Regressions Needed

There's lots of reporting out there on Hillary Clinton's strong win -- 64-26 -- over Barack Obama among Latino voters in Nevada. One thing I would add to this is that Clinton did pretty well with whites, too -- beating Obama 52-34. What's more, we've seen over and over again that Obama does better with more affluent voters and with better-educated voters. And, of course, the pool of non-hispanic whites is more affluent and better-educated than is the pool of Latinos.

Long story short, I'd be interested in seeing how different hispanics and non-hispanic whites really look once you control for non-ethnic demographic factors. Or, in other words, does Obama really have a specific problem with Latino voters, or is this more of a class phenomenon?

Comments

As a Californian, I take issue with the idea that you can extrapolate Nevada results to the broader electorate in any respect. It's still a very small, very unusual state.

Posted by southpaw | January 20, 2008 12:37 PM

Aside from African-Americans, Obama does best with a range of people who might be described as 'isolated': affluent voters, better-educated voters, yes, but also backwater rural voters, and free-spirits, also known as independents. For them, Obama's message of a new community strikes a chord because community is the one thing in their lives that they most lack.

This also explains Obama's difficulty among Latino and union voters (and other groups, like Asians): they already have more than enough community; they may like Obama, but don't feel the need which he is trying to fill. And when you compare Clinton and Obama with the latter's message of unity stripped away, Clinton comes off as the obvious winner.

So I don't think it has anything to do with with race, like some have suggested; it's mainly about culture, or lack of such.

Posted by lampwick | January 20, 2008 12:43 PM

I'd be curious to see the breakdown, as well, tho I suspect racism might correlate to SES in such a parallel fashion that the breakdown might not tell as much as one might hope.

Anecdotally, I am always astonished at the sheer bigotry I encounter among my latino colleagues.

Posted by Brautigan | January 20, 2008 12:45 PM

Obama won all the counties outside of Clark County.
I also heard that Bill Clinton was inside the caucus rooms with McAuliffe pressuring voters. There is a video of it as proof.
Latinos may want to go back in time but, many democrats are starting to get upset with Clintons.
The rovian tactics is exactly what democrats have railed about for years against the republicans. For the Clintons to use them against fellow democrats is appalling and those that condone them are hypocrites.
I see this party developing very deep fractures that may not be able to be fixed.
The Clintons are very destructive even in their own party.
I wonder what the eventual fall will be.

Posted by vwcat | January 20, 2008 12:46 PM

Well, while we're waiting for all those complex multi-dimensional regression-coefficient calculations, how about just considering my "Latinos = Italians" political rule-of-thumb?

Matt's from NYC, so maybe he has some reasonable "intuition" on the political dynamics of the different ethnic groups there (at least if he's ever set foot outside Manhattan!). Also, he spent four years at Harvard, so he maybe he knows something about Boston's reasonably large population of Italians.

The campaigns will soon be coming to New York and Massachusetts. When that happens, how well does Matt think Obama will do among working-class Italian Democrats in either place?

Posted by RKU | January 20, 2008 12:47 PM

Heh. Two words:

Adlai Stevenson.

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | January 20, 2008 12:56 PM

Men? I haven't seen anyone note the split for men. Presumably there was a big gap in Obama's favor or he wouldn't have been as close as he was.

Posted by cms | January 20, 2008 12:56 PM

Matt, the answer to your last question appears to be, "Both." We shall see if that holds true elsewhere. Another interesting question is why Obama did so poorly among those who answered the debate was important. Could something he said in the debate have triggered the significantly larger female turnout (59-41%) and their very large majority for Clinton (51-38%)?

Lampwick, it should be noted that Obama's totals were 10% better among union voters in Nevada than other voters. One could argue the union endorsements helped, but not enough (because they can't deliver an overwhelming majority among their members any more).

Southpaw: What can you tell us about the last two Los Angeles mayoral elections and the role race played?

Posted by RW Rogers | January 20, 2008 1:02 PM

It's really both.
He has problem with poor whites and poor Latinos. The question of "why?" is the really interesting one.

It would also be interesting to see if poor blacks support Obama to a greater extent than rich blacks. That's certainly what I would expect.

