Please explain to me how not electing Obama will throw African Americans

[Evergreen Emerald]

under the bus if they are not voting for him because of race? I hear also that we must stand united with African Americans as if African Americans have a specific candidate.

I assume that African Americans--like women and Hispanics and Vietnamese--are individuals and that there are many different reasons that people choose Obama. I hear constantly that despite the PA numbers that indicated over 90% of African Americans supported Obama versus 8% that AA did not voting for Obama because he is black.

But, it appears that Obama supporters want it both ways. Either there are a "block" of voters who are united in electing the black candidate or, blacks are individuals some of which will be happy that Obama has lost, others will be upset. But they will be no more upset or no happier than any other supporter in our society. So, how would Obama losing "throw them under the bus?"

I hope this discrepancy can be explained without you calling me a racist.

Further, if it is the case that Blacks will be "thrown under the bus" if Obama loses, will women be thrown under the bus if Clinton loses? And if not, what is the difference that some supporters to be thrown under the bus and others not to be?

[madmom]

1. Good question... I to would be interested in knowing the answer.

[mckeown1128]

37. Well... it isn't JUST african americans who will thrown under the bus...

it will be the majority of the party BECAUSE majority of the party has (and by all accounts will) have backed Obama for president. It has nothing to do with race. No one will be thrown under the bus because she won't have won the majority of the vote.

[JackORoses]

2. unnecessary thread, Obama will be President

[WinkyDink]

53. Thank you, Thread Decider.

[Texas Hill Country]

72. ROFL!

[zabet]

3. Excellent question.

:kick:

[MADem]

4. Good luck finding a reasoned answer.

I'd be interested in seeing some real discussion on your query as well.

I suspect you'll have a tough time finding that. I hope I'm wrong.

[annie1]

5. seriously. it's really odd. like she's not allowed to run against the first viable black candidate..

that's bullshit, and i'm tired of hearing it. either way though, she would def. put him on the ticket should she get the nom.

[Ashy Larry]

15. I don't think people have a problem with her running

they have a problem with her tactics. If she would stick to talking about why she would make a good president instead of talking about how terrible Obama is, you would hear fewer complaints. Thats what Huckabee did when he was in a similar position. Its like James Clyburn said, "You don't have to drop out to be respectful of other people."

[jenmito]

6. They may BE voting for him because he's the first viable Black candidate who GOT THE MOST DELEGATES.

Hillary did NOT get the most (pledged) delegates and so EVERYONE who voted for him will feel thrown under the bus and therefore disenfranchised. Just as WOMEN will feel thrown under the bus if HILLARY doesn't get the nomination because they want to elect the first WOMAN (even though she didn't get the majority of pledged delegates). Hillary SAYS she EMBODIES change just by being a woman. Obama never says that about his race, but people vote for him anyway.

[DemVet]

38. You fail to understand the Nomination process.

Having the MOST pledged delegates means nothing. Having 2025 to win the nomination means EVERYTHING.

If neither candidate has 2025 pledged delegates after the primaries are concluded, the SD's will decide the issue. It's that simple.

[IsItJustMe]

44. So you are saying there is no reason to have elections in the first place. Your logic is flawed.

[DemVet]

45. No, my logic is not flawed.

That's the way the process works. If you don't like it, work to change it.

[jenmito]

83. No I don't. Having the most pledged delegates means a LOT. It represents the will of the people.

You should review earlier tapes of Hillary (when she thought she'd wrap it up by Feb. 5th) saying that the VOTERS will decide. Voters vote and the pledged delegates represent the will of the voters.

[WinkyDink]

54. Chicken, egg?

[jenmito]

84. Cow, milk?

:shrug:

[murielm99]

86. Sock, mouth?

:shrug:

[quiet.american]

7. I don't know if I can answer your question, but I'll say this.

Should Obama's numbers confirm him as the candidate with the most primary/caucus wins, the candidate with the most delegates, the candidate with the most superdelegates, the candidate furthest ahead in the popular vote, and yet, the boys in the backroom christen Clinton as the party's nominee, in my book, it would be a signal to this African-American that the Democratic Party is displaying breathtaking arrogance in taking the African-American vote for granted.

[chill_wind]

8. Well explained. And then some!

eom

[jenmito]

9. I agree.

:toast:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

11. Perfectly stated.

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. so....there is an African American vote?

Or are there a group of individuals who vote for different reasons?

