You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


We can fight all day long about who’s guilty and who’s not when it comes to sexual harassment/assault allegations – but there’s kind of a bigger story growing here, and it’s this, from Politico:

It has all the makings of a serious scandal: more than $17 million in public money paid since 1997 to settle workplace disputes on Capitol Hill . . .

Um, what?

Taxpayers – you and I – are doling out money to settle claims through the Congressional Office of Compliance, which pays out the settlements. They don’t tell us who the offenders are or what the offenses are. They don’t tell us how much the settlements are. They don’t break the cases down by category, or department – the Office of Compliance settles cases for “Hill employers other than the House and Senate, such as the Capitol Police and Architect of the Capitol.”

Since 1997, Congress has paid at least $15 million to settle complaints about sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act under the umbrella of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) of 1995 . . . The process by which victims of sexual harassment on the Hill seek justice is long and arduous — it takes up to three months before a formal complaint can be filed. If a settlement is reached, it’s kept secret. The source of the money in the fund is excluded from the standard appropriations budget made public by Congress each year. There’s no process by which voters — or potential employees — can find out who the harassers in office are, what they’ve been accused of, or if they’ve settled with victims before . . .

Not only does this secret process keep taxpayers in the dark about what bad behavior they’re funding and for whom, it also puts the complainants at a distinct disadvantage. Vox noted that “Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), who has proposed a bill to change how Congress handles harassment, the current process puts the employee making a complaint at greater risk than the person who has harassed them . . . Victims can’t even make a formal complaint for sexual harassment (or any other violation of the CAA) until three months have passed, including a 30-day period after enduring a mediation process with their harasser.” Interns aren’t even covered under this process which, as history has proven, really puts them at risk.

It’s more than a bit telling that, as CNN reported, female lawmakers, staff and interns keep a “creep list” – which is just what it sounds like, “an informal roster passed along by word-of-mouth, consisting of the male members most notorious for inappropriate behavior, ranging from making sexually suggestive comments or gestures to seeking physical relations with younger employees and interns.” It is, apparently, open season on the most vulnerable. And who totes the note for these creeps? You and I.

What we’re seeing here is a governmental free pass to sexual harassers in Congress – and, according to those in the know, it’s rampant. Knowing that their behavior won’t be publicly disclosed, including any settlements made as a result of it, serial harassers are emboldened, and victims are at risk. As Vox reported,

In a nutshell: A secret pot of money, funded by taxpayers, which bails out bad guys/gals, a “fix-it” process which is slanted toward the offender, not the victim, and, evidently, no consequences for the offenders. We don’t know who they are or what they did, the victims aren’t supposed to talk about any settlements they get, and the offenders go on their merry way, unconcerned about pesky questions – and, from all accounts, free to rinse and repeat.

Welp . . . two more accusers against Al Franken, reported by that well known conservative bastion of witch-hunts against liberals, HuffPo – bringing the total now to 4 accusers . . . so, “progressives,” we now have two more “lying sluts” (yes, a few people on my Facebook wall did indeed refer to Leeann Tweeden as a “lying slut”) for you to dig into the backgrounds of. I mean, did either of them ever have sex, ever work at Hooter’s, ever kiss a dude publicly, vote Republican . . . ? ‘Cause if they check any of those boxes, according to the new “progressive” rating scale, they’re either flat-out lying or Republican operatives. I can’t imagine what contortions some of these so-called “progressives” will now go through to discredit these new victims of Al Franken’s creepy touchy-feely thing, including butt-grabbing a lewd suggestion by Franken to one of the women to visit the bathroom together – and can’t imagine that Al Franken will now be able to hunker down and hope it blows over. Franken apologists are gonna have to retrench and, although a little self-examination and reflection here wouldn’t be a bad thing, it’s my sense that there’s a huge faction of tribal loyalists who will not believe the female accusers of Al Franken regardless of who they are or what their stories are. They’ll still be looking for shadows under fingers to disprove these accusations, or demanding the women show them hand prints on their asses.

As reported by HuffPo:

The first woman wanted to tell her story because Franken is ‘a serial groper’ . . .

The first woman . . . spoke to HuffPost on condition of anonymity because she’s worried she’ll be harassed online for making the allegation . . . .

That’s a pretty good bet on her part, although Franken apologists will no doubt indignantly scream that “real” victims don’t remain anonymous. But Al Franken’s first two victims didn’t fare well out here. Progressives have slut-shamed and vilified Tweeden, in particular; these supposed supporters of the “party of women” have turned themselves into pretzels trying to blame the lying harlot for Franken’s bad behavior.

It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen. A sample of Facebook comments:

In the photo with Tweeden, he isn’t actually touching her. No one sleeps in body armor. He’s looking at the camera so its obviously staged. The kiss photo is part of a skit and she was consenting . . . .

From what I’ve heard, she was in on the joke and a willing participant. It was NOT abuse.

1. She’s not 14 years old.
2. She was not raped.
3. It was a freakin’ kiss FFS.
4. She was not innocent by any stretch of the imagination. Hard to believe she was traumatised.

People like Leeann Tweed [sic] making sexual accusations only diminish the words from legimate [sic] accusers.

Sorry. No one that voted for Trump gets to have a voice in this. You’re not credible.

. . . In fact, if you look at all the pictures, the only one touching without consent is that lying slut Tweeden.

Tribal loyalists are defending Franken to the wall, at the expense of his victims, desperately willing to shred every principle they’ve been taught to believe as “progressives” – it’s partisanship on steroids. And yet, these same people believe Donald Trump’s accusers, Roy Moore’s accusers, despite having the same evidence as in the case of Franken: Only the claims of the women (which, to me, is all we need).

Leeann Tweeden and Lindsay Menz, Al Franken’s first two accusers, were annihilated from the moment they opened their mouths. People who call themselves progressives flat out didn’t believe them – because the accused was one of “theirs.” Despite Franken apologizing for his behavior, they still didn’t believe these women. It took two more accusers to emerge for some – some – to grudgingly admit that he might actually have done what he was accused of.

Many progressives, and in particular Dem loyalists, did not believe the words of these women. They believed President Trump’s victims, despite only having the word of the women. They believed Roy Moore’s victims, even decades later, despite having only the word of the women. In a classic “he said/she said,” some of us believed the women – all of them. And some – largely, false-flagging “progressives” – chose to believe every Republican victim but give a pass to Al Franken. A progressive can’t say they believe Trump’s accusers and Moore’s accusers – without anything but their accusers’ word on it – and then say they can’t believe Franken’s accusers without hard proof. That’s not reflective of any progressive value I’ve ever heard of. Clinton fancied herself the champion of women, said they should be believed – and, funny thing about that, progressives believed every damn lying thing she said except that.

