>On Feb 8, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Charles Brown wrote:
>
> > What's the analysis and name for what supports Clinton ? Is it
> > different than what supports Obama ?
>
>Clinton obviously doesn't have the hordes of screaming fans. There's
>more libido in Obama's support, for sure. She's gotten lots of money
>from the big bourgeoisie. So's he - e.g., Paul Tudor Jones & his
>Greenwich pals - but she hasn't gotten the smaller contribs he has.
>When the big bourgeoisie gives, they expect some returns on their
>investment, and because of their class, they generally get those
>returns. When 27-year-olds give $200 on the web, they can't expect
>the candidate to take their phone calls.
>
>Doug
but see, the kossacks and netroots crowd don't want that kind of influence. they want to have their pajama-clad lifestyle handsomely underwritten. IOW, they only want to make sure that lots of campaign advertising flowstheir way, so they can sit around and mock the Emmessem all day and call it politics.
More seriously, though, I forgot to mention the other day that one reason Asians voted for Hillary was the 80/20 Initiative. Supposedly, they felt Obama dissed them, so s.B. Woo retaliated by putting their voting bloc behind Clinton. (Tangentially, is there a Bill Clinton v Barack Obama popularity contest where I might get confused over percentage support of youth in favor of, say, Clinton's suits v. Obama's? Is the poll on Facebook or something? I heard something about Obama and underwear? Is that the contest? Competing images of the two in jockey shorts? tighty whities?)
Anyway, re: 80/20, after those numbers came in showing the 3-1 support, I have no doubt they are in negotiations with Clinton's people right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80-20_Initiative
Thinking about what Catherine said -- hi cat! -- cause I _knew_ she'd have something to say if anyone started sounding dismissive of young people, I suspect that this is what Julio is saying about youth and movement. IT's *that* it's spontaneous and unorganized -- seemingly outside the machine -- that he sees something progressive about it. Correct me if I'm wrong Julio.
I started thinking this when Julio dismissed support for Clinton as a product of organization. If blacks didn't vote in high enough numbers for Obama, then it was because Charles Rangel, obviously a traitor, tricked them into voting against their own interests! If left alone, outside the influence of organization (it's bad, you know, like organized religion; but spirituality, that's good, because it's not organized, see?), then people of color express their true needs and desires and vote for the right candidate. Failure to express racial solidarity can only be explained by lack of spontaneity -- that is, organization, regimentation, and boring dullness.
Yes, organization warps people's natural political allegiances. If it weren't for Clinton's superior organizational efforts -- her machine -- then Latino/as would naturally have voted in greater numbers for Obama.
So, you see, Dog: fans, movement, moving, spontaneity -- these are all good things, to be commended -- because they are outside politics as usual, they are outside the machine, they are outside the ritualistic pulling of levers and dicks, they are outside of the dull, boring as Charles says. They are rock star, man. Rock star.
Speaking of organization, I read Earl Orfar Hutchinson's _Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation Between African Americans and Hispanics_ earlier this year. It was on the new book shelf at my library. It seems even-handed. I wanted to respond to this:
Dwayne wrote on another thread:
> In other words, what the Gawker writer breathlessly describes as
> "growing anti-Black racism in Latino and Asian communities" (And how
> do you measure this? Grocery store chatter? Rude YouTube comments?
> Incoming machine gun fire?*) often looks to me like typical
> inter-group misunderstanding and chauvinism, suitably amped for our
> nihilistic moment and kitted up with off-the-shelf racist conceptual
> tools.
First, a caveat: yes, I agree, it doesn't come from nowhere -- and for whites to focus on it *can* come off as opportunistic: "Look over there, at them. Quit pointing the finger at whiteness! see how people of color are racist too."
but after spending my days working with *mostly* people of color and having to listen to some pretty shite stuff ... well, I try to remember that my experiences are shaped by being around mostly politicized people of color and that when I'm not, I need to step back and listen. Still, it's not so easy for me to just assume that it's superficial or hyped by the media. In fact, it wasn't until the Clinton campaigns dirty tricks that the media even bothered to pay any attention. Of course, the Clinton PR machine may have planted the stories, so I don't know.
While no stranger to intergroup racial conflict in feminism, Hutchinson's book surprised me with his examination of the extent of racial violence in cities such as NY and LA.
Hutchinson is careful here, showing how coalitions nave and are happening, but he also points out how difficult that work is since black political forces haven't always been happy about the news that latinos might take over as a ethnic voice and vote, a political force, that might build on the hard work of blacks. He goes on to quote folks to that effect. I had forgotten all about those difficult discussions of a few years ago. For Hutchinson, they're still present, and there's a lot of turf-protecting going on. But again, there is also a lot of people making an effort to maintain coalitions.
But one of the things Brownfemipower has always been good at is reminding people that coalitions are built by pretending the differences don't exist. Which is probably why, during the brouhaha over the Latino vote thing a month ago or so, she was unwillingto pretend that coalition was easy or that there weren't stereotypes, prejudice, and bigotry standing in the way.
Hutchingson is more conventionally political than brownfemipower, of course, but he's focused on the positive examples that involve conventional political organizing. And, like BfP, he straight up addresses prejudice, citing several studies.
And in general, as for privilege and prejudice, there is something there -- just consider the very history of the term Hispanic to begin with. it was about assimilationist politics.
there are also interesting studies from various quarters, from Latino scholars themselves. I can look this up b/c it's buried in a blog post. At the Uni of Houston, Tatcho Mindiola, Jr has found that blacks have a more positive view of Latino/as than the other way around.
Latinos in Houston described blacks most often as "noisy," "loud," "lazy," "dropouts/uneducated," "hostile," "complainers/whiners," "bad people," "prejudiced," "aggressive," "angry," "disrespectful/rude," and "violent."
As Hutcinson points out, these sentiments are bred, often, before people come to the u.s. -- in part by their own country's race politics, but also by u.s. media and the Hispanic television shows beamed into their homes. Thus, 54% of u.s. born latinos favor interracial dating, while only 46% of non-u.s.born Latinos do. What surprised me was the 41% of Latinos think that blacks have too much power.
Hutchinson goes on to address some studies from the Latino community that suggest higher rates of anti-black prejudice against blacks than the other way around. One I found that might be interesting, I've placed on InterLibrary Loan. At Washington State University, Yolanda Flores Niemann has also conducted research on college-aged students. I have her book on order, so I can say more later. She found that, among the top ten traits assigned to black males, Latino/as identified the following: "antagonistic," "speak loudly," "muscular," "criminal," "dark skin," and "unmannerly." (her's is similar to a Durham, NC study which found similar attitudes.
Like Hutchinson, I'd assume that the biggest problem for Obama was his lack of organization. As Hutchinson points out, racial solidarity across black and latino/a communities doesn't come naturally. There is a lot at stake. Efforts have to be made on both sides. But in the absence? it's easier for the prejudices to come to the fore. But probably more importantly, it's also about name recognition, demostrating trust, etc. IF a candidate doesn't do that -- and as I understand it, OBama didn't -- then they have a hard time being accepted by Latino/as.
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)