From the perspective of those on the left, President Obama has been too timid, not to mention ineffective. They would not have suffered through the disastrous Obamacare rollout, they reason, if they had been able to push forward with the single-payer system. They could have jammed through full-fledged immigration reform, cap-and-trade and tax hikes — not just trimming around the edges of the George W. Bush tax cuts — if they had really been true to their ideals. If conservatives believe they can win over the public simply by talking more ferociously about conservative ideals, those on the left imagine that simply by “fighting” they can win, whether or not members of the public agree presently. They will like it and realize it’s good for them down the road, the left-leaning ideologues figure.

And so while Clinton is mute on the budget, silent on the CIA, hard to pin down on Iran, late to gay marriage and too reticent to attack Wall Street, the left may find its heroine. And it need not give up on its dream of ushering in the first woman president. Given all that, why in the world do those on the left need Clinton? In Iowa, one can imagine, echoes of 2008 dance in their heads. “You said the time has come to tell the lobbyists who think their money and their influence speak louder than our voices that they don’t own this government — we do. And we are here to take it back. . . . The same message we had when we were up and when we were down; the one that can save this country, brick by brick, block by block, callused hand by callused hand, that together, ordinary people can do extraordinary things. Because we are not a collection of red states and blue states. We are the United States of America. And in this moment, in this election, we are ready to believe again.” You think lightning can’t strike twice?