At Sadly,No!, HTML Mencken has a longish analysis of this whole phenomenon, a reality check for those so lost in glorifying one or another of the candidates. I disagree with some of what he says, as well as his stance of being "above it all". Yet, over all, he does have some points worth considering and taking to heart.
It’s not the support or supporters I object to, it’s the enthusiasm and the fanatics. For any politician. But especially for such mediocre ones. After all, it’s not as if either Clinton or Obama are exactly FDR incarnate; they are both fairly average “liberal” politicians who are thoroughly schooled in the arts of serial triangulation. They ain’t radical; nor are they idealist; they are simply better than any Republican alternative. They’re good enough for a vote (with or without one’s nose tightly held) but that’s it. It just won’t do to mask this homely reality with fawning, drooling praise of either politician.
I think the comparison to an elevated FDR in particular is wrong - Obama and Clinton are not as good at the nitty-gritty of politics as Roosevelt was (he was the master manipulator of persons; I doubt if any President we have ever had was able to sit and listen to all sorts of people and have those people leave believing that he agreed with them), but both of them are both far more intelligent and understanding of certain policy matters. Roosevelt left the details to others, particularly his eminence gris Harry Hopkins. Neither Obama nor Clinton have such an aide-de-camp, and would probably be scorned if they did (Hopkinis was to Roosevelt what Rove was to Bush, the brains behind the throne; in the former case, however, Hopkins was not amoral).
I think it odd that we liberals are investing so much emotion in the current candidates. Even if either or both of them were far better than they are - and for all their flaws they are both quite able, both politically and practically - they would still not qualify for the fawning so many supporters seem to heap upon them. They are people running for high political office, a status that compromises them. They are both smart, well-spoken, hard-working. They are also compromised by the debts they owe to the many powerful people who have supported them for their own, narrow ends. I think Mencken's point about neither of them being particularly progressive or idealistic is not quite true. I also think there are many who exist at the further ends of the political spectrum who will indeed hold their noses as they vote for either candidate come November.
On the other hand, the Democrats have had to suffer under the burden of having several bright, talented, attractive candidates run for the Presidency. John Edwards, Obama, Clinton - all three have many qualities that far exceed any Democratic candidate in recent memory, including Bill Clinton who had many of Roosevelt's best qualities, as well his worst. It has been a good year for Democrats for a change, which is part of the reason neither side is budging all that much. I also think the narrow practical divide is part of the reason it is so heated; the smaller the difference, the more they will be exaggerated for effect.
For example, I support Obama for the simple reason that I think his motivational style has been a boon for the Democratic Party, and will be so for the country. I do not have illusions that his style of governance will differ all that much from a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton. Charges and counter-charges of racism and sexism, from the media and supporters of each candidate, while hardly sustaining the myth of "the most heated primary ever", certainly do not help.
Should Sen. Clinton win the nomination, I will support her in the general election, write nice blog posts about her, urge others to vote for her, etc. This doesn't mean I don't support Obama whole-heartedly; it just means that in the best American tradition, I will be as practical and pragmatic about what is in our best interest, politically, as I can.
