If this protest is misdirected into the Democratic Party,  Wall Street will have carried the day.  Let me make it perfectly clear that the previous sentence has absolutely nothing to do with a general bias against cooperation and coalition.  It is instead only an acknowledgement of the fact that Obama and his party are heavily supportive of Wall Street.    

There is no law which states that oligarchs can’t fake sympathy for the people.  Neither is there a law declaring that oligarchs can’t bend just a little in order to keep the better part of their system of ruthless exploitation intact.  Therefore, the precondition for any alliance with the Democrats can only be a total, verifiable repudiation of all forms of servility to the dictates of corporate power.   Given what we’ve seen from the Democratic leadership over the past few decades, a genuine move in that direction seems most unlikely.      

Should the two-party system be replaced with a multiparty system?  Of course, multiparty systems and two-three-party systems have different strengths and weaknesses.  More to the point, however, is the fact that this topic has nothing to do with the benefits of a system of two broad-based parties, for the simple reason that the so-called “two-party” system of this country is based overwhelmingly on unaccountable, despotic corporate power.  In other words, it's no kind of democratically legitimate party system at all:  It’s an absolute dictatorship of a single party of big business.  In reality, none of us have any firsthand knowledge of what a real two-party system would be like.    

The movement, IMO, should also avoid the trap of partisan politics, of the kind that would be inherent to an alliance with the Democrats.  The United States is a diverse country. All of its people, whether on the (real) left or right, must understand that the people who control Washington aren’t in the least bit interested in ANY ideology other than the one that’s based on mindless, heartless greed.