This can’t even be chalked up to identity politics. This is Mean Girls on a grand scale. This is Hillary Clinton defending Bill from the “bimbo eruption.” This is a setback to victims and their voices, and it’s progressives, not conservatives, who are driving it. For Pete’s sake, one of Franken’s victims is staying anonymous because she’s seen how the first couple of women were absolutely slayed – by progressives – on social media.

Progressives who are defending Franken should be utterly ashamed of their incredibly hypocritical, sexist, misogynistic reactions to Franken’s accusers. This is the party, the gang, that we’re supposed to sweep into office in the mid-terms and 2020? These are the people who are supposed to lead us out of the wilderness? These people are supposed to be the arbiters of fairness and social justice? Pssh.

As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “No power can be maintained when it is only represented by hypocrites.”

We’ve talked about this way too much, but alas, talk about it we must – because, once again, this daft, doddering fool is slithering back onto the political landscape. And she’s messing up the feng shui.

Hillary Clinton. She’s not gone. Contrary to popular hope, she elected not to spend her elderly days sipping chardonnay and tramping through the Chappaqua woods (where she, miraculously, randomly ran into fans who she would generously take selfies with). She kept talking. And wrote that book, “What Happened,” which debuts on, what, Tuesday? We’ve already heard enough, haven’t we? She blames the same old villains, the Russians and Comey and, yes, even Obama and Biden and Bernie, for her humiliating loss. I think about that a lot, her endless rehashing of her worst moments. I remember moments in my life that make me cringe to this day, and not only would I not write a book about them, I don’t even want to think about them, and hope I someday have total amnesia for that time snippet. But we’re not so fortunate with Clinton. Apparently, even negative attention is better than no attention. I keep thinking, shit, at least Palin eventually left the stage. But for Dems (and in full disclosure, I Demexited prior to the 2016 election, registered independent, and voted for President Trump), there’s no moving on until Democrats, en masse, force Clinton to blow town. For good. But there’s even talk, these days, about her nursing a dream of a 2020 run. So the whole moving on thing – not happening quite yet.

You can’t have it both ways, Democrats. You can’t keep bitching and bitching and bitching and bitching that Hillary should have won the election day after day after day after day, and then cry with Bambi-eyed dismay, ‘Why are you still picking on Hillary?? She lost! Move on!’ It doesn’t work that way, Democrats. Everyone else will move on when you move on.

We’ll be waiting a while, because there’s some faction out there who believes that a site devoted to Clinton partisans (Verrit.com) with some very weird verification code thing that nobody seems to understand is a good idea. There are some who think that she still has something to offer politically. There are some who think she has political value. Hell, I still hear people blather about the “popular vote.” But anyone who thought she had value before her “What Happened” disaster should be re-thinking that now. After all, she didn’t exactly take blame for her epic fail, and in fact seemed to think that Bernie Sanders and his supporters should have moved aside for her coronation:

Some of his supporters, the so-called Bernie Bros, took to harassing my supporters online. It got ugly and more than a little sexist . . . When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn’t come up with anything . . . Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign . . .

Hold up. Bernie was running against her in the primary. She was taking shots at him at every turn. He was supposed to cause her damage. He was, in fact, supposed to beat her. That was the job his supporters had tasked him with. It was only “sexist” because he insulted her and she’s a female. It was ugly, in part, because she and her crew, led by horrid little troll David Brock (water does, let’s remember, seek its own level) and funded by PAC money, hired legions of online trolls to go forth and slay dragons on her behalf.

It was a primary. It wasn’t supposed to be pretty. I must have missed something, somewhere, because he was supposed to beat her. When she and her loyalists continue, long after her election loss, to hysterically toss the accusation out there that Bernie and his supporters cost her the election, well, I think, it may be true – in fact, I hope it is. It was my mission, at least, to make sure she was sent packing back to Chappaqua. A lot of Bernie supporters voted Stein, some did write-ins, and some, like me, took the bull by the horns and voted for her opponent. We didn’t want her in office. We didn’t want her in politics. We still don’t. And if we succeeded in our mission to ensure that, so what? It’s what you call a democracy. But it’s a funny thing, there: Clinton had no problem with Bernie campaigning for her after the primary, courting him and his supporters, despite what we now know was deep-seated anger, hostility and resentment against him.

Many of us will keep talking about Clinton as long as she keeps trashing Bernie and others we hold dear (like President Obama, and Vice President Biden). A whole slew of people (including Obama, Biden and Bernie) should have given her the heave-ho and not campaigned for her, in my opinion, but they did, and this is the thanks they get. A thorough thrashing in a post-loss book that somehow manages to STILL avoid taking blame.

Are we done here yet? Can we ignore her book tour and not buy her book? Can we let Bernie lead the way, or Joe Biden, forgetting Clinton even exists? The first step in this is for us to admit that, yes, we Bernie supporters did do her lasting damage and yes, we needed to and wanted to do her lasting damage. I, for one, am certainly not disappointed at the outcome. I, for one, think she and the Dem establishment and the DNC and all her water-carriers got what they deserved. I, for one, would vote for Trump 100 times over rather than cast one single vote for Clinton, or any of her apologists and stooges or “influential establishment Democrats.” As Douglas MacKinnon of the Chicago Tribune wrote, “They elevate the definition of ‘craven’ to an entirely new level.”

MacKinnon pointed out that Clinton likely sees an opening in 2020. Gawd help us. But he may be right. She no doubt figures it was a fluke of Russia or Comey that yanked the presidency from her grasp in 2016. She no doubt figures that, after four years of President Trump, this country will be ready for anything different, even her. Sure, the 2020 Dem field is weak, at best. (Kamala Harris? Cory Booker? Puh-leeze.) But the one thing Clinton has always overlooked – in her postmortem, in her rehashing the ins and outs of 2016 – is that we really hate her. This country detests her more than they dislike Trump, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Only some starry-eyed Verrit subscribers and delusional miscreants on social media still think highly of her.

We can’t rule out Clinton’s ego and arrogance and utter miscalculation, again, of the political climate. As MacKinnon noted,

I think she does want to avenge her embarrassing loss to Donald Trump. And I’m convinced she will still have the fire in her belly to go through the grueling process one more time to become president.

