Hey, Liberals, we’ll need to get together soon



I get that we’re all still processing what happened, and some deplorable Trump supporters need to be thrown in jail right now, but I am wondering when we liberals will stop blaming one another and realize that, all in, we’re like 3% apart.



So were the polls, apparently.

Take the time you all need to process, to grieve, and to muster the strength you know you have.

We have a lot of work to do, and the sooner we get to it, the better.


When did Busters become Breitbart believers?

Dick MorrisA friend recently asked if I’ve watched or read Clinton Cash, Crisis of Character, or Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary

The answer is simple. I don’t pay attention to right-wing propaganda. What mystifies me is why such an intelligent, well-informed, and well-reasoned individual would.

Here’s the more detailed response. Feel free to copy and paste it as your response to your Buster friends who are asking you these same questions.

“In the meantime, did you see or read Clinton Cash yet?”

No, and I’m not planning to watch it. It’s right-wing propaganda just like Citizens United’s “Hillary: The Movie” was.

Why would I give a shit what another hit piece has to say, especially knowing it comes from the likes of Peter Franz Schweizer, a “right wing political consultant,” “president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and a former William J. Casey Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is also Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large.”

“How about Crisis of Character?”

No. Similar reason as above, and to wit:

“The book was denounced by the non-partisan Association of Former Agents of the United States Secret Service for making “security harder by eroding the trust between agents and the people they protect.”[2] Members of that Association also said that Byrne’s job and role at that time would not have given him the level of access that many of the book’s tales would be dependent upon.[2] Media Matters wrote that in places Byrnes’ account in the book stood in contradiction to his sworn testimony before the Independent Counsel during the Lewinsky scandal in 1998.[4]”

” Or former advisory to Clinton Dick Morris’ book, Armageddon.”

You mean the Dick Morris described below? No. Same reason. It’s right-wing bullshit that I can’t believe you’re buying into.
“Morris said that he would leave the United States if Hillary Clinton were elected president in 2008.[11]
“Morris was the strategist for Republican Christy Mihos’s campaign in the 2010 Massachusetts gubernatorial race[12] and supported Mitt Romney in 2012, predicting that he would achieve a landslide victory. Blogger Andrew Sullivan has named an annual award after Morris, given for “stunningly wrong political, social and cultural predictions.”[13] He has appeared in the past on the Fox News for political commentary, especially appearing on The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity.[14][15] After the 2012 election, Morris did not appear on Fox News for three months, and the network ultimately opted not to renew his contract.[16]”


It’s worse than I thought…..

“Now he is the chief political commentator and correspondent for The National Enquirer.”


“How much smoke do you have to be surrounded by before you conclude there’s a fire?”

(To be clear, that’s my friend’s question to me. He knows that I was once a very vocal and active Sanders supporter who, like Bernie, now supports Hillary.)

I think you’re seeing fog, not smoke from a fire. What you call smoke, I call the intentional fog of propaganda and brainwashing. Repeat something enough times and people begin to believe it’s true. It’s how it works.
So, the answer to your question might be, “When it’s really smoke from a fire that some right-winger didn’t light.”

Here’s my only question to you (and to all the Busters who refuse to support Hillary):

When did you start becoming a fan and amplifier of this sort of propaganda?

And, please, don’t come back at me with some personal attack, ok?

I answered your questions as you asked. Now I’m asking you. Why do you trust these sources? Is it because they support the narrative you have about Clinton?

40 years in public life and nothing has stuck. After 40 years of trying, if there was even one ounce of ‘there’ there, wouldn’t something – anything – have stuck to her by now?

No, I am not saying she’s an innocent. Not by a long shot. Sadly, one doesn’t get to where she and Bill are and have been in American politics by being pure. What I am saying is that the entire weight of conservatism has been piled against her, and still no jumpsuit.

What bothers me most is watching some of my friends echoing right-wing propaganda.



To all of my fellow Sanders supporters, this ain’t the last election ever.

Cheer up, and start showing up for every election, from school board and town mayor to the president, and never vote for a Republican or their crazy cousins, the Libertarians.

Sad Sanders supporters


The lesson to be learned from this election is explained by Samantha Bee. This is probably the “most important” 7 minutes ever. (Watch the video. You’ll understand.)


