HillBuzz noticed the “pundits” on MNSBC, in particular, are nonstop cheerleaders for Obama: even the ones MSNBC claims represent the conservative, ie GOP, perspective. One of the most biased in favor of Obama is Michelle Bernard: the wide-eyed, romantic look she gets when she talks about Obama is shameless. It’s like she has religious moments when merely thinking about him.
HillBuzz is glad others have noticed this bias and have also wondered WHO IS MICHELLE BERNARD?
From the Daily Howler:
WHO IS MICHELLE BERNARD: In prime time coverage of a White House election, no cable news network has ever been as propagandized as MSNBC currently is. On Fox, Hannity was always paired with Colmes—and O’Reilly, who is a nut on some topics, is relatively fair about major pols. (In Campaign 2000, for example, he was massively more fair to Gore than most big cable hosts were.)
But on MSNBC, the performance of Hardball, Countdown, and now Race for the White House often resembles that of a cult. This brings us to a peculiar question: Who is Michelle Bernard?
On the surface, the question is easily answered. At present, Bernard is CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative women’s group founded in 1992. (According to Wikipedia, the IWF grew out of an ad hoc group created to support Clarence Thomas.) The groups directors emeritae include such conservative stars as Lynn Cheney, Wendy Gramm, Midge Decter and Kate O’Beirne. To peruse the group’s web site, just click here.
The IWF, like many such groups, is founded as a non-partisan 501(c)(3) group. As such, the group does not endorse candidates. But it does promote a range of conservative causes.
All that is well and good—and Michelle Bernard is the group’s CEO. Which leads us to a puzzling question: As a major conservative, why is Bernard appearing on Hardball so often—to gush about Obama?
Bernard’s remarkable Hardball run began on Thursday, January 24. Since then, she has become a frequent guest on the propagandistic program. Here is the list of dates on which she has appeared:
Thursday, January 24
Friday, January 25
Monday, January 28
Tuesday, January 29
Wednesday, January 30 (regular program)
Wednesday, January 30 (special post-debate program)
Tuesday, February 5
Tuesday, February 12
Wednesday, February 13
Thursday, February 14
Tuesday, February 19
Tuesday, February 26
Tuesday, March 4
Wednesday, March 5
Tuesday, March 11 (regular program)
Tuesday, March 11 (special post-primary program)
Wednesday, March 12
Friday, March 14
Tuesday, March 18
According to Nexis, Bernard has appeared nineteen times since January 24, an eight-week period. During that time:
She has almost never been identified as a conservative.
She has repeatedly and effusively praised Obama.
She has never been asked why she, as a leading conservative, is promoting the Democratic Party’s most likely presidential nominee.
Who knows? Maybe there’s a legitimate reason why Bernard, the head of a major conservative group, is promoting Obama so effusively. But Bernard is appearing on a cable network which is perhaps more propagandized than any such network ever has been during a White House campaign. And she is appearing at a time when at least one major writer is asking a question: Have some conservatives been supporting Obama because they think he would be the easier Democratic candidate to beat? (For Wayne Barrett’s Village Voice piece, just click here.) For ourselves, we don’t know who would be the stronger Dem in November—and we don’t know what different conservatives think. But as we’ve watched Hardball, we’ve become increasingly puzzled by Bernard’s effusive praise of Obama—praise which has never yet been questioned by her host.
Our question: Why is the head of the IWF gushing so over Obama?
And make no mistake—Bernard has been gushing hard about the Dem front-runner. (Such gushing is par for the course on Clinton/Gore-loathing MSNBC.) This Tuesday night, for example, the head of a major conservative group said this about Obama’s speech:
BERNARD (3/18/08): I think that this is probably the most important speech that I have heard in my lifetime. I would say this is probably the best speech and most important speech on race that we have, that we have heard as a nation since Martin Luther King`s “I have a dream” speech. Every single word was riveting. I thought that the way Barack Obama started off the speech talking about how perfect and how—you know, the ideals set forth in our Constitution, but slavery being the original sin of our nation and how our forefathers left it to further, further generations to perfect this union and giving the impression that that time for change is now.
I was riveted by his ability in the speech to actually talk about and explain in a manner that is not scary to the nation the type of anger that consumes men like Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and explain it in an important way by talking about what black men in this nation faced in the 50s and in the 60s and not as a way to—to get away from the fact that some of the problems that still plague black America need to be fixed within the community.
He did a great job of, for example, talking about the importance of personal responsibility in the black community, but also balancing that out with saying we need to fix our public education system so that you don`t see such a great disparity between black children and white children. I think, overall, you know, it ranks right up there as one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard.
On balance, we thought the speech was quite good too—but then, we don’t head the IWF, a major conservative group. But then, Bernard had gushed the previous week, defending Obama during the controversy about Ferraro:
BERNARD (3/12/08): Well, I got an e-mail from a viewer who sent me an e-mail and said, “Look, here’s the thing about Geraldine Ferraro—if her premise was correct, why wasn’t Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton ever elected president? If all it takes to be a black—to become president of the United States is to be a black man, we would have seen one a long time ago. And that`s why it’s offensive.”
He is not an affirmative action candidate. He is highly qualified. He is well spoken. He has captured the imagination of whites, blacks, Hispanics. He’s captured the imagination of everyone in this nation, and she seems to really be denigrating him and kind of saying, “You know what? Realize your place.” It’s almost as if we are beginning to see the evolution of the angry white female, or the angry Democratic white female in this election.
Say what? According to the had of a major conservative group, Barack Obama has “captured the imagination of everyone in this nation?” That would have struck us as somewhat odd, coming from the head of the IWF. Except for the fact that, just one night before, we had seen Bernard gush like this:
BERNARD (3/11/08): I think Iowa, New Hampshire, and all of the states that followed, particularly Iowa, you turn on news and there are literally thousands of white people, you know, standing in line to shake his hand and voting for him and they are—
MATTHEWS: What was your feeling in seeing that?
BERNARD: I was proud. I thought it was a wonderful time in our history. We’ve had other African Americans run for president, Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. Barack Obama represents a new type of black politics.
MATTHEWS: Define it, if can you.
BERNARD: Well, we are going beyond color. You are seeing African Americans competing with whites on their own territory. Like his wife goi
ng to Princeton, like Barack Obama going to Harvard Law School. Speaking just as well as the whites, not speaking Ebonics. Going out and giving great speeches.
Barack Obama isn’t speaking Ebonics! It made Bernard feel proud!
At any rate, you get the general idea: Bernard has been pimping Obama quite hard. As such, she fits right in with Hardball’s requirements—and good news! On March 11, Matthews introduced her, for the first time, as an “MSNBC political analyst.” Like Rachel Maddow before her, Bernard seemed to have said the right things—and seemed to have reaped the reward.
In fairness, Bernard is a young African-American high-achiever herself. (She doesn’t speak Ebonics either!) One might imagine that this helps explain the oddness of seeing the IWF head praising a major Dem in this manner. But few Hardball viewers will find themselves wondering about Bernard’s endless praise for Obama. As we’ve noted, Matthews keeps forgetting to tell his viewers that the IWF is a conservative entity; he introduced Bernard as a conservative on January 28 and February 5, but that was the last time he let viewers know about her political orientation. And something else has never happened. As far as we can tell, Matthews has never asked Bernard an obvious question: Why do you, the head of a conservative group, praise the Democratic front-runner so effusively? That is a baldly obvious question. The question has never been asked.
Why in the world is Michelle Bernard praising the Dem front-runner this way? Is this just another of the Jack Welch Net’s endless scams? Why is Michelle Bernard gushing like this? There may be a very good answer to that—but it’s high time the question was asked.
But back in ’02, for those of us who dared to speak out against President Bush and his war in Iraq, we stood virtually alone. There was no resounding chorus of people calling “bullshit” on Bush’s folly. No, back in 2002 you were called unpatriotic if you dared to question the president; labeled as helping the terrorists if you raised doubt about his divine call to action.
Now forgive me, but I do not recall the help (or the voice) of any Barack Obama from Illinois. Indeed, I cannot recall hearing or feeling the impact of any one speech from the Illinois Senator. Did he attend the rally on the mall in Washington? The marches and protests in NYC? Did he conduct national press interviews? Did he write any editorials? Organize any protest rallies? Mobilize the people? Did he write any petitions? If he did, I never saw any of them.
Yet according to Barack Obama, because he spoke out in 2002 against the war in Iraq, he is better qualified to be president.”
Howard Stern has been a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton from the beginning of this race. We at HillBuzz demure at some of his naughtier bits, but Stern speaks for a large swath of America, immune to Obamania and decidedly embargoed against Hopium.
Send Howard Stern a message thanking him for his support of Hillary Clinton:
Or, if you prefer, tell him how much you love “The One”, his Obamessiah-ness. It will be fun to see what Stern writes back in that case.
The most interesting and unlikely of alliances have formed in this campaign. HillBuzz is exhilarated by this.
HillBuzz doesn’t understand a great many things about the Obama campaign, but chief amongst those mysteries is this simple fact: if the Obama campaign believes, truly, that their candidate is the best in the race and that voters clammer for him to be the Democratic nominee, then why did the Obama campaign shoot down the only realistic opportunity to have the voters in Michigan and Florida weigh in on this nomination? If Obama is the FUTURE, as his supporters claim, then why do they fear votes in Michigan and Florida today — and what myopic future do they scry in November, with Michigan and Florida remembering this slight and landing squarely in McCain’s column as a result.
Remember: Obama cannot beat McCain without winning an electoral college that relies heavily on some combination of Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If Michigan and Florida voters do not back the Democratic candidate, that means Obama has to entrust his fate to Ohio and Pennsylvania (while miraculously picking up some southern or western GOP stronghold state as well). Hillary Clinton won Ohio decisively and is on course to exceed that margin in Pennsylvania. If Obama alienates Michigan and Florida today, and has proven he cannot carry Ohio or Pennsylvania, then no amount of Hopium can improve his chances with the electoral college.
Anything to win
The Michigan legislature adjourned without having voted on a proposed primary revote. The revote is likely dead. The DNC was on board. Clinton donors offered to fund it. Barack Obama was reported to have opposed it, and was piling on legal objections, to prevent it. The Obama camp had already made clear that they would prefer the delegates be split 50/50, and the campaign today repeated that they would consider such a split to be fair. Of course they would. Not because they’re evil or bad people or don’t think Michigan voters are relevant (as the dishonest bloggers at dishonest blogs would frame it, were Clinton playing this game), but because they’re a political team playing politics-as-usual. And as is the case with most politicians, they will do anything to win.
In Florida, plans for a revote also collapsed, this week, and after the same basic dynamic had played out: Clinton was open to a revote, Obama was opposed, with Obama suggesting a 50/50 split of the delegates. Meanwhile, a St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9 poll showed one in four Florida Democrats may abandon the Party, if the results of the already held primary are not counted. I’m guessing those wavering Democrats will not be convinced to support a candidate who even obstructed efforts for a fair revote.
In Indiana, today, Clinton made clear that she sees a political advantage in this Obama obstructionism. As reported by The Hill:
“I do not understand what Sen. Obama is afraid of, but it is going to hurt our party and our chances in November and so I would call on him, once again, to join me in giving the people of Florida and Michigan the chance to be counted as we move forward in this nominating process,” the former first lady said at the outset of an Indiana press conference.
Clinton went to Michigan this week to make her case. However, it appears that efforts in both states to hold a re-vote are coming up short. The Clinton campaign is saying that Obama’s refusal to strongly support such primaries is part of the problem.
“I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee,” Clinton said.
