LatinoPoliticsBlog.com

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton?! – “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

November 21st, 2007 · 19 Comments

Hillary Clinton has been making much progress in her Latino outreach. I have to admit that I’m impressed with the level of communication from her Director of Hispanic Communications, and though it looks likely that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president, I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this one. If Hillary Clinton becomes the 44th President of the United States, we will have 24 years of Bush and Clinton family leadership dominating our executive branch. Is this really a good thing for America? While she certainly is capable, intelligent, and savvy, I can’t help but think of the The Who’s song lyrics, Won’t Get Fooled Again.

Clinton picked up a key union and Latino Nevada lawmaker endorsement this weekend. And last week, she expressed opposition to driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, while Bill Richardson and Barack Obama supported the idea. Meanwhile, San Francisco just approved a plan to issue identification cards for undocumented immigrants. Exactly how the cards can be used in SF has yet to be determined, but this act was prompted by the frustration with the congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform, which is something we keep hearing that Hillary Clinton supports. Now the Democratic congress couldn’t get comprehensive immigration reform enacted this session, and I honestly don’t know the extent that Senator Clinton played in the senate’s side of the debate. Maybe one of the readers or blog participants can enlighten me on HC’s leadership on substantive immigration reform beyond the usual talking points?!

I also found this commentary, which kind of summed up my own questions, and of course, I can’t help myself with the Clinton-Soprano spoof.

Tags: Barack Obama · Bill Richardson · GWB · Hillary Clinton · Immigration

19 responses so far ↓

  • 1 michaelr // Nov 21, 2007 at 1:47 am

    Hillary Clinton is too busy campaigning for President to push any influence in the U.S. Senate on any issue. She has never been half the legislative equal of Ted Kennedy or even John McCain. Her political network is not as diverse or widespread as her campaign wants to admit to the public, and she doesn’t have the sheer will to overwhelm her opponents, and convert them to her ideals or political vision. What we will get from Hillary Clinton is more or less the same direction George Bush has given us. She will not pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, and she will not stop the dumbification of America’s youth. She is the status quo. Hillary is obligated to the same lobbyists who are in bed with Dubya and the Dick. The only positive I see with Hillary is we will get more Bill Clinton. If America truly wants change…real changes…intelligent change, save your vote for John Edwards. Hillary will be the same boss as the old boss.

  • 2 Frank // Nov 21, 2007 at 7:16 am

    I am not a Democrat so of course I am biased against Hillary and the other Demo candidates. However, if there were a Democrat candidate who put U.S. citizen’s interests and welfare first, I might possibly vote for them. What bothers me about most of the candidates of either party is how they flip flop on the immigration issue and other issues. How can we trust any candidate that does that?

  • 3 Hector // Nov 21, 2007 at 3:32 pm

    Hilary is very unclear on her position but I do commend mayors of San francisco and Maryland for allowing illegals to get thier ID/drive licenses. This will be a growing trend.

  • 4 Frank // Nov 21, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    Hector, why should we give illegals, legal documents for anything? New York had to change their position on giving illegals drivers licenses due to public pressure. I see that as a growing trend.

  • 5 Hector // Nov 23, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    Public pressure doesnt’ meant anything, all it means is to get a vote for election, the reality is they need an identity at some point instead of ignoring them ain’t a solution. As states across the nation are starting to know that it is the solution rather then a problem.

  • 6 TrjnDem // Nov 23, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    My question is what exactly does Hilary stand for?

    Besides rallying women around her to be the first woman President, what does Hilary stand up and champion?

    Latinos? Immigration? What?

    Allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driven licenses from a state is not a immigration problem and not a federal issue much less, it is a issue of public safety on are highways in areas such as Los Angeles and New York. In these areas, there are huge diverse population from around the world. Latinos just so happen to be the majority ethnic minority in these metropolitan areas.

    Rather than looking at the issue as an public policy problem of New York public safety, Mrs. Clinton sees this as an issue of “illegal immigration” for her constituency and the rest of the country–Wrong!

