Obama's IQ Test

description

Sen. Barack Obama greets the crowd after speaking at an Independence Day celebration in Beaverdale, Iowa. David Lienemann/Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption David Lienemann/Getty Images

Here's the story as I recall hearing it. Maybe it's just Beltway legend. If you know better, hit me back with the details.

Hubert Humphrey's running for president. One of his campaign managers runs to him all excited: "Mr. Humphrey, good news. The polls show we've got the intellectual vote!" Humphrey says, "Great. Now how do we get the other 95 percent of America to vote for me?"

Point being: Capturing the intellectual vote doesn't win elections. Intellectuals just buy those CDs full of that funky music they play between stories on Morning Edition.

This is an issue Barack Obama's now facing down. In other words, he's got the Lake Shore liberal vote locked. And, hey, I'm not knocking that. Much as banks don't care where your money's coming from, the Electoral College is all "don't ask, don't care" when it comes to votes. But how does Obama get the votes that matter; votes from real folks and not just elitists?

Well, along comes Oprah to solve Obama's problems. If this woman can sell crappy novels to soccer moms, she can certainly sell a guy like Obama to regular America.

Except...

Oprah's reportedly throwing an ULTRANORMOUS star-studded fundraiser for Obama at her Santa Barbara, Calif., super shack in September. The price at the door starts at $2,300. It's $25,000 to make the VIP reception and if you want a meal with your star-ogling, better be ready to flip 50k OohGottas or be put to the curb.

Wow, what a great way to get in touch with the regular Joes.

Look, I understand politicos gotta make bank. But cloistering with the Hollywood elite is not how you prove you're a man of the people.

If I can be so bold as to give Oprah and Obama a little career advice, how about this: Hold a couple of old-fashioned BBQs on Chicago's south side or up in Waukegan. Price of admission? A can of food to be donated to a food bank. Eat, talk, break bread with real people. Then pass the around the hat and see what you get. Obama and Oprah together? Even if it's just five bucks a person he'd still haul in a mint. And solidify a new base while they're at it. DO THAT FIRST, then fly out to Hollywood and make the bacon.

Barack, if you don't connect with the people who really matter, well, come November you might find you're swilling lattes and listening to some of this.

Comments

 

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

i also think that in addition to big name events, Oprah and Obama (The Double "O") should hold a public picnic event in Chicago, but also do them in LA, DC, NYC, and other major metro areas. Obama needs to show that he is accessible to the common person. having come one come all events would offer great opportunities to do this.

Sent by gavin | 5:09 PM | 7-19-2007

Because of NPR's "Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted." policy I could be the 100th person posting this but done and done:

From Mr. Obama's website:
"Every supporter who made a donation of $5 or more between June 6th and June 13th took part in our Dinner with Barack campaign.

On July 10th, four lucky people from all over the country were flown to Washington, DC for an evening of good food and good conversation.

Christina, Haile, Michael, and Margaret gave between $5 and $25 and got the kind of personal time with Barack that other politicians reserve for Washington lobbyists and special interests."

Also, you know Mr. Ridley, he raised lotsa $$$ from 250K supporters according to recent counts. Wasn't that some sort of record?

Come to think of it my nephew who has no money but is a supporter of the Obama campaign did attend a private "dinner" fundraiser. When I asked my nephew if he had gotten any face time with the man (who was bone tired and monopolized by admirers), he told me "I don't need to talk with him or to shake his hand I need to help him win."

I think that's what Oprah is doing on a scale only she can.

Sent by GDA | 5:45 PM | 7-19-2007

Maybe it's just because he's popular, but it seems like a lot of perceptions of Obama come from...well, nowhere. The idea that he's only popular with comfortably wealthy, urban democrats (despite, you know, the legions responding to his call for universal healthcare, support for small business, and fighting poverty). The idea that he speaks in abstractions instead of concrete issues (unless you read his speeches, in which pretty much the opposite is true. Or look at his website, where you can even download comprehensive plans in PDF format months before the first primaries).

...And now the idea that he's not doing enough to low-dollar donors. The most recent end-of-quarter stats, they indicate that Obama received more low-dollar donations (most as low as $5) than any other candidate. Remember in June, when both Obama and Edwards launched gimmicky solicitations for low-dollar funds? For $5, you might get flown out to have dinner and a chat with Barack.

For $6.11, Edwards' mom would give you a pie recipe.

