Late Monday, as the unfinished vote count suggested the slimmest of victories for Hillary Clinton, she stepped to a microphoneand told supporters that she was “breathing a big sigh of relief.”
She wasn’t. She isn’t. And she definitely shouldn’t be.
That’s not because what happened in Iowa – almost a tie between her and Bernie Sanders – substantially loosens her grip on the Democratic presidential nomination.
But Iowa demonstrated, yet again, what a flawed and tarnished candidate she is. And on the Republican side, the caucuses augured the possibility of a retreat from the party’s craziness and the rise of Marco Rubio, who could give her trouble in a general-election matchup.
She should have trounced Sanders. Yes, he communicates authenticity to an electorate ravenous for it and has given potent voice to Americans’ economic angst. But little in his Senate career suggests that he’d be able to turn that oratory into remedy.
President Barack Obama clearly prefers Clinton. And in a poll of Democrats showing up for the Iowa caucuses, well over half said they wanted someone who would continue Obama’s agenda – which is the precise pledge that Clinton has been making over the last few weeks – while only about one-third said that they preferred someone more liberal.
Even so, Clinton appears to have edged out Sanders by mere decimal points. How to explain it?
Perhaps with the sturdiest truism of politics: Elections are about the future. And so much about Clinton screams the past.
A rally of hers that I attended in Iowa last week actually began with a highlights reel of Clinton through time, including plenty of footage from the 1990s.
I understand why. The retrospective underscored her extraordinary experience. But nothing in her subsequent speech looked forward as stirringly as those images looked backward.
She’s forever stressing what she’s survived.
Bill Clinton may well garner applause, but every time he stumps for her, it’s an implicit promise to revisit yesterday.
At this point the Clintons are royalty, and royalty sits at a remove from all else. Among Democratic caucusgoers most concerned about voting for a candidate who cared about people like them, 74 percent picked Sanders, while only 22 percent chose Clinton. (Martin O’Malley got the remainder.)
For caucusgoers acting primarily on the basis of who they deemed most “honest and trustworthy,” 83 percent voted for Sanders, while just 10 percent voted for Clinton. That’s the toll of all the attention to her emails, a topic that’s not disappearing anytime soon.
She has a habitof diving so deeply into the weeds of a subject that she doesn’t so much impress listeners as exhaust them. To her credit, she has educated herself more thoroughly than other politicians. But she somehow hasn’t learned to wear that erudition lightly.
For months Democrats have been heartened by the absurdity with which Donald Trump infused the Republican primary and by the prospect of him or Ted Cruz as the party’s nominee. But Trump’s second-place showing could be his twilight, and Rubio’s strong third-place finish supports the scenario that he’s the one.
He poses a bigger threat to Clinton. He understands that she is an awkward fit for the national mood, and he’d try to take advantage of that. He leans hard on his youth. He talks about a new generation.
Clinton needs to persuade voters that as much as they’ve seen of her, she can still lead them to a place they’ve not yet seen. She hasn’t succeeded, and she slogs on from Iowa much as she did eight years ago: with more to prove than to savor.
Frank Bruni writes for the New York Times.