The US’ political theatre is on the road these days with presidential contenders from both the Democratic and Republican sides making their respective sales’ pitch. The Republican side started with a crowded field. On the Democratic side, the contest for nomination is between Senator Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Clinton missed out in 2008 when Obama won the nomination and went on to win the presidential race. Clinton has always considered herself presidential material and felt cheated when a young ‘upstart’ like Obama beat her to the Democratic Party nomination to become the country’s president. Obama made her secretary of state, partly because of her considerable experience as a politically active first lady during her husband Bill Clinton’s presidency and partly, it would seem, to neutralise her from making political mischief during his term. It was an astute move on his part and now might help Hillary by further reinforcing her credentials and experience, as well as in getting her a large chunk of the African American vote. But that is if she wins the Democratic nomination, which is still an open contest. Bernie Sanders, a 74-year-old virtual unknown until he decided to throw his hat into the ring, represents the interesting and arresting phenomena reflecting some important emerging shift in political thinking in the US. And this shift is best captured in Senator Bernie’s speech after the Iowa primary, which ended up in a virtual tie, with Clinton winning by just a whisker. To quote him: “Nine months ago, we came to [Iowa]. We had no political organisation, no money, no name recognition and we were taking on the most powerful political organisation in the US [the Democratic Party establishment and the Clinton dynasty]…Tonight [in Iowa] it looks like we are in a virtual tie.” And in the New Hampshire primary, he trounced Clinton. By the standards of US political lexicon, Bernie Sanders, with his avowed socialist views, is trying to fuel an insurrection/revolution when he said, “We do not represent the interests of the billionaire class, Wall Street or Corporate America. We do not want their money.” Elsewhere, he has said, more or less, that Clinton is captive to that class and their interests, accepting their money and promoting their special interests. Summoning up the courage, as if, to speak on behalf of the people, he said, “The American people no longer want to see an economy in which the average American works long hours for low wages while all income and wealth is going to the top one per cent.” His critics ask how Sanders will pay for all his policies to create a just and equal society? And he is ready with an answer that should send shudders through the US’ capitalist class. His answer is: “We are going to impose a tax on Wall Street speculation. [Because] The greed, the recklessness and the illegal behaviour of Wall Street drove this economy to its knees. The American people bailed out Wall Street. Now it is Wall Street’s time to help the [the country’s hollowed out] middle class.” In other words, by being not beholden to corporate America’s money and patronage, he would be able to put people right, left and centre of his policies, if he wins. On the other hand, while Hillary Clinton is receiving millions of dollars from corporate interests for her election, she can only do the talk about fairness and equality but not the walk. Bernie Sanders’ young activist volunteers are raising money for his election by way of small contributions from people at the grass roots. In drawing the distinction with Clinton, he projects himself as the people’s representative. Whether or not Sanders gets the Democratic Party nomination, he certainly has shaken its establishment, raising some serious concern that he might trump (no pun intended) Clinton, say, like Obama did in 2008. Though it was a different political environment then the general wisdom at the time was that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Party nominee (and the country’s president) because, among other things, it was her turn as a Clinton dynasty nominee and because the Democratic Party establishment was behind her. With or without Sanders’ eventual nomination, he has brought about a qualitative change in the US’ political debate, at least on the Democratic side. And its proof is that Hillary Clinton is having difficulty defining herself, shifting from being a ‘moderate’, a ‘centrist’ and even a ‘progressive’. Which begs the question: who precisely is Hillary Clinton? There is no clear answer to this. She is anything and everything, which simply reinforces her lack of trustworthiness that is often pointed out as a serious negative in her case compared with Sanders’ life long consistent socialist principles. This is another important contribution from Sanders: by entering the presidential nomination race he has somehow softened, if not expunged, the negative connotations of being a socialist. Sanders’ main problem, though, is that he does not carry much weight with the country’s minorities like African Americans and Latinos. He represents Vermont, which is almost exclusively white, and he has very little record of any advocacy of their concerns and rights. On the positive side, he is very popular with youth groups, like Obama was, and they are doing voluntary work for him. He has done quite well with women, regarded by Clinton as predominantly her constituency. On the Democratic side, there is a choice between an old (in the political sense) and familiar, and hence not too exciting Hillary Clinton, and an untried but with a transformative vision, Bernie Sanders, who is promising to positively transform the US. Against this, on the Republican side, at times it looks like a race to the bottom with Donald Trump virtually declaring war on Muslims, Mexican immigrants, ‘uppity’ women who would like to ask some uncomfortable questions and, in one instance, even dumping on a disabled reporter. Whether or not someone from the Republican side will eventually trump him to the nomination is an open question. But the fact remains that he has tapped into the insecurities of many Americans by saying openly the things they feel. In some ways, for many, he has become their voice, which is not to say that he will end up becoming the Republican nominee but to dismiss him mockingly is dangerous. The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.co.au