In response to an FT Big Read on 28th April 2016 by Courtney Weaver and Demetri Sevastopulo, entitled 'US Election: Can Hill thrill after you've felt the Bern'
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/37ba2c9e-0c9a-11e6-b41f-0beb7e589515.html#ixzz47ABQ8CIv
“Members of the Democratic leadership are confident that Mr. Sanders will eventually endorse Mrs. Clinton after the primary finishes, as Mrs. Clinton did with Mr. Obama in 2008… Yet the 2008 analogy misses key differences. In that race, Mrs. Clinton recovered from her devastating loss to Mr. Obama by entering into an alliance that saw her become secretary of state and kept her in the limelight ahead of what would become her second run for the White House. Her political ambitions allowed her to swallow the defeat and help Mr. Obama win the presidency”
Good article - thanks.
There is almost nothing similar about the position of Bernie Sanders now and Hillary Clinton in 2008. Hillary Clinton was, and still is, running for Hillary Clinton - a self interested, self-serving member of the establishment elite - 'Clinton' is a 'brand'
Bernie Sanders is almost the total opposite. He is running because he believes in something, and he is running because he is against something. What he is against is largely encapsulated by the things that Hillary Clinton represents - Wall Street, the status quo, elite cronyism - 'Sanders' is a 'movement'
'Trump' is also a 'movement'. He appeals to the same feelings of disgust with the Washington and Wall Street establishment as does Sanders. It's not about the party labels, it's more fundamental than that: it's visceral, it's been building for years, and personally I think the elites have no one to blame but themselves. Unfortunately for them they are too arrogant or too dumb to look in the one place that would explain what's happening - a mirror.
So...we have Sanders supporters saying they'll stay at home if Clinton wins, and the GOP establishment saying they'll vote for Clinton if Trump wins. It's 'us' vs. 'them' in the minds of many people - in both camps. This election is very different to any I've observed, and I go back to the seventies.
The mainstream media don't get this and neither does Hillary Clinton. She's too wrapped up in the Beltway bubble and her own sense of entitlement to 'get it'; and the majority of the media appears to be somewhere on a spectrum from 'Shill for Hill' at one end to 'just starting to smell the coffee’ at the other, with 'too numb to notice' somewhere in the middle.
Like I said, this one is different. Some people are probably not going to get that until November. I think Hillary Clinton may be one of those.