Thursday, August 11, 2016

Steal and Reveal

Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn
There's a new force in American politics. Hack into private conversations, hope for something embarrassing or criminal, and leak them to the press. Some come via Wikileaks, at least some of them stolen by Russian sources. Others  come from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or Congressional subpoenas.  What they all seem to have in common is their target: Hillary Clinton.

From the 2010 State Department leaks by Julian Assange's Wikileaks to the latest release by the conservative Judicial Watch this week, we have a window into the minutiae of Secretary Clinton's correspondence with staff and colleagues. Thanks to the Russians -- who seem to have a particular interest in embarrassing Democrats this election cycle -- we have a trove of Democratic Party emails to pour over and now learn up to a hundred more Democrats' emails have also been hacked by Russia and will probably by released at whatever is determined to be the most damaging time.

I've taken a look at the most-cited worst examples from these troves. I suspect the Steal and Reveal folks were disappointed on the whole. From the American media though, you would think they'd uncovered all kinds of shady business. Here's the cheat sheet:

2010 Hack of State Department Cables (Wikileaks):  
In cables drafted by U.S. diplomats, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is described as an "alpha-dog," Afghan President Hamid Karzai is "driven by paranoia," and German Chancellor Angela Merkel allegedly "avoids risk and is rarely creative."(Washington Post, 29 Nov. 2010)
However, this release did considerable damage beyond the above embarrassments. (250,000 cables)

2015 Subpoena of Clinton Emails (Benghazi Committee):
Nothing in the emails was particularly damaging, but controversy swarmed around the emails that were deemed "private" and destroyed. Suspicion that relevant information could have been destroyed. Also charges that top secret information passed through Clinton's private server, though we now know that some were later classified confidential but none at the time. (30,000 emails)

2016 Hack of DNC Emails (Russia/Wikileaks):  The Washington Post examined the worst of the emails. Interestingly, all of them came from late April and May when it was already clear who the nominee would be.
On May 5, a staffer email suggested raising Sanders' religion as an issue. It wasn't picked up on and wasn't done.
On May 17, after controversy erupted over the Nevada state Democratic convention, Wasserman Schultz called Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver a "Damn liar," 
Later, "Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," she said in response to a Politico story about Sanders saying the party hadn't been fair to him.
On May 3, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias offered the DNC guidance on how to respond to accusations from the Sanders campaign:"My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true"
On May 21, DNC national press secretary Mark Pautenbach suggested defending charges the DNC had undermined his campaign. Said Sanders "never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess." (20,000 emails)
 2016 FOIA Release of State Department Emails (Judicial Watch): While the Subpoena pulled emails from Clinton's server, these are emails to or from Clinton on the State Department server. Previously FBI Director Comey had uncovered a handful of emails to or from Clinton that were not included in the 30,000 turned over in 2015.
A single email has received most of the attention: one to a staffer requesting that Gilbert Chagoury, a wealthy Clinton Foundation donor of Lebanese descent, get to speak to the person at State responsible for Lebanese affairs. The staffer responded that the former ambassador to Lebanon would be the best contact. Yet there's no indication that the meeting ever took place. (Multiple FOIA requests; about 1000 pages)
Still to come: Hack of Clinton campaign (Russia): We don't know what might be contained in these emails but, given Julian Assange's vengefulness against Hillary Clinton (who called for his arrest), we expect them to be released at whatever time is deemed most damaging to the campaign. Perhaps days before the election when they'll be front page news.

There are no comparable spy campaigns against Clinton's opponent. We have his numerous court depositions and his public tweets -- all damning aplenty. But one has to wonder why the one-sided attacks?

If we were a nation that valued law and privacy, we would be outraged over the thefts and publication of private communication. But we seem to be more a nation that values dirt. And yet, there is nothing particularly damning here.

What can we glean from these few hundred thousands of communications regarding Hillary Clinton? I glean one thing: she is very careful about what she says, as well she should be, given the previous investigations of the Clintons during her husband's administration.Or, like me, she's a lousy phone typist and has to keep messages short.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

False Accusations do Hurt

Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn
Today was a rough day. My stomach was in knots and my anxiety showed. No, I'm fine. All is well in Oregon. Family are good. Dogs too. I was anxious for tonight's speech. I read on Twitter the BernieorBust kids intended to disrupt Hillary Clinton's big speech. I feared boos during her moment. This actually troubled me the whole day.

