I see traces of welcome for Bernie Sanders stepping up for the presidential race here. Unfortunately, it is couched in the parenthetical hope that it may push Hillary to the left, or "start a dialogue."
Which is precisely the wrong message. You can all talk yourself blue, but that is the most passive response you can offer to offer to the crisis currently confronting our country. And it shows that people will bow to the notion that money equals power.
Let's just accept that reality and there's a fair chance it will be a reality.
Personally, my first impulse is, with the next paycheck coming in 2 days, is to throw some money towards Bernie, after he announces. I have no inclination to send it to Hillary despite the persistent messages popping up to be "all in" for Hillary.
(I must digress here and remind folks that "All In" should suggest the title of a book/hagiography Paula Broadwell wrote regarding her subject/lover, General Petraeus. A military term that she degraded in a fantastically Freudian slippage way.)
I think the hesitancy toward Sanders is the very symptom of the fretting Dems. It's like being glad that Eugene McCarthy stood up to LBJ "symbolically." But Nixon ended up the president. Yeah, the "Old Warrior" Humphrey ended up being the Dems choice, because he had---well, a lot of the qualities Hillary has, though with more deep Dem experience.
Bernie may get the little donors like myself, the same as I did for Obama. But it is important to think of ways to get votes without money. Educate voters?
Because I really can't imagine even tending right wing voters finding a more acceptable message from Hillary than from Bernie.