This election has become a crucible of the American Experience, a test of our willpower and faith in humanity; if the candidates are to be trusted, our next president will be that voice and fire of change, not only in Washington but in the world at large as well. But this election isn’t the only crucible we must face in the coming months and years, only the most recognized. Every week I’ll be ruminating about our future in this column, so check back next week for a recap of the glorious leader’s last State of the Union.Packaged in shiny celluloid bites, the coverage of the upcoming election has become a maelstrom of analysis and infotainment. But because of our love of information saturation, it’s gotten hard to tell who is really ahead or what the candidates are really saying.

The South Carolina Democratic debate this past Monday was a distinct departure from the previous debates, as the candidates went from vicious attacks to something that could almost be considered a policy debate and back. It was heated and interesting throughout, focusing mainly on fiscal responsibility, consistency, universal healthcare, race, and of course, Iraq.

Although these topics have become all too familiar since the politicking began, the candidates made a decent show of focusing their ideas and plans; thankfully the Iraq debate didn’t stagnate. Without much tomfoolery, all three candidates gave a timeframe for withdrawal. Senator Hillary Clinton argued for two plus years, Senator Barack Obama argued for an immediate reduction of one brigade every three months with a complete withdrawal in a year and Senator John Edwards said he would move troops immediately, but only as fast as is safe for Americans and for the Iraqi government.

Where the debate sparked the most volatile attacks was on the issue of Ronald Reagan, of all issues. Why partisan tensions and anti-republican sentiments have a place in a campaign resting on bipartisanship and bridge-building is a question best left to the infotainment specialists at CNN, but the topic did provide a glimpse into the personal history of both Clinton and Obama. Prior to the debate, Clinton asserted that Obama believed the Republicans (read Reagan) had better economic policies since 1980. According to the CNN transcript, while on a tangent on the topic of fiscal responsibility, Obama responded to Clinton’s thinly veiled attack,

“What I said was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through . an agenda that I objected to. Because while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart. I spent a lifetime fighting against Ronald Reagan’s policies. But what I did say is that we have to be thinking in the same transformative way about our Democratic agenda.”

Clinton, in response, accused Obama of working for a slumlord. According to the transcript, Clinton said that Obama’s remark came across “as though the Republicans had been standing up against the conventional wisdom with their ideas . They were bad ideas. Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.”

Both candidates rushed to defend themselves from the mudslinging. Obama calmly stated that although the law firm he worked for listed Tony Rezko, a prominent and tainted figure in Illinois politics, he logged only five hours on one of the cases involving Rezko.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama’s campaign also had previously received donations from Rezko, money that had originated from a fraudulent scheme, among other sources. Obama returned the money immediately, once the money’s origins were discovered.

Clinton went on the offensive in response to Obama’s assertion that she worked for Wal-Mart, saying that although she was a corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart, she fought for gender equality and better pay.

But who will win? Who is ahead as of the South Carolina primary? In case you missed it, Obama won by a landslide of 55 percent, Clinton came in second with 27 percent and Edwards took third with 18 percent of the vote, according to CNN. Interestingly, the gender breakdown of the Democratic voters reveals that only 39 percent of the votes were cast by men, while a whooping 61 percent of voters were women. Comparatively, the breakdown for Republicans reveals an equal split of 51 percent male to 49 percent female. I’d say this race just got a whole lot more interesting.