ambition in service of progressive movement? or progressive moves in service of ambition?

THAT to me is why I'm supporting Sanders or any candidate like him right now rather than Clinton: I'm voting for and with a movement against the billionaire class, not shrewd moves that try to maneuver part of that movement in service of a particular candidate's lifelong ambition.

I think the woman was an amazing Secretary of State and there's a role for ruthless, brilliant, tough-as-nails badass politicians like her. But there's simply too much evidence that she's out for her core group of rich mainstream Dems first, and is only spouting populist language now in service of winning.

I have always felt that Sanders, whom I had the privilege of meeting at the WH a few years back, is in this because SOMEBODY has to fight back. His ambition is IN SERVICE of a movement. Had Elizabeth Warren been leading the charge, I have no doubt he would have pulled back from the presidential election and continued his fight as is. He sees himself as a facilitator of a critical mass movement to wrest our democracy back from a corrupt oligarchy, which is also critical globally in terms of climate change, avoid peak oil related conflict, etc.

With Sanders, I'm voting for a cause, and he's the most competent person in the race to lead it.

I feel that Clinton is running as Clinton, not a cause. As a radical feminist myself, I'm pleased that she has a great track record on women's rights and health care. She's made of steel, and she'd probably be superior in some legislative relation situations because she'd make Rahm Emamuel's famous arm-twisting look like an encounter group. But her being a woman doesn't make her ruthless ambition more palatable to me. It's about her, not a vision for all of us. That's what those of us on the Left who don't support her sense about her.