Have you read our Comment Policy?
I understand you are upset, especially as an Obama supporter. However, despite 80-20's claims that they have a wide reach, they simply are not a credible organization.
It's not that 80-20 doesn't have a good goal in mind, it's that they can't execute properly. Through numerous twists of language, 80-20's leadership has shown a vast LACK of leadership, especially when they take credit for things like the student-driven Abercrombie & Fitch campaign. The current website's text differs from what it used to be, and they used to claim that victory much more as their own.
80-20 lacks on the ground membership and it doesn't really even have the same breadth, much less depth of people power as MoveOn does.
But at the end of the day, what I fault 80-20 for most is that through its absolute and utter inability to strategically organize the APA community (also known as, they don't know how to win, write effective talking points, etc), it makes the rest of our community organizations who are on the ground AND know what they are doing at the local and national levels look incredibly bad. Because 80-20's "leadership" is like that really obnoxious kid in class who never knew the answer but always hand his hand up first and wanted the teacher to notice and call on him.
That's what 80-20 is to the press, and it's part of a much bigger problem with progressive APA organizations and the progressive movement in general.
So don't sweat 80-20's missives. This is just one more example of their unfortunate misdirected "calls to action." I took myself off their mailing list a long time ago.
"Sen. Obama too inexperienced to be our presidency. He is not ready. He has yet to develop the character and courage to stand up for America’s core value — equal opportunity."
What a fucking low blow. "Character?" This coming from an organization created by S.B. Fool? I'm sorry, but I can't stand 80-20. I won't even agree with Jenn's "commendable" statement; I think it's downright despicable that 80-20 is doing what they're doing, and I hope the 80-20 eventually gets dissolved.
Power and Politics wrote: "80-20's leadership has shown a vast LACK of leadership, especially when they take credit for things like the student-driven Abercrombie & Fitch campaign."
No kidding. They also declared victory when they endorsed Gore (Bush won) and Kerry (Bush won). What a bunch of fucking dishonest wankers.
(I'm still allowed to curse on this board, right? That's all S.B. Fool deserves.)
Jenn, would it be within your style to urge Asian Americans to boycott 80-20?
"I'm still allowed to curse on this board, right?"
Of course. 
"Jenn, would it be within your style to urge Asian Americans to boycott 80-20?"
The more I'm learning about 80/20's tactics, the more I'm actually inclined to do that.
Excellent piece! We have mentioned it prominently on the Asian American Action Fund Blog at http://www.aaa-fund.com/?p=96.
Let me just pose a question. Is there any Asian American who does not think that EO11246 should be enforced?
The world of politics can be very tough and ugly. PACs and activists must take on many forms in order to be effective. Many African Americans would be happy if Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson would be less aggressive, but would a Vincent Chin situation happen in the African American community, probably not. Like it or not, progressive and minority communities need these extremely vocal people who may be "embarrassing" to some. They are only "embarrassing" because others are "embarrassed" by them.
It is important that we keep everyone in the fold and accept all types and so long as they are non-violent all tactics as well. It is also important that we keep the message in mind and not the messenger. So I ask the question again. Is there any Asian American who does not think that EO11246 should be enforced?
Gautam,
That's awesome.
Jenn wrote: "The more I'm learning about 80/20's tactics, the more I'm actually inclined to do that."
The more I think about 80/20, the angrier I get. I'm an Obama supporter like you, so of course it hits closer to home, but even if they were attacking Clinton in the same fashion based on nothing more than a refusal to return a questionnaire, I think I'd still be mad.
Think about it...what does not returning a questionnaire have to do with Obama's "experience," "character," or "courage?" If Clinton refused to sign the questionnaire and they in return attacked her courage or character for that, I'd be very upset. Politics is dirty as it is, and it's quite clear that they aren't attacking Obama because of his character or courage. They're attacking him because he didn't do what they wanted him to do. In fact, I commend the character and courage he exhibited by standing up to them.
Obama the first black man to come this far in the presidential election, and his job as a black male candidate is so dangerous that he's got an extra security detail provided by the government. For S.B. Fool and his little sniveling bootlickers to attack Obama's courage is shameless slander. It's a complete lie, and they know it. Even the Clinton campaign, for all its questionable tactics, hasn't attacked his courage.
Hey, I was going over my 80/20 post of the 44s. Check it out:
http://www.thefighting44s.com/fo...read.php?
t=5319
It's funny because I said back then that I wanted 80/20 to endorse someone other than Obama since 80/20's choice always loses. Guess I got my wish. Nevertheless, 80/20 is dirty, and they should be ashamed.
jh
Christina,
I don't think anyone on this board is against equal employment opportunities. However, let's be clear: 80/20 does not have a monopoly on bettering the APIA community.
And 80/20's tactics may be doing more harm than good when it comes to issues of employment discrimination facing Asian Americans. If 80/20 is unwilling to address concerns of seedy political tactics, and so condescends to the APIA vote that it actively dissuades APIA voter education, while alienating candidates actually willing to commit to bettering APIA issues, than I don't see how its mission to aggregate 80% of the APIA vote into a swing vote that supports an APIA-friendly political candidate can possibly work.
The world of politics can be ugly, but it doesn't have to be. As an Asian American, I believe in bettering our community first -- and that means treating each Asian American and his or her vote with respect and dignity.
And no, I don't think we need to support 80/20 because they are extremist. I think 80/20's tactics are hurting the community -- and therefore we have a responsibility as politically aware Asian Americans to tell them to shape up, before they ruin it for the rest of us.
But frankly, they can continue to say what they want, but they render themselves completely irrelevant if they cannot reach out to APIAs who disagree with their tactics. I mean -- has 80/20 actually *demonstrated* that it influences a significant portion of the APIA vote, let alone 80%? Why should anyone, within the community or without, even care what they have to say?
"Many African Americans would be happy if Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson would be less aggressive, but would a Vincent Chin situation happen in the African American community, probably not."
I call bullshit. Hate crimes like what happened to Vincent Chin happen every day, to minorities of all colours and creeds. In fact, recent hate crime statistics show that the majority of hate crimes still occur against Blacks. While we have concerns of underreporting, it's clear from the numbers that no strategy of political advocacy has managed to stem the recent tide of physical violence against minorities.
And trying to liken S.B. Woo to Rev. Al Sharpton is just laughable. It's not a question of being aggressively political -- it's a question of disingenuous, malicious lying TO YOUR CONSTITUENCY... which is exactly what 80/20 was doing to the APIA vote in regards to Obama's candidacy.
And frankly, Ms. Fong, I'm disappointed that a post critical of 80/20 would trigger the question of whether or not APIAs are against equal employment -- as if one cannot be against racism victimizing APIAs and against 80/20. That's a pretty disingenuous implication, in and of itself.
Would you happen to be a supporter of 80/20?
Gautam,
Thanks for the re-post!
-J
Thank you for writing this article and thorough analysis of the current issue between the Obama campaign and 80-20. I had never heard of 80-20 prior to this issue, brought up while my mother was reading the World Journal (Chinese Newspaper). When she brought up 80-20's points about why Obama did not reply to their letter, I was quite baffled and taken aback- obviously, I had to do more research.. and more research I have done. I still continue to be an avid Obama supporter.. but I still worry about these random clips in the newspaper. Unfortunately, I know there are easily influenced ("brainwashable"?) people out there who will read articles like these and spread this kind of news through mouth (and we all know where that can lead to- misinformation and the like).
That said, thank you once again for writing this article- you write very thorough and insightful entries.. I'm glad to have found your page, and I look forward to reading more
I think the key is that you are all Obama supporters.
He is the only one of the front runner candidates that refuses to agree to the modified questionnaire. I don't know if 80/20 modified for Clinton and not for Obama. Regardless, the modified one is fine for all the candidates except Obama and the Republicans....
I agree that Mr. Woo is not very skilled nor tactful in his remarks. that they are a little strong and inflammatory. but they are not slander... watch your legal terminology.
But the bottom line is: why won't Obama just answer yes to the 6 questions.
What are his objections?
I am not impressed with his response b/c they basically just emailed you what they emailed the campaign when they refused to sign.
I got the same email.
I used to be on 80/20's mailing list, and more often than not just ignored it because of its lack of meaningful content. While the original premise *may* be reasonable, the endless rant from Mr. Woo is just too negative, and too dictatorial.
I finaly dropped off from the email list last year, before this tantrum with Obama, of whom I'm a supporter.
It's a real shame that 80/20 is purporting to represent the APIA political interests. It is non-transparent, un-democratic, and from what I can tell, just represent Mr. Woo's singular viewpoint. There are no issue based discussion that's transparent to the members, no way for members to influence its decisions/stance issues. It's a one-man rant-a-thon as far as I can tell.
It hardly qualifies as an organization, even less one that represents our community.
If anyone can point to a grassroot, 21st century AIPA political organization, I'd love to hear about it. I'm currently only aware of the AAA Fund, and haven't seen much activities from them other than fund solicitation.
"I think the key is that you are all Obama supporters."
No, I've actually been anti 80-20 since Bush-Gore. I met S.B. Woo, and he was so slimy that I had to wash my hands after shaking with him.
"He is the only one of the front runner candidates that refuses to agree to the modified questionnaire. I don't know if 80/20 modified for Clinton and not for Obama. Regardless, the modified one is fine for all the candidates except Obama and the Republicans...."
I personally respect a candidate who has high standards. Maybe the other Democrats are just pandering for votes. From Jenn's post, it looks like the Obama campaign contacted the AAA fund. The AAA Fund is clearly much more reputable and honest than 80/20, and maybe Obama only wanted to deal with honest people and honest Asian American organizations.
In any case, it's clear from his response to the AAA Fund that Obama is clearly dedicated to helping Asian Americans. I'm not going to fault anyone, Democrat or Republican, for refusing 80/20's demands. Dealing with a dirty organization run by a crooked demagogue is problematic in the long run, and I'm glad Obama is taking a stand. If Obama can set high standards now, imagine what a great President he'll be.
"If anyone can point to a grassroot, 21st century AIPA political organization, I'd love to hear about it. I'm currently only aware of the AAA Fund, and haven't seen much activities from them other than fund solicitation."
Asian Pacific Americans for Progress (http://www.apaforprogress.org) is also a critical, 21st century APIA organization, that has had great success organizing events to increase voter awareness and political participation amongst APIAs. Earlier this year, they organized conference calls and forums with some of the top Democratic presidential candidates, so I also think the organization is highly relevant.
APAP is great to work with. I've worked with them recently, and they've got excellent people.
"I don't know if 80/20 modified for Clinton and not for Obama."
That seems to be the case.
"why won't Obama just answer yes to the 6 questions.
What are his objections?"
Because the questionnaire is poorly worded and six yeses to those questions -- as currently worded -- is meaningless. He doesn't believe in making empty promises, even to our community -- in other words, he will not pander to us.
My question for you is why you need an answer to the questionnaire when the bare bones of those commitments were promised by Obama in his letter. What additional commitment are you getting from Obama by demanding that he jump through a hoop for you?
"If anyone can point to a grassroot, 21st century AIPA political organization, I'd love to hear about it. I'm currently only aware of the AAA Fund, and haven't seen much activities from them other than fund solicitation."
Dear Jenn,
Thanks for raising this topic. While AAA-Fund does provide financial support to deserving APA candidates, we take great pride in spearheading grassroots endeavors that empower the community.
For example, last month we hosted a Presidential Town Hall in LA featuring APA representatives for Clinton, Obama, and Richardson (http://www.aaa-fund.org/press/2007dec06.asp). In addition, we have also engaged the Presidential campaigns to focus on issues that affect the APA community, and have reprinted their responses on our website (http://www.aaa-fund.org/campaigns/president08/
index.asp).
