"Break down every barrier" is catchy and works well with Clinton's branding—breaking barriers for women, breaking down Trump's proposal of a new Great Wall on the border, etc... But she isn't the candidate to beat Trump.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/…">Look here. Sanders has a bigger advantage over Trump than Clinton in every national poll, and Clinton is actually trailing Rubio and Cruz in most national polls.

Want to beat Trump? You're better off backing Sanders. They are both riding a populist wave, and Hillary is the essence of establishment.

Oops. Screwed up my tags, but the link still works.

You are in for real shock.

I seriously doubt that establishment Demonrats are going to be successful in connecting with the public. Like the rest of the 1%, their obscene wealth and privilege has sealed them in a gossamer cocoon from the rest of human society; in marketing it’s called the empathy problem. They’re part of the status quo and benefit generously from it, so consequently they can’t comprehend any opposition to it, never mind address it. Everyone they know is crazy rich and lives in a Manhattan penthouse–who are these silly malcontents that won’t stop bitching about the eCONomy or being shot in the back by police? For this same reason, the Walmart billionaires can’t understand that their sales have been circling the drain for years because the People of Walmart are now too poor even to shop at Walmart. They’ve been relegated to thrift stores and pawn shops, which is a perfect metaphor for the entire nation.

Democrats are in deep denial over the fact that 90% of the country is far worse off than we were in 2008, and that Obama was elected to be a liberal lion and then governed as a center-right, Wall Street Republican, which has totally demoralized many Democratic voters. Bernie Sanders’ campaign has taken off precisely because he opposes the corrupt kleptocracy that Clinton epitomizes. Many Sanders voters consider themselves to be people of principle, authenticity, and integrity, and they are not going to shrug and push the Clinton/Goldman Sachs endless corruption and scandal button in November. They’ll stay home or vote for third party candidates.

@3 - I'm just going to sit back and watch folks Bern down this thread. Of course, I agree with you 100% and said so in a few words...it's going to be much more fun reading the 50-paragraph responses from Bernie supporters.

@3 - I hope your self-satisfaction is edible, so you don't starve in the wasteland of a Trump-picked SCOTUS.

Goddammit...Sorry @3, only the second paragraph is meant to aimed threateningly in your direction.

@3 - "90% of the country is far worse off than we were in 2008..."

Democrats might be in denial, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think this even remotely approximates reality.

Unfortunately, the polls show Hillary does worse than Bernie against the Republican candidates. A candidate that half your party doesn't want (75% of voters under 45), that independents and the opposition hate? Sounds like a real winner. Just hope that when she loses in the general election, people recognize that the Democratic Party is to blame for handing us yet another mediocre, uninspiring candidate.

I don't know that President Obama had it in him to be a liberal lion, and we'll never know, because those "people of principle, authenticity, and integrity" didn't bother showing up at the mid-terms. And they don't seem to be turning out in droves to vote for Bernie, either.

While Trump appeals to the morons, he's not getting the majority of the Republican vote, being too horrible for even them (and remember, Republicans are horrible people). My prediction is that a lot of Republicans will stay home, or vote for Clinton if Trump gets the nomination because she is, like Obama, what we used to consider a moderate Republican in the days before the Republicans became horrible.

If she manages to pick up some GOP, some independents, the regular Democrats, and the non-pious purity test liberals, she'll win the election.

I'll vote for whoever the democrat candidate is... and I sort of don't care whether it's Clinton or Sanders, because neither of them are going to accomplish a fraction of what they're promising.

But at least having a dem as POTUS would help slow down the congressional republican hate machine a little.

Did you read that other NYT article about how she botched Libya? Is that what everyone means when they talk about Hilary's experience? And how long was she a senator compared to Bernie, anyone recall? Before anyone calls me a Bernie bro for doubting Hilary's experience or judgment, let me say that I have serious doubts about Bernie in the general election, too.

Sanders supporters need to face reality: he is NOT going to be the Democratic nominee, period. Yes, he has good ideas, and good intent, but that alone doesn't translate into concrete policies that will appeal to a broad range of voters, particularly swing voters, who, as we all know, are the real deciders at the national level. He has yet to prove he can attract a large, broad-based coalition; and he's going to get pummeled today in probably every Super Tuesday state except Massachusetts.

Trump, OTOH is a veritable juggernaut who is sweeping up the anti-establishment faction of the GOP faithful, to the great consternation of the mainstream Party establishment. If they don't outright finagle him off the ballot, he's going to be their nominee, and he's going to front what will no doubt be one of the dirtiest, most rancorous campaigns in modern U.S. politics. Sanders is simply too "nice" to stand up to the onslaught, whereas Clinton is going to be able to stand toe-to-toe with him, fight as hard and dirty as she needs to, AND whup is ass on policy issues to boot. That's what it's going to take to win this election; regrettable, but anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention to what's going on out in the real world right now.

Hillary being indicted for her shadow email system might give Trump a little boost, as well.

Just going to point out that the Republicans have been attacking Hillary far more than they have Bernie. Take that with a grain of salt when reading head-to-head theoretical match-ups. It's nice to have statistical evidence, but it's also nice to understand the biases inherent in the measurement.

@13:

I would posit that's because they don't actually view Sanders as a credible threat.

@ 6, Really? There's only an ocean of data on income and wealth inequality that show conclusively that 90% of the people in this country are earning less money and have a lower net worth, especially after adjusting for inflation. The Federal Reserve's own 2014 study found that half of Americans couldn't come up with $400 in an emergency without borrowing on a credit card.

@7 - " A candidate that half your party doesn't want (75% of voters under 45), that independents and the opposition hate?"

EXACTLY. How the fuck do people feel like Hillary is "more qualified" and "better in the general election" when she's spent less time in government and is widely disliked and distrusted?

@ 16, Check the polls. Trump is surging among blue collar workers, especially among blacks and Latinos. This should be impossible based on his rhetoric, and my guess is that these voters are reacting to 20 years of free trade policies that have ruined their livelihoods. The TPP will be the kill shot for what's left of the middle and working classes, and everyone knows that it will be one of the "tough choices" that Clinton will sign with her solid Goldmine Sacks pen while cackling with glee.

This is some of the worst political "analysis" I've seen on these pages.

It isn't very politically savvy to run a privileged, rich white woman against an authoritarian billionaire. That makes the acceptable range of an already tepid debate a tiny sliver of what it should be and guarantees low voter turnout, which by definition favors the GOP.

The Democratic Party establishment is showing some incredibly bad judgment putting all their eggs in the HRC basket...

I'm just glad that most of the country really has no to little choice in the deciding who the candidate will be. 2008 was probably the one exception in recent memory for the Democrats.

That said: I'll support Bernie until it's no longer reasonable to do so (and that could be tonight) but the most Hillary can expect from me is that I vote for her. And given the lackluster Democrats us here in Washington will see on our ballot in November she better be thankful for that.

And I look forward to the video of those speeches she gave coming out this fall. I'm sure those will put someone over the top on election day.

@16 I feel the same way and will also be caucusing for Sanders on March 26. If Clinton wins, I will vote for her. If there were a Republican who wasn't as extreme as the top 3 clowns, my "wasted" vote would go to an Independent instead.

I have yet to see any evidence around these parts that the Bernie maniacs are even marginally informed.

Please tell me: how do you imagine a platform on which a middle class tax increase, even a small one, is front and center, (this is Bernie's platform in case you are unaware of that), how do imagine that is going to fare in a general election?

I can tell you this is just plain established fact: a middle class tax increase is the third rail of American politics. It matters not at all whatever argument you have about the health care savings that are going to arise from single payer, it matters not at all that Bernie Sanders would not be getting his plan through a Republican, or even a Democratic, Congress. The electorate will only hear tax increase and that will be it. All of your dubious polls that purport to show a Sanders landslide are completely moot when you consider that the vast majority of voters haven't a clue what he is proposing.

That said I will most likely be voting for Sanders in the caucus, not that whoever wins Washington State means anything at all with our banana republic primary system. But you who are dribbling on about Wall Street! Neo-con! Drones!! Do you have any idea what the stakes are? Do ever read a Newspaper? I have trouble believing this.

People treating general election polling right now are, at best, utterly clueless about the predictive value of polling.

A) There's no track record of GE polling this early having any kind of meaningful predictive power. None. I've yet to hear anyone even bother to offer a theory about why early-primary season head to head polls are suddenly going to be meaningful in 2016 when they never have been before, probably because no one has bothered to develop such a theory. When a particular data source consistently produces useless data, you don't go back to that well.

B) Even if we set aside (A), comparing Clinton and Sanders v. Trump now is obviously not comparing like entities. Trump and Clinton are 100% name recognition; they're already-baked cakes. No effort to sell them or tear them down is going to change all that much about the public perception of them. That's absolutely not true for Sanders; he was never been put through the Republican attack machine. If you don't think that'll bring his positives down and his negatives up, well, I wish I lived in your alternative reality.

Both these things are widely known and well established. I'm sure some people promoting these polls as meaningful data simply don't know better, but I think in many cases , fans of Sanders are just simply latching on to any argument they can to promote his candidacy, regardless of its quality. It's dishonest, and they should knock it off.

The DNC just shoves Hillary down our throats regardless of how much it pisses off their base. It's the same thing republicans are going through with Trump. Is there any doubt that the establishment and 1% are ruining our country?

You do realize that all those polls that show Bernie beating Trump and Cruz and Rubio have one fatal flaw: the Republican machine hasn't yet BEGUN to attack him. Commie. Rape fantasies. Commie. Socialist. Commie. Reaching into your pockets. Commie. Peacnik. Commie.

HRC has already been subjected to every possible Republican attack, repeatedly, and she's still standing, arguably stronger.

Bernie (and his supporters) have no concept of just how ugly (and, with the uneducated loved so much by Trump) successful those attacks are going to be.

Trump vs. Sanders? No way either. I'd vote for a 3rd party alternative or forego my vote for the presidency.

@ 16, Check the polls. Trump is surging among blue collar workers, especially among blacks and Latinos.

No, he isn't. You're making that up. I assume you're talking about the tiny fraction of Nevada Latinos who vote the Republican primary, based on an exit poll sample size far to small to mean anything. The reality is that Trump remains much, much more unpopular among independents than any other candidate on either side.

And for everyone talking about H2H polling, that only really starts to have any even weak predictive power around 200 days before an election (as in, not for around another month); prior to that it's just noise with no empirical connection to the actual election results. We've got this data back to 48, these early H2H polls just don't have any predictable correlation with actual results. People using them to suggest Sanders is a better general election candidate are either dishonest, or simply don't know what they're talking about.

They're also not comparing like things. Republicans have been targeting Clinton aggressively for 25 years, and it's done some damage and driven up some of her negatives, but there's really no damage left to do. The same can absolutely not be said for Sanders. If you don't think the Republican attack machine can drive up his negatives, you're incredibly naive.

@28:
The DNC just shoves Hillary down our throats regardless of how much it pisses off their base.

Crap like this is why I'm really looking forward to Sanders getting creamed tonight. Nothing against the good Senator, who has ran a great campaign. But his fans are getting nasty, and nasty in racist ways, like this comment. Minority and black voters, particularly black women and older black voters, are among the most consistent and reliable voters the Democratic party has year in and year out, and they have been for a very long time. But according to people like tmplknght, they can't possibly be considered "the base". They are effectively accused of having no agency, they're not making a real choice, they're just pawns of the DNC, which is shoving a candidate down their throats (tmplknght can't possibly be bothered to actually pay attention to what these people actually think about Clinton, because it might contradict his or her derogatory stereotype about them). This kind of "only white people count, because we're the real base" nonsense belongs squarely on the other side of the aisle, where it's actually pretty much true.

Another note--if you're the party's "base" you won't threaten to take your ball and go home if your preferred candidate doesn't win. That's the exact opposite of what a real "base" would do. I have absolutely no doubt older black voters would turn out very well for Sanders. By virtue of threatening to screw the party if their favorite doesn't win the primary, Sanders fans demonstrate as clearly as anyone could just how far from "the base" they are.

Uhm, is there any indication she has clenched the nom yet? Returns haven't even come in yet. I know Bernie has an uphill climb, but he's not done yet. At least wait till tonight.

@33, um you are complaining about your opponents being nasty, then in the same breath implying that they are all a bunch of racists. Does that strike you as problematic at all?

I'd prefer Hillary to Donald any day, but she's really not guaranteed to win against him either. The reason she has so many super delegates is the same reason she has a serious issue with distrustful, disenfranchised voters (like me). She openly represents the establishment. On the other hand projected GOP voter turnout in November is way up. We can definitely expect the GOP to go even further on the offense when the nomination is made. The DNC knows this and still they treat Bernie like he's unelectable when they should be promoting both of their candidates because the only thing that will matter is who will tear Trump apart into the smallest pieces.

Marry me, David! (Don't worry about Mr. Vel-DuRay. He's very open-minded.)

Trump would burn Bernie alive. I'm optimistic about HIllary versus Trump because Trump has a melts down when confronted by strong blonde women (Hello, Megyn Kelly.)

And of course I meant "meltdown". :-(

@33, um you are complaining about your opponents being nasty, then in the same breath implying that they are all a bunch of racists.

This whine also fits nicely with the Republican way of talking about racism. The important thing to note about accusations of racism is that their very mean and very rude; whether they're accurate or not isn't worthy of discussion.

Why do you think in makes sense to treat a group of unreliable (white) voters, who may or may not support the party depending on whether their preferred candidate wins, as "the base" while reliable consistent (non-white) voters aren't included in "the base"?

There's a long history in this country of talking about elections as if white votes are somehow more real and important than non-white votes. The definition of "the base" you offer can, as far as I can tell, only really be explained by that logic. If there's some other logic to it, by all means feel free to share.

If you don't want to be seen as racist, though, you should at least consider the possibility that black voters are choosing Clinton of their own volition, not simply having her "shoved down their throats by the DNC." This sound oddly similar to the Republican way of talking about black voters as non-agents, stuck on the Democratic "plantation", which is broadly recognized as racist. How your insinuation of the same is less racist remains unclear.

The reason she has so many super delegates is the same reason she has a serious issue with distrustful, disenfranchised voters (like me).

This is idiotic. Ignore the superdelegates; they're irrelevant. Eight years ago a majority of them declared for Clinton; when it became clear Obama was going to win the pledged delegate count, most of them switched over. They're not stupid; they know overturning the will of the voters would tear the party apart. They're party functionaries, so tearing their party apart is pretty squarely against their material interest. It is not going to happen, for the same reasons it didn't happen in 2008.

“Can you imagine what he’ll do?” Mr. Dowd, the former Bush strategist, said. She will bring up equal pay for women and abortion rights, Mr. Dowd said, “and he’ll turn to her and say, ‘You can’t even handle your stuff at home.’ ”

A man who couldn't even handle his first two wives at home is in a glass house, throwing stones.

@41 Hillary has been the designated establishment front runner since before day 1. Are you saying that this is because the African American democratic base selected her? When did they choose her over some other set of candidates? I'm my opinion, the base, in all it's diversity, never got a choice, and if you want to call that racist then, well, I don't know what else to say.

(In, not I'm, of course)

One more thing to add: this thread is clickbait.

Fight all you want now guys but please, please, please remember that the make-up of SCOTUS for possibly the next 3 to 4 DECADES hangs in the balance.

Are you saying that this is because the African American democratic base selected her? When did they choose her over some other set of candidates?

I'm not sure what the relevance of "some other set" is--there are two candidates in the race, and the reason they're the only two is that other early candidates, such as O'Malley, weren't popular with the voters and didn't garner enough support to continue, not because Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her evil DNC goons muscled them out.

They chose her over Sanders four days ago, in South Carolina, and a lot more places, today.

That she was the establishment favorite didn't stop young people and college educated white people from choosing Sanders. They didn't feel forced to support her simply because the establishment did.

Do you think African-American voters are choosing her because the evaluated the candidates and found her to be the better of the two, or because their simply tools of the establishment? If you think the latter, well, that's kinda racist. Plays right into the "real voters are white, they think for themselves" thing. If you don't think that--if you acknowledge they're capable of actually making a choice and not controlled by the evil DNC, you should probably stop implying otherwise, given the racist connotations of the implication.

@48, No one said African Americans are tools of the establishment. I feel Hillary got shoved down our throat since way before primary votes were cast in S. Carolina or anywhere else, and for you to imply that that is racist is frankly a dick move. (Reminds me of something Bill would do, actually.)

Well I'd rather be idiotic than a hypocrite who cries about how nasty Bernie's supporters are getting while twisting other people's words. Please take a step back and evaluate who is being inconsiderate here. I have no qualms with you friend for our enemy is the same.

And there it is, the classic Republican response to pointing out racist bullshit: "It was really mean of you to say that" while ignoring the substance.

Okay, so now I'm a racist Republican for Sanders, and if I disagree, I prove your point.

@50, I think I have the right to have an opinion about Hillary Clinton and the current/past state of affairs in the election, without being called racist. I am part of the base, too, and if I feel alienated, I can say so. That's not racist, any more than you being anti-Bernie is anti-Semitic.

Sanders is a much better orator than Clinton. It was Sanders who put the whole Clinton email server "scandal" to bed.

@GermanSausage: Clinton's going to be a shit president and turn the WH over to Trump or Trump-equivalent in four years.

That's my concern, too. All this focus on her experience and competency completely misses the point - what makes an effective liberal president are charisma or oratory skills, and she has neither.

As for Hillary "eating Trump alive", I'm not so sure. She is the safe candidate who leads by focus group. She doesn't take principled stances on anything. She doesn't have a sense of humor. She's basically a bureaucrat. Ultimately, I think she'll win because Trump is insane, but she won't beat Trump at his game.

As for Bernie, I think he does have the charisma, communication skills, and balls to be an effective liberal leader. There's a reason he's done so well despite being a socialist. I would have loved to see a Brooklyn Jew take on the big dumb Manhattan blowhard for the presidency. Unfortunately, Bernie's politics are too far left for this country.

Senator Sander's politics are not at all "too far left" for the country. The problem is that the word "Socialist" has been used as a synonym for evil for about a century now, and he hasn't paid his dues in Democratic party politics. Compare that with Trump, who basically just decided to call himself a Republican, and is apparently walking away with the nomination.

@Catalina: Senator Sander's politics are not at all "too far left" for the country.

Maybe I'm too pessimistic. You could certainly argue that Sanders' success has pulled the country leftward. I also credit him with reappropriating the term "socialist", which was basically a political slur before he arrived on the national stage.

I seem to remember voting for Ralph Nader in 2000. I also voted for light rail and against the stadium before that. How did those votes go? Whatever... 😡

I'm an affluent, highly employed, highly educated, white guy. And a vet. I'm a made man. Even under Trump I'll do better than OK. So what!!??! I want our nation to be great! The fact is that it is great and has been a long time. BS narratives aside it's not bad compared to a lot of other places. We are blessed and have a responsibility to our world.

I am a manager of people and business. I happen to believe that the best path there includes free (merit-based) state college. Hungry (ambitious and energetic) employees who have impetus to move up and the means to do so always do best. That's totally in our national interest! If my lazy-ass son ends up reporting to a hard-assed Mexican guy who kicks butt then that's my and my kid's fault. Not Pedro's! I want more Pedros!!!

I also want to get insurance companies and profits in general out of the medical business. Young people need that support to make more aggressive entrepreneurial moves. Old people need better support to preserve their assets. I've seen how short-term business reality drives very bad decisions. I don't want that driving our infrastructure and medical realities long-term. That's why I believe in Bernie!

This entire 'most experienced' mantra is crap. If you voted for Obama then STFU. That guy had absolutely no experience yet that's your claim now???

The Republicans were once the adults in the room. Now they're the drunken, irrational uncle that needs to go away. I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary, but yet again I'm disappointed and will NOT give the dems anything beyond that grudging support.

@24: "Blue-collar workers (aka uneducated white people)"

Better tuck that rank elitism in a little better next time. Your prejudices are showing.

seandr dear, despite what we tell ourselves, Americans want nothing more than to be left alone to masturbate and scratch themselves without someone bothering them. As their parents age and die, they realize the need for things like Social Security and Medicare - maybe if only to keep from having to take them in. They want basic services like affordable education, utilities and healthcare.

They're Socialists, but they don't know it. And they're mostly liberal - maybe not in the trigger-warning-purity-test sense, but look how much social change has happened in the last eight years with nary a murmur from anyone but the professionally outraged and the idiots who listen to them.

But they don't vote.

@33 (david jw):

Sanders fans demonstrate as clearly as anyone could just how far from "the base" they are.

Seeing as how the Democratic Party's base is Wall Street, the for-profit health sector, defense contractors, cable/telecom oligopolies, software billionaires, and pretty much any corporation that wants to outsource production to foreign sweatshops, I'm sure Sanders fans would want to thank you for the compliment.

And by the way, I'm not seeing how Bernie Sanders' universal health insurance and universal access to higher education are racist, or how Bill Clinton's killing Aid to Families with Dependent Children and jump-starting mass incarceration of minorities weren't. But maybe if you just keep repeating that Sanders supporters are "osowhite" racists it will resonate with those nonwhite voters whose astute judgment and independent agency you claim to defend.

@65: "Blue collar" means field workers without college degrees? Do you live in the 1920's?

And by the way, I do not judge my worth based on what happens in these comment threads, so this whole "fooling anyone" thing you are talking about is really funny. This is how I kill time when work gets slow. I do not know any of you or care about any of you.

