...The role that the superdelegates should play between now and the convention is at the heart of a raging debate. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which is trailing in the delegate count, has taken the position that superdelegates should be free to choose the best-qualified candidate. Mr. Obama’s campaign has said that the superdelegates should be bound by the voters’ will.
Several senior officials cautioned that the party elders had not yet determined whether superdelegates should be urged to cast their votes for the candidate who has the most delegates, or the one who won their state or Congressional district, or the winner of the popular vote. Because Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton might lead in different categories, the question is a vital one.
The Democratic party elders are worried about the (apparently) very close Clinton-Obama contest. Don Van Natta reports in the New York Times that Al Gore, among others, are staying out of the fray while the party finds a way to avoid a bitter fight at the convention in spite of persistent pressure from both Clinton and Obama campaigns.
Former Vice President Al Gore and a number of other senior Democrats plan to remain neutral for now in the presidential race in part to keep open the option to broker a peaceful resolution to what they fear could be a bitterly divided convention, party officials and aides said Friday. ...
... The signs that party elders are weighing whether and how to intervene reflects the extraordinary nature of the contest now and the concern among some Democrats that they not risk an internal battle that could harm the party in the general election.
But they also provided an early glimpse at the complex set of tradeoffs facing party leaders, from their desire to make their own influence felt to their worries about offending the candidates and particular constituencies — not to mention the long, sometimes troubled relationship between Mr. Gore and the Clintons.
The issues party leaders are grappling with, they said, include how to avoid the perception of a back-room deal that thwarts the will of millions of voters who have cast ballots in primaries and caucuses.
"Perception of a back-room deal" is a very troubling twist. What many of us worry about is not the perception but the actuality. The last thing Democratic voters want is to be overruled and then mollified by old DLC cronies. There is some bad blood between Al Gore and the Clintons. There is a growing group of Democrats in the House who are clearly pro-Obama. The issue of who gets the nomination should be decided by voters (who are already pretty clear about their preference), not members of Congress and party officials.
But there was no sign of any wholesale shift in support toward Mr. Obama on Friday. Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic whip and highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he intended to remain neutral and let the primaries play out even though Mr. Obama won overwhelmingly in his district and state.
“If I were to only reflect my state, then that may not be good enough for a national candidate,” Mr. Clyburn said. “So I think we ought to use our collective judgment to do what is in the best interests of our party.”
Perhaps the party leadership should recognize that it's the voters who believe they themselves are using their own "collective judgment to do what is in the best interests of our party." The superdelegates should at the very least hold off until all the primaries have been held. Voters are increasingly leery of what indeed appears to be a system of patronage within the Democratic party which could take away the voters' choice. The Democratic party, disorganized and manipulative, has been responsible for the drift of many away from the party and towards "independent" status. The Democratic Leadership Council has a lot to answer for.