If that lesson doesn’t sink in, watch part 2 here.


Like I’ve always said, if you don’t vote, you don’t get to bitch.

Ignore the Busters

Which brings me to how I plan to vote in November. I’m for Hillary now because Bernie has lost.

Making that decision known in certain online circles is akin to confessing to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby or being the second shooter on the grassy knoll.

It has resulted in former friends and fellow page admins resorting to calling me, “…a small man, cowering in the corner….”


BeTheWave name calling redacted

….as well as falsely accusing me of saying Sanders supporters are “losing their shit” – something I’ve never said – and being in support of a candidate that condones beating women to put them in their place, a statement that is patently false about Clinton and me.

BeTheWave slander redacted

(By the way, the video above never shows the Clinton supporter actually hitting the Sanders supporter with his cane, but if the left-wing Bill O’Reilly, Cenk Uygur, says it happened then it must be true. )

Where’s the Surprise Coming From?

Everyone gets to make their own decisions about what we think is right and best for America and ourselves, right? Isn’t that what the whole one-person-one-vote-kill-the-parties-and-superdelegates-and-electoral-college outrage is all about?

Well, in my view, that decision now leads me to support Hillary since Bernie is out. For that, I’m falsely accused of all sorts of irrational things.

Which brings me to this.

In my view, for the Busters to keep complaining about the nominating process and outcome isn’t helpful to them, to Bernie, or this country.

Look, I get it, and believe me, I’m not telling anyone what they can and can’t say. Remember me? I’m the guy the tyrants over at the current incarnation of the Coffee Party kicked out and wouldn’t allow to join again because I wouldn’t stay quiet about how they censor speech on their main Facebook page.

Stay angry and keeping fighting just as Lee Camp says. Just realize that it’s starting to sound more and more like sour grapes and childish whining, especially when some of you Sanders supporters call those of us who now support Clinton small and cowards and fans of violence just because we don’t agree with you.


It comes down to this simple truth. Bernie was not a Democrat until it became convenient for him to do so.

I can only shake my head in bewilderment over the outrage some of my fellow Sanders supporters still express over the idea that the DNC, the majority of rank-and-file Democrats, and the party apparatchiks all like Hillary better because……


Who the eff did you think Democrats would prefer? You know, actual, card-carrying, been-here-all-along-where-the-eff-have-all-you-Busters-come-from-and-why-the-eff-should-we-turn-shit-over-to-you types of Democrats who make up the majority, yes majority, of…….wait for it…..the Democratic Party.

It’s their Party, not ours.

Seriously, whom did you think they’d prefer, one of their own or a usurper who would caucus with them but wouldn’t join them until it served his purposes?

Unwelcome Guests, Hero Worship, and Religion

Sanders supporters being mad at all things Democratic Party is like someone crashing your house party and then getting pissed off at you because you don’t let them move in and just take over.

So, yeah, I’m one of those Democrats of Convenience, too, just like Bernie. I registered after 36 years as Non-Partisan to Democratic so that I could vote for Sanders in the closed Pennsylvania primary. Their club, their rules.

Come November, like Bernie, I will vote for Hillary just like Bernie says he will because it appears to be the only logical and pragmatic thing left to do. It sucks, but that’s life sometimes. As Mick has sung for decades, you can’t always get what you want.

Super BernieSaint Bernard is not a superhero, he’s a politician with whom I happen to agree.

I don’t worship him as many of his more fervent followers appear to do. He’s not Superman or the Second Coming. All of this hero worshiping has gone from being admirable to fanciful to farcical.

It almost seems as if the Bernie or Busters behave in ways akin to religious zealots. They seem intent on turning “the revolution” into a religion with Bernie playing the role of their political L. Ron Hubbard.

That kind of thinking, in my view, is not a good thing.

So, barring some unforeseen set of circumstance, I’ll be voting for Hillary. As of today and according to RealClearPolitics, she beats Trump. With 4 months left to go, I can only see Trump doing more and more damage to himself, not less.

Yes, I’ll be promoting the idea that others join me in supporting Clinton, not because she’s my first choice, but because she’s the best choice left given how our politics operates.

