(Written in March 2016, excerpted from my book, Make Common Sense Common Again. - John Sheirer)
The Massachusetts polls for our upcoming Massachusetts Democratic primary are a toss-up right now between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The chatter I’m hearing around my home state is a pretty even split between Bernie and Hillary, with the general pattern being age (young for Bernie, middle and older for Hillary—with many exceptions, of course). Like a microcosm of my state, I was undecided between Bernie and Hillary for quite some time. I’ve loved them both for decades before this campaign began and will use their first names throughout this essay because I live in the fantasy that I’m close with them, as do millions of Americans. I doubt that either one of my buddies running for president is wondering about my endorsement, but I’ll give it anyway.
First, though, I’m excited by all the young people who are energized for the 2016 election, in large part due to the excitement surrounding Bernie. But I’m also cautious. Any Bernie supporter over the age of 24 could have voted in the disastrous 2010 “Tea Party” election. And anyone over 20 could have voted in the equally terrible 2014 election. But young people are the least reliable voting block in the United States. A large percentage of young people didn’t vote in 2010 and 2014. Where were they? Were they sitting at home playing X-Box while Republicans swept the midterm elections, giving us a horribly dysfunctional Congress? And for all the energy surrounding this election, turnout among Democrats in the early primaries is down compared with 2008. Where are the young people? Will they turn out for the general election in November? I certainly hope so. Huge crowds at Bernie rallies are great, but we need huge crowds at the polls far more. In this country, you can’t have a revolution without people showing up to vote. Bernie and his supporters talk about a revolution, but in this country, revolutions don’t happen when revolutionary voting bocks stay home. You can’t even have a functional Congress or a reasonable president if people don’t show up to vote.
Most Bernie and Hillary supporters have been civil to me as I made up my mind. Unfortunately, a fair number of Bernie supporters who I’ve talked with believe that Hillary is a crook and a liar, mostly thanks to decades of right-wing attacks. I’m constantly amazed when my liberal friends post links to anti-Hillary articles from right-wing websites known for mind-numbing dishonesty. One supposedly liberal Bernie supporter told me that all Hillary had going for her was an extra X chromosome, ignoring her long list of accomplishments. I hope his wife gave him a stern dose of reality in exchange for his sexist comment.
Some Bernie supporters also think Hillary is a conservative, thanks to direct comparisons with Bernie, but that’s not even close to accurate. The nonpartisan “On the Issues” website rates both Hillary and Bernie as “hard-core liberal.” Another nonpartisan analysis done by “Voteview” rated Hillary the eleventh most liberal member of the Senate during her time in office. Bernie supporters are often shocked when I point out that Hillary voted in line with Bernie 93% of the time when they occupied the Senate together. That’s a solid A in any classroom. If there’s a conservative out there who has voted with Bernie 93% of the time, then please show me that unicorn. I’m old enough to remember campaigning for Bill Clinton in 1992, waving signs on the Coolidge Bridge in Northampton, Massachusetts, and having a passing car stop so that the red-faced driver could tell me that Bill and Hillary were “pinko commie freaks.” I just avoided his flying spittle and wished him a nice day. I doubt there’s more than a dozen Republicans in the whole country who believe that Hillary plays for their team.
Just being undecided caused some Bernie supporters to call me a closet Republican sell-out for not being 100% in favor of Bernie and 100% in favor of sending Hillary to prison. Some said I was a fake liberal and called me a “Teabillery huckster” for even considering voting for “Shillary-Shrillary-Hellery” Clinton. One person called me a “neocon” and a “neoliberal” on the same day in the same Facebook comment twenty-seven words apart. Here’s an online comment from someone has never met me and knows nothing about me, responding to my column endorsing Hillary as a good choice for president: “Those who support corporate capitalist candidates play the same role that apologists for segregation played in a generation past. I’m sure that John Sheirer is a decent, thoughtful person. But he stands on the wrong side of history.” Wow. It seems that future historians will lump me right there with the racists of yesteryear. But at least I’m “a decent, thoughtful person”—like all those segregationists were, I guess.
