Pleading for Relevancy in Minnesota's U.S. Senate Campaign

Three of the five men in this photo could be reached at 202-224-5641 at some point in their career.

My first job out of law school was to work for U.S. Senator Wendell R. Anderson as Legislative Counsel. The first phone number on my first business card was 202-224-5641. Rudy Boschwitz, a Republican I usually disagreed with but came to admire for a time, inherited that phone number from Senator Anderson. My government studies professor at Carleton, Paul Wellstone, earned the right to be phoned at 202-224-5641 from Senator Boschwitz.

I have a lot of emotion invested in 202-224-5641. Hubert Humphrey answered that number until 1965. Walter Mondale answered it until 1977. It was the number the Carter White House called to tell me that if I dropped Senator Anderson's bill to establish a Holocaust Memorial and thereby allow the President to take credit for the memorial's establishment, I could name a representative to the first Holocaust Memorial Commission. It was the number that Senator McGovern's staff called to ask me if we would co-sponsor a bill to legalize marijuana. It was the number they called back to in order to save my job by confirming that I had said "no" even though the bill came out with Senator Anderson as a co-sponsor.

Currently, Norm Coleman uses 202-224-5641. He doesn't deserve it. His victory in 2002 was a tragic fluke. He has tarnished the reputation of 202-224-5641 by turning his back on his more liberal upbringing and pandering to the far right in order to retain his position of power. He is now attempting to utilize my First Law of Politics (i.e., Never Assume an Informed Electorate) by having us believe that the last six years of serving as the president's lap dog were really demonstrations of his ability to exercise independent judgment and seek bi-partisan solutions.

Yesterday I posted a blog with a photo of the statue of President Harry S. Truman that stands in the Truman Presidential Library in Independence, Missouri. President Roosevelt chose Harry Truman to be his running mate in 1944 largely because of the work then Senator Truman did as the chair of the committee investigating war profiteering. Senator Truman earned a reputation for determination, integrity and independence in his efforts to protect American soldiers and their supporting taxpayers from unscrupulous government contractors.

Guess who served in the same post in the U.S. Senate when the Republicans were in the majority for most of our current war effort? Here's a clue. You can reach him at 202-224-5641.

Guess how many hearings Senator Coleman held to make sure that Halliburton and other "no bid" contractors were being held accountable by the Bush Administration for the billions of wasted dollars and resulting loss of life among under-equipped U.S. troops? Here's another clue. Same as the number of Minnesota Viking Super Bowl rings. Only with less effort.

Norm Coleman doesn't really expect to run on his record. He chose to rely on McCarthy-like scare tactics to defer any critical analysis of his unwaivering support for the president's war effort. Now, as the public finally awakes to the real cost of our collective blindness, Norm is avoiding focus on his record by running television ads touting his support of Federal assistance to rebuild the 35W bridge (gee, thanks) and by having his partisan colleagues trash Al Franken.

Here's a multiple choice test for those of you who struggled with my open ended "guess" questions. Choose the letter next to your choice of the target of Norm Coleman's campaign rhetoric.
a. Senator Coleman opposes Al Franken's proposal to start the process of bringing troops home from Iraq, thereby forcing the Iraqis to make the difficult political choices necessary to stabilize their government and operate as a sovereign nation.
b. Senator Coleman opposes Al Franken's proposal to provide meaningful support for the American educational system and move away from programs like No Child Left Behind that merely prepare students to take standardized tests.
c. Senator Coleman opposes Al Franken's proposal to deal with the health care crisis by taking steps to assure that individuals won't have to rely on expensive and limited emergency room resources in order to obtain treatment for routine and preventable medical conditions.
d. Senator Coleman believes Al Franken is unqualified to serve in the U.S. Senate because his accountant screwed up and didn't file the proper tax returns in all the jurisdictions which lay claim to Mr. Franken's earnings.

If you answered "all of the above", you didn't read the question.

