I think you're on to something here. The data really needs to be looked at more closely before the "race and gender" crowd in the traditional media and, unfortunately, in the blogsphere, start off with another meme about the Dem primary being about race -- man, am tired of that meme and how distracting it is from the economic and security issues we must deal with (yet, once more, the traditional media has found another wedge issue to fill their infinite hours of air time and the blaberring mouths of the chattering classes).
As a Latino voter (just one Latino voter, clearly I can't speak for all of anything), Sen Obama has not offered me the nitty-gritty details that would convince me that he'll deliver on bread and butter issues, which is what I care about most. Additionally, I'm no policy wonk and cannot get into the what-fors of each the health care plans of the top three Dem candidates; however, I've respected the insights of P Krugman over the past six/seven years, and when he raises concerns over Sen Obama's approach and rhetoric, I listen.
My point is that race and gender is such a disctracion, and that we do a disservice to the American voter (Latino and non-Latino) when we use race as the "explanation" as to why the candidate of our choice is not gaining traction with segments of the electorate. Let's be critical thinkers, and ask ourselves, instead: Has my candidate done the hard work of organizing and mobilizing voters in the manner that is necessary to win national elections? According reports (via NPR interviews of union workers in Nevada), the Clinton camp kicked ass in Nevada and in NH... they've the necessary machine together to get votes out. During the same radio report, a Latino state legislator in Nevada, reportedly, had to reach out to the Obama camp to offer his support, while the Clinton camp had been actively courting him -- again, it's about the hard work of putting an organization on the ground and getting boots out when it counts.
But that's only the superficial reading. What about all the other factors that have been raised since the NH primary, that make it clear that Sen Clinton is consolidating the "bread and butter" voter and the "traditional" Dem voter. Fixating on Race and Gender is too uninteresting and, I think, a throw back to the 1960's politics of the past. Are gender and race a factor, of course, but we shouldn't follow the same tact that the traditional media follow re: race and gender -- frankly, I find that approach boring and insulting.
We know Sen Clinton has done very well among "bread and butter" voters, and Latinos are certainly "bread and butter" voters. Sen Obama has done very well amongst those that cite aspirational concerns as their top motivator (i.e., affluent, highly educated, urban voters); however, because some Americans vote their pocket concerns over aspirational concerns, doesn't mean that race is the determinant factor. It's a shame that some people in the MSM and the blogsphere have focused too narrowly on the gender and race factors of the primary.
No tiene nada que ver con racismo, y to do que ver con el bien estar de mi país.
Before giving any credence to the ridiculous, insulting and absurd charge that the diarist made, he should at least provide some evidence before you and others are willing to give any legitimacy to the charge.
At the very least, let the diarist provide a transcript and some hard evidence to support his claim.
I'm tired of the reactionary knee-jerk support that's often given to this type of charge from nameless and faceless partisans.
By definition "democratic elites" will oppose populism. After all, an elite within any system has clearly benefited from the status quo, so why would an elite within the current political order stand in opposition against it? As for the premise of this diary, I don't buy that the majority of Americans today identify with their corporate employer over a candidate that would offer them a clear and viable alternative to insecurity, lowered standard of living, diminished prospects for their children and a continuation of government of The Corporation, for Corporation and by The Corporation that we've seen or recent.
The photos should remain -- we're all sheltered from the consequences of war, and we all need to be jolted out of coma. Good to see that the poster is not backing down, and leaving the horrific images up.
It's true, Sen. Clinton has been tested, but, frankly, I've not seen her counter punch very effectively. In the other hand, though I'm not an Obama fan -- though he's certainly higher on my list than Sen. Clinton -- I like what I've seen: he's quick to respond and takes off the gloves rather effectively, I've thought. For example, when Dodd, Biden and Clinton were all going after him, Obama's response was brilliant, quote: I find it amusing that those that supported and crafted the war, are now criticizing me... I thought this was a clear indication of how quickly and with what cold calculation Obama will respond to similar attacks from the republican noise machine.
I was addressing ALL elected Democrats, since there isn't a single, clearly stated, Democratic position on Iraq; though there's large consensus that we should "leave" Iraq (of course, the devil is in the details). More explicitly, yes, my comment was more directly addressed to the presidential nomeenees; since, at the end of the day, for better or for worse, they currently "represent" the "Democratic" position -- given their megaphone.
How 'bout this, I want the Bush administration to talk about the draft just long enough to scare a lot of Americans into action; and to force Democrats into committing to a firm get-out of Iraq, and the region, position.