The economy’s rebounding, his approval ratings are ticking up, and the GOP field is a mess. Forty percent of Americans now see the president as a moderate. That’s up 10 percentage points from a year ago. While the election is eons away, the race at the moment is Obama’s to lose. Mark McKinnon and Myra Adams on the president’s odds of a return ticket to the White House.

President Obama’s poll ratings are climbing. And the online prediction market Intrade has Obama at a 58.9 percent chance of winning a second term. Though November 2012 is light years away in political time, as Team Obama regroups in Chicago, they should be optimistic about their reelection prospects. Here are 12 reasons why:

1. Power of Incumbency

In the last 56 U.S. presidential elections, 31 have involved incumbents; 21 of those candidates have won more than one term. Based on these historical odds, Obama has a better-than-67-percent chance of winning reelection. In 2004, voters were not happy with the economy, the Iraq War or President Bush generally, and still he was reelected.

2. Love Story Continues

Though the mainstream media is now sometimes critical of President Obama, he has never faced the extreme 24-hour-a-day derangement that has plagued other recent presidents and potential candidates-to-be. This gentle treatment is worth millions to a campaign.

3. Billion-Dollar Campaign

According to Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post, President Obama’s 2012 reelection effort could be the first campaign to raise $1 billion. Not an unreasonable assumption because he raised $750 million in 2008. Look for the coming campaign to break all fundraising and spending records on both sides.

4. Experienced Campaign Organization

In 2008, the junior senator from Illinois assembled a team of outsiders that defeated the Clinton machine and won the presidency with 365 electoral votes to Sen. John McCain’s 173. With the same Chicago campaign team in place, Obama will benefit from experience and memory; mistakes won’t be repeated.

5. Obama’s Charm Offensive

Let’s face it, Obama knows how to turn it on and win crowds with his oratory. He is personally likable, has an attractive family, and his favorables are climbing. His Real Clear Politics average is at 49.9 percent. That’s comfortably within the zone of the last three presidents to win reelection. At 752 days into the first term, according to Gallup, President Reagan’s approval rating fell to 37 percent. Clinton’s was at 47 percent, and George W. Bush’s was 61 percent. If history is any guide, Obama has nothing to fear at this point from Mr. Gallup.

6. Economy is Improving

As the economy goes, so goes Obama’s reelection prospects. Yes, this is a potential weakness, but there are signs of hope. And what is most important is not what voters think about the economy at this hour, but rather whether they think it is improving. The stock market is rising, and unemployment is trending downward, albeit too slowly. Consumer spending is up, and 40 percent of Americans say the economy will improve over the next year. The campaign theme may be: He brought us back from the brink.

7. They’ll Be Back

The 2010 midterm voters that swept Republicans into control of the U.S. House, governorships and state legislatures were older, whiter, and more conservative than those who went to the polls in 2008. Despite this “white flight” from the Democratic Party, young voters, more minorities, more women, and generally more liberals will be back in 2012. Though some of the liberal base may hold their nose, they’re not likely to desert the Democratic incumbent in November. And there is no doubt that Obama’s billion-dollar campaign fund will find some way to get his core constituents to the polls.

8. Obama, “The Moderate”

Forty percent of Americans now see the president as a moderate. That’s up 10 percentage points from a year ago. More importantly, 44 percent of independents now call Obama a moderate, up from 28 percent a year ago. If congressional Republicans are viewed as strident and over-reaching, Obama will be well positioned as a moderating force—with or without any Clintonian triangulation.

   The GOP Leadership — Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Speaker Boehner & House Majority Leader Cantor    [ ENLARGE ]

9. Republican Sparring Match

With no obvious frontrunner at this point, the Republican primary season may drag on and could be very messy. Tea Party support may be torn. And while Republicans debate which candidate is more Reaganesque, Obama will stay above the fray, looking presidential.

10. Neverending Campaign

Organizing for America never stopped working since 2008 and continuously sends targeted emails to its 13 million members. Supporters are asked to volunteer for service projects or call Congress to object to the vote on repealing health care. It’s the presidential campaign that never ended.

