As Biden keeps fading, I don't know at what point the DNC realizes it has to get behind Warren to keep Sanders from the nomination, but whatever point the DNC figures that out at will *probably* be too late. That's the DNC's history of short-sightedness. cnn.com/2020/01/22/pol…
PS/ That's a piece of political analysis coupled with advocacy for Warren. But the analysis part—regarding the polling data, and the historical distrust of the DNC for Sanders—is not intended as a personal knock against *either* Biden *or* Sanders. Both of them are very good men.
PS2/ So for instance—returning to straight analysis here—Clinton had an opportunity to either attack Sanders and fire up his base/further divide the party *or* endorse Warren and stay silent on Sanders and so, in a generative way, work toward what she wants. She chose the former.
PS3/ Clinton chose the former because the DNC is still squarely behind Biden, and Clinton wants to be where the DNC is at so she can keep having at least *some* clout with the national party. The end result, ironically, was a *frustration* of her chief ambition: to stop Sanders.
PS4/ A simultaneously more strategic *and* visionary approach would've seen Clinton telling us what she's *for*—and given the date in the election-year calendar, *who* she's for—rather than focusing on dividing the party as she accused Sanders and his supporters of doing in 2016.
PS5/ Note: I'm very *very* uninterested in any Clinton/Sanders sparring either here or anywhere else. The focus is Trump—period. Anyone, whether Clinton or Sanders, dividing the party unnecessarily due to ego (either his or hers) is only hurting the country and *should* see that.
