Yes, there's also a solid argument that Obama is ahead in the metric that, after all, determines the nomination--the delegate count. But that lead consists almost entirely of delegates won in caucuses. Obama has a pencil-thin lead among delegates chosen in primaries.
Yet there seems to be no doubt that most Democrats--importantly, most superdelegates, regard Obama as the only legitimate choice, and just about no one I know thinks he won't be nominated. Only strong Clinton partisans disagree. I think this is odd, given that the process arguments are pretty evenly balanced. But then one of my rules of life is: All process arguments are insincere, including this one. Democrats, I think, are making the calculation that black voters will deeply resent what they would see as the rejection of a black candidate who has won more delegates in caucuses and (by just a little bit) in primaries. The political argument trumps the process argument, here as it usually does.
I've calculated the Obama and Clinton percentages in all of America's million-plus metro areas, as defined in this article. Here I've presented them ranked by black percentage of population in 2000. Obama does very well in metro areas with the largest black percentages, unsurprisingly, and in some metro areas with very low black percentages. He does relatively poorly in metro areas where central-city politics has polarized voters on racial lines. There's more analysis to be done here, which I may tackle over the weekend.
Million-plus metro areas ranked by black share:
By Michael Barone