home

Obama On Puerto Rico, Status And "Enhanced Autonomy"

Here is my translation of portions of this interview of Barack Obama by the Puerto Rico newspaper El Nuevo Dia:

Q: Hillary Clinton promised that she would work to provide Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico [those living in one of the 50 states or in DC already can vote for President since they are US citizens. If US citizens from the US moved to Puerto Rico, they would lose the right to vote for President] the right to vote for President. do you agree with this position?

OBAMA: This would need to be resolved as part of a general solution to the status problem. If we are sending Puerto Ricans to war, they need to have more representation in Washington. But of course I can not make any promises, if the status issue is not resolved. Sen. Clinton needs to explain to you how she would acquire this right for Puerto Ricans without dealing with the US Congress.

Q: Do you think Puerto Rico is a colony? . . .

OBAMA: The relationship between the US and Puerto Rico is complicated. Puerto Ricans have good reasons for feeling resentful that they have to carry out their obligations as American citizens while on some occasions not having the privileges of US citizenship. For example, the [lack of] representation in Congress. That is a very important reason why the status issue must be resolved. And I want to work with leaders from both sides and with the Congress to commence a process of self determination.

Q: What powers of autonomy could a Puerto Rican government have under an Obama Presidency [NOTE: The issue of "enhanced autonomy" is a hot subject in Puerto Rico, particularly in the PDP, the Commonwealth Party, which has long defended the current status. Recently, the consensus in the PDP has been formed that the current status is not acceptable and that "enhanced autonomy" must be achieved.]?

OBAMA: I can not answer that question until you Puerto Ricans decide. My opinion is that Puerto Ricans, as well as being proud of being American citizens are also proud of being Puerto Ricans. The government of Puerto Rico should have the autonomy to make decisions on its economy, education and health care policy. It is also true that Puerto Ricans receive aid from the United States government regarding housing, education and in other areas. The criteria to use for spending these funds in Puerto Rico should be the same as in the [50] states. The most important principle is that Puerto Rico should be respected and treated equally to any state when we are speaking of governmental powers. The states have individual powers, their governments can do many things that the federal government can not. There is much to legislate, but the decisions made in Puerto Rico must be respected as in any state.

[An aside. Interesting to see Obama such a proponent of federalism Scalia style. I wonder that the Right blogs have not picked up on this quote.]

Q: Bill Clinton granted executive clemency to 12 Puerto Rican political prisoners in 2000. Would you act similarly with three prisoners currently in US prisons (Haydeé Beltrán, Oscar López and Carlos Alberto Torres)?

OBAMA: I would have to review the different cases before making any decision or providing any answer because it is very important that when a President uses the powers of clemency that you review each case individually and not as a group.

END OF TRANSLATION.

Pretty standard fare but I was struck by two things. First, that the Commonwealth Party did not get more out of Obama in terms of a commitment towards "enhanced autonomy" - their new rallying cry ideologically. And second, I was surprised to see his embrace of the "federalism" views of the Right. I think he was trying to signal that being treated "like a state" is the equivalent of enhanced autonomy. I do not know if that sold. Or perhaps it was a pitch to statehooders. Either way, it was a bit confusing.

Other than that, pretty standard blather I thought.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Lanny Davis Proposes Very Fair Florida-Michigan Solution | Sydney Pollack, RIP >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    No one gets more out of him (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:15:19 PM EST
    Not these guys, not the Advocate, not the Chicago papers, not the formerly progressive blogs.  No one demands anything from him, and that is what he gives them in return.

    When did we stop making demands of our politicians?  I just don't get it.

    PR seems very iffy to me.  Is no one polling?

    You took the words right outof my mouth...he has (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:39:45 PM EST
    to stay wishy washy so he can sway a different way later down the road.

    Parent
    Obama is a lurker... (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:00:31 PM EST
    ...always in the picture, but never out front, never leading the charge.  Even his "famous" speech resulted in not a single attempt by BO to end the war once he got into the Senate.  But then, he was so busy on day one running for his next promotion he forgot that little issue, didn't he?

