The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    Our Complicated, Uncompetitive Primary

    If you read the comments around Dag, you're not only seeing the best stuff on the site (pause for cheap pop from the regulars) but you'll also maybe notice that I've been pretty darned fascinated with Hal Ginsberg's pro-Sanders take on the Democratic primary.  This primary is interesting for a liberal who supports both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.  For one thing, Hillary is going to win.  But Sanders makes great contributions to the big national debate almost daily.  I am, in a word, happy.

    I won't often say that I'm "proud to be a Democrat" because I don't really think that parties serve society well.  I only ever registered as a Democrat to have a voice in picking the candidates who I'd ultimately have to back in big elections.  It's not an ideal situation.  However, it's easy to say this year that the Democrats have held a primary campaign that includes a field of candidates who would make good presidents.  That's a huge accomplishment.

    Sanders, as the most prominent challenger to Clinton, has really managed ot elevate the party's status, I think, by engaging in high-minded debate.  Clinton has met him on his own turf and has been elevated as a result.  Hal remarked in his last piece that Sanders helped Hillary to a great showing in the first primary debate.  I do agree.  We all know that Hillary Clinton can win a knife fight.  Watching her debate a smart, honest and well-meaning opponent reminded us that she is not just the girl who fights behind the school after the bell rings, she's also the best of the honor's students.  She is Tracy Flick, after all. I don't mean that in a bad way, by the way.

    As the primary grinds on, tensions rise.  In this case, I can really relate to the feelings that Sanders supporters might be having, as I like Sanders too.  Around Dag, I think it's safe to say that Hillary's supporters generally have good feelings for Sanders.  These are people who, by the way, largely supported Obama while liking Hillary.  F. Scott Fitzgerald said that the ability to hold contradictory beliefs is a sign of intelligence.  The smart money around here seems to believe that Hillary should be president but that Sanders is also a great American.  

    The Sanders campaign carries hope for radical change.  By credibly running for the Democratic nomination, he has furthered some of these ideas into the national discussion.  A financial transactions tax and marijuana legalization are two good examples.  But as we wind towards the conclusion where, unless something big happens, Sanders loses, we do have to bring some of the Sanders supporters into the Hillary camp.  So far, the view of the Hillary supporter has been that Sanders is a friendly rival.  So far, Sanders has conducted himself as a friendly rival.  But the temptation is that his supporters will, facing defeat, start to hit low -- by, for example, claiming that Hillary is playing "the woman card," if she merely reacts to having been accused of raising her voice.

    Let's face it -- Hillary Clinton's gender is part of her pitch.  Barack Obama's race was part of his. This is legitimate politics.  For a demographic like the United States to have only had a black president in 2008 and to have not yet had a woman president is obviously ludicrous.  Bernie Sanders freaking knows that, right? I think he does, anyway.

    What I'm noticing now about this interesting but uncompetitive primary is that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have their gloves on and are both scrupulously obeying the referee but that maybe, just maybe, in the face of heartbreak, some Sanders supporters are striking a bit below the belt.




    A lovely bit of writing, as usual, MM,  but I disagree with the inference you made about Sanders supporters.  When that line about 'shouting' came up in the debate, everyone, including Hillary and her staff knew it was not referring to her shouting.  That was a calculated, completely fabricated moment put out by the Clinton camp to generate some feminist buzz.  The fact that Sanders supporters called it out as being phony is not a sign of them hitting low.  if anything the ref should have taken a point away from Clinton for hitting below the belt.  But, nonetheless, the press went with it, because they are begging for a no holds barred horse race and any spark they can fan into a flame helps their cause.  From where I sit on the sidelines, it looked more like surprise and anger at the tactic, not so much an aggressive, unfair move against the candidate.

    Hillary's response to it was nothing more than a cute joke in the middle of a presentation.  No big deal until someone in the press saw a chance to make it a big deal.  And even after it was made into a big deal it still wasn't a big deal.   It wasn't then; it isn't now.  So why keep it alive?  If that's the worse thing Hillary or Bernie says during this campaign, we'll consider ourselves lucky.  It's only the beginning. It'll get much harder for them to make their cases without going after each other.  They won't want to; they'll have to.  

    But when you call it "calculated", saying the Hillary camp did it deliberately to generate feminist buzz, you're opening a door that might best remain closed.

    I said calculated simply because it was an un-necessary and unprovoked dig.  No-one paid any notice to the phrase after the debate, no-one mentioned it at all.  Then, the next day, she made a joke out of it at Sanders expense, which had a meaning that she knew the press would not ignore.  It wasn't a big deal, but it did send a signal that the niceties were mostly on the surface.   Look, I'm not trying to bash Hillary.  I'll support her wholeheartedly if she's the nominee, but in this situation she threw an unnecessary elbow and I can understand the Sanders supporters being a little perplexed and upset by how Hillary used a phrase which did not refer to her, to make herself look like a victim of male chauvinism.

    I don't get it.  Hillary didn't look like a victim to me, and Bernie didn't suffer from what she said.  It was funny.  I laughed. I'm a woman and I get it.  That doesn't make me like Bernie less or believe he was deliberately trying to insult her.  That would be silly.  It just means I can laugh at something Hillary said that almost all women understand.

    But about Sanders "supporters".  They'll need to get over being "upset and perplexed" every time someone doesn't kowtow to their candidate. Poor Bernie.  How humiliating to be taken down by his own supporters.  (Because that's what'll happen if they don't back off the little things and learn to prioritize.) 

    I suppose what worries me more than whether Bernie's supporters will hold a grudge is whether Hillary's supporters will be gracious in victory.   They don't seem to be the forgive and forget kind, but maybe I'm misreading them.   I hope so. 

    I don't think that's fair. Hillary supporters have really been holding back. Yes, part of that is because we think we'll win. But consider all the vicious fights we've had here over guns and no one has torn into Sanders on the issue. He could really be flayed on that issue in many ways but Hillary supporters have mostly held their fire.

    Well, I suppose there is a lot that could have been said on both sides, but fortunately, both sides have refrained from getting into such fights.  That is why I thought this little incident seemed out of place.  Anyway ... Look, I like both candidates and support Democrats.   We are counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.   As was said, let's move on.

    According to the debate transcript, Sen. Sanders said:
    SANDERS: As a senator from a rural state, what I can tell Secretary Clinton, that all the shouting in the world is not going to do what I hope all of us want, and that is keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have those guns and end this horrible violence that we are seeing.
    So as I read it, both sides have a point. Yes, he directly referenced her as the one he was speaking to - and yes, he has said the same thing in a less person-specific way many times before. Yea, politics! Can we move on?

    This is so good.  This is absolutely the way we have to think if we're going to win this thing.  I do respect all of the candidates, including O'Malley, and I don't plan to go all attack mode on them in order to make sure my candidate will win.  We just can't afford to do that anymore. 

    I agree the Hillary supporters are much more accepting of Bernie than the Bernie supporters are of Hillary.  Their problems with Hillary go way back, long before Bernie decided to run and they decided to support him, so it's asking a bit much to expect them to suddenly set all their feelings aside.  I just hope they realize there may come a day when they'll have to.

    Agree and well said.

    Thinking about it, I'm feeling glad the race is uncompetitive - I'm happy that Bernie is pushing his themes, but I'm also seeing signs that we're mobilizing to beat the Republicans, and that maybe just maybe we'll focus on down-ticket fights that we've gotten butchered on. Maybe we can even do a 50-state fight rather than win a few border states.

    It's an issue that is too often overlooked by supporters all around - who can best lead the party? And not just in the esoteric sense that we love to roll around in, or the who will beat Republicans mantra that we incessantly chant, but who do we want to be the Boss? Like Obama or not, we've been screwed during his presidency. Clinton - hard nosed, intense, tireless and with limitless reach is who we need for a very long game.

    Obviously who you think is playing dirty depends on your interpretation of events.  I interpret the legitimacy of and motives underlying Clinton's statements before the Women's Leadership Forum and the NAACP's Charleston, SC, chapter differently than you and others here do. 

    Putting semantics aside for the moment, perhaps you can explain why you are happy about the prospect of Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination.  Part of it is that you want a woman in the Oval Office - I certainly get that and agree that Clinton's gender is a point in her favor.  On the other hand, I and you, presumably, wouldn't be happy if the next President is Carly Fiorina.  I guess you want a Democrat.  That's sensible - the last thing we want is more Scalias on the Supreme Court - and I'm assuming you think Clinton has the best chance in the general election.

    But shouldn't we demand more than a female Democrat who fights hard to win in primaries and general elections?  Don't we want a candidate who has a demonstrated record of fighting, not just for herself, but for poor, working, and middle-class Americans against the economic interests of the 1%?  Shouldn't we demand, if one is available, the candidate whose consistently fought for peace?  Doesn't the candidate with the best civil rights and environment record deserve our support?

    I get that no candidate is perfect.  Sanders certainly isn't and Hillary has some strengths.  But Michael what exactly has Hillary Clinton done that makes you happy about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton Presidency?

    This isn't hard.  Hillary Clinton is the right woman for the job.

    She has singular experience.  As first lady she was more than just an observer and let's keep in mind that had she succeeded with health care reform in the 1990s we would have had a better system in place for longer before Obama reached office. Certainly her efforts on that front count towards a "record of fighting, not just for herself, but for poor, working, and middle-class Americans against the economic interests of the 1%..." Her work on SCHIP also counts.

    She has an unparalleled network of experienced advisors and people able to hit the ground running when it comes to actually managing and directing the federal government.  It would be hard for any rival to duplicate that.

    She may well be the smartest person running and may even be the smartest person who has run for President in my lifetime.

    I am completely optimistic about her, without reference to Sanders at all.


    That's about as direct as it can get.   And reasons enough to stop explaining it over and over again to Hal.  It'll never be enough, but there it is.

    You're correct Ramona.  Michael's list isn't enough for me because her record simply does not demonstrate a commitment to economic justice, peace, or the environment.

    Sorry.  I meant that I support Hillary Clinton because I believe she will conscript the working poor into an army that will wage violent war on the environment by invading countries with rain forests and exploding garbage bombs everywhere.  All other Hillary Clinton supporters feel the same way I do about this.  Garbage bombs for everyone!

    You refuse to believe that Hillary has had to face a hostile press and a vast Right Wing conspiracy, and instead join them willingly in spreading anything rotten you can come up with.  There is no other side for you.  Thank goodness there is for others.   ( I love that they call themselves "Hillarymen" and go out defending her with the truth.  I'll bet this story won't go any farther than where her followers can spread it.  It won't be reported on CNN or MSNBC or, god forbid, Fox "News".)

    What are you talking about?  Of course, I recognize that HRC, like Jimmy Carter, Bill, President Obama, and nearly every Democrat, has been unfairly attacked by corporate-controlled and right-wing media, the Republican party, and its allies.  My criticism of her policies, unlike the "vast right-wing conspiracy's" is always from the left.  You'll never hear Limbaugh or his ilk argue that Clinton is too hawkish and corporatist, or that she's not a staunch labor union defender.  Those are my arguments and the arguments of other progressives.

    In any case, the fact that many of her critics are among the worst people in the world doesn't mean I have to choose her over Sanders or that she's a strong liberal or that she's an honorable and decent person.  She has her good side but she also has demonstrated, as I have shown repeatedly, pettiness, dishonesty, and most importantly an unwillingness or inability to fight consistently against the three biggest problems we face - economic injustice, the onrushing environmental cataclysm, and perpetual war.  Indeed, she has frequently taken positions that have exacerbated these planet-destroying pathologies.

    ...or that she's an honorable and decent person...

    Hal, come on.  She's both an honorable and a decent person.  Her work with the Clinton Family Foundation alone proves it.  Come to think of it, that work also included fighting economic injustice, onrushing environmental cataclysm and the effects of perpetual war.

    Don't disagree, Michael - Hal knows petty better than you do.

    (insert something witty here... Damn "smart" phones)

    In any case, the fact that many of her critics are among the worst people in the world doesn't mean I have to choose her over Sanders or that she's a strong liberal or that she's an honorable and decent person.

    I think you may have somewhat misread the sentence and then had a knee-jerk reaction. Remove two of the clauses and you get: In any case, the fact that many of her critics are among the worst people in the world doesn't mean that she's an honorable and decent person. Seems to me to simply be a statement of simple logic used to defend and clarify a position while separating himself from some scumbags who are also critical of Hillary.

    If that is an untrue and invalid statement by Hal then the opposite proposition would be true and valid, that is: The fact that some of her critics are among the worst people in the world does mean that she is an honorable and decent person. To stay with the hyperbole that includes “the worst people in the world” and to risk the wrath of Godwin by actually referring to some of the worst people in the world, that would be equivalent to saying that because Hitler was a critic of Stalin that Stalin must have been an honorable and decent person. And visa versa, both a must really be great guys.  

    I am just arguing about the argument in this instance, not taking a stand for or against Hillary. Actually, I think she probably is just about as honorable and decent as are most politicians on the national scene.  


    Ramona wrote about me: "You refuse to believe that Hillary has had to face a hostile press and a vast Right Wing conspiracy, and instead join them willingly in spreading anything rotten you can come up with." 

    Her argument as best I can understand it is.  1) Hillary's been a victim of unfair criticism. 2) Everybody who's a victim of unfair criticism deserves your support.    3) But you don't support her therefore it must be the case that (a) you refuse to believe she's a victim of unfair criticism and (b) you yourself spread unfair criticism.

    Okay.  I reject that tautology.  Yes, she has been the victim of unfair criticism by really really bad people - Rush Limbaugh is a truly diabolical barely human cretin.  But no that does not mean I should support her.  As you point out, bad people sometimes don't like bad people.  I am not saying, however, Hillary is a bad person.  I do say that she has, like all of us, done some bad things.

    I believe in supporting in every election the most liberal candidate who has a chance to win.  In the Democratic primaries, it seems very clear to me that Bernie Sanders meets that definition.  If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate, she will almost almost certainly meet that definition in the general election.

    Statements in a vacuum, like "she is honorable and decent", or I think she is just about as "honorable and decent as other politicians", have little meaning to me.  Honorable and decent people tell the truth and do good things.  Dishonorable and indecent people lie and do bad things.  That's why Abe Lincoln and FDR were honorable and decent.  By and large, they told the American people the truth and made life better for millions of people.  Using similar metrics, Nixon and W don't come out so well.

    How do Sanders and HRC measure up?  I guess that's what we're debating but I think I've given a number of pretty fair examples where she's failed in one area or the other.

    If you're thinking I pretty much equate liberal (at least when it comes to politicians) with decent and honorable, you're right.

    First of all, Hal, I've never said you or anyone else should support Hillary.  Never.  I have wondered in writing, many times, why you will only play up what you believe are Hillary's awful, terrible, no good, very bad points and won't consider that she has a good side.  You push "decent and honorable", as if we shouldn't even consider that Hillary has those attributes.

    I am a HUGE FDR fan--I call myself an FDR Liberal all the time--but even FDR had his less than decent and honorable moments.  He put Japanese/American citizens in internment camps during WWII and did it without even protecting their homes and belongings, so that when they were released they had nothing. He wasn't always honest, and I doubt his motives were always decent. He played fast and loose with the truth at times. Surprise!  But overall, when we look at the economic and societal miracles that occurred under his presidency, we have to believe he was decent and honorable.

    You're being unfair and one-sided about Hillary's political history and you're being called out on it.  As long as you continue, it'll continue.

    So. . .  Continue.

    Ramona to Hal: "You're being unfair and one-sided about Hillary's political history. . .  As long as you continue, it'll continue."

    Hal to Ramona: "You're being unfair and one-sided about Hillary's political history. . . As long as you continue," I'll continue to call you out about it.

    Here's the difference.  I am very specific about what HRC has done up to and including her current campaign that I believe renders her less fit than Bernie Sanders to be President.  I also directly compare her positions with Bernie's and specify why I believe his are on balance much better, even though I acknowledge she's better on gun control.

    By contrast, you and other Clinton supporters make grandiose boilerplate statements to justify your support for her.  "She'll make a great President."  "She's one of the smartest people ever to run for President."  "She's assembled a lot of smart people to support her."  "It's time for a woman President.  "She's faced unprecedented hostility." 

    Here are the two things you and her other supporters don't do.  1) You don't point to specific deeds - at least not recent ones - as evidence that she is on the side of poor, working, and middle-income Americans.  2) You excuse, minimize, or deny many examples of questionable or worse actions, including, but not limited to, a) violating the federal regulation governing her private email setup, b) lying about it, c) lying about landing under fire in Sarajevo, d) her very hawkish record as a Senator, e) her mostly pro-free trade/anti-worker record, f) her pro-death penalty record, g) her divisive campaigning style, h) her corporatism.

    While I wouldn't exactly call her a champion of the poor and the working class, her stated desire to raise the minimum wage and pass the Paycheck Fairness Act indicates that she has some degree of concern for such folk.

    Hal this has been going on for months now.  (At least it seems like months.)  Everything on your alphabet list has been addressed.  You're not buying it.  So here's the thing:  there is no reason for me or anyone else to have to spend hours proving what you see as the unprovable to you.  I honestly don't care what you think about Hillary.  I hate when I allow myself to get sucked into these endless loop discussions, where we go round and round and round and round and there is no end to this loop.

    So I'm done.


    1) You don't point to specific deeds - at least not recent ones - as evidence that she is on the side of poor, working, and middle-income Americans. 

    Hal, she was advocating for universal healthcare in the 1990s!  Universal freaking health care! She fought a huge battle over it!

    As a Senator she championed SCHIP and then helped see its implementation, which is above and beyond for a legislator.  Both are the evidence that she is in fact on the side of poor, working and middle income Americans.

    2) You excuse, minimize, or deny many examples of questionable or worse actions, including, but not limited to, a) violating the federal regulation governing her private email setup, b) lying about it, c) lying about landing under fire in Sarajevo,

    Yes, I excuse everything about the email server.  Fine with landing under fire in Sarajevo if Sinbad is over.

    d) her very hawkish record as a Senator,

    She voted for the Iraq war.  She did.  So did John Kerry.  We ran him three years later.  Some of us let smart people learn.  She is a liberal interventionist.  This is not news.  It's why she was in Sarajevo, by the way.

    e) her mostly pro-free trade/anti-worker record,

    That's most of the party.  I feel your pain here. We can better regulate trade to protect our workers.  I'm sure of it.  But we do need trade, don't we?

    f) her pro-death penalty record,

    She's pro death penalty for excessively heinous crimes.  I oppose the death penalty in all cases but let's not pretend Clinton is some sort of extremist here.

    g) her divisive campaigning style,

    Eye of the beholder.

    h) her corporatism.

    Not sure that word means what you think it means.

    Lincoln and FDR told the American people a ton of lies. Lincoln led us into a brutal, bloody war that killed 600,000 of our own people - reconcile that with a pacifist position. FDR used a bunch of shady tactics to push his New Deal and other policies, and obviously took us into WWII, our 2nd bloodiest war. I'm able to deal with tough choices and impure motives - how about you?

    Freeing millions of slaves within your own nation is about as good a reason as there is to fight a war - especially when the other side started it.  Likewise, our entry into WWII was precipitated by an attack on us.  I'm not sure what lies or shady tactics you're referring to but both men were focused on making life better for the least among us.  That has not been HRC's focus.

    Well reasoned, Lulu.  Though it seems Hal has rejected that particular rhetorical life preserver.

    Thanks Michael. I should probably quit right here but what the hell, I will go ahead and say that my statement, "Actually, I think she probably is just about as honorable and decent as are most politicians on the national scene", I intended it as a bit of ironic sarcasm being as how I am not a great fan of them as a group.    

    Lol, Lulu, I caught it.  it's a perfect response, since Hal seems to think Hillary the politician should be above politics.  No matter how righteous and pure they may want to be, the political system will grind them down.  Sooner or later all of them, including Bernie, are forced to play the game.  There is no purity in politics.

     You wrote: "Don't we want a candidate who has a demonstrated record of fighting, not just for herself

    Ugh... You don't even see her as a full human being you see her as some one-dimensional Lady Macbeth,  Just out for herself to attain greatness for herself. 

    You just... ugh.. forget it.

    I think that you, Ramona and I are on the same page - Hal just isn't worth the effort.

    Sound of a door shutting.  Feels so good.

    I think we are... it's a concern though that Hal doesn't see her as a full human being, that he sees her as a cartoonish Lady Macbeth, one that seeks only to advance herself. I just.. it's just... I mean..What does one say to that, how does one reply to that, it's a one-dimensional view of a woman, a real live human being, one of us. I feel like that kind of irrational view of her is how many men in the working world feel about women. It just, this just feels wrong in so many ways and it also really pisses me off.  And yeah, is Hal worth it, no he isn't, because he wants to Atwater her, he wants people to view her as a cartoonish Lady Macbeth, a person with no dimensions. Her past and current work doesn't count towards anything he says, it can only be recent work that counts, but that isn't the case for her male counterpart, the man he supports, all of his work over a life time counts towards his character and can be used to indicate what a great president he would be. Such a fucking double standard...  It's just that men have been doing this kind of thing to working women since I've been a working professional. 

    Yeah we three are on the same page. 

    Hal's built a mythology around this election where people who "should" be voting for Bernie have either been fooled or are fooling themselves, into supporting Clinton.  I do hope that this is not going to be the position of the hardcore Bernie supporters more broadly.  All the whining about Clinton saying she wasn't shouting about gun control does seem to suggest that this is a bigger problem.  It's dangerous to believe that your candidate deserves to win the election and somehow can't lose fair and square.  It's really never great to see progressive men lecturing progressive women that they have misplaced their support. It smacks of some kind of privilege, doesn't it?

    Worse is he seems to place her akin to a Democratic Carly Fiorina. I guess they both have tits, and I suppose she's this year's "GOP's got women too" entrant and happens to be lucky that this is their year of the non-politician politician. Short of that, even bringing her up is insulting. No, women haven't been waiting to elect an unqualified woman - they've been waiting and fighting for acknowledgment that they're first tier candidates and managers. Fiorina makes a mockery of that. But Hal even manages to insult the daughter of Ann Richards, the quintessential tough-ass pol from Texas. As far as Hal's concerned, theyre faceless bowling pins to knock down - he has his candidate, and nothing else exists or existed to compare.

    I like your stuff Mr. M!

    I have not once in any of my posts or comments belittled anyone here.  I rely in my arguments on facts and occasionally speculations that I believe the facts strongly support.  In response, I have been cursed out, called an "idjit", a "privilege" wielder, my motives have been repeatedly impugned, and several are openly scoffing at the prospect that my express opinions are of any value at all.

    I get that the Clinton supporters here reject my arguments, just as I reject theirs.  Fine.  That's why we have elections.  I am prepared to see the candidate I support lose in the Democratic primaries.  I hope that my assessment of the probable winner is incorrect.  I also expect a more restrained and respectful response confined to my words and arguments rather than, largely incorrect speculations, about my motives and pathologies.

    Hal, the reason you're called "idjit" and such is because you repeatedly hurl out things that frankly are idiotic and unthought out. Some of your stuff is supported by the typical URL thta then leads to some contentious article that by no means is case closed. Some are comments that plainly ignore basic facts, such as many times you've discussed Hillary's background with either intentional or astounding ignorance. And other times it's plain insulting claptrap such as the impugning some of Hillary's supporters as just being interested in their wealth as part of the 1%. Or some insulting ideas re: women that only Wattree manages to top. And then there's pile-on shit disturbing, like the hyperventilating screaming for the judges over Hillary's purported playing the gender and racist cards - one suspects if you played soccer you'd be rolling around on the turf holding your knee half the time.

    You seem greatly invested in the rightness of your cause and your reasoning. Life is complex, yet none of that seems to touch your core causes and evaluations. You might have noticed that basically no one here is attacking Bernie - they're attacking you & how you represent him, or moreso how you trash Hillary. Many/most here are pro-union, pro-workers, pro-environment, pro-doing-something-about-global-warming, anti-war, anti-US-Mideast policy, anti-gun-nuttiness but understanding of non-wingnut uses, anti-WallStreet profiteering, anti-CitizensUnited-bought-off-government, pro- bringing a working wage back to the poor and middle class, anti-police-abuse and surveillance state, and so on. As a friend used to say, you're trying to teach granny to suck eggs, but in this case with her butt. It's amazing and probably a compliment that people take their time to reason with you, but is your only takeaway that we're just rejecting your argument like you reject ours? It's only differing opinion? When you say that Hillary's never supported the poor, only the 1%, that's valid opinion, not rather dubious spin on reality? I guess Rumsfeld's officially cocky thanks to George Sr, but his known unknowns and unknown unknowns applies here - Hillary has a track record, and some things are well-known, and some are repeated mistruths that continue to gain legs, and then there are some mysteries about what she'd do in office, but she's not such a sphynx and enigma.

    Hal, we love ya. Nothing in life is as lopsided as you sometimes make it sound. A one armed economist doesn't fit in around here.

    Great post, mm. I don't have much to add, because I'm with you. I like them both. I'm supporting Hillary, but am pleased Bernie is keeping the primaries real.

    And like you, I'm not interested in vilifying either candidate. I liked both Hillary and Obama last time around.

    Latest Comments