As I look at the choices I will be asked to make in Tuesday 's primary election, I am impressed by how little difference there is between the candidates in terms of substance and how great a difference there is in attitude.

To be sure, the Republicans and Democrats do differ on "issues. "

But those differences won 't really concern us tomorrow. If you think the Iraq war should be waged, that taxes should be cut and that abortion should be illegal, you will vote Republican. If you think the war was a mistake, as were tax cuts for the "rich, " and if you favor universal health care, you will vote Democrat. If you are a Libertarian, you will most likely vote for Ron Paul.

So, the real differences aren 't between political parties -- you already know where you stand there -- but between attitudes toward change.

When looked at this way, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain have similar attitudes and their attitudes are quite different than those shared by Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee.

Clinton and McCain have been around power for a long, long time and they don 't really believe they 're going to change very much. No matter what rhetoric they use in campaigns, they are incrementalists who hope to leave Washington, indeed, to leave the country, just a little better off than it was when they came to power. Clinton, for example, is calling for a minimum wage of $9.50 per hour. That 's a reasonable proposal, but it doesn 't bring you to your feet cheering.

Obama and Huckabee hold out the hope that, if elected, they might change things not just incrementally but radically.

Huckabee can 't be elected -- this year -- but look at his key economic position: Huck wants to abolish the income tax. That 's not an incremental change. His underlying theme, however, is that if conservatives could somehow stop scaring people, they might get moderates on their side.

Obama 's positions are virtually identical to those of Clinton. In fact, she 's now accusing him of stealing her positions. But the "hope " he keeps proclaiming is that, in some mystical way, an inspirational leader can get us to lay down our pitchforks and find some workable compromises for the problems that face us.

Obama looks to John F. Kennedy for inspiration. Clinton looks to Lyndon Johnson or -- perhaps -- to Bill Clinton. All Republicans purport to channel Ronald Reagan, but, deep in his heart, I suspect McCain looks to Dwight Eisenhower.

Each of these positions strikes me as reasonable. Kennedy didn 't actually accomplish all that much as president; but he did get us thinking that "yes we can " fight racism, go to the moon and have a little style in Washington. Johnson was a legislative technocrat who actually got things done. Eisenhower helped ease us out of a losing war and through a post-war transition.

It all depends on which style you find most comfortable.

Read Bill Wineke 's Blog at www.madison.com/wsj/blogs