Still No Clear Winner

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." ~ George Bernard Shaw

Three primaries. Three different winners. What does this all prove?

Absolutely nothing.

On the Democrat side, Hillary looks to be gathering some momentum, however, she ran pretty much unopposed in Michigan, and still only garnered 54% of the vote. She will declare herself the big winner in Michigan, but the results are misleading.

The way I see it, she did poorly compared to her competition, which was Kucinich, Gravel, and undecided.

I try to put myself in the shoes of a Democrat voter and think, "Who do I vote for if Obama and Edwards are not on the ballot?" I can't think as Democrats do, so I can only surmise, but if I am trying to make a statement against Hillary, I would choose "undecided". If I am simply showing my support for the Democrats, I would vote for Hillary. So, nothing is proved by Hillary winning this primary.

For Republicans, was anyone really surprised that Romney won in a state where he was born and where his father was once the governor?

It is a hollow victory at best.

I'm sure it is heartening that Fred Thompson fared as well as he did, considering he wasn't even running in the Michigan primary. The same goes for Guiliani.

I wonder though, how their decision to skip this particular primary will effect them in the general election should Fred or Rudy win the eventual nomination. Are people generally thin skinned enough to take umbrage at the fact that their state was considered not important enough for Fred and Rudy's campaign?

So, after the smoke has cleared, what have we learned? Is there yet a clear front runner?

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I just don't see any point in holding state primaries.