Originally posted at blogfordemocracy.org

These last couple of days have been painful for me on several levels and I have some various thoughts that I just feel compelled to share, some of which were aired with some sympathetic friends recently and so their contributions to this "thesis" are also included (but am leaving out names to protect the innocent). While Catherine was right in posting what it's all about, I have an addition:

It's also about choice.

One thing that's been bothering me as we've gone through this long primary is that there seems to be a prevailing feeling that somehow there was a right or wrong in this race. That somehow if you're not with us, you're against us. That there's no way there could be TWO inspiring and wonderful candidates for this primary, it's either one or the other that holds that distinction and the other side is the enemy. And before people start jumping on me, this feeling is no doubt on both sides of this contest so I am not bringing this up as a criticism of one side, but rather airing it as a disturbing trend that I hope can somehow be reversed.

What I'm trying to say, is that to me, this primary was about choice -- who did I choose to support? Who did you choose to support? If I chose different than you, was I wrong? Were you wrong? Just because my choice was different did not make me wrong. Just because my candidate is not the presumptive nominee, did that make my choice wrong?

And when I voiced this concern to a friend last night, she was also feeling the same thing and added this thought: that to her what democracy (with a small "d") is all about is exercising choice. Somehow along the way, we've transposed that into a "right or wrong" thing, which I think is dangerous for democracy.

Why was it so hard for some people to reconcile that you could have two valid choices this primary season? And I think this might be one reason why we may find it difficult to "unify" the two "opposing" sides.