We invite anyone who cares about empowering the APA community to get involved with us. Please feel free to contact me at info@aaa-fund.org.
Yours,
Gautam Dutta
Executive Director
Asian American Action Fund (aaa-fund.org)
Gautum,
I agree -- AAA Fund does incredible work, as well! I actually think between yourselves and APAP, Asian Americans have great opportunities to get involved!
Again, I think the key is that you are Obama supporters. If you look at old 80/20 posts they too are as "insulting" "over the top" about Clinton as the ones about Obama. It's 80/20's director's way. I don't agree with it. I am simply stating a fact.
http://tinyurl.com/33626f
I guess by not answering the questionnaire he shows that he is not willing to jump through the hoops.
He should be specific about what he doesn't like about the questions. Have you looked at the questions? they seem quite reasonable to me. There is nothing too crazy in them.
------
(1) If elected, will you direct the Labor Secretary to hold public hearings regarding the validity of the huge amount of statistical data strongly suggesting discriminatory practices against Asian Americans in workplaces today?
(2) If the data were shown valid, will you issue a directive to the Labor Department asking it to focus on enforcing Executive Order 11246 on behalf of Asian Americans, since in the past similar efforts have already been made on behalf of women and other minorities?
(3) Two years after you have issued the directive described in item 2, will you meet with a group of Asian American national organizations, put together by 80-20 and the Labor Department, to review the progress in extending equal opportunity to Asian Americans?
(4) If elected, will you within your first term of office, seek to increase the nomination of qualified Asian Americans to serve as Article III life-tenured federal judges, whenever such vacancies are available until the current dismal situation is significantly remedied?
5) If elected, will you seek to nominate, within your first term of office, qualified Asian Americans to serve as Article III Circuit Judges, whenever there are vacancies in those positions, until the current dismal situation is significantly remedied?
(6) If elected, will you consider nominating a qualified Asian America to the Supreme Court, when a vacancy occurs? Two years upon your taking the office, will you meet with a group of Asian American leaders, put together jointly by 80-20 and other Asian American national organizations to review the progress in adding Asian American Federal judges?
-----
i agree, they have loopholes. Nothing is perfect. And thus, by answering the questions, he is just signaling that he agrees with the key concepts or not. Given the response here, perhaps Just say no to #3 b/c why let 80/20 dictate anything?
We are busy people, and some of us need simple ways to compare the candidates. We need to be able to compare apples to apples.
By not answering the questions with yes/no, then he is being very "typical politician" - long winded, avoiding the question. I was taught in politics that if they ask you question A, then you answer C. If they ask you question B, then you answer C.
I feel that Obama is answering C in this case. He does not answer questions 1&2 specificallyl except in the vague "end racial
The problem with questions 1 and 2 are that nothing has to happen. The president is not held to when he or she would have to have the hearings, who would attend the hearings, etc.
And if the hearings find NO evidence of discrimination, than there's no need for question 2.
I actually think those two questions are extremely weak, as written. Moreover, Obama writes:
"Barack Obama will also build upon his work as a civil rights lawyer and community organizer to end racial discrimination and advance equal opportunity in the workplace and the federal government."
That directly addresses any concerns of racial discrimination against APIAs, without the need for a dedicated hearing.
"i agree, they have loopholes. Nothing is perfect."
I want promises that a politician makes to me to NOT have loopholes. Maybe I'm weird like that.
"by answering the questions, he is just signaling that he agrees with the key concepts or not. "
No, in writing his response -- in his own words -- he has signaled that he agrees with the key concepts. Responding with a commitment written as poorly as it is, with loopholes as it does, suggests you want him to pander.
"We need to be able to compare apples to apples."
Yeah, you know what? It's your responsibility to be educated on the issues. If you really want to throw your vote away because you're too lazy to learn about the candidates, that's your fault, not Obama's.
As for 80/20's condemnation of Clinton, they did not make up quotes from Clinton that disrespect Asian Americans (which they did to Obama, which is, in my opinion, slanderous) and they did not misrepresent the facts like they did by suggesting that Obama is against civil rights for Asian Americans and African Americans.
" It's 80/20's director's way. I don't agree with it. I am simply stating a fact."
and that is exactly why 80/20 should not be supported. Their tactics are not just ugly, they are actually harmful to the Asian American community, because it makes other APIA groups look bad.
80/20 needs to change their tactics. If even you, a supporter, can see how wrong those emails are, imagine how they come across to those who are getting involved in politics for the first time?
If we are to extrapolate the 80/20 approach, candidates for public office should just take an exam similar to the SAT, and choose from the choices what they will do if voted into office. If they answer "correctly" then they get your vote.
It's ludicrous to think that "standardized voting" is how democracy should work, how policies should be set.
The person who gets to design the exam can frame the questions to his/her desire, and design the acceptable choices. It gives him/her enormous power at the expense of intelligent discourse. Power that's unchecked and thus prone to be corruption.
This system only serves one entity, and that's the power broker, in this case 80/20. It doesn't serve the interests of the community, nor does it really help a well-meaning candidate that wants to understand the issues before setting a policy.
Mr. Woo, I'm afraid, just seems to me a delusional, power-hungry individual that the community should not only ignore, but actively discredit.
"By not answering the questions with yes/no, then he is being very "typical politician" - long winded, avoiding the question. I was taught in politics that if they ask you question A, then you answer C. If they ask you question B, then you answer C."
Well since he is the only one of the major democrats who took a stand and refused to kowtow to these goons from 80/20, obviously he ain't typical.
Jenn,
That's a good point about responsibility. Sophia, it is your responsibility to learn about what candidates stand for. That's part of what living in a democracy is all about. Racism is not a simple issue, and if you're looking for simple answers to a complex issue, you're not going to find one. Obviously Obama considered this questionnaire, and he came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth answering. He knows it's not that simple, and I applaud him for saying so.
William,
Good point with the SAT comparison. Unlike the college boards, to which most everyone accepts as a pretty valid testing company, no one gave Mr. Woo that position. For Mr. Woo to come up with a stupid questionnaire and then claim that he represents us is delusional at best, dishonest at worst.
By the way, during the 2000 presidential election, S.B. Fool was yapping about how Dubya was racist since he also ignored the Fool-ster's pleas to sign the petition. Fool was doing the Jeremiah thing, implying that we'd be returning to Jim Crowe by voting for Bush.
Of course Bush was the worst president of all time, but not because of racism. The very first thing Bush did was to appoint the MOST DIVERSE U.S. Cabinet in history! Two Asian Americans got cabinet positions--unheard of in previous administrations--and we had an African American Secretary of State. Guess the Woo-ster miscalculated or something...
So I don't see that you can make any assessment of any candidate's character just because they rejected Mr. Woo and his questionnaire. If I were running, I'd reject him too.
Again, it would have been nice if Obama's campaign shared what they thought were wrong with the questions. Did they feel that #1 should have a time frame?
The campaign could have answered the questions with their own additions if the questions were too vague. Nothing stops them from saying, "If elected, I will direct X to have the hearing within X days..." Instead, Obama just decided not to answer the questions at all.
You did not address, as Obama did not address, why not have a hearing on the issue for Asian-Americans? Do you dispute the facts that Asian-Ams are under-represented? Would it be a bad thing to have a hearing?
You did not address and this is key as an "angry asian-am female" and as asian-ams, is it enough/ satisfactory to you as as an Asian-American when a politician says they will "build to end racial discrimination"?
Will that benefit Asian-Ams? Or only African-Americans and Hispanics? Or if as people have to prioritize, African-Ams and Hispanics will benefit first b/c they are the larger group and then will come the Asian-Ams? Is it too much for Asian-Ams to ask for a hearing on Asian-Ams?
Also "build" sounds pretty wimpy and vague. I want concrete measurable outcomes. I want a hearing... I want a nomination.
Which quote did they make up? If there is slander, then the campaign should sue... or ask for an apology... Jenn actually twisted Mr. Woo's words. You quoted Woo as saying Obama was giving "benign neglect to equal opportunity for Asian Ams and perhaps even African Americans."
Then you said 5 paragraphs later Woo is "suggesting Obama is actively working against civil rights..."
"Benign neglect" is the opposite of "actively working," I think. But feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
William, asking questions does not result in unchecked power and corruption. Mr. Woo is neither corrupt nor unchecked. He is accountable to his members, they will leave as you have suggested.
A politician that will not answer questions... that is what brings up questions.
Had 80/20 not asked these questions, then perhaps we would never had had at least most of the candidates commit to a hearing for Asian-Ams.
Jenn, face it. Obama acted like a brilliant politician. Gave you an answer that sounded good and made you walk away happy. But if you think about it, Obama didn't give us the one good thing he could have - a hearing for our people.
So to understand Sophia and other's viewpoint, I went to the web site and read the 80-20 page encouraging those to vote against Obama, http://80-20initiative.blogspot....feat-
obama.html
It just reminded me of why I quit their mailing list (again, before Obama). Their histrionics and propensity to play the race card based on the slightest issue is just too much for this AsAm.
E.g. #1 reason why AsAm needs to defeat Obama, I quote:
'1) "He is black." Hence he has to be extra careful in matters dealing with the minorities to avoid the suspicion of the majority. So is Sen. Obama hoping to build his presidency on the backs of Asian Ams suffering unequal opportunity in workplaces?! How arrogant!'
First of all, I don't even know who is expressing the thought of (because he's black) "hence he has to be extra careful..." Is that the campaign's response to 80-20, or 80-20's conclusion?
Second of all, how is 80-20 concluding that Obama wants to "build his presidency on the backs of Asian Ams suffering unequal opportunity in workplaces?!" I see no logical steps leading to that accusation.
An organization that can't even articulate its views correctly, transparently, and succinctly will not get my support, even if I agree with their view.
It just reads to me like a massive hissy-fit, which is the M.O. of 80-20, as far as I can tell.
"Again, it would have been nice if Obama's campaign shared what they thought were wrong with the questions. Did they feel that #1 should have a time frame?"
Sophia,
We have a fundamental difference in understanding how democracy works. Obama tried to rework the question, but 80-20 refused to work with him. Now should he have gone around 80-20 to answer the question without their cooperation? You may think so. I don't. 80-20 asked the question, and they have the responsibility to reform the question if he asks. If they don't want to work with him, it's their loss.
Keep in mind that I've met S.B. Woo before. I know about his shadiness, and I know how he'll attack you if you ask him hard questions. If you want to read about my experience with him, go to post #2 here:
http://www.thefighting44s.com/fo...read.php?
t=5319
I've met the guy in person, and I know he's not the kind of person that any rational politician would want to deal with. He's slimy, he's dishonest, and I got the feeling that he would stab anyone in the back who got in the way of his power grab.
Sophia, refer back to William's comparison about the SAT. Politics isn't about filling out standardized questionnaires; it's about doing what's right, working with the right people, and working with others. 80-20 fails on all three of those accounts.
You yourself questioned Mr. Woo's tactics, and you probably have never even met him. Imagine what it must be like to deal with such a character when you're running a presidential campaign. Personally I don't see what you are trying to minimize the importance of people. In politics, the right people is everything. It's not just about answering questions. Think about this: If David Duke asked you a question about race relations and you were running a campaign, would you answer him? Probably not, and the reason is simple: it's all about the people.
I think you're taking your loyalty to the 80-20 to an extreme. Instead of blindly supporting these people, you should question them. That's the democratic way.
"Again, it would have been nice if Obama's campaign shared what they thought were wrong with the questions. Did they feel that #1 should have a time frame? "
That's *my* problem with question #1. It's clear that Obama's problem with the questionnaire was primarily a problem of quotas. We can speculate as to why he did not agree with responding to Question #1 and Question #2, but there's no doubt that addressing equal employment and the glass ceiling does not *require* a hearing -- and a hearing may not be the best strategy for introducing this issue to the American mainstream.
