Have you read our Comment Policy?
Head's up on a little ballot trouble taking place in Los Angeles County -- apparently Decline To State Ballots are getting undercounted. Seems that you have to fill in an extra bubble which many/most people haven't done; there is speculation that the recount of these ballots may delay definitive results on California...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonl.../8990/51/
450474
Looks like Obama just won Delaware--S.B. Woo's state. Woo hoo! I guess that's what happens with a neutral endorsement!
McCain supporters in W. Virginia knew they didn't have a chance, so a lot of them switched to Huck just to throw off Romney. Funny stuff!
I thought McCain getting only 1% in WV is because he threw his delegate support behind Huckabee, pushing him ahead of Romney. McCain would have lost the state anyway, had only 15% of the vote in the first vote.
Another caution against putting too much weight in California exit polls today -- 3+ million absentee ballots waiting to be counted.
http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/fr/rss/
According to SurveyUSA, Hilary has edge with absentee voters...
I gotta catch a flight -- Happy Live Blogging, and Happy Spring Festival!
BATED BREATH
OBAMA 08
YES. WE. CAN.
" I thought McCain getting only 1% in WV is because he threw his delegate support behind Huckabee, pushing him ahead of Romney. McCain would have lost the state anyway, had only 15% of the vote in the first vote."
Yeah, but apparently some of his supporters didn't get the message.
Yeah, I heard about the ballot troubles in Cali. I'm hoping we can still get enough of a sense of what's going on there to see if the Obama wave undermined Clinton's February 5th strategy and actually takes the state. that would be HUGE.
Have a good flight, ada!
" Looks like Obama just won Delaware--S.B. Woo's state. Woo hoo! I guess that's what happens with a neutral endorsement!"
Hahahaha! I bet S.B. Woo is PISSED.
Jenn,
I know you're probably partially joking but I wouldn't give Woo or 80/20 that much credit. There are other explanations than Asian Americans in Cali acting like sheep. Still 75% = OUCH.
Are there any details to the exit polls? Language spoken at home? Generation of immigrant? Are pacific-islanders included? Age? Gender? Etc.
In any case, I don't think Asians made a huge difference here. What's MOST striking:
Whites, handily, went with Obama.
But the Latino vote? Clinton had that ON LOCK. In every age group.
I stand corrected - the API vote matters a great deal. I had them smaller than they really are.
That said, ironic that the Latino and Asian votes helped swing this Clinton's way.
And Jenn,
I really doubt the CNN Exit Polls parse data down that small in terms of by specific Asian ethnic group.
No, they didn't have any data more higher resolution than just "Asian".
They were about 13% of the vote in Cali, so they did make a significant contribution to Clinton's possible win there.
"Clinton had that ON LOCK. In every age group."
Yeah, she targeted them as her new African American constituency -- if that makes sense.
(PS -- sorry if I sound short. I'm not -- I'm just kinda tipsy and kinda upset at Asian Americans in California. But no, I haven't seen more data on Asian Americans in terms of age, gender, or generational status.
I'm sure S.B. Woo WASN'T the only reason why Asian Americans went for Clinton. But that doesn't mean his tactics didn't contribute.
And unfortunately, I'm sure he will CLAIM sole responsibility for that.)
Jenn, check how close Missouri is.
And I know CA is personally disappointing to you, but don't sweat it, all he has to do is get like 40% to keep his momentum and then it's a month of possible to likely Obama victories for the rest of the month.
Darn. As an Asian American in California I'm sad that so few of us voted for Obama. I could have sworn all my friends were Obama supporters. Oh well.
" I could have sworn all my friends were Obama supporters. "
That's probably entirely true. But it looks like you don't have any friends in the other 3/4s! 
Woo claims responsibility for a win every time, even when he loses. And one has to admit that his Chinese language skills had to have helped when he swiftboated Obama in the Chinese newspapers. It's easy to become powerful when people are kept in the dark because they're new citizens.
Seriously, WTF is going on in CA? LA Times and Asianweek both endorsed Obama. Hong Kingston's endorsement, though I'm not her greatest fan, should've done something for those Berkeley-ites. My goodness. What were we thinking?
