Chris Blask's Blog

GOP Registration Dropping, Democratic Increasing

Chris Blask — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:46:48 EDT

Crossposted at MyDD and DailyKOS

We are in the fourth year of an unprecedented change in political registration. Never before has there been as sustained a pattern of decrease in one party's registration and increase in the other's. Jennifer Steinhauer today in the New York Times discusses this significant trend.

Obama's Words Have Become Actions

Chris Blask — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:26:50 EDT

Crossposted at MyDD and DailyKOS.

With no power beyond his use of words, the person who will next month become the Democratic nominee for the office of President has caused more action at home and abroad than those who hold the reigns of power in their hands.

Winning the Big Game is What Matters

Chris Blask — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:08:09 EDT

Crossposted at DailyKos

Reading Reaper0bot0's diary tonight reminded me very much of all the Internet Security debates I have been involved with since the early nineties. I invented one of the early firewalls (BorderWare), and since that time it has been my mixed pleasure and angst to engage in heated debates that are very very similar to this one.

The people who know a lot about Internet security are by and large very smart technical geeks who spend all their time thinking and worrying about keeping bad folks from doing nasty things. We get really passionate about it - if we screw up people are harmed. In some areas of our profession like Critical Infrastructure (which I focused on 2005-2007), when we screw up, people die.

Tempers get very sharp about the specific things we should do, and how we can do them. The worst part? I never know whether what I believe to be the right thing to do is not horribly wrong, and may lead to horrible consequences. But since the alternative is doing nothing, I have to do the best I can and live with the results.

Damn Obama, At Any Price!

Chris Blask — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:45:10 EDT

Met a Proud PUMA on MyDD today. He makes a compelling argument for supporting John McCain and I just have to agree with him. There is no price too high to show those media pundits who's boss, to slap back at the horrible Democrats for betraying their base. No price too steep for the personal satisfaction of sitting back and smugly grinning as the Chickens Come Home To Roost.

With some help from the Jed Report, I stand firm with this handsome gentleman in striking back at the sexist media, at Obama for not battling FISA this week, at all those who conspired to thwart his wishes.

No price is too high to pay for justice.

The Changing Media - A Move Towards Public Media

Chris Blask — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:53:56 EDT

Politico - Five things to look for in Indiana By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 5/6/08 4:22 AM EST

Hey TomDavie!

The media is changing now, it will be interesting to see the state it is in for the next cycle in four years. This campaign marks the beginning of the public providing more content than the established "media". Conversations like this one, Dailykos.com, mydd.com... these are the beginnings of what the Obama campaign has shown to be possible given the current proliferation of computers in homes and semi-evolved mechanisms on the Internet to support the public generation of media.

Four years ago was a whole 'nother world in communications. CNN was it for most people. Now, a huge part of the population has actively engaged in the conversation, and a large part of that group has spent a significant amount of time at it. Four years from now, this will be old hat to millions of people and the structure will have evolved in likely unknowable ways to further the impact of public media.

The days of the monopoly on information are over.

From this point forward various pieces of TV media will go through fractal gyrations trying to find their niche. Meanwhile, pubicly-generated media consolidates into well-worn patterns fit for mass consumption and broadens to cover more and more information more and more deeply.

All good stuff for economics, freedom and effective democracy.

Fun times!

-cheers!

-chris blask

tomdavieParty: IndependentReply #4
Date: May. 6, 2008 - 5:19 AM EST

Here is something to save yourselves a lot of time.

Look for Clinton to win Indiana by 5 to 10

Look for Obama to win North Carolina by 5 to 10

Look for the vast majority of the media to tap dance the results to fit whatever they need to keep selling headlines.

I bet they are all on their knees tonight praying Clinton wins enough to stay in, but not enough to put the BELOVED meal ticket Obama in danger of losing the nomination.

That about sums it all up doesnt it ?

I have learned for more than a person WANTS to know about how the media works in this election cycle. The longer this cycle goes on, the more Obama and Clinton have to spend on TV ads. The more the ratings go up as they talk the nomination process in circles on and on ad infinutum ........ad nauseum. .

Its very sorry to watch Bill Oreilly sit on his show and SUCK UP thru the television BEGGING Obama to come on his stupid show. My God Bill. Apparently the spin DOESNT stop there.

All this is highly toxic to the american people. We need some kind of media reform in this country .

American Hunters and Shooters Association Endorses Obama

Chris Blask — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:15:15 EDT

HI folks!

Another example of Senator Obama's ability to unite America.

http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php

AHSA Endorses Obama Obama: He "gets it"

Today, as President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), I announced our endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Because the gun issue has recently become a factor in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, I want to share the remarks I made today:

As a gun rights organization we have not come to this decision lightly. We were formed two years ago because our research shows that millions of gun owners wanted a change. They not only wanted an organization that would protect their gun rights but an organization that was also committed to the protection of their communities as well as the protection of our lands. We reached out to the Obama campaign several weeks ago to offer our support and approval as was reported by Paul Bedard of US News and World Report. We believe recent attacks on Senator Obama's stand on the 2nd Amendment and his commitment to our hunting and shooting heritage are unfair and American Hunters and Shooters Association is stepping up to set the record straight.

Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated his commitment to the 2nd Amendment by his vote in support of the Vitter amendment to HR 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill of 2007. This amendment prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency. Imagine how the citizens felt during Hurricane Katrina when government agents kicked in doors to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns at a time when they needed them the most. We know Senator Obama "gets it." To say that he is an elitist is patently ridiculous. To hunters and shooters everywhere, Senator Obama's vote demonstrated a fundamental understanding of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment which means he recognizes the individual right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. Senator Clinton, on the hand, failed to grasp the importance of this critical issue to hunters and shooters and voted against this Amendment. She turned her back on America's gun owners. In addition, Senator Obama's commitment to conservation and protection of our natural resources and access to public lands demonstrates to us his commitment to America's hunting and shooting heritage. Senator Obama will be a strong and authentic voice for America's hunters and shooters and it is with great pleasure that we endorse his candidacy.

Ray Schoenke
Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Sanity Visits MyDD.com

Chris Blask — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:29:07 EDT

Hi folks!

Ah, we are not as divided as our politics suggest!

Some of us have taken it upon ourselves to bring a bit of sanity to MyDD.com. Below is an exchange that proves that there is Hope for all of us.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/16/224624/795#60

Re: Debate: ROLLING STONE article cited by Barack (0.75 / 4)

"We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SHIT!"

ARE you telling me that these are not the same comments that caused the uproar? (RACIST/ ANTI AMERICAN )

ARE YOU THAT BLIND in your following!

ARE you telling me a SENATOR who reads the very comments above is JUSTIFIED! to keep associating and GRANT A POSITION to the REV in his campaign for a presidential run.

YOU GOT BE KIDDING ME!!! LOL

by ATLJay on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:57:50 PM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This | none0- hide1- troll2- mojo ]

You don't understand. (2.00 / 2)

I think it would be really difficult to understand Rev. Wright's anger if you have never been the target of government approved or sponsored discrimination. Until you have been treated like 2/3 person, you really won't understand.

Rev. Wright is not racist and he is not anti-American, and there is a degree of truth to a lot of his controversial statements, even if they were out of line. Take a look at Obama's speech on race relations. Maybe you'll understand this a little bit better. If you don't want to do that, read the diary I wrote on it. Maybe you'll understand this a little bit better.

It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush.by psychodrew on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:12:02 AM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This | none0- hide1- troll2- mojo ]

[new] It's an honor to Mojo a Clinton supporter (none / 0)

...and this from an Obama supporter! ;~)

AltJay, FleaFlicker... these folks cannot be seriously Democratic (or Republican, for that matter) and it's hard to believe they even support basic American ideals.

This whole election cycle is, to me, an encouraging sign of the strength of this country. I've lived in Canada (off and on) half my life. Travelled a decent chunk of the rest of the world, and talked (some would say too much ;) to thousands of people from all walks and all geographies.

Free Speech, Individual Rights and Responsibilities - all of these would be pipe-dreams if people were as stupid and gullible as those like AJ would have us believe.

But we aren't.

For the first time in all of history, millions of people are directly involved in the debate about world leadership. For the first time ever in human history there is more information and opinion being put forth by individuals than by Powers (Monarchies, industrial powers, dictators...) - and It Is Good.

People aren't stupid.

I have had the chance to try to figure out why people support those I oppose, and even some of those foaming at the mouth in honest opposition (I reserve a tiny sliver of possibility that even AJ is one...) often climb down to have informative discussions quite frequently.

I've directly debated with white supremacists and their opposites, Earth Firsters and Pave the Earthers, communists and libertarians. It's amazing what happens when people actually speak to each other - moderation and understanding materialize (and ideological trolls are exposed for what they are).

Thanks, psychodrew! I may hope your candidate loses, but I hope you win. :~)

-cheers!

-chris

"A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships are for. Sail out to sea and do new things." Admiral Grace Hopper, computer pioneer

The R Word

Chris Blask — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:10:35 EDT

The word "racist" has been used a lot of late. Often by others, sometimes by those of us.

I would just like to say a few words about that - and other - nouns.

In German there is no word for "Heroin Addict" - the best it can be translated is "Heroin Seeky".

I like this way of looking at people. Someone is not an Object/Noun ("Addict", "Racist", ...), they are a Person with an Adjective modifying them ("tending to seek a drug", "having a behavior").

The whole disturbing trend of using the "r-word" is not much better than the other-consonant-word. When you do that you objectify the person - you turn them into a noun that identifies them as something other than a person.

I remember a good Canadian friend telling me, when I was in my 20s and had just moved down to South Carolina from Toronto, that she was a "bigot bigot" (iow - "intolerant of intolerants"). I had a desire to agree with her - so I did, out loud - but I was beginning to learn that the "bigots" that I had expected to meet in SC were usually people who I got to know and like before I discovered their "bigotry". Even then I was having a hard time reconciling my view of these nouns called "bigots" and the people I was getting to know and appreciate in their complexities.

Words matter.

"person" is the noun. Other words describing a person need to be adjectives. People can often choose to change their adjectives.

-chris

Rev. Karl Lutze, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy and the Legacy we Carry for All of Them

Chris Blask — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:44:05 EDT

Hi folks,

My Step Father is here today, he was in Selma and much more before that. Rev. Karl Lutze began his civil rights work in 1945, organized many of the voter registration efforts in the south and did so many more things I can't list them. He still does.

Karl still lives across the street from Valpraiso University, still writes, still speaks and is still a part of all that legacy. It's always strange for me, because he is just Karl - the wonderful man who makes my mom and my children happy. But when we talk about all of this it is hard to imagine and hard to forget that he has bridged the gap between where we were and where we are.

When Karl Lutze arrived in Oklahoma in 1945, he stepped into another world. A newly ordained clergyman born in Wisconsin, he was a young white man assigned to minister among Muskogee’s African American community. He soon found that in the South, crosses were as likely to be burned as revered. His recollections of postwar Oklahoma provide a compelling testament to the era’s racial conflict and some steps taken toward its resolution.
Awakening to Equality offers a unique perspective on an often-violent era that witnessed the gradual dismantling of segregation. Serving congregations in Muskogee and Tulsa, Lutze encountered a cross section of both communities—from the white and black power brokers to the most disempowered black and biracial families—and a stratified society buttressed by intimidation, cross burnings, and bombs. His activism in the Urban League and other local civil rights organizations gave him firsthand experience with forces moving toward change, as well as with the more entrenched forces resisting it.
Blending personal anecdotes and recollections of key players in this unfolding drama, Lutze puts a human face on historical and journalistic accounts of social change during the crucial early years of the civil rights movement. He takes readers back to small-town and urban Oklahoma in a time when African Americans were beginning to challenge segregation in Muskogee’s public transportation and a handful of liberal whites were trying to move their communities toward desegregation. Throughout this rich memoir, we meet actual people creating a future—one that involved the very redefinition of America.
More than a view of an earnest young clergyman trying to grow beyond the racial and social limitations of the church of his day, Awakening to Equality also depicts the struggles of Lutze’s own denomination to overcome its earlier accommodation of racism. Lutze’s success in his ministries made his achievements a model for mission work among African Americans and led to his appointment in 1959 first as field secretary and then shortly thereafter as executive director of the Lutheran Human Relations Association, a pioneering civil rights organization. Simultaneously, he taught classes as Associate Professor of Theology at Valparaiso University.
Lutze not only witnessed important events but also participated in them and found that his entire career was shaped by the experience. Awakening to Equality is a moving story that captures the real-life education of a prominent clergyman during a critical period in American life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCg05pTYt0A Bobby Kennedy, April 4, 1968

Seeing that video sitting here in Key West, Karl sleeping upstairs, all the current foolishness being said in today's media, the amazing speech Senator Obama gave that I watched again with my brother last night... It's hard to comprehend the magnitude of where we have come from, hard sometimes to reconcile where we are, and impossible to allow us to not go to where this all leads.

Recently I do and say a lot of things because I want us to get there, and part of it is helping Barack Obama become president. Not because I care that he's black but because I don't care and I'd rather no-one else would, either. I don't want my children to even think about such things. He's an immensely qualified man and the fact that it is even mentioned shows that the ice hasn't melted entirely. Not just yet.

So if the price we pay today is a scrimish of words to chuff the last of the ice off the windshield it's so very worth it, and it's nothing at all to do.

It's nothing compared to the price Bobby paid, or his brother. Nothing compared to what Dr. King paid.

Sleep well, Karl. I've got the torch.

-chris

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/4/14316/24086/227/489961

Truth and Troops - Cheryl's Iraq Experience: She is Ready on Day One!

Chris Blask — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:45:22 EDT

Hi folks!

Cheryl wrote in a note recently: "If Senator Clinton wants scary, I'll be glad to send her my journal page for when we came under RPG attack in the wilds of Iraq..."

Cheryl, get me in a situation like that and I promise to immediately have a Bladder Failure Moment.

As partial atonement for living my trite civvie ways let me risk saying this too often:

Thank You Very Very Much.

I have been threatened with a gun once - once - and while I didn't immediately gibber I will never forget (and this was twenty years ago) the cold-water feeling of knowing that my life could end in the next instant. Scared the living bejeez out of me, as I think it would Sen. Clinton. She, also, would to this day be able to recall the details vividly at the drop of a hat.

There is some talk of "primary fatigue" and "let's go positive", and I understand. In fact, what we say and do *is* positive, inlcuding this. This battle against those who are (as of yesterday, unapologetically) using Race and Religion as their weapons is the kind of battle that is unethical not to fight.

Senator Clinton has specifically attempted to place herself among Cheryl and her comrades and claim their valor. Thereby diminishing the valor of Cheryl, specifically, and millions of others who have gone into harms way and in many cases not come back.

Truth and Troops versus Race and Religion.

The Opposition is flying into a spinning rage of filth-flinging because they know that if the air clears long enough for people to pay attention to this story they are doomed. Not only do I encourage you all to keep pushing this story (and all it's components), but every time I read the poignant bits like Cheryl's comments I am inclined to respond with absolutely nothing else, regardless what the initial attack is.

In fact, this is exactly what the Clinton machine does.

"What color does Mrs. Clinton like?"

"Rev. Wright is such a racist that the Honorable Senator Clinton can't think about her favorite colors anymore."

Follow your own inclinations on details, but I strongly suggest that if we can push the Truth and Troops story above all else, this contest may well be over on April 22.

-chris

> From: Cheryl

> If Senator Clinton wants scary, I'll be glad to send her my journal page for when we came under RPG attack in the wilds of Iraq (not the Green Zone or anywhere like that, not even a city, just vast, open desert in all directions) in a 3-vehicle convoy, and not the up-armored stuff they're trying to deploy there now. This was back in 2003, at the beginning. Senator Clinton, if you were scared in Tuzla, you'd have been a blithering mass of hysteria like our translator was that day....

> Or maybe the time I was taking my nightly (when I could get the time off) walk around our base perimeter, and mortars started coming in. Should I go straight back to HQ? No, f*** 'em -- if I run, they win. When I finally got back, my team sergeant said, "Where WERE you? We had incoming!" "Oh, sorry," I said. "I was out walking, with my earphones on, and didn't hear it." "Well, next time we get incoming, I want you to come back here!" "Will do, Sergeant -- but just to let you know, the minute I begin, I'm already on the way back." In other words, he never said to take the most DIRECT route back!

