Hint to Hillary?

The apparent collapse of efforts to hold Democratic primaries in Michigan and Florida got me to thinking. Why wouldn't the party want to have these elections? Then an answer struck me: the leaders are trying to signal Hillary Clinton it's time to bow out, time to wrap the contest up.

There are some good reasons to have do-overs in the two states that held primaries early in violation of party rules and saw all their delegates stripped. In terms of democratic principles, ideally a party should want to hear from all the states. Holding votes there would remove any grounds for complaint from the trailing candidate that the absence of those two delegations had unfairly decided the race. By voting any time after February 4 they would be in compliance with the rules. The campaigns would energize Democratic voters in the two states and help the party's chances there in November. The results would not be likely to change the nomination race; Clinton needs to average 20-point victories in all the remaining states in order to catch Barack Obama in pledged delegates, even if Florida and Michigan are included.

The negotiating and planning seem to have fizzled out. Clinton is crying foul, still calling for the votes and threatening a floor fight at the convention to seat the delegations. Everyone understands that holding the elections would work to her probable advantage, likely drawing her closer to Obama in delegates and perhaps even giving her a chance to surpass him in total primary popular vote across the nation.

But it seems party leaders don't want to bother. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the superdelegates should vote for the pledged delegate leader--almost certainly Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said, in effect, not to worry, things will be over with long before the convention. When asked, "Are you sure about that?" he simply responded, "Yep." DNC Chairman Howard Dean, the figure one would expect to be working to resolve things, has been strangely noncommittal, displaying no sense of urgency. It all conveys the impression they aren't interested in lifting a finger to take any action that might help Sen. Clinton.

These three, together with Al Gore and John Edwards, constitute the Democratic Party's major leaders who have not endorsed either candidate. It could well be that if Clinton does not take the hint they are planning to come out in unison at some point and publicly ask the superdelegates to rally around the leader (Obama) for the good of the party. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how this all plays out.