especially Latino Americans or whites to absurdly claim that he lacks "name recognition" is not only a huge, blatant LIE but an insult to the intelligence of anyone who listens to such nonsense. I'm astonished that so many pundits and analysts in the media keep saying this in public WITH A STRAIGHT FACE. Nah. THAT AIN'T IT. Talk about rank DISHONESTY. The Latinos who now make up 14% of this country's population (to 13% for African Americans) know all too well WHO OBAMA IS AND WHAT HE REPRESENTS. They just aren't voting for him in most states thus far. Latinos have voted against Obama in HUGE numbers in California, New York, and Nevada, and have SPLIT their vote between Hillary and Obama in Arizona and Illinois. Obama has yet to gain anywhere near a majority of Latino votes in any state yet (the upcoming election in Texas on March 4 may change that--but I doubt it).

NO. Let's all be honest: The fact that Hillary's campaign manager up to this point has been a Latina (Solis) WHO IS NOW BEING REPLACED BY A BLACK WOMAN (Maggie Williams--who has worked with Hillary for over 25 years!) tells you EVERYTHING you need to know about what's actually going on and why. The simple, OBVIOUS truth is that Clinton and her now former Latina campaign manager took a calculated risk that they would heavily focus on organizing the Latino vote to specifically defeat Obama AND THIS CALCULATION BACKFIRED. You see: The Clintons had taken it for granted that the majority of blacks would ultimately vote for them as they had in the past with Bill or at the VERY LEAST there would be a 50/50 split between African Americans for and against Obama but of course that didn't happen (especially after Bill and others in the Clinton campaign started trying to very clumsily "race bait" Obama--A STRATEGY THAT ALSO BACKFIRED).

Clinton and Solis had already decided that they could make up any defections from their campaign by black voters with a massive Latino vote. What they hadn't counted on however is that not only did blacks start voting for Obama nationwide by margins of 80-90% but that a larger percentage of WHITE MALE VOTERS (and a substantial minority of white female voters) ALSO started voting for Obama in numbers the Clintons had not anticipated. If they would only ADMIT the truth and own up to the fact that THEY WERE WRONG IN THEIR ASSUMPTIONS the Clinton machine could have possibly repaired this problem months ago. But because of their arrogance and HUBRIS on the issue of who would and who wouldn't vote for them and thus TAKING BOTH THE AFRICAN AMERICAN AND WHITE VOTE FOR GRANTED, their strategists like Solis seriously MISCALCULATED the numbers and thought erroneously that the huge Latino bloc vote would simply makie up the difference and be enough to beat Obama. The Clintons had NO IDEA the election would be anywhere near this close and wound up incorrectly assuming that they had MORE CONTROL over their former major electoral base (e.g. African Americans, and white middle and uppermiddle class voters--both males and to a lesser degree females) than they actually have.

This infantile refusal/inability to ADMIT SERIOUS MISTAKES and then make the necessary honest adjustments in terms of both strategy and tactics in their campaign has cost Hillary dearly. She now recognizes that it's gonna take MORE THAN THE NATIONAL LATINO VOTING BLOC to ensure her election and that is WHY she chose Maggie Williams to take over as campaign manager. Clearly this is a much- too-little, much-too-late move on Hillary's part that could have been avoided in the first place if she had focused on a JOINT Latino & African American strategy that would have respectfully and honestly spoken to the needs and desires of BOTH ethnic/racial groups simultaneously MONTHS AGO. Instead, by engaging in a STUPID attempt to racebait Obama through using Bill as public attack dog all she wound up doing was pissing off and alienating black voters, and giving EVERYONE the impression (not just blacks ) that Latino voters were MORE IMPORTANT to her ultimate success than blacks.

She may not have "meant" for this to happen but by thinking that she could get more white voters to vote for her by trying to improperly peg and piegonhole Obama as a limited "black candidate" only, Hillary FUCKED UP BIGTIME. Of all the candidates in the world to attack and demean in this matter even a child would know that going after a man with as resolutely a multiracial and multicultural campaign as Barack Obama in this racist and boneheaded manner would be a major mistake and would backfire. But this is what arrogance and again HUBRIS does to people like the Clintons who make far too many (false) assumptions about people in general because THEY DON'T RESPECT THEM ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH THEM SERIOUSLY AND HONESTLY.

This kind of bad judgment and carelessness in the way the Clinton campaign relates even to its own base speaks volumes about WHY their campaign is in such chaotic disarray and is falling apart at the seams. All the media and in-house campaign bullshit about why the Latinos are voting for her in these outrageously lopsided numbers vs. Obama is just one more part of the consequences of that ongoing disintegration and the LYING that goes along with it. This is what happens when people lose or give away their INTEGRITY the way Hillary has.

Latino Vote

An email from my sister Regina asks:

Kofi, one of the political analyst said Hispanics also tilted the Nevada vote in Hilary's favor...what do you think about that? The analyst said many of the Culinary Union members are Hispanic; this unions leadership endorsed Obama...

My response:

As I said in a couple of my earlier emails Latinos in this country are very divided and splintered as an ethnic voting bloc (UGLY EXAMPLE: A whopping 43% of them voted for BUSH in 2004--Can you believe that?). It's always been a profound MYSTERY to me why so many Latinos (I never use the racist term "Hispanics"; as a great Puerto Rican poet and writer from New York that I know named Miguel Algarin always says--"What is this bullshit? "His-Panic/" I'm nobody's PANIC!") don't seem to really understand where their own actual political and economic interests really lie. They have even less power and wealth than we have, after all. I find these backward attitudes and values especially true of MEXICAN-AMERICANS--many of whom want to be "white" and "upperclass" so damn bad they actually DELUDE themselves that they can pull it off by voting like a reactionary WASP or changing their name from say, GOMEZ, to GUNTHER OR GAINS. Far too many Mexican Americans (the largest Latino group in the country) are also very RACIST toward blacks. I found this out in a depressingly empirical way when I made the MORTAL MISTAKE of "living in the ridiculous city of Los Angeles for three years from 1992-1995. As you probably know relations between them and our people are at an ALL TIME LOW right now as we speak--even though they finally have a Mexican-American mayor. Obviously we and them SHOULD be involved in a national progressive coalition of people-of-color BUT you and I both know how DEADLY AND VIRAL RACISM IS. So the result is once again DIVIDE AND CONQUER for the wealthy white ruling class who of course DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT EITHER "NIGGERS", "WETBACKS', OR "SPICS." Obama is just the victim of the absurd political fallout from all that. I wish the fuck EVERYONE WOULD WAKE UP FROM THIS BULLSHIT--but, ALAS (Our Ass?) that's AmeriKKKa for ya...

Kofi

Clinton's Nevada Win

This result and others to come also indicate that Latino voters are far more supportive of the Clintons than Obama. That of course is bad news for Obama given the other large blocs of voters supporting Hillary--white women, unions, and older Democratic Party members mostly 60-75) who are white males. Remember what the late, great historian and political theorist Harold Cruse (1916-2005) said about American ethnicity, "race", and political power in both the classic "The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual" (1967) and in some ways even more relevant "Plural But Equal" (1987)? These texts are both profound statements on what is happening NOW. In fact in many ways they're political prophecy. As always there's no substitute for KNOWLEDGE...

Kofi


January 19, 2008
Clinton Defeats Obama in Nevada

By JEFF ZELENY and JENNIFER STEINHAUER
LAS VEGAS – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, capturing strong support from women voters and adding a fresh boost of momentum to her campaign as the Democratic presidential race heads to South Carolina, where she is engaged in a fierce battle with her rival, Senator Barack Obama.

Mrs. Clinton’s victory in Nevada – her second straight win over Mr. Obama – underscored her strength among Hispanic voters, who comprise a large share of the electorate in several upcoming states, as the campaign expands into a coast-to-coast series of 22 contests on Feb. 5.

The New York senator had 51 percent of the vote to Mr. Obama’s 45 percent, with just over 90 percent of the state’s caucuses reporting. John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, faded to a distant third place with 4 percent of the vote.

“I guess this is how the West was won,” Mrs. Clinton told her supporters during a victory rally at the Planet Hollywood hotel on the Las Vegas Strip. Speaking over loud cheers, she added: “We will all be united in November. I don’t think politics is a game. I don’t think elections are just another day in the calendar.”

Mr. Obama, in a terse statement, barely acknowledged his defeat. “We ran an honest, uplifting campaign in Nevada that focused on the real problems Americans are facing, a campaign that appealed to people’s hopes instead of their fears,” he said. “That’s the campaign we’ll take to South Carolina and across America in the weeks to come, and that’s how we will truly bring about the change this country is hungry for.”

Mr. Obama said that he received more national delegates in Nevada than Mrs. Clinton because of his strong performance across the state, “including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled.”

But some election officials said they were confused about Mr. Obama’s claim that he more delegates than Mrs. Clinton.

“I don’t know why they’re saying that,” said Jill Derby, president of the Nevada State Democratic Party, referring to the Obama campaign. “We don’t select our national delegates the way they’re saying. We won’t select national delegates for a few more months.”

In terms of the popular vote, Mrs. Clinton won most of her support in Nevada’s southern counties, while Mr. Obama was more popular in the north. Clark County, home to Las Vegas and its influential union blocs, was supporting Mrs. Clinton by an 11-point margin with 93 percent of its caucuses reporting.

Mr. Edwards’s campaign issued a statement that described the senator as an underdog “facing two $100 million candidates” and emphasized his platform against lobbyists and special interests.

“The nomination won’t be decided by win-loss records, but by delegates, and we’re ready to fight for every delegate,” the statement said.

State party officials said more than 107,000 Nevada voters attended the caucuses. It is the third state in the row to achieve record-setting turnout in the Democratic presidential nominating fight, which party strategists believe is a referendum on the Bush administration and a strong call for a new direction in Washington.

Before leaving town, the candidates made separate stops to visit hotel and casino workers, making a final appeal for support.

Voters across Nevada poured into hundreds of neighborhood precincts across the state, as well as a handful of casinos on the Las Vegas Strip, to voice their preference in the Democratic presidential campaign.

In a brief morning stop by the Mirage casino and hotel, Mr. Obama was asked whether the outcome would influence voters in South Carolina, where Democrats will vote next Saturday.

“All these things add up,” Mr. Obama said.

Nevada, the third stop in the Democratic presidential nominating fight, was perhaps the most mysterious among the early-voting states. There was no clear front runner, no reliable polling data, and no institutional history. All candidates worked feverishly to manage – usually lowering – their expectations.

The Democratic caucus, never even a minor factor in past primary seasons, has historically attracted only the party faithful; only about 9,000 people participated in the 2004 caucuses at a handful of sites. Party officials were uncertain about turnout on Saturday, but preliminary reports suggested that participation was significantly higher.

At the Flamingo hotel, one of the at-large caucus sites on the Las Vegas Strip, it was a chaotic scene. Inside the Sunset Ballroom, 245 voters registered their attendance before breaking off into their preference groups.

Maids and cooks, bellmen and bartenders – nearly all of whom wore their uniforms and matching nametags – were standing more than 20 deep. To attend the caucus, they took an hour lunch break, but as the proceedings stretched beyond the allotted time, some of the voters asked if they could leave.

A boxed lunch was served and the proceedings were translated into Spanish.

“No matter what happens at the end of this, we will leave as friends and Democrats will be working together,” the temporary chairwoman of the caucus said, standing at the front of the ballroom. “We want everyone to feel they can choose their own candidate without intimidation.”

Brenda Santiago, a housekeeper at nearby Harrah’s hotel and casino, arrived shortly before Noon. Although she is a member of the Culinary Workers Union, which supported Mr. Obama, she said she had been determined to choose her favorite candidate on her own.

And that, she said, was Senator Clinton.

“I have my own opinions,” said Ms. Santiago, 46. “Hillary has more experience – and she has Bill!”

The strength of Mr. Obama’s endorsement by the Culinary Workers Union remained an open question. The Clinton campaign had denounced the at-large precincts in casinos as unfair, but inside the Sunset Ballroom of the Flamingo Hotel, Mrs. Clinton received support from 121 people and 25 delegates, compared to 120 for Mr. Obama and 24 delegates.

The Clinton corner, dominated largely by women, cheered when the results were announced.

Nevada was chosen by the Democratic Party to hold an early contest, along with South Carolina, to increase both geographic and racial diversity. Still, as other states decided to move their primaries to Feb. 5, and the nation has focused on the traditional early states, Iowa and New Hampshire, Nevada had remained in the shadows, with fewer candidate visits and national attention.

That shifted after Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton split their earlier contests, and the culinary union here, which has about 60,000 members and is extremely influential in the Democratic stronghold of Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, and hopes to play a major role in the race, threw its endorsement to Mr. Obama in a suddenly-relevant rubber match.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton both had offices around the state, including the Republican strong hold of Elko county, and campaign staff workers have fought for Hispanic, working class and suburban voters.

Michael M. Grynbaum contributed reporting from New York.


Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Asian and Latino Voters

From my sister Deborah:

Since politics is mainly a numbers game (among other things), it would be interesting to see what the stats and voting habits are for Asians, Hispanics, and other people of color in general? I wonder if this will help support Obama's voting block.

My response:

A very good and important question and the painful answer is: NOT GOOD. For example in 2000 and 2004 45% of all Asian Americans voted for Bush and 43% of all Latino americans voted for Bush during those two elections. We can only hopE and pray that (especially) the Latinos (who now comprise the LARGEST MINORITY GROUP IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY--they are now 14% of the American population to the Blacks 13% WILL FINALLY WAKE UP FROM THEIR COLLECTIVE POLITICAL COMAS AND VOTE FOR OBAMA. But given these absurd numbers in the previous two elections there's no guarantee that will happen. The key for both of these groups (reminder: Asian Americans only comprise 3% of the national population and are not quite as key to all this as the Latinos) is that they weigh in on the side of Obama around the crucial issue of IMMIGRATION, which is a major issue in both communities. There's considerable political evidence which suggests that both groups are especially angry at Bush and the Republicans for not being politically supportive on this issue. So that's one very important area that MIGHT make them more supportive of Obama' (although ironically Edwards has a better record on this issue than either Obama or Hillary)...

In any event the key to the Latino and Asian American vote is YOUNG PEOPLE from 21-35 WHO TRADITIONALLY ARE VERY ALIENATED FROM THE POLITICAL PROCESS AND DON'T VOTE. However over HALF of their populations are UNDER THE AGE OF 40 so it will be absolutely crucial for Obama to tap into this youth sector in his campaign. I'm sure Obama knows all this and has Latino and Asian American organizers out on the ground trying to get these people out to vote. If they're successful in recruiting this voting bloc it will help Obama's chances immensely. Otherwise if the opposite is true as it was in 2004 and 2000 it will definitely HURT Obama's chances. Stay tuned...

Kofi