Chicago Tribune: "What... shattered hopes among Latinos... was Obama's pandering to anti-immigrants"

[bidenista]

When they were useful, they were used. And when they stopped being useful, they were thrown under the bus. An article in the Chicago Tribune explains why many Latinos don't trust Obama:

Latino vote a big loss for Obama

By Maria De Los Angeles Torres
February 10, 2008

Last week's primaries were dubbed "Hispanic Super Tuesday," and indeed the Latino vote proved pivotal to Hillary Clinton's gains. She received an overwhelming majority of Latino votes despite Barack Obama's last-ditch efforts to differentiate his position on immigration. The support Obama had enjoyed in Illinois' Latino communities even slipped significantly since the last time he ran for office. Some have speculated that Latinos support Clinton because she is better-known. Others say Obama's advisers just don't get Latinos. Still others speculate that Latinos will not vote for an African-American. In reality, Latinos have supported African-American candidates for decades. That has been true across the country, in many races, including the 2004 U.S. Senate contest that Obama won. Though the Democratic primary in that race included a popular and prominent Latino candidate, Gery Chico, 70 percent of Illinois Latinos voted for Obama.

Why? Issues.

Obama campaigned against the war, at the time a top issue for Latino voters. Most importantly, he embraced humane and comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to legalization. He pledged his support for issuing driver's licenses regardless of immigration status. He supported the Dream Act, which would give all high school students qualified to enter universities a shot at financial aid regardless of immigration status. On the foreign policy front, Obama also supported policies aimed at strengthening Latin American economies, a key component of a sound hemispheric immigration policy. Latino support for Obama continued—and indeed grew. Like so many Americans, Latinos were moved by Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and especially by his reference to his own immigrant roots. Latinos everywhere held major fundraisers for him.

Once in Washington, however, Obama disappointed many of them. There were many unexpected votes, including his vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state—his first chance to truly act on his expressed opposition to the war. But what truly shattered hopes among Latinos across the nation was Obama's pandering to anti-immigrant sentiments during the 2006 congressional races, and his vote to build a fence along select stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border. For Latinos, and for many people around the world, the fence symbolizes backward and bigoted thinking, particularly in a modern era committed to bringing down walls, not erecting them....

More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-latinos_thinkfeb10,1,6612604.story

[dsc]

1. welcome to the club

gays have a very similar complaint.

[kurth]

2. Actions always speak louder than bumper stickers

or professionally written sermons.

[Straight Shooter]

3. But but but, Obama wants to "embrace" you.

At arm's length.

I can't believe how many people are supporting thinly-veiled bigotry in a glittery package.

[KittyWampus]

13. By writers own premise, Hillary catered to same bigots since she bases that on ONE VOTE

where Hillary voted THE SAME>

God, Hillary supporters are not too bright.

[Straight Shooter]

57. Spend a little time in the GLBT forum.

Maybe you'll figure out that it isn't the Hillary supporters who are not too bright.

[sheelz]

17. thanks for the lesson hill

I'm shocked

[KittyWampus]

12. and the comment ONLY refers to voting for the fence which HILLARY DID TOO. Fool

maybe you should read before commenting.

[bigtree]

4. Maria De Los Angeles Torres

is a professor and director of Latin American and Latino studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

K&R

[KittyWampus]

14. She also has nothing to base her opinion on when you read the article. Happy to kick this

since it;s so poorly thought out and because Hillary supporters are too stupid to actually READ what this person wrote.

[bigtree]

18. she most certainly IS someone to base an opinion of this issue on.

so you disagree. tough shit. look at the results in California where Latinos abandoned Obama and explain that with your superior expertise.

[KittyWampus]

19. She bases this on Obama voting f/the fence & admits Hillary did too. She ignores driver's license

as an issue, even though Hillary is against them.

And then pretends Hillarys support of children can be extrapolated to mean something SPECIFICALLY for Latinos.

Only OBAMA has detailed plans for addressing Poverty an issue that can be absolutely extended toward Latinos much more realistically. Hillary has zip.

Yeah, this woman has an opinion. But I'd be embarrassed to stand by it.

[bigtree]

22. something is moving Latinos to vote for Clinton in overwhelming numbers

you obviously don't know what that something is. Maybe YOU want to suppose they've been duped . . . are too stupid to see things your way. But, you've got nothing to explain that support . . . only your shallow attacks, on this woman, and on Clinton. I'm beginning to see why the Obama campaign is so repugnant to the majority of Latinos looking on..

[KittyWampus]

44. it'd be nice if this professor came up with an honest assessment. I just repeated writer's own words

there was no 'attack', just pointing out the self-contradictory statements and blatantly biased observations.

