Thanks to everyone who has commented here. I especially love the comment about how reaching out to non-Latino white voters is called "campaigning," but the same for minorities is called "pandering". jajajaja! Hilarious, and true. (See, Randi? I DO have a sense of humor!)

And while I appreciate the sentiment behind all the "we are entering an era that transcends race and ethnicity" comments, and wish that were true, it simply is NOT true. We have seen massive increases in HATE CRIMES against Latinos in the past few years, according to the FBI and others, directly linked to the nonstop drumbeat of hate against "illegal aliens" on CNN's Lou Dobbs program and elsewhere. The media has not present "immigration" honestly - meaning they pretend all immigrants are coming over the southern border, and the images the present are overwhelmingly of Mexicans (as opposed to, say, Poles or Irish or Nigerians or Chinese).

I suspect those of you commenting here about the utopian transcendence of race and ethnicity are NOT Latinos...? You probably did not have, as I did, a teacher at your (brown Latino) son's (overwhelmingly white Scottsdale public) school stopping him on the playground to grill him about the United States, and asking him if he is a citizen. You probably do not live (as I do) in Arizona, where hatred toward Mexicans and other Latinos is growing strong, thanks to racist nativist lawmakers like Russell Pearce or Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

This is a critical time in this nation's history with regards to Latinos, our portrayal by the media, public perception of us. To pretend that we have transcended this, while immigrant (Latino) children are literally dying because of unjust laws and hatred is, to me, unAmerican and disingenuous. It is also naive, overly optimistic, and unrealistic.

Personally, Nonimus, I agree with you. I do. I am all about the book "Mapping Human History," and I preach the myth factor of "race" often; that does not change the fact that most Americans continue to see themselves in racial terms. Nor does it negate the fact that many Latinos (a multi-racial group) take pride in their heritage, and have been flattered that Clinton "appreciates" them AT THAT LEVEL. Politics is about appealing to people, not changing them. My point is that Obama has lots of Latinos coming to him, saying "let us help, we understand this complex demographic," and his camp is either saying "no thanks" or, worse, saying nothing at all. It not smart POLITICS. I am not talking ideology here. You and I are of a like mind. But politics is politics, and the smarter campaign will win. To be smart, you have to understand how people self-identity, and it might not be how you like, or necessarily even something you agree with. But it is real, to them.

If it were JUST ME, I would not have posted this. But I am hearing from many Latino leaders about this exact problem. Dozens of us have faced the same lack of response or reaction from Obama's campaign, which makes me think there is a campaign policy of ignoring race, for the sake of not scaring white voters. Which could backfire. Or already has.

The more I think on it, I really believe it boils down to something we've never seen in American presidential politics: Where it is safe for a white candidate to "reach out" to minorities (building bridges), the same gesture risks being seen as building walls (against whites) for a minority candidate.

The real problem, if this indeed is the Obama race-neutral "we are the world" strategy, is TEXAS. Texas, need I remind you, is now a "minority-majority" state (if indeed such an oxymoron can be true). He will lose this race if he loses race. (I should trademark that.)