Greeted As Liberators: The Meme Wars of 2016

The meme is the modern political cartoon: whether it's a screenshot of another's tweet or a complex graphic explaining a concept or situation, these image files have and continue to change public opinion, and influence the election. Russian hackers may or may not have modified the emails they (allegedly) stole from Podesta's Gmail account; the meme is, by definition, probably more authentic of a rhetorical document, even though memes are freely traded, culled, and edited. The "meme wars" of 2016-- if they happened at all-- represent a new kind of civic and political engagement. Ever since the inception of "Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash," and the creation of such monikers as Bernie Bro and Hill Bot, individuals have sought new ways to represent themselves, through what they post online. Organizations and political campaigns have created their own memes, with varying degrees of efficacy and weariness. Some memes are widely circulated; others are buried deep within comment threads, perhaps created as comment on specific discussions.

I've been collecting memes since just before the Democratic National Convention. In four different posts on my other blog, I have collected hundreds of memes (see links below). In this and other discussion of memes, any attribution to a work's creator is due only to that meme creator's initiative: adding a 'signature,' be it a Twitter handle or searchable phrase, has become a more common practice during the election cycle of 2016.

This author does not endorse or condone any of the memes included in this post (or any other posts compiling memes); rather, these images are presented here to challenge the definition of the "political cartoon," and to invite the idea that these memes hold power-- especially when communicated by people that others trust, like friends or family members. Some of these memes contain adult themes and language; some of these memes, through the use of Photoshop and other editing software, contain outright fraudulent images, depictions of events that have never happened, or could happen. The popularity of these images will not decline following the election of 2016; as with some of the memes included in this collection, some meme creators are beginning to use the form to comment on more aspects of our society than simply national politics. John Dewey, a hero to progressive education and pedagogy, said, "all communication is educative." It is in that spirit that these memes are shared here.

Each of the posts found at the links below contains hundreds of unique memes, as well as further discussion of their distribution and production.

July 30, 2016: http://commontimevt.blogspot.com/2016/07/meme-hell-2016.html

September 14, 2016: http://commontimevt.blogspot.com/2016/09/son-of-meme-hell.html

October 14, 2016: http://commontimevt.blogspot.com/2016/10/revenge-of-meme.html

October 22, 2016: http://commontimevt.blogspot.com/2016/10/hopelessly-devoted-to-memes.html

You Always Hurt The One You Love: A Short History of DNC Chairpersons

No one, it seems, can hold on to the position of Democratic Party Chair without making a mess of the Party or their own external career. The last person to hold the job was Howard "Ho Ho" Dean, during the transitory period that ended the W years, and thus something new had to happen. I can't credit Howard with the success of the election of Barack Obama-- though he surely played a hand in it, and I'm sure it was a good one. After Howard parted ways from the DNC, Vice Presidential hopeful Tim Kaine held the position for three years, before Donna Brazile took the seat on an interim basis. Within a few months after that, the permanent replacement-apparent had been found: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress, became Democratic National Committee chair in 2011.

The party gave Joe Biden the honor of announcing Schultz's appointment: "In selecting Debbie to lead our party," wrote Biden," President Obama noted her tenacity, her strength, her fighting spirit and her ability to overcome adversity." Schultz may have been a good choice for the position at the time: amid the re-election of Barack Obama, Schultz had the youth, the character, and the tenacity. Biden, Kaine, and other party operatives probably had a sense of how ugly it was going to get, as the Dems would have to confront a stalwart, do-nothing, Republican-controlled Congress. The "fighting spirit" Joe Biden described didn't come into play until Hillary Clinton began actively seeking the nomination.



Maybe no one but Hillary and her staff knew how difficult Wasserman Schultz's job was going to get: by early 2016, Debbie was appearing regularly on mainstream television news, making straight-faced excuses for what appeared to be the rampant misbehavior among her party's operatives, throughout the nominating process. To the American people, the Democratic Party necessarily appeared in control-- at least to an extent that misbehavior could be identified and discussed without having to necessarily to make just any specific situation. Nothing put it more bluntly than the Nevada Primary, at which chairs were thrown and the stage was lined with law enforcement officers after the state officials declared the nomination process over. Wasserman Schultz appeared on the networks, trying to contextualize the ugly scene, and also to appear to admonish those responsible for the facilitation of the process-- while still letting the results hold fast.



As the year wore on, it became harder to tell where the Party ended and the Clinton campaign began: Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi, the whole gang the country knew and loved (?), their strategic appearances increased, carefully crafting themselves as nearly separate entity from the one that was host to chair-throwing melee in Vegas. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders, the alleged front runner for the Democratic Nomination, spoke up clearly and loudly in opposition to the practices and actions of the DNC. Here's his account of what happened at the Nevada Primary:

At that convention the Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place. Among other things:

*The chair of the convention announced that the convention rules passed on voice vote, when the vote was a clear no-vote. At the very least, the Chair should have allowed for a headcount.
*The chair allowed its Credentials Committee to en mass rule that 64 delegates were ineligible without offering an opportunity for 58 of them to be heard. That decision enabled the Clinton campaign to end up with a 30-vote majority.
*The chair refused to acknowledge any motions made from the floor or allow votes on them.
*The chair refused to accept any petitions for amendments to the rules that were properly submitted.

“These are on top of failures at the precinct and county conventions including trying to depose and then threaten with arrest the Clark County convention credentials chair because she was operating too fairly.”

Wasserman Schultz took the heat, however and where ever she could, to keep the campaign going and the 'party moving forward.' Cloaked in vague language, the misdeeds of the Democratic Party leadership were generally ignored-- and I mean not only by Wasserman Schultz and Reid and Pelosi, but also by Obama and Joe Biden. I'm old enough to remember the foul taste that political corruption left in my mouth during W years, but the actions of the Democratic National Committee during the nominating process achieved a new low in American politics: it wasn't the executive branch of our government falling prey to the sweeping influence of the military-industrial-intel complex, but rather a hijacking of the very political process by which citizens may participate. The scam-- whatever and however it was, we're all still learning-- appears to have looked easier on paper than any 'hanging chad' situation or systematic voter suppression/apathy campaign. The DNC would simply raise up Hillary Clinton as their candidate, offering Sanders supporters whatever bone they were willing to throw their way. The DNC functioned under the impression that Sanders supporters would, with a shrug and a sigh, cast their votes for Hillary Clinton, after she became the inevitable, mathematical nominee. Whether this function of Clinton's nomination came true or not, we may never know: while media outlets have reiterated that the legions of former Bernie supporters are reliably in Clinton's column, wishing does not make it so. Neither does false reporting, or collusion between the media and a political party.



It was Wasserman Schultz's intention to maintain her post through the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia-- and she didn't last through the first morning. The first of many troves of Wikileaks had emerged, just as the Convention began; these characterized Debbie as a Clinton operative, willing to manipulate facts and figures in order to achieve the desired outcome. Booed at a gathering of her own state's representatives, Wasserman Schultz "stepped down"-- and was immediately given a position on Clinton's election campaign.

In stepped Donna Brazile, former interim chair turned CNN contributor. On July 25, CNN reported on Brazile's connection to the network, and explained the role she'd play going forward:

DNC Vice Chairwoman Donna Brazile will serve as interim chair through the election. She had been a CNN political commentator, but CNN and Brazile have mutually agreed to suspend their contract, effective immediately, although she will remain on air during the convention week in an unpaid capacity, CNN said. CNN will revisit the contract once Brazile concludes her role.
This arrangement would not last. Somewhere inside of the Podesta Emails, Brazile admitted to having handled and communicated questions to the Clinton campaign that would be used in one of CNN's Town Hall Debates between candidates: she was, in effect, letting Hillary know what to expect from the 'audience.' Whether or not CNN was willing to be complicit in Hillary's coronation, this revelation lifted the curtain on the production that was their "Town Hall Debates" (which surely did not achieve the ratings of the Republican Primary Debates, though they tried). 

Yesterday (Monday) CNN announced that Brazile had resigned from her post there almost two weeks prior; this announcement was made amid the debate-question-fraud shitstorm, in an effort by CNN to distance itself from the charade. The network's statement reinforced Brazile's wrongdoing: 

"CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate [...] We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.”

