Very good points all around. I would add that one of my main reasons for supporting Clinton is that she is connected in varying degrees to the establishment on many fronts. It seems counter-intuitive in an election that seems tilted towards non-establishment types like Trump and Sanders, but I think there’s something to be said about a leader who’s able to work with leaders from their own party, the opposition’s party, and leaders from various industries including but not limited to finance, health, education, and energy. The Presidency is too big to entrust to someone with no allies, and yet too small to be held effectively by one man (or woman) alone.
While I have great admiration for Bernie Sanders, I find him too thoughtless for the Oval Office. When the Senator was asked about the Flint Water Crisis, his answer was to call for the resignation of the governor. While I and many others sympathize with the call no doubt, the resignation of the governor does not alleviate the real and ongoing struggles of the Flint community. This is not the only time. When asked about foreign policy, he reacts instinctively that he voted against going into Iraq. When asked about racism, he nudges the subject back to more familiar territory with wall street demagoguery. While Sanders is never explicitly wrong with any of his answers, the lack of nuance and variation suggests he is almost singularly focused on a few subjects, and isn’t quite sure how to come at problems from more angles than one. Sanders has the dubious gift of taking complicated and multi-dimensional problems, and distilling them into easy one-line sound-bite solutions. Wages are too low? “$15 minimum wage!” Banks got away with fraud? “Break them up!” What’s left out of these rallying cries and slogans is the answer to the question: how?
While I admire your write up on Hillary, I think there are even more problematic aspects to the Sanders candidacy (than what was touched upon) that need to be highlighted and explored.