TO: Keith Olbermann
FROM: Miss Scout Finch
DATE: April 21, 2008
RE: Brady Bunch Politics
cc: Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson, Al Giordano
Dear Mr. Olbermann –
After mulling over Wednesday’s presidential primary debate, I have decided to try an experiment that I hope you will find of interest. I am fairly new to the world of politics and over the months have come to greatly respect your opinion, as well as the opinions of Ms. Maddow, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Giordano.
To Kill a Mockingbird is one of my favorite books; you may have guessed, given my choice of screen name. I first read the book when I was in high school, so I’m not sure if it shaped my perspective, or if it validated core principles I was developing at the time. However, these principles, which have only solidified and strengthened over the years, include my deep belief in fairness, compassion and decency.
I was offended by the tabloid-esque questions posed during the first hour of the debate, but even more so by the fact that Hillary Clinton clearly condoned these questions. She had many opportunities to back away from, or denounce, this "gotcha" style of politics, similar to the way Senator Obama spoke about her Bosnia recollection. But instead she chose to extend the moderators’ non-policy questions to Senator Obama and lay out Republican talking points in the process.
If the moderators were, in fact, trying to create controversy and/or revive non-policy issues that have already been reported ad naseam, Senator Clinton certainly enabled them. The exchange regarding William Ayers was the most striking (kudos to Senator Clinton for having fast-facts on the tip of her tongue regarding Ayers).
I believe that many Clinton supporters would counter that the questions to Senator Obama were fair and reasonable, as were Hillary’s responses. Even the candidate herself seemed to believe that there are no boundaries when it comes to asking non-policy related questions, based on a statement she made during the debate. In reference to Senator Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright, Clinton said:
You know, these are problems. And they raise questions in people's minds. And, so, this is a legitimate area, as everything is, when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.
I disagree with Senator Clinton. Everything – emphasize everything – is not a legitimate area for people to be exploring. I would remind Senator Clinton that her daughter was asked some questions on the campaign trail recently that we all can agree were inappropriate. Rightly, she didn’t answer them.
I would note that legitimacy also extends to how one chooses to put forward information. In regard to Senator Obama’s comments regarding rural Pennsylvanians, Senator Clinton and her campaign chose to move this issue forward by taking the comments literally. There was no attempt to put them in context or apply some interpretation, as evidenced again during Wednesday’s debate.
I recall an episode of The Brady Bunch, in which Greg and his parents make a deal to abide by "exact words". Any Brady fan will remember how that deal turned out for Greg and the lesson learned. I guess Senator Clinton missed that episode. Maybe some of Clinton’s former supporters are also wistfully remembering the "caveat emptor" episode. But I digress.
Here is my experiment. I am going to take a page from the Brady Bunch playbook and make a deal with Senator Clinton. For 24 hours, I am going to live by her exact words and hold her to hers (the same courtesy she recently extended to Senator Obama) - Everything is a legitimate area for exploration when one is running for office.
Okay, I’m ready – throwing out my core principles, adopting new point of view - 24-hours of exact words and anything goes starts.........now.
FINCH EXPERIMENT – Warm Up
Overall Debate Thoughts: Charlie and George - wow! They were a regular Lewis and Clark, seeking out uncharted territory in search of opportunity (uh, for Americans). In light of my new 24-hour rule, I can appreciate now why Senator Clinton was very pleased with their performance, as a fan of exploration herself. It’s all beginning to make sense. She was named after Edmund Hillary, after all. Oh wait....scratch that.
On a specific note, I was particularly impressed that Charlie and George brought in an average American citizen to ask Senator Obama about his belief in the American flag. It fit nicely with their Lewis and Clark, flag planting personas. However, I would have been even more impressed if they had asked Senator Obama to lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. That would have really been the true test of his patriotism. Can you imagine if he messed up the words? Score!
Side note – This whole issue of the flag pin has me thinking. I have many Christian friends who don’t wear crosses. Maybe it’s time for me to question their faith. Or I could just assume they secretly hate the church. Yeah, that makes more sense. After all, why should they get to be the authorities on what they think? Besides, it always makes me feel smart when I get to be right.
Back to flag pins....
FINCH EXPERIMENT Part I – Legitimate Areas for Exploration
Senator Clinton, I have some questions.
- I visited your website today. I looked through the photo gallery. I noticed that you weren’t wearing a flag pin at: the Roundtable on the Economy in Ft. Wayne, IN (March 28, 2008); the Compassion Forum (April 13, 2008); the "Solutions for a Strong Military" town hall with senior retired military officers and Pennsylvania veterans in Aliquippa, PA (April 9, 2008); a "Solutions for the Pennsylvania Economy" event in Fairless Hills, PA (March 31, 2008) – and then I stopped looking. However, you are wearing a flag pin in your official senate photo.
Your sincerity about your patriotism is causing me concern. Why would you wear a flag pin for an official senate photo but not while campaigning for President of the United States?
- In regard to Reverend Wright, you said during the debate:
Obviously, one's choice of church and pastor is rooted in what one believes in what you're seeking in church and what kind of, you know, fellowship you find in church.
According to an article published in the September, 2007 issue of Mother Jones:
Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as "The "Fellowship," also known as The Family.
