04/02/2008 12:37:03 PM EST

Yeah, it's OBAMA who keeps playing the race card, sure...

posted by richardshort2001

So the Clinton campaign now admits their strategy to turn superdelegates is to play the Rev. Wright card.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
To top it off I just heard a Clinton supporter on the news call the Rev. Wright debacle "a completely legitimate ISSUSE (emphasis mine EDIT: Also misspelling mine :D)".

Let me get this straight.  When anyone calls Clinton out for lying about and/or exaggerating her experience (her main reason she is more "electable"), people need to stick to the issues and stay away from personal attacks.  When you need to overturn the will of the voters, it's ok to attack someone based on what their preacher said.

OK, sure.

Even McCain has said that the Wright "issue" woul d not enter into his campiagn.  Nothing is too low for Clinton though, I guess.

< That's It, The Last Straw | Monks with Weapons!! >
 Display:
Yeah, it's OBAMA who keeps playing the race card, sure... | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 hidden)
First (none / 0)
Obama was the first to play the race card, says Sean Wilentz.

by Twba on 04/02/2008 01:44:08 PM EST

Here's some speculation for you (none / 0)

From your linked article: 

"Had she truly conspired to inflame racial animosities in January and February, her campaign would have brought up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his incendiary sermons. But the Clinton campaign did not. And when the Wright stories and videos finally did break through in the mass media, they came not from Clinton's supporters but from Fox News Network."

She's been pretty tight with Rupert Murdoch lately, or so I've read.  How do we know that she didn't quietly hand this to FOX News?  Yeah, Yeah, I know, she'd never do that. 

by bfaul on 04/02/2008 02:41:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Get your barf bag (none / 0)
She met with Richard Mellon Scafe this week at his newspaper that nobody in Pittsburgh reads. Scafe!! He financed the years of Clinton bashing! What WAS/IS she thinking?

by zenie on 04/02/2008 03:46:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I saw that (none / 0)

That is interesting, isn't it?  I think that maybe rather than taking this sort of stuff personally the politician in her admires the skill with which the mud is slung.  I can see them laughing together and shaking hands and saying, "see, we're not so different, you and I".

She's building a strange set of admirers. 

 

by bfaul on 04/02/2008 04:21:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Speculation (none / 0)
How do we know that she didn't quietly hand this to FOX News?

We know Hillary's oppo research team was not behind this because you and I are news junkies. We read the New York Times and so do Fox News producers.

Obama's advisers disinvited Rev. Wright from the ceremonial announcement of Obama's presidential campaign. Everyone paying attention including Fox News producers immediately realized that there must be a good story behind that action.

Fox News producers and others are sitting on many hours of Wright's sermons. The "goddamn America" clip is just the tip of the iceberg. Hubble is correct. A 527 will create powerful negative ads with that material and release them just before the election.

by Twba on 04/03/2008 01:15:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sean Wilentz Is A Jerk (none / 0)
I read his piece of trash essay in TNR.  His basic premise was that up is down and black is white.  I couldn't believe that TNR even published that rubbish.

by veeve on 04/02/2008 03:09:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wilentz' OpEd (none / 0)
I don't see Wilentz' opinion in the Inquirer as being very influential. Obama will strongly carry Philadelphia.

by Verified1 on 04/03/2008 07:29:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama's race card (none / 1)

He sees it when he looks in the mirror--black/white. Doesn't have to say anything.

Barack Obama is the face of the future of America. He is us. That's why so many people are ambivalent. They can't reconcile their upbringings and prejudice, and accept that race is irrelevant.

Too bad others can't look at him as being American first.


by zenie on 04/02/2008 03:40:56 PM EST

You have got to be kidding!!!! (none / 0)
"Barack Obama is the face of the future of America. He is us."

What the Hell are you talking about? He is us?

He is another politician, and an inexperienced one at that!!!!

Jarett, Spencer and ihavenobias, this is what im talking about - you cannot get any more smug than this sort of ridiculous nonsense statement - This is exactly why Obama supporters are viewed as the arrogant elitists that they are. Im almost looking forward to somebody wiping the floor with Obama - It'll drive all you "Love the World - We Shall be Free' types back into the shadows where you belong!!!

