Hillary Clinton is an extremely unfavorable candidate. She is viewed as dishonest, corrupt, and untrustworthy, and people find her power-hungry. Yet she has won the Democratic primary, officially receiving the nomination this week. And her opponent is the less-than-sane Donald Trump, so many Democrats will wind up voting for her regardless of how much they hate her, because Trump is even worse.

But the way some people put it, the 2016 election is like choosing between death by electric chair or firing squad. We have to pick our poison, because both choices are awful. And I see why people aren’t thrilled about choosing between Trump and Clinton, but they act like they are two sides of the same evil coin. The thing is, Hillary Clinton really isn’t that bad. And I am glad that she is the Democrats’ nominee.

I ask you to consider Leslie Knope, Amy Poehler’s character in the sitcom Parks & Recreation. She is tough, resilient, hard-working, and passionate. All her life she has fought for what she believes in. And she accomplishes what she sets her mind to do. She has been this way since she was little, and always dreamed of working in the government, running for office, and eventually being President, in order to serve her community and country. She has also suffered through ludicrous ‘scandals’ that people throw at her, but has pulled through these trials every time. It is amazing (and obnoxious). Leslie Knope is a phenomenal public servant.

Which is why, of course, Leslie has a framed picture of Hillary Clinton in her office. Because, in many ways, Hillary Clinton is the Leslie Knope of the real world.

From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has been dedicated to accomplishing what needs to be done, and fighting for what’s right. She started volunteering in political campaigns at age 13. In high school she participated in her student council and was class vice-president, though she lost the election for class president, being told she was crazy for thinking a girl could be president. Then in college, as Student Body President at Wellesley, she consistently studied situations, listened to people’s concerns, and did something about it, while also participating in and running clubs, largely centered around politics and justice. She successfully worked as a conduit between the students and the faculty, making sure that student needs were addressed, and changing policies to better their experience.

And then at graduation, when guest speaker Senator Edward Brooke pointed out he only had empathy with the students’ beliefs, Hillary later spoke—which she was chosen by her class to do—and shut him down, saying how, “Part of the problem with just empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn’t do us anything.” She then went on to discuss the responsibility that everyone has to make the change in their community that they feel is necessary, rather than just merely express their dissatisfaction. And this speech came to be famous across the nation.

After going to Wellesley, she later attended Yale law school (one of the 27 women in a 235-person class), and continued this dedicated work to understanding problems in the area and finding solutions. While in law school, she went undercover to investigate education discrimination in Alabama that President Nixon failed to handle. Hillary then went on to found Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, serve as legal counsel during the Watergate investigation, serve as the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation (nominated by Jimmy Carter and later confirmed by the Senate), teach law and criminal investigation at University of Arkansas, partnered at Rose Law Firm, and marry a fellow Yale student and lawyer named William. Throughout these pursuits, Hillary successfully fought Reagan to increase spending for the poor, increased the number of high school graduates going to college in Arkansas, published journals on children’s rights, and always fought for women. Serving as the breadwinner of her family for a while, she accomplished much of this by the time she was in her thirties, before her husband was governor.

And this continued when she became a national figure. She was famously active during her role as First Lady, pushing for health care reform and safe adoption, and promoting women’s rights (remember the whole “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all” thing she said in China?). She was elected Senator of New York in the 2000 election, where she helped bring funding back to NYC to help rebuild after 9/11 and provide health benefits to first responders, fought against the Federal Marriage Amendment (which would ban gay marriage), pushed for immigration reform, and again promoted women’s rights in the form of things like equal pay legislation. And after losing the 2008 primary, she became Barack Obama’s Secretary of State, the highest member of cabinet, and continued her hard work: she played a part in taking down Osama bin Laden, advocated for cleaner food preparation in the developing world, promoted gay rights as human rights to the United Nations (like she had in China as FLOTUS), increased exports to China, and helped broker deals to get the Iran nuclear deal on the table. And of course, she promoted women’s rights everywhere. After leaving the State department, she joined the rest of her family in the Clinton Foundation, which has done much to help developing rural communities, serve malnourished and impoverished children and girls, and promote education across the world.

All the while, Hillary proved to be very interested in people’s issues, and very studious. This article by Vox goes into great detail about her insane ability to listen and then take action. It’s really simple: she sees there is an issue, listens to someone testify and explain the situation, takes notes on the conversation, and then categorized issues into finding a solution. One thing I find remarkable about her is that her platform includes curing Alzheimer’s—something that no one has discussed in the election, and I would never think about when considering a platform—and I think it’s great that she wants to tackle that. That addition to her platform arose because of a man talking about his difficulty in taking care of his mother with the disease, and in hearing this story, Hillary decided that she would do something about it. This isn’t a ‘sexy’ issue that scores big among voters, but this is what Hillary does: she goes around the country and hears stories like Keith’s, recognizes the troubles that millions of Americans struggle with, and (after choking up a little) sets out to create a real plan to tackle an issue that no one else is discussing, because she realizes that these are problems that need to be handled. Many people who have met her have attested to her being a warm, personable person who really does care. Everything that I have gathered has lead me to believe that she is in fact kind, compassionate, and concerned about the issues people face, and that she wants the best for every American. This is the kind of person she is, and I find that remarkably valuable in a president. It’s how she has been her whole life.

Hillary Clinton has proven to be dedicated, and intelligent, and driven to fix what is wrong. If you look at The Briefing section of her website, you will see just how detailed her many ideas, stances, and plans really are. She has pushed for progressive values such as equal pay, equal rights, equal economic opportunity, fair treatment, the environment, early education, health care reform, combatting sexual diseases, and fighting for people with disabilities. She has wavered on specific details, but has never wavered from the core principles. Hillary was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate, more so than Barack Obama when they ran against each other, and not much less than Bernie Sanders is. She has always been a progressive. She has taken care of the country, acting as our mother in so many ways. Hillary clearly wants this job not for the power and the glory of being president, but because she truly wants to help the nation. If it’s something she has wanted and strived for her whole life, then that’s something we should admire her for, not shame her for.

This campaign has proven how suited Hillary is for the presidency. From having a solid understanding of the issues, to creating solid plans to tackle the issues, to remaining resolute and mature throughout, she has shown that she has the right character. She knows how to be both diplomatic and assertive, and manages to truly get done what needs to be done in order to make progress. She has made it clear that she cares about mainstream issues like safety, the economy, and civil rights, as well as more personal, everyday issues that don’t get discussed nearly as much in debates, like autism and Alzheimer’s, the disabled, campus assaults and sexual disease, wildlife, and substance abuse. She has demonstrated a consistent drive and passion for making life better for everyone, especially working families, and is dedicated to fix what needs to be fixed. She has plans for action, not ideas and soundbites. Hillary is the one to get it done.

If you pay closer attention, you can also see her human side. Her About page on Facebook describes her as, among other things, a “hair icon” and “pantsuits aficionado,” showing a humorous acknowledgement of the petty things she is known for. It lists her favorite activities (such as swimming, playing with her dogs, and being with her granddaughter), favorite books (like The Brothers Karamazov and anything by Toni Morrison), favorite TV shows and movies (The Wizard of Oz, the Three Stooges, House of Cards, Casablanca, and HGTV in general), and her favorite quotations, one from Eleanor Roosevelt and one from a Tom Hanks movie. Her Facebook page is really a profile of who she is as a person, like yours or mine might be. And it’s generally detailed, listing her basic work and education information, so that you can really get to know her. This is more information than most candidates have put on their pages.

And I don’t want to play the ‘woman’ card, but it is absolutely worth mentioning. Some say that people shouldn’t vote for her “just because she’s a woman,” and I agree that sex alone shouldn’t be what decides who you vote for. But saying that her sex is the only thing that she has going for her ignores just how significant her being a woman has impacted her career, and by extension, her qualifications to be President. Hillary Clinton has accomplished a ton in her decades of work, which alone is impressive. But the fact that she is a woman makes it even more impressive, because that often was a barrier that she had to knock down—and she did. Hillary has broken so many glass ceilings: The first female New York Senator. The first female partner at Rose Law Firm. The first female chair of the Legal Service Corps. The first former FLOTUS elected to a position—and an activist FLOTUS, who really worked hard to push for change, rather than sit on the sidelines. Because that’s what people often told her she should do: she’s a woman, so she should stick to her ‘womanly duties,’ and leave the decision-making to the men. But as she said, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.” Her successful career in the past few decades wasn’t from her riding on the coattails of her famous husband. Hillary Clinton has earned the success she has attained, working for it her entire life. She started this when she was in college, before meeting Bill. And when she was younger, friends and colleagues would say she would be president some day. She’s living up to that prophecy.

Again, all that Hillary Clinton has accomplished is impressive in its own right. But consider the sexism women currently face in the workplace, and remember how much better we are now then we were 40 years ago. Now imagine working in a “man’s job” throughout that entire period, constantly facing insults and sexist attacks, and rather than relenting and giving up, pushing through and maintaining a composite persona that continued to fight for what’s right. Hillary Clinton didn’t just break the glass ceiling: she shot a bazooka at a glass ceiling fortified with men—successfully. And now she’s the first woman to be nominated by a major party.

The fact that she’s accomplished all that she has as a woman—and even just as a person—speaks volumes towards her abilities and dedication. That, along with merely her basic résumé—highly accomplished lawyer, law professor, active First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State—makes her very qualified to be President. Not only is that impressive, but think of the message that sends: when she was a child, she was crazy for thinking that she could be president of her high school class because she was a girl, and now she could very well be the president of the country. It proves to disillusioned girls across the nation that they really can be what they set their minds to.

And I think the work she has done leading up to this point proves that she does at least somewhat care about the American people.

Of course, I do have my reservations with Hillary Clinton. She is more hawkish than I’d like. The email scandal gives me pause. She does flip-flop a fair bit. And she’s a bit too cozy with Wall Street.

But let’s be fair here. While I admit that Hillary does flip-flop, I think she receives more hate for this than she deserves. Take, for example, gay marriage. People often complain about how she didn’t support it until 2013, when it was “politically convenient” to do so. But first off… she changed her opinion on it when the rest of the country did, and only a year after President Obama did. And if you actually look at her record, it’s not like she’s been cruelly homophobic: while she never outright claimed to personally believe in gay marriage, she consistently advocated for the rights of gay people, fighting for civil unions, marching in Pride parades, fighting against gay marriage bans, and being supportive of New York’s decision to legalize it. I think it’s clear that even if she wasn’t in favor of it, she recognized that her personal opinions shouldn’t dictate how other people lived their lives, and I bet she became in favor of it well before she announced it. Yes, she flopped, but she did so gracefully and reasonably.

In general, people often criticize her for “flip-flopping” on positions she had many years ago. It’s as if people aren’t allowed to change their opinions ever. Once you believe something, you can never hold a new stance ever, lest you be damned for all time. Except for the fact that this is a completely rational thing to do: change your beliefs in view of new information and in light of changing situations (at least, people should be doing that). It’s called evolving as a person. People change over the course of ten years, strangely enough.

For another example, consider the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Hillary supported the TPP in 2011 and is against it now. But back then, it was still in development, and now that it’s done, it isn’t entirely the same. She knew what was in it in 2011, when she was Secretary of State and was helping to draft the treaty, so it’s reasonable that she liked what was there at the time. But since she left office and no longer had access to it until the final version was released, it’s completely reasonable that she could no longer support what it had become. Furthermore, the treaty was backed by President Obama, who Hillary represented as his Secretary, so she may have publicly supported it for him, but had her personal reservations. Since she is no longer on his cabinet, she can speak more freely, and at this point, it isn’t unreasonable for her to now be against it. And since she is no longer in the cabinet, she can no longer influence it to be the kind of treaty that she thinks is best.

The times have changed, the treaty has changed, and she has changed. This is a human phenomenon that she shouldn’t be judged so harshly for. Now, if she was changing her stance on something five times in three days, then I’d be critical of her.

But what kind of candidate would do that?

People take this flip-flopping attitude and say, “How can I trust her to be a good president when I don’t know what she believes one day from the next?” Again, look at her record of work. She has always fought for women, children, and families. She has always fought against discrimination. She has always fought for what’s right, in some way, shape, or form. Even if she did switch her stances on certain issues, she still evolved logically. You can tell she will still be fighting for the American people.

Unless she’s a corporate shill, as people often say she is. These arguments aren’t entirely without merit. Hillary charges high prices for her speeches, and raised a ton of money by delivering speeches to banks. The Clinton Foundation has received a lot from non-profits, corporations, and foreign governments. She has received many campaign donations throughout her career from law firms, real estate agencies, and finance companies, with her top donors including Citigroup, JPMorgan, and Goldman Sachs.

Though also on the list is Harvard and University of California, and #1 is Emily’s List, a pro-choice PAC aimed at getting women elected in politics. No wonder they support Hillary Clinton. And it just may be noteworthy that 88% of her campaign contributions come from individual donors, while the rest comes from PACs, self-funding, or something else. As Open Secrets explains, “all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor’s occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided. The Center uses that employer/occupation information to identify the donor’s economic interest.” In other words, while she has received a ton of money from these organizations, it’s merely people employed by the organizations, not the organizations themselves. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Citigroup collectively employ over 500,000 people, so it’s not surprising how so many donations come from these banks. Inspired by this post, back in early June I did the math with 17 of Hillary’s top 20 donors (ignoring Harvard, Emily’s List, and University of California), and found out that all of them together amounted to about a whopping 1.85% of the $540,549,023 she has raised since 1999. And this is counting donations from both the contributors’ PACs and individual donors (employees) of the corporations together, when they should really be counted separately. And when you leave out individual donors and just count PAC donations? 0.02%, over the course of 17 years.

For comparison’s sake, let’s take a look at Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. In June of 2016, her top donors—employees and PACs together—include Soros Fund Manager, the Fair Share Action super PAC, Pritzker Group, Paloma Partners, the Center for Middle East Peace, and more; according to her website, there have been over 1.3 million donors. 870 of her donors have given over $5400, contributing a total of $4,787,921 to the combined $289,073,368 raised between her campaign and outside groups. If you look at 10 of the top 20 donors to her campaign (I omitted unions, advocacy groups, and philanthropic organizations), these donations amount to 12.68% of the combined funds. Which, admittedly, is a lot, but still about an eighth of the total money, and again considers that this includes payments by people employed by the institutions, and not necessarily the institutions themselves. Which doesn’t prove that she is beholden to Wall Street.

And really… nothing does. People say “Look at the money she gets from Wall Street! She is clearly in their pocket!” but they rarely show evidence that their money actually influences her stances. But we can speculate and make educated guesses. Follow the money and see where it goes. Everywhere I look points to only one case with any evidence: the bankruptcy bill of 2001. The narrative goes that in 1999, Elizabeth Warren convinced Hillary Clinton to push her husband (then-President Bill Clinton) to veto the bill because it would hurt single mothers, but when she became a Senator and and the bill came up again a few years later, she voted for it, after receiving campaign donations from the credit card industry that would benefit from the bill. Clearly influenced by corporate money, right?

But Hillary’s side of the story? As a senator, she was able to include an amendment that would prioritize alimony and child support payments when ex-husbands declare bankruptcy (giving the support to single mothers that she wanted back in 1999), and was then willing to vote for the bill. But then when a version of the bill without that amendment came back around, she once again did not support it. As Kevin Drum writes, “Once George Bush was president, she had no way of stopping the bill—so she worked hard behind the scenes to get what she could in return for her vote.” When she was First Lady, she was able to stop the bill from becoming law, but as a Senator she had much less influence, so rather than kill it, she was able to reach a compromise and make it a little bit better. And that’s what she did. Once again, she was in favor of something when she was able to influence what good was in it, but when there wasn’t the provisions she needed, she couldn’t support it. Frankly, all I’ve pulled up in my digging is that she is generally friendly with the banks, rather than being one to demonize them, because she knows that the President needs to have a cohesive relationship with them considering their pivotal role in our economy, and they support her in return because she is actually willing to work with them, but still will institute decisions that make it less easy for them to screw up everything.

And if you’re still unconvinced that Hillary is not in the pocket of Wall Street, and that overturning Citizens United v. FEC isn’t something she wants to do, I just want to remind you of something: that case centered around Citizens United wanting to run negative ads against her. She kinda has this personal stake against the very premise of that Supreme Court Case.

But she must be bought by Wall Street! Why else would she not release the Goldman Sachs speeches that she was paid lucrative amounts for, huh? Well, there’s a few possible reasons; let me lay out a couple. Possibility 1: Hillary Clinton is in secret ties with the banks, conspiring to rig the US economy for their mutual benefit and screw over the middle class, and she revealed her Presidency plans to a bunch of Wall Street workers, discussing manipulations so secretive they can never be revealed, but not secretive enough to make sure no one discovered that the discussions happened in the first place. Possibility 2: Hillary Clinton said nothing of substance that is worth sharing with anyone outside of the conference—all she did was praise their work, promise to not demonize the banks, make sure that consumers and bankers will be able to work together, and be generally encouraging—but the speeches feature quotes and soundbites that, when taken out of context, can easily be used to smear her. Hillary is savvy: the speeches themselves likely aren’t damning, but something could easily be leaked that can unfairly damn her, and the damage caused by the soundbite would be much greater than the damage caused by not revealing what are probably uninteresting speeches. Manipulating quotes to make people look bad is something we all know the media can and will do. Now, which is more likely?

Goldman Sachs’s Builders and Innovators 2013 Conference was one of the events Hillary spoke at. No one cared about her speech, but everyone liked Elon Musk’s, who was also at the event. Draw your own conclusions.

Besides, it’s not like she’s alone in taking money from Wall Street. Barack Obama has received $12,652,561 from banks, lawyers, industries, etc. over the course of his career (again counting individual employees and PACs together), a walloping 0.82% of his campaign funds. Paul Ryan has received $731,761,142. Elizabeth Warren has received $450,152 in her four years, which is 0.91% of her funds. And so on. You might say it’s unacceptable for anyone, but that should not be a litmus test for a candidate. You reach a point where you expect perfection, when humans are anything but. Politics is messy, and it’s impossible to be perfect. To quote (out of context) the song “I Didn’t Plan It” from Waitress, “Look around you—ain’t no saints here, baby. We’re all just looking for a little less crazy.” You can’t have a gold standard for the president, because then you will rule out most people who have held the position. While it’s unideal, I can accept a candidate taking money from Wall Street if the candidate is otherwise a good choice. We can work to root out the issue of money in politics, but until then, if you refuse to vote for a candidate because of their donors, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a candidate you can vote for.

So what next? Emails. This is a case shrouded in assumption and lack of legal knowledge. FBI Director James Comey admitted that Hillary Clinton was careless with her emails but wouldn’t recommend she face charges, and people exploded at how she is clearly “above the law.” To have broken the law, Hillary would have to demonstrate “gross negligence” in her handling of the emails. What happened is that the FBI investigation determined that she was careless, but not negligent, the difference being intent—they proved that Hillary’s server was a security risk, but for her to have broken the law, she’d have to have meant to mishandle her emails.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: any freshman at law school could tell you that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. Which sounds nice, but—like most things in the law—it isn’t actually that simple. Certain criminal cases, this one included, require a person to have mens rea, or the intent to do the illegal action. This is what differentiates homicide (intentionally killing someone) from manslaughter (accidentally killing someone). Another example I’ve seen cited was drug dealing: it’s illegal to sell cocaine, and you would be arrested for doing so, but if you sold a bag of cocaine believing it was some substance that you can legally sell (and you can make the jury doubt that you knew it was cocaine), then you are innocent because you didn’t intend to commit the guilty act of selling cocaine. But if you knew you were selling cocaine and thought it was okay, you still have mens rea—you just don’t realize it—and therefore are guilty of selling drugs.

If Hillary had intentionally mishandled her emails, then she would have been negligent, and liable for charges. Without intent, she would only be careless. Through the evidence, the FBI could not prove that she had intentionally put confidential information at risk, and by studying case law, should not have recommended charges. But there are other parts to dissect: did Hillary get off better than someone else would because she’s a Clinton? Unlikely, considering Director Comey is a Republican who has supported John McCain and Mitt Romney. He probably really wanted to indict her, but knew he couldn’t, so he gave a long explanation to rake her through the mud, hoping that the American people could punish her for him. We have to decide if her judgement in using a private server should sway our decision this election.

So how do I judge her? Obviously, it was a bad idea, but let’s look at some context. First off, Hillary Clinton was in her 60s when she was appointed Secretary of State. She isn’t from a generation known for being remotely tech savvy, and likely wasn’t aware of the consequences. It isn’t a huge secret that she really isn’t good with technology in the first place. Hillary said she did it for convenience, which may sound odd when considering the number of devices she had to use, but makes more sense when you consider that she would have to juggle two different calendars to schedule her life, which is very inconvenient, especially for someone as busy as the Secretary of State. Her family had been using the server since the beginning of the decade, while email wasn’t used in the State Department until Colin Powell—who, like many others in government, also used a private server—introduced it in the Bush Administration, and Obama made email standard across the federal government in 2011. She may have made a bad judgment, but it’s not like the situation actually made it seem like this was a bad idea, and I don’t think this actually reflects on her character enough to disqualify her from the presidency. When you get down to it, this whole ‘scandal’ is not as big a deal as it’s been made out to be, and doesn’t actually suggest she is unfit for the presidency.

Besides, if we are going to judge Hillary Clinton for the security risks her server posed, then let’s at least show the same judgment to the rest of the federal government, who fails with flying colors. Our cybersecurity in general is pretty depressing: as a Senate report shows, the IRS did not adequately encrypt sensitive data (including financial information), the Department of Homeland Security protects a number of databases with poor passwords, we don’t know how many security breaches the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has had because it doesn’t have a proper process for reporting them, and so on and so forth. It’s possible that Hillary put confidential information in jeopardy by using a private server, but there’s little assurance that using a government server would make it any safer. Meanwhile, using a private server could have put confidential information at risk, but this guy actually did reveal confidential information and got little more than a slap on the wrist. This doesn’t justify what Hillary did, but it does put into question why we will judge her for this bad decision but not the rest of our federal government.

There’s a simple answer to that: because she’s Hillary Clinton. She has faced media scrutiny and Republican vitriol because of who she was since the 1990s, and has never been given the time of day. She has been painted as a lying, untrustworthy demon woman, despite all the effort she has put into improving American lives, and the fact that she has been ranked the most honest candidate in the election often goes unmarked. Michael Arnovitz’s “A Plea For Reason” points out some poignant revelations about America’s relationship with Hillary Clinton: she has high approval ratings when holding office, but terrible approval when seeking office; her scandals have little correlation with her approval ratings; the things we judge her for, such as her ambition and speaking fees, are not things we judge male candidates for; her speaking fees are high because the agency that books her speeches sets high prices for their clients by default, and she is not alone in this regard; she really isn’t that corrupt, and is “fundamentally honest” (according to an investigator who loathes her); and ultimately, the negative narrative that surrounds her is largely grounded in falsities, and therefore is undeserved. Arnovitz really hammers two important notions: if Hillary was a man, she wouldn’t be hated nearly as much as she is, and, as he so eloquently puts it, “the one thing that seems to most negatively and consistently affect public perception of Hillary is any attempt by her to seek power.” She may do some things wrong, but a lot of the disapproval towards her this election in some way stems from the mere fact that she is Hillary Clinton.

The hatred geared towards her is largely a result of sexism, either blatant today, or a product of how sexist people treated her in the past and her response to that. People criticize her for having a manufactured image, but when every aspect of her appearance is fiercely over-analyzed and criticized—from the style of her hair to the thread that ties her buttons to her coat—can you blame her for trying to make the best appearance she can? I bet she would love to go off and “Remind You Fuckers Who I Am”, but she has to maintain this calm, professional composure in order to be taken seriously, even though her opponents were successful by doing the exact opposite. The fact of the matter is that we rarely criticize most politicians—especially male ones—for the exact same things that we criticize Hillary Clinton for, because America is inherently biased against her for some dumb reason.

Take a trip to Snopes and Politifact and see just how many lies have been told about her, not by her. No, Hillary did not laugh about freeing a child rapist—she was assigned the case, despite protesting not to, and handled it because she had to. No, Hillary was not fired from the Watergate investigation for unethical behavior. No, Hillary did not pay her female Senate staffers significantly less than men—and in fact she hired more women than men each year. Throughout her career, Hillary has been smeared with lies to ruin her reputation—sometimes spending countless hours and an excess of taxpayer money to do so—and she has stood strong throughout it all. She knows who she is, and I hope others will see it too.

Is Hillary Clinton sketchy? Yes. I won’t deny that. She has a lot of baggage—some legitimate, much not, and some that is really Bill’s baggage with her name attached to it—and has many traits that I find undesirable. She is far from perfect.

But is any politician perfect?

Now, this post is about what makes Hillary Clinton a good choice, so I don’t want to make an anti-Bernie spiel. But I think it helps to juxtapose the two in order to really highlight what is so good about Hillary. So let’s talk about the legendary Bernie Sanders for a bit.

Bernie’s appeal is unsurprising. He doesn’t take money from Wall Street. He fights for what the people want. He believes in this crazy notion that politicians should work for the people. He wants the best for every American citizen, and is in tune with what people really feel. And he is against the income inequality that is ruining our country. On the surface, he is just amazing.

But let’s go beyond the surface. He repeats his stump speech—the top 1% hold far more wealth than the rest of the country combined, giving them an advantage in the economy and with politicians—at pretty much every event, but that doesn’t actually make his policies to fix this fitting. Consider his stance on the Federal Reserve. The purpose of bureaucracies such as the Fed is to regulate areas that Congress doesn’t know how to regulate, by assigning professionals and experts to figure out the policies. Bernie doesn’t think that’s wise. Instead, he’ll fill the Federal Reserve with farmers and small businessmen and other occupations that aren’t related to what the Federal Reserve handles. I get his argument of not wanting the foxes to guard the henhouse, but that’s an inadequate argument in this case. The Fed isn’t run by bankers because they want to corrupt the economy—it’s run by bankers because they know how the economy operates. Putting farmers in charge of the economy is like putting a schoolteacher in charge of the army: they may have some general knowledge and insight into how it may work, but they don’t have the proper wisdom to actually control it effectively.

And this argument applies to Bernie too: is he qualified to be president? He has worked in Congress for 25 years, and was mayor of Burlington, Vermont, for eight years. But is that enough? He was apparently ranked one of the best mayors at the time, so perhaps he would be a good executive. But running a small city like Burlington isn’t the same as running a whole nation, which involves being the executive of a massively complex federal bureaucracy and being commander-in-chief, and he hasn’t proven to know how to do that. So what about working in Congress? Well, in his 25 years, he has sponsored 782 bills, and has managed to get… six of them out of one chamber, and only three were signed, two of which were renaming post office facilities.

What about Hillary Clinton? As Jeffrey Lazarus of The Monkey Cage writes, Hillary was a more effective legislator. In her eight years, she sponsored 713 bills (nearly the amount Bernie did in three times the tenure), and got 38 out of one chamber (though admittedly in the end only three bills again were signed, two of which were again honors). That being said, Lazarus’s article does not include certain legislation such as commemorative bills (like before) or resolutions, and so he assigns Hillary ten bills passed over the course of eight years in the Senate, and Bernie passed one in his nine years in the Senate. By Lazarus’s calculations, Senators pass on average 1.4 bills a year, which means that Hillary passed 1.25 a year, and Bernie passed 0.11 bills a year, and his House record (which Hillary doesn’t have to compare with) is pretty similar. Of course, the article notes that Bernie, an independent, doesn’t have the support of the Democratic party that Hillary has to help push bills out of a chamber.

Which brings up another issue: Bernie is not a Democrat, yet he ran to be their nominee. But when the election goes against him, he and his supporters cried afoul, as if it were rigged to make it 100% impossible for him to win. Superdelegates are corrupt Hillary shills, they say, who give her an unfair advantage. But the reason that Hillary is at an advantage due to superdelegates isn’t because they are all corrupt. It’s because she has worked with the Democratic Party for decades to pass agendas, strengthen the party, and fund congressional and state elections, thus gaining the trust and support of the superdelegates because she has proven to them that she is worth nominating. Hillary has put an insane amount of work into helping the party—as a whole, and for individual members—so naturally they see her as a good choice for the president, having worked up close with her. Bernie Sanders hasn’t done nearly as much, because he didn’t join the party until recently, which he did solely to run the party that he just joined. Although he has received funds from the Democrats, who often refused to run against him in elections, he continued to bash the party as being too influenced by big money throughout his whole career. But Bernie would need the Democrats to have power in 2017 if he hopes to see his progressive goals be put into action. Hillary realizes this, and has worked to help those other candidates get elected.

Bernie is an idealist. He can tell what’s wrong with the country, and wants to fix it. But he hasn’t proven to know how to actually do so. Hillary, meanwhile, is a pragmatist. She wants to fix these issues, but is willing to take it one step at a time, while Bernie wants to make a radical revolution with the hopes that maybe it’ll work out. Christopher Cook argues, “In politics, if you demand a mile, you get a foot; demand a moderate inch, and at best, you get a centimeter,” so some people figure they should shoot higher, knowing they won’t get these sweeping changes, but will get something that’s still pretty good. There is merit to this: it’s a classic negotiation strategy to start high, and whittle down to something that appeases everyone. But only to an extent—there’s a limit to how high you can start when negotiating, before the other person will refuse to work with you altogether for being too out there. Look at how difficult working with Republicans has been for Obama, who is a relatively moderate Democrat, yet they called a socialist. Someone who actually calls himself a socialist (who actually isn’t that well-liked among real socialists) will make the Congress from the past eight years look like Henry “The Great Compromiser” Clay. So Bernie supporters will say that they are demanding a mile and getting a foot, but I think they’re demanding a mile, calling it a yard, and will be lucky if they get an inch. Hillary, on the other hand, has been able to work across the aisle, a skill that will be valuable when trying to push agendas. Progressives condemn her for thinking that a $15 federal minimum wage is unrealistic, despite economists agreeing that $12 is better for the economy. But when she then praises New York for increasing their minimum wage to $15, she is a hypocrite, as if there was no difference between the economic effects of raising the federal minimum wage and raising a state minimum wage (hint: there is).

In politics, we aren’t living in the moment, but the movement. Change requires long-term work, not jumping to the finish line. It doesn’t happen overnight, and you often can’t get everything you want. Bernie’s philosophy has been all-or-nothing, while Hillary’s has been taking things one step at a time. You can’t get everything, she knows, but if you get something, that’s a victory; we make progress by progressing our way there. And that’s the pragmatic, incremental method that works, especially in these divided times. No one is saying that since a goal is unrealistic, there is no point in trying to reach it. What is actually being said is that the goals ahead will be difficult to meet, so let’s find a method that will reach as much of the goal as we realistically can, rather than shooting for stars that we know are unattainable.

It also doesn’t help that Bernie had turned his positive-message campaign into a negative one. He became arrogant, virulent, and hypocritical, demanding the presidency, and his supporters are often even worse. In the words of Jesus Christ Superstar, he’s begun to matter more than the things he says. His whole career, he has apparently had a holier-than-thou attitude and looks down on people who disagree with him, which is unbecoming of a candidate who once looked so good. Thankfully, he turned it around at the end of the election, and endorsed Hillary, doing a good job of pointing out all the things they both stand for, especially in contrast to Donald Trump. They truly are Stronger Together. But a loud minority of his followers have yet to follow suit.

People think Bernie is perfect—he has had a very consistent and appealing voting record across the years. Which speaks to him pretty well, but, to quote Tony Stark, “I don’t trust a guy without a dark side.” Hillary has changed her beliefs, but she has learned a lot in doing so. Sanders, on the other hand, seems like a man who refuses to evolve, and we are just lucky that he is obstinate about the right things. Besides, it’s not difficult for him to remain so consistent and preferable in his voting when he has a very small and very progressive electorate to hold him accountable, especially compared to the large and diverse population of New York that Hillary had to represent; to quote (once again out of context) Something Rotten, Hillary probably thinks, “Damned if I don’t, damned if I do / Damn it, I don’t have the luxury to / Hang all my hope on some simplistic trope like ‘To thine own self be true.'” And while Bernie boasts about never taking corporate money, I can’t help but wonder how often Wall Street and corporations even tried to give him money in the first place. Were they knocking at his door, or is he more like an unpopular kid saying that his celibacy is what has stopped him from having sex with hot girls? His personal stance may be a contributing factor, but I bet that it’s hardly the only thing that has prevented it.

But I wanted him to have a dark side, and luckily there is something, so let’s take a look. For one thing, he voted for the 1990s crime bill that he often criticizes Hillary for supporting, and then misreports the story. When Hillary asked where Bernie was when she tried to get health care in the 90s, people laughingly pointed to the picture of Bernie standing right behind her, but forgot that he didn’t vote for it in the end because he wanted something much more liberal—once again being unable to compromise. People view his vote against the Defense of Marriage Act as proof of his support of gay marriage, rather than realizing that it was for state’s rights (notice that he doesn’t say anything about actually supporting gay marriage and just mentions civil unions), and when asked if Vermont should legalize gay marriage (following a tough fight for civil union laws), said, “Not right now, not after what we went through.” He didn’t hold a real job until he was 40, when he was elected mayor of Burlington in 1980. He (kinda rudely) pointed out that he doesn’t believe in charities when speaking at a charity event in his city. And while he constantly slams Hillary for voting for the Iraq War when he didn’t, he ignores how he has voted in favor of other war efforts, especially his vote for the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia that prompted one his staffers resign in disgust. And while I don’t think it’s fair to judge him for this, if he were the nominee, he would have to suffer the damage of attack ads for praising socialists and the essays about female rape fantasies he wrote when he was younger, and that wouldn’t have done the Democrats any good. These may not be the most damning of facts, but let’s please stop acting like Bernie Sanders is a pure politician, because there is no such thing as one.

But his heart is in the right place. He has integrity. He is known for making good amendments on bills to appease many. He’s beloved by his supporters, and constituents. And these are strong traits. But there’s more to being the president than just having character; when you get down to it, that’s one of the least useful traits to have, and it’s almost the only one Bernie has, while Hillary has most of the rest. If he wants to implement progressive changes, then he should seek leadership in the Senate, where he’d have more influence; I’d been saying the beginning of his campaign that he’s made a strong case for him to be a Senate leader rather than a President. The presidency is a very difficult job, and as Obama noted in his endorsement video, Hillary is one of the most prepared people for the job. Other political jobs, you can easily learn how to do it as you go along, but the presidency ought to require more skills and preparation. Actions speak louder than words, and what I’ve found when investigating the candidates is that while Hillary’s accomplishments frequently involved actually doing something, most of Bernie’s “accomplishments” were just voting the right way, and maybe amending bills to make them better for everyone. Hillary can hit the ground running as President. Bernie can’t.

Bernie Sanders is really good at diagnosing the problems our country faces. But we need someone who doesn’t just find the problems, but solves them. That requires being knowledgeable about the issues, skilled enough to find a solution, and connected enough to implement it. There’s a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk, because the words just ask the question—the answer is in the action. Bernie Sanders can talk a lot, but in the end, he hasn’t proven to be able to walk. Hillary can. Bernie has displayed a lot of empathy, and that’s great.

But empathy with professed goals is empathy that doesn’t do us anything.

Barring something unlikely (but exciting), our next president will be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Many people are not thrilled about that. And I don’t blame them.

But there’s a bunch of people—including liberals—who act like they are equally bad. Anti-Clinton Democrats say that she is “basically a Republican.” And that’s just absurd: Hillary Clinton is a very intelligent and experienced candidate, and Donald Trump a politically incorrect businessman. She is progressive, just methodical, while he is… scary. At least for Democrats, the choice should be obvious.

Now, I’m not expecting to convince a whole lot of people to especially like Hillary Clinton. My goal is to merely get people to not resent her. Do I have my reservations on her? Sure. Do I see why people don’t want to vote for her? Absolutely. Some people cannot in good conscience vote for her at all, even though her opponent is Donald Trump. I am willing to accept that. If you disagree with their character, or you don’t agree with their policies, then I don’t have any reason for you to vote for either of them.

The attitudes out there, however, make it seem that this race is between Lucifer and Hades. At most, you can say that Trump is Lucifer and Clinton is Set—still bad, but not nearly as much.

What people need to accept is that for all her flaws, Hillary Clinton really is not horrible, and is much better than Donald Trump. Even if she were evil, she is by far the lesser of two. Let’s please not act like it’s a close comparison between them. If you’re a Republican, I don’t expect to convince you at all, though I hope to convince you that it won’t be an utter disaster if she wins, as opposed to Trump. But if you’re a Democrat, you should be at least content, if not excited or even satisfied, with who we have. If nothing else, consider the words of Hamilton: “I have never agreed with Clinton once. We have fought on like seventy-five different fronts. But when all is said and all is done, Clinton has beliefs [and experience]. Trump has none.” Better the Devil you know than the Devil you don’t… though I again assert that Hillary is not the Devil. The choice between Hillary and Trump doesn’t even need to boil down to the fact that Trump is a madman: I trust that Hillary will be competent in running the country, even if it were in a way that I might not be a fan of, while Trump, ignoring his psychopathy, is much more likely to simply screw things up and cause much more lasting damage—especially considering the three or four Supreme Court justices the next president will nominate, influencing the law for decades to come. The dichotomy between Clinton and Trump cannot be more obvious: one complains about issues, the other fixes it.

And this is my main address to Bernie or Busters, who want to go to Jill Stein (or worse, Trump) over Hillary Clinton. I respect the decision to vote third party—I myself initially considered supporting Gary Johnson, as I had in 2012—and I firmly believe in voting your conscience, for a candidate you believe in. But if you are a progressive and want Bernie’s ideas implemented, then what I’m telling you is that you should believe in Hillary Clinton, because when you get down to it, she and Bernie share many of the same ideals and goals—with just different approaches to getting them done—and what Hillary has over Jill Stein is the political clout to actually get it done. The highest office Stein has held is a town meeting member in Lexington, Massachusetts, and has organized some small grassroots activism movements. That’s all. In terms of résumé alone, I’m almost inclined to say that Trump is more qualified to be President than her, considering how grandiose the work he has done compared to Stein. She is even less qualified than Bernie is, and on the off chance that Jill Stein won, she still does not have the experience needed to do a good job. The Presidency will eat her alive, and deferring to her is not a wise move. Voting for Jill Stein isn’t disingenuous because it helps Trump win—it’s disingenuous because she is simply not a good choice for the presidency. The ‘Green Tea Party’ is ignorant of how politics work, and will fail. As Sarah Silverman said at the DNC Monday night, “You guys are being ridiculous.” You’ve listened to Bernie Sanders this entire election—continue to do so when he says that you should support Hillary Clinton.

Beating Trump is reason alone to vote for Hillary, but even without him, she is an excellent choice. She is the best option to implement most, if not all of the values that Bernie fought for. She will stand for them, and she will be able to implement them. There is no such thing as political purity: you must compromise with others and get what you can, because when you get the chance to get most of what you want, it’s idiotic to stomp your feet and lose it all because you didn’t get everything that you want. It takes a village, and politics requires us to be stronger together.

As for me, I look at Hillary Clinton favorably, with a little caution. She is intelligent, and a fast learner. She is experienced—in writing the law, working on cabinet, helping run the White House from the inside, and working with foreign governments. She has spent decades building coalitions. And she’s resilient, still standing after decades of harassment from the right and the media. As Leslie Knope says, “Nobody takes a punch like her. She’s the strongest, smartest punching bag in the world.” Some people judge Hillary Clinton for so badly wanting to be president, but she is the same kind of person as Leslie—dedicated to what she believes in, and aspires for the presidency so that she can help the country. You shouldn’t judge Leslie for constantly saying she wants to be President, so why judge Hillary? She has dealt with America’s shit for 25 years, and wants to deal with it for another eight, because of how determined she is for this cause. Many Congressmen have endorsed Hillary, many business leaders have endorsed Hillary, and President Obama has endorsed Hillary, but if you listen to none of them, then I think you should instead listen to the more relatable ideals and persona of Leslie Knope.

People look at Hillary Clinton and say they can’t trust her to have the country’s best interests at heart. But when I read her story, and how she got where she is today, I find it hard to believe she wouldn’t care for the country and its citizens. The story of young Hillary to modern Hillary is of a passionately determined woman who is driven to make a difference in her community, reminiscent of many people inspired in their early days, from fictional characters we love like Leslie Knope and Hermione Granger, to dedicated public servants like Alexander Hamilton, to friends I’ve made in my own life. They are all people who want to pave a strong future, and Hillary has been no different. Many Democrats attested to this fact at the DNC last week. I’m not voting for Hillary so that Trump loses—I’m voting for her because I truly think she is the right person for the job.

Hillary is incredible. She has accomplished so much. And she has paved the way for women to achieve even more. People say that voting for her because she’s female is sexist, but I disagree: it’s not simply because she’s a woman, but being a woman has made her work harder to get where she is, demonstrating her character. Along with that, I think she can more accurately tackle the issues that women face than a male president can—and be inspirational. Not to mention how monumentally impressive it would be if we went from our first black president to our first female president.

I get why people aren’t the biggest of fans of Hillary Clinton. But I think she’ll do a pretty damn good job (at the very least, not a terrible one). I’m glad that she is the Democratic nominee, and I look forward to voting for her in November.



And #ImWithHer

I’ve been writing this post for far too long. (Scroll Back)

Some people point to the part of the speech when he says “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.” as proof that she didn’t get what she deserved because of who she is. What this actual means is that she couldn’t face criminal charges, but if she were still working in the State Department, she would receive some slap on the wrist for what she did. Since she is currently not employed by the government, there really isn’t any punishment that could be dealt to her. (Scroll Back)

There’s also the fact that, economically speaking, high prices makes sense for a Clinton speech. She’s an important and experienced person, as well as a busy person with a frantic schedule, so for her to allocate time to fit in a speech and impart the wisdom she has acquired is certainly valued at a high amount. (Scroll Back)

(Nov. 7th edit: I added some links to articles that have been written since this was originally published in the summer. I haven’t changed any content, but the links provide information that reinforce my points.)