In the end, the superdelegates dragged Barack Obama over the finish line. It seems almost funny, in retrospect, to consider all of the teeth gnashing in March that superdelegates would push Hillary Clinton over the finish line over the popular choice, Obama. Sometimes life is funny. Party bosses came to the aid of a dynamic candidate who lost the popular vote but mastered a somewhat broken system of delegate allocation, and here we are.

In no way do I mean to diminish what Obama accomplished, and it is no small thing. Congratulations are in order. For tonight, I stand aside and salute the devoted Obama exponents that I jousted with over the last year and a half. Tonight is your night. Enjoy. Be merry- you've earned that.

There exists a deep divide in the Democratic party. It has been writ large in this primary campaign, but I tend to think that it is deeper than Clinton v. Obama. I don't think that it is particularly racial in nature- those overtones were unfortunate but probably inevitable. The "race card" was played, in fairness, too easily by proponents of both sides. I don't, in fact, think that either candidate ever really was guilty of huge transgressions in this area.

I think of the divide in these terms: DLC vs. blogosphere. Wesley Clark vs. Howard Dean, if we can remember back to 2004. These groups are anathema to one another, and frankly, millions of people align closely with one group or another without even really knowning that they are a part of it. There are "DLC" Democrats who have no idea what the acronym stands for, and there are "blogosphere" Dems who don't own a computer.

DLC Democrats tend to be pragmatists who believe that governing toward, if not in the center, wins you elections. You stand up for principles, but negotiate in the name of pragmatism. It is worth noting that the two Democrats elected president in the last thirty two years have both been DLC-style leaders (though Carter evolved). Reagan democrats, when they drift toward a candidate like we saw en masse with Hillary, come here.

Blogosphere Democrats, if you will, are intellectual purists. To these people, Clinton's vote to authorize the war in 2002 was heresy. You are with us or against us. A vote for welfare reform or the occasional Bush judge means that you are practically a Bush Republican. Not everyone in the blogosphere is a part of this group. The orange site whose name I speak with some disdain is certainly a driving force here.

That's the divide in my view, and that is the strongest argument for an Obama/Clinton ticket. There is a little something for everyone to like. I think that the potential exists for the party to be united not just beyond the Clinton / Obama drama, but also maybe more united than we have ever been before.

I have wavered. I am not a blogosphere purist, and I probably won't ever be. But I admit that both groups bring something to the party. Over the past several days, I have done some soul searching. (I am being honest and would appreciate not being attacked.) I don't love Obama. I didn't like his primary campaign for a number of reasons that aren't relevant to this diary. (They're not a secret; check out my user history if you're curious.) I would never vote for John McCain- that would be intellectually dishonest. But I have actively considered writing-in Hillary as my choice for President. It would be an affirmative vote for a Democrat and a progressive. Hillary on the ticket might very well put me in Obama's corner. I have a lot of more thinking to do- I will not take this decision lightly. By the way, before you assault me for being a Republican troll, it might interest you to know that I organized a large-for-Arkansas county for Gore in 2000, which we won by 212 votes, I organized for Kerry to a lesser extent in 2004 and have repeatedly volunteered and donated more money and time than I could afford of either during my ten years as a voter. You don't want to lose a whole lot of voters like me.

Close, gut-checking elections can really change people. My mother is a 55 year old moderate Republican. We have argued and tussled for years over candidates and issues. She is not particularly a feminist, but is marginally pro-choice. She is a woman of strong opinions, as for as long as we have been talking politics, her strongest opinions have been of hate and antipathy for Hillary Clinton. No term was too strong with which to reference her, no insult off limits. To my never-ending amazement, over the course of this campaign, my mom (while always prefacing any statement with "I don't agree with her on anything, but...) became angry at the way that Hillary was being treated. She noted some subtle sexism that I, as a male, did not notice. She was seething over the treatment of Ferraro, and believe me, she was no Ferraro fan. "Fair is fair- and this isn't," she said. She was furious about the DNC decision on Saturday.

Early this evening, I called her. This person whose dislike (hatred, really) of Hillary Clinton spanned thirty years answered the phone with a voice quivering with anger and tears. Amazing.

The point of this too long story (which I swear on piles of Bibles is true) is this:

Dreams were realized with Obama's nomination. Dreams were also dashed today. For millions of women, Hillary Clinton is an American hero. For millions of men, too. I'm living proof.

But, yes- Congratulations to Barack Obama. Quite an acheivement for you and your supporters. I salute your accomplishment. I truly do.

And I thank God for Hillary Clinton and her leadership. Whether as Vice-President or Senator, I feel safer and more confident with her leadership as part of our government. And, no, I still haven't given up the dream of one day calling her "Madame President."