Poll: Clinton takes charge in New Hampshire

By Bill Schneider
CNN Senior Political Analyst

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Where do things stand with New Hampshire Democrats since the Democratic presidential candidates debated in Manchester June 3?

The CNN/WMUR/New Hampshire Union Leader debate did exactly what it was supposed to do. It helped the New Hampshire voters sort out the candidates.

In early April, New Hampshire Democrats were all over the place. The front-runners -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York; Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois; and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina -- were closely matched. Clinton was at 27 percent, Edwards was at 21 percent and Obama was at 20 percent. It was essentially a jump ball. (Interactive: Poll results)

Who jumped highest after the debate? Clinton. According to a new CNN/WMUR poll of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters released Monday, the New York senator has surged into the lead, with 36 percent support. Obama has held fairly steady at 22 percent, while Edwards has lost support. He's now at 12 percent. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)

The debate got another player into the game -- Bill Richardson, whose support has reached 10 percent.

The poll involved telephone interviews with 309 New Hampshire adults who plan to vote in the Democratic primary January 22, 2008. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 6 percentage points.

The picture gets a little clearer if we assume Al Gore will not run. Clinton leads New Hampshire with 39 percent, followed by Obama with 24 percent, Edwards with 14 percent and Richardson with 11 percent.

'Leadership' sets Clinton apart

Clinton seems to have impressed Democrats by taking charge in the debate. "The differences among us are minor," Clinton said. "The differences between us and the Republicans are major."

Asked which candidate is the strongest leader, Democrats picked Clinton, hands down. None of the others come close.

But can she be elected? Democrats think so. They see Clinton as the candidate with the best chance of beating the Republicans next year.

Do Democrats think she's likeable? Not really. Clinton runs third on likability. Obama comes across as the most likable Democrat.

Here's how he answered a question about making English the official language: "When we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people."

Edwards may have lost points because he criticized other Democrats. "Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama did not say anything about how they were going to vote until they appeared on the floor of the Senate and voted," Edwards said about the Iraq war funding bill during the debate. "They were among the last people to vote."

Richardson may have gained points because he sounded firm and decisive.

"First day as president, I would shut down Guantanamo," Richardson said during the debate. "I would shut down Abu Ghraib and secret prisons. That is the moral authority that we don't have."

The key factor behind Clinton's lead? Women. Clinton leads Obama by two to one among Democratic women. Among Democratic men, Clinton and Obama are just about tied.

For Democrats, the war in Iraq overwhelms all other issues. Fifty-seven percent of New Hampshire Democrats say Iraq is the most important issue for their vote. That's up from 39 percent in April. Even though she has drawn some criticism in the past from anti-war activists, Clinton's lead is just as strong among Democrats whose top concern is Iraq as it is among Democrats concerned about other issues.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/11/nh.poll.schneider/index.html

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg leaves GOP
By SARA KUGLER, Associated Press Writer


New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday switched his party status from Republican to unaffiliated, a stunning move certain to be seen as a prelude to an independent presidential bid that would upend the 2008 race.

The billionaire former CEO, who was a lifelong Democrat before he switched to the GOP for his first mayoral run, said the change in voter registration does not mean he is running for president.

"Although my plans for the future haven't changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city," he said in a statement.

Despite his coyness about his aspirations, the mayor's decision to switch stokes speculation that he will pursue the White House, challenging the Democratic and Republican nominees with a legitimate and well-financed third-party bid.

Bloomberg has an estimated worth of more than $5 billion and easily could underwrite a White House run, much like Texas businessman Ross Perot in 1992. Bloomberg spent more than $155 million for his two mayoral campaigns, including $85 million when he won his second term in 2005.

The 65-year-old mayor has fueled the presidential buzz with increasing out-of-state travel, including New Hampshire last weekend; a greater focus on national issues and repeated criticism of the partisan politics that dominate Washington.

"The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy," he said in a speech Monday at the start of a University of Southern California conference about the advantages of nonpartisan governing.

A Bloomberg entry would roil the already volatile and wide-open race to succeed President Bush.

"If he runs, this guarantees a Republican will be the next president of the United States. The Democrats have to be shaking in their boots," said Greg Strimple, a Republican strategist in New York who is unaligned in the race.