"Seriously, WTF is going on in CA?"
Kind of hard not to think race(ism) had a role to play.
I don't know, I think that it will be closer in the end than it is right now, even if Clinton does take the state. A lot of the areas that haven't been counted yet are mostly rural, and rural California has no love for the Clintons after Bill Clinton's conservation policies ate at our farmland. Of course, rural California is also mostly Republican, so I don't know. But Obama may be able to close with 40% to Clinton's 50-ish%.
In fact, watching the returns right now, Obama's gone up two percent in the last half an hour.
I truly truly hope that the gap is smaller in California than it currently seems.
One of the major media networks has done some math on the upcoming primaries, and projects that by this time next week, Obama and Clinton should be tied in pledged delegate count, so I'm not that upset anymore.
Mainly, I'm just disappointed that the community would overwhelmingly back a candidate who has done NOTHING for our community. I just don't understand Clinton's appeal to the 75% of APIAs who backed her.
Well, this is pure armchair speculation but a lot of middle class APIs did pretty well under the last Clinton.
"I truly truly hope that the gap is smaller in California than it currently seems."
It's shrinking slowly. Looks like Clinton will still eek out a 2 digit lead but not as bad as the 20 points she began with.
02:45 EDT on Super Duper Wednesday, someone on MSNBC finally mentions Asian Americans.
As of right now, Obama just hit 38 percent, and Clinton's been going down a tenth of a percent at a time. It's definitely not going to be a 20-point lead, or even that close. And Obama got Missouri and Alaska, so ... I think the next few weeks will be interesting.
I have no idea why Asian Americans in this state backed Clinton, honestly. A huge chunk of APIAs here -aren't- in the middle-class range, and with AsianWeek and the L.A. Times and several local politicians backing Obama, I don't know what happened. I know that most of the people here in town who I know voted for him, or said that they did, anyway. But maybe in the Bay Area, where the population is mostly Chinese and Japanese Americans versus the Filipinos, Cambodians and Vietnamese Americans around here, things were different. I don't know how it went down in SoCal.
Vox,
It ended a 10 point win; still very decisive and flying in the face of day-before polling. The Bradley Effect again?
As for where Obama won in CA - he won Alameda and S.F. but lost the rest of the Bay Area; I'm a little surprised at this since while Contra Costa and San Mateo are less progressive (comparatively), they are more solidly middle class and that's where Obama's been doing well.
And yeah, the 3/4 thing is a mystery (if even wholly accurate). I don't think the standard exit polling will reveal enough enough it contains enough useful data for others to break down and analyze.
"It ended a 10 point win; still very decisive and flying in the face of day-before polling. The Bradley Effect again?"
It may have something to do with the fact that CA allowed people to mail in their votes way before Super Tuesday. They said he had a last minute surge.
Still, I'm asking the same questions as everyone else: WTF was everyone thinking?
"Kind of hard not to think race(ism) had a role to play."
I think so. But 75%???
"I know you're probably partially joking but I wouldn't give Woo or 80/20 that much credit. There are other explanations than Asian Americans in Cali acting like sheep. Still 75% = OUCH."
Two words: Name recognition. People still attribute that period of relative peace and financial security to the Clintons. By voting for Hillary, they perhaps feel that this country can have a guaranteed repeat of that.
I truly believe that name recognition had a LOT to do with it, coupled with a form of the Bradley Effect for Asian Americans who might still have felt uncomfortable pulling the lever for a Black man. Also, OW, I think you're right that many APIAs preferred the name they know, who did well.
I've been wondering if the "don't rock the boat" assimilationist mentality of older-generation APIAs or recently immigrated APIAs may also have factored; Obama's message of change may not have resonated amongst those APIAs who find an known institution (and supporting that) highly appealing.
I'm not going to discount 80/20, since I'm sure targeting Asian language newspapers had a good impact, although it's not the sole cause. The take-home message there for me is that next time 'round, we absolutely MUST target Asian language media in order to place ads or letters.
"The take-home message there for me is that next time 'round, we absolutely MUST target Asian language media in order to place ads or letters."
That is SO true. Well, I'm glad we at least came out with one lesson learned.
On the bright side, CNN is saying that Obama may have a money advantage in the next few states:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS...ysis/
index.html
"CNN is saying that Obama may have a money advantage in the next few states:"
I think Obama is expected to win many of the upcoming states. They are Southern states with larger African American populations, and he did well with many of those on Super Tuesday. So I think Obama is expected to tie it up by this time next week.
Jenn,
It won't be so easy. Obama - mathematically - has a shot but he doesn't just need to win. He needs to clobber Clinton in those upcoming states in order to make up the difference. California really hurt him, as did Massachusetts and, I think, to a lesser extent, New York.
He's got a great fighting chance, especially with some big states like Ohio and Texas still coming up. The only thing with Texas might be the Latino vote again but I also don't know, historically, how Texas has felt about Hillary.
Ten points is decisive, but still much better than 20+. And considering that the gap in most of the states Clinton won was ten points or fewer, that's pretty good.
I'm not real surprised that he didn't do well in the middle-class Bay Area. California middle-class/city liberals are a lot more like Northeast liberals than a lot of people think — Clinton and status quo would easily trump Obama and idealism with them (and did). He did nail Marin and Sonoma, which was surprising to me, and Santa Cruz, and a lot of rural NorCal, which I expected. I honestly thought he'd wrap up more of rural SoCal, though.
I do think you're right, jaehwan, that mail-in ballots really hurt Obama this time around. People were allowed to send them in starting at the very beginning of January, before his South Carolina win and his amazing $32 million fundraising for the month. I would guess that many if not most of the Democrats who sent ballots in early voted for Clinton.
Vox:
I think a lot of absentee ballots went to Edwards too.
True. I'm not sure he would have gotten 7 percent of the state after he stepped down, otherwise!
i dont think its fair to criticize asian people in CA for not voting obama. To call them racist is somewhat offensive.
if you want to throw that out, then saying black voters who overwhelmingly voted for obama are racist against the other candidates.
gotta keep it real.
"Obama - mathematically - has a shot but he doesn't just need to win. He needs to clobber Clinton in those upcoming states in order to make up the difference. California really hurt him, as did Massachusetts and, I think, to a lesser extent, New York. "
Well, but he's down by less than a hundred pledged delegates, and Feb. 12 includes Maryland, D.C. and Virginia, all of which have a sizeable African American population, 75%-80% of whom voted for Obama in virtually all of the Feb. 5 states.
So I really think he will clobber on Feb. 12. I'm not sure about Feb. 9th and 10th. I don't know much about Nebraska, but Louisiana he's likely to do well in. And I think APIAs should make a push for Washington, which is a second large population of APIA voters.
Oh, sorry, plus in Maine, it's a caucus system, which Obama has fared well in, even in Nevada which, despite losing the majority vote, he emerged with one extra pledged delegates.
Also, the Northeeast actually split Obama and Clinton, so he has a good chance of doing well there. I certainly think it's doubtful that in the next week, Clinton will emerge with enough delegates to end Obama's campaign.
" dont think its fair to criticize asian people in CA for not voting obama. To call them racist is somewhat offensive.
if you want to throw that out, then saying black voters who overwhelmingly voted for obama are racist against the other candidates.
gotta keep it real."
WTF are you talking about? No one called APAs in Cali. particularly racist. However, the Bradley Effect refers to a long-standing tradition wherein Black candidates poll extremely well immediately prior to an election than fare significantly poorer than polls anticipated, and usually is explained by a reluctance to actually carry through with one's well-meaning intention to vote for a Black man.
It's as racist as when it occurs with White voters, which is to say, yes it might be racist, but to be offended by the explanation is to shut down any possible interrogation of whether it might have actually occurred. And given existing Black/Korean interracial tension in West Coast, Cali., and the fact that some Asian cultures remain colourstruck, there may be an Asian version of the Bradley effect that played a part here. However, as I said in my earlier post, there's that coupled with a "don't rock the boat" assimilationist mindset and possible disinformation spread by 80/20 through Asian-language newspapers.
