Neutrality is a nebulous, totally subjective concept.

When nations deem it inadvisable to get involved in international wars or disputes, they proclaim their neutrality. When politicians deem it inadvisable to choose sides in a political contest, so as not to create enemies, they proclaim their neutrality.

But this year, in a stunning development on the Northwest Side, Alderman Bill Banks (36th), his ward's Democratic committeeman, has deemed it inadvisable to endorse and support a fellow Democrat -- and a fellow Democratic committeeman -- state Representative Ralph Capparelli (D-15), in the contentious 20th Illinois House District contest against another incumbent, Republican Mike McAuliffe (R-20). Banks has proclaimed his neutrality. And the salient questions are: Why is Democrat Banks not backing Democrat Capparelli? And why is Banks not inclined to work against Republican McAuliffe?

"So what?" proclaims Capparelli, referring to Banks' decision. "It is a Democratic area, and I'll win it with or without his support." Capparelli adds that he's been endorsed by state Senator Jim DeLeo, who is a close Banks ally and a power in both Springfield and in the 36th Ward. McAuliffe fervently disagrees. "Without his support of Capparelli, I will run much better in the ward, which means I will win districtwide," he said.

Repeated calls to Banks, the powerful chairman of the City Council Zoning Committee, to ask him to explain his decision elicited no response. A source close to Banks, however, acknowledged that he met with Capparelli in early September and that he then advised Capparelli that he would be neutral in the race. "That means we're taking no position," said the source, adding that the 36th Ward Democratic Organization "will not be working for Ralph or against Ralph." And that means, in the 36 precincts in the 36th Ward which are in the 20th District, Banks' precinct captains will be neither soliciting votes for Capparelli prior to Nov. 2, nor handing out palm cards containing Capparelli's name to voters on Nov. 2.

Does this tip the scales to McAuliffe?

Both candidates will spend more than $300,000 in their campaigns, and both are well known. With the election just weeks away, the candidates are running on a remarkably level playing field, which means that either could win.

The 20th District runs from Wrightwood in Chicago on the south to Greenleaf in Niles on the north, east of Nagle and west of Canfield, but south of Lawrence to Belmont, it runs west to River Road. It was designed to elect a Democrat, but it elected a Republican in 2002. It contains a total of 119 precincts, of which 89 are in Chicago and 30 are in the suburbs. Of the city precincts, 51 are in the 41st Ward (where both Capparelli and McAuliffe are their party's committeeman), 36 are in the 36th Ward and two are in the 38th Ward. Of the suburban precincts, 24 are in Norwood Park Township (Norridge and Harwood Heights), one is in Niles and five are in Park Ridge (south of Devon).

As the McAuliffe-Capparelli campaign evolves, certain realities have emerged:

First, both candidates' names are readily identifiable, giving neither an edge. Both names have been on the ballot for more than 30 years, and both incumbents are well liked and ideologically in tune with their conservative constituency. Both candidates are generally opposed to tax hikes, abortion rights and gay rights. No hint of scandal has attached to either.

Capparelli, age 79, is the dean of the Illinois House and the deputy House majority leader, having served since 1971. McAuliffe, age 40, is the son of the late Roger McAuliffe, who served in the House from 1973 to 1996; McAuliffe was elected to his father's vacancy in 1996. The legislators had separate Northwest Side districts prior to the 2001 remap, but they wound up living in the sdame district for the 2002 election.

Second, voters do not yet understand why they have to choose between the two well liked incumbents. "They're confused," admitted Capparelli. 'When I tell them that it's a choice between him and me, those who backed me (in the past) are still with me," said McAuliffe. In 2001, after the remap, Capparelli chose to run for re-election in the adjacent 15th Illinois House District, which contained part of his old 13th District, so as to allow his buddy, incumbent Democrat Bob Bugielski, to move into and run in the 20th District. McAuliffe, however, also decided to run in that district, and he outworked his foe and won by 2,583 votes, getting 53.7 percent of the total.

"He is a Republican, and when voters know that, they will back me," Capparelli said Counters McAuliffe: "Party (identification) is not an issue. It comes down to whether they want me or him."