> How about standing near the gate of our compound, talking to an Iraqi whose mission that day seemed to be to waste my time with trivialities? I was trying to tell him I only wanted information about the bad guys, when suddenly a mortar fell not very far from where we were standing. Without skipping a beat, I pointed in that direction and yelled at him, "THAT! That's what I want to hear about! If you have any information about who's doing that, come talk to me!"

Truth and Troops - General Stewart on Bosnia and "The Lie Heard Round The World"

Chris Blask — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:26:57 EDT

Hi folks!

John Morgan at the Pennsylvannia Progressive did a followup interview with General Stewart in regards to the Stolen Valor letter that Mr.Morgan published and General Stewart commented on. This is yet another note in the battle between the Obama camp's message of "Truth and Troops" and compares dramatically with the Clinton Camp's self-professed message of "Race and Religion.

-cheers!

-chris

http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/it-was-the-lie.html

"It was the lie heard 'round the world."

I sat down with retired Major General Walter L. Stewart Jr. this afternoon to chat about national security matters, his involvement with the Obama campaign and the Tammi Hetherington letter which stirred international interest about Hillary Clinton Bosnia Blunder. I published Tammi's letter last week and prefaced it with comments Gen. Stewart had made about the issue of "valor theft." We discussed that and more today but his most worthy comment was about his Goggle search following the publication of that article.

I'll provide a bit more of the back story of the article for reference. Last week I was approached by a friend of Tammi's about publishing her letter about Sen. Clinton's claim to have been under sniper fire when she visited Bosnia in 1996. Of course we all now know it didn't happen but last week this remained a controversy. After reading Tammi's letter I immediately sensed it s importance within the public dialog taking place about the remarks the former First Lady made on St. Patrick's day. I also put it context with statements made that very morning by Major General Stewart. I put them together in an article which had significant impact. So much impact, in fact, that the General found references and links to it all over the world.

I'll attest to that from looking at my site traffic. This article had the third biggest impact of anything that's ever been on this blog. Hits came, literally, from everywhere. It was, in his terms, "the lie heard 'round the world."

It was a lie heard 'round the world because a young lady came forward with the courage to speak truth to power. A former Army Specialist dared speak out against Hillary Rodham Clinton, candidate for President and former First Lady. It was a brave act. Tammi has probably taken more hits from this than any danger she faced in Bosnia.

My primary reason for interviewing Gen. Stewart however was to find out why he, a former military man and Republican, switched Parties to support Barack Obama. He said something I've heard very often from former Republicans: "I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me." Describing himself as an old fashioned sort of conservative, he believes in a strong military but also in using our power properly, morally and in accordance with our nations' principles.

That's why he became a Democrat I suppose. Barack Obama strikes this history student of a General as Jeffersonian while his former GOP leaders impress him as Hamiltonians. You need to be a history buff to comprehend that, but, basically, he see Barack Obama as someone who understands what he doesn't know and smart enough to surround himself with smart people who do. That's always a crucial attribute in a president and something we've lacked under our current Chief Executive.

Stewart believes "the beacon of hope has been turned off in this country." Hillary Clinton contributed to this when she voted for the AUMF and ceded Congress' constitutional powers of war and peace to the president. He believes Barack Obama is rekindling that beacon of hope in us all.

As a career military man and student of history the Major General discussed the importance of civilian control of the military and that the king, monarch or other executive not have power over the sword: the ability, on their own, to make war or peace. It must be a deliberative process with open debate for an open, democratic society to decide to go to war, to send our young people into harm's way. These are themes we've been addressing here for some time.

We also discussed the issue of torture. I asked the General why so many Americans have become so enamored of torture and the inhumane treatment of other people. He's mystified that America so readily and easily abandoned our moral high ground too. He had a great quote about our use of torture: "there are more souls at stake in torture than tortured souls." How true, how very true.

Lexington and Concord was "the shot heard 'round the world" and, as the General pointed out, Tammi's letter made Sen. Clinton's Bosnia statements "the lie heard 'round the world." I was honored to publish her letter and to meet Gen. Stewart.

An Opportunity to Reflect on Our Weaknesses - Senator Clinton's Theft of Valor

Chris Blask — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:35:12 EDT

Poted on DKOS - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/29/84251/2727

Hi folks!

This issue of Stolen Valor has been much on my mind of late. The Bosnian Sniper incident has fueled my thoughts because it is so charicaturishly over-the-top even for those with the mentality of moral superiority that is the real point of this diary. My distaste of the entire attitude is at the core of what drove me from the Democratic party and the Left, prior to Barack Obama dragging me kicking and screaming back into this fray.

Hillary Clinton's theft of the valor of all soldiers of every country who served in Bosnia is the definitive end of her run for the office of President. But if the Democratic party, the United States and moreover the Western World as a whole are to move past the era of condescending superiority that has driven people like me to distance ourselves from them, we need to spend some time analyzing what it is that we have done so wrong with the good intentions we began with.

I will start by examining Senator Clinton's recent negation of what may well have been honorable acts on her part in Bosnia, but my point is beyond that so please read to the end and comment as you see fit.

Senator Hillary Clinton's Theft of Valor
----------------------------------------

The offensive, cavalier assumption of the credit that those who have been under fire in the protection of liberty that Senator Clinton displayed in escalating recounts of her harrowing trip into war-torn Bosnia is perhaps the greatest gift she gives us during her now defunct Presidential candidacy. If we only learn the lesson of humility and respect for the abilities and work of our fellows that this incident so starkly demonstrates, we will have taken a huge step in the direction of healing the Democratic party. If the Democratic party is capable of climbing down from it's lofty perch of moral superiority and retaking the ethical foundations of equality and respect for individual freedom, perhaps it can set a tone for the Liberal Governemnts of countries like Canada and much of Europe where the left has also become the dictatorial power it was created to prevent.

In Senator Clinton's speeches on the topic of Experience she has not only inflated her own credentials but much worse she has denigrated and demoralized the rightful, quiet pride of those she has usurped.

Soldiers rarely talk about their service and when they do it has been my experience that it is prefaced with an almost agonizing exercise in spreading credit and minimizing the risk they faced. When Tammi Hetherington wrote her letter to the *Pennsylvania Progressive* this week in response to Senator Clinton, she did both of these things:

http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/bosnian-vet-acc.html

It was my fortune to be working in the Headquarter building as a Communications Specialist, and while I did go out to the ZOS (Zone of Separation) once and lived under "Full battle rattle" rules, I would never in any way compare my experience with those who daily risked their lives. That was the M.P.'s who went on daily missions trying to round up weapons and militant individuals who opposed the Peace Accord and the contract workers who aided the Multi-National forces in trying to rebuild the infrastructure (bridges, communication, water) that had been blown up. If, as I believe, it is improper for me to compare my involvement with those who took the bulk of the real risks it is even more improper for any visiting dignitary to compare their own for any reason, let alone for personal gain.

...

My father still works as a Civil Servant at WOMAK on Ft. Bragg, NC and a couple of years ago he met a Bosnian woman and her daughter, who had lived through the worst of it. They got to talking and found out that I had been over there and told him to tell me 'thank you' for what we had done. It still humbles me and chokes me up a little to know that even after all of these years there is appreciation for our past efforts.

I was simply a soldier doing my job in Bosnia and I believe in what we accomplished there. I do not either want to make of my service more than it was nor to denigrate those who served with me and those who lived through more than any of us.

Major General (Retired) Walter L. Stewart, Jr., in response to Tammi's letter, validates Tammi's honorable approach and then he himself goes to what may seem like extreme lengths - to a jaded civilian - to clarify his own credentials and assign credit where it is due:

I commend Tammi for her service to the nation – service that continues in her courageous willingness to speak truth to power. I commanded thousands of fine soldiers during my almost four decades of active and reserve service, and I would have been honored to have had Tammi among them.

Before I go on, I want to correct misreporting about my service as a Guardsman and as an Army major general in Europe. I was never “leader” or “commander” of the Pennsylvania National Guard because that authority belongs to the Adjutant General. I did hold the same military rank as an adjutant general – major general – but did so as commander, 28th Infantry Division, and as the deputy commander of the State Area Readiness Command (figure that one out). In Europe, my service was at Headquarters, United States European Command (HQUSEUCOM), not at the Army command (USAREUR). EUCOM is the superior headquarters and USAREUR reported to us.

I know this minutia seems irrelevant, but in the military accurate representation of titles and performance are at the core of ethics.

This from a man who has every right - from the perspective of a person liky myself who has seen bullets fired only on television - to silence a room with any one of his personal stories.

General Stewart goes on to explain better than I the level to which Senator Clinton has sunk in the view those who adhere to the standards of military honor:

This is why fabrication of service or battle credentials – what we call “valor theft” - is so offensive to service members and veterans (or should be). Be you soldier or civilian, if you didn’t “earn it” in service to your country, for shame that you might be wearing it or talking about it - and it is equally shameful for those who have served with honor to defend the dishonor of others.

Valor theft degrades every service member and veteran, and, as a point of honor, I call on the former admirals, generals, and service veterans who are publicly in support of Senator Clinton to renounce that support. Continue it, and her dishonor is your dishonor.

It is this specific act of Valor Theft that has allowed me to connect all of the resentment I have felt for the Party and the President I once supported.

In a discussion of the roots of the Tech Boom of the Nineties I wrote this - http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/chrisblask/gGBZtc - recently while trying to express my frustration with the public belief that somehow the Clinton Administration had been responsible for creating that period of economic growth. That administration deserves te credit for not screwing up the work done by tens of thousands of my comrades in business, but to give them credit for creating it is to perform Theft of Pride on all of those who, in fact, did.

Beyond Theft of Valor - Theft of Pride
--------------------------------------

This diary is not simply an exercise in pillorying Senator Clinton for her act of dishonor. There is a broader issue at hand that is even more pervasive and which directly impacts all of us in this party, this country and this world. Condescending attitudes have grown from the seeds of righteous indignation sown during various stages in the evolution of the Democratic party and they offer the same type of threat to our culture as theft of valor does to the necessary mutual respect in the military culture. Theft of Pride robs us and our fellow citizens of the honor of our intentions - and those who are not members of our Party or supporters of our Candidate *are* our fellow citizens, notwithstanding.

This oft-repeated attitude of exclusive ownership of the Moral Highground has become - in my view - perhaps the most defining characteristic of the Modern Left. It is an attitude that says: "either you agree with my views or you deserve my condmenation as a lower form of human life". This begs us to believe that the world is full of selfish, hateful, ignorant individuals and is only saved from perdition by the few intellectually and ethically pure who can rise above our normal state of squalor.

It has been my own path from a youthful perspective that can only be characterized as emodying the previous paragraph to where I am today that makes me so clearly aware how wrong I was when I believed those things. How horribly misdirected this approach is to actually achieving the stated ends of making the world a better place than it is. I have been fortunate to have moved from area to area within the United States and Canada growing up, to travel internationally a fair bit as an adult, and to have had conversations and relationships with an extremely diverse cross-section of humanity along the way.

With decreasing frequency I have gone into situations or demographics where I expected to find the morally inferior rabble that I had allowed myself to believe existed outside my own charmed circle. I expected to find racists in South Carolina as a young adult, and what I found were caring individuals and a rich culture. My expectations of exposing the underbelly of Conservative pomposity in Canadian politics while doing television shows there was muted by a largely unrelenting litany of thoughtfully voiced objectives and open discussions. The tyranny of Corporate Greed was at my fingertips to ferret out as I rose in my career, and what I found at the top of the largest businesses on earth were in most cases people with children and grandchildren who were as interested in saving the poor and the planet as I was (and often as not more effective).

When we march off with banners flapping to Topple the Evil Powers we are in most cases meerly attempting to rob them of the Pride they rightfully own for their own attempts to achieve the same goals we profess. When we sneer at the masses and accuse them of failing to live up to the morals we believe only we are capable of embodying we, in fact, expose our own lack of belief in the value of our species and our fellow man.

This is as much a part of the sentiment that Barack Obama has tapped into, I believe, as any single statement he has made or policy he has put forth. It is a message that we are all ready to recognize, now, since we have seen in our own lives that the policies of exclusion do not work any better for the Left than they do for the Right.

This - the message that our opponents in philosophy are not less than us - is the fundamental bass-note of the current human composition that we hear in Senator Obama's speeches.

It stirs us because we know deep down that it is more inherently correct than any single belief that we more often put to voice.

It is this message that we have to live up to if we are to execute on the vision of Hope that Senator Obama has offered us.

-cheers!

-chris blask

chris@blask.org

Denouncement and Renouncement Pronouncement

Chris Blask — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:30:17 EDT

I denounce and renouce your pouncing on denouncing and renouncing!

There remains a chounce to bounce the renoucish denounconomy, but I would rather Flick Fleas while my flea flicker flicks than risk being late to the Party and therefore dejected and rejected.

Sorry if my renouncy denouncy is a bit flouncy and bouncy, but I heard tolerance was the Word in the Party so if I face denunciation and renunciation the situation won't stretch my imagination of the combinations of invitation and aggravation, really.

~sigh~

I'm sure there is somewhere that people care for fair play and, anyway, what I say is that no matter the shape of your heart or part you take, you're all OK with me.

I think that is what this Party was meant to be.

-------------------------

Posted here

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/22/24640/9925#52

in reference to the sordid pit that is so often MyDD, specifically, here

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/27/19376/2624#76

-chris

ACTION: Bosnian Vet Accuses Hillary of Valor Theft

Chris Blask — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:53:52 EDT

Hi folks!

This was published on the Pennsylvania Progressive today. This is a story that the Main Stream Media should be reporting. Send this to all local and national media outlets.

-cheers!

-chris

"A veteran of Bosnia who was at the event in Tuzla where Hillary Clinton falsely claimed to have landed under sniper fire is accusing the Senator of theft of valor. As General Walter L. Stewart Jr. of the Pennsylvania National Guard said earlier today on a conference call, soldiers who actually have been in war zones and performed under fire deeply despise those who falsely claim such valor. They feel this way because it attempts to cheapen or make less, their real and actual valor."

Read the whole story here:

http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/bosnian-vet-acc.html

Comments on Houston ABC Blog - Tom Abrahams "A Union So Conceived..."

Chris Blask — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:42:00 EDT

http://thevote.abc13.com/2008/03/obama-speech-up.html?cid=107503458#comment-107503458

Hello, Tom,

Very good commentary.

It is interesting, because I have been working to put this speech into full context since watching it live, and there are two addresses in American history that come to mind:

"I have a Dream" and "The Gettysburg Address"

It is also interesting to note that during Lincoln's life and Dr. King's there were many many vocal critics. Enough so that they were both in the end killed by the most adamant of their hate-filled opposition. But history concludes without doubt that they, and not their nay-sayers, were the Great Men. Their adversaries ring down through time only as the greatest villains in our collective memory.

You can find words of opposition to both of those men, and they sound not dissimilar to the words of some of those who comment here, and in many other places. Some of these are only supporters of others who wish their own horse to win a gambling wager they are partaking in - some of them are serious in their unrighteous indignation.

In either case they will fall on the side of history that, for most of them, they themselves despise.

That is the true shame of hatred and fear. These people blindly shouting in the face of a great man attempting great things are not themselves incapable of recognizing and admiring greatness, they are simply afraid to do so without the support of their peers. They are not intrinsically evil people, but they are capable of displaying behavior that those who come after them will later pore over in search for the reasons behind their flight from opportunity and prosperity.

There is a town on the Mississippi that is divided by the river. On one side has always been the jobs, the opportunity, the schools and the stores. On the other side there had always been a poor black community. During the 1960s the sherrif of the town had cancelled the ferry that brought the people from the poor community over to the schools, stores and jobs. He was filmed behaving as the classic white racist of his time and place, angry and hateful and using words that today would cause withdrawls by civilized people everywhere. In the documentary I watched on this town, they interviewed this same former sherrif, then elderly and having spent decades working to undo the sins he had committed against the people of the poor black community. To listen to him explain and condemn the deeds of his younger self - a man of advanced years unable to control his tears and his voice but also unable to live with the clarity that time and perspective had given him on his own acts - is something that stays with me and I think about quite often.

I hope that I do not have to address that level of pain late in my life because of things I did in the heat of anger. Words that I used at a time when I allowed myself to lash out unjustifiably and injure others. Deeds that left scars on innocent people no worse than me.

I am inclined to lash out at those who would attack Senator Obama even now, on the eve of an address on the topic of unity that is likely to be seen by our descendants as one of the great moments in American history. But I cannot help but remember the elderly sherrif and his tears.

It is my profound hope that none of the people today mocking a great man duing a great time in our lives will have to suffer the same pain when they review their own lives.

It is my profound hope that this country will take up Senator Obama on his promise of improvement as we did with President Lincoln and Dr. King.

It is my heartfelt belief that we are capable of doing so.

-regards

-chris blask

chris@blask.org

----------------------

Also posted here, with the following preface

http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/race-in-america.html?cid=107504752#comment-107504752

Hello John,

Good words.

And Tom, thank you for that link to your site. You were the first person to say what I had been thinking but afraid to put into words myself. After following the activity of Senator Obama for more than five years with a critical eye I will take the opportunity to say for the first time, out loud: I am comparing him to Lincoln, and to King.

These men, as they wrote to tell those of us who came later, did not see themselves as Great Men but merely as men who did what they could, where they felt they had to. But to speak for certain types of justice at certain times seems a simpler thing than it is, and history tells us that for these two men were indeed Great in every sense of the word.

I do not have the benefit of hindsight to know whether my comparisons will withstand the long-haul view of history, but I have been feeling this long enough and it is time to say it. If Senator Obama can take the stand in full view of the world to say the things he is saying, then the least I can do is to take my own small stand and say what I believe, as well.

I wrote the following on your blog at ABC 13 Houston, but since John's blog led me there I will put it here as well. I note the lack of the negativity, for now, on this page in contrast to the voices of some of those commenting on yours and so many others elsewhere, so some of the context may be lost until they arrive to share their views. But I think it stands regardless in the context of the current debate, and I offer it to you below.

-best to both of you

-chris

Comments on The Hill's Pundit Blog - John Feehery

Chris Blask — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:52:09 EDT

http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/03/18/black-white-religion-and-politics/#comment-237006

................................

Hi John,

I understand, you don’t want Obama to win. That’s OK. You *can* vote for someone other than Obama and still reject cynicism, racism, hopelessness.

That’s your right.

But just to clarify for you, since you may have been multi-tasking when you were watching the speech with the rest of us:

o Sen. Obama specifically did not say *anything* to call on “white guilt” - in fact he said the opposite.

o Sen. Obama specifically did not say he was the only answer to to American Unity - he said that you and I are.

Given a different set of candidates I wouldn’t be voting Democratic, either. I usually don’t - and if Sen. Clinton is the Dem. Candidate I still won’t. For all the standard conservative reasons that you state.

But short of the self destruction that Sen. Clinton and Rush Limbaugh are teaming up to create, this is the period for a Democrat president. You recall that two-party (or more) thing that the Founding Fathers put in place to help mitigate the kind of genetic Monarchies that had been the norm for all of human history? Turns out it works pretty well.

So, while I agree with you on basic fiscal and military conservative issues, I also believe in the Founding Fathers. This country was neither destroyed nor glorified by the last Democratic president. This country was neither destroyed nor glorified by the last Republican president.

We are responsible for that, either way.

So, while you are (thankfully) free to dissect the most powerful speech in living memory, it does not make a difference. Obama will be the next president, and he won’t destroy this country, either.

-regards

-chris blask

chris@blask.org

ACTION: Write on the DNC Blogs - Set The MyBO Tone and let Superdelegates See It

Chris Blask — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:21:34 EDT

Hi folks!

OK, I was wrong.

I have not washed my hands of the DNC blogs.

In fact, I see an opportunity for us to demostrate precisely what the difference is between the two candidates - with the primary audience being the superdelegates, party leaders and party faithful.

As I wrote in my last post, I went there by chance and ended up writing and recoiling in horror (or maybe in the other order, but regardless). This site is a concentration of all the Pro Clinton rabid bloggers we find on newspaper and other websites. There is more inflammatory fractricide being perpetrated on the Democratic Party's own national website than there is anywhere else I've seen.

My first reaction was to have my say and run like hell. The closest I can compare my feelings was when a friend in business passed away recently and I went into a public forum recently to post my thoughts and found lurkers dancing on his grave and, in response to my comments, insulting my wife. In that case I did choose to retreat from the conversation, nothing to be gained from dancing with fools.

But this is different.

Here we have a party that is being torn to pieces by the current battle. The National Chairman and Speaker of the House as well as all the Superdelegates who will - like it or not - decide this race are literally squirming in their seats regarding the flaming divisiveness and what it means for the future of their party.

We have the chance to show them a future where they win - by fixing their own house.

I would like to invite all of you to register on democrats.org. To create and engage in the threads taking place on the site, and in doing so raise the tone of the debate there and the value of the site *demonstrably* in the explicit name of Barack Obama. By debating as he would.

Camly. Clearly. Forgivingly. Understandingly. Strongly.

This site has nothing like the population of MyBO. When I posted my first comment on MyBO I was ranked somewhere near 30,000 - on democrats.org I was around 6,000. After two posts I was befriended by the person ranked 43rd on the site. We can "friend up" on the site as in MyBo and create common content.

There is no competition for rational discussion on this site. With a decent movement of those of us here who can speak clearly and sanely we can *own* this site, and in doing so we can not only save the Democratic *website* from self-immolation we can prove that the organization and message of Barack Obama can save the *party*.

And it will be more visible to superdelegates and party leaders than all of the comments we can write on news sites combined. In fact, we can and will ensure that is so.

I have created a Google Group called "mybo-dnc" to organize this effort and control trolls (it will be simple to identify trolls and have them removed from the DNC site if they try to make trouble that way). Please go to the link below and add yourself to that group (myself or another Manager will have to approve you). This group is setup in a Digest Mode by default (one email a day), but if you choose you can set it to get every email and handle it as a Rapid Responder and direct others to threads that need intervention.

http://groups.google.com/group/mybo-dnc/

I cannot be clear enough - this is *not* the place for flame wars - our job is to stop them wherever possible and as inclusively as possible.

-cheers!

-chris

THIS is what the Clinton Campaign Has Brought the Democratic Party to - The DNC Website Blogs (or "Dante's Descent into the Seven Circles of Hell")

Chris Blask — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:45:26 EDT

Hi folks!

We can call this one the Fall of the Roman Empire I guess. A quick trip into the blogs of the Democratic National Committee quickly becomes Dante's Descent into the Seven Circles of Hell.

I got in, posted the comments below (linked) and got out. Either Barack wins this election or the Democratic party seems bound for perdition.

-cheers!

-chris

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/aheimermann/CJXL#comment-gGgxTZ

----------------------------------------

Comment Title: The Democratic Deconstruction

Folks,

Good thing Sen. Clinton's movement has done so much to bring the Democratic party together.

Listen to yourselves! "Democrat in Bensalem, PA", "Ihaveavoice"!

So, you think bile is the answer to solving the country's problems? Slander is the "new wave" in progressive thinking?

You are embarassing this party in front of the entire world, and, when Chairman Dean gets my letter directing him to this page on the Democratic National Committee official site you will be embarassing yourselves in front of him.

It's attitudes like this that made me register as Independent years ago. Obama has me back on the Democrat side of the table, but I can't say that I am impressed with what is going on. If it weren't for the impressive calm and intelligence of Obama I'd be voting McCain - he's much more the moderate than the other Democrat on the table, and the Republicans seem about due to devolve back from their Religious Right mania, so it's better than listening to this chorus of righteous scalded cats.

I can tell you from volunteering on the Obama campaign - there is *nothing* like the unrestrained public screeching I see here and so many other places Sen. Clinton's supporters voice their opinions. Keith Olberman *beseeched* Clinton as a *personal* *friend* to call off the ravenous dogs passing as advisors, and here you folks are perpetuating the stereotype of hyper-critical Rush Limbaugh dittohead clones.

Chairman Dean, if you are listening, look at this page. Is this *really* the type of party you want to leave as the legacy to your career in public service?

If Sen. Clinton wins this race due to the public degradation of her opponent and this party - I and millions of others are out of here.

If Sen. *Obama* wins this race due to adopting the policy of character assasination that has become the Gold Standard of Democratic campaigning - I and millions of others are out of here.

Seeing Sen. McCain become president when there is such an apparently rhetoric-changing candidate at hand would be disappointing, but acceptable.

Seeing Sen. Clinton become president at the cost of lowering the public debate to the level expressed by the very first poster here - attacking a 14-year-old Young Man who has put his heart and soul into Democratic politics and is a Leader in organizing the National Student Movement that has *enormously* swelled the ranks of your party...

That would be completely unacceptable on a Democratic level, on an American level and from the perspective of the entire history of the Western World.

Chairman Dean, you and the party leaders have some choices to make. I know you are aware of this, but look at this link included in this letter and ask yourself: "Is this what I spent my life working for?"

The rest of you, look deep inside yourselves and ask what you are doing this for. I cannot imagine the answer would be something you would be proud to tell your mothers.

-regards

-chris blask

chris@blask.org

----------------------------------------------------------

PS - it just goes on

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/jessejackson/CJXr

and on... After posting my comment I paged through the DNC Blog and finally, in disgust of finding a rational thread to comment on, posted my final thoughts to democrats.org at the lnk below and hereby wash my hands of the whole sordid mess.

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/marysullivan/CpsL

Senator Obama - please, for the love of god - win this candidacy, win in November and let's change the tone of this party and this country forever.

My thoughts on the Church and State debate (Wright/Hagee/ad nauseum)

Chris Blask — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:45:57 EDT

Hi folks!

Posted the following on

http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/the-jeremiah-a.html?cid=107110444#comment-107110444

I've waited to put my thoughts together on how to respond
to this rathole of an issue. It has been suggested
(rightly) that we need to stop taking bait and move the
discussion to our candidate's strengths.

Let me know whether you think I've found the right chord,
but it feels correct.

-cheers!

-chris

===================================

Hi folks!

I think it showed a great deal of moral character to stand up against the statements of a family friend but refuse to throw him under the bus. As has been mentioned here and in the televised news, Rev. Wright is not alone in making wild statements from the pulpit, and virtually all (if not perhaps, even in fact: all) Presidents and candidates would have to be atheists to avoid associating somehow with them.

It is simple to point to folks like Hagee and Parsley who were sought out specifically so a candidate can state that they "share their views" to gain voters, Falwell (let's not even go there) or even the respected Billy Graham who uttered gross prejudices in the Oval Office itself.

But that's not the point.

I just look forward to a president who does not impose their religious views on the rest of us and can maintain a rational separation of Church and State (Bush: "the Holy Land" - really? whose Holy Land? "Americans appreciate Muslims" - huh? Americans *are* Muslims [Christians/Jews/atheists/...] you blank blank blank!).

Obama strikes me as a Christian guy who neither ditto-heads his Church nor asks the rest of us to Worship him for going to one or the other.

Good.

In all religious teachings that make sense to me, God is telling us: "You are my church. No other can tell you what it means to follow me, that is My job and your responsibility".

It will be a nice change to have a President who listens to his creator and lets us do the same.

-cheers!

-chris

Comment - Chicago Tribune Exonerates Obama re Rezko

Chris Blask — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:26:26 EDT

Hi folks!

This is a coment I posted on the Pennsylvania Progressive site. As alway, please feel free to use my words.

-cheers!

-chris

----------------------

http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/the-jeremiah-a.html?cid=107125512#comment-107125512

Hi Ann,

One additional comment that I think speaks to all of the Conspiracy Theories about Senator Obama, on the topic most often cited as proof, as you yourself do: Rezko.

The Chicago Tribune - the publication that broke the story to begin with - just published a report about Obama and Rezko, you can find the article here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story

And audio of the entire interview with Sen. Obama here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-080314-obama-full-mp3,0,2362847.mp3file

Excepts:

"The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did."
...
"We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama's bumper."
...
"Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged."

I have no idea what Sen. Clinton's own ties to Rezko imply - perhaps the same "nothing" that the Tribune concludes after deep investigation of Sen. Obama - but it would be interesting if she would discuss it (or, for that matter, anything) with the same level of candor as we are getting used to seeing from the Senator from Illinois.

-cheers!

-chris

Geraldine Ferraro on Superdelegates - and the Rush Factor

Chris Blask — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:18:21 EDT

Hi folks!

I am still trying to decide what Ms. Ferraro is saying about Superdelegates. Let's see what I can make of this, the (paranthetical) comments are mine:

Geraldine Ferraro, in an article in the New York Times on Feb 25, 2008, explained the reason for the superdelegate process that she helped create.

.................

By. Geraldine Ferraro New York Times, Feb 25, 2008

It gets a little bit long, so let me see if I can parse out the pertinent points:

o Ms. Ferraro: "That decision, (who to nominate in a close race) they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted."

OK, I can follow that. I suppose "they" is me and everyone else who went to the polls and voted.

Go on, I'm on the edge of my seat.

o "But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow."

....? Like, "follow the will of the voters?"

o "..the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of (the) rank-and-file"

Er. OK, let me try to get with you here.

You are saying that maybe not all Democrat voters would come out to the primaries and caucuses? And *that* would invalidate the vote?

Uh, well, have you seen the percentage of voters who turn out in the past general elections? Does that mean, since the majority of potential voters did not vote in the past general elections, that the will of the "rank-and-file" of the American population was not represented in the general elections? Should we then, um, have a set of Super-Duper-Delegates who can decide whether the "rank and file" of the American public are right or wrong in November?

There has to be more to this, let's see what comes next.

o "More important, "

Oh, good! Glad we're onto the More Important issues than voters repesentation and such!

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt. I mean, not to say you are volatile and likely to lash out or anything, just didn't mean to ... er... Sorry, go on. please?

o "although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses."

AHA!! You *were* right! That was the *much* more important point!!

What you *mean* to say - correct me if I'm missing something here - but what you *mean* to say - what the "superdelegate system is setup to do "Most important"ly, is to correct for any OUTSIDE INFLUENCES that SUBVERT THE WILL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!!

I am *so* with you on this one!!

I mean, just imagine if some Evil Outside Influence - say some Extremist Radio Talkshow Host for example (just a strawman you know - just a thought exercise - kinda going out on a Limb, augh [sorry, phlegm]) with a "ditto"ing horde of millions of slavering listeners, some Far Right Fanatic, were to - I dunno how to put this - RUSH into the middle of a highly contested Democratic Primary and try to get his listeners to switch their voter registrations to Democrat and go and actually *vote* for one candidate or the other - *that's* what superdelegates are for!!!

So, if it were to come to a Convention, and it were - like you said - a close thing, and one of the candidates could be shown to have gotten a sudden (let's just pick a number) 100% increase in Republican votes in (say) - Texas, just to pick one out of the air - *right* after this theoretical RUSHing talk-show host urged his listeners to go vote for her (could be a guy, but we're just making this up of course) - THAT'S where superdelegates would step in and say: "Hey! That's just not fair play!" and OVERRIDE those votes!

That is *so* *cool*!

You'd want to be really really sure that you weren't jumping the gun, of course. There'd have to be other evidence. Lemme see if I can make up another one. I dunno, let's pick Mississippi just for kicks: OK, then comes Mississippi, and this same Democratic Candidate, who hadn't been getting many Republican votes prior to Texas and this Evil Radio Show host's call for Republicans to Rush out and vote for her, say she suddenly gets - pick a number? - why not 24% of her votes from people willing to call themselves Republican. NOW you have a case for the superdelegates to step in!

Case Closed!

Strip the candidate of a whole pile of credibility, the Democratic voters didn't make her a close match to the other candidate at all! It was a *subversion* of the will of the rank-and-file of the Democratic party!! Wow!

You did a *great* job setting up that superdelegate system! Sure, this is just a wild thought exercise. A situation like this wouldn't come up in a million years! It's crazy! But it sure is good to know that you and the other Democrats put a system in place two decades ago so that if anything so far fetched ever *did* happen, we can count on those superdelegates to make it alright.

Whew!

Thanks for setting that all straight, Ms. Ferraro. You always have such a level-headed way of explaining these complex issues. Thanks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/mississippi-limbaugh-ef_b_91112.html

Letter To Geraldine Ferraro

Chris Blask — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:18:24 EDT

Hi folks,

This letter was sent to former Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro.

