A prediction, finally.

People have been bugging me for months to say who I think will win the Democratic nomination. My response was that if you think you can reasonably predict for either of them, then I think you're underestimating how close it is. It's still close, but I now think one of the legs of the Clinton campaign will likely be chopped out from under her in the next few weeks.

To balance the faddish momentum that Obama's got going for him, Clinton has been able to rely on organizational support that she (not Bill) has built up over the past 10 years. But the calendar that her campaign used to tout as making her victory inevitable looks like it will end up finishing her off.

The problem is that nobody wants the nomination to be decided by an ugly credentials battle over the putative Michigan and Florida delegations. An 'ordinary' brokered convention would be bad enough, but would at least have several redeeming qualities. But a floor fight over who gets to vote, with the clear rules on one side and the interests of two critical swing states on the other would be a disaster.

The only way to avoid that if there is if the nomination is pretty much a foregone conclusion by the time the convention starts. No candidate will have enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination outright. But if either candidate runs the table (or comes close enough) from here on out, the unpledged ex officio delegates (IMO, "superdelegate" is a misleading term) will move with near unanimity to anoint a champion.

If the remaining states were to all vote today, I think the delegate count would slightly favor Obama, but not by nearly enough. Maybe not at all. That's because although Obama will continue to win small and medium states, Clinton has the advantage in Texas and probably Ohio, which come later.

In this case, though, later is too late. If Obama can post convincing wins in the Potomac primary Tuesday and continue to win next week, it seems to me that election day organizational support for Clinton in Texas and Ohio on March 24 can be expected to dry up, negating Clinton's necessary advantage in GOTV. Should that happen, Obama would win Ohio and probably come close in Texas.

If she still has money then, Clinton wouldn't have to give up. But she would need a big surprise win in Pennsylvania on April 22 to hold on to her early endorsements from ex officio delegates.

I'm not saying I'm sure it will unfold this way. If this were the Republican Party of any year except 2008, we could be confident that the powers that be would find a way to avoid an ugly convention, and since this is the clearest path to a unified party, it's what we could strongly expect.

The Democratic Party, since 1968, has eschewed the kind of backroom deals that can smooth things over. Mostly, that's good. But when the popular will expresses no clear preference, things will be decided by deals one way or the other. One way is to have it done ahead of time, when some feeling will be hurt. The other way is to have it on national TV, when everybody's feelings will be hurt. The question is whether the structure and culture of the Democratic Party will allow rival campaigns to come together this way.

And it is an open question. I'd only give Obama about a 60% chance at the nomination. But that's the first time I've had anyone over 53%, so I'm putting my prediction out there.

Is Obama going Edwards/Harkin in tone?

Much of Obama's appeal is that he's been able to identify what is so wrong with the status quo, while his demeanor remains positive about what can be. Most politicians who are as critical as he he is, come off as driven by anger and wanting to drive home their point, rather than by the opportunity to make things better. If you can recall Tom Harkin's 1992 campaign, you'll know what I'm talking about. Edwards sometimes drifted into the same territory, but sometimes managed to avoid it.

I just saw Obama's response to the State of the Union address. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmNCALGHOC4 ) Except for the last few seconds, I thought I was watching a younger, darker Harkin. That dog won't hunt in the general election. I don't know if he was consciously trying to pick up Edwards voters, whether he was tired and it came out as being fed up in an ugly way, or what. But whatever the cause, I hope it remains a side of him that's usually reserved for behind closed doors.

Neither wonkery nor cynicism

Sometimes otherwise intelligent people think you can get policy enacted just by figuring out what the best policy is and announcing it. When I was younger, I fell into that trap myself, sometimes. bigscary is younger than his knowledge would lead me to believe, so I shouldn't be surprised when I see that mistake coming from him.

But effective politics requires showing people why the right policy is best. And that involves getting them to trust you enough, perhaps to identify with you enough, so that they can hear what you have to say.

Bill Clinton was a great wonk. He isn't an original thinker, but he has a tremendous ability to mentally store, categorize, and retrieve facts, and to determine those facts' applicability to the current situation. But if that's all Clinton had going for him, he never would have been elected Governor, let alone President. Bill Clinton had a rare ability to show people that he understood what was going on for them, so they felt comfortable enough to listen to what he had to say. Or, and bigscary probably hates this, to trust him without taking the time to listen to his plans at all. And that's what made him an effective candidate and a moderately effective President.

Neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton duplicate Bill's skill set. But what Obama has instead is the ability to convey he shares most of our understanding of, and frustration with, how (not just that) Washington doesn't work. And while he acknowledges that a real fix can only come from below, he proclaims that he will stick a flag in the sand. And he will be strong and stubborn enough so that those who have previously been too discouraged will find that flag still standing long enough for us to rally around. For an example, look at http://barking-iguana.livejournal.com/133922.html?nc=1 . You can start at 17:10 or even 20:00, if you don't have half an hour. At the very least, watch from 23:50 to 27:00.

Of course that's playing with people's emotions. And of course it won't work out perfectly. So some (chemoelectric?, who, like me, supports Obama in the absence of Edwards) see it as cynical. But even though Obama knows perfectly well it can't work out perfectly, it can work out quite well compared to anything we've seen in many decades. And to whatever extent Obama could make it work out just as he says, he would. To me, that's not cynicism, it's engaging in the art of the possible.

Now, maybe I'm missing something, but I see no comparable skill in Hillary Clinton. She does have many other skills, but none that can broaden the appeal of the policies she champions. If not for the Clinton family brand (which, granted, she helped to create), she would make a fine governor of a small, northern state like Vermont. And if she happened to luck into a Senate seat, she'd be, as she is, reliably better than a Republican but not really what you'd want from a Democrat with a good constituency. Her policies are good enough so that if she gets the nomination, I (unlike other good Democrats I know) would support her. But on what basis can she be considered a good candidate?