They are called many things. Party leaders. Party elders. Senior statesmen. Bigwigs. Movers and shakers. But whatever you call them, the big voices of the Democratic Party have been remarkably silent when it comes to endorsing one candidate over the other for the party's nomination for president. I speak of such big cheeses as Al Gore, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson. It's time to lay your cards on the table, boys, and let us know which side you're on.

Because barring an improbable string of overwhelming primary victories (for either candidate), it looks like this one may go to the convention. Sitting on the sidelines is fast becoming not an option, if you ever want to throw your weight around in the party again. To truly earn the title of "party leader" or "party elder," you have to actually "lead" (or maybe "eld"? ahem...).

Now I don't fault the party's real leaders from remaining neutral -- people like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. They pretty much are required to remain neutral until there's a nominee, since they wield enormous power within the party by their current position. I'm glad that they're neutral, in other words.

But Gore, Richardson, and Edwards have no such excuse (some would even include Jimmy Carter in that list, but he's more interested in his non-profit work remaining neutral, so I kind of give him a pass). None of them currently holds office, and none of them is still running for any office this year. Which means there is no reason for them not to jump into the fray on one side or another.

John Edwards has been teasing the media (and the remaining two candidates) with the possibility of his endorsement ever since he dropped out of the race. He has succeeded admirably at pushing his own agenda into Clinton and Obama's respective speechmaking. But unless he wants to fade into complete obscurity within the party (and fade fast), Edwards has got to come out and choose sides soon. Most of his campaign team has swung to Obama, and most of his union support as well, but it's still anybody's guess who Edwards would choose. But he'd better do it fast.

Bill Richardson kind of jumped the gun on last week's Face The Nation. He seemed to be counting on Obama to win Texas, and he strongly suggested that after Tuesday's voting, "the one with the most delegates" should be the nominee, and the "other" candidate should graciously clear the field to the nomination by dropping out. He very carefully didn't "endorse" anyone, and he didn't use actual names, but it was pretty clear what he was thinking.

Of course, after Tuesday, he may be rethinking his position. But, like Edwards, unless he explicitly throws his support behind one candidate or the other soon, he will quickly drift into obscurity within the party as well. His endorsement would mean more to Obama than Clinton (he was on Bill Clinton's cabinet twice, after all, so he's seen as coming from the Clinton camp to begin with), but he could well pick either candidate at this point.

Al Gore remains as inscrutable as ever. He's been laying so low he risks being flooded when the seas begin to rise (OK, that was a cheap laugh, but it was tough to resist). His endorsement would be enormous within the party faithful (there's even a party faction that still wants to see Gore himself anointed the nominee at the convention). He could personally say either, "I have worked in the White House with Hillary Clinton and she would make a terrific president," or, conversely, "Hillary? President? She wasn't even as good as Eleanor Roosevelt at being First Lady -- no, I'm supporting Barack Obama." If he supported Clinton, he would be seen as an outsider to her campaign (since he hasn't supported her yet), yet someone with unique knowledge of her experience. For the same reason, his support would be an enormous vote of confidence in Obama over her. But again, for it to mean anything, it has to happen now, while there is still a chance of it doing some good for either candidate.

Otherwise -- if these three wait until it is "safe" to support the nominee (after it's already been decided by others) -- I will begin to believe the rumors going around that they're holding out their support in order to secure a juicy cabinet position in the new Democratic administration (no matter whose name is on it).

And in that case (drawing from history the name Andrew Jackson bravely embraced for himself and for his party's logo), these three men won't be the bigwigs, or the big cheeses in the Democratic Party -- they'll just be the biggest jackasses. To avoid this fate, they need to get off their asses and endorse one candidate or the other. Now.

-- Chris Weigant