The first question in the title isn’t all that difficult to suss out. The weft in both men’s narrative tapestry was that neither was beholden to Big Money, one because he was too rich to be bought off and the other because he was too ethical. One touted using his own money and the other touted using only small donor money.

The importance of this fact can’t be overstated. What voters of all persuasions recognized was that they were being offered two sides of an anti-corruption coin. The people of this country know to their marrow that the politicians of both parties and the system in its current iteration will never address their needs before the needs of the moneyed interests who put politicians in office and keep them in office with their ongoing monetary support.

The Democratic Party, in its infinite wisdom, chose to undermine the candidate who would have most resonated with the corruption weary public by instead choosing to go with a candidate, who rightly or wrongly, became identified by a large part of the public as a major font of corruption and secrecy due to her private server and the entwining relationships of donors to her private foundation with actions taken by the State Department.

But,but Donald Trump is easily painted as corrupt and unethical as well in his dealings as a business “tycoon”, why didn’t that hold against him? Because that’s what we expect of business tycoons. The public was/is hoping that he would take his trench skills of hand to hand combat with other moneyed interests and put them to use for the public while they had no such expectation with HRC, who in their eyes, had already demonstrated corruption while employed as a public servant.

Why is this fact still relevant and important while disempowered Democrats and anti-Trumpers roam the countryside looking for political answers to their discontent?

Because corruption in politics is the overriding issue that has to be addressed before any corrective legislative actions can have any hope for success in the future. Lately, we’ve been spending a lot of time and energy on whether to work inside or outside of the Democratic Party to make these corrections.

Please go ahead and read Gaius Publius: Should Progressive Let Corporate Democrats Lead and Be the Face of Resistance? Great article which basically once again demonstrates that Democrats have been fatally cracked vessels in which to store the hopes of their constituents. Plus, there’s no compelling reason to believe that they have had some kind of collective Saul on the road to Damascus experience that would instill confidence in turning to them yet again to lead us out of the Trump abyss.

Even more important than the article is the COMMENTS - please, please read them as well
Ask yourself this question – if there had not been massive anti-Trump demonstrations (which some Democrats misconstrue as pro-Hillary marches) and angry articles from the true opposition of disenfranchised liberals, would the Democrats at this moment be mounting any kind of anti-Trump activity of their own initiative, or would they already be plotting how to go along and get along to appear just liberal enough to appease their own base while yet again mounting another effort to move rightward to pick up moderate Republicans?

Commenting on this very situation,Adam Schiff,confides that the elected Democrats are apprehensive about their own newly radicalized base, since what they prefer is “progress over deadlock” but we should all have no fear because:

“We have two of the most capable strategists as the head of our House and Senate Democrats," Schiff added, referring to House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Senate Democratic leader Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York."

Yes, he said that unironically. No fear, plebes! The same people who led us down rose garden paths into the wilderness know a great way to get us out.

I personally believe that if there was ever a time in history to be petty and vindictive and to match and mirror the Republicans own previous obstructionist behavior back at them, this would be that time. I think it’s fair to venture that there will be NO legislative endeavor coming from Republicans that any Democrat should be comfortable signing onto for any reason. Any Democrat that goes “Vichy” can be said as part of a tautology to be serving either their own corporate masters or their own desire/need to be re-elected in a red or purple area. There is no discernible motive for a Democrat in a solid blue area to go Vichy except . . . money.

I would like to turn at this time to the amazing comments and commenters in the Gaius Publius article in nakedcapitalism and highlight what I think is one of the single best comments I have ever read anywhere which was made by Jim White:

If one looks at the Democratic party as an organization that operates with most of the economic benefits flowing to the top officials and few to the lower levels, we now have a Democratic party that is very much like a modern US corporation.

And a Democratic politician is unlike a corporate official in that AFTER they leave their current employ, they can still extract considerable income by becoming a lobbyist, which could obviously influence their behavior while in office.

From the Democratic elite standpoint, they had a product with value for wealthy donors, after all they raised $1 billion to promote HRC as president (and the Clinton foundation was able to pull in additional billions in anticipation of her victory)

In corporate speak, while the elite Democrats may have lost share in the political market, they may still believe they have a product that will extract wealth for themselves.

I think Jim Wright nailed explaining the previously inexplicable behavior of why Democrats have so consistently worked against easily identified initiatives that would redound to the benefit of citizens as opposed to themselves and their donors. Let's just get that out of the way and accept it. They're paid to be bad, they can't be as bad as they are and retain amateur status.

Remember I mentioned in the title of this essay “the key to future success?” Future success accepts that the foundation for forward progress is rooting out corruption, and the key to rooting out corruption is rooting out Big Money. I would postulate that the only politician or Party or reform movement worth listening to or investing time in, is the one that follows the Bernie model and agrees to accept only small donor contributions and eschews PACs.

That is the ONLY way to establish both short and long-term credibility from the getgo and to maintain it throughout the life of the candidate, the elected official, and the Party/Movement.