As far as I can tell, the gist of FBI director James Comey's letter to Congress--the letter that has reignited the ever-smoldering controversy around Hillary Clinton's email practices--is that the FBI has found a bunch of emails in the course of an investigation into an unrelated case, and that these emails may or may not contain additional evidence against Hillary. But no one has actually read all these emails, so, in fact, they may also contain nothing more than copies of emails previously released--or nothing at all. Of course, they may also contain receipts to Kim Jong-Il for nuclear weapons diagrams, but I kind of doubt it--and at any rate, we're apparently not going to find out until well after the election is over.
People of various political persuasions are outraged that Comey would send such a letter less than two weeks before the election. I'm frustrated myself, but I am also slightly sympathetic. After all, the man is truly in a no-win situation: If he doesn't report the existence of the emails to Congress, and then after the election he finds damning information in the emails (even though he won't), he would be "exposed" as a Hillary hack. Still, I think Comey could have more strongly emphasized in his letter that the existence of this investigation indicates absolutely nothing about Hillary's guilt or innocence.
Ultimately, though, I'm not even sure this matters: While Trump supporters are gleeful about the revelations, these are people who already considered Hillary Clinton a criminal--guilty of illegal self-enrichment at the very least and being a murderous incarnation of Satan at the worst. At the same time, those who have already decided to support Clinton have probably taken her email "crimes" into account already and decided that they amount to nothing--or at any rate not enough to convince them to vote for Trump. Considering that Hillary herself called for the FBI to make the contents of the emails public immediately, one can assume that she herself is unconcerned about any new revelations. And in the meantime, assuming he doesn't release the emails (which he probably won't), the Democrats can spend the next week and a half blasting Comey as a partisan hack for the Republican Party (of which he is a member). Bottom line: I don't see this harming Clinton in any appreciable way.
And seriously, assuming the new "evidence" shows anything at all about Clinton, what new revelations are people expecting to find? Unless you show me an email from Hillary claiming that "Breaking Bad" is overrated, I can literally think of nothing--nothing--that would dissuade me from voting for her. And, yes, that includes a receipt made out to Kim Jong-Il for nuclear weapons diagrams: Heck, if she were guilty of high crimes or misdemeanors (she isn't), then go ahead and impeach her. I can think of worse fates than a President Tim Kaine, and two of them are named Trump and Pence.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
The Unbearable Weight of Stubbornness
So Bernie has endorsed Hillary, and now Democrats can happily shake hands, mend fences, and turn our attention completely to defeating the Great Orange Dumpster Fire that is Donald Drumpf.
Wouldn't it be pretty to think so?
Immediately after Bernie Sanders announced his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, the internet was predictably aflame with diehard Sandernistas, proclaiming Bernie a sellout--apparently even Bernie has it in for Bernie! Apparently, passionate leftists are just as allergic to compromise as Tea Partiers, and would rather just watch the world burn than embrace a candidate who could, if her track record is any indication, actually get something done. Sure, she won't address all of Bernie's priorities, but she could actually get Sanders' followers a decent portion of the things they claim to want. Which is more than they'll get with a Drumpf presidency. (It's probably more than they would have gotten from a Bernie presidency, too, considering that Hillary has demonstrated a greater ability to work with her political antagonists than Bernie ever has--but don't expect the Bernie Bros to admit to that any time soon.)
Many of Bernie's most vocal supporters have loudly proclaimed that they will never vote for Hillary. When you point out that not voting for Hillary is at least passively supporting Drumpf, they wipe their hands of any responsibility, excusing their (in)action by saying it won't be their fault if Trump wins--it will be the fault of everybody who hurt their feelings by voting for Hillary over Bernie.
As a sports fan, I kind of understand: It's like people who hate Lebron James being upset about Cleveland winning the championship. "See, Oklahoma City was a better team than Golden State," they say. "If the Thunder had gone up against Cleveland, no WAY the Cavaliers would have won." Maybe. Maybe not. But the point is, Golden State went head to head against Oklahoma City, and Golden State won. And where the sports analogy breaks down is this: Bernie Sanders supporters can actually do something to ensure that Donald Trump doesn't win: They could swallow their pride and vote for Hillary--the man their own hero has asked them to vote for!
It has been pointed out that many of the It'll-serve-'em-right-if-Trump-wins crowd are actually relatively affluent white people. That these people, while not welcoming a Drumpf presidency, will likely not suffer overly much under such a regime--at least not directly. They don't rely on the social services that will likely be gutted under a Republican regime, and their rights will not be directly threatened by an extreme rightward tilt of the Supreme Court. And worst case, they have the means to follow through on their probably idle threats to pack up and move to Canada.
While I agree with this analysis, it loses some of its persuasive force when one considers that a huge proportion (perhaps a majority) of Trump's most passionate supporters actually are the people--low-income, poorly educated--whose lives will be decimated by a Drumpf presidency. You look at the people attending Trump rallies, cheering his racist bullshit, and you can sympathize with the attitude of those who say, "You idiots want Trump so much. Fine! You can have him, and you deserve whatever you get."
But then you have to remember that the vast majority of the country--the people who most need America to be the country that the likes of Trump will destroy--is not at these rallies, and that in many ways their very lives depend upon this country making the right choice. Call it "the lesser of two evils" if it makes you feel better, but remember that the "worser" of two evils is really, really worse.
Wouldn't it be pretty to think so?
Immediately after Bernie Sanders announced his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, the internet was predictably aflame with diehard Sandernistas, proclaiming Bernie a sellout--apparently even Bernie has it in for Bernie! Apparently, passionate leftists are just as allergic to compromise as Tea Partiers, and would rather just watch the world burn than embrace a candidate who could, if her track record is any indication, actually get something done. Sure, she won't address all of Bernie's priorities, but she could actually get Sanders' followers a decent portion of the things they claim to want. Which is more than they'll get with a Drumpf presidency. (It's probably more than they would have gotten from a Bernie presidency, too, considering that Hillary has demonstrated a greater ability to work with her political antagonists than Bernie ever has--but don't expect the Bernie Bros to admit to that any time soon.)
Many of Bernie's most vocal supporters have loudly proclaimed that they will never vote for Hillary. When you point out that not voting for Hillary is at least passively supporting Drumpf, they wipe their hands of any responsibility, excusing their (in)action by saying it won't be their fault if Trump wins--it will be the fault of everybody who hurt their feelings by voting for Hillary over Bernie.
As a sports fan, I kind of understand: It's like people who hate Lebron James being upset about Cleveland winning the championship. "See, Oklahoma City was a better team than Golden State," they say. "If the Thunder had gone up against Cleveland, no WAY the Cavaliers would have won." Maybe. Maybe not. But the point is, Golden State went head to head against Oklahoma City, and Golden State won. And where the sports analogy breaks down is this: Bernie Sanders supporters can actually do something to ensure that Donald Trump doesn't win: They could swallow their pride and vote for Hillary--the man their own hero has asked them to vote for!
It has been pointed out that many of the It'll-serve-'em-right-if-Trump-wins crowd are actually relatively affluent white people. That these people, while not welcoming a Drumpf presidency, will likely not suffer overly much under such a regime--at least not directly. They don't rely on the social services that will likely be gutted under a Republican regime, and their rights will not be directly threatened by an extreme rightward tilt of the Supreme Court. And worst case, they have the means to follow through on their probably idle threats to pack up and move to Canada.
While I agree with this analysis, it loses some of its persuasive force when one considers that a huge proportion (perhaps a majority) of Trump's most passionate supporters actually are the people--low-income, poorly educated--whose lives will be decimated by a Drumpf presidency. You look at the people attending Trump rallies, cheering his racist bullshit, and you can sympathize with the attitude of those who say, "You idiots want Trump so much. Fine! You can have him, and you deserve whatever you get."
But then you have to remember that the vast majority of the country--the people who most need America to be the country that the likes of Trump will destroy--is not at these rallies, and that in many ways their very lives depend upon this country making the right choice. Call it "the lesser of two evils" if it makes you feel better, but remember that the "worser" of two evils is really, really worse.
Monday, July 11, 2016
Open Carry Query
Texas is an "open-carry" state, meaning people can walk around freely with their beloved rifles and machine guns and other weapons of mass destruction without fear of being persecuted for their fetishistic attachment to firearms. At last week's protest march in Dallas--the one that ended in mayhem as a sniper opened fire on police and marchers, killing five police officers and wounding several others--"20 to 30" of the marchers showed up at the protests carrying assault rifles, and several of them were further wearing fatigues and gas masks and bulletproof vests. Because 'MURRICA! When the shooting started, these people--correctly--ran for cover, but their presence predictably caused confusion for the police, who were trying to determine who was shooting and from where.
