Is Hillary Clinton Serious About Fighting Climate Change? Or Just Telling Us What We Want To Hear?

Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton held her first official town hall meeting in New Hampshire. It took place in Dover, a town of just under 30,000 located in the southeast corner of the Granite State.

The leading Democratic candidate for president took a variety of questions from the swing-state crowd, ranging from the Iran Deal and marriage equality to mass incarceration and the minimum wage, but it was a series of questions on climate change that caused an uproar.

First, a University of New Hampshire student asked Hillary a simple "yes" or "no" question about whether or not she would ban the extraction of fossil fuels on public lands. Much to the chagrin of climate activists, Clinton replied: "the answer is no until we get alternatives into place."

Moments later, another UNH student pressed Hillary again, saying she was "disappointed" by her "refusal to take leadership on climate change." She then asked Hillary- point blank- if her lack of climate action was due to the fact that she takes massive campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry.

"No, no it's not," she replied, before going on a longwinded tangent about how the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy will take time and we can't just do it all overnight because it will "disrupt our economy."

Underwhelmed by her vague, non-committal answer, the crowd voiced their displeasure in deafening fashion, erupting in boisterous chants of "Act on Climate. Act On Climate. Act on Climate."

For the first time in her campaign, it was clear that Hillary wasn't willing, prepared or able to take on climate change in the substantive way that is needed in order to prevent environmental doomsday.


CHANGING HER TUNE

Just a few weeks after the New Hampshire town hall, Hillary finally began focusing her campaign on climate change.

First came a powerful, short video called "Stand for Reality," in which Hillary highlights the threat of climate change and excoriates Republicans for denying science.

"You don't have to be a scientist to take on this urgent challenge that threatens us all. You just have to be willing to act."

Then, she unveiled two ambitious climate goals: install at least half a billion solar panels by the end of her first team and power every home in America with renewable energy within 10-years.

Climate activists all across the country applauded the move. Many were downright ecstatic. After months of barely even mentioning climate change, Hillary was taking on the issue in a substantive, meaningful way.

Sadly, despite Hillary's newfound focus on climate change, environmental activists must question whether she's truly serious about fighting climate change or just charming her progressive base to shore up votes for 2016.

There are two reasons for this.

First, Hillary continues to accept millions of dollars in campaign contributions from fossil fuel lobbyists. As a recent Huffington Post article points out, some of her biggest bundlers "have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports."

Second, Hillary refuses to oppose or even comment on the Keystone XL Pipeline. As Secretary of State, she was "inclined" to approve the pipeline, however, as a Democratic candidate for president, she has yet to voice an opinion either way.

This infuriates climate activists.

While many non-environmentalists see the Keystone Pipeline as an overblown issue unworthy of such polarization and notoriety, it holds deep, symbolic meaning for climate activists.

The Earth is at a crossroads. We are standing at a fork in the road, overlooking the cliff of climate disaster. We can either continue extracting, polluting and warming our planet or we can transition to wind, solar and other renewable energy forms which will save us from climate judgment day.

With Hillary, we still don't know which road she would take.

"In the largest sense, it's her hedging-of-bets that makes the rest of us so wary. Dealing with climate change in a serious way will take enormous commitment in the face of many strong opponents; we need strong signals that our president would be resolute in this crucial task." -Bill McKibben

WILL THE REAL HILLARY PLEASE STAND UP

Recently, a former lead NASA climate scientist issued a bombshell report showing that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster that previously thought, which will cause the sea level to rise "at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years."

You don't have to be a scientist to realize that this is a "holy shit" moment for our planet.

This comes on the heels of a report that 2015 is on track to be the hottest year ever recorded.

The science is clear. But even if you don't believe it, just open your eyes. Wherever you look, it's obvious that the planet is sick and the fever is rising.

This past week, Iraq has been plagued by four-straight 120+ degree days, 25 degrees higher than normal for this time of year. In Iran, one city is experiencing a heat index of 163 degrees, which is close to a world record. This comes just a few months after a massive heat wave killed 2,000+ in India and another heat wave in Pakistan killed more than 1,200.

Here in America, extreme weather is everywhere. We are coming off a winter in which the northeast got record amounts of snowfall. Months ago, Texas experienced the worst flooding ever recorded. In California, the drought is so bad they only have one year of water left. Throughout Alaska and much of the West, out-of-control wildfires are raging, burning millions of acres of land. Florida and Louisiana are falling into the ocean as we speak.

