AUDASE

Democrats have two candidates!

Rebecca Traister NY Magazine (From Balloon Juice Blog)

The democrats, unexpectedly have two candidates whom voters feel passionate. The [Iowa caucus] win/tie is tremendous for Sanders, the long-shot challenger from the left. But it’s also pretty great for Clinton, who could have decisively lost Iowa but hung on, and who also became the first Clinton (and the first woman ever) not to have outright lost the state.

Clinton’s approach tonight — her ballsy power-play move of stepping over Republican winner Ted Cruz’s victory speech, and her happy-warrior tone — showed a marked contrast from her 2008 loss in Iowa, a night when she came in nine points behind Barack Obama and one point behind John Edwards. Back then, her concession was dismal, wan, practically consumptive. Eight years later, she was energetic, brassy, and seemed to show she’s learning something about navigating the choppy waters of running for president while female…

Recall the days following the 2008 Iowa caucus, when the media took advantage of Clinton’s defeat to let loose with their resentment and animosity toward her. That was when conservative Marc Rudov told Fox News that Clinton lost because “When Barack Obama speaks, men hear ‘Take off for the future!’ When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear ‘Take out the garbage!’” It was in the days after Iowa that Clinton infamously got asked about how voters believed her to be “the most experienced and the most electable” candidate but “are hesitating on the likability issue.”

What was true in ’08 remains true this year. From her entrance into the campaign, Clinton has been tagged as unlikable, as the practical buzzkill, the boring one with the wonky facts and figures and experience who’s going to show up and tell you that your big plans are impossible, but that she’s thought of some smaller and more doable fixes. Meanwhile, Sanders, who entered the race shouting righteously and correctly about a system that’s broken, has, as his campaign has strengthened, become the unlikely vehicle of idealistic hopes and dreams for America — Free college! Free health care! A $15 minimum wage! The breakup of the big banks!

His vision of revolution, as Bryce Covert wrote in Monday’s New York Times, differs significantly from Clinton’s approach, which Covert described accurately as “pragmatism incarnate.” Critics argue that his promises have no chance of coming to fruition, but their soaring scale — and the righteous ideals to which they speak — make him a candidate it is infinitely easier to feel emotionally inspired by. Clinton’s realism may in fact be one of the reasons that her supporters believe that she’d make a more prepared and effective commander-in-chief than Sanders — something that in fact provokes rational excitement, especially by those thrilled at the idea of an experienced, capable, hard-assed Democratic woman president. But hers is not an easy pose to pull off, if you’re trying to win the hearts of America…

So here we are! On our way to New Hampshire, a state that inspiring Bernie Sanders is overwhelmingly favored to win. But for one of the first times, in her speech in Iowa, I saw Clinton work effectively to turn the pragmatic ship around, to take what she wants to say — that Sanders’s soaring promises are empty but her more modest proposals might come to pass — and make it sound almost exciting.