Bernie Sanders, a surprise media sensation throughout the Democratic presidential primary, may have worn out his welcome.
Journalists and commentators, once dazzled by the socialist’s unexpected appeal in the election, are turning away this week after a chaotic Democratic convention in Nevada and a slash-and-burn statement from Sanders against the party’s leadership.
“Sanders’ rhetoric has grown harsher and more bitter as the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination has gone on,” USA Today’s editorial board said late Wednesday. “[H]e would do himself, his party and American politics a huge favor if he finished out the campaign with more grace and maturity than he has shown lately.”
Josh Marshall, editor and founder of the left-leaning Talking Points Memo website, said Sanders’ campaign is infused with “toxicity” that comes “right from the top.”
“[H]is attacks on the party have released something just as damaging to the causes he professes to represent,” wrote liberal Washington Post on Tuesday. “Coupled with his refusal to raise money for the party, his increasingly harsh rhetoric could hurt Democrats up and down the ballot in November and beyond.”
The Democratic convention in Nevada erupted in chaos on Saturday when Sanders’ supporters protested for vote recounts and delegate reapportionment between Sanders and front-runner Hillary Clinton, who won the state caucuses in February and is now less than 100 delegates away from clinching the nomination.
Sanders responded to criticism of him and his supporters with a defensive statement on Tuesday that called on the Democratic Party to “fight for real economic and social change” or “remain dependent on big-money campaign contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy.”
Leaders within the party, including National Democratic Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, condemned Sanders and accused him of being irresponsible.
Liberal blogger Mark Moulitsas said Tuesday that Sanders’ statement was “the biggest s—t.”
Paul Krugman, liberal economist and New York Times columnist, said there have been indicators all along that “would not accept defeat gracefully or even rationally.”