Posted by Tom | January 20, 2008 1:09 PM

Again, it is oversimplifying things to say that Obama has a problem with poor whites. In every state so far, Obama has won big in the remote, rural counties, where, needless to say, most voters are white and poorer than average. So it's not a class thing at all.

Posted by lampwick | January 20, 2008 1:21 PM

I would think that workers are not looking for the lah-dee-dah of Obama's above it all, bipartisan, we-can-all-be-friends, Reagan-was-great, campaign; and I am not sure I can stomach so much more of this shit. Of course that leaves me without a viable candidate but what the hell that's the sort of crap one has come to expect from the Democrats. They may yet figure out a way to lose another election which even a clown could win.

Posted by della Rovere | January 20, 2008 1:24 PM

I think it's much more class and generational than anything else for several reasons.

Lower income workers are far more likely to not be political junkies...they simply don't have time! They are far more likely to be less educated...it's the hard facts of life. They are far more likely to be intimidated (or influenced if you want to be charitable) by their friends and families...name recognition and fond memories of a time past might weigh far more. Since they're less engaged in the process, they won't remember all the ammunition Bill and Hillary both gave the far right to fight with, and more likely to take the tribal revenge view of vast right wing conspiracy mess.

Older affluent folks could be swayed by their personal interests...the Clintons really like big business which is good for the markets. They could also be more swayed by the gender (older women just wanting any woman regardless of policy)and race (old school racism)issue, but I suspect money trumps all else.

Young and younger affluent are more likely to be more engaged in the process, more open to disregarding race or gender as the workplace is far more integrated, their peer women have prospered fairly well. They are far more likely to take the world view as they are not only more used to the global concept, they are the ones saddled with paying for all this mess. They would probably be less tribal as far as party...these are the ones the Dems will lose if the Clintons insist on pitting faction against faction.

I just find the whole thing sad...and I, as an older woman with great dreams for her daughter, will look long and hard at ALL the candidates from here out. I will not be bound by a party any longer.

I will also concentrate ALL my efforts into electing good congressional members as we need a far better congress to stand up to whichever stooge the general electorate, party machinery installs. We have the Supreme Court at issue, not to mention mortgaging my daughter's future. The President can not do much without Congress behind them.

Vote hope, not fear. Vote American, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 20, 2008 1:24 PM

I think you are right.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_gender_gap_vanishing_act.php

Posted by Jacob | January 20, 2008 1:24 PM

As a side note...am watching Meet the Press right now and they are discussing the whole party split on both sides and why it's happening...

Well worth watching for those who haven't seen it.

Posted by G Davis | January 20, 2008 1:33 PM

A big part is racism among Latino's towards blacks. Anybody who's spent time in latin american countries knows full well the casual racism that infuses latino culture. It's no surprise that they will not vote for an african-american candidate. I expect this wrinkle to be fully exploited by HRC.

Posted by mono | January 20, 2008 1:38 PM

You claim it was Clinton and "Rovian" tactics to bring up race in the days and weeks after New Hampshire, yet here you are, a member of the Washingtion D.C. pundit village bringing it up again.

If there's one thing that this primary season has finally convinced me of, it's that there is a certain grain of truth to the conservative accusation that Liberals are no better than they are with regards to race.

It is time for you so-called liberal Democrats to move past the race of one of the candidates.

Posted by Observer | January 20, 2008 1:52 PM

You claim it was Clinton and "Rovian" tactics to bring up race in the days and weeks after New Hampshire, yet here you are, a member of the Washingtion D.C. pundit village bringing it up again.

If there's one thing that this primary season has finally convinced me of, it's that there is a certain grain of truth to the conservative accusation that Liberals are no better than they are with regards to race.

It is time for you so-called liberal Democrats to move past the race of one of the candidates.

Posted by Observer | January 20, 2008 1:52 PM

There are many racist Latinos, no doubt about it, but it should be pointed out that we are not a monolithic group.

Some of us *gasp* are black too and descend from the same slaves as AA in this country.

And there are Latinos of all races who would vote for Obama in a heartbeat, who understand they would face same type of divisive tactics, if a Latino was a viable candidate too.

Posted by Maria | January 20, 2008 1:57 PM

Well for those voters who watched the debate their was no doubt who was preferred when Obama and Clinton were compared on a side by side basis.

