Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm honestly baffled by your first statement. Publicly-funded higher education is a false premise? In what way?

Sure, there are approaches that would diminish its value, but I'm thinking in terms that maximize return on investment. Only qualified, high performing students are accepted into programs, some schools are more competitive than others, and there's a "pay back" component, i.e, recipients are required to work in civil service in some way - like the National Health Service Corps.

There are always myriad reasons NOT to do something big like health reform, social security, civil rights bills - but the benefits to figuring out how to do them are always so much greater. I don't see how higher education is different. Or impossible.

Read past PP's baffling-to-you first statement. She answers everything you ask.

I'm the person who said its a false premise. The premise that Sanders is campaigning for it on is that it will reduce the inequality gap. That is the false premise. Free public colleges will not reduce the inequality gap, and in fact stand to increase the gap. If we make college free before we address the inequalities in k-12 education, and the problem families face in affording high quality childcare, we're not fixing the root causes of the gap, and we're making it worse.

Where are you getting the idea that Sanders is not going to address k-12 and childcare? He has made is very clear that education on all levels are top priority. I posted links earlier in this thread. I see no problem with free public college but it is also not his main platform as someone keeps stating.

The links that were posted about his platform on education are based on legislation that was never even voted on. He has not said anything about how he will raise money to improve access to quality education k-12, in addition to the billions upon billions required to fund free public college. He has no concrete plans to make high quality childcare, primary and secondary education available to every single child in this country.

What are you talking about? He talks about this constantly. His plan is to raise taxes for billionaires and corporations in order to pay for these things. How can you have missed this? Whether or not you believe that is feasible is another question but he talks about this all of the time. i posted a link to his speech talking about childcare. I quoted him on education and posted a link from ontheissues.org which talks about his entire history as a politician. You do not get to make up the facts as you go along. You might not think it will work but saying he has no plan is just false.

He can talk about it all he wants. He definitely believes in it (according to the ontheissues thing that was posted, unless I missed one), but he doesn't have a plan. He plans to tax Wall Street and billionaires to pay for free public college. And what is the proportion of students in public colleges vs private? I don't know it, but making free college available to everyone is impossible without increasing the number of public colleges by a huge number. I have watched most of the debates, and have only heard him say he supports education, and oh by the way - FREE PUBLIC COLLEGE!!! Believing that everyone should have access is different than having a concrete and viable plan to actually do something about it.

Not to mention - k-12 education reform should come before making college free!

So the real issue is not that you don't think he plans to put more money into k-12 and create a comprehensive childcare plan. The problem is that you don't believe he will actually do it and that is a different ball of wax. My main reason for saying he is the better feminist is that I do believe him, based on his history, and I do not believe Clinton, based on hers. I can remember getting all excited during Bill Clinton's debates when he talked about a childcare plan and then, of course, nothing happened. We saw, instead, his welfare reform which was terribly damaging to poor women and children. And we saw Hillary fighting hard to put that plan into effect. So it's pretty hard for me to believe she is going to be any different now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm honestly baffled by your first statement. Publicly-funded higher education is a false premise? In what way?

Sure, there are approaches that would diminish its value, but I'm thinking in terms that maximize return on investment. Only qualified, high performing students are accepted into programs, some schools are more competitive than others, and there's a "pay back" component, i.e, recipients are required to work in civil service in some way - like the National Health Service Corps.

There are always myriad reasons NOT to do something big like health reform, social security, civil rights bills - but the benefits to figuring out how to do them are always so much greater. I don't see how higher education is different. Or impossible.

Read past PP's baffling-to-you first statement. She answers everything you ask.

I'm the person who said its a false premise. The premise that Sanders is campaigning for it on is that it will reduce the inequality gap. That is the false premise. Free public colleges will not reduce the inequality gap, and in fact stand to increase the gap. If we make college free before we address the inequalities in k-12 education, and the problem families face in affording high quality childcare, we're not fixing the root causes of the gap, and we're making it worse.

Where are you getting the idea that Sanders is not going to address k-12 and childcare? He has made is very clear that education on all levels are top priority. I posted links earlier in this thread. I see no problem with free public college but it is also not his main platform as someone keeps stating.

The links that were posted about his platform on education are based on legislation that was never even voted on. He has not said anything about how he will raise money to improve access to quality education k-12, in addition to the billions upon billions required to fund free public college. He has no concrete plans to make high quality childcare, primary and secondary education available to every single child in this country.

What are you talking about? He talks about this constantly. His plan is to raise taxes for billionaires and corporations in order to pay for these things. How can you have missed this? Whether or not you believe that is feasible is another question but he talks about this all of the time. i posted a link to his speech talking about childcare. I quoted him on education and posted a link from ontheissues.org which talks about his entire history as a politician. You do not get to make up the facts as you go along. You might not think it will work but saying he has no plan is just false.

He can talk about it all he wants. He definitely believes in it (according to the ontheissues thing that was posted, unless I missed one), but he doesn't have a plan. He plans to tax Wall Street and billionaires to pay for free public college. And what is the proportion of students in public colleges vs private? I don't know it, but making free college available to everyone is impossible without increasing the number of public colleges by a huge number. I have watched most of the debates, and have only heard him say he supports education, and oh by the way - FREE PUBLIC COLLEGE!!! Believing that everyone should have access is different than having a concrete and viable plan to actually do something about it.

Not to mention - k-12 education reform should come before making college free!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm honestly baffled by your first statement. Publicly-funded higher education is a false premise? In what way?

Sure, there are approaches that would diminish its value, but I'm thinking in terms that maximize return on investment. Only qualified, high performing students are accepted into programs, some schools are more competitive than others, and there's a "pay back" component, i.e, recipients are required to work in civil service in some way - like the National Health Service Corps.

There are always myriad reasons NOT to do something big like health reform, social security, civil rights bills - but the benefits to figuring out how to do them are always so much greater. I don't see how higher education is different. Or impossible.

Read past PP's baffling-to-you first statement. She answers everything you ask.

I'm the person who said its a false premise. The premise that Sanders is campaigning for it on is that it will reduce the inequality gap. That is the false premise. Free public colleges will not reduce the inequality gap, and in fact stand to increase the gap. If we make college free before we address the inequalities in k-12 education, and the problem families face in affording high quality childcare, we're not fixing the root causes of the gap, and we're making it worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm honestly baffled by your first statement. Publicly-funded higher education is a false premise? In what way?

Sure, there are approaches that would diminish its value, but I'm thinking in terms that maximize return on investment. Only qualified, high performing students are accepted into programs, some schools are more competitive than others, and there's a "pay back" component, i.e, recipients are required to work in civil service in some way - like the National Health Service Corps.

There are always myriad reasons NOT to do something big like health reform, social security, civil rights bills - but the benefits to figuring out how to do them are always so much greater. I don't see how higher education is different. Or impossible.

Read past PP's baffling-to-you first statement. She answers everything you ask.

I'm the person who said its a false premise. The premise that Sanders is campaigning for it on is that it will reduce the inequality gap. That is the false premise. Free public colleges will not reduce the inequality gap, and in fact stand to increase the gap. If we make college free before we address the inequalities in k-12 education, and the problem families face in affording high quality childcare, we're not fixing the root causes of the gap, and we're making it worse.

Where are you getting the idea that Sanders is not going to address k-12 and childcare? He has made is very clear that education on all levels are top priority. I posted links earlier in this thread. I see no problem with free public college but it is also not his main platform as someone keeps stating.

The links that were posted about his platform on education are based on legislation that was never even voted on. He has not said anything about how he will raise money to improve access to quality education k-12, in addition to the billions upon billions required to fund free public college. He has no concrete plans to make high quality childcare, primary and secondary education available to every single child in this country.

What are you talking about? He talks about this constantly. His plan is to raise taxes for billionaires and corporations in order to pay for these things. How can you have missed this? Whether or not you believe that is feasible is another question but he talks about this all of the time. i posted a link to his speech talking about childcare. I quoted him on education and posted a link from ontheissues.org which talks about his entire history as a politician. You do not get to make up the facts as you go along. You might not think it will work but saying he has no plan is just false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm honestly baffled by your first statement. Publicly-funded higher education is a false premise? In what way?

