melon said:
Really, I'm less inclined to blame Hillary here, and more inclined to blame the political parties for creating this convoluted and long drawn out primary process.
Wouldn't we all have been happier, had Iowa and New Hampshire coronated our candidates like usual?
I've been meaning to reply to this for a few days now. I think you've hit the nail on the head, blaming the process for much of the problems and division that's going on right now.
You seem to be very familiar with the ways of Canada - you're moving here soon, right? - so you probably know about our process of electing leaders of political parties, and it is so much easier, faster, and more efficient than yours.
In my view, what's happening right now in the US is that contrary to most election cycles, you have two very strong candidates running for the Democratic party. Normally, this should be thought of as a positive thing - yay Democrats! - but all it's causing now is bickering and division.
Because of the strength of the candidates and the relative closeness of their delegate counts, the process has to go on and on before it resolves. In the meantime, the American public is becoming more and more invested in seeing their particular candidate win, forgetting that essentially, they're both on the same side! Your media certainly hasn't been helping, sensationalizing every aspect of the candidates and the process, as the US media is wont to do. This seems to be setting up an air of fervency, whereby it's taking on a tone of a sporting event, with the fans of each "side" being overly invested in the outcome. Rather than being pleased that there are two very strong, capable candidates running, this is leading to the inevitable mudslinging and whatnot.