Debunking the Ralph Nader Scare Tactics For Supporting The Lesser Evil

Trump Clinton Illusion Free Choice

Many of us have principles and will not support either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Many Clinton supporters have shown no understanding of the basic democratic principle that we have the right to support or not support whichever candidates we choose. They make bogus claims that not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump. If true, the opposite would also have to be true–our decision to not vote for Trump by their logic would be a vote for Hillary.

Clinton supporters raise Ralph Nader and the 2000 election, but this is wrong for so many reasons:

This assumes that the Democrats are entitled to our vote, and that if there weren’t third party candidates running, those on the left would automatically vote for the Democrat. Wrong. Many would stay home, or leave the presidential spot empty, if there was no other choice.

Most of us do not live in battleground states, leaving us free to vote our convictions without affecting the outcome. Plus Clinton is pulling away in the battleground states and Nate Silver reassures us that Clinton will win anyways. Considering what an inept campaign Trump has waged since clinching the nomination, he is probably right (although Quinnipiac does show them deadlocked).

Hillary Clinton is not Al Gore. She is far closer to George Bush. We were outraged by Bush’s neoconservative foreign policy, but Clinton is the neocon hawk running this year. We protested Bush’s assault on civil liberties, but Clinton also has a far right record on civil liberties issues, sounding much like Donald Trump on restricting civil liberties to fight terrorism. We objected to an increase in government secrecy under Bush, but Clinton has a long record of opposing government transparency. Bush’s administration was remarkable for expanding the influence of the religious right.  Clinton worked with The Fellowship to expand the influence of religion on public policy when in the Senate. Plus Clinton has been on the wrong side regarding the corrupting role of money in politics, on the environment and climate change, on the death penalty, on single-payer health care. She is even to the right of Donald Trump on drug policy and the drug war and on the wrong side of trade issues.

If you think having George Bush elected in 2000 was a terrible thing (and it was), it makes no sense to argue that Hillary Clinton should be president when she supports so much of what made Bush such a terrible president.

If anything, Nader has been proven right by the Democrats nominating a corrupt warmonger such as Clinton. This clearly shows the dangers of “lesser evilism.”

When does the “lesser evilism” stop? We are warned about what happened when Bush beat Gore and told me must support Clinton because of Trump, but Clinton has supported most of the evil done by Bush. Next election will the Democrats nominate someone like Trump and will we be told we must support him if the Republicans nominate someone even more evil?

Some Clinton supporters have been rather bad winners, attacking those who disagree with them on social media for expressing our opinions. Life is more than a binary choice between the limited options provided by the major parties. It even might be argued that a function of the major parties is to limit debate to the limited issues where their candidates disagree.

In reality, Clinton and Trump are both in the authoritarian right segment of the political spectrum, not differing by as much as supporters of either would admit. Those of us who hold opposing views are going to continue to express our views on the issue, regardless of whether we have a presidential candidate who is likely to win. We will continue to oppose oligarchy, neoconservative military interventionism, restrictions on civil liberties to supposedly fight terrorism, the corrupting role of money in politics, destruction of the environment for profit, and an increased role of religion in public policy–even if the Democratic nominee is on the wrong side of each of these issues.

Warnings For Democrats If Clinton Is Nominee

Sanders Clinton

Bernie Sanders has an op-ed in The New York Times warning that Democrats Need to Wake Up after the Brexit vote in Great Britain:

The notion that Donald Trump could benefit from the same forces that gave the Leave proponents a majority in Britain should sound an alarm for the Democratic Party in the United States. Millions of American voters, like the Leave supporters, are understandably angry and frustrated by the economic forces that are destroying the middle class.

In this pivotal moment, the Democratic Party and a new Democratic president need to make clear that we stand with those who are struggling and who have been left behind. We must create national and global economies that work for all, and not a handful of billionaires.

As an aside, if Sanders is going to lecture the Democrats on policiy, I’d also mention the argument in Truthout that “the Sanders “Revolution” Must Take on the Permanent War State.”

Of course Sanders prefers to deal with the economic issues and, despite the importance of responding the warfare state, economics and trade will probably have more of an impact in this year’s election, possibly hurting the Democrats. As Matthew Yglasias warns, “Clinton is personally and politically tied to Bill Clinton’s administration in the 1990s and to Barack Obama’s administration more recently, both of which sought to advance a free trade agenda.” He points out that one problem Clinton has is that nobody believes her:

Clinton’s problem: Does anyone believe this?

