FIVE REASONS WHY THE AFSCME AND SEIU SHOULD HAVE ENDORSED SANDERS OVER CLINTON link added

[Fawke Em]

56. Bogus points.

1. She may win the nomination, but she's going to lose the general election. She WILL lose Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and, probably, Colorado. Without Ohio and Florida, she's done.
2. Qualifications are subjective. I don't find someone who takes advice from neocons on foreign policy all that qualified. Hillary does. Ask Robert Kagan.

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

I also don't find someone who listens to Wall Street all that qualified on economic policy. Wall Street's success rarely translates into success for the average working person.
3. If you consider, "adopting some of the GOP's foreign and economic policy" (see above) as "fighting back," then, yes, she's done far more of that than Bernie.
4. Coalition building is only effective if, at some point, you get what your side wants. Seems she only adopt the policies of the other side - but, then again, that may very well be what she wants.
5. I prefer the people have the political power and not one individual. This election, to her, is all about her. It's not about all of us.