Ms. Ferraro said in an interview on March 7, 2008:

http://www.dailybreeze.com/lifeandculture/ci_8489268

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. . . . Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that's the way our country is."

I wrote the following letter to Ms. Ferraro. I encourage you to share my words.

-cheers

-chris

--------------

Dear Ms. Ferraro,

I am personally hurt by your recent words. As a young man I watched your candidacy with youthful hope that I was watching the change from the Old Ways of judging people by their skin, by their gender, by their biology.

Now I am a father of two girls and a boy. Your words make me flinch with the fears and the guilt that I have gotten over as an adult. They make me want to protect my children from the accusations and sick memes that refuse to die off – the sick memes that you just inserted back into the public consciousness on behalf of a politician who cannot seem to do enough to ensure that my children integrate those thoughts, that they too suffer as their parents did.

I want to apologize for my skin. For being male. But I can’t.

You see, my children are “white”, too, whatever that word even means to them. Not much, really, unless you and I make sure that they carry the burden of guilt you wish to gift them.

One of my children is male. He is a boy.

I regret that at twelve he has already picked up some of the guilt that your generation and my generation were so eager to accept, so eager to share. To inflict on one another.

So you see, I cannot apologize for myself because if I did I would have to apologize for my children as well.

And they are still innocent. Do you see?

I do not support your candidate because I disagree with her qualifications to lead my children’s path to adulthood. Not because I want my girls to have a Woman or my boy to have a Man as president – because I want them not to have to think along those lines, but to think about whether the person is good at their job, and I can’t see your candidate being as good at the job as the one I support.

I do not support my candidate because I want my children to grow to adulthood with a leader who matches their skin, nor to see how gracious Daddy is in supporting one whose skin does not match theirs. I want them to not understand that this is even an issue that Mommies and Daddies think about.

And I don’t think about these things, except for the boy inside me that was excited when *you*, Ms. Ferraro, ran for Vice President. That boy lived in a world defined by race and gender differences. He wanted you to win – to break down the barriers of biology. That boy would be happy to have anyone win who wasn’t a biological match for all his predecessors.

But that boy is grown up now. The man that boy became knows that it is more important to elect qualified – even, when we can, *great* - leaders than it is to elect leaders because we want them to break barriers that have already dissolved all on their own.

You helped begin the dissolution of those barriers – can’t you see that you won? They are gone! Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela and many others attest to that already, and so long as you and your candidate don’t succeed in destroying Senator Obama and with him the Democratic party, another proof will be at hand that biology is off the table in choosing the leadership of our species. The leadership of our children.

Please, Ms. Ferraro. Not only do I think you should publicly renounce your own words – words that are doing more to perpetuate the sick thoughts you stood against many years ago than anything your opponents of that day could hope for – but I ask that you repeal your support for Senator Clinton. You are both feeding the dragon you once sought to slay, and it will come out of its cave and damage my children if you don’t stop.

Best Regards,

Chris Blask

MyBO on CNN, and my "Obama Rapid Response" Rapid Response

Chris Blask — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:22:08 EDT

Hi folks!

Below is my letter to CNN in regards to their coverage of MyBO.

Ironically, their little web-mail-response page barfed, so Lisa in Buffalo FAXED it to them for me (thanks, Lisa!).

As Charlie Brown would say: "Good grief." ;~)

-enjoy!

-chris

-----------------------------------------------

TO: Rick Sanchez - CNN

FROM: Chris Blask - Obama Rapid Response

Hi Rick et al!

I just watched your coverage of Barack Obama's Internet campaign. Bless their hearts, but your panel just embarassed themselves in front of the entire American population under 45 (and quite a few over) with their complete lack of understanding of modern communication. I got the impression of a group of county elders gathered on a porch trying to give comment on the New Fangled Teler-Fone down at Mable's place and how it "wasn't the same as just goin' down there and chawin' with a man".

barackobama.com is not a "new-fangled Internet thing" - it is a use of communications methods to promote messages and connect people. No different than a printing press and a coffee social - just a billion times more effective. To use geek terms you could say it is "an application of communications technology" - and frankly you folks are, too, so it shouldn't stump your Talent to discuss it - but that is to miss the whole point. I *am* a geek - but a geek who has moved more than $3B worth of hard goods - because I understand that all of this Internet stuff does not matter when it is all about geeks. It matters when my mother (and to her grave at 96, my grandmother) adopt it for *their* purposes - and that is what has happened with Barack Obama's campaign.

Let me give you an example. Obama Rapid Response (ORR) is a group of volunteers who monitor the media - we monitor you - and the opposition campaigns, discuss how to respond to spin we preceive in the media, attacks by other candidates and statements for/against our candidate around the country and around the world, and deliver our message effectively to appropriate venues and individuals.

Obama Rapid Response was setup by Neil in Vermont almost a year ago. Neil is not a technical person, but he wanted to get involved so he went to barackobama.com and created the group - everything was there for him to do it.

Lisa in Buffalo has trouble getting her caps-lock key off and her browser working, a fax machine and two cats. Lisa is passionate about her candidate, and despite the fact that she knows less about computers than you do about cold fusion, she was part of a team that picked up the Lord Trimble story (that I still haven't seen you folks pick up on) that hit the UK wire late Friday night ET and pushed it out to *every* newspaper, radio station and TV station in Wyoming before the polls opened (here's that story, in case you are still sorting through your lithographs for it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml ;~).

This past week, the site got so much traffic that the email server slowed down. This impacted the ORR since emails were not able to get out to the membership fast enough. Without prompting from the campaign (who are understandably rather busy), I created a Google group (http://googlegroups.com/orr-backup), dropped the key ORR membership into it and got all of the activity up and going again.

Your panel pointed out how the MyBO site allows volunteers to organize shoe-leather activities - which is true and impossible to overstate the effectiveness of - but their handling of the story underlined the complete lack of understanding of what is going on with MyBO and in fact the entire Obama campaign.

It is not only about delivering bumper-stickers and T-shirts faster (the graphics of which are online and can be sent directly to the printers). It is not just about drawing people to coffee-socials (thousands of which are organized through the site for every primary day, as one small example). It is not even just about enlisting and organizing door-to-door and phone campaigns (those, too: 1.5M calls from people at home to Wisconsin voters, as another small example).

It is about doing everything you've even seen being done by the handfull of people in a campaign office in Docudramas recounting past campaigns with a cast of thousands instead of dozens. It is about creating a center-less operation that enables free people to assume responsibility for themselves and act on their beliefs. It is about implementing on the largest scale the fundamental and foundational beliefs of America, namely:

o That all people are created equal.

o That Freedom of speech and freedom of action are the key to personal, national and global success.

o That Free Enterpise in business and thought enable the Individuals who make up the Population to be more powerful than the established Powers that hold all the advantages out of the gate.

Obama's success is not "cheating" as you asked on the show. Obama's success is an acting-out of the basic principles that underly every success in American history. Obama's success is a re-enactment of the founding of the country, where citizens met and decided to stand up to massively disproportional powers and tradition based on their belief in themselves and in the strength of individual freedom. Obama's success is the tactical and tangible proof that this country is, in fact, based on the strongest set of ideals in human history.

-best regards

-chris

PS - CNN is, oddly enough, the least available media outlet online. All of your competitors provide actual email addresses - for example - not just these silly boxes.

Poem/message: The Experience of Me and We

Chris Blask — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 14:27:35 EST

(In response to a previous Poem/Message by Sue Shields)

Sue, that is a poem well read.

I, like you, worked in the Internet Adolescence to create
the Boom of the 90s. Those frenetic years that stretched
like centuries where the accomplishments of a month were
achieved in a week, where the work of a lifetime was the
matter of lunchtime and the team never slept.

We did not require a President and First Lady to lead us to
the Gates.

We were on the path - we built it, painted the signs and
carved out rest-stops and restaurants along the way - Just
In Time as the people wandered, then jogged, then rushed
down in a fray.

It is to question the value of all of us who spread the
gravel and planted the shrubs to assume that we would not
have achieved our goal had it not been for the magnanimous
Few - or Two - who, deigning to gift us their wisdom
granted us their permission.

We are the Experience we seek - take a peek inside and you
will find that what we need is all of our MEs, and that we
have had Us all along.

To say it was Them is to take away our pride in our work
and allow us to shirk the responsibilities that came with
changing the world. There is no one else who did what we
did nor deserves either the fame or the blame for the
fallout. It is time to callout Ourselves and to stand up
to our burden. We cannot allow the past or the present to
remove what's unpleasant without giving up life and the joy
of the future, which I, for one, plan not to squander for
my son or my daughters.

Now is the time for a leader who follows, who cheers us to
go where we know shows the promise of prosperity and the
wealth for posterity.

Our riches are We, and we are already here.

-chris

Comment on Casper, WY Star Tribune

Chris Blask — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:30:57 EST

http://www.trib.com/articles/2008/03/05/news/breaking/doc47cef5948eadd338360663.txt

Hi folks!

I'll be open, I'm an Obama supporter, involved in the volunteer effort, a registered Independent and a right-of-center voter who grew up in Colorado. For my thoughts on why I'm doing all this you can look at:

http://blaskforobama.blogtownhall.com

or email me directly at chris@blask.org (and yes, that's my real name. ;~)

Jim P - I'll answer that one for you, if that's OK: normally the primaries don't go this long, so states like Wyoming, Indiana, Mississippi etc don't get to have their say. The one nice thing about this year's process is that you get to have a lot of say, so listen to the tone and content of the contenders and make the best choice you can.

The main reason I am not voting Republican this time around (given the right choice) has to do with the tone of leadership of Sen. Obama. 'Illinois Voter" is a good example of the Kitchen Sink approach being taken by Sen. Clinton - a win-at-all-costs way of dealing with other people that I do not believe lends itself well to national and global leadership skills.

Beyond that, I have been following Sen. Obama for a number of years and he strikes me as a pragmatic centrist while his opponent strikes me as more of an ideological extremist. A great article to point to Sen. Obama's experience in working to find answers instead of imposing them can be found here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/an-american-president-my-friend-barack-obama-790330.html#aaa

I think the biggest question on the table at the moment could be stated: 'Yeah, he's good, but can he fight?" We will likely see some of the answer to that in this phase of the primaries as Sen. Obama responds to the real and (as above) fabricated attacks that have been lobbed at him by his opponent and her supporters.

I think I have taken up enough of your airspace here, but I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has, or to offer counter arguments (in a more civil manner and formum than our Illinoisan above) to any concerns you want to express (i.e. no, he was never a Muslim. no, it was actually Sen. Clinton's campaign that told Canada that their NAFTA talk as "just words',...).

-take care, and good luck on caucus day!

-chris blask

PS - Paul, an even better site is

http://wyoming.barackobama.com

where you can contact the campaign, read reams of policy position (the guy was President of the Harvard Law Review - he has lots of details) or, if you like, decide to volunteer. Caucus locations, contacts etc. and everything you need for voting day is all there.

CLINTON Campaign Told Canada "NAFTA Comments Just Posturing" - NOT Obama

Chris Blask — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:57:14 EST

Hi folks!

Interesting.

Turns out that the Clinton campaign is the one that spoke to Canada and told them to ignore Sen. Clinton's remarks on NAFTA.

"Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing."

Story here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/BNStory/National/home

reproduced below.

-cheers!

-chris

-----------------------------

CAMPBELL CLARK

From Thursday's Globe and Mail March 5, 2008 at 10:38 PM EST OTTAWA —

The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the U.S. presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed yesterday to use whatever investigative means necessary to find the source of leaks that, he said, were "unfair" to U.S. Democratic candidate Barack Obama and may have been illegal — although opposition leaders insisted the Conservatives cannot be trusted to investigate political players on their own team. But the story that reverberated through the U.S. presidential campaign began as a terse, almost throwaway remark that Mr. Brodie made to journalists from CTV, according to people familiar with the events.

Mr. Brodie, during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff Ian Brodie watches from the back of the room during a photo op before the government caucus meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa Wednesday. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark. The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt." The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.

Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, declined to comment. The Prime Minister's communications director, Sandra Buckler, has said that Mr. Brodie "does not recall" discussing the issue.

On Tuesday, Mr. Harper denied that Mr. Brodie was a source of the leak — but he appeared to be referring to a diplomatic memo that described the key conversation between an adviser to Mr. Obama and Canada's consul-general in Chicago, Georges Rioux. Although Mr. Harper has for days brushed aside allegations that his government interfered in the U.S. presidential campaign, yesterday he promised to "get to the bottom" of the matter and said laws may have been broken. "It is not in the interest of the Government of Canada, and the way the leak was executed, Mr. Speaker, was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign," the Prime Minister said in the Commons. "We will make sure that every legal and every investigative technique necessary is undertaken to find out who exactly is behind this." But opposition politicians accused Mr. Harper of hiding behind artful denials — ignoring the verbal leak, while denying that the diplomatic memo came from his top aide.

However, Mr. Harper did not appear to be distinguishing between the two leaks yesterday. Yesterday, he said he had asked the top civil servant, Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch, to call in an internal security team, with the help of Foreign Affairs. Members of the opposition asserted that an internal inquiry is unlikely to look seriously at Mr. Harper's own high-level political aides and appointees, such as Mr. Brodie, or Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to Washington. NDP Leader Jack Layton said it is time to call in the RCMP.

The first leak sparked stories that Mr. Obama had privately delivered a message through an aide to Canadian diplomats that the stand against NAFTA was more political posturing than a real policy plan. The Clinton campaign seized on the stories to argue that Mr. Obama was making promises that he did not mean. The Obama campaign sputtered after this and other attacks on his experience and integrity. Days later, the leak of the internal Canadian diplomatic note revealed that Mr. Obama's adviser, Austan Goolsbee, spoke to Mr. Rioux on Feb. 8. In a summary of the meeting written by Canadian diplomat Joseph de Mora, Mr. Goolsbee was described as indicating that Mr. Obama's NAFTA stand "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." Mr. Goolsbee denied using those terms. Mr. Clark of CTV says he called Mr. Wilson for reaction.

The next day, the embassy and Mr. Obama's campaign denied the story. Since Mr. de Mora's memo was leaked to The Associated Press, the Canadian embassy in Washington won't respond to questions about "NAFTA-gate," as the issue has been dubbed.

ACTION: Write Gov. Crist - Pulling to Seat Clinton Votes In Florida!

Chris Blask — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:12:20 EST

Hi folks!

http://www.flgov.com/gov_contact

Gov. Crist was just on CNN stating flatly that he feels the Jan 29 primary was fair and honest and insisting that the Florida Delegates be seated as they are currently counted.

Let's be clear - we have a Republican Gov (Fla) and a Clinton endorser (Mich) pulling for these delegates to be seated NOW - *not* in Nov 2007, not in early Jan 2008 - now is when they choose to try to "support the rights of their residents".

Please write to Gov Crist, call his office, write to the local and state media. State that this is NOT the will of the people.

If Florida and Michigan want to return to the table at *this* point, then new and fair elections *must* be held.

My letter to Gov. Crist below. Please write one yourself and encourage everyone else you know to do so, as well.

-cheers

-chris

------------------
Dear Gov. Crist,

I am writing you to oppose in the strongest sense you announcement on CNN this morning that you will move to seat the Democratic delegates as they currently stand.

Your lack of enthusiasm for the topic prior to this point -prior to the finalization of the Republican primary - prior to the realization that the Democratic primary can be decided by you instead of the American people - is as divisive and dicatatorial in appearance as anything a "country 90 miles south of Key West" has ever done.

If you truly value the will of those of us in Florida you will do one of two things:

1/ Stick to the decision you had made prior to the national elections reaching the current condition - abide by the rules you have been aware of for more than a year, or;

2/ Provide an actual opportunity for Florida's voters to cast an honest vote for Democratic presidential candidate.

I went to the polls Jan 29. As an Independent voter I could not cast my ballot for either party, but I did stop and speak to the CNN pollster in Lakewood Ranch and the folks at the Democratic table outside the polls. The people at the Democrat table handing out coffee were part of the Clinton campaign and were adamant that the votes would in fact be counted and, upon discussion, indicated that the Clinton campaign had arranged for them to be there - until I noted that I was an Obama supporter at which point they became quiet and reticent to talk further.

There *was* a Clinton campaign in our state - against the rules.

