... This is because this is an office paid for by supporters. It is not an official headquarter office.
Also, Che Guevara is viewed as an icon for Socialist ideology that opposes the oppression of colonialism and capitalism. This flag represents a symbol of change against the oppression these systems create. It does not say Obama is going to turn the USA into a communist country.

Also,
here are the two original sources of the two videos:

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics/Detail?contentId=5668120&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.14.1

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5700252&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

They note on there that it is not an official headquarters and the other video shows that she is a volunteer architect making T-shirts. ?
Is Mccain bad if a volunteer office for his presidential candidacy hangs up a confederate flag?

It's called freedom of speech. Aren't you happy that you have it here?

Yes, of course, it is just good ole ' communist Che Guevera, who helped to bring us that wonderful socialist tyrannical paradise called Cuba. Nothing wrong with that, right. I mean if you are a white liberal, you can forgive anything people of color do or say.

I did not say I supported all his endeavors nor Communism nor Socialism. They simply don't work and turn into a disaster (like your "tyrannical paradise called Cuba). I am simply saying that he is an icon of the essence of Socialism that represents something ideal, not necessarily practical. And, Socialism's heart is at least in the right place.

Susan Rainsberger, I am surprised to hear you talk like that specially when you have a Jewish last name. At any rate you sound like you need some education on the real Che. Here is a website for you to learn: http://www.therealcuba.com/MurderedbyChe.htm

I have read it all before. This is all hearsay, I suppose. Everyone will choose to believe their own bits of facts that the media exposes. As for your website, I have read exact quotes published that contradict that material.
On a different note:

"I suspect that the young of the world grasp that the man whose poster beckons from their walls cannot be that irrelevant, this secular saint ready to die because he could not tolerate a world where los pobres de la tierra, the displaced and dislocated of history, would be eternally relegated to its vast margins.

Even though I have come to be wary of dead heroes and the overwhelming burden their martyrdom imposes on the living, I will allow myself a prophecy. Or maybe it is a warning. More than 3 billion human beings on this planet right now live on less than $2 a day. And every day that breaks, 40,000 children — more than one every second! — succumb to diseases linked to chronic hunger. They are there, always there, the terrifying conditions of injustice and inequality that led Che many decades ago to start his journey toward that bullet and that photo awaiting him in Bolivia."
-Time Magazine
And...I regret that you stereotype me.

Who Che was is totally irrelevant to this discussion. The pertinent point is that tarring the 9 million people that have voted for Obama over the past couple of months, as well as Obama himself with this is beneath contempt and typical for wingnuts.

That's assuming that the people in that office even know who Che was, and didn't just put up the flag because it looked cool, or as some kind of ironic joke on the "revolutionary" nature of Obama's campaign.

This is why you nutbars lose elections.

Has the demise of Ron Paul's campaign caused his army of robotically-dispatched zombies to start posting bizarrely irrelevant comments ("...tarring the 9 million people...") on Obama's behalf instead? Or has the Obama campaign just adopted Paul's methods?

Susan, you are so wrong about Che, it makes my blood boil. I am a 56 year old Cuban born US Marine (retired) who at one time was involved with the folks who tracked him down. Your quoting from Time Magazine doesn't surprise me since they are left wing fanatics, and evidently you are too. You have no idea what Che really stood for or the kind of live he lived. May God help you kid.

In regards to Obama, when a presidential candidate tells me that The Constitution needs changing, we have a problem, a serious problem. The same freedom you have enjoyed in expressing your love for el Che in an open internet forum may be lost and I fought hard to keep freedom alive and will fight again when the time comes. God helps us all.

Hmmm,
The horrors and oppression of capitalism?
Let's ask the thousands of "los pobres de la tierra" who throw themselves to the mercy of the sharks and surf and risk their very lives to come here about whether capitalism is so oppressive.

God help the little people when ideologues like this set out to help them.

She has heard it all before she says- Once again the left presumes to know what "the people" want while not even having the sense to know what side of the bread the butter is on. I suspect that Susan Rainsberger is, as Che was a coddled middle class misfit who is addicted to sneering at the culture that gave rise to her. The only culture on earth that would tolerate her. http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/2008/01/addicted-to-sneering-why-left-taunts.html

Che, Mao, Stalin, Krushchev, Fidel Castro, all Socialist. socialism is the embodiment of the Robin Hood Principle - the greatest crime perpetrated against the Human Spirit since the birth of Altruism.

Leftist, Socialist apologists, their/your freedom to espouse such drivel (Susan) depends upon the inane media influences driving our young people's minds to mush. I did not have the opportunity to Serve our Country, for medical reasons, but I support our troups, and people like my Father who decided to place his life on the line for your (Susan) sorry ass to spew your socialistinc agenda.

Stop making excuses and stop defending positions which are neither logical, nor practiceable in ethical societies.

I suggest reading: Atlast Shrugged, and The Fountainhead. It's time you (Susan) woke up. You should be ashamed!

They are there, always there, the terrifying conditions of injustice and inequality that led Che many decades ago to start his journey..

Yeah, right. There are always "heroes" who are willing to risk all to help the poor and the oppressed - Che, Stalin, Mao, Nasrallah, the pediatricians, charity workers and carnivorous rabbits who labor tirelessly for Hamas.

I have to feel sorry for the old (and the old at heart) Marxists out there. They've invested a lot of time and money in a product that no one wants to buy anymore. The best they can do is to pimp Che, pop-cult capitalist icon.

Sorry, Susan, but as they say in Russia, the party's over.

It is interesting that you all categorize me into a little bubble. I come from the standpoint that I agree with Guevara about the horrors that capitalism, imperialism, patriarchy and colonialism create. This is about as far as it goes. I, however, do not believe in revolution or his approach to reform. I am no saint that I am not a product of the culture that Guevara despised. I have never supported, nor will I ever, support radical leftist ideology or vice versa. All I choose to do is see the good with the bad.
My original comment was meant to express the places these people are coming from. For them, he is an icon. They do not consider the entire picture.

Hesiod says:
That's assuming that the people in that office even know who Che was, and didn't just put up the flag because it looked cool, or as some kind of ironic joke on the "revolutionary" nature of Obama's campaign.

I couldn't agree more. My nature on my views sound contradictory and this is why I regret so much that our culture has to fit us into a box in order to make sense of who we are.

FredM:
The constitution does need changing. It is not right that we enjoy a freedom (freedom of speech) that oppresses others. Except, you exaggerate. Obama does not plan to rewrite the entire constitution. Plus, you assume this is even a possibility. Obama supports awareness, because he knows that changing every law to create equality is worthless. It is our countries mindset that is oppressive. Our laws merely reflect this history.

ChuckD:
Stop making excuses and stop defending positions which are neither logical, nor practiceable in ethical societies.

I am not saying I find Guevara's tactics to be logical or practiceable. Quite the contrary. What I am defending is the reality that Guevara fought for. Oppression is far from dead. His approach is dead wrong. Socialism is dead wrong. Communism is dead wrong. I don't know what is right. ? I am obviously not a good candidate to run a country or reform the world. I do believe that there are very real deficiencies to colonialism, imperialism, patriarchy, etc. I believe that Castro's dictatorship (not communism) is far worse than the issues here in the US. However, I have a problem with the fact that anyone who doesn't fit into a white, middle class image is profiled and often underprivileged for their skin color or their class or their accent. They lack resources and opportunity that so easily come to anyone that is white. This is why I support Obama because I believe that he pushes for a better, diverse US that "maybe" will unite us as a country and quit segregating us based on our skin color. I believe the world hates us because we are racist and ethnocentric (me being a part of the problem with all of you.) I think there is a big possibility of Obama changing this image in the right way (consciousness raising rather than through a violent revolution.)

Also, Chuck, what makes you believe that My father and ancestors and husband haven't laid their life on the line? Please, don't assume.

I feel slandered for being a "Che' supporter" when all I was saying is that I believe there is still much work to be done in this country. I apologize for offending anyone or making them feel like I support mass killings for any reason. This is absolutely not the case.

The original point was that the flag was deemed inappropriate by Obama. (So, we don't have after all a communist candidate running for presidency.) Isn't that good news for all of us, now?

Before I get attacked that Obama's response to the flag was weak...remember he is campaigning in the primaries and this topic has not necessarily been front page news. He probably doesn't want attention to the issue because too many people will assume he is a communist (bad publicity).
Inappropriate is the right word to use to accommodate all walks of life: pro-che and anti-che (as if all the people in the US fit into this.)

This only goes to show his TRUE color. Refusing
to wear an American flag pin and allowing trash
like this in his office should show you exactly
the type of person he is. Let's see what Michelle has to say to defnd this crap

more proof that liberals love murdering hateful thugs that bring about tyranny and oppression. viva la revolucion, viva la cuba....indeed.

Susan, et al., The point IS that the icon is flawed; Deeply flawed. And anyone who dismisses the baggage that comes with the fantastic ideals attached to that icon is more than naive, they are far worse than merely being in a state of denial; it is far worse, they are PRONE to embracing the naive opinions and adopting them as their own, and PRONE to entering a state of denial in doing so. They exhibit similar behaviors as those who are enablers of alcoholics. This is bad; very very bad.

another example of how US propaganda has manipulated its conservative offspring.

For the best of "conservative" propaganda, see the people's cube

FredM wrote: "In regards to Obama, when a presidential candidate tells me that The Constitution needs changing, we have a problem, a serious problem."

Fred, the Constitution does need changing. We need to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. We need to clarify eminent domain so travesties such as Kelo vs. New Haven never happen again. We need to move the country toward the vision held and created by our founding fathers.

Susan Rainsberger wrote:

"It is not right that we enjoy a freedom (freedom of speech) that oppresses others."

What the hell are you talking about? Freedom of speech isn't oppressing anyone. Somehow both you and Fred have a misguided sense of free speech. The Constitution guarantees our right of free speech against the government. This is not a government-run website; this is not a government-run forum. This is a privately owned and operated website. Freedom of speech doesn't apply here. Both of you should brush up on civics and the Constitution.

what's missing is a portrait of Hitler...

Susan, you are clearly out of your depth in trying to think about these things. I’d like to help out but hardly know where to start. You really write as if there is a progressive leftist shouting into one ear and a confused liberal simpering into the other and you, poor Susan, are trying to put both of their thoughts (loose choice of words) into the computer. Only once in a while does the real Susan get a word in edgewise. If you would just stop contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next you might sound as though you actually had a mind of your own.
I mean, look, here’s an excerpt- read it as you would a play and you’ll see what I mean-

LIBERAL:
I am not saying I find Guevara's tactics to be logical or practiceable (sic). Quite the contrary.

PROGRESSIVE:
What I am defending is the reality that Guevara fought for. Oppression is far from dead.

LIBERAL:
His approach is dead wrong. Socialism is dead wrong. Communism is dead wrong.

SUSAN:
I don't know what is right. ? I am obviously not a good candidate to run a country or reform the world.

PROGRESSIVE:
I do believe that there are very real deficiencies to colonialism, imperialism, patriarchy, etc.

LIBERAL:
I believe that Castro's dictatorship (not communism) is far worse than the issues here in the US.

PROGRESSIVE:
However, I have a problem with the fact that anyone who doesn't fit into a white, middle class image is profiled and often underprivileged for their skin color or their class or their accent. They lack resources and opportunity that so easily come to anyone that is white.

LIBERAL:
This is why I support Obama because I believe that he pushes for a better, diverse US that "maybe" will unite us as a country and quit segregating us based on our skin color.

PROGRESSIVE
I believe the world hates us because we are racist and ethnocentric (me being a part of the problem with all of you.) I think there is a big possibility of Obama changing this image in the right way (consciousness raising rather than through a violent revolution.)

WHEW, it must be exhausting to be you!

Given your inability to keep from contradicting yourself in successive sentences, this might be asking a lot but I think you need to take a deep breath and think about why you are running from pillar to post about this. I think you are wild with enthusiasm for Obama. Like the confused liberal, leftist, progressive “lemmings in the stampede” of the past (McCarthy, McGovern, Carter, Dean), you are getting hyped up over an almost unknown candidate for purely emotional reasons. You cathect your angst and anomie into the campaign and, if you are ever challenged, you try to justify it with a grab bag of ideas and concepts that pop into your mind. You might want to check with all of the voices, including your own, about why. Let’s look at your one line in the little play above:

“I don't know what is right. ? I am obviously not a good candidate to run a country or reform the world.”

That forlorn little question mark says it all. I’ll say this for you; you are honest up to a point. But then you get back on the flip flop of voices. Here’s the best example:

“I believe the world hates us because we are racist and ethnocentric (me being a part of the problem with all of you.) I think there is a big possibility of Obama changing this image in the right way (consciousness raising rather than through a violent revolution.)”

Earth to Susan! Aside from the fact that this is the least racist, least ethnocentric, most open country on earth, and the inconvenient fact that a very large number of those people who you say hate us so much (especially those pobres de la tierra you referenced in your first comment) want to come here to live, there is another big problem with your premise. Let me ask you, what, precisely, is it about Obama that makes you so sure that electing him president will immediately change our image in the world? He hasn’t really talked much about his ideas and beliefs. He certainly has not been specific about his policy goals. I am wondering if, if you told your other voices to shut up for a moment, you would not just find that you just really think it would be cool to have a black president. Well, you see, Susan, I think having a black president would be cool too but I don’t think that is a good way to approach selecting the person who will be the most powerful human being on earth.

So, you see, this is what this discussion is about. What we are doing is evaluating the man, his organization and the kinds of workers and enthusiasm he attracts. It may be that the Che flag is an artifact of a peripheral group of “unsupervised” yahoos, but his response to it matters as does the flack that followers like you throw up so when you equivocate on the use of a communist thug as a symbol of “change” and opposition to our great country, you become a kind of cartoon image of yourself. We don’t have to stereotype you- you have done a very good job of that yourself.

Consider, please, that you are not just, as you say, “not a good candidate to run a country or reform the world.” You may not be a good candidate to vote for someone to run a country; let alone reform the world. You really haven’t done a particularly good job of even writing about it.

Wow. Thank you Yaacov Ben Moshe.

Thomas, I might have meant The Bill Of Rights. Some of the current Constitutional Amendments I am clearly not in agreement with.

Semper Fi, Fred, Thank You!

I am posting here a new, very good statement by Senator Obama's campaign. The link for it is: http://factcheck.barackobama.com/

On Reports of an Inappropriate Flag in a Texas Obama Office
February 12, 2008

"This is a volunteer office that is not in any way controlled by the Obama campaign. We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama’s views. Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people." -- Obama Campaign

From Houston Fox News:

"The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign."

Our main goal: Freedom in Cuba

Miami Herald | August 21, 2007
By Barack Obama

When my father was a young man living in Kenya, the freedom and opportunity of the United States exerted such a powerful draw that he moved halfway around the world to pursue his dreams here. My father's story is not unique. The same has been true for tens of millions of people, from every continent -- including for the many Cubans who have come and made their lives here since the start of Fidel Castro's dictatorship almost 50 years ago.

It is a tragedy that, just 90 miles from our shores, there exists a society where such freedom and opportunity are kept out of reach by a government that clings to discredited ideology and authoritarian control. A democratic opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective of our policy. We need a clear strategy to achieve it -- one that takes some limited steps now to spread the message of freedom on the island, but preserves our ability to bargain on behalf of democracy with a post-Fidel government.

The primary means we have of encouraging positive change in Cuba today is to help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in fundamental ways. U.S. policy must be built around empowering the Cuban people, who ultimately hold the destiny of Cuba in their hands. The United States has a critical interest in seeing Cuba join the roster of stable and economically vibrant democracies in the Western Hemisphere. Such a development would bring us important security and economic benefits, and it would allow for new cooperation on migration, counter-narcotics and other issues.

Advance political reform

These interests, and our support for the aspirations of the Cuban people, are ill served by the further entrenchment of the Castro regime, which is why we need to advance peaceful political and economic reform on the island. Castro's ill health and the potentially tumultuous changes looming ahead make the matter all the more urgent.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has made grand gestures to that end while strategically blundering when it comes to actually advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in Cuba. This is particularly true of the administration's decision to restrict the ability of Cuban Americans to visit and send money to their relatives in Cuba. This is both a humanitarian and a strategic issue. That decision has not only had a profoundly negative impact on the welfare of the Cuban people. It has also made them more dependent on the Castro regime and isolated them from the transformative message carried there by Cuban Americans.

In the "Cuban spring" of the late 1990s and early years of this decade, dissidents and human-rights activists had more political space than at any time since the beginning of Castro's rule, and Cuban society experienced a small opening in advancing the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.

U.S. policies -- especially the fact that Cuban Americans were allowed to maintain and deepen ties with family on the island -- were a key cause of that "Cuban spring." Although cut off by the Castro regime's deplorable March 2003 jailing of 75 of Cuba's most prominent and courageous dissidents, the opening underscored what is possible with a sensible strategic approach.

We in the United States should do what we can to bring about another such opening, taking certain steps now-and pledging to take additional steps as temporary openings are solidified into lasting change.

Cuban-American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Accordingly, I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island.

But as we reach out in some ways now, it makes strategic sense to hold on to important inducements we can use in dealing with a post-Fidel government, for it is an unfortunate fact that his departure by no means guarantees the arrival of freedom on the island.

Bilateral talks

Accordingly, I will use aggressive and principled diplomacy to send an important message: If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. That message coming from my administration in bilateral talks would be the best means of promoting Cuban freedom. To refuse to do so would substitute posturing for serious policy -- and we have seen too much of that in other areas over the past six years.

We must not lose sight of our fundamental goal: freedom in Cuba. At the same time, we should be pragmatic in our approach and clear-sighted about the effects of our policies. We all know the power of the freedom and opportunity that America at its best has both embodied and advanced. If deployed wisely, those ideals will have as transformative effect on Cubans today as they did on my father more than 50 years ago.

Sen. Barack Obama is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

I am an anti-Communist Cuban American in Miami, Florida. I am also a registered Democrat and a supporter of Senator Barack Obama. The cretins in Texas who posted the flag of a Communist country with the superimposed picture of a Communist murderer, Che Guevara, represent no one but themselves and are an embarrassment. Read the article and response from Senator Obama's campaign, which I posted above.

I support the US embargo of the Castro dictatorship enslaved Cuba.

Remember that Fidel took over Cuba in 1959.

That's 48 years.

Since 1959, 10 different men were trusted to lead the US (no matter how imperfectly) while "The Workers Paradise" has had the same man at the helm of the dictatorship.

Why is no one other than Fidel trusted to lead Cuba? What is Fidel and his supporters afraid of?

No free elections in Castros Cuba.

No term limits in Castros Cuba EXCEPT for mortality.

Do you really expect us to believe that the down trodden people of Cuba are happy with Fidel for 48 years?

Keep the pressure on the Castro dictatorship.

Keep the embargo ON.

I realize that this is probably not your intention here, but wouldn't it have been more journalistically responsible of the person writing this story to have included the current statement made by Obama in the article? I noticed that there was no issue in updating the story with link that came out on the 13th, a day after the statement was made. Although it has been mentioned once in an earlier post, I will include the link here:

Factcheck Version of Obama Statement

"This is a volunteer office that is not in any way controlled by the Obama campaign. We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama’s views. Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people." -- Obama campaign.

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/12/on_reports_of_an_inappropriate.php

And, the last people who should be casting "guilt by association stones" are rightwing idiots such as yourself. John McCain has a lot of extremely wacky and questionable supporters.

I understand the desperation behind this dumbass attack on Obama. But, please, don't convinvce yourself that you aren't a dumbass for pushing it. You are one.

Pedro Romanach, I am also a cuban-born American living in Miami. If you believe everything a political candidate says you must also believe in the tooth fairy.

The lady who started the so called "volunteer office" in Houston is a cuban lady. No cuban that I know of who came to this country in search of freedom will display an image of Che. That lady is working for the cuban government who is sponsoring Obama the same way it sponsored Jesse when he tried to make a run for the White House. And I know about thousands of dollars in cash that were delivered to Jesse, wouldn't be surprised if this lady is a liaison between Castro and Osama....I mean Obama.

God help us.

Hesiod left the same comment on my blog, looks like s/he may be spamming from a Michigan State Govt computer:

http://www.targetrichenvironment.net/?p=1499

I have a new post up abouts this Issue-

Obama's Campaign and The Real Meaning of The Che Guevara Flag

http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/2008/02/obamas-campaign-and-real-meaning-of-che.html

“I agree with Guevara about the horrors that capitalism, imperialism, patriarchy and colonialism create.”

When did Che, ever, speak out against patriarchy? Everything I’ve read about the man makes him out to be a womanizing scumbag. He was against imperialism, at least the American variety, but he and Fidel ended up making Cuba an outpost of Soviet imperialism. Anti-capitalist I’ll give to you (and Che). And we can see how well that anti-capitalist position has worked out for the Cuban people, can’t we?

If you knew anything about the history of the island you’d be aware that it was not a “banana republic,” that the island had a prosperous middle class, and that the standard of living for the average Cuban at the time of the revolution was better than the average Spaniard or Italian. In fact, the island was second only to Argentina in Latin American and the Caribbean in regards to the standard of living.

Lastly, I honestly don’t think you would be so dismissive if a flag representing a right-wing dictatorship was flown in a Republicans office.