Will's Blog

Sarah Palin In Pennsylvania: ''It's Great To See Another Part Of The Country" Read & Spread the word!

Will Hussein R — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:07:57 EDT

I cannot believe that this completely inexperienced woman was chosen. She doesn't even travel outside of Alaska! This weakness has to be exploited, how can someone be 1 heartbeat away from the Presidency of the US when they have never even been to most of the states?

"McCain and Palin made a morning stop at Tom's Diner in Pittsburgh's trendy Southside neighborhood. The running mates, with spouses in tow, greeted patrons and posed for pictures. Palin's daughters Willow and Piper were also on hand, with Willow carrying Palin's 4-month old son, Trig.

The first-term Alaska governor told reporters she was having fun in her new role. "It's great to see another part of the country," she said. She also said she'd managed to get a little sleep during the night."

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/top-AP-stories/story/665773.html

In addition the fact that it's her first time in that state, she also said she was excited to finally meet Republican Tom Ridge! Wow! I haven't seen any of the news media or even blogs pick up on this yet, but will you all please help me spread the word on that? Tom Ridge is a very prominent republican with a long career in politics, if she has never even met HIM in person, what does that say about the possibilities of her having to deal with world leaders? She needs to be exposed for the weakness she is for the Republicans to sway all the independents Barack's way. Please help spread the word!!!!

Hillary The Hypocrite [Editorial]

Will Hussein R — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:02:56 EDT

Here's an opinion piece I wrote for my college paper. Let me know what you guys think!

Thanks.

As we enter the fifth arduous month of the race for the 2008 Democratic nomination, it frequently seems like one big circus, complete with ridiculous theatrics and a clear-cut ringmaster. Ladies and gentlemen, Washington proudly presents - in all her hypocritical glory - senator extraordinaire Hillary Clinton.

She is one of America's great contradictions. A prototypical member of the political elite - masters of doublespeak that are always winking and never met a situation they didn't think they were perfect for.

If asked to find an example more fitting than Clinton, Sherlock Holmes himself would shudder. Witness a woman who, with her husband, made $109 million in the last eight years, yet claims to epitomize and relate to the struggle of middle-class America. A woman who says she despises free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement, now that she wants working-class votes, yet participated in meetings securing its passage during her time as first lady and later repeatedly praised it.

"People don't need a president who looks down on them," Clinton recently said. "They need a president who stands up for them. And that is exactly what I will do."

Shipping millions of U.S. jobs overseas was apparently her idea of lifting people up. Her unique approach to standing up for Americans doesn't stop there.

She recently denounced a free trade deal with Colombia, yet her husband was paid $800,000 to give speeches supporting it. If that wasn't enough, her campaign's top political strategist was hired by Colombia to lobby Congress for its passage. For all her touted experience, she seemingly never learned that blatant conflicts of interest might raise a few red flags.

One of her most notable two-faced moments involves her saying she's against special interests and will end the run of the "wealthy and well-connected." It sounds noble, but is empty rhetoric since her campaign has taken more lobbyist money than any other candidate. Her other problem is that she's a gold star member of the wealthy and well connected. She would be hard-pressed to follow through with that promise unless she plans on committing political suicide, which thanks to the unforgiving grasp of irony, she most likely already has.

Clinton represents everything that's wrong with politics. Candidates like her are the reason widespread voter apathy leaves millions distrustful of the government. People are tired of politicians who say one thing and do another, who don't apologize for their lies and mistakes, but prefer to deflect blame or change the subject altogether.

In years past, her battle-tested political strategy would have worked like a charm. This is the time reserved every four years for each party to attack the other with the old bag of Washington tricks until only one person is left standing, the dust settles and it's back to business as usual. When it comes to playing that dirty game, few are as adept as Clinton, so it's no wonder she felt she was the inevitable choice.

Unfortunately, Clinton ran into two roadblocks on her yellow brick road to the White House; a new type of opponent and a pesky set of elections that have left her trailing in nearly every category. It's clear that the notion of not simply being handed the presidency is an idea as foreign to Clinton as the difference between sniper fire and poems.

Whether she was assuring Katie Couric back in Nov. 2007 that she would undoubtedly be the nominee and hadn't even considered losing, to her latest unwillingness to accept defeat, it's evident that bowing out gracefully is not an option. Given the fact that there's an elephant in the room that only she refuses to see, it's appropriate that she seems so at home in the circus she created.

