I have been a fervent supporter of Bernie Sanders since he came into the presidential race with these big words about political revolution. I wanted to see him change this country for the better, what’s more, I needed it. I had never felt as invested in the political process as I did this time, to the point that it made me mad that people couldn’t admit the shortcomings of other candidates.
Bernie lost, though. And yeah, it’s proven the DNC was sabotaging him, and yeah, he had hurdles other candidates didn’t have, but even without that he would have lost. It’s just a reality, one that I’ve had to deal with more and more as I digest the idea of supporting Hillary Clinton.
There was a time when that was an easy thing. In 2008, Hillary had my vote in the primary. Hillary meant more Bill, and I remembered the ‘90s (I was a kid, but I wasn’t a dumb kid, I know there was a significant economic difference between then and now) and to me, Bill Clinton was never just Bill, it was always both of them. I liked that camaraderie between them, Bill’s wandering penis notwithstanding (and if we’re gonna talk shit about his affairs, at least be fair to history and acknowledge that Clinton is FAR from the only president who couldn’t keep it in his pants). It was the concept of more of that that attracted me to Hillary the first time around.
Since 2008, information has become a lot easier to come by. Things like WikiLeaks have happened, Edward Snowden happened. As our access to information has grown, so has our learning of truths, and the truth is that our government is a little broken.
Here’s a harder truth, though, especially for folks like me that supported Bernie. We are, and we’ve always been, a two-party country. This notion that even I seemed to have and that people begging you to vote for Johnson or Stein seem to have is that a third-party candidate or a political revolutionary is going to get in the oval office, snap their fingers and just POOF! Everything would change in one grand, sweeping gesture. Folks telling me, “I’m gonna regret my vote when [Hillary] sends us into another war!”
So here’s the thing. I’m pretty confident that people pushing this particular thing aren’t actually aware of how our political process works. The president doesn’t have the power to declare, or send us, to war. That’s a congressional thing. Yes, many presidents have sent in troops without a congressional declaration of war, but generally the presidents that have done that (Bush) had a Congress and a House that were willing to work with them. Obama’s presidency has been filled with him having to fight against both to accomplish anything at all. How exactly is it going to work with someone from outside the actual political landscape?
We’re not a democracy, and we’ve never been a democracy. We’re a democratic republic, for sure, but democracy is as flawed a system of government as any of them. We’ve also never actually had more than two parties, not realistically. Back when Hamilton fractured George Washington’s cabinet into Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, and ever since, through the Whigs and the changing to just Republicans to the modern political sphere we know of Democrats and Republicans, America has been invested in two sides of a coin for the majority of its existence.
Third party candidates are not a reasonable alternative to what we’ve been given. Gary Johnson is just the opposite of everything Sanders was. And Jill Stein believes vaccines cause autism. Frankly, I like my presidents with a modicum of sanity (read: not a libertarian) and intelligence (read: believes in science and scientific evidence).
If nothing else, Bill Clinton playing with those balloons at the DNC made me remember the halcyon days of ‘90s SNL and Phil Hartman or Darrell Hammond playing Bill, which then led to memories of Amy Poehler’s fantastic ‘08 Hillary and Kate McKinnon’s current one. Basically, the thought of SNL being a good show again because of Hillary is something I want.
Preventing Trump’s America
Dane La Born
I have been a fervent supporter of Bernie Sanders since he came into the presidential race with these big words about political revolution. I wanted to see him change this country for the better, what’s more, I needed it. I had never felt as invested in the political process as I did this time, to the point that it made me mad that people couldn’t admit the shortcomings of other candidates.
Bernie lost, though. And yeah, it’s proven the DNC was sabotaging him, and yeah, he had hurdles other candidates didn’t have, but even without that he would have lost. It’s just a reality, one that I’ve had to deal with more and more as I digest the idea of supporting Hillary Clinton.
There was a time when that was an easy thing. In 2008, Hillary had my vote in the primary. Hillary meant more Bill, and I remembered the ‘90s (I was a kid, but I wasn’t a dumb kid, I know there was a significant economic difference between then and now) and to me, Bill Clinton was never just Bill, it was always both of them. I liked that camaraderie between them, Bill’s wandering penis notwithstanding (and if we’re gonna talk shit about his affairs, at least be fair to history and acknowledge that Clinton is FAR from the only president who couldn’t keep it in his pants). It was the concept of more of that that attracted me to Hillary the first time around.
Since 2008, information has become a lot easier to come by. Things like WikiLeaks have happened, Edward Snowden happened. As our access to information has grown, so has our learning of truths, and the truth is that our government is a little broken.
Here’s a harder truth, though, especially for folks like me that supported Bernie. We are, and we’ve always been, a two-party country. This notion that even I seemed to have and that people begging you to vote for Johnson or Stein seem to have is that a third-party candidate or a political revolutionary is going to get in the oval office, snap their fingers and just POOF! Everything would change in one grand, sweeping gesture. Folks telling me, “I’m gonna regret my vote when [Hillary] sends us into another war!”
So here’s the thing. I’m pretty confident that people pushing this particular thing aren’t actually aware of how our political process works. The president doesn’t have the power to declare, or send us, to war. That’s a congressional thing. Yes, many presidents have sent in troops without a congressional declaration of war, but generally the presidents that have done that (Bush) had a Congress and a House that were willing to work with them. Obama’s presidency has been filled with him having to fight against both to accomplish anything at all. How exactly is it going to work with someone from outside the actual political landscape?
We’re not a democracy, and we’ve never been a democracy. We’re a democratic republic, for sure, but democracy is as flawed a system of government as any of them. We’ve also never actually had more than two parties, not realistically. Back when Hamilton fractured George Washington’s cabinet into Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, and ever since, through the Whigs and the changing to just Republicans to the modern political sphere we know of Democrats and Republicans, America has been invested in two sides of a coin for the majority of its existence.
Third party candidates are not a reasonable alternative to what we’ve been given. Gary Johnson is just the opposite of everything Sanders was. And Jill Stein believes vaccines cause autism. Frankly, I like my presidents with a modicum of sanity (read: not a libertarian) and intelligence (read: believes in science and scientific evidence).
If nothing else, Bill Clinton playing with those balloons at the DNC made me remember the halcyon days of ‘90s SNL and Phil Hartman or Darrell Hammond playing Bill, which then led to memories of Amy Poehler’s fantastic ‘08 Hillary and Kate McKinnon’s current one. Basically, the thought of SNL being a good show again because of Hillary is something I want.
Make Saturday Night Live Great Again, America.