George Packer’s piece in this week’s New Yorker, on the differences between Barack and Hilary, is essential for anyone undecided. Why: With so much inside-baseball coverage, what’s been lacking until now is a convincing, non-retarded dichotomy that isn’t crafted by pundits to aid lazy voters. To wit:

The alternatives facing Democratic voters have been characterized variously as a choice between experience and change, between an insider and an outsider, and between two firsts—a woman and a black man. But perhaps the most important difference between these two politicians—whose policy views, after all, are almost indistinguishable—lies in their rival conceptions of the Presidency. Obama offers himself as a catalyst by which disenchanted Americans can overcome two decades of vicious partisanship, energize our democracy, and restore faith in government. Clinton presents politics as the art of the possible, with change coming incrementally through good governance, a skill that she has honed in her career as advocate, First Lady, and senator.

Obviously, who you like speaks to how you think we should fix the problems created by Bush. But isn’t it obvious by now who has more upside?