Skip to comments.Hillary Clinton: The Asian-American choice [75% of Asian Dems voted for Hillary]
Posted on 02/06/2008 12:24:42 PM PST by charles m
At the big Oprah-headlined rally for Barack Obama in Los Angeles on Saturday, surprise guest Maria Shriver, California's First Lady, cited -- as one of a string of reasons why the state's Democrats should vote for the Senator from Illinois -- the fact that, like California, he was "diverse."
In the wake of Super Tuesday, we've learned that such diversity doesn't necessarily include Latinos, especially those older than 30. But a self-congratulatory article in the India Express touting the influence of Indian-Americans in the Democratic primary process reveals even greater constraints on the appeal of Obama's diversity. In California, exit poll data suggest that 69 percent of Latinos voted for Clinton, while only 29 percent voted for Obama. But Asian-American voters skewed even more sharply pro-Clinton: 75 percent voted for her, compared to 23 percent for Obama. That's almost as high as the percentage of the black vote (78 percent) that went for Obama.
In California, 8 percent of all Democratic voters identified themselves as Asian -- a category that encompasses a vast swath of cultures. Truly, California's diversity is extraordinary. But it doesn't appear, so far, to translate into a willingness to vote for a "diverse" candidate for President.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
Hmmm. Bundled voters.
By this poll, Barack Obama has 66% of the Iranian-American vote.
Obama supporters remind many Chinese Americans of the Red Guard and the Cultural Revolution’s cult of personality. Change! Yes We Can! Change!
Indians seem to love the Clintons. Love them. I’m not sure why.
Asians are racist...... black is anethma
However, if white males were rejecting Obama by this much, they would be characterized as knuckle-dragging racists. And if they were rejecting Hillary by this much, they would be characterized as knuckle-dragging sexists.
How come nobody’s been calling out Shriver on what was obviously a racially motivated statement?
Because they all find themselves fighting over the same rungs of the ladder to upward mobility.
Maybe they are just smarter and know Obama will be an umitigated disaster?
Because Asian Americans see the Clintons as part of their own culture where they must purchase favour.
Most of Obama’s problems last night can be explained by the fact that Hispanics, Asians, and Jews don’t seem to like him.
Why aren't they all voting Republican?
If Republicans can't even get Asians to vote for them, how to they expect that any amount of pandering to Hispanics will bring them into the Republican fold?
Let's talk about the big tent. Politcally Americans are dumba$$es to nominate the worst of the worst.
Seems you were spot on, normy.
Actually, both ABC and NBC mentioned that several times for Latinos. Granted they used things similar to ‘cultural tensions’ rather than just coming up and calling the trend as a case of racism.
75% of Asians vote for Hillary = Rascists
That is a thought. However, republicans can’t even get white guy’s like me to vote for them.
The Asian diswashers in New York have spoken. They contributed to Hillary. The Riady’s, Johnnie Chung, Maria Hsia, John Huang and a host of others have backed the Clintons before. I expect they will again. They just have to find the right gardener or strawmen to do it. Will John Huang expect to be given a secret clearance and be placed in the commerce Dept.? Most likely. We know Ron Brown and Vince Foster won’t be back. Count on Sandy Berger and the
vandals from the West Wing to return. Everyone should read Unlimited Access for a true picture of what this Clinton gang is like. It will make you sick.
Actually, there are parallels to 'white' racism. 'Nordic' racists might consider southern Europeans (not to mention Slavs) as being beneath them, but would consider light skinned Asians as being even further down the racist totem pole.
“Truly, California’s diversity is extraordinary. But it doesn’t appear, so far, to translate into a willingness to vote for a “diverse” candidate for President.”
Maybe it’s because alot of voters think the future of the country is more important than what someone looks like?
Hey “Journalist”: Voting for someone on the basis of their ethnicity is not just foolish, it’s racist.
Maybe not true of Asians in general, but it seems the Chinese are not very patriarchal people, much more matriarchal. They naturally like the idea of a woman running things.
Chinese have a huge issue with domestic abuse. Though their concept of an ideal East Asian guy seems to equate to what would be considered in the West as a ‘poof.’
Apparently Asian racism is as inter-racially hierarchical as European racism.
However, some of the things seem iffy. There was Sino-Western contact far, far earlier than 90 years ago, and have heard that Asian racism is more Asians on top, non-Asians more or less equally on bottom.
Sure, she’s invited in, but, it won’t be long before you hear them say, “You go now. You tax too much!”
It’s has some links to anti-racism resources as well.
