I’m deeply saddened by the results of yesterday’s Democratic primaries. I have been a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, for reasons summed up by Hillary Clinton, then Rodham, in her 1969 Wellesley commencement speech. (I’m not kidding.) But I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton. I think that the Obama campaign got it right in a 2007 memo:
HRC is driven by politics, not conviction. From the war, to NAFTA, to Social Security, to her choice of baseball teams, Clinton is constantly shifting, dodging and changing positions to satisfy the politics of the moment. Her penchant for secrecy and non-disclosure reflect an underlying disdain for the “invisible” people for whom she claims to speak.I was thinking about possible choices in this presidential election when I posted, last October, an observation from Peter Drucker about integrity in leadership:
No one should ever be appointed to a senior position unless top management is willing to have his or her character serve as the model for subordinates.I went on to write,
With necessary changes in terminology, one might apply Drucker’s thinking to elections, with integrity of character as a primary consideration for a voter. I for one would find it impossible to vote for a candidate who did not evince some core element of integrity, however consonant with my views that candidate’s views might be.
5:20 p.m.: Casting a valid write-in vote in Illinois is no easy matter. From the Cook County Clerk’s website:
Prospective write-in candidates in Illinois must file paperwork with the county clerk, or election authority, in each jurisdiction where their name will appear on the ballot.Otherwise, a write-in vote is for naught. More on other states here.
August 1: It’s good to know your own mind, but it’s good, too, to know that you can change it. I’ve decided to vote Hillary Clinton. This allegorical paragraph explains why.
[“Her penchant for secrecy and non-disclosure reflect”: should be reflects .]