Day 355- Bubble Tea and cannibalism

Dear Mr. President,

As a small child there were a number of foods I convinced myself I didn't like. Broccoli. Pizza. Tomatoes. Really it would be faster to list the foods I did eat than those I didn't. It took me years of insisting I didn't care for a variety of foods I'd actually never tried before I finally began to question this mindset and experiment. While I gradually grew to like many of the kinds of food I'd convinced myself never to try, I've held out on certain things. Tonight I finally tried bubble tea, a drink that most people in this city love and that I've long insisted not to like. It was absolutely delicious. (If my best friend is reading this I am in so much trouble.) Every time this happens to me I have the disconcerting experience of questioning my other long-held beliefs. My friend who changed my mind on bubble tea is also married. What if this means I might like that, too?

So while I've been thinking most of the night about all of the things I've convinced myself I don't like or that I can't do, changing my party affiliation would have to top the list. I could no sooner identify as a Republican than I could wake up tomorrow with normal sized hands. When I read Arlen Specter's farewell speech I chuckled at his characterization of the tea party insurgency as "sophisticated cannibalism" but I couldn't get my head around the idea of an ideology that could sway so easily from Republican to Democrat. I'm so fiercely and consistently liberal that I just can't conceive of such contradictory ideas being contained in the same mind. But, if I can't identify as a Republican, must that also mean I could never compromise with one, work together with one, or even hold a rational conversation with one? I don't think it must, but I do see how the labels make this difficult. I've certainly heard (and parroted) the comparison of primary politics to cannibalism before today. I'm not sure if I'm more sympathetic to the party-purist cannibals calling for more partisanship or the centrists like Mr. Specter decrying it. Centrism and caution certainly have a role to play, but with voters increasingly frustrated with congress' inability to get anything done, I'm not surprised that more liberal Democrats and more conservative Republicans are gnawing at the bones of their compromising incumbents. But who is to say what is liberal or conservative enough? Who is to say if this enthusiasm for either extreme is actually a hinderance to progress and change in the way it polarizes those who govern us together?

As you can tell, the revelation that I like bubble tea has really shaken me up. I'm not sure I'm really sure about anything any more. Perhaps this state, this rejection of certainty and reexamination of opinions based on new information is really what we should look for in candidates. The more I learn about our political system, the more I wish we could do away with political parties all together. I think that the party system engenders laziness in the electorate, who no longer have to discover for themselves where a candidate stands, but can decide votes based on the parenthetical letter after a candidate's name. I think it also creates a falsely combative state, implying that the Senate and House have 2 (or, generously, 3) competing opinions rather than 535. That an allegiance to party is more important for funding and re-election than an allegiance to voters or even to a politician's personal views. For example, the Republicans holding up health care funding for 9/11 first responders aren't answering questions about why, and I think that's probably because "the party leadership told us to" doesn't spin well as justification. The party system encourages this, and each side's talking-point explanations sound more and more like my own childish insistence that I hated things I'd never even tried.

Maybe getting rid of political parties wouldn't rid us of extremists, but I think it would encourage honesty (and courage) in a system sorely lacking it. What do you think? How could our system be improved to ensure that public servants (most of whom I believe to be well-intentioned) are better able to serve the people? You've been accused of extreme centrism and unforgivable liberalism (often for the same position.) Does your identity as a Democrat compel you to support or oppose issue you might not personally? Would you rather be seen as an ineffective centrist or an authoritarian extremist?

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey





Thanks to Jessi for the Bubble Tea :)

Day 352- The next battle

I just want to take a moment, before I start praising the efforts of those who have been fighting for the civil rights of men and women in the armed forces, to call out those who voted against those rights today, or who decided not to vote at all.

The following Senators:

Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Not Voting
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Not Voting
Hatch (R-UT), Not Voting
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
LeMieux (R-FL), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Manchin (D-WV), Not Voting
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay

are all cowards. The men and women on this list ought to be ashamed of themselves and their votes today. If any of my readers hail from the states represented by these Senators, I encourage you to e-mail them to express your displeasure at the way they have represented you and the other citizens of your state. It doesn't matter that the motion passed, that history has passed by these aging bigots and their old world views. These men and women, at least today, did not support American troops the way they deserve to be supported.

Dear Mr. President,

I was at work today when my phone alerted me to a new e-mail from you. It began:

Moments ago, the Senate voted to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

When that bill reaches my desk, I will sign it, and this discriminatory law will be repealed.

Gay and lesbian service members -- brave Americans who enable our freedoms -- will no longer have to hide who they are.

The fight for civil rights, a struggle that continues, will no longer include this one.

I think this is my favorite way to receive such good news. Not to live up to your accusation of the left being totally impossible to please or anything, but I can't help fixating on the idea that troops who are risking their lives to serve our country can't marry the people they love. We'll let them serve- now even openly- but we won't let them marry their partners. I know, I know, you and congress need a minute to breathe, to recover from this long-overdue fight, but this is too important to rest. It is unfathomable to ask gay and lesbian Americans to serve a country that still legally treats them as second-class citizens.

So while you're celebrating this hard-fought victory, I hope that you are looking ahead to the next battle. I want to feel proud of my country today, hearing news like this, but I can't help lamenting the distance we have before us, the long way we have yet to go.

Anyway, thanks for the e-mail. Keep up the good work.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 343- Tax cuts, bandwagons and war drums

Dear Mr. President,

OK, I get it already. Lots of prominent leaders across the political spectrum have come out in support of your tax cut compromise with the Republicans. I mean lots. And releasing their endorsements one at a time in separate press releases was pretty funny. Gail Collins pointed out that liberal Democrats have been asking you to get mad for a while, and now we're complaining that you finally got mad- at us. And you have every right to be mad, I suppose, as none of us were mad enough to show up on election day and give you a congress that might have your back (though, to be entirely fair, you might have found better ways to spend the primary season than propping up every tired blue-dog with a pulse.) For all of my suggestions that you either refuse tax cuts for the rich or refuse tax cuts for all of us, I wasn't the one responsible for negotiating the compromise (and I won't be the one responsible for negotiating the next 2 years worth of legislation through congress.) You made a call and now you're standing by it.

Collins, in her opinion piece, laments those on the left still landing hard from their fall off of the Obama bandwagon, while smugly declaring her own fall is off of the "line in the sand bandwagon". I suppose I might also be accused of letting my loyalty to you as a person & my membership in the cult of personality surrounding you conflict with my true bleeding-heart liberalism. As many who supported you in 2008 walk away, disappointed, decrying the whole bandwagon mentality, I wish I could join them. Maybe it's a mark of an inferior mind to need a higher authority to place my faith in, but I haven't still haven't heard a better alternative. Should the anti-bandwagon crowd offer me another leader, or convince me that we don't need one, maybe that will change. For now, while I often think that you're wrong, but I'd never trust myself to do your job better.

In all of the outrage about tax rates and the inexplicable failing of the cloture motion to repeal DADT, I was getting more fed up with congress than with you. To add to all of this, the House has passed legislation preventing any Guantanamo Bay detainees from being brought to domestic prisons. Today has not done much for my rapidly dwindling faith in the American people and those we elect to represent us.

My own time has been selfishly consumed with a struggle to finish my final papers for class, study for my exams, and maintain something that resembles sanity closely enough to keep my boss from worrying about me. I can't fix the economy, I can't get basic equality for gay and lesbian Americans and I can't close down Guantanamo bay. I jumped on your bandwagon in the first place because you said that you could. And while my frustration might be more deserved by several members of congress and those who didn't find the time to vote in the midterm elections, unfortunately you're the one I picked for a pen pal. We can't possibly be losing the fight on this many fronts at once.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

PS

The only thing that's bolstered my spirits today is the news that Suheir Hammad, one of my favorite poets, will be speaking at a TED conference soon. They published the text of her poem "What I will" and I thought I'd send it along to you.


What I Will
by Suheir Hammad

I will not
dance to your war
drum. I will
not lend my soul nor
my bones to your war
drum. I will
not dance to your
beating. I know that beat.
It is lifeless. I know
intimately that skin
you are hitting. It
was alive once
hunted stolen
stretched. I will
not dance to your drummed
up war. I will not pop
spin beak for you. I
will not hate for you or
even hate you. I will
not kill for you. Especially
I will not die
for you. I will not mourn
the dead with murder nor
suicide. I will not side
with you nor dance to bombs
because everyone else is
dancing. Everyone can be
wrong. Life is a right not
collateral or casual. I
will not forget where
I come from. I
will craft my own drum. Gather my beloved
near and our chanting
will be dancing. Our
humming will be drumming. I
will not be played. I
will not lend my name
nor my rhythm to your
beat. I will dance
and resist and dance and
persist and dance. This heartbeat is louder than
death. Your war drum ain’t
louder than this breath.

Day 312- Quack. Quack. Quack.

Dear Mr. President,

For all the prattle about the new agenda of the Republican-controlled Houe, the year isn't quite over. While the lame-duck session may be a short one, and subject to the unfortunate political reality of a weakened Democratic party, I hope that repealing DADT is given the effort it deserves. The support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates for such a repeal (and his sage urging that the repeal take place before the new year) should indicate enough will within the military establishment to pull off such a herculean task.

I suppose my usual cynical dismissal of the political courage of Democrats will kick in any moment, but I actually feel pretty confident about the prospects of a lame-duck session. From my perspective, the Senate has been governing like lame-duck senators since 2008. It seems as though there is at least the same chance of the repeal as there was before the election.

