This is an incredibly important point to consider, because a lot of Hillary’s support comes from people who believe it is a good strategy given the reality of our surroundings. But Hillary’s record is unequivocally clear: the times she’s actually fought for something in her career are strikingly few, and within those, the battles she picked were far from the battles that needed to be fought. Her days at Wal-Mart underscore this point clearly. It’s impossible to stress just how much Wal-Mart’s practices have changed our workforce’s landscape for the worse; for working-class Americans, “normal” went from having a lifetime job with a decent pension, a health plan, and quite often a labor union that protected those benefits to working two part-time minimum wage jobs with no benefits and, most definitely, no labor union whatsoever. Let me repeat that: after Americans had spent most of the 20th Century creating a country where people could get an honest wage for an honest day’s work, Wal-Mart, with the help of our government, almost single-handedly destroyed it. The company’s directors have gone on record repeatedly lambasting the very idea of a union; if ever there was a battle for Hillary to pick, it was this one, about preserving a system that served as the backbone to generations of working Americans. By avoiding the one battle she was in a singular position to fight, Hillary Clinton silently supported the erosion of our middle class.

This is a HUGE point -- one of a few that makes me distrust her approach and general stance on how American people should be treated in not only the workplace but together as a nation.

This is a fantastic summary of the current political and economic situation. I just hope people will listen.

The opening paragraph was strong, but my eyes started glazing over when the talk began about Walmart. Same old crap as always...

The bottom line here, and one which the article does discuss, is whether having a political realist in office is better for progressive issues than, shall we say, a revolutionary. I agree with a lot of Sanders' goals and issues, but I just don't see how he's gonna change anything about the system. Eight years ago, Obama came in with his own revolution-tinged messaging, speaking about universal healthcare and even energy independence from the Middle East. He spoke of closing down Guantanamo Bay and getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

But he also talked about compromise and about reaching across the aisle, and despite that he was blocked at every step of the way by obstructionist Republicans. It's a wonder he still got Obamacare through, and that Marriage Equality Act happened under his watch, through some of his SCOTUS nominations.

When I look at Bernie's record I see a man who's unwilling to compromise and doesn't know the political game. He can't even win over the Democratic establishment, which is something Obama did superbly well during his run.

Furthermore, Bernie is unwilling to support downballot candidates. It's a real damn pity because that would usher in a political revolution further down the line. Having a lame duck President would not.

So yeah. Right ideas, wrong time, wrong candidate. I don't think Hillary will be the progressive candidate we all hope for, but I believe she can be a force for good for the U.S.

A revolution? Really? Besides, what could be more revolutionary than finally having a woman in the White House? Isn’t that, in itself, about as revolutionary as it gets?

In order:

- Yes.

- Yes?

- Universal healthcare, free education, basic income, dismantling NSA privacy invasion programs, regulating military-industrial complex, prosecuting financial fraud felonies, de-turding SCOTUS, reforming electorate process, etc etc etc (the list goes on and on and "having vagina while in POTUS office" comes in at a distant 10th or 12th on my revolutionary-reform-o-meter)

- Not really, no. Margaret Thatcher did not really revolutionize UK political spectrum by being first woman PM. In fact, under her leadership, the UK devolved back to laissez faire economics (which may or may not have been beneficial for 80s UK but it was, nonetheless, an old idea dating back to 1700s so hardly "revolutionary" even 130 years ago let alone 30 years ago)