My thoughts exactly:

Every time Sanders is challenged on how he plans to get his agenda through Congress and past the special interests, he responds that the "political revolution" that sweeps him into office will somehow be the magical instrument of the monumental changes he describes. This is a vague, deeply disingenuous idea that ignores the reality of modern America. With the narrow power base and limited political alliances that Sanders had built in his years as the democratic socialist senator from Vermont, how does he possibly have a chance of fighting such entrenched power?
I have been to the revolution before. It ain't happening.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is one of the most qualified candidates for the presidency in modern times, as was Al Gore. We cannot forget what happened when Gore lost and George W. Bush was elected and became arguably one of the worst presidents in American history. The votes cast for the fantasy of Ralph Nader were enough to cost Gore the presidency. Imagine what a similar calculation would do to this country if a "protest vote" were to put the presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court all in the hands of the extreme right wing that now controls the Republican Party.
Rolling Stone has championed the "youth vote" since 1972, when 18-year-olds were first given the right to vote. The Vietnam War was a fact of daily life then, and Sen. George McGovern, the liberal anti-war activist from South Dakota, became the first vessel of young Americans, and Hunter S. Thompson wrote our first presidential-campaign coverage. We worked furiously for McGovern. We failed; Nixon was re-elected in a landslide. But those of us there learned a very clear lesson: America chooses its presidents from the middle, not from the ideological wings. We are faced with that decision again.
In 2016, what does the "youth vote" want? As always, I think it has to do with idealism, integrity and authenticity, a candidate who will tell it like it is. It is intoxicating to be a part of great hopes and dreams — in 2016 it's called "feeling the Bern." You get a sense of "authenticity" when you hear Sanders talking truth to power, but there is another kind of authenticity, which may not feel as good but is vitally important, when Clinton speaks honestly about what change really requires, about incremental progress, about building on what Obama has achieved in the arenas of health care, clean energy, the economy, the expansion of civil rights. There is an inauthenticity in appeals to anger rather than to reason, for simplified solutions rather than ones that stand a chance of working. This is true about Donald Trump, and lamentably also true about Sanders.


 photo witch_zpsk1eka0xc.jpg

The ten best films I've seen since compiling this top 100 of the half-decade list:

01. The Witch (Eggers)
02. The Assassin (Hou)
03. Sunset Song (Davies)
04. Knight of Cups (Malick)
05. Inside Out (Docter)
06. Magic Mike XXL (Jacobs)
07. Girlhood (Sciamma)
08. Bridge of Spies (Spielberg)
09. Spotlight (McCarthy)
10. Carol (Haynes)


Unknown Pleasures
 photo dd0adf5b-a41d-4690-bf12-28c6cfd6034e_zpswdbuffbv.png

Come for The Life of Pablo (didn't we all?), stay for the great, hitherto unheard Shakira live record (her "Nothing Else Matters" cover rivals Bif Naked's) and easily overlooked gems like Colleen Green's I Want to Grow Up.


A Fitting Response  photo trump shit_zpsekicmdgg.jpg

within this execrable discursive climate. And here in his hometown, no less!