The political contest between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is often compared to the epic Democratic struggle between Clinton and then-senator Barack Obama eight years ago.



Pundits speculate whether Clinton will once again see her lifelong ambition thwarted by an insurgent campaign written off by the political and media establishment. They wonder if young Democrats will be tired of the same old Clinton dysfunction and invest their emotions in hope, change and big rallies.

Will the glass ceiling remain cracked but not broken?

The answer is almost certainly no. After several years of slow economic growth, Republican obstruction and a winding down of wars, Democrats may be frustrated, but they are not angry and hungry for Change as they were in 2008.

A real insurgent – like Barack Obama or Jimmy Carter – needs to win in Iowa, where the caucuses begin in just six weeks. But recent polls, despite their flaws, suggest Clinton is leading there by a margin of between 10 and 20 points. By comparison, in late 2007, the contest in Iowa was pretty much tied; Obama was even leading Clinton by three points in the respected Des Moines Register poll.

This Sanders-Clinton contest is a re-run – but not of that thrilling 2008 drama. It’s much closer to the two nomination fights before that: Howard Dean versus John Kerry in 2004 and Bill Bradley versus Al Gore in 2000.

Like Kerry and Gore before her, Clinton is a serious policy wonk with a desperately dull campaign style who is the clear choice of donors and elected officials. Kerry and Gore were also miserable at retail politics and when they tried to connect, they often tried too hard; The forced friendliness had all the qualities of an old car clutch grinding its gears.

The liberal grassroots yearned, as they always do, for some old-fashioned passion, for some wistful dream-that-shall-not-die. So then as now, they glommed on to two wonderfully lost causes: Bill Bradley, who had the kind of star power and national respect that frankly Sanders doesn’t; and Howard Dean, who fired up his crowds with his energy (“You have the power!”) and his Sanders-like economic message (“Even Costa Rica has healthcare and so should you!”).

In Iowa, Bradley won the endorsement of the Des Moines Register and the polls suggested he was closing in on the vice-president. But Gore trounced him by 19 points on caucus day, and the nomination “contest” was over as soon as it started.



Four years later Dean, a Vermont Democrat like Sanders, was riding another youthful wave of insurgent support, speaking truth to power and the party establishment. By December 2003, Dean had won Al Gore’s endorsement and was leading Kerry by 20 points in national polls. Newsweek (where I once worked) had sent to the printers a cover story of the Vermont governor as the Democratic frontrunner, complete with a grimacing portrait of the candidate in some kind of wrestler’s stance.

Then Saddam Hussein was dramatically captured in a spider hole outside a farmhouse: the Newsweek presses were abruptly halted; and the political mood – even among Democrats – turned back towards foreign policy.

Dean came third in the Iowa caucuses, losing to Kerry by 20 points. The night of his loss, he tried to fire up the crowd one more time by rolling up his sleeves and yelping. The scream sounded as manic in person as it looked on camera.

After Paris and San Bernardino, Bernie Sanders is having his moment of Saddam-Hussein-in-a-spider-hole. The attacks have shifted the debate away from income inequality – Sanders’ strong suit – and back to world affairs. That shift threatens to leave Sanders behind.

Like Dean, Sanders discusses foreign policy in a vague and passionless style that is nothing like his regular rhetoric. In his Guardian interview, he said: “We have to be smart and not just tough. And that means it’s not just destroying Isis, it’s making sure we do it in a way that leads to a better future and more stability in that region.”

Well, yes: the “destroying Isis” part is 99% of the challenge. And the better, more stable future is of course completely dependent on that bit about destroying Isis.

Sanders also railed against “unilateral American action”, as if anyone serious is proposing an Iraq-style approach to Isis. Ted Cruz may want to carpet bomb the region, and Chris Christie may be happy to shoot down Russian fighter jets – but Sanders isn’t running against them just yet. Apart from taking a swipe at Clinton for her vote on the Iraq war, his opposition to unilateral action is little more than Democratic boilerplate.

The senator wants to see Muslim boots on the ground, like just about everyone else running for president. And he asserts the rest of the world can simply make that happen: “I think the United States, UK, France, Germany, Russia have the power to make sure that there are Muslim boots on the ground.”

If only that were true. Those powers are not even talking about the same kind of boots: Russia is very happy to see many Muslim boots on the ground, as long as they are all following Assad’s orders.

Bernie Sanders is, of course, not rallying crowds to his message about multilateral diplomacy. He is first and foremost talking about an economy that has squeezed the middle class for decades, and it is on that ground that he has tapped into something very real for a younger generation that grew up after 9/11 and began their careers in the midst of the Great Recession. The threat of terrorism destroyed their confidence in national security, just as the financial collapse destroyed their sense of economic security.

“I think we have shifted the debate,” Sanders said.

It’s very hard for any campaign to look around and see hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic people coming to our meetings, who are the future … People are looking at that and thinking, “My God, if we are worried about the future of the Democratic party, we had better start listening and paying attention to what Sanders’ supporters want.”

But Sanders hasn’t shifted the debate; like Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, the debate has shifted to him. Young Democrats – along with the rest of the middle class – want an economic future that looks nothing like the last 15 years.



The good news for Clinton is that most of those Sanders supporters are happy with her as the party’s nominee: 59% of them are fine with her winning the Democratic contest, according to a Monmouth University poll this week.

The 2016 election cycle is yet another election about change, but, this time, the prize will go to the candidate who can capture the desire for reform and progress while also reassuring voters they can navigate a dangerous world.

Eight years ago, Clinton ran under what sounded like a garbled slogan of Change-Plus-Experience. For Democrats disgusted with President Bush, it failed because they only wanted to hear about change.

In today’s world of wage stagnation and terrorism threats, Change-Plus-Experience may still be a clunky phrase. But it’s a message that might just fit the mood of a grumpy and nervy electorate.