= new reply since forum marked as read
The trouble with the premise of the OP and Sarandon's rather sad comments is that the Sanders revolution is not happening No one has seen any evidence of the so-called Sanders revolution https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-yet/
To succeed, Sanders might have to drive Americans who don't normally participate to the polls. Unfortunately for him, groups who usually do not vote did not turn out in unusually large numbers in New Hampshire, according to exit polling data.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=
&w=1484
...As for Sanders, he credited his victory to turnout. "Because of a huge voter turnout -- and I say huge -- we won," he said in his speech declaring victory, dropping the "h" in "huge." "We harnessed the energy, and the excitement that the Democratic party will need to succeed in November."
In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.
To be sure, the general election is still seven months away. Ordinary Americans might be paying little attention to the campaign at this point, and if Sanders wins the nomination, he'll have the help of the Democratic Party apparatus in registering new voters. The political revolution hasn't started, though, at least not yet.
Without this revolution, I am not sure how Sanders proposes to advance his unrealistic agenda
birds of a feather and all that.
I see Clinton as more of a "slap a fresh coat of paint over it" candidate.
But there's obviously room for disagreement on that. 
She was not only early and vocal against Bush-Clinton's horrible war on Iraq, she is speaking the truth NOW, once again at risk of her career.
She is saying that there are many, many people who will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton--actively dislike her, in vast numbers, and actively distrust her, in vast numbers. Clinton is so seriously corrupt and so in bed with warmongers (Henry Fucking Kissinger, for godssakes! And Robert Kagan, neo-con godfather!) that, like millions of other progressives, myself included, she doesn't know what she will do in the GE. How can she vote for THAT?
Corruption so serious that Sec of State Clinton was handing out federal weapons contracts to 20 countries in exchange for DONATING BIG BUCKS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION! Warmongering so serious that millions of people are being murdered, brutalized, starved and displaced--including many, many women being raped--across a swath of countries--Iraq, Libya and Syria--that she BRAGS ABOUT destabilizing!
Clinton furthermore supported the fascist coup in Honduras, where women who peacefully protest the fascist regime are routinely being raped and murdered, and women and gays are routinely subjected to oppression including many forms of brutality and deprivation (fired from jobs, etc.). Berta Caceres, the Goldman Environmental Prize winner, recently murdered by the fascist death squads that Clinton helped to unleash, is just one of many!
And what a bitter irony that Clinton told the children who fled here from Honduras that they must be deported back to the killing fields of Honduras "as a lesson to their parents."
HOW can we vote for this? HOW can we vote for MORE of this? You think Clinton was KIDDING when she laughed at the murder of Gaddaffi?! ("We came, we conquered, he died!"--ha, ha, ha!) This is monstrous callousness. It DOESN'T COUNT all the people who are now suffering and dying in the chaos Clinton created in these countries. They don't matter.
Again, how can we vote for this? And if THIS 50+ year loyal Democrat--myself--is thinking that same thought that Sarandon articulated, what of the millions who simply viscerally dislike and distrust Clinton for reasons they might not be able to articulate. Many will vote for Trump or whoever the Pukes put up. And many WON'T VOTE, or will do something else--join a third party, create a third party, revert to other kinds of activism or will suffer despair and bury their heads in the sand once again.
THIS is what Sarandon was trying to warn us of--what she has heard on the campaign trail, and what is reinforced by all polls: Clinton is a very weak candidate, and Sanders is quite the opposite.
Though Sanders started without ANY establishment support, and has endured the active opposition of the entire Democratic Party structure AND the Corrupt Media, his "favorability" ratings among the American people are extraordinarily high, and he beats Trump resoundingly (by 20 pts in one poll!) and beats all Pukes, whereas Clinton actually loses to Cruz and Kasich in national matchups. (Her margin against Trump is half that of Sanders.)
Sarandon is not only courageous--she is a prophet. She is trying to warn us! She is NOT saying don't vote for Clinton in the GE. She is saying that she is hesitating--as I am, and as many others are--and that many, many people are going to vote AGAINST Clinton in the GE. She is saying that Clinton is a disaster-waiting-to-happen. And she also prophesizes that, when that disaster results in a President Trump, we are then in danger of a violent revolution. She doesn't WANT a violent revolution, for godssakes! She is a peace activist!
The way to prevent a violent revolution in this country--as has happened in so many other countries when the Oligarchs went too far--is to change course NOW, before this Titanic sinks, nominate Bernie Sanders, and gear up the Democratic Party to put this very popular, populist candidate in the White House, where he will fight for a fair economy and start cleaning out the godawful corruption in Washington DC.
To misinterpret what Sarandon said is one the many disservices that Clinton supporters have been guilty of at DU (and probably elsewhere). They are repeatedly calling her "contemptible." She is not contemptible. It is Clinton who is contemptible for her pay-to-play at the State Department and all her other corruption, for the horrific suffering she is responsible for in Honduras and the ME, and for having murderous dirtbags like Kissinger and Kagan on her "team" (not to mention her dirty tricks dirtbag David Brock).
One of the pay-to-play countries was Saudi Arabia. Those royal bastards are real nice to women, eh? It's a triumph of "feminism" to give the worst, most violent patriarchy on the planet all the latest U.S. weaponry to smash their target acquisition, Yemen. (Oops, missed IS!) --in exchange for millions of Saudi dollars with which to influence endorsements and superdelegates.
Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for supporting women's rights. 
These are some of the reasons that I strongly support Sanders, and don't know if I can vote for Clinton in the GE. I started campaigning for the Democratic Party at age 16, in JFK's 1960 election campaign. I've been a very loyal Democratic voter and supporter ever since. Like Sarandon, I'm 70 years old and a woman. We've been through it all, as to feminist struggles. And we've been through it all, as to the tragedies that hit the Democratic Party in 1963 and 1968, and all that has happened since then to DESTROY the prosperous, hopeful country that we grew up in.
Take our wisdom for what it is worth to you. But don't call us "contemptible." Sarandon is not "contemptible." She is a hero. I am not "contemptible," and while I'm not much of a hero, I do have a right to my opinion on matters regarding our political party and our country, without being called "contemptible," a Trump supporter, a traitor, a sexist, a racist, an elitist, and all the other crap that the Clinton campaign is throwing out there.
Amazing how people can shut down and shut out what they don't want to hear. I didn't have any problem understanding her. 
