The California primary is 11 days away, and I still have not chosen a candidate. This is a first for me.

Florida is the ideal proving ground for my vote. The Democrat who can win it there, can win it everywhere.

As far as the issues go, there is barely any daylight among the three Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. As a citizen, and particularly as a Democrat, I’d be happy if any of the three of them were president.

The whole “change” versus “experience” debate left me cold. There will be “change” no matter who is elected, and the main “experience” I’m looking for is a history of winning elections against Republicans.

The fighting between Clinton and Obama, which frequently reads as bickering — “Mom and Dad, quit fighting!” — may appear on the surface to be all about style and superficialities, like race and gender. But behind the finger-pointing, eye-gouging and hair-pulling there is a political street fight going on that is as serious as it is harrowing.

The Clinton campaign is going after Obama by targeting his strengths — particularly his very authentic, visionary persona (by bringing up purportedly unsavory business associations in his past) and his inclusiveness, both across the aisle (by highlighting his positive remarks about Ronald Reagan which, to be fair, were a backhanded slap at the Clinton presidency) — and, more subtly, across the racial divide.

Race has become a hot topic since the campaign moved to South Carolina, a small state where Democrats make up only a third of the electorate, and a place so steeped in its racist history that it probably won’t ever recover. I suspect race will become less of an issue as the campaign moves on to the rest of America where racism is pervasive but less ingrained in the culture.

Northern-born pundits are shocked — shocked! — that there is racism in South Carolina. But it’s hard to make a case for even mild surprise that, according to the latest poll, Palmetto State Democratic voters have aligned themselves along historic norms: 76 percent of white voters are voting for the white candidates (40 percent for Edwards; 36 percent for Clinton), while 10 percent say they’ll vote for Obama, with 14 percent undecided.

Among African-Americans, 59 percent say they plan to vote for Obama, 25 percent for Clinton and 4 percent for Edwards, with 12 percent undecided.

It is extremely beneficial to the Clinton campaign that South Carolina voters see Obama not as an heir to Robert Kennedy (whose speechwriter, Ted Sorenson, is on his team), but rather as this year’s model of black niche candidates like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who had zero chance of winning the presidency.

Conversely, no objective of the Obama campaign was more important than avoiding this precise racial pigeon-holing. Whether the Clinton campaign deliberately set out to revise Obama’s beyond-race persona, or whether they just stood aside and let nature take its course, is irrelevant, politically.

If it was a concerted strategy, yes, it was an ugly and divisive thing to do. But stop for a minute and imagine how the Republicans will use the issue of race if Obama becomes the nominee. You ain’t seen ugly and divisive yet. If Obama can’t effectively re-reposition himself now, how will he handle it when the source of the race-baitng is Karl Rove or someone nearly as dastardly and evil?

In general, Obama has been a bit lackluster both on defense and offense. He went after Clinton on her weakness: her credibility — “She will say anything to get elected” — which the Republicans attacked ad infinitum in the 1990s to no avail. But, most importantly, Obama could not, or did not, deploy a surrogate to return the volleys against Bill Clinton so that he, as the candidate, could stay above the fray and, more importantly, on message.

Granted, it’s hard to come up with a surrogate to go toe-to-toe with Bill Clinton. (Maybe Oprah.) But this is precisely the point. The real street fight begins after the conventions. He or she who whiffs or waffles now will be sliced up when the real war starts this fall.

So, okay, I’m leaning toward Clinton but why am I undecided?

As an American, Obama’s message resonates. We need to come together as a country, and the fastest, most efficient way for that to happen is from the top down. (However, it should be noted that the least partisan presidents in my lifetime — Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter — are generally regarded as political losers, but hasten to add that Carter is the only living political leader I completely admire.)

Like a lot of Democrats, I have not jumped on Hillary’s bandwagon because I’ve been queasy about re-fighting the Clinton wars. On the other hand, nothing has ever angered or energized me more, personally and politically, than the Republicans’ nasty shenanigans in the 1990s. Impeachments are supposed to resolve political crises but the Clinton impeachment resolved nothing. If Clinton is nominated, and the Republicans want to re-fight the 1990s, I say, Bring it on.

So here is the rationale for how I plan to become undecided before Feb. 5:

Unlike any of the states that have voted before, and especially, unlike South Carolina, Florida is a big state with diverse demographics. Florida Democrats — a group with whom I have a bit more than a passing familiarity — are as beaten-down by Republicans, including one named Bush, and eager for a win as any Dems in the country.

That makes it the ideal proving ground for my vote. The Democrat who can win it there, can win it everywhere, or so it seems to me.

So whoever takes Florida next Tuesday will get my vote when California votes one week later.

May the best man or woman win.