You may remember that back in September 2004, I wrote a post called "How Kerry lost me." I mined my blog archive in an effort to figure out -- for my own purposes -- the origin of the antagonism I had come to feel for Kerry. I ended up voting for Bush in 2004, and I had only voted for a Republican for President once before, and that was way back in 1976, the second time I voted for a presidential candidate, when I decided -- on the way to the polling place -- that there was something amiss about Jimmy Carter.
Now, today, Jac has a post modeled after "How Kerry lost me." (Jac is the one of my 2 sons who was always big on Obama. The other son, Chris, was a huge Hillary Clinton supporter, who I think may snub Obama in November. Perhaps he'll arrive in the comments and tell us what he's going to do. He doesn't blog anymore.)
Jac is making a list of the things that have happened over the months that have caused him to develop the opinion that Obama is "not good enough." Today, he's got a to-be-continued list of 5 things, and I see that this post is very different from "How Kerry lost me," because Jac is mostly seeing that Obama hasn't done well enough at getting and keeping American voters on his side.
"How Kerry lost me" was actually about how Kerry lost me, whereas "How Obama lost me" is really about how Obama lost the giant landslide of Americans his most enamored supporters envisioned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
60 comments:
This was a nice post by your son.
I list why I'm voting for McCain on my blog today. It will only be the second time I'm going for a Republican, and I'm over fifty.
I love the discussion about Obama's failure to imagine [Sarah Palin as the veep] by saying my mom was gearing up for this pick...like Mom was totally clueless and she figured it out. Which isn't at all true, but it's funny.
i hope McCain wins. You guys deserve another Great Depression.
Jac--
The key word in your post is "dream" as in "dream candidate."
All I can say is that voters must beware of projecting their hopes and wishes onto politicians. They will always break your heart, particularly ones who are dreamboats. Leadership by charisma is misleadership, as Petah Druckah once observed. Nor does history repeat itself in such a way that Sen. Obama is the reincarnation of FDR anymore than the present financial cataclysm will resemble the Depression.
Given that the world situation is a nightmare, at least in terms of the world's financial structure, I'd rather vote for the candidate who lived through a nightmare and came out a stronger, humbler man, one who needs prove nothing to anyone about his steadfastness.
Your best bud,
Stinger
Your son is reaping the results of being too much enamored with a politician. I see the same thing happening to Republicans now who are tepid at best with McCain, but think that Palin is somehow the spoonful of sugar. So if McCain is elected, they'll be very happy -- until he starts to govern.
DTL repeats the utter lie about the Depression, which was only "Great" because of nanny state interventionism, i.e. socialism, i.e. FDR.
And yes, it looks just like we are going to do it all over again, because we believe that lie.
Now is a good time to read Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man .
"...is really about how Obama lost the giant landslide of Americans his most enamored supporters envisioned."
You cannot lose that which you do not have, you can only fail to achieve it.
Acting as if you deserve what you envision is a good way to accomplish that failure.
I am waiting for the details on how Obama is going to handle the financial crisis given that he is one of the biggest pigs at the trough. How can he justify his statements when he voted against tightening up regulations on the industry while McCain was all for tightening up the regulations and doing something about the problem before it became acute. This same thing holds for almost every problem I see him speaking about. He seems to me to be strictly a reactive leader rather than a proactive leader and with the financial problems and the foreign policy problems I don't think that is what is needed at all now. That is what I think his problem is and that he will try to govern off the cuff rather than taking a long view. He doesn't have the knowledge nor does he seem to have the, for want of a better word, energy to dig into the real basis of problems in order to see the right solution.
Pogo's too stupid to realize that Hoover was elected in 1928, took office in 1929, the Great Depression started that year, and was raging for 3 years before Roosevelt took over.
The Depression had nothing to do with nanny state socialism. It had everything to do with tight credit.
My brow is furrowed in puzzlement. Kerry lost Ann. But Obama hasn't lost JAC. He's still voting for Obama, and an unenthusiastic vote counts as much as an enthusiastic one. Do politicians care about the reservations with which you cast your vote? I had thought that they care about whether you cast it for them or not. The only difference enthusiasm makes is how much money and volunteer time you give the campaign in addition to your vote.
Ann was won over by McCain when he said the fundamentals of the economy are strong.
Oligonicella said...