If "completely uncomfortable" wasn't enough of a condemnation, CNN chief David Zucker's tirade inside of the network's editorial board meeting on Tuesday morning became a headline by lunchtime: Brazile's illicit collaboration with the Clinton campaign was not just unethical, but damaging to the entire brand. "I have no tolerance for her behavior or that kind of behavior," Zucker proclaimed.  

If the Democratic National Committee dumps Brazile over her alleged collaborations, it will only be because they have someone in mind to take her place: the fictional Leslie Knope would be a good choice, but-- coming full circle-- Howard "Ho Ho" Dean would be more realistic. He is a CNN contributor as well, and has been once-removed from any visible positions of power within the DNC, though I'm sure his voice still carries weight. But would he still be willing, as he was in those idle and tranquil years, between 2005 and 2009? If the DNC retains Brazile as interim chair, it is because they can find no one else to take the job, at this late hour. 

Allen, M. and M. Ball. (4 Apr. 2011). "Wasserman Schultz..." Politico. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/wasserman-schultz-to-lead-dnc-052605

Calderone, M. (1 Nov. 2016). "CNN Chief..." Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cnn-donna-brazile-jeff-zucker_us_58189c8de4b064e1b4b4ba02

TruthDig. (2016). "Debbie Wasserman Schultz..." TruthDig. Retrieved from http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/dnc_chair_democratic_national_committee_remains_neutral_20160518?utm_source=feedburner&amp%3Butm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%25253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%25253A+Drilling+Beneath+the+Headlines

Zeleny, J. et. al. (25 July 2016). "Dems open convention..." CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/

Rage Inside the Machine

There is no joy in Mudville. 

As the week ended, new waves of emails came crashing upon the beaches of the Internet: another Wikileaks dump, of correspondence found inside John Podesta's inbox. CNN had been claiming the reading of the Wikileaks emails was actually illegal, and that they operated under different conditions, as journalists. Besides making clear the DNC's strategic and calculated navigation of the primary process, the Podesta emails reveal the internal workings of a political campaign: from the daily press briefings to the logistics of departures and arrivals to pleas for attention from voters, special interest groups, institutions, and organizations. The implication of these emails-- multiple troves of documents, each including thousands of files-- is unprecedented. Never before has a political campaign had the means to communicate with each other so directly, so clearly-- and never before has a citizenry been afforded such access. Imagine such a document dump during the time of the American Revolution: one must imagine first that such documentation was even maintained, let alone what the people in the streets would do with such information. We, however, who are still learning how best to Tweet and represent ourselves inside of the text boxes of Facebook, may still be most likely to fall for whatever story-cover produced by the mainstream media.

I found out in a conversation with my father that, as the week ended, Rush Limbaugh and I agreed on something: FBI Director Jim Comey's letter, which basically said a lot of legalistic nothing regarding the ongoing investigation of Hillary's email practices and security, may have been an intentional distraction from another round of Wikileaks. Focusing the American public's attention back to the mild reprimand of Hillary Clinton that emerged from within the government itself is surely preferable to having nothing for the people to focus on over the weekend: the less attention, and thus web traffic, the better. Rush Limbaugh's seeing this conspiracy for different reasons than mine-- he wants to see a Trump presidency, and is willing . I am in favor of neither candidate, and felt like an anarchist as I cast my absentee ballot for Jill Stein, a candidate I do not agree with fully but believe isn't part of The Machine, as it were.

Image by Kim Dotcom (seen here in green).

The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton, who has been, at the very least, part of a two-person team of attorneys that have already had a major effect on the United States of America. The heartfelt narrative, of the wide-eyed white lawyer woman working on behalf of children and families across this country-- whether it's true or not-- has been overshadowed by this massive set of circumstances and circumstantial evidence. Like a child who has surrounded themselves with a wall of building blocks of their own making, Hillary-- not any nanny, caretaker, aide, or consultant-- has put herself in this horrifically awkward position.

John Kass's Saturday morning editorial in the Chicago Tribune tried to turn the tide on the Presidential campaign of 2016; as I write this, talking heads across the networks are offering their Sunday-morning contextualization of his clear demands. "If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process," wrote Kass,


"they would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place."

Under the weight of a network of her own making, Clinton's ability to govern has been irreparably damaged, forever tainted by the means of her questionable rise to power. Kass begins with a reasonable argument: were she to win, the potential for us to endure another "long national nightmare" is too great to put up with any longer. The "[...] during this presidential campaign, Americans were confronted with a two-tiered system of federal justice: one for standards for the Clintons and one for the peasants." Kass doesn't have to go any farther than to make his claim about "federal justice"-- but anyone with a Facebook account knows the landscape of right and wrong and good and bad in this country has become far more complicated than pitting Cruella DeVille against the well-being of some adorable puppies. Kass knows Hillary's 'getting-away-with-it' cannot be undone or unmuted, but could prove to be a scourge on our democracy, long after the election is over and a winner is declared.

If there is A Machine at work, this situation could not have been a part of their plan. The Podesta emails, brought to us by Wikileaks, reveal the internal workings of the Clinton campaign-- with far more nuance and detail than anyone may have expected (these emails include communication related to HRC's failed bid for the Presidency in 2008). So much of the email dump is banal, the kind of emails we all accumulate: documentation of our situational awareness, 'FYI' messages from institutions and organizations, and endless back-and-forth exchanges regarding logistics. These emails have not yet produced information that would end Hillary's campaign, and few are willing to speak about the true motivations of Julian Assange have yet to be uncovered (Russian operative or unprincipled computer whiz?). Snowden, Anonymous, and other shadowy entities have shied away from giving context to the most recent bouts of Wikileaks. The most there is to go on is this Twitter exchange in late July 2016, between Snowden and Assange.

The difference between the philosophies of these two men is important to understanding our modern information warfare: one claims to believe "modest curation" of the release of illegally-accessed information to be critical to its maximum impact, while the other characterizes "curation" as "censorship." Before this Twitter tussle, Snowden appeared in the April 2016 issue of Reason magazine, where he drew distinctions between himself and Assange ("I am not anti-secrecy. I am pro-accountability." as cited by Feeney).

In the spirit of Snowden's distinction, I browsed the latest Wikileaks dump last night, and found the server processing search requests to be reliably unavailable (how many other thousands of people were wading through this, I wondered?). There were over seven pages to visit; each page held a few dozen emails, sorted by subject line, sender, and recipients. I was struck by one email-- copied below-- from early November, 2008. With the confidence of a job well done (or as well as possible) and with the promise of continued work within the Executive Branch of the government, Hillary's team communicates about a list of "proposed briefings to be requested"-- that is, the global and domestic situations on which she needed more information. Some of the places and countries on these lists are familiar headlines; this list, written in the blissful early winter of 2008, when the nation was busy celebrating the election of our first black President, and all seemed right with the world (within weeks, he would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize). This email represents the beginning of an era in the United States' foreign policy: on military intervention, the expansion or moderation of trade, and our increased collaboration with other countries, to fight global terrorism. ISIS, domestic gun violence and mass shootings, racial violence and law enforcement's abuse of power, climate change-- these do not appear on this list (to my knowledge; there are many mysterious acronyms). What does appear, at the top of both lists, are the United States' ongoing conflicts: where boots may or may not have been on the ground at the time (2008), but where American lives may have been lost in the eight years that have followed. It is the context of these lists that adds an unescapable chill (I liberally added line breaks, but changed not a word): the non-governmental email addresses (AOL; GMail) are troubling, but not as much as the communication's final line. Attached automatically, it brands the entire transmission to be part of a larger, dark toolbar-- an application on someone's desktop, just like yours.


###


Re: Proposed Briefings to be Requested

From:ricesusane@aol.com To: mlippert@barackobama.com, dmcdonough@barackobama.com, djsberg@gmail.com, tblinken@barackobama.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, john.podesta@ptt.gov 

Date: 2008-11-07 18:29 

Subject: Re: Proposed Briefings to be Requested


yes, we envisioned that as part of ongoing operations.? Would you separate it out? Come to think of it, we should also ask for AFRICOM brief.


-----Original Message-----


From: Mark Lippert <mlippert@barackobama.com>

To: Ricesusane@aol.com;

Denis McDonough <dmcdonough@barackobama.com>;

djsberg@gmail.com;

Antony (Tony) Blinken <tblinken@barackobama.com>; 

john.podesta@gmail.com;

john.podesta@ptt.gov


Sent: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 3:19 pm


Subject: Re: Proposed Briefings to be Requested

Just skimming - I'd throw CTJF-HOA brief into the mix for DOD.


From: ricesusane@aol.com

To: Denis McDonough; Mark Lippert; djsberg@gmail.com ; Antony (Tony) Blinken; john.podesta@gmail.com ; john.podesta@ptt.gov


Sent: Fri Nov 07 14:17:07 2008


Subject: Proposed Briefings to be Requested


Below is the list of briefings Jim and I propose we request of the IC and others for senior transition national security staff over the coming weeks.?? A subset of these TBD could subsequently be requested for POTUS-E and VPOTUS-E.? We leave it to others to decide if it?is desirable and appropriate for POTUS-E to request any or all of these in his meeting?with Bush on Monday). We welcome your thoughts.

IC


Iraq


Iran


Afghanistan


Pakistan


Russia


China


MEPP and region


Mexico


Counter-narcotics and Crime


North Korea


Al Qaeda and global CT threat


Global WMD Threat (bio, chem and nuclear)


Cybersecurity and CI


IRDPA briefs






NSC Policy briefings on:






Iraq


Iran


Afghanistan


Pakistan


Russia


China


MEPP and region


North Korea


Al Qaeda and global CT threat


Global WMD Threat (bio, chem and nuclear)


Cybersecurity


Mexico


Counter-narcotics and Crime


Syria


Lebanon


Egypt


Saudi Arabia


Darfur


Zimbabwe


DRC


Weak States strategy


OMB Budget briefing


DOD


Ongoing Operations


Iraq


Afghanistan


Pakistan


Nuclear safety and security


Readiness


Homeland Security Infrastructure


security


Border security


Disease/pandemic preparedness


First respone/disaster preparedness


Crisis Response plans/processes and continuity in government


Instant access to the latest & most popular FREE games while you browse with the Games Toolbar - Download Now!

###

Feeney, M. (April 2016). "Snowden makes distinction..." Reason [magazine]. Retrieved from http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/09/snowden-makes-distinction-between-himsel

Kass, J. (29 Oct. 2016). "Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside." Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-kass-1030-20161028-column.html

Wikileaks. (2016). "Re: Proposed briefings to be requested." Podesta Emails. Retrieved from https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1299

Stars and Stripes

Hillary Clinton's Nightmare at 20,000 Feet

The Clinton campaign plane was in the air this morning, traveling to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and then on to Des Moines, a two hour drive. The whole crew was reported to have been on board: Huma, Jennifer Palmieri, the unnamed aides seen aside Clinton in so many photographs, all riding along on the short flight to the next stop in the vast state of Iowa. For some reason, the plane's wifi wasn't working when they left Cedar Rapids, leaving all of them in the dark, virtually. This was important as to how the day was said to have unfolded, because while they were in the air, the news broke: news that would linger like a stench in the air for days to come. FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to Congress making clear that he was re-opening the investigation into Hillary's email server.

Imagine those moments on the tarmac, with the whole gang still cloistered inside the plane, as they huddled around screens, reading information that the rest of the world had been digesting for dozens of minutes, close to an hour even. The Clinton campaign-- the front runner for President of the United States and her entire staff-- flew through their own version of Serling's Twilight Zone today, an unexplained vortex of information. I imagine it had been peaceful, or at least as peaceful as those birds had it, the ones that were trapped in the eye of Hurricane Matthew a few weeks back, as it rounded Florida. Networks were reading Comey's letter verbatim, unable to contextualize. I was driving around the roundabout in Trinidad, Colorado when I heard the excited voice of Phil Mattingly on CNN (via Sirius). Phil had been patiently waiting at the gate for nothing but this plane to arrive, and now suddenly had a story on his hands:
 "The plane did not have wi-fi during the entire fight. So you have senior advisors, as well as Hillary Clinton on the plane, and as the plane landed they were finding out about this as we were landing. I had one advisor tell me, 'we're learning about that at the same time you guys are.' They didn't have advanced notice of this, they seem similarly stunned and we saw them huddling, we've been waiting for Hillary Clinton to deplane to go to that first event in Cedar Rapids, as of now she has not. [...]
She's expected to speak in about 20 minutes. She hasn't gotten off the plane yet. The reporters are waiting outside her plane right now to yell and see if she'll come over and say anything. Usually the deplaning process happens rather quickly, but it's worth noting her top advisors are on the plane, campaign manager Robby Mook, communications director Jen Palmieri, Huma Abedin, her close advisor is also on the plane right now. They have not deplaned yet. Still waiting far to happen, waiting to see if they will have reaction. I think the takeaway is they had no idea this was coming so they're trying to formulate a response right now."

Once Hill was en route to her scheduled event, John Podesta-- of the email treasure trove fame-- came out as swingingly as one can against the Director of the FBI, claiming the timing of this letter plays right into the small, greasy hands of nobody's favorite land developer. Diane Feinstein was also appalled and said so to the press. The New York Times ran a feature about a 26-year-old lawyer on a road trip to follow not just her dreams but her heart, right into Arkansas. The Washington Post found a nameless Comey apologist who filled up word count quickly, with endless rhetorical questions:
"What would it look like if the FBI inadvertently came across additional emails that appear to be relevant to the Clinton investigation and not at least inform the Oversight Committee that this occurred? What would be the criticism then? That the FBI hid it? That the FBI purposely kept this information to themselves?" What, surely, was a poor, ethically-upstanding government official to do? Delete the files? Delay the process? Put it off for a month? I've always heard that's how, sometimes, it works. Some other news sites describe the brink of World War III-- irreegardless of the outcome of this charade of an election-- so I can't help but wonder if I'm intentionally supposed to be caught up in the drama of Hillary's gang using unauthorized email addresses (like huma.abedin@yahoo.com, as the Drudge Report ran this afternoon), instead of asking about the implications of what was said to be a close call by US and Russian air forces in the skies over Syria, which happened within the same news cycle as this re-ignited email controversy. The NYTimes also cited a former Watergate attorney, Nick Ackerman, as saying it's not the place of the FBI director to be making such a scene, about any ongoing investigation, "never mind about an investigation based on evidence that he acknowledges may not be significant." He's right, but in this election year, it has been just about anybody's business, to get up on the wing of the airplane and jump around like a madman-- metaphorically, if not rhetorically. Clinton did the same-- jumped up and down on the wing of her own plane-- later in the day, demanding documentation from the FBI regarding the status of the email investigation (what else can one do?), while the New York Post was running humiliating PhotoShop jobs of Anthony Weiner on their front page, as it came to be understood that Huma's ex-husband-- the texting, sexting freak-- was a likely cause for Comey's renewed and public interest. The election of Barack Obama in 2008 made a statement about race in the United States. The election of 2016 has sadly become a statement about the behavior of the most piggish and deplorable of men: the adulterers, the molesters, the abusers, and the portion of us that collectively look the other way. Charlie Sheen, Bill Cosby-- these people never ran for office. If Anthony Weiner is at the center of Comey's re-opening of the investigation, this scandal will dissipate as quickly as anyone's reservations about Trump's "locker room talk." But there is something much uglier than that on the wing of the plane these days.

Horwitz, S. (28 Oct. 2016). The Washington Post. "FBI Director..." Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-james-b-comey-under-fire-for-his-controversial-decision-on-the-clinton-email-inquiry/2016/10/28/fbad009c-9d57-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html

Hains, T. (28 Oct. 2016). "CNN Reports..." RealClearPolitics. Retrieved from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/28/cnn_reporter_on_clintons_plane_she_learned_about_fbi_reopening_case_at_the_same_time_you_did.html

Presidential Debate Bingo

Bingo card for the final Presidential debate.