It’s good to see Josh directly addressing, in his “Goodbye, Cruel Ballot Box” post, the threats by some Democratic voters to sit out or vote McCain in 2008. It’s an important conversation that needs to begin now.

However, I disagree with him on a few points. By focusing on the minor public policy differences between Clinton and Obama, he underestimates what is at stake in the most divisive - but most realistic - scenario for a Clinton victory. And because of that, Josh gives no consideration to the rational and potentially justifiable reasons Obama supporters might give for not voting Clinton in the fall.

Before explaining why I disagree with Josh on these points, I should say a few things (as an Obama supporter). In the unlikely, nearly impossible event Clinton wins the nomination by passing Obama in pledged delegates, I’ll vote for her without hesitation. In the unlikely, nearly impossible event Clinton takes the nomination by pulling even in pledged delegates and winning via supers, I’ll vote for her with a tinge of regret. In the unlikely but not entirely implausible event Clinton takes the nomination by running off a string of victories between now and June, pulling very close in pledged delegates, and winning via supers, I’ll much more likely than not vote for her. And I don’t have much of a problem with labelling sitting out or voting McCain as emotional infantilism under most plausible scenarios like those just listed..

However, the most likely scenario for a Clinton victory doesn’t run like that - the most common victory scenario is that she’s still down in the delegate count by a substantial amount and the supers overturn the expressed wishes of a process in which millions upon millions of Democrats participated.

In that case, I don’t know what I’d do. Nor do I pretend to know right now what I think others should do. There could be massive, angry protests at the convention. The chances for a Democratic victory would be much diminished, even if angry Obama supporters didn’t sit out. A good chunk of one of the strongest, most loyal Democratic voting blocs could be alienated for several elections, perhaps forever. And there will be millions of Democratic voters asking themselves “What exactly is the point of voting or attending caucuses in a party nomination process if the process does not recognise the candidate with the most support as the winner?”

Speaking only for myself, I don’t have an answer to that question. Nor have I seen any convincing answers in the press or blogosphere. But I will say this - a political party that cannot supply a good answer to that question is a political party that does not deserve your vote or mine.

If the nominee is the pledged delegate leader, the question won’t come up. And perhaps the Democratic party can come up with an answer even if Clinton overturns a pledged delegate lead with superdelegates. I have my doubts. But if the Democratic party cannot give a good answer to the question everyone will be asking, I do not see how anyone could label citizens who choose not to vote Democratic in the fall or who turn to extra-electoral politics after an unjust nomination process as “emotionally infantile.”

You could object that I’m speculating on unlikely scenarios here, and I’d concede the point. You might even say that it’s extreme and irresponsible to discuss such divisive, remote possibilities. But if you believe it’s extreme and irresponsible or “emotionally infantile” to discuss potential consequences of the most likely scenario for a Clinton victory, what label would you apply to Clinton’s ongoing decision to continue her campaign?