Predict Primary Results for Texas, Ohio, Vermont

I think that the results from the primaries on March 4, will reveal to Hilary a quite inconvenient truth.  Namely, she is going to suffer a devastating loss to Barack Obama in her final gallant stand for delegates.  I’m not saying she is going to lie down, but Barack will win a majority or at least enough delegates to seal the deal.  I know Hilary hopes that she can win a decisive victory in Texas; however, this is unlikely for several reasons.  First, the way Democrats disperse delegates throughout the state is highly in favor of Barack.  The portions of the states where their is a concentration of Democratic delegates are often highly populated by African-American voters.  Therefore, giving Barack an advantage.  Second, one third of the Lonestar State is reserved for caucus delegates and history would prove that Barack will probably win those.  As for the Republicans, McCain will obviously win and there is also a possibility he will win enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination for President.  I do believe he will get that nomination tonight, because at this point only hardcore Huckabees will stay faithful.  I believe the moderate to slightly conservative Republicans will vote for McCain today and give him a strong following and good start in his Presidential Campaign.

Hate Speech

Hate speech has often stressed the limits of the seemingly endless veil of the First Amendment.  However, throughout history it has been protected by either societal norms or by law.  Today, hate speech, especially in regards to race, is condemned by society, but not by legal means.  That is because hate speech, along with other forms of benign expression should be and is protected by the First Amendment.  My reasoning is that unless it is found to be absolutely necessary, it is necessary to leave the latitude of free speech unabridged.  Freedom of speech is certainly one of the most sacred liberties of our democracy and is also what defines our nation as truly free.  In the case of Arthur Terminiello, a rampant anti-Semite, the Supreme Court found that, “Freedom of speech, though not absolute . . . is nevertheless protected against cencorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.”  By this case, the Supreme Court affirmed that the First Amendment protected even a man who drew out cries of “kill the Jews” and “dirty kikes” from his adherents. 

Religion and the Government

Religion is explicitly stated by the U.S. Constitution to be removed from any form, level, or action of the U.S. government. In the establishment clause of the Constitution, it states that the government shall not show any support or attempt to establish the dominance of one religion over any other. The free-exercise clause states that the government does not have the right disallow the practice of any religion, as long as it does not conflict with the establishment clause. In no other setting have these two clauses been more stressed than in the public schools. There are so many points at which there is a conflict of interest between the present interpretation of the Constitution and the rights the current majority of United States citizens claim they have. Christianity being the foremost prominent religion of this country, the majority has often supported Christian prayer in the school system.  However, the Supreme Court has consistently regarded prayer in public schools as government support for religion.  In 1962, the majority of Justices led by Hugo L. Black determined that a twenty-two word nondenominational prayer could not be read in New York public schools.  The prayer read, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.”  Rather straightforward and patriotic, but the Supreme Court would not allow it.  I feel that though the majority may yearn for religious identity even in public places (such as schools), the Supreme Court and the other branches of government are mandated to uphold the Constitution and ensure that any church and any form of state do not mix.

Conservatism

Conservatists in the U.S. today are much more moderate than those deemed conservatists when the term was first used. In the days of old, conservatism referred to the effort of monarchs and aristocrats to maintain power and the traditional order of society. In light of several momentous historical developments, such as the French Revolution and the Industrial Age, conservatism has taken a new form for an attempt to resurrect the torn down tyrannies would be futile. Conservatism in the U.S. today deals with maintaining the order of society in regards to economic status. Conservatists support privatization and deregulation of the economy and the ability for a few to prey economically on many of the lower class. Though moderate conservatist to promote some form of equality today, a true conservatist allows for the natural order of things to fall into place. Let the rich stay rich, and let those below him strive to reach his height.

La Union de Campesinos Respaldan a Clinton

If you’re having trouble understanding the headline of this article, then chances are you are also not following one of the biggest stories of the 2008 Democratic primary season.

Yesterday (Jan 22) in a packed college gymnasium in Salinas, California, the United Farm Workers endorsed Hillary Clinton for President (Spanish as listed on the UFW web site: “La Union de Campesinos Respaldan [sic] a Clinton”). With more than 27,000 members, the UFW will be a welcome addition to the Clinton ground team as they compete for The Golden State–the biggest prize of all on Tsunami Tuesday (Feb 5). Chances are good that whoever wins California will also win the Democratic nomination. In recent polling, Clinton holds double digit leads on Obama and Edwards, her two top rivals in the Democratic field.

More important to Clinton than the number of UFW members, however, is the iconic value of the UFW in U.S. politics. The UFW is, quite simply, the historic symbol of the Latino civil rights movement in America.

Started in California’s central valley by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta in the 1960s, the UFW was the Latino counterpart to Martin Luther King, Jr.s civil rights movement in the south. With its predominantly Latino membership the UFW continues to be as much an anchor of Latino identity in America as it is a driving force for the rights of farmworkers.

In an election where the Obama and Clinton campaigns have raised equal amounts of money, the UFW endorsement signifies Clinton’s considerable advantage over Obama and Edwards amongst Latino voters in California and elsewhere.

With few exceptions, the English-speaking media has not really picked up on this story.

Writing for Salon.com, Joan Walsh recently shed light on the difference way that Latino voters think about Clinton and Obama. Following an Obama campaign Spanish-language ad critical of Clinton in Nevada, Walsh quoted the following observation about the two candidates as offered by Dolores Huerta:

[Huerta] argued that Clinton has a “cultural, political and social relationship with the Latino community, which Senator Obama does not have.” Latinos call Clinton “Hilaria,” Huerta said, adding derisively that they call Sen. Obama “Como se llama?” (as in “What’s his name?”)

(read the full post, here)

Given how inaccurate polling has been thus far, whether or not a candidate has an affectionate nickname in the Latino community might just be one of the better indicators of how well Clinton is doing in California. And in a week where Barack Obama has already showed himself to be more than a little annoyed by the tone of the debate, the moniker “What’s his name” is likely to throw even more cold water on his campaign.

As for John Edwards, the UFW endorsement of Clinton will likely put him in a very difficult position. Having framed his campaign as a movement for the rights of working middle class and poor Americans, Edwards must now be very careful in how he criticizes Clinton. If ever there was a union that lived the principles Edwards is espousing, it is the union that just endorsed Clinton.

In a Democratic primary season already marked by heightened emotions, the UFW endorsement of Clinton will likely result is some activist soul searching amongst a fair number of Edwards and Obama supporters. Or maybe not.

Whatever happens, Americans can expect to hear an iconic phrase return to American politics, but this time with a whole new meaning. When Cesar Chavez and his followers shouted ‘Si se puede!’ (‘Yes, we can!’) in the 1960s, it meant ‘yes, we can organize!’ My guess is that ‘Si se puede’ will become a rallying cry at Clinton campaign events in California and more than a few newspaper headlines.

‘Can we win the nomination for Hilaria?!’

‘Si se puede!’

My Critique: I am not sure whether this article truly depicts the situation of California and the implications it has on the Democratic Primary, but regardless it mentions the frightening possibility of Hilary Clinton becoming President. Being a fellow Latino, I am also disturbed by the lack of sensibility this articles portrays Californian Latinos with. It is as if they vote according to familiarity with a candidate, and not by the results of having that candidate nominated. If they would open their eyes, they would see that Obama offers them so much more than Hilary. He is a fellow minority, and his life experiences are much more similar to their own than Hilary’s (Wonderbread). Hilary offers nothing of what Hispanics want, and Obama is the best alternative.

2008 Democratic Primary Debate-South Carolina

All the debate proved is what we already no.  Hilary is a frantic, insecure, power-monger who will say whatever she has to in order to get votes.  I am sad that Obama played into her trap.  He should have known better than to argue with that crazy woman.  Edwards was put in a pretty position and he did quite well acting composed when the other two were caught up in their squabble.  He put it well when he said that Hilary and Obama were making it too much about themselves and not about America.  That was a perfect place for him to point out the true point of the Presidency and that is dedication to the beloved United States of America.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!