Like many Bernie supporters I spent the first few months of 2015 trying to come to terms with the fact that the “likely” candidate, the frontrunner, was not someone I’d supported in the past and that I was not “likely” to find one of her supporters who would kindly tell me why she was a good choice. No one else was running at that point, and if she was going to be the nominee, I wanted to find out more. The response was pretty underwhelming, and in some cases, insulting. “Go listen to all of her speeches!” and “I’m not going to do your research for you” — as if it were all in the bag anyway and I’d soon just find myself in a voting booth with one choice anyway.

When Sanders declared, there was a lot of scoffing. We were all delusional children who would come to our senses in a couple months. To this day, apparently many detractors don’t seem to realize what an ignorant insult it is to continue to scoff, to say that he’s “never accomplished anything” or “no one in congress likes him” or “he’s a one-issue candidate who doesn’t bother to inform himself on other issues.” Or to tell his supporters that we are delusional worshippers of unicorn dust. It’s as though these are so well accepted among some that stating it is just “truth” rather than mean-spirited, uninformed insult.

But for months all Bernie supporters have had it thrown in our face that Clinton was doubtless going to be the nominee and all that was left was for us to pledge to vote for her. Fair enough, at least from their point of view, but why? Not “scary GOP” why, because we actually think Sanders can beat the GOP. But why?

I had some real substantive policy issues with Clinton, but I figured I could vote for her in decent conscience if she is the nominee, if only to keep the GOP from gaining more power. But then Bernie started to look like he might actually have a path to winning the nomination, and suddenly, things got really ugly. And it’s more and more difficult for me to say so easily that I can vote for her “in good conscience”. There are just some really disheartening things going on with her campaign right now that it truly loses me more every day:

Continuing to employ and collaborate with David Brock and “ Correct Corrupt the Record” — of course we can’t prove he had anything to do with the sudden resurgence of questions about the sit-in photos coinciding with insinuation that he “wasn’t there” (in the movement) at all. We do know he was the one trying to peddle nasty oppo to several news outlets, trying to foment hurt and anger among BLM and plant fears about Bernie’s age/health via tweets, etc. We know he’s a liar — he told us so. No one being honest with themselves can genuinely claim he’s now a pristine player. He’s slime, and being associated with him is not a positive.

Corrupt the Record” — of course we can’t prove he had anything to do with the sudden resurgence of questions about the sit-in photos coinciding with insinuation that he “wasn’t there” (in the movement) at all. We do know he was the one trying to peddle nasty oppo to several news outlets, trying to foment hurt and anger among BLM and plant fears about Bernie’s age/health via tweets, etc. We know he’s a liar — he told us so. No one being honest with themselves can genuinely claim he’s now a pristine player. He’s slime, and being associated with him is not a positive. Sending out surrogates to fearmonger with misleading bullshit about hammers and sickles, etc., and how (omg!!) he stood around having a soft drink with a lobbyist studiously avoiding talking about policy (sellout!!). Especially odious is the way that organizations who have endorsed her seem panicked at the thought that someone might know they’ve also thought quite highly of Bernie Sanders as well. So League of Conservation Voters, who’ve always supported Sanders, decides to endorse Clinton despite his having a higher record of agreement with them. Fine, they’ve made their analysis and chose her. But let Sanders claim the TRUTH of his rating from LCV, with, forbid, a logo (which non-profits do you know that dislike having their logos out there? I could see them freaking out if Trump or Cruz tried it, but they LIKE Bernie. Suddenly only Clinton can use their logo? Since when? Since “endorse”?) He includes NO indication of the word “endorse”, and he’s “misleading”? And even worse is putting someone as accomplished and respected as John Lewis in a position that he feels he has to imply that Sanders wasn’t there with civil rights and she and Bill were, and then has to walk it back — because he is a man of honor and conscience.

Blindsiding Sanders with basically irrelevant comments about criticizing Obama, as if caring enough about issues to criticize the President — as she herself has done — is disqualifying. Clinton herself and through surrogates slung the worst sort of dung at Obama when she was running against him. Racist images and tropes about selling drugs, etc. — but somehow she is in a position to criticize Sanders for voicing what a lot of us were thinking: Obama should not have even mentioned chained CPI, and perhaps needed a bit of reminder from US out here that it was not acceptable to do so.

Misleading about Sanders policies — not only about the import of the policies themselves, but about his intention in articulating the policies (setting forth a vision versus disruptively “shoving ideas down out throats on day one”) . Spreading the concept that he is a one-issue candidate when even the supposed single issue is more than one issue. Income inequality is not just about Wall Street. It is about unions, it’s about minimum wage, it’s about job creation, it’s about paid leave, it’s about health insurance and prescription meds not making people broke, it’s about equal pay, it’s about trade policy. All of those things contribute to wealth and income inequality. And wealth and income inequality contribute to social injustice. Political voices that are silenced by big money mean the most crucial of issues are not addressed. Voters without money and power are not likely to get the laws we want. None of the issues either Clinton or Sanders are talking about can truly be addressed as long as money speaks so much louder than our voices and votes. But if you want to know his policy proposals rather than bash without information, they are here.

Claiming that Sanders is a one-issue candidate knowing full well that he has well-articulated policies on the gamut of issues facing us today, and in some cases, much more detailed strategies and goals than she lays out herself.

Disingenuous co-opting of Bernie’s populist message — for certain audiences and not others, and depending on how she’s doing in the polls. She talks about jobs, but she has no jobs plan. She talks about universal health care but has no plan or strategy to get us there.

Proposing the same funding strategies while spreading the meme that he has no plan to pay for his proposals. She now says she’ll pay for infrastructure through “business taxes”, but without elaboration, in contrast with Sanders level of specificity about offshore tax havens, yet people still say he is the one that has no details. Or saying Bernie’s health care plan is “too expensive” when we’re paying way more than that right now, and getting less.

Too much I, I, I, I, and I, and not enough we, you, us. In this, she seems to mistake the way she thinks things should be done (by people like her negotiating in quiet rooms) with the way Bernie is saying we should do things (together), and then concluding since she could not do them alone by playing the game within the system, they cannot be done.

“In your face” aggressive and unrelenting fundraising from noxious companies and industries even while complaining about being criticized for doing so. Cleaving to the concept (and taking her supporters with her) that this is the way it has to be done in order to remain competitive with the GOP. If this were Bush or Cruz claiming he needs to show up at every fundraiser with bankers and extraction industry bigwigs (or Bain Capital!), but it won’t affect his policies, we’d laugh him off the stage; instead, we’re making excuses for it?

fundraising from noxious companies and industries even while complaining about being criticized for doing so. Cleaving to the concept (and taking her supporters with her) that this is the way it has to be done in order to remain competitive with the GOP. If this were Bush or Cruz claiming he needs to show up at every fundraiser with bankers and extraction industry bigwigs (or Bain Capital!), but it won’t affect his policies, we’d laugh him off the stage; instead, we’re making excuses for it? Telling us that even talking about big solutions is dangerous and frightening. Telling us that just talking about Medicare for All will take health care from seniors and chemo from cancer patients. Or that things that work in other nations aren’t possible here, might as well give up. I prefer hope to “pragmatism”, but what she offers is not pragmatism, it’s stagnation, unless I’m missing some strategies she’s lately delivered. (It turns out I am missing some things she added within the last few weeks. I guess she realized “coming soon” was no longer sufficient in light of her campaign ridiculing the other guy for not have sufficient details while her policies lacked details.)

Not recognizing the dire consequences of slow-walking the end to fracking and extraction and burning of fossil fuels, and resting on what will happen if nothing changes rather than having a plan for what she herself will do. Her climate plan, last I looked, was “coming soon”.

TPP, no matter what she says. “I’m against it but I won’t tell you why and I won’t fight it” might as well be silence, or even “sure, why not?”

Embracing Kissinger.

For these reasons, Hillary Clinton and her campaign are losing me. They seem cynical and driven by something other than what is best for us. And I truly don’t want to leave a blank on my GE ballot if she is the nominee. I’m hoping that something will change so I can rest more easily about the concept of her name being there.