A reader writes in regards to Obama’s performance:

The late Alan Baron used to have the “15 and 50% rule” for cities. If a city was at least 50% black, it would almost certainly have a black mayor (Detroit, DC, Atlanta, etc.). If a city was less than 15% black, it MIGHT have a black mayor because a small minority wouldn’t create all that much tension. (LA [where Tom Bradley won five elections from 1973 onward] and Seattle fit this mold).

On the other hand, if a city was between 16 and 49% black, they probably would NOT have a black mayor. The reasons were simple: at say, 30% black, the community was big to stir up a backlash, but not strong enough to win a majority. New York is the classic example of this at 30% black. David Dinkins has been their first and only black mayor. [Similarly, Harold Washington, who died 20 years ago, was Chicago's first and last black mayor.]

Obama is winning the white voters in states where no one is scared of blacks (North Dakota!). He’s also winning the Deep South states where black Democrats outnumber white Democrats. But in the big states where blacks are mixed in competition with Catholic labor voters, Asians and Hispanics, he’s struggling.

Alan Baron would have predicted this!

Presidente of Mexico and general bottom feeder Felipe Calderon is cheered up considerably by recent political events in America. He is rubbing his grubby hands together in glee as a result of the disappearance of the last Presidential candidate who can be considered pro-borders, Mitt Romney.

Plus, Calderon is planning a visit to Mexifornia next week to check on his outsourced citizens who supply billions of dollars annually in remittances (nearly $24 billion in 2007, see below). Hopefully he will get the kind of welcome he deserves.

“My hope is that whoever the next president is, and whoever is in the new [U.S.] Congress, will have a broader and more comprehensive view” of the immigration problem, Calderon said. Speaking at the presidential residence Los Pinos on the morning after the Super Tuesday presidential primaries in the U.S., Calderon said he took heart from the results, though he did not mention specific candidates.

“It seems to me that the most radical and anti-immigrant candidates have been left behind and have been put in their place by their own electorate,” Calderon said.

He arrives in Sacramento on Feb. 13 on the final leg of a five-day U.S. trip that will also take him to Chicago, Boston and New York to visit local officials and representatives of Mexican immigrant communities.

In Sacramento, he is scheduled to meet with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Latino legislators. In Los Angeles the following day, he is to meet Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and migrant groups’ representatives assembled by the nine Mexican consulates in California.
[Mexican president foresees friendlier U.S., Los Angeles Times, Feb 7, 2008]

Plus, Calderon is still yapping for his handout of free money from Uncle Sucker, which will total $1.4 billion over a couple years rather than the sub-billion amount mentioned in La Times.

U.S. legislators are debating a $550-million proposal by the Bush administration to assist Mexico and Central America in the battle against traffickers.

Below, a chart showing the growth of remittances over the last few years.

From The Smoking Gun:

One of the “Jena Six” defendants was arrested yesterday for allegedly assaulting a fellow student at a Texas high school. Bryant Purvis, 19, was busted on the misdemeanor charge following an 8:30 AM altercation at Hebron High School in Carrollton, where his family relocated from Louisiana. According to the below arrest warrant affidavit, Purvis assaulted a male student he apparently suspected of vandalizing his auto. Along with choking the 18-year-old victim, the 6′ 6″ Purvis allegedly slammed the teenager’s head on a table.

I pointed out earlier that, according to the LA Times, Obama’s pandering to the illegal alien vote flopped in California because … illegal aliens can’t vote.

A reader demurs:

As regards the notion that Obama’s direct advocacy of driver’s licenses for illegal aliens ‘flopped’, you are right in every detail, but missed the big picture.

Obama was not aiming at ‘hispanics’. Obama was aiming at the elites who lust after cheap labor over all other things. And it paid off big time. Money and favorable corporate press coverage is raining down on Obama, and Hilary is starting to run out of resources…

Why do you think the big money fell over itself to bring McCain back from the dead? Because McAmnesty will keep labor cheap.

Follow the money. The balance of supply and demand for labor is the dominant factor in setting wages and profits. I think Obama just outsmarted Hillary.

Romney has dropped out, announcing it during a  surprise speech at CPAC:

FOXNews.com - Romney Drops Presidential Bid, Stuns CPAC Audience - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney suspended his presidential campaign Thursday, telling a stunned conservative group that continuing his uphill battle against John McCain would hurt the Republican Party and make it more likely that the Democratic candidate would win the general election in November.

“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention … I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d be making it easier for Sen. Clinton or Obama to win,” Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference.

It’s ironic that Romney should cite party loyalty as a reason for letting John McCain have the nomination, since party loyalty is  one thing not covered by McCain’s world famous “sense of honor.”

In the old days one would have probably expected the Archbishop of Canterbury to defend traditional British society in the fact of creeping Islamization, but today’s Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is perfectly delighted to encourage the further disintegration of British society.
In a radio interview, Williams came out in favor of Sharia law in a radio interview on February 7th.

The Evening Standard reported that

The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable” and that it would help maintain social cohesion.

Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4’s World At One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

They “don’t relate to the British legal system”–that’s a delicate way to put it! But, not to worry, the Archbishop thinks it’s going to work fine !

(Williams) says that Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He added Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”. Dr Williams said there was a place for finding a “constructive accommodation” in areas such as marriage - allowing Muslim women to avoid Western divorce proceedings.

Dr Williams said: “It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system.

So Williams thinks Sharia law is not “an alien and rival system” to British Common Law?
Of course, Williams thinks Sharia is misunderstood:

….the Archbishop defended his position saying people people needed to look at Islamic law “with a clear eye.”
“They should not imagine, either, that we know exactly what we mean by Sharia and just associate it with … Saudi Arabia, or whatever,” he continued.
“Nobody in their (sic) right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states: the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women.”
There were questions about how it interacted with human rights, he said.

“Questions about how it interacted with human rights”?
The Archbishop of Canterbury displays the same kind of muddled thinking as that of other Western leaders (including our own). With leadership like this, is it any wonder contemporary Britain is going down the tubes ?

Vanishing American pointed me toward this USA Today story:

Here’s a quiz: Get a pencil and paper and jot down the 10 most famous Americans in history. No presidents or first ladies allowed.

Who tops your list?

Ask teenagers, and they overwhelmingly choose African-Americans and women, a study shows. It suggests that the “cultural curriculum” that most kids — and by extension, their parents — experience in school increasingly emphasizes the stories of Americans who are not necessarily dead, white or male.

Researchers gave blank paper and pencils to a diverse group of 2,000 high school juniors and seniors in all 50 states and told them: “Starting from Columbus to the present day, jot down the names of the most famous Americans in history.”

Topping the list: the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman. Three of the top five — and six of the top 10 — are women.

Sam Wineburg, the Stanford University education and history professor who led the study along with Chauncey Monte-Sano of the University of Maryland, says the prominence of black Americans signals “a profound change” in how we see history.

“Over the course of about 44 years, we’ve had a revolution in the people who we come to think about to represent the American story,” Wineburg says.

“There’s a kind of shift going on, from the narrative of the founders, which is the national mythic narrative, to the narrative of expanding rights,” he says.

Yes, but how does he explain No. 7: Oprah Winfrey?

She has “a kind of symbolic status similar to Benjamin Franklin,” Wineburg says. “These are people who have a kind of popularity and recognition because they’re distinguished in so many venues.”

Indeed After all, both Ben Franklin and Oprah Winfrey were the world’s pre-eminent physicists for a decade or so in the middle of their careers. And while Oprah hasn’t yet carried out the most important diplomatic mission in America’s history, maybe President Obama will appoint her Secretary of State.

Here’s the list chosen by 2000 juniors and seniors, no Presidents allowed:

1. Martin Luther King Jr.: 67%

2. Rosa Parks: 60%

3. Harriet Tubman: 44%

4. Susan B. Anthony: 34%

5.Benjamin Franklin: 29%

6. Amelia Earhart: 25%

7. Oprah Winfrey: 22%

8. Marilyn Monroe: 19%

9. Thomas Edison: 18%

10. Albert Einstein: 16%

All I have to say is that Sojourner Truth must be feeling pretty ripped off not to make the list.

Seriously, the absence of Jackie Robinson on this list shows how feminized schools have gotten, which explains a lot about the much higher dropout rate among boys.

This list also might explain a bit about why Hispanics and Asians aren’t getting excited over Obama’s candidacy. They must be asking, “Black this and black that. Why aren’t we getting our fair share of our own pseudo-heroes pounded into the brains of children?”

About 20 years ago, E.D. Hirsch’s Cultural Literacy survey revealed that more high school students could identify Harriet Tubman than Stalin or Churchill. I recall William F. Buckley wondering who in the world Harriet Tubman could be. If she was more important than Stalin, how could he have gone his whole life without ever hearing of her? And if she wasn’t important, why was she famous?

How naive we all were back then!

I first heard about Harriet Tubman in my elementary school reader around 1969 or 1970. I was fascinated by the concept of her Underground Railroad and couldn’t wait for the part where the slaves tunnel their way from the South to Canada, although, as I recall, the story turned out to be disappointingly lacking in detail about how they built the locomotives and laid the track.