The belief among some operatives is that Bloomberg's moderate positions would siphon votes from the Democratic nominee. Others say it's not clear and his impact would depend on the nominees.

Former Democratic Party Chairman Donald Fowler said Bloomberg would be "a disturbing factor to both parties," but the mayor would probably draw more Republican votes simply because "Republicans are more disenchanted than Democrats."

"Democrats are pretty happy with their candidates," Fowler said. "The Republicans are absolutely in disarray."

He called Bloomberg "an exceptionally capable guy" who is "hard-nosed and accomplished," but argued that the obstacles for a third-party candidate are so daunting that it would be nearly impossible for Bloomberg to win.

In 1992, Perot captured 19 percent of the popular vote as Democrat Bill Clinton seized the presidency from incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush. Independent Ralph Nader played the spoiler in the 2000 race, taking votes from Democrat Al Gore in a disputed election won by President George W. Bush.

Most polls find Bloomberg drawing votes from Republicans.

"He could have a significant impact on the campaign," said independent pollster Scott Rasmussen. "Nationally there's a significant segment of the electorate that would give serious consideration to Bloomberg as a candidate."

Strategists say he could mount a third-party campaign by stressing that he is a two-term mayor in a Democratic city and that he built his reputation as a political independent, social moderate and fiscal conservative.

Throughout his 5 1/2 years as mayor, Bloomberg has often been at odds with his party and Bush. He supports gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control and stem cell research, and raised property taxes to help solve a fiscal crisis after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But he never seemed willing to part with the GOP completely, raising money for the 2004 presidential convention and contributing to Bush and other Republican candidates.

Just last year, he told a group of Manhattan Republicans about his run for mayor: "I couldn't be prouder to run on the Republican ticket and be a Republican."

On most occasions, Bloomberg has rolled his eyes at the suggestion that he might one day be a presidential contestant. But during a holiday party with City Hall staffers last December he performed a Bruce Springsteen rendition of "Born to Run."

Appearing Monday at Google Inc.'s California campus, Bloomberg teased questioners about a presidential bid, refusing to rule out the prospect but repeating that he plans to serve out his term through 2009. And he didn't debunk a report that he talked about an independent presidential bid with former Sen. David Boren, D-Okla.

Asked about a hypothetical independent candidate entering the race, Bloomberg launched a broad critique of the Bush administration and Congress and lamented the presidential debates to date.

"I think the country is in trouble," Bloomberg said, citing the war in Iraq and America's declining standing globally.

"Our reputation has been hurt very badly in the last few years," he said. "We've had a go-it-alone mentality in a world where, because of communications and transportation, you should be going exactly in the other direction."

His entry into the campaign would give the presidential contest a decidedly New York flavor, with Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York senator on the Democratic side, and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani on the Republican.

___

Associated Press Writers Liz Sidoti, Jim Kuhnhenn and Libby Quaid in Washington contributed to this report.

Obama for the Heart, Edwards for the Head?
David Corn
Tue Jun 19, 4:22 PM ET

The Nation -- One spoke to the heart. One spoke to the head. But both presidential candidates had the same mission: to prevent Senator Hillary Clinton from claiming the soul of their party.

On Tuesday, at the annual Take Back America conference--a three-day gathering in Washington, DC, of thousands of progressive activists--Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards, each an aspirant for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, delivered back-to-back speeches that delineated the stark difference in their political courtship styles.

Obama went first. He started with his own story, talking about his days as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, when he was paid $12,000 a year by church groups to help establish job training and after-school programs in a neighborhood hit hard by a steel plant closing. He described his subsequent entry into local politics and decried a Washington dominated by special interests where "all you see...is another scandal, or a petty argument, or the persistent stubbornness of a President who refuses to end this war in Iraq." Blasting lobbyists for oil and pharmaceutical companies, he exclaimed, "They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this government, but we;re here to tell them it's not for sale."

That was a good applause line. The cynical ways of Washington, he said, are of no use to an Iowa couple he met who own a small business and cannot longer afford health care coverage. Pay-to-play politics in Washington, he pointed out, does not help the workers of Newton, Iowa, who lost their jobs when Maytag closed their plant and shipped their jobs overseas; nor does it do much for the still-homeless in New Orleans, the 45 million Americans without health insurance, and the 15 million American children living in poverty. "The time for the can't-do, won't-do, won't-even-try style of politics is over," Obama proclaimed. "It's time to turn the page."

And to turn the page requires..hope. Obama, jokingly referring to himself as a "hope-monger," maintained that hope gets results, and he pointed to his accomplishments as a state senator in Illinois: passing legislation that tightened government ethics rules, that reformed the death penalty, and that expanded health care insurance for children. His big message: hope can cause transformation. Washington can be changed; the nation can be changed. He knows that because his own life marks a transformation in America. "On paper," he said, it is impossible that I am here--a U.S. senator running for president." It was obvious what he meant: a black U.S. senator running for president.

Obama touched the right policy points. He promised to sign into a law a universal health care plan by the end of his first term. He called for more money for education. He vowed to place a cap on greenhouse-gas emissions and raise fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. He voiced support for a minimum wage that is a living wage and for legislation that would help unions organize workers. He urged the shutdown of the Guantanamo detention facility. Noting that he had opposed the Iraq war from the start--"we knew back then that it was dangerous diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th; we knew back then that we could find ourselves in an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences"--he highlighted his previous proposal to begin the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

But his appeal was not his policy shopping list. He was promoting himself foremost as an agent of change who can bring about "a new kind of politics." He offered the crowd "a simple truth, a truth I learned all those years ago as an organizer in Chicago...that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it."

And he connected. The crowd was jazzed by the combo of personal story, progressive policy proposals, and message of transformation. For an audience member looking to be inspired--to be wowed--Obama made it easy. I am your man, he proclaimed. He was convincing.

Moments after Obama was done, Edwards took to the stage. He said little about himself. But he opened by stating he had been wrong to vote to grant George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Congress, he insisted, must display strength and conviction and shut down Bush's war. (This was a slight dig at Obama and Clinton, who recently voted against Iraq war funding but who have not been vocal leaders in opposing funding for the war.) But his primary theme extended beyond the war. America, he said, is currently regarded with disdain throughout the world. Instead, it must become a global "force for good."

He went through the litany. The United States has failed the world in its weak response to the genocide of Darfur. The United States has failed the world by not doing enough to spur economic development in the poorer regions of the globe. (He hailed micro-lending programs.) The United States has failed the world by refusing to limit its carbon emissions. But imagine, he said, if the United States would change its energy policies and reduce its oil consumption. Oil prices would fall and Middle Eastern autocrats would have less money in their pockets. And imagine, he said, if the United States and Europe turned toward biofuels. Africa--a continent full of cheap land and cheap labor--could become a source of such energy supplies. "Millions of children," Edwards said, "would be lifted of poverty."

From global warming to biofuels to poverty in Africa. This was a bit Clintonian--as in Bill. Edwards was displaying his policy wonkishness, while offering himself as a man who knows what must be done to lead the United States in the post-Bush world.

Next, he turned to domestic matters. He referred to his antipoverty policy work of recent years. He called for a national housing policy that does not "cluster poor people together." He proposed a "College for Everyone" program that would provide students money for tuition and books if they worked ten hours a week. He promoted his own universal health care proposal, suggesting it was more universal than Obama's. "I will speak for the poor," he said. "I will speak for the uninsured. I will speak for the disenfranchised. This is my life." Paraphrasing Gandhi, he remarked, "You have to be the change you believe in." The audience applauded Edwards, but he had not rocked the house as much as Obama had.

Edwards, who became wealthy as a successful trial attorney, was arguing a case. Obama, the former organizer, had delivered a motivational speech. There was much overlap between the two presentations: America has to treat its less-fortunate citizens better; it must repair its relationship to the rest of the world; and all this depends on you. There were no apparent policy differences. (Only health care experts can argue how the health care plans of these two candidates vary.) Yet each speech was a different experience. Obama spoke as if he was addressing people looking for love. Edwards spoke as if he was before people about to make a hire. Either man, though, will have to win votes of both affection and confidence to best the woman in the lead.

Sharpton Blasts GOP No-Shows for Forum

Date: Thursday, July 26, 2007
By: Cheryl Wittenaur, Associated Press


ST. LOUIS - (AP) Civil rights leader Al Sharpton said Thursday black voters should punish Republicans who fail to show for presidential candidates' forums hosted by the National Urban League and the NAACP.

"We can only assume you weren't courting us," Sharpton said. "Republicans have to lay out their policies and court the African-American vote. We need to have our interests debated in the market place."

Sharpton noted there won't be another NAACP or Urban League conference before the presidential primaries.

"When I was in high school, I may not have gone to the prom with the girl I wanted, but with the girl I could get," he said, suggesting Republicans leave black voters little choice but to vote for a Democrat.

Sharpton was among a panel of black leaders, political strategists from both major parties and journalists who discussed the black vote in the 2008 presidential election at the Urban League's national conference here.

Four Democratic presidential candidates are scheduled to address the conference Friday -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, John Edwards and Rep. Dennis Kucinich. The two Republicans who were scheduled -- Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- canceled, citing business in Washington and Philadelphia.

Earlier this month, all eight Democratic candidates participated in a forum at the NAACP meeting in Detroit. The only Republican was Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a long-shot candidate.

Shannon Reeves, director of state and local development for the Republican National Committee, said his role in the RNC was to get them to understand the black community.

"There are some in our party who don't want to associate with our community," he said to groans from the crowd. He added that "black folks had to kick the door open. The Democratic Party didn't open it wide and say come on in."

Urban League president Marc Morial said black voters deserve more than "drive-by politics and last-minute appeals to churches." But, he admitted, "sometimes we aren't good about getting out to vote." He said no candidate has talked about black economic development, which is the civil rights organization's major thrust.

There's a couple of things I find interesting about what's going on now that the election is moving forward when it comes to the Republicans.

No. 1 is how they've pushed most of their debate appearances back into September and October. Do they really believe that giving the Dems all this early TV time in front of the public without putting their own policies out there is a good thing?

Or do they really believe that they've got a better plan for the future that when they come out with it, will knock the Dem's ideas right out of the park?

Or are they must buying time??

Also, it says a whole lot that they would would show up at either forum hosted by the two biggest Black organizations there are ... yet, haul a Black Conservative in front of the camera to tell us that they want to be our friends and are very much interested in forming an alliance with us??

Does that make any sense to anybody??

Clinton Draws Boos From Bloggers


CHICAGO (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton refused Saturday to forsake campaign donations from lobbyists, turning aside challenges from her two main rivals with a rare defense of the special interest industry.

“A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans, they actually do,” Clinton said, drawing boos and hisses from liberal bloggers at the second Yearly Kos convention.

Despite their own infatuations with special interest money, former Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama put Clinton on the spot during a debate that featured seven of the eight major Democratic presidential candidates. They fielded questions from a crowd of 1,500 bloggers, most of them liberal. The gathering marked another advancement for the rising new wing of the Democratic Party, the so-called netroots.

The candidates were put on the defensive from the start.

The first question went to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who was asked why he once cited Justice Byron White, a conservative, as a model Supreme Court justice. “I screwed up on that,” he replied.

Clinton was asked what three lessons she learned from her failed health care reform effort during the presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton. “It is not enough to have a plan. You’ve got to have a political strategy,” the New York senator said.

“In 90 seconds, I don’t have the time to tell you all the mistakes I made.”

Edwards received a loud cheer when he suggested his rivals were tinkering around the edges — “I just heard some discussion about negotiation, compromise” — rather than overhauling government. He said the nation needs “big change, not small change.”

The party’s 2004 vice presidential nominee, Edwards called on the field to join him in refusing donations from Washington lobbyists. He suggested that accepting lobbyists’ money would make Democrats no better than Republicans.

“We don’t want to trade their insiders for ours,” said the former North Carolina senator.

Clinton, who accepts such donations, did not respond to Edwards until much later in the forum when the question was put to her. Even then, she stalled by stating the obvious.

“I think it’s a position that John certainly has taken,” she said, drawing laughter from the crowd. It was not clear whether the audience was laughing with her or at her.

