1900 Superior Ave. Suite #221
Cleveland OH 44114
Phone: (734)645-6261
www.concerneddemocrats.org
An Open Letter to Democratic Candidates for Office
October 5, 2008
Dear Democratic Candidate for Office:
We are writing you as Democrats to another Democrat. As a Democratic candidate for office in this historic year, you are in an unique position to help Barack Obama and Joe Biden reverse our nation's priorities.
Unfortunately, the combination of the Obama/Biden campaign’s practice until very recently of de-emphasizing use of traditional visual materials such as yard signs, bumper stickers and buttons and the natural tendency of local candidates to be focused on their own races has resulted in a repeat in 2008 of what has been a longstanding problem in Democratic campaigns during Presidential years: uneven levels of coordination between local campaigns and the top of the ticket in many areas and inadequate support for the top of the ticket.
True, there are many areas in which there is strong support for the top of the ticket and vice versa. That may very well be the case in your area. But this Open Letter stresses the importance of supporting the top of the ticket in very simple ways, such as wearing Obama/Biden buttons, putting Obama/Biden bumper stickers on your car, putting an Obama/Biden sign in your own front yard, trying to get Obama/Biden yard signs up where your own supporters have yard signs, etc..
Concerned Democrats was formed with goal of raising consciousness among candidates for office about the importance of the use of such Obama/Biden materials, in order to send a symbolic but important message to everyone who sees you that you support the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America.
Although there are many logistical causes of lack of coordination, lack of support for the top of the ticket also has political roots. It has manifested itself most often when there has been a liberal candidate for President, such as in 1972, 1984, and 2004. This year Barack Obama has articulated a uniquely pragmatic point of view. Barack Obama realizes that the social problems facing rural, suburban and urban American can’t be solved in isolation from each other.
Senator Obama is the real maverick in this race. He has worked successfully across party lines on nuclear proliferation and other issues. He defied the odds and ran a tough primary campaign during which he and Senator Hillary Clinton made history together. But their efforts and those of their supporters will be nullified if we don’t unite to elect Barack Obama as President, Joe Biden as Vice-President, and Congressional and state candidates across this country and state.
This makes it particularly important that all Democratic candidates unite to show the flag for the top of the ticket. That is the best way to build the turnout needed to win up and down the ticket. This year, undecided rates are still at a high rate, according to recent polls, and many voters are looking for guidance to those persons in public life they know and trust. In your area, that would include you!
You are in a good position to help voters in your area realize that our local problems can’t be optimally addressed without a change in administration in Washington. However, if voters don’t see consistent and visible evidence of your support for Barack Obama, they may mistakenly conclude that you are actually distancing yourself from the top of the ticket.
Thank you for hearing our concerns. Please feel free to call contact us at any time at mdover@concerneddemocrats.org. We are especially interested in hearing unique ideas as to how you have improved coordination and generated momentum in your area. We will then collate these ideas and share them with you in a follow-up email just prior to election day. We will also share them with the Democratic Party and the Campaign for Change, although I want to make it clear that Concerned Democrats does not represent either of these entities.
From preliminary conversations, one idea has already arisen, and that is for each candidate to say at every possible opportunity, "If you are supporting me, I would strongly urge you to also vote for the Obama/Biden ticket on election day."
One day, years from now, all of us who are active in this election will be asked by people close to us, "What did you do to help elect Barack Obama as President in 2008?" As a Democratic candidate for office this year, you will be able to proudly point to your candidacy and its important contribution to change in your area. However, I am writing you to ask that you also be able to say that you did whatever was in your power to be help elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden!
Sincerely,
Michael A. Dover
Concerned Democrats
See www.concerneddemocrats.org.
While I respect the campaign's wish that folks not operate independently, in addition to working within the campaign, I must do so. We'll be distributing 2000 buttons, 1000 bumper stickers and 2500 lapel labels directly to rural and suburban House candidates in Ohio and Michigan and seeking their pledge to more actively support the top of the ticket in the weeks again. The Obama/Biden campaign's stubborn failiure to listen to the people coming into the office asking for materials to distribute to neighbors and friends (due to David Plouffe's faulty and mistaken belief that visual materials don't matter and his over-reliance upon email, text messaging and TV ads) has combined with the intentional and unintentional failure of local candidates to show the flag for the top of the ticket. This 'perfect wave' is threatening the election outcome in Ohio and Michigan. When rural and suburban voters don't "see" visible support by their local candidates for the talk of the ticket, this lack of 'visuals' makes them think that these candidates aren't supporting Obama/Biden, which is very often not true. I'm hearing one story after another from these candidates about how hard a time even they have getting materials! So we're sending them on our own one candidate at a time.
Mike Dover, mdover@concerneddemocrats.org
Remember when banning the bomb was the fervent hope of the peace movement throughout the world? The post-boomers in the US whose inspirational leadership is bringing the hope of change via the Obama campaign may not have lived through those years, but I'm hoping that an Obama administration can take not just nuclear proliferation seriously (an issue that Senators Obama and Lugar have addressed) but nuclear disarmament seriously.
We need bold proposals for change. Here is one. When India announced it had the bomb, Arundati Roy wrote an eloquent article in The Nation about the bomb and its relationship to Hindu nationalism, despite the bomb's contradiction to the precepts of the Hindu religion. But at the risk of stereotyping religions, I'd like to make a point here. There was already a Christian bomb, and it was exploded twice over Buddhist and Shinto Japan. There was already an Atheist bomb, and it had been wielded in Cuba. And there was already a Jewish bomb, which again, speaking as a Jew, is contrary to everything Judaism stands for, first and foremost life. But, you see, everyone was convinced that the bomb was necessary to preserve life and prevent war. Their lives and their God needed the bomb.