[quiet.american]

23. It's not one or the other. They co-exist peacefully. nt

[theboss]

51. African Americans are a voting bloc whose vote is generally the most unified

Democrats get 90 percent of the AA vote each election.

African Americans may vote for different reasons, but they generally all reach the same conclusions.

[SaveAmerica]

76. Are you being disgusting like this on purpose? I stupidly thought you wanted some serious

discussion on what's going on. Quit being like this to your democratic brothers and sisters.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. Especially if the primary reason they overturn the pledged vote is because they fear Rev. Wright.

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. "the African American vote"

Is there an "African American vote?"

[cali]

34. duh. yes. AA's voted 88% for JK and 90% for Gore

and yet that bloc of voters is comprised of individuals who have individual reasons for voting the way they do. There's also a latino vote and a Jewish vote.

[theboss]

55. Pretty obviously, yes

Do you think it's just a coincidence that African Americans vote in unity than any other voting bloc?

90 percent unity across a group. My own family doesn't reach 90 percent consensus on anything.

[Lisa0825]

48. BINGO!

:thumbsup:

[dbmk]

64. Thats exactly it. The OP is framing the question wrong.

I don't think anyone has said they were going under the bus.
But the signal value in overturning the pledged delegate lead would, especially to the AA voters, be a potential catastrophe for the party.

It would be a different matter if there was something that clearly indidated unelectability in the GE. But as things stand now, it would more or less be a message of "you may vote, but we might not listen".

Would it follow the rules? Yes. Would realising the implications and voting accordingly, be against the rules? No.

[SaveAmerica]

74. This is exactly what I'm hearing from my friends here in NC, especially an older lady who has been

very active in the Democratic party her entire voting life. I get pretty mad when people say that black democrats are voting for Obama because he's black (and even more angry at those who say that is racist against Hillary). It's as though some people don't think that AA's were able to work there way through the decision making process to choose a candidate. I wonder if they (Hillary supporters who say this) realize how many black democrats were going to vote for Hillary but Hillary's (and her campaign's) own actions have increased the number of people in many sub-groups of democrats to vote for Obama. I don't know the exact number and haven't seen a chart in a while, but there was a time when not all black voters were going to Obama. The reason for that lies within Clinton's campaign.

[LakeSamish706]

10. Simply put, they are not voting for Hillary Clinton.. end of story. n/t

[Shoelace]

12. we are going to all be "under the bus" if a Democrat isn't elected president

so the obvious solution to that is to have them both on the ticket. That draws all votes and we win. Otherwise, forget it!

[John Q. Citizen]

13. on may 20th Obama will have won the election ie a majority of the pledged delegates.

So "not electing him" isn't the issue.

We are electing him.

But it appears that some people who want another candidate don't care if he's elected, they are attempting to get the nomination without being elected.

That's how someone could throw me, and all the voters, under the bus. Got it? Good!

[Yael]

14. Let me tell you a story

On election day, April 22, I was dispatched to a Section 8 housing neighborhood. I am a 40 year old white/Jewish woman. I got out of the car and a very small AA boy was looking at me really suspicious. He saw the Obama sticker on the clipboard I was carrying and his eyes lit up. He ran up the hill to the townhouses and started banging on doors. "The Obama people are here!!" he yelled, going door to door. People started coming out and the kids were EVERYWHERE.

That was late afternoon.

Later that day, I was dispatched to an hispanic/AA area of the city that is known for housing the main homeless shelter. One man answered the door with a gun in his hand. When I said I was a volunteer with the campaign and there to make sure that he was able to get to the polling station that day, he put the gun in his waistband and responded "hell yeas!" with a huge grin on his face.

Door to door, the people were skeptical when they answered. Instructions were to ring/knock and then step back 10-15 feet so that they can see you. About half of the people yelled out of upper story windows as opposed to answering the door. My response? "You vote today"? When they answered, I gave a cheer and went to the next house.

At 8pm, I was sent to an inner-city polling station to make sure that everyone in line was able to vote and not turned away. No one was in line at 7:45, so I left. On the way home, I drove down a street that is NOTORIOUS for violence. My car had been hit with bottles and other objects driving through it in the past (it is the direct line between my parent's old house and where I live).

2 blocks from the county prison (on that street), I stopped at a red light. To my left was a grocery station with 2 AA men standing outside hanging out. One was leaning on a bicycle. I looked over and looked back. My initial reaction was to lock my doors and roll up the windows. Amped up from the events of the day, I took a different approach. I yelled over to them -- "Y'all vote today?". Candidate neutral question. They had no idea that I was a volunteer on ANY campaign. All they knew was that I was a white woman in a Nissan. They looked over at me and yelled back "nah, man -- we can't vote" and "but we pullin' for 'bama!". I gave them the thumbsup and drove on home.