"You cannot lose that which you do not have, you can only fail to achieve it. Acting as if you deserve what you envision is a good way to accomplish that failure."
Indeed, I would think that the pervasive sense of entitlement of Obama and his supporters might well be what "lost" a number of erstwhile supporters. I don't think Obama and his remaining supporters realize how much damage the European tour and that awful parting of the red sea speech did to his reputation.
A plea to other commenters: if everyone ignores DTL's bomb-throwing, he'll give up and go away. Resist the urge to reply to him.
simon -
Given the gross economic and historical ignorance along with his outright dishonesty, there would be no point in responding to dtl: you can't fix stupid.
That's right Simon.
Ignore me. Because I throw bombs like saying "The Great Depression was caused by tight credit"
Wingnuts - Always have their heads in the sand.
I wouldn't doubt that, despite Obama's connections to Fannie Mae etc, he gets elected be another FDR.
And he will be. We'll see increased taxes, protectionism, wage and price fixing and the like. And the economic pain will get worse as a result. Just like FDR.
Obama lost me for a few reasons:
1. Biden. I absolutely hate the war on drugs. Obama seemed like he might have been at a least a slight improvement until the Biden pick. But Biden's got the worst record as a drug warrior as anybody in Washtingon (mandatory minimums, RAVE Act). Also, his Iraq partition plan would have been a disaster, and he just strikes me as a tool ("My IQ is higher than yours").
2. Iraq. Not because Obama's original opposition -- though I give him no special credit for that either, since a state senator from Hyde Park could hardly have done otherwise.
Where he loses me is his persistent indifference to the fate of the Iraqi people ("Preventing genocide no reason to stay") and indifference to U.S. success or failure. Also the refusal to acknowledge, to this day, that the main fight against Al Queda has been in Iraq. No, Al Queda was not there originally -- but Al Queda chose to make that the main front, to commit their resources and put their credibility on the line. It was absolutely like pulling teeth to get Obama to admit the surge worked, but admitting that we've been fighting Al Queda in Iraq is apparently too much.
3. Learning more about his record. When has Obama been a reformer anywhere? He cut his teeth in Chicago politics -- did he do anything to take on the machine and push for reform? No. He joined the machine and made use of it (Tony Rezko). How about in the Illinois legislature -- did he reform anything? Nope, he just let Emil Jones grease the skids for him and feed him bills to put his name on. And in Washington? What has he really done but run for president?
4. Poor judgment about people. Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Pfleger, et al. Is Obama as corrupt like Rezko or as left-wing as Ayers, Wright, and Pfleger? I don't think so, but he certainly has a very high tolerance for such characters.
My theory with Obama from the beginning is that he was the "liberal yuppie candidate", not the black candidate, not the left wing candidate. He was originally the candidate primarily of the white, liberal, urban well educated upper middle class.
Until recently I lived in the Lincoln Park section of Chicago, on a block where there were $5M homes owned by hedge fund guys (mine was worth a lot less than $5M). I knew two other people who for certain were voting for McCain, and one other person who I suspect was, but was too scared her friends would find out. Obama was "one of us" in that he was well educated, wealthy enough, but not super wealthy, with the two nice kids and the appropriate distain suburban middle class.
I think that given the changes in American demographics and economy, Obama was the logical result of that. And the urban, liberal upper middle class thinks it is now their time. The spiritual forefathers of today's Obama supporters were the "best and the brightest" who backed JFK. After JFK's assassination, those folks found themselves out of government. LBJ was from more of a traditional hardscrabble Democratic Party background and was Jimmy Carter. Clinton promised these folks an in, but in the end, Clinton was a moderate Republican. Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the two Bushes may have all come from different backrounds, but none came from an urban liberal background.
So that is why I think Obama has become the new champion. He represents for the first time in almost 50 years that the urban, liberal, yuppie demographic has a chance at real power.
Mark said...
"When has Obama been a reformer anywhere? He cut his teeth in Chicago politics -- did he do anything to take on the machine and push for reform? No. He joined the machine and made use of it...[snip]"
It'd be hard to have a more stark contrast between Obama's record on this score and Palin's.
"I wouldn't doubt that, despite Obama's connections to Fannie Mae etc, he gets elected be another FDR."
Jeeez, if I was Japanese I would be shitty my pants right now.
Of course putting Yoko in an internment camp might not be a bad idea, just 30 years too late.
downtownlad, are you single?