Nonetheless, the bloggers booed and hissed when Clinton insisted a moment later that nobody would believe that she could be influenced by lobbyists’ money. So would she continue to accept those donations?

“Yes, I will,” she said, arguing that plenty of lobbyists represent good causes. “They represent nurses, they represent social workers, they represent, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people.”

Obama rejected that argument, saying Clinton should know better because special interest money helped sink her health care package in 1993. The crowd cheered wildly.

Edwards asked crowd members how many of them were represented by lobbyists. A few hands went up, and his point was made.

While they don’t accept money directly from federal lobbyists, Edwards and Obama are not above benefiting from the broader lobbying community. Both accept money from firms that have lobbying operations, and Obama in particular has tapped the networks of
lobbyists’ friends and co-workers. Obama, a former state senator from Illinois, has long accepted money from state lobbyists.

Again and again, Edwards took swipes at Clinton. On terrorism, he said: “I don’t believe we’re safer. I don’t agree with Sen. Clinton on that.” In a previous debate, Clinton had said the country had been made safer.

Clinton explained Saturday that while post-9/11 reforms have improved the nation’s safety, the country is not as safe under President Bush as it should be. “I listened carefully to John. I think we have a vigorous agreement,” she said, coldly.

The Kos convention is a sign of the times.

Gone are the days when candidates and political parties could talk to passive voters through mass media, largely controlling what messages were distributed, how the messages went out and who heard them. The Internet has helped create millions of media outlets and
given anyone the power to express an opinion or disseminate information in a global forum, and connect with others who have similar interests.

Clinton is viewed skeptically by the the blogging community, mainly for her history of hawkish views on Iraq. Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos and spiritual leader of the convention, said Clinton still might be able to mitigate her problems.

“We may decide she’s not our first choice, but she’s not a bad choice,” he said.

Poll: Clinton firmly positioned as Democratic front-runner


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York retains her position firmly at the front of the pack of Democratic presidential candidates, with a poll Thursday giving her 44 percent of the vote, nearly double the 24 percent garnered by the next-closest candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was favored by 16 percent of the 458 registered voters who described themselves as Democrats or as independents who lean Democratic.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson followed with 5 percent, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware attracted 3 percent and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio won 2 percent. Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska each attracted less than one half of one percent.

While Clinton appear to be firmly entrenched as the front-runner, there is one important warning sign for the Clinton campaign.

Among Democrats who did not graduate from college, she leads Obama by 26 points, but among Democrats with a college degree, Clinton has only a three-point edge.

Turnout is much higher among college graduates, particularly in the primary season, so the Clinton camp may have to work harder to turn her lead in the polls into victory at the ballot box.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll of Iowa voters released on August 3 had Clinton, Obama and Edwards in a virtual tie in that key early caucus state. Obama led with 27 percent, while Clinton and Edwards both had 26 percent.

The CNN/Opinion Research poll, which had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 4.5 points, was conducted August 6-8 and involved telephone interviews with 1,029 adults.

Since June, no candidate's support has changed by more than one point.

CNN Polling Director Keating Holland contributed to this report.




Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/09/2008.dems.poll/index.html

Bush says Clinton will be Dem nominee

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
Mon Sep 24, 11:13 PM ET


President Bush, breaking his rule not to talk about presidential politics, says he believes Hillary Rodham Clinton will defeat Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primaries. Bush also predicts that Clinton will be defeated in the general election by the Republican nominee.

"I believe our candidate can beat her but it's going to be a tough race," the president said.

It has been difficult for Bush to remain silent about the 2008 president race, despite his promises not to be the "prognosticator in chief." He has been talking about the race and handicapping candidates during off-the-record chats with visitors to the White House.

He finally went public with his Clinton prediction in an interview for a book by Bill Sammon, a reporter for The Washington Examiner.

"She's got a great national presence and this is becoming a national primary," Bush told Sammon. "And therefore the person with the national presence, who has got the ability to raise enough money to sustain an effort in a multiplicity of sites, has got a good chance to be nominated."

The White House did not challenge Sammon's account.

"Frankly, it's difficult to not talk about the '08 election a lot," White House press secretary Dana Perino said. "There's a lot of interest in it and it does have consequence."

She denied the notion that Bush was talking up Clinton's prospects to energize the Republican base against her candidacy.

"The bottom line is, it really doesn't matter what the president thinks about who will win the Democratic primary," Perino said. "There's going to be a showdown at the OK Corral and they'll figure out whose going to be the nominee and from there the president will campaign vigorously for the Republican candidate.

Colleen Flanagan, a spokeswoman for Clinton's rival Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, said in a statement: "I can understand why the president would want Senator Clinton to be the nominee."

On the Republican side, Bush has expressed surprise that former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani remains the front-runner despite his liberal positions on social and cultural issues normally critical to the party base, according to The Washington Post. It ran a story about Bush's recent off-the-record chat with television news anchors and Sunday show hosts.

Bush said Giuliani's popularity was a sign of how important the terrorism issue is to Republican voters, the newspaper said. It said Bush cautioned against ruling out Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., saying he had managed to revive his campaign after an implosion earlier this year.

Inside the Hispanic vote: Growing in numbers, growing in diversity
By Manav Tanneeru
CNN

(CNN) -- As Democratic and Republican presidential candidates scour the country for votes during the 2008 campaign, they'll inevitably court the Hispanic community, a voting group growing rapidly in number and diversity.

The Hispanic vote is neither homogenous nor loyal to one party. Though the current political moment seems to favor the Democratic Party, experts say that affinity should not be taken for granted.

The Hispanic community is the fastest-growing minority group in the United States, according to the U.S. census.

But its percentage of the electorate is lower than its numbers as a whole because of lower citizenship rates, less voter participation and a youthful demographic. Of the nation's more than 44 million people of Hispanic origin, about a third are too young to vote.

But all that's changing.

Before the midterm elections in 2006, the Pew Hispanic Center, a Washington-based think-tank, estimated more than 17 million Hispanics would be eligible to vote in that election. The number represented a 7 percent increase from 2004.

The Hispanic share of the U.S. electorate increased from 8.2 percent to 8.6 percent during the same period, Pew estimated.

That percentage may grow even more by 2008 as a result of citizenship drives, get-out-the-vote campaigns and the natural growth of the community.

Univision, the Spanish-language broadcast giant, has thrown its considerable weight behind a citizenship drive this year. "We feel that empowering our audience is good for Hispanics and the country," Univision President Ray Rodriguez told the Wall Street Journal in May 2007, adding that it was "a totally nonpartisan effort."

Organizations such as the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, or NALEO, are also mobilizing the vote.

"We have spearheaded a massive naturalization campaign and close to, I think, a million applications will have been submitted this fiscal year," said NALEO's executive director, Arturo Vargas.

The change in the electorate could play a significant role in possible swing states like Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida during the 2008 election. There's a reason the Democratic Party decided to hold its presidential convention in Denver, experts said.

"I don't think it's really registered with people just how influential the Latino vote can be in some of these state primaries," Vargas said.

The Hispanic vote has historically been aligned with the Democratic Party, an allegiance established during the administrations of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, said Harry Pachon of the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.

That political alignment was further cemented when Proposition 187 -- designed to deny health care, education and welfare benefits to illegal immigrants -- was pushed by Republicans and passed in California in 1994.

But the Republican Party, intent on gaining more Hispanic voters, made inroads during the early parts of this decade, culminating in the 2004 presidential campaign by President Bush. Exit polls showed he carried 40 to 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

"There are a lot of issues that Latinos agree with Republican philosophy," Pachon said, pointing to the GOP stances on entrepreneurship, fiscal policies, its appeal to Hispanic evangelicals and its policies toward Cuba.

But the heated immigration debate, when many congressional Republicans disagreed with President Bush over granting a path toward citizenship for many illegal immigrants, may erode those gains.

"The Republicans are really caught between a rock and a hard place," Pachon said.

They must balance the interests of a segment of their constituency that is very anti-immigrant with the interests of a "Latino voter that is affluent and middle class, who can theoretically be reached by Republican Party principles," he said.

It is little wonder then, that among Republican presidential candidates, only Arizona Sen. John McCain agreed to appear at an Univision debate scheduled for mid-September. The debate didn't happen. All but one of the Democratic contenders appeared for their debate.

