California, California, California

They glistened amid hundreds of adoring supporters at a sold-out Los Angeles venue: the gorgeous, studious female and the charismatic, affable dark-skinned male, engaged in perhaps the pinnacle of presidential debates for this generation, discussing their plans for health care and Iraq, all the while smiling, laughing, and doing their best to make us forget the vicious struggle in South Carolina. Each, so long as no pact has already been made to give us the "dream" ticket, therefore believed they had done enough to cement a favorable result on Super Tuesday.

Thus our question, which one was right?

The gorgeous, studious female.

Why?

All signs, from the South Carolina rout to the latest RCP numbers, show that Senator Barack Obama has accomplished something very few people thought possible, i.e. to come within striking distance of beating the Clintons in a Democratic race, with their enormous reservoir of support in African-American and Hispanic communities, and a frayed-but-not-irrelevant 370/379 coalition waiting to return on November 4. The Illinois legislator won Iowa, narrowly missed New Hampshire, and caused the Dynasty significant pain in the Palmetto state.

Nonetheless, I think Florida told you all you needed to know about how Super Tuesday will go; the Lady will not clinch it, but she is likely to take 55-60% of the delegates and possibly only lose Illinois and Georgia. Only if Obama wins in California will the narrative change and lead to a race-to-the-finish last seen in 1976 between President Ford and Governor Reagan. Barack Obama is a tremendous retail politician, yet the time for that has largely past.

As someone that would contribute to either of their campaigns in the general election, the Messiah needed to do more against HRC last night. Yet, his handlers probably assumed he could not go much farther without endangering his "post-partisanship" air that has made millions swoon. I can easily support both in the final because I am quite confident in how they would address the federal judiciary.

Neither truly impresses me on foreign affairs, yet I recognize my tastes in that realm would fall closer to Mad Mac and Rudy than Clinton 2.0 or some new direction from Obama. The ascension of George W. Bush in 2001 should forever put to rest voting for a candidate based on their international agenda: if another major terrorist attack strikes our soil, no one knows how either Democratic senator would handle it. We do know, however, their position on judges.

Whether they wish to admit it or not, the national media will play a crucial role in determining the "winner" of Super Tuesday. If Senator Obama wins California, even if Mrs. Clinton sweeps virtually everything else, this race will go onward to Ohio and Texas, maybe even Pennsylvania. What will the NYT do if Obama wins just two states yet posts a respectable 47% of the delegates? Will they cover it as "Hillary +6" or "Hillary 20-2"? The latter headline and coverage angle effectively ends the Obama insurgency, as he seeks the most stunning upset ever in a modern US primary race.

And so, at long last, the legions of Cali whiners, to reference but one finally have a real vote in a meaningful campaign. They will either sanction the continuation of Barack Obama's near-impossible dream or validate Hillary Clinton and by implication her family name. Senator Obama must achieve a victory that makes people reconsider the state of the race and Georgia just won't cut it.

California boom or California bust.