Open Letters to Hillary and Mike (not that there's a snowball's chance they'll see them)

[thatcrazycajun]

To: The Hon. Senator Hillary R. Clinton
United States Senate
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Clinton:
I read with great concern your announcement that you are tossing your hat into an increasingly crowded ring of contenders for the Democratic Party's 2008 nomination for President of the United States. On behalf of those in our party who actually want to see a Democrat win the election next year, I have just one word for you:

DON'T!

I beg of you, I implore you, I beseech you, do NOT do this. No matter how many people have been urging you to run, no matter how many donors have been waving their checkbooks at you, no matter how many pollsters are claiming the election is yours to lose, the stark reality, Mrs. Clinton, is this: You, quite frankly, piss off a whole lot of people in this country. You piss off people on the right for your lack of deference to powerful males, for your abortive attempt to shove socialized medicine down the country's throats (sorry, but that's the way they see it), for your husband's transgressions in office when he was President, and for the two of you being (in their eyes) the poster children for everything that's gone wrong with the country since the 1960s. And you piss off people on the left for not being liberal enough, for wasting the potential of eight years occupying the leadership of the free world with scandals and missteps and compromises, and for giving the right wing the most powerful mobilization and fundraising tool they have ever had: your names.

Let me make myself crystal clear: You have NO chance of winning whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Goose-egg City. Even your Illinois colleague Barack Obama, as young and inexperienced as he is, has a better chance of winning than you. Gods help us, even Al Sharptongue has a better chance than you, if Bush and the GOP screw up badly enough long enough on Iraq in the next year. Already the Republicans and the religious-moralist groups are using you to galvanize support for another GOP White House. Too many liberals and Democrats will refuse to vote for you, and too many Republicans and conservatives will flood the polls with votes for your GOP opponent, whoever s/he may be.

If you truly have the best interests and welfare of the nation and your party at heart, you will disband your exploratory committee at once, refund any contributions you may have received, and announce that you have reconsidered this ill-advised decision. Stay in the Senate where you can actually do some good, keep your campaign promise to serve your full term, and work to get a woman Democrat elected President who won't polarize the electorate as you do...and who can actually win. On the other hand, if you want another four to eight years of GOP mismanagement, war-mongering and Constitutional violations, by all means, go to it.

Sincerely,
Matt G. Leger

====

To: Mr. Michael Vick, #7
c/o Atlanta Falcons
4400 Falcon Parkway
Flowery Branch, GA 30542

Dear Mr. Vick:

I read with concern of your recent airport security stop on suspicion of possession of marijuana, and following previous episodes of your being in the news for less-than-desirable reasons, along with your team's poor performance this past season, I must say one word to you:

LEAVE!

You have demonstrated abject failure to understand your position as the public face of your team and a role model for the youth of our city and the nation. Your unprofessional behavior toward fans (such as flipping twin birds to them after being booed at a recent home game), your lack of good judgment in your personal life and your unwillingness to accept full responsibility for the consequences of said actions, display your unfitness for the position you hold on your team and in the public eye. Even if you had exhibited stellar professional performance this season (which, as evidenced by the fact that neither of the two teams playing the upcoming Super Bowl game in two weeks is yours, you have not), your off-field behavior would still be inexcusable in any mature adult, let alone one in a position of leadership and responsibility.

Since your team's owner, Arthur Blank, evidently lacks the intestinal fortitude to admit he made a grievous error in hiring you and paying you the vast sum of money your contract calls for, the best service you can do for the team and the city is to resign at once. You have been given far too many chances to shape up; it's time now to ship out.

Sincerely,
Matt G. Leger

Comments

[wouldyoueva.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about Hillary but dammit, everything you can say about her, you could have said about Nixon in 1968 or Reagan in 1980. It annoys me *they* are allowed to have opinioned, powerful candidates but ours must mute their edges into acceptibility.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Welcome to the Reaganized, Gingrichized America of the 21st century. When only 49 percent of the electorate agrees with you (and most of them can't even be bothered to register to vote, much less show up at the polls), you can only get into the White House by winning the swing-state folks in the "mushy middle" over...and they aren't comfortable with either extreme.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Personally, I'm against Hillary's run not because of her unelectability (on which I agree with you), but because (a) she ran for Senator on the promise that she would complete her term and (b) she still hasn't publicly abjured, repented, or apologized for her votes to go to Iraq and to institute the USA PATRIOT Act. Those last two stick in my craw, badly, and as good a President as she might be, I want to hear that she understands how wrong she was to support them.