"downtownlad, are you single?"
Don't. Just... don't.
Ignore me. Because I throw bombs
/fixed
Trooper.
Germans, too.
And Italians.
Not the Soviets, though. They'll be good pals again.
Palladian said...
"downtownlad, are you single?"
Don't. Just... don't.
10:39 AM
Trust me, I won't, this is just an exercise in simple psychology.
the utter lie about the Depression, which was only "Great" because of nanny state interventionism, i.e. socialism, i.e. FDR.
Where do they teach this stuff? We were in a world of hurt. Or would you have preferred Huey Long as President? Note that FDR was elected to four terms; the prospect of another President-for-life caused the Republicans to scramble for the 22nd Amendment.
Use the Bush-prevented-another-9/11 argument Republicans are so fond of: Consider FDR's protections were the 30's equivalent to the Patriot Act -- we've never had an equivalent crash since.
fls, do you support the 22nd Amendment? Just curious...
He lost me at hello...
Downtown Lad
You are correct about how tight credit was a key part of the Great Depression. This tight credit was entrenched by Hoover raising taxes and and signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which crippled foreign trade. FDR inherited this situation and made the depression Great by artitrarily messing with the price of gold, signing the National Recovery Act and targeting any business with taxes and regulation that was having some degree of success during the 1930s. As a result of this meddling and uncertaintly, those with capital kept it out of the market and no growth could occur.
Sen Obama expouses the same tax and trade protectism policies as Herbert Hoover.
Yikes,
I should have spell checked my last post!
fls,
What you evidently didn't get taught is that FDR's measures didn't really solve theproblem. WW II solved the problem. 1938 was one of the worst years of the Depression and FDR had been in office for 5+ years by that time.
Didn't Obama promise a post-partisan approach? A new politics?
I've been saddened, but not surprised, at how quickly that promise was abandoned.
The Obama campaign has moved from the idealistic appeal of its early momentum, to the passive-aggressive victimization claims of the primaries (Bill Clinton: Racist) to the full-on negative campaign against McCain, the man who hates immigrants and wants to steal grandman's social security away.
McCain is returning the favor, of course, and may even have gone negative first, faster. But McCain didn't run on his charismatic ability to make everyone get along.
Thus one of Obama's most attractive claims -- an appeal that could get you to support him even if you disagreed with his politics -- is rendered mute by the Obama campaign itself. The post-partisan candidate is no more.
"Note that FDR was elected to four terms"
Ah, might makes right, eh?
I seem to think you were unhappy with President Bush. But by this same metric, you should be ecstatic.
FDR continued and expanded Hoover's disastrous plan. Turning a downcycle into a global depression. Thanks, Franklin!
Here's how FDR set gold prices:
"Congress gave the president [FDR] the power first to seize the private gold holdings of American citizens and then to fix the price of gold. One morning, as Roosevelt ate eggs in bed, he and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau decided to change the ratio between gold and paper dollars. After weighing his options, Roosevelt settled on a 21-cent price hike because "it’s a lucky number." In his diary, Morgenthau wrote, "If anybody ever knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, I think they would be frightened."
I read JAC's piece and also went through the comments, where I noticed FLS had shown up to defend Obama with this Howler:
Regarding evil: Obama responded as if Warren were Reinhold Niebuhr, not Tim Russert. Preachers have sophisticated, nuanced ideas of evil, and that's how Obama responded to him. Only a crass McCain could seize the opportunity to launch into his stump speech.
So, Obama ruined his spiel about "evil" by presuming Warren was as sophisticated and nuanced about such matters as Obama was? And McCain, the fool, gave a simplistic answer spelling out why he thinks some of America's foes are evil??
Given the preachers I know, the priests and ministers I've read - my knowledge of them is they have a very different perspective than FLS.
They draw clear bright lines between good and evil. They call people and movements good or evil. They do not excuse much evil by retreat to "root causes" of "improperly acting out" and such.
The only excuse I can see is FLS must be one of the few that are in the mostly empty churches of the pomo, now morally relativist ministers of Europe and their small cadre of Lefty American "old line, but enlightened Protestant clergy" who went abroad to Oxford to "refine their views".
One thing America does expect of a President is that they have a moral clarity that they can lead from.....and not operate and speak to the American people from the confines of a "Yes....but..the nuances are.." moral Fog Machine.
