Power To the People

First off, if you're a fan of George W. Bush, you may not want to read on. If, however, you would like to see the Democrats take office, read on. I haven't really weighed in on the whole political scene going on here in the good old US of A so far, but I thought maybe I should. Well, rather, I thought maybe I should let my friend Salil have his say.

I have included an email message that he sent to the campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I have modified it slightly to update the date reference, but otherwise have left the letter intact.

My own personal wish is to see Hillary Clinton take office. While I respect Barack Obama and his idealism, I don't think he is experienced enough to garner the cooperation of others in Washington. In the future, I would probably support him whole-heartedly. But for now, I support Hillary. Yes, in part, it is because she's a woman. But I also think she's a strong candidate. Part of me would like to be more involved and really help get her elected. And perhaps that is what this blog entry is about. But part of me is still too busy being a mom, wife, employee, dog-owner, and homeowner to even consider doing more.

So for now, 'nuff said. Here's what I'd like for you to do. If you agree with what this letter is saying, please feel free to copy the text of the message, paste it into Word, make whatever changes you need (I, for example, have not contributed financially to either campaign), sign it, and mail it to the campaigns. Also, copy it into an email message and send it to:

Terry McAuliffe
Hillary Clinton for President
4420 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203

tmcauliffe@hillaryclinton.com

Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680


Subject: January 21st, 2008...the Night the Democrats Lost the Election?

Terry McAuliffe and David Plouffe,

I am a donor to both your candidates' campaigns, because I consider both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama viable and good candidates for the President of the United States.

I'm not sure what was going on on January 21st, but I think I'd echo the sentiments of many Democrats when I say I'm deeply dismayed by the obvious rancor between Senators Clinton and Obama during last night's debate.

This is not playing well in the national media, and it doesn't work to the benefit of either candidate. As tempting as it may have been for Senator Clinton to knock Obama off his high horse and pin him down, or for Senator Obama to attack President Clinton's (mis-?)characterizations of his voting record, this kind of mud-slinging is ugly and ultimately fruitless. It's one thing to attack your opponent's stances on the issues. It's another thing to make ad hominem attacks on the competition out of anger in front of television cameras in the middle of a purported debate.

I can't say it any more bluntly than this: both campaigns need to take the high road immediately. There are writeups in the Post, the NYT, and in every major media outlet. The underlying subtext is that HRC and Obama are like children who need to be disciplined. The good Senators might as well have pulled each other's hair and blown raspberries at each other, considering how this is playing out in the MSM.

Why give Edwards that kind of opening? Why give REPUBLICANS that kind of opening? Taking this campaign down into the mud is the wrong direction entirely. The target here is not Obama. It's not even the Republican nominee, whoever it may turn out to be. It's the Presidency, and it's not enough to just secure the nomination at any price. The goal is to keep the respective Senators electable, and that means maintaining support within the party, and even attempting to find common ground across party lines to generate a popular mandate, or at least an electoral edge.

Somehow, I don't see that happening the way things stand at the moment.

Is that too idealistic a viewpoint? Is there some deeper Rove-ian strategy at work for getting your candidates elected that I'm simply not privy to? If so, then I have to ask, even if somehow after all this America manages to elect either Clinton or Obama...what next?
How likely is it that Democrats suffer in the next election, and give up the Senate? Is anyone taking the long view at all? Are we banking collectively on the American electorate just somehow forgetting all this venom after the DNC in August? Believe me, the neocons will remember as soon as they have one real target to put in their crosshairs.

And even in the short-term tactical view, that both campaigns indulged in this sort of mud-wrestling just before the South Carolina primary is the sheerest sort of idiocy. South Carolina is Edward's home turf! South Carolina has a sizeable black population, and South Carolina is being covered by Bill, not Hillary, since she's moved on to the Super Tuesday states. What on earth is going on over there?

In an e-poll released Friday by the South Carolina New Democrats, Obama was favored by 30 percent of the respondents, while Clinton and Edwards were tied at 26 percent each. The unscientific poll of 1,000 computer users also showed that 63 percent of the respondents said change is most important while 37 percent said experience is paramount .

There's more at stake here than just securing the nomination of one candidate. I certainly understand the difficult job you both do, but at the same time, I think that the vast majority of Democrats would rather see a Democrat in the White House than allow the Democratic Party's internal bickering to reduce the popularity of the two front-runner candidates to the point that we wind up with a President Romney, McCain, or (god forbid!) Huckabee.

Sincerely,

Salil [last name omitted to secure his privacy]