Every morning when I wake up, I have "letters to the editor" dancing in my head. I have had two published in the Wisconsin State Journal in the past week, one under my married name, one under my maiden name. I am running out of names, and the editor calls to verify the writer's identity before running the letter.
I've decided to post letters to my blog in the hope that some of you will pick them up, send them to your own newspapers, and use your own name. I am not proud <gr>.
So please, help yourself. If you edit, please keep in mind that most newspaper want only 200 words.
Letter #1:
“McCain-Palin are not change”
Obama has removed the corrupting influence of lobbyists and PAC money from his campaign and from the Democratic Party; McCain welcomes and embraces both. Obama refuses to participate in the slash-and-burn politics of personal destruction; McCain-Palin do not. Their snide derision of Obama, coupled with repeated lies about his record, are the kind of politics that Americans are tired of and will reject. Obama has laid out a visionary plan to cure what ails our country after eight years of Bush and Republican rule. McCain-Palin embrace the failed policies of both and offer nothing new. McCain bragged about voting with Bush 90% of the time; Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere (before being against it), accepted more pork per capita for Alaska than any other governor, and left her small town deeply in debt when she moved on to be governor. Obama worked across the aisle to pass sweeping ethics reforms as well as to secure loose nukes. McCain now opposes his own immigration bill, as well as the GI Bill, women’s reproductive health guarantees, and wind-solar packages.
Letter #2:
What We Need in a President
While McCain graduated near the bottom of a class of 900 at the Naval Academy, Obama graduated magna cum laude at the top of his class at Harvard. McCain’s explosive temperament has been questioned by Senate colleagues, including Republicans. Obama has shown himself to be ever cool under pressure. Given the challenges Bush has left us with—a recession, two wars, an eroded Constitution, and our reputation in tatters abroad—it’s going to take a healthy, energetic successor to begin to repair the damage. Obama fits the bill. The true picture of McCain’s health—physical and emotional—has so far evaded media scrutiny. In two key displays of judgment—whether the Iraq War should have been waged and who can step in as president on Day One, if needed—Obama’s judgment trumps McCain’s.
Wake up, voters. Don’t feel fooled again. We need someone wiser than us to fix Bush’s mess—not a guy we want to have a beer with or the hockey mom next door.
Letter #3:
When self-described big gambler John McCain chose Sarah Palin for vice president, he proved he won’t put “America First.” In fact, he’s gambling America’s security to win an election.
Actuarial tables indicate a 72-year-old four-time cancer survivor has a one-in-three chance of dying in office. Palin, not “ready on Day One,” is now reportedly cramming to learn a fraction of what Obama and Biden already bring to the table. McCain’s “judgment” in the Palin selection reveals a cynical, impulsive “executive” willing to do anything to appeal to polled voting segments. We elect him at our peril.
Palin is not the Reformer she and McCain claim. She was for the “Bridge to Nowhere” in 2006 before now being against it. She lobbied for and received at least $17 million in earmarks for Wasilla, but left the city $20 million in debt. Under legislative investigation for abuse of power, she opposes abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. Skeptical of global warming, she headed indicted Sen. Ted Stevens’ PAC. As recently as two weeks ago, Palin sat in her church where hate speech against Jews spewed from the pulpit unchallenged.
McCain-Palin is not the ticket to unify and protect all Americans.
Letter #4:
McCain No Longer A Maverick
McCain now supports Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy he used to oppose; Obama’s tax plan reduces taxes on the middle class three times more than McCain’s, while increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans and businesses that ship jobs overseas. In pushing for the Iraq war right after 9/11, McCain incorrectly linked the anthrax attacks to that country and claimed we would be hailed as liberators. Obama opposed that war early on, employing sound judgment over politics. His predictions that war in Iraq would imperil our economy, fan anti-American sentiment, and distract us from Afghanistan have sadly proven true. For all McCain’s talk of ethics reform, lobbyists run his campaign and set his policies. Obama is vigilant about removing the corrupting influence of lobbyists and their money both in his campaign, in the DNC, and in the “change government” he intends to run.