There *was* *not* an Obama campaign in our state - in accordance with the rules.

Your efforts to subvert the will of the people of this state will be noted, should you continue with your current quest.

I ask you as a respected elected official of the people of Florida to respect *us*, as well. Please do not use your influence to disrespect us.

-regards

-chris

We Are The Higher Ground

Chris Blask — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:05:20 EST

Hi folks,

I'm going to post this here because I think it is worth saying.

I am not comfortable with talking about myself in public this way, but I am also not comfortable with letting my discomfort impede making what I believe to be a salient and important point (disjointed enough logic for you? ;~).

This was a private exchange with one of us on the topic of the need to aggressively address the actions of our opposition. I will leave it to stand or fall on it's own.

-cheers

-chris

------------

> Cool. What fire in the belly. I like that.

I'm actually a very nice and friendly guy, for all of that. Every bully (they are all bullies, in the end) I've dealt with I have been polite to.

I think that is the point.

Hillary gives the impression when she is fighting that she is on a higher plane-of-value than her opponent. I (and I think Obama) fight believing and being seen to believe that our opponents are *intrinsically* equal - just clearly and unfortunately failing to live up to their inherent potential.

It doesn't mean you don't *fight*, it just means you don't *stoop*.

This is where Obama excels.

When a leader sets that tone - in a military context, for example (business is no different) - his people still go out and kill people, but they just don't do it in a hateful manner.

We need to go out and put the unfortunately misplaced out of their misery without acting like Hillary-ites (Milosovic-ites, Stalin-ites or any other bully-ites). Challenging the unfortunately-misguideds who are mouthing off with unfazable strength and purpose.

As a kid I was the smartest kid in school with 70s-era new-age parents who explained (correctly) that the bullies were just scared and jealous. I explained that to said bullies and they held me down and kicked me in the head more (all the worst bullying. in adulthood we call it "forcible confinement", "assualt", "slander" - every violent crime you can name short of rape, but the ritual public humiliation has a similar psychological impact).

For years.

Don't cry for me, Argentina. In the end I wouldn't trade that experience for anything. It made me who I am.

I tried becoming them, but that didn't help. I realized at twelve years old that if becoming them was the path to solving this problem I would lose the war - I would become that which I hated most - a hateful and bitter person - and it would be by my own hand. I would throw my life away as clearly and irrevocably as suicide.

So I stood up to the leader of them one day when they were picking on another kid and told him to pick on someone his own size. He turned on me and said 'You're my size, Blask' (he wasn't big, just tough. His followers were big) and I answered without flinching 'I guess I am'. They never from that moment bothered me again. Every similar situation since I've done the same thing. Never ever back down - never ever become the enemy.

What I mean to say is that when I say "ATTACK!!!" I don't mean it in the way that HRC does. I mean don't flinch from doing whatever is necessary to win when you know you have the ethical high ground.

I started a company in 2005 and called it "Lofty Perch" (higherground.com was taken ;~). Lofty now does cyber-security for critical infrastructure and work with DHS to keep hackers from killing people by remote control (I've moved on. Again. :). You don't call yourself "Lofty Perch" unless you are willing to be held to a higher standard in the most public way possible. At the same time, if you are going to pit yourself against the kinds of miserable cretins who would actually hack an airport network to try and crash airliners full of children and nice old couples you don't *ever* pull any punches at all.

That is what I think, in essence, we need to do.

We are the Higher Ground. I don't just believe it - I know it.

But that doesn't mean we hesitate for a second in dealing with - in whatever manner necessary - any unfortunate soul who has regrettably chosen to act in a way that damages innocent people.

Hillary is not intrinsically evil. She has just unfortunately chosen to behave that way. She endangers my children's welfare. She endangers your family's future. She is out to rob my children of the chance to grow up in a positive world and to warp their minds and their spirits, along with *literally* hundreds of millions of other children and billions of other people.

For this, she must be stopped.

No holds barred. No ethics compromised.

We are the ones who will make the world better for our children. Nothing can be allowed to stop that.

-cheers!

-chris

A Betrayal of Conservative Fundamentals - Republicans Voting for Clinton to Beat Obama

Chris Blask — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:27:48 EST

http://blaskforobama.blogtownhall.com/

Hi folks,

Sen. Clinton won last night, in large part, due to Republicans following Rush's advice to insincerely vote for Sen. Clinton "because she will be easier to beat in November." Sen. Clinton got 10% of her vote Tuesday from Republicans, and while many of us right-wingers are supporting Obama based on actual support for him, I dare say there are few (if any) to right of center who are supporting Clinton.

Within a ten-minute period on the Sean Hannity show last night (around 7:10pm ET), two out of three callers bragged about switching and voting for Clinton to help bring Obama down and thereby win the general election for Sen. McCain (one in Ohio, one in Texas). The third caller was debating it.

Tiffany in Austin, after laughing at Democrats about it, went on to say that she was going to go out and caucus as well. She noted that her firefighter husband said he "couldn't bring himself to do it", for which I give him points for moral character.

Even Sean Hannity spent a good bit of time voicing his discomfort with the idea. "Ask yourself how you would feel if the Democrats were doing that to our primary," he asked the undecided election subverter in Ohio.

I think the entire episode is sordid. On the part of democracy-subverting Republicans - I'm ashamed of you. This is the antithesis of what core conservative political values are about. On the part of Sen. Clinton in supporting the action (and recommending McCain over Obama), the whole implication of turning on your party to serve your own ends is perhaps the lowest form of betrayal of trust.

I don't mind losing a fair fight, but this aspect of the contest makes me feel soiled and disappointed.

-chris

Rose Campaign

Chris Blask — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:03:13 EST

Click the Rose and Join the Campaign of Color!

Sen. Obama's Incredible Intellectual Depth and Pragmatism - an Example

Chris Blask — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:09:13 EST

As the Illinois Senator stands on the brink of the Democratic nomination, Cass R Sunstein, his colleague for 15 years, offers a fascinating insight into what makes this trailblazing politician tick

<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/an-american-president-my-friend-barack-obama-790330.html#aaa>

Independent on Sunday, 2 March 2008

Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For over a decade, Obama was a colleague of mine at the University of Chicago Law School. He is also a friend. But since his election to the Senate, he does not exactly call every day.

On this occasion, he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President Bush's warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through.

In the space of about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the President's power as Commander-in-Chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorisation for Use of Military Force and more. Obama wanted to consider the best possible defence of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counter-argument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said that he thought the programme was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.

This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side. This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years - a careful and even-handed analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.

The University of Chicago Law School is by far the most conservative of the great American law schools. It helped to provide the academic foundations for many positions of the Reagan administration. But at the University of Chicago, Obama is liked and admired by Republicans and Democrats alike. Some of the local Reagan enthusiasts are Obama supporters. Why? It doesn't hurt that he's a great guy, with a personal touch and a lot of warmth. It certainly helps that he is exceptionally able. But niceness and ability are only part of the story. Obama also has a genuinely independent mind, he's a terrific listener and he goes wherever reason takes him.

Those of us who have long known Obama are impressed and not a little amazed by his rhetorical skills. Who could have expected that our colleague, a teacher of law, is also able to inspire large crowds? The Obama we know is no rhetorician; he shines because of his problem-solving abilities, his creativity and his attention to detail. In recent weeks, his speaking talents, and the increasingly cult-like atmosphere that surrounds him, have led people to wonder whether there is substance behind the eloquent plea for "change" - whether the soaring phrases might disguise a kind of emptiness and vagueness. But nothing could be further from the truth. He is most comfortable in the domain of policy and detail.

I do not deny that sceptics are raising legitimate questions. After all, Obama has served in the Senate for a short period (less than four years) and he has little managerial experience. Is he really equipped to lead the most powerful nation in the world?

The United States is in the midst of a kind of Obamamania, in which a series of wonderful speeches and unexpected victories have created a storm of enthusiasm, sometimes verging on hysteria. Some people think that the fervour is thin, and could abate as fast as it has arisen. Even if it persists, the very enthusiasm that accounts for Obama's political success might have unfortunate effects on his ability to lead, if elected. It will undoubtedly raise expectations to an unrealistic degree, both domestically and internationally.

Obama speaks of "change", but will he be able to produce large-scale changes in a short time? What if he fails? An independent issue is that all the enthusiasm might serve to insulate him from criticisms and challenges on the part of his own advisers - and, in view of his relative youth, criticisms and challenges are exactly what he requires.

Fortunately, the candidate's campaign proposals offer strong and encouraging clues about how he would govern; what makes them distinctive is that they borrow sensible ideas from all sides. In this sense, he is not only focused on details but is also a uniter, both by inclination and on principle.

Transparency and accountability matter greatly to him; they are a defining feature of his proposals. With respect to the mortgage crisis and the debate over credit markets, Obama rejects heavy-handed regulation and insists on disclosure, so that consumers will know exactly what they are getting. It is highly revealing that he worked with Republican (and arch-conservative) Tom Coburn to produce legislation creating a publicly-searchable database of all federal spending.

Obama's healthcare plan places a premium on cutting costs and on making care affordable, without requiring adults to purchase health insurance. (He would require mandatory coverage only for children.) Republican legislators are unlikely to support a mandatory approach, and his plan can be understood, in part, as a recognition of political realities. But it is also a reflection of his keen interest in freedom of choice.

Obama acknowledges that large increases in the minimum wage might "discourage employers from hiring more workers". It should not be surprising that in terms of helping low-income workers, he has long been enthusiastic about an approach, pioneered by Republicans, that supplements wages but does not threaten to throw people out of work. In combining concern for the disadvantaged with an appreciation of free markets, he rejects old-style leftism, and his approach sometimes overlaps with the Third Way thinking associated with Tony Blair and Bill Clinton.

But Obama is not a compromiser; he does not try to steer between the poles (or the polls). Both internationally and domestically, he is willing to think big and to be bold. He publicly opposed the war in Iraq at a time when opposition was unpopular. He favours high-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators. He would rethink the embargo against Cuba. He wants to hold an unprecedented national auction for the right to emit greenhouse gases.

These are points about policies and substance. As president, Obama would set a new tone in US politics. He refuses to demonise his political opponents; deep in his heart, I believe, he doesn't even think of them as opponents. It would not be surprising to find Republicans and independents prominent in his administration. Obama wants to know what ideas are likely to work, not whether a Democrat or a Republican is responsible for them. Recall the most memorable passage from his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention: "We coach Little League [baseball] in the blue [Democratic-voting] states, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."

In his book The Audacity of Hope, he asks for a politics that accepts "the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point". Remarking that ordinary Americans "don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal", Obama wants politicians "to catch up with them". Rejecting one of the most intense and seemingly unbridgeable divisions in American politics, he writes of "the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christian woman who paid for her teenager's abortion". After he received an email from a pro-life doctor, Obama recalls how he softened his website's harsh rhetoric on abortion, writing: "[T]hat night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me."

In short, Obama's own approach is insistently charitable. He assumes decency and good faith on the part of those who disagree with him. And he wants to hear what they have to say. Both in substance and in tone, Obama questions the conventional political distinctions between "the left" and "the right". To the extent that he is attracting support from Republicans and independents, it is largely for this reason.

Obama's unusual background undoubtedly plays a significant role here. He is, after all, a child of a woman from Kansas and a man from Kenya, an African-American who spent several years being raised by his white grandparents. A former community organiser with extensive experience in the inner city, he became president of the Harvard Law Review and worked for much of his career at the University of Chicago. He knows that simple divisions badly disserve human realities.

From knowing Obama for many years, I have no doubts about his ability to lead. He knows a great deal, and he is a quick learner. Even better, he knows what he does not know, and there is no question that he would assemble an accomplished, experienced team of advisers. His brilliant administration of his own campaign provides helpful evidence here. But there is some fragility to the public fervour that envelops him. Crowds and cults can be fickle, and if some of his decisions disappoint, or turn out badly, his support will diminish. Some people think it might even collapse.

My own concern involves the importance of internal debate. The greatest American presidents benefited from robust dialogue and from advisers who were willing to say: "Mr President, your thinking about this is all wrong." Because Obama himself is exceptionally able, and because so many people are treating him as a near-messiah, his advisers might be too deferential, too unwilling to question. There is a real risk here. But I believe that his humility, and his intense desire to seek out dissenting views, will prove crucial safeguards.

In the 2000 campaign, George W Bush proclaimed himself a "uniter, not a divider", only to turn out the most divisive President in memory. Because of his own certainty, and his lack of curiosity about what others might think, Bush polarised the nation. Many of his most ambitious plans went nowhere as a result.

As president, Barack Obama would be a genuine uniter. If he proves able to achieve great things, for his nation and for the world, it will be above all for that reason.

Cass R Sunstein teaches at the University of Chicago Law School and is an informal adviser to Barack Obama.

Letter to Author: February 29 "Inside the Ring" Article

Chris Blask — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 07:43:25 EST

Hi folks!

Below is a letter to the author of a highly slanted piece of journalism. I sent this reply to the author, his Executive Editor, and the Executive Editor of his competing publication (the Washington Post).

Interestingly, I received an enthusiastic reply from the Executive Editor of the Washington Post (included at the bottom).

-cheers!

-chris

---------

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/NATION04/643772400/0/FRONTPAGE&template=printart

Dear Mr. Gertz,

In your recent article noted below, you imply a link that can only be described as “fragile” between Sen. Obama and Iraqi corruption. I find this article hard to believe as a piece of journalism as opposed to political maneuvering on the behalf of entrenched interests.

To quote your article, as an example:

“Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, would not answer when asked if Auchi helped buy the senator's house. He said the senator did not recall ever meeting Auchi, who was convicted of corruption charges in France in 2003. “UPDATE: Since initial publication of this story, Mr. Burton has stated in an e-mail to Inside the Ring that he flatly denies that Auchi indirectly helped Obama purchase the house.”

If I may parse that for a moment, the implied logic flows like this:

• “Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, would not answer when asked if Auchi helped buy the senator's house.”

o Reads: “Sen. Obama’s surrogate refuses to answer the question.”

• “He said the senator did not recall ever meeting Auchi,”

o Reads: “well, he actually did answer the question, to the absolute denial that Sen. Obama had ever even seen Mr. Auchi’s face, let alone had dealings with him, but as we just said he did not answer the question.”

• “who was convicted of corruption charges in France in 2003.”

o Reads: “Let us not not forget that the person we are not saying didn’t not have contact with Sen. Obama is a convicted liar and felon.”

• “UPDATE: Since initial publication of this story, Mr. Burton has stated in an e-mail to Inside the Ring that he flatly denies that Auchi indirectly helped Obama purchase the house.”

o Reads: “Now that the damage is done, Sen. Obama’s surrogate finally comes back and answers the question, for all that we can trust a political lackey.”

For someone so well versed in the way of things “Inside the Ring”, you are fully aware that this is political influence triple-talk of the highest order. I am disappointed in you as a journalist. Since this article has now been used as fodder for considerable talk-radio airtime, you have apparently achieved your aim of falsely influencing American presidential politics. I hope you are satisfied.

-regards

-chris blask

----------------

From: Alan Goldstein [mailto:alan52@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 10:20 AM

Chris,

Excellent! It does seem the point is to get the seed of doubt planted and not to report substantiated fact. Conservative columnist Bob Novak addresses the same issue in this morning’s Washington Post, laying the ‘source’ at the feet of a Clinton-supporting blogger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR2008030201858.html

I tend to doubt it. Here is a link to John Batchelor’s Human Events article from last Thursday.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25193&s=rcmc

This seems more like a rightwing hatchet job.

Alan

ACTION: Write Howard Dean re: Hillary Joining Republican Efforts

Chris Blask — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:06:49 EST

Hi folks!

My note to Gov. Dean. I'm sure he would be happy to receive yours, as well. This is a good "friends and family" activity - non-volunteer family members etc. could take a few seconds and pound out a thousand responses, just to give them some new names to hear from...

http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/chairman

-cheers!

-chris

--------

Dear Governor Dean,

No doubt you have heard of Sen. Clinton's support for Sen. McCain over her fellow Democrat Sen. Obama.

I will be frank - this part of it is not my fight. I am an Independent who is actively in favor or Sen. Obama as president (despite years of vocal support for Republicans). This is more a matter for you and your dedicated party loyalists to handle.

It certainly is a statement, though. I think this is another first in my decades following US politics, again at the hands of the same person. I'm not sure if VP-candidate Clinton will be required to switch parties to run for office with Sen. McCain, but I can't imagine she is earning herself invitations to Democratic luncheons at this rate, so she may as well.

If I were still (was long ago) a registered Democrat I would be up in arms. As it is, my second choice is Sen. McCain anyway, so while I do not believe he is half the candidate Sen. Obama is, he is a good man and will do a decent job if Sen. Clinton succeeds in destroying your party.

Best regards and best of luck sorting all this out.

-chris blask

Sen. Clinton on '60 Minutes' in Regards to Sen. Obama's Faith

Chris Blask — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:00:00 EST

Hi folks,

As many of you may have seen, Sen. Clinton on 60 Minutes tonight said that Sen. Obama is not a Muslim, and I quote: "As far as I know."

Were this someone else - someone not a politician, not Sen. Obama's chief opponent, not comprehensibly aware to the finest detail the status of Sen. Obama's faith - I could believe that it was an uninformed statement.

I believe it was entirely intentional for the purpose of fostering the fears of the uninformed, and the bigotted, solely for the electoral benefit of Sen. Clinton.

Sen. Clinton is definitively and without doubt fully aware that Sen. Obama is specifically of the Christian faith and has never subscribed to Islamic faith. She could have said so forthrightly and done a good deal to eradicate the ongoing fear campaign of Sen. Obama's detractors, benefitted both the Muslim and non-Muslim American population, and advanced the cause of the United States in international affairs.

She did not.

Instead, she chose to use words that encourage both the fear of Muslim Americans as a group and the lingering "accusation" by extremist factions that Sen. Obama subscribes to Islamic faith.

I suggest that every Democrat, every Republican, every Independent and every American of every stripe bring this final step over the bounds of decency to the attention of their elected officials. There are prices not worth paying to get oneself elected to political office. The price we all just paid in the peace of this country and the dignity of the office of President is too high for anyone to lay at our feet.

I have sent the following letter to the Democratic National Convention, Senator Edwards, Senator Dodd, Governor Richardson, Speaker Pelosi and others. I will continue to do so to more political, media and other public sources.

-regards

-chris

Dear DNC representatitves,

I would like to comment to you on Sen. Clinton's "60 Minutes" interview today. As you likely know, when asked whether Barack Obama was a Muslim she replied:

"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know."

I have included the transcript of that exchange at the end of this message, as well as the link to the entire transcript on the show's website.

As a veteran politician, I find it *extremely* hard to believe that Sen. Clinton said these words without forethought. "As far as I know." That leaves a great deal of interpretation for the viewer.

This from the person most likely to know every detail of Sen. Obama's current and past faith, including the fact that he has never been a Muslim and has in fact attended the same Christian church for twenty years. Senator Clinton knows *definitively* that Senator Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim and was more than capable of saying so.

The implication that there is any lingering doubt in Sen. Clinton's mind in regards to Sen. Obama's religious inclination can only be read as a specific and intentional political tactic to play to the fears of uninformed and regrettably anti-Muslim voters.

As a respected voice in American politics I turn to you to use your position to put a stop to this inconceivable use of fear and bigotry by a leading candidate for the highest office in the nation, and indeed the world. I fail to find words to describe my reaction when I watched a potential US Presidential candidate, instantly perceiving both the impression this statement immediately had on American Muslims, and the use that it will be put to by those who lack tolerance.

I beg you. Please, in the name of all you stand for, in the interest of your party and for the love of this country: speak out before it is too late.

With deepest respect,

Chris Blask

Transcript:

""You don't believe that Senator Obama's a Muslim?" Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

"Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that," she replied.

"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…," Kroft said.

"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/60minutes/main3894659_page4.shtml

COMMENT on Houston Chronicle - Supporters' Difference in Tone and Respect

Chris Blask — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:59:36 EST

Hi folks!

Here is a great opportunity to provide comment on a Texan site with tactical differentiation between Obama and Clinton supporters.

There are only two comments at present - mine and the below-included Jack Smith. The contrast between tone can be striking...

> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5583889.html

DIGG!

http://digg.com/politics/Houston_Chronicle_Dem_Candidate_Q_A_contrasts_supporters

-cheers!

-chris

chrisblask wrote:

Well, Jack Smith, that is certainly an enlightening comment.

Thank you for condescending and belittling millions of people at a swipe. I am certain we all now recognize the foolishness of our thoughts and decisions and appreciate the view you provide into the basis of support for your candidate.

To the point of the article above describing the Candidate's answers to readers' comments:

o I have, for an Idiot, done my best to compare the policy stances of the Democratic candidates. In general they are very similar, with the noted difference that Sen. Obama's positions contain a more pragmatic and less confrontational approach. It appears to be less likely that Sen. Clinton will be capable of forming the concensus necessary to achieve the ends she intends to pursue.

o From an executive perspective, it appears to me based on statements of Sen. Clinton and many of her supporters (present company included) that the tone of a Clinton presidency will not serve well in forming the required coalitions to execute the specific and general goals of the nation.

o It seems quite clear based on the past and current performance of the remaining Democratic contenders that Sen. Obama has both the organizational and technical skills as well as the experience to provide a uniquely positive leadership in modern American politics.

Hopefully the end result of this entire presidential campaign will lead us to a state wherein we can work together to achieve actual accomplishments and unite this long-divided country.

-regards

-chris blask

3/2/2008 8:41 AM CST

jacksmith001 wrote:
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Ohio Local Websites - Provide Comment

Chris Blask — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:03:27 EST

Hi folks!

The people of Ohio need to understand the impact of their choices. One way to do this is to write on the sites specific to them. Here are two, but have your voice heard on more as well.

Central Ohio dot com:

http://www.centralohio.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/BA/20080218/NEWS03/80218011/1002

Vindy News:

http://www.vindy.com/news/2008/mar/02/ex-president-hillary-will-bring-real-change/

The following is my comment today on a pro-Clinton article on Vindy News:

Sen. Clinton has a very similar approach to creating jobs as does Sen. Obama.

There's only one problem. Sen. Clinton will never be elected president.

I am an Independent voter, and I will do everything I can to get Sen. Obama elected - but I will vote McCain if the only other choice is Sen. Clinton. I have heard the same thing over and over from other Indies, and after the mudslinging-fest the Clinton camp has engaged in, I would expect many Dems to either stay home or actually switch sides.

If you want a Democratic job package, vote Obama.

-cheers!

-chris

Coment on NYT: "Separating Gender, Political Identity in Clinton Story"

Chris Blask — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:08:58 EST

My comments on New York Times article: "Separating Gender, Political Identity in Clinton Story" by Robin Toner

http://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntget=2008/03/01/us/politics/01web-toner.html&tntemail1=y&oref=slogin

Hi Robin!

With all due respect to Ms. Dolan, I disagree fundamentally with her comments in regards to the "gender gap" in Sen. Clinton's popularity.

I have been actively following this campaign (to be transparent, I support and volunteer for Sen. Obama). While I am certain that there are some men who have a sexist bias against Sen. Clinton, I believe the sentiments expressed and statistics available do not indicate that this is a significant factor. Conversely, I believe there is a readily-accesible trove of data and sentiments expressed to support a pro-Clinton bias being acted upon by many women. Further, the statements of quite a few outspoken women's rights advocates support the notion that Sen. Clinton has, if anything, demonstrably aggravated her position by intentionally leveraging negative female stereotypes in her efforts to benefit from perceived and actual sexist views.

I find the best example to clarify my own thoughts to be former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. For one, I would gladly vote for Ms. Thatcher while I would in no case vote for Sen. Clinton. The differences are obviously not those of gender, rather matters of character.

Below are some links that I believe demonstrate these points.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/why-barack-obama-got-my-v_b_89017.html

http://queenofspainblog.com/2008/02/12/dear-senator-hillary-clinton-please-step-down/

-best regards

-chris blask

Comment on Ron Chusid's "The Differences Between Obama and Clinton"

Chris Blask — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:50:43 EST

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2841

Hello Ron,

Very well put.

I am an Independent who has migrated to the right of the center line (after a fairly far-left past) precisely for the reasons you have enunciated so well here. Given the usual limit of four or five ideological labels I will select "libertarian" inasmuch as it embodies the belief that every individual is capable of owning personal responsibility and capability.

A life half-lived in Canada (in separated chunks) and evolving interactions with supporters and politicians on both sides of the ideological divide has created in me a specific distaste for what I have - for lack of a better term - often referred to as "modern liberalism".

After a frustrating call to a Canadian radio show the word I have been seeking to sum up my dissatisfaction with what I have come to see as the wholesale abduction of the beliefs that I have held all my life (namely that mankind is a wonderful species, the world a wonderful place and Americans a wonderful people) flashed in my mind.

Condescension.

It is the condescension of those who believe they hold the simple answers to complex issues that I myself - no complete intellectual slouch, at least by some measure - have wrestled with for thousands of hours.

It is the condescension of those who attempt to reach down from the lofty heights they inhabit to offer inclusion and protection to those who neither ask for nor appreciate nor require their intervention.

It is the condescension of a twenty-year-old Kerry volunteer honestly stating to a camera that she "got better SAT scores than George Bush" as a means to convey her belief that this somehow makes her vastly superior to a person who despite failings has more pragmatic experience in life than she - or most of us - is ever likely to approach.

The same condescension I, regrettably, see in the eyes of Sen. Clinton as she impatiently tolerates the words of other speakers while waiting to interject the statements of wisdom she seems so aware they are not competent to grasp. The same condescension that I read in the downward hand-gestures she uses to shush her own followers as she stands at a podium ready to grace them with her words.

This condescending attitude leads to the "Nanny state" approach that I find stifling in Canada, Singapore and much of Europe, as examples. It leads to the aspects of modern American liberalism that divide both the population of this country and indeed the membership in the Democratic party.

And it is the condescension that will lead myself and millions of others to switch our current support from the Democratic party and elect John McCain president of the United States, if it is presented as the only alternative.

I have watched with growing interest now-Senator-Obama for quite a few years. It has been increasingly plain to me that this is a person who shares my own long-unpopular goal of advancing the social welfare of the national and global population while - and *by* - emancipating those same individuals, not by dictating to them. That I am not alone in the belief that the principles that evolved to create the conditions and constitution of the country are *intrisically* *correct* - that "All Men are Created Equal", that Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Speech are not just ideals to be pursued but actionable *absolutes* that enable the achievement of the goal of advancing human achievement. That the answers to solving the challenges of the world and of the individuals who inhabit it do not lie in *imposing* solutions crafted on some rarified intellectual high ground but rather in engaging each one of us in using the incredibly talents inherent in us all.

Until reading your thesis the exact words to describe my support for Sen. Obama have been elusive. You have provided a very useful set of memes for me to digest and integrate towards that end, and for this I am grateful.

-cheers!

-chris

PS - if you got a half-written version of this, please email it back to me, I lost some good text. God, how I hate writing in these (*&^% little web boxes! ;~)

Note of Thanks and Congratulations to Sen. Alexander, R-TN

Chris Blask — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:46:11 EST

FYI: Here is the note I sent Sen. Alexander in response to his correct statement against the attacks on Sen. Obama by the Tennessee GOP.

------------------

Senator Alexander,

I would like to thank and congratulate you for speaking out in regards to the recent disrespectful attack on Senator Obama by the Tennessee GOP. As an Independent who has voted Republican most of his adult life, this is the kind of ethical behavior that I expect to see from your party.

I am - this time - actively volunteering with Senator Obama's campaign because I believe that he is the correct choice for President at this point in our country's path, but I also deeply respect Senator McCain. It would be shameful to tarnish the life's work of such an icon of American ideals with the type of extremist excitations as you spoke out against today.

From direct involvement with the Obama campaign I can attest that there is an abiding belief in maintaining an ethical basis to our efforts on behalf of our candidate. As recently as this morning this topic has again been actively discussed amongst those of us volunteering energetically for Sen. Obama, and it is our firm consensus that it is neither honorable nor desirable to win if it requires stooping to words or intent such as that which leads both you and I to have our say today. At the volunteer - and, we all believe, full-time campaign staff level - those working to elect Sen. Obama agree with your statement on this topic.

Good for you, Sir. May the best candidate win this coming November and may we all unite behind that person to achieve the common goals we all share.

Best Regards,

Chris Blask

Senator McCain Seeks and Receives Endorsement of CEO/Preacher/Armageddonist Hagee

Chris Blask — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:29:52 EST

Hi folks!

I suggest the message we want to promote is what as follows:

"Both Senators McCain and Obama have some people endorsing them who are on the fringe of the political world. Inasmuch as there should be any implication that either candidate shares those views, the voter should consider the expressed views of the candidate and whether the candidate has sought out the endorsement of the person in question."

To that point:

o Sen. Obama did not seek our Farrakan's endorsement, and in fact repudiated it.

o Sen. McCain sought out Hagee's endorsement and has had him on-stage directly behind him in the camera's lens.

So, I think it is fair to question whether Sen. McCain does in fact endorse the views of Hagee.

You certainly don't have to go deep on John Hagee to find that he is a scary man to be endorsed by:

o Hagee is a Pro-Immediate-Armageddon preacher pulling for a strike against Iran to start the end of the world, as his books and sermons specify.

o Sarah Posner writes:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=mccains_spiritual_guide

"Add John Hagee, the chairman of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), along with McCain-endorser Gary Bauer, who serves on CUFI's board, and Parsley, who is a CUFI regional director, and it looks like McCain is lining up the support of a contingent of the Christian right that could make McCain's off-the-cuff bomb-bomb-Iran and 100 years in Iraq remarks seem, well, prophetic."

o from Wikipedia.org: "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that."

o from Wikipedia.org: “Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.”

o from Wikipedia.org: Hagee received almost a million dollars in compensation for his work for GETV that year, which amounted to approximately 16 hours per week [13]. (The GETV Board of Directors, which determines his pay, consisted of John Hagee himself, his wife, his son, and a Cornerstone Church member.)

o http://www.pfo.org/jonhagee.htm -

Hagee also seems to lurch from one newsworthy event to another. Recently he filed a suit against the U.S. Postal Service, “claiming it has ‘delayed, held, and even censored’ his ministry’s mailings” and as well “denied use of the nonprofit standard mail rate and charged higher rates.”8 The Postal Service has countered by saying that with so much for sale via the mail, Hagee is hardly non-profit. After Israel, Hagee’s attorneys probably got a goodly portion of the ministry’s income.

o Conservative? "The Liberty Flame reported in May 1994 that during the time when Hagee was serving the Charismatic congregation at Trinity Church (1976) in San Antonio, he divorced his wife, resigned and married a young woman in the congregation, Diana Castro. Custody of Hagee’s two children by his ex-wife, Martha, went to her."

o http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-07.htm

"Hagee's appearance at AIPAC indicates the growing organizational strength of the Christian Zionist lobby for apocalyptic war and the rise of corresponding Jewish factions both within AIPAC and within Israeli politics that are pushing for dramatically expanded war in the Mideast," Bruce Wilson, the co-founder of Talk To Action, a website specializing on religion and politics, told IPS.

-cheers!

-chris

US Magazine Comment

Chris Blask — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:43:18 EST

http://www.usmagazine.com/barack_obama_refuses_to_answer_boxers_or_briefs_question?page=3&live=1

Hi folks!

Nice light article (well, it is US magazine - no offense intended!).

Interesting that there still end up being the negative comments, but that is politics in general, I suppose.

All I can say is that as we move past the violence of campaigning and into the more real-world era of having the man as a president (inasmuch as any president can ever be fairly viewed as an average Joe), it will be interesting to learn more about the man as an individual. I think we will all - saving the minority of extremists and cynics who are un-satisfiable by definition - be pleased with what we see.

On behalf of the Right-hand side of the political spectrum, my apologies for the vocal wingnuts (interesting that they are always anonymous...). I'm no more proud of them in my philosophical backyard than you on the Left are about Hugo Chavez claiming your ground, but the price of free speech... ;~)

-cheers!

-chris

Blogging on Conservative Websites - Townhall.com

Chris Blask — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:03:52 EST

Hi folks!

http://blaskforobama.blogtownhall.com

Being a right-of-center outspoken Independent, I've decided to take my opinions to my cohorts. I would recommend you consider doing the same. If you already have done likewise I would be interested in cross-linking and reading your articles. Either way, please feel free to read, comment on, Digg or cross-link mine.

