I too am in love with David Shearer. Or, more precisely, with Shearer's story, since I can't really claim to know the man in any meaningful (or, for that matter, meaningless) sense.
Like any journo, I like good stories and Shearer's is certainly that. Not only is it heroic but it has crossover appeal, which makes it a lot like John Key's state-house-boy-becomes-millionaire-PM story.
What makes it especially resonant to the left is that it's such a perfect counter to Key's.
As I'm sure will be heard many, many times in the coming weeks and months - especially if Shearer is truly the anointed David - he was dodging bullets to deliver aid to starving millions in the world's most dangerous hotspots while Key was making his cushy millions from foreign exchange.
Even in today's economistic climate, saving lives trumps making money, which makes Shearer the perfect anti-Key.
(Although, saying so yourself, as Shearer did on Close Up last week rather detracts from the image of the self-deprecating Kiwi hero.)
You couldn't ask for a more stark contrast at a time when Labour is struggling to a) differentiate itself from National and b) assert its place as the first party of the left.
So, is it game over for David Cunliffe?
Probably, if the pundits have their way. Although the decision comes down to the 34-strong Labour caucus, the commentators from left and right have cast their votes overwhelmingly for Team Shearer.
It would be a pity, though, if that were the end of it.
I've never fully understood the apparent intensity of feeling against David Cunliffe from within his own party. On the few occasions I've met him, he's struck me as seriously smart and personable. He has presence and the necessary gravitas and, of the two Davids, he is by far the superior debater and communicator.
He was a successful minister in the last Labour government and a respected finance spokesman. He was also among the most impressive of Labour's front bench during the campaign (despite the unsubstantiated rumours that he let Phil Goff down).
It's true he isn't overly endowed with humility but this seems to me more in the order of a precocious teenager who hasn't learned to dissemble than an egomaniac. Like someone with Asperger's, he seems to lack the kind of filter that would have kept him from, say, making that sexist comment about Judith Collins during the campaign.
Shearer, meanwhile, is untried. He's been in Parliament just over two years and, despite his impressive credentials as an aid worker, his performance in the House and on TV so far has been underwhelming, reflecting his relative inexperience. And that's without the pressure he'd be under as leader of the Opposition. He is certainly likeable and, from a quick reading of the blogosphere, seems to have greater appeal to non-Labour voters (the race is more even among Labour voters). But is being Labour's answer to John Key enough to meet the challenges the party's facing?
That's for the Labour caucus to answer, of course. Whatever the outcome, the race between the Davids has highlighted the talent on Labour's likely front bench.
But what should we make of this very public, American-style leadership contest? Is it a sign of Labour making an effort to reconnect with the voters who spurned it, or of a panicked, gun-shy caucus that doesn't seem to know its own mind?
Ironically, the best advice I've seen this week comes from National Party pollster and blogger David Farrar who argues Labour shouldn't rush into anything until they know why they did so badly. Everyone has a theory, of course, but no one really knows for sure.
He suggests Labour should do as the Nats did after their 2002 drubbing under Bill English, when National dropped 9 percentage points from its 1999 result.
"They did not change the leader immediately," Farrar wrote in the Dominion Post. "They commissioned a review to ascertain what National did wrong - the review team spent several months interviewing over 100 people ranging from MPs and candidates to staff and key volunteers. The results of the review led to significant change for National, including constitutional change."
My highly unscientific poll of family and friends, which, admittedly, consists of a mix of lefty liberals and centrists, showed the left vote being split between Labour, the Greens and Mana. Those voting Green did so because they found that party's policies and leadership more appealing and coherent than Labour's. The Mana voters are fans of Hone Harawira, John Minto and Sue Bradford. Some of the Labour votes had gone to National previously on account of Labour's perceived anti-family, anti-Christian social policies, but were back again. (Cunliffe, incidentally, is a vicar's son and church-going Anglican; Shearer says he believes in God but isn't religious.) A few had flirted with Winston's party.
This is part of the reality of MMP and of the difficulty of being a centre-left party and whoever wins the leader's race will have to get used to it.