80-20 Endorses Hillary Clinton

By: Melissa Chin, Feb 02, 2008

Tags: Bay Area |

PAC backing based on support for more APA judges and discrimination protection

SAN FRANCISCO — The 80-20 Initiative, a nonpartisan political action committee dedicated to forming a politically cohesive Asian American voting bloc, announced on Jan. 18 its endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for president in California’s upcoming Democratic primary election.

It has also appropriated $30,000 to support Clinton in the Asian ethnic media, and to be spent before the election on Feb. 5.

The endorsement of Clinton over the other candidates followed the group’s efforts to ask each of the Democratic and Republican candidates to support specific goals toward establishing better representation of Asian American judges in the federal courts and protecting Asian Americans from employment discrimination.

At the Jan. 18 press conference, Kathleen To, president of 80-20, said, “Senator Clinton promised in writing with one unambiguous word, ‘yes,’ that she’ll use the power of the presidency to eliminate all discrimination against Asian Americans in workplaces.

Obama’s campaign did not sign the questionnaire, writing in a letter that they were “unable to reach agreement with leadership of 80-20 … over concerns with the wording of the questionnaire, despite the fact that modifications … were made for other campaigns.”

The group deems employment discrimination to be one of the most pervasive problems facing Asian Americans, according to the group’s founder, S.B. Woo, while their focus on the federal courts lies in their belief that the evidence clearly shows an underrepresentation of Asian Americans in the federal judiciary. “Seeing such clear numbers (of underrepresentation of Asian Americans), we decided to make it an issue,” Woo said.

By urging Asian Americans to vote for one candidate in the primary election, the group hopes to demonstrate the power of the Asian American vote and bring issues facing the Asian American community to the political forefront. 80-20 hopes to unite 80 percent of Asian American voters to support Clinton, thus the significance of the group’s name.

80-20 board member Joel Wong said that creating a voting bloc for Asian Americans will finally force politicians “not to ignore the rightful concerns of Asian Americans anymore.”

Comments

I’m trying to figure out why this letter has been published without an update. Clearly, the article was written prior to the events of this week: Obama and 80/20 came to a consensus allowing Obama to sign the questionnaire (with references to unconstitutional quotas removed). In response, 80/20 has revised its position, declaring neutrality in the Democratic presidential primaries in all but the California race.

I don’t expect AsianWeek to not publish this letter; but perhaps an update at the end of the article with more recent news?

–Jenn on Feb 02, 2008
“The 80-20 Initiative, a nonpartisan political action committee”

“announced on Jan. 18 its endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y”

Uhh….. nonpartisan and endorsement? FAIL!

/Will admit it wouldn’t have been fail if Obama was endorsed.

–John on Feb 02, 2008
Please amend this article. It is out of date and incorrect.

–Tuan Nguyen on Feb 03, 2008
I expect better from the editorial department at AsianWeek. How can you publish this on your site on February 2nd when in fact 80-20 and Sen. Obama reached an agreement on January 31st ending 80-20’s campaign against Obama.
“80-20 considers the commitment from Senator Obama to Asian American issues to be at least as strong as the commitment from Senator Clinton…”
http://80-20initiative.blogspot.com/2008/01/sen-obama-replied-with-all-yeses.html
It is clear by the negotiations between Sen. Obama and 80-20 that Sen. Obama had always supported the spirit of 80-20’s questionnaire but could only answer their survey in the affirmative after some technical language was corrected.
AsianWeek should retract this article immediately with a correction/apology explaining why.

–Patrick Wong on Feb 03, 2008
Here is an article illustrates Asian American makes a difference in this country and worldwide. We, like everybody else, as American, fully understanding giving is part of life. I here by, solute this couple for such bold effort. I am sure it sets an example for more Asian Pacific American to do more for this country. At the same time, I ask the this government and all American embrace us like everybody else.
=================================

Couple gives UCLA $1 million to further Chinese American studies
template_bas
template_bas
Bel-Air residents intend the gift to broaden understanding and educate the public and policymakers.
By Teresa Watanabe, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 2, 2008
Headlines about dangerous toys from China dominated the news for months last year, prompting congressional hearings and consumer questions about the Asian manufacturing giant’s product safety.

But Walter and Shirley Wang, Bel-Air residents with three children, asked a different question: Where were the headlines pointing out that some of the problems were caused not by shoddy Chinese manufacturing practices but by American design flaws?

Concerned that China and ethnic Chinese are not always understood, the Wangs have stepped forward with a remedy.

On Friday, the Chinese American couple said that they would donate $1 million to UCLA to establish the nation’s first endowed academic chair on U.S.-China relations and Chinese American studies.

The gift will also fund a media program to educate the public and policymakers. The program will establish a website, media and policy handbook, and a database of experts about Chinese American issues.

“We’re not saying we want people to be biased for China,” Shirley Wang said. “But in every situation there are different views. We just want more understanding.”

The gift marks the latest effort by the Wangs, owners of one of the world’s largest plastic piping firms, to promote understanding of Chinese Americans and U.S.-China relations.

In 2000, they donated $1.5 million to help finance the acclaimed PBS series “Becoming American: The Chinese Experience.”

The couple’s interest in public perceptions and media portrayals of Chinese Americans is in part a product of Shirley Wang’s background: She is a 1990 UCLA graduate in communications, with an emphasis on business.

But their concerns were fanned by a 2001 survey of American attitudes toward China and Chinese Americans commissioned by the Committee of 100, a group of prominent Chinese Americans. That poll reported 68% of Americans surveyed viewed China as a future threat and nearly half believed that Chinese Americans were probably more loyal to China.

The survey also showed, however, majorities that viewed Chinese Americans as honest and as patriotic as other Americans, with strong family and educational values.

But the Wangs — he a 42-year-old Taiwan native; she a 39-year old New York native raised in Taiwan — have also given beyond the Chinese American community. A $1.5-million donation established an endowed chair in pediatric surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

They are currently involved with the Earth Institute to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars of plastic piping to bring clean water to destitute villagers in Africa.

Why give? “It’s very clear,” Walter Wang said. “The strong helps the weak. The rich helps the poor. It’s a great thing to give to others.”

The Wangs’ donations, which began eight years ago, reflect the emerging force of Chinese American philanthropy.

In recent years, a growing cadre of ethnic Chinese who came to the United States as immigrant students or entrepreneurs have begun giving back. Chinese Americans have donated millions of dollars, for instance, to construct the Chinese Garden at the Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens.

The garden is set to open later this month.

“The Wangs represent a new breed of young, successful Chinese immigrant business people who want to give back to American society and . . . use their money to positively address important issues,” said Don Nakanishi, who heads the UCLA Asian American Studies Center.

Nakanishi said the endowment would generate about $50,000 a year to support the media program, offer scholarships and support the research of the chair holder, who has not yet been named.

The center has the largest Asian American studies program in the nation, with 45 faculty members, two academic journals, extensive archives and endowed chairs for research on Japanese Americans and Korean Americans.

Walter Wang said his charitable giving is “100%” inspired by his Christian faith.

His grandfather, the family’s first Christian, used to take in homeless people to bathe, clothe and feed though he himself was poor, Wang said.

His father began a successful plastics firm and proceeded to use much of the profits for charity, building four hospitals.

Shirley Wang, too, recalls her grandmother always cooking extra and inviting hungry neighbors to share a meal.

“It’s just an extra pair of chopsticks,” Wang recalled her grandmother saying.

Walter Wang’s near-fatal bout with nasal cancer three years ago — and what both Wangs call a miraculous recovery — deepened their passion to use their wealth to help others. “We rediscovered how precious life is,” Walter Wang said.

“Through the love of God, we have to make a difference in people’s lives.”

teresa.watanabe@latimes.com

–Eastern_leader on Feb 03, 2008
80 20 made a strong case to gain support for Asia Amersican which has been ignored for years by both parties.

