Dobbs asked if Obama is "pandering to ethnocentric special interests again" by accepting Richardson's endorsement
SUMMARY: Lou Dobbs introduced the March 21 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight by announcing: "Tonight, Senator [Barack] Obama wins the endorsement of the nation's only Hispanic governor, Bill Richardson. Is Obama pandering to ethnocentric special interests again? We'll have complete coverage." The subsequent report included no discussion of whether Obama is "pandering to ethnocentric special interests."
On the March 21 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs introduced his program by announcing: "Tonight, Senator [Barack] Obama wins the endorsement of the nation's only Hispanic governor, Bill Richardson. Is Obama pandering to ethnocentric special interests again? We'll have complete coverage." The subsequent report by Capitol Hill reporter Jessica Yellin did not include a discussion of whether Obama is "pandering to ethnocentric special interests."
Later, during a panel discussion with Washington Post New York bureau chief Keith Richburg, New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin, and Democratic superdelegate Robert Zimmerman, Dobbs asked: "Are each endorsement, are we going to hear, as white Americans, as black Americans, as Hispanic-Americans, I mean, is this going to be part of what is the group and identity party in this country? Are -- is that not -- is it just -- I mean, just tell me, is there some sense that the Democratic Party is being overwhelmed by its own sense of group and identity politics here?"
Yellin's report also aired during the 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. ET hours of the same day's edition of CNN's The Situation Room; in neither instance did guest host John King introduce or tease the segment by asking whether Obama was "pandering to ethnocentric special interests." Rather, introducing the 4 p.m. airing, King stated:
KING: In the battle for superdelegate support, Bill Richardson's endorsement is considered a big get. Now the New Mexico governor and former presidential candidate has cast his lot with Barack Obama, saying he'd be a historic president. Richardson's endorsement comes despite a history of close ties to both Hillary and Bill Clinton.
My interview with Governor Richardson just ahead. First, though, to CNN's Jessica Yellin. She's been following this story from the campaign trail in Indiana. And Jessica, this could not have been an easy decision for Governor Richardson.
Introducing the 6 p.m. airing, King stated:
KING: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is setting his ties to the Clintons aside and hopping on the Barack Obama bandwagon. The former presidential candidate offered his endorsement today, after weeks of mulling and hand-wringing.CNN's Jessica Yellin is on the trail in Indiana. Jessica, a big get for Obama and I assume a difficult choice for Governor Richardson.
From the March 21 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: Tonight, Senator Obama wins the endorsement of the nation's only Hispanic governor, Bill Richardson. Is Obama pandering to ethnocentric special interests again? We'll have complete coverage.
[...]
DOBBS: Good evening, everybody. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico today deserted Senator Clinton and instead endorsed Senator Obama. Former presidential candidate Governor Bill Richardson declaring Obama is what he called a once-in-a-lifetime leader. Governor Richardson backed Obama even though Democrats voted for Clinton in New Mexico's primary election.
Meanwhile, new evidence today that the outrage over Senator Obama's controversial former pastor has had a negative impact on Obama's polling numbers. We have extensive coverage tonight from the presidential campaign trail. And we begin with Jessica Yellin in Indianapolis -- Jessica.
YELLIN: Good evening, Lou. It was such a tough decision for Governor Bill Richardson to do this -- make this endorsement that one Clinton staffer recently described him as Hamlet. He just couldn't make up his mind until now.
[begin video clip]
YELLIN: He's a former Clinton confidant, the nation's only Hispanic governor, and his is one of the most sought-after endorsements of all. Now this superdelegate is on Obama's team.
RICHARDSON: Your candidacy -- and this is an expression of your candidacy -- is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our nation, and you are a once-in-a-lifetime leader.
YELLIN: Richardson made the decision last week. But he says Obama's speech on race reaffirmed his faith in the senator.
RICHARDSON: As a Hispanic-American, I was particularly touched by his words. Éste es un hombre que nos entiende y que nos va a respetar. [This is a man who understands us and will respect us.]
YELLIN: Some say the Clintons helped make Bill Richardson's career and they've wooed him aggressively, the former president flying to New Mexico this year for the Super Bowl.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Do not get between Bill Clinton and Bill Richardson and the TV set when the Super Bowl is on, so --
YELLIN: But the governor says he developed a soft spot for Barack Obama during all those debates and, clearly, a rapport.
RICHARDSON: He didn't mention me. But that's OK.
OBAMA: Did that hurt your feelings?
RICHARDSON: Well, a little bit.
YELLIN: The endorsement comes after a run of bad news for Barack Obama, including damaging stories about his pastor, an indicted former donor, missteps on NAFTA, and losses in Texas and Ohio. This could turn the tide.
Now the Obama campaign can only hope it clears the way for other uncommitted superdelegates to follow Richardson's lead and that his stamp of approval will bolster the candidate's standing among Hispanic voters and buttress his foreign policy credentials.
[end video clip]
YELLIN: Lou, I spoke to aides to four of those top uncommitted superdelegates, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, [former Vice President Al] Gore and [Sen. Joe] Biden [D-DE]. They all say they do not expect those folks to follow suit and endorse Barack Obama, at least not now. Senator Clinton says this should all be left up to the voters; endorsements shouldn't decide a nomination -- Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you very much. Jessica Yellin reporting. Presidential candidates tonight demanding a thorough investigation after a security breach in the State Department -- a breach that enabled State Department contract workers and a trainee to read the confidential files of all three presidential candidates, obviously without authorization.
[...]
RICHBURG: I agree, it could. I mean, it's -- I think the speech has actually done him some good. I think the problem is he didn't answer some questions about the controversy. But you know, Bill Richardson [unintelligible] in his endorsement today mentioned that speech as one reason he would be -- he gave him the endorsement, so --
DOBBS: Do you believe him for a moment?
RICHBURG: Well, you know, he had --
DOBBS: No, no, no. Do you believe Richardson for even a moment that that's the reason he gave Senator Obama his endorsement?
RICHBURG: Well, I -- the question is, why did he give it to him today? And I think he needed to come out and do something that was gonna --
DOBBS: A little change of pace was in order?
RICHBURG: -- change the story line.
DOBBS: From the things that Robert Zimmerman prefer we'd be focusing on?
RICHBURG: Change the story line.
ZIMMERMAN: But you know something? I've got to defend Barack Obama in terms of the context of his speech and main points of it --
DOBBS: Stop the presses, as they say.
ZIMMERMAN: No, but I think it's worth recognizing that was a very important address that really did elevate the debate. But now back to Governor Richardson.
DOBBS: OK. Well, speaking of Governor Richardson --
ZIMMERMAN: Speaking of Governor Richardson --
DOBBS: Let's hear what he did say and how he said it in part today.
RICHARDSON [video clip]: As a Hispanic-American, I was particularly touched by his words. Éste es un hombre que nos entiende y que nos va a respetar.
DOBBS: Are each endorsement, are we going to hear, as white Americans, as black Americans, as Hispanic-Americans, I mean, is this going to be part of what is the group and identity party in this country? Are -- is that not -- is it just -- I mean, just tell me, is there some sense that the Democratic Party is being overwhelmed by its own sense of group and identity politics here?
ZIMMERMAN: Look, there's no question when you have the first African-American running and the first woman running at the stature they're at, obviously you're going to have people galvanizing around these issues.
But it does trouble me enormously because I, as a white American, a white Jewish-American, was also moved by Senator Obama's speech. And I think when we start allowing our politicians to define the race for president and these issues along group and identity politics, it undercuts us as a national party and certainly undercuts -- and certainly is a disservice to the American people.
DOBBS: I got to say, I couldn't agree more with what you have just articulated. Why is that so difficult for Senator Obama, Governor Richardson, and others in this party right now to comprehend that the more they go to this identity, they become more divisive? I mean, am I --
RICHBURG: Well, you're -- I think Obama is trying to get away from that identity. I think the whole point of that speech was to say --
DOBBS: Well, who -- I mean, he sure -- getting a lot of help here.
RICHBURG: No, we have. But I think the point of that speech was to say, let's all come together. I mean, he can't win if he's an identity politician. He's running as an African-American, he can't win.
ZIMMERMAN: Well --
DOBBS: Well, if everyone continues this nonsense -- I mean, it's -- I mean, whether you're Jewish or Catholic or you're black or you're white or you're Hispanic, I mean, this is becoming an explosion from the center, which is where I think most of us want to reside.
Dear Mr Dobbs.......
Stick with the immigration issue..... anything else seems to be over your head....
Then again..... so is immigration!
But the CORRECT term is Mexican.
