1) Hilary Clinton was and always has been pro-corporate, “muscular” in her foreign policy, and a mainstream neoliberal democrat. It isn’t an attack if it’s just true. If that galvanized people and contributed to the national zeitgeist that precluded Clinton from becoming president then I understand where you are coming from. But that is not the “fault” of anyone. We just so happen to live in an age where Americans are waking up to their political reality and they don’t like it, because it’s a reality in which they are left out. Clinton could have denounced her pro-corporate, imperial ambitions and would have won a lot of people over if she had, but she chose to equivocate on the issues that would have mattered for this new, crucial type of voter.

2) If Sanders was on the attack then she absolutely was, too. Whether it was backchanneling with the DNC, spending political capital to get Washington Post writers to write op-eds favorable to herself but extremely critical of Sanders, or using millions of dollars to fund an online anti-Sanders trolling campaign to try and win back the internet, she was always engaging in political subterfuge to tank the Sanders’ campaign and promote her own. Furthermore she lied about his “support” for regime change and muddied the ideological waters in extremely disingenuous and harmful ways, securing victory in a primary in which her nomination was virtually an anachromistic relic from more naive times, when we believed that democrats and republicans somehow represented our interests and had contributions to make to promote the political aspirations of everyday Americans. Long gone are those days and people who engage in apologetics for the old guard are only going to make things worse, as more and more extreme, right wing politicians will continue to be elected.