Obama could *barely* deal with Boehner and McConnell and, assuming that the Republicans hold on to the House AND Senate in 2016, how exactly is Bernie going to deal with Boehner's Tea Party-approved replacement in the House and McConnell (assuming he doesn't get overthrown in the Senate). I mean, it's easy to second-guess President Obama's handling of things with Congress but, despite his overwhelming victory and that of the Democratic Party in general, there were even some Democrats whom weren't particularly helpful to him. I believe that President Obama took his responsibility as POTUS seriously, went to Washington to roll up sleeves and get to work cleaning up the mess that the former occupant left and I think that he expected that the Republicans would want the same things, which might be looked at as somewhat naive I suppose but we were facing a pretty serious situation back in 2009 with the economy in tatters and, despite the fact that Democrats had large majorities, some bipartisanship and compromise was going to be inevitable. Republicans OTOH chose not to behave responsibly and declared all out scorched Earth war against President Obama and they will do that and even worse to President Sanders. Not saying that I wouldn't vote for him if he wins the nomination but I want to see President Sanders elaborate on how he plans to get the Republicans in Congress to behave and do their jobs where President Obama wasn't able to. I know that Hillary will have her hands full with them to as they transition seamlessly from racism to misogyny.

She will be considered "the sane person" by a majority of the electorate- compared to whomever the Republicans put up.

And "clensed" of their sins? Do they get some sort of certificate from God/Jesus certifying their newfound cleanliness and purification? To me, it just sounds like self-absolution with little or no work required on their part. Sort of like the moral equivalent of a "get out of jail free" card". I don't get it.

He can't literally do anything about it- and he wouldn't but he won't ever be POTUS (hopefully not), so I'm content to let him just run his mouth. Probably just about everybody would like to completely clean out Congress- except for their own reps and Senators whom (mostly) keep getting elected over and over again in part because of gerrymandering and other electioneering tactics and a lot of them simply stay put until they retire/resign on their own. It is, however, ultimately up to the people to participate and help ensure that they people they want/need get into office instead of all the grifters, charlatans, bigots, creeps, etc.

I don't see any, nor can I see any right-minded Democrats (and I wouldn't call them Dems if there were) wanting ANY of the current GOP frontrunners to win the WH in 2016, nor do I see any whom could beat Hillary or Bernie.

That seems pretty dramatic IMHO. Any Democrat elected next year will likely preserve/expand on President Obama's moderate/left-leaning policies. I know that Bernie wants to take things further/faster to the left but won't be able to without a profoundly progressive Congress, which I'm guessing that we won't be able to get in 2016- so, he'll be stuck having to make compromises and trying to work with Republicans to try to get some of his agenda passed (and, like with Obama, he will likely be raked over the coals for all of his "broken campaign promises" and for meeting with Republicans). I am personally MUCH more worried about what happens if one of the Republicans currently in the running wins. I'll take Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, et. al ANY day of the week! Even compared to where the Democratic Party was in 2008 when Barack Obama ran and and won, the Democratic Party has moved to the left in some pretty major ways. I think that it's getting better, not worse. Why would Hillary winning make it worse? Is she going to move us backwards on abortion rights, GLBT equality, launch wars based on lies and manipulation, give out bucketfuls of tax cuts to millionaires?

If somebody ran for President saying that they WOULD hesitate to take military action, do you think that he/she would be electable? It's political rhetoric and she, more than any of the other candidates, has to prove that she's "tough enough" for the job. There is the audience to consider as well. Just because she said this doesn't mean that she's going to launch a war against Iran on day one like, say, Scott Walker. Doesn't even guarantee that she's going to launch a war on anybody period. It's stupid that our leaders feel like they have to say such blustery stuff and pander while running for office but it's just a fact of political life, especially when it comes to Democrats, whom are routinely smeared by Republican wingnuts and pundits as "weak on defense" (even though they aren't really, just smarter about it). NONE of the (serious) Democratic candidates are going to come out and say that military options against anybody is "off the table", which is certainly not the same as saying that they are going to bomb everybody either. Even progressive champion Bernie Sanders has stated that he supports the ongoing use of drones. Barack Obama made similar statements about Iran in 2008 and look where we are now.

Nor did Congress instigate the IWR that, if properly handled by the Bush (mis-)Administration, wouldn't have even necessitated war since the UN had been unable to locate WMDs. The Bush (mis-)Administration, however, thought they knew better and started dropping bombs and troops anyway when they could have just accepted the UN's findings (or lack thereof) and legitimately declared victory- all without firing a single shot.

But if she's the only one there and she refuses to issue SSM license, well, she would clearly be interfering with issuing them, right? That would subject her to contempt charges again per the Judge's order, right?