From South Carolina to Tsunami Tuesday.

Well, this is an interesting cycle so far, isn't it? Looking ahead the next few weeks, what can be said?

On the Republican side, Giuliani seems washed up before he started. What made him think he could blow off the first few weeks of voting? Now he's losing ground in Florida, and with Gov. Charlie Crist's endorsement of McCain, things don't look good for the former New York mayor. It's hard not to see Florida as a must win for Rudy. I guess people needed to hear more than 9/11. As a footnote: Thompson ends his non-campaign (yawn).

Mike Huckabee created a sensation, but seems unlikely to have the base to win many states on February 5th. He's surprised before, and predictions have gone quite wrong many times this cycle, but I suspect his more-maverick-than-McCain image will force the party to rally (ironically) around McCain.

The only real question mark left on the GOP side is Romney. It's hard to imagine anyone voting enthusiastically for another flip-flopper from Mass., but whether he looks good enough to the pro-business and establishment elements to beat McCain remains to be seen.

On the Democratic side, Edwards is pressing on, as he should. He is still viable, with solid support and the vast majority of delegates still to be awarded, and he has a message of economic inequality which should continue to be part of the dialogue.

But that brings us to my real question: Obama or Clinton?

First let's address qualifications. Clinton claims the mantle of experience, but let's acknowledge that the truly experienced Dems (Dodd, Biden, Richardson) have all dropped out of the race. I'm not sure that "living in the White House" is ultimately that relevant. It may be that Clinton is familiar with day-to-day Presidential doings like no other current candidate, and she may have been involved like no first lady before her, but does that really translate into the kind of experience advantage she is claiming? She held no office, she had no security clearance.

That being said, she is a wonk. You don't want to get get into a detailed policy debate with her. She has been a hard working senator. Contrast this with Obama, reportedly disinterested with the inner workings of the Senate, and long on poetry, short on prose, according to the Clinton camp.

On the other hand, Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post, gives Obama's stimulus plan an A-. It's got credits/rebates going to those who need it and are likely to spend it quickly. Edwards gets a B- for being on top of things, without including the best ideas, and Bush gets a B- for not insisting on making tax cuts permanent (a big deal for him). Both lose points, in Bush's case for not putting money where it will be spent, and Edwards for too much lag time in his ideas to truly act as a stimulus. Other Republicans get D's, except for Giuliani, who is too incoherent to be graded. Clinton gets a C+, points for being early, but no ideas to actually "soften the landing". I guess Obama may have good crisis solving ideas after all.

But isn't the poetry part important? I say yes. In office, the president will have to persuade Congress, the American people, and leaders, governments, and people of foreign countries of the value of his/her policies. The bully pupilt is an important, albeit extra-constitutional part of the president's job.

I believe Obama has demonstated an ability to transcend political boundaries. Not only have moderate "liberal's conservatives" such as David Brooks spoken highly of Obama and his presidential potential, but so have iconic conservatives such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer.

Furthermore, Obama appeals to independents. So does McCain. In many ways, independents decide elections. When electability is taken into account, it seems to be Obama's advantage. This is especially important if McCain does indeed win the nomination.

All things considered, I believe Democrats should support the ultimate nominee, but in the meantime: Vote Obama!