In the April 21 issue of The New Yorker there is a piece by Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs and Steel) about vengeance among tribes in New Guinea.  When hostility between tribes results in bloodshed, the social scales become unbalanced and those affiliated with the victim feel compelled to take it upon themselves to right perceived wrongs.  It makes no difference that the often violent "payback" hurts the avengers as much, or more, than the original transgessor.  The avengers are driven to vengeance by a sense of pride and an identification with a group (the tribe).  As described by Diamond's New Guinean friend, vengeance provides a genuine sense of satisfaction.
The dynamics of vengeance are familiar to anyone who has heard of the Hatfields and McCoys, or seen West Side Story or Romeo and Juliet.  The desire for vengeance is part of human nature, as primal as the need to divide the world into an "us" and a "them", into friends and enemies.  The cycle of vengeance is so strong--so engrained in our nature--that it can only be countered, Diamond suggests, by the imposition of the State.  Only in the State can we surrender our desire--our right--for vengeance in favor of a dispassionate and objective dispute resolution system.  Only in the State can we trust that an impartial arbiter will decide the fair resolution of our disputes. 
The State can do this by depersonalizing aggression.  The difference between an "enemy" and a "criminal" lies in the fact that an enemy stands opposed to you personally, while a criminal stands opposed merely to the state.  In the State, all transgressors are criminals, not enemies.  Final resolutions are only possible where the dispute resolution system can keep the dispute impersonal.
But the system breaks down--and civilization along with it--when disputes transcend the ability of the State to keep impersonal.  As Diamond mentions,

"In times of war, even modern state societies quickly turn the enemy into a dehumanized figure of hatred, only to enjoin us to stop hating again as soon as a peace treaty is signed. Such contradictions confuse us deeply. Neither pacific ideals nor wartime hatreds, once acquired, are easily jettisoned. It’s no wonder that many soldiers who kill suffer post-traumatic stress disorder."

The analogy is not far-fetched.  The dispute resolution system employed within the Democratic Party--the primary electoral process--has failed to keep the dispute impersonal.  It has gone on too long, employed arbitrary and inconsistent rules, and disempowered voters from important states.  The legitimacy of the process has been called into question.  The Democratic party has factionalized into two tribes: Obama supporters and Clinton supporters, many of whom have come to view the other as the "enemy."  Although the "dispute" will soon be settled, there is no groundwork for a lasting peace.  The contradictions faced by passionate Obama and Clinton supporters will not be easily jettisoned.
In recent weeks, polls have consistently shown that significant numbers of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee.  The polls show the same is true of Obama supporters, if Clinton were the nominee.  Anecdotally, a number of people on these boards have claimed that they would refuse to vote for the democratic nominee if it is not the nominee that they support.  It's easy to dismiss all these claims as being in the "heat of the moment."  It's easy to imagine that every voter acts as a rational agent, and that such voters would recognize that it is not in their best interests to support McCain in a general election.  But these conclusions are naive: the desire for vengeance is very real, and has time and again driven otherwise rational people to inflict great harm upon themselves and others.  In the face of disappointment for a defeat, people desire the genuine satisfaction of vengeance--even if it is accompanied by great personal cost.
The dilemma of the cycle of vengeance is a real tragedy.  As Diamond's New Guinean friend explained,

“I admit that the New Guinea Highland way to solve the problem posed by a killing isn’t good. Our way disturbs our day-to-day life; we won’t be comfortable for the rest of our lives; we are always in effect living on the battlefield; and those feelings go on and on in us. The Western way, of letting the government settle disputes by means of the legal system, is a better way. But we could never have arrived at it by ourselves: we were trapped in our endless cycles of revenge killings.”

So, in the absence of a satisfactory and legitimate dispute resolution procedure, how do the New Guinean bloodfeuds end?  In one of two ways: either with a death, or with a payment.  In other words, the factionalization of the Democratic party can only be healed by Obama's defeat, or his concession to pay a political price.  This could mean his agreement to select Hillary as his vice-president, to offer her another position of power, to adopt some significant Clinton policy positions such as truly universal health care, or to literally pay off her campaign debts.  Most likely, some combination of all three will occur.
However, if the Obama campaign wants the support of passionate Clinton supporters, it cannot rely on some idealistic conception of democratic voters as rational agents voting in accordance with their economic and personal interests.  Such motivation may work well in game theory, but will fail miserably in the real world of election politics.  The anger is real, and so is the desire for vengeance.

So I don't generally like to just link to an article, but this one was really something.  Some may say that the unicorn puts it over the top, but I say it's just the icing on the cake.

Walk on water, BHO!

In the interests of fostering Unity (of course), walking a mile in another's shoes, and just amusing ourselves with more Meta, I propose that for the next 24 hours, each of us post comments as though we supported the other democratic candidate.  Maybe for a day we can turn TPM into MyDD, or even, Hillaryis44.