Um. Did you hear that the substance found in the infamous water bottle was not marijuana? (Personally, I don't care what he does, but agree that if he's being paid large sums of money, he needs to follow his employer's rules.)

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

I'm against Hillary's run because there is someone who can really do the job in Bill Richardson.
I've linked to his web site in my lj.
I haven't seen a candidate who was the genuine article in years (and yeah, that includes Gore, who might have been, but was "handled" to death).

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I agree. Richardson is one of the two Dems now in the race that I'd choose up front of the pack; the other is Tom Vilsack. It would be good to see one of those two actually emerge from relative obscurity to challenge the Senators Who Should Stay Senators. We shall see.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Vilsack lost me when he appeared on the Dailey Show and blamed the Iraqis for their "culture of dependence." We go in, smash their infrastructure, tell them we will fix it up nice and pretty for them, absolutely fail miserably at every commitment, bring back torture to Abu Grhaib, etc., etc. And when the Iraqis ask us when we are going to come through with all that stuff we promised in 2003 if they would just trust us, we tlel them it's their fault for relying on us and developing a "culture of dependence."

At least we're consistent. We told the folks in New Orleans the same thing.

I find Richardson a shade too close to the DLC.
My dream ticket: Edwards-Obama in '08.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I missed V on TDS; I'll go look for it on YouTube. Aside from that (and it is problematic, if he's approaching it that way), his stand on most issues has struck me as reasonable and competent, which is what I'm looking for in a President. (He first came to my attention through Our Ten Words, a challenge to define the issues the US faces (in ten words, natch). Many Dems could use to take that challenge; they're often smart and nuanced, and need to learn to be to the point in strong language.

Richardson is probably older-guard than would be ideal. But he certainly has the experience to carry off the Presidency, with administrative experience on both the state and federal levels, and time served in Congress.

My main grief with Obama is experience. I think he needs to have finished one term in the Senate before he abandons ship. I held that position with Edwards last time; aside from that, I like both men pretty well.

I wish I could convince the gents involved to run a ticket of Gore-Feingold. (Or vice versa, if Al wanted the 2 spot.)

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Easy for you to say you don't care what he does; it's not your city he's embarrassing. Down here the news is all Vick, all the time lately, and it ain't good. When even Saturday Night Live starts dissing you, it's time to go.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Sorry to hear it. As if we don't have controversial sports figures here in New York :-)

Could be worse. He could be a real criminal. Especially still on the loose. Or in the White House, like the one we already have. :-(

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

Apparently he isn't even a petty criminal. The stuff turned out not to be illegal. (And he wasn't arrested or even detained. The bottle was confiscated by the TSA for testing, but he was permitted to board his flight).

Now, flipping off the home team fans is another matter, but that's not exactly hot off the presses. And nobody talks about Vick was doing everything possible to win the game and still had his team get booed by the home crowd. He was wrong, but nobody can say he didn't have a right to be very pissed off. The Atlanta fans were a bunch of twits.

And Vick sincerely apologized for his actions afterward...that's more than Jeremy Shockey does after he opens his piehole.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, on all counts. I wasn't suggesting that Vick was in fact a criminal; in fact, I was noting that he wasn't, as you say, at all.

Likewise on Jeremy Shockey; it would be nice if he admitted he'd been a jerk.

Fortunately, baseball season starts officially in two weeks (it's already begun, for me).

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

Eeek. Sorry about this. I didn't mean to imply you thought that.

It's just this thread was based on the presumption that he was a criminal and that kinda torks me whenever it happens, having been on that end of the presumption socially in the past.

His crimes:

He's flipped off a bunch of people who frankly deserved to be flipped off by someone. The fact he did it made news.

He didn't have drugs on him.

He's not in the superbowl and his coach was fired.

That sounds pretty innocent to me. Far as I know he's had a few wrong time wrong place incidents. If you ask me, the Falcons don't deserve him.

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

Re: Hillary Clinton. Agreed.

Re: Michael Vick. Wrongo.

1) Contrary to your post, you did NOT read about Vick being arrested, or if you did, what you read was in error. A water bottle of his was confiscated at the Miami airport because it had a secret compartment with a "particulate" that seemed marijuanaish. He was allowed to get on the plane.

2) As of today, Vick has been cleared of any wrongdoing. The substance was tested and it had no resemblance to anything illegal.

3) On the off chance that someone sees this post, you might want to publish an open letter retracting your assertion that he was arrested, or even in this case screwed up in any form. If you think he should still leave, that's your right, but please don't base it on stuff he didn't do. It's not fair to do to anyone regardless of the size of his paycheck.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I hereby retract any statement to the effect that Mr. Vick was arrested, but I stand by my opinion regarding his conduct, however technically non-criminal it may be. As of this writing, he is also accused in a criminal negligence & battery suit from a woman who claims he infected her with herpes. More info here (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0405051vick1.html). Also, one of our local sports reporters has a column discussing Vick's misbehavior in today's paper here (http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/sportscolumns/entries/2007/01/22/friendly_advice.html)far more eloquently--and tolerantly--than I can.

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

I cannot argue with your opinion here, but youre giving me the prototypical example of why this type of story sets me off. The moment he does something wrong, I'll be the first to jump on him with you. The problem is you've got a whole lot of people saying stuff that isn't proven or actually disproven.

Where there's smoke, there MAY be fire.

It could be people just blowing smoke.

For example:

1) The article I agree with for the most part. The author doesn't cross the line the "I hate Mike" crowd does.

Vick's definitely got a cloud hanging over his head because people leap to conclusions about water bottles and lawsuits before they get resolved.. I agree -- He needs to be extremely fucking careful. The only place I disagree with the article is on the coach-killer label. That tag came down from the coach's *father* (who was fired by ESPN radio for saying it btw), right before his SON (the coach himself) got fired for his OWN stupid comments that had nothing to do with Vick. Nobody is talking about the Mora's idiocy though. Just Mike's...

2) Vick was cleared. But the people who were trying to run him out of town on a rail just NOW but weren't BEFORE the story broke insist they are STILL justified in wanting him god because of his previous (and unproven) bad acts that they hadn't said boo about???

Just what is it about this *cleared* concept that doesn't count?

3) And just look at the case you talk about. Same thing.

Say for the sake of argument that it's true. He has sex with a woman and transmits an STD (that many people who have and don't even know it) and gets sued for criminal negligence and battery, and that's a reason it's fair to consider his behavior as deplorable even though it hasn't gone to trial yet...???

We don't ask questions about the type of person is willing to subject themselves to admitting in open court and a press conference that they have Herpes? Want to bet that if Vick's defense team tries to show she already had herpes, they'll be pilloried for "attacking the victim".

God help either one of us if we get rich and famous and an ex-girlfriend tries to sue us.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

So he hasn't actually been convicted of any statutory crime. So I have skeletons in my closet and you have some in yours. Does that make it a crime for me to be sick and tired of reading and hearing about the front man of my city's leading professional sports franchise making the news for things other than how well (or poorly) he handles the pigskin? Is it wrong for me to want someone in that position who isn't constantly making a very public ass of himself, both off and on the field? I'm not the one trying to smuggle questionable substances on planes in trick water bottles, or flipping off the paying customers for expressing displeasure at what they're getting for their (ever-increasing) ticket fees. Nor am I planning a run for public office anytime soon.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Hilary Clinton pisses off progressives because, along with Ira Magaziner, she proved herself a tool of the insurance industry in the universal healthcare fight. She has pent the last two years desperately tacking rightward, including a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the theme that "kids these days don't understand about hard work." Anyone trying to make a living who is under 35 most have loved that one.

Hilary Clinton is inextricably linked with the Democratic Leadership Council and its failed "middle of the road, don't offend corporate America" policies. Edwards has a far better track record on organized labor. Obama has a far better track record on community organizing. Richardson has a far better record on foreign policy.

Hilary Clinton appears "strong" to aging boomers because she represents the ultimate validation of the symbols of a "strong woman" for those who came of age when she did. She graduated from prestigious ivy league schools. She had a succesfull career as a high-powered attorney. She has served as a Senator. She does not defer to male power or privilege. For those who grew up in a time where these things were not taken as a matter of course, but required considerable strength of will, this is strength. And they regard anyone suspicious of Clinton as being suspicious of "strong" women; because they have lived through that as a dominant meme.

But that is all irrelevant to a generation of modern progressives, with a significant number of them under 35. For them "strong" means pushing for real universal coverage rather than trying hard to get insurance industry "buy in." It means standing up to corporate power rather than sucking up to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It means not spending two years looking for photo ops with Newt Gingrich and proposing "centrist" bills that take carefully calculated stands without addressing the underlying issues.

I have no idea who the other person is.