Monday, February 13, 2017

Competency and Experience are Vital for Leading Government Agencies

I don’t expect a republican administration to put people in charge of agencies who align with my progressive policy prescriptions. However, I do expect competent, knowledgeable, experienced people to head up government agencies because when they do not, we get incompetent government, we get chaos, and Americans suffer, mostly middle and low-income people. 

Sadly, this seems to be the GOP playbook: they hate government so much that when they are in charge, they put people in positions of power who have no-to-little experience and are incompetent so that when they fail and there is disaster, it reinforces their narrative of “government is bad, government can’t help you.” It’s worked like a charm over the past few decades. The American people’s faith in government institutions is very low. 

I do not believe government alone can solve all our problems, but it is certainly not the evil conservatives have painted it to be and can be very useful in many situations. Furthermore, government can finance research and push projects forward that private industry can’t or won’t risk doing.

While we may not be able to stop these appointments, we can certainly slow them down so that the American people are aware of who it is that will be running our country as well as whom to hold accountable.

View my latest video:

Friday, January 27, 2017

My View: The Women's March on Washington - January 21, 2017

March organizers expected around 200,000 participants in the nation's capital. How many showed up? Over 500,000. It wasn’t just in Washington DC either. There were marches all across the country in cities large and small—New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Cincinnati, Phoenix, to name a few—even in some small towns. This was a global event too as seen in Paris, London, Sidney, Amsterdam, Athens, even Antarctica. It is estimated that around 3 million people worldwide turned out, which is a spectacular showing.

See where the marches took place:

Where Women’s Marches Are Happening Around the World



March organizers said the event’s primary focus was to promote equal rights for women and to defend marginalized groups. “The Women’s March on Washington will send a bold message to our new government on their first day in office, and to the world, that women's rights are human rights,” the group’s website says. While some have accused the marchers of being anti-Trump and focusing only on reproductive rights, that was not, nor is it the case. While yes, many participants were definitely anti-Trump and reproductive rights were addressed, this was an intersectional event, meaning it embraced various issues important to diverse groups. If feminism is advocating for women's rights and equality between the sexes, intersectional feminism is the understanding of how women's overlapping identities—including race, class, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation—impact the way they experience oppression and discrimination. 

During the Obama years, we saw progress in pay equity; increases in the minimum wage at the state level (29 states have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum of $7.25 as of October 18, 2016) and worker protections; advances in clean technology and environmental protections to slow climate change; and access to healthcare, while certainly far from perfect under the Affordable Care Act, has allowed 20 million Americans to obtain insurance coverage. We value these protections and progress.

We reject regressive policies that punish women for exercising their reproductive right to a safe abortion and defunding Planned Parenthood which will make it harder for low-income women to receive annual medical exams like Pap smears, cancer and STD screenings (men benefit from these too), to receive referrals for mammograms or advice for family planning as well as access to affordable or free birth control. In some areas, Planned Parenthood is the only healthcare provider low-income individuals have. Abortion services are a small fraction of the services the organization provides.

We reject voter suppression laws that make it more difficult for Americans to exercise their right to vote. We oppose lax environmental regulations that allow for the pollution of our water supplies and the air we breathe just to accommodate the profit maximization of carbon-dioxide producing industries. Profits over people is a lousy business model.


Here’s a brief video I made of the march. Enjoy!




We oppose police brutality and mass incarceration of low-level drug offenders and those who commit minor offenses. We value equality for all people and marriage rights and safety for our LGBTQ sisters and brothers. Most of us feel that our immigration system needs to be reformed, but building a giant wall is not the most effective way to do it and would be extremely costly. We have billions of dollars to build a border wall but not to feed, educate, and protect the most vulnerable in our society? 

The movement I found myself a part of last weekend is one that should be intersectional. I also believe policy making should take an integrated approach, tackling multiple issues simultaneously. For instance, how does education and healthcare policy affect and support anti-poverty programs and criminal justice reform? How do environmental and infrastructure policies affect education and healthcare? It all feeds off one another. If you live in an unhealthy environment (a lead-poisoned one, for example), that will affect your ability to learn which will affect the type of job you can hold down once in the labor force, ultimately determining your savings and earnings potential over a lifetime. If a person is stuck in low-paying jobs because she can’t focus long enough to hold a more demanding, higher paying one, that will also affect her children’s educational and work opportunities. It's a vicious cycle. 

Sadly, in just his first week in the Oval Office, Donald Trump has signed an excessive amount of executive orders that could potentially pull us back decades. President Obama made strides forward on so many fronts. We marched because we value that progress and do not want to see it destroyed. 


Get involved and stay connected:



The Women’s March on Washington was a huge success, but the work must continue. Stay involved, stay informed, stay sane (please), but most of all, persevere. It will be a long four years, but if the solidarity I experienced on January 21 in Washington DC remains strong and unified, we will continue to make our voices heard and in the end, we will prevail.


Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Partial repeal of the ACA will lead to the nongroup system’s collapse

Modified transcript:

Partial repeal. What does that mean?  How would it be done? It would be done through the budget reconciliation process.

Congressional GOPers cannot outright repeal the Affordable Care Act because they do not have a filibuster-proof majority. However, they can defund and repeal parts of the law that impact the federal budget. Those components include: the individual and business mandates, Medicaid expansion financing, cost-sharing reductions, and premium tax credits. 

The problem is that repeal, even partial, without a replacement or even delayed replacement, will be destructive and negatively impact insureds, providers, and insurance companies. My greatest concern is the human cost. Republicans are aware that taking away 20+million people’s healthcare coverage could be a public relations nightmare. 

In my last video, I outlined some of the benefits of the law that people across the political spectrum like. GOPers and Donald Trump talk about keeping those elements people like such as allowing kids to stay on their parents’ plan until age 26 and not excluding people who have pre-existing conditions.

Sadly, you cannot retain those things without keeping some of the elements people don’t like, such as the individual mandate—the requirement to purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty. It is because of the mandate and subsidies that premiums are supposed to be affordable. That hasn’t happened evenly, in fact in some areas of the country, premiums have sky-rocketed.

The mandate requires everyone to buy into the healthcare system. This creates a marketplace of risk pools that are composed of the young and the old as well as the healthy and the sick. This is what is supposed to keep costs reined in, but since the mandate is not sizable, many people who should purchase coverage (mainly, the healthy and the young) have opted instead to take the tax penalty. In my opinion, the mandate should have been made much more coercive, meaning a larger tax penalty.

For tax year 2016, the penalty rose to 2.5% of total household adjusted gross income, or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, to a maximum of $2,085. For tax year 2017 and beyond, the percentage option will remain at 2.5%, but the flat fee will be adjusted for inflation. (I omitted to state the flat fee would be adjusted for inflation in the video.)

Congressional Republicans could also take away federal funding for Medicaid expansion. The goal of expansion was to fill the gap between those who qualified for Medicaid and those who met the minimum income to receive subsidies through the healthcare exchanges. Basically, the gap is where people make too much income for Medicaid but not enough to meet the eligibility for healthcare exchange subsidies—they are in the so-called Medicaid dead zone.

Medicaid expansion was supposed to be required of all states, but in 2012, the Supreme Court decided that it was to be optional. 19 states have refused to expand Medicaid to their citizens for ideological reasons, even though the federal government is estimated by the CBO to cover 93% of states’ costs during the first 9 years of Medicaid expansion. Costs were 100% covered when it initially rolled out. 


The GOP can also pull the plug on cost-sharing reductions or CSRs. Under the ACA, insurers are required to reduce cost-sharing obligations, such as deductibles and co-pays, of low-income enrollees. People with income between 100% and 250% of the federal poverty level ($11,800 to $29,700 for individuals, for example) are eligible to enroll in plans with CSRs for lower deductibles, premiums, and coinsurance, reducing their out-of-pocket costs.

The federal government reimburses insurers for these costs. Should payments cease mid-year—which could be the case if this element of the law is defunded—insurers will face billions of dollars of unexpected liability and could drop out of the marketplace altogether. Consumers would then be left to look for new coverage, which they may or may not be able to find and if they do, it most likely would be unaffordable.

Healthy people may choose to also drop out of the exchanges completely, thus leaving a risk pool of older, sicker individuals. Increased claims and less premiums collected would result in yet higher premiums for insureds still in the marketplace. Those who cannot afford the increases, could drop out and then we would see a vicious death-spiral of the individual insurance market. And no, despite some insurance companies exiting the marketplace for 2017, a death spiral is not currently happening. In fact... 


Watch the entire segment:

Wednesday, January 04, 2017

Stopping the GOP's efforts to repeal, even partially, the ACA without an adequate replacement

This is a theme I will be returning to repeatedly throughout the year. Right now, Congressional GOPers are figuring out how they can repeal Obamacare without offering a replacement, delaying it until later. Obviously, they do not have a plan, and a delay strategy would be no less painful if they repeal parts of the ACA through the budget reconciliation process. They cannot repeal the law outright, but they can damage its infrastructure by repealing and/or defunding components of it that affect the federal budget, such as the individual mandate, cost-sharing reductions, Medicaid expansion. Their efforts are filibuster proof too if done through budget reconciliation.

I have started a YouTube channel where I will be commenting, discussing, and conducting interviews about various issues as well as laws and rights that are most likely to come under attack by the Republican administration and congress. Democrats don't have much leverage at the moment, which means the fight will have to come from the people, letting legislators know how you feel, making sure our voices are heard.

Below are my first two ACA-related videos: one about my healthcare story and why affordable, quality healthcare is so important and the other that outlines some of the benefits that people across the political spectrum like in the healthcare law. Obamacare is not the healthcare system I would have designed, but it does include several positive provisions as well as subsidies that have helped many Americans who do not have employer-paid insurance afford medical coverage they previously could not.

Please subscribe to my YouTube channel if you like my videos and want to stay engaged. Right now, it's only commentary but will eventually include interviews, discussions, and panels, which should be lively and fun, and possibly even a political web series further down the road. Enjoy!








Thursday, December 08, 2016

Final Thoughts on Election 2016

It’s been one month since the election and I keep hoping I will wake up from, what I consider to be, a nightmare. That’s what it has been for me, and I know I’m hardly alone. This is, I hope, going to be my last woe-is-me-commentary on this subject and going forward I plan to take a more productive and constructive approach by focusing on important issues and current events and even have a little fun. I have been obsessing over the election, and since writing has always been an effective way for me to deal with my emotions, I feel that one last bit of grousing is warranted before I take that higher route, and here’s why:

We Americans had the opportunity to elect a supremely qualified woman to lead our country; a woman who has spent her entire adult life working to improve the lives of women, children, and families across the globe; a woman who was actively involved in government and community initiatives as the First Lady of Arkansas and then of the United States; a woman twice elected to the senate and who was praised by her Republican colleagues as someone who could work with them—who reached across the aisle—who studied the issues, put her head down and did the work, foregoing the spotlight; a woman who served as Secretary of State for four years; a woman, who as president, would have appointed to her cabinet 50% women, which would have provided us with a truly transformative, new experience: to see how our country would be run with more women in government leadership positions.

Alas, what have we opted for instead? It appears to be that which we have experienced since our founding: a government mostly dominated by old and middle-aged white men. Granted, there are a few women being appointed to Trump’s cabinet and that is a positive, but it won’t be comprised nearly of as many as a President Clinton’s would have been. Instead of moving forward into the 21st century, I feel like—and perhaps this is a bit hyperbolic—but it feels as if we have reverted back to the 1950s or before. That thought is utterly depressing.

I am quite concerned about the country’s future as well as Donald Trump’s ability to govern effectively, for so many reasons. I will enumerate some of them below and elaborate on each at some time in future, although I am hoping that won’t be necessary.


First is his character and inexperience. He is a temperamental man child and a narcissist. A minority of voters and the Electoral College elected a man who is the least qualified person ever to be placed in charge of running our country. He knows next to nothing about how government functions, nor is he even remotely knowledgeable about domestic or foreign policy issues, and he appears to have little interest in educating himself about them.  His Vice President, Mike Pence, is Indiana’s far right-wing governor who has, or at least tried, to enact laws in that state severely restricting civil and reproductive rights. My teacher friends there have indicated he is also no friend of public education; 

Second, are Trump’s conflicts of interest, from his domestic and global business enterprises to his kids running those businesses while serving as his advisers. Seriously? What do they know about trade with China or war in Syria? I imagine—nada. This is a huge conflict of interest: his kids running his businesses. Where is the outrage? If this were Chelsea Clinton and The Clinton Foundation, people on the right would be losing their minds. Oh, and again, Mike Pence is in the process of getting permission from the courts to hide his emails while he was Governor of Indiana from access to public records requests. My head is exploding…the hypocrisy is stunning.

Third, some of the people that Trump is nominating to fill key positions in his administration and as advisers are reprehensible. Some are rights-restricting, racist, sexist individuals who will be in charge of leading governmental agencies. Many aren’t even qualified for these positions. One example is Doctor Ben Carson being asked to head up the department of Housing and Urban Development, aka HUD. He’s qualified how? Because he spent time in public housing as a child? That’s like me saying that I ran track for six years in junior and senior high school so because I experienced it, I am qualified to coach the US Olympic track team. Yeah, right. Nor is Trump “draining the swamp” as he promised during his campaign, as he is filling cabinet positions with billionaire Wall Streeters and former Goldman Sachs employees;

Fourth, is Trump’s Twitter addiction. He will be our Twitter-in-Chief, tweeting out his grievances to anyone who criticizes or is mean to him. He is thin-skinned and a royal whiner, but he better get used to it, because criticism and mockery come with the territory as every previous president could attest; 

Fifth, are Trump’s threats against the First Amendment. People have the right to protest anything, so to Trump and his supporters I say: Stop telling people “to quit protesting and grow-up.” Americans can peacefully protest, assemble, and express themselves—that is guaranteed by our Constitution. Trump and his staff regularly threaten the press with possible lawsuits, even jail. Freedom of the press is another Constitutionally guaranteed right; silencing or cutting off the media, goes against that right. Also, threatening to jail a political opponent (the whole “lock her up” Hillary Clinton narrative he and his followers like to chant during rallies), that my friends, is a banana republic tactic; 

Sixth, Trump’s campaign was one of grievance and retribution and that doesn’t seem to be changing. In fact, hate crimes have risen in the month since the election. Why is that? Do more racists and sexists feel emboldened to lash out, intimidate, or hurt others due to Trump’s ugly rhetoric during the campaign? He rarely pushed back against violence or hateful language at his rallies, sometimes he even encouraged it;

I could list more, but I'll stop here.

Many of you may think I am being alarmist and that I should give Trump a chance. I am not being alarmist, and I will only reluctantly give him a chance. So far, he is not alleviating my fears. I am watching closely as everything unfolds through Inauguration Day and beyond. I will be calling and writing my senators and congressman repeatedly when something isn’t to my liking. I will participate in protests, and I will be more vocal than anyone ever imagined I could be to make sure our country is moving in the right direction, which is forward, not backward.

As Maya Angelou said: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Trump showed us exactly who he is during the campaign: a vengeful, petty, nasty, insecure man. I take him at his words and actions. It’s up to him to prove me wrong. As New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote in his Dec 5 op-ed: “It is not the job of the defiant to conform to a future president who makes them completely uncomfortable. The burden of unity lies with Trump, not his detractors.” I agree. 

I fear that many civil, voting, and reproductive rights, many of which are already under assault around the country in GOP-led states, will be further restricted. Rules and regulations made over the past eight years to protect consumers, patients, and the environment may be in the process of being repealed or rolled back, instead of improved upon. I am not optimistic that these protections—protections I value—will remain. The Trump-era may be grand for men and the wealthy; it certainly doesn’t seem as though it will be for women, nor for people of color or those who practice a religion other than Christianity or none at all or for poor people. Unless Trump changes course on some of his appointees and policy positions, we are in for a long four years. God help us if it’s eight.

And yet, there is some indication that he can be reasoned with, which gives me a little hope. During the campaign, Mr. Trump was very pro-waterboarding. Apparently, Retired General James Mattis, Trump’s pick for Secretary of Defense, changed his mind about waterboarding by telling him that he had never found that method of extracting information to be effective. That is something positive, right?

Still, my inclination and desire is to retreat from the world and reside in a state of blissful ignorance over the next few years. That’s a nice thought, but that is not who I am, and it is far from the definition of being a good citizen. We must be vigilant because when we are not, much can go wrong.

Take economic inequality, which is pervasive around the globe and has been increasing for decades. It has, in large part, fostered a backlash against free trade and globalization because citizens see those at the top making out like bandits while those in the middle and lower income levels are getting scraps or no benefits from the gains in this new economy. I am pro free trade and globalization, and globalization has been a net positive for the world. However, many have lost out and those who have and whose struggles have been ignored by legislators—across the political spectrum—are angry, and rightly so. I get that, but the sad part is that they have put their hope and trust in one of the biggest con men out there.

During the campaign, Hillary Clinton was realistic and honest about what could be achieved, given where we are economically. She received scorn for her “incrementalism” but she was at least being truthful. Donald Trump, on the other hand, was just telling people what they wanted to hear. Take for example, the declining coal industry. He promised to bring back those jobs. Here are the facts: coal is not the future, it is the past. Those jobs are not coming back. Maybe these people don’t care because they hear what they want (and to be fair, we are all susceptible to that in varying degrees). Furthermore, perhaps it makes them feel good that a person of some prominence expresses their anger and resentment so perfectly. He “gets them.” That’s what they say: “He gets us.”

I hope I am wrong about the Trump administration, for all our sakes. Still, I grieve for what might have been: a new way of governing, one more closely representative of the 50+% of women in this country who have always been governed by men. That is a definite topic for a future post.

For now, I encourage Secretary Clinton to be a powerful force for good in this world as she has always been. We need her voice, her intelligence, her tenacity, her wisdom, and her leadership. But more than that we need to be leaders, activists, and volunteers as well as the critical yet encouraging voices for good in the heads of our legislators. Stay informed, stay active, stay in the U.S. and help create the world in which you want to live and thrive. 

Monday, November 07, 2016

Secretary Clinton and Me: Role Models


This past weekend, my niece Alexa shared her latest social studies project with me. She is in fifth grade, and they are learning about the amendments to the Constitution. She told me when she was assigned the 19th Amendment, she immediately thought of me. (She knows I'm all about empowering women and making our voices heard.) 

I hope that by my example of being a single, independent, and outspoken woman my nieces—and nephews too—recognize and envision the various possibilities for women's lives. Their mothers who are my sisters, are wonderful role models too, as are their grandmothers. I like to think, because of all the amazing female role models surrounding them, my nephews will be more accepting of outspoken females as they become men than many of the male species who've preceded them.

Tomorrow, this gal heads to the polls to cast her vote for the first woman candidate for President. The thought brings tears to my eyes. It is emotional for me. After 44 men, 43 of whom were white men, finally, hopefully, a woman will occupy the Oval Office. Many Americans are holding their nose while voting for Hillary Clinton because Donald Trump is even more unpalatable to them. For me, however, I am voting for the best candidate, the one most suited and qualified for the job, hands down, not the lesser of two evils. 

Hillary Clinton became one of my role models during the 1992 presidential campaign of her husband, Bill Clinton. Many people were offended by her comment: "Well, I suppose I could've stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession, which I entered before my husband was in public life."  


I loved it. She spoke to me, a young woman ready to take on the world with or without a man, wanting a career, and living life on her own terms, which I certainly do to this day. A different sort of first lady emerged, one that wasn't just set decoration for her husband's administration, but an active participant in government. That nontraditional role made her unpopular in some circles, and after her failed healthcare reform attempt that resulted in relentless criticism, she decreased her public profile. 

Mrs. Clinton's tenacity, her willingness to get back up time and again after being knocked down, her refusal to take no for an answer, her ability to let all the vitriol and verbal attacks slide off her back, and her intelligence are what I admire most about her. I still hope to one day develop that level of tenacity, strength, and perseverance. 

Secretary Clinton was forced to develop those traits having served in public life for many decades. Her list of accomplishments and credentials is extensive. She had been 1 of just 27 women among the 200-plus students in her law school class at Yale. She was one of only three [women] on a staff of 44 attorneys on the Watergate Impeachment teamShe was the first woman hired at the prestigious Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. 

As First Lady of Arkansas, she created the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth and led a task force to reform Arkansas's education system. As a senator (elected twice), she was instrumental in passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program; she served on five senate committees (Budget; Armed Services; Environmental and Public Works; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and the Special Committee on Aging); she had a leading role investigating the health issues faced by 9/11 first responders and worked closely with Senator Charles Schumer to secure $21.4 in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment.

After losing a bruising run for president in 2008, President Obama appointed her his Secretary of State. As Secretary of State she set a record visiting countries, she brokered a cease fire deal between Hamas and Israel, and played a role in killing Osama bin Laden. She made LGBT rights a focus of U.S. foreign policy. Clinton has also worked to integrate women's issues into foreign policy, instead of relegating them to a separate sphere of policy making. This has come to be known as the Hillary Doctrine. 

Researchers have found that there is more civil unrest and war, failed economies, and sexual abuse of and domestic violence against girls and women in countries in which women are impoverished, uneducated, and considered property. The premise of the Hillary Doctrine is that countries are more stable and secure when women are educated, employed, earn money, and contribute to the economy, and are treated as equals. There is more much more work to be done in this area. However, it appears that these issues, initiatives, and ideas only get enacted or move forward—or at least have a better chance of it—when women are at the table, making their voices heard, raising awareness, and creating policies. I believe Hillary Clinton will make even more strides toward global equality and education for women and girls. 

Here's some inspiration from women who were born before the 19th Amendment was passed:


Mrs. Clinton has solid foreign policy knowledge and experience as well as a firm grasp on domestic issues. She is smart, she wants to learn, she listens. She worked well with her senate Republican colleagues, many of them have said so. The Secretary knows how to roll up her sleeves, put her head down, eschew the limelight and focus on the work. She wants to lead this nation, she is ambitious, and there is nothing wrong with that. Men are never criticized for being ambitious. She has every right to own her ambition, as does every woman.  

It has been lamented during this general election campaign that there has been little focus on the issues. In reality, it has focused on issuesissues we prefer to ignore, sweep under the rug, pretend do not exist. Those issues are racism, sexism, and xenophobia. At least now, thanks to Donald Trump, these things cannot and should not be ignored. Hillary Clinton is not perfect, nor are—or were—any of the candidates running against her, not even Bernie Sanders. I guarantee had he been the candidate, the GOP would have had vast amounts of opposition research on him too, and because he resides further to the left on the political spectrum than Clinton, they would have painted him as a leftist kook. (I do not think he is, but conservatives would have certainly framed him that way.)

So, tomorrow, we Americans vote for the next leader of this great country. Alexa and her brothers know for whom I'll be casting my ballot. It is no secret, and they know my reasons, explained to them in generalities and age-appropriate language. Alexa and I are very close, so it is important to me that I am an excellent role model, that I am the kind of person she can and will respect and trust throughout her life even when we disagree. I think I'm doing a decent job so far. She told me this past weekend that she has two dance teachers and one she really likes. "She is fun, and nice, and I realized why I like her so much," she said.

"Why is that?" I asked.

"Because she reminds me of you. She even kind of looks like you, and she's sassy!" Alexa replied, laughing. That is one of the greatest compliments for which an aunt could receive. 

I've attached a few articles below for this last day before we elect our next President. They are good reads, should you feel so inclined. Before you tackle those though, read Alexa's comic. I think you'll find it to be a little sassy. 








Thursday, September 29, 2016

Mommy, he’s a bad man


If I were a Donald Trump supporter, hearing “Mommy, he’s a bad man” would be enough for me to withdraw my support immediately.

I was recently told the following story by someone close to me. The television was on in her home during the presidential primary season and Donald Trump was speaking. No one was really paying attention to it except for her 8 year old child. With no prompting from anyone, a few minutes later, the youngster turned to the woman and said, “Mommy, he’s a bad man.” The woman, who is no Trump supporter, said this was a revealing moment for her. The child did not know who the man was or his relevance to the news cycle, only that this was a person who was saying hateful and mean things in an ugly tone of voice. Upon hearing this, she engaged her child in an age-appropriate conversation about the election.   

This story exemplifies why Mr. Trump is not only a terrible role model for our children but also someone from whom they should be protected. No matter how much one may despise Hillary Clinton, she refrains from spewing hateful rhetoric and using a disparaging, vitriolic tone of voice. 

Some readers may come back with: What about her “basket of deplorables” remark? While admittedly that was an unfortunate comment, she didn’t say all Trump supporters were deplorable, just some and she did preface it with being "grossly generalistic." Nor did she use a snarling tone of voice to deliver it. Furthermore, there is evidence to support her assertion.* Secretary Clinton pales in comparison to Donald’s ugliness, even having made that impolitic remark.

Below is a campaign ad put out by the Clinton campaign that addresses this very issue.




Ask yourself: Is Donald Trump really the person you want your children listening to and seeing on television for the next four, possibly eight years?


* Clinton, it appears, has her own "basket of deplorables" too. It's a good deal smaller than Mr. Trump's, but she has one. You can read more in the Forbes article below.