Hillary Clinton won on issue after issue by her superior knowledge and her ability to drill down to details and relate how her policies are of benefit to Nevada's voters.

She also won by her leading the way on attacking Bush, McCain and the incompetence of the governing conservative philosophy. Obama and Edwards had a hard time keeping up.

This preferrence for Hillary, for those who saw the two, cut across all age, income, and racial lines with the exception of blacks. Which is understandable as blacks have an icon to vote for, even if he doesn't win it is important to express support for one of your own. This was not a racial preference against the white Hillary Clinton as much as it was a bias towards black identity.

Posted by ken | January 20, 2008 2:01 PM

Ha...good one ken...you're a dedicated advocate.

How one sees debates could depend on how one sees the role of President.

Does one want a policy wonk like Carter...hands on, micro manager?

Does one want a vision of the overview, find the best minds to meld us into our new global place.

You are correct. The debate and all of this campaign has crystallized many of our views. Are we electing a Chief of Staff or a President?

Vote hope, not fear. Vote American, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 20, 2008 2:19 PM

Lampwick: That "analysis" of yours is so bad, so wrong headed, that it's close to a comedic masterpiece. C'mon, man...it's not any more complicated than it seems on the surface: Many "downscale" and Latino voters simply have issues with a black candidate, full stop. As much as you might want to paint affluent and college educated voters (Obama supporters) as somehow yearning for "community" and therefore susceptible to empty rhetoric, you're way off. Put down the peace pipe and see human kind for what it is: generally petty and racist with pockets of enlightenment. Affluence and education are certainly no guaranteed remedies for our more base tendencies, but they certainly don't hurt.

Posted by Joko | January 20, 2008 2:41 PM

@ RW Rogers:

In my own work of the last two LA mayoral elections, I have shown that the conventional wisdom about racial conflict between African Americans and Latinos is somewhat overblown.

In fact, in the most recent 2005 election, a majority of African-Americans voted for Villaraigosa, the Latino candidate. (However, the LAT exit poll shows the opposite result, but for a variety of reasons, I think they are wrong.)

However, I do not think that the 2005 results bode well for Obama. First, Villaraigosa is endorsing Clinton, and although he is not as popular as he was, I do think this signals strongly for Latino voters. Second, Magic Johnson is also endorsing Clinton, and I think he was a fairly significant factor in 2005 with his endorsement of Villaraigosa. (As a political scientist, I hate to put so much weight on endorsements, but I do think they had an effect in 2005).

I think Obama will not win a majority of Latinos voters, but he will get a decent percentage. I don't think that this narrative of Latino racism against African-Americans will be the reason that Clinton wins a majority of Latino voters in California.

Posted by Jason McDaniel | January 20, 2008 3:13 PM

I guess the Latinos didn't respond to Obama's anglicized version of Si su puedes:-(.

I think that Hispanics is an overly broad category. The Mexican-Americans of the Southwest are likely to react differently from the Puerto Ricans/ Dominicans of Northeast and they will be different again from the Cubans of Florida.

Someone needs to do some research on how Obama did among the Hispanics of Illinois, their race/ethnic makeup, etc.

Posted by stonetools | January 20, 2008 3:23 PM

Heh. Two words:

Adlai Stevenson.
Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA

There's a lot of interesting there there in that comparison.

...Anybody who's spent time in latin american countries knows full well the casual racism that infuses latino culture....Posted by mono

Yes but it is often truly color based as in: the darker you are the more you're looked down upon. He's as light as many of them are. Also in many Latino countries, it's those with more Euro features that get the preferences and are the upper classes, and those with indigenous features that are the underclass. (And in the U.S., Latino v. black tensions seem more community based, gang v. gang, tribe v. tribe, sub-culture v. sub-culture.)

