I'm far from a Richard Louissaint or Corren Conway, but I do snap a pic every now and then, most of which will never see the light of day.  So you can imagine my surprise and ensuing delight when I received this message:

That's right ma'--your son is in Schmap.

When OGF W. Franklin passed on a link to Medicine for Melancholy's website I immediately knew that I wanted to see it, but now that I'm hearing the buzz it's getting out in the Yay, interest level has soared even further. One of my favorite things to do in San Francisco is walk around, and much like NYC, San Francisco is extremely walkable. Each carrefour has a story of its own, and the stories often told by the friends who have served as my tour guides during these trips has made this city endearing. While I wouldn't necessarily want to live in San Fran, I definitely would never want to be denied the pleasure of walking its streets. Medicine for Melancholy appears to be an extension of one of these walking trips and my love affair with the Bay. You can check the film out this weekend in MD and SF.

Jeff explores Latino and Asian American support for Hillary Clinton in his recent contribution

 Jeff's emergent versus insurgent paradigm is instructive.  This paradigm helps explain why, or rather how, Asian American and Latino voters make themselves heard on election day. Still, I am not sure if it sufficiently covers another central element of this discussion why democratic candidates have been only marginally successful in mobilizing voters from these two communities.  Jeff points to a number of mistakes made early on by Obama's campaign that have hindered his campaigns in these communities, but Clinton's success has not been transformative in any regard, something that one should find particularly troubling considering how heavily contested this campaign has been. 

El Diario/La Prensa points out that Clinton won 3/4 of Latino votes in New York and 88% in New Jersey.  If you follow the comments posted in response to this article, many of them question the veracity of this victory.  For example, commenter Jose Vota declares:

    En Nueva York, gano con tres cuartas partes del voto hispano. En Nueva Jersey, con el 88 por ciento. Mi pregunta Tres cuartas     partes de cuantos? el 88 por ciento de cuantos? Cuantos salieron a votar, 1000, 800, 3000, digan cuantos, cual es el temor de         ilustrar con numeros la baja participacion civica de los hispanos, talvez asi nos da pena y salimos mas.

Vota's question seems to be a legitimate one, what does garnering 75% and 88% of Latino votes in New York and New Jersey respectively really translate to?  How many voters does this even out to and, how do these numbers really reflect the tenor of voter participation among Latinos?  

 A number of the other comments are as, if not even more, skeptical of the true measure of Clinton's success-not to mention the Latino politicians from NY and NJ who endorsed her campaign.  Regular readers of El Diario/La Prensa and similar publications know that this skepticism derives from frustration with American foreign policy relating to South American and Caribbean spanish speaking countries, as well as Mexico.  This frustration is also born about by democratic short sighted on immigration, the war, and the latest crop of multi-millionaire candidates like John Kerry and Clinton who court their votes, while overseeing an economic recession that disproportionately impacts poor and working class Latinos. 

Tuesday's Clinton victories in New York and New Jersey were engineered by local politicians who leveraged their community support in anticipation of great returns on this investment.  It was, as Jeff points out, made possible by Clinton being able to mobilize her machine early on in the race to ensure these votes.  However, if you read between the lines of the frustration expressed in the comments, Obama's success has made many Latinos doubtful about whether Clinton will be able to deliver on her promises.  This may seem like a negligible point now that contests are over in NY and California, but  these are precisely the kinds of problems that democrats will have to address if Clinton is the candidate in a general election.  While a surging Obama has the clear cut task of trying to lure Latino voters, Clinton will face a far more nuanced and sensitive mission, holding on to voters that she once thought were in her back pocket.  

The Billary saga gets more complex and disturbing with each passing day.  Rather than stay around and diplomatically concede defeat on Saturday evening Hillary Clinton passed off that responsibility to her husband Bill.  Some might read this as a slight against that evening's winner Barack Obama, but I don't.  It appears to be another installment of Bill and Hillary's bizarre relationship that has dominated the democratic party spotlight for sixteen years now.  By handing off the reins to Bill on Saturday, Hillary was essentially letting him finish what he had started, and/or rubbing in his face another failed promise,  In couples speak, this was tantamount to Bill calling their friends upon realizing that they can no longer attend the dinner at which he promised their presence. 

Hillary could have lost South Carolina well and easy enough on her own.  Betweeen Obama's strong support with African Americans, and John Edwards's native son status, South Carolina was a permissible defeat.  In fact, had they not fought as hard, Hillary's staff could have unleashed a speech about declaring how either and Edwards or Obama victory reiterates how strong this year's campaign field was, and the change that was afoot in this year's election.  Instead, likely with Bill's promise of a victory, they fought tooth and nail in South Carolina.  Rather than continue relaying Hillary's tried and true messages that she has "the necessary experience to exact change," they-or rather-Bill engaged in the political minstrelsy that he's now well known for, and has no reservations about delivering.  Of course since Bill is not a Black man, he saw no problems with letting B.E.T. founder Bob Johnson speak on their behalf. 

Unfortunately, these antics resulted in a series of sophomoric conversations about race, the end of which pundits were more than happy to concede.  By contrast, there was no rush to call for an end to discussing the war, healthcare or the econonomy after the New Hampshire and Iowa showdowns.  When combined it suggests that African Americans do not care, or deserve to have a voice on issues such as healthcare and the economy, and that race is a trivial concept that distracts candidates and the public from more serious issues.  It is merely a matter of color to which power does not pertain. 

We're not the only ones picking up on this thread.  Maureen Dowd has been incensed for weeks at Billary's antics.  Frank Rich noted in yesterday's Times that democrats have to be wary of Bill Clinton's reemergence--even going as far as outlining a worst case scenario in a Hillary Clinton versus John McCain general election.  Additionally in today's edition of The Guardian, American editor Michael Tomasky offers another less than flattering assessment of Bill's role in this campaign.  Tomasky brings up an issue that I have heard being bandied about too often and that a Hillary victory would amount to a "co-presidency."  While I find the prospect alarming, others, such as my parents, are consoled by visions of Bill Clinton trolling the White House again. 

Meahwhile, the news continues improving in Obama's camp as he has just received an endorsement from Caroline Kennedy with one from longtime Clinton ally Ted Kennedy expected to arrive tomorrow.   

However, endorsements do not always translate into votes and victories, and with Super Tuesday a week away, Obama's work is just getting started.