News and Politics Forum

AC · 07-22-2008 05:53 PM

I knew this was coming.

By John Blake

CNN

(CNN) -- "We had a dream. Now it's a reality."

For many, Sen. Barack Obama is an agent of change but some critics say he could make race relations worse.

That's the slogan on a popular T-shirt linking Sen. Barack Obama's presidential run to the Rev. Martin Luther King's dream of racial equality. It's one of several T-shirts -- including "Barack is my homeboy"-- that reflect African-American's euphoria over Obama's White House bid.

But there are others who warn that an Obama presidency could hurt African-Americans. They say that an Obama victory could cause white Americans to ignore entrenched racial divisions while claiming that America has reached the racial Promised Land.

Paul Street, author of the forthcoming book, "Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics," says Obama risks becoming an Oval Office version of talk-show host Oprah Winfrey. She and former Secretary of State Colin Powell are African-American figures whose popularity allows some white Americans to congratulate themselves for not being racist, he says

"They're cited as proof that racism is no longer a significant barrier to black advancement and interracial equality," says Street.

"This isn't new. Go to the 19th century and Southern aristocrats would point to a certain African-American landowner who was doing well to prove that whites are not racist."

Nick Shapiro, an Obama spokesperson, says that Obama believes that America has made tremendous progress in the past 50 years. iReport.com: Biggest challenges for black America

"However, the suggestion that somehow Senator Obama's campaign represents an easy shortcut is not realistic," Shapiro said in an e-mailed statement. "Senator Obama believes that we still have a lot of work to do, and that's not just true for the issues facing blacks or Latinos, but for women and other communities struggling to secure the basic necessities in life like jobs, housing, health care and quality education."

Are we a post-racial society?

Any suggestion that an Obama presidential victory could set back race relations may seem odd or even inappropriate. His presidential campaign has been framed by many observers as a glowing example of America's move to a "post-racial" society.

"Racial polarization used to be a dominating force in our politics, but we're now a different, and better, country," Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist wrote last month about Obama's political rise.

The reaction in the African-American community to Obama's success has also been celebrated with joy.

When Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in June, many African-Americans cried because they said they never thought they would live to see such a day. Vendors soon started selling T-shirts of Obama's portrait pasted alongside King in Walgreens stores and at online stores.

Yet there are a few political commentators who warn African-Americans that an Obama victory could be twisted to suppress the push for racial equality. Most of these commentators are African-American but they also include white, Latino and conservative pundits.

These commentators say that there is a subliminal appeal to Obama's presidential candidacy that has been ignored. Obama doesn't just represent change -- he represents atonement for America's ugly racial past for others, they say.

Steve Sailer, a columnist for The American Conservative magazine, wrote last year that some whites who support Obama aren't driven primarily by a desire for change.

They want something else Obama offers them -- "White Guilt Repellent," he wrote.

"So many whites want to be able to say, 'I'm not one of them, those bad whites. ... Hey, I voted for a black guy for president,' " Sailer wrote.

Sailer cited another reason why many whites want Obama as president:

"They hope that when a black finally moves into the White House, it will prove to African-Americans, once and for all, that white animus isn't the cause of their troubles. All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama - and their problems will be over."

Glen Ford, executive editor of the online journal blackagendareport.com, offered some white Americans a free solution to the race problem: "Millions of whites came to believe Obama could solve the 'race problem' by his mere presence, at no cost to their own notions of skin privilege," Ford wrote in an essay in January.

Other African-American commentators say the "post-racial" tag attached to Obama could be used to dismiss legitimate black grievances.

Andra Gillespie, an assistant professor at Emory University's political science department, says Obama's success doesn't mean America has become a post-racial society. She says it may signal the decline of individual racism but not another form of discrimination: systemic racism.

"It doesn't mean that there aren't prejudiced people anymore," she says.

Systemic racism is a form of racism that's entrenched in institutions. Some argue that it's the primary cause for intractable problems in the African-American community that range from substandard public schools to disproportionate rates of imprisonment, she says.

Electing a black president does not mean that America is ready to take on systemic racism, Gillespie says.

"A rising tide doesn't lift all boats," Gillespie says. "Just because he [Obama] gets elected doesn't mean the lives of poor black people are automatically going to improve."

It could actually get worse for poor African-Americans, she says.