    Here in California, I see many high level Latino elected officials jumping on the Mrs. Clinton bandwagon early on this campaign. I think they made a big mistake and really should have taken the time to look at her policies that affect the Latino communities such as access to higher education, immigration policies, maintaining good jobs and economic growth in a free trade world, access to affordable housing and addressing poverty in the U.S.

    These are important issues to all of Americans, but they are especially important to Latino since we represent the future and economic growth of this country.

    If Latinos as a growing majority of the U.S. fail to achieve the “American Dream” then the U.S. fails because there is no one else to fill our shoes these next 20-30-50 years.

    Personally, I am a John Edwards supporter because I sincerely believe that as President he will address the issue of proverty and the declining middle class in this country. Also, I do not believe the middle American is ready to elect a woman or any ethnic minority because of inbred racist attitudes.

    Hopefully, the 2008 elections will prove me wrong. Although I do not have much faith after going through the 2000 & 2004 elections and watching how the rest of the country voted for such an idiot of a President that we currently have in office.

  • 7 Frank // Nov 23, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    No one else to fill the Latino shoes? Latinos represent the future and economic growth in this country? What does that mean? What an arrogant remark to make. There are many races in this country, white, black, asian, etc. What are we chopped liver? Latinos are growing in numbers mostly due to illegal immigraton. Does that make you proud?

    You don’t take the American Dream you ask for it by applying to come to this country legally to attain it. If you are not here legally then go home and I don’t care who you are either.

  • 8 michaelr // Nov 23, 2007 at 8:26 pm

    Frank…your ethno phobias reveal a lot of your hatred. If you sincerely believe that all opportunity in this country is equally dispersed amongst all the ethnic groups, then you are in denial of the legacy of racial hatred in this country. History repeats itself, though you would like to believe otherwise.

    John Edwards is the only hope for minorities in this country to achieve some form of political parity. The fact that most of the Latino politicians have climbed onto the Hillary Clinton bandwagon reveals how truly gutless they are in protecting the very people who put them in there. Hopefully, there is time to turn the tide.

  • 9 TrjnDem // Nov 24, 2007 at 3:46 am

    LOL.

    Obviously you pay more attention to blogs than actual demographic indicators from respectable public policy think-tanks.

    Why do you think Federal politicians are paying attention to Latinos, because they come here illegally and cannot vote?

    Politicians pay attention to voters and Latinos represent a growing majority voter bloc.

    Do your socio-demographic homework if you are going to debate issues or try to make an educated arguement.

    The Latino growth is from birth rate, not illegal immigration although immigration adds to the growth. Whites and Blacks are getting older in general and have declining birth rates. Asians are next in line as a growing ethnic majority, but they also have lower birth rates and represent a smaller percentage in numbers as compared to Latinos.

    Hell, most of L.A. County school are dealing with major declining enrollment unless they are in ethnic minority communities.

  • 10 BettyM // Nov 26, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    RE: Hillary Clinton
    Vote for Hillary Clinton – She is “her own boss” and she is indeed “capable, intelligent and savvy”!!!!

  • 11 EYES OF TEXAS // Nov 26, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    The declining middle class is being gutted thanks to the many social services available to those that can’t, or won’t, get off their asses and support themselves. The middle class subsidizes, through our tax dollars, all the free crap that is given to those that continue to have babies because it means more government cheese each month. Hitlery is the number one candidate that supports the idea of robbing the middle class to support those that abuse the system. No, she will not be elected President and neither will Edwards. Who will be elected is the one with the best solution to repair the mess this nation has become over the past 20 years.

  • 12 webmaster // Nov 26, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    Eyes of Texas, actually the declining middle class can be attributed more to the cost of the war in Iraq and the lack of investment our country is making in human capital, meaning education and job training. Also, note the number of jobs that have been exported overseas. We have seen more jobs being exported in the past twenty to twenty five years, but we haven’t been investing in our own workforce to transition from manufacturing/blue collar jobs to white collar/service driven jobs.

    Bill Clinton ended AFDC in 1997 with welfare reform.

    “Hitlery” isn’t an appropriate name either. Her policies are very different from those of Hitler.

  • 13 EYES OF TEXAS // Nov 27, 2007 at 3:03 pm

    Ok, so you’re anti-war, pro-illegal immigration/open border and believe the country should invest in providing education or job training to those that can’t afford to pay their own way. The declining middle class has nothing to do with a war that is only 5 years old. Middle America has been on a constant down slide ever since illegal immigration got out of control. The cost of war is dwarfed by the expense of subsidizing 20-30 million illegal aliens that don’t earn enough to take care of their family and resort to Uncle Sugar for a hand out at the expense of all tax paying legal citizens. Some estimate that the financial impact of illegals is 4 to 6 billion dollars a year and growing at an unbelieveable rate. In your ideological world everyone would be on even ground, ignoring the fact that some of us have worked hard and long to get what we have and those that didn’t should be expecting a hand out from my good fortune. Wrong!

  • 14 webmaster // Nov 27, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    Eyes of Texas, some would argue that Middle America has been on a decline since the decline of union membership, but you cannot attribute it all to illegal immigration. Why is it in some parts of the US, notably the Rust Belt (northeastern/mid west states, where there hasn’t been as much illegal immigration), we still see the middle class declining and jobs being exported overseas?

    You might want to read this latest study that came out today from the University of California:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26407393

    I never said that everyone “would be on even ground.” Where do you get these ideas? You and I will probably never been on “even ground” with the likes of Dick Cheney and GWB.

    As for the cost of war per year vs. illegal immigration, maybe you need brush up on your basic math. About $12 billion per month is spent in Iraq and Afghanistan (numbers courtesy of US Congress) vs. $10-11 billion per year spent on costs related to illegal immigration (from the Center for Immigration Studies).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoEh7d0Rka8

  • 15 EYES OF TEXAS // Nov 29, 2007 at 11:44 am

    The war will end, but the cost of illegal immigration is 20 years old and who knows if it will ever end. Besides, support for our troops is well worth the expense as opposed to subsidizing an illegal family that shouldn’t be here in the first place. Putting my money into the war against terror instead of wasting it on someone that can not support themselves, and probably never will, is more justified.

  • 16 Oscar // Dec 5, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    In terms of the candidates, all candidates are flip floppers and I believe the most straight forward candidate is Kucinich. Although I still support Hillary, on the issue of immigration she has flip flopped and has lost my support for now. I really appreciate Kucinich during the last debate when he said immigrants are not “illegal” they are undocumented, what an awesome human response! Hillary will always get Latino support because of her husbands outreach and advocacy towards minority populations but for now my vote is for Kucinich.

    In terms of the immigration comments, here we go again with the blame game played by those who have a fearing perception and are scrapping for resources. This anti-poor dialogue is common when economies are in dire situations or as Sociologist better define as a “scapegoat perception”. The real issue is our war. Americans made a huge mistake by following a popular view and war hype jargon of war and now we are paying the price. Democrats and Republicans both followed the popular view of frantic and misinformed Americans and an economic recession but more importantly the cost of Iraqi and Americans lives has been the outcome of following a popular view.

    I was not like many of the candidates who are flip flopping and following the popular view. I knew we would pay the price for this war and we are. So because are economy is in crisis the popular view is anti-immigration and blame those that cannot defend themselves and lack the resources. I don’t understand where people get this shallow perception that immigrants drain our resources, are lazy, and are criminals. I say this very clearly if this is the case then many of our parents, grandparents, great grandparents are also criminals for they also broke laws when they came from Europe, Asia, Mexico, Africa, Middle East, etc. They came here and invaded Native American lands. I have a human perspective so I avoid the blame game and the scapegoat perception that many have. What we are doing is using immigrants for our benefit because we live in a capitalistic economic system that has service oriented perceptions and needs to be serviced. This is hypocritical and wrong! The concern that we are losing the middle class because of immigrants is down right wrong. This comment does not surprise me coming from a part of the US that has a very straight forward systematic oppression towards underrepresented groups.

