It was Super Tuesday for Republican presidential candidates, and with 10 states and their delegates up for grabs, Mitt Romney's "defeat" of Rick Santorum, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich is expected to propel him to the GOP's nomination. Make no mistake, it's not over yet, but Romney clearly has the inside track to become the Republican nominee.

However, the bigger question is not whether or not Romney can leave the rest of the contenders in his dust, but rather will it really even matter?

Die-hard Republicans and, more specifically, Obama haters, would insist these primaries are critical to the future of America, and no one would argue against the value of this political process, but most experts agree Obama will be extremely hard to unseat come November.

The last four years have been among the most challenging in the history of this great nation. Faced with a myriad of issues that have threatened everything from our fragile economy to national security, Obama has held firm and, in this writer's humble opinion, sincerely tried to do what's best for America and its citizens.

With that said, there's no question many would disagree with several of Obama's decisions, and that's as it should be in this land of the free and home of the brave, but there can be no doubt about his demonstrated ability to lead and remain above the fray when all around him seems to be crumbling.

The difficulties of the next four years could be just as bad - if not worse - and it doesn't seem prudent to risk a dramatic change in leadership at this crucial/dangerous juncture. There's entirely too much at stake to put someone new in the White House and then sit back and watch as a president-in-training tries to figure it all out ... regardless of who that may be.

And perhaps more importantly, the second term of any president is when he (or someday, she) can actually get some things done and, hopefully, put this country back on a course of economic prosperity, energy independence and peace.

With no political agenda to adhere to in order to get re-elected, a second-term president is free to pursue his or her true vision for America and perhaps find a way to unravel the debilitating and unproductive gridlock that has paralyzed Congress and, as a result, the United States in general for far too long.

Following the primaries and observing as the candidates seemingly take turns stumbling, recovering and moving forward is fascinating, but in the end it will more than likely be remembered as an exercise in futility.

The bottom line is this: With all the turmoil the United States will have to deal with today and well into the future, Americans will be more apt to support a "known" leader rather than an "unknown." It's been proven time and again the electorate will ultimately vote for their country ahead of a certain political party. And those votes usually decide the winner.

But now that I've declared Obama will win a second term as president, I'd withdraw every cent from your savings account and put it on Romney.



Getting an edge

Back in the days of showdowns on main street at high noon, the smart gunfighters would seek a certain edge before throwing down with some rapscallion.

For some that meant always making sure the bright sun was at their back, shining in the eyes of their adversary, or perhaps sticking their six-shooter in their belt rather than a holster so they could draw and fire quicker. Whatever it took to gain an advantage.

And that's really what parents are doing when they "redshirt" their kids when it comes time to enroll them in kindergarten.

CBS television had a piece on this type of "redshirting" on its show "60 Minutes" last Sunday, and it explained how many parents in America are opting to let their kids begin kindergarten later rather than sooner.

In other words, rather than signing their children up for kindergarten as soon as they become eligible, they wait until the next year in order to give their son or daughter an advantage from the get-go ... a definite edge.

This trend is certainly nothing new, and it's a known fact that an "older" kindergartner has a "leg up" on the competition - so to speak - academically, socially and especially athletically. The statistics speak to this phenomenon loud and clear.

Naturally, this isn't true in every instance. There are 5-year-old kindergartners who excel just as much, if not more, than their 6-year-old counterparts, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

Is it wrong and something that needs to be corrected? I don't think so. In today's ultra-competitive world, a kid needs to take advantage of every break he or she can get, and if that means waiting a year to start school, then so be it. It certainly makes sense.

It is the parents of the child who must decide, and no one can blame them for trying to help their offspring get off to a good start.