"People could say if Barack [Obama] can succeed and someone can't get off of the stoops in the hood, it's their fault and it has nothing to do with systemic racism," Gillespie says.

D. Yobachi Boswell, a blogger for Black Perspective.net, wrote in January that the prospect of Obama victory was making African-Americans politically passive.

He wrote that too many African-Americans were "doping ourselves up on the euphoric opium" of a black president while forgetting "we need fundamental change, not just Negroes in high places."

Boswell says he's concerned that an Obama presidency would discourage African-Americans from keeping leaders accountable.

"We can't give him [Obama] a pass because he's black," Boswell says. "We just can't have a black face in a high place. We have to have people fighting for policies that actually help us."

Obama has responded to such criticisms before. In his "A More Perfect Union" speech in March, he dismissed claims that his candidacy was fueled by the desire "to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap."

He acknowledged that racial disparities in education and wealth continued to exist and were linked to the legacy of Jim Crow and slavery.

"I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy -- particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own," Obama said during that speech.

A black backlash against Obama?

Despite what Obama has said, his presidency could provoke a black backlash because the expectations are so high, others say.

African-Americans who would expect a President Obama to be a vigorous advocate for their cause -- may be disappointed by Obama's approach to race if he becomes president, some say.

Paul Street, author of the forthcoming book on Obama, says Obama may be a symbol of bold racial change but he is personally cautious about race. A President Obama won't want to appear to favor blacks because he might lose political support if he appears as the "angry black man" in the White House.

Street says Obama understands that risk and has run as a "race-neutral" candidate who talks about racial oppression as something largely confined to the past.

"Barack plays a very active role in damping down race consciousness," Street says. "Race neutrality is one of the great characteristics of his campaign."

African-Americans may also be disappointed by an Obama presidency because they may have forgotten what Obama is -- a politician, says David Sirota, author of "The Uprising, "a book that examines how populist movements in America shape public policy changes.

"He's like any politician. He's cautious," Sirota says. "He's a potential vehicle for change, and I think he is a good vehicle, but he is just a vehicle."

His presidency may represent fundamental change but that doesn't mean he will initiate such sweeping changes if he's elected.

"Politicians, even the best-intentioned ones, are weather vanes," says Sirota. "If the wind isn't blowing in the right direction, they will perpetuate the status quo," he says.

It will take more than a presidential candidate to change the status quo -- it'll take a movement, Sirota says.

"My concern is that people will think that by simply electing Obama, change will come, whether it's on race or economic justice issues," he says.

"If people believe that, then real change will not happen."

axe · 07-22-2008 05:56 PM

I had to remove -= from the URL to be able to access this thread.

maxor · 07-22-2008 06:10 PM

I need to update the way the URLs are rewritten

Thundersnow · 07-22-2008 07:01 PM

Sounds like the old-world black's are upset that change has happened. They are looking around and seeing that there power monopoly based on lies and convincing there fellow black Americans that they can't succeed is coming to an end. They don't want hope, they want failure and excuses. It will be very interesting to see what happens if he does get elected. I'd like to see George Lopez as his running mate.

Raoul Duke · 07-22-2008 07:40 PM

Thundersnow wrote:
Sounds like the old-world black's are upset that change has happened. They are looking around and seeing that there power monopoly based on lies and convincing there fellow black Americans that they can't succeed is coming to an end. They don't want hope, they want failure and excuses. It will be very interesting to see what happens if he does get elected. I'd like to see George Lopez as his running mate.

I'd like to see Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al looking for real jobs.

Charles Taylor · 07-22-2008 07:42 PM

Thundersnow wrote:
Sounds like the old-world black's are upset that change has happened.

I think you would find the percentage of Blacks "upset" that Barak Obama is the DPC to be low. There are, however, many individuals with varying interpretations of what an African American President will mean for African Americans.

Last edited by Charles Taylor (07-22-2008 07:46 PM)

Thundersnow · 07-22-2008 08:04 PM

Charles Taylor wrote:
Thundersnow wrote:
Sounds like the old-world black's are upset that change has happened.
I think you would find the percentage of Blacks "upset" that Barak Obama is the DPC to be low. There are, however, many individuals with varying interpretations of what an African American President will mean for African Americans.

I am not claiming that they are upset, but that some who benefit from racial tensions are.

