Domenici Comes with Late Endorsement of Wilson; Will it be Enough to Overcome Pearce?

Early Blogging from the Duke City:
Good morning from Albuquerque! We're posting today from Winning Coffee Company in the Duke City's Nob Hill district, just a stone's throw from the University of New Mexico and, without question, one of New Mexico's most progressive communities. Making my way early from Gallup, I had a chance to get out and walk around the streets that comprise this special neighborhood, feeling an ease on my skin as the breeze cut through the shady trees and a warmth in my soul as many passers-by offered their hellos, seeming to welcome me into and onto their friendly turf.

School is out, and the summer is just around the corner. On 14 June, I'll begin the first of three days of training for the 'Obama Organizing Fellows' program, which will be followed by six-weeks of organizing for the Senator in the Land of Enchantment. I learned last Monday, officially, that I'd been accepted into the program and am extremely excited about the opportunity to promote the Obama Campaign in a state as critical (and winnable) as New Mexico.

Last Monday, I blogged on the small uptick in the level of Hispanic support for the Democratic presidential candidate that would be necessary to turn New Mexico blue in November (President Bush carried the state by a measly 5,988 votes in 2004). Such outreach will be best completed on the ground in the state's Latino neighborhoods. As an Obama Fellow based in Las Cruces, I look forward to employing my working knowledge of, and love for, the Spanish language to excite Hispanic voters about their chance to create real change later this year.

Will Domenici's 11th Hour Endorsement Push Wilson Over the Top?
In an unexpected move, long-time Senator and New Mexico political godfather Pete Domenici offered an endorsement for the senate campaign of Rep. Heather Wilson, his political protégé and Republican candidate in the race to succeed him.

Wilson finds herself narrowly trailing 2nd District Congressman Steve Pearce in all recently released opinion polls (a new Abq. Journal poll is slated for release on Sunday) but hopes that Domenici's weighing in will curry favor among staunch conservatives, whom, despite long-standing loyalty to Domenici, were leaning toward the more right-leaning Pearce in the primary. Wilson has labeled herself as the 'common sense conversative' in the GOP contest, but this, the same play that has enabled her to win and retain, albeit narrowly, her seat in New Mexico's Democratic-leaning First District, has not played well enough in her attempt to gain the Republican nomination for Senate. Primary contests typically draw each party's more active, extreme voters to the polls, and Wilson has seen her fortunes dim in light of Pearce's unapologetically conservative stances and undisguised appeal to right-wing activists.

Democrats Rejoice:
While it remains to be seen who will come out on top in the contentious GOP nomination battle, the Republican party in-fighting has been a cause of celebration among Democratic voters and, no doubt, the party's unopposed Senate candidate, Rep. Tom Udall. Opinion polls already give the fifth term Congressman a commanding lead over either Wilson or Pearce in a general election contest (http://www.nmfbihop.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1037).

Moreover, Udall recently went on-air with ads stressing his family's ties to the military and detailing his committed advocacy of veterans benefits in Congress. Udall also has a top-notch rating amongst progressives across New Mexico for his unparalleled leadership on environmental issues, and playing up his credentials on military issues encroaches on an area in which Republicans will need to dominate to have any chance of defeating Udall come November.

With several months between now and November, any calls of an assured Democratic takeover of Domenici's seat are premature. However, it seems increasingly clear that blunting Udall's momentum and uniting Republicans around their party's candidate will be nothing short of a Herculean task.

Reporting live from Winning Coffee Co., we're out to enjoy a beautiful late New Mexican morning. Take care!

What's Happened to Geraldine Ferraro?

Ferraro on the Attack:
Why has 1984 Democratic vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro taken such a liking to laying into the party's current front-runner for its top spot, Barack Obama? The former New York Congresswoman was dismissed from her position on Hillary Clinton's finance committee in March after remarking that Obama has received such wide notoriety and popularity due primarily to his race and the fact that no African-American candidate has ever had such an opportunity to ascend to the U.S.' top political post. While Obama brushed aside the comment and continued on in his quest for the White House, Ferraro continues to speak out against him and what she argues has been unfair, sexist media coverage of Senator Clinton.

Allegations of sexism in any regard are serious and should be scrutinized intensely. However, Ferraro's charges seem more like those of a bittered game-maker with a bone to pick than a dedicated Democratic activist, committed to the party's victory come November. Indeed, in a letter to the editor published in Friday's edition of the Boston Globe, Ferraro expanded her assault on Obama, charging that the senator would be incapable of connecting with white, blue-collar workers in the general election, likely basing her comments on Clinton's wide primary victory margins in states with high levels of working class whites, such as West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

These charges, of course, are nothing new. Indeed, Obama has warded off such claims of an inability to connect whenever and wherever they've appeared. However, coming from Ferraro, they are particularly unsettling. Here is a candidate who knows all too well the lack of constructiveness fostered by arguments suggesting that a candidate, due to an inherent personal trait, such as race, gender, or sexual orientation, might be unable to relate to a certain sect of voters. Here is a candidate who has witnessed the disastrous results of Democrats attacking one another on anything but the merits. And here is a candidate who should, perhaps more than anyone, understand that, when voters get away from looking at a candidate's competence and ability to effectively lead, the whole country loses. She, however, seems to have forgotten these basic realities and is levying attacks aimed at debasing the campaign of the likely Democratic presidential nominee. What indeed has happened to this former progressive stalwart?

As Campaign Hits Final Stretch, Candidates Take Aim at Different Targets

2nd District Campaign Hits the Final Stretch

It has truly been a tale of differing approaches in the hotly-contested race for the Democratic nomination in New Mexico's Second Congressional District.

While Dona Ana County Commissioner Bill McCamley came out as a young, impassioned voice of progressive change for Southern New Mexico, his campaign has since become an all-out battering ram of his opponent, businessman and former Lea County Commissioner Harry Teague.

McCamley got into the race to bring change to Washington and inspire 2nd District voters that they could and should expect more of an empowered stance in terms of relations with their elected officials. He gave voice to the powerful idea of constituent buy-in, which, after six years of current Representative Steve Pearce's unyielding support for the quagmire in Iraq and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, of whom Southern New Mexicans represent less than a sliver, came as a welcome notion.

However, as the race has progressed, and Teague, despite suffering a 12-point setback to McCamley at the Democratic Party pre-primary convention in March, has shifted his focus from the real issues effecting voters and turned his sights on making Teague out to be an out-of-touch elitist bearing strong resemblance to President Bush, a suggestion whose invalidity is only outdone by its desperation.

Where, indeed, has the lively, positive air of candidate McCamley gone? We've lost the progressive warrior who dedicated himself to the rules that say young candidates don't win. As a young political activist myself, I found McCamley's audacity in running for such a significant position inspiring. However, I've become less inspired in recent weeks, as he's taken aim at Teague, betraying his initial loyalty to positivism and the progressive ideal.

Good candidates win on their own merits, not lacking merits of their opponents. Harry Teague understands this, and his campaign reflects it. Note, for examples, all of Teague's T.V. spots. Open his website, and you're taken to spots on things like education, leadership, change, and results: in other words, all the things voters care about most in this election.

Visiting McCamley's homepage, yields a different result, however, as browsers see a barrage of assaults against Teague's well-financed campaign and ties to the oil and gas industry. More recently, the McCamley campaign released a mailer connecting Teague to President Bush and being in cahoots with oil executive in an effort to sap every last dime out of the pockets of hard-working Americans. Moreover, so outlandish were his claims, that they suggested Teague actually put New Mexicans' drinking water at risk by siding with 'big oil'.