After reading MarkW's post, I feel like writing another called "Why Obama never had me".
1. Nebulous background.
I'm a foreigner myself, so I come to this opinion with a similar perspective as his internationalist one. Whereas I threw myself into my new country's arms, Obama seems to keep his at arm's length. That's more than unfortunate. It's disqualificatory.
2. Urban Ivy League elitist.
He is the logical successor to Kerry, who was raised in France, Switzerland, and married to basically two foreign women (his first was nominally American, but really Italian). I am one of those people. I don't like such people because I know we don't represent the American heartland and its ethos. You can't govern what you don't know or respect.
3. Corrupt, anti-American associations.
I'm sure you know what I mean, as it's well covered by others.
4. Leader of the most extreme liberal faction within the Democratic Party today.
It's a Party which has been hijacked by the Daily Kos, Code Pink and Recreate 68 crowd, amonst others.
Democrats need to reinvent themselves, and try to woo the Sarah Palins of this world, not mock and deride those like her.
I never was terribly enthusiastic for John McCain. But the man is a strategic gambler and a patriot, and has been the whole of his life.
It's the right time for John McCain to be President.
Cheers,
Victoria
Please note, I would probably not have voted for McCain/Lieberman, or any other conservative Liberal running mate.
What sealed the deal for me and others is that he chose a reform-minded Republican, who has build a career around the topic of challenging her own Party leadership. That her life was guided by her principles is so much more reason to respect her, and by extension, John McCain.
Twice he gambled strategically. First on the Surge, then on Palin. We'll see if it pays off in November.
I'm very sorry for Democrats who didn't choose Hillary, or rather, those who did and are stuck with Obama. 2008 is not a year which the Democratic candidate should be remotely this close in the polls. Senator Clinton would be walking away with the election possibly in double digits (10%).
I don't get it. I honestly don't get how other people process, and I do believe I'll just have to settle for that. Here's the thing, you can walk a mile in the other guy's shoes, but when the fit is so poor, that makes for a clumsy mile indeed.
I can see consternation at how Obama should have seen how McCain would use the bitter clinging to guns and religion remark against him and how he should have realized how it would raise questions abut his convenient conversion to Christianity. Yes, I see that.
But is that all? Com'on. Jac's complaint is that it was politically inept. I'm didn't respond to political ineptness. I'm responding to what kind of person uses a radically politically active church to propel their career. Then disparage not just the church that propelled him when it outlived its usefulness but actually disparaged real worshipers -- people he hopes to govern. This is a very serious character flaw, not mere political ineptness.
This blank screen upon which I'm expected to make my own projection, what am I to project?
Jac thinks Obama should have known that McCain would use Warren's question about evil would be used to challenge terrorism. Jac, the rest of us are far more concerned about the person who actually believes the definition of evil has more to do with our own humility, than, you know, in your face, hijack two airlines, run them into two gigantic buildings to kill as many people as possible EVIL See the difference there? Jac responds to his political ineptness in answering the question. I'm responding to what I think I'm seeing in the person.
Blank screen. Project.
Same thing with his answer about meeting dictators. Small potatoes that he was out maneuvered by Hillary in answering a question. But it's a B.F.D. that here's a person who actually believes that's a good idea. The rest of us are seeing a guy who completely underestimates what he imagines he'll be dealing with as president. We're visualizing a guy being batted around like cat playing with a toy. It's no coincidence dictators around the world are on record as preferring Obama. It's for this very reason they'd prefer him. They intend to have their way with him. But Jac is responding to it merely as an not so clever answer.
Screen. Project.
Jac is right, there is nothing wrong with shifting to center once securing the primaries. It was necessary, in fact, considering he had to out-Left Hillary to win the primary. But here again, Jac is responding to the politician. The right-o-sphere already responded to McCain the person and quite nearly rejected him precisely because he was already, actually, factually, through a record of voting, too far center to satisfy the Republican base. See how much more clever the Republicans are at this? McCain didn't have to do any political shifting. He was already there. The base that was nearly sacrificed was re-energized, and magnificently I must add, by that candidate's choice for VP. Of course, that wasn't known when McCain won Republican primaries. The point is, Republicans didn't choose their farthest most Right of the righty right Right they could find, because they know that doesn't work in the general. Clever bastards.
Jac is put off with the idea of Obama being unprepared for Palin as McCain's choice.
Forget that. Jac should be disgusted with Obama's choice. Please. Do I have to say it? Hopechangehopechangehopechange....
Scre.. proj ...
No. These shoes aren't working for me.
* kicks off shoes *
Both Obama and Hillary lost me with the oration. Bang. Right there at the beginning. The very thing everyone else found so attractive, put me right off. I can't stand it. Hurts my ears. A speaker goes into oration mode, and I tune right out. It's automatic. Who the hell do you they you're talking to? Is my reaction. A stuffed animal? Oh. They're talking to you.
Finally, it concerns me that thoughtful voters narrow their field of vision to a single party in this regrettable institutionally bifurcated system. It concerns me maintaing that myopia requires demonizing the other through language to the point epithets completely replace adjectives -- so that wingnut replaces Right wing, and moonbat replaces Left. It's not funny.
fls, do you support the 22nd Amendment? Just curious...
Without it, the still-vigorous Ike would have easily won a third term. Not having to prove his toughness to the Soviets, he makes no dumb moves in either Cuba or Vietnam. The Soviets know better than to put missiles in Cuba on Ike's watch. Knowing not to step in the muck that trapped the French for a decade, Ike supplies the South Vietnamese with arms but no troops. Buoyed by good feelings about the robust economy, Nixon easily defeats pretty-boy elitist Kennedy, but is forced to resign due to scandal. The South Vietnamese lose to Ho Chi Minh, resulting in tens of thousands of refugees fleeing to former colonial power France.
I rather enjoy downtownlad. Sorry, but it's fun to see an acephalic cut loose. He's the most extreme case of a person without any kind of superego I've ever seen.
He makes the discussions fall apart into namecalling and dizziness, but for some reason I enjoy it. He's got the maturity of a two-year-old with the brains of a thirty year old. It's charming, as long as it stays in the comment box, and you don't have to actually know him.
Rock on, downtownlad!
former law student said...
fls, do you support the 22nd Amendment? Just curious...
Without it, the still-vigorous Ike would have easily won a third term. Not having to prove his toughness to the Soviets, he makes no dumb moves in either Cuba or Vietnam. The Soviets know better than to put missiles in Cuba on Ike's watch. Knowing not to step in the muck that trapped the French for a decade, Ike supplies the South Vietnamese with arms but no troops. Buoyed by good feelings about the robust economy, Nixon easily defeats pretty-boy elitist Kennedy, but is forced to resign due to scandal. The South Vietnamese lose to Ho Chi Minh, resulting in tens of thousands of refugees fleeing to former colonial power France.
1:19 PM
I won't go into historical speculation, but it is obvious that you don't approve of it. This is extremely troubling for me. You are at least the 10th Obama supporter that I have heard/seen/read expressing their (to put it mildly) "misgivings" about term limits. I understand that you think that "hope and change" may take more than 8 years to arrive, but also realize than in all similar cases it has been decades, and not only have they not come, they have been lost and substituted by despair, fear, deceit, hate, murder, etc...
It can happen anywhere...
Ann,
Does that mean you changed your mind about Carter and voted for him in 1980?
Yep, EDH. Ann voted for Carter when he lost and not when he won.
MM wrote...Your son is reaping the results of being too much enamored with a politician. I see the same thing happening to Republicans now who are tepid at best with McCain, but think that Palin is somehow the spoonful of sugar. So if McCain is elected, they'll be very happy -- until he starts to govern.
I think you misinterpret that. It's not McCain--the base still mistrusts him. Check out Malkin today where she refers to him as "McShamnesty". Ace refers to him, with 99% irony, as "Maverick". (In his definition, "maverick" means going against Republican interests.) It's only the gesture of nomination Palin that fired up the base.
She is very unlikely to live up to the incredible expectations placed upon her.
But McCain is seen as wanting approval which most righties see as doing more lefty things so that the papers write nice about you. If that's true, the media may be burning its bridges with the old guy.
I won't go into historical speculation, but it is obvious that you don't approve of it.
I'm willing to make an exception for Ike. Three terms of Eisenhower would have kept us out of a world of hurt. A third term for Reagan would have exposed his declining faculties. I had personally had enough of Clinton after eight years.
But Presidents might try harder if they knew they could be returned to office. What is your opinion on lame-duckism? is it a kind of senioritis?
