Hillary Clinton went full throttle in her debate with Bernie Sanders last night. She tried her very best to emulate the passion and authenticity of her opponent.
But therein lies the rub. Hillary tried to be authentic. She gave it her all. What she does not seem to understand is that if you are truly authentic, you don't have to try -- and if you are trying, you are ipso facto not being authentic. It looks as though that is a distinction that, at her age, she will never grasp.
Sanders does not try to be authentic. He doesn't have to try. Authenticity is what he does, spontaneously, like breathing. He can't help it. It's in his psychological DNA.
The differences in their policy prescriptions are significant, but they are secondary. Sanders is dead-on correct in highlighting the corrupting influence of big money in politics in general and in campaign contributions in particular. He heroically defends the single-payer concept of health coverage for all. And these are important reasons to prefer him as a candidate.
Hillary's approach to these issues is less pure but more pragmatic. She makes the case that she can get more done by being less radical. She might have a point.
Let's say these two policy perspectives were articulated by each candidate in writing, but divorced from the personality of the individual who articulated them. Who would win this policy debate among committed Democrats? Probably it would be a close call.
So the choice between Clinton and Sanders does not in the end boil down to a choice between policy proposals. It boils down to character. Who do you trust? Who is merely trying to speak from the heart and the gut, and who is actually doing so? And in that contest, Sanders wins in a landslide.