The other day, I linked to a piece by Kevin Drum in which he all but accused Bernie Sanders of running a big con job, convincing his many supporters that the "revolution" of which he speak was ever easily attainable. Drum fears that those supporters are in for a cataclysmic letdown that will drive them and their idealism away from politics.
Greg Sargent sees it otherwise…possibly. And he asks the question of whether it was Sanders who convinced them they wanted that revolution or if they already felt that way and he was just the guy who could articulate it and maybe organize that sentiment. Sargent also sees it as possible that Sanders will throw his support to Hillary as someone who can make some of it come true. I sure hope so. I sure don't buy the argument that it's necessary to elect a President Trump so things will get so terrible that everyone will be begging for a Bernie by 2020.
I guess it worries me that so many vocal (i.e., posting on the Internet) Sanders loyalists seem unable to accept the possibility that Clinton might have won the nomination — this is assuming she does — fair and square. One keeps writing me that it was obvious Bernie deserves it more. Well, no. If he'd gotten more votes than Hillary, he would. Sometimes, the person we think is the better candidate doesn't.
I like where Bernie Sanders wants to take this country even if I'm not sure he knows how to get us there and that he's underestimated the length of the trip. I also don't think he's as electable as those polls that show him clobbering Trump or Cruz say. But I sure admire the guy and I'll admire him more if he can redirect most of the enthusiasm he's generated into not just helping elect Hillary Clinton but also a Democratic Senate and maybe — dare I say it? — a Democratic House of Representatives.