“The rules were OK when the other campaigns thought they would win the Culinary endorsement”

Al Giordano has a nice breakdown on Sunday’s multi-faceted news day. He picks up on a theme I heard from Norm Scheiber on Friday:

The mini [racial]-uproar may help Obama win South Carolina…But I think racial tension beyond South Carolina probably hurts Obama–both in narrow tactical ways (he’s going to need a chunk of white independents on February 5; it could also create a backlash among Hispanics), and in broad, thematic ways (his candidacy is so attractive to many voters because they see it as an opportunity for racial healing).

Giordano makes the case that it took returning to Nevada this afternoon for Obama to clue in that his hottest issue is the (surely Clinton-inspired, if not led) lawsuit to restrict participation in the Nevada caucuses.

“Ever since I got the support of Local 226, the lawyers decided to get involved. The rules were OK when the other campaigns thought they would win the Culinary endorsement,” Obama said.

“As soon as you decided to support the outsider, the working people instead of the big shots, all the sudden they decided they wanted to change the rules.”

Latino Voters in Nevada and Califas: “Outside the wave of Obama-mania?”

Given Michael Whouley’s latest revival job and Bill Richardson’s apparently imminent departure, Latino voters, in Nevada on January 19 and California on Feb. 5 , are being hotly pursued by the remaining Democratic candidates.

For starters, we’re unlikely to see Hillary tryto paint Obama as overly pro-immigrant, as she did earlier this month. Absentee voting began Monday in California. In LA, JDL links to a Daily News article that notes that half of all 18-24 year-old voters are Latino. Jaime Regalado of Cal State LA’s Pat Brown Institute: “The negative focus on immigration could also get more young Latinos to the polls. This is one way for these young people to express their anger and exercise their political rights.” JDL further places the election within the context of SoCal (racial and generational) politics:

Current Black-Brown tensions and the recent focus on immigration will make the Obama – Hillary fight a microcosm of Los Angeles class and racial politics. Latino political heavy weights like Antonio Villaraigosa and Fabian Nunez have lined up behind Hillary. Other Los Angeles-based politicians, Assembly Majority Leader Karen Bass, City Council President Eric Garcetti, and Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, have thrown their support behind Obama. Labor is split on the two candidates. …[I]t will be an entertaining month.

In addition to immigration, California’s economic crisis will be a central issue for Latino and non-Latino voters (the mortgage crisis, the state’s $14 billion budget deficit, the Hollywood writers’ strike, the price of gas), as will issues of police brutality and gangs. That’s a lot to fit into a 30-second spot in any language.

But first Nevada, where Obama picked up the immigrant-driven SEIU and Culinary Workers endorsements. Will Clinton ally, and Cuban-American, Sen. Bob Menendez’s weekend’s foray into the state have an impact on the mostly Chicano, Mexican, and Central American voters?

Writing from New York for New America Media, Robert Lovato points out that another effect of New Hampshire is that the Dems aren’t the only ones chasing the non-Cuban Latino vote:

McCain’s unique challenge to Democrats for the Latino vote comes down to simple math: his GOP rivals’ zeal to win white votes with anti-immigrant appeals is perceived by my father (“I’ll be below the earth before voting for any of them”) and other Latinos, as severely anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, if not racist. McCain’s calls to treat immigrants “humanely” during the Spanish-language GOP debate contrasted strikingly with the smiley “get tough” talk of his shrill opponents…

[W]hen Democrats are evasive -– as in Clinton’s driver’s license flip-flop or when Obama vacillated after being asked by Univision anchors about his vote for the border wall — I see the moral and political opening exploited by Bush in 2004, and McCain before 2008. My father and most Latinos reject the wall as a “muro de la muerte” (wall of death). That the immigration debate merits neither Clinton’s attention nor Obama’s abundant rhetorical powers explains Latinos’ frustration (documented in the recent Pew Hispanic poll) and leaves many of us outside the wave of Obama-mania.

Will the Culinary Union Endorsement Be Relevant on Wednesday?

The focus today has been on the Obama surge in New Hampshire polls, but there’s also news from Nevada, which will caucus January 15. Michael Mishak reports on the Las Vegas Culinary Union’s Local 228′s delayed endorsement decision due to “an apparent disagreement between the Culinary Union and its international parent, Unite Here…”

The decision to wait until after Iowa was not out of step with the Culinary’s cautious profile. The delay was the political equivalent of “card check,” an organizing process that allows workers to sign cards supporting the union, instead of voting in an election, a process the union considers onerous and unpredictable. In essence, the union wages only campaigns it knows it can win.

But by delaying until after the New Hampshire primary the union is effectively diluting much of its political clout though. ….[W]ith the dynamics of the race likely to be firmed by Tuesday’s result, the union’s effect on how its members vote will be an open question.

The Las Vegas Gleaner adds some context, poining out that the national UNITE/HERE folks are pushing for an Edwards endorsement:

The Culinary in Las Vegas is the most successful example of organized labor’s strength, growth and positive economic influence on a community in America in the last, oh, 25 years…. The Culinary union is the reason that Southern Nevada has a middle class and is not a just a couple gated communities surrounded by vast swaths of high desert ghetto.

That makes it all the more disappointing that the national UNITE HERE people are reportedly pushing for an Edwards endorsement on the basis that they like his policies and approach best, whereas the Culinary appears consumed primarily with being on the side of the winner (i.e., probably Obama).

 

ObamaMedia: Waiting for the Culinary Workers and a YouTube Moment

As I mentioned last night, I’m going to be focusing my campaign attention for the next two weeks on the Nevada caucuses.  To that end, David McGrath Schwartz attended the Obama campaign’s Iowa caucus watching party in Las Vegas:

There was euphoria at the Paradise Cantina, with its tiki décor and tequila flags. More than a few supporters sported Kennedy buttons, and made the comparison to a deeper overall movement.

And here’s Hugh Jackson suggesting that Obama is looking pretty good for that all-important Culinary Workers endorsement.

Nevada’s little caucus remains a secret to the grown ups in the national mainstream media, garnering only scant mention in all the breathless what-happens-now speculation. An exception: During the course of delivering a eulogy on the Clinton campaign on the teevees with Keith Olbermann and Tweety Matthews Thursday night, Howie Fineman predicted that the Culinary would endorse Obama. Is it that obvious?The nation now turns its eyeballs to New Hampshire, while Nevada’s caucus is characterized by the same two questions that have engulfed it pretty much from the get-go: Who will the Culinary endorse? And will anybody outside Nevada care what happens here one way or the other?

Aaron Smith on Obama’s YouTube moment–  video of the victory speech follows below:

it’s likely that relatively few people, outside of the most inveterate political junkies, actually did watch the speech live and in its entirety. And prior to the days of broadband access and easily accessible online video, it’s likely that most voters would never have seen more of the speech than an odd clip here or there on the cable and network news shows. Instead, more than 160,000 people have watched just the official campaign YouTube clip alone in the twelve hours since it was posted, in addition to the tens or hundreds of thousands more who watched from other video or news sites.

Dayo Olopade asks whether Murdoch and the WSJ pulled punches in their coverage of the Iowa results.

Steven Teals of the Reality Basd Community is thinking about what Obama will need to govern:

I’m now willing to predict that if Obama is nominated, he will win the popular vote comfortably–54-46. The Democrats will pick up seats in both the House and Senate as well, putting them in a position to pass significant legislation across a range of issues. The challenge for Obama will be to craft sufficiently strong, clear and focused (that is, prioritized) policy positions during the election that a strong win gives him (and his party) a victory that cannot be chalked up to the idiosyncracies of his personality.

Finally, I think that Hillary and Edwards need to think very carefully before unloading with both barrels against Obama over the next few weeks, in an effort to get themselves back in the running. The Democrats just can’t afford to damage their likely nominee via friendly fire.

Michael Goodwin in the Daily News:

Her campaign is a campaign. His is a movement….. She has to stop being a celebrity if she wants to be President….To win she has to become less calculating, less programmed. She needs to come out from behind Bubba and the barricades and the imperial court of handlers who create a bubble. She has to stop being a celebrity if she wants to be President.

In short, she has to become more human.

Maybe losing Iowa will do that for her.

 Andrew Sullivan (Obama’s Boswell?) on rhetoric:

In the television and internet age, old-style rhetoric is sometimes regarded as an anachronism. It isn’t. Huckabee’s brilliance in the debates gave him this opportunity. Obama’s public speeches have been the best in a candidate since Reagan and Kennedy. As someone who was trained in and loves debate, it’s good to see this old skill gain new salience. Lincoln would be proud.

Robert Naiman faults Obama’s Africa proposals:

It seems that unlike his Democratic rivals, Senator Obama would not commit to $50 billion in new funding in coming years to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis & malaria. He also would not to commit to the goal of universal access to treatment.

Reading the candidates’ statements on the issues one can’t escape the feeling that Obama’s answers are (Bill) Clintonian. He feels their pain. Where the other candidates make specific commitments, Obama offers vague phrases. All hat, no cattle, as Jim Hightower used to say.

Africa Action says Obama’s plan “does not go far enough, for instance, instead of debt cancellation, he talks of reducing debt, instead of universal access to treatment, he talks of increasing the numbers; does not commit enough money.“