Dean wants supers to decide by July 1

Howard Dean wants the undeclared superdelegates to pick a candidate "at some point between now and the first of July, so we don't have to take this into the convention."

Dean's logic is not necessarily pristine here, alas. Even if every single one of the 794 supers were to "say who they're for" prior to July 1, that doesn't necessarily mean "we don't have to take this into the convention." Indeed, in a formal sense, we "have to take this into the convention" no matter what -- there is, after all, going to be a roll call at the convention, and no other binding roll call will occur before then. The best the Democrats can do is have a nominee presumptive before the convention, not an actual nominee. And that only works if Hillary Clinton plays along.

That raises the following question: if the informal July 1 tally shows Hillary trailing by, say, 100 delegates -- barely 2 percent of the total -- does anyone believe she'll drop out at that point? Particularly if the Michigan and Florida controversies are still unresolved? She keeps reminding us that all the delegates, including the "pledged" ones, are free to make their own independent decisions when the roll is called. That means they're also free to change their minds between July 1 and August 28. If Hillary's willing to put the party through hell through the end of June in hopes that Obama will inexplicably collapse, why wouldn't she be willing to extend her quixotic quest for another two months?

This is where the brilliance of Phil Bredesen's superdelegate superconvention -- which Dean opposes, because he doesn't like the potential "cigar-filled back room" aspect of it -- comes in. Admittedly, such a gathering would not formally change any of the above. But if Hillary publicly buys into the concept (even if kicking and screaming), then it will have the potential of producing some actual closure to the race, as opposed to the anticlimactic June trickle of superdelegate endorsements that Dean seems to envision. It'd be much harder for Hillary to justify continuing her campaign after "losing" the "superdelegate primary" than it would be if she is merely "trailing" in the fluid, informal "superdelegate count."

In related news, one day after Chris Dodd said that "over the next couple of weeks," after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries at the latest, "the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion... instead of having this sort of drip on for the next five months," Pat Leahy took it a step further, opining that Clinton "ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama." Cue sputtering outrage from the Clinton camp in 5... 4... 3...

It should be noted that Dodd and Leahy had already endorsed Obama, so these aren't exactly neutral parties putting the heat on Clinton. Nevertheless, it's significant that we're start to hear some high-level noises that sound a bit like "drop out, Hillary."

Oh, and also, Pennsylvania Senator (and superdelegate) Bob Casey (D-PA) will endorse Obama today. This is a big deal for two reasons. One, it's a crack in Hillary's firewall of Pennsylvania establishment support that could carry a decent amount of weight in the Keystone State, since, in Halperin's words, Casey has a "big following among — and symbolic resonance with — the state’s working-class voters." (Did I mention he's white? And, as far as I know, doesn't attend a wacky racist church?)

Secondly, as Eric Kleefield notes, "Casey had previously said he thought the best thing to do was remain publicly neutral — so his endorsement of Obama could potentially reflect a desire to end the primary race as soon as possible." Along the same lines, Mike Allen writes: "Democrats are wondering if this could signal the beginning of a 'bandwagon effect' that began last week with the endorsement by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson."

In other words: Richardson... Dodd... Leahy... Casey. The drumbeat begins. Boom, doom. Drums in the deep.

Comments

[B. Minich]

Meanwhile Hilary keeps saying "We're going to go to Pennsylvania, and Indiana, and North Carolina, and Puerto Rico! And then we're going back to Washington DC to take back the White House!!! YAAHRRGH!!!!!

[4-7]

I personally am offended at the slightest allusion to Democratic party leaders as cavernous underdwellers who were once angelic-like beings tortured and mutilated until become evil unspeakable things afraid of the light.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Democratic party leaders are afraid of light !