Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Do you understand what you've done?
African-Americans are the single most loyal block of Democratic voters. They're absolutely solid voting record is the reason why Bill Clinton won handily and why Gore got the popular vote.
Democrats can't win without African-American support.
Let me say that one more time for the people in the cheap seats.
DEMOCRATS CAN'T WIN WITHOUT AFRICAN-AMERICAN SUPPORT.
But what did you do when a black preacher who was preaching to a predominately black congregation about oppression and imperialism?
You threw him under the bus. By extension you through ALL of us African-Americans under the bus.
Oh you might have been uncomfortable with his fiery rhetoric and might have even disagreed with him but as Democrats you had a fucking duty to listen and a duty to try to understand where he was coming from.
Hell, after all of the support Democrats have gotten from us it's the least you could do.
But you didn't. You called him racist. By extension you called all of us racist as well because we believe that American Imperialism is bad, we believe that American racism is bad.
You see, it's true, we think White America is responsible for many ills that plague not only America but the world. It certainly ain't the fault of black America. Or Latinos. Or Asians. Or Native Americans. See none of us ever got the chance to lead. That shit is on the head of White America.
Progressives used to think so to. Until it came from the mouth of a black man.
Progressives used to think that American Imperialism brought us 9/11. Until it came from the mouth of a black man.
Progressives used to think blacks were terribly oppressed. Until it came out of the mouth of a black man.
Progressives used to think that America was responsible for all sort of terrible things around the world and that it was failing to live up to its promise as a nation that could do great things. Until it came out of the mouth of a black man.
Do you understand what you have done?
All around the country black folks are going to look at how John McCain was treated when his psychotic religious allies were mentioned for a brief moment, he said he didn't agree with everything they said, and then it went away.
All around the country black folks are going to look at how Barack Obama was treated when his pastor, who has railed against injustice near and far before some of you were even born, was paraded across the TV screens and Barack Obama was forced to denounce him or suffer the consequences.
Oh don't get me wrong, we expected something like that. America ain't all that different just yet.
But what we didn't expect (at least some of the less jaded of us) was that Democrats wouldn't defend him.
We expected Democrats to be consistent and say, like they did after 9/11, "HELL YEAH AMERICA NEEDS TO QUIT FUCKING AROUND IN OTHER COUNTRIES! SEE WHAT IT GETS US!?!?" or "HELL YEAH AMERICA NEEDS TO STOP BEING RACIST AND OPPRESSIVE".
But you didn't. None of you. Not on the blogs. Not on TV. No one.
Now the whispering will start. On the streets, in the churches, in the neighborhoods.
Oh they're going to steal it from him for sure.
Oh did you see how they treated him and his pastor? That was unfair.
Oh I see there are still double standards. Mmm hmm, I told you so.
Oh they don't think America is all that bad now huh?
You know what effect that's going to have?
Democrats will lose a substantial portion of the black vote if anyone but Obama is nominated.
Now you already lost the militantish black vote for all that defense of the drug-dealing, shucking and jiving shit, but the regular folks are still loyal Democrats to the core.
But not now. Not after you not only don't defend, but actively trash, a black preacher. No sir.
You've gone and done it now.
Good job "progressives"!
Comments (44)
Sorry, Jay. I'm a big Obama supporter, and like my candidate, I'm a pro-American patriot. This has been a difficult day for the campaign, but if it means we part ways with such as you, it may be worth it in the long run.
Go in peace.
March 15, 2008 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see DK's excellent post "Truth Time: Wright is Right"? and the thoughtful responses to that post?
I don't think this will be used to steal the nomination from Obama; it may actually strengthen his support. It's better that he addresses it now rather than later.
A Republican friend called today to tell me he had seen the 'damn America' clip of Wright's preaching, and that - sorry to tell me - but Obama's candidacy was surely over. He called back later to say he had seen Obama's response and changed his mind - he thought Obama would weather the storm. In fact, he was impressed with Obama's response. He hadn't watched the Democratic debates and this was the first time he had really heard Obama speak other than in brief news clips.
