Too Important to Lose
Hillary certainly isn’t making this campaign season any easier, and this time it’s not her fault. But seeing the words “Hillary Clinton” and “emails” in the same sentence once again did come as a punch to the solar plexus, leaving me gasping for breath. I worry that those words, back in the headlines, are a damper to the turnout of the voters she needs to win. And as I was catching my breath, who should show up but Anthony Weiner, the only person in this political circus whose squalor factor approaches that of Donald Trump?
-- What’s that you say?
-- Newt Gingrich? Well, yes, there is him.
-- And Rudy Giuliani? Yes, him too.
-- And Chris Christie . . . and Roger Ailes . . . and the guy from Breitbart . . . and . .
OK. Enough. It’s looking like a snap shot of a Trump cabinet meeting.
This is not the time for sulking in our tents. This election is all about turnout. It’s about voting and urging others to vote.
There are even ways to do that without leaving your house. My friend, Scott, has launched something called a “bot,” which is a Facebook messenger tool aimed at millennial voters, but usable by people of all ages, which asks people to commit to vote and get others to do the same. It’s simple. Check it out.
I first heard people complaining about the presidential choice they were offered in 1960, when Kennedy and Nixon were running, and I have heard it many times since. But democracy is always about imperfect choices. And this year it’s about a resilient candidate and an election too important to lose.