In their usual condescending way, in their Sunday Review, the editors of The New York Times dissed Bernie Sanders and chances he might have to get things done if he were elected president. I wonder just how effective Hillary would be: how many enemies she has; who would cross the party divide to support her; what her big corporate donors would do if she turned on them out of principle, say to stop fracking or to do away with privately financed prisons. First of all, in that very same New York Times you can find an article offering some insight into Bernie´s effectiveness here. Furthermore here is a summary of some of the things Bernie could do without having to get the support of Republican legislators: http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-bernie-sanders-solutions-would-dramatically-improve-wages-poverty-and-inequality
In their editorial in the Sunday Review, the Times said that Revolutions are bottom up, not top down. This is silliness. Revolutions have LEADERS who often are the ones who give form to the inchoate yearnings of the people. In the US, I don´t think Sanders means a Cuban-style revolution, but rather movements that give voice to the very legitimate claims people have about the dominance of corporate wealth in our economy, about climate change, about unequal chances. I don´t trust Hillary to help these voices make changes.