Clinton/Obama were two establishment candidates up against each other. At the beginning Clinton had most of the Super Delegate endorsements and most of the money.

The problem was that she planned to win it before or on Super Tuesday, and when that did not happen she had no plan B. So Obama went through weeks of winning contests.

But to portray Clinton as a non-establishment candidate, no, I cannot go along with that.

Wouldn’t the Establishment here be the DNC? Clinton was not the choice of the DNC—remember the RBC actually took votes AWAY from her to give to Obama?

I’d like to see that justified by a reading of the post. Here’s one candidate for the nut graf:

What was Hillary offering that rallied this constituency behind her and which has remained an amazingly strong identification? She offered material improvements to ordinary lives, and an explicit commitment to use the power of the state to achieve those ends.

If FDR-style policy outcomes is the establishment — as it used to be, let us remember — than have at it, say I.

This post has nothing, nothing whatever to do with an Inside Baseball-style critique of Hillary’s campaign strategy, before February, or after.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

THAT I can control, and I intend to.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

I don’t get the point of this essay. Especially when she ends with:

For Clinton Democrats, there is nowhere else to go with Obama because there was never anything there to begin with.

So what are we supposed to do?