I disagree. She works closely with some establishment interests and is completely opposed by others. As a moderate, her support is fractured among different special interest groups which is why so many groups oppose them at any given time.

What I have seen is that "the Establishment" prefers putting ideological candidates with base appeal and thin resumes in office, like evangelical-guy G.W. Bush and identity-politics-guy Barak Obama. They get strong popular support from their ideological/demographic base, who seems to stick with them no matter what, and then when they get into office and got dominated by insider and corporate interests, their parties put up with it because of the base support. They didn't go in, IMO, with a plan to sell out their parties' values and sell out the middle class. They were weak presidents who lacked experience and got owned.

It's that kind of candidate -- the ideological base fave with a thin resume who gets dominated by insider interests once they move into the White House -- who has quite effectively served establishment interests to perfection in the past 2 presidencies.

IMO "the Establishment" is actually more threatened by people like Clinton and Trump, who are moderates, and who can focus on bread and butter issues, and who have the ability to negotiate, force deals and lead discussion of legislative actions. If they are in office, the national political dialog would focus on the business of the country, which is what corporations who are constantly working in their own interest as opaquely as possible, don't want.

I disagree that Bernie Sanders is anti-Establishment. He's a perfect fist-waving, injustice-spouting tool to distract people with grievances, and then lack the executive ability to pull anything off in office or stand up to interests, and he will get told what to do. This has been the pattern that has perfectly served corporate interests for the past 2 presidents.