I would like to make a donation to the cause. And I would like to make a contribution to the cause.  One could be for one hundred dollars to stay consistent with 90 per cent of the online donations. The other – well, I am not quite sure.

I really don’t know which course seems more unlikely: the one you have followed to the doorsteps of the nomination for the President of the United States, or the one that I have embarked upon to offer you advice. I am sure that along the way you have been consistently encouraged by those around you. By contrast, I have only been enabled by one far removed, one who speaks of it not being from the top down but from the bottom up.  Perhaps I can be considered too naive or too idealistic, but if those are the only two labels used to describe me, then I would stand in good company.

Empty Speeches.  Inexperience. Questionable religious background. The 3:00 am call. Ready on day one.  The perceived defeats on March 4th.  Will the campaign go negative?
 
All of this is manageable, and can be profitable.

For the first (but not the last) time in this letter, I refer to the State of the Union addresses of President Kennedy. Primarily for three qualities: they are relevant to the both the tenor and topic of your campaign, they will have a vast appeal to the public, in particular an older population, and finally because of their absolute quality. All of our travels have brought us back to where we began. In a sense we are turning the page on a forty year hiatus. I do not think that you are mimicking President Kennedy, rather that your path is parallel to his.

 

Senator Clinton is mounting a serious counter-attack against you for the nomination. Likewise, upon taking office, the next president will be confronted with serious issues. In choosing how to frame that reality, I would recommend the frame chosen by Pres. Kennedy in the closing of his second address: he spoke of the challenges looming and said, “This is our good fortune”. 

In the beginning, before your formal announcement, I chose to be a supporter of yours. It was a choice about style and substance. At the conclusion of this campaign, regardless of the outcome, my original reasons for supporting you will have been sufficient—provided that in the process of "turning the page,” you can say to yourself, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” That is a Bible quote, Timothy 4:7. Another one to keep in mind is: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  Hebrews 11:1.
  
I do not know you. I simply see your image. I hear your voice. And in the process, I try to listen. I try to ascertain what you intend to project and the principles that you attempt to reinforce.  In short, I try to imagine what the world looks like inside the vision I believe you possess—what the world could be. I choose to believe that your vision is similar enough to what I think is within the best of Man, that I am comfortable saying to myself that we, as well as others, share a dream. So said Jesus: "For whoever is not against us, is for us."
  
This undertaking that I am (perhaps foolishly) on has been awkward and slow. I told my daughter that I felt as though I had as much chance as Sting when he sang, "I hope that someone gets my message in a bottle”. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to be an advocate for something that I feel so strongly and passionately about; something I would dread to see slip away.  My rationale is baseless. I am resigned to try to offer up that which you and your circle are perhaps too close to see. I need to attempt to share with you what I see from the bleachers.

I see a debate: how can you disenfranchise Florida and Michigan? It is said that people need to know their votes count, so the delegates must be seated. That those voters have the right to participate. But the question must be asked: to participate in what? A process that disenfranchises the voters in smaller states?  States that are not democratic strongholds?  When Florida and Michigan are on the line, they say every vote matters. But in the very next breath, they explain that the delegates from Kansas, from Nebraska, from Wyoming and Colorado and Vermont—those delegates matter less; those votes didn’t count as much. How can they say all votes matter, and at the same time imply that when it comes to delegates in Denver, not all are of equal value?

 

I see a campaign that suggests a person’s vote—and therefore that they themselves—cannot benefit that campaign, and so they are measured by a different scale. That somehow your worth is based on where you live and what you have to offer to one side’s cause. That some votes are not the right kind of votes for what’s best for the party, for the country, for the future. Yet, that’s the same campaign that attempts to reassure those that suffered through Katrina of that fact that no one is invisible—that all people, regardless of where they live and what contribution they are making to the whole, are as equal as anyone and will not be ignored.  I see a disconnect in that logic.

I see commentator after commentator state that there is little difference between the two choices for the Democrats. It makes me think of what John Updike wrote about Ted Williams. In comparing Williams’ swing to other ballplayers’, Updike said it was "the difference between a thing done and a thing done well.” I don't see mirror images.

 

To capture the difference, you could simply paraphrase Don Quixote: the worst thing of all is to see life as it is and not as it should be.