No, I don't know Hillary. I don't think I even know anyone who does know her. We aren't linked in any particular way; I haven't been a direct beneficiary of her work. For much of her career, I've found her too hawkish, too much an opportunist. Opportunist. Now, isn't that interesting? It's another way of saying ambitious. I know some ambitious people but they have different anatomy. Why does her ambition bother people?

Where I've connected with her is as a leader who faced difficult times. Being someone with a clear vision and willing to do the hard work to get things done isn't easy -- not in politics and not in education. You see, I moved from being a popular teacher to a controversial administrator. In each of my leadership roles, there was someone working to undermine me, someone who made me divert productive time to address allegations and discontent. One person, actively working to attack your principles, your life's work, your integrity, your competence, can get more traction than you'd think.

In my first principal job, I had an employee who resented me. She told me she'd only support me if I accepted her as my mentor. I did not. I heard these crazy allegations of things I'd supposedly said, done, or intended. I tried to focus instead on the school we were trying to build. But there is nothing more hurtful than being wrongly accused, at least for me. So how do you respond -- through the hurt? You stay calm, you show no emotion, you address the issue and treat it as a valid concern. Later, if you get home before your husband falls asleep, you unload. Then in the morning, you are smiles and cheerfulness; veneer face.

My second administrative job was as Director of Special Education for our district and I dealt with some of the same while trying to do a hard job well.

Later, I asked to be a building principal again. The superintendent charged me with "civilizing" the high school I was to lead. Yes, that was his word. The school had been poorly managed for too long. Yes, there were great teachers, parents, kids and classified staff. But staff complained of lax attendance (often a class of 25 would only have 6 show up) and rules were applied to poor kids but sometimes not athletes or kids from powerful families. Two thirds of graduates never attended college or trade school. Nearly half of freshmen never graduated.

With the overwhelming support of the staff, we imposed some strict rules, some of them like my previous high school. Attendance came immediately under control, college enrollment rose to 83% of graduates, rules were enforced fairly to all, administrator visibility and whole staff efforts to focus on positive behavior helped the students become considerate and welcoming to visitors and to each other. There was more too, but suffice it to say that I don't work hard for a difficult change without seeing it through. The lucky thing for the next principal is that maintaining standards is a fifth the work of imposing them initially. Teachers and other staff were appreciative of the work we did and the outcomes we achieved.

But there was one. One employee who dedicated himself to undermining me. I don't think his accusations landed much with staff, but he was determined and managed to convince a group of students. He carried his complaints to the district office where, shortly after I arrived, the principal I replaced had become superintendent -- the one whose mess I had been charged with cleaning up.

The superintendent decided (as many Americans have) that if there were allegations, there must be a reason. There were crazy accusations and negative spins on good things that were happening. Again, I learned to listen, respond calmly, show respect, and move on. There were hurtful things, very hurtful things. I pretended to have thicker skin than I really do. I hid my hurt and focused on the work that needed to be done.

Hillary Clinton has endured many, many more crazy accusations, high budget investigations, subpoenas for everything but her baby teeth, and a public and a media that assumes that "where there's smoke there's fire". If there have been so many "scandals", she must be lying. She must be dishonest. She must be crooked.

I look at her and see someone a hell of a lot stronger than me. I finally gave up. It just wasn't worth defending myself against nonsense, working 70 hour weeks to improve my school, and even crying myself to sleep.

I bet she has unloaded to her family and friends in confidence too. I imagine the tears flowing when no one is around. I can see her struggling not to keep reliving the latest cruelty as her head hits the pillow. I see it because I've been there. I suspect most of us have.

I've read everything anyone has suggested about her alleged crimes. In 25 years and god knows how many billions in investigation expenses, how many subpoenas and witnesses, there's still nothing of consequence. Now I've lived a squeaky clean life, but you hire full-time staff to investigate every inch of it, give them an unlimited expense account, and I'll bet there will be something that looks bad, whether or not it really was.

