I now believe that we're in for a real race, with between two and four candidates well positioned to hang in at least through March 2. As a New Yorker, I'm pleased that my state will probably get to play a part in choosing the nominee, and I think it's probably a good thing that our candidates will stay in the public eye and get a chance to further hone their messages and appeals through a longer primary season than it looked like we were set for a few weeks ago.
On the other hand, prolonging the circular firing squad makes it more likely that our eventual nominee will sustain some damage, and increases the chance that bad blood will make it harder for the party to come together and fight the real opponent. So I started thinking about how we as Democrats could avoid our usual tendency toward self-inflicted wounds. It seems to me the one person who could call a halt to the infighting with some credibility would be Bill Clinton.
But should he, and would he? Would it be decisive? And, assuming he spoke out while there was still doubt as to the outcome, who would Clinton endorse?
My hope is that he would endorse Clark, while praising the other contenders and reiterating the difference he articulated earlier between 'falling in love' and 'falling in line'. I'm increasingly convinced that Clark not only does have "electability" qualities his rivals lack, but his lack of a long partisan track record--yes, the same quality Dean, Lieberman and others have criticized--would be a great asset to him once in office. But I'm curious how others see a putative Clinton role in the primary campaign.