There are other Latino cultural thingies that might be at work here. How many of them know of fancy inspirational oratory and rhetoric coming from eventual dictators and political charlatans for centuries? I also sense a strong anti-meritocracy current in some Latino culture--you don't have the equivalent of the stereotype Jewish mother pushing her son to be a doctor or lawyer or have an ivy league degree, you see the stereotype of the mother pushing the son to get married so she can have grandchildren. Seems to me that there's also a lot of pro-small business sentiment in Latino-American culture. I don't know how this all fits in with Hillary and Obama, but I myself do think Obama gives off a strong image of "wine track" not struggling minority, much more than the Clintons. In many Latin American cultures, his exotic international background and Irish mother would make it easier for him to mix with ruling classes. Hillary by herself could have a lot of the same "elite liberal" problems, but with Bill (of the single mom, underclass background, never one to flaunt his ivy leagues) as part of her record, she doesn't.

Although some simple racism is undoubtedly included in the numbers, I just don't think his color alone can explain the large numbers. Same thing for working class whites. And I would like to stress the inspirational rhetoric thing, I do think there is a visceral dislike and mistrust of it among some groups, as in "we can all get along, yeah right" with a roll of the eyes. Then there's an Adlai Stevenson comparison...

Gang, ever think that if there is one generalization one can make about Latino-American bias (as well as working class white) it is a strong anti-latte-liberal one? You can't appear upper class and win the majority of these groups over.

Posted by artappraiser | January 20, 2008 3:26 PM

Some of the responses from obama supporters are cracking me up: apparently if someone votes for hillary they are - racist, stupid, ill-informed, money grubbing and/or voting for a woman no matter what (and stuck in second wave feminism).

Heck, maybe they are just sick of the condescending attitude of obama supporters? Or - and this is crazy I know - maybe they just think she'd be a better president?

By the same logic, I guess obama's relative strength among men means all obama supporters are sexist?

Posted by columbia | January 20, 2008 3:29 PM

Well, Jason McDaniel may indeed be a political scientist who's studied LA elections, but I'd argue that his analysis is pretty far off.

During the crucial 2001 Mayoral race, LA blacks voted *overwhelmingly* against the Latino candidate and in favor of the (more "conservative") white one, James Hahn, partly because of his father's long ties to the black community but almost certainly far more because of hostility toward Latino political advances. This was the complete consensus of opinion at the time, and occurred despite the strong efforts of many prominent "progressive" black leaders to have it otherwise.

But once in office, Hahn later refused to reappoint the (incompetent and "conservative") black police chief, which generated gigantic cries of "betrayal" in the black community. This, together with general perceptions of Hahn's incompetence and some corruption among his close aides, caused him to lose his reelection in a huge landslide, though he still received almost half the black vote against his very popular Latino opponent.

The bottom line is that there is an absolutely huge degree of grassroots social hostility between blacks and Latinos through most of California, as well as a considerable amount of political hostility. Since HRC's also nailed down nearly all the top Latino leaders in CA, I'd expect her to do very, very well in that ethnic group, perhaps much better than she did in Nevada.

Posted by RKU | January 20, 2008 4:26 PM

Artappraiser,

Would Obama gotten this far if he spoke the same way as Dubya? My impression is that no black person could get away the way Bush has? I think that no one would have given Obama the time of the day if he were to say "is our children learning?". Giving good speeches is not a bad thing in itself.

Posted by MGJ | January 20, 2008 4:38 PM

Would Obama gotten this far if he spoke the same way as Dubya?

No. It's just that his image so far, it's good for some demographics and bad for others. Do you realize that you are sort of raising the "would you like to have a beer with the guy" issue? BTW I think he's quite savvy, I am not counting out him using his skills to his ultimate benefit. It's just that we haven't seen much of him interacting with individual people yet, like in town hall meeting settings, so it's hard to judge that.

Posted by artappraiser | January 20, 2008 4:46 PM

I'd be curious to see the breakdown, as well, tho I suspect racism might correlate to SES in such a parallel fashion that the breakdown might not tell as much as one might hope.
Anecdotally, I am always astonished at the sheer bigotry I encounter among my latino colleagues.
Posted by Brautigan

Latinos voting for Hillary is bigotry, but blacks going with skin color and voting 70% for Obama and rejecting the spouse of "America's 1st Black President" is not??? Wait until the S Carolina primary to see what Hillary's standing with blacks is.

