The lethal fallacy of any Clinton "Plan".

So I've heard countless times during this primary season that I SHOULD settle for Hillary because her goals are more achievable -- less ambitious and thus more likely to get signed into law.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't an actual campaign pitch. Does she not realize that hate for her family has created many millionaires over the decades? Why would they decide to call it a truce now that she's become president, in fact, I can see someone like Rand Paul or a seriously butt-hurt Ted Cruz taking joy in filibustering her every initiative.

Does that mean I think Bernie Sanders will have it any easier, no I'm not delusional, but what he DOES have going for him, in my opinion, is a backbone. Do I think he will pass legislation that will continue to punish those of us who are most vulnerable? NO! Do I think he'll be strong armed into unfair trade deals? NO! Will he bargain away Social Security and Medicare to reach a lopsided deal? NO! .....

This is paramount to anything that is muddying the waters. If Clinton voters are in fact pragmatic; are in fact, based in the "real world" they must realize all of Hillary's "plans" will come at a cost, and to no surprise (maybe?), the cost will be a trimmed down version of what she was promising (which really isn't much to begin with) and probable cuts to the programs mentioned above.

Is all that really worth it, or more appropriately, is she really worth it?