Bernie's Selling Sugar... Sweet!

Liberal writer Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic asks why Democrats are supporting Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate nominee:

As Hillary Clinton loses ground to Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in Iowa, where her lead shrinks by the day, it’s worth noticing that she has never made particular sense as the Democratic Party’s nominee. She may be more electable than her social-democratic rival from Vermont, but plenty of Democrats are better positioned to represent the center-left coalition. Why have they let the former secretary of state keep them out of the race?

If Clinton makes it to the general election, I understand why most Democrats will support her. She shares their views on issues as varied as preserving Obamacare, abortion rights, extending legal status to undocumented workers, strengthening labor unions, and imposing a carbon tax to slow climate change.

But most Democrats hold similar positions on those issues. So why are Democrats supporting her in a primary bid? She’s awful on other issues they’ve deemed hugely important.

Most Democrats regard the Iraq War as a historic disaster. Clinton voted for that conflict. That hawkishness wasn’t a fluke. She pushed for U.S. intervention in Libya without Congressional approval and without anticipating all that has gone wrong in that country. She favored U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war as well. Why haven’t Democrats concluded that she has dangerously bad judgment on foreign policy? She certainly hasn’t done anything to distinguish herself in that realm.

The answer is: reality.

She is a player in the game, and has been, while the others have never undertaken the true work of leading a party.

The same is true of "consultants" and mid-level managers who come in to "advise" on how to complete a working task. On paper, their ideals make sense. When push comes to shove though, and the task must get done -- one way or another -- you're much better off hiring an experienced hand.

The working-class, for example, still understands common sense.

They know reality: understand in practice what can work, and what is a magical fairytale. "Best practices" are a bit like this. In the end, the "best practice" is one that is implementable, not a goal you will aim for but ultimately not achieve.

It's no surprise that wealthy liberals who read The Atlantic would support a dream candidate like Bernie Sanders. By not being a player in the game, he's thus far made no mistakes. Clinton has. But she's got a track record, in reality.

What has she learned from her experiences? What would be done differently, knowing now what she didn't know then? (professional experiences, not personal).

Bernie Sanders is like consuming sugar: it goes down easy, but ultimately, there's nothing nutritious being provided to people, in reality.