I am sitting in the little-used tiny room in our apartment we call "the spongy room," because of its loose old dark-brown carpeting and the way it feels underfoot.  There is nothing interesting in the spongy room, just some spillover kitchen gear and cookbooks, bottles of liquor, an old armchair, and a bicycle.  It's also cold.  Would it help if I noted that my browser is closed?-- the spongy room today is a critical retreat of sensory and information deprivation, desperately needed if I'm ever going to have any hope of writing or thinking something coherent this morning.

It's true that I still have "I can't keep quiet" running relentlessly through my head, as well as a succession of paranoid thoughts about exactly what dastardly plan has been concocted and is being implemented by (some subset of) Vladimir Putin, Steve Bannon, Rex Tillerson, Carter Page, Richard Spencer, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Alexander Nix and (maybe) Donald Trump.  On the other side of the scales there is an obsessive desire to keep looking for data and photos about a protest and impromptu march in which I personally participated yesterday.  Why?--I was there, I know what it was like.  Also-- and I know I'm not alone in this-- I'm thinking about some comments I made on Facebook-- whether they were wise, what people thought about them, whether they contributed to the conversation or were just a bunch of self-important BS.

The browser is closed, I won't look at my phone until this is finished, no one else is home, I don't have anyplace else to be.  But I still can't turn my brain off.

If conversations I've had with others over the past couple of weeks are any indication, we are all in this boat.  So much is happening that consuming news has become (in an immediately overused analogy) "like drinking from  a firehose."   Then, once you consume it, the pressure and obligation to act in response is immense-- but what should you respond to first, and how?  And, while you are beginning to consider action, the firehose blast of new material continues.  Meanwhile, there is also life to be lived, a life that increasingly seems like a trivial aside: going to a job, perhaps, keeping up with the kids' schedule, making dinner, doing the laundry, calling your mother and talking about something other than Donald Trump.  Reading a book published before 2016, in the Days of Irrelevant Yore.  These are all things that have to be fit into the interstices between fits of panic, outrage, and righteous action.

So, for a long time now I've been intending to write and think about how to create an activism schedule, or life balance, or however you want to put it-- some way to gain control back over my time and decision-making-- but ironically I have not been able to find the time to do so.  This, despite the fact that I have only a part-time job and my child is 15 and needs very little direct care and feeding.  There have always been urgent news to read, urgent calls to make to my senators about cabinet appointments, meetings to attend, protests planned and spontaneous... or, on the flip side of all this, a day here or there of total meltdown in which I check out entirely, eat potato chips, and block out the world.

I was going to write this post yesterday, but a major protest and then impromptu march arose downtown, near the White House, in response to Trump's new travel/immigration bans, and I couldn't bear not to be there, so I went.

The situation is dire.  It's great that, all of a sudden, we have an engaged and responsive citizenry, an army of people willing to act at a moment's notice.  But, on a collective level, we need to have enough opportunities to catch our breath that we can coordinate well-considered actions, not just reactions.  We also need to not burn out after a couple of weeks or months.  On an individual level, there's laundry to do, and your teenager wants to tell you about a test score they're really proud of. 

And this liquor isn't going to drink itself.

So-- and I am really asking this question, like, seeking answers-- how do you decide what to do, at any given moment?  I always have trouble with this issue, being a scheduler and a list-maker-- spontaneity does not come naturally to me.  But I'm thinking that maybe, right now, my natural lack of spontaneity could be an asset, something that could keep me from being entirely reactive 100% of the time.  I had some luck-- for, like, one week, right after the new year and admittedly before Donald Trump actually took office and started firing off presidential memoranda-- with a schedule that looked like this (on the days I do not work at the restaurant):

7:00am--12:30 pm  Ingest news and commentary (usually takes until 9:30-10 am).  Shower.  Spend a couple of hours calling congressmen, writing letters, and/or writing my own material.

12:30 pm--1:30 pm  Lunch break.  Read something that isn't news.  Like a book.