(Speaking as a Mexican-descent 4th generation U.S. citizen.)
Lou Dobbs is not speaking about Spaniards (Hispanics). He is unconcerned with Cubans (dry land policy) or Puerto Ricans (U.S. citizens).This isn't about Chileans or Brazilians.
This isn't about speaking LATIN (of which the English language is composed of by 50%).
This is about MEXICANS.
Say it with me: M-E-X-I-C-A-N-S
Notice how Lou Dobbs never says "the Latino border"? Or the Latino flag?
First of all, the democrats aren't ethnocentric. I'd argue the opposite. From dictionary.com
"eth·no·cen·trism /ˌɛθDiversity obsessed, maybe, but not ethnocentric.
Now in response to Loonz's fact... And John McCain is caucasian. Neither has anything to do with ethnocentrism. It is when we believe there is only one way (our cultural way) to view an issue (not a fact, an issue.) Like when Lou Dobbs says (04/02/06)
"I'm not interested—are you interested in six or seven views, or are you interested in the truth? Because that's what I'm interested in; that's what my viewers are interested in."
Is Obama pandering to ethnocentric special interests again?
I think I'll go to my happy place. ;-)
He's on track then. Heading for the light at the end of the tunnel!
What Lou doesn't know is that we've placed a mirror in his path. Backed by a solid granite wall. This will be messy, but monomaniacs are seldom pleasent viewing.
Just what "special interest" is Richardson supposed to represent? Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group in the country. So how are they a special interest? Was Hillary Clinton taking a special interest group for granted when she assumed that Richardson would endorse her?
John McCain is pandering to all kinds of special interests. I do not hear the blow hards berating him. They were knocking McCain left and right until he won the nomination. Suddenly even his not knowing who is fighting who in Iraq does not shake their confidence in Saint John.
I tell you what. As long as Limbaugh, Dobbs, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage and the likes of these people refer to blacks, Hispanics, and everyone else they characterize in a negative manner then it's okay but God forbid any of these people refer to themselves as what they are.
I guess Dobb's head feels like it'll explode at the thought of a black president. Heebee Jeeby. What a tard. If you look up the credentials of most of these people it makes you wonder if they became pundits because of affirmative action. Hannity and Limbaugh, NO EDUCATION, poor grades. They must rely on their KKK ideologies to get the big bucks. Obama's credentials, including his being president of the Harvard Law Review, not to mention his wife's accomplishments blow all of these righter away. He has more brains in his pinkie yet they are swaying the vote with their severe dishonesty. Go figure. Little Hitlers if you ask me, though you didn't!
a recent canadian study on wages in the u.s., canada, and mexico.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070525/d070525a.htm
This is a nation of immigrants, this is a diverse nation . Opportunity, equality and prosperity draw people of many nations to our country. The wealth and depth of their forefathers knowledge enlivens and strengthens our own culture as well.
I find the overarching assumption of the Canadian study morally flawed as it's embedded logic asserts the writers of the paychecks bear no responsibility for the wage they choose to apportion. As if fellow Americans have no obligation to be good stewards of the communities to which they are bound. Behold the ugly truth of conservatism, it's every man for himself.
Moreover Hartmann rcognizes more than one solitary factor, such as immigration, as the cause of depressed wages here in the U.S. Union busting, ballooning CEO pay, NAFTA, offshoring, thwarted investment in and access to higher education, corporate deregulation. All that and more factor into Hartmann's analyses of the war on the middle class.
So, you've tripped up but you aren't down yet. Come again and come better this time. I love wrangling with you because I actually respect your intelligence and dilligence.
Also, think about it. There is no set in stone law, there is no universal costant that dictates wages must be tied to the supply of labor. That's bs status quo thinking and has less to do with my political outlook and more to do with aiding and abetting greed.
I never said I was arguing facts, I'm challenging your conservative thinking on this.
Can you give me a principled reason, a values based argument why you accept employers ought to pay low wages just because they can?
If you had something to say about my response to Edenscape, you should have done so then because your distemper over it now has no place here. You are employing cheap distractions. You have provided no moral reason for accepting the market fundamentalist dogma of devaluing labor.
Never once have I ever, ever called you a bigot. We are talking about legal immigrants. Got some kinda complex?
I never said anything about government setting wages, mental gymnastics guy. I'm talking about not accepting the line we're fed about employers having no obligation to the people in communities from which they prosper. If you want to get dowm to it, I'm talking about pressure from the grassroots. You're thinking in terms of top down.
