Month: January 2008

A helpful column from a year ago on Latino-black tension, especially in Los Angeles:

Although some commentators have attributed the Latino hostility to African Americans to the stress of competition in the job market, a 1996 sociological study of racial group competition suggests otherwise. In a study of 477 Latinos from the 1992 Los Angeles County Social Survey, professors Lawrence Bobo, then of Harvard, and Vincent Hutchings of the University of Michigan found that underlying prejudices and existing animosities contribute to the perception that African Americans pose an economic threat — not the other way around.

It is certainly true that the acrimony between African Americans and Latinos cannot be resolved until both sides address their own unconscious biases about one another. But it would be a mistake to ignore the Latino side of the equation as some observers have done — particularly now, when the recent violence in Los Angeles has involved Latinos targeting peaceful African American citizens.

Michael Gordon helpfully reminds us today that the views of most Americans and the views of most commanders in Iraq could scarcely be further apart. The reason is that the American public has essentially written off the war; but Washington has only just begun to buy into it. The Bush administration plans on committing over 100,000 troops there for the indefinite future – certainly an occupation that will endure for the rest of our lives. Ever since the Democrats lost their nerve last spring, commanders have assumed that they’re in it for the very long haul. Was that actually the whole point of the surge? Andy Bacevich thinks so:

In only one respect has the surge achieved undeniable success: It has ensured that U.S. troops won’t be coming home anytime soon. This was one of the main points of the exercise in the first place. As AEI military analyst Thomas Donnelly has acknowledged with admirable candor, "part of the purpose of the surge was to redefine the Washington narrative," thereby deflecting calls for a complete withdrawal of U.S. combat forces.

The key to this strategy is the Clinton Restoration. If the Bush family can get the other dynasty to buy into the occupation, the empire expands – as the republic hollows out from within. With $1 trillion gone, this Mesopotamian province will continue suck $3 billion a week from what’s left of the treasury. You can see why Greenwald is hyper-ventilating. If you think the Clintons will withdraw, you probably think they’ve had nothing to do with the slime covering Obama right now. Good times.

(Photo: Baquba by Gianluigi Guercia/AFP/Getty.)

A Democrat proposes.

The tactics of the Clintons in this primary season have some striking resemblances to those used by the other dynasty when challenged from below:

My own sense is that Hillary Clinton’s initial gaffe – implicitly analogising herself to Lyndon Johnson and Obama to Martin Luther King – was an accident. She meant to make the point that she is a doer and he is merely a speaker. But inevitably it came off as condescending – as if black people always need white leaders to gain their own rights.

But once this was out of the bag, the Clintons decided to run with it. Their calculation was that simply by forcing Obama to become the “black candidate” they would neutralise his postracial appeal. They would polarise the base electorate into blacks and whites, make Obama look more like Jesse Jackson, and so pick up enough white and especially Hispanic votes to win.

The Hispanic vote is particularly important to Clinton. The campaign may be decided in California. If she can gain antiblack Latino votes, she wins.

The Chicago columnist Don Rose explained the logic clearly enough: “They’re not really racists, they just want to stress that Obama hasn’t really transcended race and that a person of colour may not be electable. Think about it, folks. Over and over again.”

(Photo: Bill Pugliano/Getty.)

Just one story of many out there today:

I’ve just finished talking on the phone with my husband, Samuel Bartmess, about his experience today in the Nevada caucus in a town called Pahrump. He was in charge of one precinct; however, three other precincts were placed in the same cafeteria. Thus, four precincts (about 600 people) were all in one room. In this cafeteria he witnessed voter fraud and slime politics at its worst from the Clinton organizers and precinct captains.

The doors officially opened at 11 a.m., but by 10 a.m. Clinton voters swarmed the place.  They had been told to arrive early because there were not going to be enough ballots to go around for everyone; thus, first come first served.   By the time 11:20 rolled around Clinton organizers were shutting the doors even though this was not supposed to happen until noon.  Samuel ran back and forth from his precinct to the door trying to make sure it stayed open and, thus, started the war of words between him and the Clinton people.   Cheating followed.  Obama supporters were told that there were no more ballots even though extras were around. Clinton voters were counted more than once in differing precincts. Temp chairs refused to register Obama voters.  Undecided voters got their preference box marked for them as "Clinton" by Clinton people even though the undecided did not express a preference for the Senator.   Overall, the four precincts were taken advantage of by the Clinton team because everything was so disorganized. 

When Samuel tried to make things fair and organized he was told time and again that he didn’t get to have an opinion because he was not from Nevada.   He took the topic up with his Obama precinct captain who was unable to sway others into having a fair count.  He had a number of arguments with those who were causing chaos and those who did nothing to stop the chaos.   Overall, Samuel does admit that if the Clinton organizers had played fair that they probably would have won the precinct in the first place.  However, they disenfranchised voters and out maneuvered the other campaigns by playing dirty politics.  It was a Mob-ocracy of ruthless Clinton organizers.   For Clinton’s team, today was not a day about respect, it was not a day about uniting a country, it was not a day about people working together as one, it was a day of winning for the Clinton team.   This mob intimidated and pushed their neighbors around.  Samuel firmly believes more than ever that our campaign is about bringing the country together and the Clinton camp is for division.   

A reader writes:

After years of loyal reading I finally understand your distaste for all things Clinton.

I live in Las Vegas, Saturday was my first caucus. I went to support Obama, requiring changing registration from independent to Democrat. I brought 18 voters including friends and family. All Obama supporters. Early in the campaign most of us thought we’d hope for Obama now and still vote for Hillary in November if she wins the nomination. Not now. No chance. We got the Barack-bashing phone calls. We got bullied by out-of-state Hillary workers at the caucus site telling us we were "on the dark side of the party". We’ve seen Bill Clinton all over the local news looking more like a Karl Rove political hack than a distinguished former president. We’ve seen them try to destroy the local party and unions. In the fall if she’s on the ballot it’s not just blacks who will stay home. I know 19 white people who showed up today but won’t be there in the general election. And if we do it’ll be for McCain or Bloomberg.

And I just thought you were so excitable about the Clintons. Maybe you were only a Diva-hater. I should’ve known better. You must get tired of telling people "I told you so".

Judging from my email in-tray, a lot. Tomasky:

I don’t know who on this planet has the stature to go face-to-face with Bill Clinton and look him in the eye and tell him he behaved in a discreditable fashion. His wife? His buddy Vernon Jordan? Whoever it is, someone had better stop him. He campaigned against a fellow Democrat no differently than if Obama had been Newt Gingrich. The Clinton campaign may conclude that, numerically and on balance, Bill helped. But, trust me, to the thousands of committed progressives who supported him when he really needed it, who went to the mat for him at his moment of (largely self-inflicted) crisis but who now happen to be supporting someone other than his wife, he’s done himself a tremendous amount of damage.

Drudge is reporting that Obama hits back at Bill tomorrow morning. About time. It seems to me that since Bill Clinton is effectively running for a third term, he shouldn’t be allowed to trash other Democratic candidates without getting trashed back.

Abe Greenwald sees signs of the Republican establishment warming to McCain. Josh doesn’t disagree, whatever Limbaugh says.