I'm one of Hugo Chavez' biggest fans. I'm running for public office and am using my campaign to support Chavez - see my campaign website at www.seattle-mafia.org.

I even created the website www.viva-chavez.com. However, Viva Chavez includes a lengthy article discussing some of the many charges made against Chavez - a few of which I agree with.

One of my biggest disappointments is Chavez' support for China at Tibet's expense. I think his stand on Tibet greatly compromises Chavez' image as a truthmonger and freedom fighter.

And yet there may be a kernel of truth in some of Chavez' comments regarding Tibet. If the Bush administration wanted to use the approaching Olympics to embarrass China, would it not make sense to foment dissent in Tibet?

Many people correctly view China's government as evil. Thus, it would seem appropriate to politicize the Olympics.

But the U.S. government is evil, too. Therefore, would it not be fair to similarly exploit the Olympics in protesting the wars in Iraqistan?

Furthermore, what can conclude from the Dalai Lama meeting Nancy Pelosi? I mean, is that woman not a living example of a political wh*re?

Is the Dalai Lama really that ignorant of politics? Or was he simply playing politics, similar to Chavez?

I'd be lying if I said I understand what's going on behind the scenes, but my instincts tell me it ain't as black-and-white as many of the people who pretend to care about Tibetans pretend it is.

In summary, I still support Chavez, though I disagree with his stand on Tibet. Yet even on this issue, Chavez has opened my eyes.

David Blomstrom
Candidate for Public Office & Chavista