While each of the statements is true, only "d" is deemed worthy of discussion by the Coleman campaign and its cohorts at the office of Minnesota's Republican Party. That's the way we engage in political discourse in 2008. Norm Coleman knows that a vast majority of Minnesota voters disagree with his positions on items a, b, and c. Rather than show some leadership and try to make the case for his position, Senator Coleman is content to get folks riled up over a non-issue, like Al Franken's accountant's malpractice, smear Al Franken with the non-issue, deflect any scrutiny of the record of Senator Coleman's first term in the U.S. Senate and undermine the credibility of anyone who pursues such scrutiny.

I long for relevancy in political debate. I long for public servants who are willing to show some backbone and defend their beliefs without resorting to nonsensical character assassination. In my mind, to deserve to have your name associated with 202-224-5641, you have to be willing to stand for something greater than a shortcut to re-election. You have to have principles that are not morphed by the latest Gallup Poll or Karl Rove gameplan. If a candidate lacks those minimal criteria (note that it's not even a requirement that they share my political views), then they ought not be allowed to besmirch the reputation of 202-224-5641 and the worthy public servants who have answered its call.

Please join me in supporting Al Franken's U.S. Senate campaign. Insist on relevancy in political debate. Give Al some money. Call 202-224-5641 and tell Norm Coleman to show some respect for his office and for your intelligence. This race is much too important to devolve into investigations of accountant malpractice. Let's decide this one on the issues that matter to all of us.

Sam Thinks He Can . . . Change the Name of His Blog

With apologies to Bette Davis, fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night.

First, I've changed the name of the blog. It's now called Prairie Pondering. I still think I can, but the gimmick often leads to editorial awkwardness. I'm reducing impediments to posting more regularly; I don't need the hassle of writer's block when I'm coming up with a title.

Second, I'm moving towards shorter postings. I am committed to trading length for frequency. If you want longer, pass the blog along to your friends, make me famous and wait for the book. Better yet, read the postings of my mentor, Charles Leck. Charlie has a lot to say, he says it well and, now retired, has the time so as not to shortchange us in sharing his wisdom. Visit him here.

Third, what in Hell is going on in politics today? I was going to ponder the state of the campaign for the Democratic Party nomination to run for president. That will wait. On the way home from work, listening to Minnesota Public Radio describe the State Republican party's new ad campaign, I wanted to scream. The Republicans are spending $100,000 to run ads blaming the Democrats for higher gas prices because they voted to override the Governor's veto of the transportation bill and raised the State gas tax for the first time in 20 years.

Apparently, they did not read my March 13th blog. Here's the relevant part (skip it if you've already read it):

"Sherry Engebretsen, Artemio Trinidad-Mena, Julia Blackhawk, Patrick Holmes, Peter Hausmann, Paul Eickstadt, Greg Jolstad, Scott Sathers, Christina Sacorafas, Sadiya Sahal, Hanah Sahal, Vera Peck, Richard Chit

"Each of the persons identified above lost their life when the I-35W bridge collapsed into the Mississippi River on August 1, 2007. For years, the State of Minnesota neglected recommended repairs to transportation infrastructure, including needed repairs to the now collapsed bridge. This month, over Governor Pawlenty's veto and just after the release of a legislative auditor's report that the Department of Transportation did not have sufficient funds to even maintain our roadways, the Minnesota Legislature passed a transportation funding bill that will ultimately cost gasoline consumers an extra 8-1/2 cents per gallon.

"Six Republican legislators voted their consciences and deviated from the party line by siding with the DFL to override the veto. Their principled decision has been rewarded by ostracism from the Republican caucus and, in some cases, challenges at what should have been cakewalk endorsing conventions. Governor Pawlenty and his supporters lost no time lambasting the 'tax and spend DFL' in a series of speeches and television advertisements (on Fox, of course), as if the Democrats had just used taxpayer money to purchase a warehouse full of Tommy Bahama khakis for a nudist convention.

"The recriminations against the proponents of the transportation bill were so strident, even I was concerned that I would not be able to afford to drive anymore. So I did the math, trying to figure out what necessities I would have to give up in order to make up for the extra tax burden.

"I get about 20 miles per gallon with my vehicle and drive about 20,000 miles a year. With those constants, I will pay about 54 cents a month in extra gas tax for each of the 13 lives lost when the bridge collapsed. In order to put this in perspective, I've identified exactly what impact this will have on my lifestyle. For convenience sake, I've assigned a sacrifice to each of the victims. That way, it's easy to determine if any particular life lost was not worth the sacrifice I am now forced to make in order to provide the Minnesota Department of Transportation with enough money to avoid another major disruption to free flowing traffic.

Sherry Engebretsen, One (1) weekday edition Minneapolis Star Tribune per month
Artemio Trinidad-Mena, One (1) pack Orbitz chewing gum every two months
Julia Blackhawk, One (1) cup of coffee at Papa's Café every two months
Patrick Holmes, Twenty (20) minutes parking at State Office Building per month
Peter Hausmann, One (1) small soda, McDonald's every two months
Paul Eickstadt, One (1) iTunes music download every two months
Greg Jolstad, One (1) Powerball ticket every two months
Scott Sathers, One (1) vending machine can of Coke Zero per month
Christina Sacorafas, One (1) order of anchovies on restaurant salad per month
Sadiya Sahal, Two (2) movie rentals from Coburn's per year
Hanah Sahal, Ten (10) ounces of gasoline per month
Vera Peck, One (1) Almond Joy candy bar every two months
Richard Chit, One (1) Exacta box bet at Canterbury Park per season

"The 10 ounces of gasoline per month attributed to Hanah Sahal might have propelled my car an additional 3 to 4 miles. Hanah was an infant when she died, probably not worth much. So, depending on where I might travel to with those 3 to 4 miles a month, I might be getting the short end of the stick. On the other hand, on balance, it appears that the value of the lives of the other 12 victims of the bridge collapse outweigh my sacrifice. And, since it might otherwise be me on the next bridge to go, I'm willing to do without the anchovies."

Now the Republicans are running their ads, demanding that the voters throw the tax-and-spend Democrats out of office for bringing Minnesotans $3.50/gallon gas. Never mind that the price of gasoline has gone from $2.90 to $3.50 a gallon since the veto override including, only, a 2¢ a gallon increase in taxes. Never mind that the State desperately needed a funding mechanism to pay for safe roads. Never mind that the folks in Hastings and St. Cloud will avoid bathing their cars in the Mississippi River because the money will be there to replace their dangerous bridges.

The Republican Party has decided to continue their proud tradition of pandering to people's fear, ignorance and reliance on 10 second soundbites posing as public discourse to cover up and project the consequences of their failed fiscal policies.

Don't let them do it. Copy and paste Sherry Engebretsen, Artemio Trinidad-Mena, Julia Blackhawk, Patrick Holmes, Peter Hausmann, Paul Eickstadt, Greg Jolstad, Scott Sathers, Christina Sacorafas, Sadiya Sahal, Hanah Sahal, Vera Peck, Richard Chit into e-mail message boxes reached by clicking on the home page links of Senate Minority Leader David H. Senjem and House Minority Leader Marty Seifert. Put "I support the gas tax" in the subject line. After pasting the names of the bridge victims in the message box, insert: "These victims of the 35W bridge collapse don't mind the gas tax increase. Neither do I. Shame on you. Please respect my intelligence and stop confusing your use of blatant misrepresentations with acceptable campaigning."

If you have friends in the media or on the DFL side of the aisle, copy them on your e-mails. If Sen. Senjem and Rep. Seifert get enough copies, maybe they'll realize they proceed at their own risk and risk to the Republican Party.

Turns out it's too late to make a long story short. Less verbiage next time. Back me up here. I feel better already. I feel like President Harry Truman, a plain talker.

Sam Thinks He Can . . .Share Barack Obama's Speech on Race

I had been meaning to post a blog about the problems I perceived with the media's depiction of the role of race and racism in our current presidential campaign. I'll get around to it. In the meantime, EVERYONE should listen to Senator Obama's remarks in Philadelphia today. Click here.

Sam Thinks He Can . . .Opine

If you read the "about me" blurb in my profile, you'll notice I've proclaimed to cyberspace that I like to write. If you look at the date of my last significant blog you'll notice that it's been a month since I've posted anything here. If you draw the conclusion that it's been a bad month because I haven't had the time to do something I like, you'd be close to the mark.

As I tap this out on my iPod Touch, I am flying back from my third assignment as event photographer at the Little Everglades Steeplechase. While the other "I like to" listed in my profile was enjoyed, I've been feeling the need to experience the release writing gives me. I am suffering major "blog guilt", a phrase aptly first used in my consciousness by Facebook friend, (wait for name to drop) Peter Sagal. The only solution is to keep tapping.

How about our government? I've spent the past month fighting with the Minnesota Department of Human Services because of the incompetence of DHS employees, taking on regulatory creep by the Minnesota DNR, and lamenting the sad state of politics in Minnesota evidenced by Republican retaliation against party members who supported a transportation bill vetoed by GOP Veep hopeful, Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Over the next couple of weeks, let's examine my angst and challenges, starting with the lamentation.

Sherry Engebretsen, Artemio Trinidad-Mena, Julia Blackhawk, Patrick Holmes, Peter Hausmann, Paul Eickstadt, Greg Jolstad, Scott Sathers, Christina Sacorafas, Sadiya Sahal, Hanah Sahal, Vera Peck, Richard Chit

Each of the persons identified above lost their life when the I-35W bridge collapsed into the Mississippi River on August 1, 2007. For years, the State of Minnesota neglected recommended repairs to transportation infrastructure, including needed repairs to the now collapsed bridge. This month, over Governor Pawlenty's veto and just after the release of a legislative auditor's report that the Department of Transportation did not have sufficient funds to even maintain our roadways, the Minnesota Legislature passed a transportation funding bill that will ultimately cost gasoline consumers an extra 8-1/2 cents per gallon.

Six Republican legislators voted their consciences and deviated from the party line by siding with the DFL to override the veto. Their principled decision has been rewarded by ostracism from the Republican caucus and, in some cases, challenges at what should have been cakewalk endorsing conventions. Governor Pawlenty and his supporters lost no time lambasting the "tax and spend DFL" in a series of speeches and television advertisements (on Fox, of course), as if the Democrats had just used taxpayer money to purchase a warehouse full of Tommy Bahama khakis for a nudist convention.

The recriminations against the proponents of the transportation bill were so strident, even I was concerned that I would not be able to afford to drive anymore. So I did the math, trying to figure out what necessities I would have to give up in order to make up for the extra tax burden.

I get about 20 miles per gallon with my vehicle and drive about 20,000 miles a year. With those constants, I will pay about 54 cents a month in extra gas tax for each of the 13 lives lost when the bridge collapsed. In order to put this in perspective, I've identified exactly what impact this will have on my lifestyle. For convenience sake, I've assigned a sacrifice to each of the victims. That way, it's easy to determine if any particular life lost was not worth the sacrifice I am now forced to make in order to provide the Minnesota Department of Transportation with enough money to avoid another major disruption to free flowing traffic.

Sherry Engebretsen, One (1) weekday edition Minneapolis Star Tribune per month
Artemio Trinidad-Mena, One (1) pack Orbitz chewing gum every two months
Julia Blackhawk, One (1) cup of coffee at Papa's Café every two months
Patrick Holmes, Twenty (20) minutes parking at State Office Building per month
Peter Hausmann, One (1) small soda, McDonald's every two months
Paul Eickstadt, One (1) iTunes music download every two months
Greg Jolstad, One (1) Powerball ticket every two months
Scott Sathers, One (1) vending machine can of Coke Zero per month
Christina Sacorafas, One (1) order of anchovies on restaurant salad per month
Sadiya Sahal, Two (2) movie rentals from Coburn's per year
Hanah Sahal, Ten (10) ounces of gasoline per month
Vera Peck, One (1) Almond Joy candy bar every two months
Richard Chit, One (1) Exacta box bet at Canterbury Park per season

The 10 ounces of gasoline per month attributed to Hanah Sahal might have propelled my car an additional 3 to 4 miles. Hanah was an infant when she died, probably not worth much. So, depending on where I might travel to with those 3 to 4 miles a month, I might be getting the short end of the stick. On the other hand, on balance, it appears that the value of the lives of the other 12 victims of the bridge collapse outweigh my sacrifice. And, since it might otherwise be me on the next bridge to go, I'm willing to do without the anchovies.

Shame on you, Governor. Shame on you, spineless politicians who couldn't resist the opportunity to parlay the public's short attention span into a chance to spew tried and true inflammatory political rhetoric. Your constituency deserves leadership that explains the need to pull together to address pressing needs. The victims of the I-35W bridge collapse deserve to be remembered as harbingers of government's assumption of responsibility to protect the rest of us. And Hanah Sahal deserved a life.

Sam Thinks He Can . . .Make a Comeback

It's hard to believe that I haven't posted anything on this blog for more than a month. It's not that I haven't been blogging (protectlakes.blogspot.com). I just haven't been doing it for the enjoyment of writing. That will change. I am in the middle of two drafts for future blogs, one tapped out on my self-indulged birthday present, an iPod Touch, on the flight home from the Mercedes-Benz Little Everglades Steeplechase Monday afternoon. They'll both be up soon.

In the meantime, in keeping with the other purpose of the blog, I've decided to post some of my favorites from the trip. I again served as event photographer at the Steeplechase. Since it was a paying gig, I took direction from the client and focused on marketing shots. I had four other photographers I was responsible four. I delegated most of the fun stuff, like the action shots. Most. Not all.

Jewelry artiste Suzanne Perry was a sponsor of the event. She requested a photographer to shoot some of her creations, on a couple of God's creations, hanging around Daimler-Benz creations. It was a tough call, but I decided to take one for the photography team. Here are some of the results from the day's event.

Sam Thinks He Can . . .Lighten Up

Gongxi facai (gong shee fa tsai)! Or, for my Cantonese-speaking friends, 恭喜发财 (gung hay fat choi)!

I am a sucker for New Year celebrations. I've wanted to spend New Year's Eve in Las Vegas since watching the first Ocean's 11 on television shortly after its release in the early sixties. I love the family traditions of Judaism's Rosh Hashanah in the fall. And, as we enter the Year of the Rat, I am fascinated by the idea that 1.3 billion celebrate their new year on a twelve-year cycle whose elements are used to prophesize health, wealth and marital success (although that might just be the menus).

I was chatting online tonight with my friend Nathaniel Davis, whom regular readers of this blog will remember. He's back in Beijing, where, for the first time, fireworks were allowed as part of the New Year celebration. Although the holiday started on the 7th of February, the fireworks are still being lit. I can only imagine what the Olympics will bring in 6 short months.

This annual focus on Chinese culture inevitably takes me back to my visit to Hong Kong and Macau in October, 2000. Having had the opportunity to experience a small slice of the culture firsthand, and with a number of good friends living among the 1.3 billion, I feel a stronger affinity with the Chinese New Year than towards most other international celebrations. Of course, I regularly relive the experience through my photography.

The photo above was taken on Victoria Peak, overlooking Hong Kong and Kowloon Harbor. It's actually a sandwich of two square images taken on my medium format film camera.Be sure to click on the image to see a larger version. I had dragged two camera systems and a tripod up to the observation area. I was with my law school roommate Robert Cohen and Nathaniel. It was hot, even at dusk. I was looking for my "money shot" for the trip, hence the plethora of equipment. The views were spectacular. Most of the other visitors had ridden the famous tram up the side of the mountain to get there. We had taken a cab to the site. I remember that the sun was setting, I was losing my light, and I couldn't get a decent reading off my light meter to figure out the correct exposure. So, in the tradition of Luke Skywalker, I abandoned my electronic devices and used the "Force". I think that's why I love the shot so much. I was so close not to getting it but did so by relying on myself.

We took the tram down part way to return to the city. We exited at one of the first stops and walked down hill the rest of the way. Because it was HOT, and because I insisted on carrying all of my equipment by myself on the theory that if I personally carried what I brought along, I could sound like a martyr seven years later, we had to stop and rest. Nathaniel brought us to a courtyard in the St. John's Monastery. I was walking around a bit, looking for photo opportunities. Much to my amazement, the second lifetime opportunity of the evening presented itself.

