February 5, when the Democratic presidential nominee will probably be determined, is still nearly four weeks away, and a lot can happen before then. So it seems early to predict who that nominee will be.

Still, Barack Obama's surge has been startling - and captivating. "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to feel moved by this," wrote the Times' pro-Republican David Brooks after Obama's Iowa win.

Part of the Obama appeal is pure charisma, which he has in abundance and Hillary Clinton does not, at least not for many people.

But Obama's message is compelling. And it's important. It is resonating in a way that political speeches seldom do, touching something deep within voters. It is a rejection of the politics of fear. It is creating hope that the country will return to its principles. And it has spurred a renewed interest in politics among Americans.

"You have done what America can do in this new year, 2008," he told Iowans after his win in their caucuses. "In lines that stretched around schools and churches, in small towns and big cities, you came together as Democrats, Republicans, and independents to stand up and say that we are one nation, we are one people, and our time for change has come."

"You'll be able to look back with pride and say this was the moment when it all began," he said. "This was the moment when the improbable beat what Washington always said was inevitable. This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for too long."

Obama described his victory as "a defining moment in history."

"This would sound ridiculously self-important coming from any other candidate," Michael Tomasky wrote in The Guardian. "But every American understands intuitively what he's talking about; he extends America's tragic narrative of slavery and segregation and discrimination and converts it into something hopeful, something that announces that we are, finally, becoming a different and better country."

"Barack is the one, and the only one, who is right for this time," Illinois Representative Jan Schakowsky told The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild. "He will change the narrative of the United States around the world and make it possible to even hope for a peaceful century."

Hillary Clinton has been dismissive of Obama's oratory. But by doing that, she dismisses the voters who are turning to him. Her failure to understand the importance of his message, her failure to grasp its resonance with voters, may be as significant as her impressive experience in government and in politics.

One of the best of the Democrats' candidates, Delaware Senator Joe Biden, withdrew after the Iowa primary. It's a shame - and I can't figure out why the experienced, thoughtful Biden couldn't get more traction.

In one of the presidential debates, Tim Russert asked the Democratic candidates to promise "that Iran would not build a nuclear bomb" during their presidency. "Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards played the old survival game of running out the clock," wrote David Remnick in his New Yorker piece on Benazir Bhutto last week. Biden refused to simplify the issue, noting that Pakistan has far more highly enriched uranium than Iran has, and that a US attack on Iran could lead to the fall of the Pakistani government.

In the wake of Bhutto's death, wrote Remnick, "it is hard not to recall [Biden's] moment of clarity and his grasp of historical complexity - the recognition that political decision-making is not a matter of raising three fingers and making a scout's pledge."

Political campaigns today have little patience with complexity and detail, and that may be one reason Biden's no longer in the race. His withdrawal is the country's loss, though. I'm hoping he ends up in a new president's cabinet in 2009.