Please note that all of these were neighborhoods that are dangerous. None of them did I have any business being in. ALL of them, I was welcomed as "one of them".

Can McCain generate that kind of enthusiasm and unity?

Can Hillary?

Please -- think long and hard before you answer...

Unity. That is what is going to win this thing.

(Ps -- this is basically a repost of my April 22 GOTV thread which you can easily search for)

[Coexist]

17. I remember that post, it made me cry.

BTW, I don't think OP really wants an answer.

[Yael]

18. Nah -- they are looking for the echo chamber

I however, loved retelling it. I never captured it in my journal, and it is something that I look forward to reliving in years forward.

I will never forget the excitement on those kids faces. They might as well have been yelling "yes, we can strive for anything too".

I was too amped up at the time for tears as it was 0-hour, but writing it tonight gave ne quite a few blurry moments.

Yes. We. Can.

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. you are insulting.

if you don't want to answer my question, then just leave the thread alone. I don't need more insults from you.

[Yael]

26. You know you are on The List, right?

:evilgrin:

Only would a HRC supporter criticize someone for responding to a 'boots on the ground' report with a 'happy tears' post.

Did you even bother to read my response to you?

Nevermind. It wasn't an echo chamber response -- therefore, not welcome in your racist thread.


Did I mention that you are on The List?

[murielm99]

27. What is The List? n/t

[Yael]

71. It is my personal amusement list

Once we have a presumptive nominee, this place will be a free for all for one week and then we support the candidate. No more in party bickering.

I have a list of a dozen or so that I think are going to flame out given their hyper-vitriolic posts. I hope they prove me wrong.

Not shared -- just my personal list. I don't like using ignore.

[murielm99]

87. I don't believe you about the list.

I think that many Obama supporters on DU are still working to ban all Clinton supporters. They mass alert and target DUers who disagree with them. I believe that if Obama does get the nomination, you will work to have Clinton supporters banned if they do not jump when you say "jump."

McCarthy was not a Democrat. And you do not make the rules here. Nebulous threats about lists are childish. So is telling people that you are alerting on them or putting them on ignore. Your candidate would be ashamed of you.

Now please excuse me while I go sit under the bus.

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. I read your response

It was to insult me. Had it really been a "happy tears" post, you would have avoided a snarky insult.

List: McCarthy type lists are not democratic. They are designed to inhibit democracy.

Racist thread: there you go giving yourself away as an intellectually laze closed-minded bigot. Of course my thread is not racist.

[Yael]

77. You opened a thread to suggest that the only reason AA are voting for Obama is because he is black

I answered you.

Not the answer you wanted, and I understand that, but I answered it directly.

And yes -- it was a racist question.

Are women being thrown under the bus if when Hillary loses?

As far as the list -- your temperament here suggests that you will not shift your support to Obama if when he becomes the nominee.

Please prove me wrong. I really REALLY want to be wrong.

[Tarheel_Dem]

70. Yael, I know these neighborhoods you speak of. I'm ashamed to say

it, but as an African American myself, there are neighborhoods that I avoid like the plague. You are one courageous woman, and Obama would be so pleased to hear your story. You've got me sitting here crying (at work). I'm sorry I missed your original post. Thank you. Like you, I can't think of another candidate who could inspire the unity you talk about. It's infectious.

:hi:

[Yael]

80. It is really neat to see people from all walks of life excited about leadership

We haven't had that in my lifetime.

:woohoo:

[SaveAmerica]

81. This (if you haven't already done so) needs to be its own post, it was my instincts from the

beginning about why Obama would win over the Republican candidate all along. Your story is also my experience from volunteering in NC (cept no guns) - I've always felt a Hillary candidacy would give us another close election, Obama is energizing many sub-groups of democrats.

(re-read that you post is a re-post, sorry about not reading the last line - it's very good to hear your experiences)

[clevbot]

16. I am an Obama supporter...

but I think its spin to scare the SD's that if Hillary is nominated she can't win.

[carpetbagger]

19. A few reasons.

1. Clinton and the Tee-Vee Heads keep preaching to the party leaders, and at this point it's appearent that Clinton will only win by some large movement of politicians, enough to counter a net edge in delegates awarded in the primary process. It's a different dynamic than Clinton squeaking out a victory on the last day of the primaries.