As usual, I believe that the Senate's action on this issue will be a direct result of White House leadership. Only Presidential direction and political influence will ensure that the Democrats are successful in this attempt. Coming through on this major campaign promise would be an encouraging sign to all of your supporters that, even after a loss like the midterms, you aren't giving up on the change we were promised.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 306- Powerless

or The end of the world as we know it.

Dear Mr. President,

Tonight the lights went out for two blocks. Our street, usually basking in the permanent glow of Seattle's urban heart, was plunged into unnatural darkness. My roommates lit candles and curled up under blankets in the central part of our apartment. For a moment we were reminded of how helpless we can be without the devices we've come to rely on.

Yes, I'm stalling, hoping to find a way to make this a more hopeful letter. I'd like to say that we learned an important lesson about unplugging, slowing down, connecting with the people we love or finding ways to be resourceful. We didn't. Desperate to follow election results and finish my last midterm, I fled to the familiar safety of light, heat and free WiFi. My roommates toughed out a half-hour of darkness and now we're all back to blogging, movie-watching and the more effective (if less-flattering) overhead lights.

We've lost the House. At home, Washington state residents have voted overwhelmingly to defeat an income tax measure that would have helped education and health programs. Rick Larsen and Patty Murray are still fighting close races that may not be called before the night's end. Rand Paul is in. Russ Feingold is out. California's proposition 19 is defeated. Across the country, small pockets of hope (Christine O'Donnell and Meg Whitman will not win their races) fail to dispel the gloom and powerlessness afflicting those of us who kept the faith despite every indication that we'd face a night like this one.

I know it isn't the end of the world; disappointment tends to leave me with more a flair for the dramatic than is perhaps healthy. But, as I struggle to return my attention to the 7th century nomads of the turkic empires, I'm going to allow myself this night to mourn our losses, to despair at the ignorance, short-sightedness and naked, pointless rage that led to these results. Tomorrow it will all be back in perspective and I will be hopeful and optimistic again. Tomorrow I will start lighting candles and hope that the factionalized democrats come back together, if only for the sake of warmth. Tomorrow I will worry about 2012.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 263-Prime Rib

Dear Mr. President,

The first time I heard Lady GaGa's music, I was with my best friend. While our upbringing has made us proud indie-rock lovers prone to asserting that our fandom predates a band's national popularity, we've always had a weak spot for catchy dance music. Lady GaGa's attempts to market herself as a redefinition of what is beautiful annoyed me, to be sure, (skinny blonde girls have, to my understanding, been thought beautiful for most of human history,) but I remained an unrepentant fan of her music. Today she gave a speech protesting Don't Ask Don't Tell, entitled "The Prime Rib of America". I think that a celebrity using her fame to humiliate three members of the US Senate into possibly changing their support of a bigoted policy is better than having a tabloid-splashing public breakdown à la Lindsey Lohan, Brittany Spears or Amy Winehouse. (Which, of course, isn' to say that Lady GaGa has to choose; her mugshot may yet grace Perez Hilton's homepage.) Our culture's fascination with celebrity is not unique to the modern era, nor is it unique to America. It seems, unfortunately, that the human condition requires our bizarre worship of the beautiful and famous. I would imagine that many celebrities would gladly return to the freedom of anonymity, the ability to walk down the street without make-up and not worry about being photographed. The ones who at least make enough peace with their fame to try and do some good with it are admirable.

While GaGa's speech wasn't exactly the Gettysburg address, it had moments of poignancy that I hope the people mocking her heard. The Senate Amendment to repeal DADT is currently too close to call- it seems that not a single republican can be found willing to put morality and justice above party loyalty. Should the 41 Republicans continue to hold to the threat to filibuster, I think the Democrats ought to make them. Make them filibuster a hateful, archaic policy based on a dying prejudice. Make every single Republican member of the Senate talk until they fall over with exhaustion for the sake of denying American soldiers their rights. And broadcast every second of it. Because I think the contrast between a gorgeous American popstar standing up and asking her country to live up to its promise and the Republican members of the Senate trying to perpetuate bigotry and intolerance would make for some great pre-election television.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 227- Defense spending

Should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings when America's military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds? Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China? Defense Secretary Robert Gates

Dear Mr. President,

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has proposed cuts to the defense budget that would amount to a savings of $100 billion over five years. This is, predictably, leading to more than a little hysteria from conservatives on the hill. Senator Saxby Chambliss (demonstrating exactly why the Senate has gone from somber, dignified statesmen to cartoonish, angry old men who are difficult to take seriously) actually claimed that the White House is "willing to sacrifice the lives of American military men and women for the sake of domestic programs." As though cutting 100 billion of a 3.5 trillion budget is going to cost lives. As though lives are not depending upon essential domestic programs. I'm not sure I ever had much respect for Mr. Chambliss, but he certainly isn't demonstrating the kind of tempered wisdom that I'd expect from a member of the US Senate. (Yes, I managed to keep a straight face while typing that last sentence.)

Concern for the deficit is perfectly reasonable. The necessary cuts to spending must be applied across the board and the defense budget should be no exception. There can be no incentive for a more peaceful world when so much of our economy and our federal budget is tied up in the tools of war. Al-Queda pulled off 9/11 with 19 plane tickets and 99-cent box cutters. In this world, there is no amount of money that can ever make us completely safe. We have to have a smarter and more modernized military, and that is exactly what Secretary Gates is proposing. We have to look for alternative ways to defend ourselves; all the weapons money can buy won't do us half as much good as better diplomatic relations, stable global allies and more education at home and abroad. We simply cannot kill our way to a more peaceful world.

I applaud Secretary Gates' efforts to curtail the reckless defense spending that has plagued the federal budget for decades. In a time when congress cites budget issues as cause to hold up funding for treating 9/11 responders' lingering health problems, extending unemployment benefits that sustain individuals and families through the recession, or even ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable healthcare, how can we justify spending so much money on an outdated defense strategy? The way we spend our money reflects our values as a society, and, clearly, those need to be reexamined. Mr. President, please don't allow the hysterics from conservatives to prevent Mr. Gates from implementing these necessary cuts.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 198- Octavia Nasr

Dear Mr. President,

I wasn't going to write to you about the unfair dismissal of Octavia Nasr from CNN. Your responsibilities may be varied and numerous but, clearly, making HR decisions at CNN is not one of them. Thomas Friedman's column today linked this decision to the Bush-era mentality that requires loyalty over skill or qualification. He asserts that, in a time when we are hindered by our lack of understanding in the the Middle East and Afghanistan, we need people like Octavia Nasr to help us better understand these societies and people. I don't think Mr. Friedman goes far enough; I would extend this indictment beyond the staffing of the Iraqi green zone, to most of our foreign policy decisions, especially toward the Middle East. We prop up or install parties and regimes based on their loyalty to us and not their abilities. The Lebanese cleric Fadlallah, whose death Nasr was fired for publicly mourning, is a perfect example of this. A man who spoke for women's rights in the home and in society; a man who wanted to see the worst beliefs of the organization he founded moderated; this man might have had opinions America disagreed with, and he might have overlooked or even encouraged violence, something that many of us and I personally could not condone. However, by reducing him to a Terrorist, by simplifying and distilling the complexities of this man to a single noun that makes it inexcusable to mourn his passing, we failed to see what we might have learned from him. But this isn't why I changed my mind about writing to you.

What signal are we sending young people? Trim your sails, be politically correct, don’t say anything that will get you flamed by one constituency or another. And if you ever want a job in government, national journalism or as president of Harvard, play it safe and don’t take any intellectual chances that might offend someone. In the age of Google, when everything you say is forever searchable, the future belongs to those who leave no footprints.

This passage changed my mind. I have often joked at my own inability to enter professional politics due to the radical opinions I have expressed as a young person. George Bush could walk away from an undistinguished life story, business failures, drug and alcohol problems, and who knows how many crazy frat stories, because he never said anything too offensive. Elena Kagan has a senate confirmation hearing that is as easy as it is boring, because she has kept her opinions moderate and acceptable, or entirely silent. It reminded me of something my department advisor recently told me, about how a class I'd taken at a previous school was "too political" to count toward my degree.

I think this is why progress seems like such a constant uphill fight. I think we need outspoken, courageous public servants, academics and journalists, even if what they say is challenging and controversial and disagreeable. I think we need to listen, to engage, and learn from those we might otherwise write off as too radical or too extreme. I'd rather disagree honestly than avoid difficult conversations entirely. And, while you probably can't get Octavia Nasr her job back, you can encourage us all to keep the courage of our convictions by demonstrating that you have the courage of yours. As for me, I may change my mind as I get older, but I'm never going to walk away from the mistakes I've made in the past. Even if it means I could never sit in the Oval Office or work for CNN. And, just for the record, I think that Nasr's sentiments were incredibly human and full of compassion. I think a journalist keeping her humanity and appreciation for the complexities of human nature is a minor mirale, but certainly not grounds for dismissal.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 181- Vampires and Werewolves

Dear Mr. President,

On July 21 of 2007, I was dressed as Bellatrix Lestrange and, before an exuberant crowd of over 2,000, I revealed the first copy of the final Harry Potter book, and sold it to the first person in line. Less than an hour later, we'd sold a copy to every person who'd waited in line, and my roommates and I headed into the metro to go home. I'd been at work since 9 am, and it was close to 2:30am. Three men approached us on the platform and, seeing that we were reading the Harry Potter books, offered us $50 a book, cash. So you might see why I wasn't at all surprised to read that Elena Kagan was asked to comment on the Edward v. Jacob "controversy."

I want to be disappointed by this, but I can't help finding it sort of endearing. Don't get me wrong, the Twilight phenomenon has never appealed to me at all, but the young girl who went to the midnight shows of all the Star Wars special editions, or who, (even as a poor 21-year old) refused to sell my $21 copy of the Deathly Hallows for $50 so that I could stay up 12 straight hours reading it, understands those fans, to a point. I can't help but be impressed that these stories, intended to do little more than entertain children, have swept up much of the adult population in a shared experience. The people who hate Twilight, or who joke about it, are as caught up in this phenomenon as those who love it. Maybe the bookseller in me is always gratified to see people excited about reading, but I think it's more than that, too. I think that, having lived in so many places in my life, and always feeling a bit transient, it is comforting to know that we're all looking at the same sky, so to speak. That, on July 22nd, 2007, when I looked around on the metro, I was seeing the same sea of orange covers that friends and strangers alike were encountering on planes, in classrooms and cafes all over the world. That art, which is glorious in its celebration of our differences, the unique experience it offers each of us, also allows us to see how much we have in common.

Certainly, as a bookseller, I have also witnessed those who have been taken in too deeply by their fantasies and fandom, who have lost sight of reality and may never recognize it again. I don't know that fiction can be blamed for offering such an alluring alternative for those who find reality too painful. And, while I respect the Senate and the process of judicial confirmation too much to wish it to appear trite or silly, I am confident that werewolves and vampires will be far from the most ridiculous or undignified things that Kagan will be questioned about in the coming days.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 159-Primary politics

Dear Mr. President,

I haven't followed Blanche Lincoln's career. Her recent primary race caught my attention mainly because of the support for Bill Halter on DailyKos. I won't attempt to pass myself off as any kind of expert on Arkansas politics, but it seems to me that the White House made an incredibly foolish tactical error in throwing its support behind the incumbent. Lincoln opposed the public option, opposes bringing prisoners in Guantanamo bay to the US, she opposes the estate tax, she takes huge corporate campaign contributions, she is, in short, exactly the kind of politician you've criticized in your campaigns, were she a Republican. (I'm sure you'll have ample opportunity to demonstrate this when her Republican opponent wins this fall.) Isn't it hypocritical for the White House to perpetuate the stagnation and inaction caused by the Joe Liebermans and Blanche Lincolns, when you won your office promising a new kind of government?

This isn't to imply that conservative Democrats, or that centrists in general, have no place in our legislature; however, the battle for healthcare reform illustrated our desperate need for the political courage that no bought-and-paid for stooge of corporate interests can possibly provide. It illustrated the need for change. You, Mr. President, were an anti-establishment Democrat who challenged Hillary Clinton and won on the strength of both your grassroots support and the clutch endorsements of members of the Democratic establishment (like Senator Kennedy) who had the vision to see that you could be what our country needed. Why would you not take every opportunity to breathe new life into the legislative branch, to support those courageous few willing to take on the well-funded and complacent incumbents who have frustrated every attempt of your administration to wield the power of the majority? Especially when your support of the status quo results, as I believe the Arkansas race will, in the loss of a Senate seat to the Republicans?

The political leadership of the White House has been incredibly disappointing when it comes to primary challenges. Democratic incumbents are given little incentive to demonstrate political courage when the White House supports them on incumbent status alone. The Democratic party is strengthened by the primary process, not weakened by it; it is how we hold our elected officials accountable. I'm incredibly let down by today's results, and will only be more so when the full effect of this betrayal of liberal principles manifests in November.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 130- Out in public

Tonight's letter is in reference to a post on a former coworker's excellent blog Cultural Minefield. While he and I agree on very little, politically, he is the kind of intellectual I can't help but love to disagree with, especially when I know he can out-argue me on just about anything. He is a brilliant and reasonable individual and I miss him dearly. His post was a comment on Elena Kagan's rumored sexual orientation, and cites this article, for those looking to read more.

Dear Mr. President,

Today you announced Elena Kagan as your nominee for the Supreme Court. I am hardly qualified to comment on the virtues of this; while I relish the idea of the gender balance of the court tipping ever so slightly toward a more realistic reflection of the country, I don't value the symbolism of a female justice above the practical questions about her legal philosophies. I think that your familiarity with her and her views are enough for me, for now, to hope for the best. I've heard murmurs in the media, especially on blogs, about Kagan's sexual orientation. That your administration has refused to comment on this is expected and correct; it is certainly Kagan's prerogative to out herself if she chooses. I cannot imagine accepting a position that would require such scrutiny while simultaneously attempting to keep hidden something like sexual orientation, which the press will pursue perhaps even more doggedly than an affair scandal.

One commentator compared her sexual orientation to her religion, saying that while neither were should exclude her from nomination, it was significant that her religion could be openly discussed while her sexuality could not. I don't agree. For one thing, a person's political, moral and social views are influenced by religion, and religious persecution in this country is far less socially acceptable than the homophobia that is law in many states. There is no amendment to any state's constitution banning Jewish marriage. Some questioned the existence of a "secret" spouse who would be, hypothetically, hidden from the public. I find this highly amusing, given that those conservatives speculating about her secret marriage would have public records to confirm their suspicions, were they less successful at preventing lesbians in this country from openly marrying.

I understand why Kagan would want to hide her hypothetical homosexuality; it is perfectly reasonable to fear the reaction of our country's bigoted populace, not to mention the insulting questions and doubt cast on her objectivity sure to arise during her confirmation hearings in the Senate. I don't know that I could endure it, myself. However, if she is a lesbian, I hope she does speak openly about it, and that the White House does not discourage her from doing so. It is long past time that gay and lesbian Americans enjoyed the same rights of any of us, and, while appointing an openly gay Supreme Court Justice might be more symbolic than tangibly beneficial to the gay community, the most valuable consequence might be for the American government to demonstrate it isn't completely out of touch with American values. That, whatever small-minded individuals who might see it as disqualifying may say, the White House and the Senate are determined to confirm the most qualified individual, and believe, as do much of the American public, that a person's sexual orientation is neither a source of shame or basis for criticism. An expression of hope for a day when such facts about a person will actually arose no more interest or controversy from the media than their religion.

I look forward to the confirmation hearing, in the, (dim, I admit) hope that this one will focus more on the nominee's qualifications and legal philosophy than on any absurd "wise Latina" minutiae; should this fantasy not come to pass, I hope that Kagan is prepared for the difficult and undignified road ahead. I wish her luck.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 118- Do and Don't

Dear Mr. President,

The midterm election strategy for Democrats, to own the mantle of practical action and to highlight how this contrasts with the GOP's party of no, may have helped nudge Senate Republicans toward allowing debate on financial reform today. Even if we lose a significant number of our 2010 races, I hope that this strategy encourages voters to put pressure on Republicans to take a more active role in participating, rather than just rejecting, attempts to govern.

That being said, Democrats need to work hard to show that we will try to do difficult things, even if we fail. Tough, fair, immigration reform; clean energy and environmental protection, honest progress toward equality for gay and lesbian soldiers and couples, all of these issues have Democrats on the same side as the majority of the American people. We may jeopardize vulnerable seats, but we ought to push hard for all of these reforms, even if they die in the Senate. Demonstrating our commitment to act and not to be content with the tired game of cautious defense that helps only to preserve the status quo is important if many Democrats are going to live up to the ambitious campaign strategy. We need courageous leaders, leaders who aren't afraid to take positions that are locally unpopular, when its the right thing to do. Voters will always respect gutsy, ambitious policy more than pandering that accomplishes nothing.

The summer should be spent governing, not campaigning. Democrats must prove that the party still has values it is willing to stand and fight for, other than the defense of our tenuous majority. A record of accomplishments, no matter how controversial, is better to defend than a list of excuses for doing nothing.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 116

“I am deeply disappointed that Senate Republicans voted in a block against allowing a public debate on Wall Street reform to begin. Some of these Senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether. But the American people can’t afford that. A lack of consumer protections and a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly brought our economy to its knees, and helped cause the pain that has left millions of Americans without jobs and without homes. The reform that both parties have been working on for a year would prevent a crisis like this from happening again, and I urge the Senate to get back to work and put the interests of the country ahead of party.

President Barack Obama, 4/26/2010

Dear Mr. President,

Today's setback in the fight for financial reform was disappointing, but I hope that senate Democrats will not back down. Are the Republicans ever going to stop obstructing legislation for the sake of politics? If my state had any republican Senators, I'd be incredibly disappointed in them. I hope voters in the states represented by these 41 no votes make sure their Senators are held accountable for being so out of touch.

Speaking of my home state of Washington, the Organizing For America e-mail today about our 2010 strategy got me thinking about Senator Murray's re-election. Dino Rossi, the man likely to be selected to run against her, has failed in his attempts to become our governor for as long as I can remember. He's not a complete hack; he's a tasteless campaigner unafraid of blanketing the state airwaves with negative ads, but when he served in the Washington State Senate he was relatively bipartisan and accomplished a fair amount for a republican. That being said, I was really hoping he'd slink off into the abyss of political obscurity after losing gubernatorial campaigns twice in a row. If OFA wants me to help Senator Murray hand him yet another defeat, I'd be honored to do so. Rossi, as a Washington Republican, might still be further left than many of the blue dog Democrats, but today's block of financial reform legislation clearly demonstrates that independently-minded Republicans certainly don't act that way when it counts.

I know that there will be many tight races this year, and a number of those Democrats will need your help campaigning and raising money. I hope that you schedule allows you to visit Seattle to help Senator Murray, as well. We're really a lovely city, and besides, your favorite chocolates are here, waiting for you.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 102- Faith in the voters

Dear Mr. President,

The rumors of the campaign finance reform legislation soon to be proposed by congressional Democrats seem like the first good news since the Supreme court decision earlier this year. This push for greater transparency in the way donations are disclosed puts the responsibility for real reform to the voters. If we can't regulate the way donations are given, at least we can ensure that voters know who, exactly, is funding candidates and parties. Despite the cynical thoughts that tell me otherwise, I have to believe that voters can recognize corruption and will act to correct it.

Passing this legislation must be about more than putting Democrats on the popular side of a national issue before the election. There just isn't a way to ever completely prevent corporations and organizations from wielding greater power and influence over elected officials; our best hope is to expose such corruption to the voters and to hope they make the right choices. This is why any legislative battle must be coupled with significant and effective promotion of the issue to the public.

I know it is a common and unfair stereotype that Democrats do a poor job of communicating or selling our issues to the American people, but the health care debate demonstrated we certainly have a great deal of room for improvement. I think, if we are going to have any chance at staunching the flow of corporate campaign donations allowed by the Supreme Court's decision, we have to do a better job of uniting our members behind this issue and calling out the corrupt politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who compromise their integrity for the sake of the powerful interests funding their campaigns.

I hope that, with your leadership on this issue, congress is able to effectively demonstrate to the American public the necessity of this reform. Giving voters all the information they need to make informed choices at the ballot is all that the government can do to protect us from corruption; the rest has to be up to us.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 60

Dear Mr. President,

Republican Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona demonstrated rather clearly today why I've lost any faith I might have had in the Republicans' ability to work with Democrats. Senator Kyl, during debate about extending unemployment benefits, insisted that unemployment is a disincentive for some to finding work. How out of touch does a person have to be to think that the unemployment and COBRA benefits are enough to live off of? Or, for that matter, to believe that Americans are content to make enough to survive, willing to accept poverty if it means avoiding work?

How is this man qualified to represent American voters, when he clearly thinks so little of them? I've known several people on unemployment, Mr. President, and they hated every day of it. They worked hard to get back to work. They were grateful to be able to survive, to pay rent and buy groceries while they were between jobs, but they certainly did not hesitate to take jobs when they found them. How does Senator Kyl have so little faith in Americans?

I hope that these Republican senators opposing the extension of unemployment benefits are made to understand the consequences of their appalling cynicism. I hope that they are flooded with letters and phone calls. Most of all, I hope that the next time they are up for reelection, their constituents decide to give them a first-hand taste of the realities of unemployment.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 56- high-five for health care!

Dear Mr. President,

I think the bipartisan summit went amazingly well. I hope that you are able to get enough votes to pass the reform, but if you can't, I think using reconciliation is a necessary and acceptable step. Republicans will cry that you're circumventing the appropriate process, using the majority rule to deprive them of their voice- but too bad for them. There is no reason they should need 41 votes for their legislative method (do nothing) and we should need 60 for ours. I'm sorry that their refusal to participate in governing has rendered them irrelevant, but the American people can't afford to wait any longer. If they wanted to participate in shaping the substance of the bill, they should have done so by today. That clearly hasn't happened, and so it's time to push the reform through by whatever means necessary.

I thought your manner today was entirely appropriate and effective. I am so proud to have voted for you, and I thank you for all of your service to the American people. Today's letter is short because I feel you said exactly what I wanted you to, exactly what the situation called for.

Way to go, sir, way to go.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 53

Dear Mr. President,

Today you released the health care compromise intended to reconcile the bills proposed by the House & the Senate. I'm writing today to bring to your attention the suffering caused by this issue, as so many reporters have bravely tried to mention to Mr. Gibbs, and so many courageous every day men and women with their own opinion shows on news networks bring up every time they talk about health care. Will our pleas fall on deaf ears, Mr. President, or will you finally bring the full weight of your office to free America from health care fatigue once and for all?

After all, every time you wake up one morning and decide to score easy political points by talking about health care, millions of Americans must suffer through tedious, often repetitious debates whenever they accidentally flip to news program between episodes of the The Bachelor. They have to hear the same sob stories of people they've never met, who suffer, go bankrupt and die because of our health care system. Innocent Americans have to know that this goes on, and quite frankly, Mr. President, they don't deserve to. Don't you see what you're doing to them, forcing them to have a vague sense that health care is being discussed again? Assaulting them 24 hours a day with bi-partisan meetings, press conferences, talking heads on TV insisting that we need reform.

I'm pretty tired of it, as well, to be honest, but I'm even more tired of not having access to health care. I'm way more tired of watching my friends and family struggle with medical bills. I'm downright exhausted with the rising number of Americans dying or suffering because they don't have access to affordable health care. I am SO tired of all of this, not because it's taking to long, (though it is,) but because we're still talking about this like it is an issue we can afford to pay less attention to. Anyway, Mr. President, I just wanted to say that those of us who need this reform bill to pass are not getting tired of the debate, we're not expecting things to change over night, and we really don't care how much we have to hear about it, so long as it gets done.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 51- Filibusted

Dear Mr. President,

Senator Evan Bayh's op-ed this morning makes several excellent points. Many of his complaints about the frustration process of getting anything done in the Senate echo sentiments from The Audacity of Hope, which, to me, indicates strongly that the Senate is a dysfunctional institution, as you and Senator Bayh wrote from positions the minority and majority, while reaching the same conclusions.

Especially with regards to re-thinking the rules surrounding the filibuster, I think Senator Bayh's ideas have a lot of merit and should be implemented. It is sad, really, that he had to retire, to go out without worrying about re-election and to cause enough of a media uproar to be heard. He seems like an honorable, well-intentioned individual, and the Senate would be better off with more like him.

As a former Senator, you understand the frustration of the institution first hand. You did not spare the Senate any of your disapproval during the State of The Union, and I would have liked to believe that might have generated more progress than it has. I don't think it is unreasonably partisan of me to say that the right benefits most from this. On principle, be they in the minority or the majority, the GOP wins elections by campaigning against the federal government, against "big" government. Holding up the progress in the Senate supports their narrative that federal powers are slow, clumsy and ineffective.

In his 1996 State of the Union address, President Clinton famously declared "the era of big government is over." I think this may have pleased a number of people, but it helped few. Perhaps if the era of the self-serving government, the ego-boosting, money-raising, hyper-partisan government, if the era of bad government could be drawn to a close, real progress could finally be made.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 42- Form letters and recess appointments

I received my first letter from The White House today! It is a form letter, one which is neither surprising nor particularly interesting. Still, it was lovely hearing from the office of the President.

Dear Mr. President,

Today I write to express my support of your threat to use recess appointments to fill the critical positions still waiting on Senate confirmation. I think that, should the Senate continue to demonstrate such enthusiasm for holding up the business of the government by blocking your perfectly qualified nominees, you should continue to publicly redress their behavior by any means necessary.

I appreciate the history and the tradition of Senate rules, but this is absurd. To hold up the appointments of qualified individuals for critical positions in government for legislative pork is truly an example of the worst kind of partisan politics. I'm all for respecting the separation of powers, but there is a point where the majority has to be allowed to govern.

Anyway, Mr. President, since the State of the Union it seems as though the administration is doing a much better job of communicating to the public, especially when it comes to pointing out just who is holding up the agenda. I'll admit this may be a matter of perception- certainly my decision to write to you every day has required me to pay attention to the daily communication from the White House- but even among my peers there seems to be a general consensus that your administration has had a new surge of energy and focus in the last few weeks.

I'd like to applaud the political maneuvering that today got 27 nominees confirmed. I think that, in the event the others continue to be held up, the public would recognize recess appointments as the right thing to do.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 29

Dear Mr. President,

I filed my Tax return today, and, to my great surprise, I'm getting a refund more than double what I'd anticipated. This is largely due to the American Opportunity Tax Credit which was, surprise surprise, part of the stimulus bill. I'm going to use half of it to finally pay off my credit card. My best friend, upon hearing of my refund, exclaimed, "let's stimulate the economy!", so you can bet we'll be spending the other half more quickly than we should. I have to say, it's difficult not to feel happy with the Recovery Act when I have such tangible evidence of how I personally benefit from it. I'm a fairly well-informed person, and even I had no idea how much the Recovery Act was going to benefit me. I think, had it been explained better, more people would have supported it, and been happy with your administration's efforts.

Anyway, my worries about credit card and student loan debt, my anxiety about returning to school, my general stress about the state of my finances is greatly alleviated by all of this. Thank you so much. I'm generally not opposed to paying taxes, but I won't lie- it was nice not to pay so much this year. I'm still glad you didn't concede to Republican requests for an across the board tax cut in your discussion with them today. Not cutting taxes for the very wealthy, for people like my former CEO, is an incredibly sensible thing to insist upon, and I feel that you did explain this very well. You do a much better job of admitting mistakes, taking blame, and discussing the ideas of your political rivals than I feel President Bush ever did.

The coverage of the State of the Union address continues to be divided along ideological lines, which is upsetting but in no way surprising. Today I watched Jon Stewart mention his perception of your administration as being a third entity, being isolated from congressional Democrats and Republicans. I don't know how accurate his impression of this is, but I think it indicates the sense people have of the Democratic party being fractured so badly it is unable to effectively lead. I sincerely hope that your State of the Union address helped ease this, and that congressional Democrats rally to the pass the proposals you outlined in the speech. I would hate to lose control of the House or the Senate in November, but if the Democrats don't see the ramifications of their in-fighting and start governing more effectively, we deserve to.

Listening to your speech Wednesday, and your answers to the Republicans today, I have to say you sound just like you did in The Audacity of Hope and its nice to know you're still that optimistic. I can't speak for any one but myself, but for me, at least, that optimism seems to be catching.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey