Skip to content

OCHO FOR OBAMA?

We’re told that Bengals receiver Chad Johnson a/k/a Chad Javon Ochocinco had a special touchdown celebration planned for Sunday’s game at Houston, if he had actually managed to, you know, score a touchdown.
Per a league source, Johnson had a Barack Obama banner stashed in each end zone, which he planned to retrieve and unfurl if he had scored.
Such an action surely would have drawn a stiff fine, along the lines of the $30,000 penalty imposed in the wake of Joe Horn’s December 2003 cell phone call. 
The Bengals host the Jaguars on Sunday.  It’s unknown whether Johnson plans to attempt the same stunt if/when he scores this time around.
Our guess is that the candidate likely would prefer that Johnson keep his views to himself.  Of all the potential celebrities or athletes who are in a position to make an endorsement, Ocho Cinco is the guy most likely to induce people to do the opposite.

Permalink 63 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Cincinnati Bengals, Houston Texans, Rumor Mill
63 Responses to “OCHO FOR OBAMA?”
  1. Slow Joe says: Oct 28, 2008 8:49 PM

    Barack Obama: I really, truly do not approve this message.

  2. Nucealius says: Oct 28, 2008 8:49 PM

    I don’t know how people can dislike Chad Johnson. The guy is hilarious.

  3. pftrocks says: Oct 28, 2008 8:49 PM

    What a Jackass!!

  4. empty13 says: Oct 28, 2008 8:50 PM

    no surprise cero stinko stumps for zerobama…

  5. freedomispopular says: Oct 28, 2008 8:50 PM

    Maybe if he spent more time focusing on the game instead of his next celebration, he’d actually have something to celebrate about.

  6. icase81 says: Oct 28, 2008 8:55 PM

    Yeah its clearly his fault his QBs are trash. Besides that, is anyone really swayed by what someone famous thinks? I mean, do people go ‘Well…. I WAS gonna vote McCain, but since I saw a sign that said Vote Obama, I guess I will.’ or “Well, since supports Obama, I guess I will too”
    Really? People do that?

  7. milehiclown says: Oct 28, 2008 8:55 PM

    Are you serious? Free exposure in TWO key battleground states and endless replays? Imagine EITHER candidate saying “no thanks.”
    Rae Carruth could carry the banner and they wouldn’t care. Don’t kid yourself. They want to win.

  8. leit64 says: Oct 28, 2008 8:57 PM

    morons like he, deserve the oncoming socialist epoch

  9. TheBozforPres says: Oct 28, 2008 8:58 PM

    Well I guess the $30k fine would have been considered redistribution of wealth, so I don’t think Obama would’ve minded.

  10. Backinthesaddle says: Oct 28, 2008 8:59 PM

    Makes perfect sense that such a buffoon would be a supporter of Obama.
    It also makes perfect sense that he has changed his name from English to Spanish…..and is a supporter of Obama.

  11. Favre2012 says: Oct 28, 2008 9:00 PM

    @ freedomispopular,
    With the guys he has throwing the ball this year, he might as well get a lounge chair and take a staycation til ’09.
    Ocho Cinco is still hilarious for the name change alone. His “celebrations” are boring, have been since the River Dance, but that **** was genius.

  12. Anrkist says: Oct 28, 2008 9:00 PM

    He was my write in candidate!

  13. iron_city says: Oct 28, 2008 9:05 PM

    Pacman for Obama!

  14. Mike Beckwith says: Oct 28, 2008 9:12 PM

    Politics aside…
    Has anyone paid any attention to the year Ocho Sucko is having? I would feel more confident at this point if Braylon Edwards said he’d drop less than 4 balls Sunday than Chad catching ONE TD.
    Obama/Biden ’08

  15. east96st says: Oct 28, 2008 9:15 PM

    Don’t you have to actually score a touchdown in order to celebrate one? With Palmer out, what are the odds that Chad ever sees the endzone this season?

