After the 2016 Iowa Primary

election cycle started so early that it was almost a surprise when we finally
arrived at the first primary of the 2016 election in Iowa. In my opinion the
caucuses were a hot mess this year. Did Ted Cruz really announce to the people
of Iowa that Ben Carson had withdrawn from the race, a statement that was
patently untrue but might have netted him some of Carson’s ballots? Apparently
he did, although he apologized after the caucus was over. You gotta love his
Why did
Hillary say she had won when the Democratic caucuses were not finalized? Why
did her staff have her do that? Did some contests in the Democratic caucuses
end in tie votes that were actually decided by a coin toss? That seems to be a
true statement but there is more to this story, however it’s quite technical in
a way you probably don’t want to know about. If you do want an explanation it
can be googled.
Sanders is thinking about asking for a recount. Since the way the Democrats
vote by just collecting in groups of like-minded people and then counting is
sort of akin to a flash mob how would you ask for a recount?
I have
decided to think of round one in the Democratic primaries as a toss-up, a tie.
People are obviously excited by Bernie Sanders’ “revolutionary” middle class
agenda. In fact we have given up fighting about Socialism, and we are now
fighting about who is more Progressive. Given the number of Republicans in
Congress and taking into account the analyses which suggest that those numbers
are unlikely to change very much because of things like gerrymandering and
voter suppression, it seems improbable to expect a far left agenda to make much
headway even if Bernie Sanders does win the Presidency.
I feel that
this is the time to elect a woman to the Presidency and we have a woman who is
well-prepared to occupy the oval office. Everyone is saying that Bernie Sanders
is FDR, but what if Hillary Clinton is FDR and Bernie is Eleanor Roosevelt. After
all, FDR was a reluctant Progressive. The real activist was Eleanor Roosevelt. I
want a ticket on the Democratic side that has Hillary for President and Bernie
for VP. I can’t picture Bernie Sanders being simply a rubber stamp Vice
President. He can hopefully prod Hillary to govern a bit more to the left.
By Nancy Brisson

Why I Pick Hillary in 2016

I am a girl. Hillary is a girl. I’m with Hillary. I would not
back Hillary just because she is a girl, but she is a girl who has an agenda
for America that is well-thought-out and based on plenty of experience. In
addition, I assume that she will be flexible enough to adopt a new approach to
a problem if she is convinced that it will be more effective. And I feel
certain that she will not turn into a Republican anytime soon.
I love Bernie Sanders, I do. His people make an ad for him
with Simon and Garfunkel’s “America” song from the Book Ends album. It warms my
hippie soul. If I didn’t think that it was time for a girl President, then that
little revolutionary in me would go for Bernie. But right now the only way I
will pick Bernie is (1) if he turns into a girl (highly unlikely) or (2) if he
wins the Democratic nomination.
Girls, ladies, women, females have always been asked to wait.
Wait for this, wait for that, and when we felt it was appropriate, which we
usually did because we are pragmatic and compassionate, we did wait. I don’t
think we have to wait in 2016. I think we are good to go. So I back Hillary
Clinton and all the other women who have worked so hard in the past eight years
to keep the rights that women have won – rights that never came easily. So I
also stand with Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood and I stand with Emily’s
List trying to get more women elected to office and a whole roster of active
women that I won’t list because then I’ll forget someone and I’ll feel badly
about it.
I sure would like to hear Hillary Clinton addressed as Madame
President and I know those other women will be there to help the first woman
President in America do a truly great job. Now that will be huge!
By Nancy Brisson

To the Other Pod People

I have a few things to say to the disenchanted
voters, the disillusioned, the world-weary, the cynical, the drop-outs, the cop
outs, and all Americans who say that they believe our government is so corrupt
and our politicians are all such crooks that they cannot stir themselves to
cast a vote in any election. These folks (and I have heard mostly men speak
like this although I am sure that there are women who feel this way also) think
that not voting makes a statement, that opting out of the system will eventually
crash the system. Some want a reboot to a better, fairer government; some want
anarchy, a government which exercises no control at all. Oh yes, let’s put 7+
billion people on a small planet and see what happens when the rules are ‘every
man for himself’, and when there is no centralized fund to spend on, well,
anything. Whose idea of nirvana is that?
If these people who choose not to vote stick us with
a government run by a Tea Party extremist I hope that they are the first among
us to realize what a mistake it was not to vote. People who don’t vote are
actually voting for someone but they get to do it passively and they get no
blame if the next power people do not best represent the needs of the nation.
Circumstances matter in an election. Democracy requires participation.
People all over the world are disenfranchised and
have no right to vote or their vote truly is just for show. We could live in a
nation like Syria with a leader like Assad who does not mind turning over half
of his citizens into refugees to burden other nations. The Syrians had to vote
with their feet, sometimes their lives, and they had to leave their possessions
behind. We could live in a nation like North Korea which apparently starves its
citizens to build a hydrogen bomb that will threaten America.
When you opt out of voting you are making choices
for all of us. You are not actually cynical, you are arrogant. You think you
are an arbiter of truth and a punisher of failure or unfairness, but you
actually help bad government thrive. There are no perfect people; there are no
perfect governments. Perhaps your vote does not carry the weight it once did.
Not voting will not cure this. Those who win are thrilled that you didn’t vote.
They counted on it. Those who lost cannot be helped by you in any way, even if
those losers would have been best for our nation’s future. You have not been
sidelined. You have sidelined yourselves. How will our nation ever improve its
ways if people who are intelligent enough to be disillusioned are spineless
enough to go to their corner and pout about it? You folks who have disenfranchised
yourselves are getting on my last nerve. You are the other pod people.
Please take a stand for something and vote in 2016.
By Nancy Brisson

