Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 09:32 am
How very big of you guys to defend my right to support whoever I please even though I'm stupid because it's not the person you support..... how very new and changing and hopeful.. Laughing
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 09:36 am
Yep yep yep.

I do think that at this point the best thing to do, unity-wise, is for Obama to lay back a bit -- let the superdelegates trickle to keep that in the news and to remind people that it's looking more and more like he's the presumptive nominee, but don't do the overwhelming push. Give Hillary some time to float stuff like the June 15th date, get people ready, let it happen.

I completely agree with FreeDuck that as long as she's not doing the destructive stuff -- and I'm not liking this latest stuff about "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again,"* -- I don't mind that much if she's in the race per se. Among other things, she's very likely to win West Virginia and Kentucky no matter what, and that'd just be kind of weird if Obama loses to a drop-out. After May 20th (OR and KY) would be nice, but I can handle June 15th.



*Actual Hillary quote. More here:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/194069.php
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 09:39 am
Frankly, I don't understand all the indignation about Clinton's persistence in her campaign. The contest is about more than just the stated policy positions of the two candidates - it's about who will represent the party in the election. She has a right, under the rules established by the party, to continue on until the convention, which by those same rules, is the final arbiter of the decision. One may wonder about her motives, what other issues may be involved, and fault her decision, but the decision is hers.

The historical norms among both parties is for these contests to continue through the convention. So those who insist that she get out now (or should have done so weeks ago) are, at a minimum, insisting on something quite new - all while asserting that any other choice is both unreasonable and harmful to the party. I'm far from convinced that the protracted campaign struggle is even really harmful to Obama, much less the party (which, given the nearly four months remaining to the convention, can be argued to benefit from the backup thus available to it over this period.) Others, of course, may disagree - the point is the issue is far from obvious & certain.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 09:48 am
"Historical norm?"



Here's what Peggy Noonan has to say about it:

Quote:
This is an amazing story. The Democratic Party has a winner. It has a nominee. You know this because he has the most votes and the most elected delegates, and there's no way, mathematically, his opponent can get past him. Even after the worst two weeks of his campaign, he blew past her by 14 in North Carolina and came within two in Indiana.

He's got this thing. And the Democratic Party, after this long and brutal slog, should be dancing in the streets. Party elders should be coming out on the balcony in full array, in full regalia, and telling the crowd, "Habemus nominatum": "We have a nominee." And the crowd below should be cheering, "Viva Obamus! Viva nominatum!"

Instead, you know where they are, the party elders. They are in a Democratic club on Capitol Hill, slump-shouldered at the bar, having a drink and then two, in a state of what might be called depressed horror. "What are they doing to the party?" they wail. "Why are they doing this?"

You know who they are talking about.

The Democratic Party can't celebrate the triumph of Barack Obama because the Democratic Party is busy having a breakdown. You could call it a breakdown over the issues of race and gender, but its real source is simply Hillary Clinton. Whose entire campaign at this point is about exploiting race and gender.


Quote:
She is trying to take Obama down in a new way, but also within a new context. In the past he was just the competitor. She could say, "All's fair." But now he's the competitor who is going to be the nominee of his party. And she is still trying to do him in. And the party is watching.

Again: amazing.

Who can save the situation? The superdelegates.

You know them. They're the ones hiding under the rock, behind the boulder, and at the bar.

They are terrified, most of them. They want the problem to go away. They want it handled, but they don't want to do it. They don't want to tell Hillary to stop, because they would likely pay a price for it, and not just with her.

They are afraid of looking as if they're jumping on a train that's speeding down the tracks and is about to roll over the damsel in distress.

Which is how Hillary -- and her supporters -- will paint it. Even though she's no damsel, and she causes distress.

Some insight from a superdelegate I spoke to Thursday:

It's not math anymore, it's psychodrama. If she can't have it, no one can have it. If she has to tear the party apart, she will.


