You say you don't understand my argument.  It's really simple.  You've chosen to look at certain statistics to arrive at the conclusion that race was the "decisive factor in Clinton's defeat".  Seemingly implicit in your position is that the disparity is down to racism.  My position is that the decisive factor in Clinton's defeat was Clinton herself (and all the baggage she and her campaign brought).

Coming into the primary season, Clinton had all the advantages...name recognition, high favorability numbers within her party (across all demographics...including African-Americans), an almost infinite pile of money to run her campaign and a huge lead.  Unfortunately for her, she and her campaign contrived to erode her support within the party. 

Barack Obama's first victory was in Iowa...a State not exactly known for its abundance of African-Americans.  The victory was supposed to propel him to a subsequent win in New Hampshire (another State with a lot of White people and not so many Black people)...until Hillary pulled off the phony waterworks to appeal to baser instincts of White Democrat women (a voting block comparably "monolithic" to Black Democrats in this cycle).  Then, the Clinton campaign fired the first shots in the race war in trying to talk down the significance of Obama's South Carolina victory.  That's right, the Clintons were the ones to introduce race as a wedge.  Having had the cover of Black journalists like David Ehrenstein and Juan Williams in the run-up to the early primaries, the Clintons then employed the likes of Andrew Young and Bob Johnson to further insult the intelligence and ambition of African-Americans.  Young essentially suggested that it was Obama's obligation to "wait his turn", to fall in line behind Hillary Clinton until he was ready in 2016.  Johnson introduced the junkie attack.  Add those to Bill Clinton running his mouth and the campaign publicly writing off the Black vote in favor of the more fashionable Hispanic (and, later, White Blue Collar) demographic and it's easy to see why there would be such a disparity in that segment.  If Black people voted for Barack Obama in such great numbers, I submit it has a hell of a lot more to do with Hillary's deficiencies than it does any "reverse racism" (as your constant allusions to Obama being a "self-described" black man suggest).    

And one of the frequently ignored phenomena of this primary process has been the fact that Hillary failed to add to her existing support...while Obama consistently gained additional voters.  Hillary's supporters were largely with her from wire to wire, while Obama had to campaign to gain support from undecideds (and to convince Clinton supporters to bolt).   

Anyway you slice it, Hillary lost because she ran a poor campaign.  The fact that her name recognition, her popularity among certain demographics and the resistance among certain voter sements to vote for a Black man were insufficient to overcome Barack Obama does not mean race animosity took the nomination away from a deserving candidate and handed it to an undeserving one.

In other words, race was not the decisive factor in Clinton's defeat...Clinton campaign incompetence was. 

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan