A real flash from the past, via observer2 at TPM.
The NYT article, published April 10, 1992, is a very ironic walk down memory lane. Interestingly, the issue of short coattails was on the minds of Democratic representatives. After 1996 mid-terms, it appears this was a valid concern:
"There's a real tug-of-war up here," said one House member. "Especially on this side, there are a lot of people who are terrified that all the character questions, all the negatives about Clinton that showed up in New York, make him so weak that a lot of people will lose their seats."
Even though Bill Clinton won four primaries on Tuesday, even though Paul E. Tsongas announced today that he would not re-enter the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, even though many of them concede there is probably no stopping Mr. Clinton now, dozens of Democratic senators and representatives remain reluctant to endorse him.
...
Of 264 superdelegates in the House and Senate, 93, or 35 percent, have endorsed Mr. Clinton so far, according to a continuing survey by The New York Times. Most are Southern, and most made their statements some time ago. A much larger number remain officially uncommitted.
One thing that strikes me about this is how much different the superdelegate landscape is. Bill Clinton was a shoe-in at this point, but wasn't nearly as strong a candidate as Barack Obama is today.
Read the whole thing -- the names are fascinating, as is the primary schedule. California's primary was scheduled for June 2.
In the New York primary Tuesday, the turnout was exceptionally low, 29 percent of the electorate backed Mr. Tsongas, a ghost candidate, two-thirds of the voters said they were dissatisfied with the choice presented to them, and 4 in 10 said they doubted Mr. Clinton had the integrity to be President.
Clinton was a known quantity, and managed to live down to these expectations.