Superdelegates rain on Clinton's parade

NANCY Larson's most difficult conversation was, by far, the one with Chelsea Clinton.

"It was just heartbreaking," said Ms Larson, a Democratic National Committee member from Minnesota and, more to the point, a superdelegate who had initially pledged herself to Senator Hillary Clinton. This was last Saturday, after the former first daughter learned that Ms Larson would be shifting her allegiance to Senator Barack Obama.

"She is a delightful young woman who loves her mother very much," Ms Larson said. "She was really pushing me. She kept asking me why I was doing this. She just kept asking, 'Why? Why?'"

It is a question many in the Clinton camp are asking these days, sometimes in conversations far less civil than that one. After nearly two decades building relationships with a generation of Democrats, Mrs Clinton has recently suffered a steady erosion of support for her presidential campaign from the party stalwarts who once formed the basis of her perceived juggernaut of "inevitability".

She has been losing potential endorsers and superdelegate backing from activists such as Ms Larson as well as elected officials, party luminaries and former Clinton White House aides – the most recent being Robert Reich, the former labour secretary, who endorsed Mr Obama on Friday.

It is that constituency that provided Mrs Clinton with an early lead among superdelegates – one she retains, although by a narrowing margin.

But there is something more wrenching at work here – a reckoning of whether the Clintons, on balance, have been good or bad for the party. It has the feel of a very personal testing of loyalties to a former president who once always seemed to be adding to the "Friends of Bill" list, and to his wife who, if not so driven to win over everyone, used her fame to help elect other Democrats.

The decision by some Democrats to turn away has bred plaintiveness or more from the Clintons, according to some of their closest friends. They express resentment toward those they deem disloyal and ungrateful or, in the case of Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a sense of outright betrayal.

But one person's "disloyalty" is another's well-deserved "comeuppance". And there is no shortage of Democrats quick to accuse the Clintons of defining loyalty as a one-way street.

This tension was neatly distilled in a heated conversation in January between a prominent Clinton supporter and Cameron Kerry, the younger brother of Senator John Kerry, who had just endorsed Mr Obama.

The Clinton supporter, a Democratic fundraiser with close ties to Mr Kerry, noted that Bill Clinton had campaigned for Mr Kerry in 2004, even though the former president had just undergone bypass surgery. To which Cameron Kerry replied that his brother had agreed to fly with Mr Clinton on Air Force One after the impeachment vote "when no-one wanted to be seen with him".

Tom Daschle, a former Democratic Senate leader, who is backing Mr Obama, said: "There is a lot of Clinton fatigue in the party and in the country today, and many people are reacting to that."

By the same token, Leon Panetta, a White House chief-of-staff under Bill Clinton, who is supporting the former first lady's campaign, said: "There is clearly a high frustration level among campaign types and from the Clintons themselves."

That frustration is partly reserved for former Clinton administration aides who are now with Mr Obama, such as Mr Reich.

"These are people that the Clintons gave an opportunity to serve," said Mr Panetta, speaking generally. "They helped give them the titles they now have, and made them a lot of money."

People in the Clinton camp say there are varying gradations of perceived disloyalty. The least offensive group are "likely" Clinton supporters who have not defected, in part out of recognition of past ties, but have not made commitments to her, either.

Then there are those that Mrs Clinton worked hard to win over but who have taken the step of endorsing Mr Obama. These would include senators such as Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, and Bob Casey, of Pennsylvania, or older colleagues, such as Jay Rockefeller, of West Virginia.

There is also a large class of Obama supporters in the Senate for whom the Clintons raised considerable amounts of money. This includes Claire McCaskill, of Missouri, who infuriated Mrs Clinton in a 2006 appearance on the television programme Meet the Press, when she said that, while Bill Clinton was a great leader, "I don't want my daughter near him".

Then there are those such as Mr Richardson. He moved atop the blacklist after he endorsed Mr Obama, adding that people around the Clintons practised "gutter" politics and that they felt entitled to the presidency.

But perhaps most painful are the lower-profile defections, the former supporters such as Ms Larson, people who revered the Clintons in the 1990s.

So what did she tell Chelsea Clinton? "I didn't want to get into my reasons," she said. "I just told her it was something I had to do."

PRIMARY NUMBERS

THE Pennsylvania Democratic primary tomorrow stands to be the most decisive since American voters began lining up behind the candidates three and a half months ago.

Hillary Clinton is battling to win with a sufficiently large margin to convince uncommitted superdelegates that her campaign has the momentum and gravitas to merit the nomination.

The state vote will divvy up 158 delegates but the party's rules for apportioning those delegates mean that even a big victory will probably do little to close Barack Obama's lead.

Mr Obama leads Ms Clinton in overall delegates, 1,645-1,507, with 2,025 needed to win the nomination. Neither can reach that number, meaning the unelected superdelegates will decide which candidate is the nominee.

Mr Obama framed Ms Clinton as an old-time game-player, willing to say whatever is needed to win votes. Ms Clinton was countering by telling audiences she wanted "everyone thinking," when they cast ballots – implying she was the candidate of substance while Mr Obama represented flash and dazzle.