I see your point. But what happens now that LA's black population has fallen. For Landrieu and other Democrats in LA to remain politically viable they are going to have to get more white votes. Personally, because LA is home to a lot of Cajun Catholics, I don't see the party's fortunes being dead in LA.

But Fields and Landrieu's dislike for each other stems from the 1995 Governor's race. Landrieu finished third in the primary, which enabled Mike Foster to defeat Fields by a 2-1 margin. Fields felt agnry because Landrieu "didn't support him" even though he would have lost anyway.

So this carried over into 1996. Fields threw temper tantrums, especially as the Courts ruled his district unconstitutional. So he hemmed and hawed, and that's part of the reason why Landrieu eked out a 5,000 vote win against Woody Jenkins.

But how do the Democrats solve their problems in LA now? Now that Hurricane Katrina has emptied out New Orleans, I assume that many of the blacks moved to Baton Rouge. How does the Democratic Party win now that Lousiana is admittedly less black?

I remember Landrieu blitzing the black community in NO in the days before the runoff. They turned out for her -- and she repaid them by turning her back on them as soon as she won.

When she finally officially jumps parties, I hope Democrats celebrate.

Sorry, if every Senator who didn't match your litmus test were to leave the party*

If there are still people who think race doesn't matter have them go read (if they can) a book called "Sundown Towns". It will finish the argument once and for all.

What makes Louisiana very different than any other state is that until 2006, the "Jungle Primary" system used in that state. Everyone ran in the general election, then the top two went into the runoff.

This makes a huge difference in the outcome of elections. For example, had the 2000 Presidential Election had a Jungle Primary, John McCain would have been President.

In Louisiana, the system was designed by moderate white Democrats to protect moderate white Democrats. It was designed to protect the entrenched politicians from both the emerging Republican Party in the general election and the increasing power of African-Americans in the Democratic primary.

Edwin Edwards famously benefited from this when David Duke came in second in the general election. George H.W. Bush and many other national Republicans endorsed the corrupt Democrat over the Republican Klansman.

Mary Landrieu, Kathleen Blanco, and John Breaux have all benefited from this system.

For the 2006 elections, the Jungle Primary has been abolished in favor of a traditional system. This move will have more impact in Louisiana politics than any particular candidate or party could ever hope of having.

Expect the Democratic Party to become more liberal, but expect the Republicans to gain seats.

Three things:

(1) Race still matters.   The pandora's box is open and pretending it doesn't exist won't work.  The question is whether race will continue to be the basis for prejudice, strife, and persecution - which we can do something about that.  Overall, society has definitely made historic progress from such enslavement of African-Americans and the exploitation of Native Americans.  Still, there is unresolved tension over how to handle attempts to provide remediation (e.g., affirmative action, equal opportunity, etc...) for the impact of past oppression.

(2) Democrats do need to be more flexible and not apply undo litmus tests.  It does seem that there is this posture to make Democrats = Liberal and if a Democrat strays from liberal principles then they're not a 'real' Democrat.  Looking through history, Democrats have not necessarily ever been just a liberal party.   There has been a liberal faction, but other factions also.   The theme of the Democratic Party is that it fights for the common people which may or may not include explicitly liberal principles.  Still, one thing you would look for a Democrat to do is to support other Democrats or at least not work against other Democrats (as in a general election - they have to fight for themselves in the primary).  You would also expect that a modern Democrat would at least represent the mainstream forces of moderation, tolerance, and progress in their region.

(3) In order to boost turnout of African-Americans or other targeted demographics, Democrats will need to articulate policies that are important to their daily life.  It seems that Democrats will support certain things but fail to make them campaign themes or governing priorities.  When was the last time you heard a Democratic candidate for federal office making support for improved public transportation, community policing, or neighborhood revitalization a major campaign theme?  Yet, many African-Americans live in cities where they can't afford a car and the neighborhood is impacted with crime and lack of safe and/or affordable housing.   There is this tendency among Democrats to focus on things like equal opportunity when seeking support of African-Americans, but to forget about practical things that are needed (and which actually transcend race).  

Even in blue states like Maryland where I live, the race of candidates in the Senate contest has gotten a LOT of attention. Some pundits believe that if AA turn out in large numbers in the Democratic primary that Mfume will probably win. However, these same pundits also believe that the Mfume-Steele race would be a lot tighter and Mfume could lose in November against Steele in the general election (although after Steele's horrible week, I think that assertion is very much in doubt) b/c white conservative Democrats might not show up to vote for Mfume but would vote for Cardin if he won the Democratic primary.

So race plays an important factor not only for blacks voting for white candidates but whites voting for black candidates. Are whites, specifically white Democrats willing to turn out for a black Senate candidate in a state that has a 2:1 advantage in Democratic registration?  If Mfume wins the Democratic nomination, will Mfume face a similiar situation as Mary Landrieu where he has to set up phone banking operations that beg white Dems in Montgomery county and other predominantly white areas in the state to come out to vote for him around 5 pm?

Inquiring minds like myself want to know!! I want to know if loyalty to the Democratic party is just a one way street held against African Americans, who are expected to give their vote to Democrats on Election Day with VERY LITTLE in return. Or if white Democratic voters in Maryland, despite their misgivings with Mfume, will in the end support him for the sake of the party in the same way that AAs hold back their misgivings with white candidates for the sake of the party!!

You know what? I don't think most African Americans impose a litmus test on Democratic politicians. If polls are correct, African Americans are socially conservative and much more economically liberal than current Democratic politicians. As far as I know, the only litmus test that AAs impose is just to give a damn about our concerns. Scratch that--at least just pretend to give a damn about our concerns. And not just 2 weeks before Election Day either. How about just showing up 6 months to a year before the election and asking for our vote and then following through on the perennial campaign promises that are made and then broken to the AA community? How about respecting AA not only as voters but as individuals instead of marginalizing us and our concerns?  

Imagine you are an AA voter in LA watching the infamous interview of Landrieu by Anderson Cooper in the wake of Katrina.  Where he finally had to stop her robotic performance and ask her for some compassion towards the victims in NO.

Tell me that would not be seared into your consciousness.

Now that NO has been depopulated, do you seriously think anybody's going to do anything for your vote in the future?