Obama '08?

I don't understand the 'messianic' label attached to Obama. I don't feel that way at all.

He's a good candidate who has experience in the areas that I wish to see a candidate have experience, and his platform is essentially identical to the other two major candidates.

His oratory skills, cross-cultural appeal, and ability to inspire people leaves the other major candidate, Hillary, in the dust. You can't compare the two when it comes to the ability to convey a message which is full of emotional meaning.

He had a great line in his speech last night: this election isn't black vs. white, it's the past vs. the future. The pundits went nuts over it, and why not? It's right. It's whether or not the DLC regains control of the Dem party or whether the so-called 'people-powered' wing of the party does. To me, that's as important as anything else at this point.

Cycloptichorn

Wow, that's a big one.

The rumor mills says that Gore is going to endorse Obama. That would be a major coup on his part.

Cycloptichorn

I will give credit to Obama for saying this race is not about rich vs poor, young vs old, black vs white, etc. That is a breath of fresh air, as the Dems, the Clintonistas have made their living off of demonizing the rich, the businesses, the whites, blah blah blah, we are starving the old, the children, on and on. Edwards mantra is two Americas, well some of us are sick of it. Roxi, the tactic has been the Democrat play book ever since I started watching politics, and that is one reason I am a Republican and will remain one.

Me either. This is all so borderline Magical Negro-ish that's it's ridiculous. Now you can't simply have a black man who transcends on his merits, his accomplishments, his experience. Oh no. He's got to be Messianic. Supernatural.

You guys really are sad.

That is the definition of messianic.

Does that include me? I don't see him as 'messianic' but as the best candidate, by far, for a variety of different reasons.

Cycloptichorn

I am baffled that you guys feel that messianic is a pejorative.

It's not a pejorative for me, but people who don't know what it means tend to equate it with religious fervor.

One thing I will say - the definition of Messianism which probably closest matches what you mean, Rox, is -

2. Belief that a particular cause or movement is destined to triumph or save the world.

I don't think there's much destiny involved in politics. That's Clinton talk.

Cycloptichorn

NYTIMES Endorses Hillary Clinton


January 25, 2008
Editorial
Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton

This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.

The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times's editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards's fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we're not sure where he stands. We certainly don't buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama's appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. "Firstness" is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America's global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America's role in the world, not just its image.

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush's inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered ?- but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama's audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can't foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush's decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton's vote for the resolution on the use of force. That's not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq's chaos after American troops leave.

On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course ?- shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind education program.

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government's powers have been misused ?- and what must now be done to set things right.

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband's administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton's overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America's voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won't be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

NYTimes.com

So the pundits just woke up to the virtue of not using demagoguery in regard to race, wealth, age, etc., wow, what a revelation; the Republicans have been pointing that out for decades and have nevertheless had to tolerate such demagoguery aimed at them. It is nice if the pundits would see the light, but Obama is hardly the first one to say it, although one of the first in the Democratic Party for a long time. If he walks the walk, that would be nice, but I have to see it first.

Too true.

Thomas is being uncharacteristically shallow on this. Roxxanne is hardly representative of all or even most Obama supporters... and I seriously doubt many, let alone most, would use the term messianic. As for crowd reactions, and ability to motivate; watch the video of Bill Clinton at the 2004 DNC again and you'll see that Obama is still second best in this category (third if you've ever seen Blair on the floor of the House of Commons). From the Magic Negro aspect to the loosely veiled Hitler comparisons; these reactions are as ridiculous as they are over the top.

Saturday, Jan. 26, 2008

The Black-Brown Divide
By Gregory Rodriguez

I imagine he said it as if he were confessing a deep, dark secret. And, of course (wink, wink), he had no idea his little confession would make the rounds. But when Sergio Bendixen, Hillary Clinton's pollster and resident Latino expert, told the New Yorker after her win in New Hampshire that "the Hispanic voter--and I want to say this very carefully--has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates," he started a firestorm of innuendo that has begun to shape how the media are covering the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in the heavily Hispanic Western states.

After the Jan. 19 Nevada caucuses, in which Latino voters supported Senator Clinton by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1, some journalists literally borrowed Bendixen's analysis word for word before going on to speculate about Barack Obama's political fortunes in such delegate-rich states as California and Texas. Ignoring the possibility that Nevada's Latino voters actually preferred Clinton or, at the very least, had fond memories of her husband's presidency, more than a few pundits jumped on the idea that Latino voters simply didn't like the fact that her opponent was African American.

The only problem with this new conventional wisdom is that it's wrong. "It's one of those unqualified stereotypes about Latinos that people embrace even though there's not a bit of data to support it," says political scientist Fernando Guerra of Loyola Marymount University, an expert on Latino voting patterns. "Here in Los Angeles, all three black members of Congress represent heavily Latino districts and couldn't survive without significant Latino support."

Nationwide, no fewer than eight black House members--including New York's Charles Rangel and Texas' Al Green--represent districts that are more than 25% Latino and must therefore depend heavily on Latino votes. And there are other examples. University of Washington political scientist Matt Barreto has begun compiling a list of black big-city mayors who have received large-scale Latino support over the past several decades. In 1983, Harold Washington pulled 80% of the Latino vote in Chicago. David Dinkins won 73% in New York City's mayoral race in 1989. And Denver's Wellington Webb garnered more than 70% in 1991, as did Ron Kirk in Dallas in 1995 and again in 1997 and '99. If he had gone back further, Barreto could have added longtime Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, who won a majority of Latino votes in all four of his re-election campaigns between 1977 and 1989.

Are these political scientists arguing that race is irrelevant to Latino voters? Not at all. Hispanics, coming from many countries, are hardly monolithic; but all things being equal, Latino voters would probably prefer to support a Latino candidate over a non-Latino candidate, and a white candidate over a black candidate. That's largely because they are less familiar with black politicians, as there are fewer big-name black candidates than white ones, and because, stereotypes not withstanding, many Latinos don't live anywhere near African Americans. California, for example, which has the largest Latino population in the country, is only 6% black. Furthermore, in politics, things are never equal.

"It's all about context," says Rodolfo de la Garza, a political-science professor at Columbia University. "It always depends on who else is running. Would Latino Democrats vote for a black candidate over a white Republican? Hell, yes. How about over a Latino Republican? I'm very sure they would." Guerra says name recognition and the role of mediating entities such as unions, political parties and Latino elected officials are also important. For a well-known black politician or incumbent, there is little problem winning Latino voters. But when the candidate is not well-known, it helps to be endorsed by mediating institutions that people trust. Part of Obama's problem in Nevada was that, apart from the late endorsement by the Culinary Workers' Union, he didn't have a lot of that institutional support. And though he has begun to build those relationships in California--including the endorsement of the Latina head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor--he may not have enough time to attain the kind of recognition among Latino voters that Clinton enjoys.

But if there's one thing we're learning in this historic year, it's that voters are even less easy to pigeonhole than candidates.

Rodriguez is author of Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans, and Vagabonds: Mexican Immigration and the Future of Race in America.

TIME

"Magic negro". I'd never bumped into that term before. Very interesting indeed... see here

One bit of data in the piece...

But to be fair to the messianic-trepidation argument... I think these folks are really speaking to the dangers that fall out from our social natures... we can (and certainly have in the past) been moved to significant abuses through a common tendency to wish to be led. In extremity, this can get pretty ugly.

But Obama is nowhere near such extremity, of course.

Messianic simply means a zealous leader. Bill Clinton, RFK and MLK were messianic.

Clinton gets Asian group's support
Asian-American PAC decries alleged Obama snub on issues
By Josh Richman, STAFF WRITER
Article Last Updated: 01/19/2008 07:31:05 AM PST

OAKLAND ?- A national political action committee aimed at unifying the Asian-American vote is supporting Hillary Clinton because Barack Obama snubbed its questions, members said Friday.

The 80-20 Initiative will urge thousands of voters in its affiliated organizations to pick Clinton in Feb. 5's Democratic presidential primary, and has committed $30,000 to advertising on her behalf in the Asian ethnic media.

"80-20 has been more than fair, bent over backwards four different times" to reach out to Obama, 80-20 board member Joel Wong of San Francisco ?- a former Chinese American Political Associationpresident ?- said at a news conference Friday in the Oakland Asian Cultural Center.

Obama's reticence "shows that he has no respect for us working together," he added.

Founded in 1999, 80-20 seeks equal opportunity for Asian Americans by trying to unite them into a voting bloc candidates can't ignore, ideally directing 80 percent of the community's votes and money to a single presidential contender.

"What we're looking at is the big picture," 80-20 board member Frank Lee, also president of the Organization for Justice & Equality, said Friday. He said the decision to back Clinton is less an endorsement than an effort "to stop any candidate who does not want to work with us."

"This is very cold, very strategic, not emotional," added Wong. "(Obama) is very charismatic ... but just because a person is a minority doesn't mean he's going to
Advertisement
do a lot of good for minority people."

Wong said 80-20 California's Democratic primary offered the most bang for the buck: a large Asian-American population in a state sending a lot of delegates to the convention. Also, he noted, most Asian Americans register as Democrats or without any party affiliation, and unaffiliated voters can vote in the Democratic primary but not in the GOP's.

80-20 asked candidates three questions on curbing discrimination ?- especially workplace "glass ceilings" ?- and three on appointing more Asian American federal trial and circuit judges. Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel responded affirmatively to all, but Obama balked.

Wong said he understands Obama's hesitation to sign anything that could be construed to involve racial quotas, but the questions were redesigned ?- with the Clinton campaign's input ?- to reject such quotas and five white Democratic candidates' unequivocal support has made it "safe" for Obama to follow suit.

The Obama campaign, in a Dec. 26 letter to 80-20, said Obama is committed to appointing qualified Asian Americans and "will also build upon his work as a civil rights lawyer and community organizer to end racial discrimination and advance equal opportunity in the workplace and the federal government."

"We regret that our staff was unable to reach agreement with leadership of the 80-20 Educational Foundation over concerns with the wording of the questionnaire, despite the fact that modifications to the questionnaire were made for other campaigns," the letter said.

Clinton campaign spokesman Luis Vizcaino said Friday that she "is honored to have the endorsement of 80-20. The Asian American and Pacific Islander community has a critical voice that will never go unheard when she is President."

Unifying an ethnic vote is easier said than done, Friday's news conference proved. Author and freelance writer Bill Wong, a former Oakland Tribune columnist and editor, challenged 80-20's strategy as "understandable but narrow-minded" and "frankly rather shallow."

"I do believe you are unrealistic to support Hillary Clinton when you say you're a nonpartisan organization," he said, adding he believes Obama is most likely to respect and protect diversity.

Insidebayarea.com

Why don't you post this crap on a Clinton 08 thread This is what is known as spam.

I don't know how you could possibly know this.

The difference, Miller, is that those are all California newspapers from the state Hillary is counting on having in her back pocket.

Other than that, it is great that the NY Times endorsed her two days ago. These endorsements for Obama were just announced today so they too are making news.

I have gone back and looked at thomas' post, my agreements and every other post following. Nowhere did I see Messianic juxtaposed with black, or magical negro or anything resembling it.

Until you connected the two, and the other cultists chimed in in perfect agreement.

tjis isn't about race remember?