David vs. David

If all's right with the Universe (OK, it never is, but it's an expression), then after tomorrow's vote is revealed on the Fox TV bulwark "American Idol" the two remaining candidates for this year's title will be whom the commentators call "The Two Davids," the wunderkind Mormon mestizo Archuleta and the tousled aw-shucks rocker Cook.

Full disclosure--I don't give a damn, and I realize that the honoree will be a brief historic flash-in-the-pan, much like the winner of this season's "Survivor." (Parvati? Give me a fucking break.) But the contest between the two Davids has been the ongoing drama 0f this year's strike-truncated TV season, their faces have been splattered across all the entertainment mags and more votes have been cast for them than in the Presidential primaries. More about that in a bit.

Setting aside easy prejudices, and focusing on the choice, as though it were important, the decision is not an easy one. These are two talented kids with totally different styles. Archuleta has a velvet Paul Anka appeal, and David Cook is an approachable, dedicated rocker. Archie is likely to win because the tweeny girl will vote en masse for him, and he should pick up the majority of votes lately cast for the other tweener favorite, the haplessly dumb Jason Castro. But both Davids will do well for themselves, and the choice boils down to two very strong candidates. If someone votes for Archuleta, it's not indicative of the weakness of Cook; and vice versa.

Now to my point--in this regard, The "American Idol" two-man battle is something of a metaphor for the Democratic Presidential primary season. Like the singing contest, the political race features two very strong candidates, each with a contingent of devoted fans. Both Barack and Hillary are deserving of our respect, despite their occasional gaffes and calculated pandering to the masses. Barack is more like Archuleta, the appealing young hope, and Hillary is the David Cook, more seasoned but less charismatic.

Although Democrats are likely to go with either candidate come November, they are forced to make a choice during the primaries. For some, like me, it was a difficult to favor one or the other. Indeed, I've gone from a Hillary backer to a Barack supporter, but only because I sense the tide of history surging behind one and the weight of the past pulling the other down. But when I voted for Hillary in the primary it was not a rejection of Barack. And when Democratic voters in West Virginia or Oregon or Indiana select Hillary that is not necessarily a vote against Barack or a signal of his weakness--it is an indication of Hillary's strength.

This is why I resent the ongoing commentary of both the media and the last-ditch Hillary fanatics who claim that Barack cannot carry the major states because Hillary fared slightly better than he did. We simply have two very appealing candidates and one of them has to lose.
This is something the Democrats should be celebrating. One David will wear the champion's crown, the other will fare quite successfully in the future. But both deserve to win.