I read two interesting things in Salon today (my echo-chamber of choice). The first (http://www.salon.com/2016/02/15/sanders_might_be_our_best_candidate_but_dont_buy_into_his_masterful_pandering_about_starting_a_political_revolution/) describes Sanders’ talk about revolution as pandering, explaining that all politicians make promises they know they can’t keep and that Sanders is clearly playing the pollitical game.  The second, (http://www.salon.com/2016/02/15/bernies_man_behind_the_scenes_tad_devine_is_the_karl_rove_to_sanders_2016_populist_uprising/) is about Sanders’ campaign advisor, Ted Devine, who is a hardcore inside-the-beltway politico.

Did these articles make me think “Oh yeah, Bernie’s just like all the rest so revolution smevolution”?  No.  It made me think maybe he can win.  It made me think about the incremental changes that have come from the 60s movement.  It made me think, well, what made John Lewis and Jesse Jackson and Paul Wellstone and Hillary Clinton and Madeline Allbright get involved so they could make changes?  What made the people get involved who made the incremental changes that resulted in there now being perhaps critical mass of people of color in positions of power so that the problems of Ferguson and mass incarceration can’t be ignored?  Maybe some good old effective pandering?

I’m still completely convinced that changing hearts and minds of the opposition doesn’t happen.  Bigotry and fear dig in when you try to change them.  But there are more Democrats in this country than Republicans, so maybe mobilizing them to believe in big changes even though we know perfectly well that only incremental changes ever get made is the only way to get the next generation fired up to get in there and be the incremental changers.

I also still think Hillary would be a better president than Bernie because she has what it takes to work in the current hostile environment.  But if Bernie supporters get involved, maybe by 2020 or 2022 the tide in Congress and state governments will have turned.