Some Republican leaders said last week not participating in such debates could harm the party's standing with minority groups for the 2008 election and beyond.

"What are we going to do -- meet in a country club in the suburbs one day?" former congressman and GOP vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp told The Washington Post. "If we're going to be competitive with people of color, we've got to ask them for their vote."

"This [political environment] gives Democrats a huge advantage," Adam J. Segal, who heads the Hispanic Voter Project at Johns Hopkins University, said in an e-mail. He also runs the 2050 Group, a multicultural public relations firm based in Washington.

"They are likely to draw far more Hispanic votes than in 2004 and would gain at least a half-million vote advantage" under one of his group's more conservative scenarios, Segal said.

But the Hispanic community is diverse and voting interests are not homogenous, which imperils such predictions.

Hispanic immigrants originate from more than a dozen different countries, arrived in the U.S. through numerous immigration waves and have different perceptions of communal identity, Segal said.

For example, a Cuban-American may vote Republican because of the GOP's long-standing policies toward Cuba, whereas a Puerto Rican voter in New York City or a voter in a border state may be driven by different motives.

The culture of a state can also affect a Hispanic voter's behavior. A voter in Texas may be more conservative, whereas a voter with a similar background in California may be more liberal, Pachon said.

There may also be generational cleavages, Pachon said. A study he conducted with a colleague on the impact of religion on the Latino vote revealed differences between first-, second- and third-generation Hispanics. The first and third generations said religion was more important to them when compared to the second generation.

Additionally, despite the furor over immigration, that issue might not be the most important to Hispanic voters, NALEO's Vargas said. "If the election were held today, I think immigration would be a significant factor, but we're more than a year away from the election," he said.

Based on a series of town hall meetings conducted in 2004 and conversations throughout this year, Vargas said education, the Iraq war, the economy and health care may take precedence over immigration.

"We need to distinguish issues that matter to the Latino community versus the issues that matter to Latino voters," he said. "Those are not the same."

quote:

Originally posted by EbonyRose:
There's a couple of things I find interesting about what's going on now that the election is moving forward when it comes to the Republicans.

No. 1 is how they've pushed most of their debate appearances back into September and October. Do they really believe that giving the Dems all this early TV time in front of the public without putting their own policies out there is a good thing?

Or do they really believe that they've got a better plan for the future that when they come out with it, will knock the Dem's ideas right out of the park?

Or are they must buying time??

Also, it says a whole lot that they would would show up at either forum hosted by the two biggest Black organizations there are ... yet, haul a Black Conservative in front of the camera to tell us that they want to be our friends and are very much interested in forming an alliance with us??

Does that make any sense to anybody??

It could be a tactical move: as the Democrats reveal more of their agenda the Republicans can develope counter-moves to rebuff them.

Truthfully I've never had any faith in the Republican party and any vote I've ever given to the Dems was just basically a "no" vote to the GOP party.I'm tired of voting for the lesser of the two evils, its time for a significant third party with a real agenda to come forward.

Heads up!

Obama will be on the Tyra Banks Show today.

You know, it's really funny looking back on that post! Who woulda thought that the Repubs would turn tail and RUN instead of face Black people and our issues!

That is soooo very, very sad!

And it makes me wonder if it isn't going to backfire on them. I know they don't care about us and our vote. But, there are more and more "moderate" or "independent" voters now, read: Young yuppie White people who actually really do have Black friends and associates. What the Repubs did by ditching this debate was to show them just how racist and prejudiced they really are.

If the Dems don't use this as election ammunition, they will be more pitiful that I've always thought they were. Which is really a whole lot!

A third party? Most definitely. And actually I think I see one on the horizon. I think sooner rather than later an Independent Party is going to be formed. Probably something running in the middle between Repubs and Dems, which is pretty much where I'm at right now.

Political Confusion: Demopublican or Republicrat?

ExpertVoter.org

This is a very interesting website with video clips of each candidate's position on the issues.

The usual suspects are there ... but also, there are a few *other* folks who have apparently thrown their hat in the ring as well!

For example: Check out this video from a Black female candidate ... this is Ruth Bryant White and her stance on Immigration!