The sport of politics. The politics of sport.

I love Jack Cafferty, the CNN contributor who inserts himself into Wolf Blitzer’s “Situation Room” for a side comment or two. Looking at the lay of the land Wednesday, Cafferty observed that, despite the craving for change in Washington within the electorate, Super Tuesday’s presidential primaries are likely to land voters with establishment candidates on both sides: Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and John McCain for the Republicans. He then reminded viewers of a well-known definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. “When it comes right down to it, why won’t we really vote to change things?” Cafferty asked.

Here’s my answer (which is embedded in the thesis of my book, “Democrats in the Red Zone”): If we don’t end up with at least one non-establishment candidate for president, blame the Democrats. Why? Because they are the only ones who have the opportunity to present America with real change. So, if old-school Democratic voters and leaders of the liberal establishment hand Super Tuesday to the Hillary Clinton camp, it means they still don’t get it.

Remember: We’re talking about a party that managed to mismanage its relations with both Michigan and Florida primary voters because of politically short-sighted squabbling between the state parties and the Democratic National Committee on when those MAJOR STATES could hold their primaries. Michigan and Florida wanted to go before Super Tuesday and the DNC wouldn’t let them. So there were basically no Democratic primaries and no excitement of Democratic candidates campaigning in those two MAJOR STATES. That’s what we at Red Zone Blogitics call “bad coaching.” The situation prompted Lou Dobbs to comment before the Michigan primary (the Republicans had one, maybe because they’re elephants and not jackasses) that such stupidity by establishment politicos is why so many of us want a third-party option.

Red Zone Blogitics guesstimates that, if the Dems go with the status quo, unimaginative, usual-suspects approach on Super Tuesday, the country will probably end up going with the Republican at general election time. This is because many of the voters who want to see Obama as the nominee will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton. Namely, Independents, GUYS — and even some women.

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill told Blitzer she hoped Edwards’decision to drop out of the race would benefit Obama. Edwards voters are invested in seeing change, she said. On the question of Obama’s relative “inexperience,” McCaskill said that the endorsement of Obama by Senator Ted Kennedy spoke to the confidence more “experienced” Democrats have in Obama’s leadership abilities.

Kennedy and his niece, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, shared the stage with Obama during a rally at American University in Washington, D.C. Monday. Schlossberg had just endorsed Obama in a glowing New York Times editorial.

Leadership — namely, leadership STYLE — is the key. Bureaucrats have experience, but can they inspire millions of people? Leadership is more about delegating than micromanaging. Between Obama and Clinton, which candidate is the delegator and which the micromanager?

Obama is a quarterback — a potentially great one, like the Patriots’ Tom Brady. You can bet he’s taking notes on New England’s team karma. “We play everyone,” is Pats Coach Bill Belichick’s motto. The greatest quarterbacks — as any great leaders do — play well with others who are ALSO great. They allow those in “secondary” roles to shine, and in so doing contribute to the “total team.”

The Democratic Party needs leaders with a total team mentality — not a “me first,” or “my turn” mentality dripping with a sense of entitlement. Whether Democrats are ready to answer their own call to change remains to be seen. Super Tuesday may not be the Super Bowl of politics, but it could be the conference title game that determines who goes on to face the Republicans in November.

“Change” — it’s a lot easier said than done.

Yours Truly, A. F. Cook