Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Frank:
My only point is that Sander's shouldn't have become personally involved and raised a local issue with minimal national impact into a national one  which could damage the very party he hopes to lead.  It's only going to unite Dem. party establishments in every state even more firmly against him, at the very time he needs to loosen their pre-existing alliances in the hope of gaining at least a few more converts.

This raises questions. First, who is the party, the leadership or the registered members? At this point we have the leadership telling the base what they ought to think and do while large portions are not buying it. But it is even more serious when we look at the differences in the support and funding of the current establishment vs. the challengers. The DNC is allied with their big donors and carries their water. That is rejected by an increasingly large portion of the base. This is further complicated by the fact that so much of the present, highly concentrated mass media is owned by the same people who are large donors to the R/D Duopoly. And then the life trajectories of current elites, including the Clintons, are strongly tied to the future rewards they anticipate from being faithful servants of their donors. They will indeed fight like Hell to hold on. But there is a legitimate question as to the moral worth of that action.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu May 19th, 2016 at 09:51:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series