Home > opinion, Reflections, Social Justice > I accept my complicity

I accept my complicity

I visited my Portland siblings* in mid-April.

Each was able to articulate with great objective detail their basis for supporting Bernie Sanders.

“You should know I support Clinton,” I told them at the beginning of my trip. “She’s a much more practical choice.”

To their credit, none of my siblings rolled their eyes or chided me. They continued to stand for their position, not against mine. By exerting no force whatsoever, they created space for me to hear them. Their firm but quiet passion gave me opportunity to consider why I believed Clinton was a more practical choice, and whether my position was similarly based on objective detail.

On our way back from an ice cream store trip, we saw a Sanders sign in the front lawn of a modest hillside home. The home’s owner saw me stopping and came out to converse with me. She, too, explained why she was for Sanders.

When I asked if I could take a picture of her with the sign, she waved me off and said that would destroy the picture. I laughed and snapped a photo without her even as I told her I disagreed with her conclusion.


I returned to Los Angeles still considering all the data I’d accumulated over the weekend. I started paying attention to the sheer number of times I read daily that Clinton was simply the more pragmatic candidate. The message was everywhere: in live discussion, social media, and mainstream news.

The message was so prevalent that I began to be disturbed by its prevalence. I saw more and more that two primary sound bytes were proffered for voting Clinton: “not Trump” and “more pragmatic.” I began to hear “more pragmatic” as “easier than assessing and articulating my own conclusions.” This didn’t go to anyone who gave detailed, cogent analyses why they were voting for Clinton without using the words “more pragmatic” and/or “not Trump.”

As the California primary neared, I found my own beliefs aligned with Sanders. I decided I’d be voting for him and thus my conscience in the primary, no matter how many people therefor told me I was “not pragmatic.”

The mainstream Democratic narrative being so clearly against Sanders, I understood there’d be shenanigans before the California election. Even knowing this, I was alarmed and disheartened to see members of the press naming Clinton the Democratic primary winner on June 6, 2016, aka “the day before the June 7, 2016 California primary.”

I shared a related headline on Instagram with the words, “This sums up my process disillusionment!”

Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media

I noted that news outlets everywhere shared graphs reflecting Clinton’s purported victory. Most didn’t include the caveat that the conclusion was based on pledged delegate votes to be cast in late July, earning Google the dubious distinction of–by actually stating that caveat–being the least likely to persuade disheartened Democratic voters that there was still some hope.

6/7/16 10:08 AM PT

6/7/16 10:08 AM PT

(Indeed, I almost forgot to actually deliver my completed ballot, having already resigned myself to the success of these media campaigns.)

I disaffiliated from the Democratic party June 10, 2016. I wanted to be clear that it does not represent me, and that I do not give it my consent to represent me.


Until the RNC, I leaned toward writing in Sanders for president. Following the RNC, I was–as the wife of a black man and mother of two black sons–so chilled by the Republican convention and platform’s potential impact to minorities and country that I decided to vote for Clinton against Trump**, despite feeling nauseated by the thought of thus playing an active role in empowering the DNC to continue representing its interests instead of all its constituents.

Mere hours after I posted about my decision, almost 20,000 DNC emails were leaked. Many of these emails confirmed the DNC’s quiet but substantial support of Clinton in contravention of bylaws mandating its neutrality to all candidates. Several of the most troubling mails are aggregated here; among them, an exchange about how/whether to leverage its not-preferred candidate’s possible atheism and another in which a staffer refers to “RI gov” as “one of ours” in the context of “the Bernie camp” potentially being enabled to allege polling place misconduct. In another, DNC Communications Manager Luis Miranda simply writes “lol” in response to a forwarded article inviting a California debate.

(Unsurprisingly, the DNC is working on a narrative emphasizing fault on a single actor despite the systemic nature of collusion by multiple high-ranking DNC staffers.)

