The candidates – one a twice-elected senator from New York and the other a rookie senator from Illinois – are now the only ones left with the sudden withdrawal of former senator and vice presidential bet John Edwards from the race.

The same thing is happening in the Republican Party. Former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani has likewise abandoned his own bid, leaving Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to fight for their party’s nomination as its presidential candidate.

The much more interesting political episode, however, is the battle between Clinton, who would be the first woman US president, and Obama, who would be the first African-American president of the United States.

This is what makes the race between them most exciting. Even some sectors of the American media have been attracted to their brewing fight. As a matter they have already been sniping, hurling verbal missiles, and exchanging diatribes against each other during the early primaries. And they continue to do so even before the so-called "Super Tuesday" next week that would serve as a national primary for them.

Already, no less than the editorial board of the influential New York Times has published an editorial in which they categorically selected the "brilliant if at times harsh sounding" Hillary Clinton over the "incandescent if still undefined Barack Obama.

In recommending Hillary as their Democratic nominee in the presidential election in November, the NY Times board stated that by choosing Mrs. Clinton "we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee … is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. ‘Firstness’ is not a reason to choose …"

The editorial noted that Clinton and Obama would help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm.

It went on to say that Obama’s campaign around the nation of change may be exciting, but he "holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America."

On the other hand, after hearing Clinton talk about the presidency, her policies and awareness for America’s big problems, the NY Times board concluded, "… We are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breath of, yes, her experience …" And the editorial concluded, Hillary Clinton is "the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."

On its part, the New York Post expressed its own support for Obama’s bid. But, upon reading the editorial, political observers felt that it seemed like a reluctant, if not back-handed, endorsement. "For all his charisma and eloquence," it stated, "Obama sorely lacks seasoning… His worldview is beyond naïve – blithely unaware that America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation."

And, in conclusion, the NY Post observed that Obama’s "all-things-to-all-people" approach to complex domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. ‘Change’ for the sake of change does not a credible platform make."

These are but just two endorsements by the excited American print media. There are surely others. But the tenor of these two editorials seems to indicate hesitance to go all the way for Barack Obama and what one would call his "amorphous promise" for change, unlike their confidence with Hillary Clinton as the more qualified to be the next president of the United states of America.

Apart from all these I have read, too, the declarations of the most influential and powerful African-American figures and ministers in support of Hillary Clinton as the kind of leader that is ready to lead America.