A big part is racism among Latino's towards blacks. Anybody who's spent time in latin american countries knows full well the casual racism that infuses latino culture. It's no surprise that they will not vote for an african-american candidate. I expect this wrinkle to be fully exploited by HRC.
Posted by mono

No, anyone who has spent time in Latin America knows that Latinos all agree that the most dangerous, dysfunctional neighborhoods in Latin countries are black ones. And Latins coming into America, despite the naive hopes of Jewish union organizers, Dem liberals and media - have not really gotten into the idea of a "black and brown brother solidarity movement" under the wise guidance and control of left-leaning Jewish and WASP Ruling Elites.

Big history of arriving Latino and Asian immigrants being bullied at school and criminally predated upon by American blacks and thereon expressing a strong desire to have nothing to do with them and live in safer, better, mostly black-free settings as they get more prosperous. And also giving little creedance to them being just like blacks as helpless victims of racism when they start with the same or worse educational and job opportunities but work hard and get ahead.

This preferrence for Hillary, for those who saw the two, cut across all age, income, and racial lines with the exception of blacks. Which is understandable as blacks have an icon to vote for.

The general rule is that blacks will always vote for the black given a choice of candidates of different races, except if the black is Republican.
Or "root" for the team with the black QB or black "Survivor".

That is perfectly natural, except that blacks and their enabling Elites will pillory whites, hispanics, and Asians for showing similar ethnic or racial loyalties and preferences, as racist.

Posted by chris ford | January 20, 2008 4:52 PM

@ RKU:

Nothing you said is in fact in opposition to my analysis. First, I was speaking specifically of the 2005 election. And no doubt, the decision to fire Parks (the correct decision) had an effect on Hahn's African-American base in that election.

My point was that charges of Latino racism against African-Americans, and general racial conflict between the two groups as a political motivator are overblown. My original research and analysis shows quite conclusively that a majority of African Americans voted for the Latino candidate in 2005. This conclusion is not supported by the Los Angeles Times exit polling of that race, which has been shown by other researchers to be flawed on the issue of racially polarized voting. So, at least in the 2005 election, African-Americans did not seem motivated by racism to vote against the Latino candidate.

Nonetheless, if there were a viable African-American candidate opposing a Latino candidate in a Los Angeles mayoral race, I would expect most African-American and Latino voters to vote for the in-group candidate. Again however, my point is that the voting behavior would not necessarily be motivated by racism and conflict along racial lines between the two particular groups.

By the way, as further proof that African-Americans at least are willing to vote for Latino candidates in Los Angeles, see Rocky Delgadillo's ability to garner African-American votes in the 2001 City Attorney's race. This means that even in 2001, when most analysts see a clash between Latinos and African Americans, many African American voters voted for one Latino for City Attorney, while at the same time voting for the white candidate for mayor (and against the Latino).

As I said, Im not sure this means much for Obama's chances in the California Dem primary. I expect Obama will be competitive amongst Latino voters in Los Angeles, and that he would be happy with 35%. And, I dont think that Latino voters will be motivated by racism if they don't vote for Obama.

Posted by Jason McDaniel | January 20, 2008 5:31 PM

Chris Fraud is is the essence of prejudice, from racism to anti-Semitism and so on. Insane hater.

Posted by Jennifer | January 20, 2008 5:42 PM

By the way, I am not suggesting that there is no racial conflict between Latinos and African-Americans in Los Angeles. But, my sense is that amongst people who vote, issues of racial conflict are somewhat muted at the moment. Political elites have done a pretty decent job of downplaying conflict, and trying to build cross-racial alliances. l

Posted by Jason McDaniel | January 20, 2008 5:52 PM

Yes, I'd certainly agree with Jason McDaniels points. Our differences were more those of emphasis and nuance (always difficult in an ultra-abbreviated discussion format) rather than anything else.

In particular, he's completely right that most of the Latino and black political elites in the LA area have been doing everything they can to damp down the social/political conflict bubbling up from the grassroots of their ethnic communities.

As an important example, the (overwhelmingly Latino) central Labor organization picked a black successor to its deceased Latino leader (though he shortly thereafter was arrested for campaign corruption and was then succeeded by a Latino). Also, there was that recent once black now Latino legislative district election in which many Latino leaders strongly backed the black rather than Latino candidate so as not to be perceived as "grabbing" a black-held seat.

