Meanwhile, back to the Democrats . . .

Paul Krugman wrote his New York Times column a few days ago on:  "While idealism is a strong virtue, politics is pragmatic."   Here's the gist of his argument:

"The point is that while idealism is fine and essential, it's not a virtue unless it goes along with hardheaded realism about the means that might achieve your ends."

And another quote:  "There's a sort of mini-dispute among Democrats over who can claim to be Obama's true heir -- Sanders or Hillary Clinton?  But the answer is obvious:  Sanders is the heir to candidate Obama, but Clinton is the heir to President Obama."

There's an important truth here.   But I think too many people too quickly dismiss Sanders as the dreamy idealist who inspires people to empty pipe dreams of a progressive utopia.   Why not say that realism is fine and essential, but it's not a virtue unless there is some idealism to propel it into action?

Wouldn't it be great to have both in the same package?   Isn't that what we have had in Barack Obama, really, in the end?   In the final voting, I'm probably going to go with the pragmatist -- but I'm deeply grateful that we have the idealist defining the terms of this debate and pulling it in more progressive directions.

Ralph