Our Flawed Immigration System, Our Bad

I hear Americans making many of the following points
about immigrants, most of them false. They say:
Immigrants take our jobs.
The government is using our tax dollars to provide
benefits for undocumented immigrants.
Illegal immigrants vote fraudulently and they
usually vote for Democrats.
Undocumented workers will work for very low wages
and they therefore drive down wages of American workers.
White people would not be outnumbered by minorities
if illegal immigrants were sent home.
We put illegal immigrants who break the law into
American jails at taxpayer’s expense.
people have large families and all of their children are born at no cost in
American hospitals and automatically become citizens.
All illegal immigrants are from South of the Border.
Undocumented and legal immigrants exclude us by
refusing to learn our language.
When we see women in scarves or even long garments
like burqas or hijabs we think in our heart of hearts that this is not an
American form of dress. We want women to take off these garments which to us
seem like symbols of female submission and enjoy American fashion. We are
afraid that people with such strong beliefs will impose their beliefs on us.
They will bring Sharia law.
We will find ourselves becoming a Muslim nation.
 I could go on
and on. These are all things we think about immigrants, especially immigrants
without legal documents.
However, if we are perfectly honest it is America’s
shoddy systems that allow people to come into our country and live and work
with no documents, or stolen documents, or illegally obtained documents. Last
week officials admitted that we have no system for tracking people here on
visas if they decide to stay when their visa expires. I read an interesting book
called Americanah (it won prizes) a
few years ago by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a Nigerian woman who came to America
and had to stay until she could earn enough money to return home. She describes
what she had to do to work in America without proper documents.
Another story, The
Book of Unknown Americans
by Cristina Henriquez is about a family that came
to America legally from Mexico and describes their less-than-hospitable
experience here and the great tragedy it lead to.
Some of the things we think are true of immigrants,
both legal and illegal, have been researched and have been found to be false or
mostly false. But statistics do suggest that America will not be a majority
white nation for much longer or white people may have already slipped into the
minority. Caucasians do not seem to be the wave of the future and it may be too
late to reproduce a way back into ascendancy.
Deep down we feel good old American guilt over all
these unfriendly or even hateful feelings. We are supposed to be the great
melting pot where everyone shares the American Dream, deposits a few new
wrinkles that make for a tasty cultural stew, and then puts nose to grindstone
to climb the ladder of success.
We have dealt with groups that don’t see owning
things and amassing wealth and fitting in as important goals. But these groups
have been small and scattered and have not had an enormous effect on the
American work ethic or our materialism. Recent groups do not seem as
interested in assimilating (although assimilation can take generations). To us
it seems as if they cling to the language and culture of their nation of
origin. This was true of previous groups also, such as the Irish and the
Italians. I think that this time people are worried that America is not strong
enough to shake off these new influences and maintain its European/Caucasian
flavor. Will our grandchildren speak Spanish? Will they bow to Mecca? Some of
these things we can’t know.
Welcoming people and treating them well is more
likely to keep America as is than treating people with isolation and hostility.
But it seems counter-intuitive to many to accept strangers and it seems just
plain wrong to accept people who came without going through the proper routes
and who do not possess the proper papers. Although we don’t rely much on fancy
identity papers in America.
I don’t know if these new immigrant groups will take
over America (given that the Dream has gotten a bit thin for all of us) or if
they will blend into and enhance American culture and the only way to find out
is to wait and see what happens.
How can we deport people who simply took advantage
of a very lackadaisical visa system or borders that are not secured (and, my
guess, cannot be secured)? We should leave these poor people alone, grandfather
them in, give them papers now or after ten years, or whatever punishing delay,
and then create a system that works. That probably will involve doing some very
un-American thing like using an electronic tracking system or eyeball-ID at
points of entry and exit.
We are a nation of people who love to look for
loopholes and then use them to our advantage. These are obviously people after
our own hearts. So make sure that in the future we close the loopholes (not
with walls; they make me claustrophobic) and recognize that whatever system we
create in this age of jets will most likely not be perfect. Perhaps we will all
have to put up with some kind of chemical or electrical ID markers in the
not-so-distant future. However this has one big problem – the greater the
control, the less our privacy.
Our leaky immigration system is our bad; it is on
us. How can we blame those who use our mistakes to seek material gains or to
find a better life for their children? We would do exactly the same thing if we
had to.
By Nancy Brisson

Refugee Reality Check

We keep thinking about what might happen if we do accept
Syrian refugees. But perhaps we need to think about what will happen if we
don’t accept Syrian refugees.
If we do accept refugees from Syria we are nervous that
terrorists may make it to America. I am a true chicken. I understand fear. It
feels scary to host people who could harbor hate against us. We are assured
that we screen refugees with such care that it is highly unlikely anyone could
get through the process but we remember Boston and those Tsarnaev brothers who
came in as refugees and were radicalized once they were here. Our fears are not
baseless but we must admit that the number of refugees that might become bad
actors will be very small. We live almost daily with shootings. These threats
hardly seem different from the many mass shootings we have experienced. As for
enabling an enormous influx of rabid terrorists – only a full scale invasion
could do that and I don’t think our enemies have that capability yet.
The reasons, beyond the humanitarian ones, in favor of
accepting Syrian refugees are much more compelling. First, we cannot afford to
let the Republicans, who want to get elected in 2016, play us. If they make us
frightened enough and then offer to save us with their toughness they believe
this fear will drive us to put a Republican in the White House. Please prove to
the GOP that you are not that easily manipulated.
An even greater reason why we have to fight our fears and
accept Syrian refugees is because we owe it to our allies in Europe and
elsewhere. We have hung back in two world wars because they did not begin in
America, but we eventually fought with our allies when we understood that if
our friends lost we would only have enemies left.
This time the “war” began with us, very dramatically, on 9/11.
This attack was a game changer and our old friends stood with us once more. Now
we must not try to isolate ourselves even though our fears may prove real
(although, I suspect, not on the scale GOP candidates warn of). We must stand
with the friends we have forged as we have battled to keep the free world free.
We must even accept old opponents as allies for as long as they prove true to
our common goals. We cannot expect Europe to deal all alone with people fleeing
terrorists. Even though there is a big ocean between us we cannot afford to use
this geographical advantage to remain relatively safe and aloof. I doubt it
will work for long and, in the end, we will wish we had stuck with our
More selfishly, flooding Europe with refugees could put
Europe’s economy in jeopardy. Our economic fates are tied together and are just
one aspect of the ways in which our individual existences as powerful political
entities are closely connected.
We are Americans. We need to suck it up and stand with our

Note: (According to the NYT of 11/25/15 the Tsarnaev brothers were not refugees. They came seeking political asylum.)

