the DEM candidate as the DNC wiped the slate clean in order to make room for their chosen candidate and deliberately kept everyone down who might oppose her [Hillary].
I don't know if this was orchestrated or just a result of everyone assuming Hillary would be next (as determined by polls), causing potential candidates to avoid wasting time and money competing with a political powerhouse.
I don't know what actually goes on in the smoke filled rooms behind closed doors, but I have been told much of it is orchestrated. Is the orchestration done by unbiased strategists or outright promoters? These concepts are near interchangeable, but if the promoters carry the day, it could fail the best interests of the party, because "the people" will still demand a say. Ideology, obviously takes a back seat to financial backing. And throughout all this, everyone is assuming that the party will slam dunk the next election so selecting the most inspiring candidate doesn't carry as much weight as it should.
Or perhaps Hillary was simply the strongest candidate the Democrats could muster. I doubt this, however. There are likely many others that could have done better. Bernie Sanders, I think may have, but in the end, the primary election decides who gets the nomination. So in the end, much of the responsibility for the choice of candidate falls on the voters.
I have to admit that even uninspired as I was for the last eight years, I've been making a borderline subconscious assumption that the only viable Democrat out there was Hillary. But given the number of potential candidates available, that seems like some kind of conditioned and thoughtless response. Bernie surprised me doing as well as he did. A relative unknown with strong liberal leanings running as a Democrat. How he made it through the orchestrations (assuming they do exist) is a mystery, but I think we may have seen the last of Sanders now.
