There will be reconciliations after we have a nominee; each will have to court the others' base of support.

Short answer: They'd rather not because,let's face it, most of America would rather not have black people. Anyone who disagrees hasn't been paying attention.

Clinton does not want our votes. The Democratic Party, however, does. That's part of the reason that, ever since white Democrats noticed the Clintons' race-baiting, Obama has won ~80 superdels whereas Clinton has gained no more than 5.

Forget all the racial posturing. If Clinton becomes the nominee, how many voters will Democrats lose, either by not voting or by voting for McCain? And, by comparison, how many other Democrats will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. I think any careful analysis will show that the party loses many more with Obama. This doesn't need any racial or gender labels, it is simply a matter of votes. The Democratic party will lose with Obama.

Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com

there seems to be a good deal of posturing and threatening here. of course the democrats want black votes, the clintons want them, believe it or not. however, since obama is getting practically all black votes, what the heck do you suppose clinton should do? oh, i know, give up, quit, go home, leave the playing field cause she cannot win, in the estimation of a solid bloc of voters who all happen to be black. uh, seems like you might have more than a tad of presumptiveness going here, the campaign is clearly not over, all the comments by talking heads notwithstanding.

the clintons always cultivated the black electorate...fools, how could they realize that none of that mattered, as long as it became a race thing, well, they are white, its not much of contest.

the bitter irony of those of us in the boomer generation who support civil rights, we find we just dont get it, and we find that practically any attack on obama can be seen by somebody somewhere as racist, we are marginalized, treated as defective racists by folks who ought to know better.

making threats and blustering is not a sign of confidence. all this vitriol seems more pronounced the weaker obama performs

how long has it been since obama won a primary..not a caucus, but a real vote? is that all the fault of the mean, racist clintons? what a cartoonish view of the world.

racism exists, it walks the land, but lumping together folks who have stood for equal rights for a long time with the real racists, well, that pisses me off too.

perhaps i will get mad and threaten not to vote for obama if he runs against satan..perhaps if i shut my eyes and pretend i could convince myself of the scenario..

in other words, dont be like the gop books about liberals under your bed, do not portray a racist under every bed

blackflag - I don't think the Clintons are racists, though these continued statements that have come out of the campaign and its surrogates have not helped that perception. Between "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice" and "insignificant states", the unfortunate message the campaign has put out there is that somehow, those states that went for Obama in a big way somehow should count for less because, well, those states have large black populations and that's what put him over the top. I'm sorry, but that's the inescapable conclusion those kind of comments lead to, particularly when Hillary has based her whole "electability" argument on this idea that only she can win larger states where black voters don't make up as large a part of the population. That's her argument, not mine, and that's how it plays to me so I can only imagine how it plays to people who are black. Essentially, Hillary is telling superdelegates that the preference of older white women should carry more weight than that of black voters - that her core constituency is the one that should matter more.

I don't think she's making the argument because she's a racist; she's making the argument because it's the only one she can make as to why she should be the nominee, given that she's lost the race on pledged delegates, number of states, and popular vote (at least thus far). But here's the rub: though blacks and white women (of all ages) make up roughly equal portions of the Democratic base, guess which constituency has been the most loyal to the Democrats? Not white women, who in large numbers deserted Democrats in elections in 1980, 84, 88, 2000, and 2004. Black voters have been the single most loyal voting bloc in the party for 40 years, and let's face it, that loyalty has not brought them a whole lot in the way of big rewards, even when the party was in power.

So now that we have come down to a "who gets thrown under the bus" moment, it becomes hard to make an argument that the party should suck up to its more fair-weather friends (white women) at the expense of its most loyal supporters, or to explain how the party could do so without looking racist. If the party isn't even going to honor the preference of black voters for the candidate of their choice, who has won by every metric (to date), it's hard to make a compelling argument as to why black voters should support the party. Under such circumstances, the old unspoken Democratic argument of "you have to vote for us, because the other guys are open racists" just doesn't seem to hold a lot of water and certainly doesn't constitute a compelling reason for strongly supporting the party in this election or future ones.

And as for Hillary's "I'm only saying what the Republicans will be saying in November" argument in the smear-by-association attacks, we should get ready for the heavy repitition of the old Republican saw about Democrats keeping blacks on the liberal plantation if the nomination is handed to Hillary by the superdelegates. And unfortunately, we'll have no good answer to it, because it will be true - the black base will have once again been treated as a group to whom we need to pay little attention, because "who else are they gonna vote for?"

So, whether it pisses you off or not, that's where it stands. I can't say for sure that large numbers of blacks would sit out the election if the supers handed the nomination to Hillary...but I can say, if I was a black Obama supporter, I would, for all the factual reasons outlined above. I'm frankly amazed by the Hillary supporters who seem to have adopted the position that somehow the party is unfairly being held hostage by the desires of black voters, when the candidate of their choice has won a hard-fought and legitimate lead in the race for the nomination under the party's own rules. This isn't a bone that's being thrown to black voters - it's a legitimate victory. If that victory is stripped on the basis of specious arguments about "electability" that rest on the presumption that older white women are a more important constituency than blacks, it's hard to see how there wouldn't be major negative fallout for the party in November.