Sure, there are approaches that would diminish its value, but I'm thinking in terms that maximize return on investment. Only qualified, high performing students are accepted into programs, some schools are more competitive than others, and there's a "pay back" component, i.e, recipients are required to work in civil service in some way - like the National Health Service Corps.

There are always myriad reasons NOT to do something big like health reform, social security, civil rights bills - but the benefits to figuring out how to do them are always so much greater. I don't see how higher education is different. Or impossible.

Read past PP's baffling-to-you first statement. She answers everything you ask.

I'm the person who said its a false premise. The premise that Sanders is campaigning for it on is that it will reduce the inequality gap. That is the false premise. Free public colleges will not reduce the inequality gap, and in fact stand to increase the gap. If we make college free before we address the inequalities in k-12 education, and the problem families face in affording high quality childcare, we're not fixing the root causes of the gap, and we're making it worse.

Where are you getting the idea that Sanders is not going to address k-12 and childcare? He has made is very clear that education on all levels are top priority. I posted links earlier in this thread. I see no problem with free public college but it is also not his main platform as someone keeps stating.

The links that were posted about his platform on education are based on legislation that was never even voted on. He has not said anything about how he will raise money to improve access to quality education k-12, in addition to the billions upon billions required to fund free public college. He has no concrete plans to make high quality childcare, primary and secondary education available to every single child in this country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm honestly baffled by your first statement. Publicly-funded higher education is a false premise? In what way?

Sure, there are approaches that would diminish its value, but I'm thinking in terms that maximize return on investment. Only qualified, high performing students are accepted into programs, some schools are more competitive than others, and there's a "pay back" component, i.e, recipients are required to work in civil service in some way - like the National Health Service Corps.

There are always myriad reasons NOT to do something big like health reform, social security, civil rights bills - but the benefits to figuring out how to do them are always so much greater. I don't see how higher education is different. Or impossible.

Read past PP's baffling-to-you first statement. She answers everything you ask.

I'm the person who said its a false premise. The premise that Sanders is campaigning for it on is that it will reduce the inequality gap. That is the false premise. Free public colleges will not reduce the inequality gap, and in fact stand to increase the gap. If we make college free before we address the inequalities in k-12 education, and the problem families face in affording high quality childcare, we're not fixing the root causes of the gap, and we're making it worse.

Where are you getting the idea that Sanders is not going to address k-12 and childcare? He has made is very clear that education on all levels are top priority. I posted links earlier in this thread. I see no problem with free public college but it is also not his main platform as someone keeps stating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm honestly baffled by your first statement. Publicly-funded higher education is a false premise? In what way?

Sure, there are approaches that would diminish its value, but I'm thinking in terms that maximize return on investment. Only qualified, high performing students are accepted into programs, some schools are more competitive than others, and there's a "pay back" component, i.e, recipients are required to work in civil service in some way - like the National Health Service Corps.

There are always myriad reasons NOT to do something big like health reform, social security, civil rights bills - but the benefits to figuring out how to do them are always so much greater. I don't see how higher education is different. Or impossible.

Read past PP's baffling-to-you first statement. She answers everything you ask.

I'm the person who said its a false premise. The premise that Sanders is campaigning for it on is that it will reduce the inequality gap. That is the false premise. Free public colleges will not reduce the inequality gap, and in fact stand to increase the gap. If we make college free before we address the inequalities in k-12 education, and the problem families face in affording high quality childcare, we're not fixing the root causes of the gap, and we're making it worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm honestly baffled by your first statement. Publicly-funded higher education is a false premise? In what way?

Sure, there are approaches that would diminish its value, but I'm thinking in terms that maximize return on investment. Only qualified, high performing students are accepted into programs, some schools are more competitive than others, and there's a "pay back" component, i.e, recipients are required to work in civil service in some way - like the National Health Service Corps.

There are always myriad reasons NOT to do something big like health reform, social security, civil rights bills - but the benefits to figuring out how to do them are always so much greater. I don't see how higher education is different. Or impossible.

Read past PP's baffling-to-you first statement. She answers everything you ask.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm honestly baffled by your first statement. Publicly-funded higher education is a false premise? In what way?

Sure, there are approaches that would diminish its value, but I'm thinking in terms that maximize return on investment. Only qualified, high performing students are accepted into programs, some schools are more competitive than others, and there's a "pay back" component, i.e, recipients are required to work in civil service in some way - like the National Health Service Corps.

There are always myriad reasons NOT to do something big like health reform, social security, civil rights bills - but the benefits to figuring out how to do them are always so much greater. I don't see how higher education is different. Or impossible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

The point that other posters are making is that legislation is the "start" of leading an effort, but it's only potentially the start. Very often, as I know from being a Hill staffer who crafted and introduced "platform legislation", a bill is crafted and introduced for no other reason than for a Congress member to be able to show they've done something on an issue. The real effort and leadership comes from negotiating with the relevant committee leadership to get the bill taken under consideration and bringing other members on board to vote it out of committee and then onto the floor (these steps are based on House rules, I know the Senate works a little differently, but I think the process is similar). Anyone can introduce a Bill, but from first-hand experience it's a lot of work to make the other stuff happen.

Again, though, I don't think anyone (well, not most people) would say Sanders is insincere on the issues. I suspect he very much does care about affordable chilcare and early childhood education...and maybe his ideas are better than HRC's, withholding judgment on that one. But the reality is that being an effective leader, especially in the Executive Branch and especially as the head of the EB, requires building coalitions and compromising. Despite how many people hate and slander Clinton, she has been able to do that. And I think that's important. And I also did work in the Obama WH, so I know how many missed opportunities there were due to his not being able to do that (and also that his selection of Biden as VP was brilliant in that it gave him someone very close who did have that ability). If you disagree with the assessment that this is an important quality in a candidate for POTUS, it would be great to explain why...especially since there are some posters who vehemently argue the opposite, compromise is a huge liability.

I'm a Sanders supporter and actually think this is a reasonable argument. I think the divergence happens with what people believe Clinton wants versus what Sanders wants, and what's compromise versus sacrifice.

To me, the ability to get things done is pretty much a toss up between the two. Much of it depends on the make up of the Congress they're working with and the political capital they get with a won election. These days, that's not much. I just have more trust in what Sanders wants.

NP. And that's where I get lost. I have stated so many times that Sanders biggest campaign promise "free college" is really not going to do what he wants it to (close the inequality gap). No one will respond to that issue. I don't think Sanders wants to close the gap - because I think he fully understands the implications of making public colleges tuition free. But everyone is OK with that, and that really bothers me.

Again, it gets down to what you believe the candidate wants. I've never thought of it merely in terms of "free college" and inequality gap. To me, a prepared workforce just makes sense as a public good and not something that is reserved only for people who can afford it, and definitely not something that hamstrings that workforce with a lifetime worth of debt. Quality is definitely an issue, as it is with k-12, (and healthcare, and any public provision) but I really would like to start with the premise that it's possible to take your education past 12th grade.

I'd also like to see a return to vocational training with investment from the private sector and just making sure there are options for everyone to become a working, taxpaying member of society. The "free college" canard bugs me in the same way that "death tax" and "death panels" did.

But its a false premise. Because the public colleges will become so competitive that only the top students will be able to get in - making it impossible for those that really need the free tuition to go for free at all, and forcing them to take their chances with expensive private colleges and universities. And students that don't have access already to high quality public schools won't be prepared to go to college, and won't be in a position to compete with the top students for the free tuition spots. The quality of education at the private schools would also diminish (with the exception of the ivy's - they won't struggle at all), and eventually the quality of the public universities and colleges would suffer because they won't be funded properly (one of the reasons tuition has been increasing so much is that they aren't receiving enough funding).

I could see myself supporting free vocational training, but I worry that it would become the only option for people from low SES communities, and they would be encouraged even less than they are now to try for "white" collar jobs that require higher education.

Regardless, those should not be the "first" steps. They should come after we have already addressed the root causes - a 12th grader coming out of a substandard high school is not qualified for vocational training or college - so that they all do have the option to become a working, taxpaying member of society. We don't disagree on what the end result should be, but there seems to be an expectation that someone at 18 with zero skills can suddenly become a top notch candidate for a competitive university and that's just not true. They need a foundation before they can add the additional education to become competitive job seekers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

The point that other posters are making is that legislation is the "start" of leading an effort, but it's only potentially the start. Very often, as I know from being a Hill staffer who crafted and introduced "platform legislation", a bill is crafted and introduced for no other reason than for a Congress member to be able to show they've done something on an issue. The real effort and leadership comes from negotiating with the relevant committee leadership to get the bill taken under consideration and bringing other members on board to vote it out of committee and then onto the floor (these steps are based on House rules, I know the Senate works a little differently, but I think the process is similar). Anyone can introduce a Bill, but from first-hand experience it's a lot of work to make the other stuff happen.

Again, though, I don't think anyone (well, not most people) would say Sanders is insincere on the issues. I suspect he very much does care about affordable chilcare and early childhood education...and maybe his ideas are better than HRC's, withholding judgment on that one. But the reality is that being an effective leader, especially in the Executive Branch and especially as the head of the EB, requires building coalitions and compromising. Despite how many people hate and slander Clinton, she has been able to do that. And I think that's important. And I also did work in the Obama WH, so I know how many missed opportunities there were due to his not being able to do that (and also that his selection of Biden as VP was brilliant in that it gave him someone very close who did have that ability). If you disagree with the assessment that this is an important quality in a candidate for POTUS, it would be great to explain why...especially since there are some posters who vehemently argue the opposite, compromise is a huge liability.

I'm a Sanders supporter and actually think this is a reasonable argument. I think the divergence happens with what people believe Clinton wants versus what Sanders wants, and what's compromise versus sacrifice.

To me, the ability to get things done is pretty much a toss up between the two. Much of it depends on the make up of the Congress they're working with and the political capital they get with a won election. These days, that's not much. I just have more trust in what Sanders wants.

NP. And that's where I get lost. I have stated so many times that Sanders biggest campaign promise "free college" is really not going to do what he wants it to (close the inequality gap). No one will respond to that issue. I don't think Sanders wants to close the gap - because I think he fully understands the implications of making public colleges tuition free. But everyone is OK with that, and that really bothers me.

Again, it gets down to what you believe the candidate wants. I've never thought of it merely in terms of "free college" and inequality gap. To me, a prepared workforce just makes sense as a public good and not something that is reserved only for people who can afford it, and definitely not something that hamstrings that workforce with a lifetime worth of debt. Quality is definitely an issue, as it is with k-12, (and healthcare, and any public provision) but I really would like to start with the premise that it's possible to take your education past 12th grade.

I'd also like to see a return to vocational training with investment from the private sector and just making sure there are options for everyone to become a working, taxpaying member of society. The "free college" canard bugs me in the same way that "death tax" and "death panels" did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

The point that other posters are making is that legislation is the "start" of leading an effort, but it's only potentially the start. Very often, as I know from being a Hill staffer who crafted and introduced "platform legislation", a bill is crafted and introduced for no other reason than for a Congress member to be able to show they've done something on an issue. The real effort and leadership comes from negotiating with the relevant committee leadership to get the bill taken under consideration and bringing other members on board to vote it out of committee and then onto the floor (these steps are based on House rules, I know the Senate works a little differently, but I think the process is similar). Anyone can introduce a Bill, but from first-hand experience it's a lot of work to make the other stuff happen.

Again, though, I don't think anyone (well, not most people) would say Sanders is insincere on the issues. I suspect he very much does care about affordable chilcare and early childhood education...and maybe his ideas are better than HRC's, withholding judgment on that one. But the reality is that being an effective leader, especially in the Executive Branch and especially as the head of the EB, requires building coalitions and compromising. Despite how many people hate and slander Clinton, she has been able to do that. And I think that's important. And I also did work in the Obama WH, so I know how many missed opportunities there were due to his not being able to do that (and also that his selection of Biden as VP was brilliant in that it gave him someone very close who did have that ability). If you disagree with the assessment that this is an important quality in a candidate for POTUS, it would be great to explain why...especially since there are some posters who vehemently argue the opposite, compromise is a huge liability.

I'm a Sanders supporter and actually think this is a reasonable argument. I think the divergence happens with what people believe Clinton wants versus what Sanders wants, and what's compromise versus sacrifice.

To me, the ability to get things done is pretty much a toss up between the two. Much of it depends on the make up of the Congress they're working with and the political capital they get with a won election. These days, that's not much. I just have more trust in what Sanders wants.

NP. And that's where I get lost. I have stated so many times that Sanders biggest campaign promise "free college" is really not going to do what he wants it to (close the inequality gap). No one will respond to that issue. I don't think Sanders wants to close the gap - because I think he fully understands the implications of making public colleges tuition free. But everyone is OK with that, and that really bothers me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

The point that other posters are making is that legislation is the "start" of leading an effort, but it's only potentially the start. Very often, as I know from being a Hill staffer who crafted and introduced "platform legislation", a bill is crafted and introduced for no other reason than for a Congress member to be able to show they've done something on an issue. The real effort and leadership comes from negotiating with the relevant committee leadership to get the bill taken under consideration and bringing other members on board to vote it out of committee and then onto the floor (these steps are based on House rules, I know the Senate works a little differently, but I think the process is similar). Anyone can introduce a Bill, but from first-hand experience it's a lot of work to make the other stuff happen.

Again, though, I don't think anyone (well, not most people) would say Sanders is insincere on the issues. I suspect he very much does care about affordable chilcare and early childhood education...and maybe his ideas are better than HRC's, withholding judgment on that one. But the reality is that being an effective leader, especially in the Executive Branch and especially as the head of the EB, requires building coalitions and compromising. Despite how many people hate and slander Clinton, she has been able to do that. And I think that's important. And I also did work in the Obama WH, so I know how many missed opportunities there were due to his not being able to do that (and also that his selection of Biden as VP was brilliant in that it gave him someone very close who did have that ability). If you disagree with the assessment that this is an important quality in a candidate for POTUS, it would be great to explain why...especially since there are some posters who vehemently argue the opposite, compromise is a huge liability.

I'm a Sanders supporter and actually think this is a reasonable argument. I think the divergence happens with what people believe Clinton wants versus what Sanders wants, and what's compromise versus sacrifice.

To me, the ability to get things done is pretty much a toss up between the two. Much of it depends on the make up of the Congress they're working with and the political capital they get with a won election. These days, that's not much. I just have more trust in what Sanders wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh... once again... that was his proposal in 2011. He is now running for president and is creating a childcare program which would benefit the entire country. I posted that piece of legislation only to show that he has, in fact, introduced childcare legislation.

The point that other posters are making is that legislation is the "start" of leading an effort, but it's only potentially the start. Very often, as I know from being a Hill staffer who crafted and introduced "platform legislation", a bill is crafted and introduced for no other reason than for a Congress member to be able to show they've done something on an issue. The real effort and leadership comes from negotiating with the relevant committee leadership to get the bill taken under consideration and bringing other members on board to vote it out of committee and then onto the floor (these steps are based on House rules, I know the Senate works a little differently, but I think the process is similar). Anyone can introduce a Bill, but from first-hand experience it's a lot of work to make the other stuff happen.

Again, though, I don't think anyone (well, not most people) would say Sanders is insincere on the issues. I suspect he very much does care about affordable chilcare and early childhood education...and maybe his ideas are better than HRC's, withholding judgment on that one. But the reality is that being an effective leader, especially in the Executive Branch and especially as the head of the EB, requires building coalitions and compromising. Despite how many people hate and slander Clinton, she has been able to do that. And I think that's important. And I also did work in the Obama WH, so I know how many missed opportunities there were due to his not being able to do that (and also that his selection of Biden as VP was brilliant in that it gave him someone very close who did have that ability). If you disagree with the assessment that this is an important quality in a candidate for POTUS, it would be great to explain why...especially since there are some posters who vehemently argue the opposite, compromise is a huge liability.

I'm a Sanders supporter and actually think this is a reasonable argument. I think the divergence happens with what people believe Clinton wants versus what Sanders wants, and what's compromise versus sacrifice.

To me, the ability to get things done is pretty much a toss up between the two. Much of it depends on the make up of the Congress they're working with and the political capital they get with a won election. These days, that's not much. I just have more trust in what Sanders wants.