For Democrats, increased fears of a long fight

Avoiding a portrayal as party elites
The delegates said they hoped to avoid being portrayed as party elites overturning the will of Democratic voters. They spoke of having some power broker — the names mentioned included Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee; former Vice President Al Gore; and Speaker Nancy Pelosi — step in to forge a deal.

Yet even as some of them pleaded for intervention, they said they were not sure what could be done in a race with two candidates who have so much support.

“It think it has got to be brokered before the convention,” said Bill George, the head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in Pennsylvania. “I think there should be a couple of people — maybe Howard Dean and Al Gore, they have some credibility — to do it. Dean should call a meeting, and the two camps should be forced to do it.”

When asked how, Mr. George just laughed. “I just think the two campaigns have to do it,” he said. “I think we lose credibility in America if we let some group come in and do it.”

But David Parker, a superdelegate from North Carolina, was not about to give much deference to any political leader in a contest that was of such consequence. “I don’t think too many people are going to listen to Howard Dean unless he appointed them,” Mr. Parker said. “The D.N.C. is not some monolithic group that is going to move as a body.”

Own judgment vs. voters' will
While the situation is fluid and could change as the voting plays out in Pennsylvania next month and in a series of primaries and caucuses scheduled to last into June, there seems to be intensifying support for the idea that superdelegates should follow the voters rather than for the approach promoted by Mrs. Clinton: that they should exercise their own judgment about who would make the best president.

“If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what’s happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party,” Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, said in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Members of Congress from states where Mrs. Clinton won or seems likely to win, including Mr. Brown in Ohio and Mr. Altmire in Pennsylvania, made a point of saying they would not feel bound by how their states voted.

“Barack’s impressive showing in our state is attractive to me,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, where Mr. Obama beat Mrs. Clinton two to one in the popular vote last month. “If somehow 200 superdelegates decide this, it will be problematic.”

And there were indications that Mrs. Clinton is facing some questions among the superdelegates about her electability and her potential effect on other Democratic candidates in November.

“A key question to me is how the candidates would affect the down-ballot races,” said Steven Achelpohl, the Democratic state chairman in Nebraska. “I think Obama would have a more positive impact on our other races out here in Nebraska.”

An overall delegate lead for Obama
As of Friday, Mrs. Clinton claimed 254 superdelegates, and the Obama campaign said it had commitments from 213; the figures provided by the campaigns differed somewhat from those tallied by The Times.

Mr. Obama has won 1,367 delegates in primaries and caucuses, compared with 1,224 for Mrs. Clinton, based on a count and projection by The Times. A candidate needs 2,025 votes to win the nomination.

There are 246 superdelegates who are not listed by either campaign as supporters and are viewed as uncommitted. Of those, 107 are from states where Mr. Obama won nominating contests, compared with 83 for Mrs. Clinton. An additional 56 come from states that have not yet voted.

Of the 246 uncommitted superdelegates, 75 are women, 10 are governors and 100 are in Congress. So far, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are relatively even when it comes to competing for elected officials; Mrs. Clinton’s overall advantage among superdelegates has come from current and former party officials, reflecting the ties she and her husband have built over the years.

Fighting good for party?
Some argued that the fighting between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama was good for the party, by keeping the candidates in the news and energizing Democrats. “People are just enthusiastic about their candidates — I don’t find any rancor here,” said Jennifer Moore, chairwoman of the Kentucky Democratic Party.

But many called on Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama to tone down the rhetoric, warning that it could polarize the party and damage the eventual nominee in the general election battle.

“I am very concerned about it, and I think they ought to cut it out,” Mr. Achelpohl said. “We need to be unified in the end. Some of these remarks that people are making on both sides are unacceptable.”

More from NYTimes.com One Town’s Rare Ray of Hope: New Auto Plant An Effort to Save a City by Shrinking It Lawmaker Is Said to Have Agreed to Aid Lobbyists Pressure Grows to Investigate Interrogations Crisis or Not, Russia Will Build a Bridge in the East External links

The superdelegates said in interviews that more than anything they wanted the contest resolved before Democrats assemble in Denver at the end of August.

“Every day that this continues, people can surmise that this is going to the convention in Colorado and it could be decided by the superdelegates,” said Gov. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the head of the Democratic Governors Association. “There is not a superdelegate that I have spoken to who wants that to happen.”

Farhana Hossain contributed reporting.

MORE FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

The New York Times Section Front

Palin's route to resignation Cheney linked to hiding of CIA project Ghana visit points to Africa's instability Ruling offers little guidance on fair hiring Political shifts on gay rights lag behind culture New rights for transgender workers Privacy may be a victim in cyber plan How the U.S. surplus became a deficit Stimulus keeping Sun Belt cool Obama plans big health care push The New York Times Section Front