The Great Danger of the Centrist Approach
I am sure this has been said, but in my opinion it can NOT be said enough so I will try to restate it once again.
President Obama, and the way he is treated by the Republicans in terms of rhetoric ('too liberal", "socialist", etc.) and in terms of the way his efforts are blocked every step of the way so as to limit any progress simply out of reflex is an example of something we MUST come to terms with.
That is, that whoever the Democrats elect, will be met with the same reception. And here is the important thing: It is not because of the Democrats politics or views. It is much more pragmatic than that. It is because it is an excellent strategy for, not only, negotiations but for an overall re-adjustment of what the country perceive as the "center".
The game is to move hard to the right while falsely portraying your centrist opponent as far left. When you eventually DO meet in this readjusted center, you find that it is on the right side. And little by little, the expectations, the common wisdom for what is the center becomes readjusted to the right. That is why the liberal democrats, such as they were in the 60's and 70's, no longer feel as if they are even on the political radar.
I conclude by offering a truth that should be obvious at this point. That we MUST begin our negotiations from the actual left if we are to ever achieve any progress int terms of the national consciousness. Of course this is true on a more concrete level as well, in terms of negotiating things like minimum wage and such, but I speak more here about the overall national belief about what is center, what is "common sense".
This is why it is so important that we discuss things like Health Care from the POV that it should be a citizen's right to have health care and not simply work to tinker with private health insurance. This is why it is so important to have a president who will drive home the fact that a trillion dollars for supporting our own people is NOT or SHOULD NOT be a pipe dream when we do not flinch at spending that money overseas in wars to take down petty dictators.
A president is not a bean counter, folks. A president's power is indeed limited to what can be passed by Congress. But the ultimate power and pressure upon that Congress comes from the vote, from the people. And to have pressure applied upon that Congress, minds must be changed and the discussion of what we expect, what we demand, as citizens and voters must be had. For that, a President must be a leader of ideas and not an engineer scribbling notes on a sheet of graph paper. We have advisors for such minutiae.
In my view, Hillary does not have the vision to achieve what I have described above. Bernie Sanders does.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Obama will have brought us to the starting point and Bernie finished the job. One can dream. 
This is an interesting article that suggests just that Bernie may be Obama's best successor for the left.
In 2008, Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary because he inspired voters with ideas of hope and change, but then the realities of party polarization, separation of powers, federalism, and wealthy special interests dampened the expectation of swift, comprehensive, or fundamental alterations to either public policy or the political process. In 2008, critics of Obama’s campaign derided his supporters for being naïve idealists who projected their aspirations onto empty slogans. Perhaps, but most people were genuinely inspired by Obama’s call for post-partisanship and a renewed focus on the common good.
http://egbertowillies.com/2016/02/05/obamas-tocqueville-effect-and-the-rise-of-bernie-sanders/?utm_source=Willies+Media+LLC&utm_medium=FBPost&utm_campaign=EgbertoWillies.com
