U.S. Democratic Presidential primary: + vs -?
I've thought about it, and I've concluded that this race has been completely about + vs -. Hillary Clinton is on the + side, saying that you've gotta be tough to cobble together a coalition. Barack Obama is in the - side, saying that you've gotta be yourself and trusting that others, whatever their political situation have something to bring to the table. Hillary is Left vs. Right, Obama is Progressivism meets liberalism, interfaces with individualism, etc..
Somewhere both views are right, and I think this campaign is the story of the American Left figuring it out. Although political fundamentals break down to -Fi and attractions/repulsions between people (and the work that they can or cannot do between each other on basis of those factors), but it also scales up on basis of common +Te goals and +Fi ethics.
What unites the Left is a common motive for progress; what unites the Right is a common motive for "holding the line" and not losing what they already believe they have. Most all of the progressives and liberals vote Democrat; about half of traditionalists (fiscal conservatives and libertarians) and half of adaptists (communitarian types like Hillary and individualist types like Joe Biden) join them on basis of common motive for progress. (although progress is the motive for these people, not the cure.) These make up the mainstream left/Democratic party. The other halves of these groups caucus with the conservatives (John McCain is a communitarian, for example), making up the mainstream Right.
George W. Bush, as a +Ti type, governed by consolidating the Right. But, he ignored -Ti and his administration has since suffered for it: he is trapped in the morass of low-level, -Fi based politics both at home and abroad. (in Iraq) Iraq, in particular, is incapable of + politics because of the ancient +Fe traditions which seperate Sunni and Shia; this is why Iraq is a disfunctional nation.
Hillary would think to reprise W.on the Ti+/rule by coalition, but she's doubtful it can work nor does she feel she can offer the solutions necessary to improve its integrity. Barack is more open to acknowledging +Ti's role, and offering it a place in policy-making; but he governs progressivism first (at the -Fi level) and would work up from there on basis of +Ti. He is unique among modern politicians in that his ultimately goal is to rule by absolute mainstream consensus, which is defies the ego in favor of a tangeble psychic unity; it reconciles + and - and harmonizes them. This is the essence of his "audacity of hope". For somehow he's managed to recognize that this can happen, and that it is the fundamental way of the world. That's why he's winning: he knows the absolute rules of the game; he observes that most Americans respect the game and admire a great player of it; and he's willing -- and confident enough -- to do what it takes to not only win, but to teach others his technique.