The first rule of Presidential primaries is advocates for candidates should not raise expectations. But I am only a grassroots advocate. I do not speak for the Obama campaign, and no journalist or influential blogger anywhere believes I do. I only am one of many on the Obama delegate slate in Pennsylvania, which does not vote until April 22.
In my heart of hearts, what I would like to see is the Presidential contest come down to Pennsylvania. There are six weeks or so so between the last of the March primaries and Pennsylvania's. I would love to be giving interviews to this journalist and that, and working with campaign volunteers from around the country. It would be great for Pennsylvania to be the center of attention, the New Hampshire primary of the late primary season, the California of the remaining states.
But I do not think that that fantasy--encouraged by some in the Chicago office of the Obama campaign--is going to happen.
I think the battle for the Democratic nomination is going to end with surprising speed.
I think the question is soon going to become "Who will Obama pick for Vice-President?"
The polls--although clearly trending upward for Obama--are not fully measuring his strength. They underestimate the people who rarely vote, new voters, and minority voters. They overestimate the commitment of voters to Clinton and to Edwards.
The Edwards withdrawal is another obstacle towards accurate polling. His supporters cannot possibly have the same commitment to a second choice candidate, so they are inherently open to the more persuasive Obama candidacy.
An Obama victory would re-establish the Horatio Alger inspired myth that any American can grow up to be President. A Clinton victory would offer the more limited lesson for many that any relatively young wealthy former first lady with experience in high elective office can become President.
An Obama victory would be a victory for a fundamental change in direction. A Clinton victory would be a victory for political change when justified by a detailed study of the facts and careful reading of the political winds and the interests of wealthy campaign contributors.
An Obama victory would be a victory for many thousands of grassroots campaigners. A Clinton victory would be a victory for pollsters who have successfully crafted a winning message.
The Obama campaign is a cultural phenomenon. Obama is the candidate of You Tube and Oprah Winfrey, of the blogosphere and the editorial pages, of television viewers and internet surfers. He is the candidate of people who decide individually--from college students and white collar workers to more and more superdelegates, and he is the candidate of SEIU and MoveOn. He is the candidate of the future, and, with the Kennedy endorsements, the candidate of the Democratic Party's glorious past.
Hillary Clinton has been a national figure since 1992, and I think she would make a fine President. But Barack Obama has run a revolutionary campaign, and she has simply not matched it. He has dramatically raised the bar in terms of what people expect in a President, and she has not matched that either.
Barack Obama is the most original candidate in the race for the Democratic nomination, and it is one of the least noticed rules of Presidential politics that the most original candidate usually wins.
I believe that on February 5, Obama will run far ahead of his poll showings, win elections in places Clinton has counted on, and come close in places where that was widely believed to be impossible.
If Clinton stays in the race for the February 12 primaries, I believe Obama's lead will only grow and the question will be whether a slim mathematical chance of winning justifies a continued campaign for Clinton.
This diary is based more on intuition than knowledge. All sorts of polls and indicators exist in various places that I do not have access to. But I believe that Obama has touched a fundamental place in the hearts of many Americans, and that his imminent victory is highly probable if not totally assured.