An AM New York articletitled "Changing of the Guard" hit the streets today launching from Jesse's recent remarks about Obama "talking down to black people," to a change in the consciousness of black leaders today and past.

I think Latino leaders too (God, I hope!!!), have this thought process present today, but do not have the national media presence such as Jesse or Obama.

"Jesse Jackson's point is wrapped up in jealousy over the fact that Obama has done what Jesse could never do-- win the Democratic nomination for president. And because Obama has repeatedly rejected the victimization card that Jackson was so fond of playing for many years."

I agree.

Just Discovering The Hispanic Vote?  Does this reveal more truth about McCain than other candidates?


More on candidates vying for Latino vote.

According to a poll from Public Policy Polling, Obama leads McCain in Florida 46% to 44%.  Although it's within the margin of error of the survey (+/- 3.6%), it is telling that among Latinos, Obama leads McCain 51% to 37% (on page 7 of the results).  That trend is consistent with PPP's results for Virginia (47%-36% Hispanics & "others") as well.

I guess we can start putting this myth to rest now.

UPDATE - 7-2-2008: 

Hispanic registered voters' support for Barack Obama for president remained consistent and strong in June, with Obama leading John McCain by 59% to 29% among this group.

While Hispanics generally preferred Hillary Clinton to Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, a solid majority of Hispanics have consistently backed Obama against McCain in general-election trial heats. Obama has led McCain by about a 2-to-1 margin since Gallup began tracking general-election voting preferences in early March.

Emphasis added.  This is just what I expected: when Latinos look at what McCain and Obama have to offer, Latinos would brake in large numbers in favor of Obama.

Now, the only thing we need is to remember to vote.

That's what some nuts will do if Obama wins.  This is even more so the reason why Obama should win!.  Interesting post over at Ornicus.

And while you are there, you may as well keep scrolling down as there are many posts concerning Obama, Race, McCain, and racist signs that once were okay to put up.

What else is there to conclude when the Democratic National Convention Committee has decided to simulcast the Democratic Convention en Español:

DENVER – In keeping with its commitment to make the 2008 Democratic National Convention the most accessible and technologically-savvy event of its kind, the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) announced today that Comcast Corporation will produce simultaneous, online streaming coverage of the Convention in Spanish at DemConvention.com and make available a broad range of Convention content through its signature On Demand service.  The DNCC also announced that Comcast has been named the Convention’s Official Cable Television and Video-On-Demand (VOD) provider. . .

“With Spanish as the primary language of approximately 35 million Americans – not to mention the more than 300 million Spanish-speakers outside the United States – offering bilingual coverage of the Convention makes more people feel welcome under the Democratic Party’s ‘big tent’,” said Texas State Senator and Convention Co-Chair Leticia Van de Putte [honest, that's her last name.  I'm not making this up]. “As a Texan and a Latina, I’m proud to belong to a party that embraces the Hispanic community.

To all those Latino bloggers crying rivers of tears because Obama wasn't reaching out to Latinos . . . I know a pretty good cheese to go with that whine.

Where are you?

Consider this an open letter.  I'm a male, so I can only begin to appreciate your disappointment and frustration.  And I understand why, at this stage, you'd rather sit it out in November.  I cannot understand for the life of me why you would vote for McCain since most of his positions are 180 degrees from Clinton's.    I think that's what they call "cutting your nose to spite your face."  Whatever choice you're contemplating, my sincerest plea is this:

Don't do it.  Please, don't do it.

My friend Roberto (who posts here from time to time), wrote this recently on his blog (go there for the whole piece).
I'm bewildered by this attitude that some women may have.  Hillary herself doesn't have this attitude...why do you?  Did not Hillary endorse Obama?   Would Hillary vote for McCain?  Just ask yourself WHAT WOULD HILLARY DO???

Maybe these women who share this retarded attitude are voting purely because Hillary IS a woman, and nothing more. 