I'd like Americans to make up their own minds. Shut down the noise -- the accusations and name-calling and silly memes -- and stick to the facts. She's tough, which makes her unlikable to some who prefer their women sweet and soft. She's ambitious, just like every person who ever entered politics. If we can stop hating long enough to examine, we might find a person who can do the job for us.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

Hall of Shame

Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn
Today, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said he would vote for the bigoted, misogynistic business failure. It seemed a good time to list others who have now put party above principle (or country). Here are the most prominent with their former quotes about the man.
(Note: updated as the Hall of Shame grows)

06 June, 2016 Update
Lindsay Graham removed from the Hall of Shame. His comment today:
      Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another former primary rival of Mr. Trump’s, urged Republicans who have backed Mr. Trump to rescind their endorsements, citing the remarks about Judge Curiel and Mr. Trump’s expression of doubt on Sunday that a Muslim judge could remain neutral in the same lawsuit, given Mr. Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim noncitizens entering the country.
     “This is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy,” Mr. Graham said. “If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it,” he added. “There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”
Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House
"This is not conservatism," Ryan said. "What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for, and more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for...I told our members this morning to always strive to live up to our highest ideals, to uphold those principles in the Constitution on which we swear every two years that we will defend."
Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has prepared an alternate plan to run Republican Senate candidates separately from Donald Trump, should he be the GOP presidential nominee, according to a report. "We'll drop him like a hot rock" in the general election. (Washington Examiner, 2/27/2016)
John McCain, Arizona Senator
"I would also echo the many concerns about Mr. Trump’s uninformed and indeed dangerous statements on national security issues that have been raised by 65 Republican defense and foreign policy leaders."
 Chris Christie, New Jersey Governor
During a January event in New Hampshire, Christie called Trump one of the "carnival barkers of today. Showtime is over. We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief. Showmanship is fun, but it is not the kind of leadership that will truly change America."
Marco Rubio, Florida Senator
“He is a guy who has been protected his whole life, and privileged his whole life, and insulated his life. There’s nothing tough about any of that. This is a massive fraud that he is perpetuating.” 

"If Donald Trump is the nominee, that’s the end of the Republican Party." 
Reince Priebus, Republican Party Chair
(Never criticized the business failure.)

Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House
"very, very destructive" and an example of him going "off the deep end."

And there are too many more. Today, Karl Rove announced he's meeting with the business failure and will presumably fall into line. All who do are complicit.

Notably, there are a few holdouts, a few prominent Republicans who if not outright opposing the business failure, are refusing to get in line. 
Mitt Romney, former GOP presidential nominee 
Jeb Bush, former Florida governor
George W. Bush, former president
George H.W. Bush, former president
Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard
Lindsay Graham, South Carolina Senator
Arnold Schwarzenegger, former California Governor
The question remains: will these have the courage to step out and actively oppose him?

Saturday, May 28, 2016

The Revolution will be Tweeted

Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn

March, 1972: Shankill Road, Belfast, Northern Ireland

We set up our TV camera on a street corner in the Protestant section of Belfast for man-on-the-street interviews. The corner was empty but curiosity won over the passers by and they stopped to ask what was happening. With the wired microphone in my hand, I began asking questions. The woman asked who we were. I answered we were with an American politician, interested in learning about "The Troubles". I got an earful. There were two of us interviewing and gradually a crowd materialized. Most flowed out of the pub on our corner.

Someone asked again who we were and I shouted (it was getting louder), "We're with ABC." "BBC!" someone shouted back. And the tension rose as Protestants felt misrepresented by the UK's dominant media. "No, Americans!" I yelled over the voices. "Americans! Kennedy!" and it got even louder, more claustrophobic as people crowded in. Senator Ted Kennedy had just visited Belfast and was seen as too sympathetic to the IRA. My father's campaign manager shouted over the crowd in his booming voice, "Ask them what they think about the IRA!" He was tall, good-looking and not very bright.

That's when we realized we were in the middle of a full-fledged riot. The five of us were outnumbered by a couple hundred of them, all angry and many intoxicated. A group of women surrounded my husband Scott, protecting him from the angriest in the mob. I continued talking to people, trying to reason, calm, soothe. Idealistic college kid. Then I felt someone pulling me, my father shouting in my ear, "Let's go!" I started to say "just a minute" and turned to see dense, angry humanity stretching all the way to our cab. My father pulled me back to the cab and struggled to get the door open against the press of angry people surrounding the car.

As my father finally shoved me into the back seat, the crowd kept pressing and the door slammed on my hand. Back home, the California headline read "Candidate's Daughter Injured in Belfast Riot". Our riot. I learned then that television could create events.

Fast forward to the 2016 election season. 

It's 2016 and the economy is rolling along strong. Unemployment is low, the stock market is high and America is once again well regarded around the world. While 1972 Northern Ireland was in the midst of a Civil War, tied closely to a struggling economy, the United States is enjoying relatively good times.

So why the vitriol and violence in the presidential campaign? How did the bigotry and misogynism of Trump rallies propel him to be the GOP nominee? How has the Bernie Sanders campaign derailed into similar vitriol and violence against "the establishment"? Why are they so angry? How did the Nevada Convention get so out of control?

In 1972, we inadvertently started a riot with a TV camera. Today, the media -- and especially social media -- has stirred up passions and convinced those on the left or right to move still farther from the center. Surrounded only by our own echo chambers and "blocking" or "unfriending" those who disagree is what we do instead of discussing, arguing or listening. No one has to listen today to anything that doesn't fit her world view.

I'm learning now that social media can also create revolutions. And not just the Arab Spring.

If a civil war is upon us, it's of our own making and completely devoid of setting. This is not France in 1789, not Russia in 1917, not China in 1949. Are we in for a whole slew of pointless conflicts, fired by our collective imaginations?

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

The Hitchhiker

Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn

I do pick up hitchhikers sometimes, especially when I drive alone on long trips. I have space in the car, they need a ride, and I enjoy having company. Usually it helps to pass the time. 

A while back, I picked up a man with his thumb out. We were heading down the same freeway and he seemed like a nice fellow. As he climbed into the passenger seat, he thanked me for the ride and settled in. We had a nice conversation for a while and discovered we had a lot in common. 

After a while though, he opened my glove compartment and started digging around. "Don't you have any granola bars? I'm hungry." I apologized and said no, I did not. So he dug into his backpack, pulled out a bag of chips and ripped them open. Some spilled on the floor and he didn't bother to pick them up, carelessly grinding them into the carpet with his boots. He didn't offer to share so I didn't ask. 
When I wasn't watching, he began searching through my road maps and took two or three and slid them into his backpack. I was listening to a favorite CD but he must not have liked it, because soon he was fiddling with the dial until he found a radio station he liked. He couldn't hear well so cranked up the volume.

Over the next few hours, he complained about the uncomfortable seat, why I didn't pass that truck, and he wanted me to pick up every other hitchhiker we passed. The complaints continued so I asked him, "So why don't you just get your own car?"

That's when the lecture began. Cars are evil. Cars will destroy the planet. There should be fewer highways and more public transportation. How could I defend contributing to the destruction of our world? I wondered why he chose to ride in my car instead of buying a bus ticket but tried to be polite and kept my thoughts to myself.

I needed to stop so pulled off the highway. "What are you doing?" he demanded. 

I replied that I needed to buy gas and that I wanted to stop to stretch my legs a bit. As we pulled out of the gas station, I wasn't that surprised he didn't even consider contributing to the cost. But as I headed for the rest area, he insisted that this was unfair, he needed to be in Philadelphia in an hour and that it seemed I was deliberately trying to interfere with his plans. I stopped anyway, walked a bit (glad actually to be away from him for a few minutes), and then returned to the car. 

When I got back to the car, he had slid into the driver's seat and told me he would take over, that I was not a good driver, was not being considerate enough of his needs, and that he wasn't going to stand for it. Not only that, but he had rounded up some people from the Rest Area, convinced them I was treating him poorly, and all of them were yelling at me to let him drive the car and to stop conspiring against him.

I clutched the keys in my right hand and refused to surrender them. "You didn't want your own car but you want to condemn me for having one. You don't like how I do things but you're happy to take all the advantages you can."  

"Listen, Bernie," I said, "you don't get to hijack my car."

Monday, April 11, 2016

Is the DNC Undermining Bernie's Campaign?

Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn
When asked if he would officially join the party on April 30, 2015, when he announced his candidacy, Sanders said, "No, I am an independent who is going to be working with the —" cutting himself off mid-sentence. (Source)

I've read a good deal from Bernie Sanders' supporters about how the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and especially its chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, are undermining his campaign.

There are two questions here. The first is whether Democratic Party leaders are neutral between the two candidates. Given Sanders' history as an independent, even as one who openly chastised Democrats, and his unwillingness to share either his time or his fundraising with candidates for other offices, I see no reason to think that leaders would be much sympathetic to his campaign. The second question is whether the Democratic Party has treated him unfairly in their official role. Sanders' supporters certainly say they have. I did some digging, trying to determine exactly what their allegations were.

So far as I can tell, they boil down to these:

1. The DNC lined up super-delegates to support Hillary Clinton prior to the Iowa caucuses. 

I can find no evidence that the party itself was involved, only the fact that the majority of the Democratic super-delegates -- who are Democratic office holders and party leaders -- came out for Hillary Clinton early in the campaign.

The next obvious question is why? Surely there was something underhanded about that?

Actually not. Hillary Clinton has been a member of the party for several decades, has served as a Democratic senator, and has criss-crossed the country raising money for candidates for Congress, Governor and other offices. Bernie Sanders on the other hand, has been a lifelong Independent, only lately joining the Party to advance his run for President. He has not been well regarded by his colleagues in Congress, though he has served for over 25 years. When one of the best-known fighters for liberal ideals, Rep. Barney Frank, speaks out against Sanders, liberals listen.
"Bernie alienates his natural allies," then-Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told the Los Angeles Times just months after Sanders first took federal office. "His holier-than-thou attitude — saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else — really undercuts his effectiveness." -- Barney Frank (D), Mass
Taking a look at the most liberal members of the House and Senate, who are they supporting?
Of the eight most liberal senators, only one has endorsed Bernie Sanders. That senator is Sanders himself. Five have endorsed Hillary Clinton. Two have not committed.

Of  the twenty-three most liberal representatives, only two have endorsed Bernie Sanders. Seventeen have endorsed Hillary Clinton and four have not committed.
Perhaps Bernie Sanders does not have superdelegate support because his long-term colleagues do not have the same rapport with him they have with Hillary Clinton? Perhaps it's not nefarious, they just don't like him.

2.  The DNC temporarily cut off the Sanders campaign from its voter databases.

One of the advantages of campaigning as a Democrat (instead of an Independent) is access to the extensive voter databases maintained by the DNC. In December, a software glitch allowed Sanders' staffers access to Clinton's campaign database.
The Sanders team, which consisted of four people, ran multiple searches in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and about 10 March states, including Florida and Colorado.  In Iowa and New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign ranked voters on a scale of 1-100 for turnout, enthusiasm and support, the senior Democrats said. The Sanders campaign ran two searches: "Show me all the Clinton people rated higher than 60" and "Show me all the people rated less than 30." This would be a key way of knowing who Sanders should target in the final weeks before voting: Ignore those above 60, while focus on those below 30, because they are looking for a Clinton alternative and might be open to Sanders. (Source)

When the breach was discovered, the Party immediately cut off the Sanders' campaign's temporary access to the database. We in education might call that a natural consequence.
“This was not an inadvertent glimpse into our data, not a mistake,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said. “They made 25 intentional and targeted searches of our data.” (Source)
The Sanders campaign sued, claiming the suspension was unfair. Thus began the allegations from Sanders' supporters that the DNC is attempting to undermine their campaign. Database access was restored in less than 48 hours, once the breach had been fixed, but the lawsuit continued.

3. Democratic debates were limited by the DNC and deliberately scheduled during low viewer times.

In May of 2015, the DNC announced 6 debates would take place during the primary season. This is indeed a low number, given the numbers of primary debates in recent years. By contrast, the Republican Party scheduled 12 debates. More debates -- and the timing of the debates to maximize viewership -- tend to help lesser known candidates and can disadvantage the better known ones.

The Sanders campaign complained there were too few debates and that they were scheduled on evenings when viewership would be depressed. As a virtual unknown when he entered the race a year ago, Bernie Sanders stood to gain by the higher visibility. Hillary Clinton however would reap little advantage from the debates.

