The only real question for me is why your friends got mad at you. If you explained it, maybe people would understand why you now have regrets. Looking at your original article, I don’t see much of a reason why you would want to take it all back.

I especially liked your link to the article analyzing Hillary’s Wall Street reform program. That impressed me and gave me hope that she will have a positive effect in this area if she becomes president.

I think you started to lose a little objectivity when you began your attack on Sanders. So often, when we have a predetermined objective — and you have stated many times how having a woman president is a really big deal for you — our research is not as nuanced and objective as we would like to think.

Making the argument in the Flint debate that her vote on the Wall Street-Auto bail out was practical and necessary given the dire circumstance and lack of time showed her vision and ability to make a tough choice; trying to falsely claim that Bernie was against the auto bailout only made Hillary look dishonest and desperate to get a leg up on Sanders. I’m convinced that whole auto industry bailout argument ended up losing her votes in Michigan because people knew Bernie was on their side just as much as Hillary.

I love Bernie, because he was right about so many big issues — Civil Rights, NAFTA, IRAQ, Wall Street — from the beginning. But Hillary is on the right side of history on everything but Iraq, and she may be better able to withstand the hail of dirty tricks and false attacks that will be launched by the GOP. As you stated, she has progressive bona fides, so I have every confidence she will do a great job.

One thing that rings hollow for me is the constantly repeated declaration that Hillary is the most qualified presidential candidate since Washington. This is an unprovable claim made by her supporters, while Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s trusted Secretary of Labor said that Sanders is better qualified. This article posits that Buchanan had a better résume. Who gives a sh*t?

The one issue I feel you really missed was about authenticity. Sanders is the one who got arrested for protesting college housing segregation and was part of the million man march. That resonates with minority voters and his improved results in Michigan are proof that authenticity means something. To mention him in the same breath as Herr Drumpf and say he’s just a politician is just as arrogant, dismissive and insulting as any troll who gives you sh*t about your feminist stances.

No one running for high office ever embodies all the attributes we project on them. Anyone who thought Obama was a transcendent progressive was living in a dream world. He’s a centrist who only appears progressive in relation to the extreme right wing tilt of the GOP over the last twenty years. Remember, in 2008, Clinton had an almost identical platform to Obama, except that he wasn’t in the Senate and forced to vote on the war in Iraq.

She has made huge improvements in her platform on handling Wall Street, promised to end deportations of productive people who came here illegally, and will continue to fight for women’s equality, reproductive health and right to choose. If she could ease off on the chicken hawk foreign policy, there would be almost no difference between the candidates.

In any case, with a gerrymandered House of Representatives, neither candidate will get much done as president on the domestic front. As for the “let’s make history with a woman president” I wish it were Elizabeth Warren, but I’ll be happy if it’s Hillary.

Written by

Ad agency creative director, writer & designer at https://guttmanshapiro.com. Former pro tennis player and peak performance coach for professional athletes.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store