And what I didn't mention earlier but should mention now: older APIAs may be registered Democrat of vote Democrat, but may, due to the immigrant experience and/or being generally professionals or small business owners, simply trend towards conservative Democratic values over more progressive values. Clinton's platform may have been more appealing in that sense.
Incidentally, part of the reason I invoke the Bradley Effect is because earlier polls had showed Obama down by 19% amongst APIAs in Cali. (and later, tied with Obama actually in the lead although within the margin of error). No polls anticipated a 50% gap.
Clinton still leads in Texas, I think.
Texas is part caucus, though. Advantage: Obama!
Guys and gals,
I think Hillary's campaign is in some financial trouble.
Look at this, some of her staffers are going without pay:
http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/...ng-without-pay/
Plus, she just lent her own campaign $5 million from her own pocket (thank goodness Bill has been making all that money from his speeches):
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/
sto...EMPLATE=DEFAULT
Yes we can!
"" dont think its fair to criticize asian people in CA for not voting obama. To call them racist is somewhat offensive. "
Then take offense. I wasn't being nice.
Hard to explain the 3/4 phenom without racism playing SOME role.
Gotta keep it real.
I have nothing but respect for you Jenn, you went out their and did the damn thing. You got involved with getting the word out and being part of the solution instead of being part of the problem by becoming a participant in Obama's campaign and rallying for the APIA Community. I am really getting sick and tired of people always complaining and doing nothing. You don't have to climb mount Everest or create a unified string theory, you just have to get involved get educated and at the least vote. Obama for '08
My brother from another mother, Jeff Chang, has a very interesting analysis of this on the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
je...me_b_85359.html
You people are a piece of work.... Obama may TALK about having the a multi-racial coalitiont... but it seems Clinton ACTUALLY has one. LoL. Obama-mania is all hype, and it won't take much longer for the rest of the nation to rub the grime from its eyes.
BTW: If you people say 3/4 and 2/3 Asian and Latino voting for CLinton implies racism, then how do you explain 8/10 and 9/10 of blacks voting for Obama????
They just "see" the light more then everyone else?
Joke.
It seems America, where it counts, dosn't buy the fatous nonsense of Obama's rhetoric.
"Kind of hard not to think race(ism) had a role to play."
Jenn, to be fair, i think Chen was responding to the above. your emphasizing the Bradley effect also furthers your general argument that APAs had "no good reason" to vote Clinton -- when that is just not true.
to claim that Clinton has done nothing for our community, invites scrutiny of Obama's own record on this count... which is very very thin. much thinner than hers.
the campaign botched this. they should have signed the questionnaire sooner. would that by itself have been enough to win over APAs in California? no, of course not. but dithering over it served zero purpose, and muddied the waters for many.
love jeff chang's article in the Huffington Post...
Let's be frank: Senator Obama loses a campaign centered around which Democratic candidate can best pander to politicized minority communities. If Latino Americans or gay Americans or Asian Americans or white women or blue collar Americans search for the candidate who can best secure that their policy interests are enacted into law, then Senator Obama loses because his strength is practical, accountable governance based on a new and vast governing coalition where practically all groups represent themselves and their interests through transparent debate.
I am a Black American. I don't expect some of the more fantastic desires of some radicals in my community, like say reparations for slavery, to emerge as American public policy in that environment.
My comfort with Senator Obama's perspective emerges because I'm willing to sacrifice some of the 'us-first' identity politics of the past - a politics that leaves Black Americans to defend stale holdovers from the Civil Rights Era with support for liberal slaveowners who ignore our demands from Inauguration Day onward (read: the Clintons) - in order to forge a new governing coalition that can actually tackle the major national problems of our era: stateless terrorism, unaffordable healthcare, the energy crisis, exploitative illegal immigration, deficit spending, the Bush assault on civil liberties and civil rights statutes, etc.
We've seen what Clintonian incrementalism through unabashed pandering can do for minority voters - nothing. People of color (especially Black Americans) needed universal healthcare in the 90's, just as we need it today, because the diseases and conditions that attack most Americans simply cripple the Black community. The understandable backlash (in theory, not in practice) against HRC's secretive liberal maternalism on that issue killed universal healthcare and the Democratic majority in Congress for the rest of the 90's.
So, let's be clear about the 'racism' involved when Asian Americans and Latino Americans vote for Senator Clinton over Senator Obama: this racism involves racial communities who ignore what a politician of color argues in order to appeal to White benevolence. When the slavemaster's wife's promise of crumbs from the slavemaster's table becomes more important than listening to a candidate of color and judging that candidate based on what he thinks, racism abounds.
I don't think Asian Americans or Latino Americans in California hold deep-seated prejudices against Black candidates, I think that the identity politics dynamic to which all of us have grown accustomed in this country, where aggrieved minority groups clamor for audiences with White politicians to plead for policies those very politicians know they cannot enact, has never served the best interests of any racial minority community. To me, the Obama model of a large governing coalition where everyone argues from their policy proscriptions on their merits alone, in public, o
To me, the Obama model of a large governing coalition where everyone argues from their policy proscriptions on their merits alone, in public, on C-SPAN, is much more likely to create the change many of us seek, in our lifetimes.
The old way hasn't worked, and panderers like Senator Clinton use the racism of the old way to convince minority groups to deliver their support on Election Day. Don't look for her after January 20th.
"your emphasizing the Bradley effect also furthers your general argument that APAs had "no good reason" to vote Clinton -- when that is just not true."
I disagree -- I said it was a factor, but certainly not the only factor. The next sentence was also a question as to whether or not many Asian American voters are -- because of the immigrant experience -- more likely to be conservative Democrats.
I never said there was "no good reason" not to vote Clinton, but I do think race was a factor.
"they should have signed the questionnaire sooner. would that by itself have been enough to win over APAs in California? no, of course not. but dithering over it served zero purpose, and muddied the waters for many."
No, I don't think they should have. The question on quotas was a serious one, and Obama's integrity is a critical part of his platform. Obama's campaign either needed to force an agreement sooner or send surrogates out to attack Clinton on her pandering.
The mistake was to ignore it and hope it would go away, not his disagreeing with it.
"Mainly, I'm just disappointed that the community would overwhelmingly back a candidate who has done NOTHING for our community. I just don't understand Clinton's appeal to the 75% of APIAs who backed her."
I gathered the 'no good reason' to vote Clinton impression from statements like this.
I am not saying you were putting undue weight on Bradley effect -- I am saying you are quicker to find failings in the electorate rather than failings in the campaign. And I think this is an oversight. Only mention it because we are gearing up and the whole game must go another level. Appreciate all the work you do Jenn, seriously.
"The question on quotas was a serious one, and Obama's integrity is a critical part of his platform."
The question on quotas was fixed by rewording it. Which he did. And he SIGNED it Jenn.
Are you saying he was coerced? Come on...!
"I gathered the 'no good reason' to vote Clinton impression from statements like this."
Well, but that's not a "race" statement. That's a "she's pandering and we're falling for it!" statement.
I understand where you're coming from ada, and I do agree that Obama's APIA leadership council dropped the ball, but I don't think they did in the way that you argue -- i.e., it wasn't their handling of 80/20, but rather a lack of outreach to the community to poke holes in Clinton's pandering.
Clinton panders, that's what she does and that's what she's good at. And that's why minority communities like her: she promises us things and we are blind to the fact that she hasn't delivered in the past, and we continue to believe those empty promises.
I'm blaming us for falling for it. And I'm blaming Obama for not doing enough to make the distinction between his political philosophy and her's: his being to promise nothing he doesn't think he can actually deliver.
"The question on quotas was fixed by rewording it. Which he did. And he SIGNED it Jenn.
Are you saying he was coerced? Come on...!"
No, I'm saying he and 80/20 didn't come to a consensus sooner. And he wasn't going to sign the version with the quotas in it. In retrospect, people will point to the 80/20 thing and say this is just desserts for not signing it when Clinton did; but I maintain that he couldn't have signed it then because he didn't agree with it 100% (so to sign it would have been going against his integrity), and they weren't willing to work with his campaign to fix the problem.
It was a lose-lose situation for him.
I don't think Obama should've signed it earlier or later; I think he should've assembled a Chinese language media team to fight against Swiftboat Woo's attacks, or he should've attacked Clinton for pandering. The big win of Hillary's Tuesday was CA, where 80/20 refused to pull their endorsement even when he gave in to their demands. But I'm not surprised. I knew they were going to somehow find a way to endorse Clinton simply because the Woo-ster craves that Clinton brand name in politics.
Ada, I hate to beat a dead horse, but I'm still not sure you're understanding me when we were talking about that Klan thing. People matter. You can't just cave in every time some slimy guy is threatening you with shady unethical attacks. Doing so invites more shady and unethical attacks. People matter.
One more thing: just to put it out there, I'll be on a conference call this afternoon to try and figure out how the campaign can improve outreach to APIAs in states like Washington where we remain an influential part of the vote.
So don't get it twisted, I'm right there in the heart of "what can the campaign do better". And I understand your caveats.
But we can't have a conversation on how to improve APIA support until we figure out why APIAs haven't already decided to support Obama. And that means understanding if there's an outreach problem, a message problem, or an aspect of the Bradley effect that is beyond our control.
I think I agree with one of the last points in Jeff Chang's article, namely that the generational gap between old and young voters holds true for the APIA community. I've noted that most of the fervent Obama supporters in this camp are the young, politically active, and often highly educated people (i.e. hence why most of my Asian American friends were Obama supporters, we're all a bunch of young folk).
The older generation tends to remember the Clinton name more for one thing, and do seem less politically active, so Obama's lack of name recognition did hurt him here, especially with the mail-in vote thing. Also, I think Clinton's tactic of targeting prominent APIA leaders tends to reach the older first-generation immigrants far more than younger people and second- or later generation people.
"One more thing: just to put it out there, I'll be on a conference call this afternoon to try and figure out how the campaign can improve outreach to APIAs in states like Washington where we remain an influential part of the vote."
That's coming up in two days. Will there be enough time? There are tons of APA's in Seattle.
We'll have to see if that's enough time. You want in? It's an open conference call.
POsted my thoughts about the APIA vote on Super Tuesday here
http://www.reappropriate.com/?p=1053
What time? The bond market has been swinging wildly back and forth, and so it's busy at work, but if it's cool to listen in, please just e-mail me the number I need to call...
I just sent you the email at your yahoo account. Should be starting in just under three hours.
-J
Ada: "I gathered the 'no good reason' to vote Clinton impression from statements like this."
Jenn: "Well, but that's not a "race" statement."
I didn't say it was. The race(ism) statement was from someone else, and most of respondents entertained it. Chen pointed out that calling racism was unfair. I am pointing out that you guys seem too-eager to discredit your own base rather than consider what legitimate reasons they might have had for voting Hillary.
I cracked up btw when you guys finally assented that maybe outreach in asian-language media was a good idea. No kidding.
Jenn: "That's a "she's pandering and we're falling for it!" statement."
If Hillary Clinton has name recognition and relationships in the AA leadership community going back over 10 years, and has spent time and energy building those relationships, HOW IS THAT PANDERING?
Obama is a new name, a new face, a new message. I think he's terrific -- and I think Hillary Clinton is deeply flawed. But if I focus narrowly on WHO HAS DONE MORE for our community -- it is a lot easier to point to Billary's laundry list of accomplishments rather than Obama's.
"No, I'm saying he and 80/20 didn't come to a consensus sooner. And he wasn't going to sign the version with the quotas in it...It was a lose-lose situation for him."
Sorry, I am in a different time zone, so it takes me a while to respond.
So... your argument is that the man we want to be the leader of the free world, was correct NOT to offer different wording on a six point questionnaire in a timely fashion (six months). You think he buckled under the time constraint? Or was it the legal language that he found difficult?
LOL - The campaign DIDN'T GET IT DONE. Simple as that. There was no particularly good or lofty reason for it, perhaps other than that they didn't want to -- or that they underestimated the importance of AA issues, and that signing the 80-20 initiative wouldn't hurt them.
Perhaps they thought as you do that 80-20 didn't represent anyone legitimate in the AA community -- just because they don't represent you or the people you know.
Do you recognize the blinders you have on towards the AA constituency? At least 80-20 is actually willing to embrace a broad spectrum of AAs, and focus narrowly on issues the majority of AAs can support. How much space was devoted on this blog to mocking 80-20's spelling and presentation? How much to wild claims of racist attack (which did not happen). And how much was self-critical, in terms of what can WE do to extend our outreach? NOT MUCH -- not until after the California results came in.
"Perhaps they thought as you do that 80-20 didn't represent anyone legitimate in the AA community -- just because they don't represent you or the people you know."
Ada,
Let's cut to the chase. You saw the unethical lies and character attacks the Woo-ster spread about Obama in the Asian language newspapers. That's the Woo-ster's character. I don't know why you continue to downplay or ignore the human issue, but regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge it, it still exists: good people don't like dishonest people. Good people don't like dishonest organizations. Stop acting like 80/20 is somehow above judgment for the terrible way in which they've misled our community.
"And how much was self-critical, in terms of what can WE do to extend our outreach? NOT MUCH -- not until after the California results came in."
Well, it's a learning process. We obviously missed some big opportunities. Hopefully we've learned from our mistakes.
ada,
"I am pointing out that you guys seem too-eager to discredit your own base rather than consider what legitimate reasons they might have had for voting Hillary."
The entire post I've done about "what happened to the apia vote" is about legitimate reasons the apia vote had for voting clinton. it's part of the process of developing an effective counterargument.
it's really not to dismiss apia supporters of clinton. it's really to figure out why clinton's message is resonating and obama's isn't.
"I cracked up btw when you guys finally assented that maybe outreach in asian-language media was a good idea. No kidding."
frankly, ada, this comment frustrated me the most of all. you haven't been on the conference calls, or on the ground. you don't know what folks have been trying to do, or where our criticism has been placed.
targeting asian-language media has been idea we've had for months. unfortunately, we haven't been able to materialize the funds.
to imply that we're stupid or out of touch is offensive. we couldn't make it happen sooner, but we just got off a conference call where we re-visited trying to make it happen. we've been frustrated that world journal and other asian language media is giving clinton free press by so heavily biasing their reporting to her campaign; we'll have to pay for coverage her campaign is getting for free.
would you care to donate to asian americans for obama to help us purchase an ad? all the national campaign's funds have been tied up in staff and mainstream media buys, in order to stay nationally competitive with someone who wins news cycles just by showing up. everything that WE (asian americans) are doing is completely grassroots, and funded in-house.
currently, we've had to try and rely on asian-language letters to the editor and blogs to get our message out there, not because we think it's the best way to get to apias, but because it's the only FREE way to get to apias. and obviously that's not ideal, but it's not our tactic because we don't know any better.
so really, while i respect your p.o.v. on all this, there is no need to denigrate the efforts of those of us who are trying to make a difference. we're not stupid. we're hampered by limited resources.
"WHO HAS DONE MORE for our community -- it is a lot easier to point to Billary's laundry list of accomplishments rather than Obama's."
But, ada, what in that laundry list has Clinton done *for the community*? Either one. Because, short of appointing Mineta, it's a short list.
"So... your argument is that the man we want to be the leader of the free world, was correct NOT to offer different wording on a six point questionnaire in a timely fashion (six months). You think he buckled under the time constraint? Or was it the legal language that he found difficult? "
No, ada. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama OFFERED to change the wording. 80/20 refused to hear it. It
No, ada. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama OFFERED to change the wording. 80/20 refused to hear it. It was only after backlash from some APIAs repeatedly arguing the "unconstitutional" point that 80/20 returned to the table to hear out the negotiations.
Yes, there was a disagreement. But just because Obama's the bigger name doesn't mean that he was the one being the asshole in the situation. From the Obama campaign's response letter (incidentally, the only account we have of the exchange between Obama and 80/20 -- 80/20 has refused to make their records public) Obama clearly offered revisions, and 80/20 refused to make the modifications.
Frankly, yes, that is the kind of man I want to be president.
"LOL - The campaign DIDN'T GET IT DONE. Simple as that. There was no particularly good or lofty reason for it, perhaps other than that they didn't want to -- or that they underestimated the importance of AA issues, and that signing the 80-20 initiative wouldn't hurt them."
There is no way the Obama campaign could have forced 80/20 to accept a modified version of the questionnaire, and there was no way Obama was going to sign the questionnaire as is. Lose-lose.
"Do you recognize the blinders you have on towards the AA constituency? At least 80-20 is actually willing to embrace a broad spectrum of AAs, and focus narrowly on issues the majority of AAs can support. How much space was devoted on this blog to mocking 80-20's spelling and presentation? How much to wild claims of racist attack (which did not happen). And how much was self-critical, in terms of what can WE do to extend our outreach? NOT MUCH -- not until after the California results came in."
ada, I do not know what your problem is. I said race was a factor. This post describes in detail what I think happened:
http://www.reappropriate.com/?p=1053
But in short, I think Clinton's casting of Obama as the "Black" candidate turned non-Black minorities off to his candidacy because he was viewed as too tied into the African American "special interest" to be an effective advocate of Latino or Asian American concerns. Basically, Clinton -- consciously or not -- used the traditional tactic of pitting minorities against one another by "ghetto"-izing Obama.
To me, that explains the high polls of APIAs for Obama immediately prior to the election, and it explains the actual result. Because this is a subconscious fear, it doesn't manifest until you hit the polls and have to re-think your decision. And then suddenly you have to wonder if Obama really speaks to you about your interests as much as Clinton does.
This knee-jerk reaction, ada, I think hides the point that's being made. We all have a bunch of crackpot theories as to what happened, and we can all agree or disagree as to which factored the most. The point is to try and make a difference this weekend and next week in the remaining APIA-heavy areas.
I reiterate: this was NEVER about
I reiterate: this was NEVER about denigrating APIAs who voted for Clinton. *I* don't understand why they did, but I can hazard a guess -- and that's what I've been trying to do over the past week: rationalize a decision I don't understand so I can help the community find the same appeal in Obama's candidacy as they do in Clinton's. Because I fundamentally believe Obama is better for the community, but that he's having a hard time getting APIAs to see that.
I don't think you need to start getting so hostile over a free-flowing exchange of ideas. And certainly, your snarkiness isn't helping.
Clarification: from Obama's letter, it's clear that the Obama campaign offered a re-wording roughly the same time Clinton's campaign agreed to sign it.
In fact, all the candidates were late to sign the questionnaire except, I think, Biden.
" And how much was self-critical, in terms of what can WE do to extend our outreach? NOT MUCH -- not until after the California results came in."
Ada, as I said above, there has been a lot of self-reflection and criticism both before and after February 5th.
I don't believe in airing out the dirty laundry of working with the Obama campaign because 1) there is conflict in every campaign, and 2) I don't want my frustrations to be misconstrued as an endorsement for the other candidate.
Don't construe an absence of evidence as evidence of absence; if you read email archives, you would see a great deal of conversation on outreach spanning back several months. It's just not the kind of discussion one airs out when presenting a united front to the blogosphere on why Obama is the best candidate for APIAs.
Even now, after February 5th, when it's tempting to place blame, Asian Americans for Obama and other concerned APIAs are still trying to move forward positively. That's why I raised this issue on this blog: I wanted to know what folks honestly think went wrong with the campaign so we can correct it.
But, just because you didn't see us be critical of our outreach efforts, ada, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just didn't happen to blog or comment about it.
Commenting by HaloScan
