This will counterbalance the scenario offered in this space Sunday by which Hillary Clinton could still emerge as the Democratic nominee for president.
As that column appeared locally, a veteran columnist in Washington, Elizabeth Drew, was publishing one wholly to the contrary and not without a certain savvy.
"A false sense of suspense" is how Drew referred to any contention that Barack Obama would not soon secure the nomination. Events notwithstanding, it remains only a matter of time, she wrote, before the great preponderance of super-delegates endorses him.
This column was written in the classic Washington insiders' manner, purporting to relate candid observations from leading Democratic members of Congress who were not identified, that being the trade-off for the candor.
By Drew's scenario, Clinton simply stands no plausible mathematical chance in the few remaining contests of overtaking Obama in earned delegates. Failing that, Democratic members of Congress who are super-delegates will be loath to overturn Obama's earned delegate lead.
That's true even if it becomes powerfully evident that Clinton has closed much faster and stronger, winning most of the big and recent battles, while Obama has been bloodied by Jeremiah Wright and other woes that have precipitously reduced his support among vital white working-class voters.
The big reason, this argument goes, is congressional self-interest. It has less to do with winning the White House.
It is that Clinton is still seen as uncommonly polarizing, if not so much for herself as for many incumbent Democratic congressmen who fear her as an albatross in their districts. Implicit in their reasoning is that, by rejecting an African-American with a delegate lead, black voters vital to many of those Democratic congressmen's re-elections back home would be alienated.
If blacks don't turn out in urban areas, the Democrats could blow it all, not just the White House.
It may well be that Clinton has emerged as a stronger candidate for the general election, owing to her spunk and debating superiority and working-class connections, not to mention Obama's burdens. It may well be that she will win Indiana today by several points and that she will similarly win West Virginia and Kentucky the next week and the one after.
It may well be that, come tomorrow morning, she'll be beaming and Obama will be limping while the pundits will be buzzing. It may well be that none of that will matter a whit that, failing unexpected routs in those states of such proportion that she propels herself astonishingly to a delegate lead, the deal is done, and not for her.
Apparently, she blew it all by not being organized for those caucuses and by having that sinking spell after Super Tuesday when Obama won big in Wisconsin, Maryland and Virginia.
To be fair and accurate, this would not be entirely a matter of personal self-interest by members of Congress. There is a prevailing Democratic concern that the party could destroy its modern coalition for the long term, thus itself, if it reversed a delegate verdict for Obama.
There is powerful irony here, of course. The Clintons have long owed their political lives to the black vote, first in Arkansas and then nationally. Now they stand to be defeated by it.
If Drew's scenario is right, the best thing to happen would be for Hillary to lose both states today and put herself and the Democrats out of their misery.
But that's probably not going to happen. What if she wins both Indiana and North Carolina? More beaming, limping and buzzing, but nothing more, apparently.
John Brummett is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com; his telephone number is (501) 374-0699.
