My letter to the superdelegates
By Peggy on May 27, 2008 at 7:43 PM in Barack Obama, Delegates, Democratic National Convention, Democrats, Electability, Hillary Clinton, Superdelegates
Dear Superdelegate,
I am writing to ask you to hold fast if you are supporting Hillary Clinton or to reconsider if you are supporting Barack Obama. If you are undecided please listen to these reasons why I will not support Barack Obama under any circumstance.
I do not believe he is about “new politics,” has a patent on change, or has a unique ability to unite this pluralist nation. I do not believe he has some special ability to influence Republicans to support Democratic policies.
I do believe he has used so-called soaring rhetoric and has compared himself to past leaders such as John F. Kennedy in order to distract from his recent record. He has “lost” his state records, the very thing we should examine if we would know the man by his actions instead of his carefully crafted words.
The media has asked no hard questions of Obama, so I had to ask my own. When I started, I was willing to support Obama and was merely doing at least as much due deligence in casting my vote as I would in buying a car. I looked at his record, and in instance after instance I did not like what I found. I am now so opposed to Obama’s nomination that I will vote for McCain if Obama wins the party’s nomination.
I am a lifelong Democrat. It has not been easy. Yet, I have never felt so betrayed by the party elite as I do now. I am changing my registration to Independent if this is what the party has come to.
Here are a few items I have found as I researched Obama’s record. First and foremost, Obama said from the beginning that his campaign was being funded by small donations from millions of people. When I checked his donor base at opensecrets.org on February 15, 2008, the facts did not support that claim. It was clearly a group of special interests supporting him (yes, individuals who happened to work at the company) and they were: DLA Piper, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Lehman, something called National Amusements, Inc., and UBS AG. Whatever one makes of that list, they weren’t the poor people Obama is so proud of organizing. I felt deceived, so I kept looking.
I wanted to learn about his early supporters and found another website for Illinois campaign contributions at ilcampaign.org. Here I found another pattern of support, again in banking. This group of bankers were mostly African-American. Nothing surprising about the ethnic support, but I was quite curious as to why someone who most described as a liberal had such a clear pattern of support from banking, insurance and other financial interests. I kept Googling the names and organizations of his supporters. I cannot report all my findings, so I will use one example, and it will not be the best known one of Tony Rezko.
The name Rezko has become a buzzword that stops people. If they support Obama they say Rezko is nothing but an attempt at guilt by association. If they don’t support Obama they use the name for shorthand. But Rezko is only one piece of the puzzle. Rezko alone probably would not have kept me from supporting Obama. The problem is that as you examine Obama’s record, a pattern emerges.
Sometimes people like to pretend we’re all lawyers, and politics is a court. They claim that if I can’ t indict Obama, if I don’t have a memo that proves wrongdoing, then he is innocent. Well, even a court of law allows patterns to be considered. The law allows for circumstantial evidence, and the law lets a jury find that if someone has been proven to be a liar in one circumstance, then the veracity of everything they say can be questioned. These are the reasons I have problems supporting Obama.
Here is an example of what I mean in this article by Daniel J. Kelly in the Chicago Daily Observer. Kelly echoes the question many are asking about the lack of due diligence being done on Obama when he says, “Forgive me, but I am one of those shoppers who like to read labels to check on the contents of a given product before making my purchase.” I am asking the superdelegates to do no less.
In his article he examines Obama’s relation to and political record regarding Alexi Giannoulias:
“Pay to play” seems to be another disturbing constant in Obama’s meteoric political rise. He always seems to be available to the highest bidder. As this is being written, Tony Rezko is awaiting a jury verdict in his corruption trial. A guilty verdict has the potential to embarrass Obama mightily, but this is not the only example of Obama’s willingness to choose his friends based upon their ability to contribute campaign cash. In another remarkable omission, the curious relationship between Obama and his political protégé, Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has not been widely publicized. Locally, the story generated some brief coverage, but the subject has been barely examined by the mainstream media. Bloggers are familiar with the tale, but Obama has skated on this subject with the general public.
Some background is necessary: after spending a season playing professional basketball in Greece, Giannoulias returned to the USA and enrolled in law school at Tulane University in New Orleans, where every day is Mardi Gras. Less than three years after being admitted to practice in Illinois, Giannoulias launched his campaign for State Treasurer. With the financial support of his family banking business and US Senator Barack Obama’s endorsement, this politically inexperienced individual secured the Democratic nomination. In the general election campaign, State Democratic Party Chairman, Michael Madigan, continued to keep Giannoulias at arm’s length. Madigan had supported a different candidate in the primary and disseminated disquieting rumors about the business background of Giannoulias, the former Vice President and Senior Loan Officer of the Broadway Bank, which was owned by his family members. During his brief tenure in the banking industry, Giannoulias appears to have approved loans to convicted felons with ties to organized crime. One such loan applicant was a convicted bookmaker with an alleged sideline business promoting prostitution.
Our colleague, Russ Stewart was one of the few who pointed out the fact that Obama played the role of kingmaker in Giannoulias’ successful first time candidacy. At the age of thirty, Giannoulias became the youngest treasurer in Illinois history. What qualified Giannoulias for public office and earned him Obama’s endorsement? He plays basketball with Obama. No park district field house or asphalt parking lot games for these two men of the people. When in Chicago, Obama and his pal prefer to play at the exclusive East Bank Club. Throughout the primary season. Giannoulias has hit the campaign trail to play Obama in pick up games on the dates of the respective state primaries. Obama finds it relaxing to play hoops when ballots are being cast. Apart from shooting buckets, it also helped that Giannoulias and his family members have contributed so generously to the various Obama campaigns. Giannoulias and his family are not absolutely committed true believers in the Democratic Party and its causes, however, as they hedged their bets by contributing to the House Republican Congressional Campaign Committee and to have also made campaign contributions to former Governor George H. Ryan.
Obviously Daniel J. Kelly is no fan of Obama. But he gives a clear example, one that the national media has curiously overlooked, of what Obama’s record and actions tell us, and it conflicts with Obama’s words. When he had the opportunity, he didn’t chose someone who had proven themselves, coming up through the ranks of the party through public service. (There were several people he could have supported who were more qualified, but who did not run, for some reason.) He chose a crony, someone who had no record of qualification for the office. Unfortunately, it fits a pattern of not putting the public’s good first.
Everywhere I look in his record I see these same circumstances: his actions give no evidence that his politics are exceptional to Chicago politics, which is practically a euphemism for corruption. Can I indict him? No. Do I find evidence in his record to support him? No. I keep finding questionable associations and self-dealing. I have seen no evidence that he is a particularly good public servant, let alone a political redeemer. I find example after example of his being dishonest about his record, and of the media covering up for his failings instead of aiding the public in vetting him.
I have put it as succinctly as I can. This is one small example. Anyone with Google and some time can ask for themselves what kind of presidency Obama will bring. Please look at his record and ask yourself if it corroborates the image being sold. I beseech the superdelegates to read Obama’s label carefully before serving up four years of his questionable content to the party and the nation.
Sincerely,
Name withheld.
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
