Hi. I am writing to you today to remind you to vote in your local Democratic primary.

I know I'm just supposed to encourage you to vote and not endorse a particular candidate, but the stakes in this election are much too high for me to not speak my conscience, so I have to ask that you please vote for Barack Obama.

I have been following Obama's career for a long time now and there are many reasons why I know him to be the best candidate. I've outlined some of these reasons below, but I can sum up my support in a few words: integrity and sincerity of purpose.

Obama is the real deal.

For the first time in my life, I have the opportunity to vote for someone who is more than the lesser of evils. For the first time, we can vote for someone who inspires us to ask more of ourselves and more from our leaders. We can vote for someone who will be honest with us and trust in our ability to rise up and meet the challenges facing our nation. For the first time, we can elect a president who isn't Bush or Clinton.

The son of a black immigrant father and a white Kansas mother, Obama is the very embodiment of the American Dream, and he will do what it takes to keep this dream alive. He has a natural intuition for world dynamics and understands the importance of restoring our international standing.

These are not just empty platitudes. Obama has a long history of serving this country in a manner that is noble and inclusive of all parties.

Of course, he's not perfect and as president, he will surely make decisions we disagree with. No politician is completely clean. But we can trust that when confronted with choices of moral ambiguity and the need for compromise, he will do what is best for the country, rather than what is convenient politically or in response to the latest polling numbers.

We can trust his judgment, and that is the single most important requirement of the presidency.

We have a unique opportunity here to once again be proud of our president, and have him in turn make us proud of ourselves as Americans. Let's not blow it.

(No one can speak for him better than he can, so I would encourage you to please watch Obama's South Carolina victory speech.)

Government Transparency

The candidates differ significantly in their approach to government and the role they envision for the American public.

Obama is dedicated to a transparent and open government. Centralized databases will be maintained with lobbying, ethics, and campaign finance records so anyone can monitor what's going. Cabinet officials will be required to broadcast meetings and hold periodic townhall chats over the internet. White House communications will be made public and Obama fully supports campaign finance reform so it won't only be the rich who have influence over elections. Rather than rely on the government to police itself, Obama will create an independent watchdog agency to investigate ethics violations. (1)

A great deal of the legislation that is passed these days is not only backed by lobbyists, it is literally written by them. Obama will not be beholden to these federal lobbyists because he doesn't accept their donations, and he is the only candidate left who refuses to do so. (1, 2)

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president." (Barack Obama, 2007)

This one is huge: Congress often votes on bills before members even have a chance to read them (let alone the American public). Obama will "not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

You can read more here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

Experience

Despite what some would have us believe, Obama didn't just come out of nowhere. He has dedicated his life to public service, both as a politician and in the private sector. He has more experience in elected office than Hillary Clinton. Obama served as an Illinois State Senator for seven years and has been a US Senator for three years, whereas Clinton has been a US Senator for seven years. He has directed voter registration drives, he has led anti-poverty initiatives, he has served as a civil rights attorney, and perhaps most importantly, he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for over 10 years. One of the biggest challenges facing the new president will be to undo the Bush Administration's many constitutional violations and restore civil liberties back to the people -- who better to do this than a professor of the constitution? (1, 2)

It is true that Clinton has more Washington experience than Obama, primarily because of her time as First Lady, but the value of this experience has to be questioned at least somewhat given that she did not hold a security clearance and was thus not privy to any intelligence and/or national security estimates. Moreover, Washington experience has never been a very good predictor of a successful presidency:

"It might seem obvious that long service in Washington is the best preparation for the White House, but on the contrary, one lesson of American history is that length of experience in national politics is an extremely poor predictor of presidential success.

Looking at the 19 presidents since 1900, three of the greatest were among those with the fewest years in electoral politics. Teddy Roosevelt had been a governor for two years and vice president for six months; Woodrow Wilson, a governor for just two years; and Franklin Roosevelt, a governor for four years. None ever served in Congress. "

"Alternatively, look at the five presidents since 1900 with perhaps the most political experience when taking office: William McKinley, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. They had great technical skills — but not one was among our very greatest presidents." (Nicholas Kristof, NY Times)

Or, in the words Bill Clinton used when he was running for president:

"The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change." (Bill Clinton)

Electability

Our number one priority as Democrats should be to make sure that a Republican does not win in November. Obama is our best chance of making sure this doesn't happen.

There has been record turnout in every primary and caucus thus far, and while Obama certainly can't take all the credit, a big reason so many people are showing up is because they're excited about what he represents. Presidents aren't elected by Democrats or Republicans, they're elected by the independents, and the majority of independents and Republicans who are voting in the Democratic primaries are voting for Obama. He is bringing people together, he is getting them fired up about politics, and he is literally expanding the party.

"Absent from this debate is any sober recognition that a Hillary Clinton nomination, if it happens, will send the Democrats into the general election with a new and huge peril that may well dwarf the current wars over race, gender and who said what about Ronald Reagan." (Frank Rich, NY Times)

The Republicans are foaming at the mouth, waiting for a Clinton nomination. The conservative smear machine will drudge up all the drama of Bill Clinton's second term (infidelity, perjury, impeachment, questionable pardons, etc.), as well as everything he's been engaged in since, which has not been vetted and is at times suspect. (1, 2)

It is unfair and unwarranted, but many Republicans hate Hillary Clinton and will stop at nothing to make sure she doesn't win. Of course, they will also attack Obama with everything they possibly can, but he doesn't have nearly as many skeletons in his closet as do the Clintons.

Foreign Policy

Obama has been against the war in Iraq from the very beginning. The following is from a speech he delivered before the war started:

"I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." (Barack Obama, 2002)

Read This Speech. Remember, this speech was given in 2002 and he basically predicted everything that has happened with the war. This is a candidate of almost prescient judgment.

