The WaPo reviews many theories explaining Al Greene's victory in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary but they overlook an obvious guess - Greene was talked up in black churches.
Back in 2008 when Hillary and Barack stumped the state, reporters knew that black church leaders were influential in moving the vote. Yet in 2010, when a black candidate with no website, no public appearances, and no radio or television spots wins against a white opponent, churches aren't mentioned.
IN DEFENSE OF LOW-INFORMATION VOTERS: First, a black veteran beat an old white judge on the Democratic side in South Carolina - is that really so shocking? OK, no one knew the vet was an inarticulate alleged felon, but so what? The Dems in South Carolina were simply picking a lamb to be sent to slaughter in November, since Republican Jim DeMint is going to win easily. How much research should an individual voter put into that choice?