Third, both contenders are well funded, and they will bombard the district with direct mail. "I will spend whatever it takes," said McAuliffe, who is being subsidized by the House Republican leadership in Springfield and who expects them to allocate at least $250,000 to his campaign, which will pay for at least 10 direct-mail pieces. Ditto, says Capparelli, who has almost $1 million in his campaign account. "I am funding my own campaign," said Capparelli, who expects to spend about $300,000 and to have 10 direct-mail pieces.

Fourth, both candidates have significant endorsements. Both say they were endorsed by the Chicago Fire Fighters Union, and Capparelli claims the endorsement of the Federation of Police while McAuliffe touts backing by the AFL-CIO and the Associated Firefighters of Illinois. "I backed them (the labor position) on 100 percent of roll-call votes over 30 years," Capparelli said. "He backed them only 52 percent of the time over 7 years.

"I am the pro-labor candidate," insisted Capparelli, who could not explain why the AFL-CIO endorsed McAuliffe.

Fifth, both contenders have prodigious numbers of lawn signs. Both claim to have at least 2,000 signs already posted, with another 1,000 to come and with 2,000 posted on election day.

And sixth, most critically, both contenders boast that they will have hundreds of precinct workers. Both are attempting to spur ancestral loyalty. Capparelli, a fixture on the Northwest Side for a half-century, is calling on his contemporaries and past backers for help; but many are deceased or have retired and moved away. McAuliffe is trying to resurrect the precinct operation of his late father. The reality is this: There is no state patronage army at the beck and call of either candidate.

Alderman Brian Doherty (41st) is strongly backing his ally, McAuliffe, and there is no evidence that Mayor Rich Daley has involved himself in the race or that he will endorse Capparelli.

So who will win? Both candidates are credible and popular. The key will be who can best sully and discredit his foe. McAuliffe's first mailers were positive, and Capparelli's were negative. McAuliffe has now gone negative.

Capparelli rips McAuliffe on five votes:

(1) In 2000 Capparelli supported and McAuliffe (along with most House Republicans) opposed a bill to cap prescription drug prices; the bill was sponsored by McHenry County Democrat Jack Franks, who used it as a ploy to win-re-election. Capparelli accused McAuliffe of "selling out" seniors. In 2003 McAuliffe (along with Capparelli) backed a plan for the state to buy drugs for resale to seniors.

(2) Capparelli supported and McAuliffe opposed a bill for family leave, giving workers unpaid time off to care for a newborn or a sick family member.

(3) Capparelli supported and McAuliffe opposed a bill to hold HMOs and insurance companies liable if their denial of coverage leads to injury or death.

(4) Capparelli opposed and McAuliffe supported the Human Rights Act, which bars employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

(5) Capparelli opposed and McAuliffe supported the SBC wholesale pricing regulation bill. Capparelli claims that it "raised rates," but, in actuality, it simply mandated that SBC's phone and cable savings be passed along to consumers.

"I thought we would have a positive campaign," McAuliffe said. But since he's been attacked, McAuliffe has responded accordingly:

He sent out a mailer blasting Capparelli for the fact that "$1 million and two government pensions is not enough." Capparelli has almost $1 million in his campaign account, he is receiving a county pension, and he will receive a state pension when he retires. He also sent out a mailer ripping Capparelli for "taking care of number one" and for spending his campaign cash for traveling, a Cadillac lease, presents, and dinners and parties for his friends.

My prediction: In 2002 the inept Bugielski lost the 41st Ward by 4,079 votes, getting just 37.5 percent of the total, lost the suburbs by 981 votes (getting 42.7 percent), and won his 36th Ward base by 2,490 votes (with 61.1 percent). Capparelli will get at least 45 percent of the vote in the 41st Ward and Norwood Park Township, maybe more, but McAuliffe, with Banks' neutrality, will win close to 45 percent of the 36th Ward vote. Expect a McAuliffe triumph of about 300 votes, but don't discount a Capparelli surge and a victory by a narrow margin.