What’s New with Wu

Well perhaps this is nit-picky but I’ve spent a week reading articles saying “Hillary won Texas” –
but if you lose the caucus and the delegate count and win the primary, why is that a win?

I spent the weekend in Texas trying to convince Asian-Americans to vote for Obama. While Obama may win this thing anyway, it may be despite the opposition of most of California’s Asian-American democrats, and the interesting question is why, and whether Texas will be the same.
There’s probably not a single good explanation — maybe many Asians just think Hilary Clinton is a better candidate. But there’s no shortage of theories out there. One is that Asian-Americans don’t tend to vote in large numbers; those that are active in primary politics are close to the political establishment. A popular theory in the media is that Asian-Americans are racist. A milder version suggests that the Clintons are an established brand, and the stereotype is that Asian-Americans stick to brand names whether its Harvard for school, Goldman Sachs for work, and Coach for handbags, and so on.

My own feeling is that some of it may just come down to exposure, or lack thereof, and the related issue of risk.  Political junkies know more about Obama by now than they do about their own cousins.  But that’s unusual, and for various reasons, older, first generation immigrants in Asian communities may just get information a little later.

If you don’t know much about the Obama candidacy - it seems risky.  And pardon me the stereotype, but much though surely not all of the Asian-American population is risk adverse.  Good schools, safe jobs, and so on.
That may now change. With Obama ahead in delegates, Texas may turn out differently.  Obama is moving as fast as is possible from risky to routine.

Well the word is out, so let’s hear it for Lessig for Congress!

Yes he’d be facing tough competition in the primary, but this happens to be a good year for hope and inspiration against experience.

I use Paul Krugman’s international economics textbook, and I generally liked some of his criticisms of the Bush adminstration during the first term. But he’s gone, as far as I can tell, completely bonkers.

In his latest column, his theory is that Obama’s supporters are bringing the politics of Richard Nixon into the Democratic primary. His main example is that they made a big deal out of Hilary Clinton’s lionization of LBJ. His other examples are all about media bias against Clinton.

The media may like Obama - hey, he’s likable. But to accuse Obama supporters of Nixon-like tactics is so off base it reaches the level of crazy. So far in this campaign, the only really scary manuvers have come from Bill Clinton — even the Republicans have been running relatively clean. The best he has is that Obama’s supporters harped too much on the LJB comparison. That’s dirty politics?

As an academic or at least a former academic, Krugman has at least some vague duty to try to be analytically coherent. But he has fallen into the habit of creating categories (fine) and then desperately trying to shoehorn available data into them. Trying to fit Obama’s supporters into the categories of Nixonities may be his worst effort yet.