Latina Lista: News from the Latinx perspective > Palabra Final > Politics > Analysis Reveals Obama Supporters Can’t See Past their Candidate When Filling out Ballots

Analysis Reveals Obama Supporters Can’t See Past their Candidate When Filling out Ballots

LatinaLista — Obama supporters are a focused, passionate group – too bad their focus has to be so narrow and their passion is only for one man rather than charting a new course for the political system.

Last month, Latina Lista reported on a study that cited how 80 percent of Latino youth said that if Obama was not a presidential candidate in the November presidential election, they would not vote.
Since it was commissioned by the Obama camp, many critics of the report felt this was just another attempt at campaign propaganda to boost Obama’s profile among voters.
Unfortunately, the study was only the tip of the proverbial political ice berg.

It seems this narrow focus on Obama evidently extends to all of his supporters, and if the results of the Texas Primary are any indication, Democrats may have a tougher time come November than anticipated.
Over the weekend, a story published by The Dallas Morning News underscored just how dedicated Obama supporters really are.

Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds.
More than 80 percent of Democratic voters in the Texas counties where Mrs. Clinton had her largest victory margins went on to vote in the U.S. Senate race, the leading statewide contest on the ballot after the presidential race. By contrast, only 71 percent of voters in Mr. Obama’s strongest counties did.

This revelation doesn’t bode well for the Democratic Party — or young people overall.

(Source: msnbcmedia)
While it’s been exciting to see young people get involved in this election campaign, the threat that their interest will disappear if Obama is not on the ticket is all too real now — and discouraging.
One could argue that it really shouldn’t affect Clinton’s chances if she is chosen to be the Democratic candidate since her supporters are comprised largely of Latino voters who could push a win over McCain, and who showed more civic responsibility by completing the voting ballots.
Yet, a bigger picture definitely needs to be looked at here: stressing the importance of the political system to young voters and voters new to casting a vote.
An independent campaign should be launched educating new voters about the importance of not just national, but state and local races and why people should care who holds office in their own backyards.
Otherwise, come November, nothing will have changed.



Related posts


  • Frank
    March 10, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    There are a ton more white Democrats than Hispanic Democrats because whites are the majority in this country. Someone must have failed math to claim that it will take the Hispanic vote for either Democrat candidate to win the nomination. As far as beating McCain the same thing applies.
    I see where Obama has said that he won’t play second fiddle to Hillary on the same ticket. So all those who are fantazing that is what will happen can bring themselves back to reality now. Hillary won’t play second fiddle to Obama either.

  • adriana
    March 10, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    I’m discouraged that some people would rather remove themselves from the process instead of trying to work within it if Obama is not the nominee. Now, that being said, I think that some of those disgruntled youth should take a hard look at John McCain. I have already heard some arguments by some Obama supporters that they will not support Hillary Clinton should she be the nominee because she has run a very divisive and poorly managed campaign. Sure, she has managed to harness a lot of Latino support, but she also has some alliances with companies that have proven to be less than friendly to Latinos and our common cause as Americans.
    Some have even argued that if we have endured 8 years of Bush, we could stomach 4 years of McCain. I’m not fully convinced.
    And of course, here’s a rare opportunity for me. I agree with Frank’s last statement. I don’t see Obama as Clinton’s VP, and I don’t see Clinton as Obama’s VP.

  • laura
    March 10, 2008 at 8:38 pm

    Dear Marisa,
    I think the worst thing we can do right now is divide ourselves into Obama supporters” or “Clinton supporters”, tell each other how – foolish/immature/whatever undesirable trait – we are to support either this or that candidate, and start getting upset at each other.
    1. This election is about defeating John McCain, who now supports waterboarding, stay the course in Iraq, “border security achieved” before any immigration reform is attempted, among other points.(His days of straight talk and straight spine are long gone)
    2. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will do anything good for us if we don’t make them do it.
    3. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama is a Martin Luther King or a Cesar Chavez. Both of them are politicians that want to get elected.
    Personal preferences and antipathies for Democratic candidates aside (and I certainly do have them), we should definitely not say negative things about each other. We need each other most of all, much more than we need a specific one of these candidates.