The problem with Clinton’s preferred line of attack is it fails to pass the basic “does anyone actually believe this?” test.

The stated reasons for Clinton’s opposition to the TPP didn’t make any sense and were immediately panned by observers such as Vox editor in chief Ezra Klein as smacking of opportunism. Having come out against it, Clinton will in all likelihood follow through and scuttle the agreement.

There’s no question that her position is based upon opportunism. It is far from certain that she will actually scuttle the agreement if elected.

While things can change between now and November, and neither major party nominee is yet official, Clinton has a considerable advantage over Trump. Trump already is far behind Clinton in organization, fund raising and, most importantly, public support. Plus Clinton starts out with the Democratic edge in the electoral college She will probably win if scandals and legal action don’t stop her. Democrats should be concerned.

With the most recent revelations (here and here), Chris Cillizza writes that, Hillary Clinton’s email story continues to get harder and harder to believe.

The latest batch of emails suggest that Clinton’s filter to decide between the personal and the professional was far from foolproof. That these emails never saw the light of day before Monday — or before a conservative legal advocacy group petitioned for their release — opens up the possibility that there are plenty more like them that Clinton chose to delete but shouldn’t have. And it provides more fodder for the Republican argument that Clinton appointing herself as judge, jury and executioner for her emails was, at best, a very, very bad decision and, at worst, something more nefarious than just bad judgment.

…this email to Abedin — which came at the start of her four-year term in office — suggests a bit more active agency than Clinton has previously let on. “I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want,” doesn’t strike me as Clinton simply wanting convenience and following the instructions of her IT people on how to make that happen. It reads to me as though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should look than she generally lets on publicly…

For a candidate already struggling to convince voters she is honest and trustworthy enough to be president, stories like this one are deeply problematic.

While I generally agree with his assessment, I would also point out in response to the title that Clinton’s story was already quite obviously a bunch of lies from the time of her first response to the scandal.

Even if Clinton can sustain her rather impressive lead over Trump, this does not mean everything is fine for he Democrats.  Taegan Goddard warns that Clinton Is a Drag on Congressional Candidates:

The new NBC News/Wall Street Journal confirms what we observed earlier this month: Despite the tremendous unpopularity of Donald Trump and of congressional Republicans, there doesn’t appear to be a wave forming which would give Democrats a chance to take control of the House.

The generic congressional ballot actually shows voters deadlocked over which party they would prefer to control Congress, 46% to 46%. The RealClearPolitics average shows Democrats ahead by just one point on the generic ballot.

This indicates the problem for Democrats goes beyond gerrymandered congressional districts and poor recruitment efforts. The problem is that Hillary Clinton is nearly as unpopular as Trump. While she may be favored in the presidential race, she’s also weighing down congressional candidates…

I wonder how many voters will split their ticket this year, having qualms about whichever candidate they vote for in the presidential race. Many might want to see the other party control Congress to place checks on the president. Far more might vote against this year’s winner in two years.

Bernie Sanders has continued his campaign based upon the argument that he does better than Clinton in the head to head polls against Trump. As Clinton has an excellent chance of winning despite her narrower margin, Sanders might have a stronger argument that having him head the ticket would be better for all the down ticket candidates. Sanders can expand the Democratic Party, while Clinton could do long term damage to it.

Good News From Supreme Court On Abortion & The Typical News On Trump and Clinton

Abortion Sign

It was a good day with regards to reproductive rights as the Supreme Court struck down a law in Texas designed to restrict abortions by imposing absurd requirements on abortion clinics designed to make it too difficult to operate.  The New York Times reports:

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down parts of a restrictive Texas law that could have reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state to about 10 from what was once a high of roughly 40.

The 5-to-3 decision was the court’s most sweeping statement on abortion rights since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. It applied a skeptical and exacting version of that decision’s “undue burden” standard to find that the restrictions in Texas went too far.

The decision on Monday means that similar restrictions in other states are most likely also unconstitutional, and it imperils many other kinds of restrictions on abortion…

he Supreme Court on Monday struck down parts of a restrictive Texas law that could have reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state to about 10 from what was once a high of roughly 40.

The 5-to-3 decision was the court’s most sweeping statement on abortion rights since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. It applied a skeptical and exacting version of that decision’s “undue burden” standard to find that the restrictions in Texas went too far.

The decision on Monday means that similar restrictions in other states are most likely also unconstitutional, and it imperils many other kinds of restrictions on abortion..