    I remember reading about him running into committee members on their way to a press conference about something they had just accomplished.  He said, "What's up" and they told him and he said, "Can I come along"?  They said sure - they wanted people on the podium for pictures and then he had the audacity (whoops!) to take the mic and speak as if he had been personally involved in the accomplishment.  Staffers were pissed as hell at what he did.

    He lurked in CT in 2006 (never really coming out and supporting Ned Lamont).  He lurks on pro-choice (using weasel words and voting present).  He lurks on race (demanding a dialog and now saying we should all move on - pun intended!).  Condemning the Gas Tax Holiday proposal when he supported other such proposals three times.  

    Where in the world does he really stand on things?  I don't know.  And I'm not willing to take a chance.

    If we elect a lurker then Repugs will rule the day anyway because he lurks right as much as he lurks left.

    NOT what we must have for this country if we are expected to move forward.

    Plus, he has destroyed any improvements we have made in race relations since 1960.  

    Parent

    Kyl-lieb (none / 0) (#77)
    by DFLer on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:27:34 AM EST
    He also "lurked" on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment by not voting. The other non-vote was McCain, curiously.

    Clinton is oft hammered for this yes vote. I have seen many a mention of this, placed in the context of something like: "she was the ONLY Dem. candidate to vote for this"

    NEVER have I seen it mentioned that Obama did not vote against it. ( all other Dem Senator-candidates DID vote against it)

    NOR have I ever gotten a reply to this point when I used to bring it up, in the olden days of attempting to post on HuffPo

    Parent

    Wasn't he supporting Lieberman? (none / 0) (#84)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:13:59 PM EST
    I agree because all he seems to (4.00 / 4) (#17)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:33:07 PM EST
    say is "change" is coming and raises his arms. Then, he can be held to no position or either side of each position....and this is acceptable?

    Parent
    I was struck by one thing (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by dianem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:28:40 PM EST
    He didn't say anything meaningful. He said "Work it out, and I might do something". Does this man commit to anything?

    Yes...."when You Puerto Ricans decide" (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:44:25 PM EST
    then we can move on...struck me as a little dismissive, like I can't be bothered until you get your act together.

    Parent
    It's dismissive sounding! (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:46:04 PM EST
     

    Parent
    It may sound that way (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:46:36 PM EST
    But the fact is PR DOES need to decide what it wants.

    But what was striking to me was that the Commonwealth Party, which has hitched its wagin to enhanced autononomy, did not get more out of Obama than that. He said nothing favorable about it at all.

    Parent

    Do you think he understood (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:47:53 PM EST
    what was being asked?  

    Parent
    I do actually (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:51:03 PM EST
    I think the tone was wrong but the essence of the answer was not bad.

    Parent
    Obama is trying to play both sides of the fence (none / 0) (#86)
    by TomLincoln on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    You have to keep in mind that he has to try and please some of the statehooders who he also made promises to. Thus the amorphous answers by him.

    There was a radio debate this morning in PR between José Alfredo Hernández-Mayoral (a Hillary supporter from the PDP), and also son of former Governor Rafael Hernández-Colón (an Obama supporter), and Eduardo Bhattia (Obama supporter). The consensus of the callers following the debate was that they were inclined before the debate to vote for Hillary (most of them) but now they were certain to vote for her.

    One caller stated, more or less, "If this were a race between two white men, one named Obama, nobody would be voting for him. This is just reverse discrimination."

    Two of the factors adversely affecting Hillary are: her husband's administration being blamed for eliminating IRS Code Section 936, which in tutn eliminated many high paying jobs in PR; the fact that many on talk radio are saying that the nomination has already been won by Obama, so why should PR place itself in the absurd position of supporting the loser.

    I think she is well liked by most of the public, and I also think she will win. By how much, I have no clue.

    Parent

    How about saying (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:48:18 PM EST
    when the people of PR decide instead of "you" PR's.Sounds like the streets of N.Y.

    Parent
    That could be my fault (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:50:33 PM EST
    Don't blame Obama for my bad translation. I'll have to check it.

    Parent
    I defer to you BTD! (none / 0) (#42)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:52:13 PM EST
    That is my fault (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:04:59 PM EST
    but I think it is an accurate translation but if the YOU is bothering YOU, then blame it on me.

    Parent
    surely Obama spoke English (none / 0) (#78)
    by DFLer on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:29:57 AM EST
    in the interview, don't you think? Perhaps you could get the pre-translated into Spanish version.

    Parent
    He's both (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Grace on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:57:11 PM EST
    For and Against it.  He's Present.    

    Parent
    Why should any president? (none / 0) (#15)
    by s5 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:32:09 PM EST
    It seems like an issue that Puerto Ricans want to decide for themselves. Having the president push for either statehood or independence seems inappropriate, and like it would insult the people there.

    I know there's a time for taking a firm stand, but when it comes to a self-determination issues, it's not up to outside forces to impose a decision.

    Parent

    I agree in a way (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:36:55 PM EST
    But if you were giving an endorsement, you would want to get more than what the Commonwealth Party got out of Obama I think.

    For example, in the 90s, the Clinton Administration clearly favored Statehood in its proposals and declarations.

    In exchange, a fair amount of dollars were raised by the PNP for Clinton.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:29:53 PM EST
    I have no real opinion on this one way or another, but I'm disappointed to see that Obama doesn't seem to either. (Perhaps that's to be expected?)


    He managed to skirt the (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:38:11 PM EST
    is PR a colony question.  Good job.

    Parent
    I think not. It needed a fast, firmans (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:34:39 PM EST
    answer of "of course not."  This sounded like  weaseling, but whaddaI know.  BTD is the one to answer this.

    But if I were a PR resident upset about its current status and feeling like a colony -- as I have read that many are -- I would not have liked his answer.

    Parent

    For those (like me) wondering (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:34:52 PM EST
    what "enhanced autonomy" might mean and how PR cam to have 55 delegates to the Dem. convention, here are some explanations:

    JANEWAY

    that is an excellent article (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:38:45 PM EST
    the writer has a very good understanding of the issues actually. Most US writers have no idea what they are talking about.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:42:42 PM EST
    A good fast overview -- one question (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:53:26 PM EST
    though:  It says that they want to be Americans, you say not.  I'd tend to trust you on this.  Is that a flaw in the article, or do I misread it?

    Btw, the mention in it of the Panama Canal, and on this Memorial Day eve, reminds me that my father served there in WWII -- and in Guatemala, and with visits to Puerto Rico.  He used to joke about "keeping the Panama Canal safe for democracy," as it turned out to be quite a quiet place in the war (certainly compared to the service of his many younger brothers on battlefields on every other continent and another archipelago).  

    It seems that there were fears, after Pearl Harbor, that Japan would attack the Panama Canal.  So they put the old guys there; he was past 30 when he went to war.  I still have some lovely, hand-embroidered little girls' clothes that he bought there for a daughter someday -- although he still was bachelor and almost a decade away from being a daddy.

    Anyway, he loved Central America, the Caribbean, etc.  When I finally got there, I could see why.

    Parent

    They like being CITIZENS (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:09:51 PM EST
    Being Americans? Well, they just do not think of themselves as Americans.

    Parent
    Ah, got it (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:56:15 PM EST
    "An overwhelming majority of Puerto Ricans wants, one way or another, to be American" is somewhat insensitive or just unclear.  They want (and have had for almost a century) the rights of citizenship -- but that doesn't require being part of the U.S., or a state, etc.

    Well, I'm with 'em on that!  Thanks.

    Parent

    Check out these graphics published today in PR (none / 0) (#88)
    by TomLincoln on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:12:58 AM EST
    The first is "¿Cual considera que es su Nación?" or "Which Do you Consider to Be your Nation?" The results are posted by the 3 political parties (PNP, PDP -these two comprise the vast majority of electors, PIP, Non Affiliated)

    [http://www.elnuevodia.com/XStatic/endi/docs/editor/segunda_0528.pdf] [Cual Condiera]que es su Nación]

    Then you can also check out this other one on "The Importance of American Citizenship" and "If you Had to choose Between PR and American Citizenship" again divided by party affiliation.

    [http://www.elnuevodia.com/XStatic/endi/docs/editor/primera_0528.pdf] [The Importance of American Citizenship]

    Parent

    Guatemala in WWII (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:33:53 PM EST
    Do you know where and when your father was stationed in Guatemala during WWII?  U.S. troops have generally not been stationed in Guatemala, with the exception of the Special Forces in 1965-66 (and U.S.-made helicopter gunships in the 1980s.)

    WWII was an interesting time for Guatemala.  In 1944, President Ubico was tossed out in a coup by two military officers, Arbenz and Arana, and the "Ten Years of Spring" ensued with Guatemala becoming a democracy.  Arbenz was elected as President in his own right in 1950, and then deposed by a CIA coup in 1954.  The consequences included decades of repression and genocide; the shoving aside of the aspirations of the feckless Dr. Ernesto Guevara of becoming a country doctor treating Mayan Indians in Guatemala, and leading him to more fame elsewhere; convincing the Latin Left of the need for "armed revolution;" and elevating to prominence Castro, who often said he would never let happen to him what happened to Jacobo Arbenz.  Hugo Chavez's reliance on anti-U.S. rhetoric has its roots in 1954 as well (with a healthy assist from a Bush/Otto Reich coup effort in 2002).

    Parent

    Thanks for the article... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:55:19 PM EST
    it helped

    Parent
    Great article (none / 0) (#55)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:45:57 PM EST
    a small clarification, though: PR's do pay some federal taxes in the way of fed payroll taxes, which are the taxes that cut a chunk out of most pay checks.  Social Security, Medicare, etc.  Also, corporations pay taxes as well.

    Parent
    Thanks for the link to the article NT (none / 0) (#87)
    by TomLincoln on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:52:13 AM EST
    Is there anything at stake? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by s5 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:42:40 PM EST
    BTD, can you comment on how the primary election is viewed in PR? Even though we view this as the Most Important Election Ever, I get the sense that there's not very much at stake for Puerto Ricans. Does this sound about right, or is there a perception that issues that are important in Puerto Rico are being discussed?

    For me, watching the candidates talk to Puerto Rico has felt like I'm watching American politicians going to a foreign country, as if we were off in Thailand trying to convince their citizens to make a choice in our primary nomination battle. But then, I have almost no clue about what our relationship is like with Puerto Rico, other than that their citizens are our citizens, and they have their own politics and parties.

    So I guess what I'm saying is that I'm enjoying these posts about PR. Like I said in an earlier thread, one advantage of the long primary season is that I'm learning things I never knew about parts of the country I live in.

    I am not there. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:44:56 PM EST
    I have not been back in Puerto Rico for months now.

    but judging from the coverage, I think they are loving the attention but here's a secret - Puerto Ricans do not think of themselves as Americans.

    Even the Statehhoders.

    Parent

    So, I gather we won't be see a post (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:48:52 PM EST
    from you on how people in PR feel about FL/MI?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:52:14 PM EST
    I can tell you that that is one issue that is NOT on the minds of Puerto Ricans.

    Interesting fun fact, there is a large Dominican community in Michigan. Of course they do not vote so in our elections . . .

    Parent

    Where in MI? (none / 0) (#51)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:31:54 PM EST
    Mainly in Grand Rapids, I read (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:57:59 PM EST
    and if you know anything about the town, tell me -- I'm considering going to a conference there and am starting to research it.  (I could take the ferry across the lake, which I've wanted to do . . . although late autumn is not the wisest time on the Great Lakes.  As we sing here, along with Leonard Cohen, the gales of November remember.)

    A smaller community of Dominicans is in Detroit, I think, in or near its "Mexicantown."  (Ugh.)  A friend who does research there has talked about getting to a Dominican restaurant for different cuisine.

    Parent

    Gordon Lightfoot: Wreck of Edmund Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#85)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:44:01 PM EST
    It is on the minds of those of us in PR who are (none / 0) (#89)
    by TomLincoln on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:53 AM EST
    Hillary supporters, and more broadly, who want the Dems to win in November.

    Talk of the Dominicans, as you (BTD) are aware of, there is a mass of them in PR and they have been coming out for Hillary in big numbers.

    Parent

    It would be more accurate to state that many or (none / 0) (#90)
    by TomLincoln on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:20:43 AM EST
    perhaps even most puertorricans do not see themselves as Americans, but you paint with too broad a brush when you state that "Puerto Ricans do not think of themselves as Americans." Many, many of us do consider ourselves as Americans.


    Parent
    Sen. Obama is so LOST in SPACE (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by wurman on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:06:45 PM EST
    He replies to the question about Sen. Clinton's claim to have residents of Puerto Rico vote for president of the USA.

    Sen. Clinton needs to explain to you how she would acquire this right for Puerto Ricans without dealing with the US Congress.

    Perhaps one of Sen. Obama's supporters who posts here, & may even read some of the comments, can  explain to the junior senator from IL that she might acquire the right to vote for US territories through "leadership."  She might even invite Sen. Reid & Rep. Pelosi to the White House for a breakfast or lunch meeting & some serious discussion of territorial issues.

    And what could happen if she decided to use the "bully pulpit" & go to USA citizens & start a discussion about why our nation is still in the business of managing colonies.

    Ahh, never mind.  Sen. Obama wouldn't get it.  You know, too much CHANGE all at once.

    Wurman (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:12:44 PM EST
    Perhaps one of Sen. Obama's supporters who posts here, & may even read some of the comments, can  explain to the junior senator from IL that she might acquire the right to vote for US territories through "leadership."

    Priceless.  This was a spit-take moment for me. Hee, I'm still laughing.

    Parent

    Yep, typical snippy and sniping (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:59:41 AM EST
    and entirely unsatisfactory answer.  To which the interviewer ought to have said, well, yes, thank you for that thought, and we'll ask her when we're talking with her again . . . but since you're here, we're asking you.

    But so few reporters ever do this anymore.  It requires hours of preparation, a complete comfort level with the material so as to be able to go off scripted questions and react to the answers.  It takes, well, hard work -- and experience.  Not much of that in the media anymore, either.

    Parent

    This is another segment of the population... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:45:54 AM EST
    with which he doesn't connect. He only sees black and white. He is also reflective, in his dismissiveness, a lack of knowledge OR concern for the first minority: hispanics, latinosm, an ever growing significant segment of the country's population. Hispanics have a strong tradition of political participation.

    Ooops! (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by kcowley on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:21:23 AM EST
    Reading past posts here on talkleft I see that she did include dealing with US Congress.  

    "I will as your president on day one work with all of the factions here in Puerto Rico and with the Congress to enable you to determine your status by majority vote among all of the options that are available," she told several dozen supporters in this southern town on the Caribbean Sea.

    Another hollow point from Obama.

    Nice turn of phrase (none / 0) (#80)
    by gandy007 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:18:55 AM EST
    intended or not.

    "[H]ollow point" as in a bullet intended to be deadly, but which actually turned out to be a blank.

    Speaking of empty suit, no powder in the shell.

    Parent

    any more thoughts on a more recent poll (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:15:47 PM EST
    or has one been done lately?

    have the pollsters decided not to poll? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:18:24 PM EST
    Surely not.  Maybe they are waiting until after the holiday?

    Parent
    It is surprising (none / 0) (#13)
    by zebedee on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:29:31 PM EST
    I think SUSA and some others are fair but sometimes when a poll is commissioned I suspect they don't always publish it if they don't like the result. Maybe they wait and repoll a few days later to get something more to their liking.

    Maybe this is too much conspiracy theorising but I do think the reporting of polls is done in a very manipulative way. For example, they may be five polls giving different results and one of them is reported by CNN or MSNBC as definitively expressing the opinion of the voters. And of course headlined on Huff Po and other blogs.

    Parent

    Puerto Rico polls (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:34:01 PM EST
    generally do not use telephones. Most are in person at home polling.

    For two reasons. Landlines in Puerto Rico reach about 73% of households.

    Second, Puerot rico is so small geographically that in person polling is not that expensive.

    Statistically speaking, PR polling is actually about as good as it gets.

    Parent

    Gee, I've noticed that, too (none / 0) (#19)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:34:41 PM EST
    but perhaps they've been doing like that for years.

    Parent
    I think it is kind of complicated since they (none / 0) (#26)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:40:46 PM EST
    are not broken down by democrats, republicans, etc.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:43:01 PM EST
    That would make it easy. the REAL problem is stateside pollster do not have the people to poll in Spanish.

    Parent
    SUSA could do it easily (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:44:29 PM EST
    except for the point you make about telephone penetration. Is that a reflection of just how poor the place is?

    Parent
    It reflects two things (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:49:12 PM EST
    RELATIVE poverty - 73% penetration is good in LAtin America.

    And the reliance on cell phones. Before it became a fad in the States, no landlines and reliance on cell phones became quite  common in Puerto Rico.

    Little known fact, Puerto Rico was way ahead of US in common usage of the Checking Account card for use at stores.

    Parent

    Sounds like a nation of college students. (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:55:27 PM EST
    Both factoids make sense as a reflection of relative poverty, actually. Cell phones because you can have prepaid solutions and ration your use over time, and ATM cards for transactions because credit cards (Visa/MC, Amex) charge a percentage instead of a flat fee.

    Parent
    Reality of Developing world (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:58:36 PM EST
    even though Puerto Rico is more developed, most nations in the developing world have a better cell phone infrastructure than land lines.  The land lines were usually run by monopolistic either government entities, or monoliths that had old and ineffective systems.  Eastern European countries, middle east, rely more on cell phones than land lines.  

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:00:23 PM EST
    That, and the US cellular infrastructure and organization is entirely dysfunctional. IMO, the FCC made a huge mistake in not mandating a digital standard (like GSM) in the late 80s. But we digress. . .

    Parent
    There seem to be no polls (none / 0) (#6)
    by s5 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:20:32 PM EST
    The only poll that we know of turns out to be a newspaper poll, roughly as scientific as CNN asking their readers who they prefer. It's anyone's guess, which honestly, I'm finding to be quite exciting!

    Parent
    Actually it is a pretty good pollster (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:23:16 PM EST
    Problem is it was so long ago.

    I know the pollsters for this paper in PR. They are good. I've used them as experts in false advertising cases where they did surveys for me.

    Parent

    What I don't understand (none / 0) (#4)
    by s5 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:18:55 PM EST
    How can citizens in Puerto Rico be granted the right to vote for president without becoming a state, which they would have to decide themselves? In other words, I don't see how the president has any power over this matter. The president can't amend the constitution, nor can the president force statehood on Puerto Ricans.

    I don't know much about this issue, but "I can not answer that question until you Puerto Ricans decide" strikes me as the only possible answer, while any other answers would pander to one side or the other in the (what seems to be) contentious statehood debate.

    Am I missing anything here?

    There is precedent, as I understand it (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:38:21 PM EST
    as territories -- like my state before statehood -- voted in presidential elections, according to records I've read (unless I've misread them, as 19th-century newspapers can be impenetrable).  And we had the same Constitution then that we have now.

    Parent
    Please be respectful of (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:19:50 PM EST
    BTD's post and keep your comments on topic.

    Did I invite ridicule (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:21:56 PM EST
    by doing this translation and adding some short thoughts?

    I thought it pretty unremarkable. Just thought it might be of interest for folks to see what reporters in PR thought were important questions to ask Obama.

    Parent

    Ridicule is internet currency at the moment (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:27:37 PM EST
    I am very interested in what the average PR is thinking about.  What other issues are they bringing up?  I know that the PR economy is generally pretty depressed.  What impact is the housing crisis and the stock market having on them?  What about healthcare?  What about taxes?  Are they as angry about the war as we are?  Is their infrastructure as crappy?

    Parent
    What things concern the people of Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#91)
    by TomLincoln on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:48 AM EST
    beyond issues of our political status, are matters very similar to those that concern most in the mainland: the economy (jobs, gas prices, etc.), healthcare, the Iraq war, the loss of civil rights which has been carried out by BushCo. under the guise of the war on terror. We also have a very serious crime problem, mostly involving drug trafficking.

    There are a few matters, such as parity in medicaid funds with the states, as well as medicare reimbursements, in which we could do a lot better, and which Senator Clinton has addressed very well on the island.

    Parent

    Not at all! I'm fascinated by this (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:41:53 PM EST
    and very appreciative of insights into Puerto Rico.

    I'm one who is glad that this grueling primary season has taken at least one of the candidates into every state and even a territory.  I have learned a lot about them, not only here but looking up the quick facts sheets at census.gov, etc.  The Day That Guam Gripped Us All was such an education. :-)

    Please keep telling us more about Puerto Rico, if and as you can during the 10-Day Countdown to Counting the Votes.  Or Not.

    Parent

    Sorry BTD just was interested in new polling too (none / 0) (#9)
    by athyrio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:24:49 PM EST
    I really don't understand the politics of PR and as such don't understand the ramifications of his answers really...Sorry for my lack of knowledge...

    Me too. I welcome him educating me this week. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:27:35 PM EST
    I don't understand how a US citizen can vote if they move here but if they go back home, they lose that right.

    Parent
    If you moved permanently to Washington DC (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:32:18 PM EST
    you'd have a similar problem.

    Parent
    In that you would not have (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:35:01 PM EST
    Representatives or Senators but you still get to vote for President.

    But for many years, you could not.

    Parent

    Yup (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:41:38 PM EST
    You get 3 electoral votes (fair), a non-voting delegate (the wonderful by powerless Elanor Holmes Norton), and no Senators.

    People who live here have repeatedly voted for statehood, but Congress is not interested in allowing it (I wonder why that is!)

    Parent

    well, (none / 0) (#59)
    by hlr on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:58:30 PM EST
    powerless Elanor Holmes Norton

     She is a SOOOOOPER delegate.

    Parent

    andgarden (none / 0) (#66)
    by gandy007 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:08:17 PM EST
    See Obama's take on that at my post below.

    He says a lot of people are opposed because they fear that Puerto Rico as well as DC would be two more Democratic states.

    Parent

    A hundred years ago I went to boarding (none / 0) (#57)
    by athyrio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:56:56 PM EST
    school with a girl whose father ran some famous hotel in Puerto Rico...Her name I think was Betsy Hoag or something like that...I probably misspelled it...this hotel was owned I think by the Rockafellas or something like that (I am reaching back 50 yrs so pardon my memory) lol....She was a really nice girl and I have often wondered about her...

    Translatio with minor addendum (none / 0) (#63)
    by gandy007 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:03:26 PM EST
    Actually, I think BTD's translation was quite good.

    For the person that wondered about the "you Puerto Ricans".  Obama didn't literally say that, only by
    implication.  I have no idea what he actually said in English, but the article only used the formal  plural expression "ustedes" which is saying respectfully "you all", without using the terms Puerto Ricans. But of course that is the implication. In Spanish it comes off much better.
    Believe me, translation is not easy, especially from a language like Spanish which is much more nuanced than English.

    I'm not much of a fan of Obama, so I wish I had heard what he said in English.  The truth be told, I can grudgingly say, the Spanish translation sounds better than anything I've heard him say in English.

    A small footnote.  He also made the interesting comment that a lot of people (Americans) opposed satehood for Puerto Rico as well as to DC, for fear of having two more Democratic states.

    I've never heard that before, so it was an interesting comment.  

    Ustedes is not the formal way of .... (none / 0) (#70)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:30:28 AM EST
    adressing third person plural conjugation. Ustedes is you all (familiar) VOSOTROS is the formal (you call it respectful) way of addressing the collective.

    Parent
    Vosotros (none / 0) (#79)
    by gandy007 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:11:02 AM EST
    is actually the plural of "vos", both of which are
    rather archaic and rarely if ever used in present day conversational Spanish. At least not in Latin America and I believe Puerto Rico. Maybe it might occur occasionally in some movie or play, but rarely, if ever, in conversation.  "Tu" is the normal familiar form of "you".  There is no plural of "tu" that I know of.  Similar to English. Of course we in the South take care of that by using "you all" which I think handles it nicely.

    "Usted" is the modern day, more formal if you will, singular form of "you". "Ustedes"  is the plural which also serves for both "tu" and "usted" if you get technical.  

    I'm not sure where you learned your parts of speech; but all these forms are second person pronouns.  They are not conjunctions.  Conjunctions conjoin, such as "and".

    Third person is he, she, or they.

    The upshot is that whatever the argument, I'm sure that Obama meant it respectfully and I don't cut Obama much slack.
     

    Parent

    Oops (none / 0) (#81)
    by gandy007 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:31:02 AM EST
    he, she, IT, and they. LOL

    Parent
    Braindead (none / 0) (#82)
    by gandy007 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:08:59 AM EST
    Weak excuse, but hadn't had my coffee; and, uh, uh, wasn't wearing my glasses. Sorry, wrong snark, but still snarkable.

    Conjugation = inflection of verbs and has nothing to do with pronouns.

    I feel like Emily Latella (sp?) of the old SNL; and I'm a guy!

    Wish I could amend a post, rather than have to hang
    my head in public shame. LOL

    Parent

    Never happen (none / 0) (#64)
    by tek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:03:30 PM EST
    surprised to see Obama stand with the Right wing.  He is conservative politically.  That he's mixed up with "folks" like William Ayers and the Black Panthers is just bizarre.

    He's just covering himself.... (none / 0) (#71)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:37:12 AM EST
    Right wing he is NOT. TOO MANY TOMATOES in his soup.
    It's not time yet for him to show his true colors, he still hasn't gotten there (WH), hopefully he never will.

    Parent
    Obama: I see nothing; I know nothing (none / 0) (#67)
    by Prabhata on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:08:41 PM EST
    Obama is afraid of making a mistake and how his ignorance.  He's not fooling anyone.

    Colonies like Hawaii (none / 0) (#74)
    by bernarda on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:49:21 AM EST
    Hawaii is not even technically a colony, it is an independent nation.

    "In 1993, the U.S. Congress approved, and President Bill Clinton signed, an apology to the people of the Hawaiian islands. The document "acknowledges that the overthrow of the kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum."

    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/04/30/palace.takeover/index.html

    He has some explaining to do himself (none / 0) (#75)
    by kcowley on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:03:15 AM EST
    Hillary didn't say that she "would acquire this right for Puerto Ricans without working with Congress".  Why would she explain the most fundamental understanding of the workings of government, most high school students (hopefully) understand the process of how laws etc. are changed.

    This is another example of Obama'a annoying habit of twisting a subject, putting Hillary in a negative light and his fallacies in logic.  Has he explained how he will create his fine plans for change and unity with the help of the US Congress?