“They’re actually pretty tame!” pooh-poohed some liberals about the leaked emails. “You’re doing the work of Putin if you act on these!” berated others. Very, very few seemed interested in pausing and asking themselves who the DNC represents when they’ve already decided on their candidate apart from their voters.

Others this morning have policed two Trump misspellings in a tweet. At least a half dozen people I follow–see, e.g., here–engaged in this attack, prompting me to tweet:

Grammar/policing is abhorrent, whether or not I agree with those policing or those policed. Y’all hurt poor people when you try making it OK

Those who mock anyone for their spelling or grammar implicitly say, “You only deserve a place in discourse if you’re learned enough to do it the right way. Our way.” They confirm my impression from growing up in white liberal Eugene, Oregon that the Democratic party is–no less than the Republican one–a party for the elite, who nevertheless then wonder why so many people don’t register to vote. “If these are the people who supposedly stand for us,” I imagine tired, impoverished, disenfranchised voters asking, “what hope do we have?”

Despite all this, I stand–with gritted teeth and a knot in my stomach–by my decision to vote against Trump in this election. The potential impacts of a Trump presidency terrify me.

Prior to the election, I will participate in voter registration efforts and try to be a part of engaging people who have been cast aside by both key U.S. parties, no matter how poorly they spell or how little education their efforts just to survive have afforded them. Despite my passion for Sanders, I will remain neutral in my outreach. My objective is not to win this twisted election but to help people find their power to create a new narrative for future elections.

To that end, after the 2016 election, I will act in my scant power to open up the United States political system to fresh parties more able and willing to represent more of this nation’s people. This election cycle has opened my eyes to how the two-party system and its most powerful actors exist to sustain themselves, regardless of the will of the people. I will applaud each step the right direction even as I work toward a goal of more representative representation.

At no time will I tell you how to vote. I will not ask you to consider voting like me, but will ask that you please vote in accord with your conscience.

I will not join any chorus that chastises you or tells you you’ll be responsible for the downfall of America if you don’t vote for Clinton or do vote for Trump. The choice we voters came down to was rigged in ways that span months and decades back, so that the consequences of this presidential election come down not to your individual vote, but to the root cause of those who acted to circumvent true democracy by consciously shaping final candidates to match their preferences.

I do, however, want to be clear how I am voting, and why. If you donated to Sanders or the DNC after he entered the race, I want you to know you can take part in this class action lawsuit against the DNC.

This election cycle, I accept my complicity in acting to maintain this broken two-party system.

Beyond that, I reject any further personal complicity.

* My youngest, more conservative sister doesn’t live in Portland.

** Even as I strive to be more for than against, I must be truthful about how I’m voting.

  1. July 24, 2016 at 9:40 am

    You know…this makes sense. It isn’t strident…it isn’t hateful…And most of it it doesn’t have the polarizing tone of voice I see in so any posts by people who claim to be Sanders supporters.

    (I think many of them are GOP operatives)

    I do wonder why Putin has decided to interfere in the U.S. elections. I have read that he thinks that U.S. is weak and decadent and I suspect that his fondest wish is for the United States to take its place as the World’s evil empire.

    I have read that he wants to restore the former Soviet Union.

    But you are right.

    I support Clinton because I consider it the only way to save the country from a fascist regime.

    I don’t dislike Clinton. She will most likely be a competent President….perhaps even a good one. But I do dislike the rigged and corrupt system that no longer produces the true idealism and vision.

    Thank you for helping me to clarify my thoughts on this.

    • July 24, 2016 at 9:45 am

      Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment! I spent a few days trying to find a way to express how I could turn my “against” into a “for.” As you can see, I finally accepted that it’s not really a “for,” and that I can accept that … as long as I do so with an eye to how I can help effect long term change.

      I’m trying really, really hard to emulate my siblings’ example: state what I see and how I see it without admonishing and judging. I already had one encounter a couple weeks ago with flipping a gasket at a friend, so that I was determined not to do that again. I loved how I felt having my siblings profess what they love and inviting me to heard, and I want to be more like that … though that’s clearly a work in progress!