AC · 07-22-2008 08:25 PM

Charles Taylor wrote:
Thundersnow wrote:
Sounds like the old-world black's are upset that change has happened.
I think you would find the percentage of Blacks "upset" that Barak Obama is the DPC to be low. There are, however, many individuals with varying interpretations of what an African American President will mean for African Americans.

I can understand the sentiment behind the fears, i.e. with a black president some people will have less sympathy for what many people perceive as systematic racial inequities and that also due to fears of appearing to favor his own race over others, Obama and his administration might be less inclined to launch "black issues" program initiatives.

But all that just smacks of the status quo that has lower income people (and those who derive power from them) thinking that true racial parity is something that has to be handed to them by those currently in power. If all you're doing is waiting for the government to hand you racial parity (i.e. "fairness") I really don't think it matters what skin color your president has.

Charles Taylor · 07-22-2008 08:34 PM

Thundersnow wrote:
Charles Taylor wrote:
Thundersnow wrote:
Sounds like the old-world black's are upset that change has happened.
I think you would find the percentage of Blacks "upset" that Barak Obama is the DPC to be low. There are, however, many individuals with varying interpretations of what an African American President will mean for African Americans.
I am not claiming that they are upset, but that some who benefit from racial tensions are.

I understand and I do not disagree at all. There are people that seek to gain political influence and power through the exploitation and propogation of racial tension. This is a fact. What I'm saying is, that is likely to be a nominal percentage of people (this is just my guess based on opinion by demographic polling I've seen). You're talking about a minority of a minority. It makes me wonder what the true objective of this article is.

Last edited by Charles Taylor (07-22-2008 08:44 PM)

Seabird · 07-22-2008 08:46 PM

The seems exploratory to me and brings up some interesting supposins...' I understand that there might be a lot of pride within the black community with Obama. But to what end? Do they have specific expectations of him? Is it hoped that he will finally address all of their long standing grievances? Lead the nation out of perceived systemic racism and oppression? Or does a successful Obama campaign put the lie to the idea that the black community's problems are mainly a result of external white prejudice, as Jeffrey Wright would have us all believe? To hear guys like Wright, and Jackson, and Sharpton tell it, Obama shouldn't have even gotten this far in "White America". That he's done exactly that, has to leave them all scratching their heads in wonder, no?

Iron Sun 254 · 07-22-2008 09:10 PM

The problem is that suddenly the problem is no longer one of "black vs. white" and it shifts to "poor vs. rich." There will always be those who want to claim that those in power are trying to suppress the weak and those who make a living off of the racial divide paradigm will now need to change their strategy.

Charles Taylor · 07-22-2008 09:12 PM

AC wrote:
Charles Taylor wrote:
Thundersnow wrote:
Sounds like the old-world black's are upset that change has happened.
I think you would find the percentage of Blacks "upset" that Barak Obama is the DPC to be low. There are, however, many individuals with varying interpretations of what an African American President will mean for African Americans.
I can understand the sentiment behind the fears, i.e. with a black president some people will have less sympathy for what many people perceive as systematic racial inequities and that also due to fears of appearing to favor his own race over others, Obama and his administration might be less inclined to launch "black issues" program initiatives.

Okay, I think if you look at his (B. Hussein Obama) record, it's pretty clear that there is a history of working to solve inner city, lower income problems. That's where he came from. If that of itself is a "black issue", it's because Blacks represent a disproportianate number of inner city, lower income people. That doesn't make that issue unreasonable to address, because he is of the same racial background. I don't believe that's a logical position to take (and I realize you're not making the position, just throwing the possibility of others making it out there), given the realm of social awareness and responsibility the POTUS is chartered with.

In additon, it's also very clear, that a lot of what he's been discussing in his campaign (gender and racial economic disparity), is indicitive of the kind of legislation he's going to support as it comes to him. I don't think that's going to be a suprise to anyone, or at least it shouldn't.

AC · 07-22-2008 09:18 PM

Iron Sun 254 wrote:
those who make a living off of the racial divide paradigm will now need to change their strategy.

That must suck. They've gotten so comfortable working with the current strategy.

Charles Taylor · 07-22-2008 09:24 PM

Seabird wrote:
The seems exploratory to me and brings up some interesting supposins...' I understand that there might be a lot of pride within the black community with Obama. But to what end? Do they have specific expectations of him? Is it hoped that he will finally address all of their long standing grievances?

If I had to guess, I don't think it's specific expectations so much as it is representative of an opportunity to demonstrate ability. I would think your following questions are closer to the reality of the value of that representation...

Seabird wrote:
Lead the nation out of perceived systemic racism and oppression? Or does a successful Obama campaign put the lie to the idea that the black community's problems are mainly a result of external white prejudice, as Jeffrey Wright would have us all believe?

I think to some degree, yes to both.

Seabird wrote:
To hear guys like Wright, and Jackson, and Sharpton tell it, Obama shouldn't have even gotten this far in "White America". That he's done exactly that, has to leave them all scratching their heads in wonder, no?

Worse, they want to cut his nuts off. Those guys are pissed, man.

Jesus Is My Pilot · 07-22-2008 09:24 PM

Charles Taylor wrote:
Okay, I think if you look at his (B. Hussein Obama) record, it's pretty clear that there is a history of working to solve inner city, lower income problems. That's where he came from. If that of itself is a "black issue", it's because Blacks represent a disproportianate number of inner city, lower income people. That doesn't make that issue unreasonable to address, because he is of the same racial background. I don't believe that's a logical position to take (and I realize you're not making the position, just throwing the possibility of others making it out there), given the realm of social awareness and responsibility the POTUS is chartered with.

In additon, it's also very clear, that a lot of what he's been discussing in his campaign (gender and racial economic disparity), is indicitive of the kind of legislation he's going to support as it comes to him. I don't think that's going to be a suprise to anyone, or at least it shouldn't.

The bold seems to imply he's from the 'hood, he's not as far as I've read.

I also don't know haven't read anything that solves inner city, lower income problems. Please educate me if he has.

That said, I'd love to see what he would do to advocate this issues as POTUS but I don't think it will be much if anything.

2.FOH. · 07-22-2008 09:29 PM

Charles Taylor wrote:
Seabird wrote:
To hear guys like Wright, and Jackson, and Sharpton tell it, Obama shouldn't have even gotten this far in "White America". That he's done exactly that, has to leave them all scratching their heads in wonder, no?
Worse, they want to cut his nuts off. Those guys are pissed, man.

Praise

Charles Taylor · 07-22-2008 09:46 PM

Jesus Is My Pilot wrote:
Charles Taylor wrote:
Okay, I think if you look at his (B. Hussein Obama) record, it's pretty clear that there is a history of working to solve inner city, lower income problems. That's where he came from. If that of itself is a "black issue", it's because Blacks represent a disproportianate number of inner city, lower income people. That doesn't make that issue unreasonable to address, because he is of the same racial background. I don't believe that's a logical position to take (and I realize you're not making the position, just throwing the possibility of others making it out there), given the realm of social awareness and responsibility the POTUS is chartered with.

In additon, it's also very clear, that a lot of what he's been discussing in his campaign (gender and racial economic disparity), is indicitive of the kind of legislation he's going to support as it comes to him. I don't think that's going to be a suprise to anyone, or at least it shouldn't.
The bold seems to imply he's from the 'hood, he's not as far as I've read.

I'm reffering to his entry into politics.

Jesus Is My Pilot wrote:
I also don't know haven't read anything that solves inner city, lower income problems. Please educate me if he has.

Solving inner city income, education, and employment problems starts one person, one community at a time. He worked in the south side of chicago both as a lawyer and as director/chairman/board of directors for numerous economic development organizations during the 90's and early 00's.

Qwinn · 07-22-2008 10:23 PM

Solving inner city income, education, and employment problems starts one person, one community at a time. He worked in the south side of chicago both as a lawyer and as director/chairman/board of directors for numerous economic development organizations during the 90's and early 00's.

I don't think "solving" means what you think it means.

That he "worked in the south side" and engaged in "numerous economic development organizations" doesn't mean he -solved- anything. You seem to think that laboring towards something like that automatically means success.

