Reticence created an enthuism gap

[JCanete]

58. corporate media has an agenda oh yes, but also the resources to blast it everywhere, in every

frequency, finding everybody's registers.

No, she did need to be loud about Wall Street. The noise does matter. This is a gridlocked Washington. Imploring the corporations to help her move them in the right direction is all well and good, but it is absolutely pointless. It just makes you the best understudy for the role of President possible. If they can't get the corporate shill, they'll take the one who wants to nudge them in the right direction, but be damned sure they're going to put their thumb on the scales for the corporate shill.

Putting in your platform that you want to stop a certain kind of abuse on Wall Street is at least something, but if you aren't riding a message of fighting corporate greed into Washington, then: first, you don't have a strong enough and focused enough message that will resonate with people who have good reasons to be cynical about Washington, and second, you don't have a galvanized public behind you and that issue, so that once you get in there you can actually cajole some institutions into conceding some ground.

As to destroying, again...either you point out corporate ties or you don't. Trying to paint Sander's platforms as unicorns was attempting to destroy something far more significant than Sanders and his candidacy...it was making things that should be possible into fantasies...like, what do you know, free college tuition. Such a fantasy that Clinton eventually added it to her platform. That in my opinion, is destruction.