Now, these "patriots" exercising their constitutional rights, were presumably examples of the semi-mythical beast that the NRA and its enablers keep telling us about: "good guys with guns." You know, the ones who are supposed to prevent mass casualties by coolly and calmly using deadly force against the enemies of law and order. Now, as I say, these people undoubtedly did the right thing in running away--the last thing anybody needed at that time and place was even more bullets flying in random directions. But my question is: If these passionate devotees of gun-culture had absolutely no intention of using their weapons for self-defense or defense of others--the very thing gun fetishists insist they need their weapons for--then why were they carrying them? And why in God's name should any of us listen when the NRA insists that that is that the guns are for?
Now, these "patriots" exercising their constitutional rights, were presumably examples of the semi-mythical beast that the NRA and its enablers keep telling us about: "good guys with guns." You know, the ones who are supposed to prevent mass casualties by coolly and calmly using deadly force against the enemies of law and order. Now, as I say, these people undoubtedly did the right thing in running away--the last thing anybody needed at that time and place was even more bullets flying in random directions. But my question is: If these passionate devotees of gun-culture had absolutely no intention of using their weapons for self-defense or defense of others--the very thing gun fetishists insist they need their weapons for--then why were they carrying them? And why in God's name should any of us listen when the NRA insists that that is that the guns are for?
Saturday, July 2, 2016
. . .And One More Thing
As I said yesterday, I assume the "managers" of Donald Drumpf's "presidential" "campaign"--
--I should really just put airquotes around everything associated with this moron. But onward!
I assume these people had no criminal intent when they sent fundraising letters to Scottish MPs. Despite technically breaking election law, these emails were (I assume) just part of a mass spamming: The Drumpf campaign probably purchased email lists and then sent messages to everybody on these lists--including foreign parliamentarians. Frankly, I think the campaign has so far been fortunate that only emails to Scots have come to light. I'm waiting (OK, fervently hoping) to hear about similar appeals to members of the Duma or the House of Saud.
But here's the thing: Let's give Drumpf and his cronies the benefit of all doubt as mentioned above. That still means that his campaign paid money for email lists that contain the addresses of Scottish members of Parliament. In other words, the lists that he spent money on contain email addresses that are already public! This would be like me spending cash to get the email addresses of American congressmen and -women. Sure, I guess you could "justify" this expense by claiming that it saves time, but since the "time" we are discussing is essentially a 30-second Google search, that justification is thin to say the least.
In other words, ignore the fact that Drumpf is a racist, misogynist, and completely unqualified candidate. The one claim that his whole campaign rested on is that he is a smart businessman--but a smart businessman who apparently wastes money on worthless (and possibly illegal) campaign expenses. And these expenses include things that any semi-intelligent person could get for free!
--I should really just put airquotes around everything associated with this moron. But onward!
I assume these people had no criminal intent when they sent fundraising letters to Scottish MPs. Despite technically breaking election law, these emails were (I assume) just part of a mass spamming: The Drumpf campaign probably purchased email lists and then sent messages to everybody on these lists--including foreign parliamentarians. Frankly, I think the campaign has so far been fortunate that only emails to Scots have come to light. I'm waiting (OK, fervently hoping) to hear about similar appeals to members of the Duma or the House of Saud.
But here's the thing: Let's give Drumpf and his cronies the benefit of all doubt as mentioned above. That still means that his campaign paid money for email lists that contain the addresses of Scottish members of Parliament. In other words, the lists that he spent money on contain email addresses that are already public! This would be like me spending cash to get the email addresses of American congressmen and -women. Sure, I guess you could "justify" this expense by claiming that it saves time, but since the "time" we are discussing is essentially a 30-second Google search, that justification is thin to say the least.
In other words, ignore the fact that Drumpf is a racist, misogynist, and completely unqualified candidate. The one claim that his whole campaign rested on is that he is a smart businessman--but a smart businessman who apparently wastes money on worthless (and possibly illegal) campaign expenses. And these expenses include things that any semi-intelligent person could get for free!
Friday, July 1, 2016
Teflon Don 2.0
Back in the 1980's, John Gotti, a notorious New York gangster, was frequently referred to in the tabloids as the Teflon Don, owing to the authorities' inability to successfully prosecute him. Today, apparently, Donald Drumpf is the political Teflon Don: a repugnant candidate whose campaign somehow survives repeated egregious mistakes (if they even are mistakes), any one of which would have not only ended any other political campaign, but would have consigned the offending candidate to political oblivion.
Call the population of an entire country--a neighboring country, with which the United States has basically friendly relations--murderers and rapists? No biggie.
Spend extensive time on a debate stage discussing the fact that there is "no problem" with the size of your penis? Ha! Funny stuff! (Not that anyone believes him--have you seen his teeny, tiny hands?)
Defraud thousands of vulnerable people of what little money they have by offering a "university" degree worth less than the stock of one of your several bankrupt businesses? Hey, that's the American way!
Now we find out that Drumpf's campaign has been spamming Scottish parliamentarians with fund-raising appeals. In addition to being distasteful, tacky, and--considering the fact that Drumpf keeps claiming he's worth about ten billion dollars--suspicious, this act is likely illegal:
Now, to be "fair," I'm reasonably sure that no one on Drumpf's team actually said, "Hey, here's a thought: Why don't we try to raise money from Scottish politicians!" More likely, the campaign simply purchased a bunch of email lists--one of which contained the MP's addresses--and spammed the hell out of them. Even if this is technically illegal, it smacks more of incompetence or sloppiness than criminal intent--much like Drumpf's hair.
But imagine if Hillary Clinton's campaign were caught in a similar scandal? Fox News would interrupt programming with a flashing graphic of "TREASON!" before the first person could "Like" the story on Facebook!
I'm seriously asking: What will it take to bring this jackass down?
Call the population of an entire country--a neighboring country, with which the United States has basically friendly relations--murderers and rapists? No biggie.
Spend extensive time on a debate stage discussing the fact that there is "no problem" with the size of your penis? Ha! Funny stuff! (Not that anyone believes him--have you seen his teeny, tiny hands?)
Defraud thousands of vulnerable people of what little money they have by offering a "university" degree worth less than the stock of one of your several bankrupt businesses? Hey, that's the American way!
Now we find out that Drumpf's campaign has been spamming Scottish parliamentarians with fund-raising appeals. In addition to being distasteful, tacky, and--considering the fact that Drumpf keeps claiming he's worth about ten billion dollars--suspicious, this act is likely illegal:
The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits “any foreign national from contributing, donating, or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them.”A couple of campaign watchdog groups are planning to file a complaint against the Trump campaign.
Now, to be "fair," I'm reasonably sure that no one on Drumpf's team actually said, "Hey, here's a thought: Why don't we try to raise money from Scottish politicians!" More likely, the campaign simply purchased a bunch of email lists--one of which contained the MP's addresses--and spammed the hell out of them. Even if this is technically illegal, it smacks more of incompetence or sloppiness than criminal intent--much like Drumpf's hair.
But imagine if Hillary Clinton's campaign were caught in a similar scandal? Fox News would interrupt programming with a flashing graphic of "TREASON!" before the first person could "Like" the story on Facebook!
I'm seriously asking: What will it take to bring this jackass down?
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Well, Guess That's Settled. . .
Yesterday the Supreme Court overturned a highly restrictive Texas abortion law, emphatically reaffirming the constitutional right to abortion. Now that the abortion question has been settled once and for all, I guess we need discuss it no further.
Well, it would be nice to think so....
Disingenuously promoted as protecting women's health, Texas' law mandated among other things that abortion clinics meet onerous physical-plant requirements that had nothing to do with making abortions safer. The actual purpose of these laws, of course, was simply to ensure that very few clinics could meet the enhanced standards and would consequently be forced to close, And the law was very effective in this regard, as the number of abortion clinics in Texas has been roughly halved since the law's enactment.
The Supreme Court's decision yesterday reversed an appeals court ruling upholding the law, a ruling, by the way, that summarizes the fundamental flaw behind much anti-abortion legislation. The appeals court judges upheld the law, claiming that they "had to accept lawmakers’ assertions about the health benefits of abortion restrictions." Because, after all, who is more knowledgeable about women's health needs than right-wing politicians?
Hillary Clinton seized on the ruling to emphasize the importance of electing a candidate who will choose well-qualified Supreme Court justices--justices who will uphold abortion rights and other liberal concerns. Donald Trump "made no direct public comments on Monday’s decision." So in addition to reaffirming women's right to abortion, SCOTUS actually managed to make Drumpf shut the hell up for five minutes. On the whole, then, a positive--if not miraculous--ruling.
Well, it would be nice to think so....
Disingenuously promoted as protecting women's health, Texas' law mandated among other things that abortion clinics meet onerous physical-plant requirements that had nothing to do with making abortions safer. The actual purpose of these laws, of course, was simply to ensure that very few clinics could meet the enhanced standards and would consequently be forced to close, And the law was very effective in this regard, as the number of abortion clinics in Texas has been roughly halved since the law's enactment.
The Supreme Court's decision yesterday reversed an appeals court ruling upholding the law, a ruling, by the way, that summarizes the fundamental flaw behind much anti-abortion legislation. The appeals court judges upheld the law, claiming that they "had to accept lawmakers’ assertions about the health benefits of abortion restrictions." Because, after all, who is more knowledgeable about women's health needs than right-wing politicians?
Hillary Clinton seized on the ruling to emphasize the importance of electing a candidate who will choose well-qualified Supreme Court justices--justices who will uphold abortion rights and other liberal concerns. Donald Trump "made no direct public comments on Monday’s decision." So in addition to reaffirming women's right to abortion, SCOTUS actually managed to make Drumpf shut the hell up for five minutes. On the whole, then, a positive--if not miraculous--ruling.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Time to Accept Reality
I understand why people like Bernie Sanders. I understand why people voted for Bernie Sanders. And I understand why these people are feeling depressed right now, as it appears that Hillary Clinton has emerged victorious from the Democratic nominating process. Many of these people are now suggesting that there is no way they will vote for Hillary in November. Personally, I think this attitude is counterproductive to say the least, unless these people truly see no major threat from the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency. But, still, I acknowledge that these people certainly have the right to vote for whomever they prefer, or for no one at all. All of this I can accept.
What I can no longer stand is the caterwauling from this group that the system is "rigged" and that Hillary Clinton somehow "stole" the election. I read posts like this on Facebook and, frankly, just want to scream. Enough already!
I note that these people are making two separate arguments, one of which is absolutely true: The system IS rigged. The current primary system, particularly it seems on the Democratic side, is set up in such a way that it favors the candidate preferred by the party elite and, correspondingly, throws up obstacles in the path of any less-favored candidate. This does not mean that an insurgent candidate CAN'T get the nomination--a little-known politician by the name of Barack something-or-other managed to beat out the establishment favorite in 2008. You might have heard of the person he beat, too: Her name was Hillary Clinton. Still, however, the party favorites will always have an edge in any nominating contest. It's debatable, though, whether this is truly a bad thing: After all, some would say that the people in charge of the Democratic Party have every right to select the person they want to represent them in a general election. And one could, therefore, understand why these people might be reluctant to support Bernie Sanders who, as I was reminded recently, was not even a Democrat until five minutes before he decided to run for the nomination.
(At this point, I feel I must insert the obligatory statement of basic support for what Bernie is trying to accomplish. Yes, he's a good guy. Yes, he has some great policy positions. Yes, it would be great to have someone in the White House with Berne's obvious concern for the downtrodden. I'm not bashing Bernie, OK? But he lost. Onward.)
I'm beginning to feel that maybe we should do away with primaries altogether: Let the parties choose their standard-bearers however they want. True, that would mean no Bernie Sanders (at least, no Bernie Sanders running as a Democrat), but it would also mean we wouldn't right now face the real possibility of a Trump presidency. That's a tradeoff I'd accept.
The second argument, though, that Hillary stole the election, is flat-out wrong--unless you are defining "theft" as getting more votes than your opponent. Hillary won millions more votes than Bernie (and I suspect her winning margin among registered Democrats was even larger than her overall margin). She won more states than Bernie--particularly among states that hold primaries, which are inherently more small-d democratic than caucuses. She won more convention delegates--both of the "super" and "mere mortal" category. Die-hard Bernie fans would have you believe that none of this is true--that it is merely evidence of massive fraud and vote-suppression of North Korean magnitude.
And this is where I get pissed off. Because the implication of these charges is not only that the system is rigged, but also that it is fundamentally inconceivable that people could possibly prefer Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders. That, in fact, there is something fundamentally "wrong" with people who prefer Clinton. And maybe I'm wrong to take this personally, but I do.
There is nothing "wrong" with supporting Hillary. Look, folks, if you think Bernie is qualified to be president, than you simply have to acknowledge that Hillary is too. Again, I'm not saying preferable--I mean, I think she is, others will disagree, and that's why we have discussions and elections. But a former first lady (serving as both formal and informal policy advisor), twice-elected senator, and secretary of state is as qualified to be president as anyone you're likely ever to see. And if you think it absolutely impossible that a large group of your fellow Americans could look at that resume and see a qualified candidate, then you have a curious view of your fellow Americans.
So to Bernie fans, I say: By all means, keep supporting Bernie. I would suggest the best way to do that, though. is to support the candidate most likely to help him achieve his policy goals (which ain't Trump, by the way). That decision, ultimately, is up to you. But you really need to accept the fact that more people simply preferred the other guy (or, in this case, gal). And unless you want to find yourself and your movement permanently marginalized, you better start building--rather than burning--bridges.
What I can no longer stand is the caterwauling from this group that the system is "rigged" and that Hillary Clinton somehow "stole" the election. I read posts like this on Facebook and, frankly, just want to scream. Enough already!
I note that these people are making two separate arguments, one of which is absolutely true: The system IS rigged. The current primary system, particularly it seems on the Democratic side, is set up in such a way that it favors the candidate preferred by the party elite and, correspondingly, throws up obstacles in the path of any less-favored candidate. This does not mean that an insurgent candidate CAN'T get the nomination--a little-known politician by the name of Barack something-or-other managed to beat out the establishment favorite in 2008. You might have heard of the person he beat, too: Her name was Hillary Clinton. Still, however, the party favorites will always have an edge in any nominating contest. It's debatable, though, whether this is truly a bad thing: After all, some would say that the people in charge of the Democratic Party have every right to select the person they want to represent them in a general election. And one could, therefore, understand why these people might be reluctant to support Bernie Sanders who, as I was reminded recently, was not even a Democrat until five minutes before he decided to run for the nomination.
(At this point, I feel I must insert the obligatory statement of basic support for what Bernie is trying to accomplish. Yes, he's a good guy. Yes, he has some great policy positions. Yes, it would be great to have someone in the White House with Berne's obvious concern for the downtrodden. I'm not bashing Bernie, OK? But he lost. Onward.)
I'm beginning to feel that maybe we should do away with primaries altogether: Let the parties choose their standard-bearers however they want. True, that would mean no Bernie Sanders (at least, no Bernie Sanders running as a Democrat), but it would also mean we wouldn't right now face the real possibility of a Trump presidency. That's a tradeoff I'd accept.
The second argument, though, that Hillary stole the election, is flat-out wrong--unless you are defining "theft" as getting more votes than your opponent. Hillary won millions more votes than Bernie (and I suspect her winning margin among registered Democrats was even larger than her overall margin). She won more states than Bernie--particularly among states that hold primaries, which are inherently more small-d democratic than caucuses. She won more convention delegates--both of the "super" and "mere mortal" category. Die-hard Bernie fans would have you believe that none of this is true--that it is merely evidence of massive fraud and vote-suppression of North Korean magnitude.
And this is where I get pissed off. Because the implication of these charges is not only that the system is rigged, but also that it is fundamentally inconceivable that people could possibly prefer Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders. That, in fact, there is something fundamentally "wrong" with people who prefer Clinton. And maybe I'm wrong to take this personally, but I do.
There is nothing "wrong" with supporting Hillary. Look, folks, if you think Bernie is qualified to be president, than you simply have to acknowledge that Hillary is too. Again, I'm not saying preferable--I mean, I think she is, others will disagree, and that's why we have discussions and elections. But a former first lady (serving as both formal and informal policy advisor), twice-elected senator, and secretary of state is as qualified to be president as anyone you're likely ever to see. And if you think it absolutely impossible that a large group of your fellow Americans could look at that resume and see a qualified candidate, then you have a curious view of your fellow Americans.
So to Bernie fans, I say: By all means, keep supporting Bernie. I would suggest the best way to do that, though. is to support the candidate most likely to help him achieve his policy goals (which ain't Trump, by the way). That decision, ultimately, is up to you. But you really need to accept the fact that more people simply preferred the other guy (or, in this case, gal). And unless you want to find yourself and your movement permanently marginalized, you better start building--rather than burning--bridges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)