Hillary Was Who They Said She Was

Like 50,000,000+ other Americans, I am shocked and dismayed, and greatly fear the future. That's never happened after an election in my lifetime. When Bush defeated Kerry in 2004, I thought plenty of people were nuts. But I didn't fear for my country that way I do now. Maybe Trump will prove us all wrong. Maybe he won't run the country the way he ran his businesses, bankrupting them while enriching himself, maybe all the racist and sexist talk and behavior was only hot air aimed at making a billionaire more relatable to the common man, maybe...

But we all know who Trump is. We've been saying it all along. The surprise is finding out who Hillary really was.

Last night, Hillary supporters gathered in the Javits center were crying and stunned by the bad, unthinkable news that kept rolling in. They'd come expecting victory, instead, they faced their worst nightmare. Whether you believe the dire apocalyptic scenarios put forward by many political writers or not, there's no denying that at a certain point in the evening, for Hillary supporters, it felt like the end of the world.

And at that moment, she sent John Podesta to speak to the crowd, and tell them to go home.

Which would have been fine... I guess... If she and her campaign really were going to wait until every last vote was counted. Kerry, in 2004, waited until the next day too. Of course, we know what happened in 2000 as well.

But a heartbeat later, before the Javits center could even fully clear out, Hillary conceded to Trump in a private phone call. She didn't speak to her supporters. She didn't speak to a worried, fractured nation or a frightened world. She went to bed.

Bernie supporters tried to warn us from the beginning. They claimed she'd lost touch with the people, that she didn't feel our pain. The Bernie Bros that I dismissed as deluded about their candidate's electoral chances were right. This election came down to who was more passionate about the country, who cared about fixing its problems. Hillary, to be charitable, played it safe, choosing a message that to stay the course, with slight corrections, was the more prudent way forward. I still believe she was right... But that doesn't matter. The message was all wrong--it failed to connect with the people she needed to win. As it turned out, her temperament, calm, above-the-fray, unmoved... was the problem.

It had nothing to do with the emails.

And at our darkest hour, Hillary proved her critics right. She took thousands from the likes of Goldman Sachs to give inspirational speeches, but the speech she needed to give, one she'd been paid millions for by the American people, she refused.

John Podesta... John friggin Podesta... told us to go to bed instead.

Hillary abandoned us, abandoned the party, abandoned the country at a time when we needed her to say everything would be okay, that progressive ideals aren't dead, that the fight will go on, renewed and reinvigorated. She needed to tell us this is day one of building New Democratic engines in our communities, so that a million young, engaged, and idealistic Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warrens, and Hillary Clintons emerge to save this country from its worst impulses.

Maybe we should have paid her more.

Losing last night was a tragedy--the extent of it is yet to be seen. It could have been redeemed somewhat by a triumphant call to return to the principles that made our country the shining city on a hill, the beacon of light and freedom to the world.

Hillary was silent. I hope and pray we don't follow her example.

Someone Explain Why Anyone Should Care About Hillary's Emails

We're 11 days away from an election that could determine the course of the United States, and the world, for decades to come. In one corner, we have the chosen candidate of white supremacists everywhere, a man who has admitted to sexual assault, a man who has conned hundreds of people out of their hard-earned money, a man who has never done one act of public service in his entire life. In the other corner, you have a career politician who OMG EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS!!!!!

EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS!!! WOWSERS!  OH NO!!! #$%@^!!!!

Honestly, why is this even an issue? You have one reason to not vote for Hillary: you are a Republican when it comes to social issues, and you want abortion banned, the gays back in the closet, and the minorities to shut up. This is not debatable, because it is literally all Trump brings to the table. If you want a Supreme Court packed with Scalias, Trump is your man. In fact, if you're not particularly bigoted or racist, you have a pretty compelling argument to vote for Hillary.

So why would EMAILS EMAILS EMAILs cause you to say, "Fuck Hillary, I'm a Trump guy?"

More of Hillary's emails have been read, studied, picked apart and agonized over than the works of Shakespeare. There is no person on Earth who can claim to have released more emails to the public than her. George W. Bush, who suspended civil liberties, rewrote the constitution, slept through 9/11 and embroiled us in two costly wars-- well, he "lost" 22,000,000 emails. We will never see them. They were on the private server of the Republican National Committee.

Despite this unprecedented scrutiny, this magnifying glass over every quip from a low-level Democratic party campaign worker... literally NOTHING illegal has been found. NO emails of her plotting to kill Americans in Benghazi. NO emails of her sharing Monica Lewinsky nude pics. NO emails of her promising Iran she'll give them nukes as soon as she's elected. NOTHING. NADA. ZILTCH.

The FBI, the RNC, Wikileaks, the press, Russia, even the right wing conspiracy media... not one of these entities has found any email that surprises and shocks us. Oh, politicians are calculating? They try and speak out of both sides of their mouth? Their staff can get petty and catty? OH MY GOD!!!!! TELL ME something I don't know.

It's within your rights to be sick of politicians. But lets not pretend these things are great crimes. Let's not pretend they're worse... or even equivalent... to the very real crimes Donald Trump has been getting away with for years-- things that have been proven in a court of law and recorded on videotape. Let's not pretend that being a politician is worse than inviting a white supremacist to help run your campaign.

Did Hillary erase emails in which she discussed taking bribes from the Saudis? The Republicans would say, "YOU BET!" But there's no evidence of this. It's all speculation. Hillary could have erased an email revealing she's really Emperor Zod of the Planet Kylophon, here to enslave the earth and steal the world's reserves of Beanie Babies. That email MIGHT EXIST!!! But it doesn't, and that line of thinking should also have you wondering what things might exist in Trump's email, right? After all, we don't have any of his messages. Not one. We don't even have his tax returns.

Was Hillary careless with classified information? Well, it depends whether you think the state department email system, WHICH WAS HACKED, is safer than Hillary's own email system, which is apparently so secure that no one can find her Emperor Zod emails. It also depends whether you give a damn if she accidentally revealed that a general's favorite soup is split pea, which is the kind of ticky-tacky shit the government slaps "CLASSIFIED" on ever since the Bush administration.

All of this hand-wringing, all of this "HILLARY BELONGS IN JAIL!" bullshit... WHY? Every single telescope, microscope and endoscope has been focused on her for close to 30 years... and nobody has found absolutely anything to imprison her for! What's the charge? What's the evidence? And... WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Imagine someone pitched a movie with Hillary as the villian: "You see, the bad guy, she's this woman who, well, she used her own email server. And MI-6 has to send James Bond to take her down." This is not compelling stuff.

By all means, if you have ideological differences with the Democratic Party, vote Republican. I'll point out that Trump is not a Republican, and you should worry about him destroying your party, but at least I'll understand why you're voting the way you are.

But if you're a so-called fence-sitting independent? Can you really not tell the difference here?

Trump Proud That He Didn't Mention Bill's Infidelity

While most Americans believe Hillary Clinton won last night's debate by speaking in complete sentences and not just mixing together random words with coke/amphetamine/terminal-illness sniffles, Trump and his good friend Sean Hannity have pointed out otherwise. While Hillary was a big bad meanie--insisting that The Donald's shady, sometimes racist business practices, multiple bankruptcies, demeaning comments about women and dangerous comments about our allies abroad were somehow relevant to his qualifications for the presidency--Trump himself showed "enormous restraint," a quality Americans are looking for in a President:

"I was going to say something extremely rough to Hillary, to her family, and I said to myself I can't do it. I just can't do it. It's inappropriate, it's not nice."

After restraining himself for several minutes, Trump let it all out with reporters immediately after leaving the stage:

Trump: "I'm very happy that I was able to hold back" on Bill Clinton's "indiscretions" https://t.co/iXIwDaIPem https://t.co/LKaHt4NI6b

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 27, 2016

How Bill Clinton's affairs relate to Hillary's abilities to be President, the twice-divorced Republican nominee who admitted to cheating on his first wife didn't say.

Trump's Winning Debate Strategy Vs. Hillary Clinton

It seems to be the general consensus--at least among Democrats--that when it comes time for the Presidential debates, Hillary Clinton will wipe the floor with Donald Trump. There's evidence that Trump himself is worried about this, already hemming and hawing about the debate schedule. If you'll recall, he actually sat out of one of the Republican debates because he didn't like the results of the previous one.

There is little doubt that when it comes to knowledge of government, public policy, and the issues at stake in this election, Hillary Clinton has a better grasp. But the Democratic nominee would be wise to study Trump's past debate behavior and rhetoric--the angry orange man may not know how to "win" a debate, but he certainly knows how to derail one. And for Trump, that could be as good as winning.

Here's how Trump "beats" Clinton in a debate:


1. Attack the questions and the moderators.

Not even Trump's biggest defenders believe he has a great handle on the issues (the most common defense is, "he'll have the best advisors.") One of his best strategies to buy time to formulate answers and distract from his lack of knowledge will be to go after a group that most of his supporters uniformly hate. No, not Muslims... the Media. He will most likely be called to task for previous things he's said on Twitter, in interviews, and rallies, and his winning strategy will be to accuse the moderators of bias (remember Megyn Kelly), the questions for being unfair, and the debate process itself as being rigged. By de-legitimizing the debate, he seeks to mitigate its impact. Instead of losing the debate, his supporters will be able to say he successfully withstood a character assassination attempt. Expect that any pointed question about his temperament, behavior, or prior statements will be parried with a defense that the media is out to get him and deliberately skewing the coverage.

2. Interrupt, mug for the camera, and talk over Hillary.

Donald Trump loves attention. He thrives on it. As we heard in their respective convention speeches, there's quite a contrast between Hillary and Donald's speaking styles. You'd think a calm, well reasoned argument typically wins out over an unhinged ramble. Usually, you'd be right. But to use the Republican debates as an example, Trump uses his demented charisma not to make a powerful argument, but to steal the stage. He's consistently robbed other candidates of speaking time. Look at what he did to "poor" Jeb Bush, an experienced politician who certainly speaks more coherently on the issues--Trump silenced him, again and again, in front of a national audience, and made him appear weak. Trump set the rhythm of the debate by never allowing his opponent to make a point uninterrupted. Trump will attempt to deny Hillary the time to make a reasoned argument and bully her off the stage, For him, it's better if viewers are distracted by him muttering, "Crooked Hillary," or if the network cuts away to catch him mugging for the camera, than if the audience is able to focus on Hillary's words. The more focus he can pull toward him--even if its negative--the more he makes Hillary disappear.

3. Mock Hillary with nicknames and attack lines.

Trump doesn't want a debate. He wants a circus. Debates favor the best arguments and the strongest speakers. A circus is pure entertainment. John Kasich made some inroads--too late--among Republicans because he mostly stayed out of the ugly fray and stayed on topic during the Republican debates. Meanwhile, Little Marco and Lyin' Ted fell by the wayside because they stopped looking Presidential and started looking like damaged little boys on the playground. Trump got them to play in the mud, and they soiled themselves. Trump's goal is to get Hillary agitated and get her to break decorum. As Michelle Obama said in her convention speech, "When they go low, we go high." If Hillary forgets this, and goes low, Trump will be able to feed a narrative of name-calling and childish bickering to the news media. That will dominate the headlines the next day, instead of his debate failures and lack of substance.

4. Protest, then Parrot

Otherwise known as the Mitt Romney debate strategy. Also a strategy well-known to Melania Trump's speechwriter. And it's the best way for Trump to seem Presidential and "take the high road." The "Protest, then Parrot" strategy boils down to this. First, accuse your opponent of being out of touch, of just not getting it: America needs a change from politics as usual. Then--nearly word for word--lay out the same exact strategy your opponent supports. For added effect, one up it. For example, Hillary lays out a $275 billion dollar plan to put people to work rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure? Accuse her of selling out the working class, redistributing wealth, and raising our taxes... and then propose spending "at least double" to put people to work rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure. Time and again, if Hillary lays out a plan, Trump will say it will raise our taxes and sell out America, and then will recite the same plan, except he'll do it by cutting taxes and saving America. Trump won't need to bring any of his own ideas--other than The Wall--he can just steal from Hillary. Most political commentators and the audience watching at home thought Mitt Romney won the first debate in 2012, even though everything he said on stage was wildly out of character and ran counter to the policies he'd advocated for his entire campaign. It's winning by blurring the lines--sound just like your opponent, and some people won't be able to tell the difference. Even better, your opponent is caught off guard and has nothing to say.

5. Go left.

The Bernie or Bust strategy. Realistically--and the polls show this--a Bernie Sanders supporter isn't going to vote for Trump. The Donald knows this... or at least the people in his campaign do. But Trump's appeals to the Bernie set aren't designed to win votes... they're designed to lower turnout for Hillary. A left-leaning Bernie supporter who doesn't vote for Hillary is a win in Trump's book, especially in swing states, where the polls are close. If he can consistently attack Hillary's ties to Wall Street, her support for the war in Iraq, the DNC's questionable ethics, he can keep the discussion about Hillary's commitment to progressive values alive. Heck, he might even go out of his way to praise Jill Stein! If he can keep a few thousand left-leaning voters from pulling the lever for the only left-leaning candidate with a realistic shot at the Presidency, he tightens the race. And as we saw in Florida in the 2000 election, that could make a big difference.

Can Hillary withstand these strategies? Can she counter them? She's certainly heard it all and faced much worse throughout her long time in politics. If she can demonstrate her mastery of the issues and keep her emotions in check--unlike Rubio and Cruz--and command attention and respect the way Jeb Bush couldn't, she should succeed just like all the prognosticators expect. But if Trump gets under her skin and steals the microphone, the debates could be a wash, doing nothing to move the needle for her. That's a win in Trump's book, and it's something the Clinton camp should take very seriously.

Hillary Beat Bernie I Guess. So Let's Get Along.

Welp, this will have a few Bernie supporters claiming the media's in the bag for Hillary.

BREAKING: @AP finds Clinton reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination for president pic.twitter.com/e473F0G4vX

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 7, 2016

I know it's math and Hillary will get the pledged delegates she needs to win tomorrow regardless of who wins the state, but the AP announcing Hillary's win the day before the California primaries has gotta seem like an insult... sorry, conspiracy... to Bernie supporters.

To Hillary's credit, her first statement was one of humility and reserve:

We’re flattered, @AP, but we've got primaries to win. CA, MT, NM, ND, NJ, SD, vote tomorrow! https://t.co/8t3GpZqc1U

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 7, 2016

To Hillary's detriment, a fundraising email sent out by her staff contains images labeled with the words, "Secret Win."

The images in this Clinton email are labeled "secret win." pic.twitter.com/YR4uCdQTZv

— Christina Bellantoni (@cbellantoni) June 7, 2016

That'll get some conspiracy theories smokin'.

Of course, the AP article isn't exactly something that helps Hillary. In fact, it very well could play into Bernie's hands-- Hillary supporters, thinking she's a sure thing, might do their hair or learn to play glockenspiel instead of voting in tomorrow's as-it-turns-out-not-really-crucial Primary elections. Bernie could, as a result, gain ground on Hillary or perhaps eke out a slightly larger margin of victory.

None of that will change the fact that Hillary will receive the pledged delegates she needs tomorrow (added to the superdelegates the AP says have committed to her) to reach the magic Primary-clinching number of 2,383 delegates. Bernie's campaign rightly points out that superdelegates can change their minds before the convention, and that 400 made up their mind before the Primary campaign even began. But that ignores the fact that those 400 who went all-in for Hillary at the very beginning are most likely among her biggest supporters, who will never change their minds. And unless you flip the vast majority of superdelegates (not just some), Bernie's still going to be behind.

So Bernie supporters, I feel you. I know this seems unfair as shit and rigged as hell. But if that's your reaction to today's headlines, it's good preparation for when the official nomination is declared, possibly Tuesday night, Wednesday morning, or on convention day. And that means it's a good time right now for all of us to consider what we do next. 

Hilldawgs gotta open their hearts and minds to the powerful needs and desires of a young, frustrated, progressive movement that deserves to be taken seriously. And Berniebroskies gotta reckon that Hillary is far more likely to represent their interests than a megalomaniac manchild who, at best, will nominate a wildly conservative supreme court justice who strips away our civil liberties, or at worst, will seriously endanger this country's safety.

Otherwise, no one is gonna be liking any of the headlines that come next...

Divided, we lose.

Did My Novel Forsee An Election Threesome?

My junior year in college ('03) I started writing a novel. The story took part in the near future, when a high profile terrorist attack becomes a harbinger of political revolution and a second civil war. The attack occurs in an election year, and a right wing nationalist candidate rises in the Republican Party. Running against him is an ineffectual, uninspiring Democrat, and a surprisingly charismatic third Party Independent candidate whose support is growing by the day.

In the novel, the election season proceeds deep into the summer, and the Democratic candidate and third party candidate run neck and neck, while near 40% of the electorate remains solidly behind a Republican candidate whose incendiary speeches against Muslims are attracting his own fanatical followers. The Democrats try to get the Independent candidate to back down and unite--but it's no longer clear that scenario will bring out a majority. In late October, the Independent candidate appears to have a distinct lead over the Democrat. 

Another attack just a week before Election Day swings the electorate. Now the nationalist candidate is polling at 51% nationwide. The Democratic candidate and Independent candidate need to join forces but it may already be too late.

I don't want to tell you what happens next in the novel--you'll have to buy it circa 2017-- but needless to say, what happens next is a disaster.

It's strange how this election season has shaped up to (somewhat) match my vision. In my novel, the Republican candidate is a far more lucid and intelligent man than Trump is. In fact, what makes him most dangerous is how he deftly weaves a kind of logic into his speeches--in the grand tradition of eugenics--he's a slick but deeply principled salesman of hate. Imagine Trump wasn't some blubbering haircut in a suit but instead a convincing and calculating presence.

In my novel, the Independent candidate is young, in his early 40s, a first term governor for the state of New Jersey (hey, I got the Northeast part right). He's a centrist, an ex-Republican. He doesn't preach about the evils of Wall Street but he does preach a message of equality. In a stirring speech at the convention, he paints a portrait of human beings as responsible for advancing life throughout the universe, and making sure all souls have a valued role to play among the stars. "We live on a tiny rock hurtling through the vacuum of space, spinning 'round a burning ball of angry fire, while asteroids and meteors and cosmic rays, earthquakes, tornadoes and all manner of natural disasters conspire to kill us, and yet--the thing we fear most is each other?" His campaign motto--I swear, this was really it--is, "America Can Be America Again."

In my novel, the Democratic candidate is just a dull old white guy.

There are enough similarities between my (yet to be completed) manuscript and this election season for me to wonder. Maybe Bernie... gasp... doesn't drop out. The way the Independent candidate in my novel didn't drop out. Maybe this goes three ways down to the wire. Maybe at a certain point, between now and election day, it's Hillary who clearly has less poll support. What does she do?

Hillary supporters deride Bernie supporters as delusional, guns in their own mouths, sore losers who will split the party and help elect a egotistical madman. But what if, in late October, the numbers are reversed? As statistician Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight points out (in an article about Donald Trump's "unstoppable momentum") the fact is that many voters, "wait long enough to be reasonably sure they are picking a winner," and Hillary has not yet reached the point (a sort of golden ratio) where her election is inevitable. What if Bernie's appeal could be sharpened between now and November--not just as some TARP sour grapes and Occupy Wall Street word salad--but as a unifying human rights message with real power to change the world?

Well, then, wouldn't us "establishment" Democrats--the reasonable ones, as we've told ourselves--need to switch our support to Bernie? If he managed to somehow swing more than just his Bros and Bernettes, and most importantly, grabbed support from dissatisfied Republicans (a scenario that might only be possible for the centrist candidate in my novel)-- then wouldn't we have to bite the bullet too?

Somebody does, before it's too late.

3 Reasons Bernie Bros Are Mad, And Why They Shouldn't Be

The system is rigged. If you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, you already know that. How could one of the most liberal states vote for Hillary Clinton, that Republican in Democrat's clothing? Voters were disenfranchised! Independents couldn't vote! 126,000 Democratic voters were wiped from the rolls just before the primary! The will of the people was subverted! The fix was in!

I hate to interrupt this stream of outrage. But lets get real. This has nothing to do with the system. It has to do with people who rarely vote suddenly being surprised that they don't understand how primaries work.

1. Superdelegates are anti-democratic!

They're not meant to be democratic. They're meant to prevent terrible mistakes like Donald Trump from taking over the party and changing its core principles. If the Republicans had superdelegates, Trump wouldn't be an issue. Superdelegates are not hand-picked friends of Hillary Clinton. They're committed Democratic party loyalists--Democratic congressmen, senators, state officials, you know, people that Democrats have voted into office time and time again. These guys and gals have been in the political trenches for a long time, fighting for Democratic values against the Republicans. They're responsible for the Democratic party's platform for women's rights, the rights of minorities, the support of labor and education. They're here to make sure the party sticks to Democratic principles. They have an interest in making sure the Democratic candidate can win the general election and represent Democratic party values.

Superdelegates are not robots. If Bernie won the popular vote, and the most pledged delegates, it would be abundantly clear that the party base had shifted and the Democratic party would be wise to follow the will of its members. THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED in 2008, when superdelegates recognized that Barak Obama, not Hillary Clinton, had the support of the Democratic majority. They shifted their alliances, and Hillary herself, for the good of the party, released those delegates sworn to her of their obligations.

Bernie does not lead in the popular vote. He does not lead in pledged delegates. In fact, there's no chance he will change this by the time of the convention. Before, when he had a chance, he argued that the superdelegates should follow the will of the people. Now, he says they should go against it.

2. The primaries should be open!

Primaries should not be open. That allows raiding from the opposing political party. Republicans seeking to go against a softer opponent could pack the Democratic Party ballot boxes. More importantly, why should we allow those not invested enough in a political party to have a say in that party's candidate? Primaries are designed to help a political party choose its candidate. Only those committed to the party should make that choice. If you want a different candidate, make your own party. Pick your candidate from a spinning wheel or by throwing darts. You can do that. But if you want a say in who the Republicans or Democrats choose, you should be a Republican or a Democrat. Otherwise organize, raise money, support a real third party run. If you're not a Democrat, then why should you get to choose who the Democrats nominate? It would be like UNC choosing which players Villanova gets to start in the NCAA championship game.

Elections decide who leads the country. We're all part of the country, so we all get to decide who leads it. Primaries, on the other hand, decide who leads the party. If you're not part of the party, then why should you get to choose the leader? If you don't like either candidate the two major parties have chosen, you have three choices. Don't vote, support a third party candidate, or pick a side and seek to influence its policies through your primary votes and level of involvement. Don't complain because you've registered as an independent and therefore can't vote in the Democratic primary. That was your choice!

3. Hillary's goons purged Bernie voters from the voting rolls! They switched votes!

Voter fraud is not a problem. It simply isn't. Many have made a big deal out of the 126,000 Democratic voters purged from the voting rolls prior to the election. As if somehow, all these were determined to be Bernie voters last fall.

The truth? It's a mix of bureaucracy and confused people. According to Board of Elections executive director Michael Ryan, 12,000 had moved out of borough, and 44,000 had been placed in an inactive file after mailings to their homes bounced back. An additional 70,000 were already inactive and hadn't voted in two successive federal elections or responded to cancellation notices. It wasn't all this year that suddenly 126,000 became ineligible to vote--this number has added up in the 4 years since 2012, the last time Brooklyn cleared their system of ineligible voters. In a place where people move in and out as often as Brooklyn, this number isn't out of the ordinary.

Were you ineligible? It was likely your fault. Take Jessica Sager. She wrote for the New York Post that she was purged from the voting rolls and became a ghost. But it's very clear from her own words why this happened. Jessica, who was registered as an Independent in New Jersey, just moved to the city in July of last year. It's not clear when, or if, she changed her address officially and obtained a NYC driver's license or proof of residency, but by her own admission, she missed the deadline for a registered voter to switch parties. March 25th was for new voters, not previously registered ones. That would be in October. From Bernie's own website:

What is this Oct 9 deadline I keep hearing about?Oct 9 2015 was the last day for switching party affiliation in time to vote in the Primary Elections in New York in April 2016. This deadline only applied to existing voters who wanted to change party in time to vote in that party’s primary (eg independents switching to Democrat to vote for Bernie in the Democratic primary!). It DOES NOT apply to new voters.

Jessica was not a new voter. She was registered in New Jersey. She voted before, as she says, in the 2008 and 2012 elections. So the March deadline to switch parties didn't apply to her. The October one did. Her printed and mailed registration form came several months too late to participate as a Democrat in this primary election.

I don't fault Jessica for being confused. The system is far from being perfectly clear. But she's being disingenuous to imply that this had nothing to do with her own ignorance of the process. If you change addresses and switch districts, its your responsibility to make sure you update your registration.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I voted for Obama in 2008 in New Jersey, despite spending more of my time in New York. I hadn't yet changed my address officially--I still had a New Jersey license and listed my parents' address as my permanent address. Imagine if I had shown up in New York to vote, expecting no problems. Instead, I recognized that I'd been lazy about changing my address. My parents were able to forward me the mailer that told me where my designated polling place was. Even though it was more than an hour away, it was important for me to vote, so I took the train and did it at the polling place assigned to me.

I've seen Bernie supporters irate that they can't tell whether their vote was accurately counted. They just can't believe their neighborhood would vote for Hillary. This is another example of ignorance. There is no way to verify a vote was recorded correctly. Only that you voted. This is by design. A secret ballot is meant to stay secret to avoid vote selling. If you could verify that your vote was for a certain candidate, then that would promote vote selling or coercive behavior. As long as the vote is secret and there's no way to tell, no one can force you to vote for a candidate. This is a bedrock principle of our voting system. It seems odd that some Bernie supporters aren't aware of it.

I understand all the frustration from people who feel like they've been excluded from the process. But many of them don't understand that in order to really change things, you need to be involved in that process more than just showing up for a primary vote or on election day. "Independent" is not a party. It has no platform. It has no plan. You could be a skinhead racist and be a registered "Independent." You could be a communist who believes in a fully socialized state, and be a registered "independent."

If you're unhappy with the two parties and what they represent, you have two main options. Organize with others to create a third party. This is not unprecedented in American history. Some have done quite well. If your party grows enough and makes enough noise, and falls to one side of the ideological line, then the competing party with the most to lose will be forced to cave and accept your agenda into its platform. If your party falls in the middle and makes enough of a splash, then both parties will be forced to moderate their platforms to fall closer to the center. If you manage to really capture the populace, you might even drain enough support from the closest competitor that they're forced to fold completely. Unlikely, but it has happened in the past.

Then there's option two-- changing the party from the inside. In order to do this, you can't be an Independent. You need to choose the side you're trying to change, and become a member. Then you have voting power within the party. We all saw how Tea Partiers were able to rip the Republican party sharply to the right, even getting them to give up on immigration reform. They created a powerful voting bloc within the party that threatened to become a third party-- the only way for the Republicans to win was to accommodate them. If Bernie's supporters want to change the Democratic party... they need to be involved members of the Democratic party. Indeed, Bernie supporters within the party have already forced Hillary to move her views further to the left.

You can still be "independent" and be a member of a party. Plenty of Republicans and Democrats have crossed party lines to vote in elections. But if you register that way, you need to be aware that you've chosen not to join a club. You don't get to say what the club does. And you can't say the system is rigged if you've never taken the time to understand it in the first place.

Enough About Hillary's Damn Speeches!

Somewhere, in the transcripts of Hillary's speeches, is a line so damning, so deplorable, that it would immediately sink her candidacy for President. What could this line be? Did she swear on a stack of Bibles to give the execs at Goldman Sachs their own suite in the West Wing? Did she express her genuine desire to give tax breaks to CEOs and pardon white collar criminals? Perhaps she even said something like, "I hate poor people, if only we can wipe them out." Now that, that would be devastating!

Except... all this is imaginary. It's what Bernie Sanders wants you to think when he hits Hillary, time and time again, with the same repeated lines. Hillary gave speeches to Wall Street. They gave her money. Therefore, she must intend to screw the poor, feed the rich, and ride off into the sunset with her pockets full of gold.

All this is insinuation. Bernie loves when you ask the question, "If she has nothing to hide, why won't she release her speeches?" Because the question is all he's really after. If there was truly a smoking gun, something so horrible, it's unfathomable that all the reporters covering the campaign, all the people who attended her speeches, the Democratic party leaders, etc. etc. wouldn't have unearthed it yet. Of course, Bernie and his supporters would have you believe that the fix is in--that hundreds of unrelated people--including those who would just love to make their careers on such a scoop--have conspired to keep whatever it is under wraps.

So... why doesn't Hillary release those emails... I mean speeches?

Hmm. See what I did there? I mixed up emails and speeches. Because, well, Hillary was through this whole mishegoss once before. You see, the Republicans were sure--positive--that Hillary's emails had broken confidentiality laws. Or maybe not, but surely there was something in them that revealed she was actually working for the devil. Maybe she even caused Benghazi! Ok, so there wasn't anything there, but... that's just because she didn't release them all. What about those missing emails? Oh, she released even more? Nothing in those? Well there were some missing. Certainly. And how about those ones she released. That liberal commie reporter--Sid something. Was he advising Hillary on policy? Did she reveal something to him? Yeah there's nothing there, but there might be...

This shit went on for a year. More than a year. And the friggin FBI was combing through that shit.

All that came out of it was a steady drumbeat of nothing that slowly eroded her poll numbers. No criminal actions, no questionable ethics. Just more insinuations. More guilt-by-association tactics. More articles where people just skimmed the headlines and said, "Hmm, they're paying so much attention to this, maybe she is up to something." In the end, that release of emails was nothing--except a gift to her opponents, a way to extend the news cycle of articles "investigating" her communications.

This is the same goddamn thing. No... actually, I take that back. At least you could argue that maybe... just maybe... a law was broken with the emails. Which is why Hillary was compelled to release them. But in giving speeches, no laws are being broken, unless the transcripts reveal she was doing lines of coke with Lloyd Blankfein on stage. There's nothing to hide, except what is probably a business-friendly speech. Which isn't in dispute. I think we all know Hillary wasn't reading the Wall Street execs the riot act about their irrational gambling habits. We're smart enough to know that Hillary was probably lavishing some praise on these "wealth creators," and thanking them for helping rebuild the economy after 9/11, etc. etc. It was most likely the boringest shit you can imagine.

But if Hillary released those transcripts, you can bet that every phrase, every word will be parsed by the media, the Sanders campaign, and the Republicans. It won't matter that no promises were made, no illegal actions were revealed. They'll comb through looking for anything that could possibly be used to portray Hillary as a hypocrite. "See!" the Bernie supporters will cry to the heavens, "She is in bed with Wall Street!" As if all anyone needed as "proof" were a few meaningless lines from a speech to a firm that had paid her to be there. "Wall Street is the backbone of America," you can easily imagine Hillary saying. The same way every single politician ever has said, "Farmers are the backbone of America," or "Autoworkers are the backbone of America," or "The American Association of Chiropractors is the backbone of America." But you know Sanders will highlight that line and say, "Hillary says Wall Street is the backbone of America... well I say Main Street is the backbone of America!" And his supporters will cheer and yell "Fuck Hillary" and whatever they were chanting last night, and instead of focusing on the issues that face America and the policies needed to fix them, Hillary is spending her time defending herself over each new line that her opponents choose to trot out.

Why would anyone give their opponent more attack lines? It's not being honest and open, it's being stupid. I don't want a President who bows to pressure and releases something that can be used to stir up anti-American propaganda. And that's all this is--Hillary refusing to give her opponents material they want to use in attack ads. That is all.

Meanwhile, Bernie has been incredibly reluctant to release his tax returns. Unlike Hillary's speeches, tax returns can reveal illegal activity. They may show that Sanders, who claims to be the poorest man in Congress, actually has Wall Street money himself. Now that would be devastating. It's also in the public interest to see his tax returns. What matters more--what someone said, or what someone did? Tax returns can reveal Sanders didn't give a cent to charity. It can reveal that he's heavily invested with a Wall Street firm. It can reveal contributions he's received before his candidacy, which may have come from the very people he's condemning now. Maybe he even owns some flophouse rental properties that squeeze tenants for money. This is all speculation of course... but unlike the speculation surrounding Hillary's speeches, the release of Bernie's tax returns will show concrete actions, not vague verbal assurances.

If you're going to question, "Why doesn't Hillary release her transcripts?" you must, in good faith, also question why it's taking Bernie so long to reveal his taxes. Why is he on the same side as Donald Trump on this issue? What is he hiding?

I assure you, if he's hiding anything, he's not hiding words.

Honestly, it's all counterproductive for the Democrats when they stop discussing real issues and adopt the Republican strategy of slinging mud. It doesn't help anyone. Certainly not anyone who wants to make sure we don't end up with Trump or Cruz as President of the United States.

So Bernie Bros, enough about Hillary's damn speeches.

TL;DR: Hillary won't release her speeches because all it will do is provide quotes for attack ads. Bernie won't release his tax records for a similar, but potentially more damaging reason.

Hillary Just Slammed It Out Of The Park, Didn't She

"No way, no how, no McCain," Hillary declared, loudly, in her speech at the Democratic National Convention tonight. If only the Yankees could be so clutch (big Boston loss tonight).

"John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. He doesn't think 47 million Americans without health insurance is a crisis. He wants to privatize social security. And, in 2008 John McCain still believes its okay if women receive less pay for equal work. It makes sense that John McCain and George Bush will be together in the Twin Cities this week. Because these days, its getting awfully hard to tell them apart!!!"

Go Git Him Hillary!!!

Watch the Speech here. My favorite part (other than quoted above)? When she thanks her "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits."

She came out pretty damn strong for Obama. Pretty hard to see how anyone who legitimately was her supporter to not follow her lead and join the Obamawagon.

I mean, you really want to vote for McCain? The guy doesn't know how many houses he owns and probably smells like mothballs.

Say It Ain't So Hillary

Hillary Clinton makes it awfully hard to support her campaign when she makes statements like this:



Now, in her defense, she's merely quoting what an AP report found. But why couldn't she just have said, "The AP says that I'm more popular with working class Americans." Why'd she have to say "white Americans"? Why'd she have to go into demographic detail at all?

By making the argument that she's more popular with white people (uneducated white people, for that matter), Hillary basically goes against dozens of years of Democratic Party logic, which strives to encompass minority groups in securing a victory against the largely racist, xenophobic and homophobic Republican party. Now she's saying... "Screw Obama's support from minorities-- I've got the whites! And we all know they're the real ones that matter."

That may not have been the message Hillary was aiming to send. But that's what people heard. And as a white man, I'm disgusted. I don't think any leader of any political party should think in terms of racial lines. And I certainly don't think any candidate should tout their overwhelming support from uneducated white people. A President of this nation should represent all people equally, no matter their skin color. Instead of proudly proclaiming how popular she was with the redneck set, Hillary should have simply stuck to touting her popularity in large states, and battleground states like Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania, which could be key to this year's elections. That's her strongest argument, I believe.

Just listen to how she stumbles over the word "white," twice. She's clearly not comfortable even saying it. I chalk this up to a horrible advisor, giving her some really bad direction. That troubles me, because Hillary is smart enough to not go for that.

I've been pro-Hillary, but as the media makes out her campaign to be more and more desperate (even though the delegate split is tiny), she seems to be coming a bit unravelled. And it's unfortunate, because we shouldn't choose our Presidential candidate based on the campaign missteps or flubbed lines. It should be about who has the best ideas, and the best track record of implementing, or attempting to implement those ideas. Obama has yet to thrill me with any ideas of substance. And name me one thing he's actually done during his time in the senate, other than campaigning for President?

But at least he hasn't offended me, like Hillary has now.

Another big argument going for her was that she's been in the White House before. And not just as some Laura Bush-style walking-talking-photo-op. She has experience "under fire." Not sniper fire, as she erroneously claimed, but fire from Republicans. She's withstood it well. The Whitewater scandal washed out. Her health care plan was destroyed, but she remained dedicated to finding a solution. She's actually attempted to do things, even when a Republican legislature made those things impossible.

Obama? Well, he likes the word "change" as much as Bush likes the words "hard work." I'm not a fan of words. I'm a fan of actions.

But, as I said, Hillary keeps making it harder to defend her. By scrapping for every vote, she's compromised some of her ideals, making more and more statements that appeal to the segment of the populace that hasn't already decided for Obama. And this just makes her even less attractive to the typical Obama voter, who still actually believes there are politicians that can turn America into a Utopian candyland, full of bunnies and sunshine. Obama, luckily for him, has not had to make such concessions.

Yet.

When the election versus McCain comes, and he finds himself trailing in the polls, desperate for some of that Hillary-segment of the Democratic party, he will undoubtedly have to make some of the same, pandering statements as she did.

When you're in front, you can be everyone's messiah. But I fear, when the general election comes, Obama's youthful idealism will not be enough to take the election from the battle-tested McCain and the Republican fear-mongering machine.

I believe Hillary can. She has before.

And I, for one, cannot withstand another 4-8 years of Republican rule.

And We're Back

Sorry for the lack of recent posts. It's been a busy time in Adam's Life. Between my coverage of the Tribeca Film Festival for work, a new article for MSN.com, and the recent, mind-blowing news that I've been chosen as Best Man for my best friend's wedding, I've been slacking on my blogging duties. To you, loyal and frustrated reader, I apologize.

So let's get to it.

I'm still in the Hillary corner personally, but don't you suspect she's disgusted with herself at how ugly she let this campaign become?

Once the shining star of a powerful, respected Democratic party, she now finds herself fighting for position in a spring break KY-wrestling match. Obama vs. Hillary!! Drink specials all night!!

The saddest thing is, at no other time in American history has the media focused so heavily on one political party for so long in the months leading up to an election. It's almost as if Republicans don't exist, other than a few lost souls wandering the halls of the White House. And instead of using that media attention to promote their platform, the democrats instead are shining a spotlight on internal divisions, campaign mismanagement, and extreme wackos like Reverend Wright.

If only Hillary and Obama had led civil campaigns, we'd be hearing about how the Republicans bungled the war, and continue to bungle the war. We'd be hearing about how 8 years of Republican leadership has left our economy on the brink of ruin. We'd be hearing about how Senator McCain sold his soul to the radical right, and plans to continue the misguided policies of Bush II. But instead, we hear about a screaming black preacher, imaginary snipers, racist blue collar workers. It's a damn shame.

McCain loves America-bashing preachers as well, Frank Rich of the New York Times points out. But McCain is not under the microscope. Not yet. The Democratic party is, and will continue to be for as long as this drama continues. And if the slides being magnified are dirty with the muck and mire of two squabbling contenders, you can bet the American voting public will see it. Wouldn't the Democratic party be better served by TWO candidates going after the ONE Republican nominee? Instead of ripping each other's throats out? And Obama fans, don't be so quick to blame Hillary either. Snipergate stole at least a week's worth of headlines that could have been about glaring Republican failures. I get that they can't agree to be President and Vice President. No one wants the consolation prize. But can't they at least agree to support one another against the Manchurian Candidate?

Everyone's all up on Obama, even despite the racist attempts to link him with a loony. But this race is a lot closer than some pundits would have you believe. And when one of the candidates loses, the other one doesn't necessarily win. As hard as it is to believe that an Obama backer could suddenly go against everything Obama stands for and vote for McCain, that's exactly what polls show if Hillary wins the race. That begs the question, Does the Democratic party want a candidate who's supporters would rather vote for the enemy than a fellow party member? How loyal are those Democrats?

It's not looking good for the party of light and hope... something I never thought could happen just a few short months ago. And that means it's not looking good for America. There may be people who still believe McCain is a maverick moderate, but clearly they haven't been watching how McCain's changed since his handlers said the code word, activated McCain's implant and turned him into a robot for the elephant party line. If McCain actually believes what he says (war is good! give the rich tax breaks!) then he may just be more incompetent than George W. Bush, who at least has an excuse. A lot of cocaine use.

Hopefully, the primaries today will cause one or both of the candidates to realize they're not getting anywhere by playing a game of division. Only by rallying their supporters around the party, and not themselves, can either of the candidates hope to reclaim this country from the crooks and liars who've owned it the past 8 years.

Ah, kickin it off with a patented Adam's Life rant. It's been a while.