11 questions for Peter Daou (an open letter)

Dear Peter,

It’s been a while since you’ve posted here.  Perhaps that is because you feel the reaction here was hostile.  I want to say that, although I have become an Obama supporter, I respect what you do. It is difficult to be an online campaign director and be fighting to defend your candidate, particularly in this current environment. I would not like to have your job nor that of your counterpart on the Obama campaign. For what it is worth, I believe you fervently and genuinely stand behind Hillary and truly believe in her candidacy and that you are truly convinced she would be the best choice for president.

I’m writing to you because I have noticed a definite change of tone in your posts in the past few months - here, at Huffington Post, even at the Clinton campaign official website.
Frankly, you’ve gone from being a source of information on your candidates policies to sounding more like a petulant child stamping his feet: You haven’t answered my question! You STILL haven’t answered my question! I’m waiting for an answer!
I know that positions like yours are a very new thing but it seems to me that the function of your position should be more as a facilitator, a source of information, a person which cultivates a relationship with the netroots. It has always seemed to me that your role should be more about answering our questions and concerns instead of asking us questions or insisting that someone give you a response. In general, the impression I have had of your work over the past few months is: "Listen to what I'm saying and answer me !!!! (stomp, stomp, stomp)" OR "It is all wrong, it’s all a myth, it’s all distortion"
Neither stance seems likely to promote a positive dialogue with the net community.

So it is in this spirit that I am asking YOU some questions about your candidate. Consider  it to be with same urgency of the questions and or statements you have made to us in which you repeatedly told us "You haven’t answered my question!" Peter Daou, this is a challenge to answer MY questions:

1. Hillary Clinton was probably a textbook case of what it takes to be president. She has powerful connections, even a former president, on her team. She was first lady and a senator. She is an aggressive campaigner and brings numerous advantages She was considered the absolute frontrunner even 3-4 years ago. Thus, why do you feel she is now behind in the popular vote, has less pledged delegates than her opponent Barack Obama, has lost more caucuses and primaries than she has won?

2. If your response is "the relentless and vicious attacks of Barack Obama" then the question is, would one not have even more relentless and vicious attacks from John McCain and the GOP? Or to ask that question differently, if Hillary is being knocked down by a member of her own party, why should we think she can withstand a full assault in the general election?

3. Why should we not be concerned that Hillary's approval rating is the lowest it has been in 7 years, 37%

4. While I – so far – do not believe the theory that Hillary wants Barack to lose to McCain so she can run again in 2012, this becomes more difficult with every complement I hear Bill Clinton make about John McCain - it is political suicide: a ready-made campaign commercial to be used against Hillary or Barack. It angers Democrats and it will not garner an ounce of respect from respect from Republicans and Independents. Once again, people say, "Why go for Republican lite, I’ll take the real thing." I am not the only one livid with Bill Clinton’s constant complements about McCain. So I ask: What is the reason for Bill Clinton praising John McCain now almost on a daily basis?

5. I live in Connecticut. Like many others, I was completely insulted when, on numerous occasions, members of the Clinton campaign suggested my state was irrelevant because we went for Obama. So evidently, the Clinton definition of relevant is winning in a state which she feels she can win in a primary (assuming of course Barack couldn’t win them) or a state which carries a lot of delegate votes. With this attitude, one wonders why people should have primaries in all but around 18 "important" states. Thus, I ask:Why should people in states like Connecticut, Vermont, Idaho, Georgia etc. support Hillary when she and/or her campaign feels we are irrelevant?

6. Words are everything in a campaign. Al Gore was brought down by not carefully picking his words about the Internet. John Kerry reconsidered a 2008 campaign in part because he botched an Iraq joke. Given this environment, should we not be greatly concerned about a gaffe (using a generous term here) like the one Hillary made about Bosnia during the general election– when campaigns have literally ended on much less?

7. Part of our concern about Hillary is that she is very much against Howard Dean and his 50-state strategy and that her campaign seeks to return to the "18-state" model. Is Hillary ready to unequivocally guaranty that she would not seek to remove Howard Dean as the head of the DNC if he chose to stay or, more to the point, is she ready to unequivocally guaranty that James Carville or Terry McCauliffe will not in any way be considered for the position? As a bonus question, was James Carville so hostile to Howard Dean following the 2006 victories (when he should have been thanked) because it was felt it would be better to have someone heading the DNC who was more Clinton friendly?

8. Another aspect of concern about Hillary is her perceived lack of awareness about what avenues are most destructive to the party. A story about Hillary misspeaking on Bosnia is one thing - it makes the candidate look bad. And then there is the other kind: this kind of campaigning with ugly racial underpinnings – Hillary’s failure to strongly denounce Geraldine Ferraro, the whole Wright story regurgitated again and again and again, in which the media tried to make Barack Obama out as some who supports the divisive rhetoric of Farrakhan or at least someone who condones such people. Such tactics are also political suicide: they are badly alienating the African American base, who just a year ago would see the Clintons as their de facto choice. They make it harder for the party to reunite post-primary. They are opening racial wounds instead of healing them and a split the Democratic party can ill afford. And they will make it more difficult for Barack Obama to win in the general if he is the nominee in the general. Thus I ask: What is the benefit of these tactics with an ugly racist underpinning, either to Barack or to Hillary?

9. It has been repeatedly stated by your campaign that the two sides are "tied up," yet Barack Obama has the lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates. Even a 20 point victory in Pennsylvania will not change this. Hillary requires decisive victories in the remaining primaries to win. In the event that this does not occur yet neither Hillary nor Oback have the magic delegate number, what do you feel should be the criteria for deciding – the popular vote, the pledged delegates or something else? Given the fact that Hillary keeps using the word "disenfranchisement" in regards to Florida and Michigan, it would seem that the majority of votes would be the most important factor, considering Bush v. Gore and Florida, where people’s votes could not counted.

10. Speaking of Florida and Michigan, many feel that Hillary only became concerned about these states and the voting process when it became clear she would need those votes. Can you show us any press conferences, statements etc. by Hillary prior to the Iowa caucus in which she strongly spoke out against the unfairness of the system and the "disenfranchisement" of Florida and Michigan voters? I've searched and searched and can't find anything. As a bonus question, what is then your solution for states who defy the primary calendar after having approved it, forcing candidates to campaign in states even in 2011 or to campaign in states which "don't count" because they could well "count"?

11. If Hillary cannot get more popular votes and pledged delegates than Barack, what exactly is her plan of action? Would not having the superdelegates vote on OTHER criteria than that of popular vote and pledged delegates not be the greatest form of disenfranchisement - as our nominee would be decided in backrooms of the DNC, not by the people?

So Peter, you’ve asked us a lot of questions lately. You’ve written many pieces trying to dispel myths about Hillary. Answering the 11 questions above would be a great opportunity to set the record straight. I eagerly await your responses.

<Gladkov>