Hillary Clinton may be behind, and she may lose. But she is now widely seen as the tougher of the two candidates, the one who is more resolute, who will fight harder and longer (and, yes, more unscrupulously) to achieve her desired ends. An edge in toughness is hardly a good quality to cede to your opponent.

Some Democratic officials who were worried about having Senator Clinton at the top of the ticket in November are now expressing concern about Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton’s bar-brawl tactics have raised her negatives sharply, but they’ve also raised doubts about Mr. Obama. Is he a fighter? Is he tough enough to take on the G.O.P.?

One of Senator Obama’s favorite phrases is “the fierce urgency of now.” There is nothing more fiercely urgent for him right now than to reassure voters and superdelegates that an Obama candidacy will not lead to a Democratic debacle in November.

Al Gore has many things to recommend him. As opposed to Hillary, he actually is quite experienced. Hillary's supposed 35 years of experience consists of exactly seven years of elective office.

As opposed to Obama, Gore really is a candidate of systemic change, and he's got the Nobel Prize to prove it.

Gore is not only the best Democratic candidate who could be put up at this point, he might end up being the only alternative at a deadlocked convention.

A Gore-Obama ticket would be a winning Democratic combination -- for a change -- in November. 

Lately I find myself wondering: Why aren't more powerful Democrats in both the Obama and Clinton camps lobbying for a revote in Florida and Michigan? Is it simply about money? Sure, it would be expensive, but both candidates are raising money phenomenally.

And sure, the party would like to save some of that Democratic cash to fight John McCain in November. But I have to wonder, what's worse for Democrats: A protracted battle that results in a near-tie, with superdelegates carrying the day in Denver (leaving plenty of cash to fight McCain but one camp or the other furious), or a party whose coffers are maybe depleted (though I can't imagine that), but whose supporters know that democracy, though expensive, prevailed.

I'm not sure I can answer that question, but my gut tells me it's the latter.

The superdelegates will almost certainly determine the outcome. If they do, it will not just have the potential of making the entire process a travesty of democracy but also a tragedy for the Democratic party. For if the superdelegates go against the popular will of the voters, whoever emerges as "victor" will enter the presidential election shorn of democratic legitimacy and devoid of electoral credibility.

"It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided," said Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives' speaker. Too true. But while Pelosi's argument answers the question about what the superdelegates should do at the party convention in August, it begs another. If superdelegates are going to follow the popular vote anyway, why have them in the first place?

Brokered conventions (where no candidate arrives with a majority of the delegates) are predicted every four years, and every four years they don't actually happen. However, it does seem likely this year that we'll, at the very least, see a closer result than any since 1980 or even 1968. We might not even know who will win until the convention gets underway. Edwards could act as a kingmaker by throwing his delegates to Clinton or Obama and putting him or her over the top (his delegates would not be required to follow his instructions, but they will likely be personally loyal to him). Or, unelected superdelegates could throw the nomination to a candidate who comes in second in pledged delegates. Even if the result is known at the start of the convention, it might not be determined until June or July.