Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 03:39 pm
please explain to me where the racism is in the "fairy tale" comment because I have read it over and over and can't find it.... since Obama has denigrated Hillary since day one, and because she is white and a woman is he a racist woman hater?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 03:57 pm
I didn't think it was racist at all. Not even a little bit. People who think it was are imagining things.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 04:28 pm
I didn't say his fairy tale remark was racist because, IMO, it wasn't. But it was rather vicious and particularly nasty. Now of course I haven't heard every word that has dropped from Obama's mouth about Mrs. Clinton but we're trying to stay away from attacking one another, are we not? But I guess when you're siccing your dog on someone, you can't exactly control where he bites or how hard.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 04:35 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
since Obama has denigrated Hillary since day one


Granted I'm not paying close attention, but I haven't seen evidence that this is true.

Re: the fairy tale comment, imagine Romney saying that Hillary's campaign was the biggest fairy tale he'd ever seen.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 05:08 pm
So far; the Sexists won IA and the Racists won NH. And yet, somehow, overall bigotry is down (as evidenced by the white man's plummet). Rolling Eyes Fairy tale? The truth is; it's a bald face lie, delivered with absolute sincerity by a magnificent liar. The simple fact remains: Hillary was pro war and Obama was anti war. No fairy tale here.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 05:18 pm
Clyburn aint calling the Clinton's racist. He made himself clear without putting words in his mouth.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:03 pm
nimh wrote:
Kickycan - that is scary and depressing...

But in a way it's good to know what you'd be in for if Obama will be the nominee. The shitstorm will be no less dirty than that which erupted around the Clintons when they first came on the national stage; to think otherwise I think is naive.

Here's a sobering assessment of what would be coming that I just read. It mentions the "e-mail barrages [in which] he is being portrayed as the son and stepson of Muslims from Africa and Asia, who worshipped in mosques and madrasas as a young boy", which you just posted an example of.

But it also previews other themes the smearing will centre around. For example how his pastor, who is "a close friend and spiritual adviser to the Obama family", will be "depicted as a raving black nationalist and a proud associate of Louis Farrakhan". Newsmax already warned that "if Obama is his party's nominee, his Republican opponent will [..] make use of Rev. Wright and his radical teachings as effectively as supporters of George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton's furlough".

Quote:
The Coming Attack on Barack

A Commentary by Joe Conason

Thursday, January 10, 2008

"They will try to Swift Boat me," said Barack Obama in the days before the New Hampshire primary, looking forward to the Democratic nomination that he still believes will be his, with a prediction both accurate and chilling.

Whether he can go on to claim the nomination is yet to be determined. Much more predictable is the nature of the campaign that would be waged against him -- and the fickleness of the national press corps if and when that ugly process eventually reaches its nadir.

The effective template for attacking a Democratic nominee was developed by former Republican political boss Karl Rove during decades of trench warfare in Texas and across the country. While Rove may only whisper advice from the sidelines next fall, his approach can be easily copied by lesser talents: Seize upon the Democrat's most attractive quality and sow doubts to undermine that appeal. With candidates such as John Kerry and Max Cleland, that meant tearing down their records as war heroes and raising questions about their patriotism.

With Obama, the obvious target is his inspirational life story. The task of the opposition operatives will be to twist that saga, to unearth facts or factoids that raise concerns about the candidate's background, and to make his cosmopolitan upbringing appear alien and even sinister -- and of course, to play the race card against him, either subtly or blatantly. These themes will begin to appear in the right-wing press, which is of course where the original Swift Boat smears first showed up four years ago.

Indeed, that process has begun, and is accelerating along with Obama's drive toward the nomination. Conservatives will briefly applaud him for defeating Hillary Clinton, the immediate object of their hatred, and then turn on him as the next target. Denigrating material about the front-runner -- whose popularity and skill they clearly fear -- will be ready for deployment very shortly, but will not be aired until his nomination is a certainty.

Meanwhile, certain themes are being tested on the websites of the extreme right. The basic concept is to suggest that Obama is somehow less wholesome than he appears to be, and to provoke bigoted responses. On these sites and in e-mail barrages, he is being portrayed as the son and stepson of Muslims from Africa and Asia, who worshipped in mosques and madrasas as a young boy. That is a proven falsehood surrounding a tiny grain of fact, but no matter. Repetition will make the poison.

