Why is it that the Latino population seems to greatly favor Clinton (sometimes by a 3-1 margin), and helped her win in states like California?

hey! it's a hypothesis. :-)

i'm not very interesting in politics, but i read a lot of punditry the past day, and boy is political blogging filled with sloppy tardishness. more rigor at espn.com ;-) (not point fingers here!)

Cynics would say that African Americans and Latinos would rather have a white person in charge than someone from the other group.

no, that's a robust social science finding last i checked. i could look it up, but let's be straight here. the only state i saw in the exits where latinos and whites voted at the same clip for barack was in conn., everywhere else where there were enough latinos he did better among whites (new mexico is tied because anglos voted for him while latinos leaned clinton). no offense, but i found chang's stuff kind of vapidly rhetorical. but yeah, there might be something to that. basically he's saying asians & latinos are sheep who follow their leaders. perhaps it's true. next time i have some mutton i'll be like "this is my 'emergent' meat!"

18-25 year old Asian Americans voted just like 18-25 year old non-Asian Americans.

which exits did you see this in? the cali exits indicated that young latinos were barely more pro-obama than old latinos, in stark contrast to the repeated pattern among whites (where even in the south the youngest cohort was often leaning toward obama). i didn't see age breakdowns for asians.

one thing, a lot of latinos and asians were naturalized during a big push in the 90s under the clintons. the clinton era was an economic golden age, a time of opportunity. i pretty much assume prejudice against the 'kala' was part of it, but some of it was probably just that many immigrants have positive memories of the 1990s.

p.s. obama lived in hawaii, and his sister is still there (she's eurasian btw). so we'll see how he does there.

Chang's theory makes for interesting reading but I don't buy it completely. I don't see the desi community playing follow the leader too much, or maybe I am mistaken.

I agree with you -- it bothers me that leaders think they can simply suck up to the community leaders and expect us tired masses to follow. Isn't that the general theory also behind endorsements by labor unions?

BTW, I guess I am one who doesn't fit the voting patterns above. Asian American old people are supposed to vote for Hill. I am 42 (if it's not old, it's definitely older) and Asian American and still voted for Obama. Go figure :-)

btw, there would be some interesting stuff if we broke down by generation, etc. for example, in new mexico the latino population is split between non-immigrant hispanos who claim descent from before the annexation by the USA, and new groups from mexico. i wonder if the former were more pro-obama than the latter? he did a lot better in NM than in cali.

I think the bay area really liked the Clinton yrs in terms of economy. The HRC rally brought 4000 people on Fri evening and I saw a lot of Desi/ yellow while waiting to get in. Also lots of union members were there, excellent rally and lots of fun. Inside most of the speakers were women or Asian Am politicians from various bay area cities.
The Obama meet on SAturday was so small in comparison, I was 2 rows from John Kerry. It was badly done -- an older black woman who was in charge actually lost the sign up sheet and got really mad, they didnt have enough posters to hand out etc. Michelle did draw 1800 @ SJSU but it was really last minute I think.
Reg the L.A politicians, I am not sure how much they helped both Nunez and AV have had scandals. In fact Prop 93 failed and Nunez had lobbied Arnold to try to pass it.
Whoever wins, Calif is solid for dems and will deliver in Nov imo.

btw, the fact that 1.5 and 2nd generation brown AMERICANS seem pro-obama should say something, shouldn't? for all the sepia & chutney & curry and all that we're not that diff. from privileged upper-middle-class white college graduates (going through airport security is a little more fraught). which is why some of us are skeptical of your 'iceberg' idea abhi; identity politics is for the 'emergent' DBDs and what not, we just play at the game while we're not having wine & cheese ;-)

btw, listening to the media and talking to people i get the impression that they're trying to tone-down the reality that latinos really didn't like obama. e.g., a friend heard a latino activist talking about how younger latinos broke pro-obama like younger whites, and i pointed him to the exit poll to show that it wasn't comparable at all. and on the radio people keep talking about how latinos in new mexico voted for obama, without noting that he still underperformed vis-a-vis whites. the fact that in the south obama bleeds among older whites is something we wouldn't try to pretend wasn't due to some anti-black racism; i think it's not cynical to admit that racism exists in all groups and it ain't just whitey.

no, that's a robust social science finding last i checked.

I'm not discounting it or I wouldn't have written it. All I am saying is that it doesn't explain the whole story. Chang's explanation fills in the blanks for me.

btw, this from chang's piece:
When that power is unleashed, it will be unpredictable. The 1.5 generation, young Latino and Asian Americans from the ages of 16-40 who were born elsewhere but raised multilingual and multicultural in the U.S., represents a massive demographic bulge in those communities only beginning to feel itself. Before long, they will turn their communities' emergent vote into an insurgent vote. And then the country will really discover not just the necessity of the Latino and Asian American vote, but what it is that they really want.

that's not true if the immigration spigot keeps flowing at current rates. what we'll see a metastable equilibrium where 1.5 and greater generations will assimilate toward other sociological parameters besides their identity. but the older generations will keep 'emerging' because they have different needs and wants (e.g., look at the regular conflict here between DBDs and ABDs based on india-america relations). a 4th generation latino who can barely speak spanish but is proud of their 'aztlan' identity or whatever has a lot more in common with barack obama, who to some extent is a self-created black man (i.e., he was raised in an asian and white milieu), than with a peasant from chiapas who can't speak english.

I'm not discounting it or I wouldn't have written it. All I am saying is that it doesn't explain the whole story. Chang's explanation fills in the blanks for me.

right, it's a syngergistic dynamic. neither explanation is exclusive.

'besides their identity.'

besides their ethnic identity. i would argue that just as there are many 'irish americans' who have only vague associations with ireland or irish culture (which, doesn't really exist anymore in the way they would imagine because of the 'celtic tiger' dynamic) is going to be the reality for many of our kids.

There you go again abhi,
If Asian-Americans not wanting to vote Obama is racism, why then is not the black population wanting to vote Obama racism too? I guess black people who vote Obama due to his skin color aint racist,but Indian-Americans who do not vote Obama are racist. Interesting double-standard. I guess Obama's socialistic stance, his D-Punjab comment, his vote against the Indo-US nuclear deal had nothing to do with it,right?. But ah ignore all these factors. If you are against a black candidate because of his policies, it has to be racism, not anything to do with his stance.

So tomorrow if Robert Mugabe stood for the US presidential election (assuming he gets a US citizenship), people who vote against him, are racist, right? Logic like this is what keeps people like Mugabe in power and allows empty-suits like Obama to get so much coverage. Color has nothing to do with it,If say Thomas Sowell stood for election,lot of Asian-Americans would vote for him.

But race-baiting is a favorite pastime of liberals. Any criticism of blacks is racist,even when the criticism is valid and has nothing to do with skin color. Obama is an avowed socialist, and has no executive experience whatsoever. Now I admit Hillary has no experience either but she has Bill to look for advise. Obama keeps chanting "change" but has a resume thinner than a wafer, he has no proven capability to lead. Maybe this is what concerns Asians and Lations. That and Hillary has done a lot for latinos and asians.

But ignore all this,it has to be racism. Seriously liberalism is a mental disorder

I think 'Razib' puts it well: '... i think it's not cynical to admit that racism exists in all groups and it ain't just whitey.'

Of the two, I favour Obama, and I wish more South Asians were supporting Obama, but one thing that is constantly being brought up, that brown people are supporting HRC not Obama, is bothering me slightly. Isn't the insinuation brown peoples' natural preference should be for Obama racist?

Probably the selfish side in every desi argues like this - Well if you are a "minority" and want to weild more influence then it is better you side with the "majority" and more "powerful" ( read white ) and thats why probably the more tilt towards Hillary at the expense of "diverse" Obama. And as Razib mentions above apart from some ocassional issues what do the general well off middle class desis have in common with blacks ? Does the average desi really go through all the socio-economic troubles that blacks go through. Absolutely not.
I think it is myth that diversity attracts desis and makes them feel comfortable. How many Indian-American who are born here or lived here for a long time feel totally out of place in an all white or less diverse surroundings ? If not what is so appealing about Obama other than the fact that he is young and smooth talks a lot.

If Asian-Americans not wanting to vote Obama is racism, why then is not the black population wanting to vote Obama racism too?

i think it's pretty obvious that blacks are voting so much for obama in part because of the implicit race baiting of the clintons prior to south carolina. in cany case, black people came here as slaves. they were disenfranchised and lived in a state of apartheid until the 1960s in most of the country. they were ethnically purged from much of the north (read the book 'sundown towns'). they've been part of the history of this country since its founding, and have formed from 10-20% of its population throughout that whole time. i think i would cut them a little slack for voting on ethnic solidarity grounds; as a point of fact clinton and obama aren't that different in their policy stances.

let's take asians off the table. latinos voted for clinton even though obama consciously and proactively pandered to them on immigration issues (e.g., driver's licenses). so what's up with that?

(i'm speaking as a pragmatic pro-obama libertarian who opposes affirmative action)

Isn't the insinuation brown peoples' natural preference should be for Obama racist?

i think you're over reading ;-) that being said, i think a lot of ABCDs identify with obama for biographical reasons; a multicultural background and bobo ethos.

And as Razib mentions above apart from some ocassional issues what do the general well off middle class desis have in common with blacks ? Does the average desi really go through all the socio-economic troubles that blacks go through. Absolutely not.

remember that among whites obama regular does the best among the super-educated and wealthy. so income is a predictor only in proper context. note that among cali latinos age isn't an issue; they were pro-hillary up and down. in contrast, whites and blacks showed strong obama preference inversely with age.

Wow, impressive how for Clinton Santa Clara country went. There was a fair bit of Obama support in the tech crowd and at Stanford, where there were 2-hour lines at the polling station. Exit polls at stanford indicated that 75% went for Obama. I'm not sure how statistically significant or proper these polls were, but:

Even though 75% total went for Obama, only 43% of latinos did thesame. Obviously a skewed demographic here, and it may be there were more female latino voters at Stanford than male, but still: among relatively affluent (or to-be affluent) and educated latinos, in an overwhelming pro-obama environment, and age-group, Hillary won.

(Source: http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/2/6/clintonWinsCalifornia

This accords with the exit polls Razib pointed to - there does seem to be a lot of historical ties and allegiance to the Clintons that's likely playing a key role.

As for asian-americans, intuitively I'd have to say some part of the overwhelmingly pro-Hillary split has to be tied with racial issues; especially given relatively little knowledge or info on Obama. It may only be a small component of the split, but anecdotal experience with a lot of first-generation AAs (chinese, vietnames, indian..) suggests this to be the case. After a couple of years of chinese (mandarin) language classes, you'd be surprised how frank the racial insults and slurs are sometimes.. How this compares with bigotry from other communities is unclear, but I'm inclined to say its as big an issue as the whole emergent/insurgent theory in such compressed-timescale elections.

Well if you are a "minority" and want to weild more influence then it is better you side with the "majority" and more "powerful" ( read white ) and thats why probably the more tilt towards Hillary at the expense of "diverse" Obama.

right. we need to get past the cut-out models of the past and get a bit more subtle. look at it game-theoretically and compare the pairwise combinations for example. for example, as a brown-skinned south asian i think i would experience less prejudice from the average white on the west coast than east asian (who are prejudiced against dark-skinned people quite often or find them repulsive), black (who are often anti-immigrant) or latino (who frankly are often not that well educated have some stereotypes about 'turks' and what not). if you control for education it isn't much of an issue, college and post-grad educated people share a common ethos. but racial sensitivity is something non-whites get a pass on so let's just say that consciousness isn't always raised (this includes brownz also; i mean, we even discriminate among each other based on region, religion and skin color).

i hate to point it out, but many folks from our parents' generation of Indians, especially immigrants, can be pretty racist. and, i think the same envy that might exist between latino's and blacks (but for different reasons) exist between asians (not only south asian) and other minority groups.

you'd be surprised how frank the racial insults and slurs are sometimes..

east asians are as prejudiced against dark skin as south asians (including against dark skinned south asians). some of the tienamann square protests emerged in a background of race riots at beijing university where there were rumors of african students raping chinese women. this is not to say that east asians are nazis, just that people really shouldn't be surprised. (and obvious east asians often view south asians as blacks, we're pretty kala as well!)

Err, that's santa clara county.

Also, asian americans at stanford went overwhelmingly for Obama - 94%. So, some interesting generational shifts here not so present among Latinos at the same campus?

i hate to point it out, but many folks from our parents' generation of Indians, especially immigrants, can be pretty racist.

if you are a bodega owner what is your typical experience of blacks? a university chicago professor like barack obama? there is correlation between lack of blacks (whitness of a state) and obama support. racism is bad, but those of us who don't work a mini-mart where black youth insult or intimidate us regularly have certain luxuries in being broad-minded.

Abhi, I understand what you/Chang trying to get at through the emergent vs insurgent idea. But with respect to numbers, in an immigrant community the insurgents will always be outnumbered by emergents. So by that logic Hillary kind of people who indulge in emergent politics will always win over Obama just by sheer number unless somebody really changes the way of thinking of the emergents.

To follow up on what razib said, with regards to RandomDude@12, blacks have demonstrated, time and again, their willingness to vote for white (Democratic) candidates, in huge numbers. On the flip side, whites and Latinos have not shown any particular willingness to vote for black candidates. There's a big difference between not voting for an otherwise acceptable candidate due to a positive alternative (as in the case of blacks vis-a-vis Clinton and Obama) vs. voting for a candidate because of a negative attitude towards an alternative (which accounts for at least part of the Latino vote). Does anyone doubt that if it were Clinton vs. Edwards, Clinton would be cleaning up the African-American vote?

21 · razib and obvious east asians often view south asians as blacks

Razib,
Do you have some cites for that? That kind of shocks me, and runs counter to my (admittedly non-representative) experience.

On the flip side, whites and Latinos have not shown any particular willingness to vote for black candidates.

well, illinois has elected two black senators. massachusetts has elected one (in the 1970s) and now has a black governor. seattle's long time de facto mayor has been black. the point that whites will not vote for blacks is correct. but, there is another that also contribute to this, many black politicians start out in black districts or black cities, and so never develop a broad message which appeals outside the 'community.' part of it is due to redistricting which involved collusion between black democrats and republicans (who wanted to get rid of blacks from districts which would then be safely republican).

@ Razib,
While the blacks have been through hell in this country, the present generation has it pretty good,with so many advantages available to them. While Indians and Asians were never enslaved in the US, Asian history in the US aint a cakewalk. The Asian exclusion act, Indians being driven out of NE, all point out that Asians too had to struggle to reach their present level of acceptance. So cut Asians some slack when they vote along ethnic solidarity lines as well, or the next best thing Hillary Clinton.

@ jackal
So blacks cannot be racist towards east and south asians,right? Why dont you read "Black racism" by Ying Ma? Racism cuts both ways. I could argue that blacks not voting for Hillary could be due to an anti-Asian or anti-Latino bias on the part of blacks.

