Every day that this primary goes on, I am continually disappointed by the lack of perspective of many people I otherwise respect. I see very intelligent people write some of the most trollish comments imaginable. I am writing this specifically about one person I know.

This one stands out as incredibly disappointing because it came from a former professor of mine that I greatly admire. This professor actually trolled me on Facebook when I wrote an update citing a diary written here by LaFeminista. This person is a professor of political science at a top five university (I did not go the university where he teaches now), so it was incredibly disappointing to get a response like these:

Cruz/Fiorina! Surely they can win your heart!

and

I KNEW it! I knew you had a soft spot for Cruz! And I bet you bought something from HP back in the day...

The latter was a response to my comment that Cruz would not be successful as President because no one, not even his fellow Republicans, would work to accomplish his agenda.

It is disappointing to me because this professor once said in class, and I am paraphrasing, that as long as the youth in this country are not engaged politically, our issues will be ignored. The political class doesn’t respond to us because they have nothing to fear from us. It was comments like this that made me think that he would be onboard with Bernie…well that and the fact that he is a gay, Latino and is an activist for both of these marginalized populations. Maybe there is a simple explanation, one that Thomas Frank made in “Listen Liberal.” This professor, being the elite of the elite, has more in common with Hillary and her elitist “Democratic Party” than he does with the people that the Democratic Party ignores and hurts with their neo-liberal economic policies and neo-conservative foreign policies. As I said, he is a highly regarded professor at one of the top universities in the world.

I asked him to defend his backing of Hillary, to which he did…to an extent. He responded with a partial endorsement, but the rest of his comment was attacking Bernie and his enthusiastic support:

I am happy to offer a full-throated endorsement of Secretary Clinton, one that acknowledges her imperfections and the issue positions with which I disagree, but that acknowledges a lifelong and productive commitment to positive change for women and children in this country and beyond…

I responded to his comment with rebuttals, but more importantly I explained to him why I am excited by Bernie’s candidacy. I am sure I am not the only one who believes this:

I think her record on women and children is much more mixed than you are implying. Her record, especially as SoS, on the ME/NA has been one that has been destructive to women and children. She is incredibly hawkish, and wars generally hurt the vulnerable (elderly, sick, women, children) more than those that are being "targeted."

I think the Bernie campaign waited too long to hit her back. Having Claire McCaskill, Barney Frank, David Brooks, and Howard Dean (among many others) fulfilling their roles as surrogates and attacking Bernie once it became apparent that he wasn't just a fringe candidate warranted similar tactics from the Sanders campaign. Again, he waited too long.

The bird thing was silly, though cute.

My personal opinion, I would rather have an ineffective politician than an effective one who gives us bad policy. For example, Bill Clinton got a lot done in his time in the White House. He signed DADT, DOMA, the Telecommunications Act, Welfare Reform, Repeal of Glass-Steagall, CFMA, NAFTA, GATT, and would have partially privatized SS if only he could have kept his hands to himself. Barack Obama is the same way. He is willing to really screw people "to get something done." He wants to go along to get along, that is why instead of pushing the SC to the left, he nominated Merrick Garland. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, eschews many of the tools used to pass major legislation. Given that there are places he won't go, I think he has been fairly successful as a legislator. Well...about as successful as an outsider can be in the congress. Hillary was a senator for 8 years, I don't believe that she accomplished much of anything. And as you well know, the Senate is a place that is hostile to change. Progressive policies die there because (Republican) senators representing 15% of the country's population can kill any legislation they oppose as a block.

Ultimately, for my support of Bernie it isn't necessarily about getting the things done. I support him because he articulates a vision for America that the Democratic Party is afraid to pursue. He challenges a system for which a handful of people do well (I know, I am using his words) and far too many are left behind. He was willing to call out the greed that took our economy to the brink of disaster. He calls out the hawks that want to send our young people into perpetual war (one of which I served in in 2003 and Hillary Clinton supported). He calls out the inequities of outcomes, outcomes that are not a result of ability but due to a lack of access to the tools necessary to succeed. His words have given a voice to so many that felt ignored, that felt disenfranchised. He makes many people, and many of them from the largest generation in American history, think that we can change things. I think that one day, you will look back at Bernie's candidacy and see a paradigm shift in the electorate. I may despair for the moment, but I am hopeful that we can finally make the government responsive to our needs and wants, not just the wants of the connected.

I am sure it is apparent that I write when I am frustrated. This is another example of my frustrations. As an FYI, this conversation took place more than a month ago. This professor’s attacks on Bernie have waned, but only because he believes that his candidate has sewn up the nomination. I saw a status update in which he posted something with the lame hashtag “imwithher.”