Marco Rubio wasn’t the only one caught repeating himself on the campaign trail in New Hampshire. Madeline Albright, angrier than she’s ever been, recycled her oldie-but-goodie, about women not supporting each other, and just where she believes they’re headed. If you don’t know it yet, I’ll wait. Okay Google Madeline Albright quotes. It’s up there. Or printed on the side of something out of which you recently drank coffee. Whatever. She played the hits, for Hillary Clinton. And the crowd went wild. Hillary’s hellish yell-reaction said it all. But hey. No it didn’t, cuz I’m writing something.

Googled her senate voting record, just like you Googled Albright quotes. And guess what I found out. You’ll never. Hillary’s second vote in the Senate, was voting Nay on the confirmation of Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior. Norton went on to be the first woman in our country to hold the position. Forty-eighth overall. Now I’m not saying it was a good, or bad decision. But it wasn’t a close one either. Hillary was one of only 24 to vote no. Bernie wasn’t a Senator, then.

Does the former Secretary want to try again? Either former Secretary? Is Condi Rice available?

So here I am stumbling through a list of hopefully significant titles of bills, when I finger on another three-quarter-frozen wart. Hillary Clinton voted Nay on the Help America Vote Act of 2002. That’s unrelated, unless you’re a woman, wanting women to vote.

Or a woman, claiming to be a progressive, who’s fighting for women.

Or a woman running for president, expressing displeasure at your opponent’s attempts to position himself, well here:

“It is fair to say in your definition, as you being the self-proclaimed gatekeeper for progressivism, I don’t know anyone else who fits that definition. “

She goes on and says that by Sanders’ definition, Obama isn’t a progressive (not at heart) that a senator who’s historically liberal but pro-life isn’t progressive (well he’s not…) blah blah blah, thanks got it. I submit she’s not in much of a position to claim that she is a progressive, at all, let alone have a say over who can claim the distinction for themselves. And I’m going to prove it, with the help of the Internet! And my new iPad’s split-screen feature.

Look this one bill up. I found it upon discovering the Gale Norton bit. HR 3295. It included such boring details as:

• $325 million to replace punch card and lever voting machines by the 2004 elections.
• * $325 million for states to improve their election administration, with each state guaranteed at least $5 million.
• * Establishes an Election Assistance Commission of four members, appointed by the President, that would issue voluntary guidelines and requirements for voting systems, and would test and certify voting systems and review election issues.
• * Allows voters to check for and correct ballot mistakes.
• * Provides $5 million in fiscal year 2003, and necessary sums thereafter to establish. the “Help America Vote College Program” to encourage college and high school students to volunteer as poll workers.
• * Requires precincts to provide at least one voting machine accessible to disabled citizens.
• * Requires improved ballot access for military personnel and citizens living overseas.
• * Allows first-time voters to cast provisional ballots if valid identification is not provided by the voter.

And she voted nay. One of only two Senators to do so. Senate passed the act 92–2. The other guy? Totally Chuck Schumer. The fuck, NY?

Alright now I’m on a mission. I flipped through HR 3295, after making sure I read this right. And I may still be learning it. Lo and behold they have Sanders’ (long-ass) voting record, here, too. He was the at-large (fancy DC word for “only”) House Representative for VT at the time, so his yea vote meant a little less, when he voted on HR 3295. But he had a little more backup than his future-arch-nemesis, in his endeavors, which were, again, seemingly, things like letting overseas soldiers vote for their commander-in-chief. And, stuff. House passed the measure. 357–48.

Strike one? No, two. Gale Norton, right. I dunno Mrs. C. I hear Hell is nice, this time, in a campaign year.

Bernie’s luckily got the reputation of a real progressive, as the precedent to his campaign. Hillary has the proclivity to say what ever she needs to say to move up. Consider things like the Patriot Act of 2001, which I now know a little more about! Bernie was in the unfortunate minority (but on the right side of history) in voting against it. Outnumbered by his House colleagues 357–66. Russ Feingold was the ONLY Senator to agree with Sanders, and 65 other whoevers. Well, Hillary thought that whole thing was amazeballs, with all its violations of women in America’s privacy, and civil liberties. Voted “Yeah!” with 97 of her closest friends. Voted a few years later to extend it.

You’re outta there, in my essay, but…

So she’s done this “run for office” thing quite a lot. And historically, if she’s campaigning, then she can’t be bothered to attend votes on many bills that she didn’t, herself, co-sponsor. Even women’s issues. She missed three of the five votes that Votesmart sorts under the issue-category of “Women.” All five took place between 2007–8. She didn’t co-sponsor any bills in the “Women” category. She was most recently, a member of a losing Democratic effort to invoke cloture on a bill that would designate that unequal payment based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability, is a new violation, with each payment. Nice try, H.

I suppose the good news is that while she campaigns to keep her job in 2020 we’ll have a spare President sitting-in-wait. His quote today comes to mind:

“Sometimes when I am on a stage like this, I wish that we weren’t married, then I could say what I really think. I don’t mean that in a negative way. I am happy.”

…now, repeat.

The point seems to rear its head. I suggest Hillary isn’t really the candidate for women who’ve chosen to dodge damnation, or, more importantly, to help their fellow women. I’m not in the business of giving advice anymore, especially on how women should help each other. I think my gender has fucked that up just fine as it is, without my assistance. But I do consider myself politically literate, enough to say:

Listen. You vote for Hillary, you’ll help that woman, for sure. But consider this. Bernie has 22 bills on which he voted yea (and in three of those cases, all since 2013) or co-sponsored, a “Women” key vote. Twenty in the Senate. Two in the house. He attended all three votes Hillary missed.

It snowballs again. I switch my chosen issue from Women to “Campaign Finance and Elections,” and find her to be the co-sponsor of the encouragingly titled Campaign Reform Act of 2001. Sanders brings that up a lot, reforming the campaign finance system. Maybe Hillary was in on that ground floor. Nope. Here are the details:

Highlights:

• Bans soft money contributions to national political parties and limits how state parties can spend soft money contributions.
• * Doubles the limit on individual contributions to federal candidates to $2,000.
• * Doubles the limit on individual contributions to state party committees to use in federal elections.
• * Raises the limit on individual contributions to national party committees to $25,000 annually.
• * Raises the aggregate individual limit on contributions to federal candidates, political action committees (PACs), and parties to $37,500 annually.
• * Prohibits the use of corporate and labor union funds for broadcast ads that mention a federal candidate’s name within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary election.
• * Raises contribution limits for individuals running against self-financed candidates in some cases.
• * Requires broadcasters to charge candidates and parties at their lowest advertising rates.
• * Prohibits contributions in federal, state or local elections by foreigners

Now… I can appreciate that final point there… Sort of. It’s the other bit I need working out. Did Hillary actually contribute to the windfall of money into politics? Likenobut… directly? Is that what I’m saying. “Uhhhh… This was supposed to be about women.” It still is.

Sanders is supposedly running an “artful smear,” said Hillary. But I don’t once remember him bringing up how Clinton voted for more money in politics. Why would he beat around the bush if her history wasn’t gonna hold up in the light of day? I mean damn that’s his whole shpeal. “Broken campaign finance system,” “we need a political revolution,” etc.

Hillary isn’t exactly running on her Senate career. She tried that once. She was awarded the consolation prize of being named Secretary of State, or as she likes to call it, “then-senator Obama.” Shit, I meant “foreign-policy experience.” That’s the one thing she is sure Bernie can’t claim. Well, I was always bad at geography so it shouldn’t be me, but someone should tell her that Vermont borders Canada. Quickly. Get her on the damn phone.

So I’ll set you a scene: Madeline Albright, Clinton, and a whole room of Wellesley alums are gooey-eyed, huddled-together on a couch made of clouds, alone, in the heaven they created for themselves, and no one else. Probably watching Mona Lisa Smile.

Meanwhile, there’s a special place in hell, where all the kids hang out. There’s probably a Sanders sign, stuck in the cinder, out front. And a bunch of stoked young women are rebuilding America inside of it. For once, inspired by the candor, with which one candidate speaks, when he promises to help them out of purgatory, no matter who they vote for.