In other words, Obama doesn't have to commit to 80/20's solution to the problem, to not be committed to finding a solution to the problem.
"The campaign could have answered the questions with their own additions if the questions were too vague."
Apparently 80/20 was not interested in working with Obama to formulate a modified questionnaire to Obama's liking. So this option was NOT on the table.
"You did not address, as Obama did not address, why not have a hearing on the issue for Asian-Americans?"
If you feel strongly about this, you may ask the Obama campaign this question directly. I do not speak for him. I can speculate as to why he chose not to pursue a hearing, but only his campaign can answer that question. BarackObama.com includes a very handy contact form, as well as phone numbers and other information for getting answers from the campaign.
"Do you dispute the facts that Asian-Ams are under-represented?"
God, these kinds of questions piss me off. Sophia, you basically just employed the low-blow strategy that so sabotages our community. "Wait, you don't agree with every single one of my talking points, so you must not be racially authentic." I have blogged extensively on the topic of Asian American underrepresentation. So to this question, you get a hefty dose of "Whatever."
"Would it be a bad thing to have a hearing?"
It would if it was not done appropriately. Clinton, Edwards and other candidates committed to having a hearing, but they did not commit to the quality of the hearing. Who would run it? Why not direct the formation of a specific commission with certain people on it, rather than just a vague hearing? Who would be invited to speak at the hearing and give opinion? How much weight would the findings have? Moreover, a bad hearing organized out of an administration with only a superficial interest in Asian American issues (i.e. those who have pandered to the community with no real commitment to bettering discriminations we face) may conclude that Asian Americans do NOT face significant employment discrimination.
In which case, you've just shot yourself in the foot. There would be a lot of work coming back from that report.
"Will that benefit Asian-Ams? Or only African-Americans and Hispanics?"
It should benefit all underrepresented minorities. I also hate this about certain Asian Americans,
It should benefit all underrepresented minorities. I also hate this about certain Asian Americans, who become so nationalistic, that they actually believe that other minorities should "wait their turn" on issues of employment discrimination. We should be building a coalition with other minorities, not be fighting to exclude other communities from our efforts. Sure, the opppression we face isn't identical, but we are stronger together than this incessant playing of the Oppression Olympics.
"Also "build" sounds pretty wimpy and vague. I want concrete measurable outcomes. I want a hearing... I want a nomination."
No, you want a band-aid solution to a complicated issue. A hearing will not solve our problems, nor will a nomination. Fighting for equal rights for Asian Americans is a marathon that involves more than asking for a bone thrown our way. you know what happens after a hearing and after a nomination? Your mother and father still can't get a promotion.
But let's make it clear, everything you've said is that you want to be pandered to, not that you actually care what will make a difference for our community. It sounds petulent.
"Which quote did they make up?"
http://80-20initiative.blogspot....feat-
obama.html, reasons given by the Obama campaign as to why "they would not reply" -- which is actually why 80/20 wouldn't come to the table with a genuine interest in compromising to produce a questionnaire Obama could agree to sign. I asked 80/20 for a citation on those quotes -- I have yet to hear back from them.
And it's not worth Obama's time or money to sue. He's campaigning to be president. He's a little busy right now to care about the slander of an angry group that's getting chastised enough by our own community for their dishonest rhetoric.
"Jenn actually twisted Mr. Woo's words. You quoted Woo as saying Obama was giving "benign neglect to equal opportunity for Asian Ams and perhaps even African Americans."
Then you said 5 paragraphs later Woo is "suggesting Obama is actively working against civil rights..."
"Benign neglect" is the opposite of "actively working," I think. But feel free to correct me if I am wrong."
I did not twist his words: the context of that quote based on Woo's argument in the email argues that Obama's "neglect" (I can't stand that "benign" is placed in front of it, because it means that his neglect makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE to anyone -- it's an oxymoron since neglect of civil rights is, by any political interpretation, harmful -- and becomes "actively working" when put in the context of Obama's training in constitutional law and community activism, since his "neglect" becomes an active effort to ignore civil rights despite knowing better...) hurts Asian Americans and African Americans. Which is moronic because a) Woo cannot point to any example when Obama -- a community activist and a constitutional law professor -- demo
I did not twist his words: the context of that quote based on Woo's argument in the email argues that Obama's "neglect" (I can't stand that "benign" is placed in front of it, because it means that his neglect makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE to anyone -- it's an oxymoron since neglect of civil rights is, by any political interpretation, harmful -- and becomes "actively working" when put in the context of Obama's training in constitutional law and community activism, since his "neglect" becomes an active effort to ignore civil rights despite knowing better...) hurts Asian Americans and African Americans. Which is moronic because a) Woo cannot point to any example when Obama -- a community activist and a constitutional law professor -- demonstrates a disinterest in civil rights for any American, and b) what part of disagreeing over the wording of a questionnaire over Asian Americans, suddenly has to do with equal opportunity for African Americans?
Talk about co-opting someone else's identity. It's a totally dishonest, malicious insinuation that Woo made that lies to the Asian American voter.
"He is accountable to his members"
Maybe you can answer this question, Sophia, since it's clear you're a member. How many members does 80/20 have? There are 14 million Asian Americans in this country -- the correct answer to this question is 9-10 million.
But, for someone not in the 80/20 fold, I don't see maybe more than a handful of members, all of whom sound just as politically inept and petulent as Dr. Woo, himself.
"A politician that will not answer questions... that is what brings up questions."
Obama's campaign responded within a few days with a clear response as to what the conflict over the questionnaire was. It stemmed out of a disagreement over wording, but Obama reiterated his commitment to the themes of the questionnaire.
Which is more of an answer than I got out of 80/20.
"Obama didn't give us the one good thing he could have - a hearing for our people."
He committed to exploring equal employment concerns, and to aiding the fight to nominate Asian Americans to key federal positions, without employing a quota system. He committed to meeting with key Asian American leadership, including the AAA Fund and other Asian American groups, some of which have endorsed Obama's candidacy.
Frankly, I'd rather have a politican re-write a reasonable commitment IN HIS OWN WORDS, than to pander with a pre-written questionnaire. It shows that Obama actually cares enough about the issues to re-articulate what he agrees with to us. That shows his campaign has actually spent time trying to find a solution here -- meanwhile, can you demosntrate how much time the Clinton campaign spent trying to understand what Asian Americans truly face? Certainly not enough to actually provide a plan for Asian Americans despite having a Leadership Council dedicated to our community.
Meanwhile, Asian Pacific Islander Americans f
Meanwhile, Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Obama helped to create an in-depth package addressing how Obama will help Asian Americans achieve the American Dream. And it offers way more concrete plans than a hearing, all of which will actually help the average Asian American family.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/c...ontent/
aapihome
William, just a small point that I think you left out but would be key to those that don't follow the links
you wrote:
E.g. #1 reason why AsAm needs to defeat Obama, I quote:
'1) "He is black."
Actually if you go to the link you provided
http://80-20initiative.blogspot....feat-
obama.html
you left out the line
Sen. Obama gave almost farcical reasons why he would not reply to OUR questionnaire. The reasons given are
1) "He is black.
which is VERY different from "defeat Obama b/c he is black..." which is what people get from your post if they didn't read the link...
------
I do like to be an educated voter and "I didn't like the wording" is not good enough for me. I would have liked when I wrote Obama's campaign and when Jenn wrote them for them to say:
1. we don't believe in quotas
2. a hearing would not be a good thing or it would be a good thing if done on these terms.
etc
Obama had a chance to respond to me and Jenn and anyone else that wrote the campaign. and craft the questions and answers as he wanted. Instead they just answered with vague stuff that all the other candidates I am sure are committed to too or already committed to via the survey.
"exploring equal employment concerns, and to aiding the fight to nominate Asian Americans to key federal positions, without employing a quota system. He committed to meeting with key Asian American leadership,"
I have no clue how many members 80/20 has. Nor do I know how many members AAA fund has. I just emailed AAA to see if they have answers. I suspect that 80/20 represents very few people.
I like that 80/20 asked the questions. at least we got some answers - to the questions and the free form thing from Obama.
I agree that Mr. Woo is not very politically savvy and not pleasant to work with.
I agree that there is a lot of work that needs to be done. But I also think that a nomination/(appointment would be even better) and a hearing or an official accounting/explanation (done under the right circumstances) would be part of that long progress towards equality of representation.
Obama had his chance to address the hearing issue and he totally ignored that question... He's your candidate, you get the answer.
By saying this and that about the hearings i.e. they are meaningless without the right situation, etc. Duh. of course. You are saying that perhaps the other candidates would not do a good hearing. I am assuming that all the candidates would do a good hearing b/c they are good people.
Jenn wrote: It should benefit all underrepresented minorities.
But there is a difference between should and would.
If there is only 1 spot on the supreme court, who should be appointed: an African Am, A Hispanic, or an Asian Am? (each is a minority but each would come from different perspectives)
Jenn wrote: I also hate this about certain Asian Americans, who become so nationalistic, that they actually bel
80/20 wrote:
"Sen. Obama gave almost farcical reasons why he would not reply to OUR questionnaire. The reasons given are
1) "He is black.""
I'll just say that I don't believe for a second that Obama said that. I believe it's a complete lie that Woo fabricated in order to discredit Obama after Obama refused to play ball with him. Is it really credible that Obama has been consistent in his views about race except for when talking to the Woo-ster Rooster? I don't think so. I think this is yet another Woo-style libel attack. (And I was careful to say "libel" rather than slander.)
"Obama had a chance to respond to me and Jenn and anyone else that wrote the campaign. and craft the questions and answers as he wanted. Instead they just answered with vague stuff that all the other candidates I am sure are committed to too or already committed to via the survey."
You somehow still think he has a responsibility to answer S.B. Fool, and I don't see why. Obama is going to do things on his own terms. Why commit to something that may do more harm than good? His answer wasn't vague, but even if it were, at least it's honest. I have no doubt he will help Asian Americans.
"If there is only 1 spot on the supreme court, who should be appointed: an African Am, A Hispanic, or an Asian Am? (each is a minority but each would come from different perspectives)"
I would think it should be whoever is most qualified. But then again, I'm not a member of 80/20 and don't believe in racial quotas.
"VERY different from "defeat Obama b/c he is black..." which is what people get from your post if they didn't read the link..."
I don't get how anyone could get from my post that I was representing 80/20's position as "defeat Obama because he is black". Every time I cite that portion of the email, I point out that those are misquotes of Obama, made up by 80/20. I also link the original my re-post of the original email.
I love how you aren't even addressing how those are FABRICATED quotes. 80/20 made that shit up and tried to get Asian Americans to vote against Obama because of them. Seriously wrong, dude.
"He's your candidate, you get the answer."
Again, quit being lazy. You have the problem with Obama, it's your responsibility to find out the answers before you go railing against the candidate. Without that information, you and 80/20 sound pretty uninformed, and thus less likely to sway folks to your side.
I don't have a problem with Obama's response to 80/20, ergo, it is not my responsibility to go ask the campaign for you, to satisfy YOUR questions. Again, Sophia, what's with you and asking other people to do your research?
"If there is only 1 spot on the supreme court, who should be appointed: an African Am, A Hispanic, or an Asian Am? (each is a minority but each would come from different perspectives)"
The most qualified candidate.
Oh, and another reason why I'm sure those quotes are fabricated?
Obama is quoted, misspelling his own brother-in-law's name.
Yeah, that's believably out of Obama's mouth.
"Obama is quoted, misspelling his own brother-in-law's name. "
Hahaha...S.B. Woo is a liar, usurper, demagogue, AND poor speller...
Hey jaehwan, could you shoot me an email please (jenn@reappropriate.com)? I wanted to discuss an idea with you privately...
