I understand what you are saying about there being an opposite reaction if Hillary doesn't get the nomination.  But I don't think that it is an "equal and opposite" reaction.  

I've seen no evidence, for instance, from the Latino community that leads me to believe a large portion of that community of voters would be so upset if the superdelegates gave the nomination to Obama only because Obama had a pledged delegate lead that they would refuse to vote for Obama.  Perhaps though you could provide a link to some evidence of that.

I've also not seen that reaction from women voters in real life (plenty of it on-line, but on-line is only a tiny percentage of real life).  And I've talked to a lot of women.  If the superdelegates choose Obama because he has a pledged delegate lead, my take on the real life community of women voter in my area would be that they would shrug and say ok, that's the way it is.

But if the superdelegates were to choose Hillary over Obama while Obama had the lead in pledged delegates, the feedback I'm getting from my local black community is that they would see Hillary as an illegitimate nominee and would (at best) not vote for her and (at worst) stay home.  I say "at worst" because Dems in my state can't win without the black vote and so staying home would affect every downticket race.

Now, I'm well aware that the superdelegates can decide this matter in whatever way they want.  They can flip a coin.  They can consult a ouija board.  They can hold up the candidates for promises of tangible rewards.

But I believe that most of them also see that there would not be an equal and opposite reaction to the choices between choosing Obama and Hillary when Obama has the lead in pledged delegates.  And they will base their choice, in part, on that.  I also honestly believe that if they don't, the Democratic party will be damaged, perhaps irreparably.  But of course that's just my opinion.

We don't have to delve any further into your comments than its opening.

I don't get all this talk about how the Democrats cannot afford to not choose Obama, because of fear of alienating the African-American vote.

I'm taking you at your word that you don't understand this.  If you don't understand it then you are lacking any real experience interacting with the black community.

I spent 2004 working with the black community in both the south (Florida) and the north (Pennsylvania) to register voters and get out the vote.  It was a very difficult job to convince people that their votes would be counted because the 2000 vote was still a raw nerve.  I was reduced to arguing that Bush could steal a close election but he couldn't steal a blowout.  That was often the only way I could penetrate the cynicism and resignation of the black community.

It's impossible to say how much the 2000 experience depressed black turnout in 2004, but it was the single greatest obstacle to getting people to register and then getting them to vote.

I can express in words how devastating it will be to the black community if Barack Obama wins the pledged delegates and does not get the nomination.  

On the other hand, if Obama does win the nomination, the registration and turnout will be unheard of and will benefit candidates downticket in statewide races all over the country.

That will be true whether or not Obama ultimately loses.  The black voting bloc will be disappointed but they will remain loyal to the party and engaged in politics.  

If you cannot see it, then I really don't think you are qualified to do the job you do.

In case Booman's point didn't get through: he's saying that the backlash against an Obama win would be smaller in scope, both because Obama has more support among the public and because his win would be legitimate - clearly following the will of the electorate. A backlash against a Clinton win would be larger and more widespread, since she has less support among the public and her win would be illegitimate - overturning the will of the electorate.

Unless you can articulate some legitimate path to victory for Clinton based on the remaining states that does not involve continuing her current GOP-derived methods, stealing delegates from Obama, or convincing the superdelegates to overturn Obama's victory, his analysis seems sound.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?