That's why Matt's analysis was so inverted. In most parts of CA---and much of the country in general---Latino and black political leaders tend to be much less in direct conflict than their underlying Latino and black grassroots populations.

Posted by RKU | January 20, 2008 6:17 PM

@ Jason MacDaniel (and RKU):

Thoughtful replies (RKU's being to yours). As RKU pointed out, the 2001 election was the more important of the two, so your later response to him was interesting as well. While I did ask about the mayoral elections, they really were just continuations of a decades-long legislative turf battle, which the Latino caucus appears to have pretty convincingly won. Jason, I think that the point really isn't about racism of one group or another but about self-interest.

If Obama wants to be the next President of the United States, he will be very unhappy with 35% of the Latino vote in California. He can't win with that number and he needs to win. The party establishment is pretty solidly behind Clinton and they control almost 20% of the delegates to the national convention. He can't overcome those numbers with a series of marginal 1-delegate victories in states he lost. With its high concentration of black voters (almost 50% of the Democratic Party there), a big win in South Carolina is probable. Still, about the half the states voting on Feb. 5 have typical absentee voter rates in excess of 30%. Probably 1/4 of those have already voted, up to half will have voted by next Friday. Those are large numbers voting post-New Hampshire and pre-South Carolina. That bodes well for Clinton not Obama.

Posted by RW Rogers | January 20, 2008 6:20 PM

RW Rogers:

I agree that its about self-interest, rather than racism. As you know, I was mostly responding to the emerging narrative that Latinos would not vote for Obama because of racism and conflict between Latinos and Blacks.

Self-interest as a motivator actually implies that racial group voters will cross racial lines to vote for an out-group member, out of class-based or ideologically-based self-interest. But past research shows that self-interest is not enough (at least when it comes to racial voting coalitions in urban elections). It has to be coupled with ideology (aka similar liberal / progressive civil rights based ideology) and creative leadership by political elites.

The hope among Obama supporters (and, btw, I am one) is that Latinos will see Obama as the candidate more in line with their interests. I don't think that Obama has sufficiently made that case; or at least that Clinton has managed to prevent distinct contrasts from being drawn. I think they will be happy to garner 35% of Latinos, hope for 80% of African Americans, and then large margins among educated men, and smaller margins among educated women to win the California primary. I am starting to think that won't happen.

Posted by Jason McDaniel | January 20, 2008 6:39 PM

He has problem with poor whites and poor Latinos. The question of "why?" is the really interesting one.

Maybe you haven't noticed but Barrack Obama is black.

Obama was running as a post-race candidate and having some success, at least in Iowa. Which is why Team Clinton spent the last few weeks reminding them.

but blacks going with skin color and voting 70% for Obama and rejecting the spouse of "America's 1st Black President"

Blacks didn't start breaking for Obama until HRC's people played (quite successfully) the race card.
Now Obama has no chance of winning anything outside of the south.

Posted by Mike | January 20, 2008 6:54 PM

True, self-interest only goes so far. But part of the definition does involve group indentification. And that plays into saying, "All politics is local" made famous by Tip O'Neill in my lifetime. As you know, friction between local black and Latino politicians in California has been near-constant, if not always front page news. And that, unfortunatley, doesn't help Obama.

Obama can't win if his base is the "white wine set," as Karl Rove described what you just described. He's definitely not carrying the female vote at this point. As I'm sure you noticed, almost 3 in 5 voting in Nevada were women. And he lost them by 12 points. Personally, I think he's losing them because, despite the somewhat formal debate settings, Obama has been far more likely than any other candidate to call her "Hillary," not "Senator Clinton" or "Hillary Clinton." Haven't seen any polling on the issue, but heard it mentioned often by women I know. Just a random thought.

I'm not an Obama supporter nor a Clinton supporter, although I'll like as not vote for either of them come November. I think she'd prove more effective as President, but I think he'd prove far more electable simply because GOP voters have such a distorted view of each (as the Pew poll shows). The GOP base is demoralized but HRC as nominee gives them a well known something to hate and get out and vote against. And frankly, I'm not interested in four more years of the non-stop venom from the left and right like the last 15. It will take them a while to really hate Obama like they do Clinton. We could all use a break.

Posted by RW Rogers | January 20, 2008 7:25 PM

Blacks and Hispanics better wise up and realize that both groups get robbed by the white majority in this country. Instead of ripping into each other, they should come together. How hard is this for them to understand? White people are probably watching and smiling at how stupidly those two groups are acting.It's mind boggling that anybody from any either group would think voting for a white woman is a change after hundreds of years of white control of this country. If this logic is not retarded, I don't know what is.

Posted by joseph pierre | January 20, 2008 8:35 PM

Blacks and Hispanics better wise up and realize that both groups get robbed by the white majority in this country. Instead of ripping into each other, they should come together. How hard is this for them to understand? White people are probably watching and smiling at how stupidly those two groups are acting.It's mind boggling that anybody from any either group would think voting for a white woman is a change after hundreds of years of white control of this country. If this isn't twisted logic, I don't know what is.

Posted by joseph pierre | January 20, 2008 8:37 PM

Here we go, anybody who doesn't support Obama is a racist. Now it's Latinos. I'm sick of it.
It's an insult to Latinos based on the assumption that we don't vote on the issues. Were you in the head of every single Latino voter yesterday? It's also an insult to Hillary, who is better qualified than Obama and has a better command of the issues.

And what makes you think that Obama is going to change the power structure in this country? Because he says "change" a whole bunch of times? To change things, you have to know how they work, and compared to Hillary, he clearly doesn't.

Obama seems like a very nice man, but he strikes me as a total lightweight who will get chewed up by the GOP. He can't even handle Bill and Hillary.

Posted by Michelle | January 20, 2008 10:20 PM

Look, if you listen to Obama in his interview with the Reno Gazette, those kind of "culture wars" and dualities don't matter to him, he is above all those "excesses" and" issues", this stuff was so last century. So, Obama followers, take your leaders word you cannot have it both ways. You cannot think this stuff does not matter then if there is no coronation, you get start whining.

Posted by stellaa | January 20, 2008 11:32 PM

Hillary may be more qualified but the tactics that she has been using to win the nomination, doesn't make me think she's worthy of respect. And please do not say that it's politics, because when republicans start using the same tactics, there will be a lot of whining.

Posted by MGJ | January 20, 2008 11:43 PM

Yes it is politics. You think Obama from Chicago is playing tiddlywinks? He even said: he is from Chicago and knows about politics. The tactics thing is really getting tired. The blogo world is buzzing with this, she is viscious, she is a liar, they are mean. Frankly, it's a bit infantile. Stop the we are victims stuff. All the regression analysis is not gonna be able to measure why people choose who they choose and what resonates with them. I am glad we have these choices. Now, lets sort it out. And lets support the winner.

Primaries are hard when you have viable candidates. So, enjoy.

Posted by stellaa | January 20, 2008 11:58 PM

Well I am thinking in the long term I don't think it serves us well when you have a former president acting the way he is towards a fellow democrat but didn't do so in 2004.

Posted by MGJ | January 21, 2008 12:17 AM

What meant was that I wish that the fervor that Bill Clinton has in criticizing Obama was there in 2004 when Bush was running for reelection.

Posted by MGJ | January 21, 2008 12:22 AM

I am African-American female who was raised in El Paso, Texas which is predominately hispanic. I think I have a pretty diverse view on things, I definitely believe race is being played up in this campaign more than it should be.

I have followed Senator Obama over the years and listened to him present to the senate on nuclear proliferation and other things. I have heard him on C-Span and he is very intelligent and knowledgeable on issues that are facing Americans and the world as a whole. I strongly believe he has the best interest of the people of America.

If anyone has been watching this campaign from the beginning, they should be able to see that there has been a shift on the Clinton side. Originally, the Clinton campaign was kind of making fun of Obama and his change method, but more recently, as I watched in the case in Nevada, she has been utilizing the same strategies he implemented in the beginning of his campaign.

In the New Hampshire debate, he boldly expressed his position on things and what he would do as the Commander in Chief of this country. In the Nevada debate, Hillary all of a sudden says that this country is looking for a "Chief Executive Officer." Also, when she was campaigning and giving speeches in Nevada, she starts talking about the working class, Latino Americans, and dealing with day to day issues and bringing about REAL CHANGE IN AMERICA.