11. Hispanic Vote Growing

Obama earned 67 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2008 compared to McCain’s 31 percent. The Five State Voter project, sponsored by The Hispanic Institute, is under way to increase Hispanic voter participation in five states: New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Florida, and Colorado. Winning all of these states could seal the deal for Obama.

12. Several Paths to 270

There were five key red states that Obama won in 2008—Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina. Obama could lose every one of them in 2012 and still win reelection with 272 electoral votes.

Forty percent of Americans now see the president as a moderate. That’s up 10 percentage points from a year ago.

While the election is eons away, the race at the moment is Obama’s to lose.

Road To 2012 Presidential Elections

—————————–
References:
—————————–

1. Obama could survive some bumps on road to 2012 reelection

2. To Win in 2012 Barack Obama Needs Hillary Clinton More Than Biden As VP

3. Weak Tea: The GOP’s 2012 Presidential Field is Lousy and Decrepit

4. 2012 Projections: The Republican Presidential Field is Weak and Perilous; Packed With Retreads, Egomaniacs and Crazies

5. Why Obama is a Lock in 2012; How The Tea Party Will Shoot The GOP in Foot Ensuring Obama’s Re-election

6. President Obama Will Be Hard To Topple in 2012

—————————–

   [ By: Liliana Segura ]
By now, everyone has heard of the "birthers," that rabid crop of self-appointed patriots who insist that Barack Hussein Obama is not a legitimate president because he is not really an American citizen. What was once a nasty little rumor in the early days of the residential race has since evolved into a full-blown conspiracy theory whose proponents, though "viewed as irrelevant by the White House, and as embarrassing by much of the Republican Party, "in the words of Politico‘s Ben Smith, nonetheless enjoy increasingly high-profile political support, and media coverage 9/11 "truthers"could only dream of.

The birthers’ conspiracy theory — which holds that Obama was born in Kenya, despite all evidence to the contrary — has long been debunked. The Obama camp released a copy of his birth certificate as early as June of last year (although that only seemed to fan the flames). Yet, last week the "birthers" became big news again, after a video emerged showing Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) confronted at a town hall meeting by a woman who angrily accused him of being complicit in the cover-up of Obama’s true origins. Castle, who is commonly labeled a "moderate Republican" — and whose subsequent remark would earn him the label "RINO American Traitor" in some corners of the internet — seemed genuinely perplexed. "Well I don’t know what comment that invites," he said, to a chorus of boos. "If you’re referring to the president, then he is a citizen of the United States."

The video of Castle’s unfortunate run-in with the birthers hit YouTube and went viral. MSNBC put the clip on heavy rotation; "Hardball" host Chris Matthews devoted multiple segments to the topic; On CNN and on his radio show, sneering nativist Lou Dobbs fanned the flames with such remarks as, "What is the deal here? I’m starting to think we have … a document issue," and on Larry King, Dick Cheney’s increasingly vocal daughter, Liz, shared her highly unempirical view that "one of the reasons you see people so concerned about this" is that "people are uncomfortable with having for the first time ever … a president who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas." By midweek, Jon Stewart had lampooned the birthers and their media allies on Comedy Central, a move that, given his recent distinction as the new "most trusted man in news," might have spelled the death of the birthers.

Of course, it hasn’t.

This week alone, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) was quoted as saying they may "have a point," while the fourth-highest ranking member of the House, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) said she’d "like to see the documents." Meanwhile, an attempt by Hawaii Democrat Rep. Neil Abercrombie to pass a resolution to commemorate his state’s 50th anniversary (while also proclaiming the state as President Obama’s birthplace) was temporarily blocked by Minnesota Republican Michele Bachmann on Monday, only to pass a few hours later.

By now it seems everyone has put in their two cents (and then some) about the birthers. But while most media coverage has treated them as incurable wackjobs pushing a conspiracy theory to be classified alongside the moon landing "hoax" (40 years old last week!) and the (considerably larger) group of Americans who believe 9/11 was an inside job, the "truth" of Obama’s birth seems to fall into a slightly different category. Like all conspiracy theories, it springs from the fertile soil of collective denial. Unlike all conspiracy theories, it thrives on a deep-rooted, racist belief: that a black man with a foreign name could never have won the presidency in the United States through anything other than trickery, deception, or fraud.