If that makes me small or a coward in the eyes of some, all I can ask is WWBD?


Lesson learned, DNC?


Taibbi writes what I’ve been saying for decades.

“The maddening thing about the Democrats is that they refuse to see how easy they could have it. If the party threw its weight behind a truly populist platform, if it stood behind unions and prosecuted Wall Street criminals and stopped taking giant gobs of cash from every crooked transnational bank and job-exporting manufacturer in the world, they would win every election season in a landslide.”

It explains why I remained registered as Non-Partisan for 36 years until Sanders came along.

Yes, like Sanders, I caucus with Democrats, but they, without a doubt, are their own worst enemies. That said, they are nowhere near the enemy to this country that the Republican party has become.

I will join Bernie and work with him and Hillary to defeat Trump in November. Barring some actual, full-blown, Old Testament sort of miracle, the way to do that will be to vote for Hillary. There is no other rational or realistic choice.

Don’t believe me. Just ask Robert Reich and Noam Chomsky if, as a fellow liberal, you need more reassurances that voting for Hillary is the right thing to do if for no other reason than it’s the only vote against Trump that will counter votes for him.

Staying home certainly will not. Voting for Jill will not. Writing in Bernie will not. Those decisions only help Trump.

Your vote can make a statement, or it can make a difference. Choose very, very wisely.

Suggesting #Hillary drop out if #Bernie wins CA is preposterous

Don’t you just love this sort of click-bait, faux journalism?

HRC step down

Ok, it’s actually a blog post, so I guess it can side-step the literal definition of the word journalism. That, and it’s HuffPo, so liberal doses of skepticism-salt are ok and maybe even recommended.

This isn’t a personal attack on Mr. Leopold. I actually find myself in agreement with many of the points he makes. He just fails utterly to make any kind of case for his headline.

No, She Shouldn’t and She Won’t

I find Mr. Leopold’s framing and his argument for why Hillary should drop out to be both extremely weak and fatally flawed, beginning with his opening two sentences:

“The Democratic Party must nominate the candidate with the best chance of defeating Trump. If Bernie wins California, Hillary is not the best candidate.”

The opening sentence itself is actually a logical fallacy. It’s what’s known as a loaded question, in this case in the form of a statement of fact.

No, the Democrats don’t have to nominate the candidate with the best chance of defeating Trump, they only have to nominate a candidate who can defeat Trump.

If we’re to believe polls, Hillary or Bernie can beat Trump, although as this is being written on May 22, 2016, RealClearPolitics’ poll averages show Trump and Hillary in a virtual tie with Trump having a 0.2 point lead. That’s not, in my book, a case for Hillary quitting even if she doesn’t win California.

Avoiding Some History

The other thing I noticed is what I think is relevant history that Mr. Leopold doesn’t mention in his cursory review of history.

He doesn’t talk about where Hillary was relative to Obama in 08 and where Sanders is relative to her now.

Delegate comparison

She beat Barack in CA in 2008, but it’s not about that state. That was 8 years ago, and the CA primary was in February that year. State schedule changes make calendar comparisons almost impossible.

Instead, I think the two races have a lot to tell us about where they were coming down the home stretch.

Hillary, like Sanders, stayed in to the end in 2008. The thing to note is that she was much closer to Obama than Sanders is to her now and at a similar point in the entire process. I just wonder if anyone was suggesting that Obama drop out after Hillary, “….won convincingly in primaries in West Virginia on May 13, and Kentucky on May 20.

What makes Mr. Leopold’s suggestion even more curious to me is that as of today Hillary is projected as the winner in CA. He seems to be suggesting a course of action based on an outcome with only a 7% chance of even being a win for Bernie, let alone the kind of nearly impossible landslide Sanders would need for it to even matter as the basis for the case for Hillary to step down.

Could California go to Bernie? Sure, nothing is impossible. But even if that were to happen, and even if you combined that with all the other valid points Mr. Leopold makes, the very idea that the front-runner would drop out over a primary state loss even as big as California is laughable.

The Numbers

Lest we’ve forgotten, Democratic primaries are not winner-take-all. Hillary will get a proportion of delegates from California even in the event that Bernie were to win and even if Bernie were to win in a big and unprecedented landslide.

