Some weeks ago I was talking to a friend of mine and quoted this line, which is about academia.  It may be more often phrased as a riddle:

Q: Why are the battles in academia so fierce?
A: Because the stakes are so small.

Anyway, he pointed out that this same pseudo-law of humanity may apply to politics as well: if the differences between two particular candidates are small, anyone who favors one over the other has to somehow magnify them.

The Republican party used to (and maybe still does) label itself the "party of ideas", but after eight years of Bush and company, it seems more like the "party of intellectually-bankrupt ideas".  They used to label the Democratic party as "tax and spend", but that doesn't work any more since they are now the "don't tax, spend anyway: steal from our grandchildren" party.  They're stuck with nothing more than name-calling and personal destruction.

On the Democratic party side, there are plenty of policy differences from the Republicans; but between the two presidential candidates, the differences are relatively small.  So here again, Clinton and Obama are limited as to what they can say to distinguish themselves from each other.  This is true for their supporters as well, and hence we get a lot of name-calling and "supporter bashing".

Whoever comes out of the nomination process, I will be voting for the Democratic candidate in November, because the policy differences between either-one and McCain are what matter the most.  Sure, I'd like my guy (who happens to be Barack rather than Hillary) to win this nomination.  But even if he doesn't, I'll take HC over JM.  I'd rather have BO (who I admit has unfortunate initials :-) ) but I will take either one.

There are a number of reasons, including that I think he is more likely to beat McCain, and I think his style is more suitable for a president.  The most important thing of all, though, may well go back to something Molly Ivins used to say: "You got to dance with them what brung you."

Both campaigns have raised huge amounts of money.  Both have some large contributors, but Obama has far more small contributors.  If politicians are beholden to their contributors—and I for one do not doubt Ivins' words—then Obama will have more "ordinary people" both to answer to, and to speak for.