The Clinton juggernaut is losing traction. Powered by the full weight of the Democratic Establishment, it was designed to smoothly carry its idol across America and into the White House. It still may get there. But now it must traverse a far more treacherous and uncertain route than Hillary and her entourage ever imagined. The course is lined with the pundits, operatives and analysts who will cover the spectacle with their usual attention to trivia and a faith in their own perspicacity matching that of the heroine herself.

This was all predictable. For it conforms to the parochialism and inbreeding that for so long has infirmed the Democratic Party's leadership as well as the punditocracy. Fortunes could be made betting against the "Washington consensus" whose singular talent for getting it wrong extends from the country's endless skein of foreign misadventures to electoral politics. They give the impression of all sipping out of each other's double-lattes at Starbucks in Dupont Circle. The resulting damage done to the party's traditional constituents, to the integrity of national discourse and to America's interests in the world is incalculable -- and may well be irreparable.

Still, it is worth recording the pathologies that this latest bruising encounter with reality reveal. Most obvious is the disconnect between political elites and the country they presume to know or aspire to govern. The success of Bernie Sanders makes that transparently clear. His greatest asset is simply that he ran as a "Democrat" -- that is, as representative of the party as forged in the mid-20th century and whose precepts conform to the socio-economic interests and philosophical truths typically held by most Americans today. He is the first Presidential candidate to do so since Walter Mondale in 1984. Mondale's defeat convinced many pols that the future lay with the Reagan smorgasbord of discredited nostrums and myths repackaged by skillful political craftsmen as the new Revelation. Market fundamentalist economic models, a cartoonish version of American individualism a la Ayn Rand, financial libertinism, muscle-flexing abroad in the mantle of democratic proselytizing, and anti-government demagoguery were fashioned into an intoxicating cocktail. It worked to the extent that the cheap high thereby produced tapped latent racism, jingoism, evangelical Christian passions, and a new-found greedy selfishness which was the mutant offspring of 1960s liberation.

Disoriented Democrats badly miscalculated the danger, and in the process lost sight of who they were. Most damaging, many found a comfortable niche in this new world of hallucination. Among them are the careerists, the trendy intellectuals, and the ambitious politicians who thought that they had discovered the one route to recouping power and glory. Together, they reshaped the Democratic Party into a me-too auxiliary to a waxing conservative movement. Today, it is radical reactionary Republicans who sweep elections at state and local levels, who hold an iron grip on the Congress, who have used their power to ruthlessly transform the judiciary into an active ally.
True, Democrats have won the White House twice. Bill Clinton did thanks to Ross Perot and then retained it against feeble opposition. In the process, he moved progressively to the Right in policy and philosophy ("the era of Big Government is over"). Republican ascendancy followed. Only the Bush era collapse into disaster abroad and at home made possible Barack Obama - who presented himself not as the embodiment of Democratic values but as a transcendent bipartisan healer- with just a few vermilion strokes. A prophet without message or mission. Whatever liberal ideas he had sounded were swiftly abandoned in what is surely the most shameless bait-and-switch in American political history.

This was predictable. After all, he thrice cited Ronald Reagan as the man who most influenced his view of the Presidency.

His administrations aeguably were oriented to the Right of Richard Nixon -- on civil liberties as well as on economic and social programs. Look it up. His White House actually took delight in maligning "Progressives" -- as made manifest in Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's cursing out of their representatives personally within its walls. That was the administration of which Hillary Clinton, the born-again 'progressive,' was a mainstay.

The cause already was abandoned in his first months in office when the Democrats held majorities in both houses of Congress. Indeed, Obama's embrace of the Wall Street barons was what allowed the Tea Party to channel popular anger and fear into a well-financed anti-government, know-nothing movement which nowadays dominates the political landscape. Hence, Obama drove the final nails into the coffin of the old Democratic Party.

