Dear Senator Clinton:
Like you and many others in our generation, I was very idealistic in my youth. In 1968 I sold 'McCarthy's Million' buttons to my high school classmates. Four years later I was writing press releases for the Dick Clark Senate campaign in Iowa. And in 1976 I knocked on doors for Mo Udall. I have tried to hold on to those ideals, even after the stolen 2000 election and the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush.
Just as Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, and George McGovern inspired our generation, Barack Obama has inspired a new generation of idealists. Do not alienate them from our party. Do not become the Hubert Humphrey of 2008. In the last few weeks your campaign has become more negative, and all signs point to a vicious campaign against Obama in Pennsylvania and here in Indiana. You talk of seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida without holding a revote. Should your campaign win the nomination by such 'ends justify the means' tactics, you will surely lose the support of many young idealistic Obama supporters. As for me, I would vote for you, but only as the lesser of two evils.
While I plan to vote for Senator Obama in May, I have found much to like about your campaign. Your health care proposal makes more sense than his (though less sense than a Canadian-style single-payer system). You have creative but pragmatic plans for the economy, education, energy, and foreign policy. If you win the nomination fairly--without resort to the improperly elected Michigan and Florida delegates, and without a destructive campaign against Barack Obama, you will have my unqualified support.
The late Allard Lowenstein, who inspired so many of us to work for progressive causes, said at the end of that the 1968 Chicago convention that it had elected Richard Nixon president of the United States. He likened it to electing Arthur Goldberg Mayor of Cairo. I do not wish to see the Denver convention elect John McCain president. McCain is an honorable man, but his unquestioning support for Bush's war and Bush's welfare for the rich make him nothing but an older version of George W. Bush.
So please, please, run a clean, positive campaign. Support the mail-in revote in Michigan and Florida. (Senator Obama's rejection of the revote complicates matters, but your support of the idea might sway him.) We can't afford to alienate Barack Obama's idealistic supporters. And this nation surely cannot afford to have four more years of Bush policies.
Stephen Crews Wylder
Elkhart, Indiana
13 comments:
Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their “softball” reporting on Barak Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn’t! As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep. Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary’s largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media. Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California’s anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law. Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary’s attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures. Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary’s biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit’s allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary’s Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill. The media - except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary’s last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary’s campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary’s campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report. In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul’s $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul’s partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money. Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the “overly critical” media! Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary’s role as a witness in Bill’s fraud trial for defrauding Hillary’s largest donor- and Hillary’s refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970’s before her first Senate election in 2000? Visit Hillcap.org for videos and info.
Although Hillary Clinton supports some policies that I support, I do not particularly trust her as a person. I wish I could, but I'm afraid I don't.
...As far as I follow, good post Steve...the impression we have received of the Clinton's over here fits with Charles reaction, I guess; know little of Obama. The 'lesser of two evils' line stands out.
PS - off post, but the play that was being filmed in the 'door's' post was actually a tv docu called Quills concerning the Marquis de Sade.... I photographed a couple of well known Brit actresses on the shoot.
Anonymous--At this time I'll give Hillary the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather see her in the White House than McCain. My purpose for writing this was to remind her that she was once very idealistic and that she should consider the consequences of winning ugly.
Charles and Julie--I'm more willing to trust her, but I prefer Obama. I see her as basically a decent person, but like Hubert Humphrey, wants the presidency so much that she's tempted to abandon her principles.
Julie--Thanks for the info on your door picture.
Steve Hi,
Sitting in faraway Pakistan, I am witnessing both the run up to the American elections and the recent ones in Pakistan followed by the political manouevering.
It makes me wonder, if politicians seem to think that the voters have air where the grey matter should be. At least that is how most of them seem to conduct themselves; all over the world.
I hope Hillary shall get to read your letter. I doubt it if she shall change her tactics. Ambition can be a terrible master.
Are you sending it to her or is it just on your blog?
Amen to your post.
Usman--nice to hear from you. I had a conversation with someone recently who said he thought Pakistan was America's next big problem. I said I thought the elections went well--that the progressive elements took Parliament, and that I was optimistic about Pakistan's future. I was very troubled by the bombings in Lahore, but I'm still hopeful that Pakistan will emerge from dictatorship.
I'm afraid you're right about Hillary Clinton, but I can always hope.
Ropi--I sent the letter to Hillary Clinton's campaign e-mail, and got a response that she received it. Probably some lowly staffer will read it.
Lisa--Thank you. I'm looking forward to your review of Chapter 13. Now it's on to Chapter 14, tentatively called "Terrors of the Night."
oh, you did actually send it to her. I can't really react to the content, though - I don't know much about her or about any other of your politicians....
(I hope I can help you with Hungarian language, though.)
Beautiful, Steve!
well written steve, and although i'm not familiar with most of the issues my gut feeling tells me more or less the same as what you've expressed here...
looking from the outside, as far as i can see ralph nader is the only candidate with any moral authority, all other candidates are bound by corporate and financial pressures
i've been mostly sympathetic to the democrat point of view, but have seen them sadly slide away from their ideals in recent years...
keep well...
Bart--Thanks for commenting. I'm afraid I still harbor ill feelings for Nader after 2000, though I suspect Jeb Bush would have found some way to win Florida for his brother that year even if all of Nader's votes had gone to Gore. The amount of voter fraud and vote suppression there made Chicago politics look clean.
I just heard a report on National Public Radio that the French are really interested in the U.S. elections this year. I don't know whether that's true in the rest of Western Europe.
There was a lot of idealism in the Kerry campaign four years ago--maybe too much--to the point where a lot of us thought the news media would treat the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" as the liars they were. Nope. The TV networks gave those creeps all the airtine they wanted. And enough of the American people were willing to believe it.
Post a Comment