–Yang Fu on Feb 04, 2008
The fact that this article is still up after 80/20 came to an agreement with Obama really disappoints me. I thought AsianWeek was more professional than that….. I am more surprised that anybody would argue that Obama, who is a racial minority and lived in Indonesia and Hawaii, is less supportive of “Asian causes” than Clinton. Not sure what “Asian causes” means exactly, but racial discrimination might be one. Obama has the ability to see the world from a minority perspective, and from living in Indonesia, an Asian perspective to some extent. Hillary on the other hand owes to many favors to special interests. She’s not going to be supporting “Asian causes” when she’s to busy doling out treats to her lobby group supporters. Obama is not Asian, but he’s the candidate with the most chance of taking Asians seriously.

–Nathan Chan on Feb 04, 2008
As a long time Chinese American Activist, I cannot help but feel how lack of political savvy some of the pro Obama postings are on this site. Just because a person is of a minority group, even though he/she may relate to your experiences, may not necessary mean they have the expertise and the insider knowledge to further your cause. The Clintons have taken on progressive issues for decades and have the network to do so. Although you may argue about taking money from special interests (which Obama by the way is not a saint and will not be if he is elected ) , they have supported legislation that was progressive for women, the handicap, and people of color. How quickly people’s memory fade. Progressives (like me) want a leader that will put on his/her boxing gloves and fight the Reds (as in the Conservative red states the likes of Rove, deLay) in Congress , and the only way to fight and defeat the reds is with the a dose of their own medicine, dirty and hard. You have seen how Republicans are even acting now in Congress, filibustering bills and being obstructionists to progressive legislation. Do you think that Obama will be able to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with Mitch McConnell and the Republican bunch that are similar in mold to Delay, Karl Rove? You think they will just roll over and sing? Hillary is battle tested, she wears her battle scars well, and will fight for our cause. For example, Clinton is mandating “Mandatory” Universal health care whereas Obama is making it optional….which will make it totally unworkable. He says if you make it optionable and affordable, people will buy healthcare…..I don’t see that with even auto insurance in California, if not mandatory people will not buy and the rest of us will pay the bills. That is why it is mandatory for you to buy motor insurance in California. Obama’s view is that he wants to negotiate, which will in turn water down our cause.

As a rank and file Democrat who supported the cause to fight poverty, improving our healthcare, and the elimination of discrimimation for decades, I am just dismayed by the huge cross over of so called independents to vote in our party primaries, and whom I would not be surprised if a lot of them where Reds (pro Bush) in the last two election when people like us in California took our licks and stood our ground for being Blue for Kerry and Gore. I believe a great deal of this venom, hatred, and misogyny towards Hillary that I see posted on left leaning blogs are from this group and Republican cross overs.

Get real people. Obama is a light weight and has not worn any battle scars yet, and nobody has seriously challenged him.Wait until the ugly red machine is consolidated with McCain and they start painting Obama against the wall as another ultra liberal with no experience (Clinton is more Centrist), you will then see some damage.

Get real people. Elect an experienced fighter that will fight for our cause for health care and equal opportunity, *then* we can sing Kumbaya.

If you were in need of a medical operation, would you get an experienced surgeon or an intern? After 8 years, do we want to have another Ivy League grad that will need on the job training?

Andy
California

–Andy W on Feb 15, 2008
Andy W:
Thought=provoking for sure, and I doubt not your motivations.
But I DO have one quibble: I don’t think Obama can justifiably be dubbed “lightweight” politically.
Much more to the point, in this view: Hillary’s consistent vote for funding the Iraq debacle.
Which, surely is contributory, if not central, to today’s “recession.”
And, the entire Congress’ seemingly blind acceptance of the AIPAC stance in the Mideast.
Domestically, there’s scant difference between the two, but I see beyond tbe “red” state Rovians to the neocon blueprint for “endless war” and rogue-nation first-strike view of the world.
As for “savvy’ and the fight for civil rights for all, seems to me it’s about a tossup herein, and 80-20 may have pulled a booboo, at least insofar as public perceptions are concerned
In the end, it begins to look like the “general” public has voted, yeah, “for change.”
We shall see, for what and how much. But, at the very least, not another century of corrupt and incompetent waging of preemptive “wars.”
Frank Eng

–Frank Eng on Feb 16, 2008
Bill Clinton signed into law the resolution for an APOLOGY TO HAWAIIANS for the over throw of our Queen.

Obama born in Hawaiian should have pushed this the second he became in a position to. He has not been actively assisting Hawaiian issues to the light. He has said more then once that Chicago Illinois is his home and that he grew up in Chicago. He only comes to Hawaii on Christmas to see his half sister.

Hillary has actively worked on Native American and Native Hawaiian issues. She has always state she will sign a federal recognition bill for Hawaiians.

Obama only recently stated that.

Just because your born in Hawaii doesn’t make you diverse or aware of Hawaiian issues or Asian issues.

He rarely speaks of his “white” mother or his half sister. He appears to be embarrassed of his ethnicity or he only wants to play the race card.

Ohana is important to me, my ancestors are important to me. I have lived on the mainland for a while and I have not forgotten where I am from. I stay active in Hawaii’s issues. I educate myself on unemployment, housing, and medical issues.

Just because I moved away and live on the mainland I still claim Hawaii as my home, as my families home.

Obama is trying to use a small portion of his life to get the Hawaii Caucus vote.

I truly hope we can remain focused on logical issues. I am all for hope and change.

But I don’t believe just saying it will benefit my diverse family members (Hawaiian, Thai, Japanese,black, white, Filipino, etc).

I know that for the last 20 years Hillary has been pushing for Hawaii and was not even born there.

Hillary 2008

–Awa on Feb 17, 2008
Awa:
See my column on the Hawaii vote in the opinion section of this site. And check the blog at http://www.amok.asianweek.com

–Emil Guillermo

–Emil Guillermo on Feb 18, 2008
Hey!
Awa and Emil:
Your guys are running scared and desperate, to characterize Obama kids as a “cult,” along with funny jabs about “plagiarism.” Since when were old-saws and common lingo proprietary?
But the funnier thing is today’s online headlines in the D.C. Post?, or was it MSNBC?, about Establishment “blacks” being nonplussed by those selfsame kids.
Fact is, whether or not Obama is anywheres near the Clintons for Wall Street/big bankers IOUs, politically speaking of course, he is STILL the only possible “choice” for “progressives.”
The Club of Rome types, with their Bilderberg and Aspen and “liberal” “thinktank” gurus ALL miss the point that THEIR musings AND machinations are all “on paper,” whereas “realpolitik” takes place on the “streets” of the world.
We are still “unilaterally” smartbombing our avowed or perceived “enemies,” thereby producing MORE enemies, and wasting MORE funds we are borrowing that could more profitably be invested in job creation or infrastructure or ANYthing but murder and mayhem and deconstruction.
Check on some of the above references by way of Wikipedia, and marvel at the neoMalthusian mumblings and murmurings of “western” “elitist” movers-and-shakers who actucally believe they are moving historic figures on the chessboard of “history.”
Don’t they know that human being are, in fact, mere “butterflies” dreaming they are humunculi?
Frank Eng
P.S.: Watch the upcoming “primaries.” And note that Billary’s lead in Texas has shrunk to a dead-heat. Can Ohio and Pennsy be far behind?

–Frank Eng on Feb 19, 2008
Frank,
You are implying that because Hillary initially voted to fund the war in Iraq this makes her not a viable candidate for clearing up the Iraq mess. So this implies that the huge majority of us, including myself and Pelosi, who were willing to give the benefit of doubt to our Intelligence and Commander in Chief, are not able to see that we were misled? I am inclined to think those of you who are complaining that Hillary voted for funding have been the same folks in the majority that were not sure about this whole ordeal and gave George W the benefit of the doubt. If you look at the Iraq policies from both candidates, *both* Hillary and Barak have set quick time tables for a withdrawal.

The Clintons are successful because they are left Centrists, and they realize that as president you are the leader of all Americans and not just the left. In order to win an election (not a primary), you have to come across to the main stream American public (in the red heartland) that in addition to our domestic issues, you will use diplomacy and not hesitate to wield American might in protection of our nation if necessary. Hillary has to overcome the view that as a woman she can also be strong on defense and military issues, whereas men do not have to face such scrutiny.

As for experience, how can you doubt her for having Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright at her side?

As a former Kucinich and Edwards supporter, I urge all Asian Americans to vote for Hillary. She is the one with the most detailed policies to address progressive issues, not with filled feel good rhetoric ( change …….change what?). Vote for economic prosperity, for *Mandatory* Universal healthcare, care to the elderly and poor.

Vote Hillary.

Andy
San Francisco
Jesse Jackson ‘84 Supporter

–Andy W on Feb 19, 2008
Dear Andy W:
First, let me assure you that what I say and what I believe, as a single voice and a single opinion, is NOT ad hominem, especially in this case.
Second, I also believe I believe that I am trying to speak as an American citizen first, and not as either apologist or proselytizer for either “Chinese-Americans” or “Asian-Pacific Americans.” How would I dare?
Nor would I begin to venture the opinion that Hillary Clinton would or could not “clean up the mess” in Iraq were she to become the next President.
But I DO find both her record therein AND her on-the-campaign-trail-record of subscribing to the neocon/Pentagon/administration stance of demonizing Iran, the selfsame ploy vs. Saddam pre-obscene war in Iraq. She would not deign to “talk” to this “enemy.”
Today, or was it more likely yesterday?, said administration and generals promulgated precisely the identical bomb-and-destroy scenario in a nation where our own puppet regime will be further beleaguered thereby.
So much for “intelligence” and all 27 agencies thereof.
Hillary was misled, like you? My belief is that a six-year-old would have seen through Dubya way back when, along with the “media” that helped place him in “power,” a power he still refuses to relinquish in the face of an elcctorate that continues to insist on CHANGE.
As for Ms. Pelosi, for whom I had high high hopes, she lost me the day she took office and pronounced that impeachment was “off the table.” WHY?
The Democrsatic Party, including, very especially, the Clinton “centrists,” has, to me at least, demonstrated the, again to me personally, sad fact that they are a Gilbert & Sullivan Dumpty to the Dubya/neocon Humpty. And they’re still humping like mad.
And, finally here, argumentationwise, Madeleine Albright? Wasn’t she the one who rationalized the lives of half-a-million Iraqi children? All along the rationalizations of illustrious predecessors like Herr Dr. Henry Kissinger, who, I am bemused to learn, doesn’t travel much overseas anymore for fear of being hauled into court for war crimes, like Rummy, unable to get off his plane at Orly? because there were guys waiting, with summonses, in the airport.
Our “commander-in-chief” has disgraced both office and self in ways too awful to contemplate, much less cite and number. Actually, were it not for the lives and the mayhem and wanton destruction in far too many places and times, he could be seen and dismissed as a puppet buffoon, and not just because of fractured syntax and er, ah stumblebum pronunciamentos.
How ANYone can misidentify man from office or vice versa is beyond this frail perception. Reagan was a competent actor?, but this guy barely qualified as a skull-and-boner, and should have been retired to the “minors,” baseball that is, long before he helped run Texas into the badass hardball likes of the Enrons and El Paso Gases and DeLays and fellow travellers along the highway skyway of kited lootings and improbable riches and “power.”
All that said, I wonder how an adherent of either Kucinich OR Edwards can look askance at someone who would at least “talk to” others before either nuking them or at least paving their landscapes for another transnational parking lot for offshored hirees.
Frank Eng

–Frank Eng on Feb 20, 2008
Mr Frank E,
Your views reflect the throngs of Obamabots out there that resort to personal hatred towards individuals as a selling point, and so blinded by this hatred that you cannot or refuse to see anything else. This is immediate when you equated Hillary in the same camp with Bush and the NeoCons, and the lack of objectivity to what has been achieved. Your linkage of Hillary to George W hastens my doubts about your objectivity and you are doing this out of heart (like most Obamabots) more than facts. Throngs of these people in Obama rallies faint and call in his name and “CHANGE”, as if this was the second coming of the messianic messenger, but without substance as to what this CHANGE will be. I have yet to hear any concrete steps or arguments from you, from these Obamabots , or Obama himself about HOW we will get CHANGE. Substituting a name from Bush or Clinton to OBAMA is not CHANGE.

Why wouldn’t Hillary talk to Iran and other so called Axis of Evil countries? Is it your biased feelings that she will be another George Bush and not talk to any of them, or are you commenting this with historical precedence? Bill Clinton worked with the UN and used key diplomacy before going to any military engagements (e.g. Kosovo), earning the respect and prestige of many countries around the world, and Hillary would not be any different. Can one not see the difference between Clinton and Bush? Have we forgotten that it was the Clinton era that we had economic prosperity (budget surplus) and world prestige, and that all ended when the the NeoCon cowboys took office? How quickly we forget.

Yes, as an Edwards/Kucinich supporter I am proud to support Hillary because she has expertise in health care and domestic policy. I want someone that has a track record to be scrutinized, just like when I hire an employee to look over his resume I want to see what he/she has done. Obama does not have this track record. I like to see business plans and numbers and what they will achieve. Hillary has the numbers and expertise in health and domestic policy, she has laid out a comprehensive Universal health care plan (so did Edwards). Health care is very important to my parents living in Chinatown because they do not work in a company that has any health insurance, and they do not earn enough to cover the high premiums because they are stuck in the 50’s age bracket and are not old enough to retire. I grew up as a sweat shop child and know what it means to sweat and toil, and believe in out party to help those without a voice (as in Edwards and Kucinich’s economic populism stance).

I get incensed when the media says the noneducated get the Hillary votes while the white men and high income folks go for Obama, implying that the workers are non informed. Working class people that have to work think about bread and butter issues and healthcare, and see things in much more concrete terms than the more abstract “feel” good and green issues of the affluent or non working younger generation ; the latter which has more time to sit and surf the web, listen to their ipods, and not worry if they will be losing their manufacturing jobs. The working class base things that are tangible, and see that the Clintons has brought properity whereas Obama has no such record.

You want a known quantity to lead, with a track record (good and bad) that can be scrutinized from both side of the aisle. We should be skeptical of candidates that are based on feel good but without a track record. Be skeptical of messianic undertones because they fade like fashion in time. The office is too important for on the job training with this mess we are in. Hillary will take off her gloves and fight for the cause, and not compromise with the reds.

I cannot envision seeing Obama singing Kumbaya hand in hand with Mitch McConnell (R) of the senate, and you shouldn’t either. Hillary has been battle tested with lots of battle scars, and she wear them well. The press were no darlings of Hillary either, but I admire her courage to standup again and again and fight when bloodied numerous times when the press wrote her off. She ran against heavy weight senate contenders Gulliani and R Lazio for her seat, and these were very ugly and bloody fights New York Style. In contract , Obama easily won his seat over Alan Keys (R) without much of a contest and a shoe in.

Andy W
San Francisco

–Andy W on Feb 25, 2008
Dear Andy:
First, may I be allowed to congratulate you on your political passion? AND, even more so for your unflagging convictions?
Second, I commend you and admire you for your truly filial attitudes, which I share, and which I honored in my own small and inconsequential ways through a lifetime of work and belief and struggle.
Third, I came to support Obama belatedly, originally finding the man and the candidate far too close to Billary and the Dumpty Dems as
“enablers” to the Bushitting neocons and neoZionist fanatics who believe, and, more importantly, ACT in that belief, that shooting and bombing and physically destroying perceived enemies, and preemptively at that, are the answer to humanity’s dilemma.
Actually, “our” fundamentalists are just as much “terrorists” as theirs. Probably more so, insofar as “we” possess the WMDs AND the delivery systems, and they are basically bound to whatever they find at hand to kill and maim and destroy.
I have NO quarrel with your concerns about domestic issues, nor, it would seem, do either candidate under discussion.
But the domestic issues are moot, in my view, unless we can address the GLOBAL issues first.
And, therein, the “wars” in BOTH Iraq AND Afghanistan loom large and “unwinnable,” from “our” standpoint.
I am pleasantly surprised by today’s? headlines about John Edwardses’ aligning himself with the antiwar faction. That makes me MORE regretful that he is out of this race.
A man who can take “defeat” and turn it to the advantage of what is, bottom-line, BEST for the nation, is, to me, a ‘man for all seasons.”
YOUR candidate has become increasingly shrill and negative, even as Obama turns increasingly confident. I am afraid the Clinton cause is a lost one herein .
And well it should be. For the good of this nation, and ALL segments thereof.
On the other hand, should the tides of time and humankind reverse itself, and Hillary be the nominee, then, with even more rue and doubt, I shall, this single vote, cast mine for her, over McCain. Or ANY Republican. Or Libertarian. Or Nader naysayer.
But that does NOT gainsay the fact that Hillary consistently voted to FUND a fruitless war.
More to the point, an IMMORAL war.
Frank Eng
P.S.: I don’t, personally, “hate” ANYone, not even Dubya. I “hate” what he stands for, but, very especially, what he has done: to innocents in far too many places, to the very essence of what this country should stand for, and, sadly, to what he and his cohorts have done to the Constitution and your and my “rights” and self-respect.
Dubya is not only an embarrassment, would that that was the bottom line, he is the unwitting? reincarnation of the madman that was Hitler, last night on the Oscars derisively renamed “Gaydolph Titler,” which, by the way, is a slur on another minority, homosexuals.

–Frank Eng on Feb 25, 2008
Mr Frank Eng,
The war will end with either candidate, Hillary or Barak, so *this* is moot. These issues about who voted which way are in the past, the future end game is that the war will come to an end and we need to refocus on our domestic front which has been neglected over the past 8 years. The Obama camp’s constant reminder of the candidates’ past war voting record tantamount to a candidacy which has nothing really concrete to offer. It solely derives its base from temporal rhetoric and without much plan and policies to address core issues.

On the issue negativity, the Obama surrogates that are not accountable to him have been extremely divisive to our party. One can observe the posting of these Obamabots on the Huffington Post and see the mysogynistic and mass venom directed at Hillary (anybody but HER). Obama may sell to the public that he runs clean, but he is no saint. He has his surrogates working for him to do the dirty work. The stuff that is coming out of these people, with zealous religious fervor and will shout you down if you oppose their view, is very surprising to see in the left side of the aisle. I would have expected to see this from the Rush Limbaugh followers but not from the Obama camp.

Andy W

–Andy W on Feb 26, 2008
Sorry, Andy:
Much as we both h0pe, trust?, that “the war” will “end” come election time, at least one of those “on the ground,” Michael Ware, of CNN, maintains the realpolitik likelihood that said war will last at least till 2015.
And that the current investiture of American troops in Iraq will remain at, or above, the current levels.
And he asserts, if my reading of subtitles is accurate, that the Pentagon’s decisions will trump WHOMever “wins” either nomination OR presidency come November.
So, sadly, again yet, “domestic” issues are returned to the “back” hurners whilst our idiot warmongers and war profiteers continue stirring their unholy broths on the “front” burners.
So much for “race” and “citizenship” in these benighted States of Amurrika.
Frank Eng
P.S.: Hillary could never have been elected in New Yotk without kowtowing to AIPAC, and the fact thst she never DISavowed her allewiances therein, as did John Edwards, is my primary reason for “diss”ing her candidacy. As a woman and a politician, she is likely better than most, but no better than a Rhodes Scholar prodigy of immense charm and charisma who is, in truth, just one more idolater at the Establishment shrine.

–Frank Eng on Feb 26, 2008

Post your comments.

Comments using inappropriate language will not be posted. AsianWeek reserves the right to re-publish comments, into "Letters to the Editor," in which case, we reserve the right to edit comments for length and style. If you would like to write a letter to our editor, please email: asianweek@asianweek.com.