I gave Obama's campaign a chance. I wrote them and asked them about the 80/20 questionnaire and asked them why they couldn't say yes. They gave me the exact same form letter that they gave Jenn.
Like I said, they could have given a much better answer (like 80/20 sucks, or that they don't believe in hearings, whatever, you get the idea) and they could have answered me and/or Jenn with more specifics.
Also, if you read 80/20's email it is evident that Mr. Woo is summarizing what he thinks the Obama response letter means... (Again, not that I agree with his summary nor commentary). So you can't say that he is making up quotes, He is just summarizing. (though I don't know if he has made up other quotes... but with reference to the "he is black thing")
On the quota issue, I think that I do believe in racial quotas. Because, sometimes you find 3 people that are equally qualified. If 2 of them are white, why not give the minority a chance? Without quotas, sometimes the old white boy network prevails over and over.
Sophia, do you know the difference between affirmative action and quotas?
"Like I said, they could have given a much better answer (like 80/20 sucks, or that they don't believe in hearings, whatever, you get the idea) and they could have answered me and/or Jenn with more specifics."
They gave you more specifics on the issue than 80-20 did. If specifics matter, than how can you be siding with the folks who lied to you?
"it is evident that Mr. Woo is summarizing what he thinks the Obama response letter means... "
No, it's not. The wording of the letter implies those are direct quotes from the campaign. You and I both know they aren't, but that doesn't make it any less libellous for Dr. Woo to make up quotes to manipulate the APIA community against Obama.
I said it before and I say it again, it sounds like you wanted a band-aid solution to the problem of racism against Asian Americans. You're free to vote for whomever you like, but it's sad to see you buy into the lies, without even being able to adequately defend the tactics of 80/20.
If Clinton wins in four years, I guarantee you will not see that questionnaire carried out, nor will you see any other effort to better the Asian American community. Shit, Hillary Clinton made a big deal about having an "Asian American Leadership Council" in her campaign -- and what have they done?
Jenn,
Just sent you an e-mail maybe a half hour ago.
Sophia:
"Like I said, they could have given a much better answer (like 80/20 sucks, or that they don't believe in hearings, whatever, you get the idea) and they could have answered me and/or Jenn with more specifics."
They could've also invited you over to coffee and cupcakes and held your hand while they read you the info off their website out loud.
I really don't understand what it is that you are looking for. From his campaign letter:
"Barack Obama is committed to appointing qualified AAPIs to high-level positions in his administration, and he will strengthen the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Barack Obama will also build upon his work as a civil rights lawyer and community organizer to end racial discrimination and advance equal opportunity in the workplace and the federal government. Finally, as a former constitutional law lecturer, Obama understands the importance of a diverse judiciary and he is committed to increasing the representation of qualified minorities and women, including qualified Asian Americans, when there are vacancies in the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court."
What else needs to be said? Obama has already made a commitment to diversity and for helping Asian Americans. He has made the same statements with African Americans--really no more, no less. He hasn't promised a "hearing" for African Americans, and you don't see Oprah or even Jackson getting bent out of shape. So why should you?
Jaehwan, I think we've both pointed out why a hearing can be empty, or even detrimental, to this issue.
Sophia has not pointed out what she thinks a hearing will accomplish.
But I do think the image of Obama with coffee, cupcakes and holding hands is hilarious.
I think a hearing will bring attention to the issue and have it "officially noted" of the discriminatory practices or that Asian-Ams face a glass ceiling
Unfortunately, there is the model minority myth. And I think a hearing would help dispel that.
What you keep quoting is just what every other candidate promises. It does not make Obama any better than any other candidates.
let's just agree that we can all see what he has written but he has not responded specifically to the hearing issue.
You can defend him all you want, but you don't know where he stands either. You just make up excuses for him.
We'll see if the campaign responds about the hearings.
sorry. let me clarify on the last point!
>You can defend him all you want, but you don't >know where he stands either. You just make up >excuses for him.
I mean only about the hearings.
>We'll see if the campaign responds about the hearings.
I sent them an email to a very high ranking person in the campaign. (b/c I have friends there b/c I have been a democrat a long time and supported Obama even before he was a senator. He's a great person and would be a great president, once he gains more international experience) I would love to have him as president, in 8 years
"I think a hearing will bring attention to the issue and have it "officially noted" of the discriminatory practices or that Asian-Ams face a glass ceiling"
... and then what? There are studies out already that show a glass ceiling. It's already "officially noted" in the academic world, so a hearing -- that would probably do little more than explore the issue, would shed no new light on the issue. At the very least, a long-term commission with appropriate monies would be able to put together an in-depth report and provide suggestions would be a better alternative than a hearing.
But consider this: there are hearings scheduled every week in both the House and the Senate. How many of them do you know about? How many have effected change to every-day Americans most affected by the issues? Here's a list of this year's House hearings, alone.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/chearin...s/
110hcat1.html
Do you REALLY think that a hearing is going to stir up enough political will for politicians to take the next step? And do you really want to gamble that a politically-motivated hearing directed by a president who couldn't give a crap about the issue, wouldn't end up stuffed with folks hostile to this issue and wouldn't end up concluding that "there is no significant glass ceiling"? And that would just be to avoid having to do anything further about it.
"Unfortunately, there is the model minority myth. And I think a hearing would help dispel that."
No, if anything, a hearing would uphold the model minority myth, by suggesting we are perfect, hard-working people who's worst-case example of racism is not being able to be promoted to middle management. How about the thousands of APIA women who are victims of domestic abuse or inadequate mental health treatment? Or the hundreds of APIA men and women harassed at airport security or high-tech jobs because of the Perpetual Foreigner/spy stereotype? The glass ceiling issue is important, but the model minority myth isn't definted solely, or even primarily, by our ability (or inability) to get high-paying jobs. We are model minorities because we are seen as hard-working, non-troublemaking, assimilationists -- none of us are poor, sick or being killed by hate crimes. How does a hearing on possible employment discrimination address those APIAs too poor to ever have a hope of ever smacking into that glass ceiling?
"What you keep quoting is just what every other candidate promises. "
What am I quoting? I have linked to the Obama campaign, which has actually promised to do things directly affecting Asian Americans. Where exactly are the same promises out of Clinton or Edwards? Shit, what has Clinton's AA Leadership Council done?
"he has not responded specifically to the hearing issue."
I agree. But again, I'm not the one who's upset about the hearing issue, since I don't believe that's the best solution to this issue in the first place.
"You can defend him all you want,
"You can defend him all you want, but you don't know where he stands either. You just make up excuses for him."
No, I clarify *my* reasons for being against the questionnaire. I don't pretend to know why Obama didn't respond to a hearing. But just because I'm not Obama, doesn't mean that my reasons are invalid -- the hearing requested in the questionnaire -- with how it's requested -- is a bad idea. A more specific charge, with follow-through and a timeline for completion, might be a good start.
But that's not going to happen with the way it's currently worded.
Jenn,
One thing I really like about Obama is that he's positive. He has a positive message, and he wants to give hope a chance. A hearing would negate that positive message, and the entire thing would devolve into an oppression Olympics where everyone was claiming discrimination. It's kind of ridiculous to make that kind of acrimony a part of one's campaign. Job discrimination is an issue, but as you correctly point out, it's not the only issue, and to me, it's not the main issue.
Much as I dislike Dubya, I think he did a great thing when he won in 2000--he ignored S.B. "Fearmonger" Woo completely, and he brought in a diverse cabinet after being elected. I have NO DOUBT in my mind that Obama will do something similar.
Obama was born in Hawaii, raised in Indonesia, AND raised on the mainland. His father was Kenyan and he was raised by whites. If that kind of multicultural upbringing doesn't prepare someone for international relations, I don't know what does.
being prepared for international relations is not the same as having done them.
As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jawboned the president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward.
Women internationally look up to and respect her.
In her 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself, declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights" She also tangled with Chinese officials, she said, and refused to bow to pressure to soften her remarks.
"She had a good balance of being firm on these issues, even if they clearly covered Chinese sins, but also understanding the need for good relations with China," said Winston Lord, then the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs,
In visits to Bosnia and Kosovo after the American-led bombing of Serbia, she entered war zones before officials believed it was safe for her husband to go. many officials - from Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke in the administration, to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain - turned to her at times to stiffen Mr. Clinton's resolve to take on Serbia.
In Northern Ireland, she tried to foster peace as a female leader bringing together women split by the sectarian divide. She hosted a memorable meeting, one of the first of its kind, of Catholic and Protestant women in Belfast.
Sophia, perhaps we differ on our outlook when it comes to foreign relations, but in none of these instances was Hillary Clinton an agent of (Bill) Clinton foreign policy.
She was not elected as First Lady; she held no political clout. Her "foreign policy" experience is just a step removed from Angelina Jolie being a U.N. Goodwill ambassador. Yes she had the opportunity to meet with foreign leaders and host meetings, but that doesn't substitute for the kind of foreign relations that the presidency will face.
Her accomplishments as First Lady are a product of her marrying well and delivering speeches in foreign countries.
It's the sad, anachronistic position of the First Lady. It's basically ceremonial, not political. It certainly isn't comparable to the foreign policy experience of Richardson or Biden.
And certainly we can't ignore that the argument for First Lady being the best experience for the presidency is basically an argument for a monarchy system.
Ditto.
Hillary had no official position. It's kind of like arguing that Warren Buffett's assistant has business experience. Yes, I'm sure he or she is there in the middle of the action, but because he or she has no official decisionmaking responsibilities, it means nothing. So while I agree with you that being prepared for international relations is not the same as actually doing them, Obama and Barack are actually equally inexperienced. Which is not necessarily a bad thing--Bill Clinton was also inexperienced when he was first elected.
"And certainly we can't ignore that the argument for First Lady being the best experience for the presidency is basically an argument for a monarchy system."
I was going to say that if she was the actual president during the Clinton years, she should be constitutionally barred from serving a third term.
Jenn, you are reading a lot into my posts that is not there...
>but in none of these instances was Hillary
> an agent of (Bill) Clinton foreign policy.
agreed. I never said she was.
i think her foreign policy work is quite a bit more than Angelina Jolie's job as UN Goodwill ambassador.
I do not think her experience is a "substitute for the kind of foreign relations that the presidency will face" but rather it would help a president to have experience working with world leaders and negotiating difficult agreements and bringing together different groups. (which Hillary has as I presented in my post above)
My point is that that is more experience than Obama has.
You minimize her accomplishments during her time as first lady. She helped to pass SCHIP.
>the argument for First Lady being the best >experience for the presidency
I wasn't arguing that. I was simply stating that Hillary has more international experience working with heads of state than Obama. It just so happened that she was the First Lady at the time she had those interactions.
Jaehwan, as for "Obama and Clinton are actually equally inexperienced." you've got to be kidding, no?
from my post on the AAA blog
I think that as Asian-Americans, we like a meritocracy. Deep down, probably, everyone feels a meritocracy is right/fair/best.
Thus, let us choose the most qualified candidate. The one that has put in the time and has the list of most accomplishments.
Hillary is 60 and Barack is 46. She is almost 33% older than he. She has seen and experienced and worked on more than he.
She started canvassing at age 13. She met Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago in 1962 when Barack was about 1 years old. She was the president of the young Republicans at Wellesley her freshman year. Then switched to democrat after Martin Luther King’s death in her junior year. She organized with others a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley’s black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty.
She became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver their commencement address and received a 7 minute standing ovation.
She has been working for children since 1973, when Obama was 12 years old.
She worked as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973). She took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free advice for the poor.
Her first scholarly paper, “Children Under the Law”, was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973 and became frequently cited in the field.
served as staff attorney for Edelman’s newly founded Children’s Defense Fund
1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during Watergate
co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children’s Defense F
"Thus, let us choose the most qualified candidate. "
Then let's choose Richardson. By far, he has the best resume among the Democratic candidiates.