I’ll restate what I’ve been saying all along: I do not support seating the delegates as voted on in the original primaries. I do support revotes. Many Obama supporters have claimed that it was Clinton who would try to block revotes. That has now been proven false. Will these Obama supporters now have the courage and candor to call on their candidate to respect the will of the people, and turn around and help support revote efforts? Is preventing revotes in two states that demographically favor Clinton worth throwing away those states’ electoral votes, in November? Is preventing revotes in two states that demographically favor Clinton worth throwing away the concept of abiding by the will of the people? Politics-as-usual should not be political suicide.
HillBuzz is amused by a new word we see making the rounds on the Internet. Wonder who started it? Buzz buzz buzz.
Etymology: Chicago, from Greek opion and Hope springs eternal
Date: 21st Century
1 : a bitter addictive narcotic that deludes its partakers into seeing brilliance in solipsism, substance in propoganda, and a Messiah in just another Pied Piper
2 : something having an effect like that of opium, of and for the people, to spellbind its partakers in the thrall of Obamania
HillBuzz is reminded of occasions when we’ve gone to the latest “chic” restaurant to sample the newest craze in molecular gastronomy, or whatever, or when we’ve been regailed by would-be sommeliers about how absolutely unbelievably magnificent this or that wine is, and HillBuzz has been left wondering what all the fuss is about. What exactly do people see in tiny bits of dehydrated food, or a wine from New Zealand that’s $50 a bottle and tastes, to our pallettes, like the $9 Californian?
That’s how we feel about Obama in general, but also in regards to his speech on race. Chris Matthews drooled over it, going as far as calling Obama the new Lincoln.
He’d also, we’re sure, drone on about molecular gastronomy and the ebulience of some random shiraz.
We’re not the only ones who’ve noticed Obama’s speech is a “brilliant failure”
By Victor Davis Hanson
The latest polls reflecting Obama’s near-collapse should serve as a morality tale of John Edwards’s two Americas — the political obtuseness of the intellectual elite juxtaposed to the common sense of the working classes.
For some bizarre reason, Obama aimed his speech at winning praise from National Public Radio, the New York Times, and Harvard, and solidifying an already 90-percent solid African-American base — while apparently insulting the intelligence of everyone else.
Indeed, the more op-eds and pundits praised the courage of Barack Obama, the more the polls showed that there was a growing distrust that the eloquent and inspirational candidate has used his great gifts, in the end, to excuse the inexcusable.
The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with Wright, nor dared open up a true discussion of race — which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism. We learn now that Obama is the last person who wants to end the establishment notion that a few elite African Americans negotiate with liberal white America over the terms of grievance and entitlement — without which all of us really would be transracial persons, in which happiness and gloom hinge, and are seen to do so, on one’s own individual success or failure.
Instead there were the tired platitudes, evasions, and politicking. The intelligentsia is well aware of how postmodern cultural equivalence, black liberation theory, and moral relativism seeped into Obama’s speech, and thus was not offended by an “everybody does it” and “who’s to judge?/eye of the beholder” defense. But to most others the effect was Clintonian. Somehow Obama could not just say,
There is nothing to be offered for Rev. Wright except my deepest apologies for not speaking out against his venom far earlier. We in the African-American community know better than anyone the deleterious effects of racist speech, and so it is time for Rev. Wright and myself to part company, since we have profoundly different views of both present- and future-day America.
The more the pundits gushed about the speech, the more the average Americans thought, “Wait a minute — did he just say what I thought he said?” It’s not lost on Joe Q. Public that Obama justified Wright’s racism by offering us a “landmark” speech on race that:
(1) Compared Wright’s felony to the misdemeanors of his grandmother, Geraldine Ferraro, the Reagan Coalition, corporate culture, and the kitchen sink.
(2) Established the precedent that context excuses everything, in the sense that what good a Wright did (or an Imus did) in the past outweighs any racist outburst of the present.
(3) Claimed that the voice of the oppressed is not to be judged by the same rules of censure as the dominant majority that has no similar claim on victim status.
What is happening, ever so slowly, is that the public is beginning to realize that it knows even less after the speech than it did before about what exactly Obama knew (and when) about Wright’s racism and hatred.
Even elites will wake up to the fact that they’ve been had, in a sense, once they deconstruct the speech carefully and fathom that their utopian candidate just may have managed to destroy what was once a near-certain Democratic sweep in the fall. And a number of African-Americans will come to resent that they are being lumped into a majority akin to the Rev. Wright, millions of whom the majestic Sen. Obama has nobly chosen not to “disown,” despite their apparently similar embarrassing racialism.
Over the past four days, I asked seven or eight random (Asian, Mexican-American, and working-class white) Americans in southern California what they thought of Obama’s candidacy — and framed the question with, “Don’t you think that was a good speech?” The answers, without exception, were essentially: “Forget the speech. I would never vote for Obama after listening to Wright.” In some cases, the reaction was not mild disappointment, but unprintable outrage.
The blame, such as it is, for all this goes to the Obama campaign “pros,” who, in their apparent arrogance over Obamania (a phenomenon due to the candidate’s charisma, not their own savvy), simply went to sleep and let the senator and his wife resort to their natural self-indulgence — itself the offspring of the Obamas’ privilege and insularity. Any amateur handler could have scanned that speech and taken out just 8-10 phrases, called for a tougher stance on Wright, a genuine apology, and put the issue behind them.
Now it’s too late. Like Hillary’s tear, one only gets a single chance at mea culpa and staged vulnerability — and he blew it.
Where are we now? At the most fascinating juncture in the last 50 years of primary-election history.
Superdelegates can’t “steal” the election from Obama’s lock on the delegate count. And they can’t easily debase themselves by abandoning Obama after their recent televised confessionals about abandoning Hillary.
But they can count and compute — and must try to deal with these facts:
(1) Obama is crashing in all the polls, especially against McCain, against whom he doesn’t stack up well, given McCain’s heroic narrative, the upswing in Iraq, and the past distance between McCain and the Bush administration;
(2) Hillary may not just win, but win big in Pennsylvania (and maybe the other states as well), buttressing her suddenly not-so-tired argument about her success in the mega-, in-play purple states. Michigan and Florida that once would have been lost by Hillary in a fair election, now would be fairly won — and Clinton is as willing to replay both as Obama suddenly is not; and
(3) The sure thing of Democrats winning big in the House and Senate is now in danger of a scenario in which a would-be Senator or Representative explains all autumn long that the party masthead really does not like Rev. Wright, whose massive corpus of buffoonery no doubt is still to be mined. (The problem was never “snippets,” but entire speeches devoted to hatred and anger, often carefully outlined in a point-by-point format).
What is the remedy?
I would go buy about 10,000 American flags to blanket every Obama appearance, have a 4×4 lapel-button flag custom-made for the senator, have Michelle finish every appearance by leading a chorus of “God Bless America,” draft every middle-of-the-road crusty drawling Democratic veteran (the knightly Harris Wofford doesn’t cut it) to criss-cross the country — and try to Trotskyize Rev. Wright from the campaign.
Oh, and no need for any more Obama half-conversations about race and “typical white person” clarifications. All that does far more damage to the country than even to Obama himself.
And we at HillBuzz are proud of being busy little bees in that ever-growing online swarm. Buzz, buzz, buzz.
Speaking of which, if you are looking for something fun to do in Chicago on Sunday April 6th and would like to meet Chelsea Clinton (or would just like to donate to Hillary and support this Chicago event), please check out this link below:
Millions Of Dollars” From Outside Groups Boosting Obama
The Washington Times reports this morning that Sen. Barack Obama, “whose campaign has sharply criticized the role of outside political groups in the presidential race, has benefited more than any other candidate from millions of dollars in independent political expenditures, records show.” That “increasing support for Mr. Obama has given him a boost from the same sort of political activity his campaign has railed against, especially when millions of dollars in union and other special-interest money backed his opponents.” The Times says the political arm of the Service Employees International Union “and other independent groups have spent more than $7.1 million directly supporting the Illinois Democrat’s bid for the presidential nomination, campaign records show. By contrast, similar outside groups have spent about $5.1 million backing” Sen. Hillary Clinton.
HillBuzz has been closely monitoring Latino support for Democrats in the 2008 race. Latinos are solidly behind Hillary Clinton, as evidenced time and again in this primary season. Whenever the MSM (mainstream media) has claimed Obama inroads into Hispanic support, the Latino community has delivered consistently to Hillary by huge, solid numbers.
But, that Latino vote should not be taken for granted. If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, every analysis HillBuzz reads says the Latino vote will go to McCain in the fall.
Here is one such analysis HillBuzz read this weekend, from a Latino activist in the Democratic Party, who sees defeat to McCain with Obama as the nominee:
Since the mainstream media is feeding the public perspectives about the Latino vote from an outsiders viewpoint, let me share some keyaspects from the Latino viewpoint.
Fact # 1: Sen. Barack Obama cannot win the Presidency without at least carrying a MINIMUM of 70% of the Latino vote in November. On at least three occasions in February & one in March, Obama’s Latino key leaders in the West Coast & the Midwest have explained this inSpanish radio & Spanish language TV. Here are some key pointers from the Obama camp.
A) They fully expect that Sen. Obama may receive less white votes in November than any of the previous three Democratic presidential candidates. Its only a critical question of by how much less white support he will receive. They have pointed out key white voting percentages: 2004-John Kerry received = 41% of all white voters 2000- Al Gore received = 42% of all white voters 1996-Bill Clinton = 43% of all white voters
Note: According to Latinos strategist from both Obama & Clinton: Every one white vote in 2008 is equivalent to 4 Latino votes based on estimated population voter percentages: With the expected drop in white support, the Latino vote will be the critical key block that is needed to offset the expected loss of whitevotes in November for Obama. They point out key Latino voting percentages :2004-John Kerry received= 53% of all Latino voters 2000- Al Gore received= 62% of all Latino voters 1996- Bill Clinton= 72% of all Latino voters
Note: For the first time in U.S. History, Latino voters are expected to break the 10% threshold of all voters in November 2008. For the first time in U.S. History, Latino voters are expected to surpass or equal the percentage of African-American voters in November 2008. These two elements just mentioned makes the Latino vote the MAKE or BREAK voting block for the Democratic Party nominee. As Atty. Sanchez & Atty. Espinosa , two of the Obama’s major LatinoCoordinator in the the Southwest region has stated-” If Sen. Obama does not win at least 70% of Latino voters in theGeneral election, he will not be the next President of the United States. If he gets the percentage that Kerry or Gore( 53% & 62%)received in 2004 & 2000 from the Latino voters, it just won’t beenough. The lower the caucasian support for Sen. Obama, the higher the Latino margin of victory has to be in order to offset that.
Black voters are already maxed out, so the only movement, if any, has to come from the Latinos.”The strategist do not see much more movement from African-Americanvoters since they have already reached ceiling support for BarackObama in the primary. The remaining support 5%-10% in the African-American community will come from current African-American Sen. Clinton supporters.
The other key element pointed out by Latinos for Obama leaders is the critical question of how much realistically can Latinos offset the expected drop in white support ?Several Latino Obama strategist have a similar yet slightly different take on white votes. One strategist explained on Spanish TV that if Obama does not get a minimum of 39% of white votes in November, the Latino voters will not be able to offset that. We just don’t have the Latinos numbers to offset that in 2008. While I’ve heard another Obama Latino strategist state on Spanish talkradio that 37% is the absolute rock bottom number for white voters. Obama cannot get less than that if he is to be competitive. The Latino vote cannot counter the white vote if it goes below that. Either way, the critical question here is this: Kerry, Gore & Bill Clinton all received 40%-42% of the white vote. This was with the “white reagan democrats” coming back home to thedemocratic party. As opposed to the HORRIBLE nightmare of Dukakis getting just 31% ofall white voters & winning just 10 states or Mondale just getting less than 25% of all white voters & winning 1 state.
The Billion Dollar question is can, Sen. Barack Obama win or hold atleast 37% of all white voters in order to at least have a chance ofbeing competitive ?
The Million Dollar question is can, Sen. Barack Obama win at least 70% of Latino voters in November ? ( Only Bill Clinton has ever done thatat 72% ) ( Gore & Kerry were way off )
The $100,000 question is, John McCain is obviously more popular among Latinos than most Republicans. He has always won Arizona Latinos in big numbers. His Approval rating among Latinos inched even higher in 2007 because of his stand on protecting Latinos on immigration. McCain has won as much as 65% of Latino voters.
All McCain needs in November is take at least 40% of Latino voters in November & its GAME OVER. ( Remember, Bush got 44% of all latino votes in 2000 & won )So if Bush got 44% of Latino votes in 2000( despite massive Kerry spending on Spanish TV, Radio & Direct mail) inspite of the War inIraq, can a more popular(among Latinos) McCain get at least 40% ?
The other $100,000 question is, Kerry, Gore & Bill Clinton got 84% -87% of All white registered democrats who voted. ( just to staycompetitive with the Republicans)Can Sen. Obama carry 84%-87% of all white registered democrats who will vote in November ? If not, how much less will he get without knocking him out ?Will white democratic voters turnout in the same numbers as Kerry,Gore & Bill Clinton or will a percentage stay home?
These are real, frank, straight questions that everyone has to ponder& think. People have to take out their emotions & look at reality of voting patterns including the critical factor of RACIAL VOTING. Lastly, what has been the initial reaction of Latino activists on Radio & TV ?
In conclusion, Senator Obama has 3 BIG NUTS to Crack.1) Can he solidify & unite the Latino community to support him for November ?( two latest latino surveys, taken both in March, show Clinton’ssupport among Latinos is at about 71%-73%. Note: One survey showed 51%plan to cross partylines in Nov. if Sen. Obama is the nominee. The other survey showed 55% would cross partylines)2)Can he hold on and/or minimize the defection of “white reagan democrats to the GOP in November? ( right now, Reagan democrats aresolidly behind Sen. Clinton since Super Tuesday. The numbers havecontinued to increase for Clinton among this group) We all saw the results of 1984 & 1988 when this large block abandonedthe democratic party.3) Will there be larger than normal white voter turnout among middleamerica & moderate whites among registered republicans & independents? ( especially with the memory of the Rev. Wright racial controversy) All I will say particularly to White & Black Democrats.We Latinos have a unique perspective as someone who can see bothworlds. The perspective of white & black people. Since we are not apart of neither world. And right now, white progressives & some african-americans are notfacing reality when it comes to race. Whether you or I like it or not, whether its right or wrong, RACE WILL BE A KEY FACTOR in November. No Speech will change years of learned behavior & private attitudes ofmost americans when it comes to race.We are All bias in our own way!I will support & vote for Senator Obama as the nominee. I am alre
adygetting ready to give my strong talking points for why he should bePresident to the many latinos that I will have to convince. But in all honesty, I only see two outcomes in November. They are both EXTREMES. I see a victorious President Barack Obama as breakthrough AmericanHero in November by getting massive Latino, Black support combinedwith decent white support. It would shock even Republicans & it wouldbe historic celebrations.
OrIt would be Worst Lost Opportunity in Democratic history. Much Worse than the 2000 lost opportunity. It would be a down, depressed,shocked democratic party. Due to massive Electoral college defeats in states like PA,NJ,OH,MO,MA,MI,NM,CT,NH,ME,MN,FL & the entire south. It would be comparable to Dukakis & Mondale in terms of Electoral college numbers. It would almost surely cost us the Senate control due to massive statewide crossover from White reagan democrats & latinos. We shall see in November!