The nomination by President Barack Obama of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice for the seat left vacant by Judge David Souter is reason to celebrate. A full-fledged confirmation is in store in which not only the Senate but the American people need to find out her views on a number of decisive issues, abortion among them. There have been rumors about a sometimes abrasive working style and the distance between the justice and political activism that also require examination. But Judge Sotomayor, about whom I’ve been reading for years, is a superb candidate.

     In the last eight years, the Supreme Court—at least since the debacle between presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore—has slowly moved to the right. This move has been all the more troublesome because in those same years the country has become increasingly heterogenous in its ethnic constituency. Also, women have moved upward to important positions of power. The court, however, looks like the same ol’ boys club it has been for decades. With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’ Connor the number of women members has decreased. And minority voices, physically as well as metaphorically, have been silenced. The lineage of Justice Thurgood Marshall became opaque with the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas, arguably the least inspiring justice ever seated on the court.

     If approved, Judge Sotomayor will bring some sabor to the institution. Her credentials are impeccable: an undergraduate degree from Princeton, where she graduated summa cum laude; a stellar performance at Yale Law School, where she became editor of the school’s law journal; and distinguished stints as Assistant District Attorney in New York for five years and on the U.S. District Court of the Southern District. She has taught at New York University and Columbia. However, the hearings promise to be full of pyrotechnics. The far-right wing of the Republican Party, after its embarassing defeat in the last presidential elections, has begun using Sotomayor as a picture girl of “lefty activism” from the bench. From Newt Gingrich to Rush Limbaugh, the argument is put forward that she’s unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice because she uses her life story—and prides herself on it—to make her decisions. But could it be otherwise? No judge is a robot. To make a decision, one needs to apply one’s knowledge of the world to the findings. As for her activism, Justices Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are far more partisan than anyone currently seated on the court, interpreting the Constitution according to their views and against the views of the majority of the nation’s population.

     And yet, I doubt that in the end the Republican base will be willing to alienate Latinos even more. As of late, this is the party of discord, with Dick Cheney becoming the leading exponent of security at all cost (endorsing even torture) to make America less vulnerable. That nearsightedness backfired during the second Bush years: the United States not only became more insular, it also betrayed the principles of liberty, equality, and justice for all under which it is based. Judge Sotomayor’s story is proof that America is still a land of dreams. Will the Republicans turn those dreams into a nightmare yet again?

     Understandably, the Hispanic community is ecstatic about Judge Sotomayor’s nomination—and so am I. There’s finally an antidote against the stereotypes of Latino women as sheer body matter and turbulent emotions. Intelligence is seldom an ingredient invoked in U.S. popular culture when talking about Hispanics. Thus, she is now a folk hero. Posters of her smiley face are on display everywhere in Spanish-speaking neighborhoods from Spanish Harlem to East Los Angeles. A few days ago I received an MP3 version of the “Sotomayor Mambo,” to which I’ve been dancing ever since. Now I’m just waiting for the little action figure of La Jueza to go on sale, with Sotomayor looking like the Statue of Liberty, robed in the Puerto Rican flag, a crown of thorns on her head, a boom box instead of the torch high on her right hand, and the U.S. Constitution under her left arm.

Judge Sotomayor calls herself a “Nuyorican judge.” What a refreshing statement that is!

Turning the past into history is always fun. The effort isn’t a summation of what occurred at a particular time but what we think happened. In other words, the act of writing history is nothing more than interpretation. Making that interpretation appealing to readers is the dream of any historian. And even when the target audience doesn’t include the young, it goes without saying that it is the next generation that either endorses or rejects a particular interpretation.

It is urgent to make young readers in this country aware of the rich aspects of Latino history. Only in so do we advance the possibility of a more tolerant future. Too often our school textbooks ignore this past, reducing essential episodes to bullet-type captions, giving protagonists a mere nod, and silencing major themes without which it is impossible to appreciate how the United States became the diverse nation it is today. For instance, I recently reread a classic history of the Civil Rights era—one assigned for college courses nationwide. I looked to assess the role Latinos were allowed in the project. To my dismay, it was insignificant. Does this mean Latinos were passive during the period? Not at all. Evidence of their activism is enormous.  It simply means that the interpretation of those historical events is incomplete. Or more accurately, biased.

One of the greatest tasks we face is how to make Latino history a fundamental component of the U.S. historical narrative. The single way to achieve this task is by inviting young readers to understand, reflect, and debate—in one word: to interpret—not only a slice of the collective past but, as my 12-year-old son puts it, the whole enchilada. Once we’re ready to do that, a series of questions become apparent: What is the greatest challenge posed by interesting the young in Latino history and culture, for one cannot exist without the other? What are the most prominent themes in Latino history and culture? And what is the ideal approach to pique interest in the subject? Should it be through a Great Books strategy, by emphasizing historical figures and political leaders, or in a bottom-up way?

Needless to say, such questions don’t have easy answers. I invite LAE users to share with me their divergent responses.

I’m worried about Barack Obama’s Hispanic base—or lack of it.

To explain my worries, let me explain that I’m certainly not the only Latino pleasantly surprised by the support he received from Spanish-speaking people in California, Texas, New Mexico, and even Florida in the concluding stages of the campaign. His astute staff managed to overturn the deeply rooted racism at the heart of the largest minority group in the country. Needless to say, that kind of racism isn’t much of a secret. Watch just a few minutes of a prime-time telenovela on Telemundo and you’ll realize the extent to which Hispanic whites are cool and black and mestizos are not.

And, while on the subject of television images, I doubt I was the only person to notice the absence of folks like me among the millions greeting President Obama at the Washington Mall on Inauguration Day. Yes, I noticed a Brazilian flag. And, I saw J. Lo and Marc Anthony singing (and not bickering) at a late-night ball. But that’s about it. No salsa, no merengue, no bachata—the lineup of performers was visibly un-Latino.

Maybe I’m being facetious now, but I confess that I did not laugh at Rev. Joseph Lowery’s comment that “Brown can stick around. . .” In fact, I found the line offensive. Stay where? The only person packing his suitcase was Bill Richardson, who was forced to return to New Mexico after proving to be a potential casualty in the confirmation hearings. Hispanics come in every shape and form. We become a unit when displaying endless amounts of passion. I’m afraid none of that unifying spirit was on display on Tuesday.

No doubt this a moment to savor: the United States has its first black Jewish president. What I fear we didn’t get is a truly multicultural boss. In fact, listening to political commentators discuss how whites and blacks have come together makes me wonder if, rather than advancing, we haven’t regressed. During the final Bush years it felt as if the nation was growing up—maybe out of resistance to an abusive government—by reaching beyond the false black-white dichotomy. The fact is, we haven’t been a black-and-white country for a long time. The Civil Rights era wasn’t only about the black struggle; it was also about Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, and what is known as “others.”

I hope our first non-Latino president ratifies what we already know—that the nation exists in Technicolor.

Unquestionably, the inauguration of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009 marks a watershed moment in American history—Obama will become the first “mulatto” president (his mother was a white woman from Kansas, his father a black man from Kenya). After eight years of disastrous domestic and foreign policies under George W. Bush, Obama’s arrival comes not a moment too soon. The November election was a rare moment in which the nation’s diverse population did not allow itself to be easily manipulated by fear of the unknown or by a gullible media whose mission often seems not to inform but to disorient.

Latinos, like other minorities, united behind Obama to spur on his unprecedented electoral success. But while this new beginning imparts a welcome measure of hope to a dispirited United States shaken by two unfinished wars, scandals surrounding military abuse and political corruption, and an economic recession the likes of which has not been seen since the 1930s, it is important not to be carried away by the collective hoopla. Obama might have been embraced by Hispanics, but I’m skeptical about his understanding of the role the minority will play nationwide in the 21st century. Tension between blacks and Latinos has been emphasized in recent years, mainly as a result of the immigration debate. U.S.-Latin American relations, put on hold after 9/11 by the Bush administration, are a crucial stepping-stone to a new American foreign policy. In putting together his cabinet, Obama has repeatedly said that he has sought only the most qualified individuals in various fields, regardless of their ethnic background. Yet the number of Latinos is low. Is it that we are not up to standard? Might it be that the Obama team does not have its eyes fully open? Are old biases out and new biases in? Obviously, the disenfranchisement of other groups remains a test for the incoming administration.

A non-white president being sworn in signifies that the black-and-white divide is less abysmal. But it doesn’t mean that the country has magically erased its Balkanizing differences. It remains to be seen if Barack Obama will not only be the first black president  but also the first multicultural president.

America has become new again. The triumph of Barack Obama is proof that finally the nation has grown up. The politics of division and resentment are no longer effective. Orchestrating a flawless grassroots campaign that connects to the people, valuing each of us, appeared impossible only six months ago. But the Junior Senator from Illinois has shown that apathy can be turned into sympathy and that Washington ought not be the center of a small reptilian elite but a gravitational place for shared, representative power.

The last eight years have been a nightmare on multiple fronts: a crumbling economy that resulted from careless government oversight; two atrocious, wrongheaded wars; and an embarrassing official response to natural catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina, among other tragedies. President Obama will not get the United States out of the hole with a magic wand but at least he makes citizens feel that a leader that is honest and intelligent will be in command.

Personally, one of the deepest disasters that have taken places during the Bush Administration has to do with language. For almost a decade, the government has been at war with the English language. Our syntax, our semantic coordinates have been abused by the president and his cadre of loyalists. Listening to candidate Obama deliver his campaign speeches has allowed for a breath of fresh air. If nothing else, voters owe him for the eloquence with which he conveys his argument in English.

Obama has never used race as a weapon in his journey to the White House. Although he’s black, he doesn’t call attention to the color of his skin. This is exactly the America I look forward to: a place where race is deemphasized. What matters is not how we look but what we do and how we explain it to others. His victory is an endorsement of intelligence at a time when President George W. Bush dismissed it as needless and when the Republican Party, under the leadership of John McCain and Sarah Palin, modeled symbolic figures like Joe Six-Pack and Joe the Plumber as role models. Obama proves that a fine education is crucial in the making of a leader. And that the best leader is a person of exceptional talent.

My fear now is that the outcome of the general election is being portrayed by the media and political pundits as a fresh start for African Americans. It is far more than that: Obama’s ascendancy recognized, once and for all, that a young, savvy, multicultural America is now in place and that it matters that we’re white, black, Latino, Asian, or Native American, but it matters more that we’re all Americans.

Earlier this month, as the economy plummeted, Senator Barack Obama’s popularity seemed to soar. Last week as the economy circled the drain, Obama’s lead over Senator John McCain was in the double digits and media commentators had all but called the contest, even though there was still a month to go before the November 4 election.

This week’s polling numbers are closer, with just four points separating the Democratic and Republican tickets. We’ve heard scant mention of the Latino Vote of late, but now that the race looks closer, Latinos can expect to become the focus of attention once again.

Latinos, the ethnic group most likely to identify as independents, have long been an enigma for both parties. Documentary director Phillip Rodriguez argues that this unpredictability has placed Latinos in a powerful position, since both parties have a fair chance of attracting the Latino Vote. His new documentary, “Latino ‘08,” which examines the historic and contemporary context of Latino voting, will air on PBS throughout the remainder of the election season.

In a recent NPR interview, Rodriguez noted that the Latino Vote has been crucial in the past several presidential contests. President Bill Clinton was enormously popular with Latinos, as was his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton. And many pundits argue that President George Bush’s close victories in 2000 and 2004 were largely the result of his ability to sway a larger than average percentage of Latino voters - about 40 percent - away from the Democratic Party toward the GOP side of the ticket.

Recently, the prevailing wisdom said Barack Obama had the contest nearly won and it was assumed that the Latino Vote would play almost no part in this probable victory. Perhaps this is because it was assumed that Obama would not be able to keep loyal Hillary Clinton supporters from throwing their support to Senator John McCain.

However, even before the Democratic National Convention was held, and despite Latinos’ history of refusing to consistently identify with a single party, Latinos overwhelmingly identified themselves as Obama supporters, stating their intention of voting for him by a margin of 66 percent to 23 percent, in a poll conducted this summer by the Pew Hispanic Center. His support was even stronger among Clinton’s Latino supporters, with more than 75 percent expressing their support for Obama, compared to only 8 percent for McCain. In fact, Latinos who voted for Clinton are more likely to support Obama than are her white supporters. Many pundits had assumed that race accounted for Hillary Clinton’s popularity among Latino voters. It may be time to rethink this assumption.

As En mi opinion host Ilan Stavans noted in a recent interview (see podcast below), many Americans tend to vote “from the heart, especially Latinos, passionate as we are.” I would argue that loyalty alone may account for Latinos’ initial preference for Clinton over Obama, especially when so many of them noted that both candidates were extremely well qualified in countless interviews leading up to the Democratic National Convention, back when the Latino Vote was big news.

Another misconception is that immigration is the leading issue among Latino voters. In fact, immigration is a low-level concern for Latino voters, lagging behind crime and the war in Iraq, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Latino voters say they are far more concerned about education, the cost of living, jobs, and health care. However, it is the immigration issue that may have cost Senator McCain his traditional popularity among Hispanics in his own state and throughout the country.

McCain was once seen as a reformer in the realm of immigration and a defender of the rights of immigrants. That changed last year when, in an effort to appeal to the Republican base, he abandoned his former conciliatory rhetoric on immigration and seemed to veer toward a position that was closer to that espoused by anti-immigration extremists. Although, most Latino voters do not list immigration as the most important issue when polled, their support can be easily lost, according to pundits, if they believe a candidate is identifying too closely with extreme anti-immigrant activists whose rhetoric is often seen as code for anti-Latino sentiment. McCain in particular was seen by many as abandoning loyal Latino voters in favor of extremists who were pushing the immigration debate in an increasingly ugly direction.

As Obama pulls ahead in the polls, is there anything McCain can do to heal these wounds and close the gap? To have any chance of winning the White House, strategists say McCain needs to win back at least one-third of the Latino Vote in key swing states like Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and North Carolina, all states that went Republican in recent presidential elections and all states with large Latino populations. If McCain wants to stay in this race, he needs to convince the Republican Party that the Latino Vote still matters; he needs to remind his strategists that Latinos are not just notoriously independent, they may just be the last voting block with a sizable number of undecideds left to convince. With this in mind, he needs to convince Latinos, who have supported him throughout much of his career, that he still cares about their concerns.

On the flip side, Obama has proved the pundits wrong. He’s tracking ahead, at least in part because Latinos, despite their seemingly unshakable loyalty for all candidates Clinton, have brushed aside their initial disappointment and rushed to support his side of the ticket. By not taking Latino voters for granted, especially in key swing states like New Mexico, he looks to be on track to keep them there.

For more information on Latinos and voting, see http://www.latinosvote.com/

And to listen in on a discussion about Latinos and their growing power in the political realm, check out the following podcast, where among many other topics, En mi opinion host Ilan Stavans and Greenwood’s Jessica Galan talk about the role Latinos are likely to play in upcoming and future elections.

http://lae.greenwood.com/mp3/ilan-stavans-voting.mp3