Open Letter to Two Undeclared College Superdelegates

The following was sent as an open letter to two undeclared superdelegates (Lauren Wolfe and Awais Khaleel, who are the President and Vice President of College Democrats).

Awais & Lauren :

Four years ago, a friend of mine in Texas was working a minimum wage job so that he could one day go to college. His phone rang one evening, and the voice on the other line offered him a $90,000 job driving a truck for a defense contractor in Iraq. He called me and asked what I thought he should do. No matter what he decided, I remember thinking, "What a sad day when the world's richest, most powerful country can only offer 2 choices to someone who wants to go to college: minimum wage, or $90,000 in a war zone."

After reading Jason Rae's note earlier this week, I feel obligated to share with you my experiences as a surrogate at colleges and community centers from Virginia to Indiana, Ohio to Pennsylvania, Wisconsin to North Carolina.

State after state, I have been meeting young people who, for the first time in their lives, are not simply voting, but volunteering for a campaign. After being told for years that their voices don't count for much, they have risen up and joined us in securing a better world for all Americans. Many of these folks cannot afford a college education. Many lack health care. Some are caring for ailing parents. Others are first-generation Americans. Overwhelmingly, they've answered the challenge that Senator Obama has given them: to take responsibility and become involved. I ask you not to ignore them any longer.

Young voters are mobilized for Barack in some of the most unlikely places. I'm reminded of a very moving event at the largely conservative Miami University of Ohio several weeks back; Ranked as the 4th least diverse school in the nation by the Princeton Review, our surrogate rally drew 500 students -- a large number of whom showed up with handmade "Obama '08" signs. The College Democrats on campus were blown away, having never seen more than small double-digit attendance at any of their general meetings. These several hundred students, a great many of whom were conservative Republicans, came to learn more about Barack Obama and left that night as supporters. I ask you not to deny them the opportunity to support the Democratic Party.

It was indeed important to remain neutral as the candidates themselves reached out to young Americans. As representatives of a college group, I respect your decision to have waited until your constituents made their voices heard in a clear fashion. But that time has come and gone. You are no doubt aware that this election season started with an increase in youth voter turnout of 135% above 2004 levels in Iowa. Senator Obama won the 'youth vote' by a 4-1 margin in that state, followed by 3-1 in New Hampshire, and 2-1 in Nevada.

He is the only candidate -- Democrat or Republican -- to have an active National Arts Policy Committee to preserve and encourage the ties between the arts and culture, education, civil/national preservation, and national & international security. He is the only candidate -- Democrat or Republican - to have made a commitment to true reform and refused federal lobbyist money in his presidential campaign. He also refused to stand idly by, and spoke out publicly while Senators McCain and Clinton voted to authorize a war that continues to send scores of young Americans overseas.

Perhaps three weeks ago was not the right time to pledge. But neither is three weeks from now. Your failure to pledge now risks returning those passionate, first-time voters to a political landscape of the same old games that caused them to maintain such distance from the Democratic Party before. If you are being pressured by others to wait until later in May or June to pledge, please be aware that you risk hurting the majority of folks who have made their clear choice in Senator Obama. I work with them every day. These young voters were mobilized because of a belief in their ability to change the game-playing Washington establishment politics that has failed them for so long. You may be reluctant to endorse because you are DNC officers, but you have a mandate from scores of young voters to pledge now. As the future of the Democratic Party, they look up to you. Please don't let the system fail them again. This should not be about party politics and should not be about insider loyalties. This is about the constituents you represent, and their inclusion and involvement for years to come.

Your failure to pledge now also risks denying young, first-time voters the very things for which they have supported the Democratic Party now: universal health care, access to education, freedom from war, a sustainable environment, fair, unionized jobs, and serious, long-term economic solutions. Please don't risk pledging too late and hurting their credibility.

You need to pledge your support for Senator Obama today. You need to do this for the scores of young voters who turned out in unprecedented, historic numbers. You need to do this for a college freshman I spoke with in North Carolina last Monday, who tirelessly splits his time between school, volunteer work, and helping care for his ailing father. You need to do this for the brave young men and women who are in the military, and for the young woman in Minnesota who, with tears streaming down her face, explained that she can't pay off her student loans on a teaching salary.

You need to do this for people like my friend who was making minimum wage four years ago. He ultimately turned down that job offer in Iraq. He has still not been able to afford a college education. You need to show him that the richest, most powerful country in the world hasn't forgotten him.

Best,

Kal Penn

Surrogate/National Arts Policy Committee Member
Barack Obama for President

Kal Penn (Kalpen Modi) is an actor based in Los Angeles. He currently appears on the television series, House, is an Adjunct Professor of Cinema, Sociology, and Asian American Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, and is pursuing a Graduate Certificate in International Security at Stanford University. He is a surrogate for the Obama Campaign and a member of the Campaign's National Arts Policy Committee

Comments

[CocteausTwin]

In case you want to update your blog, here is their endorsement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/14/superdelegates-continue-t_n_101646.html

[nolabels]

Great post! Thank you
My first vote in this country was stripped away from me by the Supreme Court. Prior to and since then, the people of this country have been told to be quiet so this country can heal/move forward. Is that democracy? These last 8 years have produced a generation of young leaders in this country that don't feel like this country cares for their gifts, let alone seeks them out. In 2000, my friends and I joked about moving to Canada if Bush got elected. In the past year, my friends haven't been joking - moving abroad for employment opportunities or applying for MBA programs in Europe. We all love this country but don't feel that it loves us back. There is something wrong when a class of educated, compassionate, successful young people feel that they have to leave America to have their potential fulfilled. Isn't that why people come here? Just as many young people in their mid-twenties have switched jobs several times for better opportunities so are we also we free to move elsewhere for better opportunities. That is fine for the people who leave but where will this country be as a result? We have a lot of work ahead of us if we choose to stay but we need to pick the candidate that wants to do that work and is honest about what work needs to be done.

[nolabels]

Barack Obama has demonstrated the power for good that this country is capable of by emphasizing individual responsibility, by championing civic duty and very importantly, admitting that this country has problems. These problems don't go away when ignored. Barack Obama wants to evaluate our critical issues and address them. The young people in this country want to help. It would be a sad thing if, one more time, the voices of the compassionate, freethinking, motivated, intelligent youth in this country would be stiffled again because the cynics, dogmatists, fearful and hateful win again. It is time for optomism and hard work. It is time for a President that embodies that optomism and asks us to do the same.

[aht772e]

the above, as this post, is just an attempt to sway an unpledged superdelegate. There are NO RULES governing your decision, and wqhile witholding a pledge may maintain the appearance of neutrality, in reality, each of you has probably already made up your mind (as have most other SDs). So what holds up your announcement, in either direction? a fear of offending voters from the other side? a hope to garner more attention (or for others, mor epower) by using your vote as a token to be auctioned to the highest bidder. pewrsonally, I would like to think that if I were in your shoes, i would want to make sure that the party's nominee was both the strongest candidate, and was given every advantage to win. it seems quite clear to me that the nominee is obvious, so the question becomes what strategy allows him to go forth to the general with the best chance to prevail. I think one could argue that the HRC supporters are more likely to come around if the process goes all the way, and they feel the candidate lost on merits, but I would argue that has already happenned, and all the wait can accomplish is togive the republicans more of her quotes to use in the general against him. the choice is yours, but rmember that not making a choice , is in effect also making a choice, and one that will have consequences for you, the party, and the nation.

[DerekRC]

Have some cheese with your whine. When will Democrats actually start accepting the rules that they started playing by.

Al "cry me a river" Gore started this whole mess with his unending debacle in 2000.

[Vnd]

You kids are great; letters like this are total BS. I commend you for following the rules and giving this decision the weight it deserves. People don't seem to understand that your job is to listen to ALL the voters then decide who you think will be the best nominee for our party -- whether that's the front-runner or the close-second candidate. If you choose to wait until the convention in August to decide, more power to you. Just continue to stand strong in your beliefs.

[GuyRC]

When do I get to vote to abolish the superdelegates?

[elusiveyo]

how pitiful, this guy is playing some kind of guilt trip to get super delegates, this is the kind of thing that gets all of us who havnt drank the kool aid very nervous, yeah, vote for obama and the young people will become politically active forever, until they realize this guy is no different that any other pol

[nolabels]

You have drank the Kool-Aid, just the one laced with poison. How does it taste?

[THEhillbilly]

I hope those "kids" have the good sense and the balls to ignore this meddling. Those who don't like the idea of independent delegates need to work within the party rules to scuttle the arrangement. Furthermore, it's important for all "superdelegates" to wait until the last possible moment, to see whether or not the next revelation of Obama's affinity for unsavory associations is serious enough to disqualify him.

[Countess]

Obama could live 10 complete lives and never equal all the unsavory associations of the Clintons starting with themselves.

[BeyondTheBull]

AMEN!!

[Binx101]

Your message is distinguished by your calm yet unwavering voice. This is characteristic that we've seen little of in must commentary. That is to say, making a positive point using positive supporting evidence as opposed to implying a threat, hurling ultimatums or simply defending the indefensible by mouthing platitudes like citizen cockatoos backed with implausible assertions.

This was a good message - a reasonable message - with obvious and measurable standards of comparison. Measurable not only among the current choices, but unmistakably comparable to other key points in our Nations history when corporatism began to eat capitalism and obliterate it - moving to fascism. FDR's impassioned speeches and insistence that war profiteering would not be tolerated are in stark contrast to today's leaders, who if not waving the flag for corporate war profits, may often be directly or indirectly on the payroll of those war profiteers.

Never has there been a generational gap as there exists right now, and it was created by greed and National addiction to image and adrenaline.

Your article was calm - to the point - and in my opinion, should prove to be effective.

Binx101
The Almost Daily Binx
http://binx101.wordpress.com

[ArizonaBlue]

How to motivate the youth vote? Simple....bring back the draft. (This time for Men AND Women). You'll see this war wrapped up in six months and a whole new bunch of young legislators in D.C.

[RedBirdy]

It isn't about motivating the youth. It's about getting them to back a specific candidate. If they youth weren't voting for Obama in such high numbers, Kal wouldn't have written this letter pandering to them.

[MPeter]

Well, the flow of SD to Obama has become a steady stream since he won NC. He now needs only 150 more.
See below:
CHICAGO, IL " Today, Idaho Superdelegate Keith Roark endorsed Barack Obama for President. Roark is the 281st superdelegate to endorse Obama, who is 150 delegates away from securing the Democratic nomination.

Roark's statement:

After several months of careful consideration, I am announcing today that I will cast my vote this August at the Democratic National Convention for the next President of the United States, Senator Barrack Obama. I have not come quickly or easily to this decision. Democrats are blessed to have two outstanding candidates vying for our party"s nomination at this defining moment in American history.

I have no doubt that Senator Obama will run the stronger race. The unprecedented enthusiasm Senator Obama has generated here in Idaho is unlike anything I have seen in the past 31 years of active political participation in this State. He has captured the imagination and mint fresh optimism of young voters from Couer d"Alene to Caldwell, from Murphy to Montpelier. I firmly believe that the critical process of rebuilding the Idaho Democratic Party will receive a once in a lifetime boost from Senator Obama"s candidacy.

[thegaygardener]

Great post Kal!
There are so many lies & untruths in these pro-Hillary posters here it boggles the mind.
I wonder, after Obams wins, if those commenters who are paid by the Clinton campaign will reveal themselves. Just like their candidate, they think if they repeat the same lie often enough it becomes true ("Obama takes more PAC money than Hillary", Obama is a bigger beneficairy of 'bundling' than Hillary", "Obama played the race card first") Notice how there are never any links to their sources? Or if there are links they are to very questionable sites. Notice too that the really crazy ones are incapable of not posting in "ALL CAPS" As the saying goes: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"
Endorse now young Democrats! I promise you won't fell cheap, dirty, & used afterwards like you would with the Clintons

[elbzee]

"Not that I know of"

[Heidfeld]

here you go gaygardener (and I wont use a single cap just to avoid offending you).

the factually correct article about Obama taking more PAC money appeared in Harpers (ok, that was a proper name) magazine. i would certainly consider Harpers a reliable publication.

that Obama played the race card first is not something you can easily provide a single "source" for. rather, it comes from an objective analysis of the events that took place. also, scientifically, one must never forget that it was obviously not in hillary's best interest to "play the race card" and anger black voters before South Carolina. again, this is just basic logic.

the fact remains that obama has something around a 1% lead in total votes cast, yet his supporters speak as if he has blown Hillary out of the water and he has no business staying in the race. they say this of the candidate who would have clearly won in an winner take all system. i'm not trying to make that argument, just using it to point out how crazy all the people sound who rip on hillary for sticking around. it isn't over yet.

[CindyV]

Bully the college kids into supporting your candidate by calling them out in a open letter. That's real classy. Leave the kids alone and let them make their decision within their own timeframe. Shame on you for forcing them to back your guy.

[lorla]

They asked for input to help them make their decision.

[elbzee]

Um, Cindy? Um, did you read the post? Um, do you get to whom it was addressed? And, um, as superdelegates, should they not declare in light of the unprecedented turn out among college students? Is asking them to do so bullying? As far as I"m concerned, asking them to stand up and do the right thing is not, bullying or forcing. It"s an urgent call to action. What is it that frightens you so Cindy?

[CindyV]

As super delegates uncommitted at the time of the convention, they'll have greater influence than if the declare now. As a super delegate, they don't have to vote like other college kids. They are to pick the best candidate to win in November. The best thing they can do is to let the elections play out and make their decision once they get to Denver.

[Heidfeld]

Pefect, let's pander to those spoiled 20 something first time voters! Everything has to be about them, so let's make it about them.

Never mind that they have had by far the smallest turnout of any demographic in EVERY primary. Nope, let's pander to them anyway.

Sure, they didn't give a damn in the past... so why don't we reward them for it?

I'm a 20 something, but I've voted in every election (and not just national) since I was 18. Why? Not because it became the cool/trendy thing to do. Not because of some fancy candidate on the internet... but because I understood how the world and politcs work. Nobody had to hold my hand, I figured it out on my own.

I was sitting in my office the day after Kerry lost to Bush. Sitting amongst my 20 something peers who didn't vote, and couldn't care less. These same idiots that could have helped us get Gore or Kerry, but sat on their hands... now we have so much praise for them?

If you are a first time voter over, and this is NOT the first election you are actually old enough to vote in, I have no respect for you. Plain and simple.

[Didderbops]

In 2004 first time voters under the age of 30 turned out in record numbers.

[RedBirdy]

I feel the same way. Why do we have to cater to them? Let's say Hillary had a chance (and I'm a supporter and I don't believe that) was the nominee, they would have a hissy fit and not vote in the general, which they weren't gonna do in the first place. I am 20 something as well, and like you have voted in every local/general election since my 18th birthday. They should not be rewarded or pandered to just because it's a Monday, and Kal wants them to vote for Obama. I don't care who the nominee is. I appreciate my reproductive rights too much to let McCain fuck me over, and any pro choice young person new or old to the game should give a damn too.

[Heidfeld]

Nice to see someone agree's with me Redbirdy. As per your example, when my female co-workers displayed a total lack of interest in politics, despite something like the freedom of choice possibly being at stake, I lost a lot of faith in my peers.

Courtb, I see what you are saying. And I agree to an extent. Obviously if people do decide to get involved it is a good thing.

I just don't like all the praise and hand holding. If you didn't vote in the past, you should go to the polls with your head down and say, "I'm sorry about the past, but I'm going to change now" (I'm exagerrating, but you get the idea).

Instead we are acting like we should throw a party and reward these people for their past ignorance. It is partly their fault we are in Iraq, have no healthcare and a junk economy.

So yeah, I don't want to hear about how they were "turned off to politics" cause they "didn't feel like they had a voice." What? Everyone has a voice, it is called a VOTE. They always had that voice, maybe they just didn't understand it.

[courtb]

You're right. Let's not pander to the "spoiled 20 something first time voters." Instead, let's pander to the people who are uneducated on issues and voting. Let's pander to those who vote for who their family, friends, or television personalities tell them to vote for. Let's pander to the people who are voting along the lines of race and/or gender.

Instead of getting angry with people who choose not to vote, get angry with those who vote without properly educating themselves. How many people voted in the 2004 election and said that Iraq was behind 9/11?

I understand why our peers are not voting. They are disillusioned with politics. Many of them don't care enough to even learn about the issues. I'm glad they didn't vote...I don't want my stoner neighbor from university who's biggest concern in life is where to buy his pot from to vote for legislators who directly/indirectly affect my life. Or in the California recall election, the girl in my dorm who voted for Schwarzenegger because she was afraid Bustamante would give California back to Mexico.

I understand your frustration. But instead of passing judgment on those who can't get themselves excited about politics, fight for change. For too long, people have made judgments about us: we're lazy, apathetic, uneducated, naive, etc. It's psychology-tell someone they're lazy or stupid, and eventually it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Be positive that finally, politicians are treating young adults like they matter.

[NCMan]

pander to under and/or uneducated?

By all means let's not do that. Instead, let the author of this post feed them what they want to hear.

Shall we let the author get away with suggesting that Obama supports UNIVERSAL healthcare? He doesn't. He supports a plan to assist in lowering the cost of health insurance so that you may purchase it if you feel like it.

Shall we let the author get away with suggesting that Obama's no FEDERAL lobbyist position actually means no LOBBYISTS, because it doesn't. Obama certainly has accepted money from STATE lobbyists. Obama has lobbyists on his campaign staff. Lobbyists have run many of his state campaigns. He accepts money from lawers who represent lobbyists. And, this is the 1st and only election Obama has ever been in without accepting federal lobbyists money.

Shall we let the author claim that these two supder delegates MUST vote their constituency while the author makes no such claims for other super delegates who have supported a candidate AGAINST the wishes of their constiuency?

[lorla]

Wow, you're being pretty hard on your peers. You are only 1 or 2 presidential elections ahead of them in voting. Did you try to educate or register them last election? Be glad they are involved now, and welcome them into the fold.
I imagine your office is in a "loft".

[elbzee]

Wow! Guess you don't go with the "better late than never" axiom, huh?

[smartchoices]

Thank you, Kal! I have facebooked, YouTubed, and emailed these college superdelegates. I am sure that they are taking finals now. After that, I hope that they get serious about their unique position in the critical primary race and take action. They really need to and your letter says it all.

[HBeachbum]

Young people historically don't vote, anyway. They make a lot of noise during the primaries and presidential campaigns, but are too busy with their own BS to bother to vote. Then they wonder what happened to their candidate.

[RedBirdy]

Very true. I remember all the college freshmen on my campus wearing buttons and holding signs in 2004 in support of Kerry, and a good portion never bothered voting in the general election.

[PatrickWalker]

College kids are signing up because of groupthink driven by fashion and flashy media campaigning. Nothing more, nothing less. Obama is exactly what is wrong with politics and just because you have a few people saying it's "new" doesn't make it so. Remember, most consumer products are regularly heralded as "new and improved" when the changes are marginal (or even true).

Not that I'm saying Hillary is that much better. Personally, my vote would be with Nader, assuming the Democrats allow his name to get on ballots at all...

[Chachi]

The fact that you intimated that Hillary is even marginally better discredits your argument. If you argued that Obama is only marginally better than Hillary, so we shouldn't expect that much "change" in reality, then you might at least be able to make an argument and would have some logical basis for your decision to support Nadar. But, if you think that Hillary is even a fraction of a % better than Obama then you are lost.

[PatrickWalker]

Whose the candidate pushing for an exclusively based market solution to health care issues? It isn't Hillary. It's not even McCain (granted, he has no plan but that just allows for the status quo, which is market-based by default). Who can barely pass the words "regulation of the finance industry" between his lips? Hillary has no problem with regulation. Obama is virtually SILENT. In a lot of ways, Obama is substantively more Lieberman than Sanders which is why his supporters have to harp on that nonsensical title of being the most "liberal" in the Senate.

Obama is policy-wise to the RIGHT of Hillary. As a Kucinich supporter, do you know how absurd this situation is where Hillary is even remotely acceptable? If she was as bad as you intone, you either think half of the Democrats are stupid, wrong about Hillary, or overstating Obama's party support.

The only reason why Obama has as much support as he does is because he's capitalized on an anti-Hillary wave which has absolved his own non-existent legislative record and that "young" supporters have zero sense of political history.

[BayAreaResident]

It is actually simple, if Obama was in fact no different, he would be accepting money from the same old sources that everybody esle does, and which are always there waiting for yet another sellout to drop by. The facts speak the opposite, that is why Obama is able to covey trust and inspire hope in people.

He simply put is different enough to be different. Hope that will help.

[Heidfeld]

Wow, uninformed much are we?

His PAC took in more LOBBYIST money that Hillary's? Did you not know that, or were you just willfully ignoring it and hoping to spread the Obama propoganda?

And how does Obama taking money from Coal and Nuclear enengery corps make him any different?

If you vote (and I assume you do) please try to live in a little place I like to call reality before you do so. Thanks.

[PatrickWalker]

He has accepted monies from the old guard. What planet you from? The reality is that his "success" at small donors masks the fact that bundling has be INSTRUMENTAL in his fundraising. All these "small" donors that are giving to Obama are coming mostly from bundling, not from his website. They also include donors who buy stickers and buttons as well. As always, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Like every other campaign, they massage their numbers to foster an untruth.

Basically, bundling largely amounts to a boss sends and email out saying "I'm raising funds for Obama." As an employee, do you go against your boss because he needs your name and amount so he can pass it up to Obama for future favors? Do you fear standing out by not contributing? Sorry, but in an atmosphere of fear that pervades the workplace, employees fear rocking the boat so they just pony up.

What we have now because of new laws we now have strong-arm tactics with a velvet glove. Campaign financing has adapted, and adapted quickly to new well-intentioned laws that have been imposed.

Bundling is just a new clever way of lobbyists to get around campaign finance reform...

[Didderbops]

Yup, Obama is getting people motivated and voting in record numbers but let's denigrate them anyway.

You must be a baby boomer.