The Perils of Passion

Once upon a time there was a primary election, and it was good. Excellent, even. Millions of voters went to the polls, and millions watched televised debates, even though it seemed as though there were millions of debates. Young people awoke from what had been a long and completely understandable somnolence, and older people got a second wind, and people who had felt disenfranchised felt franchised. All the old saws about American apathy had to be packed up and put away.

Less than a year later one person walked into the Oval Office and sat down at the president's desk to clean up the sorry mess accumulated there: the bloated deficit, the fractured international relations, the ill-conceived war, the forgotten domestic agenda. And whether that will be a happy ending—and a happy beginning—depends on what happens between this day and that one.

It's conventional wisdom that a long primary battle, like the one now being waged between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, inevitably leads to a disadvantaged contender limping, bruised and battered, into the general election. But most conventional wisdom about this election has been dead wrong. It's easy to cite unequivocal quotes from those who predicted the invincibility of Clinton, the death knell of John McCain and the inevitability of Rudy Giuliani. Political junkies have had to learn the lesson of addiction: one day at a time.

But if it's perilous to predict exactly who will be the candidate, it's important for Democrats to plan on how to approach the election. Here's the lesson of Super Tuesday: a significant number of voters didn't actually know what lever they would pull until the very last minute. This was not because the undecideds were feckless come-latelies who hadn't been paying attention, but because they had to make a difficult calculus between two good choices. An NBC poll reported that seven out of 10 Democrats said they would be happy with either one.

That may not have been the case with passionate Obama supporters, who style Senator Clinton as same-old, or passionate Clinton supporters, who suggest that Senator Obama is mostly style over substance. But one of the pitfalls of passion is that it overwhelms pragmatism. I voted for Clinton in the New York primary; I believe her learning curve for the presidency would be slight and her ability to turn good policy into legislation considerable. I was appalled by her vote on the Iraq War; I have always been impressed by her grasp of issues.

But like many primary voters, I could support Obama, too; his confident climb has been an inspiration and his positions are not much different than those of his opponent. At a certain point it's necessary to untether policy and personality and consider not only whom you like, but what you want.