She caters to whichever audience she is in front of all for her own political gain and frankly, I don't think she means a word of it. If she meant it, she would stand on what she says and not change with the wind, which is what she has consistently done.

I find it very disappointing and appalling, that anyone continues to support her. There was so much scandal when her husband was in office, if you do a search on her corporation Hillary Inc, you will see how many corporations she is in bed with, and anyone can see that she will do anything to get elected including jeopardizing the integrity of the political voting process.

I believe there were several voting irregularities and that everything hasn't been exposed yet. If you've been following her endorsements, you are probably well aware that the son of one of the major democratic leaders from the Nevada democratic party has been supporting her. So I wouldn't be surprised if polls were closed early and other things were done to circumvent this caucusing process.

Also, reports have already circulated concerning the fact that Hillary knowingly lied about Obama's position on the issue of being prochoice. She identified major democratic leaders and had them sign a letter lying about Mr. Obama's position on certain things. She then sent out mailers to the people of New Hampshire lying about this issue. Many of those leaders who signed the letter, now say they regret it and it has caused some deep hostilities in the democratic party.

At what cost do you want to win and further your agenda. Her motives do not appear to be sincere and she wants this office, it seems, to just be able to say that she is the first woman president, not because she actually cares about furthering the cause of the people of America. Who wants a corrupt leader in office again? We've already seen things get bad, and electing the Clinton's into office again is going from bad to worse.

Anyone knows that she really has not suffered a day in her life and I believe alot of stories about traveling to hear Dr. King speak as a a young girl, are all propaganda. She is just telling people what she thinks they want to hear to get their vote. It's said and for her to call our President pathetic on National Television says alot about her.

As many flaws as President Bush has, he is still our president and I don't think it was right for her to openly attack him on National television about him going to meet with certain leaders in the Middle East. Our foreign relations are already messed up around the world and all that really does is further the problem.

This is the type of leadership we don't need in the White House and I urge all considering her candidacy to take a second look at this woman and do your research. Whitewater should be enough.

Posted by LH | January 21, 2008 1:10 AM

Oropeza vs Richardson was "Latino and black political elites" highlighting racial tensions not tamping them down. Interestingly, Congresswoman Richardson of "no one can take our seat from us " fame is a Clinton supporter.

Clinton will win 65% of Latino votes and 40% of African-American votes in the California primary and beat Obama by 8 points.

Posted by disagree | January 21, 2008 1:27 AM

Posted by LH | January 21, 2008 1:10 AM"I find it very disappointing and appalling, that anyone continues to support her. There was so much scandal when her husband was in office, if you do a search on her corporation Hillary Inc, you will see how many corporations she is in bed with, and anyone can see that she will do anything to get elected including jeopardizing the integrity of the political voting process."

Sorry to disappoint but this is an election. "Scandal" most if not all was manufactured and I do not intend to relive it. Please also check Obama's connections with a slum lord in Chicago, http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.article. This is not a coronation. So, enjoy the politics. They are all politicians. Neither one is running for saint. There are no saints or saviours, just a couple of politicians.

Posted by stellaa | January 21, 2008 1:56 AM

I haven't read "The Audacity of Hope" to know whether he saw some of this type of thing himself up close and personal, but Obama seems to recognize a problem that is less about "racism" and more about cultural/tribal competition, that it's a reciprocal vicious circle (i.e. latinos dislike blacks because blacks dislike them and vice versa). For example, from his Atlanta/Ebenezer speech Jan. 20:

If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community. "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity."

As I mentioned before, I've read more than a few reports about no love being lost from Harlem old timers towards African immigrants. And in NYC there is also long-time culture clash that simmers between blacks of more recent Carribean heritage and blacks with many generations of American residence--i.e., if you're Jamaican or Puerto Rican, you're "not really black" even if you happen to have very dark skin. In the end, the source really is an anti-immigrant bias, as in: we don't want to share any spoils available, we've been here longer and suffered more.

Posted by artappraiser | January 21, 2008 2:45 AM

Michelle: Based on the inanity of your post, you strike me as a lightweight. featherweight, actually.

Posted by Joe | January 21, 2008 8:21 AM