The Clinton Ultimatum

It's not unusual for the winner of a U. S. presidential nomination to choose the runner-up as his running mate. John Kerry did it in 2004. Ronald Reagan did it in 1980. John F. Kennedy did it (under very different rules) in 1960.

In these pairings, it is always the winner who reaches out to the loser. Never in modern U. S. history has a loser muscled in on a winner.

But there's a first time for everything. On Wednesday, friends of Hillary Clinton launched an online petition drive to urge Barack Obama to choose the former First Lady. (Clinton wanly disavowed the effort on Thursday -- but it remains online.)

The petition is phrased in very respectful language. But the Web site that hosts the pick-Hillary petition, womenforfairpolitics.org, also hosts a second petition that expresses itself rather more robustly:

"Please sign the petition to let our candidate know that we support her efforts to take the nominating contest to the convention floor in August ?We need to take back our party -- the party that we have known and loved. Hillary Clinton must stay in through the vote in late August at our convention. What is a convention for if not to record the votes?"

This is not idle chatter. Unlike John Edwards (who won only two states in 2004 and 559 out of 3426 delegates) and unlike George H. W. Bush (who won six states in 1980 and 13 of 1,994 delegates), Hillary Clinton will arrive at the Democratic convention in Denver with a phalanx of followers: close to 2,000, depending on the fidelity of her superdelegates. (Unlike elected delegates, superdelegates can change their minds.)

And unlike any of those other candidates, Hillary Clinton has delayed and delayed conceding.

As late as June 3, Clinton's speech after the South Dakota and Montana primaries, with its emphasis on her big raw vote totals, suggested that she regarded herself, and not Obama, as the Democratic party's legitimate leader.

A Clinton concession is finally expected tonight, weeks after victory became mathematically impossible for her. But who knows what she will really say or do -- or how she will say or do it? Her supporters chant "Den-VER, Den-VER," calling on her to continue the contest to the convention floor. And a disgruntled runner-up who controls nearly half the delegates can make a lot of trouble.

She can appeal rulings that disfavoured her and challenge the credentials of delegates assigned to other candidates. She can prolong proceedings and ruin television schedules. Her delegates -- who cannot be denied access to the floor -- can cause unpleasant scenes: booing, hooting or simply refusing to applaud when the nominee delivers his acceptance speech.

She can do those things -- or she can refrain. It's up to her. No matter what gracious words she speaks tonight, her tight smile will convey a sharp implicit threat to Barack Obama: "Nice little convention you have here. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it."

That quiet threat presents Obama with an important test of strength and resolve.

Clinton must surely rank close to the bottom of his vice-presidential preferences: too divisive, too '90s, too female, too untrustworthy and too prone to scandal. (Just last week, Vanity Fair magazine published a long story packed with lurid hints about Bill Clinton's post-presidential sexual and financial adventures: "No former president of the United States has ever travelled with such a fast crowd ?")

So if Obama does choose Clinton, it will be obvious to all that he yielded to pressure and threat. That would put a humiliating mark on his candidacy -- and offer an ominous clue about his hypothetical future presidency.

Which means that he has to run the risks of refusing -- and that in turn implies that Hillary must use the nearly three months before Denver to ensure that those risks appear as frightening as possible.

The ensuing rituals of courtship, repulsion and intimidation should make for good fun for reporters and Republicans -- and resentment and misery for Democrats. Obama supporters may protest and complain that Hillary Clinton should just accept her loss and go away. But she won't. She never does.

And after all, she did win more votes, didn't she? That achievement mattered a great deal to Democrats when the winner of the popular vote was Al Gore and the loser was George W. Bush. Why does it suddenly matter so much less today?