This evolution of American politics in effect disenfranchised something like 25% of the electorate. They are Bernie Sanders' constituency. It's as simple as that. Personalities do play a role, but it is a secondary one. Sanders as a person stands out for his integrity, his earnestness, for his truth-telling, for his transparent decency. It is the message, though, that counts above all. An old Brooklyn Jew who advertises himself as a "Socialist" is not a compelling figure on the political stage. Intelligent and well-informed on domestic matters, he is not a phrase-maker, not verbally nimble, an incurably respectful gentleman, and largely disengaged from foreign policy where Hillary was custodian of ACT II in the pageant of American failure and fiasco in the Middle East. In addition, he feels inhibited about attacking the misdeeds of the Obama years out of a concern for estranging black voters, and turning the President from Hillary's tacit ally into an active ally. Yet, he has made history with unprecedented accomplishments in the teeth of implacable opposition from the entire political and media establishment.

Clinton's shortcomings and failures are aggravated by the widespread distrust that she engenders. That was evident a year ago. She has had higher "negatives" in polls that any serious candidate ever. So why was she coronated even before the contest began? Why did no other candidates present themselves? Why did Democratic bigwigs feel so complacent at the prospect of another electoral setback?

One common answer is that there was nobody else. Decimated at the state level, and lacking fresh blood in the Senate, they have a very thin squad. For the better part of a decade, Harry Reid has been the face of the Democratic Party outside of the White House - and during Obama's romantic non-partisanship phases, its face country-wide. Still, someone like Martin O'Malley could have been promoted as a credible candidate had the party bigwigs the will to do so. Compare him to George W. Bush in 2000. The Republicans molded that non-entity into a winner with relative ease. Democrats had much more to work with in O'Malley.

Or, they could have rallied behind Elizabeth Warren. Admittedly, she wasn't interested. Just think, though, of what could have happened had she been persuaded to run. For one thing, she quickly would have eclipsed Hillary as the front runner. Razor sharp, personable, with a blue steel edge to her words, and resolute -- she likely would have delivered the Last Rites to Clinton by Super Tuesday. And then imagine her against any of the Republicans hopefuls whose only chance of winning turns on Clinton's negatives. A Warren -- Republican X contest, moreover, would have raised the prospect of a Democratic comeback across the board that it utterly beyond Clinton's capabilities.

The principal reason the Democratic Establishment lined up behind Hillary in lockstep is their lack of conviction and a political timidity that arises from 1) capture by the big donors, and 2) past failures that have sapped self-confidence. Their uniform commitment to a flaccid orthodoxy has been evident for all to see these past few weeks as Hillary's supporters hit the panic button. It has not been a pretty performance. From the editors of The New York Times and Paul Krugman (who now sees Hillary as the heir to Obama whom he hagiographically refers to as "one of the most consequential and successful President in American history") to the feminist brigade headed by Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright, Democratic stalwarts have embarrassed themselves by their contrived and specious arguments for Hillary. This is not to say that there isn't a reasonable and logical case to be made for voting for her. It is the falsity of the presentation by those eminences that reveals the hollowness at the party's core. Its leaders never miss an opportunity to display their political obtuseness and fearfulness about leaving their very narrow, personal comfort zone.

The blunt truth is that the Democratic leadership has been meek and fearful for decades. They can't stand the sight of blood -- especially if it's their opponents. It took Newt Gingrich in 2012 to make an issue of predatory hedge funds and private equity. Reluctantly picked up by Obama, it resonated well -- so well that a gaggle of Wall Street operatives led by Steven Ratner called the White House to express vehemently their displeasure. Obama pulled the ads. (Jane Meyer Dark Money). Now it is Donald Trump who boldly steps forth to declare that the intervention in Iraq was based on lies, and that it is the source of our current troubles in the region. No Democrat, including Sanders, is ready to make that case with equal force. None has since 2008. One can go on and on. It's a loser's mentality.

In the end, Hillary Clinton in all likelihood will be the nominee. Equally true, she will arrive at the convention in Boston D.O.A. That is to say, D.O.A. if the Republicans somehow free themselves from their adrenaline soaked tantrum to nominate a sensible candidate. For the Democrats' one hope is that the opposition continue on its suicidal track that runs parallel to their own. Such is the state of American politics.