Under pressure from the Sanders campaign, the DNC added additional debates, bringing the total to 10. Some were scheduled on Saturdays against the Sanders campaign wishes. Yet viewership was high, though not nearly so high as the corresponding Republican debates. Those however, broke viewership records for all time. Given the number of candidates (17) and the anticipation of what kind of outrage one or another might spew, their viewership brought in not just politicos, but all the entertainment value one might expect from the World Wrestling Federation (WWF).

The assumption that it was the DNC limiting debates to thwart Sanders and elevate Clinton assumes that the Clinton campaign had no say of its own over the debate schedule. Keep in mind that incumbent presidents (such as Obama in 2012, Bush in 2004 and Clinton in 1996) never agree to participate in debates. Why should they? For similar reasons (wide familiarity), Hillary Clinton's campaign may have demanded a minimal debate schedule. The Party cannot schedule debates that the front runners refuse to attend.

In any case, it hardly seems that Bernie Sanders has lacked for exposure. A year ago, only those who followed politics closely or lived in Vermont knew him. Today nearly everyone knows his key contentions: that millionaires and billionaires have rigged the game, that there should be higher taxes on the 1%, that tuition should be free, and that the ACA should be scrapped and replaced with single payer healthcare.

4. The Sanders campaign has been all but ignored by the media.

Though I'm not sure how this situation could have been orchestrated by the DNC, it is an oft stated complaint. The Sanders campaign has done an incredible job of using social media to attract record numbers of followers in a relatively short time. Rallies are packed with enthusiastic crowds and my social media pages certainly don't lack for posts from his supporters. He has ridden a wave of attention in spite of less "free media" than Hillary Clinton enjoyed.

But articles I have read on this subject tend to compare Bernie Sanders' free media with Donald Trump's. Trump has exploited the free media angle better than any candidate before him. Compare Sanders' $321 million worth of free media attention with Trump's nearly $2 billion and it looks (and is) out of whack. But compare him to the front-runner, and as of March 15th, Clinton had twice the free media as Sanders. Still a lot, but Sanders has enjoyed the 3rd most of all the candidates (both parties) and 20 times more than the Democrats' third place candidate, Martin O'Malley.

The Trump attention has been obscene but I'm finding it hard to believe the DNC is responsible for that.

5. The DNC rigged the primaries in Arizona and Nevada.

The Arizona primary on March 22nd was a disaster. Voter rolls were wrong, with lifelong Democrats listed as Independents. The number of polling places in Maricopa County (notorious for its nasty sheriff Joe Arpaio) were cut from 200 (in 2012) to just 60, causing voters to wait hours in long lines to cast their votes. The worst abuses were in Hispanic neighborhoods, depressing that portion of the vote. Additionally, provisional ballots were given to thousands who came to vote but were told they were not eligible. Some of those ballots have allegedly been destroyed already.

Mayors, the Governor, and legislators are all calling for an investigation into what is being called voter suppression in Maricopa County. The Republican county recorder (Helen Purcell) has responsibility for elections in the county. The Sanders campaign has asked for a do-over of the election. The US Attorney General Loretta Lynch has opened an investigation.

In Arizona, the results were 56% Hillary Clinton and 41% Bernie Sanders. Doubting the legitimacy of the results is reasonable. However, polling just before the election showed voters leaning 50% to Hillary Clinton and 24% to Bernie Sanders. 

The primary in Arizona may well have been an omen of things to come, given the levels of now legal voter suppression since the overturning of the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court. We all should be alarmed.

But when discussing this horrific situation, the Sanders followers I know have jumped to the conclusion that the DNC manipulated the situation. There's no evidence that the Democratic Party had anything to do with this. In any case, why would those who prefer Hillary Clinton want to suppress the Hispanic vote?

As for the Nevada caucuses, there were widespread reports of irregularities at caucus locations around the state. Clinton won there as well, though Sanders has carried the majority of caucus states (8 of 12). Curiously though, when I searched for Nevada caucus irregularities, my feed was full of Republican caucus complaints, not Democratic. I have some concerns about caucuses in general -- done well and according to the rules of neutrality in some places, much too lax in others -- but can't separate out the individual social media complaints from systemic problems. There was a recount, which confirmed the original results, but that doesn't prove one way or another whether the caucuses were conducted fairly.

I have heard the charges of unfairness so regularly over the past several months that I had to investigate on my own. Based on these five complaints, I'm not convinced.