It was only a matter of time until there was an Islamic bomb, and predominantly Sunni Pakistan was first. Then there was the North Korean bomb, which I can't even try to typologize. Now, as Benny Morris pointed out in his New York Times column, most intelligence services are convinced Iran plans its own, Shiite Muslim bomb. Wonderful, what's next, a Shinto bomb emerging from a thankfully not yet resurgent nationalism Japan? A Buddhist bomb courtesy of rogue rulers in Burma? And, of course, foremost in the minds of many is the Terrorist Bomb, courtesy of a theft from one of the stockpiles or a do-it-yourself project that is less likely to come from some cave than from the private estate of some wealthy would be totalitarian theocrat seeking to impose his way on the world or protect his people, his religion from the threats he perceives.
What is the way out? I think the way out is to go back to the roots of war and nuclear weapons before WWI. Back to the roots of colonialism. Two colonial powers, Britain and France, have the bomb, while other colonial powers, Japan, Germany, and Italy, were defeated and don't have the bomb. The key to nuclear disarmament is in Britain and France and their relationships with the previous colonies of India and Pakistan. President Obama should work with Russia and China and come to an agreement that they agree to a massive cut in their weapons stockpiles contingent upon the following: Britain, France, Pakistan and India would disarm entirely. This would free up the tremendous sums these nations now spend on nuclear weaponry. The peaceful intentions shown by the three superpowers would help convince India it is safe from China, the source of its primary concern historically. The most important threat of nuclear war, which is in my opinion between India and Pakistan were there political instability, would have been eliminated. Tremendous pressure would have been put on Iran not to arm, but there is a need for continuous pressure independent of such an initiative to prevent Iran from arming to start with. But if there is no Sunni bomb, it is my belief that there would be much less pressure for a Shiite bomb. I think we can leave Israel out of this, but once it was accomplished and an Iranian bomb was prevented, and there was a state of peace between Israel and Syria, it is my belief that for its own economic and humanistic and religious reasons, Israel would disarm as well. None of the existing nuclear powers are threatened by Israel's bomb and it shouldn't be the red herring which would prevent the kind of progress discussed above.
The key is Britain and France. Why do they need the bomb when there is no Soviet threat, no Russian threat, and they are adequately protected by the US nuclear umbrella and NATO's conventional forces? India and Pakistan would never disarm as long as their former colonial power, Britain, had the bomb. But if Britain and France were willing to disarm, I think there would be tremendous pressure on India and Pakistan to disarm. Well, in a nutshell, that's my impossible dream.
I just read Ilana Hairston's blog: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/ilanahairston/gGxPGg
And I replied as follow: Thanks for your comments, Ilana. I have hope that this visit by Barack Obama will lead to a more enlightened discussion of the issues in the region. Given Benny Morris's column in the Time's predicting an Israeli attack on Iran, we need to change the discourse from one of "war" to advocate for not only peace, but nuclear disarmament. First, Obama should stop referring to the Iraq "war". It's not a war, it's a UN authorized occupation. Bush likes to portray it as a "war", and Obama should start talking about it for what it is. On the hand, there still a declared state of war between Israel and Syria, and in the Korean peninsula. The first priority of Obama, the very first, should be to work to end these states of war and bring a peaceful settlement between Syria and Israel including settlement of the Sheba Farms dispute involving Lebanon. This would bring intense pressure on both sides to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mike Dover (mdover@umich.edu)
See my post on my impossible dream?
I joined the independent Progressives for Obama group and signed the ipetition available from the link at http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com/ Along with many veteran activists of the 60s generation, I've never given up the ship for progressive social change. But although I have supported some Democrats in the past, it has been rare for me to actively work for them (Jesse Jackson in 1984 in Louisiana; Dutch Morial's re-election as Mayor of New Orleans). Sometime just prior to the Iowa primary, I began paying attention and am convinced that while not dropping all of our other activism, progressive social activists should support and work hard to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. However, we also need to utilize this opportunity to re-think some of what we mean by progressive, and what being a progressive pragmatist means. So here is how I joined the independent group and above is how I'm blogging here. Glad to be aboard in this way and not just to donate as I have on numerous occasions.
"While the mantra of independent political action is one I have long supported,we have seen some of the damage which ill-considered independentactions on behalf of Obama and in other electoral contexts can do. Aforum for discussion and well-considered action is valuable, but Ihave been and plan to continue to be active directly within thecampaign and its many sub-groups such as social workers for Obama. Imight ad that those of us on the left are also part of the very "oldpolitics" which Obama is trying to move beyond. Somewhere along theway since glasnost, the promised "new thinking" never happened. We tooneed to re-think the nature of the alternatives to neo-liberalism weput forward, lest they be more or less the same. Also, generationally,young activists are clearly thinking differently about all sorts ofthings we don't "get", such as the relationship of activism tovolunteerism, just to give one example. What is progressive at onepoint of time is not necessarily progressive at another point of time,since the nature of progressive politics is historically contingent.If radical pragmatism isn't what progressives for Obama want out ofPresident Obama, we should get in for a rude surprise, as I suspectthat's what we are going to see, rather than the kinds of prototypicalideologically suggested responses and positions. Pragmatism is neverpopular, as it gores all sorts of sacred cows."