Now I need to shower - Ick....


:(


by bobo1 on 04/02/2008 03:57:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But (none / 0)
Dont you say that you're the face of America all the time bobo?
You mention at least four times per post that  the majority of America thinks like you do (which is highly questionable).  In fact, I bet your response will have you saying it again, and possibly again.  Smug bastard.
:) Smile
;p Wink with tongue
") Cubist period smiley

by Spencer on 04/02/2008 04:11:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bobo is not us (none / 0)

8) Smile with glasses
=D Big smile
ok|:  Skateboarder 

by OneHitKill on 04/02/2008 08:50:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Most of US are not like YOU!!! (none / 0)
I think thats the point the Obama supporters are missing here...

@) Cyclops Smiley!

by bobo1 on 04/03/2008 12:32:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
In fact most of US are not conservative (none / 0)
As explained in this article

This fact eludes you as you try to base all or most of your arguments on the misguided belief that a majority of Americans are conservative.


by Chinese Democracy on 04/03/2008 01:57:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What eludes you China Guy... (none / 0)
Is the fact that even if Americans are not conservatives in the mold of William F Buckley jr or Rush Limbaugh, they are certainly more conservative then you will ever care to admit too...

We are not all Prius Driving, Pot Smoking hippie academics who continuously underestimate the stupidity and easily controlled nature of Joe Sixpack America...

This is why liberals cant win... Ego and smugness... You are the epitome of your own defeat!!!

 (8)) Smiley Full faced!!!

by bobo1 on 04/03/2008 02:16:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
McCain - Lieberman? (none / 0)
I could see that happening...

McCain - Bill Nelson of Florida?
McCain - Hagel?

I think I like your approach to this whole thing, Ken... trying to talk sense into these nonsensical Liberals is very frustrating - maybe Ill join the Obama bandwagon and even if he wins, he'll get blamed for all of this crap coming down the hill (economy and war continuation) anyway, so he'll be gone in 4 years - like you said, Republicans cant win them ALL!!!

Viva Obama... (I'll get more enthusiastic after Im done vomitting...)

:)

by bobo1 on 04/03/2008 02:42:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Having it both ways (none / 0)

This is directed to Ken and Bobo, just for clarification. 

First, if Dems can't win what the hell was 2006, 1996, 1992 etc.  If the majority of Americans are so conservative how did Gore when a majority of the vote? 

This is Bobo, the self-proclaimed voice of the people at his finest. 

I don't just "know" the future like you two but I wonder if McCain running to the center, if not the left, by picking a Dem or Connecticut for Lieberman running mate might that not hurt his ability to energize the base?

Could it impact fundraising?  Supress knee-jerk religious nut-job voting turnout.  McCain has the weakest conservative and religious credentials of any national Republican and you think nominating a Jewish running mate will help him?????  Currently he is dry-humping Bush at every campaing stop and is still coming under heavy attack from many major religious leaders.

So your calculus is that a centrist, economically indifferent, religiosuly indifferent, pro-war McCain-Lieberman ticket will energize the Republican base while simultaneously winning enough centrists and democrats for whom ending the war is the number one issue.  I find this conclusion fascinating.

Finally, after explaining that the Dems can't win you say that even if they do Bush has destroyed the country so bad Obama will take the blame and lose in 2012 but this logic does not seem to apply to a President McCain.

Wow, thanks for showing us how stupid and illogical we progressives are. 

by ProfRich on 04/03/2008 11:13:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
A Few Clarifications for you, Professor... (none / 0)
First, I just say McCain - Lieberman just to piss off the liberals on the site... I know how accepting you Democrats are of Lieberman and his dedication to party and country...

Secondly, the election of 2006 was not a Presidential race - those were local races that the Democrats should have done better at... With the state of the war and worsening economy at that point, the Dems should have steamrolled the Republicans in the senate but they didnt - because they ran Liberals instead of people like Jim Webb (consequently most of the House Democrats who won seats were southern conservative democrats - Bluedogs)

1992 and 1996 are a clear example of what I have been trying to tell you all along - liberalism does not win general elections (especially for the Presidency) Bill Clinton ran on mostly conservative platforms and won. He also had the help of Perot in both campaigns. He ran to the right and picked up the center voters - And he won by doing so...

