Sunday, July 17, 2016

An open letter to the Clinton superdelegates

Dear superdelegates,

This is an open letter to you, the superdelegates of the state of Utah, the place where I live. It is also for any other superdelegate who is still pledging support for Hillary Clinton.

Here are the superdelegates for Utah:

Peter Corroon, current Democratic Party chair for the state of Utah, Bernie Sanders
Wayne Holland, former chair of the Utah Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders
Breanne Miller, vice chair of the Utah Democratic party, Hillary Clinton
Patrice M. Arent, current member of the Utah house, 36th District, Hillary Clinton

To the superdelegates who already support Senator Bernie Sanders, thank you. To all the others, this letter is for you.

I have been reading the story of the struggle for the for the Democratic Nomination for more than a year. I read how more than 450 of you aligned your support for Clinton before even the first primary was held. I was disappointed to see how the press tallied your "votes" into the delegate totals long before you are scheduled to vote on July 25, 2016. I have seen that many of you are steadfast in your determination to vote for Hillary Clinton to be the first woman nominated as presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. Notice that my language says that the nomination is still in contention. That's because neither primary candidate has the 2383 delegates needed to "clinch" the nomination.

While I can empathize with your desire to make history, I can think of better women for the nomination. Unfortunately, we have a contender for the nomination that is of dubious and questionable character in Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary is one of the most unpopular candidates for president in modern history. She is still under investigation by the FBI and Congress.

Sure, you could say that those are right-wing conspiracies to derail her candidacy. But you might have noticed that there are no such "conspiracies" against Bernie Sanders. I have read article after article about Clinton's dubious record, not from the conservative side of the spectrum, but from intelligent people on the left. I have written a few myself. I offer the following for your enlightenment:

Hillary has had the privilege of working with a bounty of advantages that any candidate for president would dream of:

  • Household name recognition like no other
  • A compliant media willing to add the spin she needs in the press
  • A well organized and financed campaign coordinated with the supposedly neutral DNC
  • The almost unanimous endorsement and support of every major figure in Democratic history that is still alive today

She should be a shoe-in, right? So why is there so much litigation surrounding the primary elections? Can it really just be sour grapes? I don't think so. Sanders supporters feel rightfully offended by the way the elections were organized and the way the votes were processed. Every single problem that was reported seemed to mean an advantage for Hillary Clinton.

You could say that she was not referred for indictment, but James Comey's press conference included damning statements of Clinton's record as Secretary of State. His past clients and employers provide a conflict of interest for him as well, making him unsuitable to reach the conclusion that no referral is warranted. The impression voters like myself have, is that Clinton is above the law and that she can continue her campaign, even with a cloud over her reputation. If she is above the law, then she is unaccountable to us. Who is she accountable to?

I want to draw your attention now to a passage from one of articles I linked to above, Why the Democratic delegates must choose Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee:
"I was particularly bothered by the speaker fees, even after just hearing about a handful of speeches to Goldman Sachs for $225,000 each. That is a lot of money, and Goldman Sachs is a huge and powerful bank. I decided to do my research. And that research led me to learn that it wasn’t just 6 speeches to Goldman Sachs, but 184 speeches by Hillary and Bill to 148 huge and powerful multi-national corporations for a total of $47,756,500 in just the two years before she declared her candidacy."
Hillary Clinton "earned" $47 million in speaking fees in the two years leading up to her announcement as candidate for president of the United States. These are not donations to her family foundation. These are not even political contributions. These are payments for services rendered.

What I would like to know is this: Did any of you, as superdelegates know about this? Now that you do know, how can you justify a vote for Hillary Clinton? You might say, "But she is loyal to all of the people of the United States!"

Which people? The people at the top or the bottom? Or is it somewhere in between?

Former presidential candidate and professor at Harvard University Larry Lessig has compiled and immense body of work on the subject of big money in politics. He has built a superPAC to end all SuperPACs. He has shown us that just 132 Americans have funded 60% of superPAC funding in the 2012 election cycle. His message? "He who pays the piper calls the tune."

"Hillary will say anything and change nothing." That's what then Senator Obama said as he debated Hillary Clinton in 2012. Who is calling the tune for Hillary Clinton now? Sure, she can mouth the words of Senator Sanders all she wants, but she's not a credible progressive. Even after she received the "endorsement of the century", her polling is no better than it was before.

Have a look at this graphic:

Now look at the trend since the endorsement. She went from 11% over Trump to 2.7% over Trump in the polling average. Historically, Clinton almost never recovers from polling setbacks.

She is not just polling badly. She is polling badly against someone I regard as the worst GOP candidate for president, ever. Both of them have net favorability ratings that are near or at historic lows. This polling is not a right-wing conspiracy. This is an indictment of her character.

Bernie Sanders is free of all the baggage that Clinton carries. No scandals, no investigations, no body trails foreign or domestic. He doesn't take big money contributions. He is dependent upon the people alone. He plays the tune called by the people. I may disagree with some of his policy positions, but I know that he is true to the people.

He's not perfect and I wouldn't want him to be. I want our next president to be one of us. Unpolished, a little ruffled, and maybe some wild hair days. I want someone who plays the laws he signs. I know where he stands and that he won't change with the winds like Hillary does. I voted for Sanders because I believe in him and I believe he is the best candidate to serve our country.

Superdelegates, I can't change your mind if you're dead set to vote for Hillary Clinton as the nominee. But you have to ask yourself, is Hillary Clinton the legacy you want to leave behind for your kids and their kids? You may find your sleep easier if you nominate Bernie Sanders, instead. I know I did when I voted for him.


Scott C. Dunn

No comments: