Archives for category: Clinton

I cast my first vote in 1960, when I was 22. That was before 18-year-olds were allowed to vote. I voted for John F. Kennedy, and I worked in his campaign. I was thrilled when he visited campaign headquarters, and I got to shake his hand. He was exciting and dynamic.

At the time, critics said he was no better than Richard Nixon.

They talked about his father, his money, his privilege, his Roman Catholicism; rumors swirled about his private life but were never reported by the media.

Public opinion was so divided about JFK, even among Democrats, that Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. felt compelled to write a short book called “Kennedy or Nixon: Does It Make Any Difference?” Of course, he argued that Kennedy was infinitely preferable to Nixon. Kennedy was elected by a narrow margin.

Democrats were even more divided in 1968 when Hubert H. Humphrey ran against Nixon. Liberals were angry at Humphrey because he had loyally served as LBJ’s vice-president and had not spoken against the war in Vietnam. I worked in the Humphrey-Muskie campaign and organized an event on October 31, 1968, in Manhattan. We didn’t have much money, so we rented a big, shabby labor hall on West 34 street in Manhattan. It was a ragtag affair with a lineup of wonderful speakers: John Kenneth Galbraith, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Herman Badillo, and a parade of other liberal notables of the time. Vice-Presidential candidate Ed Muskie was supposed to drop in. Actress Shelley Winters moderated. In the middle of Galbraith’s endorsement of the Democratic ticket, two people in the front row–a man and a woman–jumped up, took off their raincoats, and ran stark naked onto the stage, where they presented Galbraith with the head of a pig. Shelley Winters threw a pitcher of water at them. The one security officer on duty began chasing them around the stage, and it was like a scene out of the Keystone Kops. Meanwhile, in the back of the room, about 15 protestors marched in, carrying a North Vietnamese flag, banging a drum and chanting “Ho Ho, Ho Chi Minh, Viet Cong are gonna win!”

By the time the protestors moved out, the rally collapsed, Muskie didn’t drop in.

Nixon was holding his own rally across the street at Madison Square Garden, and he had no protestors. Security was tight, and no one got in without credentials.

Our event was a debacle. I knew that night in my heart that Nixon would win.

Fast forward to today.

There are two major party candidates for the presidency, and one of them will be elected in November.

I am an idealist and I fight for what I believe in, but I am also a realist. Either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be elected president.

I will support and vote for Hillary Clinton. I am not telling anyone else how to vote. I am telling you why I am voting for Hillary.

To begin with, I think that Donald Trump is the most unqualified person in my lifetime to be a major party candidate. I think that a presidential candidate should have some prior experience in public life; they should have demonstrated their ability to bring people together and to shape foreign and domestic policies that will advance our national goals and values. Trump represents a nativist view of America, with his open disregard for certain ethnic and religious groups. He openly speaks of “America First,” a long-discredited phrase associated in the 1930s with isolationism. Had we listened then to the America Firsters, Hitler would have conquered all of Europe. Like Nixon, Trump appeals to “the silent majority” and presents himself as the “law-and-order” candidate. His campaign plays on our fears: our fear of Others, our fear of weakness, our fear of decline. His “policies” are boasts: he will “make America great again.” He will turn back the clock. He will bring back all the jobs that were outsourced or that disappeared because of technological change. He will restore the America of a misty and idyllic past. He will revive torture to keep us safe. He believes climate change is a hoax. He thinks women who get an abortion should be punished, or at least their doctors should. He will eliminate gun control and gun-free school zones. He will appoint Supreme Court justices who will roll back reproductive rights, gay rights, and regulations on corporations. He opposes an increase in the minimum wage. He threatens to abandon NATO. He has a thin skin. If someone offends him, he lashes out. He ridicules them, belittles them. Can he be trusted with the nation’s nuclear codes? Will he get annoyed and nuke some country he doesn’t like?

I am not voting for Hillary as “the lesser of two evils.”

I don’t think she is evil. I don’t think she is ethically challenged. I have met her several times in the past and have been impressed by her intellect, her judgment, and her compassion. We all know the ordeal she endured because of her husband’s infidelities. That was not her doing. She tried to protect her family as best she could. We know now that other revered presidents, like FDR and Ike, had affairs; JFK was a serial womanizer. The media abandoned their code of silence about presidential privacy when Bill Clinton was president. Hillary can’t be blamed for Bill’s misadventures, and it was nearly 20 years ago, so who cares? God knows, there are plenty of members of Congress and governors in both parties who would not want their private lives revealed in the news. Remember the Republican Congressman who had a “wide stance” in the men’s bathroom in an airport?

I don’t think Hillary is a liar or a person of low character.

Trump has tried to brand her as “Crooked Hillary,” just as he branded Jeb Bush as “low energy,” Ted Cruz as “Lyin’ Ted,” and Marco Rubio as “Little Marco.”

She got large speaking fees but so what? So has every other major political figure when they left office, as well as every celebrity.

I give her credit for being able to withstand the constant barrage of hatred, vilification, smears, and mudslinging–and she has taken it for 25 years. Republicans blame her for everything.

She must have a very thick skin. They have called her every name in the book, and she is still standing. I admire her courage. I admire her resilience.

I know she is smart. She is super-smart. There are very few people who have run for president who are as well informed about the details of foreign and domestic policy as she is.

I am not happy with her qualified support for charter schools. I would like to explain to her that they are undermining the nation’s public schools, and in some cities, destroying them. I would like to explain to her that the problem is not just “for-profit charter schools.” The problem is setting up a dual publicly-funded school system, one that chooses its students and the other required to accept and enroll every student. It makes no sense.

Like me, she went to public schools. She knows how important they are to our democracy. I believe she would not knowingly sacrifice them to the entrepreneurs and privatizers who want to take them over.

We had a dual system before the Brown decision in 1954 (and for years afterwards). That was a very bad idea. Charters are typically more segregated than public schools. In some states, they are havens for white flight. They are not public schools. They are not accountable or transparent. They are privately managed. They are a form of privatization. They pave the way for vouchers. They encourage parents to think as consumers, not citizens. What we have learned from twenty-five years of charter schools is that deregulation opens the door to fraud, nepotism, and graft. Not all charter schools are bad, not all charter leaders are grifters, but those who are go undetected until a whistle-blower appears.

Hillary says she supports only “high quality charter schools,” but what does that mean? The charters with the highest test scores? Those are the charters that are most likely to exclude students who don’t speak English and students with disabilities and to push out problem students. Why should our government deliberately fund a two-track school system? Charter schools are NOT public schools. They are private schools that receive public funding.

If she is elected, and I hope she is, I will continue to fight for public education. Supporting public education is not a choice, it is a civic responsibility. It is a civic responsibility for those whose children are grown and for those who have no children. This is what good citizens do. I will continue to try to persuade the Democrats to oppose the school privatization policies promoted by ALEC, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Rick Snyder, Rick Scott, Mike Pence, Pat McCrory, Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and the Tea Party.

The American public school is one of the bedrock ideas of our democracy. We must not abandon it. To privatize our schools betrays our democratic values.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton because I trust that she will have a steady hand on American foreign policy.

I will vote for her because I trust that she will shape domestic policies to strengthen our economy and to increase equity.

I will vote for her because I trust that she will reflect and think before making decisions and will not act or react impulsively.

I will vote for her because I trust she will appoint Supreme Court justices who will make decisions that protect our rights and strengthen our democracy.

I will vote for her because I trust that she will fight for a society that is more just for all.

I will vote for her because she has experience, wisdom, and deep knowledge of our nation and the world.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton because she is eminently qualified to be president of the United States.

Diane Ravitch

#Imwithher

Andrew Rotherham, a key figure in the corporate reform movement, once worked in the Clinton White House. He has since gone on to found a consulting firm, Bellwether Education Partners, that represents many of the leading corporate reform groups.

Rotherham writes here that “education reform” (charter schools, high-stakes testing, and evaluation of teachers by test scores) is not dead. He writes to reassure his friends and allies in the corporate reform movement that Hillary will not abandon their ideas. No matter what the platform says, no matter what she told the AFT and the NEA, he says, you gotta believe that she still loves her friends in the corporate reform world.

The subtext is fear. Is she really going to expect charters to serve children with disabilities and English language learners, the charters wonder. Is she really going to listen to the hated teachers’ unions on the subject of education? Is she going to slow down the drive to privatize public schools? Is she going to stop closing schools in poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods?

Never mind that all the reformers’ pet priorities have failed. Never mind that growing numbers of parents are opting their children out of state tests. Never mind that VAM has improved no school anywhere. Never mind that charters seldom outperform public schools and have often provided a platform for theft, fraud, and greed, whether they operate for profit or not-for-profit. Never mind that the Obama “reform” policies have helped to create teacher shortages in many states.

As you surely know, Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed former Secretary Hillary Clinton at a joint appearance in New Hampshire today.

I listened on the radio to their respective speeches. Bernie was inspirational as he recapped his campaign themes and said that he believed Hillary Clinton would be faithful to his agenda. Hillary Clinton echoed much of what Bernie Sanders said. Both sought unity, facing what is likely to be a tough campaign against Donald Trump. Trump has turned his campaign into an almost stereotypical Republican tough-guy appeal to the Silent Majority. He continually tells people that America is weak but he is strong. He supports “America First,” a phrase that I thought was long associated with the discredited isolationist wing of the GOP. He says that the world laughs at us because we are losers; he will turn us into winners again. I listened to him speak in Indiana this evening, and he said–referring to the Dallas shootings–that he is the candidate who is “tough on crime.” He said again and again that he would build the wall shutting off our southern border, with a gate that opens only for those who have met legal requirements. He said to the crowd, “Who will pay for the wall?” And they thundered back, “Mexico!” I want to know why Trump thinks that the Mexican government is ready to pay billions of dollars to build a wall. I don’t get it.

He is hitting all the right notes in appealing to an angry, fearful public, one that is rightfully worried about their jobs and their economic well-being. Underlying their fear, however, is old-fashioned nativism, a sense that outsiders, aliens, immigrants are taking over the country and that white males are losing their commanding power.

I juxtapose these events with my day. I decided a few days ago that since I had endorsed Hillary and plan to vote for her, I would make a contribution to her campaign. I bought tickets to a special matinee of “Hamilton,” whose cast and crew put on a Tuesday matinee for a private performance dedicated to her campaign. I sat with my partner, Mary, my son and his spouse, and our 9-year-old grandson. For reasons I don’t understand, the show has an enormous following among teens and pre-teens. My grandson was mouthing the words as he watched.

The show was everything it is cracked up to be. I am not a huge fan of rap, yet this show won me over. It seemed to be a rap operetta. The energy of the dancing and staging is remarkable. It is dazzling, fast-moving, and conceptually brilliant. It is the story of the founding of America, with the founding fathers played by actors of color. The show was introduced by historian Ron Chernow, who wrote the Hamilton biography that served as source material for the play.

When it ended, Lin-Manuel Miranda, the man who wrote the book, music, and lyrics, spoke to the audience about the show. He literally reinvented the founding of our nation to include everyone. He said the show was about our founding ideals, and our struggle to reach them, which always fell short. Because humans are fallible, he said, we never reach them, yet we keep trying. And he posed the question: Who is likely to keep trying to meet those ideals–Clinton or Trump? The choice was easy.

Miranda then introduced Hillary Clinton, who had just flown in from New Hampshire and was glowing. The audience belonged to her, so there was a lot of love in the room.

Bernie Sanders promised to travel the nation to rally his followers to vote for Clinton. The threat of a Trump presidency is unthinkable. From his performance today, we can expect that he will use his travels to build the movement that he launched. And that will be good for all of us.

Peter Greene watched the discussion of education by the Democratic platform committee, and he was surprised by a good turn in the language used for charter schools.

The original platform language had squishy rhetoric about charter schools. Thanks to the behind-the-scenes work of Troy LaRivere (the elementary school principal who was pushed out of his school by the Chicago Public School leadership, most likely for his outspokenness against high-stakes testing and charter schools as well as his endorsement of Bernie Sanders in the primary); Chuck Pascal, a Sanders delegate from Pennsylvania (this blog helped to raise money to pay his way to Orlando for the platform meetings); and Christine Kramar, a Nevada delegate who is devoted to public education. These activists had the support of Randi Weingarten, and some of their platform changes were accepted.

Peter Greene writes about the most important of them: the charter language. The original platform spoke out against for-profit charters, but Peter has shown in other posts that the difference between for-profit charters and non-profit charters is often a distinction without a difference.

He writes:

Randi and this amendment do make a new kind of distinction– that when charters disrupt and displace traditional public schools, that’s a Bad Thing. Which is a remarkably direct challenge to the modern charter model, which says that disruption and displacement of the public school system is the goal. It’s the closest I think I’ve heard a national union leader get to saying, “The goals of charter proponents are bad, destructive, wrong goals.” So I’m happy for that….

But the original platform definition of Bad Charter was just “a for-profit charter” which seriously overlooked the point that non-profit charters are just as bad (and profitable) as the for-profits. This new language defines a Bad Charter as one that does not have democratically-elected governance, does not serve the exact same population as the the local public school, and that destabilizes or damages the health of that local public school.”

In other words, the new language offers a much broader understanding of when a charter school is Not Okay than the draft did.

Peter would have preferred language that recognized that charters by nature undermine public schools, but he was pleased that the Democratic party moved to recognize the damage that charters inflict on neighborhood public schools and to propose that this damage should no longer be permitted.