Are we the still-staid, rusted remnant of the industrial age, comfortable with sameness, a place where politics is more about process than performance?

Or are we more than our stereotype, open to the prospect of changing the process, of being something not so easy to label?

We'll see.

If, as many predict and expect, Hillary Clinton wins by 6 percentage points or more, I think we are the former.

If, as is possible, Barack Obama pulls an upset, we clearly are the latter.

It's an extraordinary race between two candidates of ability and appeal.

Yet there are unambiguous differences.

Clinton's campaign is classic top-down politics, appealing to established Democratic voters and supported by established Democratic pols.

She's backed by Gov. Rendell, state party chief T.J. Rooney, the mayors of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Erie, Scranton, Harrisburg, Wilkes-Barre, Allentown and more.

Obama's is a rare bottom-up effort, appealing to younger and newer voters, supported by only a handful of incumbents, most prominently freshman U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr.

It's the reliability of old politics versus the possibility of new politics.

The difference is evident in fundraising.

Clinton has more old-style money from traditional donors as well as from business, labor and single-issue PACs (political action committees).

The most recent federal finance filing shows Clinton with $1.15 million from PACs.

Even though this is just 1 percent of her total (she also loaned herself $5 million), it suggests a (million dollar) comfort level with old-school politics that Obama does not share.

Obama takes no money from federal PACs. As such, and even though he takes funds from employees of special interests, his campaign represents more of a break with politics-as-process than does hers.

And, look, both raised extraordinary amounts from individuals, a positive reflection on their historic candidacies.

But the fact that his overall fundraising is more successful ($193 million compared to $169 million) suggests an interest among voters in bottom-up politics.

The tone of the campaigns also is different.

Clinton's is pretty standard: "in it to win it," throwing the "kitchen sink" at Obama, who is not a Muslim "as far as I know."

Obama's is outward reaching, seeking more the inclusion of voters than the confrontation of opponents.

In last week's Philly debate, for example, Clinton did well in part due to focus on flag pins and other non-issues, what Obama calls "the politics that feeds on fake controversy."

She's better at the game.

She's in the Rendell mold, a masterful and fierce campaigner who works the process to get elected and maybe make progressive improvements - without fighting for fundamental change.

Rendell, for example, got a long-overdue increase in the minimum wage, some long-overdue property tax relief and more money for education, especially in early childhood.

All good things; but basics to improve representative democracy and trust in government - campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of special interests or reapportionment reform to make legislative districts competitive - are little more than afterthoughts.

Clinton, if elected, no doubt brings positive change to the country. I just don't see her championing systemic change in Washington.

And I'll grant it's far from clear that Obama, if elected, can effect such change. But he offers at least that potential.

It's hard to see our state as a breeding ground for political progress (though the controversial '05 legislative pay raise led to some reforms, and the '07 Philly mayor's race suggested a taste for change).

But we find out tomorrow.

Is it Clinton and the politically familiar? Or Obama and the possibility of a politics that Pennsylvania's never practiced?

By John Baer, Philadelphia Daily News, April 21, 2008