The idea of one six year term which was floated many years ago is appealing to me as opposed to a limit. The president has enough time to set his agenda, direct the legislation of that agenda, and have enough time to see it through. He can make politically unpopular decisions and not have to worry about consequences.(political). If Bush 43 knew he was leaving in 2006, he may not have stayed the course as long, and surged sooner. We might have most of our troops home now, and still won. A new administration might have attacked the FANFRED problem sooner rather than later. History shows that most time, the last two years of a two term president are worthless at best and awful at worst. The last two years of Ike's term had recession, slowing of the housing market, etc. Sound familiar?
Why can't the Althouse sons just say they don't like Black people (persons?).
I love how the two boys have to create all those extraneous reasons, and explanations, for their eschewing of one candidate over another....when it's so obvious---the real reason.
Why not just say: "I don't like blacks and I don't wanna vote for one".
It would be rather extraordinary to actually be honest and say that.
Anyone feeling brave ?
" I don't like Blacks and I don't wanna vote for one".
________________
To admit to such a thing is to be a monster.
Much easier, and less embarrassing, to try to rationalize the rejection through extensively detailed and verbose explanations.
Oh, that's just an awful thing to say.
The young men in question must believe in the notion of our nation that this is "ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL."
Every American believes that.
I don't like Blacks, and I don't wanna vote for one.
!!!!!!!
Love,
Maxine
And there you have it:
Vote for the black guy, or be a Nazi !
Black voters are voting for the Black Candidate, and nobody has a problem with it.
But, white voters who vote for the White Candidate are considered evil racists !
Black voters are voting for the Black Candidate, and nobody has a problem with it.
But, white voters who vote for the White Candidate are considered evil racists !
Because black voters have been voting for white candidates ever since they got the right to vote. Now they finally get a biracial candidate they can vote for, they are voting for him.
Similarly, white voters have been voting for white candidates ever since they got the right to vote. Now they finally got a biracial candidate they can vote for, they are sticking with the white guy.
---Just goes to show, what we've always known:
Whites are smarter than Blacks !
Love,
Maxine
Or maybe they just do not like Obama's politics.
Give me Colin Powell or JC Watts or even Michael Steele (the only GOP candidate I gave money to in 2006) and I will vote for them. I probably would have voted for Harold Ford if I lived in Tennessee.
Give me Obama and I will not vote for him.
former law student said...
I'm willing to make an exception for Ike. Three terms of Eisenhower would have kept us out of a world of hurt. A third term for Reagan would have exposed his declining faculties. I had personally had enough of Clinton after eight years.
But Presidents might try harder if they knew they could be returned to office. What is your opinion on lame-duckism? is it a kind of senioritis?
4:35 PM
It is possible, on the Eisenhower point, who knows. Reagan, as well, he knew he had Alzheimer's for a while. Clinton, well, it's a mix bag. They were the ones in power when I arrived in this country, and I used to be a Clintonista in my youth.
It may actually shock you to know that I generally like a lame-duck president or a deadlocked government. And I say *generally* because I am not the anarcho-capitalist type. I am more of a minarchist. Lame-duck presidents tend to be less interventionists with their decisions. The current example is excluded of course, and for good reasons (most people agree to certain extent with his recent actions...)
I was just trying to clarify your points about the 22nd Amendment. I would be terrified if people truly would like to revoke it. We may hate election years, but I think it is pretty exciting, all nastiness aside. This is one of the beauties of Democracy, the possibility of change, of fresh ideas, a fresh face...
I seriously don't believe most of the reticence with Obama has to do with his race. He's both black and white, raised by white grandparents. I think the problem is with his personality and his message, but that's just me.
Why not just say: "I don't like blacks and I don't wanna vote for one".
Because its false. But thanks for reminding me that Obama plays the race card whenever he's dealt a bad hand. How do you think that will play with Putin?
But why can't you say "I support racists".
Here's Obamafan Dr Cone, pointing to Obama's church as the archetype for Black Liberation Theology:
"Black Liberation Theology will only accept the love of a God that participates in the destruction of the White enemy."
Thats when Obama lost me.
fls: Similarly, white voters have been voting for white candidates ever since they got the right to vote.
Well fls, I guess by your own logic you're misogynist, since you can't bring yourself to cast a vote for Palin.
Shoe fits. After all, Obama does have a problem with women. Must have been the education/environment from his Muslim youth.
Post a Comment