Once upon a time we had Jesse Jackson running for President with the slogan "Keep hope alive! Keep hope alive!"

Now I'm sure Jackson was a hustler in a sea of even more egregious hustlers, as the Democrats found a clever way to shut down his operation when he was planning to interfere in the Republican farce desired by both parties in 2000, the one that insured that George W. Bush would become President. David Margolick of Vanity Fair explains what happened in his own biased way:

Jesse Jackson immediately took up the cause in the streets of Florida, but at that point the facts were simply too sketchy, too anecdotal, too mixed up with simple bureaucratic ineptness to prove any kind of conspiracy. Anyone wanting to get Gore into the White House believed that hitching the cause to Jackson was madness; they wanted the middle, not the lefty fringe. Through a request from Brazile, Gore asked Jackson to get out of the way.

Yeah, sure, disenfranchised voters are the "lefty fringe." At any rate, Jesse Jackson hasn't been seen or heard from since, so there's no reason to worry about keeping hope alive. At any rate, since the 2016 Clinton operation did not offer the public hope, the critical task for the sellout intelligentsia today is to keep illusions alive. From the Huffington Post:

To My Friends And Family Who Voted For Trump

I presume you can all read the thing for yourselves. At any rate, here is my response:

1) The piece said: "First, we need to talk about the elephant in the room. Trump has said some awful things." Please pay attention to the awful people Trump will be appointing. It's of much more consequence than anything he's said so far.

2) They've got too many people out there worried about who voted for Trump. Pieces like this are meant to sustain that worry. Unless they lived in a swing state it really wasn't of much consequence. Me? I live in California. The piece said: "Trump was elected to become president of the United States by the so-called “silent majority." No. Trump was elected by razor-thin majorities in the swing states in an election in which a lot of people stayed home. Trump didn't even get a majority of votes! They're all worried about the 12,000 voter margin that elected Trump while ignoring the 70,000 Michiganders who undervoted, leaving the Presidential boxes all unchecked.

3) "Yesterday, less than 24 hours after Trump won, racists have vandalized school grounds and public spaces, homophobes have chased, mocked, threatened, and even violently attacked members of the LGBT community." Quiz question: what's been going on in Ferguson, Missouri, or West Baltimore, under Obama? What's been going on in Honduras or Syria or Afghanistan or Yemen under Obama? I recognize this is about tribes, but if we are to claim that we care about other human beings as human beings, we'll have to do better. Fascism was already here when Trump was elected.

4) "Stop telling people to get over it when they are experiencing something you can’t even fathom." Please stop telling people they can't fathom stuff. I'm sure they can.

Okay, so then there's curiosity by Joan Walsh in The Nation:

 What I Got Wrong About Hillary Clinton—and What Other Feminists Get Wrong About Her Now

So okay Walsh, who pretty much says the same thing over and over again. Here's the most coherent sample:

 Geier attacks Clinton for elevating the concerns of elite, upper class women over those of poor and working class women. And she promotes a worthy agenda for action: “The most promising path forward would be to agitate for a robust economic agenda focused on women’s needs: a $15 minimum wage, universal child care and pre-K, paid family leave, free college, and tough laws that crack down on wage theft and guarantee fair scheduling and equal pay for women.”

Of course, Hillary Clinton supported almost all of those policies (she supported tuition-free college only for families making less than $125,000).

Of course the problem with Clinton is not that she "supported" a nice mix of policies -- of course she did. The problem with Clinton is that it was obvious from the beginning that her "support" was at best a cosmetic veneer meant to fool the public into thinking that something substantive was going to happen while her real loyalties, guiding what she would do as opposed to what she would say, lay with the banks, with her donors, and with the nice hacks from the Peterson Foundation. The Wikileaks email releases told us as much.

Of course, the immediate problem is that Donald Trump is going to invite a bunch of fools into his cabinet and so policy for the next four years will continue to suck. The thing to guard against is the notion that putting a (D), any (D), in the White House will remedy this problem. The public just spent eight years listening to Barack Obama's gifted oratorical snake-oil pitch while looking the other way at Obama's actual policies. I'm sure we can expect more "liberal" media nonsense in the future, attempting to insure that the public continues to look the other way.