How is Hillary going to distinguish herself from John McCain, on one of the most important issues, when she voted in support of the war in Iraq and refuses to acknowledge that it was a mistake?

"I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place." (Barack Obama, 2008)

Obama is committed to diplomacy and has gone on record that he will bring countries like Iran and North Korea to the discussion table. It is baffling to me that Clinton has criticized this approach and has said that she would not engage in diplomacy with these leaders in the first year of her presidency. Why not? Even in the height of the cold war, we were meeting with the Soviets and we knew as absolute fact that they had hundreds of nuclear weapons pointed directly at us.

Obama has pledged to re-dedicate attention to Afghanistan which has been in increasing turmoil since our focus shifted to Iraq. He is unwavering in his opposition to torture. He will close Guantanamo. He will restore Habeas Corpus. He will end warrantless wiretaps on US citizens:

"I will end the war in Iraq… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now." (Barack Obama, 2007)

Technology

We need a president that understands technology and will fight to protect its open role in society. Obama gets it, and he's the only candidate that does. He will implement privacy safeguards and has committed to no warrantless wiretaps. He will help expand next-generation broadband coverage, he is against monopolization of the media, and he will create the role of Chief Technology Officer to make sure the administration is well advised on technical matters. (1)

He is in support of network neutrality. Many people may not be familiar with this issue, but it is something that we need to address immediately. Net neutrality ensures that internet service providers don't give preferential access to certain websites or applications because of financial, political or other motive. Imagine if phone companies were allowed to degrade your connection depending on whether or not they were partners with your caller's phone company. This may not seem like a big deal, but think about how much the internet plays a role in your daily life now compared to five years ago, and then envision how important it will be to you in five or ten more years. Within the next decade, most of our communication and entertainment platforms will be built upon the internet. We need to keep it open.

(For the true geeks: Obama requested that the presidential debates carry a Creative Commons license and sought the counsel of Lawrence Lessig to help determine policy.)

The Clintons

I have a tremendous amount of respect for both Clintons and am proud to have given Hillary my vote for the US Senate. But they've taken this campaign to such a cynical and dark place that I can't help but be embarrassed by their behavior.

"It's absolutely astonishing that the Democratic race is as close as it is. If a Republican said something like 'Jesse Jackson won here twice' or pledged to grab delegates that don't exist we'd be choking on our own tongues as we convulsed and gasped in shock-horror. There's no excuse for forgiving the Rovian games or the DLC calculation. Just because they're The Clintons doesn't make it forgivable." (Bob Cesca, The Huffington Post)

• The Clinton campaign has intentionally mislead voters by running ads and distributing flyers which suggest that Obama would not "stand up and protect" a women's right to choose because he voted "present" on some abortion related measures while in the Illinois Senate. What they failed to mention is that women's groups had specifically asked him to vote "present" as part of a larger legislative strategy. Obama has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. If women can't trust Clinton to be forthright, who can? (more on this from the former president of Chicago NOW, 2, 3)

• Florida and Michigan held their primaries before the date allowed by the DNC and as punishment, they were stripped of their delegates. All the candidates agreed to this policy and pledged not to campaign in these states. When it became clear that Hillary would not win the nomination as easily as she might have expected, she switched her position and started fighting to have the delegates count. She held fundraisers and went to Florida anyway. Of course she won, because no one was running against her. She then held a big rally to congratulate her win so that it would be broadcast on all the TV stations and give the impression that she had just accomplished something real. (1, 2, 3)

• The Clintons have repeatedly injected race into the campaign while falsely accusing Obama of doing the same. I do not believe that the Clintons actually hold a racial bias, but they do feel that it is acceptable politics to allude to race over and over in an effort to frame discussion in a racial context. I disagree. (1, 2, 3, 4)

• In an interview, Obama mentioned that Reagan had been a transformative figure in politics and that for a certain period of time, the Republicans had been a party of ideas. Obviously, this is true. Obama wasn't agreeing with these ideas -- he has, after all, dedicated most of his adult life to fighting against many of the principles Republicans hold so dearly. Hillary twisted his words into, "I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years." Meanwhile, Bill Clinton took Obama's words to mean, "President Reagan was the engine of innovation and did more, had a more lasting impact on America than I did." The campaign ran ads juxtaposing Obama's comments with a multitude of past Republican policies, falsely implying his support. (1, 2)

• The Democratic party and all the individual campaigns had agreed to rules which allowed members of Nevada's Culinary Workers Union to caucus at their workplace inside downtown casinos. After the union endorsed Obama, Hillary did an about face and instrumented a lawsuit via the Nevada State Education Association to prevent the workers from voting at the casinos. They actually sued to prevent Democrats from voting. (1)

We need the new president to give up some of the executive powers that the Bush Administration has assumed via fear mongering and gross over-reach. How can we trust that someone who is willing to sink to such lows to get into power, will then turn around and relinquish power? She won't. Obama might not either, but he also might. Yes, it's a gamble but he's our best chance of restoring checks and balances back into our government.

There is a very clear choice in front of us: do we accept a politics where anything goes, or do we strive for a politics of honesty and inclusion. Clearly, Clinton has made her choice and it is time we made ours.

A Hillary Clinton presidency would mean that the Bush and Clinton families have controlled the White House for 24 years (28 years if she wins a second term) and that's not including the two terms Bush Sr. spent as Vice President under Reagan.

We gave the Clintons eight years to enact all these changes they keep talking about, but they failed.

They've had their chance. We have a better candidate. It's time to move on.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Citizen