As of today, May 22, 2016, the counts are:

Dem delegate count 05-22

According to FiveThirtyEight.com, Hillary is at 108% of being on the track to victory while Bernie is at 92% of what he needs to secure the nomination.

538 delegate track

And, as Philip Bump points out in his May 18th Washington Post piece:

As it stands, using delegate counts from Daniel Nichanian and estimates for Tuesday’s contests from the Green Papers, Sanders needs to win 67 percent of the remaining pledged delegates in order to pass Clinton by the time voting ends. The vast majority of those delegates — about three-quarters of them — come from California and New Jersey, states where Clinton currently leads. Sanders needs big wins in both of those states or a giant win in California, which would require a stunning shift in the relatively static pattern we’ve seen so far in Democratic voting.

Sanders Magic Number

Could it happen? Sure, it’s possible; not plausible, but possible.

Would Hillary step down even if it did? No, and it’s nonsensical to even suggest such a thing.

When Did Votes Not Matter?

“Oh, I hear the groans aplenty. Hillary won the most votes. Hillary has the most delegates.”

Is it me, or is Mr. Leopold waving aside the fact that this is how elections work?

Don’t hate me (don’t hate anyone), but why is it so hard to understand and accept that, conspiracy theories notwithstanding, Democrats voted in greater numbers for Hillary?

Since Mr. Leopold brings this up, let me offer a little friendly advice and a condolence to my fellow Sanders supporters and Independents; if you got to vote in a primary without having to register with a Party, consider yourselves lucky that some states let you participate in a Party’s process at all.

It’s their club, and I think you should be grateful you got to influence the outcome if for no other reason than you’re not actually one of them. Yes, I know, neither is Sanders. He just conveniently chose to become one because he’s smart enough to know that it was the only way to reach American voters. With nothing but respect and admiration for the Green Party, the only way to even influence American voters is by being a politician in one of the two major parties.

I had to change my affiliation from Non-Partisan to Democrat so I could play the game in PA to vote for Bernie in the primary. You know what? I’m ok with that. It’s their club.

So, if you didn’t have to register with a Party, you got to vote for Bernie in your state’s primary, *AND* you’re still complaining, I don’t get it.

I Could Go On, But…

There are a few other things I could get into more detail on in Mr. Leopold’s blog, but I’ll start wrapping up with this:

  • Mr. Leopold’s approach to cherry-pick data while claiming not to be cherry-picking data even as he claims 3 polls constitute a worrisome pattern for Hillary’s supporters is, I think, cherry-picking. Hillary and her supporters have more to worry about than what voters in a state she’ll never win like Arizona think about her now.
  • He seems to be arguing that Hillary is more vulnerable than Bernie to “unprincipled assaults” as if “unprincipled assaults” are something other than unprincipled. I suppose the implication is that “unprincipled assaults” will miraculously stick to HRC but bounce off of Bernie. I’m not sure what point he’s trying to make, but Hillary and her supporters have plenty of principled assaults they can expect from Trump and the GOP to worry about if and only if Trump and the GOP machine are able to resist the temptations to indulge in the salaciously unprincipled ones. I’m betting they can’t, and they won’t.

Click-bait vs The Kagan Clan

It’s not only ludicrous to suggest that Hillary step down if Bernie wins California, it’s an insult to the intellect of anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention to this campaign and to American politics at all and at any point in time.

If Mr. Leopold and the “journalists” at Huffington Post were going for a headline likely to generate clicks, well, mission accomplished. I guess that’s one measure of success.

Now, if anyone is interested in reasons why Hillary ought to drop out – or at least to get a view of what may come from her presidency – then I suggest this post, “The Dreadful Kagan Clan——Hillary’s Warmongers In Waiting,” from David Stockman.

BTW, she’s not dropping out no matter what.


Additional reading / sources:
Who’s On Track for the Nomination; FiveThirtyEight.com

CA primary forecast; FiveThirtyEight.com

Clinton Success Changes Dynamic In Delegate Hunt; New York Times, March 6, 2008
(for historical context)

Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008

Sanders Vs. Clinton Vs. Obama Vs. Clinton: The 2016 primary in context