Good luck with that. Many of us will be waiting to once again fatally damage her candidacy should that “fire” propel her to even greater heights of stupidity to run again.

It hasn’t been that long since I Demexited after a lifetime as a yellow dog Dem, registered independent, and voted for Donald Trump. Like a lot of people, I’m still unpacking it all – the campaign, the choices, what island to now land on. Not a Republican, surely never a Democrat again, and “independent” doesn’t really have a home in this two-party system.

All my adult life, when progressive values were under siege, threatened, by hard right Republican policies, I’d think, well, not to worry – the Dems will save us. Then came 2016, and the primary debacle, and Wikileaks, and Clinton, sauntering haughtily toward the White House with, “girl, we don’t need no stinking message, it’s your turn” churning in her brain, and in the brains of her loyalists – and I changed. Contrary to popular belief, this sea change I, and others, went through wasn’t just sour grapes that the DNC had its thumb on the scale for Clinton hard as hell and Bernie suffered for it. Bernie might or might not have beaten Trump – that, we’ll never know. No, what changed was my belief that Dems were the good guys. I lived in a utopia – everything Dem = Good, everything Republican = Bad. I don’t know what I am now, but the one sure thing is that I now have an opportunity for re-growth and a hardened eye toward who the good guys really are – and aren’t.

The most astounding thing about the 2016 election and Trump’s win is how many people still believe that, if only Clinton were in office, things would be sweetness and light and all about doing the right thing and flower power and moonlight and roses. Far be it from me to burst that particular bubble, but no – we’d be having special prosecutors and investigations and the same sort of obstruction from Republicans against Clinton that we’re now seeing by Dems against Trump. It would be business as usual, with Clinton surrounding herself with her closest personal allies and those who did their best to screw over Bernie Sanders (Podesta, Abedin, Palmieri, Mills, Samuels, Tanden – I would have included Mook, except the book “Shattered” indicated she hates him) – only their side lost, so the business of today is tea-party-channeling Dem obstruction of everything Trump. There are no words to describe my horror when I heard the Dems in the House this week singing some way wrong version of “Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey, Goodbye” around the House healthcare vote – first, because it was pettiness taken to an insanely juvenile, humiliating level, and also because that’s what I’ve been saying to the Democratic Party for the past year. And these are the same people who crucified Ted Cruz for reading Dr. Seuss during a long-winded speech on the Senate floor.

The Democratic Party has gone about this all wrong. They ran a terrible candidate, who ran a terrible campaign, who didn’t lose because of misogyny, Russia, Comey, or because some witches cast a spell on the American electorate. She lost because people couldn’t stand her and couldn’t trust her, and they can’t stand her or trust her now. She’s setting up a PAC, joining the “Resistance” movement, pretending relevance when even progressives are begging her to STFU and go away. I echo that sentiment – but more importantly, hyping her as some hybrid, grass-roots “leader” of the Democratic Party is, first, laughable, and second, only shoots down any hope the Party has to resurrect itself into something palatable for the millions who rejected Clinton, the Establishment’s preferred candidate. Look at the Democratic bench for 2020: Elizabeth Warren (considered a sell-out by many for not endorsing Bernie Sanders in the primary), Bernie Sanders (who, though wildly popular, would, again, not get Democratic Party support), Cory Booker (a Clinton lap-dog from way back), Martin O’Malley (never a popular choice by the Dems), Joe Biden, Al Franken, Andrew Cuomo, Kamala Harris, even Tom Perez . . . the list goes pretty much on, but there’s nothing to see here. Each and every potential 2020 candidate has one thing in common: They’re pure establishment candidates (with the possible exception of O’Malley), not even close to the Sanders wing of the party (except for, well, Sanders, who isn’t a Democrat). And despite her stated claim that she won’t run for president again, nobody should ever rule out the walking ego that is Hillary Clinton – you can almost hear the wheels spinning in her brain, that after four years of Trump, it might really really this time be her turn. (Ever hear any serious mention of Nina Turner, Tulsi Gabbard, Keith Ellison, any of the Bernie progressive wing? Me, neither.) The Resistance movement (or whatever it’s calling itself) is one of the most mundane, lame, garden variety nothing-burgers out there. Their stated agenda is to obstruct everything Trump does – which sounds pretty familiar, since the Tea Party invented that concept in 2009 when Obama took office. But so what? They sing snarky songs on the House floor, stage some protests, let Trump know they don’t like him. Does this build a brand? Does this make up for the multitude of mistakes they’ve made, for their failure to back the working class, their failure to openly advocate for single payer, their dismal record on jobs, their self-serving sucking up to the healthcare industry (hello Senator Feinstein), financial industry (nice try, Pelosi), Big Pharm (nice gig, there, Booker), lobbyists of every stripe, their failure to promote a plan for and message of success for this country?

After losing about 400 friends on Facebook during the 2016 campaign and another few hundred after people learned that I, a long-time, loud-mouthed, activist, Dems-can-do-no-wrong progressive, had voted for Trump, I changed. Dems aren’t the good guys, and Dem loyalists – those feverish types like Peter Daou, who thinks the media should apologize to Clinton, and that we should just overthrow Trump and install Clinton in the White House – are destroying any chance that the Democratic Party may have to ever get it together. Dems are, actually, veering closer and closer, in my mind, to being the bad guys. They’re a bunch of false-flaggers. They don’t take responsibility, won’t admit they need to change, are petty, narrow-minded, small-tent, rude, hostile, bitter – and dumb. They’re looking at 2020 candidates who are just incarnates of who they looked at in 2016 – and look how that turned out. They conduct “unity tours” and talk about progressive values, try to convince people they’re the grown-ups in the room, all while singing stupid shit on the House floor. Dems did at one time have a brand: They supposedly stood up for the little guy, were big on social policies that helped the poor and downtrodden, liked economic equality and equality for women and all those other positive things. Now, all they have is an urge to break shit, not build shit. Blanket obstruction only works when there’s a goal and organization – and at this point, I’d be shocked if the Democratic Party, as it stands, could organize a one-car funeral.

I was duped for a long time by the hype that the Dems stood for what I stood for. My disgust at what they actually do stand for, and who and what they are willing to back at all costs, led to my Demexit and vote for Trump. And there’s one more thing (goodbye, 500 more Facebook friends): I still have no regrets, about either Demexiting or voting for Trump. It’s what the Dems deserve, and what they will continue to deserve since introspection isn’t their thing. They aren’t, folks, here to help us.

