Yes, we know what Mrs. Clinton is. She is an experienced politician, an experienced statesman, a talented attorney, and many things more. Positive things. She has more experience than any other candidate in the race, and has lived a life in service to others. She is not a liar, she is not ignoring important issues to benefit others, but she is having to make choices. And that galls some, who can't understand that a life in politics is about making choices, and trying to compromise to get the best outcomes. We're not crowning a king or queen, we're electing a president.

Sanders is in lala land, making promises and offering solutions he doesn't have a remote chance of achieving. He's the old white man running against the first truly qualified woman candidate, and is benefiting from those who don't understand how government works and want his policies to come true (we all do, but it ain't gonna happen with this congress), or who have been scared away from Hillary by female-averse pundits.

Now stop bashing Hillary when you simply don't know what you're talking about. From Bill Moyers, a Republican journalist:

The Media Have a Hillary Story and They're Sticking to It: The Clintons have always been fodder for the mainstream media scandal mill and this year's election is no different.

As the media have fired their blunderbusses at Donald Trump, trying to take down his candidacy — even as they benefit from the attention he brings them — you may have missed the whacks they've been taking at Clinton. She has been the media's national piñata for so long, and the criticisms of her are so familiar by now, they are embedded in our consciousness as presumptions of guilt.

Of course, the basic narrative is that she did this to herself because she is a bundle of character flaws. She is duplicitous and untrustworthy. She lies. She is a pawn of the rich and powerful. She feels entitled to do anything she damn pleases. That pretty much sums up the media take on Hillary, and that take is virtually unanimous, so much a given that practically no one in the media has bothered to give it a second thought. This isn't the "sorta know" journalism I referenced last week. This is "we-all-know" journalism.

Except we don't all know it, and neither does the press. I hold no brief for Hillary Clinton or anyone else in the race. In the electoral hurly-burly, it is the job of every candidate to hold brief for himself or herself, and the media's job to examine that brief. Indeed, preordained, unexamined ideas are just another way the media continue to fail the public, and when it comes to Hillary Clinton, the failure is spectacular. The media needle has been stuck in the same groove for two decades. And she is not getting a reboot. . . .

Whatever her faults, what really hurts Clinton may lie not so much in herself as in a post-modernist fault of the media. First, they set up a narrative — typically the sort of novelistic narrative that will give reporters traction with their readers. Then they keep pounding on it, over years, so that, in this particular case, they aren't really reporting on Hillary Clinton anymore, they are reporting on their version of Hillary Clinton. The more they report, they more invested they become in their version.

Read the rest at the link. Ake, you don't know anything about Hillary, you just know about the headlines and the media hype.