I've been telling people for a long while that when Latinos look at Obama and Johnnie Mac, the choice will be so crystal clear that Obama won't have a hard time garnering the lion's share of the Latino vote.  Now, Ruben Navarrete, Jr. echoes that point, somewhat.  I have to give him some credit because Ruben is the Latino columnist that has elicited the most "shut the f*** up!" reactions from me, almost from day one.

A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62 percent of Latino voters nationwide, compared with 29 percent for McCain. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Los Angeles Times poll last month showed Obama leading McCain by 14 points among Latinos in California.

I'm not surprised. As I have been writing for months, Latinos haven't been voting against Barack Obama as much as they've been voting for Hillary Clinton. Give the senator from New York credit. She took full advantage of Obama's late start in courting Latino voters, and she had the benefit of what remains a popular brand with Latinos: Clinton, Inc.

Emphasis added.  Of course, leave it to Ruben to trigger yet another "shut the f*** up!" moment on this one.

Now that the Illinois senator has become the presumptive nominee, and Hillary has suspended her campaign and endorsed him, Latinos really have only two choices -- go with Obama, or vote for John McCain.

Choice No. 2 is not such a bad option. McCain would make an excellent president. And, in fact, I suspect that, when all is said and done, many Latinos -- perhaps as much as 35 percent -- will put their support behind him. Not because they have anything against Obama, but because McCain has -- for more than 15 years and long before the immigration issue became prominent -- had an outstanding record of reaching out to Latino voters, earning as much as 70 percent of the Latino vote in his Senate re-election campaigns in Arizona.

Emphasis added.  First, I have to wonder what the heck does Ruben see in McCain to conclude he would make an "excellent presidernt."  Perhaps Ruben was really smitten by the U.S. staying 100 years in Iraq.  Or about the possibility that McCain will nominate Supreme Court judges that will make it easier to overturn Roe.  Or, since he's out in California, the idea of suspending the federal gas tax really appeals to him.  Whatever the reason is, we don't know since that's as conclusory a statement as it gets.

Second, in politics as in the stock markets, "past performance is no guarantee of future performance."  Besides, if you bother canvassing through the election results in Arizona, which you can find here, you'll find that in McCain's "closest" election, he got about 58% of the vote.  And in 2004, he was reelected with neary 77% of the votes.  Since Ruben doesn't even mention when McCain got 70% of the Latino vote, we can't tell whether his Latino support is "substantially greater" than the norm (if that happened on the former election) or "somewhat lower" than the average (if it happened on the latter election.)

It doesn't matter how much experience McCain has courting the Latino vote.  McCain is stuck with the GOP's position on immigration: enforcement first, and foremost; dehumanization and criminalization of illegal immigrants; and border fences to "keep them out and keep us safe from 'them.'"  With a party like that behind him, he won't win too many Latino voters.

So, Ruben, when it comes to how great McCain would be for Latinos, just shut the f*** up, please!

This is not a "Latino matters" issue per se, but to the extent that many of us are politically active, are registered to vote, and/or vote (and if you don't do any of those, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?  WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?), this issue is worth talking about.  Particularly for those of you out there who supported Obama during the primaries.

You've heard the Clinton campaign's attempts at trying to give Hillary at least a plausible argument for the nomination.  You know, "she's won all the states Democrats must win in November," "the pledged delegates can be poached," "the superdelegates can and should vote any which way they want," "the Florida and Michigan delegations must be seated in accordance with the primaries' results," etc.  And you have to understand that this is the equivalent of being down by three touchdowns with 2:00 to go in the 4th quarter and no timeouts left: your chances of pulling it off are just slightly better than a snowflake's chance in hell, but you need to keep going for that Hail Mary and the onside kick.

All of which suits me fine, until people start talking about how unfair the primary process is.  "They" should have spoken about this about, what, a year-and-a-half ago, when the rules were laid down.  But what really gets me going - and what really makes me write this down - is when people use just plain dumb arguments.  Like this:

As we have known for a long time, the Democratic delegate selection process is a travesty. Starting with the disenfranchising caucus system, which shuts out legions of voters from the process, to the unbalanced proportional system of awarding delegates by congressional district (which produces such perverse results like a candidate winning 60% of the vote in a district receiving the same amount of delegates and a different candidate receiving 60% of the delegates with a 50.1% of the vote in another district), to the overweighting of regions arbitrarily and haphazardly (for example, in Nevada rural district were overweighted, in Texas urban districts were overweighted), to awarding low turnout states disproportional representation to high turnout states, the entire system is a travesty of democracy.

Let me put it bluntly, anyone holding up the pledged delegate count as representing the "will of the people" is simply full of it. It does not. It thwarts the will of the people. BY DESIGN.

My first point is, well, my first point above.  If we have "known for a long time" that this is such a bad system, why are you complaining now?  Or, why are you still complaining now?  Unless, of course,  "a long time" means "since Hillary fell behind."

The rules were the rules, are the rules, and will continue to be the rules. They were the same for Clinton & Obama.  That one candidate, Obama, was smart enough to figure out how to campaign more effectively within those rules only makes him more appealing because he is clearly better organized.  You win elections because (a) you have enough support and (b) your organization can and does get every possible vote out to the polls or caucuses.  On that alone, Obama deserves the nomination because he has figured out a way to get more people out to vote.

to the unbalanced proportional system of awarding delegates by congressional district (which produces such perverse results like a candidate winning 60% of the vote in a district receiving the same amount of delegates and a different candidate receiving 60% of the delegates with a 50.1% of the vote in another district),

I didn't want to post this again, but this diatribe deserves to be picked apart in detail.  Besides the fact that "the rules are the rules,"  I actually believe that this is a problem.  However, the solution is to have the primaries just like the Republicans' in that they should be winner-take-all.  Why?  Because that's how the general election will be played out.

That said, unless you apportion delegates in accordance with the number of raw votes each candidate gets, you could make this argument for any other form of apportionment you make based on geographic area.

to the overweighting of regions arbitrarily and haphazardly (for example, in Nevada rural district were overweighted, in Texas urban districts were overweighted),

This is not terribly consistent.  After all, if the delegates are allocated on the basis of congressional districts, and

[e]ach congressional district is to be as equal in population to all other congressional districts in the State as practicable, based on the decennial census counts

then the delegates cannot by definition be over or underweighted.  It's so obvious you need to laugh!

to awarding low turnout states disproportional representation to high turnout states, the entire system is a travesty of democracy.

Call this the "bigger is better" argument.  Again, "the rules are the rules."  Besides, if the basis for your representation is the congressional district, you have already predetermined that turnout will not be an across-the-board deciding factor.

Now, is it a bad idea or a good idea?  Is it a "travesty of democracy"?  If you say "yes" then you're pretty much saying that everything about the way in which politics are conducted in the U.S., from your school district and judgeship election, is a "travesty" because, one way or another, we do the same thing.

The bottom line?  Don't question the rules after the voting starts.  Each system has it's pros and cons.  For example, if you want a system where delegates are allocated based on turnout, you're creating a disincentive to campaign in small states because, all things being equal, they will have a lower turnout.

If you want to adopt winner-takes-all, it gives the most popular candidates at the start of the primary cycle a remarkable advantage.  Keep in mind that McCain was able to bounce back because he won New Hampshire convincingly after finishing a credible fourth in the Iowa caucus.

The other thing to keep in mind is that, whatever system a party uses, the candidates must plan their strategy in a way that delivers success under those rules.

The rules are the rules.  Like the sword, you live by them and you die by them.

I actually wanted to title this entry "Sometimes, It's the White Liberals Who Get on My Nerves" but since I am not certain of this guy's race - although I venture to say he's most likely white - I'll edit myself for accuracy's sake.