By Nancy Brisson

Should Conservative Talk Radio Hosts Moderate the Next GOP Debate?

Friday, 10/30/2015 the RNC cancelled the next debate
with the mainstream media – this time, NBC – relative of CNBC, moderators of
the previous debate. The candidates were very unhappy with the way the debate
was run contending that they were not taken seriously. The questions, they
said, were ‘gotcha’ questions, meant to demean the candidates by suggesting
that they were jokes. 
While I do not like the policies these extreme
Republicans espouse I do think that these debates are meant to help voters hear
what each candidate intends to do if they win the way to the White House.
Asking someone if they are a cartoon figure is a question that should have no
place in a serious debate.
Ted Cruz, who the media claims won the debate by
calling attention to the tone of the moderators, said in an interview following
the debate that he thinks the next debate should be moderated by Glenn Beck,
Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin. I find this quite interesting. Whenever I hear
guests on news shows mention that Talk Radio might play a role in the voices of
the Tea Party and the partisan divide in Congress the media backs off from this
topic and waves a hand to indicate ‘erase that’, move on. Of course, not all
Talk Radio is right wing so perhaps the term is just inaccurate. At any rate it
would be difficult to have these particular moderators because they have no TV network
giving them access to such an expensive undertaking.
And so, although we don’t talk about it much, we all know
that Conservative Talk Radio has been stoking white fear, anger, and hate for
decades now. Although these hosts moved from radio to TV they did not get to stay on
TV for long. Telling white people that they are the true patriots, that America
was intended to be a white, Christian nation, that liberal Democrats are
actually socialists, or communists who are turning the Federal government into
a 1984- style dictatorship
controlling every aspect of human behavior has not helped the American dialogue
one bit. 
These Talk Radio guys had some right on their side.
It seems true that Washington, in its supposed zeal to keep Americans safe was
starting to hem people in with some pretty invasive regulations. But these guys
blew the dangers of mind control way out of proportion. It would be quite easy
to back off on some of the more invasive of the constraints and intrusions like
those of the NSA (which actually grew out of the Patriot Acts of the Republican
Presidency of George W. Bush).
However, once white people were injected with the
fear of obsolescence, the specter of a brown-skinned majority holding sway over
the white folks who had perhaps mistreated folks who were not white, many
Americas decided that they were not looking forward to changing places and
moving to an ‘inferior’ position. These fears may be well-founded or not, but
such a cultural flip may not be avoidable and may not entail the retribution
people fear. It would take decades of extreme repression and some rabbit-like
reproductive moves on the part of white people to keep this change in check,
but people used to exploitation and then freedom would not easily allow
themselves to suffer a new round of repression. Maybe making nice would be a
better approach and since we all have the same DNA would represent a useful
leap in cultural evolution.
Anyway, here we are with all these decades of
propaganda catching up with the nation and on display every time the giant
panel of GOP candidates takes the stage. Did Talk Radio create the Republican
base that these Republicans must now answer to or did Tea Party politicians
prime the harangues of Talk Radio to create this base which now holds their
feet to the fire. Did they create their own Frankenstein monster which they now
fear or are they quite happy with their monstrous creation? While income
inequality and the lack of rights that help women and the middle class at work
seem like much more germane issues for all but the richest Americans we are
instead caught up in all these false cultural straw men that cannot be solved
in any ways that fit the American Democratic ideals.
Still, it might be informative to watch a Republican
debate moderated by the Talk Radio trio who have gotten very wealthy by
peddling their fear and hate. In many rather monstrous ways they personify the
American Dream because Americans have never minded scamming their way to the
By Nancy Brisson