[rodeodance]

51. You can disagree with the article but post above you has valid point--

[TeamJordan23]

5. Didn't Hillary vote for the war and vote for the fence too? The logic doesn't add up. nm

[KittyWampus]

15. Exactly, so why Hillary's cult decides this is favorable is worthwhile shows how unthinking they are

[NC_Nurse]

6. Hillary dumped the driver's license support when the going got tough.

She'll throw them under the bus in a heartbeat. She just needs them now.
Just like gays after Bill was elected, DOMA and DADT. Whatever is expedient for them.

[GarbagemanLB]

7. How dare you!

It is blasphemy to think anything negative about the Clinton legacy on gay rights! Don't bring logic into this argument!

[CalGator]

70. lol

Hillary's running from her record almost as fast as McCain is. I say almost because nobody is as good as pretending to be a "maverick" like he is.

[bidenista]

8. hillary's opposition to dadt is a matter of record. nt

[rodeodance]

56. In her townhall speech she said will toss it out.

[Lucinda]

20. No she didn't. She was never FOR it. She supported her GOVERNOR when he talked about doing it

because she said the federal government had failed to act and she understood his desire to know who was in his state. He backed away from the idea. Her position never changed.

[KittyWampus]

21. You must not have heard the last debate. Obama clearly supports it as a public safety

issue even though he admits it is not popular.

Hillary said she does not.

[NOVA_Dem]

9. she's just embarassed

HRC's blatant flip flop on driver's licenses is conveniently downplayed/ignored and she doesn't want to admit that there's tension b/w blacks and latinos.

She's trying to explain away the most likely reason for the disparity in the latino support given the positions of the two candidates.

[bidenista]

10. hillary didn't write the article... nt

[NOVA_Dem]

26. "She" as in the author. n/t

[rodeodance]

53. Chinton changing her position is NOTthe focus--It is a focus for those who want to play

up this old issue instead of looking at why latinos voted at they did.

[NOVA_Dem]

68. The FOCUS of my post is the shoddy analysis by the author of the OPed n/t

[KittyWampus]

11. "Clinton also voted for the fence" says it all right there. This is a Hillary supporter's attempt

to rationalize a choice. She has to extrapolate that Clintons "advocacy for children speaks to many Latino families with young children"

And yet this supposedly savvy writer doesn't know that Obama has an extensive plan regarding Poverty while Clinton has nothing in detail.

And she also seems ignorant of Clintons' buddy bundling down in Texas, Cantu.

"Clinton's success in this unlikely setting is based almost entirely on her friendship with one man, McAllen developer Alonzo Cantu. A self-made millionaire who once picked grapes on the migratory farm labor circuit, Cantu persuaded more than 300 people in Hidalgo County, where the median household income in 2006 was $28,660, to write checks ranging from $500 to $2,300 to the senator from New York.

Alonzo Cantu explained the purpose of his fundraising. "Money and votes. I think we've shown we can raise money. That will get us attention, or at least get us a seat at the table, get us in the room." ...


So far, so good. Why else do people raise money for politics on both sides of the aisle except to get themselves into the room? But the Washington Post article hints the proceedings have an air of calculation about them. "The last thing you want to do is get on Alonzo's bad side," he said with a smile. Reyna donated $1,000 to Clinton. "Understand, I don't want anything," Cantu said. "Just to help South Texas."

And I guess he's a resident of South Texas too. One who realizes that a border fence is bad for busines, in particular for a hospital he's helped build.

Lately, Cantu has been pushing his contacts for help in bringing an interstate highway to McAllen. He has told them about local opposition to the Bush administration's plan to build a border wall along the Rio Grande. And he has asked lawmakers, including Clinton, to block legislation that many believe could hobble the hospital Cantu built in town. This was a driving concern among many of the doctors and other McAllen area medical professionals who wrote more than $145,000 in checks to Clinton.

Now it's natural to understand why the Senator from New York, whose main concern is health care, might fight to keep a hospital from closing due to lack of business caused by a border wall. But not everyone is convinced the hospital is entirely desirable.

The only problem with the hospital was its ownership model, which gave doctors 80 percent of the stock. That sounded alarms in Congress, which had taken steps in the past to put restrictions on doctor-owned medical facilities out of fears that if doctors share in the cash flow they generate, they will be tempted to conduct unnecessary procedures.

"It's just a channel through which they get kickbacks," said Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), who inserted language into a larger bill that would force doctor-owned hospitals, such as McAllen's, to restructure. The bill recently passed in the House and awaits action in the Senate.

