High-Powered Debate on a Woman President and What the Democratic Party Might Be Willing to Do
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes history by becoming the first woman to accept a major-party presidential nomination, we speak with Rebecca Traister, writer-at-large for New York Magazine who has covered Clinton for a decade. Her most recent article is headlined "Hillary Is Poised to Make the 'Impossible Possible'—for Herself and for Women in America." We are also joined by Kshama Sawant, a Socialist city councilmember in Seattle who helped win a $15/hour minimum wage for all workers in Seattle.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. We are "Breaking with Convention: War, Peace and the Presidency." I’m Amy Goodman. We’re broadcasting from the Democratic National Convention here in Philadelphia, where former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made history by becoming the first woman to accept a major-party presidential nomination.
HILLARY CLINTON: I believe our economy isn’t working the way it should, because our democracy isn’t working the way it should. That’s why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And, if necessary, we will pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. I believe American corporations that have gotten so much from our country should be just as patriotic in return. Many of them are, but too many aren’t. It’s wrong to take tax breaks with one hand and give out pink slips with the other. And I believe Wall Street can never, ever be allowed to wreck Main Street again.
And I believe in science. I believe climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs.
I believe that when we have millions of hard-working immigrants contributing to our economy, it would be self-defeating and inhumane to try to kick them out. Comprehensive immigration reform will grow our economy and keep families together, and it’s the right thing to do.
So, whatever party you belong to or if you belong to no party at all, if you share these beliefs, this is your campaign.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the historic nomination of Hillary Clinton, we’re joined now by two guests. Rebecca Traister is writer-at-large for New York Magazine who’s written about Hillary Clinton for a decade, her most recent article headlined "Hillary Is Poised to Make the 'Impossible Possible'—for Herself and for Women in America." She’s the author of All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation. We’re also joined by Kshama Sawant, a Socialist city councilmember of Seattle. She helped win a $15-an-hour minimum wage for all workers in Seattle.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Rebecca, let’s begin with you. You were on the floor of the convention last night when Hillary Clinton gave that speech. Your reaction?
REBECCA TRAISTER: Well, I was listening—from the floor, it was hard to tell how it was going over. I mean, there was—because there were protesters, I had—I could hear the protesters. I was watching what was happening. I was paying attention. I wasn’t—I wasn’t as focused on the speech and how it was being received. I was very aware of the sort of theatrical tensions within the room, everybody trying to drown each other out. And so—and as somebody who’s written about Hillary Clinton for a very long time and knows that these moments, these big speech moments where she’s supposed to give some kind of speech that inspires and unites, don’t always go very well for her—this is not—this is not her forte as a politician—you know, I wasn’t quite sure.
Overnight, I’ve read some of the reactions, and it seems to me that it has been much better received than many speeches that Hillary gives. In part, I think it had a lot of the marks of Bernie Sanders on it. I mean, one of the things that surprised me as I was listening to it is the time that she spent talking about Bernie and his supporters in warm ways, I’m sure ways that were not necessarily persuasive to those who were objecting, and that you heard so much about—I mean, you heard—you saw in that speech the product of what this primary process has done with regard to Hillary’s candidacy. Walking into this election cycle as somebody who’s written about Hillary, has had a lot of ambivalence about her tendencies to move toward the center, you know, a year and a half ago, I could have imagined a very different convention speech in which Hillary Clinton gets the nomination. And I think that the role that the Bernie left has played—not just Bernie Sanders himself, but his supporters—but, you know, the fact that there were protesters in there has moved Hillary Clinton in ways that, as somebody who has always been to the left of her ideologically, I’m very grateful for. And I think that you did see the marks of that in that speech. And we have a different candidate for president than we would have, had we not had this primary process.
AMY GOODMAN: Kshama Sawant, the message throughout this week, and your response to Hillary Clinton, the first woman to be nominated by a major party to be president of the United States?
KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, as a Socialist and a feminist myself and as a woman and a woman of color, I have no question in my mind that in order to make social change, it is absolutely critical that women, people of color, all the members of the oppressed communities under capitalism, be on the forefront of struggle. But I think the identity of the person we are talking about, the leading people, is—are much less important. Their identities are much less important. What’s far more critical is where they stand.
