KEY POINTS:
Americans are clearly relishing their presidential elections this year, and no wonder. The primaries have produced three candidates, a Republican and two Democrats, who in different ways offer an attractive potential president.
On the Republican side the decision, for so long seemingly inevitable, was finally made yesterday as John McCain won enough delegates to be anointed as the party's candidate. Mr McCain has been a senator of conspicuous integrity, prepared to take unpopular positions when required and stick by them.
The Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have been competing in a race that remains wide open with Senator Clinton's showing in the Ohio and Texas primaries yesterday.
Democrats face the delicious choice of nominating either the first woman or the first African-American for the White House. Either would represent the "change" they promise simply by their arrival in the Oval Office. Relishing their choice, Democrat voters were often heard to say they would be happy with either.
In the end, perhaps Senator Obama offers the greater achievement considering the relative position of the average woman and black American in the United States today and degree of prejudice each faces. His run of victories in the primaries preceding the big ones this week has been phenomenal. The crowds he has attracted and the votes he has won from Americans of all ages and ethnicities suggest that he could indeed be elected. And the turnouts for the Democrat primaries have so heavily exceeded those for the Republicans that at this stage the Democrat nominee seems certain to win in November.
Senator McCain's main hope has been to run against Senator Clinton, a much more polarising personality. Brisk and capable, she has been claiming superior "experience". But, as even her husband observes, incumbents have given experience a bad name this time. Senator Obama responds that experience counts for less than judgment, and he has been reminding crowds at every opportunity that when Senator Clinton's judgment was tested on the most important vote she faced in the Senate - whether to support the invasion of Iraq - she made the wrong call.
Senator Obama is the only one of the three remaining candidates who voted against the war. Senator McCain not only supported the decision but argued from the outset that more troops were needed for the mission. He stands vindicated in so far as the "surge" last year has reduced the violence somewhat.
Iraq may have receded as an election issue but the Obama phenomenon can only reflect the depth of disaffection with the presidency of George W. Bush. His utterances have always left many in the world wondering how such a man survived the scrutiny of the American system. Americans, now contemplating their stale economy as well as the mess in the Middle East, must have come to the same conclusion.
When the finest political pedigree and experience in state government can throw up a George W. Bush, a first-term junior senator untried in executive office does not look so bad. But what might a President Obama mean? His speeches give little hint of hard policy and they have been pandering to the Democratic heartland on opposition to trade deals and the like.
But his campaign is drawing comparisons with John F. Kennedy's for a freshness of spirit rather than a radical programme. If the comparison is valid, his election would bring the excitement of a new generation in power and the untold possibilities that spells. He looks like the winner.
