The big winner in Iowa: Democracy

On a hot July day in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, a Latina business owner addressed a crowd at an event billed "Happy Hour with Hillary," urging them to caucus for Clinton.
"I don't want to wake up on Feb. 2 and wonder if there's more I could have done," she said to the casually dressed crowd of mostly older people, with a smattering of college-age students.
Did she wake up satisfied?
Clinton came out later that July day and thanked the audience, including those who had yet to make up their minds, inviting them to join her team. "It's not about right, left, up, down. It's about the future instead of the past," she said. "Republicans still believe in trickle-down economics. We have been trickled on enough."
Clinton was at her best that day-relaxed, punchy and un-programmed. "This campaign has to be about making it very clear who's right and who's wrong," she insisted. Right was paid family leave, clean renewable energy and early childhood education. It was refinanced student loans and a more peaceful, cooperative world. Wrong was young people not getting the opportunities for education and employment the previous generation had.
"We have got to have a movement, so when we win in November 2016, we'll be prepared to win with confidence and optimism," Clinton declared, adopting a line from Bernie Sanders.
Just over a year ago, when Sanders was contemplating running, he wasn't even sure which party it would be with. The longest-serving independent in Congress was being urged by the Green Party to run as an independent. In an interview with me back then, he shared his concerns: Neither of the two major parties was held in very high esteem by Americans, Sanders said. "The Democratic Party has not been seen as a champion of working families."
But running outside of the two-party system required building a political infrastructure in 50 states, which would interrupt his ability to get out and talk to people. Either way, he insisted he'd get in the race only if he determined the country was ready for a grassroots revolution, to change a corrupt campaign finance system, eliminate child poverty and address the uneven distribution of wealth, among other things.
Among those who heard him was Clinton. She sharpened her attacks on systemic inequality.
Regardless of the final Iowa caucus count, Monday was a victory for Clinton and for Sanders, and for the issue of inequality he has focused attention on. It was also a victory for his campaign, financed without corporate money and only small donations. Not long ago, it would have seemed unthinkable that a self-described 74-year-old socialist could come within striking distance of someone with her experience and standing. It would also have been unimaginable for more than 40 percent of Iowa Democrats polled to describe themselves as socialists.
In the Democratic caucus of Des Moines' precinct 47, which I sat in on, Sanders beat Clinton by a single vote out of 167. Each got three delegates. Sanders picked up six of Martin O'Malley's seven supporters-but only after Sanders' and Clinton's backers made their cases and answered substantive policy questions. But what made it such a joyous affair was the raw enthusiasm that permeated the standing-room-only crowd, challenging the idea of voter apathy. People came well-informed, from a range of ages and incomes, races and occupations. Despite the heat and shortage of chairs, and the crush of international media, opposing sides laughed and joked together.
Rachel Busson, 32, who was voting in her second caucuses, cast her ballot for Barack Obama in 2008. "I liked Hillary, but I liked Obama just a little bit more," she said. But this year, she thinks Clinton has the more concrete plans, especially on capping prescription drug prices. Busson works with people with special needs, to whom, she says that makes a big difference.
Rene Chavez, 18, was casting his first caucus vote-for Sanders. "He's more appealing to younger people," he said. "He doesn't seem as corporate as other people."
Many people I've spoken to recently have agonized over the choice between Clinton and Sanders. She's best qualified, some argued, but he has the more inspiring vision. She's more realistic about how to get things done and pay for them, and it's time for a female president; he's pure and un-corruptible.
"Hillary Clinton's been committed to the Democratic Party all her life," declared a Clinton supporter at the caucus.
"Let's take corporations out of politics," said a Sanders organizer.
"Martin O'Malley will make America great again," bellowed one of the former Maryland governor's supporters, drawing laughter by appropriating Donald Trump's line.
Agonizing as the choice may have been for some, the process is a victory for democracy. There were real choices, and people were taking them seriously enough to listen, research, consider the alternatives and turn out to vote.