I remember saying last year, before the primary voting started, that it wasn't clear whether Obama's promise of "bringing the country together" would sell with Democrats because, quite frankly, what many Democrats were clamoring for - especially the kind of liberal activists who decide things like Presidential nominations - was less unity and more "fighting" and "standing up" for progressive principles.

I was thinking about this again yesterday after reading Roger Simon's first graf:

Is Barack Obama a wimp? Forget about whether he is prepared to answer a ringing phone at 3 a.m. Is he prepared to answer the attacks of Hillary Clinton at high noon?

It seems to me that this might be slightly off the mark. Democrats appear to be most interested in "fighting" on the domestic front: they want to fight George Bush, fight the Republicans in Congress, fight the drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies, special interests, Walmart - in fact you could argue they want to fight just about everywhere except in Iraq.

Despite Clinton's 3am ad and the underlying race and gender aspects to this race, you could easily view the race through the prism of a domestic fighter vs. an international unifier. Obama offers, in both symbol and substance, a chance to fulfill Democrats' desire to "restore America's standing in the world" with a new, inclusive, flexible foreign policy that involves talking to both our allies and enemies. Clinton offers the prospect of a tough-as-nails warrior against Republicans and a die hard fighter on domestic issues like universal healthcare.

It's no surprise, either, that if you strip out the race and gender components of the primary vote, the domestic fighter vs. international unifier theme dovetails with the beer set vs. wine set analogy that's been so often discussed. The white, lower and middle class voters who define the beer set are more apt to be attracted to someone who wields a set of brass knuckles on behalf of their primary interests, which are domestic: healthcare, trade, etc. And those who typically aren't as focused on pocketbook issues - in other words younger voters and the educated elite who comprise the wine set - are more likely to be attracted to a candidate who is promising a vision of national - but perhaps more accurately, international - unity.