The DNC's Dilemma

The primary results are in the bag and Barack Obama holds a clear advantage in delegates over Hillary Clinton, essentially winning the nomination prize. Now the ball moves into the Democratic leadership's court.

The Clintons have made it plain that they expect a quid pro quo to rally their supporters to the cause and no one claims to know the voters' minds on this. Dick Morris presents the negative case here: "No Ménage-à-trois for Obama."

At the recent rules committee hearing over the FL and MI delegations, Hillary supporters were vocally opposed to any compromise short of awarding full delegations that favor Clinton. One wonders how prevalent are the sentiments expressed by one participant quoted in an article yesterday by Froma Harrop titled "White Women Take the Gloves Off":

"Obama will NOT get my vote, and one step more," Ellen Thorp, a 59-year-old flight attendant from Houston told me. "I have been a Democrat for 38 years. As of today, I am registering as an independent. Yee Haw!"

The Democratic leadership has been walking a tight rope for the past two months, with superdelegates refusing to declare for either candidate to avoid alienating either white women, working class Hillary supporters, or the black vote for Obama. In so many words, they were desperate to save the party from itself.

So, this is the dilemma: does the DNC force the issue of Clinton for VP to save a fragile party coalition, or do they give Obama free rein to try to win the election on the strength of his "new politics" message? There are risks and uncertainties to either option. Putting Clinton on the ticket pleases certain Democratic constituencies who fantasize of a "dream ticket," but it contradicts Obama's message of a new style of politics. Most likely he loses many moderate and independent voters who cringe at the idea of eight more years of Clintons. Thus, the result is probably a wash.

On the other hand, if the DNC disses Clinton, will we see a mass defection of Reagan Democrats to John McCain? Might this defection overwhelm any advantage Obama may have among independents?

So, does the DNC try to save the party and risk the election, or do they go all out for the election and risk destroying the party?

The way out of this dilemma is for the DNC to navigate it's way out of fractious identity politics and reform a winning coalition based on cross-over liberal principles rather than group spoils, but this is impossible to do without risking the meltdown of the existing coalition. This has haunted Democratic presidential candidates for forty years and was only solved by Carter's evangelical conservatism and Bill Clinton's DLC triangulation.

There are other options that offer a possible escape: award Clinton something short of the vice-presidency in return for her support. Perhaps another shot at health care or a high cabinet post? Senate majority leader? These various options have their upsides and downsides, but the immediate risk the party faces is real and the leadership is certainly feeling the heat.