by Naftali Bendavid

A rough agreement seems to be emerging among Democrats—to the extent that the party recognizes such concepts as “agreement”— that the party’s nominee should be finalized in May or June.

It seemed for a time that momentum was gathering behind a push for Hillary Clinton to drop out immediately, so the bruising primary season could come to an end. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama with an explicit call to end the party’s bickering. Sen. Patrick Leahy, an Obama supporter, directly urged Clinton to drop out just a few days ago. There was, and still is, a sense of party elders coalescing around the Illinois senator, with a steady drumbeat of endorsements—from Pennsylvania Sen. Bill Casey to Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar to (today) former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton.

The feeling among party leaders seemed to be that 1) with furors over Obama’s pastor and Clinton’s claims to have braved sniper fire in Kosovo, the primary had taken a nasty turn that was increasingly likely to hurt the party against Sen. John McCain, and 2) Clinton’s hopes for winning the nomination were ever more remote, especially with plans evaporating for revotes in Michigan and Florida.

Even if Clinton closed the gap somewhat, the thinking went, the Democrats were hardly likely to take the nomination from a man who had energized so many African-American, younger and first-time voters, so why was Clinton selfishly prolonging a primary that could only weaken the party’s chances in what should be a Democratic year?

Then a reaction set in. Clinton and her backers argued that ending the primary season prematurely would disenfranche voters in states like Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia that had not voted yet. Journalists seemed more receptive to the notion that Clinton had every right to fight as hard as possible until she was mathematically eliminated.

Clinton, as ever, skilfully turned calls for her pullout into an asset, painting her critics as bullies and herself as a fighter. And some Democrats concluded that the fight might not be bad for the party after all; the public’s attention was riveted on the Democrats, after all, not on McCain, and in states like Pennsylvania roughly 100,000 new voters had registered as Democrats.

Equally important, Obama’s operatives realized that by pushing too hard for Clinton’s withdrawal, they risked alienating her backers, whose support they would desperately need in the fall. Camp Obama now seems to be settling in for a more patient, drawn-out fight, with the hope that Clinton’s backers will not feel too bruised by the process and will fight for Obama if he is the nominee.

So now the party seems to have settled, perhaps out of necessity, into a middle path, recognizing the futility of trying to push Clinton out but also the risk of a divided convention in late August.

The first shot in this regard may have been fired by Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, who suggested a “super-delegate convention” to be held several weeks earlier than the regular one. More recently, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has been urging the super-delegates to make their decisions by July 1 (a few weeks after the last primary, June 10 in Puerto Rico.) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has expressed support for that deadline. Once all the primaries have been held and the super-delegates have annouced their choices, a nominee would presumably emerge. That would still give the Democrats almost two months before their convention to come together behind their nominee.

Of course, this could be resolved much earlier. If Obama does significantly better than expected in Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary, and wins North Carolina or Indiana, or both, when their primaries are held May 6, momentum could rapidly gather behind his candidacy. (It’s harder to see a scenario by which Clinton locks up the nomination early.)

But for now, party leaders seem content—or resigned—to wait until at least May 6 before finding a resolution, but probably not longer than July 1.