Yes, Oprah's launching a fundraiser. Yes, it's expensive. But Oprah's support and an old, caucus-going Iowan farmer's support aren't mutually exclusive. And hopefully Barack won't wake up one morning, suddenly cranky and cynical, and decide that because one group tends to have more votes, that they're the ones who "really matter".

Nice try, John, distilling the population down to "important" and "useless and wealthy". But the last spark of democratic idealism hasn't quite been Bushwacked out of America yet.

Sent by Charlotte | 6:00 PM | 7-19-2007

This was the same thing John Kerry faced in 2004. Although Obama is much more captivating than Kerry was (even is), it's sad (if not true) to see the election might come down to the "every-day man." I remember as the 2004 presidential election drew closer, I asked a mentor at work what he thought about the upcoming election. His words were "it will be close but Bush is going to win." When I asked him how he was so sure, I was expecting him to give me something "intellectual" been the graduate-degree holder that he was, and not the following: "Bush looks like a guy you wanna sit down and have a beer with, Kerry doesn't." Huh? I don't want to sit down and have beer with a president; I want him to be a president. My mentor agreed with my theory but pointed out there are people in other parts of the country that don't live in metropolitan cities and its comforts, who don't care about big words in the dictionary. He went on to highlight some contrasting scenarios in the news between how Bush was shown cutting grass on his ranch, distributing water to hurricane-weary victims in Florida and Kerry ice-skating. "Moji . . . how many people in your neighborhood ice-skate?" I wish he wasn't so prophetic.

I think Obama should take a page out of Bill Clinton's book. You never heard of him having a $400 hair cut a la John Edwards but rather saw him hanging out at his favorite soul food joint. Though he was a Rhodes Scholar, he won everyday people over by "still believing in a place called hope."

Sent by Moji Oderinde | 6:18 PM | 7-19-2007

"...it's sad...to see the election might come down to the 'every-day man.'"

Wow. Sounds like you're a proponent of bringing back literacy tests.

Sent by Michael | 6:48 PM | 7-19-2007

I feel that it is unfair to attack a candidate such as Barack Obama for accepting money from celebrity donors. Why? Because Obama, unlike any other popular candidate, is eschewing money from registered lobbyists and PACs! His inspiring surge in fund-raising has been constructed largely through the backing of 154,000 new independent contributors. According to his campaign, the average donor gives a mere $202. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the usual big-spending self-interest financial giants such as DLA Piper and Goldman Sachs. Not to mention Citigroup Inc, whose subsidiary brokerage firm, Solomon Smith Barney, has been haunted by lawsuits and government investigations due to its ardent financing of the bankrupt Enron and floundering WorldCom, and whose lobbyists in 1998 helped repeal a federal law that prevented banks from acquiring other businesses, enabling it to acquire an insurance firm.
So Obama has already proven himself a man of the people rather than a man of the corporate agenda, and anyone following his campaign would know that. His is the most grassroots campaign of any popular candidate in contention for the presidency! I fact, just last week Obama hosted a dinner to which small-dollar contributors who donated between $5 and $25 were invited to receive the kind of attention typically reserved for the wealthy. There???s even a video of it: http://my.barackobama.com/dinner
Perhaps it is the Hollywood elite that needs to be mingled with in order to increase Obama???s popularity in demographics outside the intellectual circles. Mingling with celebrities far from ???cloisters??? ones campaign. In my humble opinion, this was a cheap stab at a noble candidate who has changed the face of campaign fund-raising.

Sent by Sage Price | 7:07 PM | 7-19-2007

hi.. i have no complaints with obama.. i am currently an unemployed art major... a couple months ago i saw him for free at a park in LA.. i didn't eat a fancy dinner with him, but the crowd received free signs and were able to shake his hand.. everyone had a great time, and kids were even bussed in for a field trip... i have also noticed that he has been doing similar events across the country...no complaints here! obama o8!

Sent by brianna | 10:37 PM | 7-19-2007

I think all of us who want to see Obama win are happy that he has this endorsement. As hard as he had worked to get where he is..think about it, why shouldn't a person with a similar path in life want to support and encourage his success?

I do not think this event hurts anyone. It should be seen as two hard-working people sincerely interested in solving problems using leverage to get the right person in office. That Oprah can and will use her popularity and connections to advance this candidate is just what should be happening. This is good. I can't thank her enough!