  16. ACDC84 says: Oct 28, 2008 9:19 PM

    The fine for that should be no less than $500,000. Politics have no place in sports.

  17. navysully says: Oct 28, 2008 9:26 PM

    That bodes well for McCain. Go ahead Ocho!🙂
    and
    GO MCCAIN!

  18. LiveNBreath Football says: Oct 28, 2008 9:33 PM

    So far, Chad, the President of Iran, Hugo Chavez and Castro have supported Obama. Some endorsements you do not need.

  19. savagenation says: Oct 28, 2008 9:35 PM

    Gee, one more moron with a single digit IQ voting for NObama.
    What does that tell you people???

  20. JoeSixPack says: Oct 28, 2008 9:36 PM

    McCain supporters are actually disappointed Mr. 8,5 didn’t get a chance to put his plan into action – it’d be a sure fire way to take votes away from Obama

  21. CD_Ridge says: Oct 28, 2008 9:37 PM

    Sure Chad is an idiot, but it really pains me to see Dan Rooney endorsing Obama. A sad turn of events for the Steeler Nation.

  22. nokitin says: Oct 28, 2008 9:39 PM

    Ocho for Obama? Sounds like an even up trade to me………

  23. Vox Clamantis in Deserto says: Oct 28, 2008 9:39 PM

    One way or the other, keep the politics out of it. It’s all over the place and I’d rather not see the snide comments from either side here. I’m voting, but the candidate I’m voting for is irrelevant to talking about football.

  24. MikeTX says: Oct 28, 2008 9:50 PM

    If your post doesnt have anything about football in it then you should take your politics somewhere else. Last time i checked this is profootballtalk.com not imgonnapostmypoliticalopinion.com.
    Heres my football…
    Chad Johnson probably wont score a touchdown. Hes having a terrible year. BENGALS SUCK-

  25. festusmonroe says: Oct 28, 2008 9:58 PM

    “Gee, one more moron with a single digit IQ voting for NObama.
    What does that tell you people???”
    What does fact that Warren Buffett and Colin Powell endorse Obama tell you?

  26. Patscantcheatkharmabitches says: Oct 28, 2008 10:01 PM

    Florio and Ocho think the same way. That is why Florio needs to go by Mocho Socialisto! Obama for President of Canada! Obama is not even a citizen of the US. Try Kenya. Give us the Birth certificate you Kenyan.

  27. Patscantcheatkharmabitches says: Oct 28, 2008 10:02 PM

    MikeTX
    Who died and made you moderator. Football Rules. So there Mr. Moderator Mike. Oh Yeah, Obamadan Milosivich.

  28. vincelombardi says: Oct 28, 2008 10:06 PM

    what are you talking about florio? he is a typical supporter of the “chosen one”. in fact he is basically the poster child of nobama. expect more of the same over the next 4 years.

  29. saturn11 says: Oct 28, 2008 10:10 PM

    all,
    I apologize to the football fans out there for muddying the waters with the political talk. But i just had to jump on and get political. Couldn’t help myself.
    KayC, et. al.,
    The McCain side’s “obama is a socialist” rhetoric turns back the clock to the mid-50s and it’s embarrassing and scary. Your red-scare McCarthy-esque crap makes me want to puke.
    I’m done. Back to the regularly scheduled footballtalk.

  30. vincelombardi says: Oct 28, 2008 10:13 PM

    festusmonroe says…”colin powell endorse obama…”
    it tells me that colin powell puts his race first, not his country and colin powell was a benefactor of affirmative action, so what a surprise he is voting for the first affirmative action president. powell being general was enough to see aa poicies don’t put the most qualified person in the job!

  31. hesawinner says: Oct 28, 2008 10:16 PM

    At this point it’s a little too late for Obama or the Maverick to make change happen. Were painted into a corner and really don’t have many options to save face.

  32. Joseph says: Oct 28, 2008 10:22 PM

    after watching you fools elect George W Bush, twice. Why am I not suprised to hear this crap about wanting to elect McBlame and clueless Palin. If you think Bush screwed up this country, wait until these two get their chance.
    Obama is the ONLY CHOICE

  33. festusmonroe says: Oct 28, 2008 10:23 PM

    “it tells me that colin powell puts his race first, not his country.”
    If that’s truly your attitude, then you deserve to be miserable for the next 4-8 years.

  34. Backinthesaddle says: Oct 28, 2008 10:29 PM

    “Obama’s policies”…..I think that’s an oxymoron. I think they’re more accurately described as: His current stated position, on any issue, designed to minipulate naive fools into voting for him. Said “policies” are then subject to change after the election.
    Anybody believing his current “policies” are somehow a firm bellweather for who he is and where he’ll try to take us is going to be sadly mistaken. The man has been shadow-dancing with the truth and making intentionally misleading misrepresentations the entire campaign. He sure is a nice, smooth, slick sounding, little weasle though……gotta give him that.
    The only way to know what these guys would do in office is look at their track record and the ideology they actually displayed in life…..and in their voting record. You vote based on their ideology. Obama is a socialist.

  35. navysully says: Oct 28, 2008 10:31 PM

    “it tells me that colin powell puts his race first, not his country.”
    If that’s truly your attitude, then you deserve to be miserable for the next 4-8 years.
    Do you research, that is actually the general consenous amongst the populous…. he spoke correctly

  36. TheBozforPres says: Oct 28, 2008 10:33 PM

    I have nothing against “spreading the wealth.” I disagree that it’s the governments job to tell us how much we have to give and who we need to give it to. It’s sad really. It used to be that in difficult financial times, that people would turn to their family or church family for support. It’s both more enticing and rewarding to individually know the person whom you are helping.
    The family/church would also be better placed to realize who would try to abuse the genorosity of others. The government lacks sufficient oversight to effectively distribute aid on such a large scale. (Our troubled welfare system is evidence of this). People who need assistance were also more willing to help in ways they could, like doing yard work for an uncle, or vaccuming the carpets at their place of worship. Unfortunately, too many people today would rather reach out their hands for an anonymous check from the gov. than to look their donor in the eye to thank them.
    I don’t believe the answer is to enlarge the government to “spread the wealth (of strangers) around.” Instead, we should focus more on what can be done on the individual level, and personally reach out to those who need aid.

  37. paoconno says: Oct 28, 2008 10:38 PM

    Actually Socialism is represented by the bank bailout…which both candidates supported.
    I have a pretty high IQ and I am supporting Obama.
    And the fact is that people tend to become more liberal as their education level rises (google it if you don’t believe me.)
    The point is, there are really smart people who are supporting both candidates…so just because a person is voting for the opposing candidate…it doesn’t make them stupid. It just make you look ignorant by implying as much.

  38. brian_21 says: Oct 28, 2008 10:50 PM

    Powell put race first? That’s Rush Limbaugh style. All of you conservative, hateful people out there … you’re done.
    Bill Clinton ended with the highest exit approval rating (68 percent) in a looooooooong time, since at least FDR, because he got us out of the economic mess the first Bush got us in.
    We need a calm hand in the face of turbulent times, and that hand is Obama. Look at how he has reacted to all of the hurdles? McCain has been erratic, forgetful, and uninspiring.
    And I have said from the very very very start that Obama will win.
    I just didn’t know it would be by a landslide (I hope). All of you people that have hate in your hearts for gays, minorities — and love for war, death, and hate for immigrants, actual intellect, competence, women’s rights, equal pay for equal work (McCain voted against that), etc. You sanctimonious individuals have had your eight years. Your legacy is set. Buh Bye. Time for real change.
    Obama ’08

  39. festusmonroe says: Oct 28, 2008 10:50 PM

    “Do you research, that is actually the general consenous amongst the populous…. he spoke correctly”
    Yeah, the general “consenous” among people who were already voting for McCain.

  40. BuckFutter says: Oct 28, 2008 10:51 PM

    I absolutely love that this didn’t happen….I didn’t care either way before I knew about it….but now, knowing that it may have happened, and then didn’t….Love it.

  41. Boberto says: Oct 28, 2008 10:51 PM

    east96st
    Hey buddy Chad caught a TD in the Steelers game with Fitzpatrick as his QB. So the odds of him catching another TD are actually pretty good. Well unless you are one of those dipshits who believe Fitzpatrick is a bad QB. Then just lol at you.

  42. misterj says: Oct 28, 2008 11:00 PM

    The US is already socialist… it’s just the people tossing the word around have no idea what it means. Most people assume it’s some sort of evil communist plan, when really it’s part of why the EU is doing so much better than the US. I hate that this country has become a laughing stock of the world. I want us to be respected again, not mocked.

  43. saturn11 says: Oct 28, 2008 11:02 PM

    paoconno,
    i didn’t “imply” that anyone was “stupid” just for voting for mccain.
    i *came right out and called them* “stupid” for believing (and repeating) mccain’s lie that obama is a socialist. a more accurate word would be “ignorant,” however.
    a year ago, they probably thought Obama was a Muslim, too.

  44. Taco Bill says: Oct 28, 2008 11:07 PM

    Paoconno says “And the fact is that people tend to become more liberal as their education level rises”
    Would that be the teaching of Prof. Bill Ayres? just wondering…

  45. Tampa Hoss says: Oct 28, 2008 11:07 PM

    leit64 and kayC,
    Obama is a socialist like Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin are CONSERVATIVES…there’s been more government than ever before…Pro Life is big Government (Palin)…Just because You JOE THE IDIOT PlUMBERS out there think (wish) that you’re in the upper class and you like to vote for candidates that talk just like you, doesn’t mean that Obama is a socialist…

  46. williamsbros says: Oct 28, 2008 11:19 PM

    The definition of Socialism is when the government owns the means to production, aka human capital, capital, land, etc….
    The Govt. via Obama’s confiscatory tax plans will be in control of much of the country’s capital, and is also in control of millions of acres of federal lands that are sitting idle, but could be used for drilling, mining, etc.
    Obama’s plan is a step towards Socialism, and will turn Social Security into Welfare, as well as redistributing much of the general tax revenue to people who pay no taxes, which is both Welfare and Socialism.
    McCain isn’t my favorite candidate but he got my vote to prevent this dangerous change from happening.

  47. OMAR says: Oct 28, 2008 11:33 PM

    IF that end zone celebration were to take place, then the player would be fined and put on warning. There’s no place in the NFL for such things.
    This topic is only a rumor, but I’m glad it came up. The players need to be aware that the fans love the NFL because it’s free of such things.

  48. galenrox says: Oct 28, 2008 11:47 PM

    Most convincing Obama surrogate out there!
    Chad Johnson obviously is about as politically informed as your average infant, but you’ve gotta love that. Despite his voting and supporting the wrong guy, he’s electrifying once he crosses the goal line. Now the question is whether he’ll ever be able to show that again…
    I don’t mind the fines because they make it so people have to really take the planning of these stunts seriously. It keeps crap off of my television (sort of like the local Detroit television stations!)

  49. bandit says: Oct 29, 2008 12:24 AM

    I heard Vishanthe Shiancoe was going to pull a Bob Barr sign out if the Vikings converted a 3rd down. Childress will call him out after the game.

  50. jcinstpete says: Oct 29, 2008 12:49 AM

    Just because you have a high IQ, that doesn’t mean your smart. If you were smart you’d know that.
    It is the mark of an intelligent mind to be able to entertain a liberal thought without accepting it.

  51. paoconno says: Oct 29, 2008 1:22 AM

    Taco Bill- Here is a link on the ties between education level and political, judge for yourself:
    http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=539
    It proves that at the very least…there are smart people who are members of both parties.
    As for Ayers, I am not sure why a republican would pick him to be on their education reform board. Ask the Annenbergs.
    Now, don’t you have a picture to manipulate or something? Might I suggest the Pat Williams 380 pound water pill diet.

  52. fivethebirds says: Oct 29, 2008 1:56 AM

    A few things…
    First, I hate that this is my first post to this site, but I feel inspired by Hunter S. Thompson (who loved both subjects and managed to deal with them being intertwined… You know what they say, “Opinions are like…friends…everybody’s got one.) Football players—athletes in general—just have a bigger stage to voice their opinions.
    Second, Obama vs. McCain isn’t much of a choice, it’s an ultimatum. Doesn’t anybody think a third or fourth party would allow citizens to make a real decision? I am not (neither is anyone I know) that far right or left to agree with either one of them entirely. Three Supreme Court Justices positions will be up for the next President to appoint (they’re hanging on by a thread…wikipedia their ages) and that is the only real reason to vote for the Democrats this election–to balance The Supreme Court and Congress. It is also absurd to think anyone could spend more than Bush, so even if were taxed more at least the inflation rate will hopefully slow down.
    Third, CJ needs Palmer–the Bengals need an offensive line and a real running threat–and Philly would love his crazy ass.

  53. shaunypoo says: Oct 29, 2008 7:10 AM

    I hope he does score, and he does get fined, and if Marvin Lewis doesn’t chew him out and sit him for the rest of the game and maybe the next one, he should be fired for putting up with that ass for too long. And I will base my vote on what chad thinks after I let Chris Henry watch my kids.

  54. 4G63 says: Oct 29, 2008 10:22 AM

    The modern Democratic party has become a Socialist party. Why would Senator Barney Frank (and many other Dems) not allow oversight of FMae and FMac when Bush proposed it in ’03? Because they saw the writing on the wall and WANTED the banks to fail, therefore ensuring the Fed Gov’t would HAVE to act by taking ownership/control of the banks with the bailout. ANYONE with an open mind would see this!
    Now add in that Obama and the Democratic Party want to Socialize medicine (lets call it what it is!), want to redistribute wealth from rich Americans (including mostly ALL of NFL players) to people who do not contribute ANYTHING BACK, and now have control of the major US banks, the US is truly becoming the USSA (United Socialist States of America).
    And while we’re on the subject of “redistribution”, why can’t we drug test someone when they get their welfare check? How can you get and use drugs when you don’t have a job?

  55. Kevin from Philly says: Oct 29, 2008 11:12 AM

    ACDC,
    Politics has no place in sports? Tell that to the Redskins – they’ve had tailgates that got more congressmen than most appropriation votes. Tell that to Ed Snider, who brought in Sarah Palin to drop the first puck at a Flyers game (they would have put her in goal, but the RNC couldn’t afford a set of pads). People are entitled to their opinions – even moronic atheletes. But you’re right, if anyone is influenced by Chad’s opinion, that person should really try reading a paper once in a while.

  56. leit64 says: Oct 29, 2008 11:12 AM

    right on 4G63, Truman and JFK would be outcasts. as for the removing politics from this discussion, that’s what the post was about. Chad Johnson’s politics ON the football field.

  57. mrmagoo says: Oct 29, 2008 11:28 AM

    4G63 says:
    October 29th, 2008 at 10:22 am
    The modern Democratic party has become a Socialist party. Why would Senator Barney Frank (and many other Dems) not allow oversight of FMae and FMac when Bush proposed it in ‘03? Because they saw the writing on the wall and WANTED the banks to fail, therefore ensuring the Fed Gov’t would HAVE to act by taking ownership/control of the banks with the bailout. ANYONE with an open mind would see this!
    Now add in that Obama and the Democratic Party want to Socialize medicine (lets call it what it is!), want to redistribute wealth from rich Americans (including mostly ALL of NFL players) to people who do not contribute ANYTHING BACK, and now have control of the major US banks, the US is truly becoming the USSA (United Socialist States of America).
    And while we’re on the subject of “redistribution”, why can’t we drug test someone when they get their welfare check? How can you get and use drugs when you don’t have a job?
    _________________________________
    Yawn.
    I can’t understand why I’d get moderated when drivel like this is allowed through.
    I firmly believe that today’s conservatism is like a pot of water that’s boiled dry. All that’s left is the mineral deposits of crazy still stuck to the pot.

  58. 4G63 says: Oct 29, 2008 12:05 PM

    mrmagoo says:
    October 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am
    Yawn.
    I can’t understand why I’d get moderated when drivel like this is allowed through.
    I firmly believe that today’s conservatism is like a pot of water that’s boiled dry. All that’s left is the mineral deposits of crazy still stuck to the pot.
    Prove me wrong! Here is a link to the Bush in ’03 comment: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=
    Copy and paste, if you don’t know…
    Hell, Barney was telling me there was nothing wrong within weeks of the collapse, so how should I trust him with anything? So you feel its OK that the government has control of banks and healthcare and everything else? I certainly don’t because it goes against what Democracy and Capitalism stand for. Come see me in 3.5 years and we’ll see how you feel then…..

  59. williamsbros says: Oct 29, 2008 12:21 PM

    Yawn.
    I can’t understand why I’d get moderated when drivel like this is allowed through.
    I firmly believe that today’s conservatism is like a pot of water that’s boiled dry. All that’s left is the mineral deposits of crazy still stuck to the pot.
    ———————————————————————
    “Conservatism” never changes. Strong national defense, low taxes and spending, originalist justices.
    Anything else is liberalism and if it’s committed by a Republican it’s still liberalism. George Bush is not a conservative, he’s a moderate at best. It’s about principles not parties. Put blame where it is due.
    Bobby Jindal is the next Ronald Reagan.

  60. mrmagoo says: Oct 29, 2008 1:57 PM

    4G63,
    Check who had control of the House and Senate in 03.
    Republicans had the Senate 50-50 (Cheney being +1) and the House 221-212.
    If the Republicans wanted to get this through they had the votes.
    __________________________
    Williamsbros,
    Ronald Reagan was no conservative either by your definition. Check out the deficit gains during his administration. Bobby Jindal would be the first financially conservative president or just the next to pay lip service to it. I can respect your belief in the things you mention, but all else is not liberalism. One thing to ponder. The conservatives ran the most liberal guy they had. The problem he’s having is not that he’s not conservative enough. McCain is in a tough spot running against both his party and Obama.

  61. radneck says: Oct 29, 2008 3:08 PM

    If Ocho stinko was a serious Obama supporter, he’d change his name to “Ochama”. I’m a veteran voting for another one.

  62. williamsbros says: Oct 29, 2008 5:47 PM

    Williamsbros,
    Ronald Reagan was no conservative either by your definition. Check out the deficit gains during his administration. Bobby Jindal would be the first financially conservative president or just the next to pay lip service to it. I can respect your belief in the things you mention, but all else is not liberalism. One thing to ponder. The conservatives ran the most liberal guy they had. The problem he’s having is not that he’s not conservative enough. McCain is in a tough spot running against both his party and Obama.
    ————————————————————————-
    When Reagan was President the Democrats had control of the House for all 8 years. He had to make compromises, and got more members of the other party to vote with him than any modern President. He cut taxes more than JFK and Bush combined, his spending increases were in the defense area which funded the other branch of conservatism, national defense.
    Had he had control of Congress he could have cut more discretionary spending, but still cut a lot of that. He was far more conservative than any other modern President, I never said he was 100% perfect.
    Most conservatives care more about economic conservatism than fiscal conservatism, which Democrats use today as an excuse to raise taxes.

  63. KingJamsI says: Oct 29, 2008 10:37 PM

    god theres alot of ignorant bigots and haters on this site. Keep hating… 6 more days and we shut you up.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!