Obama has shown little indication that he is willing to court the center as one would need to to win - He is being painted as a tride and true Dukakis/Mondale Liberal, and its gonna kill him with the centrist/white voters... Rev Wright and the Bowling incident are just 2 examples of how Obama doesnt relate to Joe Sixpack America...

I really dont give a shit about what McCain does - I hate him more than I hate Obama - But Republicans will vote for him regardless because hes not a Democrat and He is not black - our friend mijoh below has it right... Hillary says "Obama cant win" and the sentence should continue "because he is black..." Facts are facts here, and he has hit it right on the mark - and thats going to be the other major issue that will continue to be hammered by the 527s and Republicans and the MSM...


I think if McCain were clever enough, he would run to the center and take away Obamas chances there - There will always be funds for Republicans, because big business will always support the status quo - they might have to hold their noses while writing the checks, but do not be disillusioned - they will still be writing them...


Thanks for your time...


by bobo1 on 04/03/2008 12:43:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My Apologies... (none / 0)
mijoh's comments referenced earlier are over on the Stephanopoulos thread I wrote. my error...

:)

by bobo1 on 04/03/2008 12:45:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ummm, No (none / 0)

Not Catholic.

And none of those people even remotely like Jews at all.  They just need the Jews to be wherever the hell they are supposed to be for the rapture to take place.  The Jews are still, to them, the people who killed Jesus (idiots). The Jews just have a role to play in their big closing number.

For my part, I love me some "cat lickers."  But really just the hot kind that look like strippers. 

by ProfRich on 04/03/2008 07:02:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Read, Ken, Read (none / 1)

This is classic Ken.  He reads a few words, assumes the rest of the post says what he expects it to and then responds.
Quick Quiz:

What is the top issue among voters (particularly centrists)?

A. The Fairness Doctrine

B. Ending the war in Iraq

Is John McCain going to completely change all his principles (again) in order to run as a centrists after going hard right for the last two years?  Is he going to suddenly become anti-war and run as the non-Bush republican?

Are you following this electionat all???

You have to lose the tired canned cliches you get from Rush (the dems fight the last election) and take the time to understand whats happening around you.

You got a guy running on a third term for Bush and being in Iraq for 100 years yet you think Obama is fighing the last election?  Wake the fuck up! 

by ProfRich on 04/04/2008 10:18:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No, you're right. (none / 0)

Most of America is racist, dumb, "moderate", and votes against their interests.  You represent them perfectly.  ;)

(_8^(I)  Homer

8==D  "Shovel"

X(  Dead Cyclops

by Spencer on 04/03/2008 01:59:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Finally!!!!! (none / 0)
Someone who listens!!!!!!!!

You can say whatever you want about me, Spence, but your statement is the truth - that most people ARE NOT as liberal as you guys think they are (or should be), and they certainly vote against their interests all the time!!!

Reagan? The Bushies? Nixon? We have been voting against our interests for years!!!!

Thanks...

C===:) - Bonerhead!!!!

by bobo1 on 04/03/2008 02:07:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure (none / 0)

"Im almost looking forward to somebody wiping the floor with Obama"

Almost my ass.  This has been obvious from the beginning. 

by bfaul on 04/02/2008 05:40:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exactly (none / 0)
Zenie, you are 100% right and 0% wrong. Ignore bobo.

by Verified1 on 04/03/2008 07:32:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
2 way street (none / 0)
You have no idea how much of an issue he (rev wright) really is, especially to the people who will decide this election come Nov. but I digress.

Who exactly ever said that she should be NOT be attacked?  Especially over lying and exaggeration?

Overturn the will of the people, are we really back to that? Practice what you preach. Show me some rage over Texas or the rest of the caucus states. I forgot those are the rules, except when it comes to Superdelegates
(her vicious attack about Wright was, OMG, I would have left my church?)

Fact: Bush didn't swiftboat Kerry and McCain won't swiftboat Obama HaHaHaHa. It is really funny how the Dems keep getting hit by the same truck but never get the license plate. Didn't you learn from the last time? A 527 will run the ad, McCain will disavow it. The MSM will run with it (repeat cycle)

NOTE: Actually the Swiftboat ads didn't do Kerry in, it was the windsurfing flip flop ads that did him in. (remember: he was for it before he was against it.)

My friends, I have warned you repeatedly, what is coming. Remember that those ads aren't meant for you or the rest of the faithful. They are meant for those white, blue-collar, nascar moms and dads. You know the ones, the ones who consistently vote against their own interest. The ones who bought into the welfare queen ads and Willie Horton ads. These are the same people who voted for Bush because they could see themselves having a Beer with him. These are the people who will determine who our next president is. Isn't that reassuring?

by LORD FOUL on 04/02/2008 03:55:51 PM EST

stop with the generic arguments (none / 0)
I agreed with you the LAST time we exchanged in a thread about caucuses.

Yes caucuses are far from perfect, but at least the person who gets the most votes wins, unlike the delegate system. 

My personal preference would be a national popular vote held on one day.  We can't expect the DNC to bend to our will though. 

Besides the "them's the rules" argument isn't what the post was about.  It was about the Clinton campaign and their questionable tactics.

And yes, there will be 527 ads, surely.  You think there won't be Vince Foster ads everywhere if Clinton is the nominee.  Not to mention the 35,321 other Clinton scandals. 

I am tired of this "Clinton is more electable" crap.  Little will fire up the right wing rednecks more than a potential Clinton presidency.  Obama would have to make a speech in Farsi while using the American flag as a rag to wipe up an abortion he just performed to beat Clinton in the category of right wing hatred.

by richardshort2001 on 04/03/2008 02:21:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Can we agree (none / 0)
On this

Clintons wins in NY & CA are meaningless (no matter who wins the Dems will carry those states.)

Obamas wins in AL,MIS,WYO etc are meaningless (no matter who wins the Pubs will win those states.)

Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost to the election over a "swing state" that was lost due to Ralph Nader.

The swing states, as usual, will decide the presidency.

In particular the Reagan Dems will decide this election. As they have since 1980. 
 
Up to this point, which of the Dem candidates win Reagan Dems? Who has the stregnth in the white, blue collar world? Be honest, say it.

Who are really important swing states PA,OH,IN,KY,TN,MO,KN,MI & FL if the Dem candidate doesn't win the majority of these states the Dem loses.

This isn't about liking or disliking a candidate, what this is about is winning the White House. If you don't win the reagan Dems you lose the swing states. If you lose the swing states you lose the election, period.

So should Obama win the nomination and he loses the majority of the swing states (hence loses the election) don't blame Hillary or the moderate wing of the party, we tried to warn you.

by LORD FOUL on 04/03/2008 09:19:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, Regan Democrats prefer Clinton (none / 0)
Woohoo.

Do these Reagan Dems not vote in the primaries then?  No fair blaming the caucuses, Obama would be ahead in popular vote just counting primary states. 

The biggest problem voters have with Obama is his inexperience.  If people are voting based on experience only, McCain wins.  Also, Obama has about as much experience as Lincon, FDR and JFK.  I think they did ok.  (Oh and Reagan)

To beleive that the Reagan Democrats will cost the party the election if Obama is nominated both of the following must be true:

Reagan Democrats would normally vote in line with their interest, unless the nominee in line with their interests is black.

They hate blacks that much, yet can't get motivated enough to defeat him in the primaries when he is leading in delegates.

DOES NOT COMPUTE...

by richardshort2001 on 04/03/2008 09:57:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Also (none / 0)
Already covered the swing state argument, again in the last thread we chatted.

by richardshort2001 on 04/03/2008 10:02:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Progress (none / 0)
Most people don't vote in primaries. I believe the percentage overall is 30% of usual voters. Just check out the popular vote. Look at Illinois. Notice something? The difference in the popular vote.

It is not so much in experience they simply do not know the man. That is why I thought VP was the way for him to go in this election. Do you want the "get to know Obama tour" durring a heated Presidential race? (Please let's not compare Obama to FDR or JFK and I won't compare him to less than favorable Presidents.)