Hillary's newfound focus on climate change is commendable. Her proposal to install half a billion solar panels is worthy of applause. So is her goal of powering every home in America with renewable energy within 10 years.

But the climate crisis we face is too daunting and too severe to take half-measures. It demands 100% commitment across the board. Solar panels are great, but their impact will be limited if we continue to frack, build more pipelines and allow new drilling projects in the Arctic.

We need a president in 2016 who recognizes the depth of the climate crisis we face. We need a president who isn't beholden to the fossil fuel industry. We need a president who acts boldly and takes real action to prevent climate apocalypse. We need a president who doesn't play politics with the future of the planet.

I'm thrilled to see Hillary finally take on climate change, but as long as she continues to accept money from fossil fuel lobbyists and refuses to oppose the Keystone Pipeline, the country will be left wondering just how serious she is about preventing environmental doomsday.

Austerity Isn't The Only Reason Why Greece Is In Shambles

In progressive, Democratic circles all across America (and throughout the West), the Greek Referendum vote has been championed as not only a major victory for the working class, but also a global indictment against austerity.

By rejecting another round of harmful budget cuts as part of a new bailout package, Greece loudly and unequivocally said "enough" to the elitist overlords who are bleeding the common man dry.

Bernie Sanders celebrated the decision, saying "I applaud the people of Greece for saying 'no' to more austerity... In a world of massive wealth and income inequality Europe must support Greece's efforts to build an economy which creates more jobs and income, not more unemployment and suffering."

Paul Krugman also cheered the "No" vote: "The truth is that Europe's self styled technocrats are like medieval doctors who insisted on bleeding their patients- and when their treatment made the patient sicker, demanded even more bleeding."

In an open letter published in The Nation, world renowned economist Thomas Piketty echoed Krugman's thoughts: "The medicine prescribed by the German Finance Ministry and Brussels has bled the patient, not cured the disease."

"The Greeks have complied with much of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's call for austerity- cut salaries, cut government spending, slashed pensions, privatized and deregulated, and raised taxes. But in recent years the series of so-called adjustment programs inflicted on the likes of Greece has served only to make a Great Depression the likes of which have been unseen in Europe since 1929-1933."

Throughout the process, Merkel has emerged as a de-facto villain in the eyes of the left-leaning media: a German version of Paul Ryan on steroids. She has been painted as unruly, even bloodthirsty, holding Greece hostage, demanding more and more cuts that hurt the poor and the working class in exchange for debt relief.

However, despite the fact that austerity has plunged Greece deeper into financial meltdown, it isn't the only reason why the financial crisis exists.

The Greeks must shoulder part of the blame as well.


NO COUNTRY FOR TAXED MEN

In a fascinating piece for Vanity Fair (published in 2010), critically acclaimed author Michael Lewis travels to Athens to speak to Greek monks, tax collectors and government officials about the country's financial system.

His findings are mind-blowing.

Corruption runs rampant throughout Greece. The entire country runs on bribes. Everyone lies about their income. No one pays taxes. All the books are cooked. Money is laundered through massive, under-the-table real estate deals. No records are ever kept. Everything is "handwritten and hard to decipher."

"The Greek people never learned to pay their taxes. And they never did because no one is punished. It's a cavalier offense- like a gentlemen not opening a door for a lady."

This massive, widespread and systematic lying and cheating has crippled not just the Greek economy but the Greek culture as well. Simply put, civic ties are crumbling because Greeks don't trust each other. It's become an "every man for himself" society.

"No success of any kind is regarded without suspicion. Everyone is pretty sure everyone is cheating on his taxes, or bribing politicians, or taking bribes, or lying about the value of his real estate. And this total absence of faith in one another is self-reinforcing. The epidemic of lying and cheating and stealing makes any sort of civic life impossible; the collapse of civic life only encourages more lying, cheating and stealing."

Sure, the austerity measures pushed by Merkel and the rest of the Eurozone have poured gasoline on the Greek fire, but the initial spark wasn't lit in a vacuum. It was lit within.

As Lewis explains, "[Greece] behaves as a collection of atomized particles, each of which has grown accustomed to pursuing its own interest at the expense of the common good."

A society that functions this way cannot succeed. Even the best financial system in the world is doomed to fail if the people running it are only looking out for themselves.


CHANGING FROM WITHIN

Greece is the birthplace of democracy. To save their financial system and their soul, the Greeks must return to their democratic roots.

Voting against austerity was the first step on this journey toward salvation. More harmful cuts will only plunge Greece further into the abyss. A new course must be charted. The current one just isn't working.

But democracy is more than just voting. You can't just cast a ballot every few years and then exit the democratic process entirely. Democracy comes with responsibilities. It requires citizenship.

To turn the country around, the Greek culture must change. Corruption must be rooted out. No more bribes. No more cheating your taxes. No more fake real estate deals. No more cooking the books.

In the end, austerity is only one side of the Greek crisis coin.

To save their country, their economy and their way of life, Greeks must also change within.

Taking Down the Confederate Flag Isn't Enough: We Must Remove All Public Ties To The Confederacy, Everywhere

When I first heard that the Confederate flag was still flying high on the grounds of the South Carolina state Capitol I was shocked.

I may be a "Yankee liberal" from the North, but I figured that, surely, in the year 2015, a symbol of unabashed racial hatred would have been taken down decades ago. How could it possibly still be hung in a public space of a modern society, in a state capitol no less? 

I've never spent much time in the South, but I know the Confederate flag is still popular. Even in my home state of Massachusetts, a liberal bastion of progressive ideals, I still pass by trucks with Confederate flag stickers or license plates. I know the flag is kept alive by individual citizens who choose to wave it, but I thought for sure statehouses all across the country outlawed it.

Sadly, I was wrong.

If a silver lining exists in the wake of the horrific Charleston attack, in which a self-proclaimed white supremacist killed 9 African American churchgoers, it's the fact that millions of Americans all across the country have rose up in unison to demand that the Confederate flag be removed from the South Carolina capitol grounds. 

But that's not enough. We must remove all public ties to the Confederacy, everywhere.

SURROUNDED BY INJUSTICE

Imagine, for a second, that you are the great-great grandson or great-great granddaughter of a slave.

Everyday, you are forced to walk down "Jefferson Davis Boulevard."

Everyday, you pass by your state capitol building and see a Confederate flag waving high and proud.

Everyday, you drive by the same monument that honors the people who fought to keep your family enslaved.

Everyday, you go to school to try to escape the Confederate ghosts that chase you, but how can you concentrate or learn when your school is named after Stonewall Jackson?

Maybe you leave school and seek solace in a park. But how can you enjoy any peace or tranquility when it's named after Robert E. Lee?

With nowhere to go, you decide to just get in your car and drive. You aren't going anywhere in particular, but you know you want to get as far away from this place as you can. But even then, you realize you are driving on "Jefferson Davis Highway."

No matter where you turn, you are surrounded by reminders of a torturous, totalitarian regime that kept your ancestors in chains.

Even if you have no ancestral link to slavery, this is a gross injustice that must end, once and for all.

NOT MY HERITAGE

Many defenders of the Confederate flag say it deserves to live on forever because it "honors Southern heritage." They always seem to ignore the fact that is dishonors the heritage of African Americans.

In the case of South Carolina, it's important to note that the flag has not been flying high for 150+ years. It was first hung in 1961 to protest against the Civil Rights Movement. Honoring Southern "heritage" had nothing to do with it.

The Confederate flag is a symbol of hate. It is an emblem of a murderous, treasonous regime that tortured, raped, enslaved and systematically oppressed innocent Africans, stealing them from their homeland and robbing them of their identities forever.

Taking down the Confederate flag is a necessary first step we must take on the long journey of making amends with the sins of our past.

But we can't stop there. We must remove all ties to the Confederacy in public places. 

We must take down all Confederate monuments and statues. We must re-name Confederate streets, schools, parks and highways. We must take a stand against all public relics that honor, memorialize or pay homage to the most evil institution in American history.

However, to erase them entirely would be a mistake. Instead, we should place the flags, monuments and statues in museums, much like how Germany turned Auschwitz into a museum. They must stand forever as a reminder of how oppressive, immoral and horrifying slavery was.

If you want to hang a Confederate flag on your porch or in your back yard, go for it. I vehemently disagree and think it's incredibly offensive, but the beauty of America is that we give you the right to express yourself freely. Freedom of speech allows you the freedom to be ignorant and divisive.

Getting rid of the Confederate flag won't cure racism. Neither will removing statues or re-naming high schools. But it's the right thing to do. It is the best way to honor the lives of those killed not only in Charleston, but all across our country over the past 400 years.

As long as a young African American is forced to walk down Robert E. Lee Road or attend Jefferson Davis High School, the stain of centuries of injustice will remain.

Take it down.

Take it all down.

It's Time to Embrace, Arm and Support the Kurds

The Middle East is a complex and dangerous place where alliances are confusing and violence seemingly never ends, at least in the eyes of many Americans like myself who try to make sense of it from afar.

On the surface, religion plays a major role in fanning the flames of bloodshed. Despite being brothers of Islam, the Sunnis hate the Shias and the Shias hate the Sunnis. It may be a naive generalization, but most all conflicts in the Middle East stem from this sectarian divide, whether we are willing to admit it or not.

However, religion isn't the only factor at play. Behind the veil of the Sunni/Shia divide, two hegemonic powers- Saudi Arabia and Iran- battle for influence and control. Both countries fund and support various groups, using them as vehicles in a massive proxy-war to re-shape the region in their image.

But beyond religious hatreds and warring spheres of influence, it starts to get confusing when you look at who's fighting who on the ground.

In their mythic quest to establish a caliphate, ISIS is fighting everyone, killing both Sunnis and Shias, as well as Yazidis, Christians and any other religious sect that stands in their way.

Iranian Shiite militias and the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah are fighting ISIS in Iraq and defending Assad in Syria.

Assad is fighting the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Al-Qaeda aligned Jabhat al-Nusra (JAN).

The Army of Conquest, a massive new rebel coalition supported by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, is fighting ISIS and hopes to topple Assad.

Thousands of miles away, the United States focuses like a laser beam on ISIS, grappling with how to proceed in the war against the barbaric terrorists. Sure, we are bombing dozens of ISIS targets each day (and we have been for nearly a year). And yes, every now and again we carry out SEAL-team raids on ISIS leaders in Syria.

But despite spending millions and now billions of dollars launching non-stop airstrikes, ISIS continues to gain ground. Just recently they took the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra as well as Ramadi, one of the biggest cities in Iraq's Anbar district.

Obama's plan has succeeded only in the fact that he has spared the lives of countless American troops by not ordering a massive ground war. But in terms of actually "degrading and destroying" ISIS, Obama's plan is not working.

It's time to change course and take a new approach. It's time to embrace, arm and support the Kurds.


AN OASIS OF HOPE

For the US, finding reliable allies on the ground to fight ISIS is extremely difficult.

The Iraqi army, which we've spent over a decade training and billions of dollars supporting, can no longer be counted on. Despite outnumbering their ISIS opponents, the Iraqi army has cut and run on multiple occasions when faced with an ISIS attack, famously tossing aside their arms last year in Mosul and again recently in Ramadi. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter summed it up best when he said that the Iraqi army "lacks the will to fight."

So if we can't rely on the Iraqi army, who can we rely on?

We can't partner with Jabhat al-Nusra. Sure, they are one of the leading rebel groups trying to topple Assad, who we can't stand, but they are also a designated Al-Qaeda terrorist group.

We can't ally with Shiite militias because it will fan sectarian flames and give the impression that we are acting as Iran's air force, which will only alienate moderate Sunnis, driving them further into ISIS's hands.

We can't possibly partner with Assad, the brutal Syrian butcher who has ruthlessly killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians with barrel bombs and chemical weapons. While Assad may represent a "lesser of two evils" when compared to ISIS, the US position remains that Assad "must go."

Our best (and maybe our only) option is to partner with the Kurds and make them our new, number one ally in the region.

EMBRACING THE KURDS

An oasis amidst a sea of never-ending despair, the Kurds are a perfect prospective ally for the US.

First off, they are one of the only forces on the ground with the courage to fight ISIS (the Peshmerga, the name of the Kurdish military, roughly translates to "one who confronts death"). They never cut and run, as evidenced by their successful defense of Kobane despite a massive, months-long ISIS onslaught.

But they're not just brave warriors who we can rely on in battle, they also have great character.

The Kurds have similar values as us Americans. They aren't run by a radical religious dogma. They believe in democracy. They are largely secular. In a region where women are oppressed in all directions, the Kurds treat their women as equals. They don't wear burkas. They aren't confined to the house. They aren't banned from driving cars or getting an education. They are valued members of society. They even fight in the military, risking their lives on the front lines just like their male counterparts.

For the Kurds, gender is not a dividing concept. All that matters in that they are Kurdish. The collective pride and honor they have for their shared heritage and traditions provides them with unshakeable courage. They are fiercely loyal to their history and their land. This gives them the will to fight when others wouldn't. They are defending not only their territory, but their way of life.

They also honor their dead with spectacular respect, even if the dead isn't their own. Just look at how they reacted to the death of Keith Broomfield, an American who, after seeing ISIS rampage across the Middle East, decided to move to Syria to fight with the Kurds.

The Kurds welcomed him with open arms. They respected his sacrifice to a cause that was not his own. When Broomfield was killed recently, the entire town of Kobane took to the streets and held a massive funeral for Broomfield. They draped his coffin in a Kurdish flag. Young Kurdish children held pictures of Broomfield as they marched.

To the Kurds, Broomfield wasn't an American "infidel" or "crusader." He was one of their own. He was a martyr and a hero- and they treated him as such.

In the history books of our coming generations our children will learn of the brave foreign warriors who came to Rojava to fight for a land that was not theirs. They came to fight for freedom and democracy, for humanity and liberty. They will never be forgotten. -The Lions of Rojava

This connection is proof that the Kurds and Americans aren't so different after all. We have the capacity to work together, to respect and sympathize with each other, despite coming from opposite ends of the Earth.

A NEW LONG-TERM ALLIANCE

The US would be wise to align itself with the Kurds. Not only are they the only force in the region with the courage to fight ISIS, but they also happen to embrace democracy. They share a lot of the same values we do: love of country, love of freedom and liberty, respect for women, equal rights, education. They are also compassionate, honorable and have great dignity.

We must fund the Kurds and give them all the support, equipment and training they need. We must shift our resources from Baghdad- a dysfunctional capital where nothing seems to get done- and move it to Kurdistan. Kobane should become the new home base of US efforts against ISIS. This is key because it would allow us to stop taking sides in the Sunni-Shia conflict and align ourselves with a democratic people who share the same values we do.

Also, with Iran and Saudi Arabia engaged in a heavyweight battle to win the Middle East and the future of Syria undecided, having a strong, prosperous Kurdistan aligned with the US would be a huge victory for America. Kurdistan could be the new buffer between the two warring hegemonic powers. It also gives the US options, leverage and a reliable partner on the ground to fight ISIS or other jihadist groups should they emerge victorious when the dust settles in Syria.

In the end, Iraq as we know it no longer exists. The borders drawn by Sykes-Picot, which carved up the Middle East into new nation states after the fall of the Ottoman Empire during WWI, are being washed away through brute force and bloodshed. The warring factions on the ground are drawing the new map. And in this new Middle East, allegiances are not based upon nationalism, or love of country, but instead by religious affiliation.

The US needs to stop being so reactionary in the Middle East. We must stop holding onto the past and instead anticipate the future, which is normally difficult but in this case it's obvious.

Joe Biden's prophetic vision- once lampooned- has been proven true: the only way to solve the Iraq problem is to allow the country to split into three autonomous regions: Sunni Iraq, Shia Iraq and Kurd Iraq.

Helping the Kurds achieve official statehood, something they've dreamed of for decades and proven they are deserving of, isn't just the right thing to do, it's strategically smart.

The old, Western-drawn borders mean nothing anymore. And when the new borders are decided, the US will be left out completely if we don't align ourselves with a worthy partner that can survive the redistricting of the region.

Now, more than ever, the US needs a reliable ally it can count on in the Middle East.

That ally is the Kurds.

It's Now or Never on Climate

Two major weather events took place on opposite sides of the world this past week.

In Texas, torrential downpours dropped more than 11 inches of rain in just 6 hours, causing apocalyptic-type flooding not seen in more than 500 years.

The images from Houston and other surrounding areas are terrifying. Once sleepy streams have turned into raging rivers, washing away roads, bridges and anything else in their path. Cars and trucks float where streets once stood. Now they are stranded like relics of a bygone era, replaced by kayaks and canoes.

Thousands of homes have been damaged or destroyed. More than 20 people have been killed, with many more missing or unaccounted for. Volunteer emergency crews have been working around the clock to save people trapped in their homes.

In Wimberly, the Blanco River produced a 44-foot high surge, shattering the previous record of 32 feet, which was set in 1926. One official said the river rose 12-14 feet in just 30 minutes and grew 223 cubic feet per second, the fastest rate ever recorded.

Meanwhile, in India another extreme weather event is wreaking even more havoc. But it isn't a flood. It's a heat wave.

So far, more than 1,400 people have been killed in less than one week, mostly due to dehydration and heat stroke. The majority of the deaths came from "people who don't have access to air conditioning," namely construction workers, the poor/homeless and the elderly.

In Delhi it reached 113 degrees. In other areas, temperatures hit 122 degrees, just 1 degree shy of the all-time record. It's gotten so bad that people are being ordered to stay in their homes and not go outside. It's so hot that roads are literally melting.

While the historic flooding in Texas and the deadly heat wave in India are completely different forms of extreme weather, they are both products of the same root cause: climate change.


REDEFINING CLIMATE CHANGE

For years, climate change was framed through the lens of polar bears and rising sea levels. But now, thanks to an explosion of mega-storms, floods, droughts and blizzards, we are realizing that melting ice caps are only one part of the overall climate crisis.

The other part is extreme weather.

Hurricane Sandy was the wake up call, a seminal moment when humanity's eyes were opened to the undeniable fact that we had entered a new climate reality, one where old, predictable weather patterns were replaced by bigger, stronger, more violent weather events than ever before.

Since Sandy, it's only gotten worse. We've had record snowfall in the Northeast and an unprecedented drought in California. Now we have a 500-year flood in Texas and a sweltering heat wave in India.

The rise in extreme weather coincides with the fact that the planet continues to warm and carbon emissions continue to rise. (It may have gone largely under the radar, but the Earth reached a "global milestone" in March when CO2 emissions reached 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history).

As a result, any conversation about combating extreme weather must start with combating climate change. The two are intertwined.


SEARCHING FOR SOLUTIONS

Solars panels, wind turbines and electric cars are a step in the right direction but they're not enough. If we want to prevent environmental doomsday, we must keep the remaining carbon in the ground and completely reinvent the way we live our lives.

This means no more drilling. No more pipelines. No more flying on planes (air travel leaves a huge carbon footprint). No more steaks and cheeseburgers (the meat industry is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gasses).

If the recent events in Texas and India teach us anything, it's that climate change can no longer be denied or ignored. It can't be wished away. It's happening right now, before our eyes.

We can either sit back and do nothing, accepting the fact that rising seas and extreme weather are the new normal, or we can make serious, bold changes to limit our emissions, cool the planet and prevent climate judgment day.

Years ago, conventional wisdom was that climate change and global warming are a slow moving disaster that won't affect us during our lifetimes, but could affect our grandchildren or great-grandchildren. But that's not the case anymore. It's here now. It's affecting us as we speak.

It's now or never on climate.

Osama Bin Laden, Seymour Hersh And The Truth About The Abbottabad Raid

I'll never forget the day Osama Bin Laden was killed.

It was May 1, 2011. Coincidentally, it was also my 24th birthday.

I remember sitting on the train, heading back to my Allston apartment after a long night of working in a restaurant by Fenway Park. I was listening to my iPod, as I always did, when rumors began to swirl online that President Obama was set to make a major announcement to the nation.

I got off at my customary stop- Harvard Ave- and raced back to my apartment, not sure what to expect.

Another war? A terrorist attack? A plane crash? An airborne toxic event? Aliens?

My friends, roommates and I gathered around the television, a big Sony flat screen that was usually reserved for sports and movies. Then, right on cue, Barack Obama made the long walk toward the camera and said "The United States has conducted an operation that has killed Osama Bin Laden."

For a few seconds, the room was silent. Everyone was shocked, their jaws hanging from their faces, their eyes staring blankly at the television screen as if to say, is this really happening?

A moment or so later, we all erupted in applause. But it wasn't just us. The entire city exploded at the exact same time, as if the Red Sox had just won the World Series. Soon, the streets of Boston were flooded with people holding American flags and climbing light posts. Everyone was hugging each other. People were singing "God Bless America" at the top of their lungs.

We got him! It's finally over! 

I had never experienced such a powerful, collective sense of patriotism in my life. It wasn't like singing the national anthem in unison at a crowded sporting event. Or watching fireworks amidst a sea of red, white and blue American flags on the 4th of July.

It was different in a way I can't fully describe. I'd like to think it felt something like V-Day in Times Square, 1945, when the US had just defeated Japan in WWII.

I felt more American in that moment than I ever had in my entire life.


WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Some four years later, the legend of the Abbottabad raid and the killing of Osama Bin Laden has become almost a mythical tale.

Popularized by the movie Zero Dark Thirty, the story goes something like this...

After years and years of tireless intelligence gathering (combined with information secured by torture), the CIA was able to track down Bin Laden's courier, who led them to his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

However, despite the information from the courier, it still wasn't 100% certain that it really was Bin Laden. And if it was him, doubts existed that he would actually be there. Nevertheless, President Obama made the gutsy call to go through with the mission.

After flying in on a set of helicopters, SEAL Team 6 evaded detection from the Pakistani military, broke into Bin Laden's Abbottabad complex, and, after an exchange of gunfire, shot and killed the most wanted man on the planet. Bin Laden's body was then flown to the USS Carl Vinson and buried at sea.

But according to a recent bombshell report by Seymour Hersh, much of the story is a lie.

According to Hersh, Bin Laden wasn't hiding out in the Abbottabad complex, he was being held prisoner there by the ISI, the Pakistani version of the CIA, and had been for years, possibly since 2006. Bin Laden was under house arrest, unable to leave the premises. He was being monitored and surveilled 24/7.

And it wasn't a courier who led the US to Bin Laden, instead it was a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer. According to Hersh, he walked into the US Embassy in Islamabad in 2010 and told the US where Bin Laden was.

"He betrayed the secret in return for much of the $25 million reward offered by the US... The informant and his family were smuggled out of Pakistan and relocated in the Washington area. He is now a consultant to the CIA."

So the "gutsy" decision by Obama wasn't really gutsy at all. Bin Laden was a sitting duck. He was handed to the US on a silver platter. It wasn't a result of years of intensive work, it was a stroke of luck. If not for the informant, who knows if Bin Laden isn't still alive today, safely hidden in that same Abbottabad complex.

Also, according to Hersh, there was no firefight. Bin Laden didn't have a suicide vest. He didn't even have an AK-47, as previously reported. He was an "old, sick man, who was going to be murdered."

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

Since Hersh's report surfaced, a major debate has erupted over what really happened in the Abbottabad raid.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods." Others have attacked Hersh's character, calling his journalistic integrity into question.

However, despite the blowback, Hersh is sticking to his story.

In the end, we are left with the ultimate postmodern conundrum. There is no black and white, only gray. We must come to our own conclusions about the Abbottabad raid.

If you ask me, I tend to believe Hersh over the Obama Administration.

Hersh has won a Pulitzer. He has been a well-known, well-respected investigative reporter for 50 years. He exposed the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. He sounded the alarm on abuse at Abu Ghraib in 2004.

Why would he publish a false or fake story, knowing that if it was proven wrong his entire career would be diminished? No sane person would take such a gigantic risk unless they were supremely confident in the story they were reporting.

As for the government, they have a vested interest in making sure the narrative doesn't change.

The killing of Bin Laden is one of the signature achievements of Obama's presidency. To admit that the CIA had little to do with finding Bin Laden diminishes the story. So does the fact that there was no firefight and Bin Laden was a sitting duck, gifted to the US by a stroke of luck thanks to a Pakistani informant. Also, it doesn't help Obama's legacy if it turns out his decision to carry out the mission was a relatively safe, no-brainer, not a gutsy call worthy of being mythologized.

In the end, the killing of Bin Laden will live on forever. It was a seminal moment in American history. But was the story that the government fed to us real? Or was it a dramatic embellishment used to elevate President Obama's status and help him get re-elected?

At this point, my money is on the latter.

Ready For Bernie

Conventional wisdom says Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in for 2016.

She has a resume that is unrivaled, with decades of experience as a lawyer, first-lady, senator and secretary of state. Of course she has her haters, but Hillary is a true political rock star, arguably the most famous woman on planet Earth.

In the polls, she is light years ahead of just about every Democrat in the field. A recent Real Clear Politics poll had Hillary at 62.2%- more than 49 points ahead of her closest challenger, Elizabeth Warren (12.7%).

Anytime word surfaces that a Democrat might challenge Hillary, they are more or less laughed at. You can't beat Hillary. Stop wasting your time. Why are you even trying?

I admire Hillary. She is smart, qualified and a great leader. If she wins the Democratic nomination for president I will gladly vote for her over whomever her Republican opponent might be.

But the presidency is not a birthright. It must be fought for. It must be won by someone who proves to the country that they are the best person for the job. It is not a crown reserved for the next in line just because it's their turn.

The challenges we face today are daunting. Income inequality is out of control. The middle class is being wiped off the map. Climate change is threatening our very existence.

We must elect a leader in 2016 fit for the times, a FDR for the 21st century who will stand up to the millionaires and billionaires who've hijacked our democracy, protect the most vulnerable and save us from environmental doomsday.

That leader isn't Hillary Clinton.

It's Bernie Sanders.


SEARCHING FOR AUTHENTICITY

Watching Hillary on the trail, I must admit that I have been impressed. She has taken on a more populist tone and focused much of her attention on helping the middle class, ending mass incarceration and fighting for marriage equality.

All of these positions are commendable. But one must wonder, is this truly what Hillary believes? Is it really her? Or is she capitalizing on a growing populist movement, doing her best Elizabeth Warren impression?

This is the problem with Hillary. Despite all of her great qualities, she never seems authentic. She comes off as scripted, eternally swayed by the political winds, tweaking her tone and words based upon the crowd she's speaking to and what's popular at the time.

In many ways, Bernie is the anti-Hillary.

Unlike Hillary, you always know where Bernie stands. He is not secretive or wishy-washy. He is consistent in his views and beliefs. He does not flip flop, even when it's politically advantageous.

As Matt Taibbi wrote recently in Rolling Stone, "[Bernie] is the rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who can't protect themselves, I've never seen it."

It's great that Hillary has adopted a populist message recently, but Bernie has been preaching it for decades. He's was decrying income inequality before it was trendy. He was lobbying for a single-payer health care system back when it was taboo. He's been railing against big banks and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of a select few since the 1980s when he was mayor of Burlington.

In a similar vein, I'm glad Hillary is fighting hard for marriage equality, but it's important to remember that she used to be against it and only "evolved" her views recently. Not Bernie. He voted against DOMA and has always been a staunch supporter of LGBT rights and marriage equality.

Recently, Bernie told the New York Times, "I'm not evolving when it comes to gay rights. I was there!" 

And, oh yeah, Hillary voted for the disastrous Iraq War. Bernie voted against it. 

TAKING ON THE BIG ISSUES

Two weeks ago, at a campaign round table in Iowa, Hillary unveiled the four goals of her campaign.

1. build the economy of tomorrow

2. strengthen families and communities

3. fix political dysfunction by getting money out of politics

4. protect the US from threats like terrorism

All four goals are commendable. Unfortunately, she didn't leave any room for fighting climate change.

In fact, Hillary rarely, if ever, discusses climate change or global warming. She won't even take a position on Keystone XL. It's an issue of monumental importance yet she gives it almost no attention.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is a long-time champion of the environment and a staunch opponent of Keystone XL. He is one the few politicians who has consistently shined a light on climate change and the threat is poses not only for America but for mankind.

In addition, he's crusaded against the Koch Brothers for profiting off the destruction of our planet. He's also gone after climate deniers like Senator Jim Inhofe, calling his know nothing stance on climate change "dead wrong." 

Standing on the precipice of climate doomsday, do we really want to elect a leader who rarely ever broaches the subject of climate change? Are we really going to put our faith in someone who largely ignores the greatest threat to humanity? And offers no solutions to fix it?

Absolutely not.

Instead, we must elect a leader who understands the severity of the climate crisis we face, a leader who will take serious, bold action to prevent environmental doomsday. As Bill McKibben wrote recently, that leader is Bernie Sanders.

But it's not just Bernie's environmental stance that puts him ahead of Hillary. It's his economic agenda as well.

At a time of unprecedented income inequality, do we really expect Hillary Clinton- a longtime Wall Street supporter and sympathizer- to take on the big banks and push for real, meaningful reform?

After all, as Ezra Klein recently pointed out, Hillary's biggest donors are all banks, while Bernie's biggest donors are all unions. Is Hillary going to break up the big banks after accepting millions of dollars from them? No way.


BERNIE 2016

The middle class is dying. The planet is in peril. We need a leader fit for the times. A leader with a backbone of steel who is consistent, authentic and always says what they believe, even when it's not popular or politically advantageous.

In any other election, Hillary Clinton would be a fine candidate.

But today's challenges are too big, too daunting and too severe to simply hand the presidential crown to the next in line.

We can't afford to elect a pro-Wall Street moderate who is swayed by the political winds and turns the other way in the face of climate doomsday.

We need a bold, progressive thinker with a proven track record; a leader with real integrity who never wavers in their defense of the most vulnerable and has the courage to take on the Koch Brothers, break up the big banks and fight climate change head-on.

We need Bernie Sanders.