We can find a balance, so in the spirit of honesty..

[mike_c]

30. I've read it...

...and if Eichenwald is to be believed then the best one can say is that NEITHER Senator Sanders nor Senator Clinton should have been the party's nominee, Sanders because Eichenwald believes he could not defeat Mr. Trump and Clinton because, well, she proved demonstrably that she could not beat Mr. Trump, at least not decisively. Eichenwald is so disaffected with American voters who supported Senator Sanders that he feverishly works to obscure the truth that Senator Clinton was the wrong candidate at the wrong time by wailing about Bernie-bros and conspiracy theories.

Sure, no one can say for certain that Senator Sanders would have defeated Trump, although I do believe he would have done so handily. But what we can say with absolute certainty is that Senator Clinton was the wrong candidate during an election when Americans desperately wanted to elect a populist, not an establishment insider.

Frankly, I also dispute some of the arguments Eichenwald offers, like his suggestion that the DNC played little role in the anointing of Clinton because it was somehow "her turn" to be president. I think that's rubbish. Note too that Senator Clinton immediately rewarded Wasserman-Schultz when she stepped down from the chair of the DNC amidst a scandal about its favoritism toward the Clinton campaign. Wasserman-Schultz is the biggest villain in this whole affair, IMO.