I'm not saying that counterexamples don't exist -- they clearly do (Obama's being one of them). But in a big picture, blacks don't have a problem voting for whites, while the converse is not true.

Do you have some cites for that? That kind of shocks me, and runs counter to my (admittedly non-representative) experience.

personal communication. also, there's a fair amount of literature on the eugenics movement in east asia in the early 20th century. the chinese intellectuals associated with may 4th movement and what not for example mooted sterilizing all colored races; which was everyone besides east asians and europeans. i don't know why this should be surprising. i've talked to kashmiris who obviously view 'indians' as ugly black beasts ;-) (i mean, they don't come out and say, but the subtext isn't exactly hidden).

Humm, the stereotype my east asian friends tell me is prevalent among their parents/grandparents generation of south asians/indians is that we're "smart" but our cooking tends to be, shall we say, 'fragrant' :-P perhaps they were just being polite. on the other hand, the black monkey stereotype seems to be rather prevalent among east asians (even among some family members in India, who I became furious with..). The prejudice and stereotypes seem to be of a different order, at the least.

While the blacks have been through hell in this country, the present generation has it pretty good,with so many advantages available to them. While Indians and Asians were never enslaved in the US, Asian history in the US aint a cakewalk. The Asian exclusion act, Indians being driven out of NE, all point out that Asians too had to struggle to reach their present level of acceptance. So cut Asians some slack when they vote along ethnic solidarity lines as well, or the next best thing Hillary Clinton.

Ask yourself this -- would you rather be born black in America, or Asian? Both in terms of historical and current discrimination, I don't think you can compare Asians and blacks at all...

So cut Asians some slack when they vote along ethnic solidarity lines as well, or the next best thing Hillary Clinton.

i would be cutting them some slack if they voted for bobby jindal. but that's not what it is obviously if you vote for clinton. like i said, racism isn't all of it. but they aren't voting for clinton because they favor white hegemony.

23 · razib said

but those of us who don't work a mini-mart where black youth insult or intimidate us regularly have certain luxuries in being broad-minded.

There is definitely a subtle difference between a wealthy, highly educated, upper middle class white collared Indian american as opposed to middle-lower class less educated blue collared Indian-American ( kind razid referes to above). But if the number of Indian-Americans in the former category is much more than the latter ( though i don't know the actual numbers here ) then more number of desi will be broad-minded.

back to the general response to abhi's post and the framing of this issue. i read and listen and there are only polar or two-dimensional analyses. but like i said, we have to look at it game-theoretic like, and case by case basis. whether you identify with obama probably has to do with your situation in life. if you grew up as the only brown kid in a all white town who do you have more in common with biographically? obama, half-kenyan and half-kenyan raised in hawaii and indonesia, or hillary, who grew up in a suburb of chicago and was a goldwater girl? supporting obama to some extent is a form of affirmation of identity politics for many ABDs i think; and many young people general. we feel like ironic outsiders. and he is one of us.

But if the number of Indian-Americans in the former category is much more than the latter ( though i don't know the actual numbers here ) then more number of desi will be broad-minded.

right, there are multiple parameters you need to plug into your function to generate an expectation. an engineer who came in '96 from india might be well educated and affluent; but they're not a stereotypical 'wine & cheese; voter. brownz born & raised with college educations who evince a 'pan-brown' ethic sort of are.

p.s., many affluent immigrant brown americans had to work in crap jobs in grad school or early on in their business career where they encountered disrespectful black youth who would mock them. those of us who were raised in middle class white suburbs didn't have to go through that experience don't have the same associations and are appropriately sensitive.

So blacks cannot be racist towards east and south asians,right? Why dont you read "Black racism" by Ying Ma? Racism cuts both ways. I could argue that blacks not voting for Hillary could be due to an anti-Asian or anti-Latino bias on the part of blacks.

That second point is pretty specious given that exit polling (and other polls) have shown Clinton's South Carolina antics and race-baiting drove away more black voters than would have otherwise voted for Obama. It's rather obvious that that more than latino and asian support for clinton made the difference. Of course everybody can be racist. The point is that the overwhelming asian-american numbers for Clinton in California, combined with our ancedotal experiences, suggest race played some, perhaps small, role. As I said, this could largely be the result of poor campaigning and knowledge of the opposing candidate. Is there any data for this? Not that I know of; just observations and intuition. Yeah, I feel like David Brooks..

@ Milind,
Depends. If it where a upper middle class black American family vs. a upper middle class Asian (Indian) family, I would want to be born in a middle class black American family. I would be a US citizen, not needing to immigrate, can get federal aid and affirmative action quotas and in general have it much easier. On the other hand I would defnitely not like to be born in a poor black American family, but that has to do with economics and not race.

@ razib,
Bobby Jindal is not the typical Indian-American culturally, he is much closer to the white evangelical in the deep South. Hillary is if you could say that, the best proxy Indian-American candidate.

Bobby Jindal is not the typical Indian-American culturally, he is much closer to the white evangelical in the deep South. Hillary is if you could say that, the best proxy Indian-American candidate.

just an FYI, according to the 'general social survey' 23% of indian amerians are christian.

39 · RandomDude Bobby Jindal is not the typical Indian-American culturally, he is much closer to the white evangelical in the deep South

Yeah, southern white evangelicals really groove on his Rhodes scholar status--that's just so them.
Seriously, quit giving poor Jindal such a hard time just b/c he panders to the majority on a few issues--all politicians do.

35 · razib said

and many young people general. we feel like ironic outsiders. and he is one of us.

Razib what do you mean by outsiders. We have grown up here. We are not surrounded by desi folks like DBDs or our immigrant parents. We do everything American maybe ocassionaly indulge in journeys across the ocean or weird langage/food at home. Does that upbringing make you feel uncomfortable with an all white or less diverse surroundings. So I don't see what desis have in so much common with Obama except the skin color ( not being white ) and having multi-racial parents ? If you are really appealing to politics and power play and issues as Abhi calls it, instead of tug at the heart I don't see anything that should pull a desi towards Obama anymore than Hillary.

@Razib,
Thanks for that. But the Indian American Christians are Catholics and not largely evangelical. Bobby Jindal went out of the way to woo white evangelical southerners, not your average desi irrespective of religion. But still I could say that Bobby Jindal's victory has given a political visibility to the desi community.

I oppose Obama due to policy. My stance would be the same if Obama where white or Asian.

priya, i don't feel like an outsider really. i'm way too self-absorbed and conceited to really care much about my relation to most people ;-) that being said, as someone of a muslim background it got old being asked about worshiping a cow. you're an exotic little weirdo, and obama was too. and yeah, it is emotional. i don't think there's much of a policy difference between obama and clinton, especially on domestic issues, so a lot of the results hinge on identity and what not.

Seriously, quit giving poor Jindal such a hard time just b/c he panders to the majority on a few issues--all politicians do.

He's a freaking biology major, and rhodes scholar, who's anti-evolution! He doesn't just pander, he over-panders or perhaps more frighteningly, actually believes it. The dissonance really ticks me off.

Thanks for that. But the Indian American Christians are Catholics and not largely evangelical. Bobby Jindal went out of the way to woo white evangelical southerners, not your average desi irrespective of religion. But still I could say that Bobby Jindal's victory has given a political visibility to the desi community.

well, let's not forget the orthodox, shall we? and there are plenty of converts. and why are you contrasting jindal with catholics when he's a catholic convert? and yeah, he pandered. he's a politician.

He's a freaking biology major, and rhodes scholar, who's anti-evolution! He doesn't just pander, he over-panders or perhaps more frighteningly, actually believes it.

brown has a pretty robust evolution integration into their bio program apparently. so he's lying. and since he's catholic there's no necessary relation between his religion and creationism. he was just trying to get bubba to vote for him.

