      As everyone knows, the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination is in full swing. But we have arrived at a point I did not expect: liberals and independents complain that the contest for the nomination will be “crowded.” Take the moment at which Tulsi Gabbard announced her decision to run. Upon her announcement, her interviewer implied her concern about her tough odds. Contrary to the pessimism surrounding the growing roster. I fundamentally see this crowded race as the harbinger of a new era in American politics.
           Trump’s election to the Presidency obviously stirred conversation and outrage among media and normal people alike, over the misogyny, racism, and the lack of experience that collectively characterized the White House. However, the light at the end of the conversational tunnel has been hazily unspecific; it has been an overturning of his administration’s idiosyncratic politics, for a progressive ideology that favored women, minorities, the LGBT community, and meritocracy. It is to this end that outlets like Megyn Kelly’s Today Show, the View, or TED Talks have directed their dialogues.
           Now that we have been introduced to a slew of potential candidates, be it Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, or Kamala Harris, our collective mind has turned in new directions. The New York Times has written about the potential tensions that will arise when women compete with each other, and when women have to struggle to choose among them. FiveThirtyEight has brought up the challenge that African-Americans might face, in choosing between Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. It is unfortunate that we have already begun to pit Democratic candidates against each other, in a way that implies our misplaced concern.
           Instead of indulging in the construction of mythical rivalries, we should celebrate that we are coming closer to the tunnel light, and that it is taking on a clearer, sharper definition. Our growing roster of candidates has more diverse and more female candidates than any other Presidential race in our nation’s history. In other words, we are coming closer to a national, political engagement that tangibly crosses gendered, racial, and sexual lines, and the potential tensions that will surface between female and minority candidates will be an indication that we are stepping in the right direction. By seeing the likes of Harris and Booker and Warren compete with each other, we will all be invited to ask new questions about federal leadership, identity politics, and the best ways in which diverse individuals should individually and collectively maneuver through government. By beginning conversations about such issues, our “crowded” race will hopefully enlarge the momentum surrounding the political landscape, such that we bring ourselves a step closer to the light: a country in which we have introduced a multifaceted array of institutional leaders, who then introduce new standards that better reflect the rest of us.