Chuck Lasker's Political Views Blog

Defending Obama on Twitter - from @chucklasker

Chuck — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:59:53 EDT

I'm not sure if anyone reads these posts anymore. But, if you're a fan of my Obama campaign efforts, and if you're on Twitter, follow me at http://www.twitter.com/chucklasker. I am defending Obama on a regular basis and I could use the help. The Republicans are using Twitter to a high level, even having their own group called TCOT (True Conservatives on Twitter). It's the most ignorant group of people I've ever met, so let's get in there and fight the good fight! It's not over!

Yes We Did!

Chuck — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:42:08 EST

I am so proud and humbled to have worked with so many amazing, inspiring people in our successful effort to elect Barack Obama for President. We did it with a positive, issue-based campaign that is now the model for future campaigns. Thank you, everyone, and congratulations.

I have free Yes We Did! computer wallpapers at http://www.cafepress.com/yeswedid as well as Yes We Did! gear with all funds going towards The Obama '08 Historical Archive Project.

Now let's get started!

Chuck Lasker
http://www.chucklasker.com

The Obama '08 Historical Archive Project

Chuck — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:31:36 EDT

I am creating a web site to archive stories, photos, videos and articles to keep a history of the Obama '08 campaign. Whether Obama wins or loses, this race has been historic.

Here is the current link. It will soon be at www.obama08.org.

http://69.16.213.75/~obama/

If you're interested in participating, sign up for the newsletter at the site and I'll send you info ASAP.

It's the Hypocrisy of the Right that Generates Distrust

Chuck — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:15:43 EDT

John McCain does not wear a flag pin, but there are no outcries as there were about Obama, who wears one now. It doesn't matter to me -- flag pin wearing is a silly issue. But this shows the hypocrisy of the right wing. Flag pins mattered when it was Obama, not when it's McCain. Having a rich heiress wife who hasn't released tax returns mattered when it was Kerry, not when it is McCain. Questionable military history is okay to attack when it's Kerry, not when it's McCain. Bill Clinton's marital indiscretions mattered, but McCain's affair does not. Being a strong Christian mattered for Bush over Kerry, but Obama's stronger Christianity than McCain's doesn't matter now. Experience matters when it's Obama, but not when it's Palin. See the pattern? This is why America does not trust the Republican Party anymore.

LTE: McCain’s Anti-Terror Position is Weaker than Obama’s - 138 words

Chuck — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:26:32 EDT

In the first presidential debate, John McCain once again criticized Barack Obama for saying he’d send troops into Pakistan to “take out” bin Laden or other al-Qaeda leadership even if the Pakistani government did not approve. He called Obama "naive."

However, McCain previously said that, if elected, “I will follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell and I will get him. I promise you that." Apparently he’d follow him to the “gates of Hell,” but not into Pakistan.

Obama clearly has our safety in sight on this issue, and not political posturing. If McCain must first seek permission from whatever government is running Pakistan at the time in order to get bin Laden, then our security will be compromised by his presidency. I’m voting Obama as the candidate who would truly fight terrorism, not just give lip service to doing it.

Debate Watch Party - Sept 26, Westfield, Indiana

Chuck — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:08:17 EDT

If you're an Obama supporter that lives in Hamilton County, Indiana (or nearby), you're invited to a Debate Watch Party on Friday, the 26th, at the home of Chuck Lasker (http://www.chucklasker.com/politics.html). More details and RSVP are at:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gs7t8c

Economy Tanking, War On Two Fronts, No Time For A Maverick

Chuck — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:53:51 EDT

This is my latest Huffington Post article. I think it's my best. I believe we should accept the McCain/Palin "maverick" claim, and campaign against mavericks. This is my attempt to do so:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chuck-lasker/economy-tanking-war-on-tw_b_126981.html

Please Digg: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Economy_Tanking_No_Time_For_a_Maverick

What kind of Homeland Security do you have if police can come and take away your Constitutionally protected rights?

Chuck — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:03:35 EDT

Why hasn't Obama said anything about these civil rights violations? What is more important than our Constitutional liberties, our journalistic protections, and our right to protest?

http://the-uptake.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/539/ "What kind of Homeland Security do you have if police can come and take away your Constitutionally protected rights?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-uptake/police-raid-protester-hou_b_122624.html "The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant. [Residents] were forced to remain on the floor for 45 minutes while the officers took away the laptops, computers, individual journals, and political materials kept in the house."

It's gone way too far, and somebody needs to speak up. Forget Palin, Senator Obama, the Constitutional attorney and professor, needs to speak out against these violations of civil liberties.

Questions Republicans For Obama Want To Ask Obama

Chuck — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:48:53 EDT

As posted at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chuck-lasker/questions-republicans-for_b_121869.html

As a Republican for Obama (RFO), I've been all over the Internet for the past year and a half defending my belief that Barack Obama better supports founding Republican principles than John McCain. I believe the choice is clear for any true classic Republican who is willing to open his or her mind to defying the GOP leadership's commands.

While we understand that Barack Obama is a Democrat, we're encouraged by many of his policies that are conservative in the truest sense. There are some questions, though, that we'd like Senator Obama to answer. I've sent a request to the Obama campaign for a one-on-one interview by a Republican but have not heard back yet. I think they're a little busy right now - something happening in Denver from what I hear. Since I've been featured on television, local papers, the New York Times and XM Radio as a very active Republican for Obama, as well as being a Huffington Post citizen journalist, I'm hoping it is being considered.

While I've been waiting, I decided to come up with the questions I'd ask. Taking that a step further, I decided to ask other Republicans for Obama for help. I posted at barackobama.com RFO groups, at independent RFO sites, and personally asked RFOs that I know. Below is a list of questions that I received. For duplicates, I worded them to represent the overall sentiment, and have given credit to the first submitter. The first four are my original questions.

1. Republicans have historically been opposed to excess accumulation of power in any government branch. Hypocritically, President Bush has accumulated an unprecedented amount of power to the Executive Branch in the name of safety, with record use of Executive Orders and Presidential Signing Statements. Do you intend to work with Congress to roll back those changes to permanently avoid these attempts in the future, and if so, how?

2. Many Republicans are worried about your position on guns. However, you have expressed your respect for the Second Amendment and tradition. Can you explain why you believe the founding fathers created the Second Amendment, and why limiting some gun ownership is necessary in your opinion in 2008?

