Analysis: Democrats Turn Their Backs on Rural America

— by Matt L. Barron

Republican Senate and House candidates were vulnerable in rural areas. But Democrats stuck to a campaign script developed by coastal elites who think “alfalfa” is only a character in “Little Rascals.” It doesn’t have to be that way, says Democratic consultant Matt Barron.

The crushing defeat that Donald Trump delivered to the Democrats, mostly from a beat down in the boondocks, has many in my party asking if they should even bother trying to woo white working class and rural voters anymore. The thinking among coastal elites is that with coming demographic changes in the years ahead, the “coalition of the ascendant” that powered Barack Obama to the White House will turn red states blue. This mindset is deeply flawed.

Even if the 2016 presidential campaign is the last old white guy’s election, Democrats can’t expect to be a viable national party if they only hold mostly urban turf in the Northeast, California and the Ecotopia of the Pacific Northwest with an Illinois and Virginia as side dishes. The Trump wave’s greatest damage was down-ballot in Senate and House races.

Warning Signs That Flashed Were Ignored

The successful cycles of 2006, where Democrats flipped the U.S. House and 2008, where they added to their congressional wins by re-taking the Oval Office (thanks in no small measure to then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy), included victories in rural precincts thanks to aggressive competition for rural votes.

The House Democratic Rural Working Group and the Senate Rural Outreach arms of the Democrat’s steering and policy committees were critical pieces of messaging infrastructure designed to listen to and communicate with folks in the nation’s hinterlands. Entities like the Obama Agriculture & Rural Policy Committee (full disclosure – I was an active and charter member), not only produced a comprehensive Rural Plan but helped bring that vision to life in the 2008 presidential race with full-throated constituency outreach to small towns and rural communities.

After the disastrous 2010 midterms, things began to change. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid dismantled their rural policy shops, and Obama never pushed to keep a rural voter component at the DNC. At the party campaign committees, outreach desks were created for almost every minority, ethnic and interest group except geographic minorities. In the states, most state parties had no rural caucus and the handful that did were given no support in financial or human capital. This lack of basic rural electoral infrastructure started to cost the Democrats more losses in 2012 and 2014. At this summer’s Democratic convention in Philadelphia, pleas from a Pennsylvania U.S. House candidate for Democrats to embrace rural voters’ values fell on deaf ears.

Mr. Secretary Had No Clue

Hillary Clinton stood before a giant gleaming John Deere tractor in Iowa as she rolled out her Future of America’s Rural Economy plan on August 26, 2015. The white paper (pretty much a carbon copy of her 2008 rural plan) garnered some positive press and the Rural for Hillary Twitter feed picked up a few more followers. Then Madame Secretary wiped her hands and walked away from rural America. Most of the effort to woo rural voters was left to surrogates at a couple of debates and forums with Trump representatives on the other side of the stage and a handful of upstate New Yorkers who testified that Clinton paid attention to them as senator and helped push some initiatives that benefitted Empire State agriculture. The candidate herself told people to go to her website to read her position papers. For millions of rural residents without access to high-speed broadband, that is hard to do. On November 8, the Rural for Hillary Twitter page had a total of 783 followers. 783 Twitter peeps? As they say on Monday Night Football, “C’mon man!”

As the media scratched their heads at why Trump was holding rallies far off the beaten path in places like Lisbon, Maine, Atkinson, New Hampshire, Fletcher and Selma, North Carolina, Clinton never deviated from a schedule that looked like a rock band’s tour of major urban centers. Clinton never ventured out to a county fair or commodity-themed festival to meet rural voters where they are and sell her rural policy vision on the stump. A woman at Trump’s Selma, North Carolina, stop told a reporter: “Hillary would never come because we’re not important enough to her. She doesn’t care about us.” Indeed, in their battleground state thread-the-needle strategy of turning out their base voters, campaign stops like this were vetoed by the brass in Brooklyn. This violates the first rule of competing for rural votes – showing up in the sticks.

On September 27, the morning after the first presidential debate, The Daily 202’s James Hohmann of the Washington Post talked one-on-one with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. The former Iowa governor – who Hillary Clinton considered as a potential running mate – shared his take on the debate, including how the candidates were resonating with rural voters.

There are some very revealing responses from Mr. Secretary in this interview. When Hohmann says “you’re sort of the point person for rural America,” Vilsack responds “I’m the only one.” Vilsack then admits that “we (Democrats) don’t do as good a job of speaking directly to rural voters,” and “There’s no question Democrats have a hard time talking to and about rural voters.”

I submitted these two questions to 202 Live via Twitter which Hohmann asked:

How come Dem Senate candidates in AZ, NV, NH, NC, etc. are not hitting GOPers on their bad rural votes (farm bill, broadband, etc.)? Vilsack says “That’s a good question.”

How come the DNC, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) have no rural outreach desks? How can D’s compete for rural voters when they don’t have a game plan? Vilsack says “That’s a good question and it’s one I don’t know I have a very good answer to.”

After the election, former Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who was slated to be in charge of Clinton’s White House transition team, was asked by The Hill about Clinton’s failure to reach and connect with rural voters and his response is as vapid as Vilsack’s. “Democrats have not done very well in rural America and I don’t understand why that has happened. The broader question is how to have a Democratic Party that can attract those working men and women,” Salazar said.

Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” dig at the Trumpers was her riff on Obama’s faux pas from 2008 when he was caught complaining about those “who cling to guns and religion,” and it did not go over well in flyover country. Anyone with any doubts that Democrats have become the party of the professional class should read the spot-on book by Thomas Frank, Listen Liberal – What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? Maybe Salazar and Vilsack will get a copy in their Christmas stockings this year.

Don’t Drink the DSCC’s Kool Aid – It’s Brewed by Folks Who Don’t Have Any Dirt Under Their Nails

If white working class voters and rural folks distrusted Clinton (e-mail server), thought she was a flip-flopper (being against ethanol and biofuels as a senator and then for them once she made her White House runs), and found her not relatable to them (more comfy giving six-figure speeches to Wall Street executives), it was the Senate races where Democrats’ failure to engage on issues near and dear to those in the countryside wound up costing them dearly.

Going into this cycle, there was reason for some optimism at retaking the upper chamber of Congress that was lost in the “Dempocalypse” that was the 2014 midterms. The Democrats had the map to their advantage, had recruited some solid candidates to challenge Republicans and in Senator Jon Tester, had a farmer from Big Sandy, Montana, running the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. There was some hope that the abysmal records on an array of issues directly affecting rural voters by GOP incumbents would get exposed. It was not to be.

In Arizona, U.S. Representative Ann Kirkpatrick led Senator John McCain 43 percent to 39 percent among rural voters in a Rocky Mountain Poll from April 15, 2016. Kirkpatrick’s House district is majority-rural (52.4%) and she sits on the Agriculture and Transportation & Infrastructure Committees, so she should be intimately familiar with the meat and potato issues that come before these panels that hit rural Arizona. But instead of going after McCain’s horrific rural record (which Obama used to his advantage in 2008), against farmers and ranchers (opposing multiple Farm Bills over the years), his votes to kill rural broadband and rural air service and against several highway bills, she gulped the DSCC Kool Aid and made McCain’s opposition to a new Supreme Court justice a centerpiece of her campaign. Worse, in 2011, McCain led the effort in the Senate to obliterate rural postal service by doing away with Saturday mail delivery and closing thousands of rural post offices across the nation. If you don’t live near a pharmacy and you are part of the 80 percent of rural Arizonans who lack rural broadband, then you depend on the U.S. Postal Service to deliver your medications and magazines. Kirkpatrick never mentioned this issue in her campaign let alone cut a radio spot to drive it home. By autumn, her lead had slipped and McCain won handily by 12 points. Kirkpatrick won only four rural counties and among the rural counties she lost – four were in her own Arizona-1st district.

In the Show Me State, Jason Kander, one of the party’s brightest new stars, was beaten by Senator Roy Blunt who benefited from the Trump wave in outstate Mizzou’s rural counties. Kander won none of them, not even the handful that Blunt’s 2010 opponent Robin Carnahan had carried in the Lead Belt, in the southeast part of the state where there had been some historical Democratic strength from union lead miners. Kander did make his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal a prominent part of his platform. But he never hit Blunt on supporting the Korea Free Trade Agreement from 2011 that saw the state’s trade deficit in the top 10 exports (everything from leather products to transportation equipment), grow 62% under the first three years Korea FTA was in effect and resulted in a drop in turkeys and soybeans, (two of the top five ag exports) falling 49% and 2% respectively. Kander hit Blunt relentlessly on his fancy Washington, D.C., house and that his family were all lobbyists but never mentioned Blunt’s opposition to biofuels and that he voted in 2012 against federal payments in-lieu of taxes for rural counties that host huge swaths of tax-exempt acres as part of the Mark Twain National Forest. Those federal bucks help pay for schools and local law enforcement where the tax base is thin because of Uncle Sam’s green footprint. Like Kirkpatrick in Arizona, Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania, and Deborah Ross in North Carolina, Kander let Blunt off the hook on dozens of votes that have specific resonance in rural communities.

The Wisconsin race between Republican Senator Ron Johnson and Russ Feingold was supposed to be a layup for the Democrats until Feingold lost the ball. Johnson, a freshman who came in on the 2010 Tea Party wave, was deeply unpopular, and Feingold supposedly had learned from his defeat six years earlier that he had to put much more effort into winning in places outside Madison and Milwaukee. Feingold got the showing-up part right – he stumped in all of the Badger State’s 72 counties. But he again messed up on his rural messaging. Not only did Johnson vote against the 2014 Farm Bill, but he opposed key amendments to that omnibus legislation affecting Wisconsin commodities like milk and cranberries. Alfalfa illustrates this point. Johnson voted against a measure by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) to require the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to carry out research and development for a crop insurance program for alfalfa. This is kind of a big deal in a state that has “America’s Dairyland” on its license plates. In 2015, Wisconsin grew 1.2 million acres of alfalfa with a value of $756, 985,000. Feingold (who spent some time on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry during his first Senate term) really could have made some political hay with some paid media hitting Johnson for being out of touch with his state’s signature economic sector – and possibly won more of the rural vote that should have been his.

Even in Nevada, where Catherine Cortez Masto hung on to hold outgoing Senator Harry Reid’s seat, she did it only by running up the score in Las Vegas and Clark County. Cortez Masto made a brief three-day swing through rural Nevada in mid-July showing her face in places like Ely, Elko, Pahrump and Winnemucca. But then she pretty much focused only on Las Vegas and Reno. Cortez Masto lost the rural cow counties by just under 54,000 votes – a bigger blowout than the 40,000- vote rural defeat ex-Representative Shelley Berkley suffered in her 2012 loss to Republican Senator Dean Heller, who beat her 46% to 45% statewide. Cortez Masto was so focused on parroting DSCC talking points on abortion rights and the Supreme Court vacancy that she never hit suburban Representative Joe Heck on his anti-rural and anti-libertarian record that could have appealed to rural Nevadans.

What Can the Party of Jefferson and Truman Do Going Forward?

There are a number of takeaways for Democrats to learn and act on if they have any hope of competing for the hearts and minds of rural Americans:

  • Create a rural desk at their Senate and Congressional campaign committees so that Senate and House candidates can have access to opposition research and policy data on rural issues that affect rural/exurban constituencies in their respective states, because every state in this nation contains some rural precincts. Make the DNC’s Rural Council more than an entity that only meets for two days every four years at the national convention.
  • Revive the Senate Democratic Rural Outreach shop within the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee that was closed down in 2010 and staff it with folks who know how to do messaging to the hinterlands and the boondocks. Even though he is up in the 2018 cycle, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio would be a natural to lead this effort. Revive the House Democratic Rural Working Group in the House to do similar work. Representative Cheri Bustos, who represents a swath of western Illinois that is 47% rural, would be a perfect fit.
  • Learn that in candidate recruitment, carpetbaggers are not good messengers in rural places. House contests in Maine-2nd and New York-19th showed that voters don’t like people like Louisville, Kentucky, native Emily Cain (whom Mainers politely refer to being “from away”) or Seattle-born and New York City transplant-to-upstate Zephyr Teachout. That shows at the ballot box. Organic-to-the-district works better when all the votes are counted.
  • Start hiring campaign managers, staff, and campaign consultants who have some direct connection to rural America and know that alfalfa is a forage crop and not the most famous and popular member of the Little Rascals comedy shorts series. Democrats need more people with some dirt under their nails advising candidates up and down the ballot that they cannot ignore stuff that animates rural people.
  • Work with the urban Democratic donor community to support and endow state-branded/rural-focused/grassroots driven super PACs to fund cost-effective voter contact messaging for rural folks such as dirt-cheap rural radio spots and print ads in rural weekly newspapers to reach rural voters where they are.

Republished with permission from Matt L. Barron, who is president of MLB Research Associate, a political consulting and rural strategy firm in Chesterfield, MA. You can follow him on Twitter —> @MrRural

New rural PAC he just started  http://www.silverstaterural.com/  Watch that space!

Advertisements

Friends Don’t Let Friends Vote for Jill Stein

“At a time when a third of Sanders supporters still haven’t committed to backing Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump in the general election, where every percentage point will matter, Stein’s candidacy looms larger. Many good people are only just discovering her campaign, and wondering if she might be worthy of their vote. Which is why it’s time for responsible political observers to say what has been commonly understood among those who have followed Stein for years: Friends don’t let friends vote for Jill Stein.

Read the full article here: Friends Don’t Let Friends Vote for Jill Stein

 

What does the election mean for Poland and Polish-Americans? | Sarah Kendzior

Last week the Polish news outlet Onet.pl did a long Q & A with me about the  US election, its relevance for Poland, and its relevance for Polish-Americans. A Polish-language excerpt of our conversation is up now on the website. This was an interesting interview, because I rarely get asked about Polish-American issues, and given the heated racial/ethnic rhetoric of this election — and Trump and Bill Clinton’s controversies regarding Poland and Polish-Americans — it was a good opportunity to write about things I can’t elsewhere …

Read the full source article here:

What does the election mean for Poland and Polish-Americans? | Sarah Kendzior

Announcement of Delegates to DNC Convention

The Nevada State Democratic Party released information on the Nevada Delegates to the 2016 Democratic National Committee Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Convention is scheduled for July 25-28. At the Convention, Delegates will formally elect the Democratic Party’s 2016 nominee for President.

Nevada’s 23 District-Level Delegates are allocated based on the percentage of the precinct caucus vote on February 20. Hillary Clinton won 13 of these, compared to 10 for Bernie Sanders. The seven At-Large and five Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) Delegates are determined based on the State Convention results. Because Clinton had a majority of Delegates at the State Convention, she carried the At-Large Delegates 4–3 and the Pledged PLEO Delegates 3–2.  Clinton earned 20 Pledged Delegates and Sanders earned 15 Pledged Delegates to the Democratic National Convention in July. Overall, Nevada will send 43 Delegates to the Convention, including eight Unpledged PLEO Delegates.

View the breakdown of the Nevada delegation to the 2016 Democratic National Convention below:

Uncommitted Unpledged PLEO Delegates:

Roberta Lange, Chris Wicker

Sanders District-Level Delegates:

Congressional District 1:  Angie Morelli, Joe Sacco

Congressional District 2:  Carol Cizauskas, Sarah Mahler, Paul Catha

Congressional District 3:  Tacy Geesaman, Leroy Pelton, John Geremia

Congressional District 4:  Alexis Salt, Adam Stuart Littman

Sanders At-Large Delegates:

Lucy Flores, Yvette Williams, Alan Doucette

Sanders Pledged PLEO Delegates:

Hawah Ahmad, Richard “Tick” Segerblom

Sanders Unpledged PLEO Delegates:

Erin Bilbray

Clinton District-Level Delegates:

Congressional District 1:  Donna West, Adriana Martinez, Anthony Flanagan

Congressional District 2:  Carissa Snedeker, Arlan Melendez, Cedric Williams

Congressional District 3:  Alicia Tucker, Jennifer Webb-Cook, Larry Mosley

Congressional District 4:  Mary Chapman, Sakina Turner, Thomas Morley, Larry Coffey

Clinton At-Large Delegates:

Kim Cole, Angel Robinson, Councilman Bob Coffin, Richard Miller

Clinton Pledged PLEO Delegates:

Assemblywoman Irene Bustamante Adams, State Senator Aaron Ford, Assemblyman Nelson Araujo

Clinton Unpledged PLEO Delegates:

U.S. Senator Harry Reid, Congresswoman Dina Titus, Artie Blanco, Andres Ramirez, State Senator Ruben Kihuen

Alternates:

Matthew Kimball (Clinton) – Congressional District 1

Lynnette Hull (Clinton) – Congressional District 3

Alexander Goff (Sanders) and Connie Munk (Clinton) – At-Large

What is wrong with American voters?

caucus-count
from the weekendcollective.com

— by G. Leta, Hillary Supporter

All American voters have both the right and the duty to participate in the political process of their country by casting votes for the candidate of their choice instead of dancing to the political passion of one candidate or the other. As voters, we should know voting is the will of the people and we should refrain from voting based on narrow self-interest or for redressing grudges. Voters go to campaign events not to watch realty shows or to hear empty promises. Each voter must stand with a candidate who has a realistic program for action to make a difference.

Currently, it is appalling to see that people at election events, in most cases, clapping hands in support of candidates who use vulgar language, flip-flopping, self over evaluation, insulting and degrading the other candidates to promote self-rightedness. Yes, in some cases, participants in the political gatherings wooed those candidates who use vulgar language and bent on character assassination of opponents. We should not forget that it is our chance that our voices are heard and we should vote carefully after vetting each candidate. Before voting, we should consider the main issues that affect America most and the ability of each candidate to attune to those issues both at home and abroad. Voters should consider such factors as experience, honesty, morality, compassion, competence and leadership ability of the candidates to make a choice. False promise or unattainable promise should not sway us from the vital issues that America is now facing both at home and abroad. Both men and women, both the young and the elderly should help America to vote for a candidate with a vision larger than oneself and the ability to identify issue of national importance and provide timely solutions in the interest of the American people. Spontaneous response in order to satisfy whatever anger we harbor does not contribute to electing a visionary and transformational president. All voters must ask themselves how can we help America to function well in order to bring about social transformation and economic progress in this 21st century.

Recently, we see the American political landscape shaking and moving to an uncertain destination like a car having several passengers with no driver behind the steering wheel. Presidential candidates having different political agendas are pushing it from behind in different directions. Both political parties, Republican and Democratic, are labeled as “establishments” and yet outsiders like Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and many others are trying to be on the power saddle by appealing to people’s psychic, anger and fears that all American problems will be solved if they win the presidency. I believe any candidate for who seek nomination by Democratic Party must show acceptance of the core democratic party principles and values.Bernie Sanders is an Independent and is not a democrat. He might have been caucusing with democrat’s senators but that alone is not enough to seek nomination by the Democratic Party.

Without taking into account how the American democracy would work in reality to ensure check and balance, some candidates claim that they have magic solutions for ‘making America great again’. For example, Donald Trump everyday preaches that jobs will come back from China, Mexico, Japan and Vietnam to guaranty the America people with job security and everybody will win if he becomes president. He doesn’t tell us how he can attain these goals.

Building a wall to prevent aliens from coming in and charging Mexico to pay the cost of the wall is a fantasy. Advocating for deportation of immigrants, who may be illegally here, without due process of the law, is not the American value we know. Any candidate for the presidency of the United States must commit himself/herself to honoring the Constitution. Any candidate who mixes politics with religion should be rejected. America can’t claim to be the world leader by excluding 1.6 billion Muslims. We know that Donald Trump’s wealth is more than $10 billion but the American presidency is not for sale at the highest bidder. This wealth will not also trickle down to the American people. Mr. Trump confidently assures that Americans will be bored with success after success. He himself failed the first test. He lost the support of the Iowan people. He admires Presiden Putin who annexed party of Ukran and currently bombing women and children in Syria. He failed to recognize the geopolitical alliance with other friendly countries. If he continues favoring President Putin, how can he work with the European Union if he is elected president of the United States? America won the Cold War with the fall of Berlin Wall in the early 1990s. Then, America built democratic bridge to connect with Eastern Europe and Russia. In the 21st century, Donald Trump wants to build a big wall that separates America from Mexico. We can secure the boarder to prevent illegal immigrants without necessarily building a wall. Perhaps, Donald Trump my think isolationism would work for American. This won’t happen in this 21st century world interconnectedness.

On the other hand, candidate Bernie Sanders masks his idea for socialist revolution behind political revolution. For now, it appears that he has mobilized some youths by promising political revolution with the aim of providing free public college and university education and free medical care to all Americans without having a clue how to finance it. Making fiery political speech and giving false expectations in the hope of achieving temporary political goal is madness.

The political passion of the 1960th and that of the 1970th would not serve shaping the political environment of the 21st century. No matter what, some candidates shamelessly claim that they have solutions for every problem in this country without mentioning how to achieve their political objectives. It is not possible to make income redistribution to make everybody equal because people differ in education, experience and ingenuity. Some candidates think that they can insult others all the way to the White House and take the presidency. Voters should question the character of each candidate for the presidency. A candidate who is impulsive, erratic and claiming selfrightenedness should not be supported. Any promise a candidate makes must be supported by concrete action plans and the sources of fund, how and when it can be achieved.

When a candidate says that there should be free public and university education and free healthcare for all, he should keep in mind that as of December 15, 2015, the U.S. is $18.8 trillion in debt. What would it cost the U.S to provide free public college and University education and free healthcare as a matter of legal right? Some candidates advocate for high tax on corporations, on Wall Street business and on investors without considering the globalization of trade and industry. They forgot that America is competing with other countries to achieve a healthy and sustainable economic growth. Of course, paying reasonable tax is legal. What is not feasible and untrue is that the United States president can’t do everything alone. He/she needs the support of Congress and the American people. As people, we have the right and the obligation to participate in the government proper functioning. It is not without reason that the late President John F. Kennedy once said, “ Ask not what your county can do for you-ask what you can do for your country.” Voters can help American progress and prosperity by electing the right person for the right job. We can’t continue supporting the republican “no” party. When President Obama said, “Yes, we can!” the Speaker of the House said, “No We can’t!” We cannot expect results from a “no” party. It is up to the voters to make the right decision.

Some candidates advocate for carpet-bombing in the Middle East, taking oil wells, without concern for the civilian population, women, children, the elderly, the sick and those who are trying to escape from havoc of war. America with her allies held the Nazis accountable for human genocide during World War II. Hence, the candidates should refrain from suggesting any action that may result in Human suffering and genocide. Any candidate for the presidency should not depart from the high ideals of American democracy, strong economy and the maintenance of security both at home and abroad.

Each and every voter has a great responsibility in carefully vetting before getting in an election both to vote because each vote is a part of the instrument that lead the candidate to power.

In the 20th century we have witnessed a number of wars that were largely caused by irresponsible leaders. As an example, we can cite Germany. To all Germans, Hitler promised to restore German honor by abrogating the Treaty of Versailles and by promising everything to make Germany great again. What was the basic reason for supporting Hitler? The Nazis got peoples’ support by capitalizing on many hopes, fears and needs of the German people. The end result was disastrous for Germany. We should vote for a candidate that understands both domestic and global issues, who has cool mind, dedicated to uphold the constitution, uphold the American vital interest over and above party politics, ready and able to ensure American security at home and abroad
Any voter, the young, the elderly, whether female or male, should uphold the American interest over and above party politics. Then, as voters, we must be able to identify which candidate is a transformational leader to tackle the root cause of social ills, ensure security, provide equal opportunity for all, work for continued prosperity and economic growth for us all.

Some candidates want to repackage ideas and political goals that have been advanced by others and try to sell it to minorities as newly invented issues. A case in point is candidate Bernie Sanders. All his years in Senate, he did not express opinion about the disproportionate incarceration of African Americans and Latinos, did not speak about their income inequality or the lack of economic opportunity. Now, he comes with these empty promises to woo votes from the minority communities of African American and Latinos.

587Hillary Clinton introduced the universal healthcare system in the early 1990s, but it could not succeed because of Republican obstruction in Congress. We all know that for years Hillary Clinton has been expressing concern for the lack of equal economic opportunity for African Americans, Latinos, and their disproportionate incarceration and continuously advocated for change in the criminal justice system. She passionately believed and still believes that the disadvantaged minority community needs full support to redress the issues until justice is done and equality is achieved. She supports free public college education and determined to make public universities education affordable by introducing a policy that help students and parents in alleviating the burden of tuition fees. Her record is testimony to the fact that she has been fighting for human rights, women’s rights, gays’ rights, and equal opportunity and justice for all. She takes American interest and issues close at heart and do everything in her power to see America succeed both at home and abroad. She has pledged that she will give chance to diplomacy for dealing with international conflicts by involving American alliances and use military force as a last resolve.

Why Hillary Clinton is the best-qualified person to be president? She is better prepared, well experienced, she does what she says and she never promises what she can’t deliver.

Should a high bar be held for Hillary or should the criteria for presidency be the same for female and male? There shouldn’t be different criteria for a woman to be president of the United States. We are ready to support Hillary Clinton for the presidency not because she is a woman but she is the most qualified person. Gender should not be considered as an issue but electing a woman as president of the United States has a big historical significance here at home and abroad. The United States presidency is no longer a monopoly for males and we should not wait for another century to see a woman elected as president of the United States.

In the 20th century there were 20 women who became head of state, in the capacity of presidents or prime ministers. To mention a few, Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, Indira Gandhi of India, Golda Meir of Israel, Benzir Bhutto of Pakistan Corizon Aquino of Phillipens etc. These women were successful leaders in their respective countries. There is no reason why we should not hire the most quailed woman to serve us as president of the United State. Let’s not be distracted from seeing reality that could lead us to success. Following unrealistic rhetoric political passion will serve as a bridge to nowhere. In the eventful American history so many things have happened, good and bad. In some cases we faced a sad reality. To mention a few, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Marines lost their lives in Lebanon, American Embassies attacked in Kenya and Tanzania, Terrorists attacked N.Y., Pentagon in Washington D.C and a passenger plain was brought down in Pennsylvania. The Secretary of Department of State was not held responsible for each attack that occurred in different years. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton was allegedly held responsible for the attack on American consular in Bengazi and subjected to different congressional committees questioning. The last committee subjected her to 11 hours grueling questions but she was not at fault for what has happened in Bengazi. Why Hillary Clinton was held responsible and subjected to investigation while her predecessors were not? Is it because she is a woman? History will remember this unwarranted different treatment at the Congressional hearing. No matter what, Hillary will always remember those four hero Americans who lost their lives in Bengazi. Hillary Clinton has been tested, ready to take responsibility and she is determined to better serve the American people if she is elected as President of the United States. She is a person to be trusted with American ideals and resolve to keep the country safe and prosperous.

IMWHHillary Clinton is a fighter for us! She is determined to make a difference in America by fighting for equality and justice for all. Let’s stand with Hillary Clinton! We elect her not only she is a woman but for her quality of leadership, experience, and commitment to public service to make America strong in this 21st Century.

Forward With Hillary Clinton!