    Unfortunately, Kucinich does not stand a chance because he tells the truth and is open minded about human nature, nature/environment, and has a social conscious awareness of reality. Kucinich is also not afraid to express his views on topics that most Americans tend to avoid or have a misinformed biased perception. America is best when we work together not when we work against each other and segregate those who cannot defend themselves. Webmaster thank you for the articles they were awesome your sweet :) Final comment every Person/Human is a gift from God and we are all the same :)

  • 17 La Ventanita // Dec 10, 2007 at 7:29 am

    This is the problem with party lines…all comments above have some truth to the them, but we are all unable to see them because of our own inherent biases.

    In regards to the post, I don’t think having another Clinton in office will be good. But then again, I look at the candidates on both sides and no one really floats my boat. For me it will again be an election of picking the lesser of two evils.

    Now to the comments. Yes the middle class in America is in a crunch; and surprise, the answer is all of the above. There is no single one cause, but more the combination of all: outsourcing, illegal immigration, decline of unions (which I have to say I’m glad on that one), etc. However, Adriana, I think it is disingenious to blame the war for the strain of the middle class. I’m middle class, and in no way shape or form has the spending on the war affected me or my husband personally; it has affected the nation in that we are spending money outside the US rather than inside.

    I do agree with one reader that says that the main issue is that there is no one clear candidate that is putting the US first.

    I’m a Republican, and make no excuses for that. But currently I don’t see anyone on either side willing to concentrate on “fixing” US (no pun intended). We need a president that is willing to cut across party lines and reunite a nation that has been divided by amplified rhetoric and by a blog phenomenon that although I love it, has only served to polarize and divide us even more.

    The illegal immigration issue is sticky – recently a new study (LA Times? Pew?) showed a majority of Americans had no sympathy for illegals and really want the government to start punishing the Businesses and secure the borders (physical or not) first- which is what I’ve been saying all along.

    Problem is a candidate that takes that posture, runs the risk of “alienating” Latino voters. Or do they?

    As for Hector and his Public pressure doesnt’ meant anything comment, I’m sorry Hector but public pressure means everything when its your constituency doing the pressuring like it was in the case of New York. That is what our democracy is about (or should be at least).

  • 18 Hector // Dec 22, 2007 at 1:29 am

    Ventanita,
    you have to do more research other then CNN. First of all the middle class shrinking has nothing to do with illegal immigrants, downsizing of Unions and actually outsourcing maybe.(I’ll get to that in a bit) Outsoucing has to do with globalization, but outsourcing is inevitable for corporations need to do in order to stay competitive in the business. But those are low income jobs to begin with, the public has no sympathy when they go bankrupt and thus they have to do in order to stay in business.

    Middle class shrinking has to do with capatilism. Read up on Karl Marx the inventer of capatlism (also predicted it to fail) and you will learn that it is true that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer because its not set up to be fair for all. Why do millionares get more tax breaks were we the middle class get taxed more when we make more money? Its because they support politicians and in turn they get tax laws in return that will protect their money. Many 3rd world countries have suffered this for many decades but they are worse since they lack technology and thats what keeps us (USA) afloat.

    Back to globalization. Globalization is what levels, economic wise, out nations around the world like the stock market, of highs and lows of inflation and currently we are at a low with inflation rising and the dollar weaking. Thus on a verge of recession so we begin to scrutinize what the media depics to be the problem to our nation going broke like illegals. Illegals have been around for centuries and the media acts as though it began in 1999? I agree with you in one aspect that the war doesn’t affect you directly and but it does indirectly because the government is control of the interest rate and government spending to control inflation and they aren’t really doing good of either until recently the interest rate was drop but nearly enough to what economist wanted.
    So as you can see its more complex they what you see t.v, USA suffering resession is part of growing process of globalizations such as companies going from one nation, merging with other companies, competing for lowest paying jobs.
    Please read up on international economics and your eyes will open.

  • 19 mariana chavez // Feb 17, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    For anyone still sitting on the fence, watch these videos, in particular the last one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcZTMb1ZVRI

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHAB27nLn6M

    http://thebogles.com/blog/2008/02/transcript-of-lessigs-video-on-obama/

    http://accidentalideas.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/lawrence-lessig-explains-his-support-for-barack-obama/

Leave a Comment