On Megalomania, America, and the World

It seems that a portion of America is having a
crisis of confidence, a self-image slippage. When we see these candidates with
huge egos (adjective deliberately chosen) running at the top of the polls it’s
a sign. We know what happens to teens with low self-esteem. They are vulnerable
to con men and users of every stripe.
These demoralized Americans believe that diplomacy
is wimpy and that the only proper role for America is astride a nuke (á
la Dr. Strangelove) pointed at anyone who causes trouble. What did that guy say
– yahoo, yipee-yi-oh-ki-ay? This could be about pride but it comes off as more
about fear – fear that America will be overrun by Muslims, by the Chinese, by
the North Koreans, by the Russians (wow, we are beset, aren’t we – it is a
little paranoid-making). Surely, looking at this, someone who advocates trying
to take a diplomatic approach to calm everyone down makes good sense to some of
us and, seemingly, no sense to the rest of us.
Opponents of diplomacy want America to come out
large, guns blasting and make sure that other nations know who is in charge, to
pistol whip them into some kind of dazed submission that puts star spangled
flags in their eyes when they even think of America. Well, to many Americans,
this looks more like an Armageddon-WW III scenario that may rage for a century,
as opposed to what we have right now, just the small conflagrations that pop up
now and then, have to be put out, but are confined to specific areas, so that
life in the rest of the world goes on.
There will always be people who get drunk on power
and stomp around uncaring about who they stomp on. And they will always raise
the ire of people who love freedom because they are enemies of freedom. But
after all these centuries of human interaction and after being taunted by power-
sick individuals over and over again, after endless wars to subdue men who want
to rule the world you would think we would have come up with some better
strategies for these megalomaniacs than to drive a few tanks over them (they
get back up). People with these personality disorders should not ever be
allowed to assume a role of power. They should be defused and their talents
redirected early on before it takes half a world to defeat one madman. 
People in America, Conservatives, seem to believe
that the best way to defeat one megalomaniac is with another. So we have a
lineup of egomaniacs running on the Republican side (D. Trump, B. Carson, T. Cruz, C.
Christie) and we have free Americans on fire to put
themselves under the control of these nuts. But there is no “we” in ego. These
guys sound more like they are running for King than for President.
America, because it is a nation run by flawed humans
cannot be perfect. We have sometimes done what we thought would be right and we
have sometimes done wrong in order to protect our might (although that didn’t
always end up well). Right now our President is trying to walk closer to the
line of doing what is right – and many Americans are afraid that this will lead
us to lose our might. Boots on the ground or be a squish? Are those really our
only choices? Yikes! (Stop
watching FOX News!)
By Nancy Brisson

What If?

We will never get to see what the results of Obama and the
Democratic Party’s liberal agenda would have been if the obstructionists in the
Republican Party did not hold the Democrats back.  One area where this is true is in the health
of America’s economy. We will never see if loosening up on the budget a bit
would have allowed business to come back even better than it has since the
recession, because the Republicans insisted that the budget needed to be cut
and threatened to shut down government unless it was cut. So we see what
semi-austerity allowed, but we can’t go back and take that other pathway and
see what would have resulted from a little spending, not go-wild spending but
careful injections of cash. They might have acted like those cortisone shots
people get for their arthritis, but we will never know. Instead we got The
Sequester, which as far as I can see has had no positive effects on our
We could have experimented with raising taxes on the
wealthiest people and, since corporations are now people, on corporations, and
although we did get rid of the Bush tax cuts this and was not enough to cause a change in our economy. Would higher taxes
have been a shot in the arm our economy needed or would these taxes have made
the business climate in America worse as the GOP informed us they would. Since
these things are predictions and since the variables we might have examined
never included any appreciable tax increases we will never know if America
might have done even better in the Obama years than it did.
We could have experimented with some basic gun regulations
like registrations of all gun sales with records retained for use by law
enforcement. We could have done this for perhaps five years and we would already
know the results by now. Did shooters still continue to target people who are
either captive in public spaces as in the case of schools or are congregating
socially in public places as malls, movie theaters, and churches? But an
obdurate group of extremists has managed to convince Americans that President
Obama is just waiting to take away all their guns and turn himself into
President-for-Life Obama, crushing our 2nd Amendment rights forever.
We will be the new Cuba. This is nonsense. Are the perpetrators really
frightened (I doubt it) or are they just trying to have their way with the
American people regardless of who the President is. (Much more likely)
What about infrastructure? If Obama had been allowed to begin
a few infrastructure projects (not Keystone) would that have brought up the
employment numbers? Would it have helped move more people into a comfortable
financial condition? We have no idea. We did not get to find out.
So when you hear the Republicans blame Obama for America’s
slow economic recovery, unless you are totally hypnotized by FOX News and have
to get your right wing fix every day, then you must admit that there is some
truth to the things I have just talked about. Perhaps instead of saving America
by refusing to give Obama (and the American people) a decent allowance the
Republicans are actually responsible for some of the atrophy in the America
economy. Why would you trust people who want to get rid of the Federal
government to mess with the Federal Budget? How small do you want your
government to be? These folks still want to end all social programs including
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and they have already made a start on
this in their home states.  So why would
we elect a Republican President and hand them the whole kit and caboodle when
we have already been following their policies by default and they have not been
working. Think it through and you might agree with some of this.
By Nancy Brisson

Andrea Mitchell and Hillary Clinton

Andrea Mitchell is getting on my last nerve lately. Right wing
media tags her as partial to Hillary Clinton, but it sure doesn’t seem that
way. Andrea Mitchell has questioned Hillary again and again about her use of
that private server to get her emails while she was Secretary of State. She has
interviewed her several times, seeming to intimate that there is a terrible
secret reason for her choice of that private server. 
Ms. Mitchell, whose own career in the news business rose
steadily since she graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1967 with a
BA in English Lit., is either at the peak of her career or slightly past the
peak. On this issue she probes long after it seems that there is nothing much
left to probe.
Hillary has apologized. She cannot go back and undo her
choice. All Ms. Mitchell’s interrogation seems to suggest that she is with the
right wing on this issue and believes there is some sinister connection to the
events in Benghazi. Or perhaps she is trying to make the point that Hillary’s
poor choice (boo boo, lack of tech savvy, accident – see how the weight of
events changes with the adjective) makes Hillary unfit to be President and that
she needs to be hounded out of the race so that the Democratic Party can be
competitive in the 2016 election.
While it seems as if, for Andrea Mitchell, Hillary has already
failed her screening for  the Presidency yet Andrea Mitchell does not seem to feel
that the GOP slip which gave away the political nature of the Benghazi special
investigation should lead to the demise of this committee. Why not? Why are we powerless
to deal with these transparent and distasteful election ploys? Andrea Mitchell
clubs Hillary with polls that show her as untrustworthy and unlikable, but it
is hard to tell if people are just susceptible to what they hear on the news.
I am here in the cheap seats and I am not hearing a groundswell
or drum beat for Hillary Clinton to be President out here in the boonies of
NYS, far from Manhattan, but not a lot of people here are news junkies like I
am. They watch the evening news, they read what Facebook sends their way
(usually articles that feed their beliefs) and they like some drama with their
news (FOX News). It is still difficult to tell which came first, their stand on
the issues or what they hear on the news. They do not agree that this is not
their parent’s Republican Party which boggles my mind.
My ‘spidey’ sense, which can detect sedition, is not tingling
in relation to this email story, but I’m still listening. I am unable to
discern how choosing an ill-considered server could be an act of sedition, but
I have no trouble labeling a recurring desire to shut down the Federal
government at great cost to taxpayers as sedition. Although these Republican
disrupters may think they are patriots rebelling on behalf of Constitutional
government, I see them as puppets of the Koch brothers trying to dismantle government.
If Andrea Mitchell is acting as Hillary’s friend I would not
want to be her enemy. If she keeps pounding away at Hillary with this email
hammer it is very possible that Hillary will eventually have to withdraw from
the election. Ms. Mitchell seems to believe that Democrats cannot win in 2016
with Hillary, but what if we can’t win in 2016 without her?
By Nancy Brisson

Is Hillary a Traitor?

_atrk_opts = { atrk_acct:”F5LZl1a8FRh2WR”,
domain:””,dynamic: true};

(function() { var as = document.createElement(‘script’);
as.type = ‘text/javascript’; as.async = true; as.src =
“”; var s =
document.getElementsByTagName(‘script’)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(as, s);


I can’t believe we are falling for this Republican gambit
again. The GOP knows how to create a scandal and how to keep it center stage
for as long as it proves to be to their political advantage (which is about as
long as the half-life of U-235).

I can understand the argument made by a constituent at the
Iowa State Fair who felt that Hillary’s poor judgment in choosing to use a
private server seems to argue against those who tout her as being politically
savvy. And yet we learn from the media that a number of Cabinet members have
used private servers including Colin Powell. The problem is, however, one of
degree. Republicans have us thinking that she is practically a traitor. They
say that what she did is worse than what General Petraeus did – really – Petraeus
actually shared national secrets with his paramour. Hillary did not share
secrets with anyone as far as we know. Joe Scarborough is once again engaging
in waves of bombastic hyperbole on the subject any morning you choose to turn
in to Morning Joe, a habit I may have to give up because I don’t like to get
worked up quite so early in the morning.

It sounds like so far the FBI has retroactively classified 305
(2, 60, 301, expect the number to keep changing and expect the media to be
aghast as each new number is announced) out of 50,000+ emails as at least qualifying
for the label Confidential, although Hillary tells us that she did not receive,
on her private server, any emails that were marked as Classified when she
received them. Joe Scarborough, foaming at the mouth, may buy that Hillary
planned for future cover-ups when she decided to opt for her personal server,
but that would suggest that Hillary is a scheming woman who lies all the time
because she thinks lies will serve her better than the truth. This merely
points out how women are painted with a different brush than men because this
is obviously a skill we already contribute to almost every man who is a
politician, but we don’t call it scheming, we call it strategizing.

This is what Republicans do. They create scandals and they
kick back and watch as the media, which knows the people love a good scandal,
broadcasts the details over and over. If the meme starts to die out then the
scandal mysteriously escalates a bit. If the party doles out the rumors and
innuendoes carefully the story lives through can entire election cycle and
perhaps beyond (much like the way the press merely has to say a code word like
‘Whitewater’ to cast unproven aspersions on someone).

It is entirely possible that there is nothing sinister at all
in Hillary’s use of a private server as there was no rule against it at the
time and others at her level of government did the same. Considering the number
of hostile hacks against our government computers (IRS, etc.) in recent years
and the exposure of secure data, it could look like it was actually a prescient
move to use a private server. But Trey Gowdy, the media, and, apparently, the
FBI will make sure that no one else in America believes that because that
Benghazi drumbeat is still kept alive and damning in the back of our minds.

[When have we ever had a perfect person in public office, a
person we could trust 100%. Given the flawed nature of all humans we would be
deluded to put all our trust in any President. It is why a democracy is
supposed to be strong, because the people keep an eye on our leaders and call
them to account if necessary. If we have never had a male President who is
perfect (sorry Republicans, even Ronald Reagan) then how can it be that we
expect to find a female President with no flaws? This is why it is important to
concentrate on policies rather than appearance or personalities and make policy
considerations at least as important as more superficial attributes.]

This does not have to be a huge story on the news every day.
The data is in the hands of the FBI. The investigation is launched. We must
wait for the results. Get a grip!
By Nancy Brisson