I mean Philly Mayor Michael Nutter backing Hillary Clinton.

Was Nutter not the candidate who just last year ran on a message of change? I mean, isn't he all about "a new day?"

And isn't Barack Obama this year running on change? Isn't it "change you can believe in?"

And was Nutter not the African-American candidate able to transcend long-entrenched racial politics in the city?

And isn't Barack Obama the African-American candidate out to transcend racial politics in the country?

Was it not Nutter of whom early in his campaign it was asked "is he black enough?"

And is it not Barack Obama of whom early in his campaign it was asked "is he black enough?"

And was it not Nutter who pushed for campaign-finance limits and ethics reform to end pay-to-play and offer up a City Hall that won't be run by special interests?

And is it not Barack Obama eschewing political-action-committee contributions and saying corporate lobbyists won't run his White House?

(In truth, this latter is a tad disingenuous, since PACs - while so far giving $1 million-plus to Clinton and virtually nothing to Obama - are bit players in presidential-campaign funding compared to overall giving. Still, Obama's clean-it-up attitude is closer to what Nutter expressed in his campaign.)

And is it not Nutter who reaches out to ordinary people, urging that they get involved in government and play an active role in making the city better, with efforts such as his April 5 clean-up-the-sidewalks event?

And is it not Barack Obama stressing broader citizen action, an expanded Peace Corps, more community service and asking college students to volunteer 100 hours in exchange for tuition tax credits?

Look at these two, what they stand for, what they espouse, and tell me they're not coming from the same moment in American politics, a moment seeking to be a turning point, a clean break with the past.

So I ask Nutter: Dude, why are you, the former candidate of change, not backing the current candidate of change?

And he says: "I was a candidate of change, but I wasn't exactly new on the scene."

True. But as evidenced by early standing in last year's primary (he polled at 10 percent in August '06 after lots of attention for quitting Council to run for mayor), he wasn't quite a household name.

And he says: "Are you suggesting she [Hillary] is not a change candidate?"

Well, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton ain't exactly revolution.

And, face it: Because of that Hillarycare crash in '94, she's the only candidate proven to have flopped at making change.

And Nutter says: Yeah, well, she's on target on city issues such as public safety, poverty, education, and "she represents the kind of change the country needs."

Which sounds to me like talking points.

But then Nutter was a Clinton delegate in '92 and is running as a pledged Clinton delegate in the April 22 primary.

So he gets points for loyalty.

(And, maybe, this is partly another stick-in-eye for former mayoral rival Chaka Fattah, who's backing Obama.)

But the mirror image of the Nutter/Obama campaigns and style, the sameness in overall message, the parallel Ivy League-educated smoothness, all strike me as a pretty good match.

When I ask what if Obama gets to the convention with more pledged delegates and more states won, Nutter just says that "a lot can happen between now and August."

When I press, he allows: "If Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee, I'm gonna work my ass off for him."

At least that makes sense to me.

Send e-mail to baerj@phillynews.com.

For recent columns, go to

http://go.philly.com/baer.