The strictest definition of Socialism involves who owns and controls the production of a nation.

Implicit in this is that socialism requires the forfeit of individual freedom when the trade off is a significant or otherwise 'worth while' (in eye of the beholder) gain in quality of life. An excellent example of this is where we sacrifice some of our freedom in the form of our individual ability to buy stuff for ourselves by paying taxes and in exchange we get things like health care and education. A classical liberal would say that if the people want heath care and education that the market would supply it with the price dictated by market controls.

I think the issue is that the GOP lump all socialists together and consider people who think that maybe we should not let anyone and everyone get their hands on fully automated weapons for low prices or that the government should do something with our taxes other than increase the military budget are painted as Stalin/Maoists.

Yes I realise that this is a tangent, but the Democrats stand for a rather centrist application of social liberalism. In this context, any of the Democratic candidates can be attacked for their socialism. However you're correct when you say that Obama managed to convince the electorate that he's not a socialist as the GOP defines the term. The issue lies in that the electorate doesn't realise that the GOP definition of the term is a false one.

I guess this is just in response to the train of thought regarding socialism in the electorate that you raised. I think we largely agree.

To go back to the original point - I think that Clinton has some serious flaws as a candidate for president. However if we she's poisoned during the primary by people who think Sanders is the right choice, and then she happens to win then this will come back to hurt the Democrats in the general.

That being said, I tend to think that is just the price that needs to be paid as her flaws should be exploited to promote the better candidate in the eyes of public.