"My point is that that is more experience than Obama has."
And MY point is that everything you cite ISN'T foreign policy experience.
"Hillary is 60 and Barack is 46. She is almost 33% older than he. She has seen and experienced and worked on more than he."
Then let us choose McCain, since he's the oldest.
You mentioned all kinds of stuff with her law career, etc. We were talking about foreign policy experience, not what she did when she was a lawyer. I stand by my case that her actual foreign policy experience is the same as Obama's.
I'm a little confused...I read the previous comments and coming from an unbiased viewpoint (I, too, have received the email from 80-20 and thought it was interesting, put it up so others could take a peek, but by no means am I a member/supporter of 80/20 - currently, I'm still doing my research as to which candidate to support), I'd like to chip in my 2 cents.
One of the posters made a direct attack at SB Woo saying things like he is "shady", etc, while I have never met SB Woo and therefore have no information as to his character, etc, I'd like to say even if Mr. Woo is indeed a "shady" person, I was gratified by how transparent the 80-20 website was from an evidence perspective - each one of the returned questionnaires was posted online, of that I can't dispute - I highly doubt the candidates' signatures, no matter how "shady" Mr. Woo may be, are forged.
There remains the matter of Sen. Obama - I do find it peculiar that he did not sign the questionnaire. There was a point made by a previous poster speculating - I use the word speculating because no where in the letter the blogger received nor in any communication from Sen. Obama's campaign was it stated - that he didn 't respond to the questionnaire "because the questionnaire is poorly worded and six yeses to those questions -- as currently worded -- is meaningless. He doesn't believe in making empty promises, even to our community -- in other words, he will not pander to us."
This is thus my confusion. There was an answer in his letter stating there were problems with the wording of the questionnaire and thus an agreement was not able to be reached, however, the key question in my mind is, what were these discrepancies? I feel if the Obama campaign was indeed transparent, as the 80-20 website was in posting factual evidence (unless the questionnaire signatures were indeed forged), then these communications should be posted - for all intents and purposes, there is no evidence that the Obama campaign communicated with 80-20 to discuss the wording of the questionnaire. Maybe because I come from a science background, but I'm a believer of proof and will back whatever candidate/organization that can show the proof behind the words, which, after all, are just simply words. By the way, the letter posted in the blog can be found online at:
http://www.asianamericansforobam...0-
20_Letter.pdf
As it is just a form letter, I can't accept it as proof of anything regarding the 80-20 situation nor can it really prove to me the true intent of Senator Obama has regarding the situation of Asian Americans - for all I know it may have been written without Sen. Obama's knowledge - it certainly doesn't have his signature on it.
I don't mean this as an attack on any candidate nor in support of 80-20, an organization which I really do not have in-depth knowledge of, I am merely making observations from research I have done online from an empirical perspectiv
Jenn and Jaehwan, you have to be careful with the words you choose. (or perhaps you are being very careful and crafty...) You both are talking about "foreign policy" experience. I was talking about "international relations" and "negotiations with foreign leaders" experience.
Only once did I say foreign policy and that was b/c I was following Jenn's lead regarding Jolie. Anyway, I do think that Hillary has more foreign policy experience than Jolie b/c Hillary is on the Armed Services Committee.
Also, I think that Hillary has the best experience/resume of the candidates. She has some international relations. She has women's rights work. She has worked on healthcare (which was killed by the insurance and pharma and the country wasn't ready for that advanced thinking at the time) She helped organize the Wellesley protest to get more black professors.
She has a track record of accomplishment.
Rosy:
I've been trying to follow this too, and I'd also like to know what disagreement was there on the questionnaire.
Though I'm curious why hasn't 80-20 provide those communications? They certainly does have it. The best I've seen is 80-20's very poorly written summary of what transpired. What about an official transcript with timeline of what the points of disagreement is, before they boycott Obama?
In this exchange, at least Obama campaign provided a letter restating their policy position, that I'm generally happy with.
I'm of the suspicion is more of a tool to serve 80-20's self interest, more so than really gain any progress on AsAm's behalf. I just don't understand how progress can be achieved by having candidates superficially check off some yay/ney answers.
Rosy,
Apologies for double posting, but here was my response on the fighting44s to the same question. I usually don't double post, but the question is EXACTLY the same. Haha...I'm only talking to four or five people on a message board. I can only imagine what the Obama campaign does when it has to respond to thousands of...wait...maybe THAT'S why they send a form letter (sarcasm intentional, but not mean-spirited).
So here it is:
http://www.thefighting44s.com/
fo...35721#post35721
I can't speak for the campaign because I'm not there, but there are a myriad of reasons why they might ignore 80/20. As you and I both agree, 80/20 has some serious credibility issues. They've been neither honest nor respectful of people, including Asian Americans. As you've correctly mentioned, they've taken credit for numerous watershed moments in Asian American history, events for which they did nothing. They stifle debate, and they cast out negative vibes. Everything they do is about fear. Just think about how often they talk about how they are going to "punish" politicians who don't work with them.
It could be that they tried to work with 80/20 on the questionnaire, and Woo just yelled at them with threats. From my own dealings with the organization, I think that's what probably happened. As you also agree, there are problems with the questionnaire, and so it would naturally seem correct that Obama--who really does understand minority issues--wouldn't feel comfortable signing it without modification.
At this point, it wouldn't make sense for the Obama camp to give any more credence to the questionnaire by mentioning it. Why should the Obama campaign answer questions from an organization that refused to work with them? One thing that I said on the reappropriate board is that the organization itself makes a big difference. Let's say that there were a group of disgruntled auto employees in Michigan, and let's say that most of them are white. Now let's say the Aryan Nations submitted a questionnaire to the candidates asking them to increase tariffs on foreign cars to protect American jobs. It doesn't matter if increasing tariffs is the right thing to do; I highly doubt any campaign would answer them or their questions. While the 80-20 is not the KKK, they, like the KKK, have organizational issues and ethical issues that tend to push good people away. And Obama is one of those good people.
During the Republican debates a few months ago, an influential PAC asked them if they would pledge something to their organization. There were six Republicans. I think the first two said they would, but the last four said something along the lines of they would never pledge anything to any organization because they work for the American people, not special interests. I think that's a perfectly good answer.
So I think Obama did the right thing by simply reaffirming his commitment to Asian Americans. By rejecting 80/20's
questionnaire and reaffirming his commitment to Asian Americans, he's showing that he is going to work for us, not a dirty organization.
"You both are talking about "foreign policy" experience. I was talking about "international relations" and "negotiations with foreign leaders" experience."
What has she ever negotiated? Was it Hillary who was talking to Milosevic, or Arafat and Rabin?
"international relations"
Shit, I could hob-nob with important people overseas, too, if they were willing to return my phonecalls.
Being the wife of the U.S. president helps you get on that exclusive Christmas card list, meaning you do get invited to go give talks internationally. It doesn't mean you're ready to start negotiating peace in the Middle East.
Sophia, you're giving Hillary props for being to get in the same room with other foreign leaders. But I think all you're saying is that she's had the opportunity to break (at least superficially) into an old boys' network that gets her invited to these speaking engagements, not that those are achievements in and of themselves. And certainly, while they were noteable moments, not much came specifically of Hillary's participation in them. Women are still oppressed and abused in China, and the Rwandan genocide continued long before and long after Hillary's visit -- (all Hillary did was supposedly urge her husband to intervene, which he didn't do, and which there is no record that she ever did).
http://visiblevote08.logoonline....wanda-genocide/
But, for the most part, you are congratulating Hillary for showing up on international territory and doing things like going into a war zone when they said she shouldn't, and speaking to some important people. That doesn't convince me she has the qualities to be president, that convinces me she's not a jibbering idiot after a long plane ride.
"being to get"
oy. I meant "getting to be".
I didn't bother to read all this, but Barak Obama (and most of hte democrats) certainly do not have any substantive expereince in foreign policy.
I'm not willing to give 2 year senator the keys to the most awesome nuclear arsenal on Earth or the command of hte most lethal conventional force on Earth.
Anyone who seriouslly thinks they *know* he wouldn't muck it up under pressure is kidding themselves.
But let's all be serious, if Senator Clinton is elected, we're all pretty sure that Bill Clinton will be aiding her... and the fact is, if anyone has studied the Clinton presidency, they know that she was much more then the "ordinary first lady."
I think to say "she was just the presdients wife," shows a great ignorance of recent history.
That being said, both OBama and Clinton are relatively weak; although Clinton has more expereience in politics... and that probably does count, especially when comparing it to a fledgling 2-year senator.
"But let's all be serious, if Senator Clinton is elected, we're all pretty sure that Bill Clinton will be aiding her... and the fact is, if anyone has studied the Clinton presidency, they know that she was much more then the "ordinary first lady." "
We're not talking about re-electing Bill. We're talking about electing Hillary. If you're going to elect someone, elect someone you can hold accountable. If you somehow believe that Bill would be the best president, you should write your senator and ask to get rid of term limits.
Otherwise, let's elect the person who will lead--not just a person who happens to be married to someone who can give her advice.
"I think to say "she was just the presdients wife," shows a great ignorance of recent history. "
What other title or elected position has she held other than Senator? If we're ignorant of some other official political position that she's held, please educate us. She certainly hasn't claimed any other title herself.
"and the fact is, if anyone has studied the Clinton presidency,"
How do you plan to study the First Lady's role in the Clinton presidency when the Clintons refuse to release the documents pertaining to the First Lady's role in the Clinton presidency.
And I would hardly call Ms. Clinton a powerful First Lady. Though she was in charge of the universal healthcare initiative, it FAILED and directly paved the way to eight years of Republican rule.
And Eleanor Roosevelt was a powerful First Lady. And I still wouldn't say that qualifies her to be president, running on a platform of experience.
"What other title or elected position has she held other than Senator? If we're ignorant of some other official political position that she's held, please educate us. She certainly hasn't claimed any other title herself."
According to Sophia, she was the first student to deliver a commencement speech at Wellesley.
"We're not talking about re-electing Bill. We're talking about electing Hillary. If you're going to elect someone, elect someone you can hold accountable. If you somehow believe that Bill would be the best president, you should write your senator and ask to get rid of term limits."
This sort of strict interpretation is laughable. This si reality, we can't assume by axiom that Hillary Clinton will be seperated from the formrer president, and at the very least we can say that he will influence her as much as she influenced him (which was non-trivial).
"
Otherwise, let's elect the person who will lead--not just a person who happens to be married to someone who can give her advice."
Other then flowery prose, nothing suggest to me that Obama is anything more then talk... and the fact is, he is nothingl ike JFK (who himself was a bungler), who was an officer in the United States Navy durring the WW2, 6 year congressmen, and 8-9 year senator before he assumed the presidency. Only a intellectual lazy and cursory vantage would suggest the two are even remotely similiar.
"
What other title or elected position has she held other than Senator? If we're ignorant of some other official political position that she's held, please educate us. She certainly hasn't claimed any other title herself."
Again more syntax. Do you really believe that Clinton is less qualified then Obama? What signal alerts you to this opinion? As far as I can tell, she and her husband has survived the political hub-bub for 30 years.
I think it's obvious that she has abit more human capital, in the economic sense, then Obama for politics; and despite the nonsesense kumbaya rhetoric about "change," which I remind you every president durring an election year from Nixon to Clinton has made, Obama is going to be burned by the "Washington establishment" when he does get office. President Clintoon learned the same thing, and unless your suggesting Obama will lead a physical violent revolution on the streets of D.C., your not going to get anything more from him (and probably significently less then President Clinton since Obama dosn't seem to be as politically gifted in the mechanical nitty-gritty as Clinton was... and insofar that he may be, there certainly dosn't exist any strong evidence to suggest it. )
But in the end it really does come down whether I, believe he can take up the responsiblity of controlling the greatest military on Earth. And no, 2 years of freshmen senate work doees not convince me of that... and if the democrats do front Obama as their cnadidate, he will be crushed, cause no one in middle America is going to be swayed by a bunch of liberal flower-poetry, and we're not going to pass the most important political seat on Earth to someone who hasn't proven he can handle it.
"And Eleanor Roosevelt was a powerful First Lady. And I still wouldn't say that qualifies her to be president, running on a platform of experience."
Eleanor wasn't senator for 8 years.
"And I would hardly call Ms. Clinton a powerful First Lady. Though she was in charge of the universal healthcare initiative, it FAILED and directly paved the way to eight years of Republican rule."
As it should have, universal health care is an absurd notion that has no basis in economic reality. But it failed because she wasn't a dictator and couldn't obviouslly enact it by fiat.... it failed cause the REpublicans (rightfully) denied her program.
Do you suggest Obama can do better? His policies are just as liberal (and in some casese much more so to the point of leftist populism) or indistinguishable from Clinton's. How is he a centrist/unifier candidate? Other then the fact that his Cult members saying he is? The only reason Republicans don't hate him onw is because he's a fledge... once his policies come to light they will fight him just as vigoriously (and I believe perhaps more so) then they did with any of the paramount "estbalishment" democrats.
"And Eleanor Roosevelt was a powerful First Lady. And I still wouldn't say that qualifies her to be president, running on a platform of experience."
I'd say even that sparse record qualifies her more then a 2 year freshmen senator, whose record itself is?.... and when it comes to the generals, most of the non-Obama cultist in America (which is the vast majority of the voting population) will believe the same.
"And I would hardly call Ms. Clinton a powerful First Lady. Though she was in charge of the universal healthcare initiative, it FAILED and directly paved the way to eight years of Republican rule."
I forgot to address the later statment: LoL. If you think that her failure in health care led to Republican control then I just have to say LoL. Obama Cultist will believe anything their Man-God tells them it seems.
I see no way how the two are even connected... Alot of the 00' election was influenced by Bush's "Celebrity" "Son of president" status, and his (false) claims he would be a "compassionate conservative." And likewise I imagine the robot-like drabness of Gore didn't help him either.
"If you think that her failure in health care led to Republican control..."
It did -- eight years of Republican control in the House, following profound backlash over the healthcare debacle. This was only a decade ago, but how soon we forget, I guess.
Oh, and Chris, please keep in mind that Ms. Clinton was senator for seven, not eight years, and has less time as an elected official than Obama.
"As it should have, universal health care is an absurd notion that has no basis in economic reality. "
Then why are you supporting Clinton? Oh, yeah... and Canadian? Hello?
And yes, I do think Senator Obama can do better -- because he has a record of reaching across the aisle as a unifying force, and frankly, I am sick and tired of the partisan politics that prevent politicians from enacting real change that helps the American underclasses. I have no doubt that Obama can do that, meanwhile Clinton's record shows no major accomplishments and she is one of the most divisive political figures of today.
"How is he a centrist/unifier candidate?"
In just the two examples already brought up, he worked with Senator John McCain to pass one of the most comprehensive ethics reform bills in American history. And in Illinois, when he worked to put video cameras in interrogation rooms, he brought together the ACLU with cops (the two most stringently opposed forces on the issue) and created legislation that not only satisfied both parties, but didn't stray from the original intent of the legislation.
Obama's record is clear: every initiative he has worked on (and there are more -- his Senate website has a list), he has reached out to disagreeing parties and negotiate powerful legislation that has helped the American people.
"I'd say even that sparse record qualifies her more then a 2 year freshmen senator"
Then you, my friend, are high. It sounds like you woulda thought Lincoln also shouldn't've been elected.
Jenn: "And Eleanor Roosevelt was a powerful First Lady. And I still wouldn't say that qualifies her to be president, running on a platform of experience."
Chris: "Eleanor wasn't senator for 8 years. "
Chris, your entire previous argument was resting on the idea that Hillary's role as First Lady counts as experience. Does it or doesn't it? Make up your mind. If it does, back it up. If it doesn't, let's just agree that it doesn't mean anything and move on.
Jenn: "According to Sophia, she was the first student to deliver a commencement speech at Wellesley."
Commmencementator Hillary R. Clinton (D). Lol!
Chris: "This sort of strict interpretation is laughable. This si reality, we can't assume by axiom that Hillary Clinton will be seperated from the formrer president, and at the very least we can say that he will influence her as much as she influenced him (which was non-trivial).
"
My "strict" interpretation was based on your actual words, and it's not laughable because so many Clinton supporters have used it. Go ahead. Read what you wrote. Again, I'm not really wanting another Clinton presidency.
"Again more syntax. Do you really believe that Clinton is less qualified then Obama? What signal alerts you to this opinion? As far as I can tell, she and her husband has survived the political hub-bub for 30 years.
"
Well, you need to work on your syntax then because you were saying that we were ignorant for thinking she was just a First Lady. I can't help it if you're being (intentionally or not) cryptic. Surviving political hub-bub doesn't mean anything. What has she accomplished in foreign relations in terms of her work as an American official? The answer is nothing because she has never had an official position other than Senator and Commencementator (which I assume she held for five minutes, or however long it took her to give that speech).
Obama is a unifier; Clinton is a divider. Obama talks straight; Clinton waffles. She still won't explain why she authorized the war. She's withholding information from her role in the Clinton presidency. Hell, she still won't even tell us if she prefers the Yankees or Cubs. Obama is a straight talker with no contradictions. He knows how to get people involved. Look at his campaign. He managed to win Iowa even though Clinton has been so successful with her "de-facto incumbent" argument. Despite the fact that Hillary had Bill, the most prominent fundraiser, on her side.
So yes, Obama is more qualified.
"But in the end it really does come down whether I, believe he can take up the responsiblity of controlling the greatest military on Earth. And no, 2 years of freshmen senate work doees not convince me of that... and if the democrats do front Obama as their cnadidate, he will be crushed, cause no one in middle America is going to be swayed by a bunch of liberal flower-poetry, and we're not going to pass the most important poli
tical seat on Earth to someone who hasn't proven he can handle it.
"
Controlling the military? No one in the current field has that experience--unless you count Hillary authorizing the war in Iraq. But then again, it was W who was actually the commander-in-chief.
"It did -- eight years of Republican control in the House, following profound backlash over the healthcare debacle. This was only a decade ago, but how soon we forget, I guess."
That's just spin, I've never seen any scholarly paper that has stated this (and even if there were, one has to be suspicious of "political science" being it's a feeble subject).
"Then why are you supporting Clinton? Oh, yeah... and Canadian? Hello?"
I'm not, I've stated in previous post I think all the democrats are weak, but there is no way you can convince me a 2-year Freshmen senator is mroe qualified then Clinton. Clinton has been in politics longer, she'll have the Clinton Foreign Policy Apparatus behind her and she's had longer senatorial expereince. What the hell has Obama done? Majored in IR and Poli Sci??? LOL, that makes him just as bad as the rest of the candidates, so we confirm that he didn't study anything profoudn in college (just like the other politicians), I don't see how he's all that differnt from any other run-of-the-mill politician (except he seems to be a good orator).
"And yes, I do think Senator Obama can do better -- because he has a record of reaching across the aisle as a unifying force, and frankly, I am sick and tired of the partisan politics that prevent politicians from enacting real change that helps the American underclasses. I have no doubt that Obama can do that, meanwhile Clinton's record shows no major accomplishments and she is one of the most divisive political figures of today."
More Cult-of-Obama rhetoric. Yes the leader is good and the leader is great, he is infallable.
Record??? You mean you can judge a person's abilities based on 2 years? You can't even determine whether securities on the financial markets are good performers with less the 5 - 6 years of results.... I'd imagine you'd need much more time to gauge humans....
"In just the two examples already brought up, he worked with Senator John McCain to pass one of the most comprehensive ethics reform bills in American history. And in Illinois, when he worked to put video cameras in interrogation rooms, he brought together the ACLU with cops (the two most stringently opposed forces on the issue) and created legislation that not only satisfied both parties, but didn't stray from the original intent of the legislation."
McCain???? McCain isn't consider a solid Republican, he's more of a ideological centrist. lol. And that's far from a consistent track record.
"Then you, my friend, are high. It sounds like you woulda thought Lincoln also shouldn't've been elected."
Lincoln didn't have the power to destroy the world (He obviouslly barely had the power to control the United States). Obviosully the world has changed fundamentally in the past 150 years.
"Chris, your entire previous argument was resting on the idea that Hillary's role as First Lady counts as experience. Does it or doesn't it? Make up your mind. If it does, back it up. If it doesn't, let's just agree that it doesn't mean anything and move on. "
So you beleive that being a senator and first lady are mutully exclusive logically? Roosevelt was a first lady in the 40s, and wasn't a senator... this is factully correct.
Clinton himself admitted he consulted his wife and vice versa. Further, I again state it's unrealistic to say that the former PResident will not advice his wife. Having someone who has more-or-less succesfully been president as an intimate advisor adds alot of human capital....
"My "strict" interpretation was based on your actual words, and it's not laughable because so many Clinton supporters have used it. Go ahead. Read what you wrote. Again, I'm not really wanting another Clinton presidency. "
If I had to choose between another Clinton[s] (and yes that's possibly plural) and another Obama: that is someone I know has competatnce against someone who has absolutely no relvent expereicne or demonstrated competance to be executive, then I"ll choose Clinton. Yet, i'm not constricted to democrats alone so that's not a choice no-one will have to make in the generals.
"Obama is a unifier; Clinton is a divider. Obama talks straight; Clinton waffles. She still won't explain why she authorized the war. She's withholding information from her role in the Clinton presidency. Hell, she still won't even tell us if she prefers the Yankees or Cubs. Obama is a straight talker with no contradictions. He knows how to get people involved. Look at his campaign. He managed to win Iowa even though Clinton has been so successful with her "de-facto incumbent" argument. Despite the fact that Hillary had Bill, the most prominent fundraiser, on her side.
"
lol. So essentially, by axiom and rhetoric I should listen to you. Again it's easy to have no-contradictions in politics when you've only had a national role for 2 years. And I"m not convinced he dosn't have contraditions... politics funadmentally is a BS game of give-and-take, and he is not some sort of Messiah that is above that (unless your'e part of the Cult of Obama that is).
"Controlling the military? No one in the current field has that experience--unless you count Hillary authorizing the war in Iraq. But then again, it was W who was actually the commander-in-chief.
"
Actually I'd trust just about any of the other candidates in either party to Obama (minus Ron Paul) to have some cognizent ability in commanding the armed forces. Obama is literally out of the nest. Clinton obviouslly has, as her closest advisor, a former commander-in-chief, so that brings human capital to her. And most of the other candidates in the Republcians have been executives of some sort for a non-trivial number of years (minus Mccain who has USAF officer
"The answer is nothing because she has never had an official position other than Senator and Commencementator (which I assume she held for five minutes, or however long it took her to give that speech)."
I dunno about the speech, but Sophia notes that the applause was seven minutes long, so assuming she loses the title once applause ends, it was AT LEAST seven minutes.
"one has to be suspicious of "political science" being it's a feeble subject."
James, as someone who majored in political science, you want this one?
"McCain???? McCain isn't consider a solid Republican, he's more of a ideological centrist. lol. And that's far from a consistent track record."
McCain was only NOT considered a Republican by the Neo-Cons who were against bipartisanship. He's strongly in the Republican camp in many issues...
... surprisingly, respected enough by the Republican base to be the current Republican front-runner. I'm no Republican, but I really respect McCain and the work he has done, as a Republican (who was swift-boated by the Republican war machine before there was a term for swift-boating). Don't believe that Republican hype.
"McCain was only NOT considered a Republican by the Neo-Cons who were against bipartisanship. He's strongly in the Republican camp in many issues...
... surprisingly, respected enough by the Republican base to be the current Republican front-runner. I'm no Republican, but I really respect McCain and the work he has done, as a Republican (who was swift-boated by the Republican war machine before there was a term for swift-boating). Don't believe that Republican hype."
No you're wrong, you clearly don't understand even the basic political situation. Neo-Cons are not Republicans, they are a relatively recent addition to that party. John McCain, has fundamental disagreements with the many key Republican constiencies, including religion, social issues/ethics, Economic policy and constitutional interpretation. He IS a centrist Republican... and it's far from certain he's the "front-runner" I'd put my bet on Huckabee (who himself is a centrist in all respect other then religion) at this point... and if you did pay any attention to who McCain got (in terms of votes) it wsa the independents not the "rank-and-file" repoublicans. That was true in 2000 and I"m sure it'll be true in 2008.
Jenn said: "And I would hardly call Ms. Clinton a powerful First Lady."
Really? then you need to get your head checked. Hillary was one of the most influential First ladies. Don't you recall "Billary?" How many first ladies oversaw the almost rehaul of a huge industry?
Thanks Chris for pointing out these blinded by the great orator Obama worshipers.
Jenn has accused people of being lazy and not researching the candidates. Let me list Hillary's accomplishments starting with working with Republicans. (which are from another blog AAA fund which Jenn reads but I guess she missed all this, so I will put it here and perhaps you can read it this time)
She worked with Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and other senators. And as a result, in 2005, Congress mandated a new form of military health care called TRICARE Reserve Select which increased healthcare for guardsmen and reservists. 20 percent of all Guard members do not have health insurance, and 40 percent of Guard members ages 19 to 35 lack coverage.
1997 with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program. SCHIP is a HUGE program that benefits many many indigent kids.
She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.
2005she co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular United States Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain.
led efforts for the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, championed the Access to Employment and English Acquisition Act, and co-sponsored the DREAM Act (as did 48 other senators including Edwards. Obama was not a US Senator at the time).
She has worked with work with former Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) on legislation to computerize medical records, and with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) on legislation to provide body armor and for National Guardsmen.
She has fought for women and reproductive rights, comprehensive sex education. She helped get Emergency Contraception over the counter which if widely used could prevent about 1 million abortions a year and 2 million unwanted pregnancies the the USA.
Hillary is 60 and Barack is 46. She is almost 33% older than he. She has seen and experienced and worked on more than he.
and that is just the reality. more years of life = more experience.
Barack would make a great president... after 8 years as VP...
"Really? then you need to get your head checked. Hillary was one of the most influential First ladies. Don't you recall "Billary?" How many first ladies oversaw the almost rehaul of a huge industry?"
Sophia, you forget history. She was more influential than most First Ladies (her's was the first office to be housed in the executive branch), but was she -- relative to other people in the White House -- powerful? Unfortunately, no. And that's by the limitations of the position.
Hillary Clinton WAS placed in charge of universal health care, but as I said, it failed miserably and helped usher in eight years of Republican rule in Congress. So despite the universal healthcare debacle, I cannot say she was powerful during her years as First Lady -- because she was not able to get that one charge accomplished, and actually did damage to the Clinton administration by fueling partisan tension.
Expansions of SCHIP were vetoed twice by President Bush, and the rate of uninsured children continues to rise in America despite SCHIP particularly among families that do not qualify for SCHIP (the stated goal of which was to lower the rate of uninsured children). Further, SCHIP may not be financially solvent. Thus, debate remains over the efficacy of SCHIP, as well as Senator Clinton's direct involvement (since she worked primarily on the failed expansions of SCHIP -- she wasn't in the Senate at the time of its original introduction. SCHIP was the compromise after the failed universal healthcare plan during her First Lady years -- and as we've already covered, we don't know her EXACT involvement because the First Lady documents weren't released to the public).
"She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health. "
As a scientist, I can tell you from the inside of the industry that that's a drop in the bucket for NIH and that funding is tougher to get than ever before. A true friend to the scientific community would raise funding rates such that we're not pretty much certain we'll have to resubmit any grant. This was a trend that started in the Clinton years and only got worse during Bush. We need a major infusion of new money into NIH to match the growing number of new scientists, and money that's not tied up with one kind of cancer or another kind of disease, but applicable to different ideas in different fields (since science is so interrelated).
Sophia, you point out initiatives that Hillary was involved in, but as I said, these kinds of lists can be built for any senator, including Obama -- that's the nature of the job. The question is if those show a senator's job well done, or are qualities for the presidency?
Frankly, Sophia, those accomplishments, while good -- aren't significantly greater than what Obama has accomplished in his years in elected office. And I'm still calling bullshit on the idea that Clinton (and you, as a spout for her
as a spout for her talking points) can run on an experience platform. A person with far more time on their hands than I could build an equally long resume for Obama, Edwards, and any other Democratic or Republican senator. But rather, I'd like to ask why you -- who values experience and age -- weren't supporting Richardson, who was both older and more conventionally experienced than Ms. Clinton?
Jenn, so what is your reason for being an Obama-lover?
it's not experience. It's not b/c he has shown that he can work across the aisle more than Hillary.
Richardson has not been a senator. Richardson has not stood up for women's rights. Richardson has not survived the Republican attack machine for 10+ years. Richardson has not been the close advisor to one of the smartest presidents of our time in a while.
You can't write off everything that she during her time as first lady "because they won't release records." That's just stupid. There are other public records and sources to check information.
SCHIP is one of THE best programs out there. It has not be re-authorized b/c the Republicans have voted in block not to expand it. As a pediatrician, the AAP and all the house democrats (almost) support it. So if you want to argue with the pediatricians of this country, that's fine.
As an academic scientist, I also know of the NIH cuts. and these are due to the Republicans. You can't blame Hillary for the cuts. She is as responsible for them as Obama is.
Jenn, you may be smart but you are Obama brainwashed and that's sad. You won't concede anything (even little things, like yes, she did get more money for prostate cancer and asthma. Yes, she did get the FDA to finally let EC go over the counter and prevent abortions!)
and that brings one to question to your ability to consider things impartially.
I support Obama for his healthcare plan, his stance on immigration, and his message of ending bipartisan politics by unifying both sides of the political debate. I support his stance on the Iraq War, and his demonstrated commitment to reaching out to underrepresented minorities, while taking on special interests. In other words, I support him on the issues.
"It's not b/c he has shown that he can work across the aisle more than Hillary."
I don't support Senator Clinton because I was a resident of New York since she became a senator and watched her waffle based on polling data, and pander to the Right in order to attract votes. Whereas Obama is a progressive who works with the Right but manages to maintain the integrity of his legislation, Clinton is a moderate Democrat who agrees as much with Republicans as she does with Democrats. I just don't like politicians who exude an air of "poll-tested"-ness, and like it or not, that's backbone of Clinton's political career.
"Richardson has not been a senator."
Well, except that most presidents have not been senators. When we talk about executive experience, pretty much the only position that prepares you to be an executive like the president is governorship. The role of a senator and the role of a president is very different -- but a governor is like a president with a smaller kingdom. I think you over-emphasize the experience senatorship brings to the table.
"Richardson has not stood up for women's rights."
Not explicitly, no. But that's because he was pretty busy being Secretary of Energy and Governor of New Mexico.
"Richardson has not survived the Republican attack machine for 10+ years."
I really don't see how surviving Republican attack machine qualifies anyone to be president.
"Richardson has not been the close advisor to one of the smartest presidents of our time in a while."
He was in Clinton's cabinet, and oversaw more than Senator Clinton. I think the argument can and should be made that he was as gaining as much first-hand experience in the White House as Senator Clinton did as First Lady, since Richardson could go to briefings the First Lady could not.
"You can't write off everything that she during her time as first lady "because they won't release records.""
No, I can't. But I can argue that you have no basis for saying she was integral to Clinton's policy-making decisions with nothing to back that up. You can't say she was Clinton's "closest advisor" if there's no proof she was involved in an official (or unofficial) capacity in her husband's decisions.
"SCHIP is one of THE best programs out there."
Perhaps, for those who qualified -- but it also is severely limited in who qualifies for it. And certainly, as a politician, one is measured by one's successes, not one's efforts. That Clinton and Kennedy were unable to garner enough Republican votes to pass the bill means that children are still uninsured, and it d
Perhaps, (but it doesn't have much competition). For those who qualified, it might be great -- but it also is severely limited in who qualifies for it. And certainly, as a politician, one is measured by one's successes, not one's efforts. That Clinton and Kennedy were unable to garner enough Republican votes to pass the bill means that children are still uninsured, and it doesn't speak much for Clinton's ability to end bipartisan bickering.
"As an academic scientist, I also know of the NIH cuts. and these are due to the Republicans. You can't blame Hillary for the cuts. "
I do blame the Republicans. I also blame Clinton. And if Senator Clinton gets to claim a role in Clinton's successes, she'd sure as hell better claim his failures. And, in my mind, the fact that I might be a highly-educated, unemployed person is a failure on the part of the last TWO administrations (and more). If you are familiar with NIH, than you'll know that the funding rate going from 3-5% of first-time grants to 1% of all grants is just inexcusable, and has been a trend for decades. I'm not solely blaming Senator Clinton for that -- that would be foolish -- but her husband certainly had the opportunity to reverse that trend, and he didn't. And, given that she has so frequently cited a return to the Clinton years as part of her message of "experienced change", than I have no reason to expect anything different from Senator Clinton's administration.
"Jenn, you may be smart"
Well thank you. I take that as a compliment.
"you are Obama brainwashed and that's sad"
That offends me. These are my thoughts. I disagree with the Obama campaign on a number of things, but there's more I agree with them on. Just because I support Obama, doesn't make me awash in a sea of Obama-Christ-ness.
"even little things, like yes, she did get more money for prostate cancer and asthma."
Yes, she did. And if you are familiar with NIH, you know how little that truly impacts our industry. It's good for the campaign trail, but my lab is still struggling to find funding.
"that brings one to question to your ability to consider things impartially."
Well, I don't pretend to be impartial. No one is impartial, particularly in politics. Everyone stands to gain or lose, and so everyone is in it to put forth THEIR perspective and hope to sway someone else into their camp. Welcome to democracy.
Honestly, I know we've been clashing for some time, but I actually much prefer that you're willing to engage the points than just walk away. The debate we're having will not change either of our minds, but I hope that some apathetic APIAer has been reading our words and has decided to vote (one way or the other) based on our exchange.
Minimum wage creates unemployement. At least let the unemployed have a wage of $4/hour than nothing.
OMG! You support Obama for his health plan?!?!
That is one area where Obama shows a surprisingly lack of understanding of the problem. (perhaps b/c he doesn't have the experience with the issue like Hillary does or doesn't have the right advisors on the issue)
As an MD and as someone who has studied under one of the leaders of universal health care, I have learned that ideally, we get rid of the insurance companies. But our country is not ready for that. So the answer for now is to cover everyone.
When you allow people to opt out, they opt out. The healthy young adults will not get healthcare. And then when they have some catastrophe e.g.car accident, urinary tract infection gone wrong, leukemia, random cancer, then end up in the ER or our medical system and they go bankrupt.
"Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.
The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children."
When people go to the ER and go bankrupt, then we as taxpayers suffer b/c we have to bail them out and the ER sucks up the cost and those of us that have insurance have to suck up the cost or again as taxpayers we suck it up.
Please read my posts carefully b/c you seem to attribute to me many things that I have not said.