So, keep telling yourself you are so much better than those uneducated white assholes who box up your Amazon orders and package your food if it makes you fell better about yourself. Because I don't care.

@66, I'm pretty sure @65 meant fields as in professions, not fields as in farms.

Check out the clueless and spineless already falling in line without trying to extract any concession from the neoliberals in charge of the Democratic party. No wonder that so many are disenfranchised from the political process and that we keep electing the same corrupt politicians. Even if Clinton were to win the nomination (and this primary is far from over), left wingers still have to build a left wing political movement. If and when Sanders loses the primary, it will then be the time to make demands from Democrats if they want Sanders' votes, not once they are elected and do what they want because there is no political expression of the left.

@33 "they're just pawns of the DNC"

I don't know about "pawns" but they are certainly being played by the DNC, the Washington establishment and corporate media into believing that only Clinton can be elected, like many around here. Considering the primary voter turnout and the congressional delegation from South Carolina, for example, does not suggest any particular truth telling coming from that part of the country whether or not these voters are part of the base of the Democratic party.

@71 I didn't say that we didn't know. I was pointing out that whether or not they were part of the base didn't make a low turnout contest more meaningful. I am not saying this with glee but with real concern.

Christopher, you are missing the point. Nathan J. Robinson has a good piece in Current Affairs about why you are completely wrong. It doesn't matter one whit how negative Hillary Clinton can potentially BE. What matters is how her negatives are much higher than Bernie's. Trump will have an absolute field day hammering her nonstop on her negatives, and it doesn't matter if they are factually accurate or not. The fact that so many negative narratives have been spun about Hillary gives him a nearly endless amount of material to dish out about her. The Democrats will be spending all of their time trying to correct the record, and in the mean time Trump will have moved on to the next thing and the next thing and the next thing. As Robinson states in his piece, "The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, “We were broke when we left the White House,” Goldman Sachs… There is enough material in Hillary Clinton’s background for Donald Trump to run with six times over." Please, spare us the theatrics of watching this candidate with practically NO political skill go up against Donald Trump!!!

I can't count the number of people who I've heard say that they intend to either stay home on Election Day or vote for Trump if Bernie isn't the Democratic nominee. Hillary needs Bernie as her running mate. America needs a Clinton/Sanders ticket.

@74 (SNJ-RN): The only way I would vote for a Clinton/Sanders ticket would be if Hillary had been diagnosed with a grade-4 glioblastoma multiforme. I simply cannot understand how any remotely well informed member of the 99% can support her. Her history of "getting things done" speaks for itself: sabotaging healthcare reform in 92/93, supporting NAFTA, supporting PNTR for China, supporting and voting for the invasion of Iraq, voting for the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, supporting the 2009 military coup in Honduras, supporting the neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine that reignited the Cold War, working behind the scenes to crush the Arab Spring (successfully, everywhere except in Tunisia), cheerleading for the destruction of Libya, supporting the civil war in Syria, and doubling down on the catastrophically murderous War on Drugs in Mexico, just for starters. It's no accident she's the biggest recipient of campaign money not just from the for-profit health sector, but from military contractors as well. And of course, Wall Street doesn't just shower her with above-the-board campaign contributions, but with millions in private speaking fees and foundation contributions. (To be fair, all kinds of foreign governments and corporations route payoffs through the Clinton Foundation, not just Wall Street.)

Everyone who's ever met Hillary says she's really smart, and that would be pretty impressive if she were trying to get into college or running for a spot on a game show. The problem is, she's a really smart monster who is running for President. She is someone who, her entire life, starting with Wal-Mart's board of directors, has served the interests of mega-corporations and the super-rich and for whom ordinary people, whether American or foreign, are little more than an afterthought.

Simply put, there are no circumstances under which I would cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. Whatever talking points her PR team types up for her to parrot can't mask her record, her allegiances, and her true nature. If she wins or steals the Democratic nomination, I'm voting for Bernie if he has the good sense to run as an Independent, or for Jill Stein of the Greens if he doesn't. If nothing else, it will help the Greens stay on the ballot the next time round. And don't bother making lesser-of-evils arguments; I do not consider Hillary the lesser evil compared to any of the Republicans. In fact, I suspect that, like Obama, she would be the more effective evil. Better a forthright enemy facing at least nominal opposition than another traitor ruling unopposed from the left.