A Letter to Clinton Campaign Co-Chair and Superdelegate, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

Friends, it's time to channel our anger about the direction the Clinton campaign has taken into action. It's time for us in the netroots to lobby our Democratic elected officials, particularly those who are uncommitted or have already endorsed Clinton, to withdraw their support for her campaign, or at the very least, use their influence to demand that she dramatically change her campaign's tone.

Do elected officials really want to remain associated with a campaign defined by fear-mongering, race-baiting, and gratuitous slanders against the rising star of our party?

Below the fold, I've attached my letter to Rhode Island Senator and Clinton campaign co-chair Sheldon Whitehouse.  Please feel free to suggest improvements to it, and better yet, to adapt it to your own purposes for lobbying your own elected Democrats.  It's time for action.

Dear Senator Whitehouse,

As you may recall, I fundraised and volunteered for your campaign in 2006.  I am a passionate Democrat and a strong supporter of yours.

I know that you admire Barack Obama, but have endorsed and indeed co-chair the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, citing your loyalty to Bill Clinton, who helped you launch your own public service career in 1994.  Nevertheless: I am writing to ask you to publicly withdraw your support for the Clinton campaign at this time.

The Democratic primary process is quickly turning into a disaster for our party, and the blame for this can be laid squarely at the feet of the Clinton campaign.  At this point, Senator Obama has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, which no realistic margin of victory for Senator Clinton in the remaining primary states could possibly overturn.  Any attempt by superdelegates such as yourself to reverse the results of the voting would lead to chaos and rebellion.  Quoting Jonathan Chait in the New Republic:

   Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't
   going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged
   delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race,
   but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She
   would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going
   to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.
   
   That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would
   need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates
   already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining
   ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are
   going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate
   lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance
   would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that
   superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her.

As Chait predicted, Senator Clinton's strategy has indeed become "repulsive" and bent on "destroying" Obama's viability:

1. she has explicitly and repeatedly said that John McCain is better qualified to be president than our party's near-certain nominee;

2. she has explicitly played the "fear" card, reinforcing Republican frames that Democrats can't keep the country safe;

3. when asked whether Obama is a Muslim, she weakly replied "not as far as I know", reinforcing slanders about Obama's religion;

4. she has introduced race into the contest, most recently by not forcefully rejecting Geraldine Ferraro's despicably racist comments about how Obama has only gotten to where he is because he's black.  Please watch this video: http://tinyurl.com/... .

The only logical explanation for Clinton's recent actions is that she wants to destroy Obama's viability, either to win via the antidemocratic superdelegate path, or more likely, to clear McCain's path to victory, in order to improve her own chances of winning in 2012.  I judge her actions to be despicably self-serving.

Senator, I believe the time has come for our party's leaders such as yourself to withdraw your support for the Clinton campaign, and rally behind our inevitable nominee, Barack Obama.  The success of our party's prospects this fall, and therefore of our political agenda and most deeply held values, depends on putting a rapid end to the divisive, race-baiting, fear-mongering, self-serving Clinton campaign before it can do more damage than it already has.

I await your response.

Sincerely,

XXX

•  any tips for improving the letter?

  thanks.

  by jab on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:13:33 AM PDT

  •  I'd use dkos to find co-signers

    Find RI voters or even more importantly, people who volunteered for his campaign and/or gave money to him.

    I also agree to leave out the part about 2012 but instead focus on Obama's current inevitability and how Clinton can only help McCain and has no chance of winning herself.

    by bmozaffari on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:25:45 AM PDT

•  I'd cut out the 2012 stuff.

  As a Clinton supporter, he's likely to find that bit particularly over the top, especially since it's nothing more than speculative.

  by pointsoflight on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:21:40 AM PDT

  •  agree about 2012 graph

    Chait's bit says it best. All that's missing is how Hillary will lose the general, when at least 10% of Obama voters stay home or vote Mccain. The dem party will pay a high price for many years as well,  with loss of young and african american voters.
    It might be more persuasive to suck up a bit with a few compliments to Hillary, but that wouldn't jibe with your list of her repulsive tactics.

    by no expert on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:25:33 AM PDT

•  Very nice

  The majority of the "super" delegates are our elected officials. We're THEIR bosses, they have jobs only because we allow them to serve.

  by bleeding blue on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:50:44 AM PDT

•  Interesting Action Item

  I like this.  

  I have to admit I was beginning to feel a little helpless as I watched the Democrats rip themselves apart!  

  I would personally replace needlessly inflammatory language ("Repulsive", etc.).  These are, after all, Clinton supporters and fence-sitters, and attacking them in such a manner may have the unintended consequence of making them dig in their heels.

  Other than that, I'm totally for this.

  Nice work.

  by minimei on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:55:19 AM PDT

•  Nicely done

  However, I'd cut it down in length a little. Turns out that politicians and their secretaries are pretty lazy about reading, which sucks since it's part of their job.

  by McJagger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:28:40 AM PDT

•  Obama's religion

  "3. When asked whether Obama is a Muslim, she weakly replied "not as far as I know", reinforcing slanders about Obama's religion;"  

  Change Obama's religion to Obama's Christianity,
  to again clarify that Obama is a Christian not a Muslim.  

  by hopeward bound on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:54:15 AM PDT

•  wonderful whitehouse, better letter

  I have written to Whitehouse many times to thank him for his SJC actions and especially his speech on the floor of the senate about the OLC memos. His efforts on behalf of the rule of law and the constitution has made him a personal hero.
  I was therefore dismayed and even sickened to watch him laughing at HRC's mocking of BO in RI. He was sitting right behind her and loving every minute ofit. But being from another state, I had no standing to call him out on his behavior. thanks for doing so.
  as for the letter, here is the advice that FDL /Trexsuggests one follow when writing LTE that work for congress letters as well.

  No more than two paragraphs, max.  Try to limit yourself to the 100-200 word range.  As TRex said, this is no time for the Unibomber Manifesto.  Be succinct and you are more likely to get published.  Longer letters are more likely to be edited by someone else — you are much better off doing your edit yourself.

  – Stick to a single issue.

  –  Mention your Representative and/or Senator by name.  Their staff is much more likely to pay attention, and the editorial folks at the newspaper will as well.   A lot of Congressional offices use clipping services to pull LTEs for them where the name is mentioned, so you have a much greater chance of them seeing your letter by including names.

  – Highlight the local impact of the issue, this has a much more effective reach for your letter and makes a broader potential statement to readers who may not be as familiar with the subject matter.

  – Do send in LTEs to your local newspapers, to newsletters in your community and other smaller publications.  These have quite a reach in terms of readership, and you are more likely to be published there than in a larger national publication.

  – Humor can be very helpful.  So can doing a little research on the style of your local newspaper and its editorial staff.

  – Avoid being shrill, name-calling, or getting personal.  You want to criticize facts not beliefs.  Be sure to do your homework on your subject.  Use facts, figures, and expert information in the form of short quotes where it is useful.

  – Always proofread.  And then proof it again.

  – Try to read your letter from the perspective of a reader who has no background in the subject.  Will it make sense to someone who isn’t watching a lot of C-Span?  Who doesn’t read blogs?  This is important, because those are people you are trying to reach.

  – Always include your name, address, day-time phone number, e-mail information and signature.  Editors like to verify letter content before publication, so make it easy for them and you are more likely to get yours published.

  by BlueStateRedhead on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:59:07 AM PDT