The commenter is right that I’m a decent and thoughtful person. As a decent and thoughtful person, I object to being compared with segregationists because I endorse Hillary for president. That’s an insult to her, to me, and, most importantly, to the millions of Americans who have been victimized by institutional racism over the years. I fully understand the suffering brought on by income inequality in this country. So does Hillary. She isn’t a “corporate capitalist” in the sense the commenter implied. That would be the collection of Republican candidates running for president and leading the obstruction in Congress and many state governments. In contrast, Hillary is proposing strict, progressive financial reforms. We may not agree with all of her proposals, or we may think that her proposals don’t go far enough, but we can’t deny that they exist. Hillary has never burned a cross in anyone’s yard or murdered human beings because of their race, as many segregationists did. I haven’t either. The commenter may think that Hillary and I are on the “wrong side of history,” but that comparison is on the wrong side of reality, civility, and basic common sense.
The Bernie supporters who have an irrational hatred for Hillary and even for people who entertain the possibility of supporting Hillary need to learn that every time they use the term “Shillary,” Donald Trump has a tiny organism in his micro-penis. Please stop doing the Republican hatchet-men’s jobs for them. I haven’t heard a similar level of vitriol from Hillary supporters, and Bernie himself doesn’t indulge in such blatant attacks. Insulting both me and a candidate I was considering really wasn’t a good way to campaign for Bernie. But I’ve put those attacks aside as best I could and focused on each candidate’s positions on the issues and their overall experience in public service.
By the way, for any of my Republican friends who might have read this far by accident, if you object to Hillary because you think she stood by and let those brave men die in Benghazi (she didn’t, according to nine investigations) or that she’s about to be indicted because of her e-mail use when she was Secretary of State (she’s been cleared of any wrongdoing) or that her work with the Clinton Foundation was all about corruptly enriching her own personal wealth (nope—it’s a real charity that has helped millions of people) … umm, sorry. Those false claims are bird droppings on the windshield of reality. Please scrub away Fox, Rush, Drudge, and the other monosyllabic propagandists who are blocking your view of the real world.
It’s easy for me to get behind both Bernie and Hillary because they both support positions on the issues that I agree with and care deeply about. Both support a minimum wage increase, voting rights, unions, campaign finance reform, Wall Street reform, LGBT rights, religious freedom, gun-safety regulation, equal pay, college affordability, education funding and reform, fair taxation, jobs programs, diplomacy over war, choice, criminal justice reform, universal health care, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, stem cell research, comprehensive immigration reform, veterans support, addressing climate change and protecting the environment, clean energy, and a host of other issues—many of which I detailed in a another chapter. The nonpartisan website “On the Issues” rates both Bernie and Hillary as “far-left liberals.” They are happy siblings in the liberal/progressive family by any reasonable definition.
I voted absentee on the Friday before the Massachusetts primary because I work most of the Tuesday election day in Connecticut. Ultimately, I decided to vote for Hillary because I’ve admired her very progressive work for 25 years, her overall positions are a bit more practical than Bernie’s, the depth and breadth of her public service experience is unmatched, her leadership style will be more effective in today’s political climate, and she has a better chance in the general election than Bernie does.
Some Democrats are concerned about Hillary’s electability, but those concerns are overblown. Currently, Bernie is pumping iron in general election polls, besting most of the Republican candidates by several points. But Hillary is right there in those polls only slightly less muscular than Bernie’s showing against the Republicans. And it’s barely morning for general election sunset polls right now when the campaigns are just forming their strategies. Republicans themselves would much rather run against Bernie than Hillary. That’s why Karl Rove’s super PAC has been running anti-Hillary ads during the primaries. If Rove is against Hillary, then how can she be a terrible candidate?
For the most part, Republicans have barely tossed any pebbles at Bernie yet, but they’ll catapult boulders on his head the second he approaches the nomination. Republicans are terrible at governing but fantastic at negative campaigning. Incorrect accusations that Obama was a socialist mobilized millions of right-wingers against the president. Does anyone believe that the Republican base will understand that Bernie’s Democratic Socialism is different from Hitler’s National Socialism? I don’t have that much faith in the folks who waved posters of Obama with a photoshopped Hitler mustache.
Bernie could crater 20 points in a month without the time to counter Republican attacks and climb his way out of those lost points. Hillary has weathered such storms for decades and is still the perennial “most admired” woman in the world, according to polls. “Hillary hate” runs hot but not deep. Republicans have over flogged their wheezing attacks against Hillary. They’ll certainly try to bring her down with new lies, but they’ll just sound like the same stale lies. Fresh attacks against Bernie, by contrast, will be shiny objects flickering across the public mind and the lazy media from convention to election day.
Bernie hasn’t always reacted very well to the relatively mild criticism he has gotten from Hillary during the primaries. That doesn’t bode well for how he would handle the Republican crap storm headed his way. In debates, Bernie would certainly outpoint Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee. But too many uninformed voters see Bernie and Trump filling the same populist role. With Hillary, the contrast is greater. And Hillary, with a tough streak developed from decades of having to deal with condescending men, is much better equipped to destroy Trump for both his issue ignorance and his obvious lack of presidential character. And she’ll bring actual “class” to her Trump takedown, while Trump will only be able to display the last three letters of that word.
Yes, I know that Hillary gave speeches to Wall Street groups. So what? The First Amendment talks about freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Is Hillary somehow not entitled to the same freedoms every other citizen is? Yes, she was paid for those speeches, and a significant portion of her earnings went to The Clinton Foundation, which is an actual charity that helps actual human beings and not the “slush fund” that her political opponents claim it is. In total, she donated slightly more than half of her speaking fees in 2014 and 2015 to various charities.
Is Hillary somehow not allowed to be paid for her work? How progressive is it for anyone to claim it’s wrong for a woman to be paid to give a speech when a man would certainly be paid? If a Wall Street group called me and offered to pay me a large sum of money to speak, I would certainly do so. And that wouldn’t make me less likely to work for strong regulations against corporate wrongdoing. Why do we expect that Hillary, a lifelong progressive, would change her views for a fee?
And why is Hillary the only candidate being subjected to demands that she release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street? Bernie was never asked to speak to Wall Street because they weren’t interested in his opinion, which is Wall Street’s loss because he has many good ideas that the folks on Wall Street should hear. So he has no transcripts to release. But is he being asked to release the transcripts of every speech he has ever given to every group? No. Why not? And what do people expect to find in Hillary’s Wall Street speeches? Do they really think she would say something along the lines of, “So, when I run for president and say that I want to regulate Wall Street, remember that I’m just lying to get votes”? Do people think she’s really that stupid or greedy or immoral? If so, then they’ve been bamboozled by Republican propaganda. By the way, in one Wall Street speech where video has been shown, Hillary spoke about the need to have women in positions of power and responsibility. What progressive would object to that?
Yes, Hillary’s campaign received some donations from Wall Street employees. First, that’s different getting money directly from Wall Street Banks or corporations, which she hasn’t. The vast majority of those donations come from individuals who work in those industries, not the corporate entities. A small percentage comes form PACs aligned with the industries. The claim that “Wall Street banks” give money to Hillary is misleading. Second, Bernie has also received millions from employees of Wall Street and other industries—just not as much as Hillary. And third, Hillary’s superior funding means she’ll have the resources needed to run against the Republican nominee, who will certainly have untold billions in dark money PAC funding from Wall Street and far worse. Plus she’ll have the funding to campaign for other Democrats in down-ballot races across the country. Many Democrats have taken money from Wall Street employees (including President Obama), and those same Democrats passed significant Wall Street reform. The worst elements of Wall Street that represent greed and corporate power will hate Hillary just as much as they hate Obama when she follows through with her proposed Wall Street reforms, which she will.
To hear Hillary’s detractors, she must be almost totally dependent on Wall Street for her campaign and super PAC funding. But Open Secrets, the website that tracks campaign finance information, reported in December that only 7.2% of Hillary’s overall funding (campaign and super PACs) comes from Wall Street sources. That’s a pretty meager proportion considering how her detractors focus so much on Hillary’s Wall Street funding. Just for comparison, the same Open Secrets analysis included the fact that Jeb Bush got a whopping 26% of his overall funding from Wall Street. Once again, the attempts to show that Hillary is “Republican lite” just don’t bear fruit.
About her speaking fees and campaign donations, Hillary herself has said, “You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received, and there is no evidence to the contrary.” Bernie’s campaign circulated a 2004 video that they claimed showed Senator Elizabeth Warren condemning Hillary for changing a vote on a bankruptcy bill because of Wall Street influence. In fact, Hillary originally supported the bill in 2001 because she pushed for and got protections for women and children dealing with divorce added to the bill. When those protections were eliminated in 2005, she didn’t support the bill. In short, she supported the bill when she was able to make it more progressive, and she withdrew her support when those progressive changes were withdrawn—not because she was bought off by campaign cash.
Kevin Drum recently published an examination of Hillary’s supposed Wall Street connection in his Mother Jones article, “Just how Cozy is Hillary Clinton with Wall Street?” The answer he comes to is “if there’s a strong case to be made for ‘coziness,’ I’ve failed to find it.” He looked at the bankruptcy bill and many other legislative initiatives and didn’t find any real evidence to show that Hillary is somehow a pawn of Wall Street. Hillary’s contention that she hasn’t favored Wall Street, despite her paid speeches or campaign contributions, is far closer to the truth than her detractors will ever admit.
Once the general election kicks in, Wall Street instantly will become a nonissue for Hillary’s campaign. Republicans have been bending to the will of Wall Street for generations, so they won’t be able to criticize Hillary on that subject. They’ve all voted for or cheered on lobbyists who wrote bills that favor big corporations. Ted Cruz’s wife and John Kasich himself even worked directly for Wall Street companies. As for Trump—he actually is Wall Street in all its excesses. Hillary will look like Erin Brockovich by comparison.
The Wall Street issue also points to something important related to getting important things done for the American people. Bernie’s leadership style is a bit too “all or nothing” for those of us with a practical-minded bent. Bernie’s idea of Medicare-for-all, for example, is a great final outcome, but there is simply no way that it could happen right now or in the foreseeable future. Hillary, on the other hand, is proposing imperfect but desirable ways to improve the Affordable Care Act, and those proposals have a far better chance of actually happening. The old saying, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” has never been more applicable.
As a writer, I see how incremental improvements can be an effective process that leads to a strong result. The early drafts of my writing fall into the category that writer Anne Lamott describes as, “shitty first drafts.” These drafts aren’t close to a final product, but they can build to a much stronger final version through the process of revision. And even the “shitty first draft” is far better than nothing. By analogy, building legislation through incremental revision actually works. The Affordable Care Act isn’t perfect, but it’s a great first draft of long-term health care reform. It’s helping millions of people now, and with some improvements, it can help even more people in the long run and eventually become something along the lines of Bernie’s Medicare-for-all vision.
When I’m writing, I only have to deal with myself and few very helpful editors at a later stage in the process. Making legislation in the United States today involves dealing not only with friendly colleagues (other Democrats) who may have different ideas, but battling opponents with radically different views (so-called “mainstream” Republicans), and even worse, enemies who are fully investing in making government fail no matter what the issue (extremist Republicans who have taken over the actual “mainstream” of their party). As much as we wish it weren’t true, those Republicans were elected by the American people (thanks in part to Gerrymandering, of course). But they were legally elected. We have to work with them, and they aren’t going to support anything close to Bernie’s all-or-nothing proposals.
Incremental reform is difficult but possible in this system. Revolution is impossible. Bernie wants a revolution against the 1%. Hillary wants substantial incremental reform for the 99%. I love the idea of revolution—who doesn’t? But it’s just not possible right now. Sustained reform over long periods is far better than failed revolution for a presidency benefitting the most Americans possible.
A friend of mine who supports Bernie keeps telling me that Hillary calls herself “a proud Goldwater Girl.” He seems to think that this disqualifies Hillary from being a “true liberal.” Yes, she said this once, twenty years ago, about her first political activity forty years ago when she was in high school. Her parents were Republicans, and that helped shape her early beliefs. I also campaigned for a Republican in high school, an obscure member of Congress named Bud Shuster. I did it to get a day off from school, a free meal, and the company of some of my cute female classmates. Hillary did it out of a budding sense of civic engagement that would soon become her life’s work.
If Hillary’s brief Republican youth keeps her from being a true liberal today, then does mine as well? How about Arianna Huffington, the liberal icon who runs Huffington Post? She was a Republican until she was in her 40s. That hardly means that Huffington Post is secretly conservative. Elizabeth Warren, perhaps the only politician who rivals Bernie’s progressive credentials among those who administer ideological purity tests on the left, was a Republican until her 40s as well. Why do Huffington and Warren get a pass on being Republicans until well into their adulthood, but Hillary gets condemned for something she did in high school? The words “double standard” aren’t strong enough for that level of hypocrisy.
We liberals scratch our collective heads when Republicans perform their right-wing purity tests. The idea that John McCain and Mitt Romney lost their presidential elections because they weren’t “true conservatives” makes us double over with laughter. And when the dubiously named Congressional “Freedom Caucus” recently drummed John Boehner out of Washington for the sin of occasionally trying to do his job in concert with a Democratic president, we felt equal parts disgust at their extremism and hilarity at their circular firing squad. Yet here we are, liberals conducting liberal purity tests and claiming that Hillary fails. I wonder if the Republicans, all of whom view Hillary as an irredeemable far-far-far-far-left liberal, are laughing at us.
Hillary became a Democrat in college, just as I did. I’ve been a Democrat for decades because I believe in people coming together to support shared values, beliefs, and policies. I still believe in the two-party system—even if the Republican Party has lost its collective mind. Hillary has been solidly connected with progressive Democratic ideals through her entire adult life. I’m a Democrat for the same reason I’m a union member—because together, we are stronger. I’ve never worked around my union to negotiate my own contract. Hillary has worked within the Democratic Party to create sustainable progress in our nation, and she has tirelessly helped other Democrats raise money and become more skilled candidates for office. In 2015 alone, Hillary raised $18 million for other Democrats running for various offices. Bernie? Nothing. He hasn’t even committed to raise money for other Democrats if he is the 2016 nominee, and that’s one main role of a party’s leader. Hillary has been strong and independent-minded while still supporting and connecting with other strong and independent-minded people in the Democratic Party.
Bernie, on the other hand, only became a Democrat for this election. It’s stylish these days to be “anti-establishment” and to claim that party affiliation means nothing. Like many stylish viewpoints, this one lacks substance. Hillary has embraced her party because it reflects her values, and Bernie has avoided party affiliation for the same reason. And he has often criticized the Democratic Party, even equating it with the Republican Party on occasion—once calling the two major parties, “Tweedledum and Tweedledee” and another time saying both parties “are the party of the ruling class.” He’s even suing the Democratic National Committee over the data breech that his own campaign perpetrated. No one seems to understand what that’s all about.
Bernie has caucused with Democrats while in Congress, of course, but he never embraced the party. He has admitted that he’s running as a Democrat for the “media attention” that he couldn’t get as an independent, and he has already filed to run for Senate reelection in 2018 as an independent. His current identification as a Democrat is temporary—perhaps even opportunistic. If independence from party is so important, then why didn’t Bernie run as an independent from the start? Overall, creating positive change from within the system is less glamorous but can have a deeper effect than booing from the balcony.
On the issues, no candidate wears saint robes, of course, and Bernie (despite his monk-like appearance) is no exception. He voted to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits and against the Brady Bill, actions he has yet to adequately explain. He voted for the 1994 Crime Bill that he criticizes as a regular part of his campaign. He helped block comprehensive immigration reform, and Republicans continue to use that issue to enflame our nation’s worst ethnocentric impulses. He supports the F-35 bomber, a wasteful, trillion-dollar military/corporate pork project based in Vermont. He worked to locate a toxic waste dump for Vermont’s nuclear plant in a poor Latino area of Texas. He has said that he will raise taxes on the middle-class, not just the wealthy and corporations. He said that President Obama should have had primary challenge in 2012. He claimed that Hillary only supports President Obama to court the African-American vote. In a recent debate, he seemed to equate poverty with being African-American. He reduces nearly every issue to “noun-verb-Wall Street,” and his foreign policy recommendations lack specifics. His frequent “artful smears” of Hillary’s integrity don’t match his vow to run a positive campaign.
And, frankly, he can be a grump, which may work wonders at campaign rallies, but isn’t the most practical or optimistic approach to governing. Just ask some people Bernie has worked with. Mickey Hirten, the former editor of the Burlington Free Press when Bernie served as Burlington, Vermont, mayor. Hirten recently wrote this about Bernie’s less-than-cordial personality: “Bernie was always full of himself: pious, self-righteous and utterly humorless.” Hirten said Bernie showed a “stick-it-to-them approach to politics,” which doesn’t bode well for the diplomacy required of a president. Chris Graf, another Vermont journalist who interacted with Bernie, said, “Bernie has no social skills, no sense of humor, and he’s quick to boil over.” As Hirten points out, such a rigid approach won’t accomplish much in today’s political environment. Liberal lion Barney Frank echoed that viewpoint when he said, “Bernie alienates his natural allies. He is completely ineffective as a lobbyist because he offends just about everyone.” Bernie’s grumpy complaints when Planned Parenthood and Human Rights Watch endorsed Hillary showed his tendency for alienation to a national audience.
Worst of all, after running a campaign based on not being an “establishment” candidate, Bernie started talking like what his supporters would call a “corrupt politician.” A few days after he lost all five primaries on March 15, he and his campaign officials revealed their strategy of manipulating the superdelagates that his supporter had railed against for months. Bernie himself said that he would try to flip Hillary’s superdelagates to his side even if he came to the convention behind in the popular vote. And Bernie’s Senior Strategist, Tad Devine, even suggested that the Bernie campaign would try to get pledged delegates (the ones awarded based on votes in the primaries) to switch from Hillary to Bernie. In other words, Bernie and his campaign openly said that he would manipulate the political process in order to steal the nomination from Hillary even if she got more primary votes than he did. That was a shock.
Bernie also recently said that he would ask President Obama to withdraw his Supreme Court nominee if Bernie is elected president. Again, it’s jarring when a “man of the people” behaves in a way that defies the will of the people. President Obama had nearly a year left in his term when the Supreme Court seat became open. The people elected President Obama to fill court vacancies during his term, among other Constitutional duties. Bernie isn’t acting much differently from Republicans when he takes the position that President Obama doesn’t have every right to nominate his candidate and have that person considered by the Senate. Hillary, on the other hand, said that she wouldn’t ask President Obama to with draw his nominee. On this issue, Hillary is certainly showing more respect for the will of the people than Bernie is.
I still respect Bernie and will still support him if he wins the nomination. But we need to dispense with the myth that he has passed some kind of purity test while all other candidates are tainted. I won’t belabor these points or flood Facebook with memes denouncing Bernie’s entire campaign based on a few cherry-picked complaints as I’ve seen some Hillary-haters do to her. When we hold both candidates to the same standard of scrutiny, both come out very well overall. Hillary deserves that same level of respect as Bernie does.
In terms of respect, the vast majority of people who have worked with both Hillary and Bernie in the Senate have endorsed Hillary, which carries significant authority. In fact, just about everyone who has worked with Hillary praises her passion for serving the American people and making this country and the world a better place. She has been endorsed by hundreds of current and former elected and appointed Democrats, along with dozens of major labor unions and progressive organizations. These people and groups don’t endorse “fake liberals” or “Republican lite” candidates.
On the other hand, the vast majority of the people who criticize Hillary as a liar, shill, criminal, opportunist, Wall Street toady, racist, fake anything—and whatever other random attack—are people who haven’t actually worked with her. I’ll take the word of the folks who have stood shoulder to shoulder with Hillary rather than the ones who just repeat right-wing propaganda, fourth-hand media attacks, and gossip.
Bernie has helped to push Hillary to the left, which is great, but she was at least 93% there already. Anyone who doesn’t think Hillary is a progressive should watch her first major speech of the campaign again. That June 2015 speech is a blueprint for progressive American government. If Bernie gets the nomination, I’ll support him with all my heart, but I support Hillary with my heart and my brain as well for her views, plans, connections, and experience. And, frankly, a fraction of my support comes from the fact that she’s a woman. President Obama’s election spurred a flare of racist attitudes and ugliness in some corners of our country, but, in the long run, his race will have a positive effect on American history. Just as African-American children can be inspired by an effective African-American president for generations to come, so too will young girls have an inspiring role model when they look to the White House.
Yes, a woman president will bring the undercurrent of sexism into the light, but that light will expose the ugliness of sexism. In the long run, a woman president will do far more to combat sexism than to foster it. Of course, I’m not saying that we should elect anyone just because of race or gender. Republican women and African-Americans are just as destructive as the rest of their party. But the election of a woman such as Hillary, who will be as excellent a president as Obama has been, is another step toward fulfilling the long-term equality promise of our nation.
When it comes to Bernie versus Hillary, there are no bad choices. Bernie is a strong left hand, and Hillary is an even stronger one. The only bad choice is not voting, be it the primary or, especially, the general election. And, as always, the worst choice of all is voting for a Republican come November.