In contrast, here’s The Atlantic Monthly’s recent list of “100 Most Influential Americans,” as chosen by various experts in a survey overseen, I believe, by Ross Douthat. The top Americans who weren’t Presidents on The Atlantic’s list were:

5 Alexander Hamilton
6 Benjamin Franklin
7 John Marshall
8 Martin Luther King Jr.
9 Thomas Edison
11 John D. Rockefeller
14 Henry Ford
16 Mark Twain
19 Thomas Paine
20 Andrew Carnegie

So, three overlaps (Ben, MLK, and Thomas Alva) in the top 10 but only 2 more (Einstein and Susan B. Dollar) of the students’ list showed up anywhere on The Atlantic’s top 100.

On The Atlantic’s list, there were 8 blacks and 9 women, but no black women, in contrast to the 3 in the high school students’ top 10. White males fill 83 of the top 100 slots, and 28 of the top 29.

In the California primary, Hillary won big among Latinos in California by running as a tax and spend Democrat, while Obama ran as a pro-illegal immigrant. The LA Times article says:

The Obama campaign, by contrast, aired Spanish-language radio ads promoting his support for issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. That was a “classic Northeastern assumption” that licenses were the primary concern of Latinos, according to Harry Pachon, president of the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute at USC.

“It’s not. I think he would have had much more traction on issues like education, or the loss of jobs . . . issues that resonate with Latino homeowners,” Pachon said.

Yes, Obama is from the Midwest not the Northeast, but in California, everything beyond Las Vegas is considered “back East.”

The thing that people back East like Obama are always forgetting is that illegal immigrants aren’t supposed to vote. Granted, a few do vote illegally, but most wouldn’t vote even if it was legal. They have more than enough drama in their private lives.

Hispanics who can vote mostly don’t really care much about illegal immigrants. They might want legal immigration expanded so they can sponsor more close relatives, but illegals are a pain in the neck–some third cousin shows up and wants to sleep on your couch for a year until he gets settled.

But most politicians and journalists don’t know that because the “experts” they talk to about Hispanics — such as Hispanic political consultants — all want more illegal immigrants because it makes them seem more important. They want to be the “voice” of not 45 million people but, of 90 million or 180 million. Think how much business they would get then!

On the other hand, maybe all this dissection of the California voting is premature. Do we even really know who won the California primaries? I noticed this rather disturbing paragraph in the Thursday morning LA Times article:

“Stephen Weir, head of the state association of elections officials, estimated Wednesday that up to 2 million ballots remained uncounted. An additional 450,000 provisional ballots, filed when there is a dispute at a polling place, were also uncounted, according to Weir, the clerk-recorder of Contra Costa County. Elections officials have until March 4 to complete their tally, on which rests the division of party delegates.”

Up to two million uncounted votes?

Shelby Steele argued that Obama can’t win because he couldn’t simultaneously be both a race man to black voters and an anti-race man to white voters tired of race. But Shelby is a lot smarter and more realistic than the average voter (or the average pundit, for that matter). Most people just believe whatever they want to believe about Obama. So, in reality, reality doesn’t much matter.

So, what we’ve seen are blacks, after a long period of initial apathy, flocking to their tribal standard-bearer in large numbers; and whites voting for Obama as their “imaginary hip black friend.” Obama thus does well in states with lots of blacks and in states with few blacks, like Idaho, (where he won 79% of the small number of Democrats), Alaska (75%), Kansas (74%), and Colorado (67%), but not so hot in-between. Audacious Epigone reports:

Blacks overwhelmingly backed Obama, Hispanics favored Clinton (with the anomaly of Connecticut, where, comprising 6% of the total, they apparently preferred Obama by a narrow margin [I presume that Obama looks like more like the typical Hispanic in Connecticut than the typical Hispanic in California), and the larger the black share of a state’s voting population, the more likely whites in that state were to flock to Clinton. Looking at all the contests that have taken place so far, there has been an inverse correlation of .35 (confidence just a hair outside 90%) between the percentage of a state’s voters who are black and the amount of support Obama garners among whites in that state.That’s quite rigorous actually, given that obliterations like Illinois are outliers that attenuate the statistical relationship. Further, the real relationship is likely stronger than that, as I computed the results of all contests thus far (including those before Super Tuesday) as though only Hillary and Obama were running–in reality, most of Edwards’ (overwhelmingly white) supporters in the southern states would have gone to Hillary if it had been a two horse race at that point. And I gave all the white undecideds in Michigan to Obama (neither he nor Edwards was on the ballot there), so he looked better among whites in that 23% black state that he would’ve in reality.

In the eyes of whites, Obama is only the Black Candidate when there are lots of blacks rallying behind him.

Among Democrats, Hispanics and Asians appear so far to be resistant to Obama’s mythos:

In California, the only state in either party with a sizable enough number of Asian voters to adequately report exit polling data on, Hillary outdid Obama by almost 3-to-1 (71%-25%). In New Jersey, extrapolating from the other racial categories, the best estimate for the Asian vote (which comprised 4% of the Democratic total) suggests 59%-41%, in Hillary’s favor.