If you have any success, please let me know where (e-mail scsinykin@gmail.com).
I just submitted what I hope will be an op-ed piece to the Wisconsin State Journal to refute misinformation in a prominently featured "letter to the editor" in yesterday's Sunday FORUM. It featured a large, bold headline--Please Don't Pick Obama Over Clinton--and ran a three-column by four-inch photo of Clinton campaigning. This piece is much longer than the 200-word letter to the editor limit, but I asked them to run it as an op-ed in fairness. It takes a lot of words to refute Rush Limbaugh's sound bytes!
Sheri
While your prominently featured letter writer, Jean F. Ross (Sunday, June 1, “Please Don’t Pick Obama Over Clinton”), is certainly entitled to her own opinion, she is not entitled to her own facts. She makes several false claims of “truth” that any educated Obama supporter—of which I am proud to be one—would feel compelled to refute.
First, Obama has not “three years of government experience” as she claims, but rather ELEVEN—more even than Senator Clinton. According to the New York Times, which early-on endorsed Clinton when she was “supposed to be” President, Obama’s eight years as an Illinois state senator included more than 800 bills—230 concerning heath care, 125 on poverty and public assistance, nearly 100 concerning business and the economy, over 60 on education, and 60 on civil rights. His state legislative experience gives him a keen understanding and a good grasp of the implications of federal policies on a state level.
While in the U.S. Senate, Obama has worked across the aisle with Sen. Coburn to pass the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, which enables anyone to search all government contracts, grants, earmarks, and loans and see how our tax monies are being spent by the government. Ms. Ross might appreciate that, and the fact that transparency in government will be a hallmark of Obama’s presidency. Barack has been the only candidate to release his own earmarks and not accept campaign donations from PACs and federal lobbyists. His ethics and lobbying work in the Senate bear out his commitment to honest and open government.
The Lugar-Obama non-proliferation initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. It will help other nations find and eliminate conventional weapons that have been sought by terrorists all over the world and used against our own soldiers in Iraq.
A careful study of all Obama’s (and Clinton’s) Senate bills at the Library of Congress website (http://thomas.loc.gov/) shows that while both care about the issues, Obama’s bills aim to fix the problem, despite heavy contrarian lobby interests. His proposals show leadership and vision, rather than careful, quick-fix solutions.
Ms. Ross misses the point in believing that years of government experience are the only requirement to be a great president. Obama brings much more to Washington than the “three years” she cited in error. His childhood in Hawaii and abroad in Indonesia—as well as his connection to family in other Third World countries—gives him a unique ability to see situations from many points of view and to work to build consensus. He possesses a rare quality of empathy that allows him to speak about potentially divisive topics like race in a way that seeks to heal, rather than to inflame passions. Obama’s life experience includes over twenty-five years of varied service, as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago, as editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, as a civil rights attorney, a constitutional law professor, and a voting rights activist before his work with the people led him to politics. Unlike his opponents, politics did not lead Obama to the people.
For all their years of Washington experience, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clinton, and McCain all lacked the judgment to foresee the disaster that is now Iraq. Obama’s principled and prescient denouncement of the war in 2002 is testament to his foreign policy instincts and his willingness to speak the truth, despite the politics of the moment. After eight years of George Bush’s propaganda—recently confirmed by his former press secretary—and lack of candor, an Obama presidency will be a welcome change.
But this election is not simply about changing which political party is in the White House. By being a “Washington outsider” not yet steeped in the culture of letting special interests write his legislation, Obama will bring fundamental change in the way business is done there. He will be the People’s President, working in a bipartisan way as he has done throughout his life to end decades of gridlock in Washington.
Those concerned about Obama’s “corporate skills,” need only look to the way he has managed his campaign. Unlike his chief opponent, Obama had a long range strategy from “Day One”—not just until Super Tuesday. Despite always leading in delegates from the first caucus in Iowa, he never took anything for granted. His campaign has been one of discipline, mutual respect, lack of drama, and active grassroots support from “the bottom up.” Barack Obama built a movement from nothing, running a fiscally responsible campaign that has never loaned itself money or been in the red—the way he will seek to run our country.
Lastly, I need to refute Jean Ross’s contention that “people in the know” are working to cut the United States’ involvement with the U.N. and that Obama’s Senate bill gives “millions of our money” to the U.N. I presume she is referring to the Global Poverty Bill which conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has falsely claimed would enable the U.N. to levy a global tax on the U.S. or make the U.S. subservient to the wishes of the U.N.
In fact, while the Global Poverty Act would proclaim that "[i]t is the policy of the United States to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day," the act would establish no specific funding source, would not commit the United States to any targeted level of spending, and specifically would require the president—not the United Nations—to "develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day." (Source: Media Matters)
Obviously, this piece of legislation—or any other reduced to sound bytes by Rush Limbaugh and other pundits seeking to advance Clinton as the nominee by tearing down Obama—is more complicated than most voters have time to research. When print media choose to run an opinion piece without checking the factual accuracy of its assertions, it seems only fair to also print a researched rebuttal. I offer mine to set the record straight.
It is my opinion that by the end of this week, Obama will have fairly won and earned the Democratic nomination, based on every rule and metric set forth and agreed upon by all candidates at the beginning of the contest. Obama has won the most delegates—both pledged and super (though at the start of the race, Clinton’s superdelegates outnumbered Obama’s by 150)—and the most states. Popular vote and snapshot polls have never decided election results. We learned this both in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency, and in 2004, when John Kerry won in the exit polls. And these metrics have never determined the winner of a party’s primary. To claim otherwise is spin that needs correcting.
From Day One, Barack Obama’s vision has been to be president of the Fifty United States, not the thirteen traditionally Democratic-voting states. Any view that he “stole” the nomination is sour grapes by voters who felt Clinton was entitled to win by virtue of showing up this year. But that is not how we elect our leaders in America. And it never has been. The sooner Clinton voters grieve their very real sense of loss, face facts (not spin), and consider what a McCain presidency could mean to them and their loved ones, I hope they will take a fresh look at Obama, without the filter of bitterness.
At the request of someone on the blog, I am posting here the entire letter I sent to 50 Wisconsin women writer friends, asking them to forward it to undecideds (if they didn't delete it). I know for a fact that one woman forwarded it to three undecided neighbors that turned into three votes today for Obama. Feel free to take what you might like to use of my letter, adapt it, make it your own.
I just had a long, good talk with Chad at the DNCMain Phone Number: 202-863-8000 or toll-free 877-336-7200 about the circus The Opposition is making of the "vote" in FL. I asked him where Howard Dean is in all this and why he isn't speaking out for the position of the DNC and saying that the rules are the rules, that all the candidates signed on to them, and that they will NOT be changed in the middle of the game for ANY candidate.
I noted a pattern of one candidate, the same candidate, trying to change the rules in Nevada, now FL, and probably MI, too.
He asked me to post this widely on the blog and tell people he needs to hear from enough of us, in order for Dean to get out front and speaking on the issue. My point was that the media should hear from Dean before this evening's media event where one candidate tries to spin a win in FL.
Chad is also interested in whether we think these antics will cause us not to support whoever is the nominee in the fall. I told him I would not vote for ANY candidate--Republican or Democrat--if the nominee won by cheating, misrepresenting the truth, playing the race card, and gaming the system.
So call the DNC and vent. They really need and want to hear from us.
I sent the e-mail below to about 300 personal contacts in February voting states. If smears can go viral, why not good news as well?! Please feel free to copy whatever you like, adding your own story, and forwarding this widely. Please repost widely. YES WE CAN combat the e-mail smears!
Dear Friends, Family and Colleagues,
We have probably never discussed politics. Most likely, I don't know whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. But that doesn't matter, because I believe at our core, we are all Americans who want to heal a deeply divided country and change forever the world’s negative view of America. If you have already made a firm decision about which candidate to support in your upcoming primary or caucus, please read no further and simply delete this e-mail.
But if you are still Undecided or a Barack Obama supporter, please read on: As you may be aware, e-mail has gone “viral” to spread misinformation and to smear the good name of Sen. Obama. But I believe e-mail can also be used to "start spreading good news" about his candidacy and his flood of support from respected national leaders and newspapers. If, after reading the message below, you have moved from "Undecided" to an Obama supporter--or if you already are an Obama supporter--I ask that you please forward this e-mail to your friends and colleagues who will be voting soon, adding your own personal story above mine. Our movement for “Change We Can Believe In” is more than a campaign slogan. Anyone who has read Sen. Obama’s books, Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope, realizes that everything Obama says is consistent and authentic to who he is as a human being. He does not change his message depending on what pollsters say. We supporters are all doing what we can in creative grassroots ways to share our fierce belief in “the urgency of now”—that Now is the Moment to elect Sen. Barack Obama, a truly transformational leader with a unique ability to bring people together for the common good, for a higher purpose.
Please join us in helping to heal our beloved, wounded nation. The newspapers below express more eloquently than I can why it’s so imperative to support Senator Obama and to ensure that he is the Democratic candidate in the fall election. I wrote about the electability issue in a recent published Letter to the Editor of the Arizona Republic. On a personal level, I’d like to say that I live without health care coverage for six months of the year, though we continue to pay premiums approaching $1,800 a month for HMO coverage in Wisconsin (for which we are grateful!). Because we have pre-existing conditions, we cannot buy health insurance for our winters in Arizona for any amount of money. While all three Democratic candidates have plans that I could embrace, only Barack Obama stands a chance of working across the aisle to actually get a plan enacted. It will be eight years before I am old enough for Medicare—if it still exists by then.
For those who want to know more about Obama’s policy proposals, I have attached his 64-page “Blueprint for Change.” There is no possible way he could outline all these policies in one of his inspiring speeches that have been filling us with hope and belief in a different kind of politics—a politics free from the undue influence of money from corporations and lobbyists, free from negative ads that mischaracterize an opponent’s statements or label and demonize segments of the electorate. Check out the truthfulness of anything you hear or read, by going to www.factcheck.org or the Obama campaign website’s www.factcheck.barackobama.com. All reports are verified by outside sources. And now, please enjoy the links below as you learn more “good news” about Senator Barack Obama! A selection of newspaper endorsements:
Atlanta Journal-Constitution (GA)
San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Sacramento Bee (CA)
Inland Daily Bulletin (CA)
Trenton Times (NJ)
Arizona Republic (AZ)
San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Chicago Tribune (IL)
Philadelphia Inquirer (PA)
Las Vegas Review Journal (NV)
Dallas Morning News (TX)
Boston Globe (MA)
These are but a few of Senator Obama’s declared political supporters:
Sen. Ted Kennedy (MA)
Caroline Kennedy
Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT)
Sen. John Kerry (MA)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (MO)
Sen. Ben Nelson (NE)
Sen. Dick Durbin (IL)
Sen. Tim Johnson (SD)
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (SD)
Gov. Jim Doyle (WI)
Gov. Janet Napolitano (AZ)
Gov. Kathleen Sibelius (KS)
Gov. Tim Kaine (VA)
Gov. Rod Blagojevich (IL)
Gov. Deval Patrick (MA)
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)
See all superdelegates here.
Two cultural supporters:
Oprah Winfrey
Author Toni Morrison, who dubbed Bill Clinton “the first black president”
Some recent interviews:
1/27/08 Interview with George Stephanopolous (includes Obama addressing the issue of his relationship with Tony Rezcko). Or read Transcript here.
SF Chronicle Editorial Board Interview (video, 52 minutes)
Jack Welch (GE CEO) Grills Obama on CNBC
MLK Church Speech Video
SC Victory Speech Video
Iowa Victory Speech Video
1/27/08 Harvest Church Speech Video
Enjoy! And once you’re onboard, please forward this e-mail to start spreading good news about Senator Barack Obama-- the one candidate uniquely prepared to end politics as usual and finally advance a progressive domestic agenda, while making us believe in “our better angels” and inspiring the entire world to once again respect America.
All best,
Sheri Sinykin
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0125fri1-25.html
Jan. 25, 2008 12:00 AM
COULD THIS FORESHADOW AN ENDORSEMENT? I SURE HOPE SO! GOING CANVASSING FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY, AND ALL DAY TOMORROW.
RALLY AT HQ AT 2 P.M. TOMORROW (SATURDAY) WITH GOV. JANET NAPOLITANO! LET'S GET THOSE UNDECIDED VOTERS TO GOOOOO OBAMA!
Jan. 24, 2008 12:00 AM
My Letter to the Editor on this issue is published today in the Capital Times (Madison WI):
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/268446
Letter to the editor — 1/21/2008 8:59 am
Dear Editor: Nothing is more precious than the concept of "one person, one vote." This is not a partisan issue. Ever since the 2000 and 2004 elections, when inaccuracies and untrustworthiness of machine-counted votes were first reported and documented, we voters have been hoping that these issues would have been solved long before this 2008 election, arguably the most critical in our nation's history.
I am concerned that they have not been, and reports by a nonprofit, nonpartisan Web site (www.blackboxvoting.org), bear me out. While caucus voting is thoroughly transparent, it is imperative that the security and accuracy of vote-by-machine be ensured. New Hampshire's primary results, for example, reveal discrepancies in hand-counted versus machine-counted vote tallies. Blackboxvoting.org says, "New Hampshire is unable to document its chain of custody properly, lacks written procedures, its secretary of state has said he doesn't know where its memory cards are, and LHS has been encroaching on state elections with near-total control."
In South Carolina, there isn't even a paper trail. In a totally machine-counted state primary, how can we voters trust any of the results? How are we to know that the entrenched moneyed interests who control the hackable voting machine software won't have already hijacked our votes before we even mark the screen?
All candidates should speak in one voice about this issue on behalf of our democracy.
Madison
I sent this e-mail to a string of Jewish voters who received one of the hate e-mails. Feel free to take what you like and use in your own campaigns:
Dear _____________,
I am responding as a knowledgeable Obama supporter and believe fervently that he is the best candidate to heal the partisan divide in this country and to improve the US's standing throughout the world.To those who cite Hillary (and Bill's) talking point that Obama is short on experience, I will state the fact that he has more legislative experience--and more actual experience in crafting and passing legislation by working across the aisle to "help real people"--than she does. He has different experience than she does--teaching Constitutional law, working as a community organizer, as well as his state and national legislative experience--but that does not make it less valuable. Being a legislator and spending a long time in Washington has never been a predictor of a successful president. Indeed, Obama has more experience than Abraham Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents. Obama's life choices--including helping the poor over accepting a high-paying position in a legal firm--demonstrate his character and personal values. He has never been about "power for power's sake."
I will refrain from dissecting Clinton's claim of 35 years of experience. Obama has made it clear to all supporters that we should not engage in tearing down the opponent.
While it is true that Obama is a member of that particular church in Chicago, it is NOT true that he believes and aligns himself with everything Rev. Wright says or does. He has been especially vocal in disavowing Wrights's and Farakhan's positions when they offend Jews and others. I daresay not all of us believe exactly what our own rabbis believe or do. I have found some rabbis speak in ways that make me wonder whether they put Israel's best interests above the United States. I see this in Jewish voters as well, which troubles me.
Also circulating is another e-mail that impugns Obama's patriotism and claims he is a Muslim and took his oath of office on the Koran. This is among many transparent attempts by opponents to spread disinformation for fear "he might win." These are addressed on Obama's website: http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.phphttp://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_is_a_patriot.php
Nine Jewish leaders spoke up yesterday in the NY Times to refute these slurs, aimed at scaring Jewish voters into not supporting Obama. You can read it at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/us/politics/16letter.html For those who would say "not all rabbis agree," I should point out the old Jewish refrain that if you have two Jews, there will be three synogogues--one that neither will set foot into. <gr>
It troubles me that if Arabs favor Obama, then Jews automatically MUST oppose him. One of my sons roomed in college abroad with a Palestinian roommate. When the dorm director discovered this, he was "concerned" and offered to move my son, who refused. He and Yussef became great friends--and this is the hope Obama holds out. He sees that people are more alike than their differences might suggest. His more global life experience positions him to bring disparate people together for the common good, and this is exactly what is needed in these troubled times. Certainly pre-emptive war and not talking to the "enemy" has not been successful.I for one am tired of fear being used to divide people, including Jews. It used to be a Bushian quality, but seems to have crossed the aisle, so desperate is the desire to "win at all costs."
If you read widely, and understand the biases of reporting media--be they mainstream or internet--you come to recognize Spin and Fear as tools of an entrenched Status Quo that is tied to corporate Big Money, and puts the interests of corporations above the interests of voters. We have reason to hope this will stop--or at least lose its grip--with an Obama presidency.While you may not personally support Obama, as I and my entire family do (taking active roles in politics for the first time in their lives), I ask you not to spread disinformation about him and his candidacy. I ask you not to continue the politics of fear and division that he and his supporters eschew. This is exactly why Obama has resonated so deeply with people who are tired of being divided and conquered by "politics as usual."
With respect,
I have received many hate e-mails, smearing Obama's good name and record, that are clearly directed to Jewish voters. I have been trying to put the fires out e-mail by e-mail, but it occurs to me I could share resources that others might use as well.
Yesterday, Jewish senators issued an open letter to the Jewish community to decry these smears. I have the letter in a pdf with signatures, if anyone wants to e-mail me at scsinykin@gmail.com.
But I will paste the text here:
Carl Levin
United States Senator January 18,2008
An Open Letter to the Jewish Community:
Over the pasi several weeks, many in the Jewish community have received hateful emails thai use falsehood and innuendo about Senator Barack Obama's religion and attack him personally. As Jewish United States Senators who have not endorsed a candidate for the Democratic nomination, we condemn these scurrilous attacks.
We find it particularly abhorrent thai these attacks arc apparently being sent specifically to the Jewish Community. Jews, who have historically been the target of such attacks, should be the first to reject these tactics.
Wewon't dignify these falsehoods by repeating them in order to refute them. Instead, we will express our outrage at these tactics, which are being used to demoni/c a good and decent man and our friend and colleague. Attempting to manipulate voters into supporting or opposing one candidate or another based on despicable and fictitious attacks is disgraceful. These false and malicious attacks should not be part ofour political discourse.
All voters should support whichever candidate they believe would make the best president. We sincerely hope that Americans will make that decision based on the factual records ofthese candidates, not false charges circulated by anonymous mass emails.
Sincerely,
It's signed by Carl Levin, Barbara Boxer, Ben Cardin, Frank Lautenberg, Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, and Bernie Sanders.
10 G Street, ME, Suite 470, Washington, DC 20002 * (2021 682-2202 * (202) 682-1918 FAX Contributions are not deductible For federal Income tax purposes, Paid For bv Friends nl Senator Carl Levin.
_________________________________________________________________________
It is known that Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are aligned with HRC, but one would still expect them to decry this kind of politics. Herb Kohl, my second senator, is curiously missing in the debate.
