Now the real presidential election can begin as Vice-President Al Gore and Governor George Bush of Texas emerge the clear winners from Super Tuesday. The nominating conventions do not take place until next August but they will be a formality, as usual.

Oddly enough, it is back to square one of a year ago. Then the two men were assumed to be the candidates and the challenges from former Senator Bill Bradley and Senator John McCain had not yet surfaced.

But the bruising primary elections of the past two months have left their mark and it is two different Democratic and Republican standard-bearers who have emerged from the the dust and - alas - the dirt of the campaigns.

Mr Bush has been more damaged by the McCain "crusade" than Mr Gore by the challenge of Mr Bradley, which fizzled out after an exciting start. Mr Bush began by portraying himself as a "compassionate conservative" intent on attracting those moderate and independent voters who would be needed if the Republicans are to win back the White House.

Mr Bush even annoyed Republicans in Congress by criticising one of their measures as "saving money on the backs of the poor."

After his rout in New Hampshire, Mr Bush had little choice but to harden his message in South Carolina and pin down the conservative vote, especially among the Christian right.

A year ago Mr Bush was 13 points ahead of Mr Gore in voter surveys. Now that lead is almost eroded with eight months to go to the election.

But Mr Gore is carrying some tattered baggage, such as the fundraising abuses in the 1996 election. Just last week one his main fund-raisers, Ms Maria Hsia, was found guilty of a list of illegal practices, the most notorious episode of which was his visit to a Buddhist temple in California where monks and nuns were told to contribute to his campaign.

Mr Gore's tactic is to say that he has "learned from my mistakes" and to call for an end to raising so-called "soft money" which escapes the scrutiny of the Federal Electoral Commission. Mr Bush, who has richer backers, has rejected the offer, pointing out that President Clinton is still raising money as hard as he can for the Democratic Party.

Campaign finance reform was the centrepiece of the McCain crusade and was endorsed by many voters alarmed at the corrupting influence of money in American elections. Mr McCain's mistake, it is now said, was to let himself be drawn into a "negative" mode when attacked in the Bush TV ads and phone calls in South Carolina.

There is some truth in this. But the fact is that even before the campaign got dirty, Mr McCain was not able to win a majority of Republican voters. He was a hit with the independents and liberals in New Hampshire, but was distrusted by the party establishment for his too-timid tax cuts, and by conservatives as not dependable on abortion.

The primary campaigns have shown that in a time of unprecedented prosperity Americans are less interested in tax cuts and more in ensuring a good education for their children and using budget surpluses to shore up the social security system for pensions and healthcare in their old age.

Foreign policy hardly raised a ripple during the primaries. But if it does become an issue, Mr Gore would be seen as the most experienced candidate after his eight years in the second-highest post. He would also be seen as more likely to protect the social security system because of his caution on tax cuts.

Mr Bush has a good record on education reform in Texas and it is one of the few subjects about which he is passionate and knowledgeable. He favours allowing parents to be given financial aid in the form of vouchers to move their children from poorly performing public schools to private or religious ones. This scheme is becoming more popular in tough inner-city areas but is opposed by the powerful teachers' unions, which are among Mr Gore's main supporters. So it will be an important issue in the coming election.

In debates Mr Gore will have an advantage over Mr Bush, who has not impressed as able to think on his feet without a script. And Mr Gore has shown a tigerish energy and determination to win at all costs.

Then there is the "Clinton fatigue" factor. Have Americans had enough of the scandals associated with the Clinton/Gore regime and would they like to see a "born again" son of a former president in the White House? Mr Clinton kept a low profile during the primaries and never campaigned openly beside Mr Gore.

Mr Gore wants to take some credit for the booming economy and may be willing to risk having the man most identified with it being on his platforms. Mr Bush tried having his father on the platform in New Hampshire and it only made him look like a son who needed a comforting arm.

More important than father figures will be the choices of running mates. Both Mr Gore and Mr Bush are rather dull figures who badly need interesting faces to enliven their campaigns. The shortlists are already being drawn up.