Wall Street Journal - Standing Up For Bernie Sanders

[TomCADem]

2. WaPo - "The Wall Street Journal’s Bernie Sanders-can-win editorial is almost entirely wrong"

Of course, this Washington Post story attacks the WSJ's journalistic integrity and suggests that the WSJ is just trying to stir the pot.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/the-wall-street-journals-bernie-sanders-can-win-editorial-is-almost-entirely-wrong/

One should be under no illusions that the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal sincerely thinks that Bernie Sanders could or should be the rightful nominee of the Democratic Party. It's argument to that effect, published Thursday, is a bit of trolling so thorough that one suspects they could barely contain their giggles as they typed it up.

This is how it starts. I had to step away from my computer for a bit after reading it, because I slapped myself in the forehead so hard that I detached both retinas.

* * *
But it's that last line -- "Maybe Democrats should consider a contested convention" -- that is the point of the piece. The editorial board knows that it's just waving its hands and pulling rabbits from hats. Its goal is not to present a logical, rigorous case for why Sanders should be the nominee; its goal is to foment dissension and disruption within the party that it hopes loses in November.

The weirdest assumption it makes, though, is that Democratic superdelegates, largely elected officials and party leaders, would ever care one tiny iota what the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board thought about anything.