Stein’s fund-raising goals keep changing ($2.5M, $4.5M, $7M?). She’s raised almost twice the amount of money in a couple of days that she raised during her entire presidential campaign. She’s only targeting three states, all of which Clinton wasn’t supposed to have lost but which she did lose. She has yet to mention that states Clinton won, like NH (Clinton only by by 2687 votes), NV (Clinton won by less than 30,000 votes), and Maine (Clinton only won by about 20,000 votes) might also be worthy of that Stein “election purity” test. And yet, we’re expected to believe that she’s acting alone, that this is about “democracy,” that her motives are pure and she’s uninterested in money, political sway, publicity or anything but the purity of the American vote? Stein officially filed for a recount in Wisconsin (read the Petition here) – and now, as the plot thickens, the Clinton campaign has decided they’re going to “participate” in that recount effort, despite the White House’s firm assertion that it “did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber-activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day,” that they believe “our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective” and that Americans should follow the “will of the people” (and, as an aside, it appears that Clinton’s ass-kissing of President Obama is history, now that his influence didn’t hand her the reins of power).

We’ve watched, since the election, the Clinton loyalists refuse to accept the results of a democratic election. We’ve watched them whine, wail, protest, curl up with coloring books and blankies and pacifiers and grief therapists. We’ve noted the fact that Clinton cultists believe their votes should be supreme to the votes of the people who, you know, actually elected Donald Trump. I expected more hand-wringing and garment-rending and gnashing of teeth, pretty much endlessly. But this transparent effort by Stein and the Clinton camp to literally re-visit the scene of the “crime” they believe was committed against them is simply un-American. After all, when Trump said in a debate he might not automatically accept the results of the election, Clinton deemed it “horrifying” and went on to lecture that that’s “not the way our democracy works . . . we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them . . . I, for one, am appalled that someone . . . would take that kind of position.” Call me crazy, but this latest maneuver by Stein, with the Clinton camp’s participation – given Clinton’s horror at someone not automatically accepting an election’s outcome – is more than a little confusing. And more than a little disgusting.

A few pollsters got together and decided, with absolutely zero evidence, that because Clinton lost those rust belt states, someone must have rigged it (probably the Russians, which seem to be their go-to excuse for all their failures). Or Comey. Or, you know, fake news. Something. The Clinton campaign’s counsel, Marc Elias, said there’s no evidence of sabotage but they feel compelled to tag along, you know, just in case. J Alex Halderman, who was one of the first to point to possible irregularities, and who supported Stein’s Wisconsin petition with an affidavit, said there’s no real evidence of rigging:

Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked.

So what’s the end game, here, aside from trying to wrest the election from Trump? No, if this were about democracy, we’d be rolling the recount efforts back to the primary, a time we know that Clinton’s cronies at the DNC had their thumb on the scale for Clinton against Bernie, or examining the states, like NH, where the margin was slimmest. No, the point is, Clinton lost because she was a terrible candidate and pretty much a terrible human being who more than half the country didn’t trust, someone who thought hob-nobbing with celebrities replaced actually engaging with what she clearly thought of as the unwashed masses, who spouted party lines without passion or sincerity, and who people, simply, didn’t like.

Stein is trying valiantly to convince us this is just about election purity, that there’s nothing self-serving about this equation:

We want to know what our vote is, and that our votes are being counted. This is not a partisan effort but we need to have confidence, too.

My late father, a schoolteacher and, later, school principal, used to say to me, “If you’re gonna be a bear, be a grizzly.” As a strong boots on the ground liberal, I’ve joined protests and rallies all over the country for progressive causes, from DC to Nebraska; I’ve been a lifelong Dem and true liberal – and then came election 2016. And here I am today, an Obama voter twice, a staunch Bernie supporter, a Demexit’er, and a liberal progressive who cast my vote for Donald Trump. It wasn’t enough for me to just be a bear, in my mind, after months and months of battling hard against hard-core Clinton cultists on social media, going head to head with thousands of friends and followers, taking a firm stand against Hillary Clinton and everything she stands for; no, I took dad’s advice, and this “bitching” Bernie supporter went grizzly. What’s more, I don’t have a second’s regret – zero, zip, nada, zilch.

Somehow, to false-flagging progressives and Clinton cultists, my absolute, steadfast refusal to support Hillary Clinton – and my choice to campaign actively against her candidacy on social media, where I have thousands of friends and followers, and a wide open Facebook wall – was the most traitorous act anyone could commit (far more than any of her transgressions, which they’ve conveniently ignored from day one). To them, I gave up every progressive street cred I ever had – and that was way before I began to state publicly that I was going to vote for Trump. I’d been to more protests and rallies all over the country on behalf of progressive causes, written more articles on behalf of progressive causes, and bashed more Republicans than any of these people, and yet my progressive bona fides were unworthy and were consistently called into question – unless I agreed to support their chosen candidate (then, presumably, they’d love me again). For years, I had been a very strong progressive voice on Facebook, consistently standing against Republican agendas, and these people praised me and heaped accolades on me and couldn’t get enough of my opinions – until I exercised my progressive right to reject their very un-progressive chosen candidate. Then, I was condemned, castigated, called “teabagger” and accused of being part of the “Republican smear machine.” Suddenly, any brilliance they thought I had when I was bashing Republicans turned to mud, and my incendiary posts against Clinton were nothing but black marks against my liberalism. Suddenly, when I was no longer bashing Republicans and was bashing their chosen candidate, these so-called progressives didn’t want to hear me – and, in fact, told me repeatedly that I should quit posting about it (although not quite that politely).

I started predicting the American version of Brexit months ago – but they wouldn’t listen. I predicted that the head-in-the-sand approach by Clinton supporters about her many vulnerabilities and lack of trustworthiness was dangerous; I told them that their belittling agenda, the insults and dismissive attitude toward Bernie supporters, was fatal; I told them that winning friends and influencing people didn’t include telling Bern’ers and anti-Clinton progressives that Clinton didn’t need us and that we needed to sit our whining asses down. Over and over I told them that millions of people weren’t behind her, that we wouldn’t come back into the fold – and they didn’t listen. Those of us who adored Bernie watched during the primary as Clinton & Co. dismissed Bernie supporters as pie-in-the-sky lunatics who were following a starry-eyed, inept candidate full of unrealistic dreams. We watched them gloat about superdelegates and how Clinton had it on lock; we heard them mock us, taunt us, insult us.

And then came Wikileaks, and all of our suspicions about collusion and rigging and the efforts by the Dem establishment, the DNC, the media, and Clinton and her crew to actively sabotage Bernie were proven true – and not only proven true, but were even worse than we thought. We wanted Bernie, and instead they said, “Oh, no no, that’s not gonna happen, we squashed that, we made sure that won’t happen, we made our back-room deals to assure that won’t happen – but here’s a neo-liberal, lying, corrupt war hawk instead. Get on board.”

This whole thing has been an evolution for me. After Bernie was eviscerated by the powers-that-be, and before the dump of Wikileaks, I was still staunchly, resolutely anti-Clinton, but hedged my bets a little. Johnson? Stein? Write in Bernie? More Wikileaks came out, more mean-spirited sniping, more back-and-forth about insulting Bernie and his supporters and voters in general while keeping us “marginally on board.” We learned how the Clinton coalition, the Dem establishment, the DNC, had planned to pay lip service to Bernie supporters, were planning to throw us a meaningless bone at the Convention to try to bring us into the “stronger together” camp. The DNC, from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to Donna Brazile, the Clinton crew, and the Dem establishment had nothing but disdain for Bernie and his millions of faithful supporters, completely believed we were a clueless basket of deplorables, and thought that we’d be so grateful for a crumb or two that we’d get right on the Clinton train. Thanks to Wikileaks, their train derailed:

Bernie and his people have been bitching about super delegates . . . Why not throw Bernie a bone and reduce the super delegates in the future . . . So if we ‘give’ Bernie this in the Convention’s rules committee, his people will think they’ve ‘won’ something from the Party Establishment. And it functionally doesn’t make any difference anyway. They win. We don’t lose. Everyone is happy.

I guess they thought, who couldn’t refuse an offer like that? We stayed demeaned, belittled, and tricked, while they happily gobbled up Bernie supporters – along with their donations – and gave Clinton a sweep. And they were shocked we didn’t bite. The thing is, I didn’t just read the Wikileaks emails, I devoured them whole. The Dem establishment schemed about things I hadn’t even thought of, came up with new and clever ways to demolish Bernie, personally and politically, and stabbed every single Democrat in the back with their gleeful mocking. And with that ringing in my ears, I heard my “friends” on social media tell me how wrong I was, how traitorous I was, how Clinton was the best thing since sliced bread, how she was the only thing that stood between us and Trump, who was the most dangerous demagogue, fascist, racist, homophobe on the planet. But a funny thing happened on the way to election day: I rejected those highly scripted fear tactics, rejected those disingenuous pledges to fight for and respect “all Americans,” rejected their forked-tongue rehash of party lines and attack lines and promises. See, I was the one they dismissed, demeaned, belittled, insulted, disrespected, was the one they were going to pacify with a big basket of nothing, was the one they thought they’d fool, was the one whose intelligence they insulted every single day as they urged me to buy into their garbage. Trump didn’t insult me; the Dems did.

About a week before the election, after I’d done the mental wrestling, after I’d listened over and over to the absolutely arrogant, haughty, smug, entitled, rude Clinton cultists, I made up my mind: The only vote of integrity for me, as someone who loathed Clinton and had stood my ground against her candidacy from the beginning, who believed she’d destroy pure progressive values for decades, and had been willing to take the incredible progressive blowback that came with it, was to cast a vote directly for Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump. For me, a vote for Stein or Johnson, a write-in for Bernie, would have been the greatest form of cop-out. I wanted – needed – to know that my vote would go directly toward defeating her, and there was only one way to be sure of that. As a newly registered independent, I voted for Donald Trump. And the moment I did, a wave of relief came over me, a wave of absolute pride that, regardless of the consequences, my integrity was intact. I hadn’t folded, I hadn’t copped out, they hadn’t fooled me, and any victory would be a Pyrrhic one.

But there was no victory for them. They lost. They fooled some deluded sycophants, but the lion’s share jumped ship. A week before the election, I had been very vocal that, not only was I rejecting Clinton, I was voting for Trump. Heads exploded, insults rained down on me, I was condemned. I had done nothing to any of them except exercise my right to vote as I choose, and reject the candidate they thought I should vote for – and yet, progressives I’d know for years blocked and unfriended me. After the election, when I said, yeah, you assholes, you broke it, you bought it, I voted for Trump, the level of rage and vitriol and hatred directed toward me was beyond anything I’d ever seen in politics in my lifetime. I literally got a death threat, was compared with Hitler. The hypocrisy of the supposed progressives who’d been my staunchest supporters has been breathtaking. And all because I rejected the candidate that they chose for me, they stacked the deck in favor of, they put their thumb on the scale on behalf of. Nothing but that. I voted my conscience – and have become a lightning rod for progressive hatred as a result.

As Chicago/Atlanta rapper Mpulse said, “People love freedom of speech until you exercise your right of freedom of speech and they disagree.” I always thought Dems were the good guys, until now. I thought I’d be a lifelong Dem – but I Demexited. Oh, I fought the good fight, all right – just not the one they wanted. I didn’t fight their fight – and in their eyes, my rights didn’t, don’t, exist. As Wikileaks exposed, I was never intended to be anything but a pawn, was never expected to think for myself, was never respected as someone who might have independent thoughts and beliefs, would have been just one more check box in their “fooled ’em” column.

I was supposed to be a good soldier, but I put on a different uniform. Clinton supporters, these fraudulent progressives I deal with every day, didn’t care about my rights or my values (in fact, they routinely mocked both) – they cared only about power and winning. And that’s why they lost – and will lose again. When you lose and don’t examine the reason for it, are completely clueless and couldn’t care less, if you’d rather heap hatred then figure out how to right the ship, you’ll always lose. But without the Dem albatross around my neck, going forward, I won’t feel keenly all the losses Dems are determined to sustain by their sneering, bull-headed, arrogant attitude. Their losses won’t be mine – and in fact, this time I contributed to the greatest loss they could imagine, a potentially fatal, and well-deserved, body blow to the Democratic Party.

The Clinton email leaks, compliments of Wikileaks, have been drip drip dripping daily for the past however long. And then, this weekend, we learn that the FBI is re-opening (yes, re-opening, not resuming) its investigation into Clinton’s emails, after this:

Newly discovered emails found on a computer seized during an investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner thrust the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server back into the presidential campaign less than two weeks before the election.

Officials said the discovery prompted a surprise announcement Friday by FBI Director James B. Comey that the agency would once again be examining emails related to Clinton’s time as secretary of state.

In a letter to lawmakers, Comey said the FBI would take ‘appropriate investigative steps’ to determine whether the newly discovered emails contain classified information and to assess whether they are relevant to the Clinton server probe.

The emails, numbering more than 1,000, were found on a computer used by both Weiner (D-N.Y.) and his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, according to law enforcement officials with knowledge of the inquiry who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Immediately after this news broke, Clinton sauntered off her plane, ignored reporters, and jumped into a waiting SUV. Her later, tossed-together, presser was astounding in its duplicity: She was “deeply troubled” by this “unprecedented” act by Director Comey and demanded he release everything, stat.

Oh, that’s rich – the candidate with the unprecedented status of being under two FBI investigations in the course of a presidential election, and who has so many deeply troubling secrets and backroom deals we can’t keep up, is grabbing the smelling salts and falling on the fainting couch with outrage at Comey sending a letter to Congress, a disclosure he promised under oath he would make if new information turned up. I don’t recall the same level of outrage when Comey took the unusual step in July of sharing his findings about the Clinton investigation with the American public, and recommended no charges.

From the private server and hidden emails, secret Wall Street speeches, the “public and private” positions Clinton admits to taking, the Clinton camp’s efforts to destroy Bernie Sanders, collusion with the DNC in 2014, before she even declared her candidacy, to State Department pay-to-play, renovating their New York house without the required permits (showing, again, they think they’re above laws we commoners have to follow), and a myriad of other things, the Clintons are toxic. They’re a cancer on politics. What people don’t get is that it isn’t just the emails, or just the Wall Street speeches, or just the Foundation or just the sleazy nature of every campaign Clinton runs – it’s the fact that, with the Clintons, it’s always going to be something. They’re not victims of the Republican smear machine; they’re victims of the fallout from their own schemes, from their own secrets, from their own greed.

As a lifelong liberal and yellow dog Dem, I registered independent this year. I have always supported President Obama, and was a fervent Bernie supporter – but this, this candidate is beyond anything I can remotely stomach. When the Dems colluded with Clinton before she even announced her candidacy, when they, along with the willing media, propelled her candidacy at Bernie’s expense, when they have proven to be, via Wikileaks, every bit as sinister and sleazy as we suspected, they crossed a line I’ll never cross with them. I never intended to vote for Clinton; once Bernie left the race, I took a look at the third-party candidates. But even if I had, at one time, debated voting for Clinton because her opponent was exponentially worse, the drip drip drip has turned into waterboarding now, and the fact that the Democratic powers that be, along with the media, continue to apologize for Clinton, defend her, and take swipes at those who don’t, has reinforced like nothing else can how nefarious her presidency would be, and how clearly a vote for her would violate my core integrity.

Of course I’m aware that lending support to a third-party candidate could lead to a Trump presidency – but the fault doesn’t lie with me, it lies with the Democratic operatives who thought it’d be swell to operate outside the bounds of decency, ignore Clinton’s many disqualifying characteristics, and try to trick and swindle the public into thinking her unbelievably bad judgment and behavior were trifling things, and that she was the better option. She’s not. The past is the best predictor of the future, and her past points to a future rife with scandal, conflict, secrecy, deceptiveness, money-grubbing, political decisions and policy made with only her own best interests in mind, and perhaps even criminal conduct. She operates outside the law, outside the rules the rest of us mostly try to live by, and that won’t change. It’s baked into her persona – and it’s been remarkably successful in terms of financial gain and political power. She has no incentive to change who she is; but we should have a very strong incentive to deny her the chance to drag us into her slippery orbit.

More than half the country thinks Clinton is untrustworthy, and a whopping 7 out of 10 Americans think she acted unethically, if not illegally, around her private email server. Those numbers alone are disqualifying. I’d rather have a president like Trump, whose bad behavior hasn’t been hidden beneath umpteen layers of secrecy and who hasn’t been protected by a cabal of willing political and media sycophants, than a president like Clinton, who’s learned how to expertly game the system, and the deceive the public, for her own personal gain. Her own closest aides have commented in the Wikileaks emails about her secrecy and poor judgment.

Even after a lifetime of Democratic loyalty, voting for Clinton – essentially telling the Dem establishment that what they did during this campaign and how they operated was acceptable, and worse, giving them license to do it again – is a bridge too far for me.

Life got in the way of my blogging a bit, but, though I’m more than a little rusty, I’m also filled with a boatload of emotional reactions to Bernie’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president – and the spillover has to go somewhere. So bear with me.

Unlike a lot of Dem bloggers, pundits and media types, I’m still and will always be #NeverHillary – even to stop Trump. My solution to that dilemma is still unclear; it’s either Jill Stein and going Green (which is most likely what I’ll do), writing in Bernie, or skipping the top ticket altogether and trying to turn the down ballot races into progressive (real progressive) victories. I have a few months to make up my mind on that, but the one thing I’m crystal clear on is that I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. And I reject the cries of “party unity” – the Party will have no one but itself to blame if Donald Trump wins in November. Its disdain for Bernie and his supporters, and arrogance now that we are required to fall in line, steels my resolve to steer clear of the DNC and its gang of hacks. My only obligation is to vote my conscience, and I’m offended by those who tell me that I’m a traitor to progressives if I don’t vote Blue. Truth is, I don’t consider Clinton “blue” – some random shade of purple, maybe, but who even knows that? Transparency and honesty aren’t her trademarks, so it’s anyone’s guess how she’ll govern if elected. The bad news is that Bernie Sanders and his lovely wife Jane were up against a system that, in the end, revealed itself to be impenetrable. They poured their hearts and souls into us and our causes – and the fact that he ultimately fell on the sword and endorsed Clinton is punishment enough. He doesn’t need us to turn against him and make accusations of “sell out” (which does, incidentally, apply to Elizabeth Warren, angling for a boost to her political career). Bernie is a man of integrity, fairness, intelligence and wisdom. I have faith that the decision he made was thrashed out thoroughly beforehand, and that his motives were pure.

Having said that, it tore my heart out watching Bernie endorse Hillary Clinton, because I know, in my gut, how much that hurt him. It was evident in every gesture, every word, and even his autonomic nervous system was screaming, “Noooooo!” It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t love her to death and isn’t tinkled pink to add his support. As body language expert Dr. Lillian Glass noted,

Bernie then says he wants to make it as clear as possible as to why he is endorsing Hillary Clinton. While she begins to smile, Bernie is definitely not smiling. Instead, he licks his lips and then purses his lips, as you see in the photo above. In essence, the lip licking and swallowing reflects that his autonomic nervous system has taken over and he is clearly doing something that he does not want to do. The lip pursing is the body’s way of saying ‘I really don’t want to say this.’ His lack of smiling when standing next to Hillary also reveals his true negative feelings towards her. It indicates that he is not enthused to be endorsing her. Hillary clearly knows how he feels as she exhibits a teeth-clenched, forced smile with her eyes not crinkling . . .

. . . When Hillary began to speak, Bernie’s autonomic nervous system was working overtime as you can tell in the photos above. He was perspiring profusely, which appeared to be an indication of his emotional state. He wiped his forehead, both sides of his cheeks, and did it two different times. Apparently, giving this speech appeared to be one of the most difficult things he had to do as part of the campaign . . . He literally had to catch his breath. He took a very deep breath whereby you could see his shoulders raising as he then deeply exhaled that breath. He was oxygenating himself to stay composed . . . He maintained that pursed lip appearance as his jaw jutted forth, which indicated that he was feeling anger at the situation of having to endorse Hillary. As we have observed, his body language, while remaining in the background while she spoke, spoke volumes about what he was really feeling . . .

I don’t think this is the look of a man who is “selling out,” or angling for an appointment in the Clinton cabinet. This is a man in agony. This is a man who feels torn and tormented and who made this decision for what he deems the good of the country: To stop Trump. I’m certain he feels he’s let his supporters down, and I’m even more certain that the last thing he wants is to endorse a person who epitomizes everything he fights against, and has fought for decades. I get, though, the confusion, anxiety, sadness and, yes, anger, of Bernie supporters. The pledge to take his fight to the convention appears to be off the table, although as some have noted, he hasn’t suspended his campaign. Those planning a Philly trip are now second-guessing the usefulness of it. I’m not a fan of the “fart-in” that Bernie supporters are staging (seems a little too frat-party’ish for my tastes). But again, I understand – and share – the anger, feeling that Clinton has now gotten everything she wanted and none of what she richly deserved. I console myself with the thought that there’s one thing she doesn’t have now, and (I’m hoping) won’t have when it counts: Bernie supporters, in droves, campaigning for her, supporting her, re-tweeting her – and voting for her.

We can continue to vote based on our own sense of integrity, and continue to stand behind Bernie Sanders and appreciate what he brought to the table during this election cycle. What he actually did – and it’s something she can’t erode – is let us know that there is nothing too great to strive for, that integrity matters, that standing up for what we believe in matters, and can change things. What he taught us was how to think and not just what to think. We followed him because he made it simple for us: His message was clear, unequivocal, and built to last.

I can’t be mad at Bernie; I’m too sad for him. The ones I’m angry at are the “party unity” mouthpieces who derided Bernie and his supporters, who mocked his vision, and who now are going to pat him on the head, praise him for falling in line, and consign him to the dustbin of history.

Bernie’s still out there, doing what he’s always done, and no endorsement of Clinton can take that away from him. His pain was palpable. And I share it.

When all this started I got a bumper sticker in the mail that said “ready for Hillary.” I stared at it a few minutes in confusion and thought ” Ewwwww I hate that woman.” After her treatment of Obama on the campaign trail, I still could not stand her. The nerve of telling me for whom to vote!! It is my vote and that war hawk hag did not earn it. I am a Bernie supporter too through and through. I still miss him and his lovely wife Jane. Now and then I still let out a whimpering “Bernieeeeeee.” I am glad she did not win the election. I don’t want WW3 to start.

Lee Fang of the Intercept was the first person to ask Clinton to release her Wall Street speech transcripts (her response was to gaily laugh), and has done extensive research on Clinton’s lobbyist-delegates. Last Thursday, his colleague, Henrik Moltke of the Intercept, caught Clinton at a rally to ask her questions about her son-in-law’s hedge fund, a hedge fund that Clinton’s pal, Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein, invested in and helped market. As Moltke reported:

The investment did not turn out to be a savvy business decision. Earlier this month, Mezvinsky was forced to shutter one of the investment vehicles he launched under Eaglevale, called Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity, after losing 90 percent of its money betting on the Greek recovery. The flagship Eaglevale fund has also lost money, according to the New York Times.

Last week, Moltke caught Clinton leaving a campaign rally, and tried without success to get her to even glance his way to answer a question about her son-in-law’s Eaglevale hedge fund. Eventually Moltke was blocked by one of Clinton’s henchman (in this case identified as a “spokesman”), who promised to get the information to Moltke by email, “right now.” As far as I know, Moltke is still waiting.

The media narrative these days seems to be that Bernie Sanders is “defiant” and going “scorched earth” in his primary battle – but I read something today about the DNC throwing Bernie a bone at the convention – appointing more of his people to the committees, maybe, or something – and as enticing as it sounded, for a minute, my ultimate response was, “Meh.” Here’s the thing: We no longer want, or need, or seek anything from the DNC, or the Clinton camp, or Debbie Wasserman-Elect-Hillary-Schultz, or establishment Democrats, or media pundits or “journalists.” We’ve done all of this without any of them so far, and we’re willing to continue this journey without their 11th hour peace pipe. We’re not stupid, and we all realize that any concession at this juncture is a not-too-subtle effort to lure Bernie Sanders’ supporters into their den of inequity. An olive branch may be extended, but only until they’re fully assured that we’re all once again comfortably ensconced in the arms of the Democratic establishment that has brainwashed us for far too long – and then it will be yanked back. They don’t want us any more than we want them, but there’s one difference: They need us, but the reverse isn’t true.

Many of us who’ve always claimed the Democratic Party as “home” perhaps began this journey with Bernie as a “Dem supporting Bernie Sanders” who would, of course, vote for whatever “blue” nominee the Democrats chose. During the past year – for me, maybe six months ago – I became uncomfortably aware that that course wasn’t an option any longer. It took me a little longer to publicly proclaim on social media the fact that I wouldn’t even be able to hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton. From there, it was a short leap to Bernie or Bust, and from there it was no leap to declare myself no longer part of the Democratic Party. I’d been at that place, emotionally, for a year, but had only been willing to admit it, publicly, for about half that time – that’s how embedded I was – many of us were – in the Democratic Party. That was then.

As brilliant writer and Sanders supporter Shaun King wrote in the NY Daily News,

Right now, the Democratic Party, which I have called home my entire life, is deeply in love with money. Consequently, its leaders have supported and advanced all kinds of evil, big and small, in devotion to this love affair . . . In essence, Hillary Clinton and the DNC each wants us to believe that lobbyists and SuperPACs don’t expect anything from them in return for their money. This is the most basic, foolish, offensive lie they could ever tell. Of course they want something in return. That’s the business they’re in . . .

. . . The thing is, though, the Democratic Party isn’t really very democratic. It’s sincerely just a machine for Hillary Clinton . . . Debbie Wasserman Schultz will say or do anything to get Hillary Clinton elected, even if it means completely ignoring the political reality that nearly half of the people who’ve voted in this primary have declared that they want to see lobbyists and SuperPACs out of politics. Her words and her deeds throughout this campaign have not only been unethical, but are out of step with the future of the party. Voters under the age of 45 prefer Bernie because they trust him and his principles. Wasserman Schultz and Clinton represent a brand of politics that they know well, but we’re simply tired of it. Another op-ed was just released calling on her to be replaced . . . Robert Reich, the famed economist who served as Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, went so far on Thursday to suggest that a new party should be formedif Hillary wins the election.

I’ll start where I left off — the root of all of this is the love of money. In this campaign, Bernie Sanders, with a ragtag group of misfits, proved to the world that another way exists. He has created a blueprint for us on how we build a political movement without the money from billionaire class and their special interests . . . Don’t believe what anyone tells you — the ball is in our hand and we have more power than progressive people have had in a very long time in this country. I will fight for Bernie Sanders until he is no longer running for president.

After that, this will be my last election as a Democrat. I’m moving on and hope you do, too.

Frank Huguenard, writing for the Huffington Post, had these words of encouragement and truth for Sanders supporters:

. . . pandering doesn’t work on the kinds of people who support Bernie Sanders because more and more these days, people are waking up to the reality that the only thing we can be truly certain of is that there is no such thing as certainty. Change is inevitable and Bernie supporters are fearless. People are understanding that in the past, when we’ve sold our own personal truths to purchase someone else’s political rhetoric, the country and the world have suffered for it . . . Whatever the DNC-RNC-MSM complex is selling, we’re no longer buying . . . This is the simple reason why Bernie is going to win. There is a mass awakening happening on the planet right now and enough people have become immune to the pandering and lies of politicians that we are no longer susceptible to their manipulations and deceit . . . In spite of all the voting irregularities, illegal activities, purging of databases, Main Stream Media’s blatant bias towards Hillary as the presumptive nominee, Bill Clinton campaigning at Massachusetts polling stations, an incredibly lopsided democratic apparatus and mass numbers of voters having their party affiliation switched, it looks like Bernie is still going to win the pledged delegate count. This is astonishing.

Bernie is going to win because the number of people willing to embrace the illusion of certainty is no longer the majority. You can see it on the faces of Bernie supporters at his rallies, you can see by the vast number of crowds at his speeches, you can feel it on social media, you can see him running the table for these last 10 contests (including New Jersey). You can see it in his campaign out-raising his opponents without being financed without super PACS and you can see it with both Trump and Clinton starting to take his potential nomination seriously. This is our time.

More and more Democrats and pundits are now seriously eyeing Bernie Sanders as a better bet than Hillary Clinton – and why shouldn’t they see what we see? But it’s too little, far too late. During a time when the playing field should have been level for both candidates, they collectively retrenched to tilt it. During a time when all Bernie and his supporters were asking for was fairness, the media and the DNC scoffed and mocked and insulted. During a time when a man of integrity was drawing tens of thousands to hear him, see him, support him, the media yawned and ran reports on spawning salmon or Trump. During a time when the nation was just getting to know Bernie Sanders, the DNC in the form of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz intervened to relegate him to the sidelines by fixing debate schedules, cutting him off from important campaign data, and funneling money and influence toward his rival. Arrogance and ego have known no bounds in the collective quest to fix Clinton as the only viable candidate.

But olive branches and peace pipes and white flags are meaningless symbols of their fear, now, when we don’t care, won’t forgive and when it really doesn’t matter to us. Article after article in the mainstream media has proclaimed that Bernie has overstayed his welcome and it’s time he went home (but hey, they remind him, don’t forget to leave your millions of supporters and donations at our doorstep on your way). Democratic leaders are slightly more subtle, but the message is clear: Get in line, Bernie, corral your supporters, be a good little soldier, because we’re gonna need all of you come July when the Anointed One receives her coronation, and you don’t want a Trump presidency on your conscience.

I take the liberty of speaking for millions of us when I say, We are sick to death of all of you, mainstream media, the DNC, establishment Democrats, sick of all your scorn, your mockery, your lies, outright lies, your refusal to see what polls and millions of voters are telling you, your refusal to do the jobs you’re being paid and trusted to do, your refusal to even permit a Bernie Sanders candidacy, and your inability to conceal your disgust that you are forced to tolerate Bernie’s ascendancy with millions of American voters. You thought you could ignore us and we’d go away. Dead wrong. You thought you could shame us, deride us, and we’d shut up. More wrong. You thought, in the end, you could do whatever the hell you wanted and we’d all fall in line behind your chosen candidate at the convention. Epic fail in that calculation.

They can call it mission accomplished: They’ve effectively alienated millions and millions of Democrat and independent voters, and the cocky little gamble that they’d get us back in the end for the sake of “party unity” will no doubt go down as one of the worst political calculations in political history. This is our time, as Frank Huguenard wrote. This will be my last election as a Democrat, wrote Shaun King.

Clinton can declare herself the Democratic nominee on CNN if she chooses, can dismiss Bernie Sanders as a viable opponent if that’s what lets her sleep at night, but she does so at her own peril, because THIS political revolution will have something to say about that particular edict. THIS political revolution is staying the course with Bernie Sanders until the convention. THIS political revolution has no more alliance to the Party or the powers that be, and as Huguenard noted, Bernie supporters are fearless. We are, and we’re determined, and what’s more, we’re fully pissed.

Clinton isn’t winning the popular vote as she claims (one of her many “misspeaks”), her negative ratings are as high in some polls as Trump’s, and a majority of the country doesn’t consider her trustworthy (because she isn’t). That kind of candidate isn’t someone the majority of Bernie supporters, who find integrity and honesty to be critically important character traits, are ever gonna get behind.