An Open Letter to Republicans in Open Primary States: Vote for Obama This is an open letter to my American brothers and sisters among the Republican Party who have yet to vote in your state’s primary. If your state is among those that are OPEN primaries, I am writing to ask you to consider voting for Barack Obama. For those of you who are not aware, an open primary registered voters of one party can request and vote upon the ballot of the other party. This is a truly powerful and progressive privilege, and in this year’s election, with John McCain as your party’s de facto nominee, you should consider the rare opportunity you have to venture across the party line, albeit temporarily, to vote for Senator Obama. It might be enough for some of you that a vote for Barack could effectively guarantee that Hillary Clinton is blocked from reaching the general election, but I will ask you to consider voting for Senator Obama on the basis of a higher plain of reasoning. On principle, I am not registered with either party. As an Indpendent, I voted for Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and in this election I support Senator Obama. Recently, I have spoken with a handful of Republican friends and relatives who have expressed not only a respect for Senator Obama, but even a willingness to consider voting for him (one direct quote: “he’d be the first lefty I’ve ever voted for!”). Everytime I hear something like this, I smile. I can’t help it. And I can’t help thinking: if there are ten, there might be ten thousand who hold a similar secret (or not-so-secret) admiration for Obama. Now, much has been made of the inspirational note that he strikes in his speeches, and rightfully so. But the next time you’re watching coverage of an Obama rally, turn down the volume and observe two things. First, watch his face, and especially his eyes. For those who pay attention to such things, there is—despite the grueling schedule of his whirlwind campaign—a consistent mark of intent yet patient intelligence, a visible directness that seems to meet the audience halfway. Second, look beyond Senator Obama, and see how the crowds that gather around him forge a powerful tableau of American diversity: the faces in the bleachers blend in a display of the mottled beauty that is our diverse heritage. There are men, women, senior citizens, babyboomers, and droves of the oft-reputed apolitical generations X and Y. And now, imagine adding to this tableau a contingent—even if it be a small one—of Republicans not afraid to recognize a leader with the ability to bring a universally desired change to the earmarked halls of Washington, D.C. One can see the potential power of a message by its ability to attract a large crowd. But one will know the true transformative power of a message by the diversity of the crowd that gathers to listen. And the world—at home and abroad—is listening to Barack Obama. Here is an individual who has re-engaged large swathes of the American populace with the American political process, and who—as a perspective national figurehead—possesses the rare potential to re-engage the goodwill of the World community and introduce to them a renewed American identity. Consider, for one, Senator Obama’s bold assertion to hold diplomatic discussions with foreign leaders branded by our current president as members of the “axis of evil.” The current administration’s policy of “diplomatic embargo” and isolating un-friendly nations is a modern phenomenon based upon a new wave of false patriotism and xenophobia. Recall that throughout the Cold War, American presidents communicated directly with their Soviet counterparts (Kennedy with Kruschev, Reagan with Gorbachev), and it very well might have been this direct communication that kept the Cold War from ever heating up. On the more immediate level, I believe that if you cast your vote for Barack Obama in the open primary, you would be voting in favor of a more enlightened debate in the general election. Senator Obama has made a policy of not attacking Hillary on anything other than what is based on fact. Meanwhile, in South Carolina, the Clinton campaign showed its willingness to bring a knife to a boxing match as former POTUS Bill put on a shameful display of race-baiting. Obama kept his head up and weathered the assault with a tremendous amount of grace. After Senator Obama’s recent eight-state winning streak, Hillary is spinning yet another yarn, calling him as a candidate of speeches and not a candidate of substantive policy [hint: go to www.barackobama.com, click on the word “ISSUES” and you’ll find Senator Obama’s “Blue Print for Change,” which lays out in plenty of detail his position on fifteen major issues, the first and foremost of which is ETHICS]. Needless to say, I suspect that an election between McCain and Clinton would deteriorate into a montage of Bill Clinton, red-faced and jabbing his finger in the nose of anyone who criticizes his wife, and McCain raising the spectres of the Rose Law firm, Whitewatergate, and Bill’s oval office infidelities. Personally, I dread the idea of five months watching the dirt fly as the political steam shovel we’ve all grown to detest digs up skeletons from the 1990s. On the other hand, I would welcome the opportunity to watch a debate between Senators McCain and Obama. Although it would be just as vigorous and heated as any election, I believe that the trajectory of the debates would be more enlightened, more forward-looking and issue-driven. Furthermore, with respect for the candor of both Senators McCain and Obama, I believe that each of these candidates would be mutually elevated by the other: two strong, vigorous competitors making for a strong, vigorous competition. And I smile when I think of this. I can’t help it. This would be the kind of debate that the American people deserve. So I remind you once more of the rare opportunity you have to bring this forward-looking debate to the stage by casting your vote for Senator Barack Obama in your state’s open primary. And then, on Tuesday, November 4th, after the great debates have ended, we’ll all line up for the same ballot, free to re-join our respective party lines. Or not. Sincerely, The Reverend John DeLore Brooklyn, NY SCHEDULE: Tues, 03/04: Ohio [OPEN, 2/3], Rhode Island, Texas [OPEN, 2/4], Vermont [OPEN, 2/27] Sund, 03/09: Wyoming [dem. only] Tues, 03/11: Mississippi [OPEN, 2/10] Tues, 04/22: Pennsylvania [OPEN, 3/23] Tues, 05/06: Indiana [OPEN, 4/9], North Carolina [closed, 4/6] Tues, 05/13: Nebraska [closed, 5/2], W.Virginia [closed] Tues, 05/20: Kentucky [closed, 4/22], Oregon [closed, 4/29] Tues, 05/27: Idaho [OPEN, 5/27—register day of] Tues, 06/03: Montana [OPEN, 5/3], New Mexico [closed, 2/5], South Dakota Sat, 7/12: Nebraska Links to state election offices & list of open primaries.

Let me just follow up. My objections to the war in Iraq were simply -- not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why. And so when I bring this up, it is not simply to say "I told you so," but it is to give you an insight in terms of how I would make decisions. And the fact was, this was a big strategic blunder. It was not a matter of, well, here is the initial decision, but since then we've voted the same way. Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out. The question is, who's making the decision initially to drive the bus into the ditch? And the fact is that Senator Clinton often says that she is ready on day one, but in fact she was ready to give in to George Bush on day one on this critical issue. So the same person that she criticizes for having terrible judgment, and we can't afford to have another one of those, in fact she facilitated and enabled this individual to make a decision that has been strategically damaging to the United States of America. With respect to Pakistan, I never said I would bomb Pakistan. What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against bin Laden or other key al Qaeda officials, and we -- and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should. And just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that and took out the third-ranking al Qaeda official. That is the position that we should have taken in the first place. And President Musharraf is now indicating that he would generally be more cooperative in some of these efforts, we don't know how the new legislature in Pakistan will respond, but the fact is it was the right strategy. And so my claim is not simply based on a speech. It is based on the judgments that I've displayed during the course of my service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while I've been in the United States Senate, and as somebody who, during the course of this campaign, I think has put forward a plan that will provide a clean break against Bush and Cheney. And that is how we're going to be able to debate John McCain. Having a debate with John McCain where your positions were essentially similar until you started running for president, I think, does not put you in a strong position.

You know, she mentioned that she is a fighter on health care. And look -- I do not in any way doubt that Senator Clinton genuinely wants to provide health care to all Americans. What I have said is that the way she approached it back in '93, I think, was wrong in part because she had the view that what's required is simply to fight. And Senator Clinton ended up fighting not just the insurance companies and the drug companies, but also members of her own party. And as a consequence, there were a number of people, like Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan, who were not included in the negotiations. And we had the potential of bringing people together to actually get something done. I am absolutely clear that hope is not enough. And it is not going to be easy to pass health care. If it was, it would have already gotten done. It's not going to be easy to have a sensible energy policy in this country. ExxonMobil made $11 billion last quarter. They are not going to give up those profits easily. But what I also believe is that the only way we are going to actually get this stuff done is, number one, we're going to have to mobilize and inspire the American people so that they're paying attention to what their government is doing. And that's what I've been doing in this campaign, and that's what I will do as president. And there's nothing romantic or silly about that. If the American people are activated, that's how change is going to happen. The second thing we've going to have to do is we're actually going to have to go after the special interests. Senator Clinton in one of these speeches -- it may have been the same speech where you showed the clip -- said you can't just wave a magic wand and expect special interests to go away. That is absolutely true, but it doesn't help if you're taking millions of dollars in contributions from those special interests. They are less likely to go away. So it is important for us to crack down on how these special interests are able to influence Congress. And yes, it is important for us to inspire and mobilize and motivate the American people to get involved and pay attention.

While some cynics still view Barack Obama’s appeal for “change” as empty rhetoric, it’s starting to dawn on Washington insiders that his ability to raise vast sums of money from nearly one million mostly small donors could shake the grip that special-interest money has long held over the U.S. government. This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo – and prompting harsher attacks on Obama. Right now, the front line for the Washington Establishment is Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, which has been stunned by Obama’s political skills as well as his extraordinary ability to raise money over the Internet. Obama’s grassroots donations have negated Clinton’s prodigious fundraising advantage with big donors. Powerful lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries – also are recognizing the value of keeping their dominance over campaign cash from getting diluted by Obama’s deep reservoir of small donors. It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible.