“… the unspoken pretext is Latinos are primarily for Clinton — and there’s little evidence to support that assertion.”

I need to modify that to read, Latinos are for Clinton as Blacks are for Obama. While Clinton enjoys a clear lead among Latinos voting in Democratic primaries, it’s well short of the proportion of Black voters supporting Obama.

“Two weeks after Sen. Clinton won New Mexico the governor endorsed Sen. Obama. He is under no attack or criticisms.”

Now I understand Cleaver went on to parse what happened to Richardson down to just Latinos, but the unspoken pretext is Latinos are primarily for Clinton — and there’s little evidence to support that assertion. The bottom line, regardless, is every candidate indulges in a little intraparty arm twisting during elections. Mrs. Clinton has been race-baiting working class Whites her entire campaign.

Cleaver’s entire narrative in this article is that Richardson, along with the other politicians he mentioned did not get hammered from his racial group for his decision. His point is little more than “routine” as you defined.

This is routine backroom political intrigue, nothing more.

Since you mentioned “Former Presidential candidates”. I mentioned them.

Just as Kerry and Kennedy are very popular with their constituency, as you acknowledged, Jesse and Al are popular with their “constituency”. While there was much talk about demoting them to outdated negros –never to be called upon again (which btw has been going on for years), they could always count on some of those same critics to call on them when something went down (”Where’s Jesse and Al when you need ‘em?”). So again, likability is what is what is at stake here, not support as you mentioned earlier. As long as Cleaver is doing his job, he is in no danger of losing it just because of his choice for president.

They sure as hell have been trying to tie Clinton to the success of white women… I hear that damn near every day and have read several articles about it. White feminists are just as critical of white women politicians who support Obama as blacks are of black politicians who support Clinton. I don’t think you can really argue against that.

Again, you are right…to a point. Hillary’s run has become synonymous with WOMEN in general–not just White women. Just ask some of her Black female supporters on that one (there are a couple of the in the CBC). But again, instead of making this election about personal choice, Democrats have made it all about identity politics. Railing somebody just because they do not group vote is just wrong.

I’m not sure what Al or Jesse have to do with this. Neither of them are elected officials and neither of them have very much support outside of the black community. My only point in mentioning that Kerry and Kennedy are ex-presidential candidates is to point out that they are EXTREMELY popular both in their state as elected officials, and in the nation as a whole. They are safe in their seats.. This guy?… Maybe not.

However, I do not hear too many White people tying the historical implications of an entire race on White candidates.

They sure as hell have been trying to tie Clinton to the success of white women… I hear that damn near every day and have read several articles about it. White feminists are just as critical of white women politicians who support Obama as blacks are of black politicians who support Clinton. I don’t think you can really argue against that.

But as a superdelegate, by DNC rules he his not bound to vote in line with his constituency.

His answers speaks of his PERSONAL debt to the Clintons.

In part, you are right. However since this is politics we are talking about here, Cleaver’s relationship with the Clintons has also benefited the people in his district. As funny as it sounds, in politics you CAN have it both ways.

IMO, I think that fear is part of the reason why some of these politicians are not willing to jump on the Obama ship—fear that they will have to spend more years starting from zero in creating a relationship with the President. Whether that is right or wrong depends if that politician has a decent track record of providing positive results for his constituency.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were also former presidential candidates (If we are to use that as some prerequisite) and they too got hammered for not knee-jerking and throwing their support towards Obama after Iowa. Yet still in many quarters within the Black community, they are the first ones who are expected to raise hell on behalf of the Black community whenever there is a non-Black committed infraction. Loosing support is not the issue—its likability.

But both of them know that there is no chance AT ALL of them losing support of their constituents.

Over this issue, you are right. However, I do not hear too many White people tying the historical implications of an entire race on White candidates. Equating a vote for Obama with being on the “right” side of Black history is what’s fueling this particular issue.

As Wizz stated, HE is an elected official that is supposed to do what is in the interest of the voters who elected him to office. HOW SOON WE FORGET! The Clintons have zero to do with him being elected to Congress from the state of Kansas.

His answers speaks of his PERSONAL debt to the Clintons. If not speak loudly about why you believe Clinton is the better candidate than Obama. Tell us black folks just how Mrs. Clinton is superior to Obama and WHAT it is that she is PROMISING them. If he thinks Obama is “turkey” unworthy of the presidency come out and say so!

The problem is he CANT!

He cant have it both ways, being non-critical of Obama yet unwilling to give us a clear reason for not supporting him.

Im sure this “black” dude has benifitted from the same type of “group” black support.