Yeah I get it.  But it's legitimate to go a little meta cause most people do agree our collective ability to discuss issues needs work.

I'm not sure I'm right I'm kinda thinking I'm wrong but I do HOPE Iowans are as sick of Overton window as I am.

Some food for thought:

On a larger note, though, Clinton's argument is reflective of the larger primary debate: is it better to advocate for policies that are completely unlikely to make it through Congress in the hopes of a massive progressive turnout that upends politics as usual (a "political revolution," as it were), or is it better to advocate for things that are simply highly unlikely to make it through Congress but still fall within the realm of the possible within current constraints? The Clinton argument is that protecting the Affordable Care Act is difficult enough in its own right, and that single-payer healthcare is dead in the water in Congress.

But this argument overlooks the potential power of the presidency in shaping public opinion toward policy goals, and underestimates the degree to which it will be nearly impossible to accomplish anything as long as the GOP holds Congress.

Clinton's just flat-out saying "no," she's telling the people that it doesn't matter what they want, that she isn't up to the fight and isn't going to bother.  I think a lot of people don't see that as practical or pragmatic, but as defeatist.  

As Brian Beutler noted in The New Republic, the Sanders approach assumes an aggressive negotiating posture that might actually be a better bet toward accomplishing legislative goals in the face of an intransigent Congress than the incrementalist Clinton approach:

   But if we're imagining both of their agendas as opening bids in negotiations with Congress, why fault Sanders for not negotiating with himself? Ask a future Democratic Congress for single payer and a $15 minimum wage and you might get laughed at... but you also might get the public option and a bump to $12. Ask it for the public option and a $12 minimum wage, as Clinton might, and you'll get a fair hearing from the outset, but you might end up with advancements barely worth fighting for. President Obama, as Sanders is fond of noting, negotiated with himself, and progressives paid an unknowable price as a result.

I can't be the only one who remembers the frustration of this approach, but the frustration of years past is now replaced with praise for it.

More likely, however, is that almost nothing will actually be accomplished in the very likely event that the GOP holds the House past 2016. In that case, notching legislative "wins" won't be nearly as important as communicating the party's values and sharpening the differences between the parties in order to mount an increase in turnout for 2018. The President's biggest job in the case of viciously divided government won't be Compromiser-in-Chief, but pusher of the Overton Window.

Single-payer healthcare is popular with the public, and it deserves an advocate at the highest level of American politics because of its obvious superiority to the current system. In an environment where little good can happen legislatively anyway, the best thing a President could do on the healthcare front is make it clear that their party would enact single-payer healthcare if the opposition weren't standing in the way.

Desire for an improved healthcare system might or might not lead to stronger base turnout in subsequent elections, but in either event the germ of the idea of single-payer healthcare would move from the outside edges of liberal circles to mainstream discourse on the front page of the New York Times. And that in turn means that with enough demographic change and redistricting, single-payer healthcare might actually become a reality by 2030. In other words, just talking about single-payer healthcare from the bully pulpit makes it much likelier to happen over time. Certainly much more so than saying it will "never ever happen."

Politics isn't just the art of the possible today. It's also about shaping the realm of the possible tomorrow. When the opposition is willing to compromise, pushing the envelope might come at the expense of real gains in the moment. But when the opposition is intransigent, advocating for the impossible might just be the most productive thing a president can do to lay the groundwork for gains in the future.

It's about a difference in vision, in leadership, in focus.  Her reaction makes me wonder if she will listen to us at all, ever, or if she's just going to be the Mommy-in-Chief, telling us what's best for us.  

I get it, that is what they do, but to come out and say you aren't going to make promises you can't keep, while making promises you can't keep, reads more like she has run out of ideas.

While I agree it could be effective, the problem is she has not done that and she will not continue to do it.

More:

• 10 promises to LGBT community.
  
• Hillary Clinton Promises She'll Investigate Area 51, UFOs
  
• 12 Progressive Promises From Hillary Clinton's Economic Speech
  
• Hillary Clinton promises 'path to full and equal citizenship' in Latino address

Pffft

McBain: "Any other good musical films/docs come to mind?"

... by director Martin Scorsese with "The Last Waltz," which chronicles The Band's valedictory performance on November 25, 1976 at San Francisco's Winterland Ballroom. Music and film critics have hailed it as perhaps the greatest musical documentary / concert film ever made.

If you've never seen "The Last Waltz," please do. You likely won't be disappointed.

I must have heard "Lay Down Sally" at least a thousand times performed by various bands at Holiday Inns and juke joints around the SE when I was a Road Runner. And "Hollywood Nights" remains in my top 10 of memory songs.

Entre-nous, I must also admit that I wish he was running on a platform of getting us the he!! out of Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan and all of the other -stans.

Cuz, I fear, unless we do so, we will have no resources with which to implement his enlightened domestic agenda.

Rational.  Been reading some stuff about how Carter tried to "fix washington" .... Etc.