seems to think Bernie is an anachronism, "out of joint" with the times, who "could have tuned Pete Seeger's guitar," and that Bernie supporters are simply to young to know what they are seeing. (Not that being a Pete Seeger throwback is entirely a bad thing.)

On the other hand, his point about Hillary's campaign is correct.

[deleted]

The Democrats are playing against the laws of cause and effect. Hillary’s campaign is dead, and she’s winning. Bernie’s is alive, and he’s losing. How can such things be? Should she actually win the nomination, as all the journalists and pundits keep telling us she will and must, the Democratic party will have said “No!” to enthusiasm, inspiration and excitement. They will have said no to Bernie’s peoples’ campaign, and re-embraced the cynical, entitled, passionless politics of the Clinton machine.

This would be a curious strategy even in normal times. Up against Trump the Implacable it is wildly out of tune. Sanders has played fair. He has treated Hillary with respect, even deference. He threw out an assault on her outstanding weakness — the secret server and all its classified emails. He took, insofar as one can in this era, the high road. If she is still just barely winning, what hope can she really have when He Who Knows No Boundaries Whatsoever steps us to work his inexplicable magic?

the way the press see him. It is a must read.

And for your reading pleasure (I got hooked on reading the comments to this article and this one is my nomination for the #1 comment:)

J Christian Snedeker · Charleston, South Carolina
Hopefully, the tide is finally ebbing for Hillary Rodamn Clinton, leaving a vast swath of redolent mudflat, populated by a plethora of gasping bottom-feeding fish wondering where their hopes for a new Arkansas Scamalot have gone. The indiscretions of Predator Bill, and his enabling wife’s felonies, are coming back to bite them in the shorts in a big way.

Look upon your works, ye mighty white trash grifters, and despair.
Like · Reply · 14 · 11 hrs

YOU try and write something better than that! Brilliniant, bloody brilliant!

right-wing rag. I stopped my subscription years ago. Their editorials are full of RWBS and one of their top columnists is the insufferable Terry Corcoran (of climate change = junk science infamy).

Murphy appears occasionally on the CBC. He's an insufferable twit as well.

I shouldn't quote anything he writes in a positive way.

Too bad he's Canadian; what a magnificent take on the unholy state of things in the States. I recently read yet another takedown of Bernie by a Clinton surrogate, probably Charles Blow in the NY Times, in which he claims that Bernie should leave the race, the delegate math is impossible, and concludes that Bernie is running a "zombie campaign" since he can't win. Bernie's only mission is to act as a spoiler in Hill's campaign, preventing her from running against Trump now, forcing her to spend money on ads in upcoming primaries, and "distracting" her from the prize.

The sad irony is that the winner, Hillary, is the one running a zombie campaign and the person who should be the winner is the loser. The topsy-turvey world of the Democratic party has put in the fix and there's nothing short of a blood-in-the-streets revolution that will set things right.

Post 2008-economic crisis, his message has a lot more resonance than it did at any point prior to the 1940s. A lot of what he's saying had truth decades ago, but now, it's almost unavoidable and impossible to ignore. Canada weathered the economic crisis much better than the U.S. did thanks to high oil prices, better bank regulations (at the time) and a much stronger social safety net. So maybe that's why Murphy underestimates the relevance of Sanders message to the present. Canada may go through a U.S. crisis if oil prices stay low, but from 2008-2016 it hasn't experienced the same kind of crisis that we are still digging out from.

As far as Sanders pulling punches, I don't think he really deserves a ton of credit for this. If he had attacked Clinton earlier, I think it would have backfired in a Democratic primary, because Clinton is fairly popular within the party, and he was the unknown outsider. When he established himself and became better known, he had a little more freedom to sharpen the contrasts.

As far as the general election goes, I don't think Trump will necessarily be stronger against Clinton than Sanders has been in the primary. I think this is part of the reason that Clinton has lost her cool at times with Sanders -- he is hitting her with legitimate issues regarding conflicts of interest and character.

The thing that is damaging to Clinton aren't the 1990s scandals. Many were over-hyped and overdone. Benghazi has been beaten to death too. If the GOP plays those up, they are just playing to their base, and not to people outside of the Fox News bubble. Clinton's vulnerability is really more in terms of things like the Clinton Foundation and the pay-to-play big money politics that she has been involved with. The use of the private email server as a way of avoiding FOIA disclosures is an issue. Trump, however, isn't in a great position to exploit those lines of attack. Because he is an even bigger fraud. The second Sheldon Adelson starts writing $100 million to a SuperPAC to support Trump, the idea that Trump is "unbought" also evaporates with it. The biggest x-factor for the Dems really relates to the FBI investigation. If something comes of that, Clinton is in trouble. If she's cleared, and wins the nomination, though, I think she will have to make a number of other unforced errors in order to open the door for a buffoon like Trump. e.g. VP selection, antagonizing people within the party by moving too far to the right, etc.