And I knew, I just knew you were gonna try and play like I was self righteously dismissing your argument, not based on fact but based on faith alone. Pishaw. Yet another deflection from the fact that there is no morally principled argument that justifies blaming immigrants and low skill workers for depressed wages here in the U.S.
I do not believe my political outlook magically nullifies your argument. I think my values flow in logical unison with the humanitarian principles of peace, freedom, opportunity, prosperity, equality and justice; the same enlightenment principles, in fact, that guided our founding fathers.
If I challenge the conservative logic, the disciplinarian thinking that underpins justifying immigrants and low skill workers as scapegoats for meager and depressed wages, it is due to my conviction that America stands for equality. In the spirit of the Bill of Rights the person who has prospered is fundamentally no better a human being than the person who struggles to survive. By that logic a low skilled worker is the equal of any highly trained professional, why is ones labor valued more? It's ridiculous.
I know you are no bigot, so get off it already.
I know you are no bigot, if I did think you were a bigot what makes you think I would hesitate to say so? Are you really that ignorant? You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses to ignore my very good point: You have no moral justification for accepting the flawed logic that immigrants and low skilled workers, not employers, are to blame for depressed wages.
You say employers will pay what they want to pay. That's your answer. It's lame. It amounts to what you accuse me of doing, it's an I said so answer.
I gave my principled rationale. You apparently lack a principled argument. If you have one show me. I am willing to be shown I'm wrong.
Organize! Living wage campaigns and union drives. Lobby our government to protect and empower the right of workers to openly unionize. We can beat back the deleterious effects of globalization by reforming trade agreements so they put people and the environment. And it is done through grassroots organization.
We agree that immigration needs greater limits but getting upset with border crossers for fleeing poverty and building fences to keep them out is where we probably disagree. I would start turning back the tide of immigration by addressing the economic impetus that cause individuals to leave their home.
What would you do?
what you are saying is that we have to wait until things improve in mexico or wherever people come from. so basically you are not talking about controlling immigration, because i don't think it could ever fulfill your requirements. if mexico wishes to withdraw from nafta they can. it takes six months notice. and unionization goes only so far. when you have a never ending supply of workers, then your bargaining power is reduced. it's like thom hartmann notes, the time of highest union strength in this country was the late forties through the sixties. not coincidentally, those were also very low immigration periods. the last 15 years is the very highest period of immigration in our history.
You almost had it correct, but you used "liberal" in place of "conservative". Please correct that mistake and repost.
Sheer cynical genius.
DazedandConfused:
I tryed to be nice to lou,I was also going to extend it to kissing his own Arss,but I didn"t think he was that "limber".
I had the displeasure of watching this trash show on Sunday (the above may be an excerpt of part of that). I used to like Dobbs, but as I watched the show I realized that his 3 guests were just yes-men and yes-women who were hand-picked to "pander" (Dobbs likes using that word, so I will) to Dobbs' special interests.
The entire show made me sick, 4 people sitting around spouting off having difficulty avoiding being racist while at the same time criticizing Obama and Richardson for admitting that they were black and Hispanic, respectively.
Dobbs and other media morons never seem to be indignant when McCain "panders" to right-wing Christians.
Yet the mere fact that Richardson said that he is Hispanic, and spoke a sentence in Spanish seems to have set the pander-meter off the charts in Dobbs' miniscule brain.
CNN's lack of journalistic standards are on crystal clear display with this kind of pseudo-factual commentary. And yes, his panelists are spineless.
Did he ever denounce the triple C? Or did he just weasel around how much time was spent talking about them?
So in Dobbs opinion Obama should have regected the endorsement of Super Delegate Governor because he is Hispanic? I wonder if Dobbs thinks Richardson is an illegal immigrant because he speaks Spanish. They need to retire this dinosaur.
Lou Dobbs thinks that White people are not ethnic? What is he suggesting, that Whiteness is the yardstick of Humanity? That all other races are abberant and deviations off the "normal" White people?
I confronted Lou Dobbs in person at UC San Diego, literally right to his face. Please search YouTube for "Smackdown on Lou Dobbs" to see Lou Dobbs confronted on his racism with solid arguments.
the media is not doing it's job. see video: Mainstream Media Fraud Violates Integrity of the Election