The Note: Bills & Chills in Battle of Wills

March 17, 2008 -- As we revel in odd pairings -- Wall Street reels on the same day that Gov. Eliot Spitzer peals away; Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John McCain cross paths in Baghdad; not to mention the 5-12 match-ups that will consume much of the nation this week -- the most immediate problems facing the Democratic presidential candidates are revealed in a three-pack of questions.

1. The question the Obama campaign doesn't want asked: If the nomination really is clinched, why hasn't anyone told all the superdelegates?

(And what would remedies for Michigan and Florida tell the only audience that matters anymore? Will they matter more or less than old comments made by a retired pastor?)

2. The question the Clinton campaign doesn't want asked: If voters are having second thoughts about Sen. Barack Obama (if, that is, the "downward spiral" has begun), why does Obama have a bigger delegate edge than he did two weeks ago?

(And why are Iowa Democrats (more sure than ever of their choice?)

3. The question that the Democratic Party really doesn't want asked (now that the party's dirty big secret is out -- that votes and voters don't matter, not necessarily): Are the superdelegates willing to overturn the will of the people?

(And how do they judge that will, exactly?)

Whether or not his weekend laundry airing left Obama, D-Ill., with new bills to pay -- and regardless of whether Clinton can wine or dine her way to any more super-support -- the race's fundamentals are the same (if not enhanced by those unpredictable Iowans): Obama now leads by 129 delegates, per ABC's count, and he will still be leading (probably by a significant margin) whenever the voting ends.

(Close your eyes and imagine what Camp Clinton would be saying if Clinton had an edge anywhere near that level by the time we started filling out brackets.)

Only one candidate is the beneficiary of these comments, made unequivocally by a savvy politician whose voice may matter: "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "This Week."

And that stance holds even if another candidate pulls ahead in the popular vote: "It's a delegate race," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

Actually, that's not the system works, at least not entirely -- and certainly not if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has anything to do with it.

But could this be former President Bill Clinton setting the bar his wife needs to clear to have a realistic shot? Superdelegates will "have to choose, if there is a difference" between the leader in delegates and the leader in the popular vote, he told ABC's Robin Roberts in an interview broadcast on "Good Morning America" Monday.

Said the former president (mixing spin with substance as only he can): "If Senator Obama wins the popular vote then the choice will be easier, but if Hillary wins the popular vote but can't quite catch up with the delegate votes, then you have to just ask yourself, which is more important, and who is more likely to win in November? I don't know that it'll be an easy decision, but that's what leaders sign up for."

As of this moment, Obama leads the popular vote by about 130,000 -- and that includes Florida and Michigan's disputed elections. Take them out, and the gap is in the 700,000-vote range.

The former president's broader message (this time, as Senior Statesman): "If we just chill out here and let all the voters have their say, my gut is it's gonna come out all right," Clinton said. "We should just let the Democrats decide. This is a tough choice for them. . . . And you know I have my strong convictions, but I might be wrong."

(Of course, then there's Campaigner Clinton, never far from the service: "This is the first election in history that I can remember where experience -- and having, actually, experience as a change maker -- should be a disability for being elected," Clinton told college journalists in New Orleans on Sunday, showing that his memory may go back 15 years but does not extend 16 years. He added: "Contrary to the myth, I went through South Carolina and never said a bad word about Sen. Obama -- not one.")

Pelosi is not alone in wanting the delegate vote to count: "While many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months, the interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Mr. Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obama's campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters," Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny report in The New York Times.

This may be the most important words spoken, on the prospect of a nomination fight settled by superdelegates at the convention: "There is not a superdelegate that I have spoken to who wants that to happen," said Gov. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va.

Add Mario Cuomo to the list of the deeply concerned: "It would be ruinous to the Democrats to get to the convention without an arrangement of some kind," the former New York governor told Bloomberg TV's Al Hunt.

Count your delegates before they're snatched: Newsweek's Michael Isikoff writes that the possibility of delegate-poaching -- of stealing away pledged delegates -- is more than idle, academic chatter. "A 'good conscience' reason for a delegate to switch, [Clinton adviser Harold] Ickes told NEWSWEEK, would be if one candidate -- such as, say, Clinton -- was deemed more 'electable.' If delegates believe she has a better chance in November than Obama, Ickes said, 'you bet' that would be a reason to change their vote."

If there is an excuse for overturning the delegate lead, it's that Democrats want a winner, just maybe more than they'll insist on seeing democracy flourish inside the Democratic Party. "That wouldn't be an easy decision for the superdelegates under any circumstance. It is even tougher because current evidence provides no clear verdict on which candidate would compete more effectively against McCain," Ron Brownstein writes in National Journal.

"Indeed in early general election polling, Obama and Clinton display many of the same strengths and weaknesses against McCain that they have shown against each other," Brownstein continues. "The emerging picture indicates that against McCain, Obama might cast a wider net than Clinton, but also need to plug more leaks in his boat."

The supers are moving, just slowly. "Mr. Obama has gained the support of about 60 superdelegates in the last month while Mrs. Clinton added more than half as many," Megan Thee writes in The New York Times.

"Still, just under half of the total 795 Democratic party leaders who will cast votes at the convention have not expressed a preference for either candidate. Some say they will vote according to their state's primary or caucus while others want to see how the next few months of the campaign play out."

After spending Friday and Saturday unloading Rezko and reverend baggage, Obama's tax returns are set to be released soon -- as Obama sharpens his attacks on disclosure.