Preferences expressed at precinct caucuses and the county convention are not binding pledges. Sign-in preferences at State, when called for at the convention, are. Your free will and social conscience are called for in the intervening time. It is my hope and prayer that you will join me and many others in embracing the Hillary cause that is America's best Hope. Sign in for Hillary Clinton; the Time is Right.
So reads a letter I received in the mail today.
My Hillary supporter friend warned me that Clinton delegates were launching an all out campaign to get Obama supporters to switch allegiance at the Texas Democratic State Convention June 3-5th. And they were going to “challenge credentials” again.
She was right. The letter was from a local professor. (Without revealing his identity, this man is a well respected community leader who holds public office in our city.) Actually there were three letters, one of which was extraordinary and stunning. Here are a few samples of the propaganda:
Having second thoughts? Many thoughtful Americans are, who earlier, might have been swept up in the enthusiasm of the waning Winter months. It has been noted that this presidential season is not about selecting a candidate for "American Idol.”
It gets disturbingly worse.
Enclosed was another letter the professor had sent to a Mrs. C, ostensibly an African American woman who supports Obama.
A few choice excerpts:
I respect and recognize your pride, identification, or enthusiasm with Mr. Obama, but his ascendancy is more symbolic than substantive. I believe that he is more style than substance, more rhetorical than rational, and far more explosive than exploratory. Yes, there likely may be some repercussions if he is not chosen the Democratic Party nominee (by whatever process) but excessive emotionality dangerously was exploited by him from the beginning, and Democrats will suffer, as will all Americans from what is utterly divisive in ultimate effect.
We have seen Mr. Obama's'ayatollah-like arrogance before: Peron/ Argentina, Mussolini/ Italy, Mugabwe/ Zimbabwe, and elsewhere historically. "Hope and Change" can become seductive temptations for an adorative addiction of emotionalism over rationalism. That we don't need.
I work for and want at electable Democratic candidate in November. Republicans are salivating at the chance to run against him.
Here’s my letter I sent in response:
Dear Professor:
I received your letters today, April 21, asking me to consider changing my allegiance from Obama to Clinton. I read the enclosed letter to “Ms. C”, and quite frankly I am stunned by your characterization of Senator Obama. I would like to know on what facts you are basing your opinions. I would like to know what specific instances have led to your statement: “We have seen Mr. Obama’s ayatollah-like arrogance before: Peron/Argentina, Mussolini/Italy, Mugabwe/Zimbabwe, and elsewhere historically.” To equate Senator Obama to these cruel dictators is absurdly hyperbolic.
I have been closely following the campaigns of both Senator Obama and Hillary Clinton, and quite frankly, if anyone is exhibiting arrogance and a sense of entitlement, it has been Senator Clinton, along with her husband, whom I used to be an avid supporter and defender. Through Rovian tactics, right out of the play book of the Republicans, she and her campaign have engaged in a divisive, negative, destructive campaign, often siding and praising Senator McCain to tear down her Democratic opponent. The fact that Senator Obama hasn’t lowered himself to her level tells me a lot more about a person’s character than some right wing gossip or out of context media spin.
Senator Clinton and Bill Clinton assumed that Hillary would be the nominee, and subsequently have executed a disorganized, unprepared and incompetent campaign, blaming everything from the caucuses to youthful exuberance and enthusiasm. They have made excuse after excuse for why Obama is winning, never accepting responsibility for their own failings. In my judgment, this is a perfect example of hubris.
I am voting for the person, not the sex, nor the race of a candidate. I am supporting a man who happens to be of mixed race who has lived in different countries, who has experienced different cultures. His impoverished childhood gives him a fundamental understanding and empathy for the less fortunate. He has shown in his life that he is a champion for the poor. After paying for his own education through student loans and scholarships, he chose to work as a community organizer instead of a private law firm where he could have made a lot more money. Senator Obama sponsored and worked for legislation in Illinois that addressed the needs of poor and middle class working Americans, and has continued that legacy in the United States Senate. I believe a person’s actual history tells you more about their character than rhetoric.
Your belief that we Obama supporters are somehow mesmerized like some kind of naive sheep, basing our endorsement for the man on irrational emotions is preposterous. Certainly we hold no delusions that Senator Obama is perfect or a savior of mankind. But heck yes, we’re enthusiastic. For the first time in a long time we are excited about someone who exhibits intelligence, wisdom, and yes, hope.
I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that Senator Obama’s “ascendancy is more symbolic than substantive.” Senator Obama may not be as old as Senator Clinton, but he has had a lifetime of experience deeply involved in public policy and community activism. Senator Clinton’s experiences as First Lady were admirable, but certainly should not be equated with involvement in policy making decisions.
Senator Clinton has lied about NAFTA saying she was against it, yet video clips show that she supported it during the Clinton administration. She joined in the Reverend Wright attacks yet she and Bill invited Reverend Wright into their home during the Lewinsky affair for marital guidance. Senator Clinton stated that she was against the war in Iraq--even before Senator Obama’s public denouncement, yet she voted for it and video clips prove this is too a lie. She ridiculed Senator Obama as being an elitist when she and Bill are worth millions and have occupied mansions for most of their lives including the governor’s mansion in Arkansas and the White House. I could cite many more examples, but I think you get the picture.
In your letter you said: Republicans are salivating at the chance to run against him. (Obama) Yet, right wing extremists like Rush Limbaugh are engaging in campaigns to get Republicans to vote for Hillary because they know McCain has a better chance to beat her than Obama. In Denton County alone there was a 4% crossover from Republican to Democrat, many Republicans following Rush’s “Operation Chaos” to help Hillary win Texas. It is obvious the Republicans are salivating to run against Senator Clinton due to a deep seated and historical hatred toward the Clintons.
I for one am tired of hypocrisy and lies. I am fed up with Rovian style tactics. It is truly a shame that Senator Clinton along with Bill, have chosen this road, because not only has it ruined the legacy of President Clinton, it has divided the Democratic party. She could have made her case for why she would be the better candidate with grace and distinction. Instead, the Clintons have chosen to exhibit arrogance and dishonesty.
No, I won’t be changing my mind, and I plan to share my opinion with Clinton supporters in the hope that they will recognize what kind of person Hillary Clinton truly is.
Respectfully,
Should any Obama delegates receive such a letter asking you to switch to Clinton, feel free to use any or all of my response if you decide to write them back. I believe Clinton tacky tactics are more likely to get Clinton supporters to switch to Obama. In fact, it appears that Obama is gaining in the polls for this very reason.
Update: I am embarrassed to admit this, since I'm a pretty long time kossack, but I don't know how to imbed a scanned document. I will research this on FAQs when I have time, but I have GOT to get ready to go to work. If I figure it out, I will scan the letters, but again, I'm reluctant to reveal the identity of this well respected "pillar" of our community. I have sent him an email and have called his office to verify the authenticity of the letters, but so far he has not communicated with me. But my friend who is a Hillary supporter told we weeks ago that this man was going to try to get delegates to switch to Hillary and that the Hillary people were going to contest some credentials at the State Convention. So, until I have time to verify, I respect your requests and they are duly noted.
Update II: I changed the title of the diary, because we are not considered truly "pledged" delegates. In Texas you can "sign in on either candidate" at the State convention, but most of us feel an obligation to support the intentions of our precinct election results. I am still trying to verify the letter. It is signed.
Update III Well, I finally talked on the phone to the person who wrote these letters. I said the following: " Hello, NAME, this is MY NAME. I got your letters today in the mail regarding your request that we Obama supporters switch to Clinton. Did you in fact send these letters?" He said: "Sure." Again I asked, "You are admitting that you sent these letters, two about asking us to switch delegates and one addressed to a Ms. C., because I thought they were off base." He said "Yes." I asked a third time that I wanted to make sure of the authenticity of the letters and he said Yes he sent them. I said I was sorry to bother him at home and goodbye. I will be scanning the letters after work. Still reluctant to reveal his identity because of my job.
Final Update IV: I loaded the scanned document onto photobucket, but I still haven't figured out how to download the image to this diary. (I'm not real computer savvy, sorry. ) But here is a copy of the letter Dr. Curtis Ramsey sent to me. Curtis Ramsey is a retired professor, and his stationery says: Educational Consultants International, an educational consulting firm. He is not a racist, and is an upstanding member of the community. As my letter of response states, I was dismayed with his opinions and felt they were unjustified, unsubstantiated, and way off base.
March 26, 2008
Dear Ms. C:
I respect your opmlOns and your conscience, although we may seem to be poles apart philosophically; however, regardless of past injustices and resultant present grievances, we must work together for America's future. No American today should feel any submerged "guilt," the need for "reparation," or any sort 01 "affirmation action" with regard to the presidential preference campaigns.
In other ways, I have fought your (our) struggle through the Civil Rights movement. A few cases include: 1) participation in the movie and lunch counter pickets and marches in Tennessee in the early 1950s; 2) professional assignment to Little Rock to integrate the schools and rebuild the curriculum following Pres. Eisenhower and federal marshal intrusions; 3) training HeadStart teachers and administrators in Atlanta (when NO institution of higher education in Georgia would acceptthe task; 4) desegregation training and events in Mississippi, South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Alabama; 5) desegregation training and events in Cleveland, Akron, and other cities in Ohio; 6) desegregation training and events in Hartford, Stamford, Bridgeport, and other cities in Connecticut. Always, I was there as a concerned American. No prefixes, either.
In all these cases over now more than a half/century, my message has been: it is immoral and unconstitutional to DENY a person a chance FOR a job BECAUSE of color or minority status. It is no less immoral and unconstitutional to INSIST UPON a person for ajob BECAUSE of his color. Each is as racially biased as the other. Thus, any arguments for a "Black President" fall on my deaf ears. I want the best person to be my President without regard to color-definition.
I respect and recognize your pride, identification, or enthusiasm with Mr.Obama, but his ascendancy is more symbolic than substantive. I believe that he is more style than substance, more rhetorical than rational, and far more explosive than exploratory. Yes, there likely may be some repercussions if he is not chosen the Democratic Party nominee (by whatever process) but excessive emotionality dangerously was exploited by him from the beginning, and Democrats will suffer, as will all Americans from what is utterly divisive in ultimate effect.
We have seen Mr. Obama's'ayatollah-like arrogance before: Peron! Argentina, Mussolini/ Italy, Mugabwe/ Zimbabwe, and elsewhere historically. "Hope and Change" can become seductive temptations for an adorative addiction of emotionalism over rationalism. That we don't need.
I work for and want at electable Democratic candidate in November. Republicans are salivating at the chance to run against him. You may want (perhaps) a "Black Agenda." I want an American Agenda, for all Americans. A recent news magazine ran a cover story lead, "Is America ready for a Black President?" My answer is a resounding "NO;" never a choice based upon color OR gender. I want the best American for the task, based solely upon qualifications and demonstrable character, not some divisive "label" of surface description.
Respectfully,
Curtis Paul Ramsey