Sunday, September 11, 2016

Hillary Clinton Promoting Love, Kindness, Truth. The Media? Not So Much

Remember the GOP ads against the ACA? They couldn't find real disaster stories so they used actors and fiction. The lie was quickly unveiled. Then they used a real woman, but she lied, which was easily proven. It's par for the course for GOP ads. But not for the Hillary Clinton campaign. They don't have to use actors and screenwriters to make up fiction. They can draw from the truth, as they have in the above ad. You can't make that stuff up.

There's nothing of the compassion Hillary Clinton has shown for that cancer patient in a recent New York Times article Where Has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask The Ultrarich. It alleges that she's more comfortable among wealthy people than the ordinary Joe, and opens herself up to them more. Where Trump spends his time giving rallies and talking to the press, Clinton is keeping her distance but making herself omni-available to "some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves [who] are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her. In the last two weeks of August, Mrs. Clinton raked in roughly $50 million at 22 fund-raising events, averaging around $150,000 an hour, according to a New York Times tally."

The article drips with innuendo so explicit it verges on the overt; Clinton doesn't care about "ordinary" people. In this political climate, when populists are more driven by viciousness than a genuine desire for a better life, the title and matching piece are to people who oppose Hillary Clinton as a red rag is to an angry bull that's been harpooned one too many times by a picador with a huge arsenal and a taste for torturing animals. It's Trump's modus operandi.
The piece mentions in passing that Hillary Clinton is also focused on raising money from small donors but it's like a shard of dull glass among a bowl of glittering diamonds.

Populism has become a dangerous tool this election. On the ultra left, Bernie Sanders. On the other side, Donald Trump. Four things these two branches of populists share is that they've tried to raise themselves up by destroying Hillary Clinton; they've failed; they've hurt themselves in the process; and they've eroded America's chance to preserve democracy, protect and build on Obama's legacy of improving life for all. Putting the imminent and long term future of America at huge risk.

The common idea is that this brand of populism is driven by honest frustration with the system, and with the politicians who have allowed it to develop and that the purpose is to forge a better life.
If that were the truth, Bernie Sanders and supporters wouldn't have tried to succeed by destroying Hillary Clinton using unsubstantiated, highly provocative accusations as weapons of truth. Donald Trump's supporters wouldn't be turning a blind eye to his unethical business practices, his failures, overt racism, misogyny and megalomania and the fact that he is supported by white nationalist groups, the KKK and by Vladimir Putin and Kim Yong-un of North Korea. Not to mention his sexual attraction to his daughter.

Frustration plays a part, but I think the core driving factor of populists on both sides is a vengeful, mean-spirited desire to hurt somebody. Any weapon will do, any lie that can be spread around like a toxic virus. It's reminiscent of Roman days when people would watch Christians being torn apart lions and enjoy the sport.

In such a climate, when so much is at stake, the NYT article is irresponsible journalism. Particularly since Hillary Clinton is the candidate who has a history throughout her life so far like no other previous presidential candidate, of working for minorities, women, children and  equality. And who is reaching out to small donors. As it happens, according to Politico, in July 2016 the Clinton campaign raised $58.5 million, 58% of which was from donations under $200. So half the article should have been about those donations, right? Wrong. And it has nothing to do with the truth about Hillary Clinton. Does it have anything to do with what attracts readers—or what the NYT editors believe readers want? If it is, it proves rather unequivocally that the bias rests with them. Caught by thine own springe.

The Clinton ad is a lot more moving than the NYT's piece. And a whole lot more truthful. If you don't trust it because it's an ad, here's the story of another cancer patient who reached out to her, James Grissom, whose Facebook post has had 158k likes and over 66k shares.

I think about what it would be like if Hillary Clinton didn't win. The day after the election is called and reality hits home. All the so-called liberal journalists, editors, media outlets, TV anchors and hosts; what will be they be thinking, and doing? Staring at the TV in shock. How did it happen? Those of us who rely on the media for information will be the same, if we've bought their crap and haven't used our own discrimination. 

And it will be too late for regret. We'll all be plunged into chaos. 

Seasoned journalist Steve Majerus-Collins wrote a prescient account of what it would be like; a small gem of a book worth reading, a satire that chills you to the bone. Trump: An American Presidency. It's only 99c and it's worth its weight in gold. Trump for President? I hope not. For the sake of America. For the sake of the world.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Bravo to Dustin Moskovitz, Compelled to Donate to Democrats

Bravo to Dustin Moskovitz, one of the co-founders of Facebook, for sticking his head above the parapet, donating $20 million to help Democrats in the 2016 general election, and showing the way for others in Silicon Valley. Those who follow his lead will prove how much they really care about American democracy. Moskovitz published Compelled To Act, on Medium, explaining his reasons. 

I understand why he had to think twice before doing this. Organizations like the NRA and people like the Koch brothers have used and still do use their power and wealth to lobby for the creation and cementing of policies that benefit the donor and hurt everybody else by keeping the inequality status quo in place and also damaging the environment. The Republican Party has enabled them. The result is that the core of the GOP has eroded away over time, leaving an empty space where true conviction once lay.

Inexorably that has left an environment where somebody like Donald Trump can flourish. So it's easy to say that money in politics is evil.  

But it's a false equivalence. The money isn't the problem; what people do with it, is. And not everybody who donates does so out of self-interest. And in any case, that's only half of the equation. The other half is what's done with the money.

Not every politician who accepts donations feels themselves obliged to accept a chain around their neck that can be yanked by the donor. The accusations that have been thrown at Hillary Clinton for belonging to Wall Street, primarily because she accepted sums of money she deserved for her bank speeches, are utterly unsubstantiated. Notably absent have been specific examples of how she has done their bidding—talking dates, people, policies. The same goes for the accusations against the Clinton Foundation for accepting money from regimes that are sustained on inequality and citizen abuse. Again, money is not the problem.

Republican donors' motives for plowing money into the political system have been about self interest and the corresponding behavior of GOP politicians has been to let themselves be yanked on a chain.
But there is a world of difference between that and Moskovitz's donation—and what will be done with the money. It will be used to further equality and protect the environment. 

And nobody can rationally accuse Malkovitz of self interest, because he is assisting, amongst others, the presidential candidate who wants to raise taxes for the wealthy. 

In his article, Malkovitz's assessment of Donald Trump as a con artist whose only interest in the presidency is to promote his brand is correct. Trump has always been a con-artist above all else, and that brand of humanity is very good at what they do. He's a self-congratulatory, over-enabled, out-of-control, narcissistic ego/megalo-maniac. The comparisons between him and Hitler aren't shallow. The consequences of him winning the election won't be either, not just for America but for the whole world. I think that in this time, sitting on the fence is an abdication of social responsibility. Not getting involved is a definitive choice that is tantamount to supporting Donald Trump.

I'm sure Malkovitz will have a lot of stones thrown at him for his substantial contribution. All it means is that he's made an impact, one he can be proud of. I know that I'm grateful. 

Connect with Hillary Clinton on Twitter @HillaryClinton  
Connect with me on Twitter @JenniferJS_

Saturday, September 3, 2016

US Crossroads: Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? Or land of the Paranoid Bigot?

Paranoia about and cruelty towards immigrants among a certain sector of the US is nothing new. Fred Packer drew the above cartoon in 1939.

On May 13 of that year, the SS St. Louis had sailed from Hamburg for Havana. There were over 900 passengers, most of whom were fleeing the Third Reich. Many were women and children. They had applied for US visas and were planning to stay in Cuba until the visas were granted. They left Hamburg believing they were on a vacation cruise to freedom. Can you imagine the relief, the celebration? What must it have felt like for parents with young children?

They were planning to stay in Cuba until their US visas came through. They were denied entry at Havana and the US visas were never granted. Allegedly a letter they sent to US President Roosevelt begging for refuge was ignored.

The ship hovered off the coast of Florida but eventually had to make its way back. There were protests and many attempts made to save the passengers from the worst fate imaginable. A few passengers got into Cuba and some into safe European countries and the UK. But many were sent back, and of course ended up in concentration camps. Imagine being a parent trying to explain that to your child.

The land of the free, the home of the brave? There's nothing free about rationalizing your fear and cruelty. And there's nothing brave about promoting the kind of hatred and bigotry that supports your rationalization.

America is the land where some people are free and many are tremendously brave. It's not the whole picture, though. It never was. The outcome of this Presidential race will show whether it's the bigger picture or not. It's a time where the free and the brave do as much as they can to preserve decency and humanity, and cling like hell to hope that they're in the majority. #ImWithHer.

Join me on Twitter @JenniferJS_ 

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Inspired By Hillary Clinton For Good Reason

"The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!" Bernie Sanders said to Hillary Clinton back in the day when he also admitted, in reference to her now [in]famous speech-earning, that "everybody has the right to earn a living".

The New York Times reported Reince Priebus saying "Hillary Clinton seems incapable of telling the truth." Referring of course to the latest on her emails. It's rich, coming from him. The GOP is falling apart, as is Trump's campaign, and it's been recorded by Republican politicians struggling to survive, by Mitch McConnell even, and by Trump staff, but Priebus said on August 13 at a Pennsylvania rally that the "GOP is unified behind Donald Trump."

As for Trump, his modus operandi is to lie. And then lie again, saying he didn't say what he first said. Putting everything that America stands for, its democracy, its economy, the middle class, and world peace at tremendous risk. Because he lies.

Neither Trump nor Priebus has been subjected to the outrageous persecution and media distortion of every act, every word, for decades. Trump can't handle the media actually reporting the truth of what he says. These two cowards wouldn't last a day in Hillary Clinton's shoes. But they would never be there in the first place, because they don't have her work ethic, her commitment, her courage, her resilience.

The most important truth is that Hillary Clinton is winning despite the distortion of everything she does and says. Despite that many people believe the distortions. So one more won't make any difference. She's not a criminal. If she was, she'd have been found out by now, with all the scrutiny she's been subjected to. What Andra Day tweeted a week ago (below) still holds good. Perhaps even more so, as more and more accusations and recriminations are thrown at Hillary Clinton and she continues to plow straight ahead, working her ass off, as she always has. Never showing that this stuff gets to her, never letting it stop her or slow her down.

It's nothing short of remarkable. The more I see of her and learn about her the more I'm inspired by her.

Connect with me on Twitter: @JenniferJS_

Saturday, August 6, 2016

Hillary Clinton Climbs In The Polls, But Where Is Bernie Sanders' Help?

As the election heats up and Hillary Clinton gains at the national polls, I want to breathe a sigh of relief and let go of anxiety, but I tell myself "not yet."  Standing in the shower today, I thought, this wouldn’t be happening, it wouldn't even be a close contest, if Bernie Sanders and his supporters hadn't chosen to try and win by trashing Hillary Clinton. They lost anyway but they've done so much damage.

Anybody who has taken a side in the US election season is likely to have been insulted by somebody feeling equally passionately but on the other side.

I've had insults hurled at me from the left and the right. To my surprise, I haven't felt personally hurt. A comment I left on a New York Times article was published and I had over 450 comments, many from angry Bernie Sanders supporters  who actually didn't read what I said. I was even accused of being a $hillary Wall Street whore. I wish.

But what hurts my brain and my heart is the misinformation that's spread around so liberally and high-mindedly. Scapegoating. It gets all the molecules of my being vibrating madly, wildly and very noisily. Which probably means it scares me shitless.

I hated it when Barack and Michelle Obama were the targets, and I hated it just as much when Bernie Sanders was. So it's understandable that I'd it when Hillary Clinton is the target. 

When you scapegoat, two things happen. One, you don't perceive your victim to be a human being dealing with issues you probably will never have to. Two, it's never about them, it's about your frustration with yourself or your own life and your belief that you're powerless to change any of it. We've probably all scapegoated at some point. It feels very satisfying in the moment and makes you feel tremendously powerful, but you can't sustain that feeling, so you have to do it again. And again. Yeah, there's a word for that. Addiction.

Your own rage builds on itself and you get nastier and nastier. The more you do it the more you have to lock out good sense and real information. It achieves nothing, but it does a lot of damage, to you and the target.

It's a bit like the photo, which is of my apartment. There chair is facing inward but it's empty. The reflection of the chair faces out to the view and the open horizon. When you scapegoat you long to access what the horizon promises but until you choose to sit in that chair and face yourself and be real, only requiring culpability from people who actually are culpable, it will never happen for you. You'll always be facing away from the good stuff. The best part of you will always be the ghost. 

And if, in politics, the person you're rooting for can only win because his supporters trash the opposition, it's because his good points aren't strong enough to win with. But if he gets into power his weak points will override the strong and then everybody suffers. 

