From today's NYT...

<blockquote>At a private dinner that Mr. Edwards, a former senator, held at his home last Saturday for a dozen close friends, he said he had spoken recently with Mr. Gore about the benefits of neutrality, someone who was at the dinner said. Although a number of his supporters had been urging him to endorse Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton has actively sought his backing, Mr. Edwards said he intended to remain on the fence for the time being, the person said.</blockquote>

There's no point for him to do any endorsing until the week before March 4th anyway.

According to conventional wisdom, delegates from FL and MI will be seated if the votes of those delegates can't change the outcome of the race. But what will happen if Obama is narrowly ahead, such that, if FL and MI were counted, Clinton would win the nomination? How could the DNC preserve the outcome determined by its own rules without alienating voters from two huge swing states?

There is an excellent op-ed in today's NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15mann.html), which argues that historically, superdelegates have acted as a unifying force, reinforcing rather than rejecting the winner of close popular votes.

In 1984, the superdelegates stepped in to provide a majority for Walter Mondale — who had a huge edge in pledged delegates over Gary Hart but not enough to win the nomination — avoiding a potentially bitter and divisive convention that would have fractured the party.

The piece goes on to suggest that superdelegates can solve the FL/MI dilemma:

In this case, the nomination could come down to a difficult and complex credentials battle over whether to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida. To have a nomination settled in this way is a bit like having an election settled by a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court. Averting this kind of disaster is just what superdelegates are supposed to do.

So how would this work? Remember, the DNC needs to preserve the outcome of the race without MI and FL yet somehow include their delegates in the race. Howard Dean could find superdelegates who don't have strong preferences for either candidate but are very concerned about alienating FL & MI voters to pledge for Obama in order to balance out the FL & MI Clinton votes.

How many would he superdelegates would be needed? First, let's do a back-of-the-envelope count of FL & MI delegates. According to CNN, if all their delegates were counted, FL would have 210, including superdelegates. FL voters went 50% for Clinton and 33% Obama, about 3 to 2. For simplicity, let's assume that the Edwards votes and superdelegates are a wash and split the total delegates according to the 3-2 ratio: 126 to 84, a difference of 42. (If it were to actually happen, Obama would almost certainly do better than that among superdelegates and Edwards supporters, picking up a few more delegates).

It's a little unclear how to handle MI, since Obama wasn't on the ballot. But to be conservative, let's give Clinton delegates for her 55% vote and ignore the 40% uncommitted votes. If MI's delegates were counted there would be 156, so that's 86 more delegates for Clinton. (I know, it's a little absurd. Maybe the DNC would find a way to give Obama some MI delegates.)

In any case, even with such conservative estimates, Clinton would pick up a maximum of 128 votes. Let's suppose that Obama has a 50 delegate lead over Clinton without FL & MI. In that case Dean would need to come up with 78 delegates for Obama in order to preserve the outcome. Since roughly half of the uncommitted superdelegates would likely have voted for Obama anyway, you need to double the number to 156 or else find 78 Clinton-leaning superdelegates who are willing to vote for Obama in return for counting FL and MI. If Obama has a larger delegate lead or gets more delegates from FL & MI than my conservative estimate, then that number would be even smaller.

Crisis averted. FL and MI voters get their votes counted, but the outcome is the same as it would have been had they not been counted.

For anyone following the Edwards endorsement quest, there's an interesting article from ABC News based on interviews of his advisors:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4281404

Highlights:
- Edwards is torn: His head is with Clinton, but his heart is with Obama.
- He is considering joining Gore in remaining neutral, but he is also eager to play a role in the race.
- He feels that he would have a bigger impact by endorsing Clinton because it's less expected and her campaign needs a jolt.

My two or three or seven cents:

- This might all be spin to generate excitement about an endorsement, but I'm willing to accept that he's genuinely torn. First, he's a passionate guy, ambitious and self-interested no doubt but genuinely committed to making a difference. Second, if he was simply strategizing, he would have handled the endorsement more strategically and endorsed while his supporters were still undecided.

- If it's really a head-v-heart thing, I'll bet against Clinton. According to my shallow understanding of psychology, people generally go with their instincts and then find rationalizations to justify them. Second, Obama is more likely to change Edwards' head than Clinton is to change his heart.

- If I were advising Edwards on how to maximize his opportunity in the next administration, I would urge him to go with who he believes will win but not wait until the game is over, and he loses his leverage. In other words, place an educated bet.

- If I were advising Edwards on how to preserve his reputation, I would urge him to stay neutral and help make sure that the party doesn't explode over FL & MI. This course is also the best thing that he can do for the Democrats right, but it could mean giving up an administration post. Endorsing Clinton is probably the worst thing that he can do for his reputation because he'll be seen as hypocritical and Machiavellian.

- One hypothetical option for threading the needle: he might be able to some extract concessions for not endorsing. For example, let's say he tells Obama that he plans do endorse Clinton. Obama could conceivably offer him something for not endorsing. That said, I'm not sure that this option would be any better for him than endorsing Obama.

- Finally, the next deadline for an endorsement is the week before March 4th. There's little point in endorsing before then, as there are few delegates at stake. If the polls heavily favor Clinton at that point, he can probably wait and see because the race will still be open if she does well. If the polls swing to Obama, 3/4 may be his last chance to retain any leverage with Obama.

- My prediction is that Edwards will do just that: endorse Obama before 3/4 if looks like Obama is going to take the race but keep waiting if it looks like Clinton is still viable. Of course, I once confidently predicted that Edwards would endorse Obama before super tuesday, so my prediction may not be worth much.

I posted this response in a comment on another thread, but I think it's important enough for its own post. I apologize in advance for expressing a little more passion than usual.

Reader Independent Ben writes:

And please folks, don't believe the Republican talking points: that Hillary is the person who would unite and energize them. I truly believe the opponent they really want is the more untested Obama. When the Republican attack machine gets done with him, he will be a much different candidate in November.

I read comments like this on TPM all the time; I've been reading them for about 12 months now. When I was canvassing for Obama, an angry voter lectured me about she liked Obama better but that I was naive not to understand how the evil Republicans were going to chew him alive. The most self-righteous Clinton supporters seem to spout this line as if were some little known yet very obvious fact, instead of the oldest and most common anti-Obama cliche, recited like a mantra without a shred of evidence to back it up.

So Independed Ben and those who of you meditate by this mantra, please pay attention:

1) Unless you're in on some secret strategy sessions between Limbaugh and Coulter, you don't know what Republicans "really want" so stop pretending that you do. (I, in turn, will not pretend that I do either).

2) I don't care which candidate Limbaugh and Coulter thinks is most beatable. Those people are idiots. I don't listen to their inane opinions on any other matter, so why should I give a flying f-ck about their election analysis.

3) If Obama has proven anything in this primary so far, it's that he's made of teflon. Despite a formidable oppo research team, the Clinton campaign hasn't been able to make a mark on his reputation. When Bill Clinton, one of the best Democratic campaigners in recent history, went after Obama, he got his big ass handed to him, and we haven't heard a squeak from the guy since. The Republicans will certainly go after Obama to an extent that no one has before, but that is true for any candidate, not excluding one Hillary Clinton. The evidence so far is that poor Obambi is actually quite good at deflecting attacks without losing his upbeat approach.

4) I fail to understand why the dubious distinction of being crapped on by more Republicans than any other living Democrat is an election attribute. Hillary Clinton's big moment in the national spotlight was her original health care clan, during which she allowed herself to be smeared so completely by the Republicans that the measure failed abjectly, and the Clinton administration removed her from high profile initiatives for the remainder of the presidency. Since running for Senator, she hasn't faced the Republican attack machine in all its glory. As nominee, she would get it much harder than she has ever received it before, and though everyone says that she has learned from her mistakes, know one can tell me exactly what she learned from her mistakes. When she goes into attack mode, she doesn't come off as heroic and brave; she seems angry and a little hysterical. That is not the way to go into battle the Republican attack machine; it plays into their stereotypes.

Look, if you can give me a well-reasoned explanation for exactly what Republicans are going to do to poor, pathetic Obama that the fierce warrior-queen Clinton can easily smash with her incredible experience as taking Republic shit, I welcome the discussion. But please don't spout it at me anymore as if it were the most obvious thing in the world.