Sent by Linda | 11:36 PM | 7-19-2007

Mr. Ridley, I hope you're enjoying the after effects of foot-in-mouth disease... As some folks have pointed out Sen. Obama already has hosted a dinner with the very people you say he should meet with first. But in addition to that, he also held a conference call for the rest of us who were not lucky enough to attend the dinner. It was a great opportunity to hear his full, unedited answers to the questions of everyday people. You should do a little more research before posting.

Sent by KAR | 3:32 AM | 7-20-2007

Barack Obama is no Hubert Humphrey! His record as a community organizer, his accessible language and appealing ideals, the support he's won among the "other 95%," as evidenced by the fact that he's received contributions from 250,000+ Americans, the rock star-style excitement he generates -- all suggest that he's going to have far broader appeal than you suggest. Oprah helps, but Obama doesn't need her to be a great candidate... or a great president.

Sent by Liz Bigham | 9:14 AM | 7-20-2007

More encouraging than selling crappy novels to soccer moms is selling good ones--Tolstoy, Morrison, Garcia Marquez, McCarthy, Faulkner? If she can get millions of people to read The Sound and the Fury, Obama's got a good chance.

Sent by Drew | 9:41 AM | 7-20-2007

I recently attended an Obama rally and I must say that it was an impressive sight. At first it was mostly students and faculty from the hosting university. I guess the students would represent the elitist vote to which Mr. Ridley refers. But, after a while something interesting started to happen. People started to flood in . Not just students, but working people who came on their lunch breaks. There were buss drivers, mechanics, and cooks all kind of working class people. In all, the crowd was estimated at 20,000 people. They were all there with one thing in common. They all shared a genuine excitement about Sen. Obama and what he had to say. However, what I did not see was any sign of a celebrity. Not so much as a limo.
As far as Mr.Ridley giving career advice to Oprah, It would seem she is doing just fine on her own.

Sent by Eden | 9:46 AM | 7-20-2007

Ladies, gentlemen. Good points all the way around (except for one of you).

However...

Regardless of how many "meet and greets" Obama has conducted, he still polls better with affluent and more highly educated voters, and lags behind Sen. Clinton among those with lesser degrees and earnings. That is a fact, not opinion.

What IS opinion: rather than kicking his coupling with Mrs. Winfrey off in Santa Barbara at a $2,300 dollar (for starters) fund-raiser, why not get millions of dollars in free advertising, goodwill and bullet-proof press by taking an Oprah/Gayle King-style road trip and communing with real Americans? That AS WELL AS connect with the constituency which continues to lag in its support of Obama?

I respectfully believe some responders need to consider CAMPAIGN TACTICS, not merely their EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT to the candidate.

Obama needs to close the gap with the "have nots" not the "haves." That is another fact. Again, as much as I'd like to take credit for reality, I can't!

But thanks for reading, and keep the push-back coming.

PS - yes, Drew, you're right. That Million Little Pieces was a great...uh, novel?

Sent by Rdly | 10:10 AM | 7-20-2007

You can't be serious. Obama gets more fundraisers who aren't connected with the elite crowd than anyone else out there. 2.5 times as many as Hilary in the last quarter. Do you think the 258,000 contributors were all elitists? He's not taking money from lobbyists or PAC's either. I'm repulsed at the way candidates have to raise enormous amounts of cash to run for office. I think your criticism should be reserved for that fact. But I really hate your insulting attitude about Oprah's Book Club. Do you really think all those books are trash? I bet you haven't read a single one. No, I'm not an author. It just seems like these days some bloggers feel they have to be in-your-face-over the-top and lob insults and draw attention that way as opposed to just having something really intelligent to say. It's like turning discourse into a pie-throwing contest. I'd read a book rather than read your blog any day.

Sent by Rick Hastie | 10:31 AM | 7-20-2007

Firstly, are you suggesting that One Hundred Years of Solitude is not a great novel because it is found on the same list as a disingenuous memoir?

Secondly, I never suggested that Oprah didn't get soccer moms to read crappy books. I merely pointed out that she *also* gets the same soccer moms to read Tolstoy. Employing Oprah, who can get the same soccer moms to read Sidney Potier's memoir one month and then the Pulitzer prize-winning The Road the next, is a good CAMPAIGN TACTIC. Am I right or too EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED or are you waiting for Ulysses to make it onto Oprah's book club?

Sent by Drew | 10:58 AM | 7-20-2007

"But how does Obama get the votes that matter; votes from real folks and not just elitists?"

Mr. Ridley,

Very engaging piece. It got me wondering what, exactly, is the image conjured by the pollsters and advisors when they consider "real folks."