"If Barack Obama was an Irish American or a Polish American or a German American, there would be no discussion anywhere in this country about his citizenship," radio host E. Steven Collins told Chris Matthews on Thursday, in response to his fellow guest, deranged right-winger and Nixon Watergate operative G. Gordon Liddy, whose own attempt to defend the birthers should mark a low point, even for his career. "This is because many people in this nation cannot still accept the fact that a brilliant African-American is the commander-in-chief."

The Sad Reality of The Tea-Parties and Janeane Garofalo

Right-Wing Douchebag Talking – Heads

Tim Wise, author of Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama, puts this in perspective: "When [Arnold] Schwarzenegger became governor, there were people who were saying,’hey we should amend the constitution to allow people who are naturalized citizens to maybe run for president."

"Although that didn’t go anywhere — and my guess is that the ‘birthers’ who are doing this crap with Obama probably wouldn’t have been real keen on that idea — notice that there was no groundswell of anger and opposition."

It’s the Racism, Stupid!

Perhaps it is too obvious to say that the birthers’ insistence on Obama’s illegitimacy is based on racism. Even so, why isn’t this collective racism at the heart of the "debate"?

"That’s one of the problems with this so-called post-racial era that we’re in," says Wise. "White folks in particular — and some folks of color — are very quick to avoid that angle at all costs, lest they be accused of somehow being the ones who are somehow racist in some way or who are thinking in racial terms."

After all, Americans have seen what happens when people of color dare to suggest that the country is anything but perfect: they are ruthlessly attacked. Take the rage over Michelle Obama’s remark during the presidential campaign that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country," which was treated as unpatriotic hate speech. Or the controversy prompted by Eric Holder’s remark that we are a "nation of cowards" when it comes to race.

Or, more recently, the ugly backlash against Obama’s (considerably mild) remark that a judge should have a capacity for "empathy" and an understanding of "people’s hopes and struggles." "Usually that’s a code word for an activist judge," Sen. Orrin Hatch told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, a line that became a rallying cry against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. ("I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for, an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of or against parties before the court," Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions proclaimed at the confirmation hearing.) In the end, the obsessive harping over Sotomayor’s "wise Latina" remark and right-wing accusations that she is a "reverse racist" because of her ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano (otherwise known as the Connecticut firefighters case) hijacked her confirmation hearing.

In fact, no sooner was the latest "birther" story gaining ground last week than we saw this same phenomenon on full display with a new controversy: the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. In an unguarded moment, Obama dared to say what might have seemed pretty obvious to even the most superficially race-conscious: the Cambridge police, "acted stupidly" by handcuffing Gates in his own home, particularly given the "long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately." Obama’s comment became national news; the networks seized on it, the blogosphere went wild, and by Friday afternoon, Obama had backtracked, issued a qualified apology, and invited the arresting officer, Sgt. Jim Crowley, to the White House for a beer.

"There’s a bizarre tendency, every time a person of color criticizes white folks — or just white racism — to say ‘that’s racism,’" says Wise. "So, by that logic, Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a racist, Barack Obama is a racist, Sonia Sotomayor is a racist … Meanwhile, people like Pat Buchanan, who say Sonia Sotomayor is unqualified or that white people built the country and are basically entitled to 100 percent of everything — they’re not racist."

The attacks on Sotomayor, the hysteria over Obama’s criticism of the Cambridge police, and the persistent rumors about Obama’s origins seem symptomatic of something larger, something Wise believes is "the culmination of centuries of ingrained privilege and hegemonic control."

Even it you are not yourself in a position of power, "… if you’ve gotten used to seeing people who look like you in almost every position of authority," he says, "to then have to wake up every day and see a man of color basically running the country … is psychologically debilitating to white folks who all their lives weren’t necessarily bigots or racists in any overt sense, but had simply gotten complacent with the way things were. They had internalized these notions of entitlement and superiority."

Given how deep such notions of entitlement and superiority can run, it’s hard to know to what degree the birthers are fully conscious of the racist impulses behind their crazy allegations — or whether they are in such denial that they actually believe their own bullshit.

White Hegemony Challenged

To explain the devastating effect of Obama’s presidency on those ordinary Americans who were quite happy with their white privilege, thank you, Wise quotes W.E.B. DuBois’s concept of "the psychological wage of whiteness."

"A lot of white folks don’t have much. They’re struggling, they’re hurting, but they’ve been able to content themselves with the idea that at least they’re not black," Wise says.

"So they get this psychological wage from their whiteness. The problem is, that’s a wage which is diminishing in value. If you say to yourself, ‘Well I may not have much, but at least I’m not black,’ and then you look around and say, ‘Shit, Black is the new president!’ — now the value of your psychological wage is reduced in real dollar terms. Now you’ve got nothing."

In Wise’s view, "The people who latch on to the birther stuff (working class and struggling middle class whites) aren’t any more racist than elite white folks, but their way of expressing it is so much more raw and visceral, because: a) they may not have the filter that you get when you’re elite (you sort of know when to check yourself), but also because they’re the ones who feel the most threat."

Of course, white elites have their own fears over the erosion of white hegemony — and not just televised bigots like Pat Buchanan. For a real measure of the panic over their own supremacy, a prime example is the growing number of elected officials who are pandering to — and emboldening — the birthers, not just by paying them lip service, but actually introducing legislation based on their outlandish claims.

This past February, Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) introduced a bill that would require presidential candidates to provide a copy of his or her birth certificate. (Posey has been widely quoted as saying he "can’t swear on a stack of Bibles whether [Obama's] a citizen or not.") As David Weigel recently wrote in the Washington Independent, "While Posey initially said that he disbelieved conspiracy theories about the president’s birth, he told the host of an Internet radio show that he’d discussed the possibility of Obama being removed from office over ‘the eligibility issue’ with ‘high-ranking members of our Judiciary Committee.’"

According to Weigel, who has covered the birthers extensively, "as of July 15, nine fellow Republican members of Congress were backing the bill."

"While Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) has said that he supports the bill because he didn’t know whether Obama was a citizen, other sponsors say that they weighed in to pour cold water on the conspiracy theories."

One such sponsor is Rep. John Campbell, a California Republican, who parroted this dubious claim in an interview with Chris Matthews on July 21st.

"Wouldn’t you like to put all this to rest?" Campbell asked. "That’s what this proposal is about." ("Nice try," Matthews responded.)

MATTHEWS: No, no. You are feeding the wacko wing of your party. Do you believe that Barack Obama is a legitimate native-born American or not?

CAMPBELL: That is not what this bill is about, Chris.

MATTHEWS: No, what do you believe?

CAMPBELL: As far as I know, yes, OK?

MATTHEWS: As far as you know?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

Campbell and his ilk may be an embarrassment to more "respectable" and powerful members of the Republican party. But they have more in common than they would like to admit.

"It appears to me that the Republican party, because of the choices it has made — going back 40 years or more — on policy positions have guaranteed that they were destined to be, at the end of the day, the white nationalist party," says Wise.

When "your budget-cut philosophy is about cutting programs that are perceived as helping ‘those people’, your attacks on affirmative action are very clear, your attacks on busing are very clear, all your law and order stuff … when you sow those seeds for several decades, you ought not be surprised when a whole crop of people who have grown up with that — that’s what they’re about now."

Take the new chair of the Young Republicans — a 38-year-old woman named Audra Shay. She recently came under fire when she was caught cosigning a racist Facebook post that read "Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist … Muslim is on there side [sic] … need to take this country back from all of these mad coons … and illegals."

Shay’s reply: "You tell em Eric! lol."

From "Barack the Magic Negro"; to e-mails depicting watermelons in front of the White House, to, most recently, a conservative activist’s circulation of an image of Obama as a witch doctor, incidents like these are as ubiquitous now as they were during the presidential campaign. And the people yelling "terrorist" at Sarah Palin rallies or those informing John McCain that Obama is "an Arab" have not gone away. Mainstream Republicans who wish to look respectable may want to distance themselves from this "lunatic fringe," but as representatives of a party largely built on structural racism, this is a very real part of their base.

In order for the GOP to survive, says Wise, Republicans are going to have to somehow bring in more minorities — a task that would require a fundamental revamping of the Republican identity and agenda — or "they’re gonna have to start making a lot of babies."

"I don’t think the Republican party ever thought they could get a lot of black folks," Wise says. "But they thought they could get Latinos. And the reason they thought so was because of this ridiculous and fundamentally racist naivete that said, ‘Well, Latinos are family-oriented so they’ll be against abortion.’ If you don’t think white folks are that one dimensional how can you think Latinos are so one-dimensional? Well of course you can — if you’re a racist."

For a number of people, the Sotomayor confirmation hearings were a sign that the Republicans are no longer particularly set on attracting "the Latino vote," something that might make the Pat Buchanans in the party smile, but which will ultimately prove costly for the GOP as a whole. As the country’s demographics evolve, the party that brought us the Willie Horton ads in the ’80s will have to evolve too. And so will white Americans who continue to insist on blaming their problems on people of color.

"The birther stuff to me is part of the same narcissistic breakdown that is at the heart of every e-mail I get from a college kid or that college kid’s parents who say, ‘I couldn’t get enough financial aid because they’re giving all the scholarships to black people,’" says Wise. "This narcissism is especially evident when you watch such hateful right-wing media buffoons as Rush Limbaugh — who supports the birthers — and "who are just becoming totally unglued."

"On the one hand it’s funny," says Wise. "On the other hand it’s really frightening, because people when they’re in that sort of meltdown mode don’t make good decisions and do really crazy things." Take James W. Von Brunn, the white supremacist — and "birther" himself — who shot and killed a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Museum in June.

It would be pushing it to see the birthers phenomenon is a sign that white hegemony is nearing its last throes. However, "one really positive thing about Obama’s presidency in regards to race" says Wise, is that "its created this nuttiness on the part of a lot white folks who have always been thinking this stuff but they just haven’t been as bold with it."

"At some point it will become increasingly difficult for those who like to deny racism as a problem to continue completely burying their heads."

"At some point, people will have to say, maybe black folks aren’t the crazy ones. Maybe it’s not the folks of color who have lost their minds. Maybe it’s you."

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————

By MICHAEL B. FARRELL
Nov. 29, 2008

When President Bush says so long to Washington on Jan. 20, he’ll return to a much different Lone Star State from the one he left eight years ago.

Pickup trucks, Big Oil, and barbecue brisket still reign supreme, but this red state that helped deliver the presidency to Mr. Bush twice and his father once, and that catapulted GOP strategist Karl Rove to the national stage, is suddenly spotted with big pockets of blue.

Dallas is controlled by Democrats; Houston is in their hands, too. It’s all largely because of the state’s growing Hispanic population, which overwhelmingly sided with Democrats this year.

“The tide of demography in Texas is moving against the Republicans,” says Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “All the major cities are Democratic and are likely to become more so over time.”

The Pew Hispanic Center reports that Latino voters sided with President-elect Obama over Sen. John McCain by a margin of more than 2 to 1, helping Democrats win crucial states such as Florida, Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado. While the overall Hispanic turnout did not rise much, it accounted for 9 percent of the vote this year and 8 percent in 2004 — Latino support for the GOP dropped nine percentage points, according to Pew.

That has left Republicans panicking and Democrats drooling. Duncan Currie writes in last week’s conservative Weekly Standard that Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R) of Florida says the GOP has a “very, very serious problem” because of diminishing Hispanic support.

Political scientists, sociologists, and activists say that concern reflects a keen awareness of what a growing and increasingly political Latino community could mean in big, traditionally red states like Texas: Those voters could tip Democratic in future national contests.

“We are in the process of watching this remarkable shift,” says Stephen Klineberg, a sociologist at Rice University here, referring to the overall demographic transformation of America. “You can be absolutely certain that every election [to come] in Texas will have a larger percentage of Latino voters.”

In 2005, Texas joined California, New Mexico, and Hawaii as states where minority populations collectively outnumber whites, according to the US Census Bureau. In Texas and California, the second-largest group behind whites, and the fastest-growing population, is Hispanics. Nationwide, Hispanics number about 45.5 million, or 15 percent of the population. In Texas, Latinos make up about 36 percent of the population and about 20 percent of participating voters this year.

“It’s the biggest pool of Hispanic voters left in a state that didn’t vote Democratic in 2008,” not counting Arizona, because it’s Senator McCain’s home state, says Richard Murray, a political scientist at the University of Houston.

For the Democratic Party nationally, the overwhelming Hispanic support presents an inviting opportunity, especially to develop party loyalty among younger Latinos, who backed Mr. Obama 76 percent to 19 percent for McCain, according the Pew analysis.

In Harris Country, which includes Houston, 70 percent of people older than 60 are Anglo, while more than 75 percent of people younger than 30 are non-Anglo, notes Professor Klineberg.

While Bush didn’t carry the Hispanic vote here in 2004, he came close. He captured 49 percent of that bloc, with 50 percent going to Democratic rival Sen. John Kerry. Republicans also lost ground among Hispanics this year in Florida.

Since the advent of his political career, though, Bush found ways to appeal to the Latino community, which saw him favorably for his close relationships with Latin American leaders, his faith-based initiatives, and his ability to speak Spanish.

While Hispanics are not a monolithic bloc, many began turning away from the Republicans in Texas, and elsewhere in the US, amid the harsh rhetoric about immigration reform in 2007, says Professor Murray.

| Read: Fear & Loathing in Prime Time: Immigration Myths and Cable News |

“Even in Texas you can’t just be a party of white folks,” he says. “Nationally and locally, the party is going to have to do some retooling.”

Though the Lone Star State’s spots of blue darkened on Election Day, the state remains solidly Republican (55 percent McCain, 44 percent Obama). McCain scored huge victories in rural Texas, taking as much as 93 percent of the vote in some counties in the Panhandle, helping deliver the state’s 34 electoral votes to the Republicans. The statehouse in Austin also remains in Republican hands.

Associated Press exit polls showed that whites, seniors, Christians, and the affluent largely stayed with the GOP ticket and that McCain took two-thirds of the state’s white vote and about three-fifths of families making more than $50,000 annually.

While rural, suburban, and small-town Texans stick with traditional Republican values, Klineberg says, a new cosmopolitan and high-tech Texas is emerging in cities such as Houston, which is the country’s fourth-largest city, with a population of about 2 million.

Houstonian Judy Craft, a longtime Democratic activist and an environmentalist, is used to swimming against the red tide in Texas. “I was hoping we’d do better, but that’s because I’m really good at suspending my disbelief during the middle of a campaign,” says Ms. Craft, who signed off her e-mails during the campaign with the hopeful wish that Texas would turn blue. “Oh well, at least I got a bluer shade of purple.”

————————————-

John McCain’s Immigration Dilemma

The job of Juan Hernandez is to win support for John McCain, particularly Latino votes. So it may seem odd that the campaign doesn’t want its national director of Hispanic outreach to get any press.

Repeated NEWSWEEK requests to interview Hernandez have been rebuffed or ignored.

When a reporter suggested talking to Hernandez at a convention of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, where Hernandez was slated to appear June 28, his name was suddenly removed from the list of scheduled speakers.

A NALEO spokesman, Eric Wagner, says someone from the McCain campaign called and asked to replace him, but didn’t offer an explanation. (A McCain aide, who refused to be quoted discussing internal campaign strategy, later told NEWSWEEK that the campaign had never signed off on Hernandez as a speaker.)

Here’s one possible reason: Hernandez is toxic to many conservatives. “He represents the opposite of everything conservative Republicans stand for,” says a GOP strategist who didn’t want to be quoted by name on a sensitive topic…..[MORE >>]

Read: Fear and Loathing in Prime Time — Immigration Myths and Cable News

The candidates have been courting this essential voting bloc, including speeches this week to La Raza. One thing is clear: Latinos will not be ignored.

SAN DIEGO –  During Barack Obama’s speech to the 40th annual conference of the National Council of La Raza Sunday, the presumptive Democratic nominee casually referred to “my friend Hillary Clinton.”

The Latino radio talk show host next to me quipped, “So they’re friends now?”

“Yeah,” I joked. “That’s how you know neither of them is Latino. We’ll hold a grudge for 500 years.”

Latinos aren’t known to forgive and forget. And that’s a problem for John McCain, who spoke Monday. The presumptive Republican nominee has put at risk decades of support from Latino voters in Arizona because of the perception he flip-flopped on immigration. Whereas once he talked about the need for a comprehensive approach that includes giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, he now calls first for securing the border.

But for many Latinos, it’s not just what McCain says that is the problem. It’s why he says it. He’s clearly attempting to placate the nativist fringe of the GOP. So the message that Latinos take away is that the Arizona senator is a fair-weather friend.

A foolhardy strategy

McCain is on a fool’s errand. The nativists detest him for, among other things, calling them nativist. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum tried to torpedo McCain in the Republican primaries by revealing that, in a private meeting with GOP senators during the immigration debate, McCain scolded his colleagues for being “xenophobic.” He told them that by being tough on the borders, many Latinos would see it as a racist attack, and he was right. Now many Latinos see McCain as bending under pressure. They want a guarantee that, if elected, it’ll be the old McCain that tackles immigration reform.

Just as he did when the candidates spoke before the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and the League of United Latin American Citizens, Obama wasted no time in jabbing at McCain’s weak spot. Saying that he once admired McCain because he “used to buck his own party on immigration,” Obama accused his opponent of abandoning that stance. “I don’t know about you,” Obama said. “But I think it’s time for a president who won’t walk away from something as important as comprehensive reform when it becomes politically unpopular.”

The line brought down the house while stinging McCain. When he spoke the next day, McCain made reference to Obama’s attack and sought to “correct the record.” He spelled out the “hard votes” he cast in the Senate in 2005 and 2007 in favor of the comprehensive reform plan he co-authored. And he said Obama declined to cast some of those votes and, in fact, sponsored labor-friendly amendments intended to kill the legislation.

“I never ask any special privileges from anyone just for having done the right thing,” McCain said. “Doing my duty to my country is its own reward. But I do ask for your trust that when I say that I remain committed to fair, practical and comprehensive immigration reform, I mean it.” That straight talk also drew a strong crowd response. Latinos value loyalty, and many are inclined to stay loyal to McCain.

Many people around the country were probably watching to see how the presidential candidates handled their appearances before the nation’s largest and perhaps most controversial Latino advocacy group. I’d call it a draw.

The irony is that, for U.S.-born Hispanics in particular, immigration is just one issue. They tell pollsters they care about Iraq, the economy, education and health care, just like other Americans. But with the immigration debate so heated and the national mood so ugly, Hispanics are more intensely interested in the issue than they were a few years ago when the waters were calm. In fact, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a majority of Hispanics say immigration is a top issue that will influence their votes in November.

La Raza’s mission

As part of that ugliness, the candidates have been criticized for even bothering to court Latino voters. CNN’s Lou Dobbs regularly blasts La Raza as a “socio-ethnocentric organization.” Apparently, the phrase refers to anyone who stands up to fear-mongers who seek attention  –  and ratings  –  by setting off cultural alarm bells and poisoning race relations.

If anything, La Raza has been too corporate, too cautious and too co-opted by Fortune 500 companies seeking an entrée into the $800 billion-a-year Latino market. When its leaders needed to be raising hell, they were raising corporate donations and foundation dollars and steering clear of controversies that could put either in jeopardy.

President and CEO Janet Murguia, who took the reins a few years ago, has been more aggressive in defense of Hispanics. In April, Murguia informed the National Press Club that the immigration debate had turned hateful and that all Hispanics  –  even the 80% who are U.S. citizens or legal residents –  are feeling the backlash. Murguia vowed, “We will not be demonized. We will not be scapegoated. And we will not be ignored.”

Given recent events, I’d say there is little chance of that.

About The Author: Ruben Navarrette is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group. Ruben is a fresh voice on political and social issues who challenges readers to think in new ways — His twice-weekly column offers new thinking on many of the major issues of the day, especially on thorny questions involving ethnicity and national origin….[MORE >>]