Obama 08! Nomination Almost a LOCK!

Will Hussein R — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:42:32 EDT

I'm very excited. After the great huge win in North Carolina and the tight finish in Indiana, Obama has all but sealed the entire nomination. It feels great to see him so close and to see the voters say no to the same old dirty politics of distorting information that HRC and her campaign have been doing. There is now hardly ANY way she can spin anything to say she's "winning."

After the HUGE win in NC (230,000 +votes more) he now has a definitive lead in the overall popular vote. Even if HRC got her wish and got the rule-breaking votes in FL and MI to count, Obama would STILL WIN!

He now leads in popular vote, pledged delegates, states won, caucuses won and is only 10 superdelegates behind her. Considering the fact that she once had a lead in the hundreds in superdelegates, its obvious that not only the people, but the party leaders believe in Obama.

Here's a site that keeps a tally of all popular vote scenarios. Enjoy!

OBAMA 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Video Exposing Hillary's Hypocrisy (4/21/08)

Will Hussein R — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:16:37 EDT

Hey Everyone, yesterday Hillary once again jumped at the chance to use the same old Washington doublespeak to try and trick the American people into voting for her. She jumped at Sen. Obama saying that any of the 3 candidates would be better than Bush and said that we don't need a candidate who "cheers for John McCain."

ONCE AGAIN, Sen. Clinton shows she is 100 percent willing to hypocritically fool the American people by saying anything to win. Here is a video of Sen. Clinton endorsing McCain as a better candidate than Obama on more than 5 occasions. Please SPREAD this video and expose her lies and hypocrisy for what they are. Is this the kind of president we want?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSAe7U18Dhc

HIllary LIES about Bosnia Foreign Policy Experience

Will Hussein R — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:22:58 EDT

So she claims she was in danger ducking sniper fire and running for her safety, but there's VIDEO of it and she's smiling and walking, and a little girl greets her to read a poem. I'm sorry, but what CAN she be trusted on? I will be severely disappointed if the Mainstream media doesn't give this proper coverage. Everyone e mail CNN and MSNBC to get this on their talking points!!!

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y

Some reports:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/how-will-hillarys-bosnia_b_92844.html

A Deeper Look Into the Rev. Wright Controversy(Part 2)

Will Hussein R — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:22:49 EDT

Part 2 of two excellent pieces offering a more unbiased and complete analysis of the comments by Rev. Wright

March 21, 2008 The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon Posted: 10:09 AM ET

As this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. I’ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on.

I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall.” It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001.

One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation.

He was quoting Peck as saying that America’s foreign policy has put the nation in peril:

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again.

“What is the state of your family?” he asked.

And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves.

His sermon thesis:

1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families.

2. This is a time for social transformation (then he went on to say they won’t put me on PBS or national cable for what I’m about to say. Talk about prophetic!)

“We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,” he said.

Wright then said we can’t stop messing over people and thinking they can’t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries.

“Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation’s healthcare system that leaves the nation’s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.”

3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will.

By the way, nowhere in this sermon did he said “God damn America.” I’m not sure which sermon that came from.

This doesn’t explain anything away, nor does it absolve Wright of using the N-word, but what it does do is add an accurate perspective to this conversation.

The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth.

I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy.

And let me be clear: Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said.

So stay tuned.

CLICK HERE to hear the full sermon yourself.

- Roland S. Martin, CNN Contributor
www.rolandsmartin.com

Editor’s note: Read other blogs from Roland Martin and the team of 360 contributors at CNN.com/360

A Deeper Look Into the Rev. Wright Controversy

Will Hussein R — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:19:29 EDT

Here are 2 great articles by CNN's Roland Martin. I'm glad a mainstream journalist who is regularly seen on TV and online spoke out with his voice of reason on the subject. I personally wasn't a fan of all the sensational coverages that only showed short clips meant to divide the country along racial lines. Since when was passionately speaking out against politics you opposed un-American? Anyway...here are the CNN articles.

Commentary: Race, faith and politics

By Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor

(CNN) -- The revelation of controversial comments made by the longtime pastor of Sen. Barack Obama, and the equally hot aftermath from the general public that led to the junior senator from Illinois delivering a strong speech/sermon on race in America, has opened anew the explosive connection between three of the most volatile issues today.

If a poll were taken, there is no doubt that race, faith and politics would be the most emotional, passionate and divisive topics. Why? Because all three are so deeply personal. What one person sees as a negative, another would determine as a strength.

Republicans strongly believe that they are superior and right on the direction of the nation compared to Democrats. African Americans are protective of their culture and ways of living, while whites routinely ask why we can't just be one nation with no labels. Catholics contend they are the one and only true church, while Baptists will say that being dipped in the water after making a personal decision to give your life to Christ is the true way of salvation for the believer.

As a Christian, I've seen church members go toe-to-toe when discussing either one of these issues, and can remember some late night debates in college that would have made the toes of Lincoln and Douglas curl.

So why did the comments of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright strike such a core, and how did it lead to Obama to give a speech on race? That was the question posed to me in a number of e-mails, and like Obama stated in his speech, it's really America's lack of understanding -- no, refusal to accept -- how the different races live and act.

The Kerner Commission stated in 1968 that we were living in two Americas -- one black and one white. When we examine the TV shows we all watch, those in the top 10 for whites are vastly different than those for blacks. Musical tastes vary, so do cultural norms. We all kid ourselves that during March Madness, the courts are loaded with mostly African American ballplayers, yet when the College World Series tips off in May, you will see mostly whites on the baseball diamond.

But we are also separate when it comes to worship. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said the most segregated hour of the week is 10 a.m. on Sunday morning. And it still is. For Christians, we may celebrate the same Jesus, but how we do so and with whom is very different.

I fundamentally believe that whites, blacks -- and yes, Hispanics and Asians -- reacted differently when hearing the snippets of Wright's preaching. Not solely because of content, but also style. For African Americans and a lot of Southern whites who are accustomed to a certain style of preaching, the thundering voice that drops to a whisper, the weaving of social issues with the theological, is common.

Even former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- while not embracing Wright -- agreed with that point.

Yet our view of America is also different. Justified? No. Just different.

While many white Americans will look at Memorial or Veterans Day as an opportunity to celebrate our armed forces, African Americans do the same, but also will think historically about black troops hung from trees, still in their uniforms. They will think of black soldiers returning home to America during World War II forced to sit in the back of the train, while German Nazis got to sit up front.

When Wright was castigated for being anti-American for saying "God damn America!" -- which was not delivered in his speech about September 11, 2001 -- I couldn't help but think about that famous speech Dr. King gave at Riverside Church on April 4, 1967, when he blasted America's involvement in the Vietnam War.

King was disowned by many of his supporters, was denounced as a traitor to the nation and his speaking fees dried up.

See, even the man who many conservatives quote today with fervor, was treated as an outcast in his own country.

Our shared experiences today may not be so raw and overt as America's racial past, but we can't forget how our past defines us today.

Are these excuses? Nope. Just a dose of reality.

I watched Joe Scarborough on MSNBC say, while qualifying that these weren't his views, that a blue-collar man in Youngstown, Ohio, didn't want to hear about race from a black man who went to Harvard and his black wife who went to Princeton.

He's probably right. But what Scarborough failed to mention is that same black man came from a single-parent home where the mom had to go on welfare just to feed her family. That same black woman lived in a two-bedroom home and saw her parents bust their butts to make ends meet, and scrape together every penny to send their children to the nation's finest schools.

Isn't that the dream of every white, blue-collar parent, and every black, blue-collar parent? So why should such success be seen as anger towards someone else?

When we sit down, break bread together and truly listen and learn from one another, our world view changes.

For the last few months I've seen that experience up close and personal at my church in Chicago, Illinois.

The Rev. James Meeks, founder and senior pastor of Salem Baptist Church, a predominantly black congregation, has been engaged in worship with another predominantly white mega-church, Willow Creek, led by its founder and senior pastor, Bill Hybels.

The pastors of Illinois' two largest churches have been engaged in the swapping of youth members and choirs, have preached at each other's church, and have made it their mission to break down the racial and economic walls that exist between Christians.

It has been rocky at times. Watching the faces of African Americans at a Willow Creek worship service, it is clear they find it a bit jarring -- from the style of preaching to the music. But the common denominator is the same: Jesus.

There is no doubt that a lot of Americans are angry and confused by Obama staying at Trinity United Church of Christ and not disowning his pastor.

Folks, that's just not what church folks do. I don't recall folks asking members of the Rev. Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson to leave their churches in droves. They knew their leaders are fallible and make mistakes. Should they be criticized for hateful and divisive comments? Absolutely. Disowned?

I would never say that.

This is an opportunity for us. Those of us in the media, as Obama said, can continue to run the same clips, but is that providing healing to America?

No.

What we can do is begin to show where communities are coming together, talking openly and honestly about their hurts, frustrations and pain. Will we get angry and upset because of the other person isn't fully getting what we are trying to say? Of course! But until we decide to look in that mirror, and confront our deep-seated fears of the other because of their race, religion and political affiliation, we'll remain a fractured nation.

The Bible says don't put new wine in old wine skins. So let's stop using the resentments and anger of the past against the people of today and the future.

So, what are YOU prepared to do?

Roland S. Martin is a nationally award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. Martin is studying to receive his master's degree in Christian communications at Louisiana Baptist University. You can read more of his columns at http://www.rolandsmartin.com/.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

Is this how Hillary will answer the phone at 3 am?

Will Hussein R — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:17:02 EST

How ironic that Hillary and her campaign are touting her ability to answer the phone at 3 am and handle a crisis because of her "extensive experience" in doing such things, and then when asked to name just ONE (besides of course her horrible judgment in sending us into Iraq) her campaign goes SILENT. I wonder if she'll bring that up in her news releases or a next debate. You guys think this "amused" her?

February 29, 2008 Pregnant Pause

It was, in this reporter's opinion, the most interesting moment in today's Clinton campaign phoner with reporters. Responding to the release of HRC's new TX TV ad, which asserts in no subtle terms that only she has the experience to deal with a major world crisis, and, relatedly, to keep your children safe, Slate's John Dickerson asked the obvious question:

"What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?" he said.

Silence on the call. You could've knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton's national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak -- that she's been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.

Take a listen ...

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/pregnant_pause.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dRz7ES_VQ0

Barack Obama: Harbinger Of Change

Will Hussein R — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:03:14 EST

Here's an opinion piece I wrote in support of Barack Obama for my college newspaper. They are some of my thoughts as to why I chose to support him and his candidacy.Please show any support or comments here on my blog. Feel free to share your reactions. Thanks!

Barack Obama: Harbinger Of Change

America is a country built on revolution. The first Americans, tired of a government that wasn’t in touch with them and didn’t truly represent their voice, united town by town and rose together to face an overwhelming challenge in the name of change.

The hope and courage of the first U.S. patriots and the faith American civil rights activists maintained throughout every loss and hardship of their struggle is the very essence of what created this nation and of every achievement since its birth.

As we inch closer to the November 2008 presidential elections, Americans once again have an opportunity to reclaim their country and write a new chapter in history. Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama is the candidate best suited to make that change.

“This is a defining moment in our history,” Sen. Obama said in his Plan for America outlining his stance on national issues. “Our nation is at war … the dream that so many generations fought for feels as if it’s slowly slipping away.”

“We have a chance to bring the country together in a new majority,” he said. “To finally tackle problems that Washington has ignored for too long. And that is why the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won’t do in this election.”

Sen. Obama traveled across the country spreading his message of creating a new type of White House politics, sparking a level of momentum that has catapulted him to eight straight primary wins and frontrunner status in the race for the Democratic nomination.

His powerful words and ability to unite Americans have earned him a dedicated following among voters of every background, race and party affiliation. His rousing speeches have garnered praise and passionate support from nearly everyone who sees them. Except of course, from his opponents, who continue to do all they can to trivialize his candidacy and his supporters.

They call him a hope-monger. They say he’s a show horse who has no substance and is fooling America, effectively casting everyone who has voted for him into the category of fools.

Despite the cynical words of so many critics, his support isn’t a case of blind sheep writing a blank check to a candidate known for making empty promises. The difference between the Obama campaign and those of his rivals is the source of his funding. While Sen. Clinton and McCain receive generous support from corporate interests Obama’s lifeblood comes from a vast pool of average American donors, totaling nearly $40 million in January alone.

“It’s time to put government back in your hands, where it belongs,” Sen. Obama said.

While many candidates speak of being carried by “the people,” few of them truly have the ethics to put the people above the almighty lobbyist dollar. Sen. Obama has made a concerted effort throughout his political career to shun special interests as much as possible. His campaign fund is largely based on Internet donations from private citizens, something no other candidate can say.

It’s a common theme when attacking his candidacy to claim that he has no specific policies or solid stances on important issues. The reality is that the majority of his plans and those of his democratic rival are very similar. The determining factor that separates him from both Senators Hillary Clinton and John Mcain is his sincere belief in the power of the people they pledge to protect. That basic American ideal appears to be foreign to his opponents, as Sen. Clinton made clear in her latest attack.

"There's a big difference between us -- speeches versus solutions, talk versus action," she said at a campaign stop in Ohio. "Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank or fill your prescription or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night."

She seems unaware of the difference between the empty talk lifelong politicians like her are so versed in, and the genuine belief that inspirational words in a time of crisis can unite a group fed up with their current government. It worked during this country’s creation, and the odds were much worse then.

It’s time for Americans to stand up and demand a new direction once more. No more supporting politicians who simply tell Americans what to do, instead of asking for their input. As Sen. Obama said in one of his many victory speeches, “We are who we’ve been waiting for.”

"I Voted" - One of Many Californians To Choose OBAMA

Will Hussein R — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:16:56 EST

It feels so great to know that I cast my vote in favor of Barack Obama. I was able to convert many in my family into Obama supporters and also took joy in watching them excitedly vote Obama as well. Let's hope all of our work and all the inspiration brought to life with Obama's campaign win out!

Cheers and kudos to all those who voted Obama in 08. In my neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley I saw Obama signs across lawns, at local community colleges and of course the SFV headquarters, I never saw ONE Clinton sign or campaign material. I think the people are catching on to CHANGE.

Great Article: Clinton's Latino spin (LA Times-Jan 28)

Will Hussein R — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:51:37 EST

Here is a GREAT article pointing out how the Clinton campaign continues to show absolutely no class or sense of good morals by making this primary season ALL about race and ethnicity. I cannot believe she gets such a large pass from the national news media, considering that this type of political strategy is not only completely false, clearly underhanded in nature and the exact opposite of the type of campaign she claims to want to run. I see her touting her "experience" all the time, apparently all those years as just another Washington politician taught her how to be the perfect snake. I strongly urge every single Latino Obama supporter to do all they can to make the truth be heard.

Here is the article, published Jan 28th in the LA Times. (Please e mail and share the link to everyone you know)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez28jan28,0,5950176.column

Clinton's Latino spin The Clinton campaign's assertion that Latinos historically haven't voted for black candidates is divisive -- and false. Gregory Rodriguez

January 28, 2008

If a Hillary Clinton campaign official told a reporter that white voters never support black candidates, would the media have swallowed the message whole? What if a campaign pollster began whispering that Jews don't have an "affinity" for African American politicians? Would the pundits have accepted the premise unquestioningly?

A few weeks ago, Sergio Bendixen, a Clinton pollster and Latino expert, publicly articulated what campaign officials appear to have been whispering for months. In an interview with Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker, Bendixen explained that "the Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

The spin worked. For the last several weeks, it's been on the airwaves (Tucker Carlson, "Hardball," NPR), generally tossed off as if it were conventional wisdom. And it has shown up in sources as far afield as Agence France-Presse and the London Daily Telegraph, which wrote about a "voting bloc traditionally reluctant to support black candidates."

The spin also helped shape the analysis of the Jan. 19 Nevada caucus, in which Clinton won the support of Latino voters by a margin of better than 2 to 1. Forget the possibility that Nevada's Latino voters may have actually preferred Clinton or, at the very least, had a fondness for her husband; pundits embraced the idea that Latino voters simply didn't like the fact that her opponent was black.

But was Bendixen's blanket statement true? Far from it, and the evidence is overwhelming enough to make you wonder why in the world the Clinton campaign would want to portray Latino voters as too unrelentingly racist to vote for Barack Obama.

University of Washington political scientist Matt Barreto has compiled a list of black big-city mayors who have received broad Latino support over the last several decades. In 1983, Harold Washington pulled 80% of the Latino vote in Chicago. David Dinkins won 73% in New York in 1989. And Denver's Wellington Webb garnered more than 70% in 1991, as did Ron Kirk in Dallas in 1995 and then again in 1997 and 1999.

He could have also added that longtime Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley won a healthy chunk of the Latino vote in 1973 and then the clear majority in his mayoral reelection campaigns of 1977, 1981, 1985 and 1989.

Here in L.A., all three black members of Congress represent heavily Latino districts and ultimately couldn't survive without significant Latino support. Five other black House members represent districts that are more than 25% Latino -- including New York's Charles Rangel and Texan Al Green -- and are also heavily dependent on Latino voters.

So, given all this evidence, why did this notion get repeated so nonchalantly? For one, despite the focus on demographic changes in America, journalists' ignorance of the aspirations of Latino America is pretty remarkable. They just don't know much about the biggest minority in the nation. And two, no Latino organizations function in the way that, say, the Anti-Defamation League does for Jewish Americans. In other words, you can pretty much say whatever you want about Latinos without suffering any political repercussions.

Unlike merely "exuberant" supporters, whose mushy grasp of facts Clinton has explained by saying they can sometimes be "uncontrollable," pollsters such as Bendixen most certainly work -- and speak -- at the whim and in the pay of the candidate.

So what would the Clinton campaign have to gain from spreading this misinformation? It helps undermine one of Obama's central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types, and it jibes with the Clinton strategy of pigeon-holing Obama as the "black candidate." (Witness Bill Clinton's statement last week that his wife might lose South Carolina because of Obama's growing black support.)

But the social costs of the Clintons' strategy might end up being higher than the country is willing to pay. According to Stanford Law professor Richard Thompson Ford, who just published "The Race Card: How Bluffing About Bias Makes Race Relations Worse," such political stunts can be "self-fulfilling prophecies."

"It could make black voters more hostile to Latinos," he said. "And Latinos who hear it might think that they somehow ought to be at odds with blacks. These kinds of statements generate interracial tensions."

At the Democratic presidential debate in Nevada, Tim Russert asked Clinton whether the New Yorker quote represented the view of her campaign. "No, he was making a historical statement," she said. "And, obviously, what we're trying to do is bring America together so that everybody feels like they're involved and they have a stake in the future."

Really?

grodriguez@latimescolumnists.com

Shameless Tactics: Losing A Lot Of Respect For Bill Clinton

Will Hussein R — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:20:31 EST

I am really disappointed in all of Bill Clinton's actions throughout this campaign. I was always a fan of the actual work he accomplished during his presidency, his charisma and the positive things he did during his two terms, and I would have loved for him to have a third term instead of Bush taking our country into a horrible tailspin. However, I can't believe how dirty he is now being with his tactics against a fellow Democrat who can really institute a great change for America. His tactics in favor of his wife are shameful and his completely obvious attempts to turn this into an issue of Race so as to set a trap for Senator Obama's failure is absolutely unacceptable. I just got done reading an article on Yahoo news that says Bill brought up the fact that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice during the 80s to further attempt to validate his strategic comments before the polls about Barack only winning because he was Black.

He is attempting to trivialize the fair and hard fought win that Obama gained in S.C. and hoping that this whole issue of people voting based on a candidates RACE and not their actual POLICIES will create a backlash against Obama among White voters. I ask that everyone please not fall into this trap, please educate people around you on the actual issues and why Senator Obama is the best candidate. Don't allow this dirty political trick to work. Let's continue to show the rest of the country and the world that we support Obama because he is a great nominee, not because of his race. Let's also make a concerted and public effort to show him that his support comes from White, Black, Latino, Asian and everyone else in America.

Here is a link to the article and an excerpt.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080127/ap_on_el_pr/obama

The Illinois senator told a raucous crowd of more than 9,000 here that his big victory Saturday disproved the old notion "that if you get black votes, you can't get white votes," and vice versa.

"We're going to write a new chapter in the South, we're going to write a new chapter in American history," he said during his 64-minute speech to a capacity crowd at the University of Alabama at Birmingham basketball arena. The crowd was roughly two-thirds black and one-third white.

Earlier Sunday he made a similar argument, responding to comments by former President ClintonHillary Rodham Clinton. Bill Clinton noted that Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primary in 1984 and 1988. Jackson never became the party's presidential nominee. that some interpreted as an effort to diminish Obama's win Saturday over

Obama, speaking during a television interview, said "there's no doubt" that Jackson set a precedent for blacks seeking the presidency. But he noted that was two decades ago.

"I think that what we saw in this election was a shift in South Carolina," he said, with implications "all across the country. I think people want change. I think they want to get beyond some of the racial politics that, you know, has been so dominant in the past."

I've lost a lot of respect for Bill. Please spread the word about this nonsense!

Beyond The Popular Vote: The Importance of Delegates

Will Hussein R — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:52:42 EST

I just read an interesting article on CNN.com about the importance of delegate totals when the race for the Democratic nomination reaches the DNC. As we already saw, while Hillary may have won the popular vote in the Nevada caucus, she lost the delegate race to Obama. The delegate issue is especially important here in California, where Hillary has a lead of "super delegates" in her corner as well as a lead in most polls predicting the California primary's popular vote on Feb 5th. While that may be disappointing for all of us Cali Obama suppoerters, California is unique in that it has the most delegates available in the race for the nomination and those delegates won't all go to the winner of the popular vote. If all of us Obama supporters can successfuly campaign on the grassroots level in each of California's 53 congressional districts, Obama can defeat Hillary! This really emphasizes the need for every Obama supporter to do what they can in their respective communities to ensure that Obama wins the race for Cali's congressional districts. I hope this can motivate everyone already involved in the volunteering to continue and also bring new volunteers out of each neighborhood. Here is the article along with an excerpt.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/25/campaign.momentum/index.html

As we approach Super Tuesday, the candidates have started hunting for smaller game.

"We're watching the delegate count very closely and want to be able to rack 'em up,'' Mitt Romney said last Saturday. Now they're hunting for delegates.That could go on for months, given the way the rules work.

Democrats have the same rules for all states. Delegates are allocated in proportion to a candidate's primary vote.

If you get a quarter of the vote, you get a quarter of the delegates. Moreover, most of the delegates are allocated by congressional district. So when the candidates go hunting for delegates in the 16 Democratic primary states on Super Tuesday, they have to look for them in 183 separate congressional districts.

Take California, which has 370 pledged delegates to the Democratic convention. Winning the state will get you some good publicity and a plurality share of California's 129 statewide delegates. But that doesn't mean as much as winning delegates in each of the state's 53 congressional districts, which have a total of 241 delegates.

"California will have the most delegates and the biggest primary on February 5th,'' Hillary Clinton said in Salinas on Tuesday. "I'm going to work as hard as I can from one end of this great state to the other.''

The hunt for delegates gives candidates an incentive to stay in the race. They can win delegates even if they don't win states.

On January 15, John Edwards pledged, "I'm in this for the long haul. We're continuing to accumulate delegates. There's actually a very narrow margin between Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton and myself on delegates.''

Those delegates can give you a voice at the convention. They can also give you real bargaining power if no candidate goes into the convention with a majority.

Obama acknowledged that on Thursday in introducing a party official in the crowd and pointing out that he was a superdelegate.

"So I just got one delegate right here, from Waring Howe," Obama said. "I am proud of that. It's all about the delegates. All about the delegates, and I am grateful for him."

You can keep tabs on Obama's total delegate count as well as the projected choices of super delegates by clicking the link below:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D

Los Angeles Latinos: Support Obama!

Will Hussein R — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:11:24 EST

I've been watching political coverage on CNN and other news networks throughout the campaign and a recurring issue has been the fact that Hillary has a large support base with Latinos. Many experts say the support is based on a variety of things done favoring Latinos during Bill Clinton's presidency. That should NOT be a valid reason to simply hand support out to Hillary. Those ar things BILL accomplished, not her. As a young Latino college student myself, I feel that the biggest advocate of change for all Americans, including Latinos, in this election is Sen. Obama. I urge all Latinos who are undecided, those who favor Hillary, others hesitant to vote or even those who are frustrated with politics and feel unheard to learn where Sen. Obama stands on issues important to the Latino community.

All politicians always make promises to cater to voting blocs, yet many (or most) rarely see them through. Don't simply believe another political campaign built on lies and name recognition to win your vote, study the facts and fight to make your voice be heard. If we unite and stand behind a candidate who truly means what he says and has a track record of making change, fighting broken Washington politics and really does listen to the PEOPLE, we can make a difference and proudly welcome Barack Obama as our next president. To see more about Obama's stance on Latino issues and his history, click the link below:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/latinosissues

You can also join the official Latinos For Obama group and help spread the message to other fellow Latinos and Americans of all backgrounds to make their voices heard and felt! If you're unhappy with the way the Latino vote is portrayed and feel it represents the true feelings of you, your family and your community, speak out now and make a difference. California is a tremendous power when it comes to the Latino vote and an excellent way for us to show the rest of the nation and the world that we support Obama and don't simply give away our votes.

LA & Valley Obama Supporters Write A Letter To The Editor! (LA Times/LA Daily News)

Will Hussein R — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:30:30 EST

I saw a blog in the general community section telling Obama supporters to write a letter to their local newspapers about their support for Obama, why they feel he is the best candidate for President and any other information you feel is important to mention. I figured it would be easier for Los Angeles. San Fernando Valley and surrounding area supporters to just get info on how to send editors through here, without having to search through the comments on the other blog. I've provided info for the following.

Los Angeles Times: letters@latimes.com

Here are the LA Times guidelines for letters: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-contactus-edguidelines,0,3131285.htmlstory

Los Angeles Daily News: http://www.dailynews.com/writealetter

Pasadena Star-News: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/writealetter

Burbank Leader: mailto:burbankleader@latimes.com

Glendale News-Press: mailto:gnp@latimes.com

Los Angeles Sentinel: http://www.lasentinel.net/contact.php

LA Opinion(Spanish speaking paper): mailto:henrik.rehbinder@laopinion.com?subject=Comentarios a editor de Editorial

LA City Beat: http://www.lacitybeat.com/contact_us/

LA Weekly: http://www.laweekly.com/index.php?option=com_philaform&form_id=2&Itemid=573

Please take the time out to send a letter! It can help spread the message of hope and change that Obama is promoting and educate people as to why he is the best candidate. The letter can reach a large audience of readers outside of the internet as well, and is another great form of helping the campaign. Good luck!

Obama In LA! (CNN Dem. Debate Jan 31st)

Will Hussein R — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:34:23 EST

Just wanted to give everyone a heads up that Obama will be in LA for another CNN Democratic Debate on Thursday Jan 31st at 5 pm California time (8 pm eastern). I was very happy with his strong performance in the last debate, and I expect to see him continue to show why he's the best candidate for our next president. Make sure to tune in, spread the word about the debate and his visit to California. We have to do all we can to help swing the voter support to him so he can take California in the primary! Here are some links.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/

You can submit questions here: http://dyn.politico.com/debate/

Read the news release here:

'Super Tuesday' presidential debates in California Posted: 05:15 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The top Democratic and Republican presidential contenders will be invited to appear in nationally televised debates in California less than one week before "Super Tuesday," CNN, The Los Angeles Times, and Politico announced Friday.

The California debates, which will be broadcast on CNN, will take place in a delegate rich state that both Republican and Democratic White House hopefuls are mining for votes and campaign cash.

It will be the final time the candidates appear together on the same stage before February 5 when 23 states hold presidential nominating contests.

Republicans will appear at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley on January 30. Former first lady Nancy Reagan has personally informed candidates that they will be invited if they are frontrunners.

The California Democratic Party has sanctioned the Democratic debate, which will take place January 31 in Los Angeles. CNN, the Los Angeles Times, and Politico are organizing these historic events.

The three media organizations said candidates will be invited if they place in one of the top four spots in an early voting state, and receive at least 5 percent in either a California survey conducted by the organizers or any one of 10 nationally identified media sponsored polls in January.

Organizers will determine Democratic eligibility based upon the Democratic National Committee's early calendar schedule that includes Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. For Republicans, the list of possible contests includes: Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida.

In addition to a CNN/Los Angeles Times/Politico survey of California voters, the media organizations said other polls they will use to determine eligibility include: CNN, Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg, The New York Times, CBS, USA Today/Gallup, NBC/Wall Street Journal, FOX/Opinion Dynamics, Washington Post/ABC, TIME, or Newsweek.

Welcome To My Barack Blog

Will Hussein R — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 03:44:25 EST

As the title says, welcome to my Barack Obama support blog.

As a young "minority" from LA County, I'm quite familiar with poverty, violence, misrepresentation, racism, underperforming schools and many other issues that have negatively affected me and my peers and have been around long before I was born. These issues will be around much longer unless we ALL personally begin to do what we can today to make our voices heard, so we can change a history of politics and policy that ignore us and our concerns. I'm a firm believer in the the tremendous amount of talent available in poor communities and I would love to see more of that talent showcased beyond city limits and not be wasted. With that said, I feel like Barack Obama is the best opportunity for us to unite to make a tangible change for our communities and the United States as a whole. His impact will be felt both as a role model for minorities across America as well as a man who isn't a lifelong politician, that doesn't cater to special interests and that doesn't choose lobbyists and money over the people of America. If you feel as strong as I do about change, please share your thoughts and contact me to help make the movement stronger.

Thanks!