30 · razib

also, there's a fair amount of literature on the eugenics movement in east asia in the early 20th century. the chinese intellectuals associated with may 4th movement and what not for example mooted sterilizing all colored races; which was everyone besides east asians and europeans. i don't know why this should be surprising.

True, but mostly pretty fringe, no?
I'm just suggesting that your average "korean-american on the street" doesn't conflate desis and african-americans.

Well that's pretty sad. I guess he really wanted to make sure he got elected, and covered all his bases forcefully. He could've just not said anything about it, but this being Louisiana, I imagine the democrats would've brought up teaching ID anyway.

I'm just suggesting that your average "korean-american on the street" doesn't conflate desis and african-americans.

no, that's true. but there are non-african 'blacks.' i mean, a lot of brown people are pretty black, and east asia (like other parts of asia ;-) thinks darkness is ugly. don't worry, they don't think you're a brother ;-) and i don't know how fringe it is. lee kuan yew is pretty disgusted by south asians (and whites), though he's not vulgar about it (e.g., the famous sterilization of the swimming pool after an indian diplomat had used it).

17 · razib said

Isn't the insinuation that brown peoples' natural preference should be for Obama racist?

i think you're over reading ;-) that being said, i think a lot of ABCDs identify with obama for biographical reasons; a multicultural background and bobo ethos.
I thought that might be the case, that's why i was only "slightly" bothered. :)

I see what you're saying about identity though. I definitely somewhat identify with Obama, because of the factors you mentioned and because the guy likes The Wire, which incidentally is quite popular among the "wine and cheese"/champagne socialist crowd.

47 · razib brown has a pretty robust evolution integration into their bio program apparently. so he's lying. and since he's catholic there's no necessary relation between his religion and creationism. he was just trying to get bubba to vote for him

Right.
I agree it's mildly off-putting, but it's weird to get too bent out of shape about it. Imagine that 20% of the electorate thought that the moon was made of green cheese. You would be a bit of 'tard as a politician not to mention that "theory" as a possibility in your speeches. Blame the voters, not the politicians who are brilliant people (like Jindal) who are forced to take on some odd views to be successful. Be realistic.

p.s. and south asians can be pretty racist against 'chinese' too. two-way street, right? the whole point is that ethnic & group interactions need to be modeled at the right level of granularity. otherwise we get stupid cliches and are 'surprised' when 'people of color' don't get on with each other. a few weeks ago the BBC had a program on black-brown racism/tension, and some white dude called in shocked and appalled that non-whites would be racist against each other since 'it goes against all logic' and all that.

Aaaah, sorry about the messed up quotes.

rob, right. some of it is just that jindal is so right-wing, and indian americans are mostly a democratic community now. and some of it is that he is a christian convert to bad-mouths unsaved heathens to his fellow believers. there's a lot to diss ;-) (depending on where you stand)

50 · razib don't worry, they don't think you're a brother ;-)

That has cert. been my experience at east-asian establishments, in contrast to the experiences of my (admittedly few) black (i.e., African-derived) friends.

rob, i know tamils are often perceived as 'black' in singapore (communication from my eurasian singaporean roommate). that doesn't mean that the chinese think they're african. i mean, my grandfather was prejudiced against his darkest son but he knew he wasn't anymore african; he just thought he was ugly and didn't like looking at him as much. my whole point in bringing up east asian racism was that even within a group like 'asian' there is a lot of tension and prejudice (e.g., chinese vs. japanese). i had a friend who was korean who dated a laotian hmong woman, and his family was so appalled that they stopped talking to him for a while. she was a baptist like him who was college educated, etc., and looked 'asian.' i recall in lucknow or allahbad the shia voted for the BJP once because their local rivals were sunnis who were aligned with congress. stuff like that.

Unrelated but, holy crap: http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sincefeb5_email/graphic

Obama's raised close to $6 million since the polls closed last night! Currently shooting up at $10000/minute -- this is pretty unprecedented. It's going to beat the Ron Paul one day fundraising, and I don't think they were even planning on it doing so..

jackal, wealthy, web-savvy, young, etc. looks like hillary will have to loan her campaign more money.

razib,

yeah, i'm not denying e-asian prejudice, just have never thought of it as racism (i.e., japanese v. korean). Most e-asians, in my exper., are pretty positive towards desis.

servers down. looks like their sysops need to do some load balancing....

Yeah, it's getting a bit spotty. I was able to get it again, up to 5.8 million now -- it's mesmerizing! I'm guessing they weren't expecting this.. viral money donation game anyone?

Most e-asians, in my exper., are pretty positive towards desis.

right, but there's a reason that south asian student associations started, right? i know that brownz often feel out of place or left out at asian-pacific student union organizations sometimes. as for positivity of exp., i think among american born college educated types there's a lot of commonality and amity. prolly less so among 1st-gen.

well, the elite media is hardcore pro-obama. hopefully they'll be able to spin some nice propoganda stories out of the money being raised!

63 · razib

right, but there's a reason that south asian student associations started, right

Yeah, fair enough.

I think Hillary has enough of a lock on the super-delegates that it's all but over, really. Obama's got the $$ and will win MD, VA, DC, but--my money is on Hillary to take the Dem. nomination. And then McCain might well win. You have to give it to the GOP for picking the "best" candidate, in terms of general-election viability.

Super-delegates can change their votes can they? Anyways, it'll be tough, at the very least, for Hillary with the next month probably featuring a fair number of losses for her, and Obama raising $30 million to use in Ohio/Texas; while she's loaning herself money to compete in terms of advertising.

1) yeah, from what i'm reading super-delegates aren't much of an issue prolly (a lot are uncommitted). this isn't '84

2) feb. is going to be tough for hillary. but obama needs to break out of his upper class white and quasi-white & black ghetto. obama wins whites in states with no blacks. in early march he hits ohio & texas. in texas he'll be up against latinos & white southern democrats. so he needs to break out with working class whites at some point.

67 · jackal

Super-delegates can change their votes can['t] they?

Yes, more precisely, they can vote whatever way they want at the convention--but, they have to be trending heavily Hillary, given that they are, by definition, the Democratic-party establishment, and Obama is a newcomer while Hillary is not.

btw, i have been reading stuff about how hillary clinton supporters feel lonely on elite campuses. this nomination is about race & class, mixed & matched. dean & romney show that activist elites can't always sway the results at the end of the day.

Yup, he's going to have make some inroads into those groups. He did seem to do fairly well with southern white males in Georgia, so that's less of a concern than Hispanics and older women I think. Texas becomes interesting because some large percentage of delegates are assigned by caucuses, which his campaign seems to have mastered quite well. He'll probably do well with Austin liberals as well. The big difference from the Feb. 5 states is, of course, time. Both campaigns will have time to dedicate to individual states.

That will suck for politicians as it will make our larger demographic more unreliable, but good for us because they will have to listen to more of us.

Abhi, I think this is one of the most brilliant sentences you've ever written. (Admittedly I may have missed something in the last few months.)

A chinese-american friend of mine said he wished he had known Obama has a Chinese-American brother-in-law---he thinks this would have helped him sway his parents into believing Obama can look out for Asian-American interests as well.

Are Latinos and Asian Americans unwilling to bring themselves to vote for a Black man? Get out of here with that.

I like Chang's analysis on the situation. I think he's a bit too quick to dismiss the possibility of anti-Black sentiment in Latino and Asian communities, though. However, this insurgent vs emergent voting idea is compelling.