One part of the law requires all clinics in the state to meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers, including regulations concerning buildings, equipment and staffing. The other requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

This law came from Republicans who claim to both oppose over-regulation of business and government take-overs of health care.

The New York Times also points out that the Court has leaned left with eight members when it avoids a tie.

Otherwise it was a typical day. Donald Trump said more stupid things, this time calling Elizabeth Warren a racist. Plus we have further evidence that Clinton was lying about her email as more examples were found of work-related email which appear to have been destroyed with the email Clinton claimed was personal. These stories come after too many examples of Donald Trump saying stupid things to list, and a similar report on Clinton’s email three days ago.

Quote of The Day: Seth Meyers & Jimmy Fallon on Hillary Clinton

Seth Meyers2

“Chelsea Clinton gave birth to a son this weekend. Unfortunately, due to his young age, he’s a Sanders supporter.” –Seth Meyers

Bonus Quotes:

“Congrats to Chelsea Clinton, who welcomed her second child over the weekend. After the birth, Bill brought flowers, while Hillary brought a focus group to help name the baby.” –Jimmy Fallon

“At a meeting with nearly 1,000 evangelical leaders today, Donald Trump told the attendees that Hillary Clinton is not worthy of their prayers. Although I’m pretty sure Hillary’s prayers were already answered when Trump won the GOP nomination.” –Seth Meyers

“According to the Social Security Administration, the most popular baby names in 2016 are Noah and Emma. Least popular baby names? Donald and Hillary.” –Jimmy Fallon

Further Evidence Clinton Deleted Business Related Email In Violation Of Federal Laws

Clinton Email Cartoon Deleted

Once it was Democrats who complained about the culture of corruption in the Republican Party. These days far too many Democrats are keeping quiet over signs of corruption by their presumptive presidential nominee. There have been new revelations recently which are consistent with the view that Clinton might have been violating policy to cover up influence peddling as Secretary of State.

There are mechanisms in place to try to reduce the risk of corruption by government officials, which Clinton frequently ignored. In light of this, she has only herself to blame, not the vast right wing conspiracy against her, when her actions are interpreted as signs of corruption. While Clinton has claimed for over a year that she was allowed to exclusively use her private email server, the State Department Inspector General report showed that her actions were unprecedented and in violation of the law. Clinton failed to turn the email over to the State Department to be archived, as required by law, and destroyed about half the email, falsely claiming that they were all personal. She also failed to abide by an agreement she made, due to the conflict of interest when she was appointed Secretary of State, to disclose all donations made to the Clinton Foundation.

The Associated Press has two new reports which raise questions about Clinton. We already knew that her claims were false that all the email she destroyed was personal as email discussing Libya from Sidney Blumenthal were not among the email turned over by Clinton. AP reports on another example of work-related email which was destroyed rather than being turned over:

Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

The email was included within messages exchanged Nov. 13, 2010, between Clinton and one of her closest aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. At the time, emails sent from Clinton’s BlackBerry device and routed through her private clintonemail.com server in the basement of her New York home were being blocked by the State Department’s spam filter. A suggested remedy was for Clinton to obtain a state.gov email account.

“Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible,” Clinton responded to Abedin.

Clinton never used a government account that was set up for her, instead continuing to rely on her private server until leaving office.

The email was not among the tens of thousands of emails Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence. Abedin, who also used a private account on Clinton’s server, provided a copy from her own inbox after the State Department asked her to return any work-related emails. That copy of the email was publicly cited last month in a blistering audit by the State Department’s inspector general that concluded Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup violated federal standards and could have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers.

In a separate story, AP reports that meetings with “longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests” were not recorded on Clinton’s official calendar:

An Associated Press review of the official calendar Hillary Clinton kept as secretary of state identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded or omitted the names of those she met. The fuller details of those meetings were included in files the State Department turned over to AP after it sued the government in federal court.

The missing entries raise new questions about how Clinton and her inner circle handled government records documenting her State Department tenure — in this case, why the official chronology of her four-year term does not closely mirror the other, more detailed records of her daily meetings.

At a time when Clinton’s private email system is under scrutiny by an FBI criminal investigation, the calendar omissions reinforce concerns that she sought to eliminate the “risk of the personal being accessible” — as she wrote in an email exchange that she failed to turn over to the government but was subsequently uncovered in a top aide’s inbox.

The AP found the omissions by comparing the 1,500-page calendar with separate planning schedules supplied to Clinton by aides in advance of each day’s events. The names of at least 114 outsiders who met with Clinton were missing from her calendar, the records show.

No known federal laws were violated and some omissions could be blamed on Clinton’s highly fluid schedule, which sometimes forced late cancellations. But only seven meetings in Clinton’s planning schedules were replaced by substitute events on her official calendar. More than 60 other events listed in Clinton’s planners were omitted entirely in her calendar, tersely noted or described only as “private meetings” — all without naming those who met with her.

While it is not known if this was part of an effort to cover up meetings with donors, there is little doubt that Democrats would be complaining quite loudly if similar behavior was seen in a former Republican cabinet member and presidential candidate. Members of each party must be held to the same standards.

This comes soon after the IT expert who set up the server pleaded the 5th 130 times and failed to answer any questions at a deposition. Plus ABC News had this report earlier in the month:

Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

Under normal circumstances, it is hard to see a major political party nominating a candidate with as much baggage as Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders Continues To Fight Democratic Establishment

Sanders Washington Post

Bernie Sanders continues to both speak out against the Democratic establishment and has an op-ed in The Washington Post discussing what he, and his supporters, want:

As we head toward the Democratic National Convention, I often hear the question, “What does Bernie want?” Wrong question. The right question is what the 12 million Americans who voted for a political revolution want.

And the answer is: They want real change in this country, they want it now and they are prepared to take on the political cowardice and powerful special interests which have prevented that change from happening…

What do we want? We want an economy that is not based on uncontrollable greed, monopolistic practices and illegal behavior. We want an economy that protects the human needs and dignity of all people — children, the elderly, the sick, working people and the poor. We want an economic and political system that works for all of us, not one in which almost all new wealth and power rests with a handful of billionaire families.

Sanders also wrote about campaign finance reform, including overturning Citizens United and universal voter registration. He wrote about ending mass incarceration, climate change, and ending  “the rapid movement that we are currently experiencing toward oligarchic control of our economic and political life.”

I wish he had added a couple of other issues where he has demonstrated that he is on the right side in the past–ending foolish military intervention and curtailing the surveillance state.

It is notable that presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has been on the wrong side of both the issues raised by Sanders and the issues I added, which is why a substantial number of Sanders supporters are saying they will not vote for Clinton. On the other hand, Foreign Policy reported today than neocon Robert Kagan will be fund raising for Clinton. With Hillary Clinton being far closer to Republicans ideologically than traditional Democrats, it is important that Sanders continues to fight against the Democratic establishment which orchestrated this move towards the right.

Speaking in New York, Sanders indicated he is continuing to fight. The Hill reports:

A defiant Bernie Sanders is urging his supporters to continue his fight against the Democratic establishment, as the Vermont senator continues his quest to overhaul the party he only recently began associating with.

Ignoring calls to formally suspend his campaign and back Hillary Clinton, Sanders is hoping to encourage a new wave of progressives to join Democrats’ ranks and cement his key proposals into the party’s platform.

Speaking to supporters in New York City on Thursday in an address titled “Where We Go From Here,” Sanders outlined several key concessions he intends to extract from Democrats at the convention next month.

Sanders said he will seek rule changes to open all state primaries to independents and to eliminate superdelegates.

“While we’re at it, we may as well transform the entire Democratic Party,” Sanders said to thunderous applause.

The Vermont senator also encouraged the frenzied crowd to take up his mantle and fight against the Democratic establishment.

“You can beat the establishment,” Sanders declared. “They’re not quite as powerful as some make them out to be. In every state we had to take on the entire Democratic establishment. That is not just your state – that’s true in every state in this country and yet we ended up winning 22 of those states.”

…Sanders will appear on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” later Thursday evening, and on Friday will give another “Where We Go From Here Address” to supporters at a rally in Albany.

Never Hillary: Bloomberg Poll Shows Nearly Half Of Sanders Supporters Won’t Support Clinton

Never Hillary

I have seen estimates and polls with a wide range of numbers as to how many of those of us who voted for Sanders will vote for Clinton. The latest is a poll from Bloomberg which shows that only 55 percent will vote for Clinton:

June 14th Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders — 55 percent — plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson. “I’m a registered Democrat, but I cannot bring myself to vote for another establishment politician like Hillary,” says Laura Armes, a 43-year-old homemaker from Beeville, Texas, who participated in the Bloomberg poll and plans to vote for Trump. “I don’t agree with a lot of what Trump says. But he won’t owe anybody. What you see is what you get.”

Conversations with two dozen Sanders supporters revealed a lingering distrust of Clinton as too establishment-friendly, hawkish or untrustworthy. As some Sanders fans see it, the primary was not a simple preference for purity over pragmatism, but a moral choice between an honest figure and someone whom they consider fundamentally corrupted by the ways of Washington. Sanders has fed these perceptions throughout his campaign, which is one reason he’s having a hard time coming around to an endorsement.

Voters like Armes, who says she’ll “definitely” vote in November, highlight the difficulty Clinton faces in unifying her party. Clinton’s paltry support among Sanders voters could still grow, as his disheartened fans process the hard-fought primary campaign. But the Bloomberg poll found that only 5 percent of Sanders supporters who don’t currently back Clinton would consider doing so in the future.

Eric Brooks, 52, a community organizer in San Francisco, won’t be among them. “I will absolutely never vote for Clinton,” says Brooks, a Sanders supporter who participated in the Bloomberg poll. Although Brooks indicated in the poll that he’ll support Johnson, that is not his intention. “I’d be okay voting for Johnson as a protest vote,” says Brooks. “But as a Green Party member, I’m going to vote for [Green Party candidate] Jill Stein. If you care about the climate, like I do, it makes a lot of sense strategically to vote for Stein, because she could get five percent, which has implications for the Green Party getting federal funding.”

One flaw is that the poll didn’t include presumptive Green Party nominee Jill Stein, who was mentioned by one of those interviewed.  Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson is left as the third party alternative. As Hit and Run points out, “Read any profile of the Libertarian nominee, and chances are you’ll get to a part where he points out that the ISideWith site says Sanders is the rival candidate he agrees with the most.” While there is tremendous overlap between Sanders and Johnson on social and foreign policy, Stein would be closer on economic policy.

It is not surprising at this point that about half of Sanders supporters are more reluctant to consider voting for Clinton. Most likely the majority of those who typically vote Democratic will wind up voting for Clinton, even if they have to hold their nose. Sanders supporters who voted in Democratic primaries this year but don’t typically vote Democratic will be less likely to stick with the party. Plus it is an oversimplification to call everyone who opposes Clinton a Sanders supporter as if this is the only thing which defines us. I voted for Sanders this year for the same reasons I voted for Obama against Clinton eight years ago–and these are essentially the same reasons I opposed George Bush.

There is little doubt that some of those who now say they will not vote for Clinton will change their minds before the election, but those who have not voted Democratic in the past are far less likely to. There is a much larger ideological gap between many Sanders supporters and Clinton than is normally seen in a nomination battle. Nominating Clinton as opposed to Sanders is a monumental loss to the Democratic Party long term as they lose the opportunity to bring in many independent and younger voters.

There is the possibility that it might not matter short term. While Clinton will have problems with more liberal and many independent voters, she does benefit from running against Donald Trump, who so far has run a rather inept general election  campaign. Plus Clinton could make up for the loss of these voters by bringing in more Republican votes. As long as a Republican doesn’t consider abortion a litmus test, and isn’t a tea party extremist, a neoconservative DLC Democrat such as Clinton is rather close to traditional Republican beliefs.

If Trump continues to self-destruct as he has the past couple of weeks, Hillary Clinton could very well be come the top choice of Republicans. Just today, Brent Scowcroft former adviser to both Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush endorsed Clinton. This follows the recent endorsement from Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush. Other neoconservatives, such as Robert Kagan, had previously supported Clinton, not finding Trump to be hawkish enough for their tastes.

Of course, while Clinton very well could defeat Trump without support from the left, we have to wonder what type of Democratic Party we will be left with, especially considering how far right the Clintons moved the party the last time they were in control. As pointed out at Salon last week, the side effect of Clinton’s nomination has been to transform Democrats into “new” Republicans.

Voters Still Don’t Like or Trust Trump & Clinton, But See Sanders Favorably

Trumps and Clintons

Despite running what is probably the most inept campaign ever by a major party candidate, Donald Trump remains within five points of Hillary Clinton in the latest CNN/ORC Poll. The fact remains that most people, for good reason, do not like either candidate. As CNN put it, “When asked whether they would be excited by a Trump or Clinton presidency, fewer than 3-in-10 muster that level of enthusiasm for either.” Bernie Sanders is seen favorably by 59 percent, compared with 41 percent for Clinton and 38 percent for Trump.

While Clinton hopes her attacks on Trump’s economic views will change things, a majority believe Trump could handle the economy better than Clinton. Clinton is seen as stronger on foreign policy, but Trump is seen as stronger on terrorism. Neither is seen as honest, but more see Clinton as dishonest than Trump:

The poll finds Clinton widely viewed as having the better temperament for the presidency (56% say so vs. 32% who feel Trump is temperamentally better-suited for the White House), while Trump has picked up some ground over Clinton when voters are asked who is more honest and trustworthy (45% say Trump, 37% Clinton, a near reversal since March). But still, 17% say they see neither candidate as honest and trustworthy.

Trump has problems related to his racism and xenophobia, while 59 percent see Clinton’s violations of policy and dishonesty surrounding her private email server when Secretary of State as a negative indicator of her character and ability to serve as president:

About two-thirds say the way Trump talks about race and ethnicity is an important indicator of his character and ability to serve as president. On Clinton’s handling of her email as secretary of state, about two-thirds now say she did something wrong by using a personal email address and home-based server to handle her communications, up from about half in March of last year when the story first came to light. Likewise, 6-in-10 now say they see her handling of email as an indicator of her character and ability to serve as president, up from about half in March of last year.

As I noted above, Bernie Sanders is seen in the most favorable light, far surpassing Clinton and Trump. The major third party candidates are receiving some support but remain far behind in the poll, with Gary Johnson, now the Libertarian Party official nominee, at nine percent and presumptive Green Party nominee at seven percent.

If Donald Trump can remain within five points of Clinton despite all his recent blunders and the lack of a real campaign structure, his election remains a real possibility should Clinton be hurt by further bad news or legal action. Democrats who are making so much noise about how we must fall in line behind Clinton due to the horrors of a Trump presidency should be pushing for Sanders to be the nominee if they are really sincere in desiring to ensure that Donald Trump doesn’t become president.

Eighth Grader Does Fantastic Job Of Impersonating Candidates

The above video has gone viral in which an eight-grader used his graduation speech to give impersonations of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. As Bernie Sanders, he praised his school: “As far as schools go, TMS is in the top one half of one half of one percent of schools in the entire country.” The eight minute video is worth watching.

SciFi Weekend: Orphan Black Season Finale; Mr. Robot; Batman v. Donald Trump; Doctor Who Emmy Nominations; CW Network Announces Fall Premiere Dates; Star Trek Actor Killed In Auto Accident

orphan-black-4x10-krystal-sarah

Orphan Black concluded its fourth season and has been renewed for one final season. The finale did feel like the midst of a two season arc, with cliff hangers for multiple characters, along with the end for Evie. The simplification of the season (at least by the standards of previous seasons) did work, with this season a big improvement over the third season. While they continued with the overall mythology of the show, including showing much more about Beth, there were far fewer organizations to keep straight.

Previously we went through what could have been a never-ending sequence of having a season deal with one shadowy organization, only to find that there was another one behind it. Ending next season probably means that the Neolutionists will be the final one we have to deal with, and P.T. Westmoreland just might actually be the person behind it. For now we know he built Rachel’s eye and is “the man behind the curtain. The man who wrote the book over a century ago.” Of course, as Mrs. S explained to Sarah, “There’s always a bloody board.” There was little talk of Proletheans, Topside or Dyad this season, and we were down to just one Castor clone.

There was an increase in Leda clones. with a lot of Beth being seen in flashbacks, the introduction of MK, and an expanded role for Krystal Goderitch. In the finale, Tatiana Maslany even played Sarah impersonating Krystal, impersonating a reporter for  TMZ. Krystal both understands little and has figured out key points during her independent investigations. She is oblivious to being a clone, even denying that Sarah looks the same as her: “Even if you could drag a comb through that hair, she’s like a seven on a good day and I’ve been told I’m a 10.”

Krystal’s theory of the conspiracy is surprisingly close to the truth, if not for her confused view that it involves the cosmetics industry: “Hold on tight, cause this is very confusing. This is about human experiments and two factions fighting to control them. So we have Estee Lauder, okay, and then we have this Swedish company called Neolution.” She had the important information that Delphine is alive and that Van Lier was involved:

So, Dr. Van Lier is absolutely Neolution because he, like, showed up out nowhere with all this medical gear right after that French doctor was shot, okay, and then they, like, took her off in a van. So Van Lier, like knew my name, which was super freaky and I will never forget his face because he was so pissed at me for being there. And because he definitely had teenage acne. I could tell. No question.

Other highlights of the later episodes in the season was Helena returning in time to rescue Alison and Donnie, shooting their captor in the neck with an arrow. Rachel has once again become purely evil, plotting to take over everything, but did take a break with Ferdinand. Ira, the sole Castor clone of the season, got a good line:

Ira: Who is this?
Ferdinand: Hello.
Rachel: He’s just a toy.
Ira: He has his socks on.
Rachel: What do you want, Ira?

Plus the season ended with Cosima appearing to finally having the cure.

orphan-black-4x10-rachel-psycho

TV line discussed the finale with executive producer Graeme Manson. Here is a portion:

TVLINE | This felt like one of the show’s darkest and most twisted episodes to date. Was that the intention going into the finale?
It was probably our darkest season, certainly since the first. Obviously, we had Krystal. We’re never all dark. But what Sarah was going through this year was a dark journey. We thought it really had to pay off, and we knew it wasn’t going to be a pleasant climax to the season – but is it ever?

TVLINE | What note do you hope the finale leaves viewers on heading into Season 5, then?
We love a nice note of, “WTF?” with a smattering of, “How the hell are we going to get out of that?” We’ve thrown open this door of P.T. Westmoreland, and we’ve spent some time on this island. We’re very excited to explore that world. Sarah and all the clones, including Rachel, they’ve really done a lot to climb that pyramid. Now, what are we going to find at the top?

TVLINE | Quite a few characters were left in jeopardy at the end of the finale: Cosima, Sarah, Susan Duncan, even Mrs. S and Kira. Who should we be most worried about?
We have to be worried about everyone equally. But Sarah’s got two main issues: She came to the island to rescue Cosima, and now Kira is a hostage back with Mrs. S. So Sarah’s got two huge concerns, not to mention she’s pretty beat up and bleeding.

TVLINE | That confrontation between Sarah and Rachel was so intense, almost like a horror-movie thriller with the monster getting loose.
[Co-creator/director] John [Fawcett] and myself – particularly John – really love the horror and the visceral horror. It’s part of what we do. We love mashups on the show. We love mixing tones. That horror element that you’re talking about is really one that we can pull off well with everything that Tatiana [Maslany] does. Sarah vs. Rachel, too, is bringing us back to our earlier seasons, where Rachel came out of the woodwork and was Sarah’s real nemesis. Moving forward, we have narrowed it back down to clone vs. clone. I’m very interested in exploring that nemesis relationship.

TVLINE | Rachel has never been the warmest or sanest person. But it really felt like she cracked in this episode. What sent her over the edge?
On a deep psychological level, her hatred of Sarah is because Sarah has had so many of the things that Rachel has not had. Sarah has freedom, whereas Rachel has been ordained to be who she is more than any of the other clones. Sarah has perhaps a slightly dysfunctional but certainly a nurturing family, a chosen family. And Sarah has the love of her sisters. This is the root of Rachel’s jealousy and bitterness and true hatred. It’s a self-hatred at its core.

mrrobot_s2_keyart_press1

Mr. Robot, the surprise hit from last summer, returns on July 13. If I wasn’t behind on so many other shows, this is one series which I would really like to re-watch before going into the second season. Definitely watch it if you haven’t. It is now available for streaming on Amazon Prime and with the USA Network app.

Collider interviewed the stars. Here is the start of the interview, with major spoilers present (which will probably not sound very coherent) for those who have not seen the first season:

Collider: Christian, now that everybody is in on what’s going on . . .

CHRISTIAN SLATER: I love that you think that.

. . . at least as far as who your character is, does that chance your approach to things?

SLATER: I always looked at it as though I was as real as Elliot imagined me to be, and that was pretty real. I am there as his partner, as his protector, and as his enemy. I’m there sometimes for the right reasons and sometimes for the wrong reasons. It’s a continual struggle between the two of us. It turns into a real psychological journey for Elliot.

Rami, things must be a bit different in Season 2, now that Elliot is more aware of what’s actually going on in his life. Does it feel different for you, as an actor?

RAMI MALEK: It changes him, entirely. It gave me heart palpitations because when you do something that people respond to, and then you start altering the blueprint for what worked, it’s pretty fear-inducing. But sometimes, you have to do that, in order to push the boundaries. For this character and story to be as provocative as it was in the first season, we can’t rest on our laurels. You really have to just take some more risks and chances that I don’t think are for the sake of just taking risks and being different. They’re grounded in the story that Sam [Esmail] has created, with the trajectory and arc of all of these characters. I happened to know where he was headed this season, so I took some big changes and I think the audience will be rewarded by them. Maybe they’ll end up on the editing floor, but that remains to be seen.

As an actor who’s been in this business a long time, and had ups and downs, what’s it like to get such great scripts, every week?

SLATER: It’s great, getting the scripts and working with somebody like Sam Esmail, who is such a great leader. He’s just so prepared and there’s so much attention to detail. And then, you add Rami Malek to the mix, and Carly Chaikin and Portia Doubleday. And in Season 2, we have Joey Badass and Craig Robinson, who are amazing. To get to play a character like this, there’s so much freedom and fun with it that it’s very exciting.

You’ve known what the twists and turns were with this, from the very beginning. Were you ever bummed that you were in on it?

SLATER: No, I liked being in on it. I felt in on it, from the get-go. When I read the pilot, there was something so mysterious about the guy that it made me very suspicious. And then, when I went and met with Sam and asked him about it, he asked me if I really wanted to know. I said, “Yes,” so he told me. And then, he told me more details and revealed the relationship that I have with Elliot. I think that helped to add a deeper layer, across the board, throughout the whole season. So, it was great to know.

Gotham Enigma

The 2016 presidential election already looks like it should be an unusual one, with the Republicans likely to nominate a racist and xenophobic reality host star with shocking lack of understanding of the issues, and the Democrats breaking pattern in probably nominating a candidate who is both ultra-hawkish and quite conservative on First Amendment issues. It might get even weirder, with Cory Michael Smith who plays Edward Nigma, on Gotham, saying next season will parallel the election:

Gotham, like many superhero stories, is a parallel of today’s society, of what happens every day. And in the third season, in the fall, when the United States will stand preparing to face one of the most important presidential elections in their history, even Gotham will address in parallel the issue.

I certainly could see Donald Trump as a super-villain. Sample trailer above. If only we had Batman, or at least Jim Gordon, to save us from the real candidates.

Doctor Who now qualifies to be nominated for Emmy Award now that BBC America has joined the BBC as a co-producer. Variety reports:

BBC America’s “Doctor Who” has been submitted for Emmy consideration for the first time ever. Now that the American cabler has come aboard as a co-producer, the venerable Brit series is finally eligible for consideration. Although it was not submitted as a drama series, star Peter Capaldi is on the lead actor ballot, showrunner Steven Moffat and director Rachel Talalay are on the writing and directing ballots for the episode “Heaven Sent” and the series is a possible nominee for costumes, production design, prosthetic makeup, and visual effects.

The show has not been nominated in the best dramatic series category, where it would be up against quite strong competition in a category where genre shows do not do well.

The CW network has released the premier dates for their shows, which continues to be dominated by genre next fall:

October 4 (Tuesday)
The Flash
No Tomorrow

October 5 (Wednesday)
Arrow
Frequency

October 10 (Monday)
Supergirl

October 13 (Thursday)
DC’s Legends of Tomorrow
Supernatural

October 17 (Monday)
Jane the Virgin

October 21 (Friday)
The Vampire Diaries
Crazy Ex-Girlfriend

The 100 and iZombie will be starting in the winter.

Yelchin

Anton Yelchin, who played Chekov in the new Star Trek movies, was killed in a freak auto accident today. The New York Times reports:

Anton Yelchin, a charismatic actor best known for playing Chekov in the new “Star Trek” films, died early on Sunday in a car accident in Los Angeles. He was 27.

His death was confirmed by his publicist, Jennifer Allen.

Mr. Yelchin was struck by his own car as it rolled backward down his driveway in Studio City, the police said. The car pinned Mr. Yelchin against a brick mailbox pillar and a security fence.

He had left the car momentarily, but the police did not say why he was behind it when it started rolling.

He was on his way to meet friends for a rehearsal, the police said. When he didn’t show up, the group came to his home and found him dead.

Mr. Yelchin began his career as a child with roles in independent films and on television before breaking out in films like the crime thriller “Alpha Dog” and the teenage comedy “Charlie Bartlett.” His biggest role had been as Pavel Chekov, navigator of the Starship Enterprise, in the rebooted “Star Trek” films, the third of which, “Star Trek Beyond,” is to be released in July.

More at TMZ , which also linked to this video of the Best of Chekov: