The highly anticipated, overly awaited and excessively analyzed presidential primaries of Super Tuesday have come to pass. The results: there is no unanimous Democratic candidate.

What was scripted to be the climactic rise of a dominant Democratic candidate who might lead the united overthrow of President Bush’s Republican regime turned out to be quite the opposite; more than ever there appears to be no prevailing Democratic frontrunner.

In a political ping-pong match, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton traded states and delegates in the Super Tuesday primaries. From the 16 primaries and seven caucuses that took place on Tuesday, estimates have Obama winning 13 states, Clinton winning nine states and one state still under review. In terms of delegates, these states equate to 840-849 delegates for Obama and 829-838 delegates for Clinton. When we look at the complete tallies to date, Clinton appears to be leading Obama 1140 to 1070.

Actual delegates aside, Super Tuesday appears to have done little to truly benefit either candidate. With the Democratic race at almost a dead heat, what message does Super Tuesday send about the state of the Democratic Party?

Six months ago, most would agree that the Democrats seemed united and poised to gain control of the presidency in 2008. Now, the unification of that same party is in question, which certainly poses a major problem if they are to succeed in keeping a Republican — most likely John McCain — from taking office next year.

Although the voters are obviously split, does that justly imply that the Democratic Party itself is divided? Although Obama and Clinton both carry the Democratic label, there are indeed differences between them, and most significantly, their voter bases. Both candidates carry slightly different, but essentially similar, stances on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy and the like. However, the images that the candidates have developed clash considerably.

Sen. Obama is now renowned for his eloquence, dedication to change and relatively youthful freshness that he brings to the political table. Sen. Clinton has construed a different persona — one of vehemence, tenacity and experience. It appears as if both candidates, whether voluntarily or not, are poised to live or die by such images.

Along with such distinct identities comes a select constituency. Males, younger Americans and minorities have typically been Obama supporters. Women, older Americans and blue collar workers seem to overwhelmingly endorse Clinton. With clear differences in both their images and voter base, Obama and Clinton have essentially created a divide among the Democratic Party.

As it goes, at the end of the battle there is only one man left standing, or in this case, possibly one woman. Though the split in support between Obama and Clinton is evident, the extent to which their supporters differ in ideology is uncertain.

In a political world where the clash between Republicans and Democrats is of continual focus, the divide within parties, especially the Democratic Party, is often overlooked. While the Democrats were recently praised for their abundance of qualified candidates, we see that this may not be as much of a blessing as it is a curse. As we have seen with President Bush, no one is capable of successfully leading this country without relatively bipartisan support. Before any Democrat can even contemplate conquering this issue, they must first win the unilateral support of their own party.

As it stands, there is no leading Democratic candidate, but there does appear to be a potentially problematic divide among the Democratic Party.