To me, real folks are those individuals who would vote for a leader based on the ideals, goals, plans, and commitment that a candidate espouses and/or embodies. In my eyes, real folks can't be stuffed into a rigid partisan dogma where supplicants blindly tithe to the First Church of the Republican/Democratic Party.

In that regard, I wholeheartedly agree that Sen. Obama's machine needs to train its sights on the real folks of this nation. If we have learned anything from the previous 4 administrations, let it be that we, the electorate, need to engage more than our emotions and tastes when choosing our leaders. Four years is a long time. How refreshing it would be for voters across all classes to eschew the rhetoric and strict tenets of political parties in favor of casting an informed vote for a candidate. C'mon folks, lets get real.

Sent by Belen Audirsch | 11:28 AM | 7-20-2007

What's ironic about making ad hominem attacks on those who took issue with the post (accusing them of being ruled by emotion simply because they see the issue differently) is that I personally think it's the original post that's ill-informed, not the responses.

The fundraiser is a fundraiser, not a campaign event to get people to support Obama. There's a difference between a campaign event meant to meet people and get them to support you and a campaign event meant to get money from people who already support you and who have money. I think the post confuses the two.

It's absolutely true that Obama apparently needs to work hard at gaining the support of lower-income "have nots." It's also true that he needs a honkload of cash to run this campaign, and he's not going to get it from "have nots." They don't have; they can't give. You have to ask for money from people who have money.

This is not an event designed to connect Obama to the "have-nots," so I don't see the point in pointing out that it won't do that. Of course it won't do that. That's why commenters have been exhaustively cataloging the other efforts Obama has made to do that. This is something else. This is a fundraiser designed to raise a large amount of money from people who have a large amount of money.

It may be distasteful that a modern campaign requires hitting up rich people who already are fans of yours and trying to convince them to give you money, but that, to me, is what's unavoidable "reality" and "fact."

You have to get votes in a campaign, but you also have to get money. Fundraisers are aimed primarily at the latter. They have little to do with the former, since fundraisers are generally attended by people who already support you.

Of course it's true that this fundraiser is aimed at the people with whom Obama is already doing well. ALL fundraisers are aimed at people who are already supporters. You don't throw a fundraiser for the undecided. You throw a fundraiser for people who have money and already support you, in an effort to get them to cough up funds.

This has nothing to do with EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT to anyone. It has to do with the reality of how much money it takes to run a campaign.

Sent by Linda | 11:29 AM | 7-20-2007

Mr. Ridley, I totally agree with you. Now let's hope BOb can't figure that out. Since he didn't figure that out in the first place, why would we want that kind of thinking from our next president?

Sent by Judith Sauls | 11:43 AM | 7-20-2007

All the Obama speeches and rallies that have taken place in my part of the country (Eastern Missouri and Southern Illinois) are attended by large numbers of people who did not drive in their limos to the rally. Rather, it is the common working folk that you see at his rallies. I would have more respect for your article, if you simply came out and said you don't care for Obama. That way the room would be clear of your smoke. Perhaps your future commentary will address other Presidential candidates with inquiries such as Did Fred Thompson brief Nixon's aides during the Watergate investigation; How much money has Hilary Clinton received from Rupert Murdoch and the Health Insurance lobby; How popular was Guiliani with the African American community in NY before 9/11? Give us some expose' on matters that can help us in promoting the candidate best suited to run this great country. Enuf with the fluff, already.

Sent by Roger | 12:21 PM | 7-20-2007

It seems to me that Obama is an equal opportunity candidate - one who is willing to meet with everyone from celebrities to janitors. Insofar as accepting assistance from Oprah, walk a mile in Obama's shoes. Would you turn her down if you were running for president?

Sent by Pepper Partin | 12:54 PM | 7-20-2007

A better use of all of our analytical energy is to tackle the question of dialogue not Oprah and her book club, the "elites" or the "common folk." Why do candidates raise so much money for their campaigns if most of it goes to television advertisements? How many of us can have a genuine discussion with our T.V. screens? Our next leader has to be one that engages with his people through genuine dialogue, not television ads. I'll let you in on a secret; THE "COMMON FOLKS" DO NOT TRUST THEIR GOVERNMENT. How can all candidates engage with their people through genuine dialogue rather than expensive T.V ads that do nothing to restore the trust of the "common folk" in their government?

