I do not believe your assessment of Secretary Clinton is fair. Your examples are often a series of repeated pat-phrases, replete with inaccuracies. Furthermore, it is confusing when you compare and contrast these candidates in a single paragraph. A quick response:
1) “Sanders has captured the hearts and minds of millions…” So has Hillary, probably many more millions than Bernie. Loyalty counts.
2) “…authenticity and dedication to the issues facing Americans.” Both are quite dedicated to our country and indeed to each of us as people in a union to make a better world for our kids, family, and friends. Both have proven their worth; they are valued and invaluable.
Our system of representative democracy endeavors to select, through a two-party system, the two best and most capable candidates to compete in the culmination of a never-ending campaign constantly buffeted by vying forces, usually well managed and very well financed.
The People can be fooled: George W. Bush was a figurehead for the ultraconservatives (especially Cheney, Ashford, Rumsfeld, et alia), just as Rubio is an empty suit for the current crop of business moguls, power-brokers, and celebrities. Who do you suppose will run a Republican administration? The People can get lucky (or convinced so by revisionist history pumped as pulp to the tribal crowd): Obama has been an extraordinary experience for these United States, perhaps a beginning to the end of The Confederacy conspiracy.
3) Do you know her? Have you met her? Is she “cold?” Perhaps you mean analytical. We’ve had a wide variety of personalities populate the presidency. Remember “Silent Cal”, who apparently spoke less than Justice Thomas — some say.
4) I long ago gave up on virtually anyone telling “the truth,” if even known, at any time; words fail reality. I certainly don’t hold anyone to a belief or opinion from even the previous moment. I do believe people, even politicians, try to do their best. I trust their agenda conforms with mine.
All that “stuff” about past votes, statements, and actions is simply chaff. We spend minutes to the hours and days both Hillary or Bernie expend learning and relearning the who, what, where, how, and why on hundreds of incidents and issues that we skim on occasion.
5) “While Bernie has for fought decades on inequality, notably in the civil rights movement in 1960s. While Clinton in the 60’s was a conservative who worked on Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential campaign, who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But this is an unfair criticism since by Clinton’s Junior year in College her political views radically changed to supporting rights for blacks and being against the Vietnam War.
The Sixties, really? I worked on the Goldwater campaign.
As stipulated above, both have stellar credentials. In the last twenty years Bernie has been a US Congressman and Senator and a government servant his entire working career — that’s pretty “establishment”. Hillary has worked through a resume, including Senator and Secretary of State, far broader and more challenging. I think she is better prepared and more capable than Bernie of running this “Cat Ranch.”
Even if you can define “The Establishment,” every single candidate, whether Republican or Democratic, is of that class, even Donald Trump who has surely started making deals. What is so wrong with an orderly progression? I would prefer to continue the incremental advances in rational governance we’ve enjoyed despite conservative efforts at obstruction and dissimilation. The GOP would upset the proverbial apple cart — and so would Bernie. (I don’t think we have time to spare before Gaia uses climate change to unleash The Four Horsemen.)
The money? Regardless of who gets the nod in either party, to win the presidency will cost over a billion dollars. The Clintons have been through this before and are prepared on many fronts. For example, Hillary has raised over $25 million for other Democratic candidates; Bernie has raised $1,000. That’s a lot of loyalty and support. Take a look at the work The Clinton Foundation continues to do. Money is necessary in a land that spends over a billion dollars a year on just potato chips. I sure wish our elected officials could do their job rather than raise money. And by the way, I consider Soros and Buffet a lot more ethical than the Koch brothers, at least they are more open about where they spend their money.
You may have noticed from recent statistics that the Bernie supporters sent money, but didn’t turn out to vote — the establishment did both and will help Bernie should he win the nomination.
6) “Another critisim is that Sanders doesn’t have the foreign policy expertise of Hillary Clinton. Maybe Sanders hasn’t been Secretary of State but he does have track-record of better judgement on matters of foreign policy. A prime example is the vote to go to war in Iraq. Bernie voted against the resolution while Clinton voted for it. His judgement, in my opinion, is far better than that of Clinton’s, which has shown to be flawed in recent times such as the email scandal. Hillary was not in the wrong in using the server but did make questionable decisions in the handling of the entire debaucle. In conclusion Sanders record and integrity on the issues is far greater than that of Clinton’s.”
Judgement is a well-respected juggernaut fraught with contention, decision, consequences expected and unintended, review and constant revision. Many factors go into those immediate and extended especially portentous situations. Again, I trust both Democrats and not a single Republican. Most of the time for most of us, including a people who happens to be president, do the best we can. Hopefully, our leader in peace or war will dampen his or her hubris enough to ask for aide and advice.
Well, I did manage to carry on, though I tried to be succinct. You don’t need to denigrate Hillary to ably support Bernie. I respect your decision as I’m sure you will mine. No one is wrong here, the voting public will decide and we will need to support whoever is elected.
By the way, I have sent donations to both Bernie and Hillary.