Cause every last thing I've read about those "communities" he "worked in" is that they are now bigger slums than they were going in. This is part of why the whole Tony Rezko thing -matters-... the guy -was a major slum lord-, and nothing Obama touched during his "community work" came out better for it.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/0 … bamas.html

Results, CT. You need to look at actual results. If you actually start doing so, if you stop evaluating everything by apparent intent and look at what actually results from certain policies, I bet you your entire outlook will change.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

And this is all from the Boston Globe, for God's sake. Not exactly the heart of the VRWC.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic … ?page=full

Still, every Democrat knows that he -can- destroy neighborhoods and leave destitution in their wake, and the vast majority of media will ignore it, and lots and lots of people will say "But he worked in community housing!" and -commend- him for horrible failures because they have no interest in seeing the results, what matters is what his -intentions- were, and we just -know- his intentions were noble.

Ghettoizing suburbs and blighting neighborhoods starts one person, one community at a time, too.

Qwinn

Last edited by Qwinn (07-22-2008 10:49 PM)

Vagrant · 07-22-2008 10:44 PM

Man white people can't even catch a break by letting a black dude be President for a while? That's fucked up.

Last edited by Vagrant (07-22-2008 10:44 PM)

Charles Taylor · 07-23-2008 12:35 AM

Qwinn wrote:
Solving inner city income, education, and employment problems starts one person, one community at a time. He worked in the south side of chicago both as a lawyer and as director/chairman/board of directors for numerous economic development organizations during the 90's and early 00's.
I don't think "solving" means what you think it means.

That he "worked in the south side" and engaged in "numerous economic development organizations" doesn't mean he -solved- anything. You seem to think that laboring towards something like that automatically means success.

Good one, Qwinn.

No, I don't believe that "laboring towards something" and solving it are the same thing, and I never said that. I said he worked towards solving income, education, and employment problems (in chicago)... which he did. We can discuss his record on public housing policy in Chicago, however, since that absolutely is one of weaker links in Obama's armor that needs to be addressed... and not by me, mind you.

Qwinn wrote:
Cause every last thing I've read about those "communities" he "worked in" is that they are now bigger slums than they were going in. This is part of why the whole Tony Rezko thing -matters-... the guy -was a major slum lord-, and nothing Obama touched during his "community work" came out better for it.

Alright, lets go ahead and clarify the history and connection between Rezmar and Barack Obama in Chicago before we go any further. By the time Obama took office in 1996, Rezmar had already been appropriated millions of dollars by Richard Daley to rehabilitate and develop low-income and public housing all over Chicago, not just in the south side. The problem was the management (corruption and fighting bankruptcy) of the properties after they had been rehabilitated, and not just by Rezmar. Public Housing development and management isn't of itself a profitable enterprise, and finding millions of dollars to support and manage thousands of apartments with little to no revenue coming in simply isn't easy. Rezmar couldn't even pay on the refinanced loans for the original development.

So where are you going to get this money? The machine was already in motion long before Obama got there... he did, however work on several pieces of key legislation while in state senate to increase and establish federal subsidies for low-income housing developers and managers. It's hard to expect more than that from a state senate legislator in one of the most corrupt cities in the country.

Qwinn wrote:
Results, CT. You need to look at actual results. If you actually start doing so, if you stop evaluating everything by apparent intent and look at what actually results from certain policies, I bet you your entire outlook will change.

Still, every Democrat knows that he -can- destroy neighborhoods and leave destitution in their wake, and the vast majority of media will ignore it, and lots and lots of people will say "But he worked in community housing!" and -commend- him for horrible failures because they have no interest in seeing the results, what matters is what his -intentions- were, and we just -know- his intentions were noble.

Ghettoizing suburbs and blighting neighborhoods starts one person, one community at a time, too.

Qwinn

"Ghettoizing suburbs" and "destroying neighborhoods"... come on, Qwinn. Please specifically note the "certain policies" B. Obama enacted that lead to the destruction of neighborhoods and destitution. Is it a reasonable expectation to expect a first term state senator to outright solve the social and economic issues of Chicago's worst neighborhoods, in 2 years? 4? You've got corruption, crime, prostitution, unemployment... He worked towards solving these problems, and he did so diligently.

Let me ask you this, by comparison, what exactly has your district's state senator done for you? Go research it. What has he done at all? Dan Moody hasn't done a damn thing for me. You know why? Because State senators are generally worthless, and it's commendable when they aren't eyeballs deep in corruption. So let's keep things in perspective here Qwinn... failure?

-Earned Income Tax Credit
-Welfare Reform
-Legislation for Ethics Reform

Those are amazing accomplishments for a first term State Senator presiding the south side of Chicago. So yes, I have tons of problems with his position on this particular issue and in general the work he did in Chicago, but none of them have anything to do with the record of his actions regarding -public housing-, given the nature of the problems in Chicago at the time of his service.

Last edited by Charles Taylor (07-23-2008 12:59 AM)

Qwinn · 07-24-2008 05:41 AM

CT:

-Earned Income Tax Credit
-Welfare Reform
-Legislation for Ethics Reform

Those are amazing accomplishments

On whose word do you believe that Obama did any of these things? Obama's? Note that he also takes public pride in how his efforts in housing did too.

The man is a supreme bullshitter about his own record. Here's the latest instance. From the Corner:

Messiah Lies About His Senate Committee Assignment [Andy McCarthy]

This guy is going to be harder than Bill Clinton to keep up with. The next whopper whips along before you have time to wrap your brain around the last one.

At Powerline, John Hinderaker goes through Obama's continuing contortions (in Israel) over how Jerusalem must remain the undivided capitol of Israel, unless of course it is divided and unless of course it is also the capitol of "Palestine," which possibilities absolutely positively mark no change in the messiah's original decree, which he really really meant, that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capitol of Israel. Obama then continued (italics mine):

Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon.
John explains the rest:

But Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Obama just made that up so he could count the committee's action as one of "my deeds."

If committed by a Republican, this would be a gaffe of historic proportions. Even a Senator as inattentive to his duties as Obama certainly knows what committees he serves on. For him to fabricate the claim, out of whole cloth, that the Senate Banking Committee is "[his] committee," strikes me as another sign of Obama's megalomania. That, plus more evidence that he is totally at sea without a teleprompter.

Indeed. Obama tells massive lies like this almost on a daily basis and the press gives him a total pass, over and over and over. If any Republican told massive lies like this even once or twice, he'd be finished. How can you see things like this and believe word one about -any- of his "amazing accomplishments"? If his -real- "accomplishments" were so "amazing", don't you think he could and would just talk about them, rather than continually making up crap like this?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? … E4N2M4MTQ=

Qwinn

Last edited by Qwinn (07-24-2008 05:46 AM)

EscapeVelocity · 07-24-2008 05:52 AM

Results, CT. You need to look at actual results. If you actually start doing so, if you stop evaluating everything by apparent intent and look at what actually results from certain policies, I bet you your entire outlook will change. -- Qwinn

I was guilty of judging capitalism by its operations and socialism by its hopes and aspirations; capitalism by its works and socialism by its literature. -- Sidney Hook

Last edited by EscapeVelocity (07-24-2008 05:52 AM)

News and Politics Forum

#1 07-22-2008 05:53 PM

President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

#2 07-22-2008 05:56 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

#3 07-22-2008 06:10 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

#4 07-22-2008 07:01 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

#5 07-22-2008 07:40 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

Thundersnow wrote:

#6 07-22-2008 07:42 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

Thundersnow wrote:

#7 07-22-2008 08:04 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

Charles Taylor wrote:

Thundersnow wrote:

#8 07-22-2008 08:25 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

Charles Taylor wrote:

Thundersnow wrote:

#9 07-22-2008 08:34 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

Thundersnow wrote:

Charles Taylor wrote:

Thundersnow wrote:

#10 07-22-2008 08:46 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

#11 07-22-2008 09:10 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

#12 07-22-2008 09:12 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

AC wrote:

Charles Taylor wrote:

Thundersnow wrote:

#13 07-22-2008 09:18 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

Iron Sun 254 wrote:

#14 07-22-2008 09:24 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

Seabird wrote:

Seabird wrote:

Seabird wrote:

#15 07-22-2008 09:24 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

Charles Taylor wrote:

#16 07-22-2008 09:29 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

Charles Taylor wrote:

Seabird wrote:

#17 07-22-2008 09:46 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

Jesus Is My Pilot wrote:

Charles Taylor wrote:

Jesus Is My Pilot wrote:

#18 07-22-2008 10:23 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

#19 07-22-2008 10:44 PM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

#20 07-23-2008 12:35 AM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

Qwinn wrote:

Qwinn wrote:

Qwinn wrote:

#21 07-24-2008 05:41 AM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

#22 07-24-2008 05:52 AM

Re: President Obama equals Bad For Blacks

Board footer