Political strategist Mathew Dowd now believes Obama will win the Democratic nomination.

His cause will be helped if he does well in today's Potomac primaries. Obama leads by a subtantial margin in the polls of Virginia and Maryland. In the District of Columbia, with its large African-American population, everyone expects an Obama victory. So, it should be a sweep. Clinton can regain some momentum if she can at least make any of these closer than expected.

Jay Cost has an excellent analysis of the Democratic primary and caucus voters, based on results and exit polls. The bottom line? Obama wins 80% of the Black vote irrespective of where those voters live. He does less well, however, with Whites depending upon whether or not they live in a state with a large minority population. The more exposure White voters have to minorites, especially African-Americans, it seems the less likely they are to vote for Obama. Combine that with these observations from Susan Estrich and it seems, once again, that racism rears its head in American politics, even among the subset of supposedly more tolerant and progressive Democratic voters. Bob Krumm, looking at the results from Tennessee, sees clear evidence of the racial factor in the contest between Clinton and Obama. Cost's analysis, which shows that Whites are much more likely to vote for Obama when they live in racially homogenous states, points out an important, if uncomfortable, theory that has been recently much discusssed within the social science commmunity, which is that racial and ethnic tolerance is greater among people who live in homogenous communities. This is a very controversial finding, in part because it seems counter-intuitive. After all, shouldn't exposure to people of different ethnicities and races create more understanding and tolerance? Apparently not. If this hypothesis is true, then we should expect Clinton to do much better in Virginia and Maryland today then the polls show (which would also reveal more of the so-called Bradley effect). But, that's the beauty of speculation of this sort. It can be tested in the real world.

Speaking of ethnicity, could racism be at work in the effort to crack down on illegal immigration? History tells us that racism and tribalism has always been at work in anti-immigration movements. Today's hard liners on immigration (and I am one of them, more or less) say that it is all about the word "illegal". This is not just a GOP problem. In heavily Democratic Rhode Island, recent budget difficulties have led to a crackdown on "illegals". In more Republican Arizona, there is also an effort underway along similar lines. In fact, it is happening all across the country. It is not just a matter of Right-Wing Republicans (who, according to the Liberals are, by definition, racists) cracking down on "illegals", but folks from all walks of life. Working class Democrats are convinced, justifiably so, that their wages are being driven down by competition from "illegals". This is one area where our next President, whether McCain, Obama or Clinton, may have to eat their earlier words in the face of political realities.

Speaking of political realities, John Podhoretz, writing in Commentary, says that the Iraq War is still the dominant political reality of our times. He believes GOP losses in recent elections were driven by despair about losing the war, and a posture of surrender by the Democratic nominee for President, whether perception or reality, may help McCain in November.

David Brooks says the reality of the war, as well as other political realities, will come home with a vengeance to the new President, which would be especially troubling if that President were a Democrat. Realities like the budget and Pakistan are among the most troubling, if you read the Weekly Standard. I do, and I agree with those assessments, at least. In the end the new President may wish he (or she) had stayed home.