2. While I think both women and black people feel that it's time for enfranchisment at the highest level, it seems pretty obvious to me that Clinton's the best shot for a woman to be president in the next 8-12 years, but the possibility of a black president may not come again in the lifetimes of many of us. I would also add the appearence of a catch-22 that a black politician needs to rise through the ranks of the black community, but their association with the black community will lead to associations that will make them unelectable.

[madfloridian]

20. Because he is the nominee, and only the superdelegates can change that.

And if they overturn what the voters want this time, especially now, there will be hell to pay.

I am white, and I think they better go with the pledged delegates.

The math is not working for Hillary.

[ej510]

25. If she's ahead no one complains if he's ahead and they give it to her.

John McCain will explode in his pants.

[IsItJustMe]

47. I am white also, and your damn straight, they better go with those pledged delegates. I am tired of

these bull shit back room deals.

[barb162]

49. He is not the nominee, he's just the frontrunner right now.

Big diff.

[girl gone mad]

30. It's the way she's gone about things..

trying to disenfranchise voters by pushing a superdelegate strategy, running an overtly racist campaign, etc.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chulanowa]

32. Quite simple really

Long, long ago, the Democratic Party set the rule that the candidate with the most delegates will get hte nomination. Obama is pulling in the majority of delegates, and barring some amazing upsets from Clinton, will thus be the Democratic party nominee for '08.

Thus, not electing him throws every voter who voted for him under the bus. And 90% of blacks who voted Democratic voted for Obama.

If we appoint Clinton - She obviously won't be elected at this point - then we are telling a huge swath of Democratic voters - including the overwhelming majority of black voters in our party - that hhey don't matter and are disposable.

[Evergreen Emerald]

36. Long Long ago the rules created SD who

were free to vote their choice and they were included in the delegate count.

The two are virtually tied. Just because he is slightly ahead, does not mean the election would be "stolen." Neither can win. Both require SDs

So, either neither election would be stolen or BOTH would be.

[Chulanowa]

78. You wanted an answer

And you must have a pretty dim opinion of the men and women who make up the super delegates, by the way, to presume that they're going to undermine the process for a few bucks or a promise of a cabinet position.

[ecdab]

33. It would not, but the super D's taking it away from him if he has the

pledged delegate lead would. That would would be seen as a bunch of power brokers ending the Obama campaign only because of his associations with black culture. If Hillary had the lead and the super d's took it away from her, women would perceive something very similar.

[eridani]

35. Not electing Obama will validate the pro-Rethug horseshit Clinton has been throwing around

Use the "elitist" Rethug meme on your primary opponent, and it is a virtual lock that the Rethugs will use it on you--and you can't fight back because you've agreed with it.

[ShortnFiery]

40. Plus The Clintons are DESTROYING their standing with The Entire Base of the Party

by tearing down Obama. The activists KNOW that this was a coordinated "hit job" and will let others know.

"The Goddess of Obliterating Iran" will NOT be President of the United States.

Yes, HRC and her supporters are feeling fat and sassy ... Yes! Perhaps they can, like with the "Dean Scream", draw enough people away from Obama to actually WIN DIRTY ... win the Democratic Nomination (dirty!) and run in the G.E.

The last f**king laugh will be that of KKKarl Rove and Rupert Murdoch when they bring out one long "night of the long knives" ... can you say scandals 24/7 and not all of them contrived?

HRC may be able to win "this battle" (Democratic Nomination) dirty BUT she will NOT win "the war" (Presidency). :nuke:

[WillyT]

39. Wow... You Must Be Really, Really Young...

:wtf:

[NorthCarolina]

41. Because, since he is ahead in every realistic measure

for Hillary to be the candidate, the nomination would have to be "stolen" from the front runner by unscrupulous means. Recall the SCOTUS decision to implant Bush over Gore? It would be the same thing here, and the only reason for the SD's to do that would be if they thought Obama unelectable on the basis of RACE. If the nomination is stolen from Obama, he will not only have been thrown under the bus, but the bus will also have been backed over him. The Democratic Party will be defunct, McCain will win and everything will have worked according to Roves GOP master plan for the 2008 election....magnificently well.

There is no doubt in my mind that the bulk of REAL Democrats would stand behind the nominee that is leading at this stage of the game so that we can begin our campaign against the Republican candidate. Not for one second do I think this disharmony between Obama and Clinton supporters is being waged by Democrats with differences of opinion. Rather, because of the "manufactured outrage" being played out in the media and parroted almost word-for-word on sites like this one, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that part of the Rove plan is to infiltrate progressive blog sites and spread disharmony. Rove knew full well going into this that the war would be won in the media and on the web and devised a plan to handle it.

[Skidmore]

42. Women will not be thrown under the bus, but the woman who

is running on smears using race baiting is throwing African Americans under the bus. The very tactics used by the Clinton campaign courts the bigot the Republicans held for so long. It feed into long held stereotyping and makes it permissible to once again espouse and practice bigotry. IT IS WRONG! Morally repugnant and reprehensible that an important constituency of the Democratic Party be treated in this manner by one of its candidates.

[Evergreen Emerald]

50. people keep saying that in vague terms with no specifcs

I don't think Clinton has used race. I think Obama has used race, and this is one way he uses it. He scares the SDs with threats of "alienating the black democrats" yet the black democrats are individuals who vote issues.

And of course he used race to win SC by shouting "Racism!" from the rooftops.

[Changenow]

43. At some level African Americans always

knew the Democratic Party did not respect them, but they thought the Party was the best they were going to do given the alternative. Now they know the real truth, they're screwed either way.

There was never a complaint about the black voting block when they fell in line for whatever the Party tossed their way, but now that they're acting all uppity it's racism. It's about self respect.

[theboss]

46. There is no problem in Hillary beating Obama; there is a big problem in Hillary stealing from Obama

If our first serious black candidate wins the most delegates, the most popular votes, and the most states....and somehow manages to lose......

Well....doesn't that pretty much prove everything Chuck D taught me in the 80s?

The lesson is, as a black man, you can play by the rules, you can outperform a white person, but that doesn't really mean anything.

[barb162]

52. It's a phony argument. If HRC becomes the nominee, AAs are not

thrown under the figurative bus.

Your last paragraph excpresses it perfectly: "Further, if it is the case that Blacks will be "thrown under the bus" if Obama loses, will women be thrown under the bus if Clinton loses? And if not, what is the difference that some supporters to be thrown under the bus and others not to be? "

[ecstatic]

56. Are you guys really this out of touch? Obama has won the most primaries,

and has the most delegates. If Hillary is handed the nomination, that nullifies the entire process of primaries. Blacks went out to vote in record numbers and you don't think there will be a problem if a "super elite" group decides he isn't good enough?

[barb162]

58. He is NOT the nominee, he is the frontrunner at this point in time

and frontrunners often lose that status in long campaigns. Remember when Dean was the frontrunner? It happens all the time that frontrunners become the losers.

[ecstatic]

60. Dean never had the most pledged delegates

Once the primaries began, Kerry had the most pledged delegates, which is why he won the nomination. What you are advocating for Hillary would be similar to if Kerry had won the most states and yet the nomination was still given to Dean. I was an avid Dean supporter, but I had to accept that the numbers were not in his favor. I didn't push for Dean to become the nominee anyway. So why is there a different standard for Obama?

There is no way it can be said that women were thrown under the bus. That could only be the case if Hillary were leading in states won and pledged delegates and the nomination were somehow handed to Obama.

[mmonk]

57. Many of them recognize the game being played and will stay at home.

It's not necessarily being thrown under the bus. They recognized the game after South Carolina. The numbers started changing after what they were doing became recognizable. It won't keep them all away but probably enough. But better yet, ask them. I'm a white male.

[saltpoint]

59. Your post has a kind of surreal quality to it. The subject line starts out

with a premise, which is false, and which is manipulative, and misrepresentative as well.

That's an impressive combo right out of the gate.

I like surrealism -- don't get me wrong. But when mixed with politics it gets weird in a hurry.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

61. I call it Salvador Folly.

[Evergreen Emerald]

62. I am just quoting the posts on DU...explain with specifics what is wrong with the question

And then of course, look to the responses, which confirm the premise.

[saltpoint]

63. Got the process but still concerned with content.

First off, are you the spokesperson for the Afro American community in the United States now?

I didn't get that memo.

Next, the whole post struck me as a backdoor entrance to sustain race as a topic the nomination contest, something Clinton surrogates from Billy Shaheen to Big Dog Bubba to Geraldine Ferraro have been doing for some weeks now, and which collectively earned the disdain of the NYTIMES which denounced such tactics and others like them in no uncertain terms.

Oddly, your OP fails to incorporate that angle. And I'm thinking, hey, given the author of the OP, you can't expect a fair assessment, only more of the same. None of us answers to the New York TIMES editorial crew but in any number of issues regading this campaign, it might be a good idea if more of us did.

[Evergreen Emerald]

67. you are off your game counselor.

"First off, are you the spokesperson for the Afro American community in the United States now?"

I do not understand how you possibly got that idea from my question. I am asking a question based on numerous posts and the Obama argument to the SDs that the "AA community" will be "thrown under the bus" if the SD s do not give the nomination to him. It is a false argument, based on RACE.

"Next, the whole post struck me as a backdoor entrance to sustain race as a topic the nomination contest, something Clinton surrogates from Billy Shaheen to Big Dog Bubba to Geraldine Ferraro have been doing for some weeks now, and which collectively earned the disdain of the NYTIMES which denounced such tactics and others like them in no uncertain terms."

I am not the one who has been posting thread after thread about "sticking by the AA community" or "thowing the AA community under the bus" I am questioning the constant use of the argument by Obama. He appears to want it both ways; race is not a reason he is chosen--race is the reason he should be chosen. And any comment on the suggestion is somehow sustaining the topic of race. Double standards abound in this campaign.

Lots of front runners loose. Dean did. No one suggested then that there would be a war if Dean was not chosen.

If AA can claim that they will be disenfranchised of Obama looses, can women legitimately do the same thing? And if not, why not?

[saltpoint]

69. I'm laughing and crying at the same time. Dean was a white male, so far

as I know. Hillary's a white female, I'm almost certain.

No one thought there'd be a war if Dean won because Dean was vehemently opposed to pointless conflict. A large part of Hillary Clinton's difficulties with grassroots folks is that she appears not to care one damn whether they're in the party or not.

Many voters generally and at the grassroots level especially, do not see themselves as AA or women voters. They see themselves as citizens.

And that is where the Clinton campaign has dropped the ball.

[zulchzulu]

65. Your question is based on a false premise

The main reason your premise is false is that Barack Obama is destined to be the nominee by the fact that it is nearly mathematically impossible for Hillary Clinton to get enough delegates and the popular vote unless she cheats.

Michigan votes don't count. Hillary Clinton said so last September. Florida votes don't count either. Based on how Clinton and all the major candidates signed the Four State Pledge (making Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina the first four states in the primary season to vote), it was up to Florida and Michigan to be in compliance with Democratic Party rules...and they decided to try to break the rules despite multiple warnings.

If, for some reason, Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee due to overruling the will of the voters and delegates, it's not only African-Americans that would thrown under the bus. It would be the Democratic Party. The Clintons would be left standing on their own while the rest of the party would either revolt or leave in droves.

[WeDidIt]

66. Obama will have won the most votes, the most pledged delegates

and the most contests when this is over.

If you take it away from him, it will be yet another example of where an African American man can exceed all expectations, meet every challenge, jump every hurdle, maintain his cool every time the goal posts are moved yet again, and the prize is still taken away from him.

This is the story of being an African American male in the United States.

What you do if Obama is ahead in all measures and he still doesn't win is the Democratic Party is collectively telling African Americans that they are less than white people.

That's it in a nutshell.

[uponit7771]

68. Taking AA vote for granted

[Texas Hill Country]

73. very very good question....

[SeaLyons]

75. K&R

Good question.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

79. Silly post

[gcomeau]

82. The argument isn't that not electing him would throw them under the bus.

At least not from the vast majority of people. Maybe one or two are saying that.

The argument is that ELECTING him, through millions of people having voted on it, then having a few hundred superdelegates decide "nah, we're giving the nomination to someone else"... THAT will be the death stroke to any chance of a democrat winning this election. And not just because of the AA vote. The youth vote will be beyond pissed, along with a good cross section of the rest of the party who isn't fond of the idea of backroom deals trumping their votes.

The supers do exist to be a safeguard against an unsuitable candidate somehow eeking out some kind of fluke win in the primaries, but that has NOT happened here. Obama and Clinton perform comparably in GE polling against McCain, they have similar policy platforms, etc... if the supers just tell all the people who suffered through half a year of this absurd drawn out primary warfare "thanks for coming out, we're ignoring your results now" we're all screwed.

[DefenseLawyer]

85. Nice try

It's about process, not result. It is about nominating him, not electing him. Your argument is disingenuous. Which, coming from a Hillary supporter on DU is quite a shock. Go back and try again, and while you are at it, for the love of god, could you please get a new cliche?