Prometheus 6

Wait until the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media "discovers" the major role that Jesse Jackson played in making sure that votes from African Americans, who are the most loyal of the Democrats' constituents, were properly reflected in the awarding of delegates. Talk about fear of a black planet. 

That, and the arithmetic reality that Sen. HRC has to win 59.24% of remaining delegates to win the nomination, whereas Sen. BHO only needs 40.90%.

And his lead in NC is quite large. He's developed a lead in IN and OR but WV hasn't been polled for a while (it's probably the last win HRC will have).

My theory about HRC support is that there is a sense that really robust dynastic loyalty is regarded as essential for any headway on the part of the Democratic Party.  Hence, there is a sense that BHO is an interloper who ought to "know" that he's not helping.  I think Team Clinton staff tried to play up this concept, but instead wound up signaling that Sen. BHO was particularly inadequate because he was [cough cough] Black [cough cough].

I wrote here earlier about the role of movements in Usonian politics.  For me, Sen. HRC's ties to the DLC made her inherently less desirable than Sen. BHO, prima facie.  I think she has benefitted immensely from her leadership role in the DLC, since so few other Democrats actually ran (I mean, aside from really minor figures). First, the DLC system tended to assign weights to candidates, so that (e.g.) Kucinich was really a marginal figure and his bold stands were discounted.  Second, the DLC's standing platform committee, the American Dream Initiative (ADI), developed a platform that was already supported by a large bloc of Congressional Democrats.  So in theory, HRC's claim she "can hit the ground running" is based on the fact that much of her platform has already been drafted.

Unfortunately, that part of her platform consists of a large but unknown head tax, known as a "health insurance plan." What would actually make the plan valuable to lower income Usonians is the unknown subsidy schedule, which Congress would decide.  That, incidentally, scares me to death.

Because everytime Chuck Todd goes into the math, he always points out that Obama, by winning in African American areas, will gain more delegates than in other areas...because the Democratic Rules reward past voting behavior. Cracks me up, actually. It's why they are so willing to dismiss 'The Black Vote'. That's ok...we're still sitting quietly, taking down names and notes.

It's funny how the rules that they set up are now the very thing that is hurting them. But seriously, there are two reasons why Hillary isn't being pressured more to get out. First of all there cannot be a lingering perception that Hillary was being bullied out, which would promote resentment among white women. The second reason is that when black people say that they will sit this one out if the nomination is stolen, I simply don't think that they believe it. Elections are more important to black people generally. Absent the threat of a Montgomery-style boycott, the thought is that after 8 disastrous blacks will be unified against John McCain, if Hillary gets this. There isn't a precedence for large scale boycotting aside from the Montgomery bus boycotts. My guess is that they think they'll still garner about 70% of the black vote, so they can continue to insult black people with impunity. I did here Sharpton say that he may not support the Democratic nominee though.

If Obama is leading in the pledged delegate total and the popular vote, but the nomination is handed to Clinton by the superdelegates, I can guarantee you that although the Democratic nominee may receive 70 percent of the black voters who turnout to vote, there will be a precipitous and, at least for the Democrats, cataclysmic decline in the total number of blacks actually voting in the general election.  

See, for example, Michael C. Dawson's No Time for Smoke Filled Rooms

or Keith Reed's Don't Think Black People Won't Vote for McCain

"Wood already touched by fire is not hard to set alight." 

The second reason is that when black people say that they will sit this one out if the nomination is stolen, I simply don't think that they believe it. Elections are more important to black people generally.

although the Democratic nominee may receive 70 percent of the black voters who turnout to vote, there will be a precipitous and, at least for the Democrats, cataclysmic decline in the total number of blacks actually voting in the general election.

Black folks should vote, even if Clinton gets the nod. It should be a protest vote, though. A vote for anyone but Clinton/McCain.

The message must be understood: If you hurt us, we will hurt you. And the larger the turnout, the better.

"Black folks should vote, even if Clinton gets the nod." 

I agree with you in principle but I don't know if we have enough time to persuade enough folks' to alter their expected behavior in terms of registering their protests. Black folks could be asked to write in the name of famous African Americans, living or dead, but I don't think black voters, as a general rule, are going to cast ballots for Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader.

Some of us will and that is okay but I suspect that blacks under the age of 40 will take a pass on the whole show. Above the age of 40, writing in the names of famous blacks might have more appeal. I'm speculating here. Just trading perceptions and opinions but we have to do something.  Back in the day when my friends in the projects where I lived used to get too far out of pocket I took my ball and went home. Sooner or later somebody would come and knock on the back door. 

"A cow always needs its tail more than one summer to fan the flies out of its face."  

The media will cover Sharpton if he says that he may advocate not supporting the nominee should the winner be Clinton in this case, which would could actually make either sitting out or writing in Obama a real possibility come November. I think what's missed here is that it's not Barack Obama's fault that Florida and Michigan were "disenfranchised", I blame Howard Dean because if he cannot enforce the rules, he can never be believed again, plain and simple. How does Clinton then blame Obama if Michigan and Florida's delegations aren't seated? This is all she has left and she needs an equally compelling argument against the threat of black voters sitting this one out. This is her card, and NOBODY is calling her out on it. I also ask, how irrational is this: Clinton voters won't vote for Obama if he is the Democratic nominee? That is completely irrational. Obama has given them no reason whatsoever to vote against him in the general election. Any way I'm pleased at these developments because hopefully things will never return to the way they were, where many blacks would vote Democrat, because it was the lesser of two evils, not necessarily because black people love the Democratic party. What this primary season is proving is that if Barack Obama is not elected president in November, it won't be because of Republicans, it will be because of white, refined/not so refined,racist Democrats. But this has to happen and the Democratic party deserves to be held hostage as the base of the party (black people) cash in their chips and nominate the person of their choice.

And I want to see the Clinton's campaigning for Barack Obama in November. Will they really be sincere about it? Are they capable of that?

And I wouldn't even trust them to do it. Oh, I'd never come out and say that,but behind the scenes, I wouldn't send them to anyplace but the reddest of red states, where their campaigning wouldn't hurt one way or the other.