I see in you a candidate that offers change, and yet the yardstick used to measure you is one designed for the status quo. I see a candidate who is portrayed as weak for coming in second in large states despite the fact that his vote total rivaled that of the top two Republican candidates combined, and sometimes exceeded them. How weak is weak? The interesting, fun facts to know about the history of state primaries has to be looked at through a different prism, because much of that history is based on noncompetitive elections and therefore has less relevancy. It is comparing apples and oranges.
 
After being so presumptuous as to offer my unsolicited ideas to you thus far, it would be senseless to become timid at this point in time. 

"Hard work spotlights the character of people: some turn up their sleeves, some turn up their noses, some don't turn up at all.” – Sam Ewing

I would recommend reading, or rereading, the State of the Union addresses of President Kennedy.  They are a treasure trove. There is much in all three addresses that is relevant at this point in time to you and the country.  For example: "No man entering upon this office, regardless of his party, regardless of his previous service in Washington, could fail to be staggered upon learning – even in this brief ten day period, the harsh enormity of the trials through which we must pass in the next four years."  The first State of the Union Address.
 
Most of the issues that are being "thrown at you" are broad-based, and a retort could apply equally to both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. As a matter of fact, in some regards, they do deserve to be linked, bound together by the world view of an old formula. Your opponents seem to continually define your positions from a premise in which I can see no sound foundation. The above quote holds much more credibility than a statement from a subjective participant in the contest.

The perspective of one who claims to be ready on day one seems to be at odds with the humility suggested in President Kennedy’s words.

 

But that not being enough, one has to ask: should qualifications be based on a resume?  After all, Donald Rumsfeld has 55 years of military and government service on his resume. And Dick Cheney’s resume is plenty thick as well. Come to think of it, Les Aspen had a fine resume too, but that didn’t help gays achieve equality in the eyes of the military.

Which takes me to President Clinton. Unosom II, July 1993, resolution 814. The Marines landing in Haiti only to be driven away. There is more, but let me be clear, it is not negative to attempt to clarify a misrepresentation. It is not honorable to accept an illusion. It is a disservice to the public not to speak out against questionable claims. The public may indeed be more comfortable with either other candidate, however one cannot allow that comfort to be built on bad criteria and remain a bystander. They need to be challenged. In boxing they say, “don't hook with a hooker.” A long time ago I said, “don't match wits with a half wit.” You are fond of saying that, "That is a debate I am looking forward to have.” But when people make outrageous statements, one is demeaned by merely participating in the discussion. By all means, however, the speaker should be allowed to reap what they have sown by encouraging them with a well-timed question to continue the bluster. There is a quote by an unknown author, "I don't have to attend every argument I am invited to.” A distance has been established between you and the other candidates. Before I would accept or argue where I had been placed in the comparison, it would be important to make sure that they are accurately positioned.

I can accept that President Kennedy was in charge on day one. I can accept that President Kennedy was confident on day one. But no one can say he was arrogant on day one, or even by the tenth day. Let Hillary trump John Kennedy in declaring her readiness. Allow her the opportunity to explain on what basis she is better prepared now to enter the office than President Kennedy was in 1961. 

But it is not just with respect to the primary contest that the Kennedy addresses shed a light on the present. In contrast with President Bush’s devotion to spreading democracy, the third State of the Union contains the following passage: "For we seek not the worldwide victory of one nation or system but a worldwide victory of man. The modern globe is too small, its weapons are too destructive and its disorders are too contagious to permit any other kind of victory.” In a sense, the Surge in Iraq—if viewed as a strategy instead of a tactic—may well prove to be that "other kind of victory.”

In advocating a more prudent stance towards the Middle East—and indeed in our conduct of foreign affairs more generally—there is a passage in the first State of the Union that is relevant to the accusations that you are Naive in your willingness to meet with world leaders: “where nature makes natural allies of us all, we can demonstrate that beneficial relations are possible even with those with whom we most deeply disagree—and this must someday be the basis of world peace and world law.” Would that you could state that under your administration you will endeavor to make that someday today.

 

In the second address there is the following: "Yet our basic goal remains the same: a peaceful world community of free and independent states—free to choose their own future and their own system, so long as it does not threaten the freedom of others. Some may choose forms and ways that we would not choose for ourselves—but it is not for us that they are choosing.  We can accept Diversity..."

In the first address the president speaks of public service in language similar to yours, and the theme reappears in the following addresses as well. There is also a paragraph where the President states that, "therefore, my remarks will be limited. But they will also be candid”.  It continues in a manner that is very reminiscent of my understanding of your comments and attitude on Transparency.

 

I suppose it is evident that I believe when your ideas are consistent with John Kennedy's, that it is more difficult to degradingly stereotype them. In comparing his time to the present day, the similarities are uncanny with regard to both the ideas expressed and the situation of the country socially, economically, and militarily.

I further believe that you should sprinkle some bible quotes into your stump speech.  It would serve at least two purposes. You cannot just stand up and say “I am not a Muslim,” but in a sentence that starts with a phrase such as ‘The House Of Worship that I grew up in taught us that....’ such an assertion becomes unnecessary. Further, it would enhance the attempt to strengthen your connection with senior citizens. Older adults relate conceptually to ideas in a biblical format.

Your fellow politician from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, said, "Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it, the tree is the real thing." You need to stop allowing others to light your tree and cast the shadow. Every time you directly respond to Hillary Clinton's ‘kitchen sink” portrayals of you and your policy in a like-minded fashion, in reality you are inviting her up on the stage with you. It lessens you. 

 
"When times are good be happy, but when times are bad consider: God has made the one as well as the other”. Ecclesiastes 7:14. To me that sums up March 4th through at least March 7th.  Hopefully on March 9th you resolved to Spring Forward.

The popular question is currently: will he go negative? Can he go negative? Can he take the negative? Although you want your administration and the process to be transparent, you need to be more vivid. More concrete.

I would like to hear you say:

 

"I can envision in my first state of the union address saying to all gathered within the chamber that ‘you and I are privileged to serve the great republic in what could be the most decisive decade in its long history. The choices we make, for good or ill, may well shape the state of the union for generations yet to come.’ And that's a speech I can give.  That's a speech in which I believe every word that is spoken. Those aren't empty words. Those are words that are filled with the man that first spoke them. The man for whom the heavens opened up and the haunting music of the dirge filled not only our ears but our hearts when he was tragically torn from the arms of the country he loved. That man was President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.        

                               
”Now I have much to be grateful to the Kennedy family for. I am thankful that Caroline endorsed me, but more than that I am flattered that she chose to mention me in the recollection of her father. Then her Uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy, endorsed me, and the magnitude of the meaning and symbolism of that endorsement is something that I will always cherish and strive to honor. But before either of those events I, as well as millions of people around the world, were indebted to the man who was the 35th president of the United States for his dreams and his accomplishments.

”Let's hear his words today and try to understand how successfully he did accomplish his self-enforced oath to be candid and frank with the public. He knew that as president, amongst the choices he would have to make, there would be both the good and the bad, the right and the wrong, the fortunate and the regrettable. Every elected official faces that hard truth, but it takes a leader to share that truth with the people.

”We are a nation of laws. Those laws guide us in our ongoing attempt to protect the sanctity of the battles that have been fought and the lives sacrificed in the name of Justice. We have precedent. We have procedure. We have process. There are those amongst us who can recall, when first learning how to type, repeatedly keying in the phrase: ‘Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.’ There are fewer amongst you who can recall when that was not simply a lesson to be learned, but an expected reality. I am trying to answer that call.

”I am competing for the office of the President of the United States. The country's top executive.  The Head of State. The Commander in Chief. My critics say that I have not acquired enough experience to be the top executive. They say that maybe he would be better if I were simply close to the top. In that case, if my phone rings at 3:00 a.m., it had better not be for me to assume the duties of the office of the President. To be labeled ‘not qualified’ is not to be ‘a heartbeat away.’ I have cited my judgment before, and again, that is a judgment I would question.

”Which takes us to the commander in chief. Well! The Civilian Leader of the Military. Ask yourself this, when I walk into that room, what is it that the Generals are expecting the President to bring to the table? 

I think it would be:

Authority
Accountability

Analytical Qualities

Acute Judgment
Ability to be dispassionate

 

“The Generals get the five stars.  The president gets the five As. And so in the event of an unexpected crisis, I would want to offer my Generals:
Clarity
Consistency
Leadership
Confidence
Support
An Unambiguous Goal
And then a pair of ears.

”I can bring those things to the table, and by that set of criteria I believe I am qualified to be the Commander in Chief of the most accomplished and qualified military service in the history of man.

 

“Unfortunately, in our recent history, the civilian leadership has exploited and done a disservice to both our men and women in uniform, not to mention the taxpayers who have financed their operation.  A number of people have expressed concern about the ever-increasing tendency to depend on a ‘military solution’ instead of diplomacy. I have heard it described as, ‘when the only tool you have in your tool bag is a hammer it is surprising how many things look like a nail.’ At some point you no longer need a bigger hammer, you need to invest in more tools. Once again, turning to the State of the Union Address of President Kennedy: ‘Honest negotiation should not be considered Appeasement.’

”Prior to the March 4th primaries, there was a television ad run as a part of the Clinton campaign. It became the hot topic of the day. It was an effective ad. It did what it was intended to do and it dominated the airways. I am referring to the 3:00 a.m. phone call ad.

”The manner in which we responded to it was not as effective. The response was not substantial enough. I would consider it a campaign mistake. I won't try to call it something else, nor will I tell you that it was the only campaign move we could have done better. But is it fatal? The numbers can answer that question more credibly than I can, and no matter how you’re counting, if there is a debate in some people's minds about who is in first place, I can tell you this: ‘We are way ahead of whoever is in second place.’

”But no campaign, and particularly not one that is run from the bottom up, should back away from that which makes the public stop and think. I embrace it. That is why we have a free press—in order to have an informed public. It is the foundation of democracy, a cornerstone of our country, and a pillar of freedom itself. That is why the press enjoys unique privileges and serves a vital role in the process.

”I can't pad my resume because the truth will out. I have never answered that phone in the oval office. I have always answered my phone and nobody else’s. Hillary hasn’t answered that phone either. And so it’s left to the voters’ imagination. Let’s think about it. After you answer the phone what comes next? Words. As far as I’m concerned, that’s fortunate because I value words. I think they are important. You need to say the right things, at the right time, to the right people.  And for those times that you make a mistake, there are those that say, ‘facts on the ground tend to change my opinion.’ I believe in that philosophy, and there are times when I find myself in the position of thinking that what may have been right then is wrong now—that I made a mistake. And in those situations you correct it. The sooner the better.

”You don't want to wait. Not an hour, not a day, not a hundred days. The silence left by your indecision is only filled with more calls. More words. With the phones ringing it raises the question: who is going to answer the bell? Who is going to stand up and be counted? What are they going to say? What are they going to do? And when? Within a hundred seconds, a hundred minutes, a hundred days?

”There are those who would paint the picture that I would just Talk, just use Words.
Much has been said over the last several months about words, speeches, and lofty ideas. If not with a degree of scorn, then certainly with a dismissive air. True, there is such a thing as an empty phrase, but words can be either empty or rich with meaning. And those words can be either spoken or left unspoken. They can be used to distract or to instill passion. They can be used for anything, or they can be used to justify doing nothing.

”But this tension is not a new phenomenon. In fact, it has always been relevant—a fact that I can demonstrate using a quote from 1994.

“‘Emotions can produce wonderful speeches and stirring op-ed pieces.  But emotions alone cannot provide policies that will achieve what they promise.’

”There you have the idea that action speaks louder than words. That line comes from the testimony of Madeline Albright on Capitol Hill. May 17, 1994. Here, the key word was unspoken, and that word was genocide. The phone was ringing, but the time to answer had already passed: an estimated 500,000 weren't calling anymore. But they most certainly had called. Their calls went unanswered, as would hundreds of thousands more calls before the one hundred days of killing finally stopped. But the call had come—it came before the killing had even begun. Maybe there was not enough urgency in the words; maybe it was too hard to find the right voice.

”Words are words. It is the voice and the willingness to stand up when the wind is at your face that gives them meaning. I have the voice to use them and the will to stand behind them. And when I am President, I will answer the call.

“Once more, in light of the events chronicled above, I would like to return—for an obvious reason—to the words of John Kennedy. I will not refer to him as Mr. President this time. I have honored the office, but now I pay tribute to the man. 

“These words were spoken in the first State of the Union Address: ‘To state the facts frankly is not to despair the future nor indict the past. The prudent heir takes careful inventory of his legacies and gives a faithful accounting to those whom he owes an obligation of trust.’