A campaign spokesman said Clinton has not followed the legislation or sought to influence its outcome. "Mr. Cantu is a friend and a longtime supporter of Democratic causes," Phil Singer said when asked about Cantu's relationship with the senator. ...

A longtime local surgeon who left the hospital said Cantu and the other hospital board members referred to the political contributions as "protection money."

"They said, 'We've got to give this money to Hillary so we can be exempt from the bill,' " said the surgeon, who asked that his name not be used.

[Schema Thing]

16. What a pant load. Yeah, confirming sec. Rice really is a biggie

:eyeroll:

[mopinko]

23. OP-ED- OPINION- NOT A NEWS ARTICLE!!

jesus h christ. sorry to yell, but this is like the umpteenth time that some op-ed from the tribune, one of the most notorious republican rags in the country, has been passed of as a news article. maybe i should start posting links to their bush endorsements in these threads. maybe a link to a tribune op-ed should be considered the functional equivalent of a link to that site that shall not be named.
any of you hillbots wondering why the grassroots can't stand your candidate? look in the mirror.

[bigtree]

24. where do you think you are? latest breaking news?

almost everything in this forum comes down to opinion.

[Nailzberg]

25. I've noticed a lot of that from this poster.

Op-eds or blog pieces referred to as articles or otherwise attributed to the voice of that paper.

[bigtree]

27. who, in this forum, is distinguishing between the articles they post?

You can't seriously believe that all of the articles presented here are void of bias. Even the 'factual' ones come from biased sources. Only writers with reputations for integrity and fairness gain enough trust to rise above all of that. But, even they aren't immune from criticism, so I fail to see what difference it makes that this author has an 'opinion'.

[mopinko]

29. oh please

are you saying there is no difference between a news story and an op-ed?
have you ever read the chicago tribune? heard of it? heard of newspapers, maybe? i don't believe that news stories have no bias. back in the day the trib at least aspired to that. sometime during the clinton years, they threw even that out the window. but to link to their opinion page and call it a "tribune article", ferchrissakes, you might as well start posting fox news links.

[bigtree]

32. you can see for yourself and judge the author and the content

who are you to categorize it for us?

Silly charge. Really silly.

[Nailzberg]

34. I never claimed to believe articles are devoid of bias, nor that they should be.

It makes no difference to me if the author has an opinion. It makes a difference if the author is not identified properly.

[bigtree]

35. the author is right there in the article

you have no real argument here. All of the info is available. And, if you're tripping on false headlines on these posts, you have a long way to go . . . get busy. This can't be the only headline which isn't identified properly enough for you.

I think you came onto this thread to disrupt it.

[Nailzberg]

39. Actually, I post frequently on authorship and attributing sources. The subject is misleading.

[bigtree]

47. almost ALL of the 'subjects' in this opinion forum are 'misleading'

but, you're bearing down on just this one. WHY?

[Nailzberg]

49. Because it represents an individual opinion as opinion of the paper.

And if it was one of my op-eds being quoted, I'd want the credit, too.

[bidenista]

28. it was published in the chicago tribune, so i gave that as the source

Sorry if that's too complicated to get your head around.

[mopinko]

30. article and op ed are not the same thing

and if you don't know that, perhaps you should step away from the keyboard. at least this piece wasn't from the likes of steve chapman, whom you have linked to before and also attempted to pass off as "news".
what's next for you then? the national enquirer, or the weekly world news?

[Nailzberg]

31. Your subject heading attributed it to the Tribune.

A more genuine heading would have been
"Maria de Los Angeles Torres: ""What... shattered hopes among Latinos... was Obama's pandering to anti-immigrants'"

The Trib published it, they didn't say it.

[bigtree]

33. the 'Trib' doesn't represent ANY article as it's own opinion beyond its editorials

are you really trying to assert that Tribune writers have more credibility than the author, just because the 'Trib' chooses to include them under its banner?

[Nailzberg]

36. I never brought credibility into the argument - just that authorship is made clear. n/t

[bigtree]

37. what percentage of these posts, in this forum, 'make the authorship clear'?

yet, in this post, as SOON as you OPEN it, there's HER NAME, right ON THE TOP OF THE ARTICLE!!!

[bidenista]

38. apparently reading a byline is too much of a stretch

:eyes:

[Nailzberg]

41. Exacty. Her name is on the top of the op-ed. It should be in the heading.

[bigtree]

45. That's not the norm in this forum . . . not at all

and, certainly, not the rule

[Nailzberg]

50. I know the norm may be misleading headings, and I will point them out when I see them.

[mopinko]

46. the trib clearly labels it's op-eds as opinion

very clearly. it is part of the link.
yes, tribune writers do still have a little more credibility than the columnists that appear on the op-ed page. although their standards have slipped in recent years, the trib did once have a well earned reputation for keeping opinion out of the news. one of the best in the business. although it is not so true anymore, there remains a chasm between news and the slop that is served up in their op-eds.
perhaps i would be a little less hot under the collar about this is it weren't the third time in the last week or so that this same poster has pulled the same trick. calling things "tribune articles" that would be more in keeping with fox news. tom roesser, steve chapman, now this. really. the trib makes the distinction. bidenista should learn to do the same, or expect me to educate readers as to the nature of the chicago tribune, in all caps, in any thread that i see.

[bigtree]

48. the fact that you're focusing on this poster and this article is telling

considering that the forum is rampant with 'trick' titles and 'trick' posts.

Perhaps it would be more productive to focus on the substance of the article, now that the source is CLEAR to YOU.

[mopinko]

52. i am focused on this because i am a chicagoan.

and the demise of the chicago tribune is something upon which i have a close perspective. i doubt that a lot of people know who some of these writers are. but i know quite well.
that is what du is about.

[bigtree]

54. this post is about majority Latino support for Clinton

and the lack of that support from the majority of Latinos for Obama.

This is not a post about the construction of the Chicago Tribune.

[mopinko]

59. so the veracity of a source is not an issue?

:rofl:

[bigtree]

60. you have absolutely NO valid claim against the 'veracity' of the source

in other words, you're merely disrupting the thread for no good reason.

[mopinko]

63. the fact that the chicago tribune op-ed page is populated by

completely disillusional bushbots is not a good reason? you wish.
maybe this writer is someone good. they let on in once in a while. but 90% of the content of the page is pure propaganda, and of the worst sort at that.

[rodeodance]

55. hey guess what---we/I can read!

[Alhena]

40. Boy, hispanic activists have been spinning this party line hard lately ...

we all know that in the heart of the barrio there's no resentment towards African-Americans. No, they are closely following all of Obama's votes, while somehow neglecting to notice that Hillary doesn't even want them to be able to legally drive.

Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.

[bidenista]

42. yes, because implying that latinos are generally racist

...isn't a racist generalization or anything. No sir-ee!

[bigtree]

43. maybe YOU want to explain her advantage among Latino voters

in a way which doesn't patronize them, speak for them, our misrepresent them.


Latinos, Women Boost Clinton to Victory

California's swing voters

SAN FRANCISCO—Barack Obama-mania may have swept through other states, but Hillary Clinton's powerful coalition of women and Latinos in California was strong and shows few signs of fracturing.

"It's become a real firewall for her," says Jaime Regalado, executive director of the Edmund "Pat" Brown Institute at Cal State University-Los Angeles. "I don't think anyone expected that."

Nearly 60 percent of women here voted for Clinton, as did more than two thirds of Latinos, whose turnout made up 29 percent of the vote. Older voters, too, stuck by her. More than 1 in 4 voters were 60 or older, and Clinton won 55 percent of their vote. She earned the trust of middle-class voters as well: Sixty percent of those earning $50,000 or less a year supported her.


http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/02/08/latinos-women-boost-clinton-to-victory.html

[Straight Shooter]

61. I'm hearing a double-standard being expressed in this forum.

It's not okay for Latinos en masse to support Hillary Clinton.

It is okay for blacks en masse to support Barack Obama.

I'm also hearing a lot of thin-skinned resentment towards the DU member who initiated this thread, an ardent Biden supporter if you haven't noticed yet, who apparently seems to find Obama lacking in the qualities he/she wants in a president.

[NOVA_Dem]

58. Like I said, they are spinning.

HRC's pollster let the cat out of the bag and they are embarrassed. She actually tried to support her argument by using Obama's confirmation vote of Rice. Yeah, I'm sure that's part of it.

[bigtree]

62. where's your own explanation for the overwhelming support Clinton has among Latinos

. . . which doesn't patronize them, speak for them, our misrepresent them?

[NOVA_Dem]

66. I've already answered why and I don't care if your Cognitive Dissonance over the issue...

causes you great discomfort. You've already set up a nice template to discard any argument you don't want to agree with.

[joshcryer]

64. Here in Colorado, Pubelo was one of the only counties to go to Hillary Clinton.

Has a majority of latinos.

[NOVA_Dem]

67. Don't you know that's RACIST! j/k

[CyberPieHole]

65. Great article, Bidenista...thanks for bringing it to our attention...

The Latinos/Hispanics support Senator Clinton because she has built a long standing relationship with them. She cares about their issues, unlike Obama who wants to use them as pawns.

:kick: and recommend

[eridani]

69. So, who backtracked on her initial support for drivers's licenses in NY? n/t