I thought maybe I could get most everyone here upset with me

[LiberalLovinLug]

87. For what its worth, to me the OP's purpose was not to deify Sanders.

He made sure to go out of his way to praise Hillary as well. I don't know why for some it has to be all about Bernie. Its funny to hear some posters react so knee-jerk to his name. Its so ironic that even when an OP goes out of their way to try and walk on rice paper and be as diplomatic as possible, some still make it all about Bernie (only in a critical way), while at the same time complaining how its only always about Bernie!

I can see why he'd conjure up the names of the two candidates. Because it was a great example of two very different approaches to election finance. What better examples to use? I thought he was quite genteel and careful in his wording and went out of his way to not offend, yet still make his points. The Clintons are THE example of third way strategies. They wrote the book on it. Not necessarily abandoning small donors, but putting more of the efforts into wooing big business dollars, competing with the GOP for them, this became the new norm. The Clintons were a big part of promoting the DLC with a board made up of CEOs from industry. This secretive band of unelected corporate bigwigs led decision making in the party for decades. Only disbanded in 2011, but whose influence carried on. And look where we are now.

So the Clintons are a big part of one side of the story. And Sanders, who is the most visible politician fighting for election finance reform is another prominent player. That's why , I gather , their names were brought up. This has nothing to do with the primaries.