The title of the Politico article says it all, "Can Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama save the establishment?"
Hillary Clinton stepped into the 2016 presidential race hoping voters would effortlessly pass the torch from President Barack Obama to her, yet found herself surrounded by a raging anti-establishment inferno. “Burn it down” was the unofficial slogan of the Republican primary. And Bernie Sanders gave her a run for her money by metaphorically lighting all her Wall Street speaking fee money on fire.Today, as she is unofficially crowned the “presumptive nominee,” Clinton has officially done what Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham could not: survive the populist wave while being perceived as an insider. Now, as Donald Trump tries to assemble a potent pitchfork brigade to seize Washington, the establishment’s lonely eyes are turning to Hillary Clinton....she and Obama have begun crafting arguments more associated with establishment politics than populism.Make no mistake: this is nothing less than a political high-wire act being attempted by a meticulous but not always agile candidate. Many Sanders voters say they don’t trust her when she claims to be a “progressive,” and any new rightward lean will only confirm their suspicions.
And there's what's wrong - the establishment is not worth saving because the establishment has twisted itself into a self-serving mass of bloat and avarice. The establishment are not benign overlords looking to do the best for the most as they claim. They seek power for the sake of power and the hell with everyone else. All that they offer is the pretense of concern.
Trump blows that apart as does Sanders, whereas Clinton is the embodiment of the self-serving establishment seeking the status quo. Even asking the question, shows what side you are on. I was never impressed with Politico, this only reinforces the reason why.