Part of the problem is that some white liberals carry with them racist attitudes and they end up bubbling up in the weirdest of places.  And it's usually the weirdest of places because, unlike other non-liberal whites, they try not to sound act or be racist.  Which is a good thing.  Having good intentions is 90% of the way there.

But you have to cringe when you read entries that start like this one:

Wow, We Nominated The Black Guy

"The Black Guy"?  Barack Obama has been trying his best to get past race or at least try to make race as irrelevant as possible.  He has shown, smarts, charisma, resilience, and an uncanny ability to inspire people.  Even Mr. Latino Pundit himself is an Obamaniac.  And now that he has all but won the Democratic nomination for President he's "the Black Guy."

I thought it was a poor choice of words but then there's this little nugget here.

For quite some time, the Democratic Party struggled with a "loser" image nationally. Given its minority heavy, downtrodden heavy, freaks and geeks membership, it isn't a huge secret how it developed that negative brand. . .  A shift of electoral power toward the Democratic Party actually means a broad shift toward more pluralistic control of our government. The minorities, the downtrodden, and the freaks and geeks are taking over.

So, being a Latino automatically lumps you with the "downtrodden," the "freaks," and the "geeks."  And you're born with a "loser" image too!!  But that's OK because we're "taking over."  Good grief!

I never thought of myself as a freak, for being a Latino, that is.  The verdict still out on other stuff.  And I never wanted or expected to "take over" anything.  I'll leave that to Pinky and the Brain.  The only thing I've ever wanted, expected, and demanded - and will continue to do so - is the opportunity to do the best I can with my God-given skills.  That's all.  I find this whole thing unintentionally insulting, but insulting nonetheless.

And this is a guy who likes us!

Go there for the interview.

...a woman, a feminist, a latina.

I am a women.

I am a Latina.

I am a feminist.

I am working class.

I like Hilliary Clinton.

I am voting for Barack Obama in the primary.  Barack Obama is the best candidate for women, latinas, feminists and the working class.

There are a lot of persistent comments about Clinton and Obama (especially anti-Obama) from people w/ agendas or whatever; at first they were good, but now they are annoying as hell, because they comment about the same thing on different posts that have nothing to do with the topic, or keep posting blocks and blocks of paragraphs, and keep rambling on and on and on and on...hey listen, if you have that much to say and are THAT adamant about getting your message across, stop bombarding this site with your organization's politics (yes, we know about you guys), or your own personal mission, and get your own damn soapboxes.

This post is over at my good buddy Mario Solis Marich, who not only has a blog, has an excellent good radio show. The post is entitled "THE SILENT (SILENCED) VOTER SURGE," and is recommended reading:

We have been inundated with the tag line that more people are voting or caucusing in the Democratic primaries than ever before. In fact that is true. The voter surge has been attributed to younger voters showing up for Barack Obama that is only partially true. In fact now that the dust is settling it is obvious that a sizable part of the voter surge has come from Latino voters. Latino voter turnout is double the number than that of 2004. [...] The media, comfortable with ignoring Latino voters, has for the first time paid some attention to this critical mobile voting block. But credit for the voter “surge” has been totally given to Obama even though Latinos have been largely Clinton voters.

"The right wing media is hard pressed to admit that the Latino sleeping giant has been awakened..."  Awesome post; go read.  (UPDATE:  A good friend points out that the comment in the post about Latino bloggers are blindly supporting him and not seeing his flaws, which is not true.  This is an argument that suggests Obama supporters think he is perfect; and is being used to discredit his supporters.)

More from Gallup (via The Politico):

The tracking data suggest [Clinton's] support advantage among
Hispanics may be eroding, at least on a national level. In the Feb.
5-9 data, Clinton led Obama by nearly 2-to-1, 63 percent to 32
percent, among Hispanic Democratic voters. In the most recent polling,
the two are essentially tied among this constituency, with 50 percent
preferring Obama and 46 percent Clinton.