3. Your stated positions are mostly centrist, and from the very beginning you have stated your desire to "work across the aisle" with Republicans. President Bush called himself "a uniter, not a divider," but has been more divisive and partisan than any previous president in my lifetime. How can we believe you will not become a total partisan, caving to the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party and leaving us Republican supporters in the dust?

4. President Reagan's "trickle down economics" was based on tax cuts for the rich leading to the rich spending and investing their increased wealth in such a way to create jobs and increased money to the middle class and poor. What is your opinion on this philosophy, and why do you think it didn't work with the recent Bush tax cuts?

5. When selecting a Supreme Court Justice or federal judge, if a candidate has a strong history of wise discernment and consistent Constitutional interpretations, yet is strongly pro-life, would you still nominate the candidate?
- Steve Richardson, Texas

6. As an Eisenhower Republican, I have a question. Most Presidents have had budget deficits. It is immoral to pass on such huge debts to our grandchildren. You propose modest tax cuts for the middle class, modest tax increases on the rich, and some reductions from Iraq spending. Is that enough to reduce the deficit?
- William Morgan

7. You've talked vaguely about rebuilding our infrastructure. As a Rockefeller Republican, I'd like you to explain why you believe it is important to rebuild our roads, bridges and tunnels.
- Rev. Donald "Skull" Powell, South Carolina

8. Please explain how a windfall profits tax on oil companies will lower the price of a gallon of gas at the pump.
- Brian Lathe, Arizona

9. As a Senator from Illinois and an admirer of Abraham Lincoln, in what areas would Republicans be moving closer to Lincoln by supporting you?
- Sue Rudd, Massachusetts

10. After your Democratic Convention speech in 2004 several people branded
you as a "conservative" and said it was "Right Speech, Wrong Party." More recently
Andrew J. Bacevich wrote, "The conservative case for Barack Obama" and gives
his definition of conservatism: (1) A commitment to individual liberty, tempered by the conviction that genuine freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint; (2) A belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law; (3) Veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of stewardship for Creation; (4) A reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements; (5) Respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a wariness of the market's corrosive impact on humane values; (6) A deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history. Would you say that you are a truer conservative than John McCain?
- Sue Rudd, Massachusetts

11. Every four years the Republicans come out as the party of national security, implying that Democrats are weak in this area. Can you address national security directly to overcome this perception?
- Gary Lehman, Indiana

12. What will you do to create more efficiency in government?
- Matt Theobald, Indiana

13. We Republicans know what our Party leadership is doing to you with smears and attacks. What are you going to do to fight back against those kinds of attacks while maintaining the integrity of your campaign?
- Ailene, Indiana

Some people might wonder about giving a candidate questions in advance. There's a certain desire for that "gotcha" moment. Personally, I just want to know the answers, even if they're prepared in advance. I'll let you know if the Obama campaign responds, and I'll post the interview here if I get it.

Obama Supporter Team Meeting: Focus Focus Focus!

Chuck — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:51:58 EDT

I blogged about something on my mind the past couple weeks.

http://www.whatwouldobamado.info/2008/08/obama-supporter-team-meeting-focus.html

Here it is in full. If you have comments, please place them at the WWOD blog:

I’d like to have a little team meeting with my fellow Obama supporters. If you’re not an Obama supporter, I’ll ask you to leave the room for a few minutes, please, while we talk.

Okay, now that we’re alone, I want you to know you’ve been doing a great job. Senator Obama is consistently higher in the polls than McCain, at a 5-7% level that would mean an electoral sweep in November if the numbers stay the same. Keep up the good work! However, we need to talk a minute about something important.

People, we need to focus! I am a member of dozens of MYBO groups (my.barackobama.com member groups for those that don’t know), and I’ve been noticing a large number of discussions that have to do with obscure policies, rumors, smears, Obama’s speeches, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, racism, the flag, who should be VP, whether “the campaign” is treating us right or doing the right thing, and sometimes even tin-foil-hat level conspiracy theories. Many discussions have become argumentative, devolving to Republican-esque name calling. Some members have become so involved in individual issues, they’re pushing their positions throughout the lists, hoping to influence Senator Obama somehow, as if he’s reading the thousands and thousands of posts on all groups each day.

Remember, these MYBO groups exist to help us help Senator Obama get elected. That’s it. Period. After the election, we can argue the fine points of policy. It’s not feasible that anyone in the campaign is reading group emails, there are just too many, so we’re just talking amongst ourselves. And McCain supporters are clearly in many groups trying to cause strife and division amongst Obama supporters. Don’t take the bait! If we stay focused on one goal, to get Barack Obama elected, and not let anything else distract us, we will win in a landslide. If we lose focus, start fighting amongst ourselves, and go off-message, we’ll have a Kerry-level loss and pundits will be discussing the issue for years as the Republicans continue the current disastrous path.

My good friend in Germany, Dr. Steffen Seidel, today pointed out that, while we’ve lost focus by fighting amongst ourselves, McCain supporters have been overtaking us for Internet superiority. Steffen’s basis for this is the poor Digg results for Obama blogs, such as this one. We need to take the time we would have spent typing a 900 word homily on why Obama should choose Rachel Maddow for VP, and, instead, go into forums, blogs and news sites and Digg, Buzz Up, del.icio.us, rate, and comment with positive Obama messages.

Even better, let’s go out to register new voters, especially young voters at colleges, concerts and public events. We need to stop bothering trying to change the minds of closed-minded family members, neighbors and people who send out smear emails. In the 20 hours we spend trying to change one person’s mind, we can register 200 new voters who want change in America. Contact your local Obama office and volunteer. It’s harder, sure, than popping off opinion emails, but it’s the most important thing you can do as an American today.

I’ll leave you with this thought. In 1992, Ronald Reagan created “The Eleventh Commandment” for Republicans. It was, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” It has worked extremely well in winning elections. We need the same kind of Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of Barack Obama or other Obama supporters.” If we follow that, and get back to focused work, we can fight all we want under the new President Obama.

That’s it, teammates! Let’s get back to work. Everyone else can come back in now.

