Mainstream media drops lobbying bomb on Hillary

[BainsBane]

57. Oh, I think there is a huge amount of difference

Largely in terms of knowledge, experience, and competence. And the fact she doesn't seek to reduce American politics to a bumper sticker slogan.

One is qualified to execute the job of president and the other enjoys being treated like a rock star. One encourages conversations with voters and the other insists he has all the answers. One has an expansive knowledge of foreign policy, the nations and actors around the world while the other is not only lacking in knowledge, he isn't even interested enough to assemble a team that can help prepare him for something that is central to the job of president. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-deficit-218431

I happen to think a president should be competent. Knowledge and ability to understand the complexity of issues and society impress me far more than sloganeering.

As for integrity, look at the recent spate of incidents from Sanders' campaign: data breach, impersonating union workers, improperly using logos of activist organizations and implying endorsements, so much so he has had to pull ads and mailers. If one wants to dismiss it as the actions of rogue staffers, that suggests he can't control his own staff. If he can't manage a campaign, how can he be trusted to run the federal government?

While Obama didn't have a huge amount of experience, he ran a very efficient and competent campaign, which pointed to his competence. We don't see that from Bernie.

So to answer your question, there is an enormous amount of difference between Clinton and Sanders, and those differences favor Clinton.