This question just got a whole lot more interesting in the past week. Let's look at the Republican side first. Super Tuesday's primaries and caucuses certainly gave front runner status to John McCain. Mitt Romney's announcement to suspend his campaign today truly gives McCain the Republican nomination. Personally, I feel that Romney realized his shot at winning outright was slim, and a brokered convention is never in the interest of the party. My guess is, that by dropping out now, he is aiming for a VP consideration. It makes sense too, McCain has the experience in Washington, foreign policy understanding, while Romney will bring a strong economic background to the table. Age needs to be considered too, McCain is 72...two terms would really be asking a lot from him. A McCain presidency certainly sets up his VP for a run in as little as 4 years. If Romney stayed in the race, I honestly feel that Mike Huckabee was going to be looking at the VP spot with McCain, but his chances certainly dimmed now. Personally, I think McCain was the best of the Republicans running, but I didn't like everything about him. He's a moderate (which is good), and he has shown the willingness to compromise and work across the aisle (ie. work with Dems). No matter who wins the Presidency, he/she will need to end partisan politics. I don't like his continued support of the war in Iraq, and even escalation (remember, he strongly supported "the surge" plan). He is also admittedly weak in the economy (can be helped with aides). Also, ultra-conservatives need to wake up and realize that America does not want (nor do we need...in my opinion) another ultra-conservative in the White House. Clearly, the number of supporters McCain, Obama, and Clinton have far outweighs Romney and Huckabee (the two more conservative major candidates). In fact, the criticism by conservative pundits only hurts the Republicans as a party (for a fair take on this, read this commentary).
If Super Tuesday clarified the Republican nominee, it just as equally muddied the water for the Democratic nominee. Clinton and Obama continue to run close in many polls, and have interesting splits in demographics (male/female, black/white/hispanic/asian, young/old, and combinations thereof). It is certainly feasible for the Dems to have a brokered convention with neither nominee locking up enough delegates to win outright. This clearly hurts them, as McCain can start campaigning nationally, and the Dems can't respond outright, since they will continue to argue with each other. Honestly, I don't believe there is a huge difference in Obama and Clinton on policies. The pros and cons for each is identical. Experience and Washington knowledge (Clinton has it, Obama doesn't). What one claims as a pro, the other views as a con (and vice versa). It's too close for either to opt out of the race and become a VP for the other. Honestly it could come down to who each chooses as a potential VP candidate (I could easily Bill Richardson hoping in with Clinton, and John Edwards trying to join with Obama).
As a moderate, McCain was the only Republican who could win the general election against either Clinton or Obama. If he gets full GOP support, and announces a conservative as a running mate (such as Romney), and Clinton and Obama continue to duel, the November election could get very, very interesting. The worst case for Republicans (or best case for Dems) would be if ultra-conservatives get a third-party to run. That would steal votes exclusively from McCain, and would hand the White House to the Dems (in what could be a landslide election). As I said in the title, the question of who will be President just got a lot more interesting. I can honestly say that the choice of a VP has never been more important (it is likely the deciding factor on the Democratic nominee, and the only chance the Republicans have of winning by "energizing the base").
On a Mitt Romney note: I don't really like the guy. He comes off as a slimy politician to me. He gets elected (and fairly popular) in Mass. by playing a moderate and even socially liberal. When running for the GOP nomination, he suddenly acts like Reagen reborn. While you can't doubt his economic knowledge, I think he wants to bring back Reagenomics, and that is exactly what he country needs to avoid (unless you are the top 2% of income). Then in his announcement today says, "In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror." The implication is that a Democrat will "surrender to terror." I thought a lot of this fear mongering politicking was over (after realizing many of the Bush lies). Every single candidate running for President wants to protect the country, and to imply otherwise is just moronic. This attitude (in addition to zero foreign policy knowledge, Reagenomics, Bush-esque fear mongering, and flip-flopping for support) means that Romney will never receive a vote from me (even as a VP).
Stay tuned, it's going to stay interesting for quite some time.
Also, the ability to tell all riders in the car, "If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 miles per hour...you're gonna see some serious $#!+." Again, my desire for this car is completely impractical, but still, how sweet would it be to roll up in a car famous for being a time machine, and with doors that open up. It is by no means my dream car (corvettes and old school mustangs fit that category), but nonetheless, I would certainly own one if Powerball ever swings my way. Until then, I'll stick with my full size family sedan and occasionally check eBay for DeLoreans....for absolutely no good reason.
