Who We Are

A pretty apt summation from John Heilemann in New York Magazine:

"If you find yourself drawn to the Clinton candidacy, you likely believe that politics is politics, that partisanship isn't transmutable, that Republicans are for the most part irredeemable. You suspect that talk of transcendence amounts to humming "Kumbabya" past the graveyard. You believe that progress comes only with a fight, and that Clinton is better equipped than Obama (or maybe anyone) to succeed in the poisonous, fractious environment that Washington is now and ever shall be. You ponder the image of Bill as First Laddie and find yourself smiling, not sighing or shrieking.

If you find youself swept up in Obamamania, on the other hand, you regard this assessment as sad, defeatist, as a kind of capitulation. You're perfectly aware that politics is often a dirty business. But you believe it could be a bit cleaner, a bit nobler, a bit more sustaining. You think that paradigm shifts can happen, that the system can be rebooted. Most of all, an attraction to Obama indicates you are, on some level, a romantic. You never had your JFK, your MLK, and you desperately crave one: What you want is to fall in love."



What I especially like about these descriptions is that Clinton supporters can recognize some of the Obama attributes in themselves, no doubt, and vice versa. It portrays the ideology of both camps in a (somewhat) positive light, and makes the argument that both have the best interest of the country at heart. And underlying it all is a desperate plea to to the faithful of the losing candidate, whoever that may be: don't forget that you're a liberal, a democrat, and that our country needs one of these two people as president. We need it badly. So when the loss comes, mourn the memory for a day if you need to, then shed it like an old coat and support your party.