by Frank James
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has often been credited with having a superb field organization and aggressively setting up shop virtually everywhere there were voters to be courted. For instance, his campaign was reportedly the only one to open a field office in Idaho.
Which makes it somewhat jarring to learn that his campaign may have ceded a lot of Latino voters to Sen. Hillary Clinton campaign by not diligently courting those voters.
Bob Secter and Michael Martinez of the Chicago Tribune have an informative story today that suggests that the Obama campaign didn't energetically chase after Hispanic voters:
Here's a passage with an astonishing nugget of information:
As early as 2006, Clinton began actively courting support from movers and shakers in the Hispanic community, among them popular Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who commands a political organization that can crank out the vote as well as anything patented in Chicago.
Obama built an impressive field army to win Iowa, but he was late to the game in the nation's biggest state with the most Hispanic voters. His field office in Hispanic East Los Angeles opened just days before Tuesday's primary. His counter to Villaraigosa was an endorsement from Sen. Edward Kennedy, the immigration reform champion—from Massachusetts.
Whoa, is that right? No campaign office in East Los Angeles until just before the primary? That seems muy loco.
Maybe the Obama campaign had research indicating that Latino voters there were solidly for Clinton and it would have been a waste of resources to open an East L.A. office.
But voters tend not to care for candidates they perceive as writing them off. And nothing says you're being written off like the lack of a campaign's presence in a community.
The story goes on to say this:
"Barack had a pathetic campaign in the Latino community," said Juan Andrade Jr., president of the Chicago-based U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute. "He deserved to get his butt kicked."
Obama held his own with Clinton in the overall balloting in many states Tuesday, but one clear weak spot was his showing among Hispanics, who are a growing force in Democratic politics.
The phenomenon wasn't just confined to California. Exit polls show Clinton grabbed the lion's share of Hispanic votes in an array of other primaries Tuesday. Even in Illinois, which Obama easily won, Latinos divided their votes almost evenly between their home state senator and New York's Clinton.
If there's good news for Obama, it's this: With the exception of Texas, which holds its primary on March 4, the Democratic election calendar has now been cleared of states with large Hispanic communities.
Of course, if Obama should win the nomination, he will be faced with trying to win over the Hispanic voters all over again.
Unfortunately for him, the likely Republican nominee at this point appears to be Sen. John McCain who, like Obama, was part of the Senate's bipartisan team that supported comprehensive-immigration reform legislation. So Obama wouldn't have an advantage on that issue.
But fortunately for Obama, if he should become the Democratic nominee, he and his party would likely benefit from Latino anger at the Republican base which wants to round up and deport the illegal immigrant population that's estimated at more than 12 million.
The ChiTrib story doesn't much get into racial, economic and political rivalries between Hispanics and African-Americans. That's not a knock. That's a book-length subject.
But many observers do believe such issues have long played a role in the sometimes tense relations between Latinos and blacks as they vie for power and resources.
Again, there's a hint of that in the story:
Kevin Egheali, a waiter in a nearby cafe who is of Mexican ancestry, said he, too, knew little about Obama. That information void, however, led Egheali to render judgment based on racial and ethnic tensions that sometimes flare on the streets.
"I'm not really fond of black people," Egheali confessed, explaining that what little he knows of African-Americans has been formed from seeing gangs tussle in the neighborhood. (What a great if sad quote. I hope this guy doesn't have to wear a name tag at work.)
Blacks and Latinos are the nation's two largest minorities, and that sometimes has proved a big plus for politicians emanating from those groups. Black Mayors Harold Washington in Chicago and Tom Bradley in Los Angeles were able to put together diverse coalitions to sweep into power in their respective cities.
But ethnic and racial tensions can simmer between the surface and relations between blacks and Hispanics have not always been smooth. For instance, the amnesty program for illegal immigrants two decades ago was not popular among many blacks who feared newly legalized immigrants would take jobs and depress wages.
While the Obama campaign's inexplicably poor outreach to Latino voters gets a share of the blame for the senator from Illinois's poor showing with Latino voters, the story rightly credits Clinton's assiduous courting of those same voters. Clearly, she had a stronger sense than Obama that demographics is political destiny.
As the story reports:
Clinton made early strategic decisions which locked up critical Hispanic support, Suro explained. Perhaps most important was Villaraigosa, a rising Hispanic political star in California backed by a strong grass-roots army of supporters who can deliver votes. Another Clinton coup was winning the vocal backing of Dolores Huerta, a beloved figure in the Hispanic community who co-founded the United Farm Workers union with Cesar Chavez.
"Clinton has been working this community for a long time," said Suro, now a journalism professor at the University of Southern California. "She had a big aggressive campaign backed by a good ground game. Obama was late."
That's a point that has been particularly vexing to U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, the Chicago Democrat who has been serving as one of Obama's campaign point men to the Hispanic community.
Obama's campaign has been culturally nearsighted when it comes to Hispanic voters, Gutierrez lamented, failing to reach out to Spanish language media which is a prime source of information for middle-aged and older Latinos.
"Can you blame a community of people that have not been actively courted for not responding to his campaign?" Gutierrez asked.


Comments
It's because Obama doesn't play Idenity Politics. He speaks to all Americans, not slicing them into segments with special promises. Latinos need to remember they are American! It would be really sad to lose a GREAT LEADER because he didn't suck up enough! Come together, People!
Posted by: Sue | February 7, 2008 8:46 AM
It is clear that Obama is following the same path of many African American leaders. They look for Hispanics as the last resource, when convenient for them or needed. It is sad to see this approach. But Hispanics will not give him a free ride to the White House, if he does not change attitude.
Maybe Hillary or McCain will get the Latino vote in Novemeber, at least my vote is not going for Obama.
Posted by: James | February 7, 2008 9:08 AM
The irony: Obama plays identity politics to get the Black vote, but the same identity politics causes him to lose the Hispanic vote.
Yes, with Obama, it's all about race. Obama and his supporters are perfectly happy to benefit from a Black racial bloc vote (in fact they promote Black racial voting), but complain if a Hispanic bloc vote goes against him.
Posted by: Bradley | February 7, 2008 9:11 AM
Sue....I know you like Obama...I lean towards him too...but if you play the spin game....you represent no "change" to me. He made a bad calculation on the riff between Latinos and Afro-Americans. Everyone "sucks up" to somebody if thats the way you see it. Start looking at your candidates with an objective eye, they are not our saviors we are. People...please take your blinders off and tell it like it is, whomever you support.
Posted by: bill r. | February 7, 2008 9:12 AM
I agree with that statement! Come together people. Black people don't hate Latinos.
Posted by: Ron | February 7, 2008 9:12 AM
Here's an interesting read, something i found over in Zorn's blog --
http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/02/a-dem-who-doesn.html?cid=100361294#comment-100361294
Posted by: MJ | February 7, 2008 9:17 AM
I agree completely with Sue: Obama is a candidate for ALL Americans. I find this article to be a little bit mean-spirited. I think Hillary won amongst Hispanic voters because of name recognition and Bill Clinton's past presidency. But let's all look to the FUTURE now instead of the past, and Obama, I believe, is our man. As a gay man I COULD say that I haven't heard enough from either Democratic candidate to actively court the gay and lesbian vote, but I WON'T say that because Obama is offering hope and - I hate to say it because it's such an overused word - CHANGE for our country. We need to put aside for a while that we may be Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, gay Americans, etc. and remember that we are all AMERICANS. Go Obama!
Posted by: Kevin B | February 7, 2008 9:27 AM
My sentiments exactly Sue. If Latinos want/need pandering, then Clinton is their candidate. The rest of us, I guess, don't feel we need it. If they were to actually investigate his stated, published, readily-available positions, they might find plenty to appreciate. I appreciate his integrity, honesty, and genuine belief that we are all Americans and deserve the same consideration.
Posted by: Amy | February 7, 2008 9:38 AM
I am hispanic and yes, he doesn't cater to the hispanics or actively seeks our votes. I'm all for Hillary. She is definitely the way to go.
Barack is just a good speaker. I need someone with experience and Hillary is my girl.
Posted by: Alexandra | February 7, 2008 9:41 AM
A divide? Sure. But I think that the article pays short shrift to the subject. It does too much to paint African Americans and Latinos as two monolithic populations. We're not all fighting for low paying, low skilled jobs or government benefits. (Heck, we're not even all Democrats; care to ask an older South Florida Cuban how they may feel about Clinton v. Obama?) It's distressing to see some blacks and Latinos get caught up in this thinking; this contest to be the top minority population. Each will continue to be marginalized as they fight over the same crumbs that have fallen to the floor from the American pie.
In the wake of Super Tuesday, some pundits have made a HUGE deal of Clinton's strength among Latinos on many population centers, but ignore the fact that a great many California voters voted early, before the California race had any whiff of competitiveness, or that Clinton's huge Latino support in New York and New Jersey may have something to do with her being Senator from New York. Just a little bit.
And while he lost in Nevada, ignored is the fact that the Latino population played a role in Obama winning Colorado. I'm also curious to know the gender breakdown of Latino votes; it could be that 'race' is being hyped up at the expense of reporting heavy Latina support for Clinton.
Sue, you may be onto something: this whole pattern of politicians going to different population groups and promising things important to each -- may they be Latino, black, senior citizens, or any other sub-population -- often at the expense of others has been done to death. We're all different people, but how about having a leader actually take the lead in developing a cohesive American identity?
Posted by: NT | February 7, 2008 9:43 AM
The Emperor's with New Clothes doesn't play idenity politics? Yeah, he speaks to all Americans -- but depending on your race! BO changes his voice and intonation when speaking to African American audience vs an interview with news analyst like Chris Matthews. Maybe BO too busy playing real estate games with Rezko or backing Stroger - those are relationships that really matter to him.
Obama / Stroger ticket?
Posted by: Dave | February 7, 2008 9:45 AM
if obama is for chavez we should vote for mcCAIN.
Posted by: richk | February 7, 2008 9:45 AM
It doesn't matter which gets the Hispanic vote, I believe a democrat will be in the white house, thanks to Bush. As a conservative I just have to accept that disappointment. The Hispanic vote will have dissappointment when a democrat gets in and they can't deliver amnesty. Then the Hispanics and conservatives will be disappointed. It is too late for amnesty, as more and more states and cities take up the issue, the less and less the feds will be able to deliver anything that resembles amnesty. Sooner or later the feds will have to listen to the citizens about this issue, but now they are still listening to big business and special interests.
Posted by: howard | February 7, 2008 9:46 AM
I'm guessing you didn't read today's chicago sun times. Read the abc's of Rezko's court case. Obama sucks up enough, just not to hispanics.
Posted by: al | February 7, 2008 9:46 AM
It's not about "identity politics" it's about inclusion and access (i.e. in terms of multi-lingual media outlets). "Sucking up" is an unfortunate over-simplification of a complex issue. In remembering that one is American, it is not necessary to also forget one's heritage in order to take part in the political process. Clinton does not dwell on the issues of race or language differences, but evidently has worked to be inclusive and facilitate access to her campaign.
Posted by: Evelyn | February 7, 2008 9:46 AM
Obama is not a great leader. How would you call such senator when he doesnt even vote in much of the issues. Besides, it is his spin doctors who started the race issue. His campaign staff is really good at spin. Obama is an eloquent speaker that is why a voter like you is swayed by his speeches although you have seen nothing any particular legislation he has mad in health care, immigration and economy of which he stumps that he will do. Be cautious, Obama is a Bush in the making. He will make promises and plunder this country further if he wins. I am happy that Hillary and her supporters is stopping his surge and she will become the eventual nominee.
Posted by: jaime | February 7, 2008 9:48 AM
I believe it’s imperative for Obama to reassure Latino voters that they are a vital part of his candidacy however I agree with Sue that Obama has not individualizes any special group. He is seeking to bring together a correlation of people that seek an innovative and new hope for government. It is time that we fuse together under a leader that seeks to unite us as Americans and not as groups that live in America. To my Latino brothers and sisters, join us as we seek to united America as Americans.
Posted by: Rick | February 7, 2008 9:49 AM
sue, your clueless. Latinos are not easily swayed by sleek speaker who offer no hope. It is important for hispanic to know what is going on with a particiular candidate. Mrs. Clinton has showed she cares enough. Im pretty sure most voters, whether black, white, or hispanic do also. im offened that you think we are not voting for him because "he didnt suck up". to latinos. That is stupid remark. W support Hliary Cinton because she the only choice for a greater, brighter and sucessful future. im guessing your not hispanic...so don't make assumptions.
Posted by: rick | February 7, 2008 9:49 AM
I believe this article is right, Obama did not show interest in Latinos. I am from Chicago, and know Obama is a good candidate, but when i see the reality, i know Clinton knows us and be with us for long time, Obama did not care about Latinos. It is not about races or fight between minorities, i do not see like that, and at the last that make more anger and create more division, it makes the Latinos to do not vote for Obama, because now they are talking about race issues. Obama did not show interest in the Latinos communities, he never talk about ours problem, he is a smart guy, but he did not work good in the latinos communities, he never in a latinos church, he was one in the latinos tv, Clinton in the other hand, visit our community, know us, even in the tv latinos communities they talk about Clinton is our option, she will do something for us. We know Bill Clinton, but we do not know Michelle Obama, we never see Michelle in the latino community. Obama does not care about latinos, and that is the result in the super tuesday. In Illinois was a little different, because Obama has more publicity here, but in other state, not everybody know him in the latino community like Clinton is knowing so far.
Posted by: Jose | February 7, 2008 9:53 AM
HILLARY is endorsed by Caesar Chavez's grandson for a good reason. Hillary stands up for Latinos. She also stands up for Asian-Americans and African Americans. VOTE HILLARY 2008.
Posted by: Jose | February 7, 2008 9:53 AM
What has Obama done besides raising money and photo ops with the celebrities and sweetheart deals with crooked developers?
Senator Clinton has the experience we need in a president and she did a really good job for the 8 years she ran the country.
I am really sadden by Rep. Luis Gutierrez support of Obama who has shown that he is not interested in the latino vote. The thing that really saddens me about Obama is that he now has jesse jackson hanging around, that is a huge turn off for latinos since boycott jesse has shown that he is only interested in lining the pockets of him and his family.
I am a republican but if Clinton is nominated I will vote for her, I think that's where the real change will come from, not from Obama.
To paraphrase her "it took a Clinton to clean up the mess the first Bush left and it will take a Clinton to clean up the mess this Bush is leaving".
Posted by: Kilo | February 7, 2008 9:54 AM
I agree also with Sue and especially relate to Kevin's statement, but even if Obama isn't engaging in identity politics, he could have advertised in Spanish media like TV. If he wants to reach those people, he should be delivering his message in ways they can hear it.
Posted by: Will | February 7, 2008 9:57 AM
I applaud Mr. Obama for not pandering to various segments of the population.
Posted by: Julie | February 7, 2008 10:00 AM
I don't care what color a person is, we are human beings. And as a human being with logic, I cannot vote for Obama. We need to get out of the horrible mess the Republicans put us in and if I am truthful to myself the last President that got us out of a Bush mess was Bill Clinton. It is time we get the team back in office to clean up. Go Hillary, I don't care what color you are, you have the experience and ability we need. Talk is cheap.
Posted by: Rufus | February 7, 2008 10:01 AM
Alexandra - What experience? Hillary has been in the Senate for four years longer than Obama (while Obama spent that time serving in the IL state senate). Not much.
Hillary was First Lady for eight years before her time in the Senate - does that count as "experience"? During that time, Obama served in the Illinois State Senate (eight years).
I'm not saying one is better than the other, but this whole "Hillary has more experience" line has me confused, as their experience in government and otherwise seems about the same, if not weighted more toward Obama.
If you're looking for "experience", vote for McCain - he's been in government and in politics FOREVER.
Posted by: Chris | February 7, 2008 10:03 AM
Barack Obama is half white and half black and has lived in both of those cultures. He is not half Latino, so his diction cannot, honestly, include a Spanish accent. Culture is all-important and cannot be faked. Obama experienced more cultures growing up than Hillary did in Park Ridge and Wellesley.
Posted by: Barbara from Pasadena | February 7, 2008 10:04 AM
I am a Latino and an Obama supporter. I'm 29/college grad/Northern California and my voting block (college educated & younger) Latinos are voting for Obama. Unfortunately, most Latinos are not college educated and many are for the most part, ignorant of the candidates positions. While many Americans are tuning into the debates every couple of weeks, no Latino in my hometown that I spoke to (about 15) were tuning in - the novelas were definitely watched though... On a multiple choice test, when you don't do your homework... you choose the most likely answer - Clinton (her name recognition, to an informed group, has proven to be helpful for her).
I believe Obama will prevail with the Latino community given more time to communicate to them.
Posted by: Salcido | February 7, 2008 10:04 AM
I was saddened to read the comments of the Latino waiter. We should not wait to be "educated" by politicians. We must educate ourselves. I find it interesting that supporters of Villaraigosa and Clinton (Bill) are able to look past each man's history of philandering, yet they hold onto stereotypes of African Americans. Very, very sad. What have the Clintons done for Latinos in this country anyway? It escapes me. Instead of Rezco, let's talk about the White Water scandal and Vince Foster.
Posted by: JB | February 7, 2008 10:05 AM
What Latinos need to know is that a break thru for a presidental candidate from minority group will open the chance for all other minority groups and as well clear the racial lines in America,so Latinos drop your preconcieved notions and ethinic competitions and go make history, CHANGE AMERICA.
Posted by: Nimrod | February 7, 2008 10:08 AM
I am Hispanic, as is my mother (who was an immigrant in the 70's and now a US citizen) and sister, and we are all on TEAM OBAMA!!! We see right through the Clintons' manipulation. They are just trying to use Hispanics for the vote, and will not do anything for them once she gets elected. Most Hispanics don't get that, but my family does. GO OBAMA! He represents ALL AMERICANS!
Posted by: Maribel | February 7, 2008 10:09 AM
I'm Latino and I voted for Obama in Cali because Hilary will garnish my wages if I can't pay for her health care. That should be THE issue. I have nothing against black people, latin people have gangs too. Just because Bill ignored the immigration issue for 8 years doesn't mean she should get a free pass for my vote. GO OBAMA!
Posted by: hector | February 7, 2008 10:09 AM
"It's because Obama doesn't play Idenity Politics."
You're kidding, right? Has this Sue person EVER been to Illinois? She should go to the south side of Chicago or the west side and see "identity politics" at work. It's what put Obama in office in the first place.
Posted by: Jeff | February 7, 2008 10:09 AM
Bradley,
This is the stupidest comment ever!
The Clintons are the ones playing the race and gender cards---Crying and all.
Take off your partisan blinders!
Posted by: joseph pierre | February 7, 2008 10:10 AM
Wow! I really thought that the Hispanic community would vote for the right person. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case and they were blinded by another Clinton. Latino's and African Americans should be sticking together, but yet again we see the division and hate on both sides of the field. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Posted by: Manny | February 7, 2008 10:13 AM
If Obama is for all Americans and doesn't play Identity Politics, why did he endorse Todd Stroger and not Forest Claypoole? And if Obama is for Change, again, why did he endorse Todd Stroger who continues the corrupt legacy of his father? Change would have been sticking his neck out and NOT endorsing Todd. Give me a break -- Obama is a typical politician through and through. If this is his idea of Change, I'd rather have the status quo.
Posted by: Sonora | February 7, 2008 10:16 AM
Howard, I have conceded this election also and very much share your disappointment. It will be interesting to see how much / how little the eventual Socialist democrat will be able to deliver to all of their various specialty groups. Will there be any Republican scape goats monkeying with all of the various new scheme$ and program$ that the GREAT Obama, or Hillary, will decree. She did grudgingly admit to Stephanoupolis that her Health Care program will NOT be optional. The GREAT Obama did promise the Connecticut guy a rai$e. And I need my Stratocaster Guitars. I love this country. - Scottman
Posted by: Scott - Houston, Tx | February 7, 2008 10:19 AM
Obama is just pandering to the Latino community. He can't come in now and say he'll do stuff for us when he never did before. Even US Rep Luis Gutierrez,a Chicago Democrat who is working for Obama, has been highly critical of Obama and has said Obama is nearsighted when it comes to the Hispanic community. Why should we vote for Obama when his sole goal of reaching out to us is to get our vote but not have any intention of helping Hispanics grow and prosper. Clinton has a history with us and we need to show her our support, both with donations and our vote. Obama will do or say anything to us to get elected. It's hype, pure and simple, and that hype does nothing to yield results.
Posted by: Obama is pandering | February 7, 2008 10:20 AM
Barack and Michelle need to get people on the ground in Texas to advise them of the key latino families that are a community hub in different parts of Texas and to arrange time to go and meet them in a more informal setting. It is very important for the 'mums' to get to know Michelle. If she good spend a good deal of time in Texas getting to know people - this would be good. Obama still needs to hold the big rallies and move around quite a bit between states, so his time to do this would be a lot more limited. It's also difficult having two young girls and making sure they are getting enough time with their parents. But if Michelle could spend some time connecting with mothers who are strong voices in their communities - this would make a lot of difference.
Posted by: Jay | February 7, 2008 10:20 AM
here we go again with the clintons,,,PLAY THAT RACE CARD...THEY DID THE SAME THING WITH THE BLACK VOTE..WHATEVER...
Posted by: kathleen | February 7, 2008 10:20 AM
To Sue's point: I'm an Asian-American, Obama-supporter, somewhat new to Arizona. I remember a rally held by the Latino community a little over a year ago, the upshot of which was to simply state "We exist." That tells me that the Latinos are rather marginalized, even when they are a significant percentage of the population. Therefore, it is _not_ a given (I suppose) that a candidate that doesn't "pander" to the Latino community will take positions that are even reasonable from a Latino perspective. It is not at all considered out of place to publicly propose the elimination of all Spanish-language materials in government, although this is unlikely to happen. The primary stakeholders (i.e. Latinos) aren't even participants in the discussion, at least in the newspapers I've seen.
That said, I think that it is certainly possible for the Obama campaign to win over support among Latinos, by extending the "Hope" and "Change" message, in a thoughtful way, into terms that are more specific to the Latino community.
Posted by: sifta | February 7, 2008 10:23 AM
Brief and direct to the point Blacks will vote for a black candidate even if the candidate is O. J. o Michael Jackson.
Posted by: Javier | February 7, 2008 10:34 AM
I'm sorry, but is everybody deaf?! Barack Obama losing the Latino vote had nothing to with the fact that he didn't campaign aggressively towards them, it has everything to do with the fact that 'they don't want an Afro-American in the White House'. This was indeed a quote from one of their own during a televised interview. First, I was, and still am, disgusted by what was said by this Latino man. Second, I am furious that the female reporter interviewing him did not press him on what he had said to her.
Posted by: Edward M. (Union City, Georgia) | February 7, 2008 10:40 AM
I volunteered often in Obama's office here in California. I participated in and saw the concerted efforts to reach out to Latino voters. They would not respond for the most part. Even, for the first time, a best friend of mine who is Latino. So, I assume an uncommon loyalty to the Clintons due to a rise of their race under Bill, thus a fear
of losing ground.
Posted by: Kathryn N | February 7, 2008 10:46 AM
The economy IS the main issue, and "change" is what everyone wants. However, to be swept up by BO's charisma, youth, and eloquence as a public speaker, while a definite change from W, is not THE real change we need. We need to change BACK to what we had with Clintonism-- a REAL economic stimulus package that produced a balanced budget and unimaginable fiscal surplus. Please, everyone just remember how good it truly was and don't be afraid to go back to what we know really worked!!! Go Hillary !!!
Posted by: Bill | February 7, 2008 10:47 AM
Either you see yourself as an AMERICAN or not. I see no point in sitting on one's haunches waiting for America to come to one's assistance when one can come to America's assistance. Stand up for the nation rather than for yourself or your 'group'. Until we get our heads wrapped around this ideal we will slip into darkness.
Why should any politician come to you when you can find your own worth and bring something to the political table other than the "kiss my behind for a vote attitude"?
GO AMERICA!!!
Posted by: Kurt Eric Munroe | February 7, 2008 10:47 AM
The latino vote is actually splitting this election cycle (McCain got a huge boost from hispanic voters in Florida) so they're not a shoo in for Clinton or Obama as this article seems to suggest.
Posted by: Jeff | February 7, 2008 10:53 AM
Is a pitty that almost every single african-american person in this country would vote for Obama regardless if he is the right candidate or not. Ask a black person who he or she would vote for, and the answer is him. I bet if Snoop Dog would go for president, he would win among blacks. This is a racial race and everybody know it.
Posted by: Alex | February 7, 2008 10:58 AM
Dear Amy at 9:38 a.m.:
As it happens, I am in accord with your thoughts concerning candidate Obama's potential to lead. However, one thing experience seems not to have impressed upon you just yet is this: that people who claim they have "no need or desire" for a thing--in this case, for active engagement by a political candidate seeking the top job in the nation--generally already have it, and in abundance. It is all too easy for us to minimize the importance and impact of such engagement when it has been ours from the beginning. But Sen. Obama is simply going to have to roll up his sleeves and make amends--and, if he is fortunate, inroads--in relation to a large, vital segment of the US population he has not sufficiently taken into account, if he wishes to be taken seriously by them in the critical moment. I am a black non-Latina who would posit that Hispanic voters do not demonstrate any more of a desire to be "pandered" to than anyone else in the country. It strikes me that what they want in this circumstance is precisely what I want--and, indeed, what you want, if you will consciously slow down life and thought enough to see clearly what is. Their desire is to be heard, and to be respected for what they bring to the proverbial table. Now, that anyone "unlike" you might wish to be afforded the same regard you yourself enjoy in any given context, but especially in the political process--this should never come as a surprise...nor should it be regarded as a longing, on their part, for any sort of "special" treatment.
Posted by: Tatiana | February 7, 2008 10:58 AM
The mistake is to assume that Hispanics are a single race.
Hispanics are diverse. There are blond hispanics and black hispanics and any shade of brown in between. What concerns us are the same issues as all Americans: the economy, health care, education, he war in Iraq.
Certainly, immigration is of interest all of us. But many latinos (60%?) are born here and our interests are broader than simply immigration.
I suppose Obama failed to reach this constituency by not setting field offices in hispanic communities. But it is disingenuous to suggest that he practices identity politics while Hillary does not.
He must reach all votes to win the nomination. And all voters to win the presidency. So do all other candidates.
Posted by: Skyblue | February 7, 2008 11:01 AM
This says it all...
So Hillary won by old party-style top-down appeals to Latinos and Asian Americans. Dems shouldn't rest thinking that this strategy will hold for long. Younger Latino and Asian American voters were energized by Obama, and formed a visible and crucial part of his GOTV ground troops. They had an impact. Roberto Lovato notes that Obama was able to bring down Hillary's overall 4-1 advantage among Latino voters to a 3-2 advantage by Super Tuesday. It could be argued that Obama's bottom-up machinery hasn't yet taken full advantage of the pent-up energy amongst young Brown and Yellow voters.
When that power is unleashed, it will be unpredictable. The 1.5 generation, young Latino and Asian Americans from the ages of 16-40 who were born elsewhere but raised multilingual and multicultural in the U.S., represents a massive demographic bulge in those communities only beginning to feel itself. Before long, they will turn their communities' emergent vote into an insurgent vote. And then the country will really discover not just the necessity of the Latino and Asian American vote, but what it is that they really want.
Jeff Chang writes on popular culture, politics, race, and music. He wrote a cover story on Barack Obama for Vibe Magazine. He is the author of Can't Stop Won't Stop: A History of The Hip-Hop Generation, and editor of Total Chaos: The Art & Aesthetics of Hip-Hop. You can find him at: www.cantstopwontstop.com/blog
Posted by: Michael Serpe | February 7, 2008 11:06 AM
What's up with that anti blacks’ sentiment from Hispanics????
Tuesday, in New Mexico while most whites voted for Obama Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Clinton.
Where this hate come from?
As a white male, I can tell you that if wasn't Martin Luther King and some moderate whites any
NON-WHITES IN THIS COUNTRY COULD HAVE HAD SOME REALLY HARD TIME TO BE WELCOMED AND TO HAVE DECENT JOB EVEN TO MOW LAWN.
TRUST ME PEOPLE.
HILARY IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST LATINA PRESIDENT UNTIL THE DAY WHERE AN ALEJANDRA GUTIERREZ WHO HAS ENOUGH CHANCE TO BE PRESIDENT WILL CHALLENGE. THEN SHE'S GOING BACK TO HER ROOTS AND ASK TO SECURE THE BORDER.
THAT'S WHAT THE CLINTONS ARE ABOUT.
LYING PARASITES
Posted by: Bob Carmichael | February 7, 2008 11:07 AM
Latinos? Voting out of spite instead of voting for the best candidate? Getting their little feelings hurt and reacting like spoiled-brat children? Beware to you of so little self esteem that you act like cattle - because of your lack of foresight, you may GET the Hill-Billy combo, and then we will ALL lose.
Posted by: Leximou | February 7, 2008 11:09 AM
Barack is speaking to ALL Americans, no one is getting special treatment. He is having the same problem with Latinos as Kerry has with Blacks. Kerry was asked why he wasn’t galvanizing the black population and his answer was “what are you waiting for????” WHY do we need some one to pick us up and spoon feed us their politics? The insinuation that we need to be coddled is insulting to Latinos’ and blacks. The entire point and focus of Obama’s campaign is unity and America *not* Latino-White-and Black America.
O’08!!
Posted by: Aqua Drakes | February 7, 2008 11:10 AM
As a latino woman I have been super involved in trying to figure out who is the best leader, I try to read everything about each candidate, With Obama...I still don't know what he is about or stands for, he failed to connect with me at all levels, even though he is 'cool'. I'm glad to find out that there are more people that feel the same way.
Posted by: Sandra | February 7, 2008 11:11 AM
"It's because Obama doesn't play Idenity Politics. He speaks to all Americans, not slicing them into segments with special promises."
Oh, really? We asians americans didn't get a chance to be spoken to, I guess we don't matter anyway.
Posted by: AA | February 7, 2008 11:14 AM
A few considerations/questions:
1. Mayor Villaraigosa of LA, one of Clinton's campaign heads in California, has his own funding ties to Tony Rezko.
2. Juan Andrade, while doing some very useful things, would like to see himself with a larger voice and would relish being a queen or king maker. There are some who see his as a Latino Jesse Jackson in the making.
3. With concentration on black v. Latino, what about all of the white people out there? What about the majority of white male democratic voters in Georgia (yes, there are still some) who voted for Obama?
4. Some people talk about Hillary Clinton's history with Latinos; what history? She has a campaign machine that has done it's job in outreach to Latinos, but where is the great history that some people cite?
5. It's sad to see pundits and irresponsible reporting distract Latinos and blacks like this. The brief interview with the waiter was very unhelpful and irresponsibly skewed. You could very easily see the same thing said by non-Latinos in regards to Latino gang members, or Latinos they BELIEVE to be gang members because of superficial observations. We all ultimately want the same things in life and too many of us continue to be led into believing that we have to fight each other for those things.
Posted by: NT | February 7, 2008 11:18 AM
Pre-conditioning (what we assume as facts from past experience) seems to be a major barrier for Obama in the Latino community. Assumption: Every ethnic and minority community has to be courted in a presidential campaign. Fact: Not every community is courted to the satisfaction of its constituents. Assumption: Groups will know where a politician stands through televised debates and positive press. Fact: Groups want politicians to know THEM, their issues, needs, and desires for the future. The assumption is that Obama has not sat down long enough with Latino's in order to know about their diverse issues, needs, and desires for the future. Also, the assumption is that Blacks and Latino's have a strained relationship, which is partially true. These assumptions have been magnified by the Clinton Camp and used to effect the results of the Nevada Caucuses and the California and New Jersey Primaries. After the distraction of race baiting tactics used earlier in the primaries, Obama lost some of his focus in courting the Latino vote. It all depends now if the Latino community will present themselves as a tough sell. In other words, 'You didn't come to us in a way that satisfied us before; why should we trust you now?' Obama is close in the delegate count with Clinton in most news agencies, and some have Obama leading ever so slightly. Through all the distractions, Obama has not been heard by many people. But in a civil debate of the issues, that didn't have interruptions, inuendo, or distractions, Obama got some of his message out and he WON 13 states. I'm quite sure that if the Latino community gives him a chance, Obama will come to know what the issues are, what the needs are, and what the desires of the future are for this group. And coming to a concensus shouldn't be established on the pre-condition of the group being a 'tough sell', but by listening to what the man has to say.
Posted by: ji_john | February 7, 2008 11:19 AM
am hispanic and yes, he doesn't cater to the hispanics or actively seeks our votes. I'm all for Hillary. She is definitely the way to go.
Barack is just a good speaker. I need someone with experience and Hillary is my girl.
Posted by: Alexandra | February 7, 2008 9:41 AM
You posted this; Hillary is promising Driver's Licenses and FREE Health Care to Illigeal ALIENS....... Go figure that they support her...how many people do you have in Mexico waiting to come here???
Posted by: jessica | February 7, 2008 11:28 AM
Is time for Hispanics to have the fair share of American wealth.Enough is enough of being neglected everywhere, education, housing,health, show bussines, wherever you look at. We are now the first minority in this country and we want the share that belongs to us.And only Hillary is the warranty that will happen.
Posted by: Fernando | February 7, 2008 11:30 AM
Hope??? I'm tried of hearing this message of hope. I have had enough of hope. I want to see action. When/if Obama makes it to the White House, is that all he is going to do? Is hope all the problems go away. Look at his plan to reform immigration it is not existent. He doesn’t play identity politics but he certainly has identified himself with the black population, hasn’t he???
Posted by: Leslie | February 7, 2008 11:33 AM
Juan Andrade and his HLI front have been sucking up to white politicos and degrading African-American leaders for years.
Lousy, biased source for a story like this. Any experienced Trib writer should know about Andrade.
Posted by: converse | February 7, 2008 11:34 AM
Instead of Rezco, let's talk about the White Water scandal and Vince Foster.
Posted by: JB | February 7, 2008 10:05 AM
White Water?? Are you nuts? JB, FYI White Water was nothing more than a political witch hunt of the republic party that wasted about 80 billion dollars of taxpayers hard earned money over 10 years ago, and came up with nothing. It’s just unbelievable how the neo-con nuts keep this nonsense going.
Posted by: Rory M | February 7, 2008 11:34 AM
As an independent and Obama supporter, I've got to say: pretty fair critique. No office in East LA does look like writing off those voters, and this from a candidate who has done very well by not writing off traditionally red states. (Many of which have D Senators and Governors.)
I don't like the endless analysis of what group votes for whom--plenty of young black men who support Clinton, for example--but done carefully and correctly, the Obama campaign needs to reach out to more Latinos and Asians. They've done well to date by not writing off voters; let's continue that.
Posted by: dal | February 7, 2008 11:35 AM
it amazes me how so many of you criticize obama for the very same things that clinton has done from day one. if you're not an obama supporter, fine, but give the BS criticism (i.e. race, experience, corruption, etc) a rest because it is just as applicable to clinton, if not more so.
obama has not come no where near as close to playing the race card as clinton has. it's a shame to vote for obama because he's black...but somehow it's ok to vote for hilliary because she's a woman? oh, please...it's ludicrous any way you slice it.
just because clinton courted the hispanic vote early on doesn't make her any more sincere than obama who wasn't as aggressive. it simply meant she had better advising on the importance of the hispanic vote (not real love and concern for the hispanic community), please DON'T confuse the two.
she boasts about this 8 years of experience that you all are going ape shit over, yet in that time...what did SHE do? what were HER accomplishments? being the wife of the president doesn't give you experience as a president, no more than being the son of a president or being a seasoned legislator does. haven't we spent the last 8 years learning that lesson???
obama doesn't have a lot of legislative experience, but he is smart, thoughtful about the issues affecting our country and has a vision that is not only inspiring, but possible. and like every president before him, he will have to put together a team to advise him. maybe you've forgotten, but hilliary and mccain will have to do the same too.
as far as i'm concerned hilliary spent 8 years in the white house learning how to run a damn good campaign for president amid scandal, after scandal.
you can drink her brand of SPIN if you want, but I'll take Obama any day!
Posted by: janine | February 7, 2008 11:38 AM
Overtly ignoring Latinos, and if he wins, ignoring stupid white folks too.
Ask Hussein about the racist teachings of his "church" and Nation of Islam consultants on his team.
Posted by: Bob | February 7, 2008 11:39 AM
Obama has a poor record when it comes to minority communities. He has insulted the gay community by campaigning with a infamous homophobe during the South Carolina primary. If he is the nominee a lot of gay people will hold their noses and vote for him. Many others will stay home. If given the choice of Obama vs. McCain I'll go for substance over style.
Posted by: Mark | February 7, 2008 11:42 AM
Wake up, folks! Selling voters and readers on some phantom racial divide sells papers and increases readership, folks. Do not buy in to this baloney, or anything F James tries to sell to you!
Clinton has been a household name for 20 years!!! He/She have been a friend to both Latino and Africna-American voters for two decades. Why should we be surprised there is great affinity for the Clintons, versus an up-and-comer folks are less familiar with? But just like many have said, this is how the Clintons have PLAYED both communities for decades. They know how to segment people; how to put folks into categories for political gain. Why do you think the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are so beholden to the Clintons? Because Billary has been conning them from the beginning, waiting for the one day they would call in their chits and force these sad, old, out-of-touch so-called black leaders to vote against their own convictions! They were played, and several latino leaders see they have been played as well -- why? Because nothing the so-called black leaders have done for the Clintons has paid off -- blacks are in fact voting with their hearts AND minds and are not following the status quo; they are saying no to Rangel and Lewis, Young and Waters, Lee and Tubbs, and I pray these so-called leaders pay a big price during their own re-election campaigns!
So, like with other ethnic groups the Clintons have segmented, I am confident the latinos will wake up and see that "our time has come." That "change is coming to America." And that includes blacks and browns.
"WE are the ones we have been waiting for." -- Barack Obama, 2.5.08
Go Obama 2008!
Posted by: BrwnSknGurl | February 7, 2008 11:47 AM
What about courting white voters? It seems that politicians are expected to "reach out" to every group but whites, and if they do that, they're "pandering to racists."
Posted by: David Wilson | February 7, 2008 11:51 AM
Latinos and lower educated democrats are going to ruin this country by unthinkingly voting for Hillary. What a waste of talent...
Posted by: Matt | February 7, 2008 12:04 PM
It is not about identity politics as the previous commentor noted, but rather about understanding different needs and issues associated with being such a diverse nation.
Obama may be speaking in a different way, but the reality of the situation. suggests that he speak directly to these different groups too, to insure that they understand that he understands their specific needs and issues.
Posted by: Larry Dusenbery | February 7, 2008 12:18 PM
Republicans should stick to their own message boards. Barack is all about change. And that means? I'm waiting to hear something beyond this single word.
And Janine @ 11:38, you could not be more misinformed.
Posted by: Bc | February 7, 2008 12:19 PM
We will always get the kind of leaders we deserve. It's the mentality of American voters that holds the key. If we go to the polls with selfish motives, regional, ethnics or otherwise --not as voters united and motivated by common agenda and goals for the good of one nation, then we're bound to fail. People talking of vested interests, based on their ethnic backgrounds, only show that they have not really integrated into- and do not fully appreciate or embraced- the American culture and American way of thinking. It's really time for change, and it starts with us.
Posted by: D Nunez | February 7, 2008 12:20 PM
Latino Voters:
Just close your eyes and imagine Ceasar Chavez worked in state and national legislature for 12+ years after being an organizer for farm workers. Then imagine he embarked on a run for the presidency against Clinton. Then hear Clinton say, "He's an inspiration, but I'm ready on day one" and "We can't take a chance" and "Too much is as stake".
Just try running against Clinton.
I'm just saying...
Posted by: Karen | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM
bill r.,
You and I agree on this one. Voters should evaluate their candidates objectively. Evaluate where they stand on ISSUES. And for heaven's sake, UNITY is NOT an issue. Sen. Obama does not speak to me. He speaks at me. He tells me that he can fix everything wrong in my life: my health, my mortgage, my job, my education (and hence, my children)...I even sense he believes he can fix my car. But only if I believe that "Yes I Can." How silly, if you think about it. But Obama supporters don't care. You can't demand reason of someone who thinks irrationally. Now, don't misunderstand: If Obama agrees with you on the issues, by all means, vote for him. If you want nationalized health insurance, vote for him. If you support abortion, vote for him. If you support calling the troops home, vote for him. If you support raising taxes, vote for him. These are all things Obama has said he supports, with his words and his votes. But if you oppose these things, don't vote for him. It doesn't matter how beautifully he speaks; that's just his rhetorical skills at work. Use your brain. Don't vote against your own beliefs. Think for yourself.
BTW, the post referenced above discussing Whitewater came from a different JB. For what it's worth.
Posted by: JB | February 7, 2008 12:40 PM
Hispanic voters are not wise. They are very jealous of African-Americans and their progress. Therefore, they don't want to vote for Obama. But hate never works, especially in the end. Love will Conquer and African-Americans will stay strong because they are the minority group along with Indians who help build this strong Country called USA.
Thanks, happy voting.
Posted by: Aretha Phelps | February 7, 2008 12:46 PM
I wondered why Obama wasn't getting Hispanic support since he would try to help the undocumented aliens to obtain citizenship and get educational assistance.
But not getting that message to Hispanics in Spanish commercials and Spanish newspapers and not getting the endorsement of Hispanic leaders was a big mistake.
While Sue is right that Obama tries to represent all of the people, each sub-group wants to know that he is focused on their concerns. This is one thing, and maybe the only thing, that Hillary does well - politicize the electorate. Which is why no one I know supports her - they don't trust that she will do what she promises as she is politically driven as was Bill Clinton.
Having worked in inner city Chicago with Hispanic high school students for 7 years I fully understand that there is a "turf war" ongoing betw