MEMO TO BILL CLINTON: SHUT-UP

Dear Bill,

Get over it and get help. Your whining and whimpering combined with your wife’s blatant displays of dishonesty and dishonor in her campaign are going to assure that history remembers her candidacy as a shameful thing, rather than the way it deserves to be remembered: a run for the presidency by a brilliant woman with a great deal to offer her country.

Does it not dawn on you both that her candidacy has done a good thing for this country? It has shown that a woman can run for president, be a real force in the process, and have a real chance of reaching the presidency.

So Bill, what are you doing? You’re actually running around whimpering that people are bullying the super delegates into voting for Obama? You actually said there was a vast left wing conspiracy looking to cover-up some untoward deed. You actually said, “Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.’”

All I can say is you must be one frightened little dude when you are on an airplane, what with the right wing conspiracy you complained about a few years back and the left wing conspiracy you say is afoot right now. Do you look back and forth at each wing when you are in a plane and tremble uncontrollably?

Here’s an idea. Why don’t you, Bill, put your country first, before you, before your wife, before any one person? See if you can’t borrow a bit of the extraordinary foresight of a Lincoln or Washington and understand how choices and actions now will affect this country in the future. Your wife’s candidacy sets a wonderful precedent for future American women and American men.

If you can’t develop this foresight, then, well, shut-up.

Sincerely,

Peter S. Kahrmann

CLINTON, DISINGENUOUS? SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

The Democratic National Committee decided that the Florida and Michigan primaries will not count because each state moved their primaries up in the schedule. Because of this, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack O’Bama did not campaign in either state. When each state held it’s primary, Clinton came out on top. The Associated Press reports that Clinton now wants the delegates from each state to count, never mind what the Democrat National Committee, which includes her fellow New York State Senator Charles Schumer, decided.

Clinton now says, “It’s a mistake for the Democratic Party to punish these two states,” she said. “I don’t see how a Democratic nominee goes forward alienating two of the most important states.”

Spare me. If Senator Clinton, or Senator Obama, for that matter, felt the DNC’s decision was wrong, the time to speak was then, not now, when you are behind in the delegate count, and are willing to twist any reality and bend any rule to win. Any member of the human race who thinks Clinton would be saying this if Obama had won the Florida and Michigan primaries lives in a fantasy world far more than twice removed from Mother Earth.

When the idea primary do-overs for both states is raised, which would afford each candidate the chance to campaign in both and interact with the public, the Clinton campaign does a sloppy, stumbling soft-shoe and moans about inconvenience and cost.

I think the DNC was dead wrong to punish Florida and Michigan because they moved their primaries up. I think both states were unfairly punished. The DNC decision was, at best, dictatorial. But for Clinton to poo-poo the idea of do-overs, which, to my mind is the only reasonable choice on the table, and suddenly don some pseudo conscience and pretend she is offended by the DNC’s decision is both offensive and disingenuous. So what else is new?

AMERICANS REJECT FEAR AND EMBRACE OBAMA

One of the reasons Senator Barack Obama’s campaign has become one of the healthiest movements in recent American history is this: the American people are sick and tired of politicians trying win their votes by traumatizing them with fear.

With all our dysfunctions, we Americans are family, and as one member of the family, I am dead tired of watching family members being traumatized with fear because someone wants their votes. Bush and Cheney, our co-American dictators, have used fear tactics that would impress some of the nastiest dictatorships throughout history. Now we have Senator Hillary Clinton inflicting an ad on the American people that blatantly tries to convince viewers that without her in the White House, their children are in mortal danger. The ad blatantly plays into the nearly universal desire to keep children safe. Radio talk show host Don Imus recently wondered just how low the Clinton’s will go to win the nomination. Answer? As low as it takes to win.

Americans are sick of it.

We are all members of the American family. We are all in this together. It does not make a difference to me if a member of my American family lives in Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania or Rhode Island or my home state of New York. It does not make a difference to me if a member of my American family is Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. It does not make a difference to me if a member of my American family is gay, straight or bi-sexual. It does not make a difference to me if a member of my American family is Black, White, Asian, or Hispanic. It doe not make a difference to me if a member of my American family is Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist or agnostic. I do not like it when members of my family are being put through the blood chilling experience of fear because someone wants their votes.

The American people must pull together and send a powerful message to Washington D.C. that political fear tactics must stop. And it seems to me that the groundswell of support for Senator Obama shows we are doing just that. Yes, there are fear tactics being used to derail him too. Falsely linking him to Farrakhan or accusing his minister of being anti-Semitic when the Anti-Defamation League has said this charge has no basis in fact. It will not work this time. We Americans may be a wily bunch, but we are not stupid and when we have had enough, we have had enough.

News reports and polls from around the country show that Republicans, Independents, Democrats and others are aligning themselves with Senator Obama, not because Obama is a Democrat, but because he appears to be the one candidate for the presidency who is not using fear to manipulate. He is the one candidate for the presidency who is truly seeking to unite.

Please consider something for a moment. When Americans think of Lincoln, they think of a great president. His political party is an afterthought. When most Americans think of Washington, Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, they think of great presidents. Rarely do we think of the political parties they belonged to. Why? Because they were presidents who put the American people first. This is what my American family deserves now. An American president who will put the American people, all the American people, first.

Obama has my vote.

THE NY TIMES WRONG ON CLINTON

A New York Times editorial this week endorsing Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary is appalling for what it does say and what it does not say.

I had to re-read one sentence a few times simply to make sure I “heard” it right. “On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two.” Did the Times really just say that? Did the Times really just say there is no real gulf separating Clinton and Obama on the major issues? Are they kidding? From day one Obama has consistently been against the war. Clinton, on the other hand, voted for the war and recently angered many by voting for a Bush-backed resolution that pushes my country closer to war with Iran. Obama has been steadfast in his opposition to the war and his opposition to needlessly escalating matters with Iran. No real gulf separating them? Well, I can’t think any gulf wider than supporting a war and opposing a war. But hey, that’s just me.

The Times editorial does not address the increasingly despicable behavior of former President Bill Clinton in Senator Clinton’s campaign, a campaign that is sending a powerful signal that electing Senator Clinton would essentially be electing a married couple to the presidency. Moreover, if Senator Clinton can’t reign in the former president in her campaign, what will happen if they return to the White House?

Some of Clinton’s key supporters and staff can be incredibly sleazy. And while Senator Clinton distances herself from their seedy and divisive proclamations, her inability or unwillingness to stop them raises another question: if you can’t restrain some of your key supporters and staff members, what will happen if you’re in the White House?

Andrew Young is reported to have said “Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack.” Not only is that a despicable thing to say (Young later said he was joking – fat chance), but why on earth should that statement make anyone want to vote for Senator Clinton?

And then, of course, there is the typical Clintonian spin (lying, folks) of being the ones who injected race as in issue into the campaign and now whine that Obama started it.

Obama is right when he says the country is sick of divisiveness. Obama is right when he says the American people are sick of fear being used on them as a kind of political crowd control. Obama is right when he says we need to stop thinking in terms of red states and blue states and get back to thinking in terms of the United States.

There is nothing uniting about the Clintons. And every time I find myself thinking we won’t be dumb enough to fall for their blatant character assassination of Obama and elect them to the White House, I remind myself that we elected George W. Bush – and you can’t get any dumber than that.

The New York Times support for Senator Clinton is support for a dual presidency, which is something the founding fathers would frown on. As for Senator Obama’s lack of experience, consider this for a moment: James Buchanan, considered by scholars to be one of the three worst American presidents, had more than 20 years in congress under his belt along with four years as secretary of state before being elected to the presidency. Abraham Lincoln had only two years in the House of Representatives.

To my mind it is the person’s character, not the length of their employ that makes the difference. And when it comes to character, Obama comes out on top, hands down. He has my vote.