Dear Ms. Maldonado,

I do understand how mad Sanders supporters are that he lost, but I think that their anger is blinding them.

From anecdotal evidence, Clinton supporters are quieter about their support, since we’re pretty low on public outrage. I’ve been approached by a friend who quietly confided that she’s a Clinton supporter with a cringe, and was very relieved when I told her I was too. She told me she was bracing herself for yet another angry mansplaining rant. I haven’t yet been approached by a LOUD Clinton supporter. You’re conflating most vociferous with most numerous. There are private facebook groups dedicated to Clinton fans who don’t feel like they can’t come out as such given the anger of folks they know. (I would like to note for the record that your post was a good deal more polite than the usual stuff I see.) Someone invited me to one. That’s also why the ballot box (except in caucuses) comes equipped with a curtain.

I did not donate to the Clinton campaign until after the primary was effectively over (right after CA), having little beef against Sanders and wanting to save my money for the general election. My father told me he donated money to Sanders early on even though he was planning all along to vote for Clinton, for the express purpose of driving Clinton left on issues. I just voted her and convinced a few friends to do the same.

I’ve seen the accusations. I’m so tired of seeing them because I’ve investigated them thoroughly because if true they would have bothered me greatly. But what I’ve found hasn’t bothered me. Ditto the 38% of Americans who STILL view Hillary as basically honest and trustworthy.

Regarding Brooklyn, I don’t understand how purging the voter rolls of voters who have moved away is voter suppression. I don’t understand why if it was voter suppression, Clinton would have done it in an area where the Demographics and results favored her. I don’t understand why you’re blaming the local election boards for conniving with Clinton when they themselves announced that the voter purges had happened (you’re basing your thesis on information from a source you don’t trust!). If you take off your Sanders hat for a sec you’ll see that none of those make sense objectively. Nor do I understand how Clinton managed to control the Republican government of Arizona. Don’t get me started on the newest mathematical travesty getting shopped around (made in collaboration with a real statistician who totally looked at my graphs and said ‘oh dear’!); if my AP Stats students presented me with something that weak I’d make them go back and reread chapter 4.

I certainly didn’t feel like the media favored Clinton. Sure, they said she was the frontrunner. But I know all of Sanders’ proposals and few of hers, even though she has more. I had to go hunting to find her medicare expansion plan, for example, which I think is brilliant in terms of implementation. It moves us closer to a single payer system gradually, and the way it’s done might actually be able to garner some Republican support. Look it up. Every time I saw Sanders on CNN, he was at a rally making policy statements. Every time I saw Clinton, she was muted and they were talking about her emails or her trustworthiness problem.

Let’s talk about the horrid Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her cronies. It has been established that they favored Clinton. I’m not surprised. Clinton has a history of being a team player, while Sanders doesn’t. Naturally, her teammates like her more. The email leaks revealed three things: 1) The people at the DNC were biased. 2) The DNC didn’t coordinate with the Clinton campaign; Clinton had no control what they said. 3) No one mentions election fraud in a setting where they thought their emails were secure. I’m happy the revelations got DWS fired because I don’t much like her. I’m glad she was booed by her own state and has a credible primary opponent. But the emails also pour additional cold water on the conspiracy theories that involve actual vote rigging.

I’ve watched old Clinton interviews. 1992 about her and Bill’s troubled marriage, for example. It gave me deja-vu: They were giving more information than anyone else had before, and that just made people want more and criticize her for not giving more. Just like Goldman Sachs speeches vs. Trump’s tax returns. I watched her full speech on her vote for the Iraq war (over which I opposed her in 2008). That also gave me deja vu, because her nuanced, thoughtful, and forward looking argument got ignored by Bush then, by me in 2008, and by folks like you who call her a hawk today. I watched the 2016 debate where Sanders pushed her on $15/hr, and she clearly said that if the Dems controlled congress she’d get it done, but given that this wasn’t likely, she was supporting a $12/hr minimum wage, which to me looked like realism, not selloutism. It isn’t selling out when you push for the most progressive thing you think you can get out of a divided congress. But let’s pursue this anyway. Can you link me a whiplash speech?

Clinton hasn’t moved right on any issues. She hasn’t tacked to the center. If you can bring yourself to watch her current speeches, you’ll see she isn’t abrogating the platform. But Trump is a batshit crazy choice. Gun to their heads, only those two options, a lot of people we disagree with are going to shriek “I’m with her!” Clinton shouldn’t be despised just because Kissinger and Negroponte aren’t totally INSANE. And if you’d rather have Trump, I’d call you batshit crazy, too.

My values don’t include free college for everyone, because that means letting each state charge the federal government big money, each however much they want, and means the students have no skin in the game. I support affordable, manageable debt college and debt forgiveness in certain cases. I support edits to the student loan rules so that folks can declare bankruptcy or refinance. The little boring things that actually make a difference. Which Clinton has talked about and Sanders didn’t. I don’t support a $15/hour minimum wage ($2400 a month, full time) when there are places in Mississippi where you can rent a whole bloody house for $500/month, though I do support a $12/hour minimum wage. Never mind that a $15/hr minimum wage is not getting past a Republican filibuster. In other words, I’m a progressive who likes to get things done. Which is how Clinton describes herself. My values do include a 99% estate tax on fortunes over $2 million (indexed to inflation). I think it’s way more important than raising marginal income taxes on the rich. I think it’s unfair of you to claim custodial rights to the term progressive. I’m an Elizabeth Warren Democrat, and I had the privilege of voting for her before I moved to RI.

Let’s talk about one of her views that you don’t like and which I do: free trade. Most researchers have found that most of the job losses in the manufacturing industry are to automation. Thanks to robotics, labor isn’t as valuable any more. Here or anywhere. But most research shows that NAFTA, for example, has yielded a slight plus to US GDP and a slight minus to job numbers. The most important effect of these trade organizations is OVERSEAS. Where more trade has a very positive effect, especially on groups Hillary has historically demonstrated a concern for: women and children. Consider the Clinton Foundation, a charity given the highest rating by most charity watch groups. Donated to by such paragons as Bill and Melinda Gates, and the government of Norway. The Clinton Foundation spends a lot of money taking care of poor folks in 3rd world countries. And more making sure American school children are fed. Think of how much time Hillary spent in Burma as secretary of state when they were coming out of their shell, and how there haven’t been any counter-coup attempts by hard liners. It isn’t easy to transition to Democracy from junta without violence. Think of her speech in China about women’s rights back in the 1990s. Hillary Clinton has a long history of caring for women and children abroad, as well as in the USA. Free trade may hurt us a bit economically, but it helps others a lot economically, and I bet you that’s why she supports it. Not to mention it aligns these countries more firmly with us.

Let’s take an issue on which she’s evolved: Gay marriage. Hell, I’ve evolved on gay marriage. Had you mentioned it in 2000 when I was in high school, I’d have looked at you like you were crazy. In 2004, with Dean, I was convinced that gay marriage was legally just, but civil unions preferable and sufficient. It wasn’t until much more recently that I was certain that I supported gay marriage period.