The following letter will be a full page ad in the NY Times (assuming that the money is donated for it). This letter has NOT been endorsed by General Wesley Clark or his supporters; in fact, MOST supporters decry its circulation in the most strenuous ways imaginable because they believe the Republicans/media will twist it to undermine the future political viability of Clark. (A few folks really liked it and didn’t understand why all the fuss.) Be that is it may….

“Let no man imagine that he has no influence. Whoever he may be, and wherever he may be placed, the man who thinks becomes a light and a power.” –Henry George

Dear Senator Kerry, We Respectfully Request Your Input:

We, the undersigned, are dissatisfied with how money, politics and media caused undue influence in determining the Democratic nominee. And, as you know if you saw Wes Clark on Charlie Rose the night before he endorsed you, Wes has, in effect, mirrored the sentiments that the process did not unfold purely democratically. To that end, we cordially request you to indulge us in debating the merits of why your nomination better suits the nation than General Clark's; because the process of finding the best man for the job should not come down to a game of who is better at running a campaign, raising money and circumventing the media bias.

It is our contention that Wes Clark is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the man most capable of recapturing for the Nation the ideals that the Democratic Party was founded upon. We don't necessarily doubt that you would make us proud to have you as our Commander in Chief, but we believe wholeheartedly that Wes will be more capable in fulfilling those duties, as well as being much, much more likely to fetch the potential Bush defector voters.

Though you must already be fully aware of just what a national treasure General Clark is, suppose that a genie offered to create the ideal presidential candidate from your imagination. The fact is that your imagination would fall short….because who would think to throw in that the man spent a month in a junkyard rebuilding a car because, despite being a commander in the army at age 41, he simply did not have the money to do otherwise when he needed two cars for his family and military duties.

In the spirit of the unity which we all share in recognizing that Nothing Is More Imperative Than Removing President Magoo, and recognizing that this means that every vote counts more than ever and that, moreover, the swing voters are going to decide this election, we implore you to consider directing your delegates to Wesley K. Clark. Aside from our belief that he will both be better for the Nation and more likely to beat the incumbent Embarrassing Insult (bless his heart ;) we also feel that if you publicly retract your vie for the White House--on account of recognizing that some of your words and votes could be considered unbecoming of a political leader--you would be doing your duty of illustrating to the electorate that Democrats do, indeed, expect to be held accountable for how we act on the people's behalf. In light of the current administration's complete lack of living up to any such standard (i.e., Bush’s quips of “What’s the difference?” and “I don’t want to get into a word contest.”) we could really go for some actual examples of what that means. (We could also really go for an example of basing decisions on facts rather than wishful thinking.)

Senator Kerry, the reservations which we list below are not meant with disrespect towards you. We believe that your intent to serve your constituency has been sincere, and that, overall, you share our vision of how much potential America has if guided by the right leadership. However, it serves the best interest of the nation if voters are aware of certain occasions when you did not use the proper discretion when acting on behalf of the American public; or are, at least, strongly perceived to have either used poor discretion or were inconsistent. Conversely, the democratic voters should have a fuller appreciation of what makes Wesley Clark so deserving of the responsibility, the trust, and the authority that comes with being the Commander In Chief. If the following does not deter you from claiming the mantle of the presidency, please, out of respect for the first amendment and the democratic process, engage us in debate on why it is that, despite the very legitimate concerns laid out here, you still think you’re best suited to defeat Flyboy, as well as being better able than Clark to foster the spirit of unity so desperately needed right now. Because surely you must concede that the simple and obvious strategy for the democrats to win the election is for us to put our best face forward.

1. Your voting record on national security. As you must already be aware, the right wing media, including Libertarian Neil Boortz, are having a field day with it. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt that you could justify every one of those votes, that will not change the fact that those potential Bush defectors are going to perceive you as weak and wishy-washy on national security, as well as simply being an opportunist. There is also much contention on your post-Vietnam protests. (To those Clark detractors such as Mr. Boortz who purport that “weasel Clark” is against the Iraq war, we suggest you read the actual testimony General Clark gave before Congress in September of 2002 so you can see for yourself that he is against the timing and pacing of the war, not the actual intent of neutralizing the threat of Saddam Hussein; armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html )

2. You said on St. Patrick's Day: "I may not be Irish, but at least I'm not French." In hindsight you must concede that such comments alienate our allies (not to mention foster the atmosphere to do so). You must further concede that it doesn't serve our best interest to alienate our allies since the more allied forces we have in Iraq, the less of our troops will be in harm’s way. ( Even Joe Biden used the example of “Freedom Fries” on Air Force One as an example of Bush’s backward diplomacy tactics.)

3. You neglected to show up for the vote on the omnibus bill (which we lost by 8 votes) because you were campaigning. That is to say, you were seeking to gain the people's trust that you would act on our behalf, yet failed to do so because you were trying to convince us that that's what you are committed to. (Meanwhile, Clark took off time from campaigning to testify against Milosivich.)

4. You have the greatest amount of questionable ties to corporate interests. So great, in fact, that most people privy to an advanced copy of this letter all agree with the sentiment that “Kerry will never acquiesce to this plea no matter how clear cut the argument is because he is just too beholden to mega-corporate money, so they wouldn’t allow him to.”

5. You undoubtedly have a firm grasp of foreign policy and national security matters, but no one can dispute that Wes Clark commands that arena like no one else. Moreover, he brings to the table the Invaluable asset of already-established personal relationships with essentially all of our “ex-“ allies. (And Clark’s command of economic issues is also on par with the best of them.) Did you know that fifty-five ambassadors endorsed him!?

6. Wesley Clark's financial, regional, and spiritual background will garner him much more empathy votes than your background will.

7. We have encountered, either first hand or through second hand accounts, numerous examples of potential swing voters who are quite comfortable with abandoning Bush or a third party candidate for Clark, but are less likely to defect for you. (And we’re stating this very, very mildly, sir.)

8. Due to the media bias (and the average constituent’s lack of motivation to become informed) most people either never heard of Clark or mainly just know that he was a general. Invariably, however, once these folks learn of General Clark's distinguished record of accomplishments, his unmitigated dedication, his fundamental grasp of both domestic and foreign affairs, and an utter absence of ulterior motive, then they are quite convinced that you couldn’t ask for more in a President (nor have a better chance of beating Bush). Conversely, most primary voters were not quite aware of the shortcomings that make you vulnerable to the machinations of the Republican campaign team. (And it must be noted that in most primaries Republicans were allowed to vote; think about that.) A successful democratic process is predicated on voters making informed choices.

9. You called your secret service protection agent—a man sworn to risk his life to protect yours--a “son of a bitch” after he accidentally knocked you down while skiing; and this was after the fact, not in the heat of the moment when it happened. It’s hard to find a way to politely rebuke such decorum, particularly in someone seeking to convey presidentiality.

10. The last one is bigger than all of the above even if you counted the other ones ten times each: YOU WERE AMONG THOSE WHO VOTED TO GIVE AWAY CONGRESS’ AUTHORITY TO VETO WAR. Do we even need to elaborate on how that was the most foolish and dangerous decision in the history of decisions? Someone said to me today that we couldn’t run the nation purely by letting everything come down to referendums for each person to vote on instead of just letting the elected officials act on our behalf because, after all, the people aren’t intelligent enough to understand what they’re voting for. Right! We’re mostly very blind folk and we’re especially driven irrational by fear, particularly after events like September 11. So we rely on our elected officials to be the voice of reason, not to be subservient to our fickle, exaggerated fears. If the Democrats really wanted to set a good example, they would all resign over having given the commander in chief carte blanche pass to wage war. You guys already knew that he was The World’s Schmuckiest Puppet, didn’t you?

We’re talking about people who applaud him even when he fugging does a running gag about the failure to find WMDs. Republicans don’t care that he read to children after being told “we’re under attack” and they think it’s perfectly hunky dory that Bush DID NOT EVEN ATTEND THE FIRST PRINCIPLES MEETING ON COUNTERTERRORISM ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2001. So if that doesn’t wake you up to the fact that we cannot take anything for granted then you're in as much denial as the other side of the aisle.

The apparent inevitability of you becoming the Democratic nominee couldn't please the dastardly Karl Rove any greater. He’s jumping up and down, salivating at the thought of taking you out at the knees. In fact, the media did their part to have things go in your and Edwards' favor because they believed that Clark would be their greatest threat to Bush’s tenure. Wouldn't it be doubly glorious to turn the tables on their own game? Conversely, it would be obscene enough if Bush was put back in charge, but especially demoralizing if the Republicans could revel in how they successfully manipulated the public through their control of the media. How smug we could all feel to make all the attack commercials they’ve paid for in the months leading up to the Democratic convention completely moot.

….Senator Kerry, sir, even if you believe in your heart that you are not any more likely to be defeated by President Magoo than General Clark, and you also believe that, despite Wes’ proven administrative and political prowess within the military, you have more direct legislative experience to implement a Democratic agenda, please, please, please, look beyond the mere necessity for us to reclaim the helm from our Republican adversaries. Sure, any Democrat will serve us better pretty much by just doing the opposite of what Bush is told to do, but bear in mind that between the highly contentious 2000 election, the horror of September 11, the debacle of Iraq, and the thorough ability of the Bush administration to polarize us both within our borders and beyond, Our Nation is in deep need of healing and reconciliation.

Simply put, Wesley is the only man suited to give us the Comfort we so desperately need because he’s the one ultra-qualified person whom the most people will be comfortable with. Not to mention that he’s an inspiring guy. (Seriously, did you not see that killer Flash Gordon parody of Wes?)

If we are going to truly begin anew with a genuine Spirit of Dedication and Unity—-between Americans and Americans, and between Americans and the rest of the world community—-we need to bend over backwards to embrace, and to reflect, that Spirit of Unity and Reconciliation so direly lacking right now. If you are elected President most of us will breathe a much needed sigh of relief as we watch the Bush administration leave on the horse they rode in on. But your election will still harbor much contention, among both diehard Republicans and the Anybody But Bush contingent. There needs to be the most highly charged atmosphere of inclusion and teamwork possible—-and a palpable feeling that we can still have faith in the democratic process. Imagine the tone such a magnanimous gesture would set.

Obviously this kind of request goes beyond tilting at windmills, as they say; and to believe that a person in your position would pass up the opportunity to hold the highest office in the land verges on pure fantasy. But, in light of the contrast between the ultimate nightmare administration (as well as the ultimate nightmare of 9/11), and the ultimate dream nominee showing up at our door at the most opportune and critical time in history, it doesn’t seem so farfetched to believe that a man in your position would be capable of making such an unprecedented sacrifice. To pass up having your own chapter in American history books will certainly be a hard pill to swallow…but such a pill will certainly go down a lot easier knowing that the opening chapter to President Clark’s legacy will be preceded by the statement: There but for the grace of John Kerry went the finest leader America and the world has ever been so privileged to have serve on our behalf.

P.S. One of the primary signatories of this letter declared that “Wesley Clark is not going to lose this thing on my watch! ….and if he does, then I’ll just have to have my Underdog tattoo surgically removed.” So, Senator Kerry, sir, it will be on your head if a perfectly good Underdog tattoo gets destroyed.

P.P.S. As Thomas Paine said when he anonymously authored Common Sense: “Who the author of this production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.”
P.P.P.S. The more protests I get on this letter the more emboldened I get to circulate it since everyone’s concerns simply show that this letter has the potential to back Kerry into a corner and acquiesce in recognition that his electability is very flimsy. So, until someone simply addresses the question as to why it would be a bad idea for Kerry to defer his delegates to Clark this letter will continue to be circulated as far and wide as possible.