Why Dems are Leaving The Party! In Droves!

I left the Democratic party a few years ago. But this letter clearly embodies why so many are leaving now, and why progressives like me no long can support them:

Open Letter to the DNC
By Stephen Elliott, LCSW

“We have to be unified if we’re going to put a Democrat back in the White House…We’ve just seen two brilliant candidates run the most exciting primary in decades. Now we need to come together and finish the job.”

Thus are the words of Howard Dean in an email sent to Democratic Party members less than two hours after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Senator Barack Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President. Governor Dean praises Senator Clinton for running an “outstanding” campaign, asserts that America and the Democratic Party are better off today because of the “incredible amount of work” she and her supporters put into her campaign, and reminds us that no matter which candidate we supported, we are part of a “bigger family”, i.e., the Democratic Party.

I received this email on the same day that I heard Donna Brazile describe Senator Clinton as a champion of civil rights, as a champion of the women’s movement, and as a Democrat to be respected and admired.

If the Democratic Party is to have unity, shouldn’t these words have been written and spoken months ago? Instead, some Democratic leaders and straightest began a “bash and trash” Hillary campaign immediately following her loss in Iowa. At the same time, the Iowa winner, Senator Obama, was anointed the “presumptive” “presumptive nominee” of the Democratic Party. How often did we hear that the Clinton’s were playing the “race card”? Charges of racism were hurled at both Senator and President Clinton in SC when they made separate comments that were historically based. When Senator Clinton made reference to Reverend King’s dream becoming a reality when Civil Rights legislation was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, she was accused of “white-washing” the Civil Rights Movement and the memory of Martin Luther King. But her comments were fact. Martin Luther King realized that without a coalition of Blacks and Whites, of activists and lawmakers, his dream would always remain a dream. This is why he worked to inspire the common man toward a greater good, while at the same time he worked to bring governmental officials aboard the freedom bus. Reverend King knew that the way to make his dream a reality was to work outside and inside the system. When President Clinton compared Senator Obama’s likely win in the SC primary to Jesse Jackson’s wins in 1984 and 1988, was he making a racist comment, or was he merely trying to downplay the significance of Obama’s impending victory in SC? What did the critics expect him to say? Did they want Senator Clinton to admit defeat in SC and go packing? Should Senator Clinton have conceded the election to Senator Obama in SC? Who was there to defend the Clintons? Certainly not Howard Dean or Donna Brazile.

Almost all can agree that there has been disunity during this primary season. But isn’t there disunity in every primary campaign season? Isn’t disunity the hallmark of having two or more candidates vying for the same position? Has the present disunity been greater than in previous elections, and if so, what has been the major source of this disunity? If we listen to many of the pundits and Democratic Party officials, the source lies almost exclusively at the feet of the Clinton campaign. Calls for Senator Clinton to dismantle her campaign grew louder and louder as the season wore on. And these calls continued and intensified even when Senator Clinton’s campaign was gaining momentum as she was winning more primaries and gaining in the popular vote. And when it became clear that Senator Clinton was a fighter and could not be forced to quit, we had the likes of Donna Brazile, a Superdelegate and former Chairperson of the DNC, write in her blog that it was “awful” for Senator Clinton to consider taking her campaign to the convention. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean began a call for the Superdelegates to make their choices known so that the party could have a presumptive nominee by early June. So much for the proscribed method of choosing the nominee as set forth by the Democratic Party. So much for fair process in the Democratic Party.

Sure, when the media questioned those calling for Clinton to concede before the natural conclusion of the primary season — when called on the carpet about their attempts to abort the primary process — Donna Brazile and Howard Dean asserted that Senator Clinton had the “right” to continue in the race as long as she wanted, and as long as she didn’t “attack” Senator Obama and give the Republicans ammunition for the general election. At best, Senator Clinton received reluctant and restrictive support to continue her bid for the nomination.

• Has anyone ever suggested that a man withdraw from a nomination race that was so close that neither candidate could win the nomination on pledged delegates alone?
• Did Senator Clinton’s gender play a factor in this call to quit?
• Is it possible that disunity within the Democratic Party is due to the words and behavior of the party and its leaders?
• When Nancy Pelosi stated that she would do everything in her power to make certain that the party had a nominee before the end of June, was she not creating the very disunity that she said she wanted to heal? Wasn’t Pelosi aborting the nomination process?
• Did the party listen to its members or were the leaders too arrogant to hear what was being said?

This writer made numerous phone calls, wrote multiple emails and letters to party leaders suggesting that much of the disunity came from the feeling that the primary was not being played on a level field. Clinton’s supporters articulated that the public remarks and biases of elected officials and party leaders were creating a feeling of alienation from the Democratic Party. Senator Clinton’s supporters were calling out to their “bigger family”, to quote Howard Dean, but no one was home to answer their 3:00 a.m. phone call.

With every misstep or ill-phrased statement from Senator Clinton or her campaign, we heard speculation and outrage from Democratic Party leaders, the media and the pundits.

• When Senator Obama, or his wife, Michelle, made inflammatory remarks, were they given the same weight as when the Clinton’s did?
• Did the media critique every speech or off the cuff remark made by the Obamas in the same careful (or biased) fashion that it did with the Clintons?

To be sure, we did hear about Michelle Obama’s “first time in my adult life I feel proud of America” remark, and we there was some controversy when Barack Obama, addressing a private fund-raising event, talked about rural America’s bitterness and how they cling to their guns and bibles.

• But how often were Senator Obama’s remarks edited?
• Did the media play the first part of his now famous “bitter and clinging” remarks in which he was talking about a certain segment of “white America” who, he asserted, would never vote for a Black man?
• Or did the media and the Democratic Party protect Obama in a way that they never did Senator Clinton?

Going back to Howard Dean’s call for the family to heal and come together to support Barack Obama as the Democratic Party nominee, we are told that there is very little substitutive difference between Senators Clinton and Obama. While this is not entirely true—their concepts of Universal Health Care have a major difference in that Senator Clinton mandates that every American participates, while Senator Obama mandates that parents cover their children, but does not require that they purchase insurance for themselves—the argument can certainly be made that the differences between Clinton and Obama are minor when compared to the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. But is it the differences, be they real or perceived, between Clinton and Obama that is the root of party disunity, or is it more emotional, and based more in a fundamental Democratic Party principle of fairness and equality. The Clinton supporters that I know, and I include myself in this group, who are expressing a reluctance or refusal to back Obama, are doing so, in part, because they feel Senator Clinton was not treated fairly by the media, by the Obama campaign, and most importantly, by the Democratic Party and its leaders. There is a large segment of Senator Clinton’s supporters who are not going to jump on the Obama bandwagon no matter what differences, if any, there are in the goals and ideals of the Obama/Clinton factions. These Clinton supporters are angry about the treatment that Hillary Clinton received in the media and from the Party. This is the bottom line. They feel that Senator Clinton’s campaign was hijacked by the Democratic Party.

In the calls for healing and for Democratic Party unity, we are being told that much of what happens depends on Senator Clinton. Apparently, her suspension of her campaign and endorsement of Senator Obama speech on June 7th was just what the party needed. Just ask Dianne Feinstein. Or Donna Brazile. Or even Howard Dean. But not if you ask me. Did I think that Senator Clinton was not wholeheartedly endorsing Senator Obama or that she doesn’t really feel that she and Obama have more in common than with John McCain? No. I thought that Senator Clinton made an emotional appeal to her supporters to get behind Senator Obama and work to defeat the Republicans in the fall.

So why was I not won over? Why am I not doing what Senator Clinton, what my candidate, has asked of me? I have been willing to stand behind her, offering my time and money, in a fight that seemed to be “fixed” against her. I have stood behind her when I have been called a racist for wearing a Hillary Clinton for President tee-shirt. So why not now?

One very simple answer. I do not like the man that is Senator Barack Obama. He does not share my values. He does not share my principles. He does not get my vote.

When the Obama campaign called the Clintons racists I was offended. I was offended given the history of the Clintons and their record in championing civil rights. I was angered that the Democratic Party did not defend the Clintons. And in not defending the Clintons, the Democratic Party was saying that I, too, am a racist. I was being told that I deserved the attacks on me.

When the Jeremiah Wright controversy erupted, I was offended by what I heard. I questioned how a man could sit for twenty years and listen to those kinds of remarks, be they frequent or rare. Such remarks should never be made, but when they are, once should be enough. And when Senator Obama made his now famous “A More Perfect Union” speech to address the controversy of Reverend Wright, I was taken by the fact that he began by addressing the founding of this nation and how it was “stained” by the “original sin of slavery”.

As a Psychotherapist and Social Worker, I immediately recognized that Senator Obama was not going to address the issue at hand, but rather that he was going to appeal to a collective sense of guilt, a collective sense of white guilt over slavery and the miscarriage of justice and equality in the founding of our nation. Does this original sin exist? Yes, of course it does. It is something we should be ashamed of, and hopefully something we have learned from. But it had nothing to do with Senator Obama sitting in his church for twenty years listening to remarks of hatred, racism, and calls for the damnation of America. Slavery has nothing to do with the fact that he took his children to hear these remarks, that he allowed his children to be baptized by a minister who peddles hate under the guise of social responsibility in the Black Church. Senator Obama stated that he “could no more disown Jeremiah Wright than he could the Black community or his white grandmother”. Well, I could no more vote for Senator Obama than I could a Grand Knight in the KKK.

Later, when the Father Michael Pfleger controversy came to light, we saw Senator Obama resign from his church. Did he resign because he was offended by what was being preached? No. He resigned because he felt that it was not fair to his church and its members that every word from the pulpit be scrutinized by the media and pundits.

Just like in the Jeremiah Wright controversy, Senator Obama did not own his mistake, but rather he blamed someone else. It is the fault of the white founding fathers of this nation. It is the fault of the media and the pundits. But it was never the fault of Barack Obama.

It is the character of Barack Obama that prevents me from backing him. During the race, Senator Obama commented that the Clinton campaign was trying to make the primary race about him and not the American people. Well, Senator Obama, the race is about you. You made this declaration from day one. You declared yourself as the candidate of hope. You declared yourself as the candidate who will bring change we can believe in. But how can I believe in this change when I cannot believe in the man who is to bring it? Even if Senator Obama was able to listen to Reverend Wright for twenty years and filter out all of the inflammatory and hate-filled remarks that he made from the pulpit, even if Senator Obama and his wife were able to filter out these remarks from their impressionable children, we are left with the impression that he gives. And impressions are important. Sometimes more so than fact. If someone thinks something of you, and you have exhibited behavior to create this impression, then the perception becomes a reality of sorts. It is something that has to be dealt with. The individual must own his or her role in that impression in order to get beyond that impression. Senator Obama did not do this. Instead he blamed others. And the media and the Democratic Party not only stood behind him, they stood with him.

Superdelegates threw votes to Senator Obama to bolster him when things looked bad for him. . The Democratic Party did not look at electability as they should, but rather congratulated themselves for having the first African-American candidate who could very likely win the party nomination and general election. Many of the Superdelegates–those who blindly cast their votes for Senator Obama — failed to do their job as spelled out in party rules. Superdelegates are a safeguard to guarantee party control over the nomination process:
(1) in the event that no one candidate has enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination;
(2) to make certain that ideologically extreme candidates, and/or not very experienced candidates are not given the nomination, even though this candidate may have the delegate count needed to become the Democratic Party nominee;
(3) in the event of something detrimental to the Democratic Party and/or the general election having occurred during the primaries and/or the convention; and/or
(4) to ensure that the nomination goes to the most electable candidate.

These were not the criteria used by the party. What many of Clinton’s supporters feel is that the Superdelegates were going to throw Senator Obama over the top no matter what, because this is what the Party wanted. The Democratic Party wanted Barack Obama as its nominee.

So, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile and other Democratic Party leaders, if you want to know why there is disunity in the Party, if you want to know why I cannot vote for Senator Obama, then look no further than your mirror. Now it is my turn to make a call for party unity and to ask what the leaders are going to do to bring me back into the Democratic Party.

SOURCE