I think Obama will be the next President, and I think he'll unite people in a powerful way.
March 15, 2008 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, I've seen a couple of people call me DK. If I'm not mistaken, David Kurtz is sometimes referred herein as DK and I just wanted to make it clear that I am not David Kurtz. Not that there's anything wrong with being David Kurtz... as far as I know. :)
March 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey - nothing wrong with you either, I mean ... as far as I know :)
Nice retort
March 15, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am truly as disgusted as you to the reaction to this whole thing. I think reverend Wright has plenty of reason to be angry with America. However I must say I do prefer Obama's unifying words to the way the reverend speaks. I think Obama is in this because he is doing everything he can to try and make this a country where no person, regardless of skin color or sex has to feel the way this man does about our country.
The fact is if anyone thinks racism is a thing of the past they are fools. I am a white man that manages a store for a man of Indian descent and when I first took over I heard "thank god, a white guyI understand what " so many times. It made my blood boil. It made me want to reach over the counter and punch the racist F**ks in the face.
I understand why Reverend Wright feels the way he does. I can never fully appreciate it, as I have never had it happen to me personally, but I understand it. It truly makes me far more impressed by the Character of Obama, because he has experienced these things, and instead of reaching for hate he reaches for hope.
March 15, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand your anger, frustration and bitterness. I sent off an email to the Morning Joe show on MSNBC giving them a piece of my mind that explained why the Rev. Wright was saying things that were true that Americans just can't handle. However, I realize that if you just read the words, or hear them spoken softly, they make a lot of sense to a lot of people. In this case though, the style will not win over the opinion of a lot of people. The gospel style does not work in a lot of settings.
I am a white middle aged man. I have been ridiculed and denigrated for my dark skin color, and although I have not ever any overt racism occur toward me, I'm sure that there have been suspicions on the part of others toward me. I have heard and felt the anguish and utter disappointment of a black friend as he recounted a blatant racist remark directed at him. It saddens me that we still have this kind of national ignorance and stupidity.
I understand what Sen. Obama did today, and as much as I know he really did not want to do it, he had to do it so he can win a much bigger battle. Being a man of extreme wisdom and knowledge, Rev. Wright understands full well and I'm sure has seen this day coming for quite some time. I'm sure that he is joyous is many ways that Barack Obama is winning and will go all the way.
All of us that want to see fundemental change in this country should do whatever we can, make whatever sacrifice is needed, and become the change we want to see. That is the Obama way.
March 15, 2008 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wright is right, but beyond the anger, we need to reach a solution. Be patient, we need to do this peacefully, calmly, and by bringing the decent majority together behind our movement.
I'm not sure if Obama will win, but he's started something, I believe.
March 15, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light. George Washington
Only in truth is there true freedom, but truth is also the greatest taskmaster
March 15, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good comment, Qwerty. It's a good idea for us to peacefully and calmly express our understanding and support for Rev. Wright and Obama. I imagine there are lots of ways for us to do this. For instance, everyone who's interested should visit the link in Ms Jane's comment down-thread.
March 15, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who threw whom under the bus first?
When Jesse Jackson Jr. referred to the Clintons as "some politicians call themselves our friends" and telling Bil to "butt out" despite the help the Clintons had given to black causes in terms of appointments and reducing black poverty in the 90's? Months before the primary itself?
It doesn't bother me if blacks vote for Obama for his views, his good looks or his skin color. It bothers me if blacks throw friends under the bus just because they have a new BFF. Just say you're for the new guy. That doesn't mean you have to dis the old friends.
March 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the interest of full disclosure let me say up front that I am a 53 yo Black woman and an Obama supporter. My reasons for supporting Sen. Obama have nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his qualifications to be an excellent president. But I digress. The black community did not throw the Clintons under the bus. If you'll recall, the black vote was going overwhelmingly to Sen. Clinton until South Carolina. Remember the meme at the time? Is Barack Obama "Black enough"? What caused the black vote to shift diametrically to Barack began when former President Clinton began to obfuscate regarding Sen. Obama's position on the Iraq war and, as received by Black America, dismissed his candidacy as 'one big fairytale'. Then in response to a reporters question about Sen. Obama's win in South Carolina, former President Clinton responded dismissivly retorting that 'Jessie Jackson won South Carolina in 1988' implying that Sen. Obama won South Carolina because he is black and South Carolina has a large black population. Former President Clinton & Sen. Clinton come from the southern, formerly Jim Crow state of Arkansas. They know very well the sentiments of southern whites and also know how to use the coded language dog whistle to incite the basest racist instincts of those southern whites who are still firmly invested in the notion of white supremacy. From the South Carolina primary until now, the Clinton campaign has employed a strategy of insinuating race & religion into this contest. Blacks have been the Clinton's strongest and most vocal supporters, but the Clinton's mistook friendship & respect for blind loyalty. The Clinton's underestimated the black community that they claim to know so well. They (as many) whites assumed that blacks would automatically vote for Barack because he was black, but when that didn't happen they began to question whether or not Barack was 'black enough' (whatever that means. In America, if you're black, then you're black enough.) After South Carolina, the Clintons trotted out a string of surrogates from Billy Sheheen & Bob Johnson to Geraldine Ferraro. These surrogates weren't talking about the policy positions of their candidate, they were attempting to disparage their opponent. If Mrs. Clinton had run an honorable camapign she would still have a sizeable chunk of the black vote, but we're not blind and we're certainly not crazy or else we'd be extinct. We've learned the coded messaging because we had to to survive. The Clinton's loud protestations that they're being unfairly associated with racism and that it's the Obama campaign injecting race into this contest is intellectually dishonest. If/when you review the record you'll see that Sen. Obama has never mentioned race except to say that it has no place in this campaign. Just recently Gov. Ed Rendel intimated that in Pennsylvania Sen. Clinton will win because whites won't vote for Sen. Obama because they won't vote for a black man. Who threw who under the bus?????
March 15, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero -
You can't ignore the context of Jackson's comment. The painful realization that w/ all of the race-baiting coming from Clinton's campaign (drug-dealing/Shaheen, secret Muslim/B. Kerrey & IA staffers, cocaine-cocaine-cocaine/Wolfson, Bill's remark in comparing the two, back-in-the-hood-back-in-the-day/ R. Johnson) - the Clintons past love affair w/ the black community was now being exposed as one of pure convenience. Each stereotypical specter raised made it clear that they'd courted the black vote b/c it was nec. to them - not for any altruism or giving a shit about the issues genuinely - as anyone willing to engage @ this level had to be frauds. The black vote is no longer nec to them & has now been replaced by fake-giving-a-shit about Latino issues b/c that's the political calculus that's been made.
And also, anyone who read Primary Colors and Joe Klein's account of the pure disdain which Bill held for Jesse behind the scenes would have never mistaken the two for former bffs.
March 16, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look the reverend Wright affair centers around rhetoric and history. First Wright is a classic black power preacher circa late 60's early 70's. Basically the rhetoric is America has a long and entrenched Imperialist and racist history and one must shout that fact from the roof tops because the essence of American life is to deny those two central facts. In the 60's and 70's this was common, however in our age in which we are in full denial of our national culpability in some very violent and unsavory deeds, this sounds like the essence of treason. How dare anyone speak ill of America after 9/11.
What is difficult for white Americans to understand is that patriotism is intimately linked with white supremacy--see FoX News if you have any doubts. Black men and women, from the south side of Chicago who have enlisted and fought in every war this country waged returned home to segregation, racial violence and the grind of everyday bigotry. They don't wear flag lapel pins, they don't joyously sing "God Bless America"--why the hell would they. Wright is the pastor of THIS community. And their experience vis-a-vis patriotism is complicated, and completely untranslatable to white america--liberals and reactionaries alike. With poor, isolated black America, you have at once some of the greatest patriots in DEED-they serve in the wars, die for "democracy", yet they are critics of the hypocrisy of the very system they are expected to cherish. There is a deep history here which sadly, but with little surprise is ignored.
March 15, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
babeuf -
Wonderful synopsis! Thank you.
March 15, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and one quick point. Desidero, what's with this collective "blacks have thrown Clinton" under the bus crap. Blacks are a demographic block for the Clintons--numbers on a page, so yes they can discount or court the black vote. But black people cannot collectively throw anyone under a bus. The weird racial Id of this country is maddening. Jackson can say what he will and yes that speaks to Obama's campaign but NOT to blacks in general. Frankly, I may assume that racial dog-whistles will sway a segment of the white population, but I immediately assume it will also repulse an equally as large number. Whites don't act in group think any more than blacks. So cut this crap out.
There are millions of reasons black voters are drawn to Obama--at this point the Clintons have pretty much done all they can to actively alienate them as demographic block, first by hamfistedly treating them (and everyone else for that matter) as merely some interest group.
March 15, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make a number of very strong points about progressives' reactions to this, however I highly doubt blacks will defect from the Democratic party in significant numbers.
Also, Wright does have one group of white defenders. The greater United Church of Christ leadership has put out a statement about the largest congregation in its family, Trinity United Church of Christ. The praise of TUCC is effusive.
Trinity does bring a good deal of money to the larger organization as well as new members, clergy, ideas, and programs. However, the church's reputation in white America and within its predominantly white congregations is probably more important than any money Trinity brings it. They risk losing their members, which the comments section of that article suggests they are already doing.
March 15, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting the statement. I went there to defend Rev. Wright. Some sanity has to break through!
March 15, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
They might just get one back.
That's a gutsy move, and one I might expect from the church I know to be most willing as a membership to walk a mile in another's shoes before judgement. And not just because you're a mile away with the other guy's shoes.
The UCC some may remember, had the controversial add where people were turned away from church at a velvet ropeline for being different.
March 15, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just watching the Chris Matthews weekend show. In the "Tell Me Something I Don't Know" segment, one of the commmentators from Time magazine (sorry don't have his name) said John Edwards will endorse HRC prior to the North Carolina primary.
Was this expected? Is it part of the "fix"? Does it matter? Honestly, it caught me off-guard.
March 15, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the fix is in (in the mind of blacks) as always. We have already heard the Rev Al S. say that if Barack doesn't get the nod, then blacks will take to the streets in large numbers.
As in the case of Watts. burn down your own house and ask someone to rebuild it for you.
Or Kenya, just think about that one. Didn't win so we start a war or ethnic cleansing or whatever tribal types do.
And the Rev Wright is inciting this sort of thing.
As Barack wailed on SNL, Hillary, what am I gonna do.
March 15, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
We could use some HuffPo moderators to screen this stuff.
March 15, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do tell.
March 15, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes, do you have an ethnic radar gun or something, or perhaps you are just stuck on stupid?
March 15, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ew. Are you serious?
We speak in generalizing terms ("the blacks" "the whites" "the progressives") to discuss general social attitudes; and in so doing, there's always the danger of crossing a line--taking the generalizations too far and getting ourselves into trouble. I'll admit it gets tricky knowing where that line is. You passed it way, way back somewhere, as far as I can tell.
Seriously. I say this with respect: you probably need to do some thinking on this subject without using the usual "those people" frame we often use. I think your perspective has gone wacky.
March 15, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't remember Clinton reducing Black poverty in the 90's. Was there something specific Bill did for poor Blacks? It wasn't Welfare "reform."
March 15, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm puzzled by those claims too.
First I had to put aside the horrible superior-to-subordinate tone of "look at all the Clintons have done for you and this is how you repay them?" Getting beyond that to analyze the substance--umm...what exactly is it?
March 15, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's up with the calls for moderators to censor comments? As to the Reverend Wright's words and responses to them: I too have been disappointed with the people who have expressed outrage. Most of what he said I agree with. This country was founded on the genocide of natives and slave labor of Africans. It is the sole nation to drop atom bombs on civilian populations. It does conduct war against nations that have presented to threat to us. Other than the inflammatory rhetoric that would better have been shelved for a more general audience, most of what Wright said was right on. To those who wrote that he is a bad person I can only say that you must have odd values.
March 15, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you entirely, *out of the loop*.
My stuck on stupid comments were directed at searay185. I was not calling for mods to censor.
My mistake.
March 15, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF, my apologies. I'm a fan of your posts and appreciate the time and thought they must take. Sorry for the misattribution.
March 15, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just looked up the part in Obama's autobiography where he describes hearing the sermon that Wright preached and used the phrase "audacity of hope." The lead up to the antecdote appears on page 293 of the Three Rivers Press edition: "While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpsville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and the State House. As the sermon unfolded, though, the stories of strife became more prosaic, the pain more immediate." Thoug, Obama glosses over them in the passage above, we now have a pretty good idea what Wright's prelude to the audacity of hope would likely have sounded like. Although Obama denies having heard Wright make the kind of inflammatory remarks that have been telecast the last couple of days, the likelihood is that he was present but just didn't focus on them, just like he didn't elaborate on them when he mentions them in "Dreams from My Father." The most generous interpretation we can give Obama's denials is, that while he heard Wright's vitriol, that vitriol was not the part of the sermons that he "listened" to.
March 15, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The most generous interpretation we can give Obama's denials is, that while he heard Wright's vitriol, that vitriol was not the part of the sermons that he "listened" to."
I'm not inclined to see it that way.
I think Obama did indeed hear Wright's social commentary in sermons, but he listened within a frame of context and empathy. One of the prominent themes in Obama's writings (and his speeches) is the importance of empathy. In the Audacity of Hope, he explained that he has the obligation to try to empathize with even George Bush. Now there's a person with a commitment to empathy.
"Although Obama denies having heard Wright make the kind of inflammatory remarks that have been telecast the last couple of days, the likelihood is that he was present but just didn't focus on them, just like he didn't elaborate on them when he mentions them in "Dreams from My Father."
This assumption may be true; however, it may also be true that, in the aftermath of 9/11, Wright's anger might have been more inflamed (for obvious reasons) than Obama had ever witnessed.
March 15, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't doubt that your assessment is correct. However, Obama's compassionate understanding and tolerance of the anger animating Wright's comments leave him open to attacks that may stick. The hyperbolic "he hates America" stuff will certainly be rejected by clear-thinking people. The more measured attack will be that his sympathies leave him less capable of assessing a real or emerging threat to the U.S. Indeed, I expect that his opposition to the Iraq war and his participation on that Senate committee dealing with Afghanistan will likely be filtered through this kind of lense. We have all seen the Right's attack machine do this sort of thing before; we should expect that they will do it again. I fear this line attack may well do damage in the minds of many who have yet to decide what they really think about Obama.
March 16, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What stupid comments were you referring to?
Maybe I can learn something.
March 15, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with a bit of vitriol? Bitter criticism isn't called for when one is speaking of murder, war, slavery, theft, and the like? Apart from a couple of intemperate phrases such as "God damn America," the vitriol was well placed. Not my style in public, but then I'm not a black preacher in Chicago. The criticism of Wright from those who should be his allies is sad. To see him called a bad man on the pages of TPM is sad. It goes to show that this country truly is far to the right. It would be better to be far to the Wright.
March 15, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even David Gergen has a clue.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/14/acd.01.html
I find this encouraging. Until I read the kneejerk, uninformed, ill-considered accusations of racism directed against Wright and, by extension, Obama across the Democratic / progressive blogosphere. Two of the closest people in my life, my ex-wife and a dear colleague of 15 years, are "angry black women." I know not every white person has the privilege of shared insights that I have had, but progressives should have at least a clue. I mean, David Gergen does...
March 15, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I gave a damn for religion, I would be on my knees praying that this silly petty sort of thing does not break a coalition that has the best chance in ages to bring my country together.
I understand the words of Rev. Wright, I understand the anger and hurt and sense of loss. I also understand the optimism of Senator Obama. It is time we let optimism reign. It is time that we join together in working toward a better nation.
Let us work together.
March 15, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jay,
I know you're very angry and feeling betrayed right now, but I believe a lot of progressives do understand why Wright spoke the way he did and have no intention of joining in throwing Obama or black Americans under the bus.
Your tone worries me: "But you didn't. None of you. Not on the blogs. Not on TV. No one."
While I understand and respect your anger, please don't let it turn to despair that leads you to this thinking. I hold out hope and agree with Qwerty's comment: "Wright is right, but beyond the anger, we need to reach a solution. Be patient, we need to do this peacefully, calmly, and by bringing the decent majority together behind our movement. I'm not sure if Obama will win, but he's started something, I believe."
I believe the "the decent majority" Qwerty refers to is out here.
March 15, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This will all be over very soon. Obama picked up delegates at the Iowa caucuses today. The excellent Tribune articles in about Rezko, the release of earmarks and tax records and his call for Clinton to release her records will be next week's stories. Take a deep calming breath and let Obama do what he does so well. He's got this covered.
March 15, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree- I have confidence in Obama to handle this well. :-D
And it's corny, but I have confidence in us, too. (Ew, I just made my own self puke a little. This hope and optimism stuff still feels so strange.)
March 16, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you laurajordan. :) Here's a toast (of latte) to hope!
This article makes me more optimistic about the Democratic Party:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?hp
I must admit though that I'm quite terrified about the future, especially wrt economy and the wars. Obama will not solve it all, but at least he'll be the first step in the right direction of a long, probably arduous journey.
March 16, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats can't win without African-American support.
Nor can they win with a close association between the top of the ticket and someone who has made the remarks that Reverend Wright has made. Leave "fair" out of it -- that's just a fact.
We expected Democrats to be consistent and say, like they did after 9/11, "HELL YEAH AMERICA NEEDS TO QUIT FUCKING AROUND IN OTHER COUNTRIES! SEE WHAT IT GETS US!?!?" or "HELL YEAH AMERICA NEEDS TO STOP BEING RACIST AND OPPRESSIVE".
Sorry, that wasn't being said by anyone close to the Democratic mainstream, especially after 9/11.
March 16, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I see as the real issue here with Reverend Wright is not so much WHAT he said, but that he said it LOUD. White America seems to be capable of being somewhat comfortable with a black man that speaks softly and politley, but as soon as they hear a black man raise his voice and sound angry, that makes them very afraid. I haven't seen any discussion of this point yet, and maybe I'm way off, but I think the sound of a loud, angry voice strikes a primal chord of fear in a lot of white folks, and they cover that up with trying to parse his words.
March 16, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
March 16, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just like 'latte-drinking, converse-wearing, starbucks-going,' white liberals to start agreeing that something wasn't racist after a black person says it. ;-P.
But really, I agree with Laura Jordan, you gotta stop the 'us' vs. 'them' bit. It helps to keep a binary up that really isn't there. I promise I want unity just as much as I'm sure you do, but the stoic proud black vs. imperialist white argument isn't going to do that. You'll be labeled an angry black man and discounted and pigeon-holed before you can say PowerFerraroWright.
March 16, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment