Obama Wins in Md, Va, DC:
News update here. That makes it eight straight primary wins for Obama, I believe.
Bender (mail):
Unfortunately for Senator Obama, the Democratic Party, and the nation as a whole, the racial-identity politics that Senator Obama has scrupulously and meritoriously avoided have been a dominant part of Democrat political strategy in the past and of the Clintons' political strategy in the present. If Clinton wins the nomination, African-Americans are ready to be politically alienated from the Democratic presidential candidate; if Obama wins Hispanic-Americans are similarly poised. (In fact, the Clintons' recent mis-steps may have ensured the latter result no matter who the Democrats ultimately nominate.) Without the support of both racial/ethnic blocs the Democratic nominee starts with a major handicap. Let the games begin...
2.12.2008 10:24pm
another anonVCfan:
When I looked at the picture in the linked story: click
The first thing I thought of was this picture: click

How long before they change the slogan?
2.12.2008 10:32pm
Chris Bell (mail) (www):
Bender, too bad Obama won the Latino vote in Virgina as well - so that particular theory may not hold up.

The simple truth is that some groups may prefer one candidate, but everyone loves a winner in the end.
2.12.2008 10:56pm
Don't underestimate the power of the candidate to bring together everyone that considers him the lesser evil. Both parties will have quite a fight on their hands in Nov.
2.12.2008 11:03pm
Millenial Klingon (mail):
Obama's wins are very impressive.
2.13.2008 12:29am
Asher Steinberg (mail):
I'm really worried about the kinds of judges Obama may nominate. Fortunately none of the members of the majority quintet appear to be on the verge of retirement.
2.13.2008 12:44am
Millenial Klingon (mail):
I'm not so sure. I can imagine Obama nominees that conservatives can respect, who are liberal, but who don't move the status quo on certain social issues. Like Jose Cabranes.
2.13.2008 1:02am
Anon. E. Mouse:
The real question is whether Obama's nominees will continue Harvard's dominance on the Court. ;) I suspect the answer is yes.
2.13.2008 1:07am
Asher Steinberg (mail):
Well, I respect Stevens and Souter and Breyer and Ginsburg, and I imagine I'd respect anyone whom Obama would nominate as well, but I don't know that I would agree with the decisions they'd make. For instance, I tend to think that anyone whom Obama would nominate would not have voted with the majority on Parents Involved, I think he'd nominate people who'd be very soft on campaign-finance laws, and I think he'd nominate judges who'd have no problem with the seemingly interminable preclearance requirements in the Voting Rights Act or with blatantly racially gerrymandered districts - judges who'd effectively make Shaw v. Reno a dead letter. I can't imagine he'd nominate judges who would go so far as to overrule Croson, but I think you'd see a great deal of deference in his nominees' application of strict scrutiny in affirmative action cases.
2.13.2008 1:13am
Dave N (mail):
It seems to me that Senator Clinton is waiting a month for her "firewall" in Ohio and Texas. However, she really should ask Rudy Giuliani how well that worked for him.
2.13.2008 1:47am
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Hispanics may favor Clinton, but as far as I know, they don't hate Obama. Is there some factor here that I don't know about?
2.13.2008 3:50am
another anon--What the Hell was that second link? Looks a bit like Strom Thurmond.
2.13.2008 6:53am
ray fuller (mail):
It is pathetic that that renowned attorney and USC law professor, Susan Estrich, recently played the race card for Hillary Clinton, arguing that the Super Tuesday voter swing against Obama in places like California was the result of the "Bradley problem" in voting (that is, whites tell pollsters that they will vote for a black candidate, but they lie and never do, ending up voting "like" racists). [ race_and_the_democratic_party.html] Most appalling of all, she dares argue that Democrats therefore should not support Obama in the primaries, since he could not win the general election against the Republicans, due to such expected natural racism. I cannot sufficiently express my outrage that any member of the legal profession would use such sophistry in the political arena. Worse still, if Professor Estrich truly believes her argument, then she would be willing to join the racists in voting against Obama, just to win the presidential election. [To quote her: "If this is happening even among us good Democrats, what does that say about Obama's strength in a general election? Not pretty questions. Not a fair world. But for Democrats who want to win, these are questions that must be addressed."] This has echoes of the Nixon "Southern strategy" that still haunts American politics, poisoning political discourse and elevating the worst candidates to questionable political victories. Karl Rove learned his craft from the Nixonians (and Pat Buchanan is one of them who has been relegated currently to an MSNBC commentator promoting his brand of political hatred against Obama). Shame on Estrich for the company she keeps, and the racism she effectively promotes. (All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.) Obama is right: It is time for a new politics, and his kind of new politician.
2.13.2008 7:01am
Virginia's ballots still had everyone who'd dropped out, so when I voted yesterday, I spent a good minute or two at the touch-screen trying to decide if I should vote for my favorite candidate, who'd dropped out, or my third favorite, who was still in the race.

Anyway, with the way Obama's leading as far as popular-support delegates, but Clinton's got a superdelegate (i.e., Party Leadership) lead, I've been wondering... didn't the Democrats learn anything from 1968?
2.13.2008 7:02am
Temp Guest (mail):
ray fuller:

I read Professor Estrich's piece also and have a slightly different take on it than you do. I think Professor Estrich was clearly and honestly articulating issues of political strategy that high-level Democratic political operatives have been agonizing over for at least a year. A good friend, who is a yellow dog Democrat and a fervent supporter of Senator Obama, laid out the same issues for me over a year ago.

The big problem for the Democrats is that they have paid lip service and delivered symbolic rewards to their African-American and Hispanic-American constituencies while denying them any really significant political rewards. In the past, the Democrats have never really been called on this and have been able to retain African-Americans and, to a lesser degree, Hispanic-American constituencies as solidly Democratic voting blocks. In this election cycle both voting blocks are vying for real recognition and members of both blocks see their strivings as a zero-sum game played out against members of the other block.

The problem is very real for the Democrats, even if it is poetic justice. Estrich is just articulating in public one version of a quandary upon which many high-level Democrats are privately focused.
2.13.2008 9:13am
Steve--I've been wondering if the Democrats had learned anything from '72. But I suppose '68 is now also a good question.

Re: the black vs. brown issue that Teporary raised--I lived in Dallas for a while. And it is *really* a problem in that city. I suspect it is an issue elsewhere, as the Nevada primary tends to suggest. Aren't the Democrats lucky, however, that the GOP doesn't have a great Hispanic veep option?
2.13.2008 11:25am
Cornellian (mail):
In this election cycle both voting blocks are vying for real recognition and members of both blocks see their strivings as a zero-sum game played out against members of the other block.

On the other hand, Republicans are dreaming if they think Hispanics will vote for the party of Tom Tancredo just because the Democratic nominee is black.
2.13.2008 12:33pm