Fascinating balanced article from the New Yorker that looks at the dichotomous choice that Democrats must make between Clinton and Obama.
http://www.newyorker.com/...
Obama sees himself as a catalyst by which disenchanted Americans can overcome two decades of vicious partisanship, energize our democracy, and restore faith in government.
Clinton presents politics as the art of the possible, with change coming incrementally through good governance, a skill that she has honed in her career as advocate, First Lady, and senator.
Obama offers the possibility that Americans long disaffection with politics and their government can be soothed. This is a very powerful message with both the Congress and the President's approval ratings in the low 20's.
Clinton's message, after the disastrously incompetent and irresponsible Bush era and in the face of a potentially crippling recession, is equally powerful. Vote for her and she guarantees competence and accountability.
These rival conceptions of the Presidency—Clinton as executive, Obama as visionary—reflect a deeper difference in how the two candidates analyze what ails the country. Obama’s diagnosis is more fundamental: for him, the illness precedes the Bush years and the partisan deadlock in Washington, originating in a basic failure of politicians to bring Americans together. A strong hand on the wheel won’t make a difference if your car is stuck in the mud; a good leader has to persuade enough people to get out and push. Whereas Clinton echoes Churchill, who proclaimed, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job," Obama invokes Lincoln, who said, "As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."
The bolded quote above succintly illustrates the appeal of Obama. In order to get things done Partisan gridlock must be removed by uniting both parties for common goals.
Clinton, on the other hand, counterintuitively, looks to break the gridlock by "fulfilling partisanship".
Sidney Blumenthal, a former staff writer at this magazine, who was a senior adviser to Bill Clinton and is now a senior adviser on Hillary Clinton’s campaign, describes the 2008 election as a chance to secure progressive government for years to come. "It’s not a question of transcending partisanship," he said. "It’s a question of fulfilling it. If we can win and govern well while handling multiple crises at the same time and the Congress, then we can move the country out of this Republican era and into a progressive Democratic era, for a long period of time."
Behind all the poll numbers and rhetoric this is the choice we have to make when we go to the ballot box.
There is much more, some of which many including myself will have a problem with, but a must read, IMO.
Disclaimer: I am a Clinton supporter.
Update: I'm sorry I excluded Edwards, but he wasn't included in the article. Bottomline, it's a New York magazine. Realistically, Edwards is not viable in New York. I'm curious, though, how Edwards supporters would fit him into the narrative.