Now, let's just take a deep breath and step back from the ledge for a second.

In regards to the above differences between Sanders v. Clinton: they really don't matter. There's a great quote by Harry Truman in regards to Eisenhower's transition from being a general to POTUS:

"He’ll sit here, and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen. Poor Ike—it won’t be a bit like the Army. He’ll find it very frustrating.”

Or, in Obama's parlance: the president can't just wave a wand and make it so. Executive power has always been, and always will be, constitutionally limited to a few arenas.

Pro-union? Anti-union? Who cares? That's a legislative issue (and often one at state-level), and at best a judicial one (we'll get there in a sec). Pro or anti single-payer? Who cares? Do you really think that the next president is going to have a snowball's chance of coming to office, dismantling the ACA and replacing it with... anything at all? Just thank your lucky stars and stripes that the ACA has been repeatedly upheld by the SCOTUS (still getting there, hold on).

Pro TPP? Anti-TPP? Now, trade agreements may fall within the presidential purview, so long as they're considered "executive agreements" and not treaties- i.e. not legally binding. (As an aside- even executive agreements fail if not seen as broadly beneficial to all parties involved, so any radical viewpoints tend to be tossed out as chaff.) The TPP? That's subject to ratification by Congress. Which means bipartisan, bicameral support even in the best of times, and these ain't those. So again, and with enthusiasm: Who cares.

Which brings us to judicial appointments. This is my big talking point every. Single. Time. the subject of executive power flies across my sight line. The president can make judicial appointments. That, besides war powers, is the singlemost important arena of executive influence. And not just SCOTUS appointments, but circuit court appointments, which conservatives have long since realized are just as important (if not more so) than SCOTUS appointments.

But those appointments are subject to congressional approval- or, as the last month has illustrated so obscenely, congressional consideration. On this note, I'll ask you to consider who between the two Democratic front-runners has the better chance of successfully nominating a Supreme Court judge.

There's another point or two I'd like to throw out into the universe re. judicial appointments, though. Let's say that appointments happen independently of congress, joy of joys. The SCOTUS is the last bastion of impartiality in the American political system. Yeah yeah, Scalia this Thomas that- historically, it has been nigh impossible to predict which way the SCOTUS will go on the grand majority of issues, big and small. Do you really want to be the cheerleader of seeding the bench with ideologues of any stripe over moderate practitioners of good jurisprudence? Is that what you want? A liberal court to totally undermine public trust in sound judicial conclusions?

And even if your answer is "yes": I'll point out that not only are we really bad at anticipating SCOTUS decisions, but presidents have been historically bad at anticipating SCOTUS political leanings. GHW Bush, for instance, put Thomas onto the bench, but he also put Souter there, anticipating him to be a "home run" for conservativism. One of those appointments "panned out," the other really, really didn't. History is peppered with examples like that one.

To whit: the President is powerful in precious few arenas. The greatest of which is SCOTUS appointments. Almost everything else is window dressing. You might not prefer Clinton's political leanings to Sanders, but do you really want a mook like Trump flailing around the White House appointing god-knows-who to the courts?

Are you really saying that you're planning on voting against Clinton (or abstaining, which is as good as voting against) in the general should she face Trump just to dance naked in front of the flaming wreckage?

Okay, step back towards the ledge. Look down. What do you see?

She came out "against" it when it became clear it would hurt her campaign. Just like every other stance she has.

When marriage equality came to fruition and she changed her Twitter to be all about how much she had done for the cause I became upset. That's when she lost me for good. Fuck her. She's a staunch opportunist with little to no integrity.

As goobster said in a recent #meethubski it's easier to have integrity when you don't change your positions. I believe he said "consistency."

Well, Bernie has been consistent. The guy has lots of integrity.