So let us assume for the moment that Barack Obama's current advantage lasts through to the convention, with Hillary Clinton a hundred or more delegates behind. Who would a conscientious Democrat then pick?

Putting myself in Democrat shoes, I would submit that Barack is clearly the more electable. He has few negatives, and those he has can be considered "sins of youth" and attributed, with reasonable credibility, to his chaotic early upbringing. He is "new", the candidate of youth against a much older John McCain. He is a great orator and runs an efficient campaign. His fundraising machine is superb (how did he do it?). And in the "time of troubles" the US seems to be entering, he represents change and hope. Now I am the first to agree that no one knows whether he will deliver. But from a purely electoral viewpoint, he clearly has the edge.

Senator Clinton may have a clear choice: make an emotional speech and fade away, or pull a Bull Moose.

The original Bull Moose was Teddy Roosevelt. In 1908, before departing to Europe and Africa, he had anointed William Howard Taft as president, on the condition that "he would carry out my policies". Not seeing this happen, Teddy came back as a candidate at the 1912 Republican convention. But Taft controlled the party machine and would have won anyway, so Teddy took his pledged delegates, walked across the street, and there founded the Progressive (or Bull Moose) party. In the election, Roosevelt trounced Taft in the popular vote, but Woodrow Wilson won the Electoral College and became president.

Now there are strong similarities between the respective situations of Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and Hillary Clinton in 2008. Both have a large and dedicated personal support base. Both have a significant number of pledged delegates. Both are national icons: Roosevelt was "a man's man", and Hillary is a feminist heroine. Both have strong Progressive leanings. In addition, Hillary Clinton comes with a significant tactical advantage, both in her delegate strength and in her proven ability to win in large states (California, New York, Michigan, Florida, New Jersey, etc ...). This was the Republicans' weakness in 1912. It could prove to be her strength this year.

Hillary Clinton's core support base is with "older" women, the generation which has fought for, and benefited from, the feminist cause. If she quits, they will drift away. If she fights, they might get fired up. She is also (like T. Roosevelt), a "progressive", concerned with "the little people", which plays well in a time of economic downturn. All of that translates into funding, active support, and votes.  

It all comes at a price though. Hillary Clinton "going Bull Moose" would split in the Democratic party, between the Obama wing on one side, and on the other the progressive-feminist faction she would be leading. But "faction" might be too weak a term. What if one could really raise the level of women's participation in the November vote? What if the "looming recession" became very real and the "little people" got roused? What if a "genuinely progressive" platform peeled away the independent voters now leaning towards Obama or McCain? Throw in a few big states, and the Electoral College arithmetic becomes really interesting.

In the end it is Senator's Clinton's decision. A month from now, or even earlier, she will know where she stands. If the delegate ratio has not appreciably changed, she will have a choice: either give up at that point (as some already advise her to do), or fight, with three to four months available to change tack and mount an offensive - roughly the time T. Roosevelt had.