Until about 50 years ago, every race on earth was racially conscious and placed the interests of their own race and ethnicity first. The only thing that's changed is that most whites no longer do this, while every other race still does.
Will concur that 'whites' are the 'race' which has made the most strides in clamping down on racism.
That's because 'non-whites' and 'white guilt' people have pressured them into doing so. Something which 'white' racists, and several freepers, grumble about and deride. Without that pressure, 'whites' as a group would be every bit as racist as the next 'race.'
So, pressure should be kept on 'whites,' just now should be expanded to putting pressure on racists from all 'races.'
And some 'whites' might let the comment about their 'race' being the least racist go to their heads. As a group, 'whites' may be the least racist (have already mentioned why); that 'race' still has plenty of extremely nasty racists, however.
As with other things, people should be viewed on an individual level.
Your two posts (#34 & #35) are a prime example of the moral illness infecting the West, which is leading us into cultural suicide. I’m tied up right now but I’ll have more to say about this later.
We all prefer our family to others. We discriminate in their favor. We do more for our wife or our children than we do for other women and children. It doesn't mean we hate other women and children or wish them harm. It just means that we prefer our own people to others. We don't accuse someone of "family-ism" if they put their own kids through college but not someone else's kids.
In addition, we form hierarchies and groups all the time which favor some over others. The Panamanian government isn't practicing a form of bigotry if it provides benefits to Panamanians and not to Latvians. They're discriminating in favor of people who live inside their borders. And discrimination is not only not inherently bad, but it's a necessary survival skill.
You state that people should be judged as individuals. That's fine in theory, and sometimes in practice, but it can't be rigidly followed in a multicultural society for a very simple reason. There are real differences between the races. And in a multicultural society, some races will outperform others at certain things. And this always happens. In fact, it always happens in the same way, meaning that same races always either perform well or perform poorly relative to others.
When this happens, the cry will inevitably go up for judging people as groups. It's inevitable because no one has ever come up with a society where every race performs equally well with every other race in everything. Or even most things. If we truly judges people as individuals, how many blacks would be at Harvard?
Whites are more prone to judge people as individuals than as members of groups, and it's probably a genetic trait. It's why Europe has so many small nations geographically compared to other places. It's why concepts of individual rights arose there. It's why Christianity, with its emphasis on a one-on-one relationship with God caught on there, and why the Protestant revolution carried the individualistic aspects even further.
Other races are less individualistic and more group oriented. The Japanese, whom I love dearly, are very conformist and group oriented. Hillary Clinton's lame It Takes a Village book got its name from an old African proverb, which is based on group, not on individuality.
The tendency of whites to think of people as individuals rather than group members is thus both a strength and a weakness. In a homogeneous society, it's a strength. In a multicultural society, it's a weakness because it allows the races who don't think like us to racially bully us. This is why non-whites and "white guilt" types have been able to racially neuter us so successfully. We could never do it to them because they don't think that way. Only we do.
And most obviously, this is why there's a constant demand for white nations to admit non-whites until such time as the non-whites are the majority, while no such demand is made of non-white nations. We see this Pavlovian spectacle played out every day in America or any historically white nation. Whites can't have their own clubs, people of color can. Blacks in Atlanta can openly fret about the possibility of the city losing its black majority, and we all are supposed to sympathize, while anyone worrying about whites losing their majority someplace would become a social outcast. Every white crime against a person of color is played up, while the more numerous non-white crimes against whites are downplayed.
The reason for all this is that whites are judging people as individuals while other races are operating as groups. And that will never change, and it's why Western Civilization is on the brink of demographic suicide.
I can say a lot more on this if you wish, but for now, here's a little mental quiz for you:
Once upon a time, there was a nation with two races residing in it. We'll call those races X and Y. For centuries, those races were forbidden by law and by custom from intermarrying. But one day a judge struck down those laws. In addition, the media began pushing interracial marriage. The result was that interracial marriage became a popular craze. People began interracially marrying like crazy.
In the midst of this, a man named Mr. Smith arose and shouted "Stop! These interracial marriages are wrong! They must cease!" But another man, Mr. Wilson, arose and said otherwise. He praised the interracial marriages and encouraged everyone to continue marrying outside their race.
Which one is the hater? Mr. Smith or Mr. Wilson?
In the fifth paragraph, the word “judges” should be “judged”. I hate typos!
And another typo: “same races” in the last sentence of paragraph four should be “some races”. I particularly hate typos that can’t be picked up by spell check!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.