Prior to the PA primary, Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA) "said he wouldn't endorse either" Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton "unless one of them won in a landslide."
Well, Clinton got nearly 70% of the votes in Carney's district -- "considered by many to be a landslide -- yet Carney remains silent on his endorsement." Carney spokesperson Rebecca Gale: "Not yet. It's April; it's still early. The decision doesn't have to be made until August. ... In the meantime, [he] feels it's best to let people vote and the conversation continue."
But GOPers are "pressing" Carney. NRCC spokesperson Ken Spain said 4/29 that Carney "should take a stand now that the primary is over." Spain: "Carney's decision not to support Sen. Clinton ... can only be construed as a de facto endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama. Instead of sitting idly by, Chris Carney should be condemning Sen. Obama for claiming that Pennsylvania voters 'cling' to religion and Second Amendment rights because they are 'bitter.'"
Carney, a member of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition, barely defeated four-term ex-Rep. Don Sherwood in '06 -- "the first time" a Dem has held the seat "in more than 40 years." (His election "was largely a result of Sherwood's misstep" -- getting sued by his 35-year-younger mistress, who accused Sherwood of choking her. The case was settled out of court for 500K.)
Carney "said the charge that he is out of step with conservative voters won't stick. He has staffed his office" with Dems and GOPers and "said he hasn't been afraid to buck" the Dem leadership (O'Boyle, Pennsylvania Times-Leader, 4/30).
Shifting The Conventional Wisdom
Newsday's De Luca writes, "It's time for the [Dem] leadership to act. The best way to bring this bitter" Dem race to a close "in a way that is thoroughly fair and absolutely decisive is to move the convention date from late August to late June."
"Moving up the convention" to 6/28-7/1 "would allow fair competition for each candidate in the remaining primaries, while avoiding a summer-long battle for holdout delegates. As an added bonus," it allows Dems "to end with a patriotic flourish just before the Fourth of July."
"Moving up the convention date also would do more than simply advance the day of decision: It would force the issue of choosing the nominee in a way nothing else can. The 300 or so remaining superdelegates would have no choice but to get off the fence -- and to do so soon"
"Moving such a large convention in time would surely be a logistic nightmare, not to mention a sharp break with tradition. But these problems are dwarfed by the real possibility of hopelessly dividing the party and losing the presidency" (4/30).
This article appears in the April 30, 2008, edition of Latest Edition.