  • Frank
    March 11, 2008 at 7:58 am

    Personally, there is no dog in this race for me. I would rather not vote than just choose the lesser of two evils.
    laura, why do you think we should have CIR first and then secure our border? If we don’t secure the border first then many more will try to come in under the new CIR before the border gets secured.
    If we secure the border first, then we can deal with those we have here already. We need to stop the bleeding first.

  • Irma
    March 11, 2008 at 11:57 am

    First and foremost voters should choose the most qualified and best candidate for our country.
    In terms of the military and foreign policy John Mcain is clearly the most qualified .
    Hilary is second by virtue of her years in the Senate .
    Obama is not even in the same room
    with either of them.
    On the economy – this is Clinton’s strength. McCain admits that this is not his strength .
    I dont whether Obama has any pluses in this category – he hasnt been in the Senate long enough to doing anything here.
    The war. Frankly , I dont CARE who was for or against. I just want out of it
    now. Obama’s former policy advisor
    sounded like an arrogant idiot. Doesnt say too much about Obama’s
    ability to choose a competent staff.
    Immigration? All three have gone back and forth on this issue. Its off my radar screen for November.
    Racial issues? Obama has injeccted RACE into this election and has made it a divisive issue. If you disagrree with
    anything he says – his supporters cry
    RACISM. Unfortunately, Obama has not discouraged his supporters from this type of behavior.
    Is this what we can expect from a President Obama. Everytime someone
    in Congress disagrees with him – his
    office will cry RACISM?
    Please guys- vote anyone but Obama.

    March 11, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    If John McCain would address issues of those of us creeping up on retirement, “baby boomers”, our vote could easily put him in office. Since there are an estimated 78.2 million of us, as of July 1, 2005, our voting power far exceeds all of those that keep thinking they carry the deciding votes. No, McCain is not the ideal Presidential candidate, but he is the most experienced and will put America first and foremost, unlike your other two choices. Here of late , he has seen the error of his ways and is now starting to fall in line with Republican ideologies of conservative steps to fix our broken nation. The Republican party will steer him in the right (no pun) direction to prevent such stunts as his sponsoring the B/K Shamnesty Bill. With a Boomers for McCain campaign, we would get the lesser of the three evils. We may be in our senior years, but as Americans, we can make a difference and those after us will be thankful for our decisions.

  • Irma
    March 11, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    How has Obama injected race into this election? Maybe you didn’t hear the latest comment from Geraldine Ferraro yesterday, a Clinton surrogate.
    The fact of the matter is any time you have a person of color running, race/ethnicity is going to be in the public discourse. We can either talk about it in a healthy way, or chose to ignore it like we have done for years. I would rather address the issue head on.
    Irma, if you want to discuss competent staff, then you need to ask yourself why Hillary Clinton had so much trouble within her campaign.

  • GerryV
    March 11, 2008 at 3:13 pm

    I’m not bothered at all that 71% of Obama’s voters voted down-ballot compared to 80% of Clinton’s.
    What it says to me is that Obama’s voters were more likely to vote for the candidate and not just rote party line.
    Frankly, the pattern that bothers me more is how some–too many–Latino voters allow themselves to be corralled into voting for the preferred candidate of the Latino political/media chiefs.

  • Shatter Resistant
    March 11, 2008 at 4:27 pm

    Nice bloggin! This is my first glance at this site and am excited that “listos” & “listas” are true to their heritage – PASSIONATE! I can dig that we are hot about what is STILL out there – racism, genderism and of course age-ism; but let’s get on the track that Irma has pointed out – solid issues at hand – the economy, education, environment, foreign relations/policies, … The general media has blurred our vision of these important issues – mano y mano – let’s give each other some hard facts so that we can make solid decisions regardless of the candidate you choose.

  • Evelyn
    March 12, 2008 at 1:07 am

    Anti-Immigrant Hypocrisy Sinks Conservative Candidates
    New America Media, News Analysis Mar 11, 2008
    Hoping to take over the seat vacated by retired former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R) Ill., Jim Oberweis focused on an anti-immigrant message. Demograhic shifts in his district and a labor scandal sent his candidacy up in flames, a cautionary tale for other anti-immigrant conservatives. Henry Fernandez is a Senior Fellow at the Center For American Progress Action Fund working on state and municipal issues.
    Jim Oberweis lost former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s previously solid Republican seat to Bill Foster. In so doing, he drove one more nail into the conservative anti-immigrant strategy.
    Oberweis is an anti-immigrant zealot who has served on the board of NumbersUSA, an organization which seeks to dramatically limit even legal immigration. (NumbersUSA is part of a coalition of organizations founded by John Tanton that have demonized immigrants who are not white and built ties to hate groups.)
    Despite voters‚ concerns over the war in Iraq, economic recession, and the mortgage crisis, Oberweis’s website listed immigration as his number one issue. Among other draconian positions, Oberweis calls for denying children born in the United States to immigrants the right to U.S. citizenship, something which would require revoking the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
    Oberweis’s staunch anti-immigrant views may have blinded him to the changing demographics of Illinois, 14th Congressional district. Over the last decade, increasing numbers of Latinos and Asians have moved into the 14th, while the number of naturalized citizens grew from 25,224 to 40,159. The Latino population was already 18.5 percent in 2000.
    Oberweis, a wealthy owner of dairy stores, was targeted by grassroots supporters of comprehensive immigration reform. They found he had the same problem as erstwhile Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He employed undocumented immigrants while bashing them on the campaign trail.
    The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) and the Chicago Workers Collaborative uncovered Oberweis’s hypocrisy. According to Joshua Hoyt, head of ICIRR, Jorge and Rosa — two undocumented immigrants — were cleaning Oberweis’s ice cream stores and being paid $3.23 an hour. America does not respect hypocrites who bully undocumented immigrants and then turn around and profit from their labor; America does not respect politicians who do not tell the truth.
    Many conservative politicians hope that attacking immigrants is a magic electoral bullet. But facts on the ground do not bear this out. In a precinct-level review of Latino voters, the conservative Americas Majority Foundation found that anti-immigrant rhetoric will cause conservatives to lose House seats and potentially the Presidency. The Foundation’s President, Richard Nadler, argues that Latinos who voted for conservatives like George Bush will not vote for immigration demagogues. He concludes: “Any policy that induces mass fear in illegal aliens will induce mass anger in legal aliens (sic).”
    Hoyt reports that the Latino vote did come out to defeat Oberweis. There is no question immigration was central to Foster’s 5,000 vote victory. In the bellwether city of Aurora, he won by just over 3,200 votes by scoring big margins in Latino neighborhoods. Latino and immigrant activists worked hard to get this vote out. This in a district where Hastert had beaten his last three opponents by margins of 48, 38 and 20 percent respectively.
    The STUPIDITY of these racist is OOoooo SOOoooo SWEET!!!! HA! HA! HA!

  • Frank
    March 12, 2008 at 8:19 am

    More lies from the ethnocentric left. Anti-immigrant? Nope, anti-illegal alien and rightly so!

  • Evelyn
    March 13, 2008 at 12:14 am

    Two faces of the anti-immigrant bigots
    August 11, 2006 | Page 5
    NICOLE COLSON looks at the ties between anti-immigrant groups, the far right and the Republican Party.
    IN APRIL 2005, as dozens of anti-immigrant Minuteman Project volunteers gathered on the Arizona-Mexico border for a month-long “patrol,” the group’s co-founder, Jim Gilchrist, told reporters that patriotism and national security, not racism, were the underlying motives.
    Minutemen “don’t endorse racism, and we’re not a hate group,” said Gilchrist. “We’ve told white supremacists they’re not welcome here, and we’ve kept them out.” “We can do this peacefully, the same way Martin Luther King sought justice for American Blacks,” he added. “We’re followers of Gandhi and Martin Luther King.”
    But look below the surface rhetoric of the Minutemen, and there’s plenty of racism underneath
    As Gilchrist talked about racial harmony on display for the press, “Johnny” and “Michael”–two members of the neo-Nazi National Alliance who had signed up as Minutemen volunteers and posed with Gilchrist for the cameras–turned away in disgust.
    “I hope [Gilchrist] doesn’t believe that crap,” said Michael. “I realize he’s got to be all PC for the media, but come on…We’re in a race war, not a peace march.”
    Anti-immigrant vigilante groups like the border-patrolling Minuteman Project and the California’s Save Our State (SOS) are on the march–spurred by the anti-immigrant backlash following September 11 and emboldened by the latest round of political assaults on immigrant rights.
    Though the press has largely ignored it, many of those joining these groups are former (and sometimes current) members of the right-wing militia movement. Neo-Nazi thugs and KKK members also turn out to lend their support.
    “We’re not going to show up as a group and say, ‘Hi, we’re the National Alliance,’” National Alliance spokesman Shawn Walker told Tuscon’s KVOA news before the April 2005 Minutemen border patrol. “But we have members of ours that will participate.”
    At an SOS demonstration in July 2005 in Laguna Beach, Calif., Confederate flags and swastikas were on display as the group–including several skinheads–picketed a day laborer center. “Just because one believes in white separatism, that does not make them a racist,” SOS founder Joe Turner has commented. But Turner tries to deny that SOS works with white supremacists.
    According to the SPLC, one poster on the neo-Nazi Stormfront Web site admitted that groups like SOS are a “Trojan horse” for hardcore racists to enter more “mainstream” anti-immigrant politics. “This is a movement every WN [white nationalist] should support and be active in,” the poster wrote in March 2005.
    In some cases, the connection between the far right and anti-immigrant movement is even more blatant–and violent.
    In April of this year, Laine Lawless–founder of the Tucson, Ariz., group Border Guardians–was discovered by the SPLC to have sent an e-mail to Mark Martin, the “SS commander” of the Western Ohio unit of the National Socialist Movement, the largest neo-Nazi organization in the U.S.
    Lawless laid out 11 tactics, “some legal and some not-so,” for ways that Martin’s “warriors for the race” could terrorize undocumented immigrants. Her suggestions included “steal[ing] the money from any illegal walking into a bank or check-cashing place” and “creat[ing] an anonymous propaganda campaign warning that any further illegal immigrants coming here will be shot, maimed, or seriously messed-up upon crossing the border.
    PLENTY OF politicians are willing to look the other way as their anti-immigrant supporters make common cause with the far right. These bigots in suits have only helped move anti-immigrant racism from the margins into the political mainstream.
    Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger famously praised the Minutemen’s “border patrol” last year, telling reporters, “They’ve done a terrific job.”
    Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.)–one of the leading opponents of immigration in Congress–was the keynote speaker at the Minuteman Project’s opening day rally in Arizona last April.
    He praised Minutemen co-founders James Gilchrist and Chris Simcox as “two good men who understand we must never surrender our right as citizens to do our patriotic duty and defend our country…and stop this invasion ourselves.” “You are not vigilantes. You are heroes!” he told the crowd.
    Reports about the Minutemen’s ties to the neo-Nazis haven’t deterred Tancredo. In February of this year, Tancredo, along with Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.), turned out alongside both Gilchrist and Barbara Coe of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform (a close friend of Tancredo’s who the SPLC says has referred to Mexicans as “savages”) at a Minutemen-sponsored rally against guest-worker programs.
    According to the Washington Post, Tancredo and Rohrbacher gave anti-immigrant speeches that whipped the crowd into a frenzy. “The fervor subsided,” reported the Post, “only when two men dressed in brown and wearing swastikas goose-stepped toward the Minutemen and gave a Nazi salute,” and Gilchrist was forced to call for an intermission “to resolve this situation.”
    Other politicians, attempting to gain traction with their conservative bases, have also played up their ties to the anti-immigrant movement
    Brian Bilbray, for example, who won a special election to fill the House seat in California vacated by jailed ex-Rep. Randall “Duke” Cunningham earlier this year, is a former lobbyist for the anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform.
    During his most recent campaign, Bilbray warned his supporters that if the U.S. didn’t solve the illegal immigration “problem,” their grandchildren would one day be forced to learn Spanish. On the night of his special election, Bilbray criticized his opponent, Democrat Francine Busby, for not only suggesting that undocumented immigrants had a right to vote, but for speaking to voters who “needed an interpreter.”
    Another candidate for Cunningham’s vacant seat, state Sen. Bill Morrow, went even farther–by appointing Mike Chase, Jim Gilchrist’s son and the head of the California Minutemen and the Border Watch Federation, to his campaign’s political steering committee.
    Gilchrist made his own failed bid for office in California this year, coming in third place in a race for a congressional seat representing Orange County.
    Gilchrist the candidate differed little from Gilchrist the vigilante. According to the SPLC, neo-Nazis were allowed to work openly in Gilchrist’s campaign.
    “They were basically allowing skinheads and white nationalists to work the phone banks and do [computer work] and distribute National Alliance fliers targeting non-whites,” Cliff May, a former Gilchrist supporter, told the SPLC. “Gilchrist had assured the media several times he had a zero-tolerance policy toward white supremacists. But from what I saw from the inside, it was more like, ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell.’”
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    THE VILEST anti-immigrant rhetoric is now accepted as perfectly legitimate in mainstream politics.
    Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) sounded little different from a neo-Nazi thug when he responded to this year’s immense May 1 immigrant rights demonstrations with this diatribe: “What would that May 1st look like without illegal immigration? There would be no one to smuggle across our southern border the heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines that plague the United States, reducing the U.S. supply of meth that day by 80 percent.
    “The lives of 12 U.S. citizens would be saved who otherwise die a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens each day…Our hospital emergency rooms would not be flooded with everything from gunshot wounds to anchor babies to imported diseases to hangnails, giving American citizens the day off from standing in line behind illegals.”
    The result is that the Minutemen are accepted as legitimate. According to a September 2005 Rasmussen poll, 54 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of the Minutemen and their border patrols, while just 22 percent had an unfavorable view of the group. Nearly half said they thought the federal government should encourage volunteers to patrol the entire Mexican border.
    The anti-immigrant politicians–from the likes of King to the less foul-mouthed bigots who crafted this year’s Senate “compromise” legislation–have opened the way for the far right to get a renewed hearing.
    According to the SPLC’s Mark Potok, “Fueled by belligerent tactics and publicity stunts, the number of hate groups operating in the United States rose from 762 in 2004 to 803 last year, capping an increase of fully 33 percent over the five years since 2000.”
    This is why it isn’t sufficient to ignore the far right when they demonstrate–as liberal politicians recommend when they claim that protests only give the racists more attention. Unfortunately, the bigots are getting plenty of attention and publicity from the most respectable of politicians.
    The immigrant-bashing bigots have to be confronted, openly and loudly, each and every time they rear their heads.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    In their own words
    Bigots with guns: “[W]e need the National Guard to clean out all our cities and round them up. They are hard-core criminals. They have no problem slitting your throat and taking your money or selling drugs to your kids or raping your daughters, and they are evil people.”
    — Chris Simcox, co-founder of the Minuteman Project and president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, in a 2003 interview with the SPLC Intelligence Report
    Bigots in suits: “We’re not only dealing with the people problem, but we’re dealing with criminal enterprises, we’re dealing with a huge drug problem, and we’re dealing with a potential terrorism problem as well, because the border is not secured.”
    –Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), at a 2006 press conference
    Bigots with guns: “[T]o me, there is a clear and present danger of insurrection, sedition and succession by those who buy into the fact that this really is Mexico’s territory, and doesn’t belong to the United States and should be taken back.”
    –James Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, in a 2005 interview with the OC Organizer
    Bigots in suits: “The threat to the United States comes from two things: the act of immigration combined with the cult of multiculturalism. We will never be able to win in the clash of civilizations if we don’t know who we are.”
    –Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), in a 2006 interview with Right Wing News
    Bigots with guns: “You get up there with a rifle and start shooting four or five of them a week, the other four or five thousand behind them are going to think twice about crossing that line.”
    –A member of the neo-Nazi National Alliance participating in a Minuteman border patrol in Arizona, to the SPLC Intelligence Report in 2005
    Bigots in suits: “I think they’ve done a terrific job. It just shows that it works when you go and make an effort and when you work hard. It’s a doable thing. It’s a shame that the private citizen has to go in there and start patrolling our borders.”
    –Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, praising the Minutemen in a 2005 interview with KFI-AM

  • Frank
    March 13, 2008 at 8:09 am

    Still repeating lies. Anti-immigrant, nope! Anti-illegal alien, yep!
    There are just as many radical, racist groups on the pro-illegal side of this issue as there are on the anti-illegal side. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Clean up your own backyard before complaining about your neighbor.
    But racism doesn’t play a role in most Americans thoughts on illegal immigration so why harp about the minority?

  • Evelyn
    March 14, 2008 at 2:01 am

    The ‘white washing’ machine is stuck on the ‘SPIN’ cycle!!!

  • Irma
    March 14, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    Obama injected race into this election from day one. He has talked as much about being a black man as he has about anything else. Maybe you didn’t hear the speech that he gave in San Antonio the night of the Democratic
    primary? I sat there listening to it and
    thought – your research team has failed. Who wants to hear about Kenya in San Antonio? Lets be honest –
    not a significant number of people.
    Geraldine Ferraro was expressing her
    opinion – there was no racism involved. She stated basically that
    his candidacy has benefitted from
    who he is . She is right. He is young-
    that attracts votes, He is a man –
    that attracts votes and he is black –
    that attracts certain kinds of votes. Did you take notice of the returns in Mississippi ? I would say that at least among black voters, being black helped.
    I agree that race should be discussed in an election. Geraldine tried but was
    attacked. I guess it is okay only
    for non- white people to discuss race?
    By the way in case, it is not clear, I am
    not white – I am Mexican American.
    Indeed, Barak is probably whiter than me and yet I dont mind when he discusses race issues as long as everyone else can.
    Adriana, you need to ask yourself why Barak Obama has also had trouble within his campaign. The reasons are the same as for Hilary’s campaign- people cant be controlled.
    There is no way
    to keep a lid on surrogates short of
    placing them in a coma.
    Stay current with each of the candidates has actually done not just what their web site says. Read the
    bills that they claim to have sponsored
    in the Senate. You may find that all
    of the candidates werent as pivotal
    as they claim.

  • adriana
    March 14, 2008 at 7:18 pm

    I don’t think you can say that Obama “injected race into this campaign” because if he had never made mention of his ethnicity, then people would say that he’s acting white. He’s damned if he mentions it, and he’s damned if he doesn’t. Don’t you see this?
    By the same token, Senator Clinton has made much mention of being a woman in this presidential race. However, she doesn’t often mention Shirley Chisholm, an African-American woman, who ran for president in 1972. So it isn’t as if Hillary Clinton is the only woman to have attempted this.
    As for Texans learning something about Kenya, I really think that all Americans need to start learning about countries outside of our own. We are a global society. Is Texas really like the Coen brothers parody it in “No Country for Old Men”? I sure hope not. It certainly isn’t an island unto itself although it seems that some would like it to be.
    As for the records of both Senators Clinton and Obama, can you name me one landmark piece of legislation that has been enacted that Clinton has sponsored? Something along the lines of McCain-Feingold or Kennedy-Kassebaum? I have examined both Senators’ records. You can see that here:
    And you can also check for yourself here:
    Obama has reached across the aisle and has managed to have some of his more substantive pieces of legislation passed such as:
    The Lugar-Obama nonproliferation initiative (passed into law)
    The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (passed into law)
    He has cosponsored more legislation than I can write about in a reply to this message, but he also has more years of legislative experience than does Senator Clinton. While she was ensconced in the White House, he was in the Illinois state legislature. Being First Lady does not count as legislative experience no matter how much people may try to spin it as such.
    You also need to ask yourself, and really all Hillary Clinton supporters need to ask… why does Hillary Clinton continue to take money from Tyson Foods and Monsanto? Both of these companies have horrible records with Latinos and seem to contradict what she says she believes in. Now, Obama isn’t perfect either, but I am impressed with the grass roots support that he has managed to build, which tells me that he will not be as likely to have to go along with what Corporation X and Corporation Y have asked him to do simply because they are big donors.

  • Irma
    March 15, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Barack Obama has always spoken of himself as a black man instead of just as a man. This was his designation – I doubt that it was done simply to satisfy the black electorate other people simply wouldnt care if he chose to call himself a black man or not. If everything about
    Barack Obama were the same
    (black wife, Harvard law, son a of single white mother etc)
    except that he was white –
    his candidacy would never had gotten off the ground.
    I beg to differ with you but race has been a major element of the success of the Obama campaign. Is there something sinister or wrong about that strategy?
    No,but to infer that this isnt the case seems a bit
    Senators (US or state) often use cosponsoring legislation as way of laying claim to an idea if the bill is passed.
    Often times their names are added as a cosponsor even if they werent the principal architects of the bill.
    So, I wouldn’t give too much credence in who co-sponsored legislation or who does not.
    Instead, I would look at
    their voting records. This is perhaps a better way to judge exactly what a candidate views are. This being said Barak Obama is no different from
    Hilary Clinton or any other Senator – their votes in the Senate are cast with the next election in mind.
    Tyson foods? Look no politician including Hilary Clinton is responsible for
    the the business practices
    of American companies. Personally, I am not so appalled by the idea of taking Tyson money to get elected. What I do question however, is why anyone would continue to work for an employer that mistreats them. There is no slavery in America. One is free to leave any job or place if
    it doesnt suit you. To villify Hilary Clinton over Tyson foods is puzzling.

  • Publius
    March 15, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    The bloom is off the rose as Obama’s electability has now taken a downturn, with his former church pastor’s diatribe sermons exposed to the world. Apparently, Obama spent twenty years listening to anti-white and anti-American rhetoric without protest. Any self-respecting politician with good judgment would have abandoned that church long ago. This is good news for Billary, and McCain. Billary’s electability problems will surface as she faces McCain in the fall, as more than half of all polled voters have said that they’d never vote for her.

  • adriana
    March 16, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    “Tyson foods? Look no politician including Hilary Clinton is responsible for
    the the business practices
    of American companies. Personally, I am not so appalled by the idea of taking Tyson money to get elected. What I do question however, is why anyone would continue to work for an employer that mistreats them. There is no slavery in America. One is free to leave any job or place if it doesnt suit you. To villify Hilary Clinton over Tyson foods is puzzling.”
    Irma, Tyson has been indicted for smuggling illegal immigrants into the US. I don’t think that undocumented immigrants sign up to be mistreated. Do you?
    Sure, there is not more legalized slavery in America, but we certainly have many of our fellow Americans working 40+ hours per week just to get by, and many of them are not being paid a working wage.
    If you think that politicians should not be responsible or held accountable for their corporate connections, maybe you haven’t been paying attention to Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Don’t you see that corporate donors influence the actions of the politicans that they support?
    Hillary Clinton is very much part of the political establishment who accepts money from large corporations to later return the favor when they are acting in their official capacity as “Senator,” “President” or whatever.
    If you aren’t bothered by Tyson Foods, maybe you should look at Clinton’s relationship with Monsanto.

  • Irma
    March 17, 2008 at 11:12 am

    Being a direct product of an illegal immigrant , I know personally that
    illegal immigrants knowingly sign up
    for working conditions that are not
    acceptable to most US workers. But
    as my late father said often ” era mejor que rascando la tierra en Mexico.”
    This being said – illegal immigrants are
    not stupid most move on to better
    positions once they have figured out
    how to live in the US.
    I am of the view that government and not a particular member of a political party should be held responsible for policies that do not benefit our country.
    I do not hold Hilary Clinton or Dick
    Cheney personally responsible for
    Tyson Foods or Haliburton. I happen to think that most of our problems are
    due to the Republicans. So I want them out.
    If you say that Hilary has some connection with Montsanto – I believe you. But again, she is not the “evil ”
    one. I gather you think Montsanto is?
    In this election I am focusing on broad issues ( not necessarily in this order)
    1. Getting out of Iraq.
    I dont care who voted for or against it initially – I am focusing on the future
    2. Dealing with the national debt
    3. ending our dependence on oil
    4. universal health care
    5. domestic security
    6. Supreme Court
    7. Investment in education
    8. INvestment in Science.
    ( I am a scientist).
    My life in the US is much better than it was for my parents . They picked cotton and worked in factories and I
    got this great education. Throughout
    all of this – there was no sense of
    entitlement. You just work hard and
    deal with whatever comes comes your way.
    Of all the 3 political candidates that are left, I feel that Hilary Clinton and John
    McCain philosophically are closer to the
    view of the world that my parents gave me. Obama regrettably seems to have
    embraced the “blame game” prevalent
    in many African American communities. This is not for me.
    In Mexico, there are poor and rich people. The differences between the 2 groups are socioeconomic. Poor Mexicans DO something about their life. They take charge of it.

  • adriana
    March 17, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    I don’t think that you see the political reality that there are ties that bind or indebt politicians to certain interests. Should we have a President Hillary Clinton, I think that you will find that there won’t be a quick resolution to the war since she has enabled Bush to go along with it from day one. Do you think that she’s going to have a change of heart moving back into the White House?
    Now, as for poor Mexicans doing something about their lives… I think that the culture of poverty is something that transcends ethnicity and race, meaning that poor people tend to behave similarly in general despite their skin tone. Mexico still has outrageous proverty levels, and I think that some of it is cultural, systemic, and part of the globalization of capitalism. So many in poverty are doing “things” with their lives, very few climb out and make the leap into another social class.
    Congrats to you and your family for making that leap.

  • Irma
    March 17, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    All politicians have political debts- Obama , Hilary and McCain.
    I believe however that either of them would not let a political debt deter them from getting us out of Iraq.
    The payoff would be worth it – a guaranteed second term.
    Happy voting.

  • Publius
    March 18, 2008 at 6:40 pm

    Obama is screwed because of his old church pastor’s vicious sermons.
    Prediction: The election will be decided at the convention, and BO will be dumped for Hillary, who’s unacceptable to at least half the population. Look for a backlash by a good part of the black population, who, bitter at the results, will not turn out at the polls in the numbers required to beat the Republican candidate. John McCain will be elected president of the U.S., the Democrats being victims of their own stupidity. It’s a dish to be savored for decades to come.

  • Evelyn
    March 21, 2008 at 5:33 am

    Being you are the direct decedent of an illegal immigrant am I to assume that you dont care about their plight. Just curious because I saw you didnt even mention immigrants and the unjust treatment they receive as one of your priorities.

Comments are closed.