Sanders should worry Clinton, big time

At a time when liberals are feeling resurgent in national politics and a huge majority of voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses are progressive, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has experienced a springtime surge that has the potential to spark a summer heat wave of renewed liberal activism.

At a moment when voters are looking for authenticity and sincerity in politics, underdog Sanders has become the ultimate voice of conviction politics in the Democratic campaign, while front-runner Hillary Clinton struggles with trust ratings that are dangerously low for any candidate whom most pundits believe is the inevitable nominee.

{mosads}In a process that rewards passion and intensity of support, it is very conceivable that supporters of Sanders turn out in droves to bring him to a stunning upset victory in the Iowa caucus, creating a powerful wave of momentum for Sanders heading into the New Hampshire primary, where one poll already shows Sanders surging to within 10 points of Clinton.

There are two reasons that Sanders should scare Clinton. One is tactical and the other is strategic.

The tactical reason is that if America wakes up to the headline “Sanders shocks Clinton in Iowa,” the media wave lifting Sanders and raising doubts about Clinton will be enormous and far more than pundits expect going toward the New Hampshire primary, where voters expressing support for their Vermont neighbor Sanders unite with Democratic protest voters  — who want to send a message to Clinton — and Republican-leaning voters — who want to inflict damage on Clinton — to give Sanders a lift similar to the lift given to then-Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-Minn.) in the 1968 New Hampshire primary.

The strategic reason that Sanders should scare Clinton is that Sanders’s strength — being a passionate voice of progressivism with clarity — plays against Clinton’s weakness: Appearing to be an uncertain trumpet whose progressive voice is not regarded as entirely sincere by many progressive voters, and whose tendency to appear calculating has created some degree of trust deficit with a wide range of voters.

For example, most commentators, White House politicos and at times, Clinton, do not appear to fully understand the intensity of feeling among many liberals and unions members about trade. It was beyond annoying for liberals and labor when President Obama first insulted and berated liberals over foreign trade, and then, when the fast-track trade legislation was being considered by Congress, made a deal with House Republicans to pass the bill over the objection of a huge majority of Democratic members of the House and liberal and labor voters across the nation.

While Clinton’s latest campaign move is to present herself as a fighter, it was Sanders acting like the fighter opposing the trade bill while Clinton was bobbing and weaving without taking a clear position on fast-track.

While the Republican presidential debates may appear to become a mob scene on a crowded stage, with each candidate barely receiving minutes to express their views, the Democratic debates will give Sanders a national forum to champion the progressive cause with clarity and passion, while Clinton will face the danger of appearing calculating or equivocating compared to him.

Clinton has the potential to back her talk of being a fighting progressive by clearly expressing bold positions during the debates and throughout the campaign, but her maneuvering on trade does not augur well for this, which makes her prospects in the debates uncertain.

Bernie Sanders, by contrast, will offer a clear and convincing case for being a fighter for progressive causes and values. Whether Sanders ultimately ends up as a powerful threat to Hillary Clinton or a blessing in disguise is the biggest single question in the Democratic campaign, and the fact that we should ask this question at this point in the process should be worrisome and disquieting to Clinton and her team.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. Contact him at brentbbi@webtv.net.