Similarly, The Nation reports in March, 2008:
Clinton fell in with The Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the Senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton.
However, according to an NBC News investigative report from April 3, 2008:
....people close to her (Clinton) told NBC News that she.... is not a member of The Fellowship.
Senator Clinton - Did Mother Jones and The Nation inaccurately report your association with The Family?
- You said during the debate:
It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to.
Mark Penn served as your chief strategist until recently. Were you aware when you chose him for such an important role that his position as President of Burson-Marsteller could present a potential conflict of interest for your campaign?
According to The New York Times:
The Colombian government hired the lobbying firm (Burson-Marsteller) last year under a $300,000 one-year contract to help secure passage of a bilateral trade treaty with the United States.
Were you aware of the relationship between Mr. Penn’s firm and the Columbian government prior to Mr. Penn’s March 31st meeting with the Columbian ambassador to the U.S.?
Given that Mr. Penn resigned, in fact, due to a conflict of interest, in retrospect do you believe you used sound judgment in hiring him?
Finally, do you have any insight as to why your chief strategist would lobby on behalf of a trade treaty that you oppose? And given that he is still providing polling and advice to your campaign, am I to assume that Mr. Penn still has your seal of approval?
FINCH EXPERIMENT Part II – Exact Words
- During the debate, you stressed:
....how important it is that we try to go after every single vote, everywhere we possibly can, to get to those electoral votes that we're going to need to have the next president elected.
However in 1995, at a Camp David Retreat, you made a dismissive comment in reference to southern, white working class swing voters:
Screw ‘em.
Your comment has been confirmed by three sources.
Your statement at the debate seems to contradict your 1995 sentiments. Therefore, if you are the nominee, do you plan to court working class swing voters? And in light of your past sentiments, do you believe they will trust efforts?
On the same topic:
It was reported Friday that when speaking to donors at a private fundraiser recently, you criticized a large portion of Democrats who voted in caucus states. You said:
We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.
In response to your comments, MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser issued the following statement:
Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points.
However, at a public MoveOn-sponsored town hall last year, you praised the organization:
You've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves... I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better... both online, and in the corridors of power.
Two questions, Senator Clinton: 1) How do your reconcile what you said in private to your donors with what you said in public to the organization; and 2) Why are you criticizing a key Democratic constituency – the activist base of the Party – for exercising their right to vote?
- During the debate you said:
You know, now, the typical family has lost at least $1,000. And the fact is that, you know, I don't want to take one more penny of tax money from anybody.
Politico notes:
The Clintons have made a $100-million fortune since leaving the White House, but a Politico analysis found that hasn’t kept Bill Clinton from taking full advantage of the publicly funded perks offered to ex-presidents. In fact, his presidential retirement benefits cost taxpayers almost as much as those of the other two living ex-presidents combined.
Since 2001, Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to former presidents - from his pension to his staff’s salaries and benefits to supplies. His $420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both nearly surpassed the totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and the late former presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined.
As you know, ordinary Americans are having a hard time filling up their gas tanks and paying their insurance premiums, Given that you and your husband are now included among the wealthiest people in the country, would you be willing to relieve taxpayers the burden of paying for expenses such as former President Clinton’s phone bills, and assume that financial responsibility personally?
- At the debate you apologized for telling untruths about your 1996 visit to Bosnia. You said:
On a couple of occasions in the last weeks, I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case and what I had written about in my book. And, you know, I'm embarrassed by it. I have apologized for it.
However, you have not apologized for misleading the American people in regard to your prior support for NAFTA. In fact, at a widely publicized press conference before the Ohio primary, you admonished Senator Obama – "Shame on you, Senator Obama" – for claiming that you had been for NAFTA before you were against it. Let’s watch a short video:
At this point, are you willing to apologize for misrepresenting the consistency of your position on NAFTA?
FINCH EXPERIMENT Part III – Post Debate Spin
- In regard to the tough questions asked of Senator Obama at the debate, you said the following on Friday:
Being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressures you face inside the White House. In fact, when the going gets tough, you just can’t walk away....
However, here is your response to a tough question asked on April 10th by a CNN reporter during a press conference:
Senator Clinton – 1) Is your reaction to this reporter's tough question representative of how you will hold up under pressure as President; and 2) Without crossing your fingers behind your back, do you believe you actually answered the question?
FINCH EXPERIMENT Part IV – Huh?
- Senator Clinton, one final question, courtesy of George Stephanopoulos.
You have shared your stories about duck hunting on the campaign trail. I understand you even nailed one. Senator, do you personally regret having killed a defenseless duck, and did the experience shape or influence your views on a woman’s right to choose?
TIME-OUT
What points am I hoping to make? Respect isn’t owed – it’s earned. Integrity is defined by one's actions. And finally, there are times when exact words matter, and there are times when they don’t. Confusing? Not really. It is up to the candidates, based on their best judgments, to decide where and when to draw the line. It’s not really that hard to figure out, in my opinion, if one’s judgment comes from core principles and not personal opportunities.
In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch said to his daughter:
If you just learn a single trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.
Note to Senator Clinton: Learn where to draw the line. "Bittergate" was pure exploitation. Senator Obama was just trying to understand....
Thanks for reading my very long letter, Mr. Olbermann. I appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Miss Scout Finch