First, her successful leadership and extensive experience in dealing with domestic and foreign affairs span nearly 30 years. Apparently, she's taken on many roles in the political sphere; she's been a tested and proven fighter. When the going gets tough, she might have a charming, sarcastic laugh to offer, but her strength under pressure is incomparable. I recall the 11 hour Benghazi interrogation, which might as well included waterboarding as Republicans put the, now Democratic, presidential candidate through the ringer. Let's
not forget, she did nothing wrong. Republicans accused her of an apparent coverup for political gain and lying to the families of the deceased. And, she came out unscathed. Cool, calm, and collected, that seems to be her nature, and it is something we need in this country. She's championed women's rights, children's rights, civil rights, gay rights for decades. Hillary Clinton was a first lady in the White House in 1992, and from then until today, she's been fighting for the American people. She served two terms as a New York, United States Senator, and in '08 as Secretary of State for President Barak Obama. Hillary Clinton is one of the most consequential feminine figures of the 21 century, adored by millions and voted in Time Magazine the most admired women for 20 years in a row.
Often, Bernie brings up Hillary Clinton's campaign financiers, but she sent out an e-mail asking for donations people donate to the folks of Flint, Michigan, whose governor should be jailed, for their water crisis. She, at least in that email, asked for no campaign donations, has Bernie done the same?
I may not agree with all of her positions, in that personal religious beliefs may not align with her fight, but that doesn't mean there's another candidate more qualified to lead not only the Democratic Party but the country too. A Democratic Socialist, as Sanders coins himself, is a disaster for democracy because a political revolution comes through the democratic process and not a term socialism, which is counterproductive to the rest of the left-leaning Democratic Party. Our goals require millions of young people to rise out of the shadows and vote Democratic because of the parties inclusive stance and the family values etc., we share as Democrats. Some of which include:
*Raising the Minimum wage to a liveable wage. That's democracy, and we don't need socialism to accomplish that goal.
* Getting money out of politics is big with progressives. First, many states are starting to hear arguments and even set up conventions to amend the Constitution, both at the state and federal levels. Congress will never vote to get money out of politics because they're bought by the very people they'd be fighting against, which doesn't make sense, to them.
* Universal Health Care: What's not known is the fact that Republican governors who refuse Medicaid expansion offered under Obamacare promises medical insurance to the most vulnerable and would nearly cover every American in the United States. But for some reason, that's never discussed. Republicans are blocking universal health care which is already funded. So, for Sander's to claim he wants to expand Medicaid is a misnomer as the problem isn't the expansion, but the political partisanship of the Republican Party.
* As for reducing the cost through a single-payer program is an entirely different ballgame, one in which private insurers and bastard pharmaceutical companies would rail against; however, it is possible to pass laws through Congress on medication pricing, etc.
Reducing college debt and predatory lending doesn't take a socialist movement, in that, people come together to push for change through their elected officials. The cost of tuition is too high. In fact, I would advise potential students to see a degree is required for the field. Some jobs require degrees while others don't. It's possible a trade, technical school or two-year degree would be sufficient. But, still, post-secondary education is expensive no matter how you slice it, and we have to invest in people instead of investing in the pocket books of billionaires, for once, maybe they could invest in the American people and finance logically repayable loans with low-interest rates. How can folks contribute to an economy, they're slaves? It's a perpetual cycle of working just to stay above water, which in the wealthiest country on earth is a damn shame. Hillary has practical answers to complex issues; whereas Bernie is a one-trick pony, he's a one issue candidate. Getting money out of politics, as previously discussed, is already taking place, so it's Bernie Sander's who just showed up to the political revolution and not the other way around.