Peggy Noonan, mind you...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121027865275678423.html
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 09:48 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Gargamel wrote:
sozobe wrote:
More from CNN -- Lawrence O'Donnell saying that "senior" Hillary campaign people are saying that she'll be out June 15th. Wait for the last primaries, then give a week of trying to sway superdelegates, and then if they're unsuccessful, that's it. Out June 15th.


That's way too far from now.

I hate the media more than any featured figure of this primary season, including Rev. Wright. Every other contest, it decides the momentum has swuing, whether it has or not. So, in spite of all we're reading this week--"Is Hillary Finished?"--after she wins WV as predicted, the media will again have a six-foot Hillary boner, and we'll see this kind of ****: "Why can't Obama close the deal?"

<vomiting>


Perhaps, but I wonder if the hardcore Obama-ites would be as eager for him to give it up if he was the one behind after coming this far?



But we aren't! Everytime, I think Clinton will finally back out, she loans herself another million, in denial and thinks only whites vote for HER! NOT! She just can't bring herself to the reality, that she's a SORE LOSER!

Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 09:50 am
(I don't completely agree with her -- I think that a lot of superdelegates are not cowering, but are respecting the request of the Obama campaign to pace their declarations of support rather than muscle Hillary out now. But I post it to indicate that the idea that Hillary has lost, and should acknowledge as much, is widespread and hardly limited to Democratic/Liberal circles.)
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 09:51 am
teenyboone wrote:
You have some nerve! My response was in response to an earlier post that was made against Rev. Wright and his argument on aids being developed in a lab and used against Blacks, Africans, gays and any other persons, thought of as expendable. I wasn't responding to anything Barack Obama disassociated himself from. Don't know what the dust-up about his pastor is anyway. Candidate McCain, has the endorsement of a reverend who hates Catholics, the Pope and anyone else that gets in the way of his pro-Zionism push, to have the 3rd world war started!

I have no idea what the hell you're spouting! You need to read before you accuse! Twisted Evil


Perhaps so, but I also have a right to post what I wish.

My fault for assuming you were an Obama supporter, and interpreting your speculations about the possibilities that the U.S. government may have created and disseminated the HIV virus as contradictory & unhelpful to that support. For that, I apologize.

Beyond that, I do stand behind the other contradictions I noted attendant to those who entertain those fantastic speculations about the origins of HIV.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 09:57 am
georgeob1 wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
You have some nerve! My response was in response to an earlier post that was made against Rev. Wright and his argument on aids being developed in a lab and used against Blacks, Africans, gays and any other persons, thought of as expendable. I wasn't responding to anything Barack Obama disassociated himself from. Don't know what the dust-up about his pastor is anyway. Candidate McCain, has the endorsement of a reverend who hates Catholics, the Pope and anyone else that gets in the way of his pro-Zionism push, to have the 3rd world war started!

I have no idea what the hell you're spouting! You need to read before you accuse! Twisted Evil


Perhaps so, but I also have a right to post what I wish.
You are right about posting. You forget, don't you, that you ASKED me, what I was responding to and I just told you! AlsoReverend Wright, also said:

"You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on
you," Reverend Wright said in his appearance at the National Press Club.

Pronouncing himself "offended" by such "ridiculous propositions" as "when
[Wright] equates the United States' wartime efforts with terrorism--there
are no excuses," Obama said the next day.

What is truly ridiculous is that, six and a half years after 9/11, many
Americans still think the attacks were motivated by crazy freedom-haters out
to forcibly convert them to Islam. The rise of radical Islam resulted from
what Chalmers Johnson termed "Blowback"-- CIA jargon for the unintended
consequences, in this case of arming and funding Islamist fighters against
the Soviet Union. But Wright was right. "America's chickens are coming home
to roost," the Reverend said after 9/11.

It wasn't an original thought. Ward Churchill said the same thing. So have
countless analysts in other countries. Only in the U.S. is it prohibited to
say something so obvious--particular ly in a public forum.

Osama bin Laden and the 19 hijackers didn't think flying planes into
buildings would make Americans join the local mosque. They were motivated by
a desire to bring America's wars home to its people, to ensure that it would
suffer the consequences for having "supported state terrorism against the
Palestinians and black South Africans," as Wright said. Like Wright, bin
Laden has referenced these issues.

The Al Qaeda founder has also talked about the atomic bombs dropped on
Japan, one of the greatest war crimes in history.

"Bin Laden has said several times that he is seeking to acquire and use
nuclear weapons not only because it is God's will, but because he wants to
do to American foreign policy what the United States did to Japanese
imperial surrender policy," the Washington Post noted in 2005.

One of Wright's most bizarre statements concerns his "suggestion that the
United States might have invented H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS," in
the words of The New York Times. There is no evidence to support this
accusation. Yet paranoia can reveal truth.

"Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to
Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing
anything," Wright told the NAACP last week. (In Tuskegee from 1932 to 1972,
illiterate sharecroppers with syphilis were left untreated so that white
doctors could observe the progress of the disease.) "In fact, one of the
responses to what Saddam Hussein had in terms of biological warfare was a
non-question, because all we had to do was check the sales records. We sold
him those biological weapons that he was using against his own people. So
any time a government can put together biological warfare to kill people,
and then get angry when those people use what we sold them, yes, I believe
we are capable."

It shouldn't come as any surprise, given what the U.S. government has done
and continues to do to African-Americans- -a recent study shows, for example,
that blacks are 12 times more likely than whites to be sent to prison for
the same drug offenses as whites--that many of them consider it "capable of
doing anything." What is surprising is that African-Americans- -or anyone
else--still believes the government.

The Wright controversy offered us an opportunity to talk about the need to
create a government that tells the truth, that doesn't torture or kidnap or
wage unjustifiable wars--a government worthy of its people and its trust.
What we got instead, courtesy of Mr. Change We Can Believe In, was the usual
pablum. "They offend me," Obama said of Wright's comments. "They rightly
offend all Americans."
Let us all hold hands and be offended. Whatever it takes to stop us from
thinking.

SATISFIED?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 10:37 am
I don't understand how there can be any question left about whether Hillary is doing damage to the party... nor why her supporters, that do consider themselves Democrats first, don't recognize it. Arguably; the second most influential member of the party is doing everything she can to damage the party's candidate for President of the United States. Isn't that the opposing party's job?

I fully expect the vast majority of Democrats to vote Democrat once she's gone anyway, but: If she were to succeed in stealing the nomination, against the wishes of the people she supposedly aspires to represent, isn't it obvious that the party would splinter? Had she won fair and square; I would expect Obama-Democrats to vote Democrat just the same, but that is no longer a possibility… so where is the dilemma?

Even if she were to steal the nomination thru some dirty trickery; she would simultaneously piss off enough people to make her unelectable IMO, so she may as well be working for John McCain at this juncture. Democrats should not appreciate this.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 10:55 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't understand how there can be any question left about whether Hillary is doing damage to the party...[...] so she may as well be working for John McCain at this juncture. Democrats should not appreciate this.


You miss the point entirely, Bill: neither Clinton ever considered anything but their own personal interest in grabbing power.

For the longest time I tried to figure out why the 2 of them seemed such familiar types, and finally it dawned on me - these classic American archetypes were described by Mark Twain in "Huckleberry Finn": they are the King and the Duke.

If the Democratic party has no death wish it should treat them exactly the way the original 2 were last seen: tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. Republicans won't be holding their breath, though <G>
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 10:58 am
teenyboone,

I'm satisfied that you have made your position clearer than it was, though I don't agree with most of it.

Original thoughts and Ward Churchill don't often mix - except in the original fabrications with which he laced his resume at the University of Colorado. He was finally deprived of tenure and dismissed for a variety of misdeeds, including extensive plagarism in "scholarly papers" he had published.

Neither you nor I know what the terrorists in the hijacked aircraft on 9/11 were really thinking, or what motivated them - at least beyond the vague expressions of hatred that a few left behind.

I agree the USPHS Tuskeege experiments in monitoring the progression of Syphilis in a group of black males wrongfully continued for two decades after the introduction of antibiotics as a standard protocol for treating the disease and violated a host of other legal and medical ethical standards, some from the very start of the program. This reprehensible deed understandably has left us with a legacy of mistrust and suspicion among many citizens, particularly Blacks. However, I doesn't prove the truth of the exaggerated claims that Wright put forward including the HIV scam and other like things.

It is a bit hard to follow your position in all this. I believe you indicated that Wright's HIV claim was a flight of paranoia, but also that you, yourself believe and understand the beliefs of others that the U.S. government is capable of doing almost anything to harm Blacks and others. My point about South Africa was that, if this is so, then you surely must believe as much and more about what that government is capable of doing. If not, then you must deal with that contradiction.

I agree with you about the incarceration rates for Blacks - involving drugs and other issues as well. There are indeed elements of prejudice and uneven & unfair enforcement in this. However there are other factors as well, including much higher incidence of violent crime and, in some areas, drug sales & use among Blacks. It doesn't do much good to focus exclusively on either group of cause factors: we must honestly deal with them all.

In all of this, I believe the real solution is for all of us to treat people uniformly as human beings - not as Black, White, or any other such group label. I believe (or at least hope) that is the essence of Obama's approach in this campaign (it certainly is the reason he has excited such wide-spread enthusiasm), and reflected the basic reason for his rejection of Rev. Wright's endorsement of continued racial struggle and hostility.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 11:14 am
georgeob1 wrote:
teenyboone,

I'm satisfied that you have made your position clearer than it was, though I don't agree with most of it.

Original thoughts and Ward Churchill don't often mix - except in the original fabrications with which he laced his resume at the University of Colorado. He was finally deprived of tenure and dismissed for a variety of misdeeds, including extensive plagarism in "scholarly papers" he had published.

Neither you nor I know what the terrorists in the hijacked aircraft on 9/11 were really thinking, or what motivated them - at least beyond the vague expressions of hatred that a few left behind.

I agree the USPHS Tuskeege experiments in monitoring the progression of Syphilis in a group of black males wrongfully continued for two decades after the introduction of antibiotics as a standard protocol for treating the disease and violated a host of other legal and medical ethical standards, some from the very start of the program. This reprehensible deed understandably has left us with a legacy of mistrust and suspicion among many citizens, particularly Blacks. However, I doesn't prove the truth of the exaggerated claims that Wright put forward including the HIV scam and other like things.

It is a bit hard to follow your position in all this. I believe you indicated that Wright's HIV claim was a flight of paranoia, but also that you, yourself believe and understand the beliefs of others that the U.S. government is capable of doing almost anything to harm Blacks and others. My point about South Africa was that, if this is so, then you surely must believe as much and more about what that government is capable of doing. If not, then you must deal with that contradiction.

I agree with you about the incarceration rates for Blacks - involving drugs and other issues as well. There are indeed elements of prejudice and uneven & unfair enforcement in this. However there are other factors as well, including much higher incidence of violent crime and, in some areas, drug sales & use among Blacks. It doesn't do much good to focus exclusively on either group of cause factors: we must honestly deal with them all.

In all of this, I believe the real solution is for all of us to treat people uniformly as human beings - not as Black, White, or any other such group label. I believe (or at least hope) that is the essence of Obama's approach in this campaign (it certainly is the reason he has excited such wide-spread enthusiasm), and reflected the basic reason for his rejection of Rev. Wright's endorsement of continued racial struggle and hostility.


Not necessarily my own thoughts, but the way Rev. Wrights statements were totally taken out of context and woven together to make a hate-filled statement, means that civil unrest can still be churned up, racial divisions are still present, if they ever left, that a Black candidate has about a snowball's chance in hell, of ever being elected or considered electable, as long as people like the Clinton's use race and race advantage, to futher their own greedy aims, which have you nor me in mind, that ALL Americans of any color or ethnic background, should join together to knock down vestiges of hate, race and division out of our society, because United We Win! That's all I'm trying to say. A political party doesn't make us who we are, nor does left and right.
:wink:
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 11:41 am
sozobe wrote:
"Historical norm?"

Here's what Peggy Noonan has to say about it:

Peggy Noonan, mind you...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121027865275678423.html


Unfair tactics Soz!! :wink: You guessed (accurately) that I am probably an admirer of Peggy Noonan and are beating me with my own club. Parenthetically, I just got off the phone with one of my sons who brought up the same damn Noonan article to criticize me for this.

I probably overplayed the "Historical norms" bit - just a little. The last real convention fight was 1980 when Teddy Kennedy held on through the convention in a race against Jimmy Carter, despite an almost 2:1 ratio of committed delegates - and even started a floor fight to release Carter delegates form their commitments. (That was the one he wrapped up with his "The dream will never die..." speech - it was in San Francisco and I was there for the speech !). I was - in effect - reaching back through the entire 20th century for historical norms. Cool

In this case I am not persuaded by the Peggy Noonan article (though I did like the "She is not a damsel, and she is not in distress" line). I can understand Hillary hanging on, just as I can understand the frustration this causes the Obama supporters. Certainly with the relatively narrow margin in committed delegates, the large number of undeclared superdelegates, and the unresolved Florida Michigan issues, she has a far better case than Teddy Kennedy had in 1980 - and no one criticized him then. I can also see another motive for the anger of the party bigwigs -- they do not wish to have to unravel the mess they created in Florida and Michigan.

You are being rather even-tempered about this, and I can understand you sticking your finger in my eye over it as well.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 11:55 am
Hillary has always been in this for Hillary. Not for her country. Not for her Party. (Just as Obama is in this for Obama - not for his country and not for his party.)

As I previously posted, it was her turn. She stood by her man and put up with all the sh*t and embarassments while she bided her time. She manuevered a high profile Senate post and set herself up to be the unchallenged champion of the Democratic Party. And finally it was here. it was within her grasp. And it is being snatched away by a first term junior Senator with virtually no experience or credentials.

Time is running out for her. She is 60 years old and realistically has one more good shot. No way she wants Obama to be elected President in 2008 any more than she wanted Kerry to be elected in 2004. She can't run against a Democratic incumbant and even as vice president, she will have to wait eight more years--a political lietime. If she is denied the nomination this time, she wants McCain to be elected in 2008.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 11:57 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Hillary has always been in this for Hillary. Not for her country. Not for her Party. (Just as Obama is in this for Obama - not for his country and not for his party.)

As I previously posted, it was her turn. She stood by her man and put up with all the sh*t and embarassments while she bided her time. She manuevered a high profile Senate post and set herself up to be the unchallenged champion of the Democratic Party. And finally it was here. it was within her grasp. And it is being snatched away by a first term junior Senator with virtually no experience or credentials.

Time is running out for her. She is 60 years old and realistically has one more good shot. No way she wants Obama to be elected President in 2008 any more than she wanted Kerry to be elected in 2004. She can't run against a Democratic incumbant and even as vice president, she will have to wait eight more years--a political lietime. If she is denied the nomination this time, she wants McCain to be elected in 2008.


Just like McCain is for McCain, and nothing else?

There are no 'turns' in politics. It was that mentality that blew this thing for her.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 11:59 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Hillary has always been in this for Hillary. Not for her country. Not for her Party. (Just as Obama is in this for Obama - not for his country and not for his party.)

As I previously posted, it was her turn. She stood by her man and put up with all the sh*t and embarassments while she bided her time. She manuevered a high profile Senate post and set herself up to be the unchallenged champion of the Democratic Party. And finally it was here. it was within her grasp. And it is being snatched away by a first term junior Senator with virtually no experience or credentials.

Time is running out for her. She is 60 years old and realistically has one more good shot. No way she wants Obama to be elected President in 2008 any more than she wanted Kerry to be elected in 2004. She can't run against a Democratic incumbant and even as vice president, she will have to wait eight more years--a political lietime. If she is denied the nomination this time, she wants McCain to be elected in 2008.


Just like McCain is for McCain, and nothing else?

There are no 'turns' in politics. It was that mentality that blew this thing for her.

Cycloptichorn


Of course McCain is in it for McCain. He has wanted to be President for a very long time. Now he finally has his shot.

For most candidates it isn't a matter of 'turns' but rather a matter of timing. But for Hillary, I am certain that she felt she had paid her dues and it was her turn to be President.
0 Replies
 
Gargamel
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 12:07 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Hillary has always been in this for Hillary. Not for her country. Not for her Party. (Just as Obama is in this for Obama - not for his country and not for his party.)

As I previously posted, it was her turn. She stood by her man and put up with all the sh*t and embarassments while she bided her time. She manuevered a high profile Senate post and set herself up to be the unchallenged champion of the Democratic Party. And finally it was here. it was within her grasp. And it is being snatched away by a first term junior Senator with virtually no experience or credentials.

Time is running out for her. She is 60 years old and realistically has one more good shot. No way she wants Obama to be elected President in 2008 any more than she wanted Kerry to be elected in 2004. She can't run against a Democratic incumbant and even as vice president, she will have to wait eight more years--a political lietime. If she is denied the nomination this time, she wants McCain to be elected in 2008.


You're right. Sometimes people like to run for President for fun. You don't have to pay for dinner at Ponderosa, and you get neat assignments like waging war against nebulous entities such as terrorism and drugs! Woo-hoo!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 12:19 pm
teenyboone wrote:

Not necessarily my own thoughts, but the way Rev. Wrights statements were totally taken out of context and woven together to make a hate-filled statement, means that civil unrest can still be churned up, racial divisions are still present, if they ever left, that a Black candidate has about a snowball's chance in hell, of ever being elected or considered electable, as long as people like the Clinton's use race and race advantage, to futher their own greedy aims, which have you nor me in mind, that ALL Americans of any color or ethnic background, should join together to knock down vestiges of hate, race and division out of our society, because United We Win! That's all I'm trying to say. A political party doesn't make us who we are, nor does left and right.
:wink:

Thanks for reading my response with an open mind, and I am glad that we at least better understand each other's positions now.

I agree that Rev. Wright's words were carefully selected & quoted to project the divisive images we all saw - is was grist for the political mill. As things turned out with Wright's subsequent interviews & speeches, it became clear that he really does hang on to these old (outdated, I think) beliefs in a continuing struggle between Blacks and White oppression. The only difference was that instead of the impassioned, shouting, we later saw a serious, thoughtful person, who has developed - and apparently is guided by - a fairly complete theory of continuing racial struggle. This is, of course, fundamentally contrary to the image that Obama has worked so hard to project, and , in my view, was the reason Obama finally so clearly rejected him.

I believe the widespread enthusiasm Obama has excited among voters is in large part a result of the remarkable public (White and Black) appetitite right now for such a unifying message. The degree to which this truly represents Obama's inner motives is clearly important to many (indeed this is the reason why the Wright controversy became so critical ). I am inclined to give Obama the benefit of any doubt here, and believe the powerful public appetite for this message is, itself, one of the most encouraging things that has appeared on our political stage in a long time.

I wish that Obama's for reform of our tax structure and educational system were different from those he has articulated, and that he was running as a Republican.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 12:20 pm
And to add insult to injury. . .

Quote:
Kennedy: No veep slot for ClintonLINK
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Fri 9 May, 2008 12:26 pm
Obama cannot choose her after running a 'change' campaign.

He'll have to get a bit more fresh than her.
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 833
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 04:23:01