1:30 pm--dinnertime  Do Life things.  Try really hard to stay away from Facebook.  Go grocery shopping, do the laundry, errands, bills, cooking.  Don't check Facebook.  Don't.  Even email is shaky now that I receive 80 million action alerts and news digests in it.  Just life things.  And, oh yeah, exercise.

Eat dinner with my family, do dishes, go for a walk around the block with my husband, possibly watch a TV show that is not black comedy about news (possibly).  Now I can check Facebook, but not for too long, because I need to go to sleep at a reasonable hour.

Attend scheduled meetings, protests, volunteering, etc. as needed (probably a couple of evenings a week, plus occasional daytime commitments, usually known in advance).

Sounds like a pretty decent plan, right?  But, oh my God, it requires so much self-discipline.  I've had three big problems right off the bat.  1) It is hard to stick to ingesting news only once per day, when the constant barrage of outrageous activity from this administration (plus fascinating tidbits that seem out of a spy novel) mean that there is something shocking happening pretty much every second.  2) The pretty natural and universal addiction to checking social media to see if anyone has responded to me has now been invested with a whole extra veneer of urgency and importance, so that it is now possible to pretend to oneself that it matters how many people liked one's comment about Putin or the Women's March.  Hint to self: it still doesn't matter that much.  3) (perhaps an extension of #1)  In my 7-12:30 time slot, the news-gathering portion of the time has tended to slowly expand and eat up the action portion until it is all gone.  This kind of defeats the purpose.

All this has led to a fourth problem: quite uncharacteristically, I am finding myself committing to taking actions that I then don't get around to or forget about.  The list of things to do is just getting too long and unwieldy and living in too many different places (emails, calendar, Facebook, written lists, inside my head).  I really need to go back through everything and figure out a) what I said I would do that I still need to do, b) what I said I would do that it is too late to do, and c) what else is most important to do next.  In a block of time like this, where all other inputs are turned off and I don't stop mid-sentence to read the Daily Kos Elections email or the action steps in My Civic Workout.  People who keep recommending new activist tools to me, please stop.  You don't understand: I already have a problem.  I will love your new activist tool, and subscribe to it, and it will slowly crush me along with all the others.

So.  I want to hear your strategies, your problems and solutions, in as much detail as you are willing to give.  It is trivial and yet it is absolutely not trivial, because our lives and futures depend now on our being able to get it together and keep it together, to at least a certain degree.  How do you decide what to do and when to do it?  How do you know which ball to keep your eye on?  Do you spend time thinking about where you direct your energies?  If not, should you?

Please advise.
​
And now I'm going to take a shower.

From the Washington Post: Donald Trump is holding a casting call.  He's seeking 'the look.'
​Got facial hair?  Inconvenient melanin?  Are you an unattractive woman?  You probably won't get cast in Donald Trump's D.C. reality show.

From the Root: Woman reports white man choked her son; Fort Worth, Texas police assault, arrest her instead
​Nobody died, but this video needs to be seen widely.  Warning: it's hard to watch, between the white police officer stonewalling the mother of the victim, the same man ultimately tasing her and throwing her to the ground and arresting her teenaged daughter as well, and the girl shooting the video (another family member, I believe) communicating her fear and outrage by screaming nonstop abuse.  All because the mother tried to report a white neighbor for physically disciplining/assaulting her little boy in her absence.

As I was preparing this morning to go to my lily-white safe space, that 10 am Friday yoga class that I missed last week due to work, and hence am attending for the first time since the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, I thought to myself: "I don't know if I can go on doing this."
 
It's not a safe space because of its whiteness, per se.  It's a safe space because this is the culture of yoga teachers, to surround us with unconditional love and supportiveness, to encourage self-love.  It's a very feminine space.  Today, there were three men present, and they all stuck together in a rear corner.
 
All three men were white.  And all the women there were white.  The teacher was white.
 
I live in one of the most diverse areas of the country.
 
So, in my lily-white safe space, two things make me uncomfortable.  One is the monolithic whiteness, only rarely interrupted.  And the other is the idea of self-love, of self-care.  Who am I, privileged white bitch with an easy life, to give this to myself?  To allow someone else to caress me with soothing words?    What even is this feel-good crap?
 
And yet the breathing, the movements, the resting, even the chanting--about which I still feel awkward-- they do calm me.  It is a conundrum.
 
Do I deserve more calm?  After the election of a racist, misogynistic, narcissistic, xenophobic, tax-dodging billionaire and climate-change-denier, is more calm something to be desired?  If this mode of increasing calm is not available to everyone, is it something of which I should avail myself?
 
All fair questions.  As a white woman at this moment in time, I feel squeezed.  I feel squeezed on one side by white male and other Trump supporters who said, at best, No, white women, it is not your time, and-- at worst-- it will never be your time, you stupid fucking cunts.  I feel squeezed on another side by women of color who point out, over and over, that 53% of white women voted for Trump, that we are, as a demographic, traitorous or duplicitous-- and make it clear that this is what they always expected of us.   They seem disappointed but not surprised.  I feel squeezed by sadness that an eminently qualified woman lost the election, that the small progress we were making on climate change will be reversed, that we will lose progress on LGBT rights, women's rights, health care, criminal justice reform.  I feel squeezed by the conviction that my sadness is selfish, an undeserved luxury, the personal stake I felt in Hillary Clinton's election insignificant compared to the stakes of others.
 
Sometimes it feels as though, squeezed from all these directions, there is nowhere left to inhabit.  Even action, even activism, feels potentially self-serving, is regarded with suspicion from within and without.  Maybe rightly so. 
 
Under the circumstances, what do we do?  Help others, is one answer.  I've been trying to do more of that.  Listen, obviously.  Take care of ourselves?  Do we do that?  Should we do that?  Is yoga OK?  Cups of tea?  Naps?  How about shouting, is that OK?
 
One thing I've learned over the years of being a white woman: we are so self-hating.  Nobody can hate us more than we hate ourselves.  Many of us, if we could shrink down to the size of a pin, if we could disappear altogether, we would do that.
 
But that is a cop-out.  When I'm mad at my husband for doing or saying something sexist, and he retreats into self-hatred, it makes me madder.  By yelling at himself, he is preventing me from yelling at him.  Then I have to turn around and reassure him.  He means well.  It is infuriating.
 
So maybe this answers my question.  White women should engage in self-care, whether or not they think they deserve it, if only so that others-- others who may be even wearier, with even fewer fucks to give at this point-- are not forced to do the caring for them.  Whatever, yoga on your own time.  Go sleep on your couch, just don't tell me about it (and yes, I'm aware of the inherent irony of this piece, squeezing away).  Eat avocadoes, while also bearing in mind the funniest protest sign ever.  Kvetch with friends.  And stop defensively flipping out every time someone points out that you are, like, the living stereotype of a liberal white woman.  That is what you are, own it.  And take care.

It's over.  Accept it.  Donald Trump won.  Time to move on and heal our divisions.  Time to roll up our sleeves and get to work.  Time to stop talking about politics, which I find boring and divisive anyway.  It's been 36 hours, I mean, come on.  Don't be so melodramatic.

NO I WILL NOT CALM DOWN.

Here are some completely real things that are actual or potential results of this election that will not go away in 36 hours or a week or month or year.  Some of them are forever.  Forever.

1. Once again, we do not have a woman president, and so much of this campaign was rooted in deep sexism, both blatant and subtle, that we women are now painfully aware of just how rigged the system is against us.  Still.  Women of my generation (I'm 45) were brought up by our newly feminist mothers to think we could do anything, be anything.  Not only is that manifestly untrue, but even OUR daughters, 30 years later, now have to doubt it. 
2. My LGBT+ loved ones may lose certain basic rights, such as their right to marry or to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender.
3. Everyone I know or work with who is an undocumented immigrant now has to live with an increased level of fear, and rightfully so.
4. Everyone I know who is a person of color, immigrant, and/or Muslim (screw it, even Jews!  This is so crazy) now has to feel that approximately half the country either hates and fears them, or at the very least cares so little about their rights and well-being that they are willing to casually endanger those things.
5. Women may lose access to abortion.
6. A temperamentally aggressive and impulsive man will be in charge of our extremely sensitive foreign policy.  In addition to being aggressive and impulsive, and having a pathological need to "win" everything, he appears to know no more about the subject matter than I do, possibly less.  And his inability to pay attention to information for more than 3 seconds or listen to the advice of others means that informed counsel will be of limited use.  We could end up in pointless wars over personal affronts, discontinue important alliances, and/or initiate the use of nuclear weapons.
7. We will almost certainly bow out of the Paris climate accords.  We will move backwards on energy and climate policy when it is critical that we move forwards very, very fast, if we are to avoid total disaster.  We will see significantly worse climate change, more severe weather events, lose land to stupid development, lose species at an even faster rate, fail to protect what is fast slipping away.  These effects are forever.  They can't be reversed four years later.  They have permanent planetary impact.
8. The painful, slow, did I mention painful progress that we have been making the past few years in highlighting issues of race, police brutality, and criminal justice reform will likely be erased.
9. Unpredictable worldwide economic effects may change our lives dramatically.  This is a slow-burner one, but still scary in a personal sense.  Last night I pondered whether we should order pizza (because I did not have the heart to cook), or whether we really ought to start carefully hoarding our resources immediately.  (We got the pizza.  I'm not insane.)

I'm sure there are so, so many other things that I would think of over the next two minutes or seven hours or whatever-- I could go on writing this just about forever.  But I think this is enough to convey the point: YES, I AM FREAKING OUT.  IT IS COMPLETELY RATIONAL TO BE FREAKING OUT.  If you are a Trump voter, or a third-party voter, or a disaffected voter, or a low-information voter, or even a Democratic voter who sees this as just another ordinary election that we lost, please don't come along and tell us to settle down or get to work immediately on something positive.  We'll do those positive things once the dust settles and we can identify what the fuck they are.  But for now, there is a real need to grieve, and to do it in an open way such that we can connect with others who are also grieving and freaking out.  Please don't tell us to shut up.  Thank you.
​

I had every intention of putting together an assemblage something like this one from Huffington Post, in which mostly male pundits complained about Hillary Clinton's voice quality last night during and after her acceptance of the nomination.

In fact, after watching the speech myself, I arose while saying to my husband, "I think she did pretty well!  But just wait, people are going to be complaining about her facial expressions."  You see, after the first few minutes (during which Clinton had smiled almost frantically, in a way that actually did bug me because of its manifest artificiality), Hillary settled back into her own speaking style, complete with occasional frowns and (at the climax of her speech) intense, flashing eyes.  Now, don't get me wrong.  I"m perfectly aware that, in a male speaker, an air of seriousness and an aura of intensity would be viewed as wholly appropriate, even charismatic.  But how often have we heard from pundits that Hillary Clinton should smile more?  I was afraid the same criticisms would instantly reappear.

(People all know that the smile originates with apes as a submissive signal, right?  We smile, first and foremost, to demonstrate our non-aggression with each other.  Friendliness.  But we might want to pause before insisting that women, especially, must consistently telegraph their submissiveness.  Any other waitresses out there been nudged by older male customers to "smile!"  Does this happen to you much, male servers?  How about you, white male presidents?)  

So, I worried.  And I assumed.  And I figured today I would look around at responses to Clinton's speech, and easily gather more material nitpicking at her face, voice, clothing, and general demeanor than could possibly be assimilated into a short discussion of sexism in political commentary.

Of course, these sexist, superficial responses do exist.  On the Politico page where Hillary's remarks are printed in full, the very first comment (by a woman, no less!) reads, "Why does the poor old hag keep having to clear her throat?" 

Um, maybe she's giving a long speech in a large arena and could use a glass of water.  Poor old hag.

Unsurprisingly, the conservative press does not leave us without plenty of examples of this crap.  The National Review's article about her convention speech called her presentation "her usual hectoring."  A commenter on this piece revisited the "hag" meme: "The more Hillary speaks the more her poll numbers drop.  Nobody wants a Hag in chief."

Apparently, the press has by now been called out so often for these misogynist attitudes that the National Review felt the need to write a separate defense of why their attacks on Clinton's voice and personality are not sexist.  Their next article, "Hillary's Critics Don't Hate Her Because She's a Woman," (subtitle: "They Hate Her Because She's Hillary") begins with the sentence, "Hillary Clinton has a heinous, grating, and dissonant voice." But, the author argues, the fact that he has at times enjoyed the speeches of other women (Michelle Obama; Laura Ingraham; Sarah Palin) makes it impossible for sexism to be present in his critique.  Hillary, in his view, is simply uniquely "unappetizing."  (Just think about that word choice for a bit.  Let's imagine, reader, that you are a Democrat who abhorred George W. Bush.  Would you describe him as "unappetizing?"  Or would you perhaps choose some other term that did not suggest he was a dish to be consumed?)

So... because Michelle Obama has an amazing talent for smiling widely while she speaks (a fact that I noted on Monday night, and immediately realized that this alone might account for her much greater popularity as First Lady)... does this then mean that requiring successful women to smile while speaking is not sexist?  If you enjoy the dulcet tones of some women's speech and find another's to be "hectoring" and "lecturing," indeed "grating" and "heinous" (yet rarely comment on the vocal quality of men's delivery), does this mean that your vocal requirements for women are not sexist?   

Or perhaps it's not that you hate women; it's that you hate women who don't act according to your sense of proper womanliness.  From the comments section: "Part of why we hate her is because she is not a woman, Her ruthlessness makes Dick Cheney seem like Richard Simmons."  So much to unpack here.  Why bring poor Richard Simmons into it?  With apologies to him, obviously this means "Hillary Clinton is so masculine that she could emasculate a tough guy like Dick Cheney."

Or, one can just keep it simple: "Hillary is as ugly as the bottom of an outhouse pit."  Sounds like Trump channeling to me.

Okay, but here's where things get better.  Up until now I have been (mostly) citing the articles and comments section of a markedly right-wing publication.  Honestly, what would you expect to find?  So, my plan for the second half of this piece was to head on over to the liberal blogs, where (in my admittedly outdated experience) plenty of misogynistic Clinton-haters also hang out, and find them saying the Same. Damn. Things.

Only they weren't.

Daily Kos, where I practically lived for 4 years from 2004-2008 (I met my husband there!), can always be counted on to have a substantial and loud contingent who support Hillary, and an equally substantial and loud contingent who support the Other Guy (in 2008, that was Obama; in this case, Bernie).  That is still true, I think.  But here are some things that the former Bernie supporters were saying about Clinton's speech:

What an amazing week. The four days gave people time to celebrate Bernie and the platform (and Clinton herself) commits to significant progressive priorities that will benefit so many. And I thought her speech last night was her best ever. [...]  I'm (still) a Sanders supporter and (also) all in for Hillary. 

I thought the convention was an incredible success and I enjoyed watching every minute of it. I am still sad about Bernie’s loss but I plan to volunteer for Hillary, which I was planning to do before the convention. After the convention I know more about Hillary and I’m very proud and excited that we will elect the first woman president in November [...]  The speeches were amazing[...]  Hillary’s speech was the topper. I’m so proud of her and of this country.

...​Hillary has not shoved the left out the door at all.  Her speech outlined a very progressive agenda which included a good portion of Bernie’s message along with some ideas as to how to combat income inequality.  Hillary heard their voices during the primary, she needs help putting their plans into action and not being shouted down.  [...]  Protest is important when your voice isn’t heard.  Once someone starts to listen, you need to be willing to come to the table with plans. 
​
I was a late comer to the Hilliary campaign, having been a Bernie supporter with the intention of supporting the Democratic nominee should he not prevail. [...]  So, I came into the Convention backing Hilliary as the Democratic nominee, not as the first woman nominated by a major party nominee. Yet, as the Convention aired night after night, I found myself in awe of our Party; our diversity, our passion, our determination, our pride in, and love for, our current President & First Family and Vice President & Second Family, our current Presidential & Vice Presidential nominees & their families, and of America, our great country.[...]  You guessed it, by the time Chelsea had finished her wonderfully warm and loving introduction of her mother, I was bawling like a baby. I am no longer an unwilling backer of Hilliary Clinton. Deal me in.

I  am voting for Hillary, not the lesser of two evils, because my party showed me who she really is, warts and all.

In browsing through hundreds of comments there, I did not see one that referred to Hillary Clinton as a hag or a bitch, or even expressed "concern" about her voice or face or carriage.  And I can tell you, THAT IS REAL PROGRESS.  

Someone did refer to Megyn Kelly as "a tool," which, while an ad hominem attack, is at least not sexist.

Returning to a broader media scope: I browsed a great many mainstream press pieces about Clinton's acceptance speech.  Apart from the National Review, almost all of them focused on the content of her speech.  Maybe they were effectively shamed back in March, when even the likes of USA Today pointed out that male pundits were focusing disproportionately on her unfeminine delivery.  But, whatever the reason, they have done much better today, and, America, that is something to be proud of.

Maybe this country really is ready for a female president.

I am not a fan of our still-too-hawkish military policy either.  But what Panetta was saying at that moment was crucial, highly topical, and potentially convincing to voters who might not be members of the choir.  It needed to be heard loud and clear.  But even I had trouble listening through the drama of the disruption.  And headlines this morning tended to focus on the protest instead of Panetta's message.  Does anybody really, truly, 100% honestly believe that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are "equally as horrible?"  Or can those of us who don't like Clinton (I kind of do) try and remember what "lesser" means when they announce that they don't want to "pick between the lesser of two evils?"  When there are only two possible outcomes, WHY WOULD YOU NOT PICK WHAT YOU YOURSELF HAVE IDENTIFIED AS THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS?

(Side note: on the topic of Clinton's and Trump's alleged similarities, I have found what may be the stupidest political opinion piece ever written for a mainstream news site.  Thanks, CNN!)

Okay.  So that was Panetta.  Now some excerpts from a couple of people who weren't relentlessly heckled.  

Michael Bloomberg's speech-- and he's not even a Democrat (he spoke in favor of Bush at the 2004 Republican convention), and  he's a billionaire like Trump, so why are we not heckling him if we're going to heckle somebody?-- anyway, Bloomberg's speech may have seemed like lukewarm support from the point of view of Clinton supporters.  It basically cast Clinton as... the lesser of two evils.  And, again, as far as undecided voters go, it is the exact speech that needs to be made, over and over and over again.

I can't believe I am quoting extensively from a speech by the 8th-richest person in the world, ​a man who supported George W. Bush, and a man who could say, elsewhere in his speech last night, "When I enter the voting booth each time, I look at the candidate, not the party label."  (Ow, the stupid hurts!  You are aware of how our legislatures work under a two-party system, right?)  But that is kind of the point.  All kinds of non-insane people can and should come together now to support the non-insane candidate, whether we agree on all the finer points or not, even whether we agree on the big points or not.  Hillary Clinton is the non-insane candidate.  Ergo, we must fight for her.

Finally, for anyone (like myself) who fell asleep before our beloved President Obama, who finally took the podium close to 11 pm, got very far into his remarks: let me leave you with a selection of his well-chosen words.

​I will miss you, dear Mr. President: the only truly great president of my lifetime so far.  May we not tarnish your legacy by immediately electing a maniac to undo everything you've accomplished.

This is one of those times when it is hard not to turn every blog into a political blog.  I am horrified right now, people.  And I have nothing more worthy or insightful to say than anyone else, but still, I cannot help but take a moment to say: WTF?  WTF, America?  

Do you want this two-dimensional billboard of a two-bit dictator to be your head of state?  Because that is exactly what you are flirting with.  Rumor has it that actual governing will be delegated, as befits a leader who has no interest in being more than a paper tiger.  Unless it turns out that he is basically Mussolini.  It is not clear which one it will be, which is a stunning risk to take.

Meanwhile, while all the posturing, xenophobic policy-making, and/or violation of civil liberties are taking place, SOME VERY URGENT PROBLEMS WILL GO UNADDRESSED.  This, to my mind, is the greatest danger of a Donald Trump presidency.  Donald Trump does not believe climate change is a problem.  Donald Trump thinks gun laws should be even less restrictive, to the point that even the NRA finds his positions extreme.  Trump doesn't think the federal government should be in the business of setting a national minimum wage.  Trump's response to suffering outside our national borders is to build a wall, stick our fingers in our ears, and hum loud.

In particular: sane people know that, if we do not do everything we can to slow climate change RIGHT THIS MINUTE, and redouble those efforts constantly via improved technology and cultural adaptation, much of humanity will not survive for long, and many of those who are surviving will be getting by only by the skin of their teeth.  WE CANNOT AFFORD TO WAIT UNTIL THIS STUPID, SELF-DEFEATING NATIONAL WHIM PLAYS ITSELF OUT.  We don't have 4 years, or 8 years, or longer than that if our current political system is subverted.  Not only the future of the United States is at stake, but, by virtue of our emissions as well as our foreign and economic policies, the entire world will potentially fall victim to the vagaries of our national freaking mood.

Hillary Clinton isn't perfect, but she will keep us moving-- albeit more slowly than I would like-- in the right direction while we search for better answers.  She can at least correctly identify many of the problems, even if she doesn't have all the solutions handy.  She is basically on the right side of most issues, and she has the practical experience-- in multiple branches of government-- to know how things actually get accomplished.  Would I like someone with a magic wand to come along and change the world radically, right now, to my specifications?  Of course!  And Hillary Clinton will not be that person.

But she's also not a crook, nor a whore, nor a lying bitch; and she's certainly-- and I can't believe I even have to make this distinction-- not an egocentric fascist (and possible tool of Russia?), which makes her far superior to Donald J. Trump.  So I'm not going let her imperfections send me into a hissy fit resulting in a protest vote for a) the most dangerous presidential candidate we've seen in a long time, b) Jill Stein (whom you know damn well can't win) or c) nobody, nobody, nobody, I'll put my fingers in my ears and hum loud and STAY HOME.  Please, people!  I don't actually believe it is hyperbole to say, THE FUTURE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD IS AT STAKE.  Not that Hillary Clinton can save the world.  But Donald Trump could certainly destroy it.

I know, it sounds like hysteria.  But he could!  Directly, or much more likely, indirectly, while he is farting around with his walls and his fomenting of hatreds and erecting of statues in his own honor.  We do not have time for this.

And for those who are beginning to wail that, because of a few recent polls showing him in an improved position, Trump has already won...  you're making me so angry I can hardly see straight.  Believe me, I can relate to your sense of panic.  But, if we have less than four months to avert the apocalypse, please let's not use this time wearing sackcloth and lying in ashes.  If you live in a state that is at all competitive, go volunteer for the Clinton campaign right now.  If you don't, donate what you can.  Talk to people.  Stay informed and don't propagate nonsense.  WE MUST WIN AND WE WILL.

The alternative is unthinkable.