The conventional media wisdom (oxymoron?) is that Hillary Clinton's March 4th resurgence in Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas (well, initially in Texas) stanched the flow of superdelegates to Barack Obama. One hopes that the reason for the superdelegate hold-out is that they are waiting to coalesce around whichever candidate finishes the primary season with the majority of pledged delegates, although Clinton's campaign is sowing the seeds for a contrary result.
But apart from these supposedly fence-straddling superdelegates, there are still a handful of key endorsements yet to be handed out, tops among them Al Gore and John Edwards, but also including most (sorry, Mike Gravel) of the erstwhile Democratic candidates. There's been some speculation that these prized endorsers want to remain neutral in case they have a role to play in brokering an August compromise between Clinton and Obama. But, really, what's the wait? A sit-down deal with Obama, Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Dean, Pelosi, et al. is unlikely. Rather, the superdelegates will (and should) come together to back the candidate chosen democratically by the voters, before these party elites have to step in. So in this remaining 5+ weeks before Pennsylvania, I would urge these party elders to take some time, do some thinking, and educate the remaining voters on their pick for who would make the best president. Why wait?
There have been signs already that some of these would-be endorsers are getting closer to making a decision, or at least are tipping their hands. On Tuesday, speaking at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations, Bill Richardson came as close as one can to endorsing Obama without actually doing so, as he recalled Obama selflessly lending him a hand during one of the debates. And a few days ago, Nancy Pelosi cut short any debate about the Clinton-planted notion of a joint ticket featuring Obama as VP. While she didn't precisely state that it was the idea of Obama on the bottom half of the ticket that she found objectionable, she flatly stated that it was the demagoguery of Clinton's Commander in Chief rhetoric that was the dream-ticket buzz killer. Al Gore has kept remarkably quiet, although one suspects that with supposed acrimony between him and Senator Clinton, that he too would come out for Obama, if at all.
John Edwards has not sent any clear signals, and, on the contrary, has seemed genuinely conflicted about which candidate he prefers. He has given Clinton the edge on healthcare and has favored her willingness to pick a fight with opponents, yet has seen in Obama more of a kindred spirit in their attitudes toward lobbyists and special interests. I wonder, though, given the bitter campaigning and negativity of the past few weeks, whether Edwards has seen anything to sway him in one direction. Does he still favor the hardball tactics of the Clinton campaign after the "3 a.m." ad and the surrounding fear-mongering? If it were Edwards and Clinton still battling for the nomination, would she employ the same underhanded tactics about Edwards' readiness to be Commander in Chief? If it were Edwards and Obama, would we see such fireworks? From his North Carolina perch, which campaign does Edwards think is behaving most honorably? Are the minor differences between healthcare plans still enough to give him pause, or are there larger issues of governance that predominate?
For Edwards and the other big fish yet to be landed, the calculus of whether to endorse is a combination of maximizing one's influence on the race, personal gain, moral imperative, and risk avoidance should your horse lose the race. At this point, though, backing Clinton is the risk, as Obama is the prohibitive favorite in both pledged delegates and popular vote. She can only become the nominee by convincing superdelegates to defy the pledged delegates, yet such a gambit will become all the more difficult the more heavyweights Obama has in his corner. And of course, there's nothing wrong with saying that you'll support the eventual nominee no matter what, even if she/he is not your first choice.
If one waits too long, however, the window of opportunity to make a real difference may close. And Edwards' endorsement and his active campaigning could have a tremendous impact in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky. There is still a lot of ground to be covered in the primary fight, but rather than play peacemakers at the 11th hour at a raucous convention, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Gore and others may just decide that they can best help resolve this potential stalemate by getting off the fence and endorsing sooner, rather than later.
Put both names on the D side of the ballot with two options: 1) President 2) Vice-President....
The Dems have two very qualified and viable candidates that have been getting all or most of the votes from the beginning. This would not be without precendence as our original elections were: the candidate with the most votes got to be pres, the one with less votes became vice-president.
I know that it would take both candidates to buy into this, but at least it would get them fighting it out with McSame instead of each other. It would make those supporting each to feel that we as voters have a say in who is president. It would encourage many more voter registrations. It would certainly make an interesting campaign.
interesting campaign
This way it's over before Pennsylvania, no MI and FL ($ and hypocrisies), no implied commitment to Hillary for 2008, no back room deals.
Let's spend our time preventing Bush 2.0, not deciding whom among us is best qualified to do so. The people have spoken. Superdelegates, it's your turn.
Yes, and they are very divided.
Quit trying to convince yourself and others that anyone has won this thing.
It is not over. Deal with it.
It's clear that she'd rather suicide-bomb the White House than concede to the concrete mathematical reality confronting her.
Hillary's 'monterness' becomes more and more apparent with each passing day. If she had judgement, she'd give up. If she had any strand of genuine concern for the democratic electorate, she'd concede. The fact is, that she simply wants to win at all costs and is willing to play a zero sum game to do it.
Wake up. Those are not the strategies of a true democratic president, those are the tactics of a tyrant dictator.
This would still be grossly unfair to Barack Obama. However, if the Democratic Party allows character assassination and theft to qualify a candidate for nomination, then Hillary Clinton can be hoist on her own petard
Hillary has lost - delegates, states won, popular vote. Let's get after McCain, not each other.
Superdelegates, please come to the aid of your party (while you still have one!).
But regardless of who the heavy weights endorse, they need to do it soon if they want a Democrat in the White House. It's time to grow a spine, move beyond the historic timidity of the Dem elite and put your foot down.