I think this is a demographic that is very worth reaching out to as we consider the General Election in November.

-cheers!

-chris

A Great Comment on Leadership and Experience

Chris Blask — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:48:58 EST

Hi folks!

Senator Clair McCaskill (D- Missouri) points to the clearest evidence of why Barack Obama is the strongest candidate.

Starting @ 2:45 into the clip:

McCaskill: I think everyone knows that Barack Obama hasn't had as much experience in Washington.

Mika Brzezinski: But Senator, shouldn't that matter? I mean, shouldn't that matter to voters - whether or not he is experienced enough to hold the job?

McCaskill: I think what should matter is: Can he lead? Is he a competent and strong executive? And look at these campaigns: Whose is the only campaign that hasn't run out of money; that hasn't had to fire people; that hasn't ha d public backbiting? I mean, who is the person who has run a chaotic and difficult organization seamlessly? I think that's a pretty good indication to the American people that he's ready.

Please share far and wide:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22916635#23369899-

cheers!

-chris

Feb 25th - A Day Over the Top, Poll after Poll

Chris Blask — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:24:43 EST

Hi folks!

Every day is its own, and each is worth fighting for.

However, Feb 25, 2008 is one to pause and reflect.

From the Honorable Curtis, the headline article, below:

--- Curtis Walker <curtiswalker@mac.com> wrote:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/25/rnc_secretly_polls_on_racism_sexism.html

Source: Taegan Goddard's Political Wire -
www.politicalwire.com/

The Republican National Committee "has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate," according to The Politico. "The secretive effort underscores the enormous risk senior GOP operatives see for a party often criticized for its insensitivity to minorities in campaigns dating back to the 1960s."

"The RNC project is viewed as so sensitive that those involved in the work were reluctant to discuss the findings in detail. But one Republican strategist, who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, said the research shows the daunting and delicate task ahead."

.....................

However, this page is so chock-full of Flavorful Goodness, I have to cut some of this here as well:

CBS/NYT Poll: Obama Surges Nationally

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/25/cbsnyt_poll_obama_surges_nationally.html

Young People Energized About Election

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/25/young_people_energized_about_election.html

USAT/Gallup: Obama Widens National Lead Over Clinton

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/25/usatgallup_obama_widens_national_lead_over_clinton.html

CNN Poll: Obama Edges Clinton in Texas

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/25/cnn_poll_obama_edges_clinton_in_texas.html

Quinnipiac Poll: Obama Gains on Clinton in Ohio

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/25/quinnipiac_poll_obama_gains_on_clinton_in_ohio.html

PPP Poll: Obama Surging in Ohio

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/25/ppp_poll_obama_surging_in_ohio.html

*Clinton Steps Up Attacks on Obama*

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/25/clinton_steps_up_attacks_on_obama.html

"The Los Angeles Times notes Clinton "has shifted from one tactic to another in trying to overtake rival Barack Obama. She tried TV ads saying he ducked debates. She accused him of plagiarism. She disparaged his huge crowds. She called his attacks on her shameful and dishonest. On Sunday, Clinton turned to ridicule."

Go Team!

-cheers!

-chris

New York Times Nails it, Clinton Campaign Preaching: "The Audacity of Hopelessness "

Chris Blask — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:39:25 EST

Hi folks!

Op-Ed Columnist Frank Rich nails it with this piece of insight on the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

http://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntget=2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html&tntemail1=y&oref=slogin

Excerpts below:

"But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating."

"This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid."

"As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country. "

I could not have said it better.

-cheers!

-chris

http://blaskforobama.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/24/new_york_times_nails_it,_clinton_campaign_heralds_the_audacity_of_hopelessness_.thtml

A Good Example of Why This is Worthwhile - Involvement Achieves Ends

Chris Blask — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:50:47 EST

Blogged Here

http://blaskforobama.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/21/a_good_example_of_why_this_is_worthwhile_-_involvement_achieves_ends.thtml

Hi folks!

I like this letter from a fellow supporter of Obama. I think it is a good explanation of the motive power at work in the population in response to Senator Obama's presence on the public stage.It is this aspect of his candidacy that inclines me to support him.

As an individualist Independent, removing the restraints of cycnicsm and releasing the power of individuals like both the author below and the subject in the video is both my answer itself to all obstacles and, indeed, the end-goal of my efforts.I wold take a bullet (OK, serious flesh-wound at least) to defend and enable your capacity to disagree with me, so long as you do it out loud.

-cheers!

-chris

Words below credited to Adoyo Owuor:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22916635#23260854

DEFINING HOPE. ACTION. CHANGE.

Incredibly, pundits in all their reductive glory (Tucker Carlson comes to mind) are still scratching their heads asking, "How come Obama continues to attract so much support across the board?"

Could it be because Americans truly want to be instrumental in reclaiming the greatness of their nation? Could it be that they don't just want to sit on their hands waiting for someone else to tackle the challenges facing the nation? Could this be the reason Barack Obama appeals to so many Americans?

Russ Camine, a Home Health Care Worker and SEIU Union Member responds simply and directly:
"He does have good ideals and good ideas. But it is that talk, that hope, that belief, that fire in the belly that America CAN be gr eat again" that sealed the deal for him.

Camine's choice is sincere and pragmatic. His pithy statement basically tells us that people are not interested in sitting back and letting someone else do the work. They want a seat at the table and they want to pull their own weight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22916635#23260854

Camine speaks at about 1 min 50 sec into the clip.

Adoyo

The "Ice Cream Argument" - Clinton Not Able to Combine Plans with Passion and Oratory as Obama Can

Chris Blask — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:09:15 EST

Hi folks!

This is the most cogent response I have seen to the Clinton "work not words" attack strategy. To attempt a paraphrase:

"Senator Clinton is unable to combine the power of oratory with her plans in the way Senator Obama can, and would therefore be less effective as Candidate or President."

Masoud Loghmani wrote and posted these words this morning. The credit and attribution for this train of thought is his. I am only propogating, and suggest you consider doing so as well.

Read Masoud's original post below.

-cheers!

-chris

masoudlog@gmail.com - http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/masoudloghmani/gGCPls

"When do you know you are fully immersed in a campaign? When you dream about arguments and counter-arguments, and actually come up with something you think is valid.

"Senator Clinton's campaign is using Obama's asset (exceptional ability to galvanize Americans through his moving speeches) and trying to turn that into a liability. In response Senator Obama is peppering his speeches with policy details, and telling people that speeches alone do not solve. While this is a valid quick response, but it uses the same frame of mind that Senator Clinton has already established (work not words) and plays defense on that field (yes, we can work too!).

"I think a more effective approach would be to reframe the argument in favor of Senator Obama and recast his power of oratory as an asset. Senator Obama's speeches are powerful, they are full of policy details, and even when you read them you can hear his passion coming through.

"Yes he is passionate, and he is articulate, and he has plans for saving our country; trying to separate the three is like trying to take the cream out of Ice-cream. In fact it is Senator Clinton's inability in motivating the youth and overcoming voter apathy in her long career is what we should be afraid of, and point out to as a sign on her inability to be a commander in chief.

"The best CEOs are the best salespeople for their company. They sell the vision and the message of the company most effectively using the power of words. If she cannot do that, why should she run for the job? On the other hand, Senator Obama's power to motivate the youth and quash voter apathy is what can help us turn policy papers into reality. We do not need to be bashful about it.

"We like the cream in our ice-cream."

M L

Example: Letter to the Media in Response to Errors and Bias - Hardball Bin Laden Graphic

Chris Blask — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:34:41 EST

Hi folks!

Below is the letter I sent to MSNBC after the unbelievable Bin Laden picture being showed on Hardball as they discussed Senator Obama. I post this here as what I believe is an example of an appropriately strong but calm letter of protest when the media makes a mistake.

The urge to blast a commentator needs to be moderated with:

o a view toward the aim you are trying to achieve with your message,

o thought to what drives the person/organization you are responding to (in this case, their business model)

o an understanding that creating a negative emotional response to your words puts the reader on the defensive, and therefore may contradict your intentions. Take the higher ground.

See below.

-cheers!

-chris

To: letters@msnbc.com

I am *appalled* that Chris Matthews and the crew of Hardball are capable of – I am willing myself to believe – mistakenly – put a picture of the most heinous figure in modern history on screen when talking about the person that much of the nation fervently hopes will be the next president of this country.

I can only imagine what Chris Matthews will think every time he is reminded of this when, as I hope, Mr. Obama is sitting in the White House. The only thing that makes me seriously believe that this is merely a career-limiting screw-up of monumental proportions on behalf of someone on the Hardball set is that it is so obviously just that: a career-limiting screw-up of monumental proportions.

However, to do this on the eve of a crucial election in the tightest primary race in living memory…

For one, I can say it will take a great deal of time before I view Mr. Matthews and MSNBC in the same light I did yesterday.

It would seem prudent that MSNBC go as far over the wall as possible to do the impossible – undo this critical lapse of journalistic professionalism. It is up to you at MSNBC to decide what you could possibly do, but I might suggest you get doing it.

-chris blask

INFO: Obama's Legislative Record - Written 890 Bills and Co-sponsored Another 1096

Chris Blask — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:19:28 EST

Senator Obama's record of accomplisment has been an issue at question by his opponents.

OK, here is a link to his record:

http://www.statesurge.com/members/923

Research by Erick Sewell -

http://www.obamarecord.blogspot.com

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php

"Erick Sowell" erick.sowell@mac.com

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 b ills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law), **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law), **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law), **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.
In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record.

Letter to the Author - "When the Magic Fades" - NYT

Chris Blask — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:42:39 EST

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Hi David,

I read your indicated article, and while I commend your journalistic insight into what is perhaps a phenomenon that some folks just "catching the wave" may be experiencing (Post Revelation Syndrome), I have to disagree on substance.

For my part I am a post-liberal rightward-leaning Independent who has been lambasting the condescending modern liberal attitudes for nigh unto fifteen years now, have been watching Obama for the past five with increasing depth of analysis, and have reached the conclusion that he is definitively the right person to take the national lead at this point.

As a serial entrepreneur and freemarket capitalist it would in general seem that I would pull for those to right of center, and I long have. However, given the complex matrix of issues at hand and the temporal inflection point we are passing through, Mr. Obama presents us with the opportunity to influence the future in a very positive way.

Ideologies are not always the key issue - pragmatism and leadership skills often take the fore in accomplishing ends. Mr. Obama does actually have policy positions, and when both the public and the media catch up to those of us already past the infatuation phase, I believe it will continue to be obvious that the appropriate choice of the selection in front of us remains what the popular first-blush indicated.

If I thought Mr. Obama was the ideologue I believe Mrs. Clinton was I would run to the good and decent (if flat and uninspiring) shelter of McCain to weather out another period of storm. But I strongly believe we can do better than either of those choices and - following the cyclic nature of the system that has worked so well to date - invite the best of us to take the helm and change our heading for sunnier climes.

-regards

-chris

The Final Word on Words - ABC Interview with Deval Patrick - Feb 19

Chris Blask — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:08:53 EST

Very good interview with Deval Patrick:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4309803&affil=whas

places Mrs. Clinton's comments in the proper light: "If your whole candidacy is only about words...".

Mr. Obama's "whole candidacy" is *not* "only about words", and I think it is trite and condescending to say so.

In fact, the whole tenor of Mrs. Clinton's engagement on this topic is the reason I am so personally opposed to her bid to be President. I do not believe this tone will do anything good for the nation or the world, but will rather consistently raise hackles among at least half of those who listen to the "just words" she would have to use to perform her responsibilities.

For all the passion I feel about how Mrs. Clinton would not make a good president, I do not believe she is an evil or bad person (I think that about vanishingly few, if any, people). Her use of communication is simply so polarizing that I cannot manage to imagine how she could unite a long-divided country.

-chris

Note: CNN Contact info

Chris Blask — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:38:15 EST

Hi,

Here's the main number for Time Warner where CNN is:

Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019
Phone 212.484.8000

Ask for the CNN newsroom or a specific show. Or ask for Dave Borhman,
who's in CNN Washington, they will give you his number. He's THE MAIN
producer for CNN's political shows.

Zennie

Clinton Supporter Open Letter to Hillary - Please Concede to Obama

Chris Blask — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:00:01 EST

Hi folks!

This is a great summation of the problems Mrs. Clinton brings to the party. Here is a strong Clinton supporter who has reached the conclusion that Hillary is dividing the party and the nation and is asking her to do everyone a favor and drop out of the race.

Fantastic fodder, please follow the link for yourselves. I've cherry-picked some of my favorite quotes. (snips denoted with ".d." - in the end I left most of it in).

http://queenofspainblog.com/2008/02/12/dear-senator-hillary-clinton-please-step-down/

Posted initially Feb 12, 2008.

Dear Senator Hillary Clinton, Please Step Down

This is a very hard letter for me to write, so please bear with me.

I’d like to ask you, with all due respect and humility, to step down as a Democratic Candidate for President of the United States.

.d.

I truly believed you would be the best person for the job, and I had this nagging thought in the back of my mind that is now at the forefront. The thought that drove me on Super Tuesday to Vote for Senator Obama and the thought that is the driving force as I write tonight: Senator Hillary Clinton divides this country.

.d.

But in the end, with no major policy difference and valid reasons on BOTH sides, I had to go with the candidate who I thought could best bring our nation back together. Who could cross party lines and gender lines and racial lines.

I wanted it to be you, but it’s not. For some reason you still get people very riled up, and not in the good way.

.d.

Tonight, I’m typing as I watch you speak in El Paso, Texas. I’m sad. There really is no other way to put it-I’m sad.

It’s not fair. It’s not right. And under just about ANY other circumstance I would go to the mat for you. However we are a wounded and deeply divided nation. We are a nation at war. We are a nation at odds with each-other. It’s ugly. I thought you could get people past it. I really did.

When I told myself it was gender that got people going, I refrained from asking and wanting you to step aside. Simply on principle, I wanted to see you run and win because they said it couldn’t be done. Because it was my belief, this was all about being a girl.

It’s not, and I was wrong.

I firmly believe while the gender issue has given you a handicap I hope we all one day overcome, it is NOT the reason people have a gut reaction to you or your campaign or your legacy.

Enter the Senator from Illinois, and what I think could be your true legacy. If you were to step aside now, shockingly early and shockingly un-Hilllary-like, you could galvanize an entire nation behind your party. If you were to throw your weight, and your tremendous political clout behind Senator Obama you could still change the world and make your mark in a way no one would expect and everyone would admire.

I don’t want to see you throw in the towel because the fight is too hard or the mountain too tall. I am asking you to throw it in because history is on the line.

.d.

I really hate asking you to do this, but I want you to please step down and let this nation heal.

We’ve been too angry for too long and your history and your name brings a suitcase of anger to the White House front door.

.d.

Let’s end the division in this country now. Right now. Let’s start with the Democratic Party early and provide a united front against the GOP months ahead of schedule.

Let’s take back this country for the people, with you playing a much different role than you envisioned.

Make history. Make us one. Step down now.

Wisconsin - Clinton and Huckabee Score -1 with a family

Chris Blask — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:00:55 EST

Hi folks!

After a rapid-fire day on the Obama Rapid Response mailing list (join if you want some serious fun! :~) I managed to squeeze in a few calls to Wisconsin before the day ran out. Spoke to a gentleman in O'Clair Wisconsin. He has a broken leg and won't be making it to the polls, but his wife and daughter will be, and they will be voting Obama. They had been a Republican family, but if Obama makes it to the finals all three will be on his side - if not they will all vote McCain.

As with many folks in this state, he's a great guy and happy to share his thoughts. Mike Huckabee came to their town and held a rally, in which he said: "If you go out and vote tomorrow and you are not voting for me, you are wasting your vote." (on their local six-o'clock news) Hillary was supposed to come to town, but called it off at the last moment.

Tonight's dinner conversation sealed the deal for them. For the first time they will be voting as a block on the Obama ticket.

The tide of events seems to be going the right way, from what little I can see in Wisconsin. Tomorrow will tell.

-chris

My Comment on Central Ohio dot com

Chris Blask — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:37:23 EST

http://www.centralohio.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/BA/20080218/NEWS03/80218011/1002

I am a registered Independent who has been voting Republican for years. Not only would I want Clinton if I was not a strong supporter of Obama, but if Hillary is the Democratic candidate I will, in fact, be voting for McCain.

Like so many other Independents, many Democrats and even quite a few Republicans, given the chance I will be voting for the honesty and inspirational leadership offered by Mr. Obama rather than ideology.

Like many (almost all?) Independents, many Democrats and virtually all Republicans, I am vehemently opposed to Mrs. Clinton as president.

For each of us, count -1 point for Candidate Clinton and +1 point for Candidate McCain, and you do the math...

o Mr. Obama is, in my view, a pragmatic man who will follow his heart and mind if in office.

o Mr. McCain is, in my view, a pragmatic man who will follow his heart and mind if in office.

o Mrs. Clinton is, in my view, an ideologue of the Far Left who will likely take whatever actions serve her ideology if in office.

My choice is clear.

-chris

Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:30 pm

Notes: Good explanation of Healthcare differences

Chris Blask — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:26:08 EST

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/17/kennedy-calls-clinton-attacks-fearmongering/

Obama's plan is based on competition and freedom of choice. Central to his plan are elements designed to lower costs and increase options. His National Health Insurance Exchange will create rules and standards for participating plans to make them more affordable and accessible. This Exchange will allow "any American . . . the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or purchase an approved private plan" with "income-based . . . subsidies . . . for people and families who need it." Along with the new public plan will come an independent institute to guide reviews and research of comparative effectiveness of various approaches. His plan will also promote new models to improve patient safety while it protects doctors from overpriced malpractice insurance.

Hillary's plan is mandated. While she claims that means everyone is covered, it actually locks down the program so that competition and freedom of choice may not be enhanced. Like monopolies and mandated public education, benefits may be compromised by those delivering services.

Wisconsin Bob

Chris Blask — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:19:22 EST

Oh, so I only got one call in tonight - but it was worth it!

Bob is in his late sixties, and we talked for an hour. He is an Independent voter and a supporter of Obama who may not vote for him in the primary only because Wisconsin primary rules mean he has to pick a ticket to vote, including for local folks, and from the sound of it his choice of local is Republican. It is possible he will forego the local vote and cast for Barack so he can have his say on the national level, I hope he does but I respect him immensely regardless.

This is the kind of person we are doing all this for, however. Nice as the day is long, full of optimism, hoping like I do that people will get off their heinies and see what a wonderful world it is.

I'm doing this for Bob.

-woof!

-chris

If you can't pay your mandated healthcare, will Hilary take your house?

Chris Blask — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:45:16 EST

--- Zenophon Abraham wrote:

Remember, bloggers, that the Clinton plan will cause wage garnishment!

On 2/17/08, Chris Blask wrote:

...and if you do not have wages to garnishee, then what?

o Small business people, consultants and others independently employed?
o What is the penalty if you are fined and don't pay?
o Lawsuits by the gov't?
o Jail time?
o Bankruptcy?

Honestly, I don't know but I've been wondering about this..

If you don't pay your fines for not being able to afford the healthcare that Hilary is forcing you to buy, will she be entitled to take your HOME away?

Even if you *did* pay it may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back and puts your family Outdoors under a bridge. Statistically, I'd think that is inevitable to happen in some cases.

She finally conceeded that garnishment is the path for the non-compliant. I think she needs to be asked "What comes after that fails?".

-chris

Texas Primary Notes

Chris Blask — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:53:18 EST

This is the most cogent explanation of the Texas holy-cow primary. I'm putting these here for my own reference when calling Texas.

From: Matthew Krov [mailto:MKrov@austincollege.edu]
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 3:27 PM
To: Texas for Obama
Subject: [Te xasforObama] Texas Has a Hybrid PrimaryHello All, Please pass this along so we can spread the word. I invite you to post this on your other Obama listservs and e-mail it to friends and family. Texas has two parts to the primary on March 4, 2008. Both parts will determine the delegate allocation for the candidates. Please read on for more information. Pam Riddle and Richard Triptow found out some great information about it for the DallsforObama listserv. Please read this from the Texas Democratic Party. Here's the link:http://www.txdemocrats.org/the_party/article_iv_party_conventionsHere is the text:Precinct Conventions in TexasMarch 4, 2008 7:15pm at each voting locationWhy should I care? The precinct convention will allocate and elect delegates for the senatorial district convention based on each presidential candidate's showing on the sign-in sheet. So, if 10 people sign in for Clinton and 1 for Obama, guess what....If you voted in the primary you are eligible to attend your precinct convention. If you voted absentee or early, just go to your assigned precinct for the convention with your voter registration card. (Democrats and Republicans hold separate conventions in each precinct; you can only attend the one for the party for which you got a ballot.) Be sure to take your voter registration card which will have been stamped to show that you voted in the primary.Because - usually - so few people attend the convention, the meetings are very casual. The meeting may be led by the precinct chair or another person. You will sign in and indicate in writing the name of the candidate you are supporting.There are a predetermined number of delegates allocated from your precinct convention to the senatorial district convention (based on number of votes cast in the precinct for the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in the preceding General Election for Governor).1. The chair announces the percentage of people attending for each preference and how many delegates and alternates are allotted for each.2. Delegates and an equal number of alternate delegates are nominated. You may nominate yourself and/or another person.3. If you absolutely cannot attend the precinct convention but would like to be considered for a delegate or alternate position, you must notify the precinct chair pr ior to the precinct convention.4. Delegates and alternates are elected and ratified by everyone present.5. A delegation chair is elected to represent the precinct's delegation at the senatorial district convention. We would like this person to be an Obama supporter.6. Resolutions or position on issues are considered. They are voted on after discussion.7. The precinct convention is concluded by a motion and a vote.The senatorial district convention (March 29) elects delegates and alternates to the state convention (to be held in Austin in June). The state convention elects delegates and alternates to the national convention (to be held in Denver in August).Thank you,Matthew KrovThank you,Matthew KrovDirector of Institutional EnrollmentAustin College900 N. Grand AveSherman, TX 75090903-813-3000

In Response to Mark Steyn, Orange County Register: "Obama the Muzak Messiah of the pseudo-revolution"

Chris Blask — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:32:19 EST

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/obama-barack-america-1981504-new-first

Hey Mark,

It's good you have opinions. Let me give you my thoughts on some of them, from bottom to top:

o I'm not a Liberal - in fact fed up with the superior entilted tone - but for me that sums up Hilary, not Barack. I don't believe the man is an ideologue and think he is the most likely candidate to deal pragmatically with issues once in office.

o No, you're right, I don't want a "real revolution" of violence. I want a revolution of *attitude*. For fifteen years I've watched this country divide up into two camps of pessimists, and it has done more damage than any policy platform.

o Canadian attitudes: I just moved back from there (glad to be home!) and arguing the American side up there for the past six years has been enlightening. While I do not agree that Americans' are as negative as many Canadians believe, our *perception* by the rest of the world has taken a massive hit. The current administration has damaged our ability to get things done abroad by encouraging external cynicism. I think Obama can change that perception, and perception matters in leadership.

o While I would not use the words of a Liberal Arts major to describe the impact of Obama's speeches, I would state that he has a manner of presenting his positions that provokes a strong and uniting emotional response. A President needs to engage the people - internally and externally - to make them *want* to get things done. While I wouldn't send Hilary on a sales call, Obama has the ability to move populations with his words.

All in all, even if you disagree with the man's policies, it is hard to imagine that there is another candidate on the horizon who has a better chance of leaving this country in better shape in eight years.

Nihilism is not an option, it is an abdication. Pick a candidate or you may as well stick your hands in your pockets and glare at the rest of us while we try to accomplish tasks.

-cheers!

-chris

Speaker's "American Voices" Mail not Working?

Chris Blask — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:44:12 EST

<sigh>

This is the kind of thing that tries my optimism. Since there is no other way for average citizens to reach her, somone may want to mention this to Speaker Pelosi...

-chris (email bounce sent from the Speaker's official website follows)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov

www.speaker.gov

Name: Chris Blask
Email Address: chris@blask.org
Zip Code: 34202
COMMENTS:
Speaker Pelosi,

I would like to share with you a post I wrote this past Wednesday
(below). The super-delegate, Florida and Michigan issues have me quite
concerned that the Democratic party is facing a situation more destructive
than the 2000 elections. I am certain you are cognizant of these issues
but I would like to add my perspective for your consideration.

-best regards

-chris blask

.......
My daughters just left for school singing 'Yes we can'.

To the cynics - *nothing* is more important than my children having
hope. I am an outspoken *conservative* voter and *I* *don't* *care* about
ideological arguments right now.

Reagan offered Hope.

Kennedy offered Hope.

*That* is why they were succesful leaders of this nation, and this
world. Not because of the ideologies we rightfully debate off stage.

Leaders *lead*.

Leaders *inspire*.

Cynics have no place on stage. Cynics do not build, do not lead, do not
solve, do not help, do not heal. Off stage, they play a useful role in
focusing the debates of those who have to try to succeed despite the
nihilism of despair.

Cynics are *not* going to be the leaders of my children.

I will vote for Obama even if he is not on the ballot, and encourage
everyone to do the same. Cynics will *not* rob my children of the
opportunity to grow to adulthood under a banner of hope.

For openers...

Chris Blask — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:50:26 EST

Hi folks!

It is interesting that I am here at all.

I was born in California in 1965 and grew up in Colorado, the youngest of that period's anti-war protester generation. My family moved to Canada in 1978 and I wrapped myself in the far-left flag for years. However, for more than ten years I have publicly argued against the Liberal movement and voted a fairly consistent right-of-center ticket.

In the early 1990s I spent a great deal of time arguing politics on Usenet and began a transition away from my peer group into a middle-land I have occupied since. Debating against holocaust deniers and white supremacists, I found myself being attacked as well by self-identified minority leaders, feminists and others of similar stripe - because I would not agree that "only white men can be racists and sexists", nor that we should work to silence those we disagree with (however heinous their words), nor that reversing roles in inequality equations was desirable. White supremacist groups tracked down my work address and sent me physical hate mail, while simultaneously I was publicly ridiculed by those claiming to support justice and equality under the banner of liberalism.

At the same time, I decided to volunteer at the local cable TV station in Toronto. For five years I worked on the provincial opposition leaders' monthly shows: the Conservative leader (Mike Harris, later Premier of Ontario) and Liberal leader Lynn McLeod. We had the same crew on Mike's show for 60 consecutive shows (Torontonian cable TV volunteers not at all being a conservative bunch) - yet I was the only volunteer to do more than 3 shows with Lynn (I did 60, also). Mike showed up every month with one assistant and I saw him have actual conversations with guests with opposing views. Lynn showed up with twelve self-important followers who so insulted the volunteers that they almost all never returned. During this time I invented one of the first Internet firewalls and spent a great deal of time speaking to groups, businesses and governments, and in my spare time crewed TV shows for fun. With my long hair and volunteer position I seemed to fade into the background on the Lynn McLeod set - none of the followers ever learned my name, and Lynn's primary assistant Dave so disdained my existence that he uttered these words as he led a guest onto the set, within five feet of me: "We do most of this work ourselves, the rest of these people are volunteers and flubs" (Michael White, accomplished technical producer, quit due to that). In 1995 as I flew back from Ottawa after an energizing meeting with the Ministry of Defense I related this entire story in great detail to my seat-mate and, when finished, asked which party he was with. He was the federal Liberal Justice Minister.

My point is that my support for Barack Obama is not an endorsement for what the Liberal movement in the US or elsewhere has become - it is an endorsement of the man himself. It is my strongest belief (as iteratively successful CEO and team leader) that the most important aspect of leadership is the ability to inspire and motivate. There are relatively few leaders in business and many fewer in politics who I believe are truly great motivators, most leading politicians I would not send on a sales call. Barack is definitively on my list of great motivators.

It is my hope that Mr. Obama is elected our next president. I believe his leadership will provide the motivation both domestically and internationally that will allow the country and the world to make the steps forward we are so capable of making.

It is also my hope that this period of Democratic leadership will help to purge the global left of the entitled condescension and ennui that has become its downfall. Barack's words and Michelle Obama's aggressive "This change means *you* have to change!" message give me reason to believe that hope is not unfounded.

Best of luck to you all, now let's get this guy elected and see if I am correct.

-cheers!

-chris

Chris Blask's Blog

GOP Registration Dropping, Democratic Increasing

Obama's Words Have Become Actions

Winning the Big Game is What Matters

Damn Obama, At Any Price!

The Changing Media - A Move Towards Public Media

American Hunters and Shooters Association Endorses Obama

Sanity Visits MyDD.com

The R Word

Rev. Karl Lutze, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy and the Legacy we Carry for All of Them

Truth and Troops - Cheryl's Iraq Experience: *She* is Ready on Day One!

Truth and Troops - General Stewart on Bosnia and "The Lie Heard Round The World"

An Opportunity to Reflect on Our Weaknesses - Senator Clinton's Theft of Valor

Denouncement and Renouncement Pronouncement

ACTION: Bosnian Vet Accuses Hillary of Valor Theft

Comments on Houston ABC Blog - Tom Abrahams "A Union So Conceived..."

Comments on The Hill's Pundit Blog - John Feehery

ACTION: Write on the DNC Blogs - Set The MyBO Tone and let Superdelegates See It

*THIS* is what the Clinton Campaign Has Brought the Democratic Party to - The DNC Website Blogs (or "Dante's Descent into the Seven Circles of Hell")

My thoughts on the Church and State debate (Wright/Hagee/ad nauseum)

Comment - Chicago Tribune Exonerates Obama re Rezko

Geraldine Ferraro on Superdelegates - and the Rush Factor

Letter To Geraldine Ferraro

MyBO on CNN, and my "Obama Rapid Response" Rapid Response

Poem/message: The Experience of Me and We

Comment on Casper, WY Star Tribune

CLINTON Campaign Told Canada "NAFTA Comments Just Posturing" - NOT Obama

ACTION: Write Gov. Crist - Pulling to Seat Clinton Votes In Florida!

We Are The Higher Ground

A Betrayal of Conservative Fundamentals - Republicans Voting for Clinton to Beat Obama

Rose Campaign

Sen. Obama's Incredible Intellectual Depth and Pragmatism - an Example

Letter to Author: February 29 "Inside the Ring" Article

ACTION: Write Howard Dean re: Hillary Joining Republican Efforts

Sen. Clinton on '60 Minutes' in Regards to Sen. Obama's Faith

COMMENT on Houston Chronicle - Supporters' Difference in Tone and Respect

Ohio Local Websites - Provide Comment

Coment on NYT: "Separating Gender, Political Identity in Clinton Story"

Comment on Ron Chusid's "The Differences Between Obama and Clinton"

Note of Thanks and Congratulations to Sen. Alexander, R-TN

Senator McCain Seeks and Receives Endorsement of CEO/Preacher/Armageddonist Hagee

US Magazine Comment

Blogging on Conservative Websites - Townhall.com

A Great Comment on Leadership and Experience

Feb 25th - A Day Over the Top, Poll after Poll

New York Times Nails it, Clinton Campaign Preaching: "The Audacity of Hopelessness "

A Good Example of Why This is Worthwhile - Involvement Achieves Ends

The "Ice Cream Argument" - Clinton Not Able to Combine Plans with Passion and Oratory as Obama Can

Example: Letter to the Media in Response to Errors and Bias - Hardball Bin Laden Graphic

INFO: Obama's Legislative Record - Written 890 Bills and Co-sponsored Another 1096

Letter to the Author - "When the Magic Fades" - NYT

The Final Word on Words - ABC Interview with Deval Patrick - Feb 19

Note: CNN Contact info

Clinton Supporter Open Letter to Hillary - Please Concede to Obama

Wisconsin - Clinton and Huckabee Score -1 with a family

My Comment on Central Ohio dot com

Notes: Good explanation of Healthcare differences

Wisconsin Bob

If you can't pay your mandated healthcare, will Hilary take your house?

Texas Primary Notes

In Response to Mark Steyn, Orange County Register: "Obama the Muzak Messiah of the pseudo-revolution"

Speaker's "American Voices" Mail not Working?

For openers...

Truth and Troops - Cheryl's Iraq Experience: She is Ready on Day One!

THIS is what the Clinton Campaign Has Brought the Democratic Party to - The DNC Website Blogs (or "Dante's Descent into the Seven Circles of Hell")