I never said Hillary was "integral to Clinton's policy-making decisions." I said that she was his advisor.
SCHIP was not reauthorized this time b/c the Republicans knew how to stick to the party line. And if Barack really cared about children then he too can be blamed for NOT getting people to cross the aisle on this important issue. Don't forget, your candidate was in the Senate too when SCHIP failed to pass enough votes to be veto-proof. SCHIP passed the House and Senate, it just didn't pass veto-proof. Few things do.
Obama's plan is partially an extension of SCHIP. So, stop diss'ing SCHIP.
As a scientist, perhaps you should research before you blog b/c President Bill Clinton
called for an increase of almost 50 percent over 5 years in the NIH budget as part of his Research for America Fund. Since then, the NIH budget increased by over $4.3 billion and with the funding proposed by the President 4 years later, the Administration was one year ahead of schedule in reaching the 50 percent goal.
91% of grant applications do not get funded now, compared to about 75% under Clinton.
And with respect to NIH funding, you should LOVE Hillary b/c "like her husband" she plans to increase NIH spending and isn't afraid to commit to real #s compared to Barack.
She has a concrete plan, many of which should appeal to you as an NIH grant needer... and Asian-Am woman
Clinton has a very detailed plan for funding science research in the US. Here is her 9-point plan:
1. Establish a $50-billion Strategic Ene
(argh. how did my post get cut off?!?)
Clinton has a very detailed plan for funding science research in the US. Here is her 9-point plan:
1. Establish a $50-billion Strategic Energy Fund.
2. Increase the basic research budgets 50% over 10 years at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the Defense Department.
Increase research focus on the physical sciences and engineering.
Require that federal research agencies set aside at least 8% of their research budgets for discretionary funding of high-risk research.
Ensure that e-science initiatives are adequately funded.
Boost support for multidisciplinary research in areas such as the intersection of bio, info, and nanotechnologies.
3. Increase the NIH budget by 50% over 5 years and aim to double it over 10 years.
Increase investment in the non-health applications of biotechnology in order to fuel 21st century industry.
4. Direct the federal agencies to award prizes in order to accomplish specific innovation goals.
5. Triple the number of NSF fellowships and increase the size of each award by 33 percent.
6. Support initiatives to bring more women and minorities into the math, science, and engineering professions.
7. Support initiatives to establish leadership in broadband.
8. Overhaul the R&E tax credit to make the U.S. a more attractive location for high-paying jobs.
9. Restore integrity to science policy.
vs. Obama who likes to answer in paragraphs and only wants to increase funding for basic research. (I don't know if you do basic research or clinical research...)
Barack Obama supports doubling federal funding for basic research, changing the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology.
"but my lab is still struggling to find funding" are you doing asthma or prostate research? And of course you would be struggling with the cuts imposed by the REPUBLICANS and NOT President Bill Clinton's administration.
Please focus your anger at the right people and do your research before you go off.
Sophia, please stop pretending that a difference of opinion on an issue automatically means that the other side has less experience with the issue than yours. Everyone in the Democratic Party isn't sold on Paul Krugman economics. Single payer universal healthcare might be a fantastic idea - but when researching Presidential candidates I was looking for a healthcare plan that understood the need to eliminate costs within the system to make healthcare more affordable.
That's where I believe the moderate center can be won for the Democrats on this issue. People want to see that the useless costs can be removed from the current system before they engage what they consider a radical assault on that system. It's similar to mainstream public sentiment on illegal immigration; the McCain-Kennedy bill died because people wanted to see real border security and immigration law enforcement (on more than just brilliant foreign graduate students) before they were willing to grapple with the larger problem of the roughly 12 million undocumented workers living in the United States.
Yes, its incrementalism, but it's also about meeting the electorate on its own terms. Senator Obama's plan spends page after page outlining methods to cut unneeded waste and cost from our current healthcare system, which is what you would do in order bring down costs so that young, healthy people without healthcare or much money can be encouraged to buy insurance. That makes sense to me.
Mandates exist when policymakers do not have any other available means left to sell their public policies to a wary electorate defined by individual self-interest. Offering a mandate tells voters, "We can't figure out how to make you want this for yourself, so we have to order you to take it." It's a failure of government on a very intrusive level, and Democrats should know better than to offer mandates when appeals to personal self-interest always work better.
" (argh. how did my post get cut off?!?)"
There is a 30000 character limit on Haloscan comments. I suggest copying and pasting long comments in order to facilitate posting it in chunks.
That's why when I'm posting, it's getting cut off in mid-sentence, and my next comment continues what I'm saying.
It's an unfortunate aspect of haloscan I can't remove, but Haloscan is keeping this site up, what with all the comment spam I was having that dismantled this site.
If you want healthcare many times less expensive, then you need to eliminate corruption.
"Everyone in the Democratic Party isn't sold on Paul Krugman economics."
Nor should Republicans be sold. Nor they should adopt Reganomics. What they should only know is specifically Austrian economics, in order to eliminate our corrupt bureaucracy that hurts our poor, which is completely different and opposite than other kinds of economics.
Jenn, I was not "pretending that a difference of opinion on an issue automatically means that the other side has less experience." I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who understands the healthcare problem knows that the answer is to get rid of the insurance companies b/c they skim off 30% profit.
At Stanford, we have 3 billers for every MD b/c there are so many different insurance companies, so many different forms and then we have people that have to sit there and try to get the $$$ from the insurance to pay the hospital.
Researchers have shown that we could cover ALL the uninsured in this country if we got rid of the health insurance companies.(because we would get rid of their 30% overhead and the billers, times wasted on these forms, etc)
But, we both agree, the country is not ready for that. Thus, the next step is simply to get everyone covered and to stop insurance companies from refusing to take people (and thus they are refusing to take the risk and pushing those people to our state insurances and then we as taxpayers pay for it).
By not mandating insurance, there will always be the fools who assume "not me. I won't get sick." Then they get sick and we have to bail them out as taxpayers.
I was not aware that Paul Krugman supported universal healthcare. I am not as politically up to date as you. But I am aware that many educated MDs and those studying the healthcare problem all agree that universal healthcare is the answer and 2nd to that universal coverage and then comes Barack's proposal.
So are you saying you don't agree that universal coverage is better than Barack's proposal? or that Barack's proposal is the only thing acceptable to americans at this time?
Here is an update from 80/20 (NOT saying that I agree with 80/20) just an FYI... seems that no one contacted Woo about the wording!! or that he is senile and lost the info...!!!
An open letter to Senator Obama
Dear Senator Obama,
This is an earnest, final attempt by 80-20 Educational Foundation to
reach out to you and ask for your hand of friendship and support. I
promise to dutifully relay your response to the leadership of our Asian
American community by 12 noon Central Time on 1/15/08. Depending
on your response, our community may be forced to choose sides in the
Democratic primary. We had not planned on that. If we hear from you
affirmatively, we will remain neutral.
You are a candidate for change. Is it reasonable for us to hope that the
change will include us? Here are the main grievances of the Asian
American community.
Believe it or not, Asian Americans have the least opportunity to enter
management when compared with Blacks, Hispanics and women; the
slowest rate of progress toward equal employment opportunity in spite of
having the highest educational attainment. Our comprehensive study
covered private industries, universities and the Federal government. Our
data and calculation have been independently verified by the EEOC.
In addition, only 0.6% of our Title III Federal judges are Asian Americans.
Not even one of the 179 federal appellate judges is an Asian American—
this in spite of the fact that 5% of legal professionals are Asian Americans,
many from nation's top law schools!
To remedy the above are the specific goals of our questionnaire. We are
not seeking political favors. We are seeking civil rights. Senators Clinton
and Edwards have replied with all yeses. Each wants to help make us
become equal citizens, when she/he becomes the president. Since you are
the candidate for change, why are you hesitant to commit to give us equal
opportunity?
As a skilled lawyer, you know that an agreement is worthless if conditions
and terms are not measurable. The statement sent to me by your
campaign has non-measurable promises to “advance the interests [of
Asian Americans]…”; non-specific statements that you are “committed to
appoint.[AsAm].” or “build upon your work as a civil rights lawyer.” These
sweet words are not measurable and are routinely uttered by politicians
that will satisfy only the naïve, and gullible. I believe you are not that
kind of leader.
Your staff publicly claimed that they were "unable to reach agreement
with leadership of the 80-20 Educational Foundation over concerns with
the wording of the questionnaire." That is false. No specific proposal to
change the wording was EVER made to me. You may want to instruct your
staff to find that proposal or failing to find it, to immediately draft
one and send it to me as the proof of good-faith from the Obama
campaign.
We want very much to work with you, Senator Obama, and the
"Depending
on your response, our community may be forced to choose sides in the
Democratic primary. "
Haven't read the rest but... gimme a break. They haven't been neutral -- they've already called their supporters out to "DEFEAT Obama".
As an AsAm, I do not care about the character of Mr. SB Woo. I do not care about the character of Obama or Hillary. I do not care about whether those candidates felt offended by those "pooly worded" six questions from 80-20. I only care about if these candidates took those questions from we AsAm seriously, no matter how naive or "stupid" they seems. I do not care about how informal or ugly the letters from 80-20 looks like. At least, we AsAm can understand its content and format. If those politicans suffered from these "unprofessional words and formats", then they have to learn to get use to it, b/c they need our votes. I do not care if white or black peoples in US like us, or if they like our way. I only want them to know that we AsAm can show our power by voting those who respect us. We AsAm are special people, we do not need to melt us down and mix into the so called "mainstream American culture".
Defeat anyone who refuse to answer our questions.
"At least, we AsAm can understand its content and format. If those politicans suffered from these "unprofessional words and formats", then they have to learn to get use to it, b/c they need our votes."
Well, judging from the fact that so many Asian Americans went to Las Vegas to help Obama where they won the delegate count, it looks like you're in the minority (pun intended). Go ahead, vote for Hillary. Endorse her dirty tactics and bobbing and weaving. It's clear to me at this point of the game that logic and reason play no part of the 80/20 group-think style decision-making process, and I now realize that it's probably pointless to logically break it down for you people since you care more about voting as a block than what your candidate really stands for.
By the way, when you say "we AsAm," please don't include all of us. Most of us are not voting with you.
OMG - did someone actually compare SB Woo to David Duke?!
Hm. I don't think it's just been 80-20 throwing out the hyperbole.
Anyway. Very glad this is done.
"OMG - did someone actually compare SB Woo to David Duke?! "
I read through the thread, and no, no one compared him to David Duke. I mentioned David Duke, but only as a means of making the point that the character of an organization matters.
...meaning that your commentary is hyperbole free? 
i get that you don't like 80-20. you clearly aren't the only one.
still think it is fair to try to see where 80-20 are coming from, and seems a legitimate if very narrow piece of the political pie. i mean, you can throw mud at SB and call him all kinds of names, but i prefer your more dispassionate critiques.
everything that happened with the questionnaire is consistent in reasoning (if distasteful in execution) with their 'with us or agin us' approach. i agree that our community can and should do more than that.
i do appreciate the substance of discussions here -- much food for thought. and that is what i am taking away with me. but i get the feeling -- we have a lot of work to do!
I am checking out the AAA Fund website. I hope they have the strength and organization for taking it another level.
ada, I also think you should look into APAP. APAP has been around for nearly three years and in that time has made huge progress in organizing the APIA movement.
"still think it is fair to try to see where 80-20 are coming from, and seems a legitimate if very narrow piece of the political pie. i mean, you can throw mud at SB and call him all kinds of names, but i prefer your more dispassionate critiques."
But that David Duke comment wasn't a critique. It was just saying that character matters. A lot of people (including the person I was addressing) think that it's all about the issues. It isn't. It's about people.
Yes, definitely check out APAP. They've got good people.
Commenting by HaloScan
