A letter to Joe Andrew

[illusionofjoy]

Joe Andrew, who was appointed by Bill Clinton to become chair the Democratic National Committee in 1999 recently switched his endorsement for Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. He outlines his reasons in a letter posted online, among them being that a protracted campaign is bad for the Democrats' chances against John McCain in November. Basically, through the same fluffy, nebulous language that has been a hallmark of the Obama campaign, he becomes one more arrogant politician trying to cram Obama down the collective throats of the public. That I maintained any level of civility when writing to this guy is astounding:

Mr. Joe Andrew--

I write you not to disparage your decision to switch your endorsement for Senator Hillary Clinton to Senator Barack Obama. In the United States of America, one is free to change his or her mind in regards to a preferred candidate with impunity; it is one of our cherished freedoms and the foundation of this great experiment known as Democracy. While I vehemently disagree with your opinion that Senator Obama would be the stronger candidate in the general election as opposed to Senator Clinton, I respect your right to that opinion.

The issue I take with your endorsement is your willingness to see American voters be denied their voice through the premature dismissal of a viable candidate. Prior to the Pennsylvania Primary, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was calling for Senator Clinton to step down from the race. As a resident of Pennsylvania, I was deeply offended by these remarks - how dare someone from Vermont effectively pre-decide my vote for me? I wrote Senator Leahy, expressing my outrage. Senator Clinton, thankfully, ignored the advice of such fools and went on to win the state of Pennsylvania by a comfortable margin.

While you do not come out and directly call for Senator Clinton to step down, you do attempt to frighten people with the spectre of John McCain being unbeatable should the primary process continue. This assertion is a fallacy, at best, at worst it is an attempt to undermine the electoral process. Should the voters of Indiana and North Carolina choose to "continue this process," they would be well within their rights to do so. It is in poor taste to try and scare people into voting for a candidate.

Senator Clinton is and remains is viable candidate. Your letter announcing your endorsement for her opponent is factually incorrect: Senator Obama does not currently lead in the popular vote. It was the Clinton victory in Pennsylvania which tipped the scales. You, it would seem, have fallen into the same trap as the mainstream media and many other Obama supporters: you have forgotten that it is only the delegates who have been stripped from Michigan and Florida, and not the voters themselves. It is one thing to deny a state their delegates, because the party "broke the rules." It is quite another to silence the voices of American and Democratic voters, who had little or no say in the foolishness of their leaders as they played Russian Roulette with the date of each state's primary and ultimately lost. These votes need to be counted and taken into consideration. To do otherwise is to commit the ultimate betrayal of the American dream: disenfranchisement of American voters. And yes, as both states were victories for Senator Clinton, this needs to be considered as well. She is ahead in the popular vote - period.

Contrary to what you may believe, a protracted Democratic primary will NOT hurt either candidates' chance against John McCain in the general election. What will hurt the Democratic Party is repeated calls for viable candidates to step down and repeated attempts to deny voters the chance to make their voices heard. Rest assured, if Senator Clinton had stepped down before Pennsylvania's primary, I would have written her name in - such is my conviction that she is the one who will lead the Democratic Party to victory in November. I am certain that there are many in both Indiana and South Carolina who feel exactly the same way I do.

Granted, should Senator Obama receive the nomination, I will not betray my party: he will get my vote. However, I can not say that I share your confidence in his abilities to win against a republican opponent. However, I will say this to any superdelegate: your decision to nominate should be based on the popular vote. Should Senator Clinton maintain her lead, she rightfully deserves the nomination; should Senator Obama regain his lead, he rightfully deserves the nomination. A decision in any other direction WILL have serious repercussions for the Democratic Party for years to come.

--
Seth Warren
http://www.illusionofjoy.net

Just like the voters of Pennsylvania, the voters of Indiana and North Carolina deserve the opportunity to make their voices heard without being threatened or cajoled. They deserve a chance to pick their candidate of choice without having foolish politicians trying to yank the rug from beneath them.