These are the type of regressive, slanderous attacks to which progressive Democrats have become accustomed in watching unscrupulous Republican after unscrupulous Republican lay in to more noble-minded opponents from the left. They are not, however, the message we expect to be levied by a candidate purportedly waging a progressive campaign to take the 2nd district in an opposite direction. I'd like to see McCamley pay much more attention to the bread and butter issues from and am decidedly disappointed that I've not.

Sure, it's not exactly settling for me, as a progressive Democrat, that Teague made a fortune by working in an industry that continues to feed the very gas-guzzling that is a drain on middle-class budgets, not to mention the well-being of our environment. However, Harry Teague has been equally as vociferious in stating his support for government and private investment in alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, and has pledged that in Congress he'd fight tooth-and-nail to make New Mexico the leader on both fronts. That's the kind of straight, results-oriented talk voters are interested in.

Harry Teague is a wealthy, an oil man, and has, in the past, contributed to Republican candidates. However, he also dropped out of high school to work in the oil fields of Eastern New Mexico to make less than $2 per hour and provide his father with the health care on which his life depended. He's a person whose personally fitted the bill for college tuition bills of the scores of New Mexicans with whom he's provided meaningful, well-paying, and secure employment. He's a guy who will reach out to Democrats and Republicans alike on the Hill to provide Southern New Mexicans with the type of real results they so pressingly need and deserve.

While McCamley continues to harp on all that is wrong in our country, and, I agree, there's plenty to talk about, Teague has targeted his efforts on talking about how we can fix it. As a progressive, that's the horse I'd back on Election Day.

Exit Music for Olmert: Israeli Prime Minister Faces Calls to Resign

Facing a corruption probe over alleged illicit campaign contributions from a wealthy U.S. businessman, Israeli Prime Minister now faces the most severe calls yet for his resignation.

Already wildly unpopular at home, the embattled PM has seen his chances of political survival deteriorate amidst Labor leader and Defense Minister Ehud Barack's calls that the controlling Kadima Party select a new leader.

Olmert has faced serious political trial before, having been accused on at least two other occasions of financial impropriety, as well as facing sharp criticism for decidedly mishandling Israel's war against the Lebanon-based Islamist group, Hizbollah, in summer 2006.

Many thought that Olmert might scrape his way out of this jam, as well, but Barak leads Kadima's largest coalition partner, the Labor Party, without whose support it would no longer hold a majority in the Knesset. Kadima's loss of control would usher in snap elections, and internal polling suggests that the right-wing Likud Party, led by former PM and defense hawk, Benjamin Netanyahu, would come out on top. Such an outcome would likely cripple the Bush Administration's hopes of brokering a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority before the president leaves office in January 2009, as Netanyahu has expressed little interest in ceding the crucial territory necessary for a viable two-state solution and also has severe, perhaps insurmountable misgivings, about uprooting Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Some analysts suggest that the most likely scenario, despite Olmert's feisty calls to the contrary, would be for Kadima to oust the current PM and replace him with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who would become Israel's second female head of state, following Golda Meir in the 1970s. This would allow Kadima time to bolster its image in time to retain its advantage in the next general election, which is slated for November 2010.

The best situation for Kadima and the Bush Administration, alike, would be for Olmert to graciously take his cue, see the writing on the wall, and bow out. He cannot oversee negotiations capable of crafting a meaningful deal with PA PResident Mahmoud Abbas, nor can he resurrect his image in time to put Kadima in a victorious posture before the next vote. For Ehud Olmert, the message is clear- your time has come to exit.

Richardson the Right Choice for VP

Obama and Richardson: A Winning Pair
With presidential election season hitting full steam, there has been great speculation about the party leaders who will round out the tickets of, respectively, presumptive GOP and Democratic candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. During Memorial Day weekend, McCain welcomed three potential picks to his Sedona, Arizona home to 'feel them out'. While McCain claimed the visit represented nothing more than a friendly get together, his invitation of former Massachuseets Governor and GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and rising star and Louisiana Governor Bobby Vindal surely offered some insight into who is on the Arizona senator's mind as Election Day nears.

On the Democratic side, there has been wide speculation that Obama needs an experienced, steady hand at the bottom of the ticket to balance a 'rock starish' though, some say, untested presence at the top. While this blog has consistently argued that critiques of Obama's experience are, at best, overblown and, at worse, unfounded, we do agree that an experienced leader could be a boon. Given the rising price of gas and the U.S.'s deteriorating standing abroad, a Veep selection with a proven track record in the critical areas of energy and foreign policy would serve Obama's chances extremely well come November.

With this being the case, the choice is clear: Barack Obama should select Bill Richardson as his vice presidential running mate.

Experience and Charisma: Richardson's Dynamic Duo
During his short-lived campaign for the presidency, Governor Richardson was seen by millions of Americans as, by far, the most qualified candidate to serve in the country's top political post. Having worked in the Clinton Cabinet as Ambassador to the United Nations and, later, Secretary of Energy, Richardson has experience at the highest levels of policymaking. Moreover, after being elected Governor of New Mexico, Richardson has continued his diplomatic efforts as a private citizen and played a meaningful role in advancing U.S. interests in places like North Korea, Sudan, and, more recently, Venezuela.

A charismatic leader, Richardson's ability to capture the hearts and mind was only overshadowed during the primary season by political sensations Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards, who smooth oratory on the stump was in display throughout his fight for the nomination, as well as on his endorsement of Obama two weeks ago in Grand Rapids.

Indeed, Richardson is, if nothing else, personable. While running in an ultimately unsuccessful, though career-making campaign for the House in New Mexico's 1st Congressional District in 1980, Big Bill could be seen manning street corners encouraging passers-by to support his unlikely bid. In 2002, during a gubernatorial campaign, in which he was already heavily-favored over his Republican opponent, Richardson actually set the world record for the number of hands shaken over an 8-hour period (13,392!). Indeed, this guy's a fierce campaigner and would take his vigor to the next level if working to become one-half of the top political duo in the land (and put himself in a good position to take command in 2016). The governor's tenacity and comfort in person-to-person interactions would benefit Obama as he seeks to win over hesitant voters across the country.

A Shrewd, Effective Politician:
Add to this the fact that, as a Congressman from New Mexico's 3rd District, Richardson was known as one of the most effective, if shrewd, lawmakers, especially in terms of bringing members of his own party, as well as those on the other side of the isle, together to pass meaningful legislation. In the fierce Congressional debate over NAFTA in the early 1990s, Richardson was PResident Clinton's go to man on the Hill, as he wheeled and dealed his way to securing narrow passage of the still controversial trade accord.

As a Governor, Richardson has continued his furiously progressive streak, stopping at nothing to get friend and foe alike on-board with his initiatives. Some state-level lawmakers within the Governor's own Democratic Party accuse Big Bill of being uncompromising and downright nasty in promoting his agenda and, to be sure, this blogger has at times been unsettled by some reports of the governor going and speaking behind the backs of policymakers to get things done. While it with reluctance that we offer support for someone who engages, at times, in this type of a politics, policy-wise, the Big Bill is rarely off the mark, and we'd rather have someone working tirelessly for the right ends than the wrong ones.

