A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.

Oh.  Well.  Nevermind.  

Another side is that if I voted my economic interests, I would have voted R for the last 30 years, but I never have. A lot of Democratic voters can say the same thing.

But the ironic part is that in the end, at most the black community will be "taking one for the team" only symbolically. I don't see any reason to believe that Obama is the stronger candidate on black issues than Clinton. For example, is Obama advocating rescinding welfare reform? advocating a new Great Society program? going to abolish NAFTA (his economic advisor says not to worry)?

Part of the "taking one for the team" idea is the (fantasy) assumption that somehow Obama is the new MLK and Clinton is somehow George Wallace or Lester Maddox. In fact if there's a difference on supporting issues that affect blacks, the advantage is probably with Clinton.

That she is part of a team.  Has been a significant player on a team that has a record of success.

I think I'm a really big supporter, probably prone to some wistful fits of irrationalism, and Obama might have this wonderful upside, but it's conceded that THAT is unknowable, a gamble.

As I look across the room at my 2 year old daughter I ask myself "Am I really such an evil person for wanting the safer bet"?

What things that are described as unknowable above I think is incomplete.

There is another issue here that is never talked about on blogs, or in coffee houses, or the student union, as such, and is probably only ever talked about amongst family members over the dinner table.

I think nominating either candidate will cause a major part of the Democratic coalition to feel left out. That means, as you've said before, that this needs to be a ticket if we hope to win. But placement on that ticket matters a great deal, and I'm just not sure how we sort that out.

If this goes to the Super Delegates, and that seems almost certain, I think that Hillary will get the nod for the top. That will cause pain and anguish, but so too will a decision in the other direction.

[A]s we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.

Clinton has the democratic base Women, seniors citizens and white lower income voters which is a much larger voting block then African Americans

Clinton also wins the larger states with the majority of the electoral collage which is essential to winning the general election.

Obama will lose a majority the independents to McCain.

Clinton will win over a small percentage of Republican women

The only metric that matters in the end is delegate count. This is basic wikipedia knowledge:

"Delegates are the people who will decide the nomination at the Democratic National Convention."

Obama has more delegates, and HRC cannot catch up without convincing an impossible majority of super-delegates -- the same group of people who could have endorsed her when she was "inevitable."

Are you saying you think an impossible majority of super-delegates will now endorse her when even her own campaign acknowledges that she has about a 10% chance of winning?

Clinton is a woman.

So, let's use your argument another way.
If Obama is selected women will leave the democratic party in droves.
Women comprise more than 50% of the population.

Which scenario is harder on the democratic party?

Obama is the ONE!!

On a conference call with reporters just now, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe came as close as possible to alleging outright that the Clinton campaign has a "history" and a "pattern" of questioning Obama's patriotism.

Plouffe was asked whether Obama stands by remarks by Obama surrogate General McPeak, who compared Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy on the basis of this quote from Bill:

    "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

should obama be the democratic nominee, he will be raped and pillaged, first by the "liberal" press (their lovefest for him will end), then taken up by the republican/right-wingnut smear machine. see: al gore/2000, john kerry/2004.

he will be the deer in the headlights, i guarantee it. in fact, i'll bet real money on it.

you, your blogger buddies and the DNC ignore this reality at grave risk to the democrat's chances of winning in nov. were sen. obama the clear, compelling choice of every democrat likely to vote in the fall, i'd say take that risk. he isn't, not even close.

again, do some research, read bob somerby's posts at the daily howler. sen. clinton has been about as vetted as one human being can possibly be, she's survived it all. sen. obama has seen nothing yet.

the wright scandal? pfffffffft! nothing like a good old fashioned 527 whipping will do. rezko? ha! even if there's no there there, by the time a 527 gets done, people will want to know why sen. obama hasn't been indicted.

let's not even consider stuff that may still be lurking in the background.

"Obama is more about placating High Broderism, Tim Russert and the Washington Post editorial board than he is about transformative progressive change. I'll work hard to help elect him, but I also don't intend to delude myself about what to expect when he becomes President."