According to 2005 figures there were over 43 million Latinos here, and they were the fastest growing minority group.  One out of every seven in 2005 and now having more kids than other groups here.  They are predicted to reach 40% percent of our population by 2020 (I believe).  If female Latinos are going for Hillary, it's a good sign for the future of the Democratic party, a party that Latinos know will do more for them than Republicans.  And if the less than college educated among them votes Hillary, that bodes well, too, for the party's future, because it will take time for Latinos to get into the position where more can afford the intolerable costs of college.

As for black voters shifting to Obama, if Hillary ultimately wins the nomination, black voters will, in turn, vote for her because they know what the other party will do for them.  Each candidate has his/her constituencies and just as I wouldn't dislike upper-class educated Democrats choosing Obama in the primaries, neither would I look down on "less than college stand by your man" Latino women supporting Hillary.  We are all God's children, as some say, and who am I to look for reasons to hate the choices our party members make, especially if they have good reasons to make such choices.  

While it is true that black voters may eventually support a white candidate if needed, for the first time they see that they have an alternative to operating through a white surrogate.

Interesting interpretation of the CNN report and an interesting characterization/classification of a portion of the female Lationo population.  I'd make a guess that Obama wouldn't use those words to describe these women.

No, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Hillary reached out to them prior to the primary by going on TV and talking about Bill's infidelities. The Clinton's know who they are going after.

As I explained in a post on another topic, when a woman cannot make enough money to make it on her own she will stay with an unworthy man for practical reasons. In the Latino culture this is common. The other part is that, from what I can tell, it is more expected in that culture. I am not putting anyone down, just telling it like it is.

When a woman is in the professions and can make enough money she is less likely to stand by her man when he is mishaving because she can make it on her own. The polls show that working class (I suppose this means not college educated) women are the ones supporting Clinton, not women who have college and beyond educations.

Sorry you think I'm being mean. These are just the facts, just the facts. These working class women can get a vicarious pay back by having one of their own be president over all the men in the country.

as someone who would like to see Obama elected, with the help of Latinos and working women, if he's nominated, how about easing up some.  It will hurt Obama.

"As I explained in a post on another topic, when a woman cannot make enough money to make it on her own she will stay with an unworthy man for practical reasons. In the Latino culture this is common." ... "These working class women can get a vicarious pay back by having one of their own be president over all the men in the country."  

Do any of the other women/men out there feel the same as I do?  The Republicans will be more than happy to use these types of words to get the working class women and Latinos.

This is analysis for Chr-st sake, like saying traffic gets worse at 5:00 pm. The Clintons are doing this analysis all the time and I am telling you what they appear to be doing. Its not my fault that this is their strategy. Personally I think these Latino women are voting against their own interests but hey, its a free country.

BTW,since when are we not allowed to analyze Democrats on this site?  I get very tired of this "let's all agree, or appear to agree" mentality. The Democratic party is a vehicle for expression of democracy. In a democracy we have freedom of speech. In a real democracy people keep a watch over their government, and that includes the political parties. Only in countries like the old Soviet Union would one be prevented from analyzing the "party".

Frankly I think these women are being manipulated, but you have to hand it to the Clintons. They have figured out how to used the sex card to their advantage.

I had only hoped that you would stop stereotyping Latinos and working-class women in the manner that you do.  But if you feel you must, you, of course, can.  

I think it is amusing that Clinton supporters made such a fuss over allowing the hotel workers to caucus at the casinos. When they thought this group would vote for Obama they made a fuss that this was unfair. Turns out that a lot of these people actually voted for Clinton. If the Clinton supporters had been able to block these caucuses as tried to do in court, would Clinton have won? I think this is an interesting and amusing question.

And is the equivalent of the stereotypes that have been thrown around at blacks.

The Latinas who voted for Clinton did so not because they are uneducated, dumb, pregnant and in the kitchen standing by their men.

Many of them are single mothers and union members who defied the leadership of their union in order to vote for a woman. It was the opposite of standing by a man.  They were backing a woman, often in direct opposition to their male shop stewards.

Also, the reason the NEA went to court to fight holding the caucuses in the workplace has been so badly misrepresented and misunderstood.

The real reason for the fight is the following.

In a caucus, your vote is public record; it's not a secret ballot as in a primary.  If you cast that public vote in your neighborhood, you might be subject to peer pressure from your neighbors but most people could probably withstand that.  But pressure from your shop steward at your workplace could be a different story since that could impact your livelihood.  

That's what the fight was really about, not voter supppression.  It was the Obama people, because they were endorsed by the Culinary Workers Union, who fought to keep the vote in workplace because they thought it would work to their advantage.

Whatever you think of the candidates, please do not insult Hispanic women.  They show far more courage than many of their Anglo counterparts.

Eloquently said on both matters.  Thank you for standing up to sterotyping.

I speak as a man, a real man, who has never manipulated any Latin American women such as the likes of Jennifer Lopez, Carmen Miranda, or Senorita Wencez, as much as I have been tempted.

But as a real man who also has his feminine side which I get in touch with by decorating the house, choosing fabrics for chairs, reading Marie Claire and Vogue, and decorating duck a l'orange, I must say that the Latin American women I have known, and I've known a few, are not so stupid as to need any non Latino she-male to tell them what their best interests are.

If less than college educated Latino women vote for Hillary it may be because they see someone sympatico to their own interests, a bright woman who has great accomplishments and who has been the champion of all women--white, black, Latino and whatever is left.  And kids.

To say they, the Latinos, are stupid enough to vote solely out of sympathy for a woman whose husband had at the most 1 or 2 minor affairs or encounters is very, very condescending.  I think that you really, and I say this with the best intentions, should apologize to Jennifer Lopes, Victoria Principal, Carmen Miranda, Lupe Velez, and all the other Latino women who you unfairly labeled.

I approve of the message.