While Obama exhibits the ability to transcend partisanship and bring differently minded folks together behind a common cause, having a shrewder politician, who is willing to pressure reluctant players into getting on board behind the ambitious initiatives underpinning Obama's presidential platform, such as universal healthcare, a restored standing in the international community, and a dignified end to the war in Iraq, would certainly benefit the freshman senator's efforts to follow through on his lofty, inspiring pledges to move the country forward.

Latino Appeal:
One of, if not the most, powerful elements Governor Richardson brings to the table is his Latino heritage and fluent Spanish-speaking abilities. Hispanics represent the country's fastest growing voting bloc and, more and more, are trending Democratic in terms of their party identification (see Monday's blog). Not only would having Richardson on the ticket bode well for Obama's chances to turn the Land Of Enchantment, which President Bush won by the narrowest of margins in 2004, in his favor, it would also bolster the Illinois senator's efforts in key 'purple' states in the new 'Western calculus', including Colorado and Nevada. Richardson would even put Arizona, which also has a significant Hispanic population and is right next door to New Mexico, in play. Even if it were not to go for the Democrats, Richardson's efforts to rally support in Arizona would at least force McCain to spend more time, effort, and money holding serve in his home state than he would like.

Bolstering Foreign Policy Expertise:
Barack Obama is no slouch when it comes to foreign policy. In fact, his innovative, bold approach to diplomacy has been the subject of many postings on this very blog. However, adding a seasoned, well-traveled diplomat to the Obama ticket would go a long way in quelling the concerns of voters still leery of the freshman senator's foreign affairs credibility.

Moreover, Richardson's existing connections with some of the world's leaders viewed by the current administration as adversarial would complement Obama's fresh diplomatic outreach nicely. Obama has said that he would hold unconditional talks with notorious leaders such as North Korea's Kim-Jung Il, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, and even Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Richardson would be the perfect figure to hold preparatory talks preceding those conducted by the president, himself, and establish a structured framework with which Obama could proceed, as well as embolden a focused, progressive environment surrounding negotiations. On foreign policy, too, choosing Richardson as running mate would represent a boon for Obama.

New Mexico or Bust:
Maybe I'm biased. Maybe I just want a New Mexican at the top of a national ticket. I won't beat around the bush. My pride in the Land Of Enchantment leaves me, perhaps selfishly, wanting the attention and prominence that having our governor at the most upper echelon at the U.S. political apparatus would bring. When we look at the choices Obama has, however, it would be difficult, for all the reasons outlined above, for him to select someone other than Big Bill to round out his ticket. Vamos, Barack- vamos.

Obama Visits Las Cruces for Memorial Day, Preview of Fierce Campaign to Win the Land Of Enchantment in November

Obama in Las Cruces:
Democratic presidential front-runner Barack Obama celebrated Memorial Day with a select audience of veterans in New Mexico's second largest city, Las Cruces, today. And what better day for him to visit our cherished Land Of Enchantment and begin laying the framework for what will no doubt be an all-out effort to win the state come November? Under a clear sky and with the stoic Organ Mountains peering over his shoulders in the background, Obama talked about the importance of devoting one's life to a cause bigger than one's self, or, more specifically, the American ideal that everyone, not only within our country, but around the world should have a real and meaningful opportunity to meet their full potential. He praised past soldiers for their service, applauded their families for the endless worry they endured in order to allow their loved ones to keep our country safe, and spoke of the uniting quality of striving for a better United States that connects military and non-military citizens alike.

Obama's speech (the video for which can be found by the following this link: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGB74D) also initiated what will likely be a passionate, comprehensive effort to return New Mexico to the 'blue' column come November. It is no secret that New Mexico is being eyed by the Obama Campaign as a key component of the new 'Western calculus' that could supplant places like Ohio and Florida as the keys to retaking the White House. Not to understate the importance of those two states (Obama sees winning Ohio and Florida as both critical to, and attainable for, his campaign as it sets its sight on victory), but Western states like New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona have trended Democratic in recent years. Moreover, as this posting will show, their significant Hispanic populations, which recent opinion polls show are more Democratic than at any point in recent memory, lend themselves to an Obama victory later this fall, particularly if Obama selects Big Bill to round out his ticket as VP (or makes an early offer of Secretary of State).

A successful campaign for Obama in New Mexico would also be a boon to other state-wide candidates and could produce one of the most successful election years in the history of the state's Democratic Party. First and foremost, likely Democratic 2nd District Congressional candidate Harry Teague would be the direct beneficiary of a large-scale, concerted voter outreach initiative by the Obama campaign to court Hispanic voters. Teague will hold his own i the largely white oil country of Eastern New Mexico, but one of the most significant reasons why Dems. have had such a hard time wrestling this seat from Republicans over the last thirty years is that Democrats and, more recently, Hispanic Democrats in places like Dona Ana County and other southern areas have not come out in full to vote for the Democratic candidate. Obama's campaign could and, I believe, will change that and make victory much more probably for Harry Teague in November.

Martin Heinrich, in New Mexico's 1st District, would also benefit from the celebrity that an inspired Obama effort in the Land Of Enchantment would inspire. The 1st District is notoriously close in its congressional elections, with current Rep. Heather Wilson defeating Democratic challenger Patricia Madrid by less than 600 voters in 2006. The rock star candidacy of Barack Obama could get Democrats out in droves in this district, which already has more registered Dems. than Republicans. Moreover, if Obama's Campaign decides to focus on turning out Hispanic voters in places like Albuquerque's South Valley, Heinrich could find himself as the first Democratic Representative from the 1st District in the state's history.

Senate hopeful and current New Mexico Rep. Tom Udall will need little help in securing his place as New Mexico's newest member of the upper-chamber. Still, partnering with Obama in statewide tours would create a roaring political force that would also help lower-ticket candidates like Teague, Heinrich, and even folks running for mayor, state representative or senator, or even at the city-level. The bottom line is that Obama needs New Mexico, and, in many ways, New Mexico needs Obama. Today's posting sets out a comprehensive argument for why the Obama Campaign should initiate a large-scale voter outreach program amongst New Mexico's Hispanic voters. This demographic has not voted their weight in recent presidential elections, and, for that reason, has not had as substantial an impact as it could and should have in terms of deciding to which presidential candidate New Mexico's electoral votes would go.

It's off to the races on this important day in our national narrative, when we take time to reflect on and give thanks to those brave women and men in uniform who've risked their lives and wellbeing in order to protect us as citizens, but, more importantly, the 'American Ideal' that attracts so many millions from across the world to make this country their home and utilize its opportunity to create a happier, more secure life for them and their families. Today, we gave our thanks to those who've fought and died. May our many efforts do justice to the valiant service you so nobly provided.

Obama in New Mexico:

Hispanic Voter Outreach in the Land of Enchantment Critical to Victory

Introduction: Hispanics Critical to Obama Victory in New Mexico

According to Census data taken in 2006, Hispanics’ weight in New Mexico’s electorate is heavier than in any other state in the country. Hispanics make up 44% of the state’s general population and 37% of its electorate. However, based on historical trends, including their performance in the 2004 presidential election, Hispanics are only projected to constitute 27% of New Mexico’s electorate in the 2008 presidential election. Given the close razor-sharp margin by which President George W. Bush defeated Democratic challenger John Kerry in New Mexico in 2004, getting New Mexico Hispanics to vote at a level that is more in accord with their presence in the overall New Mexico electorate represents a critical objective for Senator Barack Obama’s efforts to win New Mexico in November. Since New Mexico represents an important swing state and holds a significant place in the electoral calculus that will, ultimately, decide a winner in the coming election, the Obama Campaign must devise an effective voter outreach and get out the vote effort amongst New Mexico’s Hispanic voters in order to win on Election Day. Such a strategy will be devised herein.

Hispanics Trending towards Democrats:

Since 2004, Hispanic voters have trended more toward the Democratic Party than at any point since sophisticated data on party allegiance amongst Hispanics has been taken. In a poll conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center in October and November of 2007, 57% of Hispanics now identify themselves as Democrats, whereas only 23% of them identify as Republican. This 34% gap is the largest ever noted by the Pew Hispanic Center and 13 points larger than the gap measured by the group in July 2006. Given the shifting of Hispanic voters into the Democratic Camp, ensuring that as many eligible Hispanic voters as possible actually vote on Election Day should become a critical strategic objective in the party’s plans for success in November.

Hispanic Voters in New Mexico:

Election ’04:

The growing preference of Hispanics for the Democratic Party holds particular significance in New Mexico. In 2004, President Bush defeated John Kerry by 1% in a razor tight electoral contest. Notable was the fact that Hispanic voters substantially undervoted, that is, voted at levels that were both far under the level of total eligible voters, as well as below the level of the state’s general electorate.

While data is not available on state-level turnout rates amongst Hispanic voters, information collected at the national level indicates that New Mexico Hispanics did not vote with equally high efficacy as the general public. For example, while Hispanics accounted for 8.2% of the total U.S. electorate in 2004, they only made up 6.0% of all votes that were actually cast. Moreover, at the national level, only 47% of eligible Hispanic voters cast their votes in Election 2004, compared with a 63.8% rate amongst the general electorate. If these two trends noted at the national level bare even the slightest resemblance to what occurred amongst New Mexican Hispanics, then it can be said that potential Hispanic voters did not have nearly as significant an impact on the outcome of the election as they could have.

An Opening for Obama Amongst New Mexico’s Hispanic Voters:

Given recent trends in party allegiance amongst Hispanic voters nationally and New Mexico’s result in the 2004 presidential election, Barack Obama should see courting New Mexico’s Hispanic voters as critical to his chances of winning the state and securing the presidency. In New Mexico, the share of Hispanic voters (that is, those voters who actually cast their vote) in the state’s electorate is greater than President Bush’s margin of victory over John Kerry in 2004 (New Mexico, according to Pew, is one of only seven states in which this is the case. The others are Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, Colorado, and Florida). That means that even a small increase in the percentage of New Mexico Hispanics who cast their votes for the Democratic candidate would have turned New Mexico for Kerry in 2004 and would do the same for Senator Obama this November.

This is especially true when one keeps in mind that, currently, Hispanic voters are more closely aligned to the Democratic Party than at any point in recent memory. Exit polls in 2004 indicated that President Bush won 44% of New Mexico’s Hispanics in 2004. If one takes into account the Pew Center data collected in October and November of 2007, which suggests that 57% of eligible Hispanic voters align with the Democratic Party, while only 23% align with Republicans, then it becomes clear that even a slight increase in Hispanic efficacy would turn New Mexico to the Democrats this November.

Crunching the Numbers of an Obama Victory:

If the percentage share of Hispanics in New Mexico’s total electorate is applied to the total number of voters who cast their ballots in the 2004 presidential election, then 302,522 Hispanic New Mexicans were eligible to vote in New Mexico in 2004.[1] However, if the 47% efficacy rate amongst Hispanic voters charted at the national level for the 2004 election is applied to New Mexico, then only 142,185 voters, or 17% of the total number of voters who voted, were Hispanic. If, as exit polls indicated, 44% of New Mexico’s Hispanic voters supported Bush in 2004, then roughly 79,624, or 56% of, Hispanic voters cast their ballot for John Kerry in that same year. This means that, of New Mexico’s projected 302,522 eligible Hispanic voters in 2004, only 26% of them voted for John Kerry.

Expanding exit poll projections suggesting that 56% of New Mexico’s voting Hispanics supported John Kerry in 2004 indicates that, had Hispanic voters voted at the overall 2004 national efficacy rate of 63% (that is, among voters of all races in 2004 across the U.S.), then John Kerry would have carried New Mexico by 21,118 votes. Additionally, and perhaps more powerfully, since Bush defeated Kerry by only 5,988 votes in 2004, it would have taken only a 3.53% increase in the efficacy rate of New Mexico’s Hispanics to turn the state for Kerry in 2004. Such a small increase would have made an impact on the election not only in New Mexico, but also nationally, as it would have brought Kerry closer to obtaining the electoral votes necessary to defeat Bush and win the presidency

New Mexico’s Hispanic Dems in Election ’08:

These findings also have critical implications for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s efforts to win New Mexico in 2008. However, at the outset, it must be stated that at least two critical factors regarding New Mexico’s Hispanic electorate have changed since the election in 2004 that the Obama Campaign needs to address in order to be successful.

First, the percentage of Hispanics in the state’s overall electorate has dipped from roughly 40% just before the election in 2004 to 37.1% as of late 2006.[2] While this does not represent a marked reduction, the 3% dip does constitute a 7.5% change, which is significant. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, the tendency of Hispanics to identify themselves with the Democratic Party is at its highest point in recent memory. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Center in October and November of 2007, 57% of Hispanics countrywide consider themselves Democrats, whereas only 23% of Hispanic Americans refer to themselves as Republicans. While similar data does not exist at the state level, it can be said with some certainty that the percentage of New Mexico’s Hispanic electorate that considers itself Democratic has increased notably since the presidential election of 2004.

This, of course, bodes well for Senator Obama’s chances to carry the state in November, but it is no guarantee. Indeed, if anything, the current political trending of Hispanics nation-wide evidences the absolute necessity of the Obama Campaign to launch aggressive voter outreach efforts among Hispanics in swing states like New Mexico, which will make the difference between winning and losing come November.

In a future posting, I will outline the parameters of what such a voter outreach effort should entail. In the meantime, enjoy the remainder of your holiday weekend, and stay safe and happy as you move towards summer. Thanks for reading!

---

[1] According to a survey conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center in 2004, Hispanics constituted 40% of New Mexico’s overall electorate.

[2] Paul Taylor and Richard Fry. Hispanics and the 2008 Election: A Swing Vote? Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center, December 2007.

Obama's right on Cuba, very much in contention in Florida

In a speech to the influential Cuban American National Foundation in Miami on Friday marking Cuban Independence Day, Democratic front-runner Barack Obama said the time had come for a change in course in the U.S.' approach to Cuba. While resfusing to call for an outright end to the U.S. embargo on trade with Cuba that has been in place since 1962, the Illinois senator did say that, as president, he would immediately ease travel restrictions on Cuban-Americans, who hope to visit loved ones in the island country more frequently than the presently allowed once every three years. Obama also expressed support for easing the restriction on remittances of Cuban-American families hoping to send money to their relatives to the south. Moreover, Obama expressed support for the idea of direct and unconditional diplomacy with Cuban front-man Raul Castro, who took over for his brother, Fidel, earlier this year.

Obama's comments came at a time when he is sewing up the Democratic nomination for president in a protracted primary battle with rival Hillary Clinton and working to increase his appeal in states he lossed to his rival from New York, particularly swing-states like Florida, which hold critical implications for the general election with presumptive GOP nominee John McCain.

Obama's word choice on Friday, then, was a bold one. Typically, presidential candidates venture to South Florida to pay homage to the traditionally conservative voting block of Cuban-Americans in Miami who have played no small role in deciding the fate of Florida and, by extension, presidential contests on multiple occasions during the past forty years. Even liberal candidates like John Kerry and Al Gore were reluctant to speak out against the U.S. ineffectual policy vis-a-vis Cuba and expressed their support for more of the same hard-handed policy that has produced little in terms of democratic change in the communist country. Indeed, conventional wisdom suggests that any sort of rhetoric thought to question the wisdom of strong-arming the Castro brothers might trigger political suicide for a candidate seeking to win the Sunshine State.

However, as in so many other aspects of Obama's unprecedented run for the White House, the senator has sought out the path beneficial for most Americans and in the interest of a more prominent existence for those abroad in his approach to Cuba. In easing travel and remittance restrictions on Cuban-Americans, Obama would open the door to facilitated more frequent communications between loved ones in South Florida and on the island, which represents a measure to risky to win the express support of Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Moreover, Obama's decision to sit down, without preconditions, with Cuban President Raul Castro would signal a sea-change in the way in which Washington goes about business in its approach to Communist Cuba. This shift, however, would be wise at least in the sense that it'd break a tradition of diplomatic dysfunction vis-a-vis Cuba that leaves the U.S. isolated amongst the international community and has produced little, if anything, of benefit to either the Cuban or American people.

This blog maintains that isolation very rarely represents the best way to encourage democratic reform in adversarial states. Indeed, direct diplomacy most often stands a far greater chance of producing desired results, as it did for Nixon in Mao's China, Carter with Begin and Sadat in Camp David, Reagan with Gorbachev in the Soviet Union, and, more recently, George W. Bush with Muammar Gadaffi in Libya. In speaking out for a break in the status quo on U.S. policy vis-a-vis Cuba, Obama risked isolation from a key block of voters that could play an important role in decidng whether or not he defeats John McCain and fulfills in his quest for the presidency.

However, perhaps the most interesting thing about yesterday's speech was that Obama both entered and exited a room wild with applause and garnered shining praise from the Cuban American National Foundation's Chairperson Jorge Mas Santos, who backed Obama's argument that a change in path on Washington's approach to Cuba is long overdue. If other receptions in South Florida are in any way similar to the one Obama received on Cuban Independence Day, then there wxists a good chance that the Illinois progressive will put the Sunshine State in his column on election night. As it stands, Florida is very much in contention.

Shendo Endorsement Retraction

Deplorable Insinuation Drops Shendo from Contention:
Last week, the blog endorsed the campaign of Benny Shendo, Jr., in its bid to become the Democratic nominee in the race to replace outgoing Congressman Tom Udall. That endorsement is now fervently retracted.

Early this week, while speaking at a forum of candidates in Farmingston, Shendo insinuated that New Mexico Public Regulation Commissioner Ben Ray Lujan, who is the front-runner in the third district race, is homosexual. While Shendo's motives in doing so remain less than clear they can't be good.

First, if the motive was to play upon the fears of moderate third district Democratic voters, such as Hispanic Catholics, who might otherwise be inclined to support Lujan, in hopes of turning them away from the Commissioner's candidacy by portraying him as having questionable social values and practices, then it is certainly ignoble at best, and deplorable at worst.

Lay aside the fact that a person sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to lead and deliver results for a constituency at any level, and this is personal character assault politics at its worst. Quixotically, Shendo had positioned himself as the candidate of progressive change in the crowded thirst district race- he now most certainly has retracted any claims on that desirable conjecture.

Secondly, if Shendo's motive was to portray Lujan as incapable of understanding the familial situations of most third district voters because he is not engaged in a same-sex relationship (Lujan, by the way, is involved in what he calls a 'committed' relationship with a member of the opposite sex), he is still way off base. Those folks in same-sex partnerships are, of course, equally aware of the concerns, joys, and challenges that come in the face of any relationship, and the tide of public discourse and thought is coming more and more into alignment with this notion, though there remains substantial work to be done, as Shendo's insidious remarks make painfully clear.

With Shendo's huge misfiring, the 3rd district loses the viability of what had been its most progressive and appealing candidate. New Mexico blogger Joe Monahan got it right this morning when he said that many of the progressive, liberal leaning voters who would have constituted Shendo's small but devoted base heading into the primary would now detract from the campaign. Speaking personally, that certainly holds true, and I will now back Ben Ray Lujan in his bid to become the next Congressman from New Mexico's 3rd Congressional District.

More importantly though, right now, I feel saddened that we have not transcended the personal attacks of sexual orientation in our politics. Still, this painful realization makes abundantly clear the significance of the progressive movement and its battle to ensure that every person across this country has the ability to be treated with dignity, respect, and make good on their potential.

Obama's Working Class Credibility: Bridging the Gaps between 'Us' and 'Them' Politics in the United States

Barack Obama crossed another threshold in his quest for the presidency this evening, scoring a significant victory in Oregon and officially securing the majority of pledged delegates up for grabs in what has been an epic primary contest.

Still, voters in Kentucky's primary election sent the Illinois senator a sound defeat, as Hillary Clinton took the contest by more than a two-to-one margin. Pundits were quick to argue that Clinton's victory in the Bluegrass state further vindicates her argument that Obama simply has trouble appealing to, and identifying with, working-class voters. In my piece this evening, however, I hope to debunk this claim by showing that Obama is well aware of, and has devoted a great portion of his personal and professional life to, becoming more familiar with the cause of low- and middle-income families from across the country.

With this said, let's move into the piece.

Obama v. McCain on Middle-Class Credentials:

Straight Talk Gone Awry

The purpose of this briefing is not so much to stress the superiority, and superiorly authentic, working-class credentials of Barack Obama relative to John McCain, his opponent in the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Instead, it is to debunk the notion that Obama is, somehow, out of touch with the worries, hopes, and dreams of ordinary Americans. Indeed, it seems less than helpful, and perhaps a bit contradictory, to advocate against the utility of measuring candidates fitness to serve based on their socioeconomical background by arguing that one candidate’s closer connections with middle- and low-income citizens better prepares him for taking office as president.

Still, demonstrating clearly that Senator Obama comes from a background that is entirely more rooted in middle-class, middle-income America than his GOP opponent does provide a powerful rebuke to criticisms levied by the McCain Campaign that Obama is unable to relate to ordinary Americans. And therein lies this paper’s objective. I hope to show, through a clear analysis of the economic and social backgrounds of Senators McCain and Obama, that the latter is at least as in touch and has more experience with the experiences of middle-class citizens than the former. In doing so, I seek to mute, or at least invalidate, suggestions that Obama will struggle to win over moderate and socially conservative blue-collar voters due to a fundamental and irreparable disconnect in background.

I’ve grown a little perturbed, and more than a bit confused, by suggestions made with increasing strength in recent weeks that Senator Obama runs the risk of losing out on the votes of working class Americans due to an ability to connect with, or relate to, the concerns, worries, and hopes they face. Such criticisms have come both within the context of Obama’s protracted battle with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination, as well as in speculation as to what an electoral contest might look like against presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain.

First off, let’s be clear: none of the three remaining candidates for president is hurting for income. Senator Obama, along with the salary of a United States Senator, served as a tenured professor at the University of Chicago’s law school, and his wife, Michelle, earns a six-figure salary working in the university’s community outreach department. Recently, it was reported that since Clinton’s husband, Bill, left the presidency seven years ago, the power couple has earned nearly $100 million, hardly leaving them pressed for cash. For his part, Senator McCain married the heiress to a beer fortune and has an estate worth upwards of $50 million. Clearly, no one is going hungry here.

Still, when one takes into account the candidates’ backgrounds, it quickly becomes clear that, at least for one candidate, things have not always been quite so cushy. Let’s begin with McCain. The senior senator from Arizona and former war hero was born into a powerful military family and lived on Capitol Hill for a good portion of his childhood, spending time with high power political and military officials.

Clinton is the daughter of a successful textile factory owner and grew up in suburban Chicago. Her father was, if anything, a traditionalist and ardent anti-communist. Indeed, so direct were his conservative teachings that Hillary Rodham entered the political world as a full-fledged Republican, campaigning for Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election and, later, serving as a so-called ‘Goldwater Girl’ for, ironically, the last Arizona Senator to run for president, Barry Goldwater, whom some call the father of modern conservatism.

In her first year at Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham was elected president of the school’s freshman Republicans and continued to advocate the right-of-center values forged by her traditional upbringing. It was not until Clinton became more aware of, and concerned with, the battle being waged in the late 1960s through the Civil Rights Movement that Rodham’s political views began to shirt leftward. After attending a speech by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in her native Chicago, Rodham shifted her allegiance to the Democratic Party, a path from which she has not since retreated.

Barack Obama’s story, however, is unique. The son a of a single mother (his father, a Kenyan immigrant to the United States, died when he was two), Obama spent most of his childhood hopping from home to home, living abroad for several years in Indonesia before returning to the U.S. To make ends meet, Obama’s mother often relied upon food stamps, an experience surely shared by neither of his presidential opponents. Moreover, after graduating from Columbia University, Obama ventured to Southside Chicago in order to do community organization in one of the most afflicted ghettoes in the country. Following his successful four-year stint on the Southside, Obama attended Harvard Law School in 1988, where he became the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review. After graduating from law school, Obama turned down lucrative offers from law firms in order to return to inner-city Chicago and lead a voter-registration drive amongst low-income and minority communities. Bear in mind that, at this time, Obama was struggling to repay college loans he’d taken out in order to finance his college and graduate education.

Moving against the wind, Obama fought inertia and an altogether unhelpful political climate to turn large pieces of the Southside around and move them on the course to a brighter future. It was in these days of grassroots organizing that Obama solidified himself as a capable, results-oriented progressive leader. However, it was also in these days when the future senator and presidential candidate also experienced first-hand the significant and, at times, overwhelming financial restraints that challenge hard-working families across the United States.

As for his opponents, noble service was the norm, and they are to be congratulated for it. McCain endured intense torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese after having been shot down over the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi, during one of his numerous bombing raids. McCain went on to decline an offer of early release from Vietcong imprisonment, insisting that all POWs who’d come before him must also be released if he were to accept. Brave, honorable, and, to most, inconceivable, McCain’s patriotism and service of his country remains in the forefront of his mind today, as he campaigns for president.

Hillary Clinton spent her immediate post-undergraduate years pursuing graduate work at Yale Law School. As a student, she quickly became interested in issues related to early childhood development, poverty, and migratory labor rights. She volunteered to give legal advice to low-income families and received a grant to research the struggles of migrant workers under the auspices of the Senate’s Subcommittee on Migrant Labor, which was chaired by Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale (who went on to become Jimmy Carter’s Vice President and the Democratic candidate for president in 1984).

After agreeing to marry Bill Clinton, Rodham moved to Arkansas, her husband’s home state, foregoing her immediate political future. In Arkansas, she served as one of the youngest members ever of the University of Arkansas’s School of Law and later took on a role in the prominent Arkansas law firm, the Rose Firm. In 1978, Bill was elected attorney general, and the young couple became one of the most prominent duos in state politics. In 1982, when Bill was elected governor, it became the most prominent.

What is clear from this analysis is that, while both John McCain and Hillary Clinton served their country valiantly immediately after college, neither faced the type of financial hurdles faced by Barack Obama. This is in no way intended to downgrade the importance of the work done by McCain or Clinton. Quite the contrary, risking his life and enduring years of torture in order to implement the U.S. military strategy speaks volumes about the type of selfless leadership Senator McCain has employed throughout his military and political. Moreover, Clinton’s impassioned service to, and defense of, the rights of children and migrant workers make her a paragon of virtue in terms of identifying and pursuing noble causes.

Still, Senator Obama knows what it’s like to struggle economically. He and his mother know the insecurity and anxiety that accompany living paycheck to paycheck. He identifies with the cause of financial constraint because he’s lived it. He is devoted to helping folks attain a more stable way of living because he’s done it. And, in the final analysis, there is no one for whom President Obama would work more diligently than the same common folks who’ve built the backbone of America because, well, he is them.

Israeli Defense Minister and Egyptian President talk Hamas, U.S. military plane enters Venezuelan airspace, plus Obama's working class cred.

Barak, Mubarak Talk Hamas:
In an unexpected show of diplomacy, Israeli Defense Minister and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in talks on forging a truce and peace deal with Hamas, the insurgency group that controls the Palestinian Authority's parliament.

Speaking at the longtime Middle East negotiations hub and Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh, Barak said that any long-term deal with Hamas must include a complete cessation of rocket fire on, and suicide bombings in, Israeli communities. He also argued that the release of Israeli Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit must come unconditionally and should be separated from a broader accord with Hamas.

Back in the Saddle?
Barak is positioning himself for a return to the Prime Minister position in Israel's next general election. Though current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's term does not end until December 2010, many, including Barak, believe that the majority Kadima Party will call a snap-election early next year, if not in late 2008, especially in light of a recently announced corruption probe facing Olmert, which, given more time, could debilitate Kadima's chances of retaining majority status.

Benjamin Netanyahu, who controls Israel's right-wing Likud Party and is also a former prime minister, has polled well in recent surveys and seems well-positioned to take the top spot in a general election. However, Barak has been expressly more committed to winning a lasting peace deal with outside Arab parties than the hawkish Netanyahu, and voters will face a stark difference in choosing between the two. Depending on political winds when the election is finally called, either candidate may well overcome Olmert and have a second go at prime minster.

U.S. Warplane Enters Venezuelan Aircraft, Infuriates Chavez:
The official line from Washington read that a U.S. Naval plane running an anti-narcotics mission veered off course and inadvertently entered Venezuelan airspace. Unsurprisingly, the Andean country's staunchly anti-U.S. President, Hugo Chavez, remained less than convinced. In announcing the event, Chavez's Defense Minister Gustavo Rangel called the mishap 'just the latest step in a series of provocations' by Washington, which is in line with the president's contention that the U.S. is preparing to invade Venezuela.

Tensions between Washington and Caracas have been strained for some time, with Bush accusing his Venezuelan counterpart of posing a serious threat to democracy and open commerce, More recently, President Bush and Colombian leader Alvaro Uribe have accused Chavez of providing significant financial and logistical support to the Colombian rebel group, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC).

For his part, Chavez accuses the Bush Administration of human rights violations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, as well as promoting a political and economic doctrine that seeks to keep low-income countries in perpetual poverty and politically disaffected. He has also sought closer unity with left-leaning governments across Latin America as a means of containing Washington's designs on a 'Free Trade of the Americas' pact, which would remove tariffs on the imports and exports exchanged between North and South American countries, bringing them to a new and unprecedented plane of economic intimacy.

The U.S. naval plane's penetration of Venezuelan airspace will only add fuel to the fire of Chavez's already vicious rhetorical assault, and he will likely use it as evidence to advance his alarmist and unfounded claims that Washington is 'coming'. While it is unexpected that savvy diplomatic jujitsu on the part of the Bush Administration will temper Chavez's outrage, one hopes that tensions between the two players do not get out of hand.

Obama and the Everyday Voter:
Finally, we blogged yesterday that we'd have a piece shortly regarding the thrashing Barack Obama's taken in recent weeks regarding his ability to connect with everyday voters. I am currently working on a posting that deduces the authenticity of the likely Democratic and GOP nominees' claims on understanding the plight of working-class Americans. Stay tuned in the coming days, as this entry comes online.

The New Mexico sun has set, and it's time for this teacher to prepare for another day of school. Enjoy your Tuesday, and check in again manana!

Zakaria validates Obama's fresh diplomacy

As we blogged yesterday, the rare diplomatic successes President Bush has enjoyed during his time in the White House have come when he has employed an innovative, experimental approach to foreign affairs. Newsweek writer Fareed Zakaria, in an article released in the latest edition of that news magazine, makes much the same case.

He offers a defense of Obama's fresh approach to international relations, while arguing that, quite apart from the bullyish, frustrated strategies utilized by the Bush Administration to encourage political change in places like Iran, Venezuela, and, to a lesser extent, Russia, the president has scored key gains in places once considered rogue states and uncooperative elements by tapping qualities that have been far too lacking during his time in office: creativity and open-mindedness.

Take, for instance, Libya. As recently as late 2003, Libya was viewed by many within the upper-echelon of the Bush Administration as a county unripe for diplomatic overtures and a decided foe in Washington's 'War on Terrorism'. As mentioned yesterday, the warming of relations between Washington and Tripoli that began in December '03, came in response to the decision by Libyan frontman Muammar al Qaddafi to shelve the country's program of weapons of mass destruction.

At this point, the Bush Administration could have taken Libya's capitulation to represent a vindication of its promotion of the principles of democracy, free-market economics, as well as a tell-tale sign that the Bush-led terror war was gaining ground. Indeed, based on the administration's track record of hard-nosed diplomatic posturing, reasonable observers could have been forgiven for expecting more of the same in the case of Libya.

However, Washington, along with counterparts from the U.K., chose a different route, and the benefits have been significant. Rather than merely praising Libya for coming out of the shadows of state-sponsored terrorism (though, there still exist convincing and worrying reports of continued activity on this front), Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair encouraged foreign direct investment into Tripoli and other locations within Libya in order to expand the country's economic opportunities and, by extension, take steps towards further reducing its affinity for radical, violent activity. Today, Libya represents a rare bright spot on the Bush Administration's map of foreign policy initiatives.

Secondly, there is the example of North Korea. To be sure, U.S. problems with the communist state continue to abound, with alarming reports that, despite progress on the issue, North Korea presses ahead with its nuclear program and badly needed political and economic reform have been slow in materializing, if not stalled altogether.

Still, there have been, as Zakaria points out, meaningful steps taken to improve political and diplomatic relations between Washington and Pyongyang. The White House's chief diplomat in North Korea, Christopher Hill, has been willing to toe the line between Washington's strictly multilateralist policy of engaging North Korea and speaking directly with his counterparts in the country, absent the representatives of regional neighbors such as China, South Korea, Japan, Russia, and so forth.

Hill's willingness to do so has been wise on two counts. First, his more direct form of communicating with the North Koreans has offered the specific and more direct attention for which they've called as a pre-requisite for movement on the nuclear issue. On the second count, Hill has employed this direct method of diplomacy in a way carefully calculated to not give North Korea's eccentric president, Kim Jung-il, the prestige that an expressly bilateral summit between representatives from Washington and Pyongyang might engender. In this sense, Hill has been able to hold meaningful and, at times, fruitful talks with North Korea, without bolstering Kim Jung-il's claim to be a global power player.

A third and final example of Bush's success in employing Obama-style diplomacy appears closer to home and manifests itself in the Administration's handling of Peruvian presidential elections in 2006. In a region in which many contend that the best way for a candidate to get elected is by portraying her or himself as the 'anti-U.S.' candidate, the Bush Administration has had a particularly difficult time winning allies and stalling the rising tide of Anti-U.S.-ism in Washington's 'back yard'.

Bush learned a harsh lesson in the averse results that an overt U.S. effort to influence Latin American presidential elections can have in Bolivia in 2002, when his ambassador in La Paz stated just weeks before the country's general election that U.S. aid to Bolivia would be cut off, were left-wing coca leader Evo Morales elected president. Morales, who had been hovering in the single digits in opinion polls, saw his numbers skyrocket overnight and finished a close second behind Gonzalo 'Goni' Sanchez de Lozada in the general election, winning just over 21% of the vote. Riding his new-found recognition and a wave of anti-Washington sentiment spurred on by Sancho de Lozada's close ties with the White House and a deteriorating domestic state of affairs, Morales claimed a convincing victory in Bolivia's presidential election in 2005, in which he became the first candidate in his country's history to capture a first-round victory by winning an outright majority of votes. The Bush Administration's effort to sway the 2002 contest had clearly come back to haunt it in the form of Morales' unprecedented win three years hence.

In Peru's 2005 general election, however, Bush felt determined not to make the same mistake again. With a tight, three-way contest for the presidency brewing between leftist and ardently anti-U.S. candidate Ollanta Humala, centre-right candidate Lourdes Flores, and former President Alan Garcia, Washington decided to take a hands-off approach and let the chips fall where they may. The Administration felt confident that Peru's electorate would not give Humala an outright victory in the first round of voting and then, in a two-way contest with Flores or Garcia, would drift from the leftist's radical proclamations and shift into the camp of the more moderate Flores or Garcia.

Bush's strategy paid off. Humala won the most votes in the first round, with Garcia narrowly edging Flores to advance into the run-off contest, in which he scored a solid, five point victory, as voters grew leery of Humala and the U.S. quietly and successfully helped Garcia play up Humala's ties to Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, a Washington bug-a-boo and no best friend of the Peruvian people either (as I experienced during a trip to the country in the aftermath of its presidential election in the summer of 2006).

Taking its cue from its misadventure in the 2002 Bolivian general election, the Bush Administration had earned a precious ally in a region in which leaders friendly with Washington rarely prosper.

This tactic does not represent Obama-like diplomacy in terms of political preference, or even the subvert, one might argue sinister way in which the U.S. meddled in Peruvian politics. However, it does resemble the type of keen attention to, and consideration of, other countries' domestic political conditions and histories that an Obama Administration would employ in its diplomatic approach. Indeed, knowing the type of internal conditions present in a country with whom you hope to partner and in whom you hope to gain an ally represents a critical facet of any president's successful foreign policy agenda. Senator Obama, it seems, understands this and would proceed accordingly upon taking the White House in January 2009.

Signing off from Gallup, you've been reading the New Mexico Progressive- the Land of Enchantment's only progressive blog written by a young activist with his feet on the ground and an ear to the street. Thanks for stopping in, and come by again soon.

Shocking: Bush diplomatic overture fails, plus: Obama turns up the heat on foreign affairs- heavy duty bloggin' for your Saturday enjoyment

A New Mexico morning sun is rising, emanating glorious pinks and oranges over the land. Inside of Glenn's Bakery near downtown Gallup, the tortilla machine is working at full-tilt, cranking out wonderful, golden brown tortillas, one after another. Yes, another day is beginning, and we've got all the political blogging you need for your Saturday. Strap in, and enjoy the ride, as we come to you full speed from Glenn's in this Saturday morning post.

Bush Fails in Effort to Increase Saudi Oil Supply:
In a not so unexpected development Thursday, President Bush, after talks with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, failed to win assurances that that state would increase production and inject fresh supply into the market in order to quell rising global oil costs. Coming on the heels of Congress' decision to halt daily additions to the U.S. strategic oil reserve, the president's inability to win guarantees from his Saudi counterpart seems to vindicate proponents of the congressional measure, who argue that the U.S. cannot wait for international oil producers to suddenly become more benevolent in their business dealings with global consumers in order to halt rising costs.

Speaking to reporters after meeting with King Abdullah, Bush said that the talks had gone well and been cordial. Abdullah added that, while he and the U.S. President hadn't come to an agreement regarding increased oil production, there had been no table slamming or ill will.

Given the last seven-plus years of relative inactivity on the practice, President Bush's attempted foray into the diplomatic realm is somewhat unfortunately. Two unfortunate elements of his attempt, however, are that it came in an attempt to win for the U.S. a cheaper version of a polluting and non-renewable form of energy and was, more than that, altogether unsuccessful. Wouldn't it be nice to have a president that actually cut the mustard when it came to international negotiation? With that question in mind, let's check in on 'Election '08'.

Obama Issues Bold Challenge to McCain on Foreign Affairs:
Wading into an arena typically thought to represent one of Senator McCain's most pointed advantages in a potential head-to-head contest with Democratic front-runner Barack Obama, the Illinois Senator said he looked forward to a serious debate with the presumptive GOP nominee on the issue of global affairs.

Speaking to an audience in Sioux Falls, South Dakota at what was supposed to be a talk on rural issues, Obama responded commandingly to comments made by President Bush during a speech to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday, in which he indirectly accused Obama of a misguided approach to foreign policy and willingness to hold unconditional talks with terrorist networks.

During his Knesset speech, Bush claimed, in a veiled shot at Obama, that 'Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along'.

Obama responded by saying that 'He accused me and other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists and said we were appeasers no different from people who appeased Adolf Hitler...Now that's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world.'

Quite contrarily to Bush's misleading accusations, Obama has been unbending in his stated unwillingness to hold talks with terrorist groups like Hamas, repeatedly affirming 'that I will not negotiate with terrorists like Hamas.' However, both Bush and McCain attempted to peg the Democratic front-runner to a soft and worryingly naive approach to foreign affairs.

Obama responded in a decisive and comprehensive manner, rebuffing their contentions on at least three points.

First, he countered by arguing that, historically, innovative diplomatic approaches have often been responsible for the U.S.' most impressive diplomatic feats, citing the examples of President Kennedy's overtures to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, as well as Nixon's trailblazing efforts to engage Chinese leader Mao Zedong.

Secondly, Obama opined that 'conventional wisdom' on foreign policy, such as the brand that Bush and McCain tout as their own, has recently led the United States into a disastrous state of affairs, both at home and abroad. He argued that 'The American people are going to look at the evidence and say, 'We don't get a sense this has been a wise foreign policy or a strong foreign policy or a tough foreign policy', speaking in reference to the Bush-led misadventure in Iraq, which has cost the U.S. upwards of $500 billion and has seriously damaged U.S. standing in the eyes of the international community. McCain's hawkish, 'more troops on the ground' solution to many of the country's foreign security issues, Obama rightly contends, represents more of the same failed Bush doctrine that has further indebted the U.S. and is responsible for the loss of thousands of lives, both American and otherwise.

Thirdly, Obama makes the case that, in one of its few diplomatic successes, that is, winning a de facto peace and cooperation accord with former pariah state, Libya, Bush employed the type of forward-looking outreach strategies endorsed by the Illinois Senator.

After an aggressive outreach effort, in which leaders in Washington and London aggressively, if quietly, courted an alliance with Libyan leader Muammar al Qudhafi in order to win his cooperation in the Western-sponsored 'War on Terrorism'. Just over two years ago, Bush culminated the courtship process, which had begun in late 2003, by restoring full and normalized diplomatic ties to Libya in the form of 'Presidential Determination No. 2006-14'.

Interestingly, through its diplomatic offensive, the Bush Administration actually succeeded in getting Qadhafi to both fess up to possessing weapons of mass destruction and committing to eliminate its WMD program neither of which were accomplished in the case of Iraq, despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent and thousands of lives, both American and Iraqi, lost. Instead, reaching out to Libya by way of the negotiating table as opposed to the barrel of a gun has brought a leader previously thought to be one of the world's most ardently anti-West critics into alignment with a key pillar of the Bush Administration's foreign policy agenda.

This point, of course, was notably absent from Bush's speech to the Knesset, in which he lambasted experimental diplomacy as both dangerous and incapable of bearing significant fruit. It seems quixotic that President Bush would not more readily tout one of the few successes of an otherwise disastrous tenure--then again, quixoticism has been at the heart of his presidency.

Real Talk on Obama's Foreign Policy: Innovation, Positivism, and True Security
Reading between the lines of the current tough talk between Obama, Bush, and McCain in relation to foreign affairs, it quickly becomes apparent that, today, the U.S. stands at a crossroads regarding the way it sees, and is seen by, the world. This reality has serious national security implications, and both Obama and McCain are well-advised to make international relations key pillars of their electoral platforms. With that said, voters in November should support the candidate whose ideas stand the greatest chance of improving the standing of the U.S. in the eyes of the world and, by extension, enhancing security at home. On this point, Obama has a clear advantage.

Principally, it cannot be ignored that Senator Obama would enter Oval Office with a few inherited advantages as it relates to international dealings. As a Democratic president, his election would represent a very clear break from the Bush Doctrine and earn him instant credibility amongst foreign leaders, even those in ally countries, who've grown weary of Bush's strong-handed, at times barbarous diplomatic approach. Moreover, as the country's first Commander in Chief of a mixed-ethnic heritage, Obama would inspire new international confidence in the strength of the 'American ideal', one that used to mean real opportunity for one and all to meet their full potential, but has been cast devastating and continuous blows by Bush's pigheadedness on financial, political, and social affairs. A Barack Obama presidency offers the U.S. instant improvements in its global image.

By engaging adversarial leaders and seeking out common interests shared by the U.S. and countries with whom relations have fallen into disrepair during the Bush tenure, Barack Obama would outperform his opponents in an area once perceived as a potential shortcoming: the creation of true and lasting security. But it is just this brand of security that the Senator's more thoughtful approach to diplomacy would help to build. Building walls, levying military attacks, and cutting off negotiations engender hatred and resentment , rather than fostering the type of understanding and cooperation necessary for the U.S. to build new and sustainable foreign partnerships.

Voters need to ask themselves serious questions about the real meaning of security. When they do, they will see that breaking with the Bush philosophy, which says that those who see the world in a different way than he does, offer little in the way of potentially meaningful cooperation for the U.S. They will see that Barack Obama offers positive solutions to the country's most vexing challenges as regards foreign affairs. And they will see that it is time for a new way of doing business at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Signing off from Glenn's, this is the New Mexico Progressive.