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.
Sanders, like Trump have all of the makings of dictators. Hillary is a career politician, and so a bonafide part of the problem. Such wonderful choices for all.