Subodh has a letter in the Dispatch

Under the headling "Officeholder Ought to Have Some Outrage" is the following letter:

"Although I regret The Dispatch did not join the overwhelming majority of Ohio newspapers that have endorsed my attorney-general candidacy in the Democratic primary, I respect the newspaper's right to endorse my opponent.

I take issue, however, with one word in The Dispatch's April 22 editorial. By calling me intemperate, The Dispatch has misinterpreted my motivations and misled Ohio voters.

Intemperance is the lack of self control. I'm not intemperate. I am outraged. There is a big difference between the two.

I'm outraged because instead of using the law to protect Ohio familied from harm and loss, our last two attorneys general have helped auction off our state government -- and our future -- to the highest bidder.

I am outraged that last year alone, 1 out of every 71 families lost their homes to foreclosure. When Cleveland and Dayton passed ordinances to protect homeowners, Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro fought for the predatory lenders instead of the families upon whom they preyed.

I am outraged that he failed to protect Ohioans against the gouging and market manipulation of natural gas prices that cost consumers millions every month.

I am outraged that instead of fighting for Ohio's children, our attorney general failed to join other states to force the federal government to pay for its unfunded mandate called the No Child Left Behind Act.

I am outraged that while Ohio has continued to destroy its public-education system, our governor and legislature have failed to comply with four Ohio State Supreme Court rulings determining that Ohio's education-funding system is unconstitutional.

And I am outraged that The Dispatch  apologizes for the failure of the last two attorneys general to enforce the law by insisting the job is limited to defending the state and its officials against lawsuits. Pre-civil-rights-era attorneys general used the same argument to resist the integration of public schools and avoid enforcing the law.

When state government acts unconstitutionally, Ohio's attorney general must act on behalf of all Ohioans. There is no excuse for the attorney general trying to defend the indefensible.

Republicans criticize my determination to make Ohio's school funding system constitutional as "unethical." The Dispatch calls it "intemperate." But what is unethical or intemperate about Ohio's chief law-enforcement officer actually enforcing the U.S. and Ohio constitutions? It is a fundamental part of the attorney general's job description.

And herein lies the problem. Politicians have treated the position of attorney general as an office to be held, instead of a job that needs to be done.

Ohioans don't need another politician with a law degree pursuing ambitions at the expense of their real clients, the people of Ohio. They need a real lawyer with a proven track record and an experienced prosecutor willing to fight to protect the public's interests.

Unlike my opponent, who can only talk about what he would do as attorney general, I can show what I have done -- from running a public law firm that slashed spending on outside lawyers, to winning recognition from the FBI director for my prosecution of health-care fraud.

In addition to a proven track record, Ohioans need a little outrage in their next attorney general -- outrage at the harm that has been done to our families and future. For more information, please visit www.ChandraForOhio.com

                                         SUBODH CHANDRA

                                             Cleveland"