The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Romney Adds Three Victories and Clashes with Obama,” describes the final act of the Republican presidential primary and the beginning of the general election.

Romney easily put away his main opponent, Rick Santorum, in primaries in Maryland, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin, effectively shutting down his campaign. You can tell it’s over by the nature of the coverage: MSNBC, for example, is no longer convening a panel of its star commentators and has relegated the primary coverage to the existing show formats.

The beginning of the general election was punctuated by the first mention of Mr. Romney by name by the President. He made sure that everyone knows the true nature of the Paul Ryan Republican budget, and that its cuts and decimation of social spending go well beyond the war on women, which continues unabated.

Perhaps, the most damning indictment of the Republican budget is that we’ve already tried it — providing tax cuts to the wealthy/job creators — and it doesn’t work. The only other reason for the Republicans to keep pushing it involves the fact that their main contributors are the ones who would benefit most.

Mitt Romney is now trapped by the fact that he ran almost completely negative ads to win the nomination, and his failure to supply a vision for our nation can’t be whipped up at the last moment.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Romney is Victor by Wide Margin in Illinois Vote,” describes what is probably the culminating election in his bid for the Republican nomination. He decisively beat Rick Santorum in a state that was up for grabs just a few weeks ago, and carried a broad demographic range of voters including married women and Tea Party supporters.

Mr. Santorum would be wise to consider quitting the race at this point. He doesn’t want to unnecessarily alienate people and, should Romney fail to win this year — a distinct possibility — Santorum would be well-positioned to make his “conservative” argument for the next cycle.

It should be noted, however, that the delegate selection process is extremely complex and is based on a patchwork of state rules and degrees of commitment. Some delegates are bound to their candidates; others are only pledged; and some are completely unbound.

In fact, the delegate count is very much of an inexact science with each campaign having their own total; there is also an AP count; and the Republican National Committee has its own tally.

However, despite the exact numbers, the schedule now favors Mitt Romney as well. The Pennsylvania primary isn’t until April 24, and that’s a long time for Santorum to rack up defeats in this momentum-driven process.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “G.O.P. Rivals Split States’ Primaries; Santorum Strong,” shows that the Republican race is not over yet. But Mr. Santorum still needs to turn around the current dynamics because Mitt Romney is winning more delegates, the ultimate deciders of the result.

More than 400 delegates were at stake, about 20 percent of the total, and organizational weaknesses by the Santorum campaign prevented him from fully capitalizing on his strong showing in Ohio. Meanwhile, though, he did win in Tennessee (a surprise) as well as Oklahoma and North Dakota. And with Newt Gingrich’s win in his home state of Georgia, Romney is becoming tagged as a candidate with a Southern weakness.

Mississippi and Alabama hold primaries next week, and if Romney can win at least one of them, he will go a long way towards silencing his critics. Still, Republican voters are clearly not enamored with him, and their lack of enthusiasm may not translate directly into a loss of votes, but the lukewarm attitude will definitely cut into the number of volunteers he can command, a critical component of the general election.

The Republican race is still in a muddle with no prospect for clarification any time soon. Super Tuesday may have been super for the Democrats, but for the Republicans, not at all.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Campaigns Grow More Dependent on Super PAC Aid,” releases the contribution figures for January for both the Presidential candidates and their “non-affiliated” Super PACS. The results show the overwhelming results of the Supreme Court’s Citizen United ruling that authorized these new structures to begin with.

The Super PACs for the four main Republican candidates, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, raised more than $22 million in January, more than the candidates themselves, and they ended the month with more cash on hand than the candidates, too.

One important fact to note is that for the traditional campaign channels, where the contributions are limited to $2,500 per person, Mitt Romney has maxed out on a larger percentage of his contributors — 44 percent — than the other candidates. This means it will be more difficult for him to raise funds through this channel, thus foreshadowing an even greater role for his Super PAC.

Of course, all this money in politics is tantamount to corruption, or, at the very least, undue influence by the donors. One hopes that after the campaign is over, the Congress will consider some form of legislation to eliminate this travesty. At this level, donations are not equivalent to the type of free speech that our Founders had in mind. And even the Supreme Court has acknowledged some limits to free speech: you don’t have the freedom to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater!

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Secrecy Shrouds Super PAC Funds in Latest Filing,” gives some idea of the way things used to be during the Watergate era, when the Republican National Committee and President Richard Nixon would freely use “slush funds” with no legal penalty.

If anything, things seem even worse this year. As we learn from this morning’s article, it goes beyond just the Super PACs and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, when it opened the door to unlimited contributions to Super PACs.

Now it appears that Super PACs are able to even further disguise their donors by using affiliated non-profit organizations. In fact, one of the donors to Romney’s Super PAC gave $250,000 from a company with a P.O. Box for an address and no known employees.

President Obama truly was prescient when he castigated the Supreme Court at last year’s State of the Union address. I can’t remember the last time our campaigns have been so dirty with negative ads paid for by millionaires and billionaires. The implications for our democracy truly are scary.

How this ruling can be reversed remains to be seen. But it and our democracy can not co-exist for much longer. After this year’s general election campaign, which will be even worse, there will be an undeniable demand for change.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Buoyant Romney Talks of Victory on Eve of Voting,” describes a candidate who sees the nomination within his grasp, but it doesn’t bode well for his campaign and shows a lack of political instincts.

Mr. Romney’s victory lap around Florida reminds me of a celebration by another Republican, George W. Bush and his “Mission Accomplished” banner. It may turn off voters and lead to a closer result than he anticipates, giving a breath of life to an opponent who just won’t go away.

Mr. Romney’s attempt to rub it in after “carpet bombing” a fellow member of his Party gives Mr. Gingrich all the excuse he needs to take the fight all the way to the Convention. And with the new Republican format of proportional allocation of delegates instead of winner-take-all primaries, the Speaker can create a sizable disruption when he gets there.

At his age, Mr. Gingrich has nothing to lose. There will be no campaign four years from now, and he has a reputation for being overly sensitive at the best of times — remember when he shut down the government in a fit of pique after being seated at the back of Air Force One?

Anything less than a double-digit victory for Romney now will be viewed as weakness. That’s what happens when you show too much relish about winning and thereby change the expectations.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Romney Unleashes Attack with Gingrich Sole Target,” describes an increasingly desperate situation for the Romney campaign. After being trounced by Gingrich in the South Carolina primary, and with national polls now showing a Gingrich lead, Romney is trying to reproduce what he did in Iowa, bury the Gingrich campaign in a sea of negativity.

It’s not working. The Adelson family has now ponied up an additional $5 million to counter the Romney’s advantage in organization and fundraising. And you can only go negative so many times before the voters turn off.

We all know the story of Newt Gingrich’s history, his so-called baggage, etc. The reason he is winning is because he is the best debater on the stage. And that’s the way it should be in a democracy.

Tonight, finally, President Obama will get equal time. His State of the Union address will put to rest all the Republican nonsense about him being a socialist, European, etc. The fact of the matter is that his policies have been relatively middle of the road, many of them having been proposed by Republicans in the past.

Anyway, for a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, it’s enjoyable to watch the Republicans in a circular firing squad. However, I wouldn’t be complacent about Newt Gingrich. Romney has already made that mistake, and now, it’s too late for him to rectify it.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Tightening Race is Abrupt Blow to Romney Team,” describes the almost unbelievable turnaround in the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina.

Just a week or so ago, Romney appeared to be the odds-on favorite to win and complete a three-contest sweep, for the first time ever. Then, the Iowa Elections Board declared Santorum the winner in that primary where Romney was previously touted as the leader by eight votes. And Gingrich began his super PAC attack ads on Romney’s tenure as CEO of Bain Capital.

Since then, Gingrich has excelled at televised debates while Romney has hemmed and hawed about releasing his tax returns. And the ability of Gingrich to pivot on a question about his ex-wife, to transform it into an attack on the media, was nothing short of masterful.

Now Gingrich is ahead in the polls, and the Romney camp has switched to a long-term strategy, to grind it out in the hunt for delegates. Romney still possesses the lead in organizational strengths, but then so did Hillary Clinton in her battle with Barack Obama.

The candidates are already starting to look ahead beyond Florida (January 31) to Nevada (February 4). I’m glad not to be living in those states where the citizens will be bombarded by ads day and night.

The lead story in The New York Times, “Obama is Faulted by Swing Voters in a New Survey,” while being spun with the typical Obama-is-in-trouble attitude that has become prevalent in today’s media — because it provides interest and connotes a horse race — carries hope for the President in some important aspects.

First of all, and most important, it notes that the economy is starting to improve, bringing some hope for a positive trajectory as Election Day inexorably approaches. Second, the polling suggests that independent voters have yet to form an opinion about Mitt Romney, the probable and strongest Republican nominee. This gives the Democrats an opportunity to define him — and that definition is increasingly spinning into a rich out-of-touch candidate, a member of the one percent, as the OWS protestors convincingly put it.

Most important, it shows an increasing lack of enthusiasm among Republicans for their eventual nominee. While many of them would vote for even Ron Paul over the President, this turnoff on the race translates to a reluctance to volunteer, a critical element in convincing undecided voters in a close election.

And the President has yet to start his full-court press. The campaign is on the verge of bursting into full view, both with a soon-to-be-deluge of advertisements in swing states and the very public State of the Union address scheduled for Tuesday.

And the President has a very convincing case to make and, as a campaigner, the talent needed to communicate it. While the Republican elite is cynically trying to create a bandwagon effect, they may very well find themselves overextended, out on a limb, just as they were caught by their reluctance to renew the payroll tax cut.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Pressed, Romney Shares Tax Data,” illustrates the different world that the Republican candidate lives in compared to the rest of us. With a fortune estimated at $190 to $250 million, Mr. Romney is particularly divorced from reality. His joking about being unemployed, his reference to more than $300,000 in speaking fees as not very much, and other remarks are easily understood by the top one percent.

At a time of increased awareness about income inequality, and the unwillingness of many of the wealthy to pay their fair share, one wonders how this will play with voters in a campaign against President Obama.

Also, yesterday, Mr. Romney revealed that he pays an effective income tax of 15 percent, far less than many with an earned salary. That’s because the Bush tax cuts treat investment income as a separate class, particularly convenient for the wealthy who earn most of their income in this form.

Of course, Romney’s Republican opponents jumped all over each other to take advantage of the most recent revelations. Gone are the days when it was considered poor form to criticize a fellow Republicans. It’s good to see the Republicans duking it out for a change — because that’s the way our democracy was meant to work, and hopefully it will rebound to President Obama’s advantage.