The point has been made that the more-or-less dark-skinned folk would have more political power if they were not so reliably, fanatically partisan in their voting for Democrats. Some laugh at the idea, but it is being born out by the current Democratic Parties. With two candidates receiving nearly equal amounts of Democratic votes, the Democratic candidates no longer have the luxury of ignoring parts of their constituency such as Wyoming and other small states where they seldom campaigned much in prior years.

And one notes that Hillary can't take the white vote, or the female vote either, for granted and so has to campaign among those constituencies. Wasn't playing hard to get always an effective way to entice?

That the black vote has been so reliably one-sided for Obama suggests that race trumps gender, and it proves that race even trumps rationality, which the monolithic black vote for Democrats has indicated in the past anyway. But Obama isn't playing to black crowds, he's playing to the latte liberal crowds. Even Obama takes the black vote for granted.

And one notes that the Republican candidate, John McCain, cannot take the conservative vote for granted this year. He'll be forced to make the tough decision: Do I want to continue to pander to left-wing anti-war nuts and soi-disant independents who will vote for the real Democrat anyway or should I get back to Republican roots and try to attract the same constituency that gave Ronald Reagan two landslide victories?

Quod erat demonstratum: Being unreliable is what gives voters power.