Yvonne from Oakland

Sent by Yvonne Valdez | 3:57 PM | 7-20-2007

While I commend Obama for his grassroots work, love that many college students support him, and I can't forget the fact that he raised the most money this last quarter. However, it's still a long way to the election. Howard Dean was given his other Democratic counterparts a run for their money before the scream. You never know what's going to happen; all we have to project for the future is historical facts. I think Oprah supporting Obama is great and needed. But Obama still needs to do more. I can't say much about how the whole country thinks but I can say something for my state, Florida.

During last November elections, apart from the Senate and Congress seat, we voted for some local and state officials. One particular seat, the governor's was quite close. Jim Davis, the democrat won the major cities. Then as the night wore on and watching the TV anchors tally the votes on the screen from different polls; it became too close to call. A friend called me frustrated with "here we go again, it looks like I'm going to be depressed by another election results." She couldn't understand that just because Davis won South Florida (a tri-county area), Tampa by landslides doesn't mean he'll take the election. I told her South Florida or Tampa aren't the only places in Florida. So we started seeing the results of small towns (the have nots) we couldn't pronounce the names voting in high margins for Crist. Other major cities were very close. But as the final tally came down, Crist won. A local political pundit gave his analysis that though Davis had political heavy-weights such as Clinton campaign for him, he made the mistake of not taking time to visit more economically-challenged places in Florida. They may not have been the best educated, middle-income, etc but they voted. But they voted for Crist because he was always there. He showed he was one of them who's fought for the little guy as an Attorney General. In the waning days before the election, Crist didn't even spend his time in South Florida. It almost became a foregone conclusion just like the state of California is to the republic party.

I hope the same doesn't happen to Obama. He needs to have great strategy working for him. During the last debate at Howard University, if Hillary Clinton could find a way to communicate better to the majority of blacks in the audience than Obama could; something needs tweaking in his strategy and fast. I wish I could show people the facts in black and white so they'll vote intelligently but the reality is, people's perception sometimes trumps facts. And sorry to say, that's just reality.

Sent by Moji Oderinde | 5:49 PM | 7-20-2007

Yvonne, Moji, that's the way to take it deeper.

Keep the push-back coming!

Sent by Ridley | 8:11 PM | 7-20-2007

Obama is doing what all politicians do whether liberal or conservative, black or white, Protestant or Catholic, male or female and that is raise money - and lots of it.

It is indeed sad that politicians generally only hobnob with the affluent but that is how they get elected, as was the case with the Roman Republic so it is with the American Republic.

At the risk of sounding ultra-cynical, politicians only want "commoners" votes. After they get them, they may extend some token benefits to the plebes but otherwise they have to pay back their corporate masters at the end of the election with cabinet positions, tax breaks, appointments, etc.

Maybe Obama is keeping it real by hanging out with elitist Hollywood-types. This event is better, in some respects, than some Exeter-Ivy educated New England Skull and Bones Yankee whose ancestors have had millions of dollars since 1702 putting on a pair of jeans and a plaid flannel shirt and chopping wood pretending to be "normal" for a day in rural Montana to try and connect with "common people".

It really doesn't matter anyway because very little will change with the 2008 election save for maybe getting out of Iraq. Otherwise, there will still be a looming health care crisis, energy costs, soaring higher education costs, global warming and the rich still taking it the middle-class and poor like they always do. That, and Obama can't win because he doesn't meet the unwritten prerequisite to being president of the United States which, save for one case is, he is not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. At least he has the gender thing going for him.

Lots of luck folks, enjoy the ride!

Sent by Jereme | 12:41 PM | 7-27-2007

George Bush married a librarian. John Kerry married a billionaire. Who's more the Republican between the two? Running for President is a status symbol. It made Adlai Stevensons reputation. Talk about your intellectual who never won. But let's be very real here. Obama and Clinton in the White House? Together? A black man and a white woman in the White House together? That's the stuff that would resurrect Tennessee Williams from his grave to write again. Maybe in Britain the Iron Maiden, mythos prevails. This is the colonies. We're busy colonizing. Hillary Clinton ain't Queen Victoria. Hillary has as much chance beating Mit Romney as Cindy Sheehan has beating Nancy Pelosi. Besides, even the most staunch of Democrats can't forget that Bill is regularly playing golf with Bush the elder. And Barack...how would it look having a man of color colonizing other men of color who happen to live in oil rich countries? No. This is America. Let's get over with the dreamscape futility of the 08 election and accept that the Democratic Party has conceded the White House to the G.O.P.

I don't say this to be mean to women and minorities in politics. I say this as a registered Democrat bettor. I don't believe in gambling. Gambling means you are going to lose your money. I'm a bettor. Which is a polite way of saying an investor on the hedge. I talk to a lot of potential democratic voters. They aren't even going to the polls come election day. This is a political slaughter on the magnitude of George McGovern or even Barry Goldwater, back when Lyndon Johnson was the powerful Texas Republican in the Democratic Party. Yes, southern politics has amounted to Republicans and Democrats taking turns being Republicans. JFK and RFK both failed to see that truism.

Now that the G.O.P. has the White House locked up for the remainder of the twenty-first century, do we call the Republicans the Dukes, and the Democrats the Earls, or is it the other way round? I'm a little fuzzy on my feudal terminology. Someone suggested we call congress the Dukes of Hazards and the Boss Hoggs. Though I'm not sure if it's the Republicans who are the Dukes of Hazards and the Democrats who are the Boss Hoggs. Or is it the other way round?

The Chicago vote has been, and seems will always be, dependent upon the Daley Political Machine. As for the black majority in Chicago, well, look at the size of the Blackstone Rangers. For those of you who don't know who the Blackstone Rangers are, think Chicago Outfit, except a lot bigger of an organization. Possibly a lot meaner. A lot more guns in their belts. About 25,000 membership, or so. But who's counting? The Chicago Outfit knew better than to make enemies of the Blackstone Rangers. Keeping up with the times, now they call themselves the Black P Stones. The Black P Stones in Chicago are so big they have headquarters in Los Angeles. There was a time when the Blackstone Rangers ran their own Presidential candidate: George Mad Dog Rose. Mad Dog Rose was not Barack Obama. But Mad Dog did run against Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Nelson Rockefeller.

Illinois does have a lot of electoral votes. There came a time when a politician who came courting the Chicago vote relied more on the Blackstone Rangers than the Outfit. According to the McClellan Committee investigations, Martin Luther King sat down with the Blackstone leadership. Whether that was a positive or a negative depended on one's point of view. After Dr. King was assassinated, and some 28 blocks along Chicago's West Madison Avenue, the Blackstone Rangers went outside to keep the fires from taking their neighborhood.

When I think of Obama's political future, I try to envision Obama sitting down with the leadership of the Black P Nation. Like a good many politicians before him have done courting the Chicago vote. There's been a lot of talk how Barack has convivially sat down with the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. I hear Obama is real comfortable with Brioni wearing CEOs. That's politics. It has to be done. My betting investment hunch is that Obama knows that the Democratic Party has conceded the White House in '08. Time will tell what Obama does with his political career after that meaningless nationally televised traditional excursion into the electronic voting booth.

Fred call aka bigbro

Sent by fred call | 6:29 PM | 9-4-2007

Okay, if I hear two white guys in one more discussion about How intelligent Barack Obama is for a black man, I'm going to start chewing tobacco, wear my underwear for a month, marry my sister and join the KKK. No more of this "for a black man" stuff. Okay?

This is an angry topic that led me to ponder this implication. Shut your eyes and imagine Barack Obama as president. Next, imagine the havoc the First Amendment would bring in the Obama White House. After eight years of calling George Bush nothing but "Dumb White Trash," no one can complain protestors using the N-word to describe the president. The racist jokes aimed at the White House would be unendurable. Quid pro Quo.

Come to think of it, the B-word would become common political usage in polite circles if Hillary were president. This is America. Be realistic, Democratic Party.

On another political front, the tradition of the actor becoming president comes to an end. This time the actor will be the vice president.

The only more perfect scenario would be that Mit Romney was married to Angelina Jolie. Now, there's a First Lady to vote for as president in the future.

For all you 'I hate George Bush' groupies gearing up for the next eight years of 'I hate Romney/Thompson' groupies....remember this. In 2016, Jeb Bush becomes president for eight years.

Unless the GOP changes the Constitution so that the president can stay in office until he dies of old age. Which will probably happen right after the GOP changes the Constitution so Arnold can be president.

Ya know, we need to give the Democrats a job. Something to do with their time. I know. Let's let them call themselves Republicans so they can get some respect back.

Anyway, from Beijing, the official word is that Party Boss Pang Jiayu was not expelled from the Communist party for having eleven mistresses. Pang was expelled because he couldn't stay awake at his desk during the day.
Fred call aka bigbro

Sent by fred call | 5:02 PM | 9-8-2007