Al Gore's endorsement is the one needed to put Barack Obama over the top. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801u/gore-obama-endorsement The Kid Rasta 8)
even if the brotha didn't get the presidency... vice president would be bangin' too... either way, it's a first for this country
What's sad is that... even though SOOOO many influential and non-influential people in this nation supoort him, many can't get past his skin tone and his name.
mention was given to his middle name before, in another thread i think for anyone who doesn't know, his middle name is Hussein... a while back ago, he was fighting a rumor that he was indeed a Muslim.. as for the skin tone, i realize he is black.. no amount of people running around here, screaming "i don't see color," will totally abolish the fact that, some people are darker than others however.. i do not contribute anything to the man, just because of his color.... I would leave that to demonstrations of his character.. very King-esque
Barack Obama was just endorsed by the largest Spanish language newspaper in the US, La Opinion (L.A.): BTW, Barack Obama also has been endorsed by the mighty L.A. Times. http://laopinion.com/editorial/index_en.html
that's a good sign, pimpin.. for anyone who says that the spanish community, in some way shape or form, would be against a black pres
Dream on. Hillary leads amongst Latinos in every Latino-rich state. Do not forget that California, New York, New Jersey, Colorado and New Mexico make up for more than half of all the "Super Tuesday" delegates up for grabs. If she wins about four or five of these states handily and picks up a few midwestern delegates, you can get ready to see the "Hillary/Bayh" bumper stickers in stores. The sad truth is, Hispanics will rather vote for Hillary than Obama. Now to be fair, she has more standing in their communities but i'm not buying the whole thing about him being less recognizable. Shit, even kids on the streets of Tibet know by now who Obama is.
Oh yeah, this buffoon Alan Keyes. I know the guy through my pops. My pops works with the State Department and as you know, he did in the 1980s. Honestly, when he opens his big ass mouth, i just want to grab an AK and open his heart out.
Well so far, it's kind of a toss up. Even though Hillary won big in Cali, New York and Jersey, Obama has won more states in total. He trails here in the delegate count by less than 100, which isn't so bad considering there are still more primaries. Still the most surprising state that Obama won was Utah. When i saw that, my jaw dropped and i shouted out so loud my fiancee thought something was wrong. I mean, the guy picked Utah, Idaho, Colorado, North Dakota :shock: :shock:. I was like, damn!!! Big ups to him though.
I would have liked to see Obama take Cali but he didn't put enough of his efforts and energy into it.
Nonsense. Obama, since he filed his exploratory committee, has visited California more times than Hillary "Cankles" Clinton. The reason why Obama lost Cali consists of two groups - Latinos and Asians. Unlike most states, Asians are a sizeable group in California and Hillary won 7 out of 10 Asian voters. Of course, Latinos are the fastest growing group in California and she got 6 out of 10 votes. Amazingly, among whites, he did better than polled, picking up about 45% of the white vote. His stronghold, unsuprisingly, was amongst black voters but they make up just over 1 in 10 California primary voters. That's why he "lost" California, not because he didn't put in more effort. P.S. Is it just me or did the Clinton's "Jackson-boating" backfire? Obama won most of the Southern States except for Tennessee and Arkansas and did well in places where you would've bet your house he'd lose? I hope we are seeing an end to the so-called "Bradley effect" but as my fiancee accurately pointed out to me, he won more caucuses - where the process in open - than primaries which involve secret balloting and private firms. I'm not accusing the Clintons of anything, but as we all know, they are ruthless mofos.
I can understand Latinos voting for Clinton...to some extent. Hilary tends to do well with less affluent, less educated, blue collar workers. I would guess that while there are "well-to-do" Latinos in CA...the average Latino is likely less educated and less affluent than the average white. (Race probably played a role...but even if it didn't...he likely would have been lucky to split the Latino vote....maybe a slight majority at most) The real question here is Asians. Asians are generally more educated and more affluent on average than the rest of the population....which would make it seem like they are prime Obama targets. Of course we know that he did even worse with them than he did with Latinos. There is a possibility that Obama would have won except for the fact that around 1/3 (I believe) of the votes cast were absentee....and that likely favors Hilary since she had been posting big leads in CA...two weeks ago. WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE DISPARITY IN VOTES AMONG LATINO BUT ESPECIALLY ASIAN VOTERS???? WHAT DOES EVERYONE THINK?
Conventional wisdom might dictate that Senator Obama lost Asian and Hispanic votes because of race. Now that is a debatable issue, given the contentious racial politics in America - surely i don't need to remind or define to anyone what the "Bradley effect" means. I personally believe that there was an element of that, perhaps not so much, but i'm not particularly surprised that Senator Obama did not do very well amongst Hispanic voters. Now Obama had actually spent more time in California but with regards to their issues, he hadn't expressively outlined a plan for them, like all Americans. I mean, compared to his outline for blacks and poor voters, he really didn't take any stands on issues particular to them. Perhaps one would expect that they would be included in his plans but according to the New York Times, he didn't open an office in East Los Angeles - perhaps the mecca of Latinos in California - until three days before Super Tuesday. Now Obama is a savvy, intelligent and strategic guy but that wasn't a very smart move. As for his less than stellar performance amongst Asians, i'm surprised and not surprised at the same time. To be honest, Asians aren't very fond of black folks but to be fair to them, Barack didn't really reach out to them. However, another issue that i think we should point out is that his performance amongst Asian sub-groups varied. Amongst Korean Americans and Vietnamese American, he lost out about 7-3 to Hillary but he apparently did remarkably well amongst Japanese Americans. It should be pointed out that amongst these three dominant Asian ethnic groups in California, Japanese Americans are socio-economically the most well off. And according to polls, he did okay amongst them. But amongst the lower-middle class Vietnamese and Koreans, Hillary spanked him. Which leads me to believe that the underlining factor in play isn't so much race as it is income and socioeconomics. Obama's strong base is black middle class folks and wealthy white liberals who earn $90,000 and over. Meanwhile, Hillary consistently leads amongst blue collar workers.
