Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, now in the two-week stretch before the first votes come, are laying down a choice for Democrats: Lead with their heads, or with their hearts.
As the race has gotten tighter than just about anyone would have expected a few months ago, the two leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are engaging each other more intensely and drawing distinctions that could reshape the identity of the party.
History suggests it is difficult for any party to keep the White House for three terms. For Democrats, the question is whether they must sacrifice their ideals to hang onto power.
“This campaign is about a political revolution to not only elect the president but to transform this country,” said Sanders, a Vermont senator who calls himself a democratic socialist, during their debate Sunday night in Charleston, S.C.
The Democratic battle is not the bitter rebellion of the grass roots against the establishment that is underway on the Republican side.
For Democrats, 2016 is turning into a soul-searching exercise, reminiscent of many contests their party has seen in recent decades.
Pragmatic pick
After a week when the former secretary of state had been thrown off balance by a set of alarming poll numbers, she was back on surer footing at Sunday’s debate. Clinton presented herself as the pragmatic pick — a reliable steward of President Barack Obama’s achievements and a realist with the experience to pick the fights that are winnable in an era of polarized politics.
“As we’re coming into the close here, the question is who can go toe to toe with the Republicans and protect the progress made under President Obama,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told reporters after the debate.
Clinton’s aura of inevitability could be dented if she loses the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses, reminding voters how she stumbled when she ran as a formidable front-runner in 2008.
For the first time, having Sanders as their standard-bearer is no longer outside the realm of possibility for Democratic elders.
“I’m concerned that candidates in purple states would really face some problems with Sen. Sanders at the top of the ticket,” Delaware Gov. Jack Markell said in an interview.
“There has been a lot of energy in the Warren-Sanders-de Blasio wing of the party,” Markell added, referring to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. “I think that is unfortunate, both in terms of substance and in terms of politics. … We’ve got to have a message that’s compelling not only to Democrats but also to independents and even a few Republicans.”
Invoking aspirations
Sanders, who has closed the gap with Clinton in Iowa and is leading her in New Hampshire, has struck a chord with the Democrats by invoking their aspirations and their disappointments that the Obama years have not delivered what they hoped. He also argues that Democrats, including Clinton, have been too cozy with Wall Street and the big banks.
“People are tired of being dominated by big-money interests, and Bernie Sanders expresses that. And I think he expresses it in a way that says, ‘You know what? As Democrats, we also need to be about bold ideas and not be afraid of bold ideas,’ ” said Democratic Rep. Donna F. Edwards, who is running for a Senate seat in Maryland.
One of the boldest of those is a single-payer health-care system, which Sanders describes as Medicare for all — a massive expansion of government that many liberals think is the only way to reach their cherished goal of medical coverage for everyone.
That was the area where the two candidates had some of their harshest clashes during Sunday’s debate, their final one before the Iowa caucuses.
“The fact is, we have the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic Party and of our country,” Clinton argued. “Now, there are things we can do to improve it. But to tear it up and start over again, pushing our country back into that kind of a contentious debate, I think is the wrong direction.”
“No one is tearing this up; we’re going to go forward,” Sanders retorted. “But (what) the secretary neglected to mention — not just that 29 million still have no health insurance, that even more are underinsured with huge copayments and deductibles — the vision from FDR and Harry Truman was health care for all people, as a right, in a cost-effective way.”
There are those in Clinton’s camp who still dismiss the idea that Sanders is a threat to her, even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire.
As the race heads south after that, Clinton is counting on her more centrist profile and her long ties to black voters to carry her through.
“I never, ever expected that Sen. Bernie Sanders would get this far. But really, I don’t see how he is any particular political challenge,” said Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y.
Others, however, say that beating the formidable Clinton operation in the first two contests could change the dynamic of the race.
“Winning cures many ills in a campaign,” said Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver. “People give you a second look or a first look in some cases.”
That was what happened in 2008, when Obama, a first-term senator, pulled out a stunning victory in Iowa.
“I think if Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire, I would bet, not the farm, but I would bet he wins South Carolina,” said Charleston, S.C., businessman Phil Noble, one of Obama’s earliest supporters in the state.
“The ‘safe’ candidate is Hillary. To move to Bernie, it’s almost as though we need permission,” Noble added. “That’s what Iowa did for Obama.”
