Given the near ubiquity of the “super tuesday” primary this week, there’s probably somebody out there who voted today (though reader demographics indicate that the people who visit here are most likely to be voting in either the “beltway primary” next week, or in PA’s April primary). While I’m writing this piece on and off throughout the day, I’ll likely be posting it while I’m watching the returns come in this evening (unless I can find a good Mardi Gras party somewhere in the district, but honestly, that’s not terribly likely).

In honor of today’s big news story, I’ll hazard a few predictions; not that I claim to have any prognostication skills, or much of a track record to speak of. Not that any of that matters, the pundits and pollsters with a good history of picking the winning horse have been regularly stymied in this election cycle. In any case, I haven’t had a post devoted solely to politics in a while. It feels like time.

Prediction Time

On the Republican side, I feel it’s reasonably safe to make the call that McCain’s going to pretty much sew up the nomination tonight (that sentence hedgy enough for you?). While he’s not necessarily the conservative’s choice, I can see the party starting to line up behind him. As I said a couple of weeks back, in the absence of any particularly attractive pro-business puppet who speaks the god-talk well, the GOP always go for the guy who’s paid his dues; you stick around long enough, you get your shot at the big chair.

There are no such puppets among the top-tier candidates this time around; Romney’s probably the most traditionally pro-business conservative, but his being Mormon and the fact that Massachussets approved gay marriage and adopted what amounts to statewide health care on his watch while he was governer doesn’t exactly enamour him with the evangelicals. Huckabee, on the other hand, does the “praise Jesus” thing a little too well, which makes the social conservatives like him, but he’s a little too much of a nutjob for the old guard, and some of his talk about helping out the poor (which, strangely enough for a modern evangelical, is ironically Christ-like) sounds, on the surface, downright socialist.

That leaves (Passing over Ron Paul, who’s got the objectivist/pothead/dirigible enthusiast demo locked in, but that’s it…) John McCain, who’s been around forever, and generally votes the Bush party line, deviating only occasionally on stuff like campaign finance reform to keep his “maverick” label in the media afloat. He’s paid his dues in the party; it’s his turn at bat. Despite the fact that certain conservative mouthpieces have been dogging him for months, after tonight, Rush and Beck and Hannity and whoever else will start to fall in line, proclaiming that he’s always been their guy, just like Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.

Looking to the Democrats, nothing’s going to be decided tonight; Senators Clinton and Obama will pretty much split the Super Tuesday delegates. Both camps are actively working to minimize expectations; nobody’s expecting a blowout. The good news is that such a result makes my vote a week from today actually mean something; so much so, that I would not be surprised that both candidates make appearances within a reasonable distance of my house in the next week, which I’m kind of looking forward to.

You Want an Endorsement?

As for who I’m likely to vote for, I’m leaning toward Obama, and have been trending that way for several weeks now (like I’m going to vote for the Republican…you know me better than that!). It’s not that I dislike Clinton at all; I’m actually quite fond of her (despite a few significant votes and statements over the years, which seem calculated, I think, to prove that she’s got bigger testicles than her collegues and/or rivals; a sad enough development that a woman has to in some way “prove” her bona fides by out-macho-ing the boys). Both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses; Hillary’s a great intellect and has a great grasp of policy issues, though she’s perhaps a little too hawkish for my taste. Barack, himself no intellectual slouch, is an inspiring speaker and communicator, his record as a state legislator seems to bear out his “unity” credendtials, but has relatively little experience as a national figure. On the whole, there are few differences between them in terms of policy; in the general election, I’d be comfortable voting for either one.

Still, I think at this point in the American narrative, we need an inspiring leader, not a policy wonk (not to disparage us wonky folks, of course). There’s plenty of room for longer resumes downticket and in the cabinet (not that there’s really anything at all wrong with Obama’s resume; I can only dream of being that accomplished at age 45!). I rather think we need someone who’s going to be able to get people to actually talk together about issues, find some level of common ground, and work on accomplishing something to be proud of – it’s going to take a uniter (“you keep using that word, Mr. Bush…I don’t think it means what you think it means”) to clean up the mess the last eight years have left; I’m not sure Clinton’s got the large-scale people skills to pull it off elegantly; I believe Obama probably does.

Also, cliche as it is, I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea that there’s been either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 1988 (back to 1980 if you count Bush 41’s terms as VP). I have enough distaste for the concept of dynasty when it comes to professional sports (thanks for Sunday by the way, New York!); I really don’t want it in my executive branch.

Yeah, I’ll vote for “Change”, but change in the sense of choosing something new and novel over something we’ve probably seen before; I’m willing to give the new guy a chance to show us what he’s got.

So, uh, Obama-rama.

I count twelve thirteen parenthetical asides (you’d think I was Jim Gaffigan or something) in this post. I believe that’s a new record.