Next will come questions about the Chicago church he attends, whose eccentric pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a close friend and spiritual adviser to the Obama family. In an article published on the Newsmax website just days ago, Wright is depicted as a raving black nationalist and a proud associate of Louis Farrakhan. He is prone to polarizing remarks about a wide range of topics, from Jews and Israel to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway.

The Newsmax article on the relationship between Obama and Wright displays at least one aspect of the campaign under construction on the right. Although such websites may seem marginal, they are not -- and more powerful forces are clearly indicating their interest in these same lines of attack.

Brad Blakeman, a former Bush White House aide who now runs Freedom's Watch, a political committee funded by major Republican donors that has aired several pro-war commercials, told Newsmax he was aware of the Wright connection.

"If your spiritual adviser makes outrageous statements, it's incumbent on you as a leader to denounce those statements," he said. "Silence is an admission that you agree with what your spiritual adviser pronounces."

Newsmax concluded that "if Obama is his party's nominee, his Republican opponent will rightly be able to make use of Rev. Wright and his radical teachings as effectively as supporters of George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton's furlough to help Bush win the presidency." In other words, be prepared for the attack ads to be aired by Freedom's Watch and other shadowy, well-funded organizations, just like the Horton ads put up by an earlier "independent committee" in 1988.

The unscrupulous right wing will do exactly the same thing to Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination -- except that those smears will have to be reruns.


This has it exactly right. Read Rove's column from yesterday and note the racial allusions. Read Krauthammer today to discover how Barack is not really a nice person after all and how his appeal is built on nothing substantial etc. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011003245.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

And there is this...
Quote:
(CNSNews.com) - Karl Rove told Cybercast News Service in an interview Wednesday that Sen. Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign was helped when she responded in a smiling, self-deprecating manner when asked during Saturday night's televised debate why some voters had an issue with her "likeability" and that her rival Sen. Barack Obama only enhanced the positive impact for Clinton when he responded like "a smarmy, prissy little guy taking a slap at her."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080109e.html

It has only begun. Clearly, Obama is now considered a real threat to be the nominee and so the right is bringing out the attack mechanisms to get negative notions into play (done later, more abruptly, would be more noticeable and jarring) and to, as Boehlert says, to pilot the range of possible attacks.

A traditional technique for spreading propaganda, positive and negative, is to place speakers in various places throughout a political or an informational environment. Four propagandists speaking in one news organ (for example) and spreading a particular message or idea has far less effect than if you position them around in different organs. In the first case, obviously that organ will appear as it is...biased and dedicated to promotion of a singular viewpoint. But the consequence of diversifying the locations from which they speak not only increases the size of audience but also gives the impression of a broad consensus towards the idea/message promoted. It's a simple technique and effective.

Now consider the hires of Gerson along with Krauthammer at the Post. And the hire of Kristol along with Brooks at the Times. And the recent hire of Rove to do a weekly. And count the others like them. They are political operatives, tightly aligned with party machinery and their task is not to inform but to achieve power for the party to which they are aligned. That is what they are up to and it is all they are up to.

Consider the WH meetings between the rightwing radio and rightwing TV/press over the recent period. Those meetings are secret and not discussed. There are no such WH meetings with air america staff, for example.

Obama or Hillary are about to be pilloried. Huge budgets and enormous marketing expertise will be brought to bear.

So probably the folks here really ought to stop helping this along.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:09 pm
au1929 wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
Civil Rights Tone Prompts Talk of an Endorsement
Susan Etheridge for The New York Times

Quote:
By CARL HULSE
Published: January 11, 2008
WASHINGTON ?- Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he was rethinking his neutral stance in his state's presidential primary out of disappointment at comments by Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton that he saw as diminishing the historic role of civil rights activists.



Yeah! that's the reason. Laughing


Easy to make wiseass innuendo. So, what's your oh-so-obvious answer - Clyburn's gonna support the black guy because he's black?

Deep.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:13 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
yes indeed, now the Clintons are racists all of a sudden. What a laugh....


I wouldn't characterize them as racists, but as penultimate opportunists to whom using ugly suggestion is not a tactic that is out of bounds.

IMO it's a laugh to pretend anything would be too low in the Clinton's quest to reclaim that address on Pennsylvania.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:20 pm
blatham wrote:
There are no such WH meetings with air america staff, for example.

Why bother? With just a little more effort and a slightly larger room, you could probably hold meetings with all of the Air America listeners instead.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:22 pm
Snood
Did you figure that out all by yourself or did you have help.

Isn't it pecular that the Clintons who were supporters of civil rights and supported by blacks are suddenly not good enough. What happened did they grow horns?

Racism is racism no matter who practices it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:27 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
blatham wrote:
There are no such WH meetings with air america staff, for example.

Why bother? With just a little more effort and a slightly larger room, you could probably hold meetings with all of the Air America listeners instead.


Hell, even I wouldn't get invited. But an alumni, Rachel Maddow, is one of the sharpest new voices to appear on prime time TV yakk shows and may be up for her own hour show at MSNBC. And we've sent money to Frankin's campaign as I know you have too.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:35 pm
Latest on the NH recount:

http://www.sos.nh.gov/recount%20press%20release.pdf

Quote:
RELEASED BY: William M. Gardner, Secretary of State of New Hampshire

SUBJECT: Statewide Recount of the Republican and Democratic Presidential Primaries

DATE: January 11, 2008

RELEASE TIME: Immediate

CONTACT: Secretary of State William M. Gardner, phone (603) 271-3242

Secretary of State William M. Gardner announced today that Albert Howard, a candidate for nomination for the office of President of the United States in the Republican Party Primary and Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for nomination for the office of President of the United States in the Democratic Party, have requested a recount of all ballots cast statewide. Mr. Howard and Mr. Kucinich have satisfied the requirements for initiating a statewide recount of the Republican and Democratic Primary.

Secretary of State William M. Gardner will estimate the cost of the recounts, which must be paid by the candidate(s) for the recount to proceed.

Secretary of State Gardner announced that the recounts will start Wednesday, January 16, 2008. The time and location for the start of the recount process will be announced after the estimate has been completed and payment of the estimated cost has been received.

New Hampshire law, RSA 660:7, provides that "any person for whom a vote was cast for any nomination of any party at a state or presidential primary may apply for a recount." RSA 660:2, IV provides that if the difference between the vote cast for the applying candidate and a candidate declared elected shall be greater than 3 percent of the total votes cast in the towns which comprise the office to be recounted, the candidate shall pay the fees provided in RSA 660:2, III and shall agree in writing with the secretary of state to pay any additional costs of the recount." RSA 660:6 provides that if the person requesting the recount is declared the winner after the recount or loses by a margin of less than one percent of the total votes cast, the fees for the recount will be refunded by the State.

Secretary of State Gardner reports that the last time New Hampshire did a statewide recount of the results of the Presidential Primary was in 1980.
Unofficial results indicate that Albert Howard received 44 votes for nomination in the Republican Primary and Dennis Kucinich received 3,901 votes for nomination in the Democratic Primary.

# # #

For further information please contact Secretary of State William M. Gardner at (603) 271-3242.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:51 pm
au1929 wrote:
Snood
Did you figure that out all by yourself or did you have help.

Isn't it pecular that the Clintons who were supporters of civil rights and supported by blacks are suddenly not good enough. What happened did they grow horns?

Racism is racism no matter who practices it.

Au, did you think of any concrete subject yet that Obama hasnt been specific about?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:52 pm
Why are so many people saying they dont have a clue what Obama stands for, and dont know what plans he has (if any)?

I'm frustrated, obviously, by people who say that for all we know, the only change Obama stands for is changing the furnishing of the White House. It's a rhetorical flourish, I know, but still, thats just so out there. He put all kinds of detailed plans out, and it's all available at a mouseclick. And people who are too lazy to look it up find it easier to just pretend none of it is even there.

Then again, considering that many voters are simply too lazy or prejudiced to click on a couple of links and thats a reality to deal with, is there anything Obama could have done - or can do - to nip this kind of attack line in the bud? Other than throwing one's hands up in indignant incomprehension?

I do think so. It's true that most voters never get a whiff of the specific policy platforms the candidates put out; they just go on soundbites, on the general impression they're left with from a candidate's speeches, and on how the media coverage in turn describes and labels the candidate. That's a given. Now Obama has lots of specific plans - but has he failed in conveying that prominently enough in his message?

I've complained before about how Obama's rhetorics are so lofty, so inspirational, it can leave you with a frightfully abstract kind of feel-good feeling. Like David Brooks wrote in that column Blatham quoted a bunch of pages ago, "At first blush, his speeches are abstract, secular sermons of personal uplift ?- filled with disquisitions on the nature of hope and the contours of change." I know that this inspires many people - and it's the basis of his Rohrschach blot kind of appeal, with devoted followers who range in ideology from committed progressive to non-partisan centrist all seeing him as one of them. But perhaps the NH result underlined how the same thing also instinctively makes a lot of people queasy.

Mark Schmitt lays out both sides of the coin on Tapped:

Quote:
[Obama] is falling into the tendency that many "wine-track" candidates do of talking about his candidacy as if it were some sort of other-worldly cause: "something happening," ... "it's about you," etc. Howard Dean's "people-powered politics" had the same flaw. That kind of language is inspirational in the moment, but quickly makes a campaign seem vapid and vain even if it isn't. It leaves a listener open to the sense that you're the candidate of process, feeling, and personality, which allows the hard-work-and-experience candidate to claim the mantle of substance by comparison.

But Obama didn't get through 15 debates without substance. [..] He's got an elegant, expansive pitch-perfect take on foreign policy that's markedly different from Clinton's; he has good proposals on poverty, climate change, and a defensible health proposal. [..] And he's got an argument about how he will actually get these things achieved that is distinctly different from Clinton's, and to my ears, more persuasive.

Last night, Obama put five solid paragraphs of pure substance into his speech, moving from health care to international issues in a smooth passage. He should do that all the time -- the inspiration and movement and people power will still be there. They can go unstated now. And with Edwards probably a less-significant factor in the race, Obama also has an opportunity to move left onto his more populist, but also extremely substantive ground, without jeopardizing his promise to reach out to independents and Republicans, in pursuit of progressive goals.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 08:49 pm
Obama is doing a lot of that, Nimh. The problem is that the news outlets ignore it when writing their articles and go for the inspirational stuff because they think that is what their consumers are interested in. It is mostly the local news media that writes about the whole story. Here's an example of it. It is also an example of Obama's successful one-on-one retail politics which Hillary is now starting to copy:

Quote:
Obama talks solutions with voters at Loaf and Ladle
Roundtable held with voters

Rich Beauchesne/rbeauchesne@seac
December 21, 2007 6:00 AM

Sen. Barack Obama joined in a discussion with independent voters Thursday at the Loaf and Ladle in Exeter, talking about his solutions for the nation's most pressing challenges while listening to what the voters are thinking.

Obama spoke on his intentions to end the war in Iraq bringing troops home within 16 months, health care, energy and his track record. He also told the group of area residents his plans to run the most open and transparent administration in history.

"Because when you shut the door on the people, chances are you are not doing the people's business, you're doing someone else's," he said. "Instead of doing business behind closed doors, we'll bring democracy back to the people. When I put together my health-care legislation, I won't do it in a back-room, I'll do it out in the open. And we'll make sure the voices of patients, doctors, nurses and hospital administrators are heard over the drug and insurance industries. That's how we'll finally lower costs and make sure that every American has affordable, high-quality health care."

The voters ?- who came from Exeter, Rye, Dover, Rochester and Bedford ?- told Obama how they feel deserted by their government and are looking for someone to lead them back who can stick to their ideas and asked what they can do as Americans.

"I am frustrated by the fact that I can vote for people who somehow go to Washington with these ideas to change and somehow get swallowed up," said Sally Ann Hawko, of Exeter. "I remember the time when Jimmy Carter told us all to wear sweaters at home because we were running out of oil, but nobody has asked us to do anything for our country at all."

Obama said many get sucked into conventional wisdom for problem solving and follow the strong pressure to fit in and not make waves, something he does not have a problem with, he said.

"The way I am going to do it, is to make sure it is an open process. I will educate the American people, they are involved in the process and that is how I think change is going to happen," he said.

Obama said he would ask the American people to pay attention and participate in arguments and debates in Washington and also to help by sharing their skills.

"The other thing I would ask of you is that some of the decisions we make will have some consequences for the average American," he said. "If we are going to get a hold of climate change, we're going to have to change how we get a hold of and use energy. I would expect some different behavior from the American people."

Carol Walker Aten, executive director of Squamscott Community Commons, told Obama about the 80,000-square-foot community center that will be sustainability designed and operated by alternative energy. One of the challenges to the project, she said, besides the approximately $18 million construction cost, is the availability of funding.

"There's no state or federal funding for a building that's going to be built and lower the operating costs for these agencies. Here we are trying to put a solution that is a local solution for our community, but also national, addressing some global warming issues," she said. "We are ahead of the curve in design. What kind of solutions do you see that don't force us to go to earmarks as a solution."

Obama said he would put in place strong incentives to design buildings like Squamscott Community Commons, invest in clean energy solutions and move the country to be more efficient in energy use.

"I guess the question is can you wait two or three years. I'd like to get it done now, but this is going to be a priority," he said. "I'm with you. I'm coming. Just hang on."
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 08:58 pm
Your citing of Obama's concession speech is another example. Unless you were in the room to hear the speech, hardly anyone heard the whole thing. We heard the first paragraph where he congratulated Clinton and the first sentence about something happening in America. Then we heard the pundants talk about how gracious Obama was.

Did anyone get to read or hear the entire speech?

Here it is, for those who didn't:

Quote:
Transcript: New Hampshire Post-Primary Speech by Obama

The following is a transcript of the concession speech Barack Obama delivered after Hillary Clinton was announced the projected winner of the New Hampshire primary - January 8, 2008.


OBAMA: Thank you, New Hampshire. I love you back. Thank you. Thank you.

Well, thank you so much. I am still fired up and ready to go.

...

Well, first of all, I want to congratulate Senator Clinton on a hard-fought victory here in New Hampshire. She did an outstanding job. Give her a big round of applause.

You know, a few weeks ago, no one imagined that we'd have accomplished what we did here tonight in New Hampshire. No one could have imagined it.

For most of this campaign, we were far behind. We always knew our climb would be steep. But in record numbers, you came out, and you spoke up for change.

And with your voices and your votes, you made it clear that at this moment, in this election, there is something happening in America.

There is something happening when men and women in Des Moines and Davenport, in Lebanon and Concord, come out in the snows of January to wait in lines that stretch block after block because they believe in what this country can be.

There is something happening. There's something happening when Americans who are young in age and in spirit, who've never participated in politics before, turn out in numbers we have never seen because they know in their hearts that this time must be different.

There's something happening when people vote not just for party that they belong to, but the hopes that they hold in common.

And whether we are rich or poor, black or white, Latino or Asian, whether we hail from Iowa or New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina, we are ready to take this country in a fundamentally new direction.

That's what's happening in America right now; change is what's happening in America.

...

Our new American majority can end the outrage of unaffordable, unavailable health care in our time. We can bring doctors and patients, workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans together, and we can tell the drug and insurance industry that, while they get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair, not this time, not now.

Our new majority can end the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and put a middle-class tax cut in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it.

We can stop sending our children to schools with corridors of shame and start putting them on a pathway to success.

We can stop talking about how great teachers are and start rewarding them for their greatness by giving them more pay and more support. We can do this with our new majority.

We can harness the ingenuity of farmers and scientists, citizens and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil and save our planet from a point of no return.

And when I am president of the United States, we will end this war in Iraq and bring our troops home.

We will end this war in Iraq. We will bring our troops home. We will finish the job ?- we will finish the job against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. We will care for our veterans. We will restore our moral standing in the world.

And we will never use 9/11 as a way to scare up votes, because it is not a tactic to win an election. It is a challenge that should unite America and the world against the common threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear weapons, climate change and poverty, genocide and disease.

...

We know the battle ahead will be long. But always remember that, no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. And they will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks and months to come.

We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can.

It was the call of workers who organized, women who reached for the ballot, a president who chose the moon as our new frontier, and a king who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land: Yes, we can, to justice and equality.

Yes, we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world. Yes, we can.

...

Together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story, with three words that will ring from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea: Yes, we can.

Thank you, New Hampshire. Thank you. Thank you.

END
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 10:22 pm
eoe wrote:
Got news for you Bear. In just 24 wild hours, "Brother" Bill did manage to squander alot of personal support and I'm afraid that if his club card has not already been revoked for that 'fairy tale' comment amongst others, it soon will be.


I'm gonna venture a lil' prediction here. Some club card revoking is going to take place the first time Hillary's penchant for trying to take on black idiom and say things like "Ah don' FEEL no ways tired" speaking to black crowds, gets wide real time exposure in the media.

Hey, I gets to guess... everybody else does.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 10:48 pm
No she didn't! Shocked
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 11 Jan, 2008 10:57 pm
eoe wrote:
No she didn't! Shocked
Actually, she did. But she was quoting James Cleveland... if that helps.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 341
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 03/10/2026 at 06:51:23