      I hope to do better and listen better every day. I know I have lots of progress, and I’m glad to work toward making it. 🙂

      • July 24, 2016 at 9:57 am

        The right to respectfully disagree is essential to a healthy democracy.

        I think that part of the problem is that there is so much disinformation spread through all of our media that one becomes suspicious of everything.

        I was dismissive of these allegations against the DNC until I read your post. My first reaction was, “Oh look, another bogus Clinton scandal for the GOP and it’s operatives to promote.”

        Your post put these emails into perspective for me.

        • July 25, 2016 at 5:54 am

          I was excited but our exchange yesterday, and thus disheartened to awaken and see your tweets first thing this morning. One of your first tweets was an RT:

          #BernieMustDisavow this unproductive hashtag. We can’t afford Trump. Let’s focus on winning this together! #UniteBlue

          You look at the above tweet and see a hopeful message of unity. I look at the tweet and see the Venn diagram I included in my “Because … Democracy?” post. The caption there as one circle tried forcibly making another perfectly overlap with it was, “We’ll have unity if I HAVE TO PRY IT FROM YOUR COLD BODY.”

          I’m not going to break that all down again, because I broke it down there. I’d ask that you please read it and understand that true unity must be obtained through mutual concession, not through extraction by unilateral brute force.

          Then, a few tweets down, you retweeted someone who said:
          All the emails showed nothing worse than trash talk. Some of those making a big deal of this should look back at their Twitter streams.

          You know it’s more than that. We discussed this yesterday! And yet you retweeted this with your own added message:
          It doesn’t matter what it is. It can be anything. Some people don’t get that this election isn’t a game.

          Part of me really wanted to type a snarky response to both these tweets; at least a dozen came to mind within the first moment of my reading them. But by posting any of those tweets, I’d be trading potential to contribute to positive change with a split-second’s gratification.

          Those who support Sanders–myself included–are often intelligent, educated people who’ve done a hell of a lot of research. When others folks casually dismiss us in 140-character bites, those same folks affirm that they don’t come close to understanding how to represent us. How can you begin to represent someone you can’t actually hear?

          When Clinton chooses a more conservative running mate, refuses to address valid concerns raised in re: #DNCLeaks, instead trying to shift attention to how they were leaked, and then hires DWS the same day the DNC highlights DWS is stepping down due to DNCLeaks fallout, the message is clear: F-U, progressives. We don’t need you or the policies that inspire you. We. just. need. you. to. fall. in. line.

          I wanted to type these replies here so that you might, as you’re ever poised to retweet fare similar to the above, pause and consider whether your desired end result and the actual end result are in alignment.

          To achieve unity, the DNC must now listen and, having listened, make substantive concessions this week to show it actually cares about progressives beyond their ability to cast a vote in favor.

  2. July 24, 2016 at 9:42 am

    Reblogged this on Art by Rob Goldstein and commented:
    The paradox of complicity because it’s the only adult thing to do.

  3. July 24, 2016 at 11:43 am

    I’m like you on this, it took this election year to see how truly broken the two party system is. I think there are many like us this year and hopefully we can make a change to a system where cooperation and unity are more highly prized than what side of the fence a person lands on.

    • July 24, 2016 at 1:36 pm

      Debbie Wasserman Schultz just resigned, as I suspected would happen before long. I wonder what kind of severance package she got for acting as scapegoat?

      The fact that I even anticipated such a thing and ask such questions tells me we need something better. We need a system such that, when one person resigns following allegations of corruption, we can trust it is because that single person acting in a personal capacity behaved poorly.

      I totally agree with you. We need more cooperation and unity, more working together to determine what works best for all, than two parties beating each other about the head on principle. I want to be a part of that future!

  4. July 24, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    On this side of the world our own predominantly two party system is also perhaps broken, and certainly damaged.
    I hear your pain. And admire your resolve.

    • July 24, 2016 at 1:37 pm

      Thank you! I saw a John Oliver clip that made me really sit and ponder. He said that if you really disagree with how things are done–and not just the end result–you need to work to change the system itself. Totally right, that, so that I am committed to doing what I can to change it … with my, oh, 3.5 minutes per week “free.” 🙂

  5. July 24, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    I’m voting for Gary Johnson. I considered writing in Bernie, but apparently the chances of a write-in candidate are limited in certain states – something about having to file paperwork to be a write-in candidate … I didn’t look into it, but like you I feel this election is about more than making a statement.

    I like Gary Johnson. In fact, I voted for him last time around. I’ve been keeping an eye on him for some years now, and he strikes me as an honorable man with a good track record, and experience in both politics and practical business. I don’t agree with everything he stands for – I didn’t agree with everything Bernie stood for either – and I know the chances of a third party candidate winning are very slim in this stubbornly bipartisan country. But I cannot vote for Hillary, and I cannot vote for Trump. I know my vote doesn’t really count for much, but whoever wins – and it will probably be one of them – I don’t want to have the sick feeling that I was in any way responsible for that happening.

    Who knows … Maybe this time around enough people from both sides will be disgusted enough with the two main parties to look seriously at an alternative. Maybe we can break the bipartisan political structure once and for all.

    • July 25, 2016 at 7:18 am

      I hear you, and, man, do I hope this is the election where people stop to seriously consider alternatives. Simply asking, “Who does the two-party system actually benefit?” can change one’s whole persective.

      My “for” with Sanders excluded would be Stein. We aren’t a perfect match, but it’s pretty darn close.

      • July 25, 2016 at 8:38 am

        Yes, I like Jill Stein … but I think the likelihood of her winning a significant amount of support is pretty remote. If I’m going to vote FOR anything this time around, I’m voting for the rise of a viable third party. Obviously I have to like at least most of what they stand for, and if anyone else was running on the Libertarian ticket I don’t think I could support them. At any rate the potential candidates I read up on some months ago looked pretty darn whackdoodle. But Johnson strikes me as a straight shooter. Realistically he’s not going to be able to implement everything he believes in – government isn’t a one-man show, after all – but maybe he could break the deadlock in Congress and get people working together toward the kind of changes we all want.

        • July 25, 2016 at 9:20 pm

          I agree about the chances of Stein winning significant support, at least this election. I’m watching her Twitter followers go up a few thousand daily and wondering if I’ll eat my words. Time will tell!

          I like much of what I’ve read about Johnson, but do have some concerns. They’re of a lesser scale than those I have re: HRC, honestly, but I’m standing by my decision to vote for her as the likeliest (within bounds created by untoward, systemic DNC corruption) to defeat Trump. Beyond this election, the sky’s the limit.

          For me, I have to say that HRC folks are doing a truly terrible job of persuading Sanders folks that they’re not militaristic. With one of my graver concerns being HRC’s affinity for military action, having her folks call Sanders supporters name and try shaming, bullying, or otherwise taunting them pretty much affirms my concerns that I’m not voting with the peace-lovers. (That I’m voting for those whose actions have tremendously increased income inequality, OTOH, is indisputable. Ugh.)

          Sanders’s speech tonight was enough to keep me “With Her, kinda,” but I know it was not nearly enough for many. While MSM reports as fact–because, you know, they have time machines out to multiple dimensions to substantially support such assertions–that DNC actions to boost HRC didn’t impact election, the fact that Sanders took almost half the U.S. states with virtual media blackout and small individual donations paints a very different picture for me. I can only imagine what Sanders could have achieved had the DNC actually behaved neutrally per its bylaws!

          So right now I’m watching die-hard Dems fail to comprehend the scope of #DemExit, trying to belittle the fringe they perceive as preparing to depart into staying, having no concept that their shouting “Stronger Together!” and “Unity (Lest We Crush You)” or “A vote for anyone but Hillary is a vote for Trump!” is actually pushing people away from the Dems. If Trump does win, their aggression will, in fact, have had the end impact of increasing votes for Trump … in part, so detractors can avoid being stuck With Them.

          Still, like I said, Sanders has kept me in for now. I think he’ll be able to accomplish great things even without the title “President” before his name. He’s already accomplished a great deal in shifting the Dem platform–stuff I’d have thought a pipe dream only a year ago!

          • July 25, 2016 at 9:42 pm

            Hmmm. Lots to think about. I don’t believe she’ll keep whatever promises she makes to Sanders supporters, and I love the fact that Johnson is totally opposed to interfering in foreign countries’ business, as well as to spending billions rebuilding where we’ve caused “collateral damage” when people right here are in need. It’s scary to think of either Trump or Hillary having access to the red telephone. Especially Trump … He’s capable of ending the world just because he can. So I get why you’re voting for her … kinda…:)

          • July 25, 2016 at 10:01 pm


            So far, she doesn’t seem to be making many new promises, which I see as a huge part of the DemExit. The one-two punch of Kaine and then the DNC corruption revealed by DNCLeaks made the DNC irredeemable to many. Add to that the fact HRC offhandedly said she’s not following all that … we’ve got the perfect picture of a potential representative who apparently doesn’t much feel interested in making promises or engaging the whole. All signs point to DNC/HRC perceiving “not Trump” as a campaign winner. Lord knows they’re trying to beat up others with this message, having failed to see it’s already not a winning strategy!

            I hope they’re working on changing that. I hope they’re working behind the scenes to make actionable concessions toward those they scorned, because there’s a very real probability we’ll be facing a Trump presidency if they don’t figure that out. I fear for my husband and my sons if that’s the case. By the same token, I mean it that I won’t fault individual voters. Both primary campaigns made calculated decisions leading to this particularly wretched stand-off; in my eyes, it will have been they and their machinations that set those wheels in motion, not the individual voters to whom they tried passing the buck.

          • July 25, 2016 at 10:08 pm

            (Seriously, beyond political machinations, did you see the “mop up some more taco bowl [Latino] engagement” email? Or the one where DWS’s replacement talked about cussing out “the Sanders camp”? Not only did the DNC utterly fail to run a neutral primary, its people abysmally failed at achieving even the lowest level of professionalism. These are not people I want working to shape any kind of policy.)

          • July 28, 2016 at 4:43 pm

            She really is appalling, Deb! And so are the people around her. I’ve gone back and forth on which of them is worse, and have come to the conclusion that she’s the more fundamentally rotten than Trump – but he’s more dangerous because he has all the impulse control of a two-year-old. I’m less concerned than you are about his racism because … well, he’s not going to make it where it doesn’t exist. He may bring it up to the surface, but I wonder if that wouldn’t be rather like applying heat to bring a nasty infected boil to a head. When it’s visible, it can be lanced. I know that’s all theory for me, while it’s very real for you. But I do believe that while most people are clueless and unaware, they mean well. Forced to see ugly they’ll be repelled.

          • July 28, 2016 at 5:15 pm

            You know, that does make some sense. A’s family has talked about how much easier it was to deal with overt racism down South: the rules were very, very clear, and no one pretended reality was other than it was.

            Maybe when it’s very, very clear, it’ll be unavoidable (and an inspiration to change) to those who tell themselves it can’t possibly exist … because it happens out of their earshot.

            The more I read, by the way, the more I’m concerned with the mob mentality of HRC folks. The more convinced I must work hard to ensure we abandon this archaic, power-serving two-party system. I love how Jane Sanders responded to this in her RS interview

            Like in my “Because … Democracy?” post, HRC folks are taking a very spoils-of-war approach to this “victory.” Ms. Sanders, OTOH, replies eloquently how humans are spoils of war:

            People have been making it sound like they’re mad, and they should just get over it. No they shouldn’t! They shouldn’t just get over it! What do you expect? How do you turn on a dime? We understand that. We understand that we earned their support and their trust. Now Hillary Clinton has to earn their support and their trust.

            I actually wrote a(n unseen) post on LinkedIn that you might be interested in. It sprang from my revelation–from lots of LinkedIn reading–that Bernie is a leader (with a capacity to manage, ergo his successful career), where Clinton is a mere manager. Managers like those found in the DNC force through threat (“BUT TRUMP!!! If he wins, it’s your fault!”) and shaming (calling Sanders supporters imbeciles, reckless, immoral, ill informed, and the like), while leaders inspire. So far, the Clinton/DNC seems to have no idea there’s a difference between the two. Until it figures out the difference and learns to emulate leadership whether or not it understands the principle, it will have no hope of earning Sanders voters who have defected from the party.

            “Unity” through demanded submission is not unity but oppression, IMO.

          • July 29, 2016 at 12:12 pm

            Finally had time to read the various links you’ve provided in your comments (above). Now I feel all icky! Not the piece you wrote for LinkedIn – that was good – and I loved the interview with Ms Sanders. But I ended with those emails (I’ve chosen not to read them before now) and, ugh, even ignoring the obviously vile comments, the whole tone of them is so cynically manipulative. And you know exactly the same thing is going on in Trump’s marketing arm. Ugh, ugh, ugh!

          • July 29, 2016 at 12:45 pm

            Ugh, ugh, ugh is right. We peon voters are interchangeable vote-casting sheeple to them.

            (I love folks who genuinely believe words are just words, with no correlation whatsoever to action. ‘Cause that’s how people work …)

  6. Paul
    July 25, 2016 at 1:57 am

    As a Canadian, I wish you the best. 🙂

  7. July 25, 2016 at 4:33 am

    It’s ironic I read this today after having a calm and blunt discussion with my in-laws last night about the same subject. I didn’t offer negative answers to their questions, rather, I offered my reasons why *I* was not voting for Trump or why *I* was not voting for Clinton, but rather why *I* was voting for a third party candidate. I provided facts as to why I thought the two party system was broken and rigged to support an elite group of people that goes back to Carter and Reagan. In some ways, other democracies outside the United States are doing all of this better with several more parties represented demonstrating how the people are divided up much more efficiently. This country has tried, and failed, for decades to break out of the two party system with little to show for it. It will take a lot more people to affect any kind of real and lasting change and it starts with one person talking to another in a way that doesn’t degrade or patronize.

    • July 25, 2016 at 7:22 am

      I love it, including the touching upon democracies elsewhere. We’ll have to leap the mental hurdle of American exceptionalism for widespread consideration that someone somewhere else might inform us how to improve our system. I would take delight in seeing this happen, and hearing more of the kinds of conversation you describe. Less patronizing, more hearing FTW!

  8. July 28, 2016 at 8:33 am

    This was well done, as always you are clear and concise. This year, this season has been difficult. It has caused many of us to reassess our beliefs, political and otherwise. I stand back and nearly weep, daily.

    I have been a registered Independent for well over a decade. I am a pragmatic voter, leaning toward progressive / liberal politics but knowing always I will rarely find one who matches my personal systems I look for those who I believe will best lean across the aisle and work towards better communities and world outcomes. I know they won’t be all they say, I know they won’t do all I want. I simply always hope.

    This year? This year I am only looking for a couple of things; the first is SCOTUS. Whoever gets into the Oval Office will fill at least two (2) seats and more than likely four (4) seats on the Supreme Court. This will affect our national policy for upwards to 30 years. I am not willing to risk it, not willing to risk what small progress we have left. Not willing to risk Women, Voting and Civil Rights.

    Are we broken? Yes, we are broken and yes we could do it far better. It is time for us to wake up and time for us to take back our government. But not today, not in this cycle, not in 2016.

    • July 29, 2016 at 7:33 pm

      This season has caused me to look back and ask, “How did I not see any of this before?!” We were in a different world then, before this level of connectivity required a different level of transparency.

      I look at how the DNC is responding to the leaks–which confirmed what was already clear to those paying closest attention–and see a bunch of people in power who are committed to not changing. They’ve been suited by non-transparency in a world of lesser connectivity, and there are enough older, disconnected people to sustain this historical leverage … for this one last election. What we’re witnessing right now is, I feel, a failure to adapt to change.

      The Supreme Court question is one that had a huge impact on my decision how to vote, a decision that’s gotten harder the more the DNC has bungled its response to the leaks. (Of course, it can’t say too much lest it wreck its defense, but as it scoffs at progressives, it loses them.)

      With economic inequality being my big thing, seeing how it has such a huge impact on not only early life but all the rest of life, education–the foundation for something better–is enormous to me. Seeing how the Republican platform pretty much penalizes single mothers makes me feel even more disgusted, which is a pretty impressive feat.

      We need kids to be built up in early childhood–all kids, everywhere. Head Start won’t cut it. We need their parents to be safe enough and stable enough in their income to provide support and nourishment to nurture kids through to adulthood, and to success much easier to obtain with these supports in place.

      Between education (in all its pieces) and the Supreme Court, I’ll vote for the corrupt-but-kinda-sorta-pretending-to-try over the merely corrupt. And then, then I will do everything in my power to ensure we have more than these two ridiculous relics from which to vote in upcoming elections. Two parties serve the parties, not the people.

      All of which is to say … I agree.

  9. July 29, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    Those emails…sigh. Most of us knew that Bernie got screwed over without them, but for some reason it stung like crazy to see it confirmed. It’s such a disheartening mess.

    • July 29, 2016 at 7:38 pm

      Ditto. I’ve been in a funny place, recalling how I was one of those people mindlessly intoning, “But she’s more practical!” After my siblings and I talked when I visited Oregon, it was easy to see how I’d taken the bait, and then all the more frustrating to see how many people refuse to see that there was bait, and that they have taken it, as evidenced each time they taunt, tease, and call Sanders supporters whiney. The moment I began paying attention was the moment it became clear what enormous Sanders disadvantages I’d waved away before. I was already seeing it loud and clear by the time I disaffiliated last month, but now … it really does smart to see it out in the open, and to see how “out in the open” doesn’t make it something many are willing to see, anyway.

      (I saw one reporter describing the emails as just: “What to wear to yoga?!” and thought, wow, I already knew not to trust MSM, but talk about confirming it! And then folks don’t read a single email and tell Sanders folks they’re ill informed and stupid. Pretty confident saying that the Sanders folks I know have read, oh, ten times as much as the Clinton folks on average.)

      • July 30, 2016 at 7:10 am

        Oh yeah, acting like those emails are so inconsequential does nothing to help! I told my husband that maybe if Hillary would acknowledge what happened and apologize, admit Bernie was done wrong by the DNC and that things could have played out differently, then maybe some Sanders supporters would feel differently and vote for her. It’d make a bit of a difference for me. And, frankly, while I understand Clinton supporters rabidly defending her, the constant baiting many of them use to call Sanders supporters whiny children, idiots who don’t understand how the adult world works, and other general mockery. is just infuriating. Not sure who they think they’re winning over with that.

  1. July 31, 2016 at 6:22 am
  2. August 17, 2016 at 6:10 pm
  3. August 27, 2016 at 12:16 am
  4. December 2, 2016 at 12:57 pm
  5. January 9, 2017 at 6:46 pm
  6. January 13, 2017 at 10:29 am

Please weigh in--kindly!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: