Haha...you just described almost every politician EVER when telling us why you hate Clinton. Dude, WE GET IT. Even I don't think I have as much hate for anyone...well, maybe Ron Paul comes close, but I can't remember the last time I went out of my way to bash him.
Anywho, I think Booker is a good choice and that would certainly increase her favorability or at least electability among Bernie supporters, but because of how establishment she is, she'd probably pick someone like Deval Patrick or possibly one of the Castro Bros. The DNC should've run Elizabeth Warren. She comes off as genuine and had that fire that Clinton doesn't, while being far more polished than Bernie.
Either way, I think Trump has a serious chance of winning. All the pundits and polls say that he doesn't have the demographics, but I say never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. If Arnold and Ventura can get elected, Trump isn't that crazy of a possibility.
I think for me it's intentional twisting of fact. That she had the entire party backing her from launch, Wasserman-Schultz as her pet. They didn't want candidateS, they wanted candidate. And when 68% of superdelegates pledged their support before the first vote was placed, that should be concerning to other candidates and to the confidence the country can have in the actions of the National Committees. In fact, I need to revise my "Bernie is getting crushed in popular vote" statement, because it appears there are some semantics and verbal acrobatics, to use that line:
Historically (and I should say more accurately, over the last 16 years or so) we have seen centrist politicians radicalize for the primary, and then the general. For all intents and purposes, McCain was probably closer to an Independent than a Republican until he ran. Romney was one of the more "liberal-conservative" governors in recent memory. But they all radicalize to bring in the extremists from both parties, because that's where the passion lives. The middle 70% border on apathy, feel disenfranchised, and are tired of "their parent's parties". IMO THAT is what all politicians do.
Hillary's overt pandering has been as bad as Trump's race and culture baiting. As I posted in another thread, Hillary telling a black morning radio show that she carries her own hot sauce with her wherever she goes? I mean, sake...could she have also devoted a few minutes to her favorite fried chicken and greens? Then "7 Ways Hillary is Like Your Abuela?" Motherfuck. I'd eat 10 taco bowls at Trump Tower before I would stomach thinking of ways that Hillary was like my grandmother. Thankfully, both erupted on social media, and backfired.
Then she wants to ride Obama's coattails when it's in a state that loves Obama. Other times she's riding Bill's. But then at the same time, she starts talking about how Bill will turn around this economy of Barack Obama's, so clearly he's the guy to be her main economic adviser. You can praise and criticize your former employer at the same time on different issues, that's fine, but maybe be less emphatic in your bragging of Obama's accomplishments as a whole, if you're going to do it.
I'm not an Elizabeth Warren fan, but I can respect that she too seems sincere, holds a position whether it be party line or otherwise, and has the gumption to have a personal view on things. But I think Gabbard is the more centrist, likable, and capable of the two. Booker-Gabbard, Gabbard-Booker, 2020!