he did actually answer the question - he lost the primary and is succumbing to what he perceives of as democratic legitimacy. that was his answer - if you want this stuff done, you gotta win an election first.

now, is he right though? does the fact that he lost the primary tie his hands? it sort of depends. i mean, he has to understand his mandate, to an extent - which is both to push for the things he campaigned on and to listen to the people that disagree with him. he has a mandate to push these points, certainly, but only up to a point, in the end.

something's that come out of this is that jimmy doesn't have much interest in democratic legitimacy, as a concept. this is all just about jostling for power, and that ought to be in a long list of grievances directed toward him. he wouldn't respect the will of much of any democratic body that disagreed with him. so, when does he get to be king, right?

but, let's not forget what the point was - it was understood by all that there is no actual leverage here, merely the power to call congresspeople out, and force them to lay out their hands. and, that logic simply doesn't apply in the existing senate.

so, the real question is what it is that bernie can actually do while maintaining the position he's in, and the answer is relatively limited. there's still nobody else in the senate that i'd rather have in that position. so, be patient.

you kids ever heard of joseph mccarthy?