I had spent the week looking for examples of the old juxtaposed against the new. I had expected to find some quaint, centuries old example of Chinese culture set against an icon of the modern Hong Kong. I had not been particularly successful in capturing the image that filled my mind's eye. But during the break on the way down from the Peak, I found myself staring at the modern glass skyscraper of the Bank of China, gleaming at night through the monastery's stone archway leading to the courtyard. I set up my medium format camera, guessed at the exposure, and shot.
I was happy enough with the shot to use give it to one of my hosts during the trip as a gesture of my appreciation. She was apparently thrilled with the gift and reciprocated, unnecessarily, with a set of gold Chinese stamp proofs.

In honor of the Chinese New Year, I'm posting a few additional shots from that trip. I'll resume more serious blogging once the fireworks stop. Again, 恭喜发财 !

Sam Thinks He Can . . . Endorse Barak Obama

I’m interrupting the completion and posting of my half-written blog describing the joys and frustrations of the practice of law to discuss the transformation that started when I attended Barak Obama’s rally at the Target Center in Minneapolis yesterday. The transformation was complete this morning as I did my chores in the barn. As I cleaned stalls, tossed hay bales from the hayloft, filled grain buckets and played with one of the cats who shadowed me throughout over the course of an hour, I weighed the pros and cons of supporting either Obama or Clinton.

I had ventured to the Target Center on Saturday curious to see and hear the well-spoken, inspirational Senator from Illinois. I was leaning strongly towards supporting Senator Clinton, believing that she was the more experienced of the two and in a better position to lead the country from the outset of her administration. I expected, frankly, to be moved by the message of Senator Obama and by the collective passion of the 20,000 others who came to support this relative newcomer. As an American History major, I am cognizant of the sea change both the Clinton and Obama candidacies represent. However, I told myself that the decision on who to support had to be rooted in something more than being caught up in the emotion of great speech making.

The encounter did not begin well. I had been invited to the event by my son Phil, whose significant other, Molly, had picked up tickets at Obama headquarters in Duluth. Six of us packed into my five passenger car and arrived at the Target Center an hour ahead of the announced 1:30 start time. In fact, 1:30 turned out to be the scheduled “doors open” time. We were directed to the end of the line, which at the time stretched around the Target Center, across the street, past the site of the new Twins ballpark to a point across from the large garbage burner. Throngs of ticket holders walked past us continuously for the nearly two hours we stood in place, freezing, adding to the end of the line. Initially, Phil was blown away by the significance of the turnout. After about an hour standing in below freezing weather without a jacket, he joined me in my observation that the rally was poorly organized and disrespectful to those who had expected to be waiting inside to see the Senator. I considered leaving the line several times, figuring I’d go wait in a bar while the “kids” stuck it out. I didn’t. I persevered, and was rewarded with the most inspiring oratory I’ve listened to since my former college professor, Paul Wellstone, left us.

I like to think that I’m as informed as most of the general electorate when it comes to politics. But as I sat listening to Senator Obama for an hour Saturday afternoon, I realized that there is a big difference between 15-second sound bites on the news, or even extended answers during debates among front runners, and an uninterrupted discourse on a candidate’s background, positions and hopes for the future. I walked out of the Target Center, having lost my ill-temper at being forced to suffer the cold for hours in order to add to the campaign’s bragging rights on the evening news, and thought about all the reasons I had been previously unwilling to commit to Senator Obama. The six of us discussed the event on the ride back to everyone’s vehicles. As the oldest participant in the discussion by at least 30 years, I was struck by my companions’ yearning for leadership, honesty, and direction. The Senator’s proposals on tuition reduction in exchange for community service and funding a “health care” system to replace our nation’s “disease care” system seemed self evident and, significantly, possible in an Obama administration.

Shortly after telling a friend that I had been at the rally, I received an e-mail from her son, a Harvard law student who has been supporting Senator Obama for some time. He asked for my reaction and directed me to www.dipdive.com.

At this point, I’d like you to select “new window” or “new tab” under the File menu in your browser and navigate to www.dipdive.com. Watch the video and return here when you’re done. I’ll wait.

Welcome back. It doesn’t matter who you’re supporting, you have to admit the video is incredibly moving, inspiring and hopeful. I probably watched it four times. Each view wore down my resistance to making a commitment to Senator Obama. This morning, after considerable reflection during barn chores, my resistance gave way completely. I’ve decided to caucus for Barak Obama.

It’s too late to make a long story short, but stay with me and I’ll walk you through my reasoning and how I internally addressed my prior obstacles to supporting Senator Obama.

• I had believed Senator Clinton is more experienced. Actually, I still believe that. If Hillary Clinton becomes our next president and is given the opportunity by her die-hard opponents to bring us together and do her job, we’ll be well-served. However, I’ve decided Senator Obama is experienced enough. As his supporters have long argued, he’ll surround himself with competent advisers who share his agenda. Probably. More importantly, unlike you and me, he is experienced enough to have turned a fluke win against a replacement opponent in his Senate race four years ago into a national movement of historic significance.

• We need a Democratic candidate who will not energize the opposition and risk allowing the GOP to retain the White House. The type of experience Senator Clinton brings to the table also brings baggage. While I firmly believe Senator Clinton can hold her own in responding to the right wing conspiracy she identified more than 10 years ago, I’ve started asking myself whether it’s the best use of our chief executive’s time to have to deal day in and day out with orchestrated character assassination. I believe Senator Obama’s message of reconciliation will translate into less divisiveness and less tolerance of those who would thwart the electorate’s longing to return to more civil times.

• I didn’t think an African American could win the general election. While, unfortunately, racism in the United States remains rampant, I have decided that the enthusiasm Senator Obama’s supporters bring to the race will outweigh and, pun intended, overcome the challenges posed by myopic, emotionally and mentally challenged crackers.

• I question Senator Obama’s commitment to Israel. This issue is still open and derives mostly from anecdotal observations by friends in Chicago who have paid more attention to the Senator’s career than I have. The issue is important to me and I’ve decided that whoever is elected president will have to sustain the United State’s support for Israel’s right to exist. This is an issue that will, hopefully, have the benefit of the competent advisors referred to above who will not abandon our support for the Middle East’s only democracy.

• I fear for the life of an African American president. This generally unspoken concern is shared by almost everyone I speak to. Hearkening back to the cracker problem, and coupled with the pessimism that goes along with having lived through losing John, Bobby and Martin, there is a perception that an African American president is a more likely assassination target. Privately, everyone agrees. Publicly, nothing is said. Senator Obama’s security is already tighter than other candidates' according to sources who have had the opportunity to experience “meet and greets” with more than one candidate. I pray that increased security will be enough security. Prayer in and of itself might not have gotten me over this hurdle. What did take me over the hurdle was a thought that came to me as I was tossing hay bales this morning. Senator Obama is obviously well aware of the risks to his safety. If he’s willing to take those risks in order work on our behalf and make a difference, who the hell am I to say “no”? It would do a great disservice to the candidate’s courage for me to withhold support because of some condescending attitude about protecting his safety.

• I believed Senator Clinton had earned the right to run for president and, as the father of a daughter, welcomed the shattering of the glass ceiling. I still believe that Senator Clinton has earned the right to run and still welcome the ascendancy of real equality between the sexes. But I also believe that Senator Obama’s success in uniting our country’s young, old, white, black, brown, Democrat, Republican and Independent voters has also earned him the right to seek the presidency. I believe that an Obama administration will welcome and utilize the talent of women in all levels of government. I also believe that the success Senator Clinton’s candidacy has enjoyed, and the general acceptance of the concept of a “Madam President”, means that qualified women will not be precluded from playing with the boys from now on.

In summary, www.dipdive.com. If elected president, to use an analogy I’ve become fond of, Hillary Clinton will be the extremely competent CEO, drawing on years of experience to manage the affairs of government. On the other hand, Barak Obama will be the visionary chairman of the board, directing our country’s resources and empowering its citizens to save us all from the disasters wrought on every level over the past seven years. We need that kind of visionary leader. We need to be inspired. We need to believe that government can work again. We need to unite behind a healer. We need a president who speaks with moral authority and who can restore our reputation in the world. We can elect such a president. We can elect Barak Obama to be our next president. Yes, we can!

I ask you all to support, vote and/or caucus for Senator Barak Obama.

P.S. “CHANGE”. I was determined to write this blog without using the word. Once I got to the end, I, um, modified, amended, altered, adjusted, changed my mind.