Would Bernie Sanders have gotten so much support if his movement hadn't relied on trashing Hillary Clinton? And if he was such a great leader, why not just promote his strength? His campaign started out that way. It was all about love and truth and honor. Now it's all about rage, scapegoating, hatred, misinformation and conspiracy theories. Bernie Sanders said he would do everything he could to prevent the GOP candidate from winning. But in effect he's done nothing. His endorsement of Hillary Clinton was lukewarm in intent and what is he doing now? A lot of his supporters have said they'll endorse Jill Stein. They just don't care that it could give the presidency to the GOP nominee.

Sanders said he fully understood the problem with Ralph Nader and he had no intention of repeating that mistake. But in truth he started a Ralph Nader movement and he's powerless to stop it. If he's trying he's being tremendously discreet. 

So, though I'm relieved that Hillary Clinton is climbing in the polls and the GOP candidate is dropping like a stone, I'm holding my breath. 

Connect with me on Twitter: @JenniferJS_

Thursday, July 21, 2016

#GOPConvention, Trump, Bigotry and Independence of Mind

One of the most alarming things Brexit and the US election and Donald Trump's popularity has lit up for me a la Broadway neon is the extent to which so many now have no capacity to think for themselves at all in. In a western culture that prides itself on independence of mind.

Leaving the UK and its bigoted Brexit/Grove & Johnson fiasco aside and focusing on the US, the thing is done. Trump is the official nominee. It didn't turn out the way he planned it, and there were a lot of empty seats, but if the polls are to be believed, a sector of America thinks he's entertaining—and the liberal media still insists on giving him that description—and is their savior. From? Take your pick, so long as it's non-white and pro-tolerance of human rights. The truth of Trump is that he's a liar, a bigot, a misogynist, a racist, a narcissist. Most of all he's a predator, whose primary skills are capacity to recognize mental weakness, to hone in on it and exploit it.

And another sector of America has spread so much hatred and misinformation about Hillary Clinton that they've convinced themselves they've been telling the truth. Now they're bragging about her unpopularity and how Bernie Sanders does better against Trump. Of course he does, they helped him along. Independence of mind? I don't think so. It's terrifying.

Burying your head in the sand now won't protect either the die-hard Sanders or the Trump supporters, or the rest of America and even the world from the consequences of their own recklessness. It's their choice.

And how many of Hillary Clinton's detractors are willing to pick apart the stories about her with open minds to see how much truth there is? Rhetorical question.

The people who consistently trash never have more than a few very skeletal ideas which they keep repeating over and over. There's some kind of addictive thing happening. They get their momentary fix, which lasts for a while, then they need another and they go for the same thing that got them high before. Because it works. They spew categorical and simplistic statements generated originally by the far right GOP and now illustrated with memes that can be disproved in seconds. It's mindless! These are the people who would control everybody's destiny? I hope not.

Liberal media such as the NYT call for the GOP to wake up to changed demographics but it's wasted breath and effort. In 2008 the GOP said they needed to change. In 2012 they said the same thing but instead of changing they gave Ted Cruz power in Congress and did more of what has made them unpopular with their own base—they didn't do their job. They're still not doing it.

Now they've endorsed a bigoted sociopath detested by the entire sane world. They're going in one direction and that's backwards. These guys are obviously not bright enough to understand that going backwards socially doesn't mean the demographics will follow them. The GOP won't change, because they're narcissists. Narcissists are detached from reality. I'm glad of it. I don't want them to change. I want them to disintegrate within themselves. America and the world will be a far better place for it.

It's strange; in other countries the far right is frighteningly well-organized. In the US it's a mess, and for that I'm supremely grateful. It's the ultimate irony. Because if the US falls totally into the hands of people who are essentially white supremacists we're done for. We won't just have one Hitler in one country to deal with.

Connect with me on Twitter: @JenniferJS_

Image from Wiki: Storm in the Sea of Galilee, Rembrandt 1632

Saturday, July 9, 2016

All The Lonely People

The other day I tweeted the above and also posted it to Facebook, Google Plus and LinkedIn. 

Ironically I got responses from a lot of FB friends (one of whom also responded on Twitter)! More ironically, I used a Tweet so couldn't say everything I wanted, which was that Facebook strikes me as being a lonely place for many.

The desire to share is huge, but nobody has time to read everything everybody shares. I often see on friends' pages that they've shared stuff nobody has responded to. I know that for some, social media is a primary source of connection and for others it isn't, but still it's hard for me to believe that anybody shares anything without wanting it to lead to a connection of some sort. 

Maybe I'm wrong about that, though. Maybe it's just what I want. I guess I won't know until I ask people individually.

Facebook makes choices for us as to who we see on our pages. It can make you forget that others exist. And it only has buttons for support. What if I post something and you don't like it? You don't respond, so I think you've forgotten me. The logic seems right, but it actually isn't; non response can just be the result of algorithm control. Me, I prefer somebody to disagree than say nothing, but you might not be the same, so there's no way to connect.

It's a strange world, Facebook. Twitter can feel more immediate because you can find specific conversations with hashtags and join in. So if you have an interest, say, in politics you can find others with the same.

For me, Facebook takes more effort at conscious participation. Ultimately, real relationships take work, don't they? Social media ease of access doesn't save one from that.

Find me on Twitter and Facebook 

Saturday, July 2, 2016

Bernie Sanders Gambling With America's Future

Yet again Bernie Sanders has said he will fight all the way to the nomination. Yesterday I saw a supporter claiming that he will be the Democratic nominee. It's kind of strange, given that he believes the Dem Party to be rigged and thoroughly corrupt. I guess the idea is to change it from within. And, in the name of democracy, over-ride millions of voters who don't believe it's rigged. 

On June 9 Politico ran an article saying "After meeting with Obama, Sanders gives strongest sign yet that he will soon bow out. But he's going to compete in D.C. primary first." That was understandable  in the light of how optimistic Sanders was that he could win D.C. by a large margin. However, he said after the meeting with President Obama that "Donald Trump would clearly, to my mind and I think the majority of Americans, be a disaster as president of the United States.

"It is unbelievable to me, and I say this in all sincerity, that the Republican Party would have a candidate for president who in the year 2016 makes bigotry and discrimination the cornerstone of his campaign.

"In my view, the American people will not vote for or tolerate a candidate who insults Mexicans and Latinos, who insults Muslims, who insults African-Americans and women.  Needless to say, I am going to do everything in my power, and I will work as hard as I can, to make sure that Donald Trump does not become president of the United States."

Sincerity is as sincerity does. He will work as hard as he can? He could if he wanted to but he didn't then and he still isn't. 

President Barack Obama. Joe Biden. Elizabeth Warren. Hillary Clinton. All of them passionate, courageous, supremely smart, knowledgeable, experienced, articulate, focused and able to maintain dignity and purpose in the face of huge challenge.

All of them aligned against a thin-skinned, misogynistic, racist, narcissistic bully addicted to power and adulation and getting his way by any means, unable to control his temper, his mouth or his fear of criticism, unable to take his head out of the sand or handle a simple press report. Backed by a party that despises him but has painted itself into a corner by supporting him and foolishly believing it could control him.

The absentee is, of course, Bernie Sanders who is in reality doing everything he can to promote his revolution no matter what the cost, with the occasional outburst against Donald Trump to keep up the myth that he's doing everything he can to make sure Trump doesn't win. The truth is that he's doing everything he can, short of articulating it openly, to make sure that Hillary Clinton doesn't win.

In June Sanders was convinced he would win D.C. and that was his rationalization for carrying on. He lost by one of the biggest margins in the Democratic primaries. And he carried on.

Now he's back to saying—again—that he will carry the fight all the way to the Democratic convention. The longer he refuses to endorse Hillary Clinton the more myths are perpetrated about her. Ultimately that will be what gives Donald Trump the edge. In a recent Bloomberg poll 22% of Sanders supporters said they'll vote for him. Their hero will have a Congress even more dominated by the GOP. He will be powerless to effect the slightest change. And the Supreme Court will be conservative by majority. So a minority of voters will make the decision for the majority and affect the lives of everybody's children for possibly decades.

It's impossible to entertain the idea that Sanders is unaware of that 22% or of how irrational they are. They keep repeating the same categorical statements generated originally by the far right GOP and now backed by memes that can be disproved in seconds. It's mindless! There are few things more dangerous to a healthy democracy than mindless rage. People consumed with it will avoid any truth that doesn't give them a justification for vitriol and punishing somebody.

The frightening thing is that Sanders isn't saying to this group "we'll fight to force Hillary Clinton into the most progressive agenda possible, but guys, we are going to vote for her because she is the only way to defeat Donald Trump."

