‘Super Delegates’ Seek New Democratic Hero

Four days before Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton faces the acid test of the New York primary, a growing number of Democratic “super delegates” are talking about finding a new presidential candidate to avert what they increasingly fear may be another crushing party defeat in November.

These efforts are not organized, and most of the 772 super delegates to the Democratic convention--who include lawmakers, party leaders and governors--expect Clinton to emerge from his primary travails with the nomination.

But after Clinton’s defeat in the Connecticut primary and his bruising ride in New York, many say they are searching for the scenario that would flush out a new candidate or allow delegates to choose a nominee at the July convention.

“Among the super delegates on Capitol Hill, the cloakroom talk is: ‘Oh my God, what are we going to do?’ ” said Rep. Dennis E. Eckart (D-Ohio).

The super-delegate system, first implemented in 1984, gives elected officials and party leaders convention votes that are not bound by primary results, and it can become pivotal if no clear nominee has emerged by convention time.

Although super delegates technically remain uncommitted through the primaries, many typically declare their support for a candidate during the primary campaign season.

Now, however, many are withholding their endorsements of Clinton, at least until they see what happens in New York. Other super delegates acknowledge they are backing former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. in hopes that a string of Brown primary victories will derail Clinton and bring about the selection of another candidate.

Self-interest is partly behind the super delegates’ anxieties. Some members of Congress are worried that a weak Clinton at the head of the ticket would heighten electoral vulnerabilities that have already been sharply increased by the House check-bouncing scandal and a raging anti-incumbent fever.

But the unhappiness is not only under the Capitol dome, but in statehouses and state Democratic headquarters as well.

“I get calls every day--from Washington and other places--from people who are trying to stir something up,” said Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), who is a Brown supporter. “I hear a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

But despite the calls, Hayden, like others, said they have detected no signs that these efforts had organization or leadership.

Calls by The Times to several dozen super delegates this week found a number of officials, including two state party chairmen, who said they wanted another presidential contender. The two state party chiefs said their posts prevent them from being identified by name.

“In my job, you’re supposed to be all ‘rah rah,’ ” said one of the chairmen, who described his mood as “shaken.” “But it’s not going to be ‘rah rah’ for the Democrats in the fall.”

He said he believed that even if Clinton wins in New York, the candidate has now been hurt too badly to beat President Bush. Among his concerns, he said, were Clinton’s statements about smoking marijuana in college, which the party official said suggested that the Arkansas governor had evaded earlier queries about drug use.

“The ‘Slick Willie’ stuff is finally starting to stick,” said the chairman, adding that the Democrats’ best hope now was for Brown victories that would force a decision at the convention.

Said the second state chairman: “I’d like nothing more than to see a brokered convention. Clinton is simply damaged goods. . . . I don’t believe there can be too many people left who believe things are going to be hunky-dory for us in November.”

Other elected officials and state party heads said they wanted to remain uncommitted for the moment to see if the ever-shifting tides of this election year will again turn against Clinton.

“I’m uncommitted,” said Chris Spirou, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. “Get back to me after New York.”

“We’re all frozen in place--watching the primaries in New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, California” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles). Whether the Democrats will have an open convention is “an open question,” he said.

The Democrats’ quandary has put many of them in the curious position of yearning for an old-style, brokered convention in a year when orthodox politics are anathema. But many super delegates say they would make no apology for such an outcome if it would yield a winning candidate.

“I want an open convention, and I think you’ll see one,” predicted Vincent Rigolosi, a super delegate and the former county chairman from Bergen County, N.J. “A new candidate is a sine qua non for victory.”

Eckart said that with poll results showing wide voter dissatisfaction with the current choices, “I think it would be foolish for the party to sit idly by.”

Despite such yearnings, Clinton holds a strong hand. He has 1,021 delegates, according to an unofficial Associated Press count, including some 115 super delegates who have publicly endorsed him.

He needs 2,145 of the 4,288 delegates to get the votes needed for a first-ballot convention victory. On Tuesday, he could win 242 more delegates in New York and 82 in Wisconsin.

The prospects of a new candidate racking up many delegates is slim because the filing dates for most of the primaries have past. The deadline for filing for the June 2 California primary is today. The filing deadline for the June 2 New Jersey primary is April 19.

But the super delegates who want a different nominee are speculating about any number of alternate scenarios.

Some hope Brown, who now has 159 votes, will begin a victory sweep with wins in New York and Wisconsin, then maintain his momentum with pluralities in the key states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey and California.

Some assert that with such a string of victories--and the backing of most super delegates--Brown or some late-entering candidate would be able to prevent Clinton from a first-ballot victory. Then the delegates would be freed to switch allegiance “and the process becomes highly unpredictable,” said Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic political consultant in Washington.

But many political professionals and party insiders say that because delegates are allocated proportionally, Clinton could lose New York and later primaries and still accumulate enough votes to have a good shot at a first-ballot victory.

Moreover, some polls last week, including a survey by the independent Marist Institute in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., suggested that Clinton had stabilized his New York campaign. The Marist Poll, released Wednesday, showed Clinton leading Brown by a margin of 37% to 26%, with a large share of voters undecided.

Some Clinton supporters among the super delegates contend that after a victory in New York, Clinton’s campaign may regain momentum.

With expectations for him in New York now low, a win on Tuesday might suddenly make Clinton’s campaign appear as it did after the March 17 victories in Michigan and Illinois, when news accounts were filled with glowing comments on the candidate’s resilience.

Phil Angelides, a super delegate and California’s Democratic chairman, says reputations can change quickly in presidential politics. The George Bush who was called a “wimp” on the cover of a news magazine in early 1988 “was the guy who stomped us a few months later,” Angelides said.

But many super delegates continue to fret about a scenario in which Clinton amasses the votes he needs for a first-ballot victory, yet is so weak at the finish line that there is an overwhelming pressure for a stronger nominee.

Such scenarios have sent many super delegates to their party rule books--where they have not found much satisfaction.

Rep. Peter H. Kostmayer (D-Pa.), who expressed an interest in Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr. as a candidate, says he talks to many super delegates who are confused.

“It’s not like the old days where you could get a bunch of people together and go see someone and say: ‘You’ve got to do this,’ ” he said. “So I see a lot of confusion, a lot of concern. People are frankly worried.”