1. Women voters break for Hillary
2. Latino-American voters break for Hillary
3. Older voters break for Hillary
4. Asian-Americans voters break for Hillary
5. Male voters break for Obama
6. Independent voters break for Obama
7. Younger voters break for Obama

8. Voters without a high school education break the heaviest for Clinton.
9. Voters with post graduate degrees break for Obama.
10. Voters with incomes above $100,000 break for Obama.

Clinton's strength is among women, latinos, asians and the older generation of democrats. Obama's strength is among african-americans, independents, college educated white males, and the younger generation.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

east asians often view south asians as blacks, we're pretty kala as well!

East asian racial contempt for dark-skinned people like indians and africans is well known. Whether they are imitating white racism is debatable. But what accounts for south asian prejudice towards dark skin other than slavish self-loathing, considering that south asians are overwhelmingly dark-skinned?

Abhi thanks so much for this (love Jeff, btw). I get frustrated when I hear the "entrenched racism" argument, which is often paired with descriptions of the Watts riots and Korean v. Black violence. It's true, there's inter-community racism, but there are other attractive reasons for why APIAs voted for Clinton (and reasons why they did not vote as heavily for Clinton in "older" Asian American communities, e.g. Alameda/SF, than in "newer" communities, e.g. Contra Costa and Santa Clara). I'm surprised no one has talked about how Hillary conforms so closely to the model minority stereotype that's projected onto APIA, esp. East Asian American, communities. Just as my Viet friends' parents vote hardcore Reagan republicans, a good number of friends' parents vote hardcore Clinton. I think there are a lot of factors that contribute to this. Similarly, a friend mused that he was shocked that Clinton cleaned house in LA. How is this shocking? She had the endorsement and GOTV-backing of HUGE Latino political names -- Villaraigosa, Loretta Sanchez, Fabian Nunez, and the list continues.

Thanks also for including the breakdown by age group -- to borrow from Colbert, I felt in my gut that the numbers/breakdown would be closer to parity among younger folks. I know that many of my friends (who are split bet. Obama and Clinton) were working overtime going home to get older folks in their community to vote for their candidate. I think some are energized by California and want to bring a familiar face to the upcoming contests (notably WA and TX). I wonder if it'll happen in time :) I think a really interesting dynamic will be to see if folks are able to severely disrupt the top-down GOTV system that usually operates in California. In that sense, Clinton's campaign is not doing anything new for electoral politics. Obama's campaign has worked hard to create a ground campaign that emulates grassroots activity (it is not purely grassroots, but it certainly does a lot more "ground up" work than any of the other campaigns I've seen on the trail). I think, even with the generational balancing and differences, as young Asian Americans (including ABDs) and Latinos become more and more involved in campaign politics, the more we'll see the "top down" structure neutralize a bit.

Does this blog deliberately omit the obvious:

1. Blacks break in overwhelming numbers for Obama.

Why the omission? Points 1-7 are also obviously correct. Hillary will
dig it out and appoint Obama as VP... he's certainly earned it. They'll
win easily. Talk radio will bitterly oppose them at every step.

12 · RandomDude said

There you go again abhi,
If Asian-Americans not wanting to vote Obama is racism, why then is not the black population wanting to vote Obama racism too? I guess black people who vote Obama due to his skin color aint racist,but Indian-Americans who do not vote Obama are racist. Interesting double-standard. I guess Obama's socialistic stance, his D-Punjab comment, his vote against the Indo-US nuclear deal had nothing to do with it,right?. But ah ignore all these factors. If you are against a black candidate because of his policies, it has to be racism, not anything to do with his stance.

So tomorrow if Robert Mugabe stood for the US presidential election (assuming he gets a US citizenship), people who vote against him, are racist, right? Logic like this is what keeps people like Mugabe in power and allows empty-suits like Obama to get so much coverage. Color has nothing to do with it,If say Thomas Sowell stood for election,lot of Asian-Americans would vote for him.

But race-baiting is a favorite pastime of liberals. Any criticism of blacks is racist,even when the criticism is valid and has nothing to do with skin color. Obama is an avowed socialist, and has no executive experience whatsoever. Now I admit Hillary has no experience either but she has Bill to look for advise. Obama keeps chanting "change" but has a resume thinner than a wafer, he has no proven capability to lead. Maybe this is what concerns Asians and Lations. That and Hillary has done a lot for latinos and asians.

But ignore all this,it has to be racism. Seriously liberalism is a mental disorder

I am not sure I agree with Jeff Chang. Yes, party bosses have a disproportionate influence, but that is mostly relevant to funding, where Obama actually has an edge on Hillary. The other aspect, which is not relevant in most years but has become important this year much like the electoral college did in 2000 (and, for a brief period of half an hour till Ohio was confirmed, in 2004), is that of the superdelegates.

The real issue is not one of emergent (that word also annoys me because it is not representative of the trend that Jeff Chang is talking about, it was just chosen to rhyme with insurgent, why not "detergent"?) vs. insurgent, but in fact, the same identity politics that Jeff Chang is perpetrating when he talks about Asian-American/Latino/whatever voting blocs. These groups will become more unpredictable only when they shed this stupid bogey of identity politics and vote on issues - it is not an issue of party bosses. Of course, this might be too much to hope for given that other minorities like Af-Ams and women are still grappling with these same issues even after so many decades.

That said, Obama hasn't been shy of touting the support of all the senators who have been endorsing him. And I don't think you can get any more establishment on the Democrat side than Ted Kennedy, who has gone all out for Obama. If these people had been rooting for Hillary, I am certain the supporters of Obama the underdog would be making that heard everywhere.

This is just my hunch. Most of the people in the immigration wave of the 80s and 90s, Hispanics and Asians, tend to have fond memories of the Clintons, the people in charge as they were assimilated and gained citizenship. That's my guess on why they seem to vote for Hillary over Obama.

This is just my hunch. Most of the people in the immigration wave of the 80s and 90s, Hispanics and Asians, tend to have fond memories of the Clintons, the people in charge as they were assimilated and gained citizenship. That's my guess on why they seem to vote for Hillary over Obama.

And have repressed the memories "of that woman Ms Lewinski", who President Clinton didn't have an affair with and "the meaning of is is" to want that circus back again in the White House

Yes, we should treat them as one indivisible entity and punish her for the (irrelevant as far as his office was concerned, or so they should have been, if not for a bunch of hypocritical Republicans) mistakes of her philandering husband, while simultaneously deriding her for riding on the coattails of the accomplishments of that entity.

A test of Chang's theory on access, will be if Obama wins the nomination. If he wins the nomination, do Asian-Americans provide him with the same level of support (financial and otherwise) that they give to Hill. I'm sure some will come out and provide some financial support to Obama but will he get the same amount of votes that Hill received from the Asian American and Latino community? If Asian Americans and Latinos who would have voted for Hill, abstain or vote for Mccain, I think that might go a long way in saying that factors like identity politics have a greater sway on how people vote than anyone wants to admit. After all, Hill and Obama's platforms aren't drastically different.

In other words, let's have a collective experiment, vote for Obama today to see if Desis are really racist later. ;)

Yes, we should treat them as one indivisible entity and punish her for the (irrelevant as far as his office was concerned, or so they should have been, if not for a bunch of hypocritical Republicans) mistakes of her philandering husband, while simultaneously deriding her for riding on the coattails of the accomplishments of that entity

I am not blaming her for his indiscretions, just pointing out what we have to look forward to Clintons enter the White House.
Since he is no longer the president, he will have even more time on his hands. The philandering and the fallout impacted Bill Clinton's second term from 1998 onwards and you can blame the Republicans for it but lets not forget that Bill Clinton displayed terribly bad judgment in the entire episode, lied under oath and was disbarred and impeached as well.

Even if he is better behaved than the last time around, Bill Clinton has the potential to become an extra constitutional power center and like it or not voters will take all this into consideration when deciding to support her or not. Also in the general election independent and Republican voters who would never vote for Hillary would vote for Obama (anecdotal evidence: some of my Republican friends have even changed their party registrations to be able to vote for Obama)
also many long term Democrats share this unease about Clintons.

Bill Clinton's behavior between the NH and South Carolina primaries almost made it seem like he was running for an unofficial third term through extra constitutional means i.e. his spouse. I would find it much easier to support Hillary if we didn't get Bill with her as a package deal. Co-presidency thing really makes me uncomfortable. Riding on her husband's coattails is a decision she made, I think she could have made it on her own and like all of us she has to face the consequences of her decisions, may be unfair to her, but that's just how it is.

Another point the 35 years of experience she is touting includes several as the first lady and if she claims credit for the successes of the Clinton presidency as her own she also gets saddled with the not so great aspects of it.

82 · Rahul said

(irrelevant as far as his office was concerned, or so they should have been, if not for a bunch of hypocritical Republicans)

Thomas-Hill, not to mention Packwood. You people set the precedent. We over at the VRWC just followed.

Thomas-Hill, not to mention Packwood. You people set the precedent. We over at the VRWC just followed.

Ah, that's what I was missing, thanks for the clarification! Sexual harassment is exactly equivalent to sex between consenting adults. I guess it is the same logic that requires the Republicans to look into everybody's bedrooms to determine which orifices are legal, and which genders are allowed to copulate with each other.

....

the same identity politics that Jeff Chang is perpetrating when he talks about Asian-American/Latino/whatever voting blocs. These groups will become more unpredictable only when they shed this stupid bogey of identity politics and vote on issues -

No matter how you vote, you're always black see #12 , #77.

#12 Maybe this is what concerns Asians and Lations. That and Hillary has done a lot for latinos and asians.

And I don't think you can get any more establishment on the Democrat side than Ted Kennedy, who has gone all out for Obama

Diff. thread but I believe you also pointed to Paul Krugmans take on the Obama vs Clinton health care plan.
I heard Prof. Krugman speak last year about Globalisation and Welfare. He rightly (?) predictes that some form of earned income tax credit will have to worked out for *middle class/ college educated* Americans at some point if current trends continue. It's not just blue collar low skills workers who are seeing wages depressed, and tradable jobs disappear. He talked about the death of the "Washington consensus" and now that we are waking up from the neo con adventure maybe some of it will be more palatable to Americans. But it has an odour of class distinctions, and we don't do "class" separate from race in the US. Besides only lazy people who don't want to work need welfare ;-)

I'm curious who you talk to about health care reform? It's my experience that some [Americans] who can barely balance their checkbook hear universal health care & immediately see mental images of a hammer and sickle. The city of London has surpassed Wall Street as the center of world trade. This in a country where conservative MP's support the NHS somehow seems to get missed out.

It doesn't take a Machiavellian political mindset for him [Obama] to be aware of his political affiliation, race, American history ,knowledge of the GOP's probable playbook to realize he can not be as "liberal/aggressive" as an older,ummm "non minority" candidate is on the issue. Until more CEO's, Wall street types come out and talk about the cost of health care and its effect on their competitiveness anyone who suggests that the system is broken is just another tax and spend ,big government liberal. I think Barack Hussein Obama has considered all of this, and is still uppity enough to think he can win because he's offering something tangible and intangible that we all want.

(grabbing a kleenex), I'm proud of America!

86 · Rahul said

! Sexual harassment is exactly equivalent to sex between consenting adults

Paula Jones did not consent. either did katleen wiley or jauanita broderick. Now if you want ot argue that monica did and jones lawyers had no right to ask bubba about consensual sex in the workplace, go right ahead; but then explain to me why the consenual sexual activity of thomas and packwood was plastered all over the front pages.

I'm curious who you talk to about health care reform? It's my experience that some [Americans] who can barely balance their checkbook hear universal health care & immediately see mental images of a hammer and sickle.

Just "progressives" and liberals, whose actions are apparently explicable purely by guilt.

How about having The first black (eye roll)president campaigning for you? That's pretty establishment.

Oh, no denying that. I am just arguing the claim that Obama is the upstart that everybody claims he is.

But it has an odour of class distinctions, and we don't do "class" separate from race in the US.

I actually thought that comment you linked to where Obama said his children were too privileged to deserve affirmative action was great. I don't know if that is consistent with his general public posture, but assuming it is, I do hope he acts on it if he gets elected.

Yogi, your comment #84 about electability because of the doubts of anonymous "voters" is very different than your personal opinion that you stated in #81.

then explain to me why the consenual sexual activity of thomas and packwood was plastered all over the front pages.

Liberal media bias?

I think a lot of the Asian-American vote for Hillary is a 'Bill' vote. Middle generation Asian-American immigrants who immigrated here in the late 80's and throughout the 90s are still enraptured by Bill. Many view his policies as the reason for such an increase in the Asian-American immigrant population (especially over the past decade) and their assimilation in the American community. There is belief among the community that Hillary (with Bill behind) her, would continue in the same vein. Obama is 'likable enough' but an unknown in that regard - yet its a testament to his surging popularity that he is managing to turn heads and close the gap in that demographic. If Bill were allowed to enter the fray today and campaign - I think he would win California very easily (and by a landslide)

Yogi, your comment #84 about electability because of the doubts of anonymous "voters" is very different than your personal opinion that you stated in #81.

I was elaborating in #84 the discomfort I feel about Hillary Clinton's bid for Democratic nomination for presidency.
#81 was a tongue-in-cheek rejoinder for #80
Also I was not talking about any phantom "voters" but a couple of my friends who were registered republicans are genuinely excited about Obama.
Rahul, go ahead support Clinton if you think she is the best person for the job, but don't rush to judgment that just because someone is opposed her they are being misogynistic.
OK have to stop with this post gotta get back to work now.

Rahul, go ahead support Clinton if you think she is the best person for the job, but don't rush to judgment that just because someone is opposed her they are being misogynistic.

Where did I say, or even imply "misogynistic"?

Obama is clearly talented and smart, and could make a great president, but he misrepresents himself when he says that he will bring a new kind of politics - on the balance, his legislative record does not reflect any extraordinary courage, but rather a desire to be popular and not rock the boat, and his lack of a significant record to stand on, far from being a disadvantage, is essential to his image of a harbinger of change. And it is not as if Obama is floating to power on magic dollars that manifest themselves by hope, so I don't see why he will be especially devoid of lobbyist influence? Hillary is seriously flawed in many ways too, but those are flaws that people cast the spotlight on, whereas somehow saying things about Obama is construed as arguing against hope (???).

On the other hand, this intoxication by hope, and the consequent electability and popularity might mean that he might actually do the things which we HOPE he believes in, so he could indeed be our new Teflon president.

93 · Rahul said

his legislative record does not reflect any extraordinary courage

iraq? at the time, the CV was it would be a cakewalk and WMDs would surely be found. No one with presidential aspirations, certainly not Hillary or Kerry, wanted to oppose authorization. granted, he wasn't in the US senate at the time, but he went on record nonetheless.

My mother cannot stand Hillary. She is all out for Obama this time. But I do think Indians are more likely to vote for a female candidate than a typical white guy because of the prevalence of high profile female politicians in India, especially if they have a connection with a famous male politician from the past.

Some California numbers. In 25 counties, Obama did better than his state number (42.3%), and in 33 counties, he did worse. State census demographics: WB (white, non hispanic + black) = 49.8%, AH (asian + hispanic) = 48.3%. For ALL 25 counties where Obama did better than his state average, AH is less than 48.3%. There is not a single exception. [link].

Top three in terms of AH proportion are San Francisco (obama=52.1, AH=46.2), Alameda(obama=44.7, AH=45.8) and San Mateo(Obama=43.5, AH=46.6). Out of those three, only SF stands out. Obama's numbers in Alameda and San Mateo are not that different from state average, and he did lose both of those counties even though he did better than state average. Interestingly, SF's Asian-Hispanic breakdown is 32-14, but it's more even in Alameda(24-21) and San Mateo(23-23). Bottom ten of the 33 counties where Obama did worse than his state average are all AH-heavy -- to be more precise, H-heavy -- except Tehama. [link]

Source: [primary results by county] and [census data]

do you really think Obama understands or really has had any multi-cultural experience unless you're talking about white & black culture. I lived in Chennai(then Madras) for the 1st 6 years of my life and spoke the native tongue fluently, I'm told. I now know not a single word of Tamil. My kids lived in germany for 2.5 years and picked up german which they promptly forgot when we came back to the US. I don't think you have any multi cultural understanding unless you experience it for at least six years and during the 10 - 21 year period at least.

granted, he wasn't in the US senate at the time, but he went on record nonetheless.

Yes, he was lucky enough not to be in the Senate. And I wouldn't be so uncharitable as to call him out on that random chance, if his legislative record in both Illinois and DC didn't seem to be littered with compromises galore.

Also, and I ask this because I am genuinely curious: I have seen a lot of justified lashing out at Bill for his Jesse Jackson remark, as well as oodles of coverage on the "Iraq fairytale" speech, but I have seen nary a sentence on the actual charges that Bill leveled about Barack's consistency on Iraq (that does have a poetic ring to it, doesn't it?). Can somebody point me to some articles or posts about the truth or otherwise of Bill's specific comments?

average white on the west coast than east asian (who are prejudiced against dark-skinned people quite often or find them repulsive), black (who are often anti-immigrant) or latino (who frankly are often not that well educated have some stereotypes about 'turks' and what not)

I dont see this at all. If you're going to assume each sample comes from an "uneducated" sample space. An uneducated white is just as apt to discriminate, and they have issues of personal ownership of the country, that aren't held by the remainder.

but rather a desire to be popular and not rock the boat,

*cough* authorization for military force 2002 *cough*

The argument in comment # 91 makes sense to me...I think the Hillary support from desi-Asian Americans is (A)because the 90's were the 'golden age of indian immigration to the US', what with the Y2K panic and the dot-com boom, etc. It was a great time to be a young indian moving to/working in the US....unlike in the last few years...

and (B) we, like the Latinos, are much, much more used to women leaders than the typical American is....even though our women leaders are often piggy-backing on male relatives, there's the odd Mayawati / Phoolan Devi who succeeds, too. Of course, we still treat women as Madonna/whore, so our women leaders have to necessarily have to be single (Jayalalitha) or quasi-single (Indira Gandhi), not have a normal human life. Their power can be rationalized easily, then....

Of course, we still treat women as Madonna/whore, so our women leaders have to necessarily have to be single (Jayalalitha) or quasi-single (Indira Gandhi), not have a normal human life. Their power can be rationalized easily, then....

right, we also have our Black leaders, Obama is white compared to our "captain" vijayakanth. (people outside tamilnadu might not know him). we have a special "praiseword" in Tamil for people who are as dark as coal. "karuppu vairam" translates to "black diamond".

BTW, I like this presidential campaign. It feels like home. What "race" votes what candidate instead of what "caste" votes what candidate. :-)

Obama's change will be the equivalent of changing Madras to Chennai, Bombay to Mumbai, Calcutta to Kolkata, etc. It doesn't amount to much in the end.

99 · Rahul said

but I have seen nary a sentence on the actual charges that Bill leveled about Barack's consistency on Iraq (that does have a poetic ring to it, doesn't it?). Can somebody point me to some articles or posts about the truth or otherwise of Bill's specific comments?

Here's the point to keep in view: Whatever your view about whether the war was right or wrong, how you vote after we entered the war is a different question from whether the war should have been waged in the first place

11. Jewish voters break for Clinton.

The Bill Clinton presidency was the high water mark for jewish political influence in America. They got the lion's share of presidential appointments, including both Supreme Court Justices (the most important and long-lasting presidential appointement). Bill must have felt that he deserved the sexual services of the jewish Monica Lewinsky after all he had done for her tribe :)

Bill must have felt that he deserved the sexual services of the jewish Monica Lewinsky after all he had done for her tribe :)

Tribe? Bill had a favorite out of the 12? Which was it? Judah? Levi? We must denounce such blatant tribe-ism!

do you really think Obama understands or really has had any multi-cultural experience unless you're talking about white & black culture. I lived in Chennai(then Madras) for the 1st 6 years of my life and spoke the native tongue fluently,...

I've read that he was born in Hawaii which isn't exactly typical of most of American states when it comes to race. I've also read somewhere that he spent his formative years in Indonesia, and has a stepfather from that country as well. As you may know his biological father was from Kenya, definitely black, but not the same 'culture' as an American who is black. Some of us black people think of "black" as our racial designation, not our 'culture', but I digress. Not to surprising there quite a bit of information in the public sphere (try google) on his background.

I don't think you have any multi cultural understanding unless you experience it for at least six years and during the 10 - 21 year period at least

Do you think voters would be more suspicious of someone who didn't grow up in freedom loving,Christian America? You may have heard/read on this blog about attempts to insinuate that he's actually a Muslim(gasp!). Personally I think his broader view of the world, and his post baby boom "world view" would be an asset.

From the Atlantic.com Goodbye to all that

At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo­mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.

The traces of our long journey to this juncture can be found all around us. Its most obvious manifestation is political rhetoric. The high temperature—Bill O’Reilly’s nightly screeds against anti-Americans on one channel, Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” on the other; MoveOn.org’s “General Betray Us” on the one side, Ann Coulter’s Treason on the other; Michael Moore’s accusation of treason at the core of the Iraq War, Sean Hannity’s assertion of treason in the opposition to it—is particularly striking when you examine the generally minor policy choices on the table. Something deeper and more powerful than the actual decisions we face is driving the tone of the debate.

I was listening to the right wing talk radio and they brought up this interesting point. Since this is going to be an identity based election, John Mccain should pick up a good Vice Presidential candidate with solid conservative credentials, should be young and should bring in a state and most importantly someone from the "minority" community. And the speaker was suggesting Governor Jindal. That sounds like a nice idea.

Rahul #99 I ask this because I am genuinely curious: I have seen a lot of justified lashing out at Bill for his Jesse Jackson remark, as well as oodles of coverage on the "Iraq fairytale" speech, but I have seen nary a sentence on the actual charges that Bill leveled about Barack's consistency on Iraq

NPR has a breakdown on the remarks/both sides;

BC:"You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004. There's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen," he said."...

Obama did vote for funding of the troops which is where I think the Clinton attack came from;

"I don't see any inclination on the part of those of us in Congress to cut off funding. I think that if we are going to have America's young men and women there fighting, that we have an obligation to make sure that they've got the best equipment, the body armor, the resources they need to come home safely," Obama said.

The democratic nomination will come down to who is perceived as being more likely to beat John McCain in the general election.

Obama's corner will claim that he will rope in the independents and even some republicans while all the democratic votes going to Hillary in the primaries will transfer to him in the general election; that his appeal transcends party affiliations; that most americans including republicans are sick of business as usual in Washington and are hankering for change.

Hillary will claim that she has withstood all that the republicans have thrown at her, that there is nothing new that they can tar her with; while Obama OTOH is extremely vulnerable to republican dirty tricks which they are saving for the general election, some of which she and her people have already pointed out: his race, his foreign muslim father and step-father, his muslim name, his connections to the indicted syrian-american slumlord in Chicago, his long term affiliation with a racist black-identity church, his drug use as a young man and so on.

110 · Ponniyin Selvan said

I was listening to the right wing talk radio and they brought up this interesting point. Since this is going to be an identity based election, John Mccain should pick up a good Vice Presidential candidate with solid conservative credentials, should be young and should bring in a state and most importantly someone from the "minority" community. And the speaker was suggesting Governor Jindal. That sounds like a nice idea.

If John Mccain picked up Jindal as a vice-pres., whatever thought I ever entertained in voting for Mccain would then be eviscerated from my memory. I suspect for a lot of right leaning dems, independents or "Reagan Dems", the same would hold true. I'd actually knock myself over the head till I suffered from short term memory loss so I would forget I even considered Mccain. I would then draw reminders on my body much like in Memento that I had to go out and support any democratic candidate that was opposing Mccain/Jindal. After that, I'd call my parents, my sister, my aunties, my uncles, my jijja's, my puppards, my thayas, my cousins, my neighbors, my friends, my enemies, my frenemies, my acquaintances, my stalker exes, my lost loves, women I wish I had gone out with and anyone else who I might remotely know in 8 degrees of separation (who has citizenship) and made sure they voted for the democratic nominee, even if I didn't like who was running for the democrats. I'd even consider bankrupting myself, going to jail, getting disbarred, to buy votes to insure that Mcain/Jindal never won. Truly, I would.

Mccain could pick anyone over Jindal (except for Rush and Allen) and I wouldn't have this kind of irrational, emotional response.

Mccain's locked up the nomination. IMO, if he wants to beat Hill or Obama, he's got to run counter to the neocon's desires and run toward the middle. I'd like to see a return to the John Mccain pre-Bush election, before he started pandering like a 50 cent hooker on can recycling day at the local brothel. 9 cans gets you a free ride.

Before you think me too harsh on John Mccain, while I am a registered Dem, I am undecided as to where I would vote and I would strongly consider voting for him (despite the pandering). As I've said before, my perfect world would have a Mccain/Obama or Obama/Mccain ticket, despite the incongruity in policy positions and parties. Just because Jindal's got the right last name and is as brown as me, it shouldn't be the reason any desi should vote for him. That'd be identity politics at its worst. Jindal's so far right that he makes Ann Coulter look reasonable. (who BTW, according to Wiki, dated Dinesh D'Souza, only affirming that once you go desi, you go crazy.... in love) I don't think any African-Americans or any immigrant group would look at Jindal and see such commonality that they would claim him as one of their own. Frankly, I have no idea how he won in Louisiana, so what do I know. I think the right wing radio guys are simply going nuts that they maybe losing hold of a republican candidate and are looking to find anyway to stay relevant by placing one of their drones in a position of power.

Before you think me too harsh on John Mccain, while I am a registered Dem, I am undecided as to where I would vote and I would strongly consider voting for him (despite the pandering)

I think the right wing radio host was trying to get conservatives who form the core of the Republican base to support Mccain by getting a good enough VP candidate. Definitely not registered democrats. :-)

Ponniyin Selvan,

They maybe trying to get core republicans but that strategy may very well hurt them in a general election, especially against Obama. Obama would steal some of those independents who may prove to be the swing in a general election. Against a Clinton, the core Repubs. would all probably stand up together and sing Kumaya with Mccain (no matter who the VP was) if they thought it would beat Hillary.

BTW, thanks for taking my comment (which may have been a tad strong ;)) in such a good natured way. :)

93 · Rahul said

Obama is clearly talented and smart, and could make a great president, but he misrepresents himself when he says that he will bring a new kind of politics - on the balance, his legislative record does not reflect any extraordinary courage, but rather a desire to be popular and not rock the boat, and his lack of a significant record to stand on

To have a legislative record with teeth in the Senate is partly the reason why there have been so few Senators awarded with their Party's nomination. And, to the extent it matters, Hillary has no legislative achievements of her own.

12 · RandomDude said

I guess Obama's socialistic stance, his D-Punjab comment, his vote against the Indo-US nuclear deal had nothing to do with it,right?

I hope I'll have time to respond to everything in your post, but for now, note that Obama voted FOR the Indo-US nuclear deal. (In fact, a friend who used to work for Sec. Nick Burns at State and who was actively involved in negotiating the deal is now on Obama's foreign policy advisory team.) People have different opinions on the deal, but it would be nice to base one's opinions on correct facts.

They maybe trying to get core republicans but that strategy may very well hurt them in a general election, especially against Obama. Obama would steal some of those independents who may prove to be the swing in a general election. Against a Clinton, the core Repubs. would all probably stand up together and sing Kumaya with Mccain (no matter who the VP was) if they thought it would beat Hillary.

Well. I think 'economy' will be the main issue in this election. In that case, Independents are going to vote for the fiscal conservatives and Mccain / Jindal would fit their bill. I guess they won't vote for Hillary/Obama.

BTW, thanks for taking my comment (which may have been a tad strong ;)) in such a good natured way. :)

I get frustrated when I hear the "entrenched racism" argument, which is often paired with descriptions of the Watts riots and Korean v. Black violence. It's true, there's inter-community racism, but there are other attractive reasons for why APIAs voted for Clinton

Thanks for saying this Camille. I also find it very frustrating. Here was a golden opportunity to explore other dimensions that come into play (whether we may agree with the ideas or not) but the thread just devolved into a discussion of race as usual. In fact much of what is touted as racial does not have much to do with race. Koreans' hatred of the Japanese is not racism. Black/Latino tensions are not racism. Asians' adulation of the white race at the cost of all others is not racism. Ethnic solidarity is not racism. Old desi folk balking at the thought of a black man as President (or son-in-law) has dimensions beyond racism. The list goes on. This is similar to the caste thing when discussing India so I'm pretty used to it by now. But nevertheless I continue to look up to the SM bloggers and community to have standards higher than those embodied by the commoners that go to form the regular media. Just as terms like fob, abcd, Nazi and others are discouraged, it may be worthwhile to examine the overuse of the R word as well.

I hasten to add, I'm aware that racism exists and may specially be signficant in this campaign.

the author goes into too much here. it is very simple.

1. hispanics and asian & indian americans have no connection with slavery of balcks - nither as the slaves or the enslaved. so people are not going to vote for him just because of his background and in many cases people wont vote for him because of his background.

2. hillary may not be change or a clean break with the past. but, obama, like hillary, would be surrounded by advisors who are as inside as anybody else.

3. and, someone has to fix the economy... sadly romney's out, leaving just hill to fix bush's mess.

i'm not a rep or dem fyi... more rep though

For those who think that Hillary will be better against McCain on national defense issues

Think about this hypothetical attack ad
Cue shots of Hillary Clinton tearing up (in NH and in Conn)
Voiceover:
Who do you want as the commander-in-chief
someone who cries at the prospect of losing a primary
Or someone who withstood torture for five years and never wavered

You decide.

Mean but effective.

I should have added better than Obama to go against McCain on national defense issues.

For many desi's, Hillary is mo'cushle.

Er, people, Jindal's not going to be the VP nominee anytime soon. He just got into the governor's mansion. Would be pointless to leave it after being in the job for like only three weeks.