I knew Dolores pretty well back in the days of the grape boycott (early 1970s. She had come to New York, living in a donated Upper West Side apartment that became boycott headquarters) to organize a lettuce and grape boycott campaign in NYC and the northeastern US. My wife and I lived just a few blocks north of there, and spend a lot of time as volunteers in the campaign.
She impressed me as a passionately committed woman, dedicated to the cause of her Latino and Latina brothers and sisters laboring in the fields of central California without the protection of a union contract, and as an ardent feminist too. She was not a typical union official as I had grown to know them, driving a nice car, working in a nice office, and pulling down a fat salary.
She ate rice and beans with the rest of the volunteers, and really felt like one of us.
It pains me to see her shilling now for a wretched political hack and greed-head like Hillary Clinton, a woman who long ago sold any soul she had in order to grow obscenely rich on the bribes of her corporate sponsors.
I get no sense from her of why she even wants to be president other than that it will gratify her monstrous ego and sense of entitlement. Compare that to Bernie, who reportedly has a net worth, counting his home in Vermont, of $600,000. That might seem like a lot to a working stiff (it seems like a lot to me!), but it's really a testimony to his lack of greed (and maybe investment acumen) that he's only worth that much, given that he's spent 25 years in Congress pulling down a high six-figure salary every year!
Sanders is clearly not running to be president in order to get rich. He first of all has made his job harder than he had to by refusing to have a Super Pac,
Hillary Clinton meanwhile has a lot to answer for, including to those who are calling her "sister." One would be the assassination earlier this month of Berta Caseres, murdered by the same corrupt regime that she worked to install in the 2009 coup in Honduras that overthrew a popularly elected president. Whether she knew about it in advance or not as Secretary of State (and given the tight link between the US military and the Honduran military, it's puppet organization with officers mostly alumni of the US Army's notorioous School of the Americas), from the moment it took place, Clinton backed it. When the democratic governments of Latiin America joined in calling for united pressure on coup leaders to return President Zelaya to office, Clinton said no, and actually put pressure on them, with theats of trade sanctions or worse, to back off and accept a new junta-run election in which Zelaya would not be allowed to compete.
The result has been Honduras became a kind of war zone, with the government slaughtering its opponents, and gangs running rampant. In fact, the flood of kids fleeing Honduras through Mexico to the (relative) safety of the US was a direct result of her support of that coup. Yet what did she do? She supported the policy of sending those poor kids back to the violence they had fled, saying she wanted the kids to "send a message" to their parents, not to send their children north.
And Dolores is supporting and endorsing that monster?
I have to believe that the great woman I knew is not following the alternative news, which has reported in depth on Hillary Clinton's crimes. That's a shame, because as a veteran of the struggle of people of color and of oppressed workers, I know Dolores is well aware that the corporate media in the US is not to be trusted as a source of information. In fact, the very fact that the NY Times has endorsed Clinton should make her think twice about doing the same.
I hope she will read your carefullly argued letter and will drop Clinton like the stinking, rotten hot potato that she is, and that she will instead support a genuine champion of women's rights, workers' rights, labor unions, and the civil, economic and legal rights of people of all colors.
founding editor of ThisCantBeHappening.net