He can't say it, can he? Because then he can't blackmail the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. So he's taking a gamble. For it to succeed he needs to carry on whipping up the mindless rage, tacitly endorsing the stories that Clinton is a child-and-women hating, war-mongering monster who has been bought by Wall Street, large corporations and a thoroughly corrupt Democratic Party. Presumably his plan is that when he's got what he wants, he'll exert benevolent control over that mindless rage so ultimately all his supporters vote for Clinton.

Good luck with that, Bernie Sanders. We've just seen the centenary commemoration of the Battle of the Somme when a million men were wounded or killed. Two years later World War I was over. Never again, everybody swore. Twenty years later World War II broke out. After that war ended, everybody swore, never again would the world countenance another Hitler.

Now throughout the West the far right is rising in power. We don't learn from history. I wonder if we can even learn from history that happened a week ago when UK voters chose an option that had been driven by bigotry and that has plunged the country into disarray on every front.

And opened the door even wider for the far right. America faces the same dilemma. And Bernie Sanders is gambling?

Photograph: The Cardsharps by Carvaggio, c. 1594

Friday, June 24, 2016

Bernie Sanders: Saint or Sinner? Hero or Destroyer?

Bernie Sanders wrote a very erudite piece for the Washington Post about what he and his followers want for America. You would think that they're the only ones who care. I guess if you buy the story that Hillary Clinton is a Nazi-loving, corrupt oligarch slash Wall Street whore it must seem as if her supporters love Nazis, oligarchs and whores and positively salivate over the idea of the 1% getting richer.

It's a lovely, dramatic picture, one that gives anybody with unprocessed frustration and anger plenty to vent on. And naturally Sanders' opening paragraph talks about political revolution.

Boy, does Sanders love that word 'revolution'. And he has extraordinary skill in making it look as if he's the only politician in America with these aims. What about Barack Obama's almost eight years worth of contributions, that brought the country back from recession faster than any of the other countries affected by that recession? What about how hard and tirelessly he worked and still works towards building up the middle class and correcting the inequality?

For that matter, what about the work that Hillary Clinton has done in her political career? It's the easiest thing in the world to pick out the failures or mis-steps, grossly magnify them, and conveniently ignore when they've been corrected and when her steps achieved positive things for the country.

It's harder to go looking for truth. It's not so much fun, definitely; how can you vent on inconvenient truth?

And how, I wonder, does Bernie Sanders plan to turn any of his grand vision into reality when he openly refuses to endorse Hillary Clinton, unequivocally sending the message to his supporters not to vote for her? The more successful he is in that, the more likely it is that Donald Trump will be president and Congress will be in control of Republicans. That means the Supreme Court will be, too. It's pure logic. Unless Sanders has something else up his sleeve. Maybe he's hoping Hillary Clinton will be arrested.

I have a Facebook friend who was convinced about ten days ago that she was going to be arrested the next day, on the authority of an opinion blog. This is the same person who posted this meme:

The truth, which took me a few seconds to find via, is that the photo is not of the girl, and that in 1975 Hillary Clinton was a young lawyer and had to take the case.

She did so reluctantly; successfully challenged the mismanaged evidence and the case didn't go to trial. Clinton didn't claim that the complainant fantasized about being raped by older men and she allegedly 'laughed' about the unreliable nature of polygraphs.

So Hillary Clinton is not an advocate for rapists. She is, however, and has always been, an advocate for women and children.

Even if she is arrested for something that Jeb Bush also did while Governor but isn't even being questioned on, why should Sanders be given her place when he didn't get the majority vote? And Clinton she isn't arrested? It's quite a gamble Sanders is taking. And he sure isn't being upfront about it. One minute he's standing next to Barack Obama, smiling and looking friendly and saying he will work with Hillary Clinton. Then the next thing he's giving a speech to his followers without mentioning her name.

He had a window of opportunity there and he chose to shut it. The fire of rage that he has fed and the  misinformation about Hillary Clinton that he's helped to grow like a cancer were already both getting dangerously close to being out of control.

And Bernie is still talking about revolution. I think back to an interview when he gushed about Castro and said sure, there are problems but... Problems like mass murders, lock-down on the press, a society reduced to its lowest common denominator with that denominator in constant plummet. I wonder if his followers realize that that's what he's looking for; the revolution that destroys everything.

So he can be the hero who rebuilds? Talk about unprocessed frustration and anger. If he carries on down this road, refusing to help his followers get their head around Hillary Clinton, Trump could become president, and everybody, not just Sanders and his followers,  can kiss everything that's good about America goodbye and say hello to a Congress even more dominated by Republicans, a conservative Supreme Court that will roll back all the social progress on equality, American going back into economic disaster, and a world of more recession and ghastly wars.

It's your choice, Bernie Sanders. 

Brexit: David Cameron's Valiant Resignation Speech

"Good morning everyone, the country has just taken part in a giant democratic exercise, perhaps the biggest in our history. Over 33 million people from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar have all had their say.

We should be proud of the fact that in these islands we trust the people for these big decisions.
We not only have a parliamentary democracy, but on questions about the arrangements for how we've governed there are times when it is right to ask the people themselves and that is what we have done. The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected.

I want to thank everyone who took part in the campaign on my side of the argument, including all those who put aside party differences to speak in what they believe was the national interest and let me congratulate all those who took part in the Leave campaign for the spirited and passionate case that they made.

The will of the British people is an instruction that must be delivered. It was not a decision that was taken lightly, not least because so many things were said by so many different organisations about the significance of this decision.

So there can be no doubt about the result.

Across the world people have been watching the choice that Britain has made. I would reassure those markets and investors that Britain's economy is fundamentally strong and I would also reassure Britons living in European countries and European citizens living here there will be no immediate changes in your circumstances. There will be no initial change in the way our people can travel, in the way our goods can move or the way our services can be sold.

We must now prepare for a negotiation with the European Union. This will need to involve the full engagement of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland governments to ensure that the interests of all parts of our United Kingdom are protected and advanced.

But above all this will require strong, determined and committed leadership. I'm very proud and very honoured to have been Prime Minister of this country for six years. I believe we've made great steps, with more people in work than ever before in our history, with reforms to welfare and education, increasing people's life chances, building a bigger and stronger society, keeping our promises to the poorest people in the world and enabling those who love each other to get married whatever their sexuality, but above all restoring Britain's economic strength.

And I'm grateful to everyone who's helped to make that happen. I have also always believed that we have to confront big decisions, not duck them. That is why we delivered the first coalition government in 70 years, to bring our economy back from the brink. It's why we delivered a fair, legal and decisive referendum in Scotland.

And it's why I made the pledge to renegotiate Britain's position in the European Union and to hold the referendum on our membership and have carried those things out.

I fought this campaign in the only way I know how, which is to say directly and passionately what I think and feel—head, heart and soul. I held nothing back, I was absolutely clear about my belief that Britain is stronger, safer and better off inside the European Union and I made clear the referendum was about this and this alone—not the future of any single politician including myself.

But the British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction.

I will do everything I can as Prime Minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination. This is not a decision I've taken lightly but I do believe it's in the national interest to have a period of stability and then the new leadership required.

There is no need for a precise timetable today but in my view we should aim to have a new prime minister in place by the start of the conservative Party conference in October.

Delivering stability will be important and I will continue in post as Prime Minister with my Cabinet for the next three months.

The Cabinet will meet on Monday, the Governor of the Bank of England is making a statement about the steps that the Bank and the Treasury are taking to reassure financial markets. We will also continue taking forward the important legislation that we set before Parliament in the Queen's Speech. And I have spoken to Her Majesty the Queen this morning to advise her of the steps that I am taking.

A negotiation with the European Union will need to begin under a new prime minister and I think it's right that this new prime minister takes the decision about when to trigger Article 50 and start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU. 

I will attend the European Council next week to explain the decision the British people have taken and my own decision.

The British people have made a choice, that not only needs to be respected but those on the losing side of the argument—myself included—should help to make it work. Britain is a special country—we have so many great advantages—a parliamentary democracy where we resolve great issues about our future through peaceful debate, a great trading nation with our science and arts, our engineering and our creativity, respected the world over.

And while we are not perfect I do believe we can be a model for the multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, that people can come and make a contribution and rise to the very highest that their talent allows.

Although leaving Europe was not the path I recommended, I am the first to praise our incredible strengths. I said before that Britain can survive outside the European Union and indeed that we could find a way. Now the decision has been made to leave, we need to find the best way and I will do everything I can to help. I love this country and I feel honoured to have served it and I will do everything I can in future to help this great country succeed. Thank you very much."
Delivering stability will be important... Now the decision has been made to leave, we need to find the best way and I will do everything I can to help.
That's how you do it as a politician if you lose and you really do love your country. Take a leaf, Bernie Sanders.

The photo of David Cameron is from 10 Downing Street website