Why I am Supporting Bernie Sanders – Editorial, The Week in Review

Analysis, Commentary, Opinion
02.08.2020

Why I am Supporting Bernie Sanders

With all of our eyes on the presidential campaign, and the nominating process in the Democratic Party, with all of the interested parties taking up positions and staking out ground in loosely organized “caucuses,” such as the so-called “progressive-caucus,” we have to be mindful of the fact that there is a lot more at stake in 2020 than the presidency.

We need a Democratic president to sign Democratic bills into law, but if we seriously hope to get any of our bills to the signing desk, we need to keep control of the House of Representatives, we need to increase the majority of the democratic caucus in the House and we need to take control of the Senate, we need to send Mitch McConnel packing.

This is why it matters who we pick for our standard bearer.

Even if we lost the presidency, taking control of the Senate would put more power behind progressive causes and give us more effective oversight over the executive branch. We need a candidate who can generate that enthusiasm and get people to the polls, and we need to stick together.

It is not just the presidency that is on the line in this election, it is Congress, and it is not just the 2020 Congress that is on the line, it is the make up of Congress for the next five elections.

The most important thing the legislature will do in the next congress is redistricting, following the apportionment of Congressional seats after the census. If we are serious about pursuing our progressive agenda for the long term, we must control this process. If we want the government to respond to the will of the majority on any number of things: from taxation to gun control, from executive oversight to a woman’s right to choose, from criminal justice reform to the War Powers Act, from…you name the issue, if we want to be governed by the will of the majority we must control this process.

The apportionment of electoral college votes follows the apportionment of congressional districts. We cannot eliminate the electoral college unless we are able to pass constitutional amendments, I will address these numerical challenges shortly.

If we want to see more equitable representation of the majority in the electoral college right now then we must control congressional apportionment and redistricting. If we have simple majorities in congress, and a democratic president who is willing to act, we can make the apportionment process fairer. Even if we don’t have a president willing to change the apportionment laws in US Code Title 2, simple majorities in congress will help us to create congressional districts that represent the people on a more equitable basis.

Keep this in mind, until we get the number of votes in congress, in the House and the Senate, and in State Houses across the country, unless we get a sufficient number of Governors and a President willing to pass a constitutional amendment there won’t be any constitutional amendments and the struggle for justice and equality will have to take place through the legislative process.

There are two ways to amend the constitution: the process either requires that two thirds of the members of both houses of congress vote to approve it, and then it must be ratified by two thirds of the states, or that two thirds of the states call for a constitutional assembly to amend the constitution in which proposed amendments must be ratified by three fourths of the states.

People talk about passing constitutional amendments all the time, but this is a very difficult process and if want to see it happen, to do this we would need:

1. 290 votes in the House of Representatives, the house is currently divided 233D to 197R, there is one independent (who typically votes with the republicans, and there are four seats currently vacant.
2. 67 votes in the Senate, the Senate is currently divided between the democratic and republican caucuses 53R to 47D (this includes independents who caucus with the party most closely aligned to their values) with a tying vote going to the republican voce president.
3. 34 States to ratify, State governments are currently divided between democrats and republicans 26R to 24D, while their legislatures are divided 67R to 37D

These numbers represent the numerical hurdles the people would have to cross in order to affect enduring changes to the structure of our democracy. We cannot pin our hopes on this, it is pie in the sky thinking.

If we intend to do this then we are back to where we began this essay, the absolute need to control the redistricting process after the census, we must have a willingness to change congressional apportionment if we win both chambers of congress and the presidency in November.

We must elect a president who is willing to sign into law enforceable provisions to restrain presidential power, to enforce the authority of congress to engage in oversight, and to reshape the federal judiciary including the addition of justices to the Supreme Court.

We are in a precarious time, and we must hold together, we cannot attack each other with broad labels intended to vilify one another, we cannot afford to pit so-called democratic socialists against so-called corporate democrats, so-called liberal progressives against so-called pragmatic progressives. There is too much at stake to allow ourselves to be divided this way.

We have to resist it.

I know a lot of people who like to pretend that both parties are the same, and they may have a point, but here is the truth: it is not the parties that are the same, the Democratic party and the Republican Party have radically different platforms.

It is the politicians who are the same, because it is the nature of these politicians, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they are on, it is in their nature to be feckless, cowardly, deceptive, ego-maniacs those are the unifying characteristics of all politicians.

This is not to say that they completely unreliable, that they do not love their families, or that they are all wicked people, but it is to recognize that the power of high office attracts the highly corruptible.

There are two tasks in front of us right now, as voters who care about our liberal and progressive causes, as people who ant to see the Voting Rights Act reinstated and expanded, who want to see structural changes to our representative democracy that takes big money out of politics and returns power to the people, who want to see a woman’s right to equal pay, equal treatment under the law and the right of self-determination to be protected, who want to enforce the separation between Church and State, if we want to curb the rise of white nationalists and domestic terrorists; the first thing we have to do is hold together through the next nine months, and we have to bring more people into the voting process, we have to these things thoughtfully, carefully and deliberately, even if the party does not nominate the candidate we prefer.

With that being said, when I look at the field of candidates running for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, when I look at the size and strength of their respective coalition’s, when I weigh them against each other, I have to conclude that our best bet is to support the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, not because I support all of his ideas, though I am in favor of most of them, it is because he is steady, his support is steady, his message is good, his vision is good for America, and if we all get behind him we will win.

Plans and Policies, Policies and Plans – Editorial, The Week in Review

Analysis, Commentary, Opinion
07.06.2019

Plans and Policies, Policies and Plans

I do not have any problem calling myself a Democrat.

I believe in party politics because we are weaker when we are separated from one another, united we stand…or so the story goes, as house divided against itself cannot stand.

My people on the liberal and progressive side of the political divide are about to start choosing sides, and in so doing they will put all of their hopes for social justice, a new economy, dignity in the workplace, they will put it all on the table for a gaggle of robber-barons to steal from them.

We are about to start demanding policies and plans, we are going to scrutinize each candidates record, and try to make some determination of whether or not they are worthy of our vote.

Maybe a candidate will emerge who is sensitive enough to our social concerns, and if they have a blemished record, maybe they will be cogent enough to apologize, make amends, declare the wrongness of their former positions, and bright enough to move forward.

Maybe we, the voters, will be patient enough to let them.

Maybe not.

We the voters, seem to be in more of a mood to separate the wheat from chaff, set the latter on fore, at the risk of burning the party down.

Some of my friends would never condescend to even think of themselves as democrats, they lie to themselves and anyone who will listen, pretending that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats. They base this on the right observation that all politicians are corrupt, all politicians lie and all politicians compromise.

Because of their astute observations they tear at the base of progressivism and liberalism, by refusing to participate and encouraging other to do the same. They are small minded and they should be shamed.

Many many more of us are going to begin to take sides and choose candidates that they believe best articulate plans and policies for the way forward.

Policies and plans will not win us this election, they never have and they never will win anything. Even if the candidate with the best plans wins, those policies will not survive to become law, not in the way they were promised, not in the way they were conceived.

As Democrats, as progressives, as liberal thinkers know this, we have to stop demanding that people apologize for the past, and we have to stop pretending that a good policy initiative will win the day.

We have to put the best speaker, the most charismatic leader into the driver’s seat, and that person does not need to do much more than promise to beat trump, to unseat Mc Connel, to send Lindsay Graham home, to keep the house of representatives, to win back the senate and to control the redistricting process coming out of the next census.

We need a leader, people believe in leaders. Nothing less than a leader will win us the election, promises of health care reform will not win us the election, promises of student loan reform will not win us the election, promises of immigration reform will not win us the election, promises of criminal justice reform will not win us the election.

People want those things, I want those things, but we vote for people, not plans and policies.

Let’ put our energy behind the strongest person, and not tear the others down. Let’s keep the whole team in the game, and move the party forward to an electoral victory.

Anything short of that will be a disaster.

Shortsighted – Editorial, The Week in Review

Analysis, Commentary, Opinion
04.13.2019

Shortsighted
Every week I see more evidence of just how shortsighted my people on the left side of the political spectrum are. So-called progressives, ply their phony activism and threaten to walk away from the political process if they do not get what they want from the Democratic Party, the DNC, the DCC, seeing the specter of boogie man in every corner.

They are possessed by the conviction of their ideals and they are content in their righteousness, never mind the political process, if they don’t get what they want they are threatening to stay home.

Friends of mine have been posting little political cartoons all week long to their social media accounts making these statements load and clear, drawing the battle lines, forget about winning the election next year, they want their serotonin boost now and so they poison the well with their diatribe.

Here is one a friend of my sent out there, and he thinks he is being clever. He is getting ready to justify his inaction, a year of commiserating over the fact that all of his good ideas, are being ignored.

Let me be clear; I share his values. He has good ideas. I want most of the same things. I want a green energy revolution. I want universal health care. I want universal education from pre-school to graduate school. I want student loan forgiveness. I want reparations, I want to honor all of our treaties with the First Nations, and to pay for every violation of them. I want Trump to be impeached, prosecuted and thrown in prison, I want all of that.

To get those things, to achieve that level of social justice, we have to be able o control the legislative process. We have to hold the House, win the Senate, win the White House, win more state houses and gubernatorial seats nationwide.

We have to win in blue districts and blue states, in purple ones and red ones.

We have to win, and we won’t win unless we hold it together.

I am against anyone who is sewing divisiveness in the democratic field. If you actually care about your progressive agenda work with the Democratic Party to get democrats elected, because you sure as hell aren’t going to get the Republicans to go along with you.

Cognitive Dissonance, A Reprisal – Editorial, The Week in Review

Analysis, Commentary, Opinion
12.22.2018

Cognitive Dissonance, A Reprisal
Politics is a nasty business, and a foolish one.

My Democratic Party is poised to enter another cycle of self-destruction, another cycle of finger pointing and purity tests, of driving ideological wedges between constituencies, and internecine conflict.

One month after a solid victory in the House of Representatives, in state houses and gubernatorial seats across the nation, the first straw polls for the 2020 presidential election are coming in and the camps are dividing.

A friend of mine posted an article published by the Guardian, to his Facebook page, the article digs into the voting record of Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke, calling out his history of voting for Republican legislation, and asking the question; “Does he deserve our support?”

I trust the Guardian, it is a reputable news service. I don’t have an issue with the article, I do have an issue with the divisive headline.

Other reporters are sharing the news that, as Beto O’Rourke makes strong appearances in these early polls, the political machinery of the so-called progressive caucus, the “Bernie Bros” and others, are seeking to tarnish his luster.

They want to bring him down.

It is politics and I know that. It is the same old self-serving non-sense that drove deep wedges into the Democratic constituency in the last cycle. It is as if we did not learn anything.

The same gang of supposed super-liberals have already spent a lot of energy tearing down Corey Booker for some votes he took supporting pharmaceutical companies.

Duvall Patrick, of Massachusetts won’t even get into the race on account of his connections to Wall Street and private equity firms.

If these super idealogues have paid any attention to the reporting on the havoc Russia caused in the 2016 election, they would stop with the nonsense, and let the field sort itself out.

The Democratic Party needs a galvanizing candidate, someone capable of turning out the vote, of exciting the masses, we do not need to live through the tired old passion play of the Bernie Sanders acolytes, the Elizabeth Warren fanatics, the Joe Biden fans.

We don’t need a repeat of the Jill Stein betrayal, and that is exactly what these articles by the Guardian, the posting and the sharing and the sensationalizing of them is meant to do.

Let me be clear, I am not coming out for Beto O’Rourke, not at this stage in the game, but shame on anyone who is trying to tear him down this early in the process.

I would like to see what Jerry Brown plans to do in the 2020 race, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and I want to hear more from Kamala Harris too.

My hope is this; wherever you fall on the spectrum of left wing politics; whether you are a wing nut or a corrupt-corporate-centrist, you are prepared to tell the world that anyone of our candidates, no matter how flawed they might be (and they are all deeply flawed individuals or they would not be in politics in the first place), no matter what their ideological issues are, they are better than that criminal currently occupying the Oval Office, as better than that white haired imp serving as Vice President, and better than anyone else the right wing could ever put on their ticket.

Election Post Facto – Editorial, The Week in Review

Analysis, Commentary, Opinion
11.10.2018

Election Post Facto
Hope.

The electoral response to T-Rump was fantastic. We voted and T-Rump vision for America was checked.

It was checked, and that is hopeful.

There is hope, but the struggle is far from over.

The Democratic Party lost a couple of races that we had hoped would win. We lost them narrowly. We can take heart in the fact that the race for the Senate in Texas was as close as it was, even though Beto went down.

The same is true of the Governor’s race in Georgia, though we are still counting votes, and there is a sliver of a chance that when the votes are done being counted, it will result in a run-off election on December 4th. We have to keep our energy up, and be prepared to turn out for that race, if it should occur.

The race for Governor and Senate in Florida is still being counted as well, we cannot allow these races to be concluded until every vote that has been cast has been counted. We cannot allow Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion to stand, that the right to vote does not guarantee the right to have your vote counted.

The Democratic Party won big, but we need to keep on winning. We cannot rest and we must take stock of the campaigns that ran successfully, in Texas and Florida and Georgia, even if the candidates ultimately lost or loose.

I have always been a proponent of supporting the moderate middle, not because I am a moderate at heart, but because I believe that politics is about the art of compromise.

However, we were shown something, and I have learned something, that the right candidate can carry a progressive message, and drive it straight into the heart of conservative Texas, and Georgia, even congressional districts in Oklahoma, the right candidate can take the message home, and turn out people who have never voted before.

The Democratic Party has to learn its lesson from this, we have to field progressives in every district where the contrast and distinction of the platform will stir the people up, and get them to take a chance on changing direction.

I still believe in compromise, but I also believe in the necessity of reclaiming the starting point on where the negotiation must begin, and plant that flag far to the left, and reclaim the middle for fairness, equality, and common sense.

There is hope, yes, but there is also cause for grave concern.

T-Rump is afraid, and he is stirring up his base. They are coming out to support him with guns and bombs, literally, his people are willing to kill to defend his fake presidency, his criminal regime.

There is hope, yes but there is a certain need to stay mobilized and keep the pressure up.

Tens of millions of people came out in support of the Republican agenda, of Donald T-rump and the sycophants in Congress that do obeisance to him. The fake president still have control oft the executive branch, Mitch McConnell will remain the senate majority leader (unless a couple of conscientious Senators decide to go independent and caucus with the Democrats), and so-called conservatives still hold out of nine seats on the Supreme Court.

The country showed more of who we truly are last Tuesday, both the good and the regrettable, we came out in large numbers, and we have to keep up the struggle and push our majority through the year 2020, and the redistricting of congressional districts that will take place then.

All Politics is Local – Editorial, The Week in Review

Analysis, Commentary, Opinion
07.28.2018

All Politics is Local
The next general election is about one hundred days away.

Already the cracks are appearing between so-called traditional democrats and the so-called progressive wing.

Remember, all politics is local. What sells in the Bronx, may not sell in Branson. What passive for common sense in Minnesota, is different than Idaho, Colorado, Arizona.

All politics is local, Tip O’Niel said, former speaker of the house, local races will be won or lost on the ground.

Political activists and part time enthusiasts must be mindful of the stakes. It is vital that we take control of congress this year.

We must, we absolutely must put the brakes on the Trump agenda, investigate him, and take control of government through the power of the purse.

We must, we absolutely must hold on to this power through 2020, and expand it, because that is when redistricting occurs.

And we must win the white house at the same time.

In the modern era, in the twenty-four hour news cycle, we have a tendency to nationalize everything, we have to resist this temptation.

The liberal idealism of the progressive wing cannot become the standard by which we measure good politics. Neither can resistance to it become. We cannot afford to be isolated from one another, alienated from one another.

The future of the Democratic party is Urban, Intellectual, and Muti-racial, we cannot lose sight of that, but we need more than that, right now we need a super majority, in congress and in state houses across the country. We need to win those seats and we need to hold them, for more than a cycle or two.

We need to cooperate with one another to do that, because this bird ain’t gonna’ fly with broken wings.
I am not suggesting that we return to the mistakes of the past, where we pander to white working class men; un-educated, anti-intellectual, rural poor. That demographic is lost to the Democratic Party, and we do not want them back.

We want a super-majority in congress, to get that we must be respectful of one another, and be ready to compromise.

We have to be willing to argue for our ideals, without insisting on them. In the democratic caucus we have to practice the art of persuasion, not coercion, and we cannot be derisive of those who do not mark each and every box on the ideological checklist as we do.

Voting for Hillary Part III – HRC v BS II – Editorial, The Week in Review – Analysis, Commentary, Opinion

02.20.2016

Voting for Hillary Part III – HRC v BS II

A couple of days ago I made a comment on the Face Book page of a friend of mine. I said something to the effect of this:

“If Senator Sanders wins the Presidency (and I think he could do it if he wins the nomination of the Democratic Party), it will set back the progressive agenda by a generation.”

This may seem counterintuitive to most people who read it, because Senator Sanders (BS) is clearly the most ardent, and idealistic spokesperson for the progressive agenda in our public life at this time (with the possible exception of Senator Elizabeth Warren).

Why is that the case, why would the torch-bearer of the progressive movement, be the biggest threat to the cause of progressivism?

This is complicated, and I ask you to allow the whole argument play out in order to arrive at its conclusion.

Therefore, let us talk about the candidates, and what they would bring to the table if they were President. What are the expectations attaching to each of them

I think I think Secretary Clinton (HRC) will be a least as effective as President Obama in advancing the progressive agenda. Many idealistic progressives will scoff at this; many of the most active liberals I know think that President Obama has accomplished very little in terms of genuine progressivism, and so this claim is not convincing to them. Those people complain that the Affordable Care Act was a giveaway to the insurance agencies, that our armed forces are still far too involved in conflicts around the world, they complain about the rate at which immigrants are being deported, they complain about the sequester, and so on. While they complain the apologists for President Obama, of which I am one, will tell you that he got what he was able to get while negotiating with Congress; Congress which actually controls the legislative agenda.

President Obama barely passed the Affordable Care Act, at a time when his party controlled both chambers of congress, when he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. At the same time President Obama could not even close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, which he ran on as a first order of business for his administration. Why was it so difficult to get the one thing done, and impossible to do the other? It is because every little thing that the president wants to do are reduced to negotiating points to be made with hostile actors; hostile Republicans and intractable Democrats alike. A president cannot even rely on members of their own party to support their agenda; if those members discern even a tiny bit of political peril in it for them.

In the current political climate, while Republicans control both chambers of Congress, making some advances on the progressive agenda would be great, even small ones, but holding the line on what has been achieved over the past eight years is even more important. No backsliding!

When we Democratic voters, we liberal progressives are dreaming about raising the minimum wage, universal health care, strengthening unions, breaking up big banks, overturning Citizens United, subsidizing college tuition, major increases in domestic spending, protecting voting rights; we must bear in mind, that roughly half of the electorate will be voting for the other side. The other side already controls the Senate, already controls the House of Representatives, controls the majority of state legislative assemblies, and the majority of gubernatorial chairs throughout the country. The other side wants no minimum wage, no regulation of banking, health care provided through the free market, no right to organize unions, Citizens United affirmed, and the rights of corporations expanded, no support for higher education, and all domestic infrastructure spending made piecemeal through block grants, given to the sates and along to the private sector, they want all of that and the sharp curtailment of voting rights. Throw into the mix their long standing desire to privatize social security, to keep burning fossil fuels, and to ramp up the war footing of the Nation.

Holding the line will, if that is all we are able to do, that will be a victory for the next President. I believe HRC can do that, and I believe she can do more. I believe she can build on the legacy of President Obama. HRC will able to hold the line precisely because her rhetoric is not calling for revolution. While some may criticize her for setting the bar too low, I believe she is setting the bar realistically. This is vital, because the most important thing about keeping the agenda moving forward is too not lose the support of the base. If you promise what you cannot deliver, they will become disillusioned and fall away. This happened to President Obama, people have written books about how he has “betrayed” the progressive agenda, and it happened to President Jimmy Carter, whose legacy should be a cautionary note for how we can view a possible BS administration.

Because the agenda that HRC has put forward is as tempered as it is, ordinary people on both sides of the political spectrum, everyone in the much maligned-muddy-middle, all of those supposed moderates, they can understand it, and because they understand it, they won’t feel threatened by it, they can support it, even in the face of opposition. Some people on the left might want more progressivism, some on the right might want more conservativism, but when one side or the other wins an election they get the mandate to expand their cause. The majority of Americans understand this, but they do not want, and they do not expect to gyrate wildly from poll to poll, they expect a moderate expansion of the franchise from the margins at the middle.

The majority knows who to hold at fault when the government gets shut down, if one side is being moderate, and the other side is acting from the demands of their ideals. If a BS administration threatens to veto a budget because it lacks some provision he has demanded from the furthest reaches of his idealism, BS will get the blame, and not congress.

Listen to me; progress is progress, even if it is gradual, and incremental.

This is not exciting. I realize that, but it is the truth, and I hope you can realize this too.

This is exactly how we would view it if the conservative side gets a victory. If the republicans win and decide to try and implement a legislative agenda that looks like the most ideal version of their conservative torch-bearers; deport eleven million people, build a giant wall on the border with Mexico, go to war again in Iraq, and in Syria, ban Muslims from entering the country, undermine the separation of church and state etc, etc, etc…we would expect our democrats to muster whatever power they had to block everything. That is what will happen if progressives try to do the same, they will block everything (only the conservatives hold more cards right now).

Here is what will happen in a BS administration. He will either compromise severely, thereby disillusioning his voters (I don’t think this is likely), causing them to fall away. Or he will stick to his idealism, and he won’t even get democrats to work with him. A BS administration will be a laughing stock either way, and it will ruin the cause of progressivism for at least a couple of decades; ala Jimmy Carter.

I have not heard BS say this himself, but I have heard Tad Devine, his campaign manager say it. He has admitted that the endeavor the BS campaign is engaged in is going to take a generation to develop. He is an experienced operator, and it is obviously true. They know that they have not only to win the presidency, and hold it, but that they also have to win a majority in congress, and keep it for at least one or two cycles. If liberal progressives are going to have a lasting chance, and the BS revolution succeed, they need to control congress in 2020 when the entire legislative map is up for redistricting. Unless they can do that; liberal progressives will continue to be at a significant disadvantage, and the BS revolution, even if he wins the presidency, will never materialize.

BS does not talk this way on the stump, but his more candid spokespeople do. They are talking behind the scenes about the realities of gradualism, the necessity of incrementalism, in this way they are indistinguishable from HRC. There is a difference however; HRC is leveling with people, and BS is trying to get people caught up in his romantic revolution.

HRC’s approach asks people up-front to sign on for the long haul, wherein progress (no matter how small) will be hailed for what it is progress. BS is asking people to “Feel the Bern,” to light the match, but as we all know the flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long.

What will happen to all of that passion when the cold water gets thrown on it. Will people be writing books about how BS betrayed the progressive movement? I don’t think so, BS is not the type to compromise, at least not on the big things. He will stand his ground, and the ground will fall out from under him, progressives may not blame him for standing his ground while giving voice to their ideals, but as the ground falls out from under him; because he is unable to compromise, it will fall out from under the progressive movement as well; creating the opportunity for a nearly completely discredited conservative movement to come roaring back

Remember Jimmy Carter; arguably one of the smartest, most rationale, most authentic, and most sincere of our modern presidents. He did not lack for good ideas, he behaved like a leader and put those ideas forward, but his inability to accomplish those goals turned his legacy into a subject of ridicule. I am not saying that his administration deserves the ridicule, but they suffered under it anyway, and continue to suffer from that ridicule thirty-six years later. The failures of the Carter administration set the stage for the so-called Reagan Revolution. A BS administration threatens to set that stage again.

It was under President Reagan that the nation began to move to the rightwing in a way that has been; anti-intellectual, anti-science, religiously fundamental, ahistorical and absolutely irrational. We risk that happening again, unless we are able to demonstrate in an irrefutable way that the leadership of Democratic presidents, championing liberal ideal, while implementing progressive policies is the key stability for the nation; and that will set the stage for economic growth, economic justice, and prosperity for all.

I believe that HRC can do this, and I have no faith that BS can. I believe this because Hillary speaks directly, and honestly to these points, while Bernie continues to dream the revolutionary dream.

More to follow…

Voting for HIllary, Part One – Editorial, The Week in Review – Analysis, Commentary, Opinion

01.30.2015

Voting for Hillary, Part One

I did a couple of things this week that I have never done before.

  1. I made a financial contribution to a political campaign.
  2. I committed to caucus for a candidate.

I took these steps in support of Hillary Clinton. I have been a vocal supporter of hers for many years, since I was first introduced to her, in her role as First Lady of the United States.

I favored the high profile role she played in the first Clinton administration. I was both disturbed and amused by the reaction the conservative talkers had toward her in those early years. Rush Limbaugh coined the term “feminazi,” in relation to her; in order to spread paranoia, and mistrust of her agenda, but not just of her agenda…they were afraid of her.

The conservative movement in American politics is afraid of women, of a woman’s independence, of a woman’s intelligence, and of a woman’s perspective on the world. This is not to overlook the fact that there are women in positions of leadership in the conservative movement, both in and apart from public office, but those women only succeed insofar as they are willing to undermine efforts to strengthen and support the role of women in our society, to undermine public policy in regards, to pay, health, privacy and self-determination.

In the twenty-four years since she became First Lady, through her eight years as Senator from New York, and her term as Secretary of State; those conservative talkers have relentlessly kept up their attacks on Hillary, and have succeeded in shaping the public perception of her in such a negative light, that the majority of the country sees her as “dishonest,” without being able to say exactly why (or exactly why she differs from any other politician for this quality). This is true even among those who support her candidacy for President of the United States.

I reject the efforts of conservative talkers to shape my view of this strong, intelligent, powerful, intellectual woman.

I support Hillary’s candidacy because I believe that she, and the team she will bring with her to the White House, have a better chance to advance the liberal and progressive vision for the future of our country than any other candidate. I believe she will protect the advances made by President Obama, and she will add to them. This belief is rooted in the notion that it requires more than talking points, more than speech making to enact the kinds of legislation that will be required to advance that vision. It requires a President that is not only willing to compromise, but able to do so in a manner that is adept.

On a more fundamental level I support her candidacy because I believe that it is time for a woman to hold the highest office in the land

Hillary is the right woman, at this time, to take on that burden.