Race doesn't matter? Obama is winning the black vote at about 85% (honestly if Obama were a candidate of any other skin color would he be winning a demographic with that type of margin? especially with no real policy differences with their opponent.) I forgot (in Liberal circles) whites only vote over race.

Did the Welfare Quenn ads compute for you, how about Willie Horton. Rev. Wright just gave a face to those fears and prejudices. Combine that with some of his wife's own comments and a sprinkle of the flag pin/cross your heart issue and yes you have a major problem with that particular demographic (the most important demographic in every presidential election)

Look Clinton was not my first choice or even my second, yes she has issues. Most of them old and extensively vetted. But of the remaining candidates she carries the Demographic need to win this election, this also would give him a time to distance himself from Wright.

Seriously let us be honest, if this were Hillary or any other Candidate would you really ignore the Wright issue? No! I know you believe his explaination but would you believe it from another candidate?

Personally I don't. Wright was "known" for his controversial sermons, that is how he built his church. I do not believe that Obama spent 20 years in the church and never heard him utter something stupid or offensive, it simply defies belief. He knew about this that is why Wright was excluded when Obama announced his candidacy. (but still carried in the campaign) His calling his Grandmother a racist didn't help either. A Republican friend of mine pointed out how Obama didn't give his "race" speech in response to a "racial" crisis like the Jenna 6 or the Duke rape case, he gave it to save his candidacy. I never thought of it that way but he has a point. Especially when Obama stated he could not disavow the man, then stated a week later on the"View" that he would have left the church if Wright were not retiring. Simply put he is just another politician, a good one, but a politician never the less

by LORD FOUL on 04/03/2008 04:19:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
smaller turnout = easier to change outcome (none / 0)
not harder.  So the point still stands they aren't motivated enough to stop him from being "their" nominee, but come Nov. they will vote against all their principles save their racism.  Still not buying it.

That aside, I would have cared more about the Wright deal if he hadn't handled it so well with the "Race Speech".  It was about as unpolitical an answer as any major candidate has ever given.  With one exception, yes I do not believe him when he says he never heard any of it.

Like you with Clinton, Obama was not my first choice.  In fact, I was close to backing Clinton.  Bill killed that for me in SC, and its gone downhill from there IMO. 

The speech though hit our racial divide nail right on the head.  Like Jon Stewart put it (paraphrasing from memory) "And a major candidate for President of the United States spoke to America about race, as if they were adults."  His probable lie about never hearing Wright say those thing directly was just so he wouldn't have to throw his friend under the bus.  Understandable, really...

Does it bug me? A little.  Not enough to want to elect another establishment candidate to the White House though.  I think most agree, I guess we will see who's right, since(let's be honest as you put it) we are almost certain to see whether Obama can beat McCain or not.

Till then...

by richardshort2001 on 04/04/2008 02:22:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0)
I wouldn't bury her just yet, she seems to have nine lives, like a cat. but it is going to be difficult. Obama has run an excellent campaign but I still have concerns

thanks for the refreshing discussion

until next time

by LORD FOUL on 04/04/2008 09:01:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I respectfully disagree (none / 0)

IF this is another close election, and I suspect it won't be, I think the most important region in the country might be the Southwest.  I believe the GOP will lose serious ground in the Hispanic vote and be in serious danger of losing NM, NV and CO.  If so, the GOP can win OH and FL and still lose. 

IN, KY, KS and TN aren't in play unless its a Dem landslide and  therefore don't matter.

I consider Florida reasonably GOP and should not be a big part of the Dem strategy. 

Michigan is very important but is both a labor and a black state and does not seem to give either Clinton or Obama an advantage.  Michigan has also been comfortably anti-Bush and is historically more Dem than the national average. 

Missouri is a swing state but also has a large black population. 

PA has gone Dem every election since 92 and has been more Dem than the rest of the country every election since at least 1952 (haven't gone back farther than that yet).  Since it has become more urban and blacker in the last 10 years I don't see it as a deciding state.  If the Dems lost PA they will have lost other states they couldn't afford first.

Of course saying the latin vote is more important than the blue collar vote isn't an argument for Obam per se, just a different way of looking at this.

I do think there is evidence that Obama is stronger among Repubs and Independents which makes a strong argument for him. 

The question is can the GOP win enough Hispanics with thier immigration nonsense or can they keep enough of the base if they abandon it.  There is some chance they are between scylla and charbdys here 

by ProfRich on 04/03/2008 02:30:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
our inerests (none / 0)
We don't vote against our own interest, We vote agianst your so called Progressive interest. which are no more than  a far left in the ditch dem interest. Come back to the center it is much better there.

by tuna on 04/03/2008 06:22:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh no! (none / 0)

"Even McCain has said that the Wright "issue" woul d not enter into his campiagn."

Bad news for Obama.   Given McCain's record this quote makes it 387% more likely the Wright issue will enter McCain's campaign.

by ProfRich on 04/02/2008 05:52:36 PM EST

Thanks Richard I needed a laugh today (none / 0)
Even McCain has said that the Wright "issue" woul d not enter into his campiagn. 

Do you REALLY believe that? Seriously, do you REALLY believe that?

Okay, and when Obama Christ is elected the unicorns will return to earth granting wishes to all those of pure heart that can tame them and stroke their magic horn.

The Horn of plenty will rain down it's bounty upon the land and all the evils of the world will be banished into the fiery pits of hell.

McCain said it and I'm thinking he's a war hero so he's incapable of telling a LIE!

I'll bet he'll even denounce the 527's when they start running the spots.

I imagine it will go something like this

Obama giving his "Words matter" speech
The good Reverend with his "GOD DAMN AMERICA" speech

Obama "Words matter"

The good Reverend condemning America for bombing Japan.

Obama-Reverend-Obama-Revere nd............and on and on and on and on "catapulting the propaganda" until it becomes truth.

Doesn't matter if it's not true, if the Republicans have taught us one thing, hammer a lie hard and long enough it will become the truth to the people who get their news in thirty second sound bites and decide elections.

But really Richard thanks for the laugh, it's been a long day and I needed it.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 04/02/2008 09:30:00 PM EST

Klueless (none / 0)

First, he wasn't talking to me, he was talking to RichardShort.  Do you even read this website?

Second, yeah, I make predictions.  I do my best to understand the world and want to talk about it with other reasonable people.  I would rather do that and be wrong every time than believe in or care about nothing and simply post to annoy people like a mosquito.

Third, Bush DID lose in 2000.  I only try to predict elections, not the stealing of elections.  And I was right in 2006 too.  As your better looking cousin said, two out of three ain't bad. 

by ProfRich on 04/02/2008 11:13:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
fallacies (none / 0)
1. You assume I think he is telling the truth, instead of simply stating what he said.  Which is something I never said

2.  You assume I think Obama is perfect, something else I never said.

3.  You ignore the 4,568,147 Clinton moments that are more 527able than Rev. Wright.

by richardshort2001 on 04/03/2008 02:46:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bobo: BOO! (none / 0)

It scares you that the future of the US is multiracial. Otherwise you wouldn't have the lily-white racist reaction [whether or not you think/not think you're a racist]. Even in the midwest and south, the number of multiracial children has increased siginificantly, compared to 30 years ago.

I'm being realistic, not smug. Obama wasn't my first or second choice among candidates. Where I live, it isn't much different from Alabama or Texas, both states with an increase in multiracial children. I see the gradual changes as I travel across the country. Lots of people like you are terrified [for not reason] of the American melting pot.

As a Latina, I like that the mixing is real, and being noticed positively, finally.

BOO! SCARY! OOOOOOOOO!

by zenie on 04/03/2008 10:14:50 AM EST

No, no, (none / 0)
bobo is a troll, not a racist.  He'll say whatever it takes to get people angry at him.

Also, for the record, I am highly in favor of mixing with Latinas.

I'm not saying anything.  I'm just saying.

::cough::

by jarett on 04/03/2008 07:50:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ˇSí se puede! (none / 0)

by zenie on 04/03/2008 10:34:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, it's OBAMA who keeps playing the race card, sure... | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: