We all know that this play looks increasingly like a Greek tragedy. I've already suggested the worst-case scenario. That's the "Train Wreck in the Station" that turns the Denver Democratic Convention into a modern-day "Chicago '68". There is also the more insipid, but similarly destructive possibility for which there is already evidence in the tone of the campaign and polls of Democratic voter attitudes. That is, the nominee is selected "free and fair", but fails to win a significant share of the other contender's support, allowing McCain to slide through in November. The chances for this outcome could improve the longer this race drags on.
No wonder the pundits are now wringing their hands in search of an elder statesman to save the day. Albert Hunt sees the need for someone to sort out the Michigan/Florida mess. After all, if George Mitchell can hammer out a plan for Northern Ireland and the Middle East, as well as professional baseball, he can certainly work out something for the DNC. I concede that these renegade states are important to the Democrats’ electoral total in November. But solving the problem created by the queue-jumpers may not solve the Clinton-Obama stalemate, only prolong it.
The Chicago Tribune similarly pines for a nostalgic Yoda-like figure to step in and "fix" the Democrats’ dilemma. Well, times have changed and there is no Sam Rayburn or Clark Clifford (and time may have made their influence appear greater than it really was) on the current landscape to settle such disputes. The victor will only emerge after one of the two remaining candidates decides finally to exit the contest.Just in case you were wondering what we're talking about, here is my list of former and current icons of the Democratic Party who would qualify as "statesmen" under the old criteria:
Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, George McGovern, Geraldine Ferraro, Ted Kennedy, Bill Bradley, Gary Hart, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi.
All of these politicians, including possibly John Edwards or Bill Richardson, can influence, but not determine who will become the nominee (although most are already impaired by real or imagined relations with the two principals). And the reason is that the Democratic Party has formally fractured and decentralized the power of the elder statesman by creating the voting bloc known as “Superdelegates.”
Virtually every analysis of the Democratic contest concludes that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can win without superdelegate votes. And it is these superdelegates who already have the power to quickly bring the contest to an end. But most have so far been indecisive. What are they waiting for?
I remember talking to a voter in NH, a businesswoman highly regarded in her community, two months before the primary there. She was undecided and I hoped that she would become an Obama supporter. But I told her in all candor that whomever she decided to support, her influence with her neighbors would be greater the sooner she made her choice known.
This is the advice I would offer the superdelegates now, but with greater urgency: Your influence wanes the longer you fail to decide on a candidate, and the consequences for the Democratic Party this fall are dire. There is no knight-on-a-white-horse "elder statesman" coming to rescue and relieve you of your responsibility. Superdelegates, time to exercise your power and influence!