So, if you look at the significance of her being the first female nominee, I understand the appeal of that, I’m sympathetic to that. But here’s what I would say. I actually—you know, all throughout this campaign season, I was reminded of a show—an episode that you played, Amy, in 2008, when you had Melissa Harris-Perry and Gloria Steinem debating, and Gloria was saying, "Well, if you’re a woman, you need to vote for Hillary Clinton," and Melissa was saying, "Well, if you’re a person of color, you need to vote for Obama." And I was sitting there watching as a woman of color, saying neither of these candidates represent my interests as a woman of color. And the reason I say that is it has less to do with their identity and far more to do with the interests they represent.
At the end of the day, we don’t—I don’t think the debate is about her speech skills and all of that. It’s more the fact that she is a dogged representative of Wall Street and Wall Street interests, and her entire party, the Democratic Party, and the establishment that controls it, is a representative of Wall Street interests. And yes, there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, but that is one thing they agree on, that they are primarily advocates for Wall Street. And Hillary Clinton is well on her way to be the international emissary for the fracking industry, which is so dangerous, so much so that she has refused to really, you know, even accept that this is going to be a huge problem in terms of climate change.
But you look at the whole spectrum of issues. A lot of people think that, well, it’s a woman leader, and this is going to be important. But, look, she was on the board of Wal-Mart for six years. Wal-Mart is the world’s biggest purveyor of poverty wages. And who do you think it affects? It affects women at the very bottom. You heard from the woman, the poignant story of the woman—I saw her last night at the protest—who said that because welfare was destroyed under Bill Clinton, she—her mother had to become a sex worker. Hillary Clinton was not an innocent bystander when welfare was dismantled. She actually played an active political role alongside Bill Clinton and the new Democrats. Now, as a feminist, I would have loved for her to have played an active role to shore up welfare, to make sure that women’s living standards could have been improved. Unfortunately for us, she’s playing a very active role as a woman, but as a defender of Wall Street. So we really need to get outside of that. And if people are looking for a woman to support, think about Jill Stein.
AMY GOODMAN: Rebecca Traister?
REBECCA TRAISTER: Well, there are a lot of parts of what you just said. I’m in agreement with you about parts of it. I’m very—I am also interested in getting money out of politics. I don’t think that’s the only issue that’s at stake here. I think that there’s a degree to which—and as somebody who has written about my ambivalence and criticism of Hillary Clinton on some of these counts, I think that—I’m glad that you and her other critics are making these points very, very loudly. I don’t think those are the only issues at stake, though. I don’t think that her—what you see as her role as an emissary of Wall Street is where these questions end, and that voting for Jill Stein is a solution that works, either in terms of feminism or in terms of addressing the issues that you care so passionately about. Jill Stein is not going to win the presidency. And the person who would win the presidency, if Hillary Clinton is stopped—and I understand the impulse to stop her—is Donald Trump. And so, when it comes to issues of fracking, of Wall Street, of paid leave, of subsidized child care, of protecting what social programs we have in place now and shoring up social programs in the future and not seeing them destroyed, in terms of immigration reform, I think there are all those issues on the table. I am not sure that the feminist choice is supporting a woman who has—who offers very little threat of actually winning.
I would also say, with regard to welfare reform, which is policy that I abhor and loathe and was critical of and horrified by at the time, I think it’s extremely fair to criticize the public statements that Hillary Clinton made in support of it, but I also think it’s really important to contextualize what her actual role in it was. She was not in elected office—and I’m not excusing her. She made statements in support of it. However, you have to understand and consider the fact that she was under enormous pressure as the wife. She wasn’t in elected office. She was playing the wife. She was a controversial wife. She was widely seen, incorrectly, as a radical left force within that White House in that era, and there was tremendous pressure on her to be supporting her husband, which ties into all kinds of old, you know, assumptions about wifeliness and the role that first ladies are supposed to play. Yes, it is absolutely fair to criticize the statements she made in support of welfare reform, to look critically at what role she played. There are all kinds of different stories about how she was trying to exert influence over that legislation as it was happening. But I don’t think that asking Hillary Clinton to pay the bill for welfare reform and for the crime bill in a way that members, including Joe Biden, including John Kerry, who was a nominee—the idea that this bill is being handed to Hillary Clinton, who was not in elected office, but was in this ceremonial position during those years, is the way to productively, critically address the ravages of welfare reform.
AMY GOODMAN: Kshama Sawant?
KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, I don’t agree that she was in any ceremonial position. She was playing an active political role. But we don’t need to quibble over those details. Hillary Clinton has been long enough in politics that she has her own independent track record, as secretary of state, as a warmonger and as a lobbyist-in-chief for big business and for multibillionaire interests. I don’t see how we can, in any honesty, expect a woman who takes, you know, a quarter of a million dollars for every speech that she makes to Goldman Sachs, you know, who has been a rapacious factor in the global economic crisis, as somebody who will represent the interests of ordinary people. But I think, you know, again, we need to move away from an individualized and personalized narrative of politics to the larger context in which all of this is happening. The real problem here is not just her, but the fact that the Democratic Party and the establishment that controls it has a long track record of a systematic betrayal of the interests of working people and, you know, not to mention war abroad.
So, I think that when people are worried about Trump, it’s absolutely legitimate. I am horrified. I find Trump’s agenda of misogyny, bigotry, hatred and anti-immigrant hysteria absolutely stomach-turning. But if we are to actually defeat the phenomenon of Trump, then we have to look at Trump, the Trump phenomenon, not as something that happened just out of nowhere, out of thin air, but understand that the Trump phenomenon is a product of the fact that both the establishment parties, Republicans and Democrat, have moved to the right over the last several decades. And similarly, when the tea party in the Republican right made gains in 2010, that was not because Americans suddenly woke up and went right-wing. That was because millions of people were dejected and angry at Obama’s corporate bailouts, and they were so disappointed and betrayed. And what’s striking about that election is that it had historically the lowest voter turnout since the Second World War. What does this tell us? This tells us that there’s a huge chasm between where the establishment stands, and the establishment parties, and ordinary Americans. And the reason Trump finds an echo is not because millions of people are racist. It’s because millions of people are looking for an alternative. They’re grasping for an alternative to corporate politics.
So the question really is this: How can—if we want to defeat Trump, then the bigger question is: How will we defeat Trump and avoid building an ongoing basis for the right wing? And the reason the right wing finds an echo is because the left has failed to build so far. And this year, if we don’t talk about concrete left politics, through the Jill Stein campaign, then we are going to leave the field open for Trump. Trump and the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson are going to have a monopoly over millions of disenchanted voters.
AMY GOODMAN: Rebecca Traister?
REBECCA TRAISTER: Well, I want to—I’m curious about this. So, do you think that encouraging people to vote for Jill Stein is going to defeat Trump? I mean, what do you actually envision happening, if you’re—if the idea is more of us should be voting for Jill Stein because we’re dissatisfied with Hillary Clinton?
KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, first of all, it’s a problem to look at presidential election years as something that’s in a—you know, it’s in its own box, and then everything else is disconnected. That’s not how it works.
REBECCA TRAISTER: I agree.
KSHAMA SAWANT: And in reality, everything in history points towards the fact that building mass movements on the ground are absolutely critical in order to make social change. And those mass movements actually die a sorry death as long as we don’t build independent of those mass movements. The reason we succeeded in winning $15 an hour, because I and Socialist Alternative ran our campaign in defiance of the Democratic Party establishment in Seattle, and we fought for 15. Do you think the Democrats led on it or even supported it? No. They were dragged along and were forced to vote on it, because the vast majority of people in Seattle built our movement on the streets and forced them for it. And that’s the example of what we’re talking about.
And what’s at stake is not whether Jill Stein is going to win or not. The fact is this: If on November 6th we have a very strong vote—a million and a half, 2 million, 3 million votes for Jill Stein—that will make this movement that we’re building sit up, ordinary people sit up, the people who are going to make change sit up and take notice that it is possible to build an independent party of the 99 percent, which is the real goal we need to go towards.
REBECCA TRAISTER: Well, first of all, I want to say I agree with you completely about your point about presidential politics being in this box, and this is the only time we come and focus on it, and it’s a real mistake, it’s absolutely detrimental to the way that the system works, and that this is still a time we can get people to tune in and feel strongly about it. That is, in fact, precisely why I, who agreed with his politics very strongly, had doubts about Bernie Sanders from a practical perspective as the nominee, because I worried that putting somebody—because I—I agree that individual ascension to the top or leadership positions within parties that have not shifted all the way down the ranks gave me tremendous anxiety that it would hurt a movement to the left to put a left candidate at the top with a recalcitrant Congress, recalcitrant state and local governments, and that in fact the move to the left had to be from the bottom up.
So, I just want to say that I absolutely agree with you. However, what we are now heading into—and this is why I wanted to understand. Are you envisioning the push for Stein as being big enough that it gets people to pay attention, but not big enough that it damages Hillary Clinton’s prospects? Because while I agree with you that this shouldn’t just be about individual stories, and it’s not just about Hillary Clinton, it’s part of larger systems, the reality is, in November, there is going to be an election, and one person is going to win it. And even if we understand that this is about larger systems, that one person is going to gain a certain amount of control over systems, including the Supreme Court, that’s going to make decisions over the course—you know, that are going to affect a generation or two.
And so, I think there’s—while I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should be looking at this more holistically and systemically, and talking about how the fight for $15 and the activist work on the ground that is being done around paid leave, paid sick days, these things that none of the presidential candidates have really been on the ground with, none of them, including Hillary Clinton, including Bernie Sanders—you know, obviously, not Donald Trump or the Republicans—we absolutely need to move those activists into politics and up the pipeline, but we also can’t fool ourselves that the individual questions of who’s going to win the presidency in November are meaningless. They’re going to carry meaning and weight and realities for millions of Americans.
KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, those of us who are talking about building an independent party for the 99 percent, we take the question of the presidential elections absolutely seriously. I don’t—I am not saying that it is meaningless. But here’s the question I would like to ask: If the Democratic Party establishment, the Democratic National Committee, was—had as its first priority to defeat Trump—I have no doubt that they want to defeat Trump, but if that was their topmost priority, then why did they not do everything in their power to promote the one candidate who, through many, many polls, was indicated to have been a really prominent, a very powerful voice against Trump and having the real possibility of winning against Trump? And, obviously, I’m talking about Bernie Sanders. Instead, what the Democratic National Committee has done is use every dirty trick in the book to stymie his campaign.
And the reason Bernie did not succeed the Democratic—in winning the Democratic nomination is not because the Democratic base didn’t support him. I mean, he has electrified an entire base of tens of millions of people. The reason he didn’t win the nomination is not because of recalcitrant Congress, it’s because of a recalcitrant Democratic Party establishment, for whom, although defeating Trump is the priority, a bigger priority for the Democratic Party establishment is to defeat the agenda of working people to really fight for the massive social change, because the interests of ordinary working people and the interests of Wall Street are diametrically opposite. The interests of Wall Street are completely antagonistic to the interests of ordinary working people. So as long as we tie ourselves—forget about individuals. As long as we tie ourselves to a party that is tied to Wall Street, our movements will reach a graveyard in the Democratic Party.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s break, and then we’re going to come back to this discussion. And thank you very much, because I warned you before the show, no soundbites. And you’ve taken me at my word. I want to thank Kshama Sawant—she’ll be back in one minute—who is a Socialist city councilmember in Seattle. She spearheaded the movement for $15 an hour, and they won. Rebecca Traister is with us. She’s a writer-at-large for New York Magazine, just wrote, somehow, between yesterday and today, a major piece on the significance of Hillary Clinton as the first woman to be nominated by a major party for president of the United States. Stay with us.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Michael Franti singing "Listener Supported." This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, our two-week special, "Breaking with Convention: War, Peace and the Presidency." I’m Amy Goodman. We’re broadcasting from the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Actually, we’re broadcasting from PhillyCAM, which is Philadephia’s public access TV station. And for those who haven’t gotten a chance to see our break, go to it at democracynow.org and see what the folks here are doing, people making their own media.
We’re talking about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton making history by becoming the first woman to accept a major-party presidential nomination. Our guests are Rebecca Traister, writer-at-large for New York Magazine. She’s written about Hillary Clinton for a decade, her most recent article headlined "Hillary Is Poised to Make the 'Impossible Possible'—for Herself and for Women in America." She’s the author of All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation. And we’re joined by Kshama Sawant, who is a Socialist city councilmember in Seattle, Washington. She helped win, spearhead the $15-an-hour minimum wage for all workers in Seattle.
Well, we left it at Kshama talking about how you won that victory and how the Democratic Party was allied against you. And you talked about if the Democratic Party was serious about taking on Donald Trump, which it sounds both of you women seriously are interested in, that they would not have fought so hard to undermine Bernie Sanders. Rebecca Traister, can you respond to that?
REBECCA TRAISTER: Well, you know—
AMY GOODMAN: That he was the best candidate, you said, and that the polls indicated—
KSHAMA SAWANT: The polls said that.
AMY GOODMAN: —he was the one who could beat Donald Trump. Now, the polls do show—and right now, I’m sure, new polls will be coming out now; after a convention, you get that convention bump—that he is ahead in most polls that are being taken right now.
REBECCA TRAISTER: Yeah. Yeah, I know. I’m terrified. I don’t think that Bernie Sanders—I mean, and this is my guess. We’re all guessing counterfactually at this point. I mean, I’m not—
AMY GOODMAN: Why are you so concerned about Donald Trump?
REBECCA TRAISTER: Because look at the amount of support he has behind him. I mean, he is channeling something. And whether it’s what Kshama says—I mean, I think it’s a combination of many factors, that it’s this sense of dissatisfaction with the establishment, that it is an understanding and a feeling on the right that what we have is not working, and they’re searching anywhere for alternatives, and they’ve, on the right, got their hands on this particularly ghoulish one. I also think that it has—I also think that simultaneously it’s tied to all kinds of racial and gendered, xenophobic resentments, and that that’s empowering a lot of it. I think that we are still in the midst of major ruptures and shifts in this country about the kinds of people who can have power, the kinds of people who can be sitting here having these kinds of conversations and having an impact on elections, and that there are all kinds of resentments at work, you know, and that as powering—and that’s powerful. It could be—it could—
AMY GOODMAN: So, what about the point that—
REBECCA TRAISTER: The point—
AMY GOODMAN: —if the Democratic Party wanted to actually beat him?
REBECCA TRAISTER: Well, I was not persuaded that Bernie Sanders—I know he polled very well, but he also hadn’t had any negative ads run against him. He didn’t have a single negative ad run against him. There’s the incredible—
AMY GOODMAN: And hardly any media also covering him, although toward the end—
KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, the media tore him apart, especially in the New York state primaries, where he had—first, there was a media blackout, and then there was a vicious series of attacks on him. So I don’t really agree factually about the fact that he wasn’t attacked in the media. And in reality, the reason he didn’t win the nomination is because the Democratic Party did not want him to win the nomination. And it’s not just about the polls. It’s not just about the polls that indicated that he would have made a better candidate against Trump. It’s about the actual politics, I mean, the political substance of Clinton and Trump.
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is a difference between Clinton and Trump. And as I said, I find Trump’s agenda stomach-turning. But the reason Trump gets an echo is because people look at somebody like Clinton, and they see, correctly, her as an epitome of the establishment. Unfortunately for us, Trump is now, as you said, ghoulishly, but he is disingenuously posing as an outsider to the establishment, even though we all know he is very much an insider. He’s a multibillionaire. He represents the same interests of Wall Street that Hillary Clinton represents. The contrast between them is so little. That’s why you’re seeing this difficulty. So, in reality, if Hillary Clinton is not doing well against Trump, it’s because there is not enough of a contrast. The reason Trump is making gains is because you don’t have a real left to counter him.
REBECCA TRAISTER: I really disagree that the contrast between them is so little. I think the contrast between them is vast. I mean, I just—I understand that you’re saying there’s a difference, but I think it’s just not true that that difference is slim.
KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, no, I mean, I completely agree that they are different, but if you look at the actual realities on the ground, the people who are drawn towards Trump, I don’t agree—I mean, if the narrative that people are presenting is that millions of Americans have suddenly become racists and misogynists and hateful, I don’t agree with that. I mean, yes, there are complexities, obviously. But the reason he’s—the vast majority of his echo is because there are millions of people around this nation who are looking for an alternative to corporate America. And look at the state of Michigan, for example. One of the reasons Bernie and Donald Trump did well is because there was huge anger in the Midwest against NAFTA, and there is fear about the TPP.
So, let’s talk about the real political substance. We agree that there’s a difference, but I think—I think what’s missing here is the fact that this is a false choice. Yes, we agree there’s a difference between Clinton and Trump, but offering those two as choices and say, "Pick one," is a false choice for America. You know, you have America, which is the wealthiest country in the history of humanity, and poverty is skyrocketing. The vast majority of people cannot even weather a $1,000 unexpected financial bill. So, you know, we’re talking about people who are struggling to maintain a foothold into survival. Who is going to represent them? And we have to start somewhere. And we can’t make this false argument that it’s about this presidential election, because if it was about the presidential election, then why don’t we have the strongest candidate against Trump? We don’t have it, because the establishment does not believe in promoting that agenda.
REBECCA TRAISTER: I want to go back to your argument that the DNC rigged this, basically. I mean, you didn’t use the word "rigged," so I don’t want to put a word in your mouth. But—
KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, they rigged it. You can say that.
REBECCA TRAISTER: OK, OK, all right. It’s interesting looking at all the emails that were hacked and that have been released. And one of the things that struck me is that, of course, there was the horrendous sort of discussion of using Bernie’s faith against him. You know, it was very obvious that people within the DNC didn’t like Bernie Sanders. It doesn’t come as a huge surprise to me. I think the DNC was not operating well throughout this—throughout this primary season. But what I didn’t find, actually, was any evidence that there was any systemic rigging. I mean, Hillary Clinton won millions of more votes than Bernie Sanders over the course of these primaries. And there—yeah, there are all kinds of arguments about why and whether it should have gone that way. But, to me, there is—I have found no persuasive evidence.
I found evidence that people in the DNC did not like Bernie, that people in the party did not like Bernie. He hadn’t—you know, he recently joined the party. That’s very true, and I understand why it’s troublesome. But I haven’t seen any evidence that the process itself was rigged or that there was any actual—they couldn’t—they didn’t get it—there was nothing in all those emails about what they were going to do to stop this guy, who, yes, they were saying they didn’t like, but I think the idea that the DNC, a rather ineffectual organization, had an impact on what was a democratic—a deeply flawed process, that I wish we did differently in this country—but she won. By a lot.
KSHAMA SAWANT: I think—I think that if you are having your ear to the ground and listening to the millions of people, and not just the people outside—I mean, I’m not a member of the Democratic Party. You don’t have to take it from me. Take it from the 700 to 1,000 delegates of the Democratic Party that walked out on Wednesday. These are people, ordinary activists, of the Democratic Party, who have put their blood, sweat and tears into building the party because they’re fighting for social change. And for decades, they’ve wanted to believe that this party represents them. And they walked out because they don’t see this party as representing them.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there, but, of course, this conversation will continue, and I hope you’ll both come back with us to continue talking about this as we carry on covering this election through November, and, of course, the issues well beyond. That does it for the show. Rebecca Traister and Kshama Sawant, thank you so much for joining us. I want to say special thanks to our crew here at PhillyCAM.
RUBY BECKETT: I’m Ruby Beckett.
ANIS TAYLOR: Anis Taylor.
JENNIFER BURTON: Jennifer Burton.
JIHAD ALI: Jihad Ali.
CONNIE KOMM: Connie Komm [phon.]
PETE CELONA: Pete Celona.
DONALD BUTLER: Donald Butler.
JOSE HERNANDEZ: Jose Hernandez.
LAURA DEUTCH: Laura Deutch.
ANDREA SPRUILL: Andrea Spruill.
DAN HOITO: Dan Hoito [phon.].
RYAN SAUNDERS: Ryan Saunders.
KYSHA WOODS: Kysha Woods.
GRETJEN CLAUSING: Gretjen Clausing. And this is PhillyCAM.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the crew from PhillyCAM. I’ll be doing a report back from the conventions in two talks: tonight in Provincetown, Massachusetts, Provincetown Town Hall, and tomorrow night at Martha’s Vineyard at Old Whaling Church. Check democracynow.org.