The Bush/McCain Incompetence Taxes

Chuck — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:27:31 EDT

As I posted at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chuck-lasker/the-bushmccain-incompeten_b_116667.html

As a Republican, I happily used the "tax and spend liberal" label against Gore and Kerry. I believed that George W. Bush would cut taxes and spending, reduce the size of government, and keep us out of expensive foreign entanglements. I believed Gore or Kerry would have spent our money irresponsibly leading to an economic crisis.

Today, the "tax and spend liberal" label is being applied to Senator Obama, and Senator McCain is being called a "tax cutting conservative." Is it true? John McCain's chief economic policy adviser does not believe it is, as he was quoted in an article in Time Magazine:

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief economic policy adviser said, "I used to say that Barack Obama raises taxes and John McCain cuts them, and I was convinced," he told me in a phone interview this week. "I stand corrected about Obama's plans."

McCain has a 95 percent pro-Bush voting record in the past year (when he was not absent) and has commented often that he is Bush's greatest supporter and that he plans to continue Bush initiatives if elected. Under the Bush administration we've had trillions of dollars in hidden "taxes," sucking away at our wealth, our investments and our incomes, that we can expect to continue under McCain. I call them Incompetence Taxes.

The Dollar Devaluation Tax

The value of the US Dollar has decreased an average of 30% against other major currencies since Bush took office. This means if you had $1 million in 2000, it is now worth only $700,000. $300,000 simply disappeared in purchasing power. That's the price the wealthy and everyone else has paid for voting in a "tax cutting conservative" instead of a "tax and spend liberal."

The War Tax

The Iraq War is the first American war that did not come with a tax increase. Costs are just about to exceed the total cost of the Vietnam War. So how is it being paid for? The Iraq war is being funded outside the general budget, making it appear inexpensive. The Bush administration is simply borrowing the money, with The People's Republic of China only second to Japan as a US creditor. This means China now holds over half a trillion dollars in American debt. With us running in a spending deficit, who will pay this debt? Taxes will have to be increased, or our children will be paying for our adventures. Either way, there's an Incompetence War Tax hidden in our debt. For being afraid those "tax and spend liberals" might extend welfare a bit, our "tax cutting conservative" administration has outspent anything a Democrat could have even conceived of.

Non-Defense Federal Spending Tax

With record No Bid Contracts from this administration, federal spending has increased under the Bush administration faster than any previous president. It is now estimated at over $23,000 per year per American citizen (not counting supplemental expenses such as Iraq). Again, since we are borrowing our way to paying for all this spending, our debt will have to be paid someday, either by us or our children. Just because they don't tax you now, doesn't mean you don't owe it. The debt will come due and you will have to pay. If we get a responsible Democrat in office who wants to pay down our debt, Republicans will yell "tax and spend liberal!"

Special Interest/Lobbyist Tax

The Bush administration created the most expensive entitlement program in history with the Medicare Modernization Act. But why is it so expensive? Because it bans drug price negotiations, forcing the government to pay full retail prices for drugs. While insurance companies negotiate bulk rates, the pharmaceutical lobbyists influenced the old school politicians to accept this ridiculous provision. Senator Obama has stated that he will repeal this ban, but McCain has not stated his position, and was not present during a Senate vote on the issue.

With the last eight years of Incompetence Taxes, do we really want to risk four more years of a so-called "tax cutting conservative?"

New Huffington Post Blogger!

Chuck — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 10:28:24 EDT

I've been accepted as a new Huffington Post blogger. It's exciting! I have one post up now, and working on another. If you could become a fan of mine on HuffPost, and Digg my article, that would help make my other articles more prominent and popular.

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Republicans_Gather_to_Support_Obama_in_Indiana

Thanks!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chuck-lasker

Barack Obama and the Pro Life Issue – a Republican Perspective

Chuck — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:43:37 EDT

What issue is more Republican than pro-life? Of course, the term no longer applies to the groups that call themselves part of the “pro life movement.” The movement has been reduced to overturning Roe vs. Wade and fighting premarital and teen sex.

In the 35 years since Roe vs. Wade, pro-lifers have spent billions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of man-hours, trying to overcome the Supreme Court ruling. However, since 586,760 abortions were reported in the United States in the year prior to Roe vs. Wade, clearly overturning Roe will not create realistic reductions. Additionally, in today's visual media-centric country, do you really believe Americans will accept seeing doctors and mothers sent to jail, and women forced to have babies against their will? Using legal means to force women to have babies is not a valid method of reducing abortions in 21st Century America.

John McCain has stated that he plans to continue the failed path of trying to use Supreme Court justice stacking, and, ultimately, the police force to reduce abortions. His belief in the value of human life is also suspect based on his continued support of the Iraq war, where it is estimated that over 1 million Iraqis have been killed. When asked about American exports of cigarettes to Iran, he replied, "Maybe that's how we can kill them." He then said he was joking, but joking about the deaths of an entire nation of people is not acceptable. Pro life is a base moral value, not just for the lives of babies, but all humans of any age and nationality.

Senator Obama is pro-choice, but understands the life issue is truly to reduce the number of abortions. Period. Senator Obama's plan is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions, as well as to promote programs that help women keep their babies through health care, adoption programs, and education. Here is a quote from barackobama.com:

Senator Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

Therefore, the TRUE life candidate, the candidate who will work to reduce the number of abortions instead of just paying lip service to “moral issues,” is Senator Barack Obama.

My Republicans for Obama video testimonial

Chuck — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:43:37 EDT

I am going to do a series of posts on issues from a Republican perspective. I feel, as a Republican for 27 years and political junkie, I can help Democrats understand our thinking and help other Republicans see that Barack Obama is our candidate this election. I am also going to post to my other blog:

http://conservativesforobama.blogspot.com/

To start, here is a script I wrote that I will be using for a video testimonial for YouTube.

I'm Chuck Lasker, and I'm a Republican for Obama. My favorite president was Ronald Reagan. I loved him. He put country before self, as no other president has since. The economy was strong. Americans could travel the world with heads held high, feeling safe, and rich from the strong dollar. If we'd had candidates like Ronald Reagan since then, the Republican Party would have remained in full power.

Since then, however, the Republican Party leadership has pulled the Party off course. The extreme right evangelicals and the corporations have taken over. From Bush Senior's New World Order to the current administration's free pass for monopolies and conglomerates that crush small businesses and innovation, the Party is barely recognizable.

Do you remember how upset we Republicans were when Clinton wrote executive orders? Now Bush rules with them everyday. Remember the Republican phrase, “we are not the world's police” when Clinton sent our troops to fight foreign wars? Remember how Bush Sr. had us out of Iraq in 100 days? Remember how pro-life meant reducing pregnancies and abortions, not failed attempts at discouraging premarital sex for moral reasons that have nothing to do with abortion? Do you think pro-life Reagan would support killing over a million Iraqis in order to “free them?” And at what point did it become Republican to believe safety is more important than liberty – after 9/11 or when the public started disagreeing with the Bush administration?

Remember when the War on Drugs was about arresting drug kingpins, not drug users? Do you think Reagan would approve of us having a higher percentage of citizens in prison than China, mostly being people who smoked a little weed? And prisons being private companies owned by judges, prosecutors and sheriffs? That doesn't fit with smaller government and keeping government out of our personal lives, does it?

Remember when trickle down economics worked because the rich would spend their money in America and invest in small businesses? Today they spend their money overseas and invest in oil and foreign investments, so it's trickling away, not down. That's why Bush's tax cuts for the rich have not helped our economy at all, but has created a debt to China it will take generations to repay. There's another one Reagan would love, a trillion dollar debt to The People's Republic of China.

So, my fellow Republicans, I put it to you. Is the current Republican leadership truly Republican, the Party of Lincoln, the Party of Eisenhower, the Party that created the civil rights movement, the Party of Ronald Reagan who attracted people from both parties to his campaign?

No, the Republican Party – at least the national leadership – has betrayed us. They've sold out to mega-corporations, lobbyists, the far right, and the military industrial complex. The economy is in the tank, our military is stretched to the limit on an unnecessary war, and our Constitution has been shredded with government spying, free speech infringement, and more Executive Orders than all previous presidents combined. Heck, Americans now claim to be Canadians when they travel oversees because the world hates our arrogance. But FoxNews actually claimed that European people liking Barack Obama is a “red flag” against him, as if it's a Republican desire for our allies to hate us. How does that fit with the Republican free trade agenda?

And the maverick John McCain? He is not even recognizable from the John McCain of 8 years ago, since he lost the primary in 2000 and realized he needed to pander to the new Ultra-Right Republican leadership so they'd give him a chance to be president. His voting record of 95% yes votes on Bush initiatives last year shows he's not a maverick anymore, and his recent reversals on so many issues shows he'll do and say whatever it takes to win the presidency, where he'd be completely beholden to the corporations who funded his campaign. As an example, McCain reversed his opinion on new drilling for oil, and his donations from oil and gas companies increased ten fold immediately. His current hateful personal attack ads against Obama that question Obama's patriotism and support for the troops show a do-anything-to-win moral vacuum that he claims to be above with his "Straight Talk Express." McCain 2000 would simply hate McCain 2008.

There is an alternative to blindly following the orders of the Party leadership. The alternative is Barack Obama. Just as Reagan's non-partisan, big tent agenda attracted Democrats in both of his elections, Senator Obama is attracting Republicans like me, who feel betrayed and ignored by the current leadership, and who don't believe John McCain represents us.

Do I agree with Obama on everything? No. Do I believe he loves this country before self, and do I trust him, and believe he's a brilliant leader? Yes I do. I am voting for Obama, not against McCain because I truly believe nobody can better get us out of the horrible situation we're now in. It's time for a new direction – not just any new direction, but one that pushes against special interests, Washington corruption, and the pork barrel status quo.

If you're feeling disaffected, like me and thousands and thousands of other Republicans throughout the country, please read “The Audacity of Hope” by Barack Obama. Go to an Obama event, especially if he'll be speaking. Go to www.barackobama.com and read up on the issues. If your mind is open, you'll see that he is not a “tax and spend liberal,” that he's not an elitist or leftist, but instead, is a centrist with amazingly nonpartisan ideas. Then, join us in our nonpartisan effort to clean up Washington and bring back the freedoms we've lost in our misguided attempt at making us “safe.”

Central Indiana Republicans for Obama In Home Social

Chuck — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:23:53 EDT

My wife, Sharon, and I, active Republicans for Obama, invite all Republicans, recently ex-Republicans, and independent conservatives to our home for a casual get together. We'll chat about issues to reassure each other we're not crazy, we'll discuss ways to talk with our Republican friends about Obama, but mostly we'll just feel better knowing we're not alone. We'll provide snacks, iced tea and coffee, but feel free to bring your own favorite drinks. If you want to bring a dessert, I'm sure nobody would complain. This is a campaign encouraged event with campaign staffers in attendance.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4g4qy

Obama Supporters Gone Wild

Chuck — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:51:46 EDT

I am a part of several MYBO groups. I've noticed a trend lately. McCain supporters have been hopping onto the lists, posing as Obama supporters, and posting something along the lines of, "I was an Obama supporter until Obama xxxxxx." Usually it's emotional and divisive issues, like the FISA Bill, abortion, separation of church and state, etc. Unfortunately, Obama supporters respond to these trolls with defensive and emotional responses. The troll wins and the group members lose. This success emboldens the trolls, creating a downward spiral. Then, when a true Obama supporter expresses an opinion that someone else disagrees with, people respond negatively due to the highly charged emotions caused by the conflicts.

I have developed a mantra to repeat when you see this happening:

I do not have to respond to every post I disagree with.
I am not personally responsible for defending Barack Obama against every attack.
The campaign will be fine even with people disagreeing in this or any group.
I will not let someone else's emotional post force me into an emotional response.
I like the Delete key.
I am one with the Delete key.
What Would Obama Do?

Try it, it works! Get the wrist band if you need help - you can even snap it as a physical reminder when you mess up, as we all do from time to time. It's a few bucks, net proceeds go to the campaign, and your heart will thank you for it!

http://www.whatwouldobamado.info/WWODwristband.htm

Republicans for Obama in Indiana?

Chuck — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:19:34 EDT

Any Republicans for Obama in Indiana? I know they exist, the question is whether they're in MYBO and if they're willing to publically proclaim their support. I know there are many who are whispering!

I'd like to host an event in Westfield, Indiana, of fellow Republicans, ex-Republicans and conservatives who support Obama for President. But, it won't be any fun if it's just me and my wife! If you're nearby and interested, please email me at chuck@whatwouldobamado.info.

County Republicans for Obama Yard Signs

Chuck — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:24:57 EDT

I could not find a decent quality Republicans for Obama yard sign, so I made my own. I decided to put my county on it, especially since it's the most Republican county in Indiana. After ordering my own, I figured I'd make it available to anyone and raise some money for the campaign.

Here's a Hamilton County Republicans for Obama yard sign:

http://www.cafepress.com/wwobamad.279087309

I created one for Marion County (state doesn't matter):

http://www.cafepress.com/wwobamad.279101456

If anyone is interested in a design with a different county, let me know at chuck@whatwouldobamado.info what county and I'll create it and put it up there, and send you a link. In fact, I'll keep the following page updated with any new counties:

http://www.whatwouldobamado.info/cafepress.html

I'll be adding to this store over the next few days. Net proceeds will go to the Obama campaign.

http://www.cafepress.com/wwobamad

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Clarification of my What Would Obama Do? Concept

Chuck — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:09:41 EDT

I'd like to clarify my position on "being positive" I have stated at my site, www.whatwouldobamado.info. I am not in any way advocating saying only nice things about Senator Obama's opponents. Instead, I'm suggesting, tell the complete truth, but do it respectfully. The "What Would Obama Do?" concept is not literal, either, in that, as grass roots campaigners, we can and should talk about issues in detail that often Obama cannot.

For example, Senator McCain has clearly stated that one of his essential goals is to appoint Supreme Court justices specifically to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

It is not negative campaigning to point this out. It is not "dirty" to provide truthful and complete information on the opponent's positions. With the above issue, it is also not negative to mention that no previous modern presidential candidate has admitted that they would select Supreme Court justices based on a "litmus test" of this kind, either for or against an issue. It would be negative, though, to say something like, "John McCain hates women," which would not be productive or influential at all.

Negative campaigning about McCain would include, for example, his age, his personal relationship/marriage issues, his temper, or the Internet-based "Manchurian Candidate" issue. Cindy McCain is off limits, except for what she says in public forums, such as her comments about Michelle Obama. You'll never hear Obama talk about these things, but, instead, you'll hear him honor McCain's military service, then talk about the issues McCain has stated his position on.

The key is, we don't need to go negative to win, and, in fact, it would only serve to hurt us. We're winning now, and we will continue to do so as people finally get to know McCain for who he is now (versus the "maverick" he was in 2000), and as people who were not paying attention to the primary start listening to Obama and learning who he is. We should be positive, hopeful, respectful, and understanding that there are valid other viewpoints than ours, so we can use this new form of campaigning to usher in a new era of politics along with a new President.

The Step Back, Take a Deep Breath Event

Chuck — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:41:03 EDT

On June 28th, many of us will host or attend a "Unite for Change" house meeting. The "Step Back, Take a Deep Breath Event" is a pre-event event of sorts.

Barack Obama has made it clear that he would rather lose with integrity, than win with a negative, dirty campaign. He has set an example of calm, positive, respectful campaigning that is unprecedented and inspiring, even in light of so many personal attacks against him, his family, his friends, and his supporters. Senator Obama is a model for us as we deal with people in our lives and on the Internet.

The general election has begun. We've just ended an emotional primary. We're up against an opponent more than happy to use old school, negative, dirty campaigning. It is so easy right now to get angry, to respond negatively, to get caught up into a downward spiral of name calling and fighting, even amongst ourselves.

We need to reset, reboot, take a deep breath and restart our brains and our emotions. This "event" is a moment, a few minutes before our house party, to do just that. Wherever you are, close your eyes, take a deep breath, let go of the past, clear your heart, and visualize how you intend to represent Barack Obama during the house party AND for the next five months. Commit to thinking, "What Would Obama Do?" every time you feel the urge to retaliate, whine, attack, or respond-in-kind to negativity.

Sign up for The Step Back, Take a Deep Breath Event

As a tie-in fundraiser, we've created a "What Would Obama Do?" wrist band (like the Livestrong wrist bands) to wear as a constant reminder to stay positive. Half of the net proceeds go to the Obama campaign. They're made in the USA, and they're purple, to represent the "No more Blue and Red States, just Purple States" idea.

http://www.whatwouldobamado.info/WWODwristband.htm

Republican Operation "whatevers"

Chuck — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:57:18 EDT

Someone forwarded a link to an interesting article about yet another Republican Operation something that is designed to cause disruption amongst Democrats.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/18/84042/4327

I witnessed Operation Chaos myself - Rush Limbaugh's plan to disrupt the Democratic Primary by asking Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary in the Democratic Primary instead of voting in the Republican primary, so I know these things are real. So how do we respond to this?

Remember this - as these people lurk for the sake of hurting us, they're also seeing us be friendly, fair, intelligent and caring. Read Barack Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, to see how he handles racists comments, etc. These people are simply uninformed. They've been told we "liberals" are elitist godless monsters, and tend to stick to a couple of "news" outlets - FoxNews, Limbaugh, etc. that reinforce those mistaken stereotypes. So this is an opportunity! By doing what Obama would do, being respectful, staying out of baited arguments, giving intelligent discourse, we have the opportunity to reveal ourselves to be who we really are. It's unlikely, but still possible, to move some of these people over while they lurk, or at least diffuse their anger. It's simply another good reason to stay on point and stay positive.

Before you respond to any emotional, divisive post or comment in groups, blogs or forums, ask yourself these things:

1. Could this be a troll (someone who is just trying to cause trouble)?

2. Am I reading this right (often we read into things what the person didn't intend - a weakness of the typed word versus the spoken word)?

3. What would Obama do in the same situation? Would he attack?

Hillary and Positive Campaigning

Chuck — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:07:20 EDT

Now that Hillary Clinton is asking her supporters to become Obama supporters, and as these new Obama supporters start joining our groups, I created a blog post I thought addressed the understandable emotions we still have and the future. Enjoy.

http://www.whatwouldobamado.info/2008/06/hillary-and-positive-campaigning.html

Hillary and Positive Campaigning

As a reformed Republican, I understand the high level of emotions our race against Hillary Clinton created. Senator Obama brought me to the Democratic Party after 27 years as a Republican. It's been 16 months of grueling, face to face, heated campaigning. During this time it's been difficult to remain positive and respectful, as Senator Obama has requested we do.

When our football team wins, we often get in the faces of opposition fans. It's only natural in our competitive society. Just as it's easy to "go negative" against an opponent, it's easy to gloat when we win.

At this moment, though, we are in a different situation. We didn't win against an opposition party, nor against a set of policies we were strongly against. Instead, our candidate was selected over the other candidates, who all had similar positions, within the same party. We're all part of the same team, now with the same goal, to get Senator Obama elected to the Presidency of the United States.

So, in the name of "What Would Obama Do?", I suggest we put the past completely behind us and join with the Hillary supporters who are now Obama supporters. Senator Obama has asked us to do it, and it only makes sense to welcome new team members with open arms. Close your eyes, breathe deep, release the past, and let's move on to November as a unified group!

Yes We Can, Together!

New What Would Obama Do? Site and Wrist Band

Chuck — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:54:29 EDT

It's difficult to remain positive during this campaign! Senator Obama wants a new kind of campaign, and has asked his supporters to join him in being positive, respectful, and sticking to the issues. So I've created a new site at http://www.whatwouldobamado.info to help us think "What Would Obama Do?" before we speak.

I've also created a WHAT WOULD OBAMA DO? rubber wrist band to wear as a constant reminder.

http://www.whatwouldobamado.info/WWODwristband.htm

I am a reformed Republican. My family and I have been working on the Obama campaign in Indiana for many months. I've been a supporter since before Senator Obama announced his candidacy, after reading his book, The Audacity of Hope.

As a Republican during past elections I have been a participant in Republican attack-politics, what I call Old School Politics. Through Obama's leadership, I have seen the light, but it's like suddenly never swearing again - not a quick and easy process. Here is what we should NOT do:

Attack other candidate's personal lives or personalities.
Spread rumors or insulting jokes.
Get caught in arguments about "fake" issues like gaffes, pastors, flag pins, etc.
Get angry or confrontational, no matter how others are acting.
Use foul, divisive or racially charged language.

It will be difficult, as I've slipped several times just in the last few weeks. Won't you join me in this new world of positive campaigning?

McCain's Latest Tactic - Obama visiting Iraq

Chuck — Thu, 29 May 2008 20:20:26 EDT

Here is the main content of an email McCain sent from his campaign (I'm on his list to see what he's up to):----------------------My Friends,

I have long said that this election will present the American people with a clear choice in electing our next president. The differences between my vision for national security leadership and that of Senator Obama's could not be greater, and this is why I am writing to you today.

I think you all know that this war has been long, hard and tough. And it has meant enormous sacrifice on the part of Americans in blood and treasure. But after four years of a badly mismanaged war, our new strategy is succeeding and we are now winning in Iraq thanks to the service and sacrifice of the brave Americans who are serving.

I have visited Iraq on many occasions because I think the most vital decision that any President of the United States can make has got to be about the security of this nation and the lives of the young Americans who are serving.

But I cannot say the same of one of my opponents, Senator Barack Obama. He has only been to Iraq once, on a trip two years ago. Senator Obama speaks openly about his willingness to sit down with our enemies and engage in open talks, but he hasn't gone to Iraq in over two years to meet with our leaders and see that progress is being made on the ground. Something is wrong with your judgment when you want to sit down unconditionally with Raul Castro and Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but you don't take the opportunity to sit down with General Petraeus and learn about the situation in Iraq firsthand. My friends, this is not the "change" we need in our next president.

----------------------------Here are the problems with his email:1. Senator Obama is informed enough to know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is merely the President of Iran. The leader of Iran -- the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the highest ranking political and religious authority of the nation with sole power to declare war or peace -- is the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamene'i. In Iran, the highly visible president is not the one who makes the really important decisions, the Supreme Leader does from behind the scenes. McCain seems to misunderstand this completely. Scary for a potential president to not even know who the leader is of one of our greatest enemies.2. He claims Obama "don't take the opportunity to sit down with General Petraeus and learn about the situation in Iraq firsthand." Apparently McCain missed General Petraeus' multiple visits to the United States, where Obama has been able to discuss Iraq with him firsthand all day long.
3. These photo-op trips to Iraq that McCain, Clinton, and others keep making do not provide a true look into what is happening in Iraq. They are staged, and there are always literally hundreds of soldiers, helicopters, etc. protecting these visitors, a massive expense for minimal benefit. Additionally, when any American politician visits, attacks increase in the hopes of killing the visitor. Therefore, each time McCain visits Iraq, there are additional deaths of innocents, a price he apparently feels is acceptable so he can have a photo op.This is another excellent post about this same issue:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/john-mccain-iraq-and-th_b_93721.html

Senator Obama - Please encourage us

Chuck — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:00:09 EDT

I am a part of several barackobama.com groups. These are indepedently created and moderated groups of Obama supporters. Lately, it seems many group members have become high stressed and have been more negative than usual. I have a couple thoughts as to why this might be:

1. As the primaries end in each state, there is a feeling of "what do I do now?" In Indiana, my wife and I worked hard, were part of a group, were given assignments. There was energy, excitement, a goal! When we turned in our final walking packets the day before the primary here, we asked what was next. The answer was, "nothing, we're done." We asked about the general election, and they said, "there will probably be an office downtown, but not here in Hamilton County." In other words, after all the work, energy and excitement, we were dumped. There was no decompression. We were both depressed for days, and still feel ancy, like we should be doing something to help and there's nothing to do.

2. We've talked about all the "real" issues already to death, so the groups are resorting to the fringe issues, which are the most divisive. Immigration, abortion, racism, Hillary - very emotional issues. The West Virginia primary only enhanced the emotions about racism in particular.

So, I am asking that Senator Obama do a speech specifically to all his supporters - even if it's only shown on this site. Announce it in an email to all groups. Just encourage us to stay positive, to believe in the inevitability of our goal, to keep hoping. We need something new just for us. Make it clear you still appreciate us, and didn't just use us in each state and forget us. Talk to us directly, Senator Obama, and show us the love!

My thoughts on VP - Obama/Sebelius '08

Chuck — Sat, 10 May 2008 11:38:28 EDT

Now that Senator Obama is the presumed nominee, our thoughts move towards who we'd like to see as VP. This post title tells you my preference.

Making Hillary his VP would be against everything Barack stands for - a complete destruction of his principals. So, it's not going to happen. At no point so far has Senator Obama compromised, so he won't start with something so controversial!

For this same reason, he shouldn't pick Evan Bayh. Bayh used horrible tactics against Obama during the Indiana primary campaign, showing his old school leanings.

McCaskill is fantastic, but she is also a Junior Senator, so too inexperienced to be on the same ticket. Barack needs a governor, a general, or an elder statesman (stateswoman). How does he find someone with experience, who also is not too caught into the Washington web?

My choice is Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas: http://www.governor.ks.gov/about/bio.htm and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nHp90Z2NJk. She has had great success in Kansas, is likable, and knows how to run a campaign (she's won twice). Let's not ignore the fact that, as a female, some of those Hillary supporters would feel vindicated.

Bill Richardson has proven through the primary that he is not competent as an executive branch candidate. He should be made Secretary of State.

Wesley Clark often comes across as crazy, like Mike Gravel, so I think he'd hurt the campaign, like Vice Admiral Stockdale hurt Ross Perot's campaign in 1992.

John Edwards - he lost his chance to be VP by not endorsing Obama. By playing it safe, he has at best earned the position of Attorney General.

How about General David Petraeus? Petraeus won't be able to run because he's serving in the Middle East, but he'd be an interesting candidate. Maybe too conservative.

NYC Mayor Bloomberg? That's worthy of a book of comments...

I also would be okay with the idea of Senator Chuck Hagel: http://hagel.senate.gov/public/

Here's an interesting article from way back in December: http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=20&num=17657

Check the excellent comments by politicoswizzlestick, who answered a question about this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080222114338AAazfDL. The answer starts with, "The Obama camp has thus far wisely not leaked any VP choices..."

What are your thoughts?

Worked the Hamilton County Polls

Chuck — Tue, 06 May 2008 23:19:31 EDT

My wife, Sharon, and I, worked at a Westfield poll today - me as the Democratic judge, and Sharon as the Democratic clerk. It is an experience I recommend to everyone, as you see the process from the inside.In our precinct, Obama got twice as many votes as Hillary!! We did great work in Hamilton County!!! This is even with a significant Operation Chaos showing. We had quite a few Republicans ask for Democratic Ballots. No big deal, since we like crossovers for sincere reasons, but several of these people were "wink wink nudge nudge" so I believe they were voting Hillary to screw with the Democratic primary.A gentleman showed up, in a VERY nice suit, and said he was the "~~RNC~~ GOP Chairman." He asked how many Democrats were voting versus Republicans. We told him there were significantly more Democrats than Republicans. He grinned hugely and said, "Operation Chaos," and raised his eyebrows a few times, apparently showing approval for the illegal, treasonous Limbaugh plan to sabotage the Democratic primary.For the past several weeks the media has said this exact scenario - a huge win for Obama in North Carolina, and a minor win for Hillary in Indiana, means Hillary loses any further justification for remaining in the running. So, Yes We Did!

Indy Star

Chuck — Sun, 04 May 2008 22:27:44 EDT

I have long been unhappy about The Star's coverage of the election, with bias towards Hillary showing day after day in the priority of articles, the tone of articles, even the photos they decide to show. Their recent endorsement of Hillary simply confirms what I already knew. Well, endorsing is one thing, but bias in reporting is not acceptable to me. I have a daily subscription to The Star. I am going to call tomorrow and have that reduced to Sunday only. I need the Sunday for the ads and coupons. When I call, I will tell them that the reason for my reduction in subscription is their bias towards Hillary, resulting in their endorsement of Hillary. I encourage others to do the same.

Senator McCaskill of Missouri visits Carmel, Indiana

Chuck — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:49:44 EDT

Today was an interesting day. My wife, Sharon, and I went to see Senator McCaskill from Missouri, who is working for Senator Obama's nomination. As a Junior Senator like Obama, who is against partisanship and old-school Washington politics, she has decided that, although a woman like Hillary, she must support the candidate she feels is most able to create change in D.C. She explained that her belief in equality of the sexes means choosing the best candidate, regardless of his or her sex, not because of his or her sex.

There were about 40-50 people in the room, which is pretty good for mid-day in the Republican stronghold of Hamilton County. After talking about the importance of Indiana in the primary, and the similarities between Missouri and Indiana, Senator McCaskill explained how it's not a matter of IF Senator Obama will get the nomination, but WHEN. Indiana can help make WHEN be sooner, rather than later.

I asked the first question - "Knowing that Hillary cannot win the nomination, and knowing Hillary has to also know this, why do you believe she is still running?" Her answer was interesting. I'll paraphrase, so don't quote me exactly... Senator McCaskill believes Hillary is hoping something major will happen, like a complete Obama melt down or a major revelation about Obama, that will give her the chance to get the nomination. She then reconfirmed that she truly believes there is no possibility that anyone other than Barack Obama will get the Democratic nomination.

Senator McCaskill stayed for one and a half hours, graciously answering question after question, even when her people were saying she had to leave. Although I don't live in Missouri, and as a life-long Republican I'm still suspicious of Democratic politicians, after today I am a huge fan of Senator McCaskill and look forward to supporting her in any way I can.

http://mccaskill.senate.gov/

Here is a pic of myself, my wife, Sharon, and Senator McCaskill:

How candidates treat their supporters

Chuck — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:39:52 EDT

In an Obama list, someone sent the latest Hillary site feature - a Pop Quiz about Barack Obama.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/quiz

Here are my thoughts:

A candidate shows their opinion of the voters by how they interact. Senator Obama shows respect, and a belief in the intelligence of the voter. For example, this page, which, I can tell you with my marketing background, is NOT dumbed down: http://factcheck.barackobama.com/. Compare that to the Clinton Quiz, and we can see how the candidates feel about their supporters. Likewise, watching any given speech by Hillary, McCain, or Obama, and you'll see who is using "small" words, talking like talking to children, dumbing down their speech, and who is not. Those who dumb down their speech are the elitists, not the one candidate that speaks to us like intelligent adults.

You can summarize the campaigns as:

Senator Obama: "Yes We Can."
Senator Clinton: "I Can, But He Can't"
Senator McCain: "Of course I'm going to be the next president, so stop bothering me with questions."

Obama Event Volunteering in Columbus, Indiana

Chuck — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:12:49 EDT

Yesterday, April 11th, my wife, Sharon, and I volunteered at the Barack Obama Road to Change Indiana Tour 2008 at Columbus East High School in Columbus, Indiana. It was a last minute opportunity, literally invited by the Field Organizer, Rick Scalf, the night before.

Being an hour and a half away, we got up early and arrived before 8 am. There was already a huge crowd in line, some of whom had slept overnight to get good seats.

As volunteers, Sharon and I got in early, went through security (pretty serious), and were gathered to learn our jobs for the day. After a brief orientation, we were divided into groups with group leaders. Sharon and I were assigned to be ushers, but were later reassigned to help gather people from the audience to sit in the stands behind the Senator. Have you ever watched a Town Hall speech and thought, how did those people get to be behind Senator Obama? Well, for this event, at least, we simply went into the audience, chose a good variety of voter-aged people and asked if they'd like to be on TV. Almost all said yes. It was fun. Some people got mad that we didn't "choose" them, thinking we were being racist or agist or something, but we had to pull about 50 people out of a crowd of thousands and simply not have a single demographic overrepresented. In other words, we had to populate the people that were going to be on all the news channels behind Obama with a crowd that was similar to the full crowd. I don't see anything wrong with that, and prefer that to those people being "dignitaries" or people who are young and tough enough to sleep in a tent all night.

Here I am next to the stand we helped populate:

Here's my wife, Sharon:

Here's Senator Obama speaking in the middle of the crowd, estimated at 2,000.

It was impressive to watch him walk around, being sure to address everyone - no teleprompter, no hiding behind a podium. I expected to be moved, but not at the level I was. I was almost in tears when Senator Obama said we need to get back to the Constitution, and the crowd stood up applauding. As a Republican, I am a strong Constitutionalist, and, as Obama embraces the Constitution, the Republicans in power today are tearing it apart. To see the crowd show the same strong feelings about the Constitution as me gave me hope for the future.

After his speech, Senator Obama walked around shaking hands. His Secret Service agents (heroes, every one), made you feel he was safe, something I've been worried about. As a volunteer, I didn't feel right pushing through the crowd for a handshake, but I did get fairly close:

Sharon had brought my copy of The Audacity of Hope, which the main event coordinator, Ethan, took before the event. Afterwards, he gave it back, signed by Senator Obama. Excellent...

We helped people leave, tried to encourage people to volunteer, and then helped clean up. It was a great experience I will gladly repeat, and I strongly encourage others to try.

Disappointed in my candidate

Chuck — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:53:18 EST

Kucinich was excluded from the MSNBC debate tonight. While possibly legal, it is truly a form of election-rigging by the main stream media. The same was done to Ron Paul by FoxNews, who even included Guiliani, who got less votes in Iowa than Ron Paul.

My opinion about the FoxNews debacle was that the other Republican candidates should have refused to participate unless Ron Paul was included. The fact that they didn't showed that they have no belief in fair play or fair campaigning, and gladly profitted from FoxNews' bias.

When Kucinich was excluded, I had hoped Obama would refuse to participate unless Kucinich was included. Instead, he did the politically expedient (and morally soft) thing and sought the media spotlight instead of fighting for what is right. Too bad, he went down in my book tonight.

We gotta find a way to overcome the Hillary factor

Chuck — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:33:50 EDT

Clearly the mainstream media wants Hillary to get the Democratic nomination. I do NOT understand why. Is she promising something, or are they figuring her antics would make for better news ratings than Obama? The following article just shows how obvious it is that Clinton is not a positive candidate choice:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/sandy_berger_and_the_real_hill.html

I simply do not understand how anyone can support Clinton. Wasn't one Clinton administration saddled with legal problems and scandal enough for this country?

WWOD (What Would Obama Do?)

Chuck — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:25:40 EDT

Okay, the issue of the week (Britney at the VMAs was last week) is the student at the University of Florida who got tazed for asking a controversial question at a John Kerry speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CheY0jYXJjY

What would Barak Obama do in that scenario if he was the speaker (or was even in the audience)? Would he allow the abuse and just keep talking, like Kerry did, or would he step down from the podium and intervene on the student's behalf? I would like to know, because that's the difference between a US citizen who is willing to fight for our first amendment rights, and one who is willing to sit idly by while our rights are violated. What Would Obama Do?

Inexperienced?

Chuck — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:56:42 EDT

I think it's hilarious how the press and the other candidates keep slamming Senator Obama for being inexperienced. Inexperienced at what? Corruption? Washington game playing? Come on - it's his inexperience that we're voting for. If we wanted experience, we'd vote for Ted Kennedy. However, to make fun, I've created the following motivational poster.

I have it in high res if anyone wants it to actually print, or distribute. Just contact me here and I'll send you the file in the format you want.

Ron Paul and Obama?

Chuck — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 23:05:34 EDT

Obama has broken all the primary rules and therefore broken all the records. Would it be possible for him to break the party craziness, too, by running with a Republican running mate? Many people are looking for this from somebody. Would the Democratic Party allow it? I'm not even sure how it would work. But I do know that Congressman Ron Paul would provide an excellent balance, help people understand Obama is not a tax-and-spend liberal, and give even more discouraged Republicans (like myself) a place to call home.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Get our positions out

Chuck — Thu, 03 May 2007 00:10:53 EDT

Let's search and observe what is being said about Senator Obama, and make sure we correct those who misquote, misunderstand or misrepresent the issues.

Go to Google News: http://news.google.com/ and search for “Obama.” Read the news and posts. Argue against incorrect/misrepresented information, and give positive feedback when the article or blog is on point.

Senator Obama's Position on War on Drugs?

Chuck — Wed, 02 May 2007 23:34:30 EDT

I submitted to the Obama campaign my thoughts on the issue of Security:

The most important issue regarding security is this government's supposed "War on Drugs." This attempt to control personal behavior has created an escalation of military proportions between the police forces and the organizations that benefit from this black market. This has created a disconnect between the police and the civilian public, where even innocent people fear the police.

The funds spent on investigating, arresting, judging and incarcerating personal users of marijuana who have done no harm could be used on education and protecting us from our real enemies.

Senator Obama has been silent on this issue, while Mike Gravel has spoken clearly on his position. Will Senator Obama let the spotlight be stolen by Mike Gravel due to this issue?

Link