digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at dailykos.com

43 Superdelegates to End It.

dailykos.com — KOS crunches the numbers so you don't have to. "At 43 more currently-named, unpledged superdelegates, Obama and his supporters can claim that Hillary Clinton cannot win." At that point, Hillary Clinton becomes irrelevant.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • diggeradoo, on 04/25/2008, -10/+104Anyone else doing this math? Let's get someone right on it, then let the MSM start reporting it.

    "When Obama obtains 43 more endorsements presently-named Superdelegates (ie not add-on's), which is very possible shortly after May 6, the "Math people" should make the case that while Barack Obama has not yet reached 2024 delegates, that, as a matter of practicality, Hillary Clinton cannot reach 2024 delegates. Don't forget: as Obama outperforms this very pessimistic projection, the magic number of 43 drops, too."
    • staxofmax, on 04/25/2008, -7/+53Hillary's supporters and the media pundits are incapable of even rudimentary math, so I'm afraid that this argument would be useless.
      • jmpeagle, on 04/25/2008, -16/+4it's in the media's best interest to have a close race....I say let them have their fun...not like it's going to change the outcome
        • hittnrun, on 04/25/2008, -29/+3What would you Obamabots do if your favorite sports team just quit when they got a little behind and the game wasn't over yet? Would you say, "Oh yeah, that's the right thing to do", "quitting is better than losing honorably.

          This attitude of yours is whats wrong with this country. It's called the "pussification" of America and it's sh!t.

          Get off of it.
          • Nougat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+14The only difference being that the outcome of a sporting event doesn't ***** matter.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 04/25/2008, -6/+4I'm amazed at how many Democrats are more than willing to subvert the election process and let the elites of their party decide the nomination for them.
          • chaosium, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8"I'm amazed at how many Democrats are more than willing to subvert the election process and let the elites of their party decide the nomination for them."

            You play by the rules in place, or you change the rules.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2Keep in mind that you are defending the same group that got outraged that Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election.

            "You play by the rules in place as long as they suit your agenda."

            There, fixed it for you.
          • nospinhere, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Try winning a big state before you start telling others what to do.
          • chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1"Try winning a big state before you start telling others what to do."

            I wasn't aware "MUST WIN THE MAJORITY OF BIG STATES" was a requirement for nomination.
        • Fafnir43, on 04/25/2008, -0/+7Of the primaries, certainly. How about the general?
        • Harabeck, on 04/25/2008, -0/+16Its not a sports game, there is a set number of points and Hillary cant get enough anymore.
        • stormgren, on 04/25/2008, -0/+21@hitnrun (why can't I reply to your comment)
          You want a sports analogy? How about a playoff series. The other team has won four of seven games. Does that mean the losing team should insist on playing the last three? No, it's a futile cause.
          • jebudas, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6perfect.
          • michaelb1, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3No drama. Obama.
          • hittnrun, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1Sorry, a best of seven series ends after one team wins 4 games, period. Not a good analogy at all.

            Maybe Hillary can't get the delegates she needs but, if I'm not mistaken, neither can Obama.
      • Gerz1219, on 04/25/2008, -1/+17Did you read that whole article? This is hardly rudimentary math. For people who are not political junkies, the Democratic nomination process is ridiculously confusing. Every primary or caucus result is spun by both camps in so many directions that it's impossible to even get a consensus about who won and why it matters. Most intelligent people with a lot of time on their hands can see that Hillary pretty much can't win, but this is not clear to the majority of voters who don't necessarily have the time to delve into the extraordinarily complex rules which have mathematically eliminated her. It's not enough for Obama supporters to simply say, "She can't win." They have to drag out a chalkboard and draw lots of lines and calculations to demonstrate the point. And after exhausting so much effort to crush Hillary's hopes, they look like misogynists to likely Hillary supporters.

        It's not the media's fault. It's really difficult to explain every arcane detail of the delegate selection process to the public while still pulling in ad dollars. But it is easy to sell a historic, epic battle between the first black man and the first woman to credibly run for president. If the media really started drumming numbers and figures into peoples' heads, they would look too biased -- and this would really turn off Hillary's base.

        Let's all just hope Obama can win Indiana and avoid saying anything stupid for the next two months.
        • Wartyboskfapped, on 04/25/2008, -0/+10"It's not the media's fault"
          Well, maybe not for inventing the nomination process, but it is their fault for feeding on it and whipping up a frenzy when none is needed, focusing on the negatives, encouraging dirty tactics from candidates, and generally keeping the retarded douchejerk going for another news cycle.
          • RobotBuddha, on 04/25/2008, -0/+7Agreed. The media, in particular tv reporters, are the worst thing about the US system right now. They're not quite kingmakers, but they usually do get to decide who won't be king. In particular the way they always find the candidates who won't play the game, and make them the "wacky candidate of the election".
        • chicofaraby, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6"For people who are not political junkies, the Democratic nomination process is ridiculously confusing."

          I've got to agree with that. I don't have a horse in this race, but from the outside looking in at the Democratic Party's process... WTF? Why can't people just vote for a candidate and you count them up? Does it have to be so weird?
          • Aensland, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Counting ballots is theoretically a straightforward process as well. However...
          • chicofaraby, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5I can't argue with that.

            It IS time for serious electoral reform in this country. The two party system and the electoral college are both seriously flawed. And that's not even counting the Diebold/ESS thing.
        • IconoclastStill, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1"Let's all just hope Obama can win Indiana and avoid saying anything stupid for the next two months."

          Well, obie may win in Indiana, although there are a lot of "bitter" people there as well. But any time he leaves the teleprompters and the prepared scripts the public sees a bit more of the real obobblehead and the portrait is not flattering. For once I'm glad shrillary is such a bitch; the longer she makes this empty suit bleed, the more she exposes him to the daylight from which the fawning media wish to protect him, the less his credibility, even to the gullible.
        • sodade, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3"But any time he leaves the teleprompters and the prepared scripts the public sees a bit more of the real obobblehead and the portrait is not flattering" Says the McCane supporter? ROTFL
          • IconoclastStill, on 04/26/2008, -2/+0Where do you get me as a McAmnesty supporter, eh? I'll likely vote for him for the same reason I voted twice for each of the two shrubs - "lesser of two evils" - but supporter ‽‽‽‽ Not hardly, mac. Not much to choose between him and shrillary except for his military service and time in the Senate.
      • thcobbs, on 04/25/2008, -12/+4I love the digg trend.... anyone who votes for a candidate that is NOT popular on Digg is a Neanderthal who can't even do basic math.
        • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -2/+12Anyone who denies basic math is a moron, no matter who they vote for, so.... yeah.
    • felman87, on 04/25/2008, -0/+28They'll probably say 'But they can switch at any time. Lets keep going."
      • kreneskyp, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7probably? she has already admitted to actively trying to turn obama delegates pledged and supers.

        to be fair though obama has stolen some of her supers, but i don't know if he was actively seeking them or they turned on their own.
        • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -0/+10He was actively seeking them, as any savvy politician would do, but the reason they're switching to Obama and not to Clinton is that he's the one staying positive and not ruining the party.
          • hittnrun, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1Well, when its revealed that Obama is into 12 year old boys, I will be very interested in how you Obamabots nuance and justify that little "issue".

            I have no doubt you would try. God you people are scarily drunk on the koolaid.
        • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2However, he is ruining his reputation in the process. The democrats might not care, but the independents and the republicans will not support a person who disses middle America and can't answer some tough debate questioins.
        • JakobVirgil, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2You of course mean people like Hillary Clinton
          -Jake
      • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2You're right! They can switch their position at any time. The more the O-man screws up (or even opens his mouth), the more the superdelegates get worried.
        • JakobVirgil, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1That does not seem to be the trend.
          -Jake
    • tcbishop12, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8But I agree. Someone get the math to an undeniable point, and get this to the MSM.
    • qwerter, on 04/25/2008, -1/+25The Clinton campaign has made it clear they don't care about the numbers. They want to drag this all the way to the convention and duke it out there, scratching and clawing to grab or convert any delegates they can. Pledged, unpledged, super or not. They don't care about the math. They're going to try to take this by brute force.
      • thcobbs, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Welcome to the world of true Democracy.
      • Madrox17, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Damn those Clinton brothers. One'll lie and the other will swear to it.

        /ronnie b
      • sinurgy, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Meanwhile McCain and Co. kickback and enjoy the show as their odds slowly increase and for good reason. Not only are people getting downright tired of the whole fiasco but it hardly inspires confidence in the party as a whole either. Seriously, what the ***** is wrong with the Democratic Party?! Bush all but handed them this election on a silver platter and still they may actually find a way to ***** it up!
        • brstilson, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3It's not the party, it's the Clintons.
        • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Yeah, it is the party. Read the democrat primary rules.
      • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2And that is exactly what the democrat rules permit.
      • devophl, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1There are three obvious comments.

        1) Clinton still believes she can win the nomination. This is because a super delegate vote is not a vote until they cast it at the convention. So as long as she's within 150 delegates going into Denver, she's still very capable of winning the nomination.

        2) Clinton could have an easier time beating McCain than Obama. The reason is that in traditional Democratic states she is out-polling Obama against McCain. This means she can concentrate on just two states: Ohio and Florida. And she's leading McCain in both states right now. On the other hand, Obama is neck and neck with McCain in traditional Democratic states which means he must make sure he doesn't lose states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan. He is also trailing McCain badly in Ohio and Florida. If you go on the latest polling data, Clinton would beat McCain by 40+ electoral votes while Obama would lose to McCain by about 10. This is something Clinton supporters are quick to point out. But we all know how volatile these polls can be.

        3) Clinton has done a remarkable job of carving up Obama. Its clear Obama has made little or no gain among white Democrats, many of which have said they will not vote for Obama in November. The Clinton camp has used a number of issue to carve up the Democratic party into liberals and blacks on one side and more conservative whites on the other. The exit polling has clearly shown this divide in almost every primary. Obama does better in states with higher percentage of Democrats being blacks while Clinton is going better where a higher percentage of Democrats are blue collar whites. We really have two Democratic parties right now.

        I suspect if Clinton goes on to the convention, we're looking at another Republican president. The Democrats will be so divided that there is no way enough of them will vote for the nominee in the fall. It is a Clinton scorched earth policy. Either she wins the nomination or Obama will be so damaged he can't win in November.
    • HMTKSteve, on 04/25/2008, -5/+12You do realize that if the supers decide this thing before everyone has voted it becomes another case of "selected not elected". Do you really want that?
      • s14sh3r, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7It doesn't matter if I want it or not, they'll do what they damned well please. :(
      • Meatetarian, on 04/25/2008, -13/+7Yep. Thank goodness we have super delegates to keep the peons from making a mistake and picking the wrong candidate. Say what you will, but at least the Republicans act like their regular constituents matter. +1
        • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6Actually, by doing a 'winner take all' style, republicans act like anyone that didn't vote for the winner matter 0
          • Meatetarian, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1You're just plain wrong. Not all Republican primaries are "WTA". Many states use a proportional system as well (Ron Paul didn't win any states, but he has delegates). Regardless, the end result is still the same - the guy who gets the most delegates wins. The difference is that the Democratic party stacks its delegates with people who are better than the regular guy.

            To be clear, though, I don't like the primary system we have at all -- period. We're using a 17th century system to pick our candidates and it's ridiculous. We can do better.
        • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Great grammar!
      • iofthestorm, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7Interesting perspective. It seems the super delegates are undemocratic until they help the person we want to win. Personally, I have nothing against superdelegates because the Democratic party can do whatever it wants in its nomination process, and this is kind of a check on popular passions which is a necessary evil/good depending on your perspective. It's the same reason why senators were originally chosen by state legislatures rather than elected by the people. Also, the original reason they were created was for the simple reason that sometimes elected Democrats didn't get to go to the nominating convention, which would not be very fun if you were a Democratic elected official.
        • RobotBuddha, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5Whatever the reason, there's something seriously messed up when one person's vote counts more than someone elses. The concept of "All citizens are equal, but some are more equal than others" is distasteful in this day and age.
          • BrainInAJar, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2no it's not, the entire economy runs on that proposition.
          • bgrah449, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1It's not a government function. The Democratic Party is not the government - they're not required to have all votes be equal. You're confusing issues - on the one hand, the idea of all votes being equal has to do with the idea of every citizen has a right to freedom, divorced from his ability to contribute to the country (this is good). But this is only for the government. The Party has an obligation to its platform, NOT to its members - i.e., it is the Democratic Party, not the Party That Swings Whichever Way Our Members Swing. How it maintains that integrity is its own issue.
      • kreneskyp, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3the super delegates are selecting the candidate anyways. though in this case they are also selecting the person with the most popular votes.
      • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9If we take the supers out of the equation Obama is even more in the lead due to Hillary's small lead in them, although it's shrinking every day.
    • LeeSoong, on 04/25/2008, -28/+3Obama said he was going to sweep Pennsylvania.

      With all due respect to the good sir:

      Wrong Answer.
      • minorthreat, on 04/25/2008, -1/+31He actually said he was going to lose...
        • LeeSoong, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1So Obama is dropping out of the race?

          That is big news.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 04/25/2008, -1/+17He never ever said that. Post proof or retract.
        • chaosium, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9Hit and runners never do, they just attack and run away when expected to tell the truth.
        • thcobbs, on 04/25/2008, -11/+3Ahhh.... proof is only required from people who speak ill of the Crown Prince of Digg?
        • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8Proof is only required when you say something that everyone else knows to be false.
        • StarlessKnight, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3@thcobbs: Guess that's why we're doing the impeachment of the Bush Administration, right? Cause you only need proof when it's about a Democrat! ... Oh, hold on there. (Putting aside the evidence of foul play in that example and assuming there continues to remain absolutely no dirt on the Administration)
          • chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Not everyone voting Dem sees any reason to bother pushing for impeachment, especially at this point in the race.
        • LeeSoong, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1Ya want proof ?

          VOTE RON PAUL !

          http://www.ronpaul2008.com
    • carlosglz, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8The answer to life, the universe, and everything? Oh wait... that was 42...
    • RevJonathan, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2The mainstream media isn't reporting it because it doesn't matter if Senator Clinton can't reach 2,024. Senator Obama won't stop campaigning against her if she is in that situation because she could easily prevent him from doing it if he isn't campaigning. Obama HAS to get to 2,024 himself and to do that he HAS to convince the superdelegates to break his way. To stop would be the biggest political blunder ever.

      Besides the media wants to see an exciting convention. Hell, I really want this to go to the convention. As a Poli Sci nerd, it's the coolest thing that can happen. 43 Superdelegates will not end this, especially with Florida and Michigan on the horizon. No one really knows what will happen there. If Florida gets half the delegates seated all this math goes out the window.
    • noprtyaff, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2If ever there was a need for "superdelegates", it is now. Obama is such a remarkably bad democratic choice. This has only become clear in the last month or so. Hillary is a socialist. I dislike everything about her politically. She certainly would be bad for the U.S.. But not as bad as McCain or Obama. She is the lesser of three evils. However, none of these 3 evils will get my vote in November.
      • chicofaraby, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3"Hillary is a socialist."

        Really? I'm a socialist. Which industry has Senator Clinton proposed nationalizing? I'm interested because if she is really a socialist, I might vote her. So tell us all about her plans to socialize some sections of the economy.
        • noprtyaff, on 04/25/2008, -3/+0Health care. If you really were a socialist. You would vote for Hillary. Have a nice day.
          • chicofaraby, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6Senator Clinton has a plan to nationalize healthcare? Can you point it out? I've looked but the plan I've seen on her website is a plan to give tax dollars to the insurance corporations. I saw nothing about nationalizing the industry.

            Are you sure you know what "socialism" means?
          • chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2"Are you sure you know what "socialism" means?"

            I'm assuming his brain is all

            WHIRRRR DURRR CLICK "democrat" WHURRRR DURRRR
    • techmaster, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Dugg for Hillary having 1337 delegates.
    • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2You would think that Kos, of all people, would understand the mathematics of politics, especially after he got blown out of the water in promoting that kook in Connecticut. The democrat rules require that the superdelegates have the ability to change and update their positions right up to the day of the convention. And with the on-going melt-down of the O-man, the superdelegates are thinking long and hard on this issue.
  • zeiben, on 04/25/2008, -20/+225Every day, I become more convinced that Hillary is hoping for one of two things to hit Barack Obama:
    - a Farrakhan sex scandal, or
    - a bullet
    • redcolumbine, on 04/25/2008, -10/+40Well, the second can be hired. Probably the first too. And she did just raise a lot of money.
      • staxofmax, on 04/25/2008, -2/+12I guess I'm the only one who found your comment funny.
      • wild, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9And all that money only pays off her debt.
        • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5not even, she owes a lot of people a lot of money.
      • aliengoods, on 04/25/2008, -3/+8She didn't raise that much money.
        • synystar, on 04/25/2008, -2/+12$10 million dollars in one day? Not that much eh? Must be nice to be you.
          • Fafnir43, on 04/25/2008, -2/+9"Not that much" compared to Obama.
          • keishax, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6She did not raise 10 million. First they said they raised $100,000 in 20 minutes. Then her campaign was said she raised 10 million with 50,000 voters. When those numbers were challenged the contributions would need to a minimum of $100 each. The campaign kept moving the number of donors, the number changed to 60,000, 80,000 and now 100,000. Since the donor poll was supposed to be small, then they won't be itemized. We will know for sure with the new FEC numbers are reported.
      • Beebled, on 04/25/2008, -6/+0Hillary even ***** toddlers off. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNnlOmGNmt0
      • forgiste, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Don't give her any ideas!
    • macweirdo42, on 04/25/2008, -1/+15Honestly, with the first, you really only have to implant the idea, Fox News style. No matter how ridiculously unbelievable it may seem, the mental image alone is guaranteed to ruin his chances.
    • cjshamrock, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4i'm afraid zeiben is right.
    • digggggggggg, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Well, according to The Onion, he's bulletproof!

      http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nations_presi ...
    • UtahApocalyse, on 04/25/2008, -1/+11Hoping?
      I put my money on Hilary PLANNING it.
      • Digg90210, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Or Rush Limbaugh...
        • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Has anyone seen them both at the same place at the same time? I think they are one and the same!
      • kreneskyp, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3thats what scares me the most about hillary as vp. shes proven she will go pretty far to get her way,
    • h4mx0r, on 04/25/2008, -0/+15neither of which will stop him!
    • wishninja, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1wow that would make another great story for kos! They could have a picture of hillary's head pasted on to a vultures body. What is Hillary vulturing for?
    • Spudster, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3We need to stop being so harsh towards Hillary. She is a legitimate contender for this nomination and as a party, the democrats NEED Hillary supporters to vote for Obama in order to win the general election in November. We know she can't win, so just let her puff her feathers so that in the end we don't lose this whole race because of a ridiculous rivalry between two competing sides.
    • mashedpotatoes, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1#2 is exactly why Hillary shouldn't be Obama's running mate. Obama should listen to Pelosi and pick his own running mate, don't pick the MSM running mate, it is NOT a "dream ticket". Most importantly, remember what Hillary said "I will do whatever it takes to become president"

  • hostingpursual, on 04/25/2008, -24/+169she's already irrelevant
    • uziko, on 04/25/2008, -22/+9HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Her name appears on the front page every hour. She is about as irrelevant as Kevin Rose is to digg.
      • t3rmv3locity, on 04/25/2008, -2/+15dude lay off the haha's...
      • iofthestorm, on 04/25/2008, -2/+10Sadly, he's right. Actually, Kevin Rose is more irrelevant in that metric since Kevin Rose doesn't hit FP every few hours.
      • finezapa, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2boring.
    • alexhud, on 04/25/2008, -1/+12if shes irrelevant they why are you talking about her. I dont like her but digg is as negative toward her as as she is to obama
    • ralphthemagi, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5All the anti-Hillary sentiments aren't good. I'm not fan myself, but she's still relevant. She probably *should* be the VP pick if you want to secure a Dem victory in the general. She carries a *much* larger weight with older people, of which are now the majority in this country. I sincerely hope that Obama is right in that he can "get all of her voters."

      There is a situation in which older people will choose to vote for someone who they feel they can relate to, and Obama really isn't that person. I just hope that the older vote doesn't end up going with McCain simply because he's older than the sun and has this so-called "experience" everyone seems to be talking about like it's worth a damn.''

      Just keep in mind that this hole time Hillary has only been behind by single digit percentages in terms of delegates.
      • TheHeat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Damn straight. Experience at sucking isn't experience at all, is it?
      • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I'll take experience over a Marxist, gun-grabbing, tax-raising, freedom-loathing, elitist, big government-loving, terrorist-sympathizing political ideologue any day.
        • chicofaraby, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2"Marxist, gun-grabbing, tax-raising, freedom-loathing, elitist, big government-loving, terrorist-sympathizing political ideologue"

          Wow. Just wow.
        • franklymister, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1What do you think paid for the internet that you're using right now? Taxes.

          Who has enlarged the federal government more than anyone? The current Republican president, Bush.

          Who holds hands with Saudi oil princes, and let Bin Ladin escape while he went gunning for the guy who tried to kill his dad? Bush.

          Political ideologues? Pot, meet kettle.


          And by the way, I love my country, my Constitution, and my guns.
    • tas08, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi6mP6l6nBI
      Jon Stewart on Hillary.
    • Rally603, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Someone had to say it...
  • Hillsfar, on 04/25/2008, -28/+12There are still Hillary Clinton operatives who insinuate all sorts of dirty smears (gay sex with Larry Sinclair - he ended up failing his lie detector test; Obama's supposed Muslim background, etc.)
    If only we had deniable operatives who can Swift Boat the Clinton and McCain campaigns.
    • wild, on 04/25/2008, -3/+38[If only we had deniable operatives who can Swift Boat the Clinton and McCain campaigns.]

      No. Just no. That kind of ***** is exactly why I support Obama. (Well that and about 4000 other good reasons.)
  • zephyear, on 04/25/2008, -10/+44she'll just say "superdelegates can change her minds"

    he'll hit the magic number by the last 2 states though
    • bingobongony, on 04/25/2008, -8/+1And you are saying that they can't? Many already did change their minds and switched to Obama. If they change back, this race is wide open. If Obama can't win one single primary state, those that jumped ship during the winning streak in February may very well jump back. After all, we don't hold caucuses in November, and that is the only way he has won so far.
      • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8Has there been a single delegate to switch from Obama to Clinton? Nope.
      • Asrrin29, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3So South Carolina and Alabama aren't primary states....right. And the other 28 states he's won don't matter either. and the popular vote he has a majority in. and the total delegate lead he has, and the more pledged delegates he has.
  • davidg11, on 04/25/2008, -17/+31McCain is going to win this thing if he chooses a younger economic conservative who is also a governor. Too much bad blood going on with the Dems now. Hillary just raised another $10 million for 80,000 NEW supporters. If that doesn't enrage Obamaites, I don't know what will.

    It's apparent where this is all going...the convention. Hillary will tell the superdelegates only SHE has a chance to win the key states needed to win the general election.
    • gak001, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6Maybe the fact that he just got another 150,000 donations on Wednesday and that his campaign is financially solvent.
    • str0ngbad, on 04/25/2008, -13/+8STOP! This is Digg, furthermore, this is an Obama thread on Digg, RATIONAL THOUGHT HAS NO PLACE HERE!
    • LBobRife, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6It was less than 4 months ago that the first primary was held. 4 months from now the general election will still be a few months away. News that is made today will be history by the time people vote in November.
      • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1An elephant never forgets. Remember the logo of the Republican party?

        “Goddamn America!”
        Just words?

        “AmeriKKKa!”
        Just words?

        Barry’s chickens are coming home to roost.
    • SaperKain, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3McCain is too old to be president period. Get over it.
      • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Since when do old white guys not get to be president?
        • amoirae, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4When the old guy in question has "senior moments" on live television and lacks a wife like Nancy Reagan to cover for him.
      • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1The O-man is an old man also. Just consider all the things that were invented after he was born.
        The audio cassette
        Acrylic paint
        BASIC computer language
        Astroturf
        Soft contact lenses
        NutraSweet
        The handheld calculator
        The arpanet
        The artificial heart
        The ethernet
        Cabbage Patch Kids
        3-D video games
        Disposable contact lenses
        Digital cellular phones
        The RU-486 (abortion pill)
        Doppler radar
        Prozac®
        High-definition television
        The World Wide Web/Internet
        The digital answering machine
        The pentium processor
        Java computer language
        DVD (Digital Versatile Disc or Digital Video Disc)
        • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1As long as 'The Wheel' isn't on that list, McCain still has him beat.
    • inajeep, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I don't think anyone you can tack on to McCain will get him in the office.
    • betterth, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1They won't listen because they know she's wrong.

      Her claim that she is more able to win the neccesary states is based on one very very flawed belief.

      That democrats will rally behind her if she steals the nomination.

      Most of us won't.

      I'd rather put McCain in the whitehouse than Hillary, if she steals the nomination.

      It's not about winning, it's about what's best for the country. If she isn't a strong enough person to respect my vote as a democrat, than she's certainly not a strong enough leader to respect me if elected. This course of action shows us one thing: She wants power. She doesn't care if she's fairly elected, or elected at all. She wants power. She'll seize it if she has to. She doesn't care about us, only the power and accomplishment.

      ***** that.
    • MightyE, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2"Hillary will tell the superdelegates only SHE has a chance to win"
      I think the DNC will be smart enough to realize that at this point, Republicans have been changing their official party affiliation to Democrat in order to vote for Hillary - not because they think she'll make a better candidate, but because they think McCain has a better chance to defeat her.

      Obama has the Republicans scared, and well they should be. Much of Hillary's support is a facade in an attempt by Republicans to sabotage the Democrats. DNC will see this, and if it comes down to DNC, that alone should be evidence enough that Obama is more electable. The die-hard Republicans are scared stupid right now, as obvious by Rush Limbaugh first inciting a form of election fraud (crossing party lines to vote to hurt the other party), and now inciting riots at the DNC.
  • LumpOfCole, on 04/25/2008, -19/+101Obama's got what super delegates crave. Obama's got electability.
    • hittnrun, on 04/25/2008, -19/+5Electibility???

      Not to those of us not on the koolaid
      • gak001, on 04/25/2008, -0/+12Oh my, you're so clever. Perhaps you should start checking out polling data in stead of pulling random statements out of your ass.
      • Digg90210, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7Nationwide, Obama is polling 48-50%, while Clinton remains at 40-42%.

        But also check this out -- it shows McCain way ahead: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
      • Nougat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6I'm not a big fan of McCain, but I'm not stupid enough to think he's not electable.
        • chaosium, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5Exactly. He's playing up the Bush 2.0 role, and the country loves him for it. MORE YEARS IN IRAQ. MORE TAX "REFUNDS". MORE TINY AMERICAN FLAGS AND ABORTIONS FOR NONE.
          • hittnrun, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2Oh, don't worry you ghouls.

            You will still be able to kill all the innocent babies you want while whining about how our all volunteer military heros died for no reason.

            Talk about RICH.
          • chaosium, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Don't worry, I am an ELITE SCIENTIST and can one day find a timetravel device to postnatally abort you.

            They are dying for no reason. Iraq is a *****. This is not an honorable war, nor has it done anything but destabilize our economy and the world stage.
          • StaticThunder, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others! -- Kang, Presidential Candidate from Rigel VII
    • aurispector, on 04/25/2008, -19/+7What color is the sky in your world? You Obama zombies think everyone lives in the same happy pink cloud. It's almost touching to see your blind faith that your cartoon has a happy ending. Frankly, I respect your desire for change. Unfortunately, approximately two thirds of United States voters don't feel the same as you. The republican base will never vote for the big "O" and a sizable percentage of Clintoris voters won't either. Keep on hanging together and reassuring each other about how right you really are; you'll need one another in the post election support groups.
      • MetaMars, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5Do you hear the sweeping sound of the joke flying over your head?
    • BeefBaron, on 04/25/2008, -2/+22Obama's got electrolytes. It's what people crave.
    • gak001, on 04/25/2008, -3/+16Dugg for Idiocracy reference.
    • bingobongony, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1How come he pretty much hasn't won ANY state that treats is democrat nomination process like the election and has PRIMARIES?

      The guy hasn't won one single large state with primaries. And last I checked, we don't elect a preisdent in November by caucus.

      And you call that electability?
      • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4We also don't elect people in november by the states they win in the primary. you really think New York and California are going to go Republican just because Hillary won those states in the primary?
      • DephexTwin, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I like when Hillary says that Obama's not electable because he isn't winning in certain states. Okay, so what you're saying is that the person who can't even win the nomination is somehow more electable than him?
      • Spudster, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I love how American politics always ends up becoming arguments over character and not policy. Oh wait, I know the reason--there are no substantial policy differences between both candidates!

        How convenient for those who want to vote for change...
        • thirteenthcor, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1when there aren't any substantial differences in policy, or even if there are, you need to choose the candidate who is going to be the person who will do the very best for this country and her citizens. and im not referring to the retarded debate questions being thrown around by the news, im talking about the sheer character of the man/woman in question. WILL they do the very BEST they can for their citizens? McCain won't, Hillary won't, Huckabee Wouldn't have, Thompson wouldn't have, PAUL Would have, Nader would try, Edwards would try, and that mormon guy wouldnt have.
          • Spudster, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2When you interact with the federal government, you do it through a bureaucrat that follows the policies set forth by Congress and the President. As charismatic as Obama is, he will not be the person you deal with as you are dragged away in handcuffs for violating a federal drug law. It may be nice to have a personable and spiritual President that gives comforting anecdotes on television, but try remembering that in jail because his policies did not reflect the "change" his high powered rhetoric suggests. I have struggled immensely to identify actual policy differences between Clinton and Obama, and I must confess, there is little to go on. Obama has perhaps a greater record on civil rights, as statements in the past have suggested that he is against the death penalty and for marijuana decriminalization--but support for those two issues are weak to say the least, with Obama ACTUALLY backpedaling on the decriminalization issue. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic ...

            I want to emphasis that I am not making an attack against Obama but instead an attack against image politics. Policy, NOT character, must always be the motivating factor in deciding a President because that will be the side of the government you will deal with. If only people took a little more time away from their guns and religion to realize...
      • Asrrin29, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1States that are traditionally blue will most likely stay blue, and vote for the democrat regardless of which one it is. States that are swing, or that are red and can become swing are what obama is about. He has a better shot at winning because in addition to the blue states that every democrat gets, he has the chance to create new swing states and turn already swing states into blue strongholds.
    • hellotyler, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3I have voted democrat forever, but if it comes down to Hillary and McCain I am voting for McCAIN! Seriously, if we are going to have a wartime president then put someone in there with EXPERIENCE with wars. Not some greenhorn bitch in the pocket of big business.

      With Obama we will see the end of this war. With Hillary or McCain we will see it continued, and in that case, I want somebody who knows what the ***** is going on!
      • hittnrun, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1I like your thinking, however, have you thought about what would happen should the US need to go into another country and kick some ass while O is president?? What would he do? Pee his pants? Negotiate? He has nothing people. An empty suit, a smile and yackity yack.
        • Spudster, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Have you ever thought that you are practicing lawless and arrogant imperialism against other sovereign nations? Get your neo-conservative ass out of her.
          • hittnrun, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Freedom isn't free.
          • hellotyler, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I'd much rather he negotiate, but if he had to step up to the plate and fight for a REAL war I think he would step up to the plate like many of us. It's true, he doesn't have wartime experience and i'm OK with that. If we go to war he will do what a president SHOULD do, diplomacy, and leave the war to the generals and people who have dedicated their LIVES to the trade.
      • Spudster, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1What a ridiculous comment! Im not one to make personal attacks, but favouring McCain and Obama over Clinton makes absolutely no sense. Clinton and Obama are nearly identical in policy, and by voting for either, you are (logically) committing yourself to the other if they win. Clinton is a raging bitch, there is no doubt about that, but I much rather endure that so I can enjoy affordable health care and a reasonable American foreign policy...
        • runCMD, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Do the ladies in your life know you think that way about women ?
    • ricepicker4000, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Actually, i think that super delegates represent exactly what is wrong with Washington atm. If you think about it, Super delegates are worse then Lobbyists because they have a lot more leverage, sure every politician wants money from lobbyists, but Super delegates can offer the presidency, which proves to be much more appealing.
    • runCMD, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1About the same as Hillary. They have to unite to form a solid base from which to win. I wish he was more about the party and less about self.
    • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Electability in the primary, maybe.
      In the general, absolutely not!
  • GhostyBoy, on 04/25/2008, -26/+94Out of every candidate that has been in this race Hillary is the absolute worst. Worse than any other democrat. Worse than McCain. Worse than even Rudy *****.

    If she does not get the nomination she should not only stop running, but shut her ***** face for all eternity.
    • staxofmax, on 04/25/2008, -5/+7But she'll be ready to lead from day one! Haven't you heard the news? /sarcasm
    • Shao00, on 04/25/2008, -5/+47lets not go crazy here, I hate HRC but rudy scared the living ***** out of me.
      • otatop, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8Rudy was scary, but he had no chance.
        • InnerRayg, on 04/25/2008, -1/+15I still remember the dude in my class who was convinced he would win-I now use his opinion as a litmus test for what will not happen. Right now he says Obama has no chance.
        • mooseontheloose, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4He was the front runner at the start of the race.
          • Mothrog, on 04/25/2008, -2/+14According to the media, then reality sank in when the primaries started.
          • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -1/+12Yeah, and according to digg Ron Paul was going to win the election. You can't judge such things from those kinda sources. Just cause the news says something doesn't make it true. Now math on the other hand...
    • bullcutter, on 04/25/2008, -1/+9I think for her a loss is not an option. As she'll be too old and withered by her own hatred in 8 years to run again, she's shooting her wad now, fighting and kicking and screaming all the way to her bitter end (and boy, will it be "bitter")...
    • rz8472, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6Four words - New York Senate Primary

      Next time Hillary is up for re-election, remind the voters of New York what she did to one of the greatest candidates in recent history. Make her the new Zell Miller/Joe Lieberman of the party.
    • mewoot10, on 04/25/2008, -10/+2I think it's pretty rude of you to Criticize Rudy and McCain. Pick one or the other. Rudy was pretty good in New York if you lived in new york at the time. Don't be so quick to judge. Get your facts straight. McCain may not be the best candidate for the republicans and Hilary is crazy. Obama is probably going to win and from what everyone else is saying, although i don't know much about him, he seems like a pretty good candidate. But please support yourself with facts b4 Bashing people.
      • mayonnaiseparty, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6dude, are you serious??
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6"Rudy was pretty good in New York"

        Really? I guess that explains why the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers hate his guts then. Guess he was just to "good" to them.
      • DephexTwin, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4lolwut?
  • jamesatqmul, on 04/25/2008, -12/+170Anyone else notice clinton has 1337 delegates? Nobody find that funny?
    • staxofmax, on 04/25/2008, -15/+4No.
    • wild, on 04/25/2008, -2/+55Are you implying Hillary is elite?
    • rentmitchum, on 04/25/2008, -0/+20HAX!
    • Mutton, on 04/25/2008, -5/+51If Obama had 1337 delegates it would be on the frontpage five times by now.
      • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3because he is, she is teh n00b
      • RoboRay, on 04/25/2008, -0/+12Obama did have 1337 delegates. Then he got some more.
    • RedHerringHack, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4No, it's the very definition of ironic.
      • Loxias, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0"The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention. Now that IS irony!"
    • MG111, on 04/25/2008, -1/+27Weird -- Fox News told me Obama is the elitist...
      • PHiZ187, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Groan. Dugg up, but c'mon, you felt dirty posting that didn't you :p
    • exomni, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Hillary is such an 31337157.
  • Pherdnut, on 04/25/2008, -6/+20Hillary's holding out for a political miracle or a historical tragedy. Arguments like these have merit but are unfortunately irrelevant.
    • Arkavus, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5She's holding out so Obama loses and she can try and run again in 2012.
      • masterm1nd, on 04/25/2008, -0/+13The ancient Mayans predicted Hillary Clinton.
      • Pherdnut, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3That or some guy just got really tired of carving out calendar entries that were centuries beyond his lifetime.
      • masterm1nd, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1No, they somehow calculated the winter solstice galactic alignment of 2012 where the earth, moon, sun, and black hole in the center of the milky way are aligned. Like a giant masterlock.
  • MurphyWatson, on 04/25/2008, -7/+22The money she raised only helps her campaign break even with the debt they had though.
    • eliot2000, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7Is that what this is about? Is she still running only to get enough contributions to even out the massive debt they've built up (much of which they're probably concealing)?

      This actually makes sense, unlike the dead-ender campaign she's running.
    • nurall, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1that's assuming she's paying it off.
  • rahamm, on 04/25/2008, -20/+6Yah this just is not true.
  • kc8ukw, on 04/25/2008, -10/+19Well comrade, thank goodness the Party has provided us with these superdelegates to prevent the people from making a mistake.

    Sigh.
    • aurispector, on 04/25/2008, -7/+0Well said. Don't forget about the party bosses preventing Florida from counting. Florida needs to be punished, because they were bad. Nothing to do with the fact that Clinton won it.
      • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Definitely nothing to do with the fact that Obama wasn't allowed to campaign there, and as we can see by the drop of Hillary's lead from 25% to 9% in Pennsylvania, actually getting people informed on what a candidate actually believes instead of what Fox news says they do doesn't change the result at all.
        • huszar02, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0Well, that, and Obama getting to drop many more millions on PR and having every black person in the state come vote for him when they might not otherwise care.
          • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Yeah, ***** him for getting black people to vote, it's not like they should be able to anyway, right? And how dare he raise millions upon millions of dollars from small donations while completely rejecting lobbysit money, the exact opposite of what Hillary has done!
      • StarlessKnight, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2They nullified an entire state before any votes were cast in order to help Obama?
    • Pherdnut, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Clinton agreed that they needed to be punished too.
  • rentmitchum, on 04/25/2008, -4/+53Superdelegates should form some sort of Justice League and stop this insidious plot right now.

    [star wipe to next scene]
    • vanguardanon, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I literally laughed out loud at that. Dugg.
    • TheObviousChild, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1The Schwartz in strong in this one.
  • FukUrCouch, on 04/25/2008, -4/+13Every night at 11pm some how she makes up numbers and thinks she can win but only after she takes cover from the sniper bullets...
    • jason221, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4I can't imagine that she thought people would believe that.
      • RoboRay, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1She forgot about Al Gore's Internet keeping us all on the Information Superhighway.
    • taintedzodiac, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Actually, shes does that in preparation for her 3am phone calls. Always have to be ready for those.
  • dbizzell, on 04/25/2008, -4/+13Seriously is this thing done yet. Hurry up already I'm tired of all these regaling tales of benign rumors detailing the same horse beaten insults and perjury driven catalysts.

    Is anyone else with me on this?
    • HHP2K, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6No, because I don't think I understood what you said there.
      • moonguidex, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I think he means that they're like horses, and you know how they trade insults and beat....something....and...catalysts...
        hmmm....
    • johnnyari, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the reminder dbizzell, without your comment I would have forgotten that Roget's came out with the 2008 edition of their thesaurus today.
  • GhostWithToast, on 04/25/2008, -4/+31She's going to try and claim the popular vote.No doubt about it. She will argue and fight until the bitter end. It's going to get really really annoying.
    • unearth, on 04/25/2008, -0/+25It already is.
    • rahamm, on 04/25/2008, -15/+3Yah how dare she try to become the president with out your approval.
      • InnerRayg, on 04/25/2008, -0/+10How dare she try to become the president without the majority's approval, I think is what we're going for.
        • rahamm, on 04/25/2008, -8/+1pretty sure she has the majorities approval Clinton 15.1 million to Obama's 15 million
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3@rahamm: What? That's ridiculous! Everyone knows that Obama has 23 million and Hillary only 9.2 million!

          Wow, making up numbers really is fun. You might be on to something here.
        • Yesplease, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Obama is the first number Clinton is the second. As found at http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/clinton-obama ...

          TOTAL (w/o FL & MI - w/ caucuses and territories) 12,891,604 12,217,745
          TOTAL (w/ FL&MI, w/caucuses) 13,460,645 13,403,104
          TOTAL (w/o FL & MI - excludes caucuses) 12,535,451 12,058,560
          TOTAL (w/ FL & MI - excludes caucuses) 13,104,492 13,243,919
        • rahamm, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/24/campaign.wr ...

          Clinton 15.1 million to Obama's 15 million don't be idiots
          • KLBP, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Clinton is only in the lead if you exclude votes from caucus states like Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine, which have not released their official popular vote totals.
    • RedHerringHack, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7Popular votes got gore elected. oh, wait...
      • ceredron, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8Every time somebody mentions the election of 2000... I get all sad inside.
    • StarlessKnight, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1"She's going to try and claim the popular vote." She already has [tried to claim it, despite numbers saying otherwise].
    • KLBP, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1If she is going to try and claim the popular vote then someone had better count the votes of the caucus states Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine, which have not released their popular vote totals. If Hillary wants to count the popular vote of FL and MI, which didn't play by the rules then voters in the caucus states certainly deserve to have their votes counted towards the total national popular vote.
  • scy1192, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4It was fun, guys. It really was.
  • bullcutter, on 04/25/2008, -3/+14even if Obama wins the next few states, don't rule out the possibility of Hillary engaging in some super stupid lawsuit against the DNC, claiming Dean and Reid are sexist or some other utter ***** about how the "electoral process is unfair"... im serious, she'll sue to have her MI votes count... given hillary's past and her attitudes in this election its all but inevitable at this point
    • DocOctavius, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9She can't sue to seat the electorates, it's already been settled- Florida and Michigan do NOT count. They have to wait until the general election to vote for President. It's just media hype, all of it. The more people talk about Clinton, the better the ratings are. Soap opera anyone?
      • bullcutter, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4they don't count _now_, they might count after a lawsuit....
        • Digger1218, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6No grounds for a suit, it would get laughed out of court.
    • bingobongony, on 04/25/2008, -7/+1he isn't going to win the next few states though, so it is a moot point.

      (I will get buried for sayingthat...but only by the same idiots who said that Obama was going to pull off the upsets in Ohio and Pennsylvania.)
      • motivatedmama, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6I thought you were dead.
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1"I hoped you were dead."

          *fixd
      • Schmapdi, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5He will certainly win NC, and I'd give him pretty good odds to carry Indiana too.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Some would consider making a 15 point gain in PA a pretty serious "upset", but you'll have to join reality before you will be able to understand that.
  • lhbaker, on 04/25/2008, -7/+89The thing that bothers me most is that Hillary's campaign is making me despise Bill Clinton. I enjoyed and respected his campaign against Dole. Just before the Republican National Convention, President Clinton announced to the whole world that Bob Dole was his hero. Dole had to have his convention acceptance speech rewritten so as not to seem like a total ass hole.

    The debates are no longer substantive. They are engineered by the networks to prolong the fight, to raise the level of bitterness between Democrats for as long as possible, and to drain the coffers of both candidates. Still, it would be a mistake to think that Democrats for either candidate are so divided that any of us would choose to vote for John McCain. We're bitter, but we're not stupid. Four years of McCain would be ruinous, and every single one of us knows it. On the other hand, four years of Hillary would be unbearable in terms of the field day radio pundits would have with every decision she makes or doesn't make. No President in history would be more scrutinized than she would.

    Obama holds more promise to me than any candidate I've had an opportunity vote for. He isn't perfect. He isn't Jesus. He's just a man, but he's a man who represents much of what I believe to be right, and he appears to me to be exactly what this country needs to correct the course of the country. Recent polls show that less than 20% of Americans feel we're headed in the right direction. If those figures are even close to being accurate, McCain can't win.
    • Digger1218, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Long time until November. The longer the democrats keep infighting, the better McCain's chances
      • kreneskyp, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1i wish people would stop saying that. its only encouraging hillary to keep going in the hopes that obama will give her the VP slot.
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Give her the VP spot? If this idea has ever crossed her mind she would have to be far crazier than any of us ever imagined. After this bitter train-wreck of a primary process (facilitated largely by her and her negative campaign tactics), making Hillary his running mate would easily be the most damaging thing Obama could do. It will never happen. No way. No how.

          Besides that, I doubt Clinton would accept since she's obviously such a sour loser that 4-years of sitting in second place would certainly be torturous to her. She only cares about winning. She's not really all that interested in running the country for running the country's sake.
          • runCMD, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1you haven't been paying attention. She offered the olive branch to Obama months ago. She gave him an opportunity to say with her that they would share a ticket no matter what. He rejected the idea saying HE was running for president. That divisive attitude has propelled us down the road we're on now. They are going to have to work together to pull this SPLIT party together. He only see's the prize and She see's a way to bring it back together. Shame on Obama. I hope he sees the light before it's too late.
            Obama may never seek that unity and choose someone else if the nod goes to him. That will cost him the election if it comes to that. He needs to overcome his fear of being shown-up in office and let the party come together.
            But this is just my opinion. Hillary would choose Obama to bring the cheeseheads back into the party.
            she loves sports. : ) IMO
    • InnerRayg, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8I know how you feel. Bill Clinton had his faults, but I still feel we could have done much worse. (We did, actually, both before and after him.)

      I just wish his wife had the same sort of appeal. Or the kind of guts it would take to say the same thing about Obama Bill apparantly did about Dole.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Surely Bill Clinton today is a very different man from the one who was our president for 8 years in the 90s. He's not the level headed, saxophone playing president we once new. He's become jaded, frustrated and angry over the past 8 years. If you ask me, I think Bill Clinton has become a very unhappy man. Perhaps that's why he wants back into the whitehouse so badly. Trying to recapture some of his younger days, maybe? Regardless, his behavior over the course of this primary process has destroyed any sentimental notion I ever had of wanting to see him "back in the whitehouse." He is a changed man, and not for the better. It's really very sad.
    • drfluffer, on 04/25/2008, -7/+1You believe in high taxes, welfare and gun control?
      • 3ugene, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I love how liberals just bury you without answering the question. My opinion is that they don't even know what they stand for, let alone their representative candidates. They just know that most Republicans are corrupt, which they are. (But not 'you know who')
      • Asrrin29, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I believe in higher taxes then then we currently have, that will still be lower than any other democratic nation in the world. I believe in a progressive social system that helps people in need, but that can also be trimmed to take out all of the undeserving people leeching and profiting off of it. I believe that nobody needs to own a fully automatic AK-47, and keeping registered guns out of criminal hands is a good idea in theory at least. What is so wrong with these ideas that the word liberal is so looked down upon? I am proud to be a liberal!
      • lhbaker, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I'm fine with higher taxes, as long as they're invested in our own economy and not Iraq's. I'm also fine with gun control, but not because I don't think people should have guns. I just don't think idiots should have guns. I'm fine with welfare, too, as long as it provides a means for the recipients to become taxpayers. I understand that there are people within our own borders whose lives have taken a bad turn, either by fault of their own, or somebody else's. Welfare is ultimately for the children, so I'm not sure what your problem is with that.
    • topace3000, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4I'm an obama supporter, and I don't see four years under McCain as "ruinous." He's not the same type of anti-science religious nut as Bush is, and honestly most of his policies aside from his extreme hawkishness are acceptable. Still, go obama!
      • LtJimDangle2, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9Really topace? Have you read this:
        http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mcca ...

        Here's an excerpt:
        Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

        Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

        Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

        Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

        Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

        Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”
        • topace3000, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1He's in a tough position. He still has to seem supportive as a republican of most of the party's agenda. What's interesting is that he's actually offered to switch to the democratic side in the past. I don't think he's as bad as this question makes him out to be, he's just repeating party rhetoric in a conservative state.
      • LellysHubby, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0you're the type of Obama supporter America should fear. Clueless and voting.
    • DeFex, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Who does bill go on speaking tours with? his good buddy bush senior.
    • LuxFX, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4You'd be right if most people kept up with the candidates, learned about them, and made their decisions based on what they think they would do in office. But they don't. Most people catch only the tabloid headlines, form an opinion on the candidate's personality, and vote for whoever they think should be more popular. Call me cynical, but I just don't believe that the majority of people ever graduate from a high school mentality when it comes to choosing their alpha.
      • lhbaker, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I've heard so many sound bites of people explaining why they support one candidate or another, and none have been even remotely articulate. It's really, really scary.
        • runCMD, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1What are your arguments for the candidate of choice ? Lets hear something articulate for a change!
    • runCMD, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2
      desperation sets in as Obama supporters find themselves in an uncomfortable spot. With remaining states realizing their candidate isn't all sweetness and light so late in contest - supporters increase the flow of pablum and vitriol hoping to offset the in-character off-the-cuff silliness of their candidates rhetoric. The heated calls for his chief rival for the greatest office in the land to step aside and let the train through - now realize the train is slowing. The scooper can no longer shove the increasing number of voters that disagree with their candidate off the track. A sweat breaks out as they push harder and harder at the caboose ... but the train keeps slowing. America is about choice. Stop trying to bully the rest of us into thinking - and voting - like you. We're not.
      Whoever ends up winning the nomination is not up to you. It's up to all of us - within the rules set up by the party. So stop trying to circumvent the established process.
    • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2The right direction?

      "I'm voting for Barack Obama."

      "Why?"

      "He's the only candidate who can really change this country."

      "Change it into what?"

      "A country full of hope."

      "Hopeful for what?"

      "Change"
      • lhbaker, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3The right direction is focusing on America's problems, including the wellbeing of it's citizens, infrastructure, and the education of the young. The wrong direction is to drain our treasury attempting to fix all the stuff we broke in a far off country that never attacked us in the first place, and wasn't planning to. The wrong direction is taking accountability out of the Executive branch of government.
        • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2I agree with your first sentence and accountability. But I think there are a lot of folks concerned about a Presidency run by:

          Wiliam Ayers (terrorist bomb-maker) as his Secretary of Defense,
          Jeremiah Wright (racist pastor) giving the morning prayer every day in Congress,
          Michelle Obama (America hater) heading up the Department of Education, and
          Antoin “Tony” Rezko (slum-lord neighbor) as the head of the Federal Reserve.
          • lhbaker, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3I wasn't aware Obama had named his cabinet. Color me ignorant.
          • runCMD, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1What color would that be ? ... where did I put my crayons .... : )
          • jbenson2, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1And I wasn't aware that the O-man had been elected President by the magical 43 super delegates.
          • runCMD, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2that's right ... he hasn't even taken the nomination yet. I guess we'll have to let the process take it's place. : )
  • cheezeme, on 04/25/2008, -18/+5I love Obama. Every republican loves Obama. President McCain loves Obama.
  • Jovensdesciple, on 04/25/2008, -35/+18Obama should end it and admit that he is a Muslim. He should end it and admit that he hates America. He should end it and admit that he hates all white straight males... That's all he has to do to get the democratic nomination.
    • purpl3hazze, on 04/25/2008, -3/+15?
      I don't get it. Are you mentally challenged?
      • zanderw00t, on 04/25/2008, -12/+5Look up. What is it you may ask? Sarcasm, flying millions of miles above your head.
        • brownsound00, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3i don't think he was being sarcastic...
    • Fafnir43, on 04/25/2008, -3/+12Why in the everloving ***** is this guy being dugg up?
      • tehmacuser, on 04/25/2008, -7/+1PROTIP: /sarcasm
        • Gemfinder, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3So why does he have to rely on you and Zanderwoot to say it for him?
          He's a big boy, he can type out "/-s-a-r-c-a-s-m" himself.
      • HHP2K, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6Well, it was only six diggs. That's the Hillary swarm, all six of them.
    • ceredron, on 04/25/2008, -0/+14your sarcasm, if it is that, was waay too subtle for me. I'm got a lot of points in the "recognize sarcasm" feat, but apparently you're either a master or an obama hater.
    • wreckage21, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7that isn't sarcasm, that's just dumb.
  • macatizor, on 04/25/2008, -11/+3Clinton has leet pledged delegates though. Just saying.
    • InnerRayg, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3It only counts if it was over 9000
    • rdoger6424, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Clinton is 31337157.
    • muchachoburacho, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2i think people missed the fact that she actually has 1337 though...
  • FukUrCouch, on 04/25/2008, -4/+30How low do you have to go to count your votes when the other guys name wasn't on the ballot.......It's like my comment only having a digg up button....
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6As a Michigan voter and Obama supporter, I will tell you that her insinuation that my state somehow chose her angers and annoys me in ways I can't explain. I think a lot of people don't realize she only won by 55% (!) here without Obama even on the ballot. How can she possibly claim some sort of "certain victory" here based on that? If any thing that proves to me that she is greatly disliked here. If 40% of everyone who went to the primary went essentially just to fill in the "not Hillary" box? Honestly.

      http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ...
    • runCMD, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1You get angry ? Your candidate of choice CHOSE not to put his name on the ballot. That was dumb. LOL. Get mad at him.
      When you apply for a job - if you don't fill out the form and put your name at the top ... you don't get considered.
      If someone tells you - that they aren't hiring right now - and you still want the job - wouldn't you ... don't you still fill out the form ? : ) Experienced job seekers know this much.
      • mimigins, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Excuse him for honoring the rules set out. Edwards took his name off too. Only Hillary was like "Teehee well if it won't matter anyway..!" just to turn around and say "You bastards are stealing votes from people!"
      • Dragonfond, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Well, you're almost there. What actually happened was this:

        1. Michigan broke the rules in moving their primary up.
        2. Michigan political leaders did this without ever putting it to a vote and asking the people of the the state their opinions.
        3. DNC instructed the candidates to not campaign in the state, and to remove their names from the ballot.
        4. Every candidate followed the rules with the exception of Clinton, Dodd, and Kusinich.
        5. When asked why she didn't remove her name, Clinton responded that the primary wouldn't matter anyway. So it didn't matter if her name was on it.
        6. (The realization that Dean - and by extension the Dem party - has no balls. The DNC asked ALL the candidates to remove their names. Clinton then pretty much said "I'm Hill-Rod Clinton, F-U Dean" and Dean pretty much bent over and took it without doing a thing.)
        7. Hillary *wins* Michigan narrowly beating out uncommitted. Most voters stayed home. Others, in Michigan's open primary system, voted in the republican primary instead.
        8. Hillary, deep in pandering to Iowa, New Hampshire, and the other early states at the time, didn't even give a *victory* speech or acknowledge the win when it happened.
        9. Later in the month, Hillary *wins* Florida, and, realizing she's in trouble, remembers the people of Michigan exists and starts touting her "big" win in that state.

        Who deserves the "blame" in this mess? As a former Michigan voter, I place the blame squarely on the Michigan politicians who didn't even bother to ask the voters what they thought about moving the primary beforehand.

        I also blame Dean and the pussified Democratic party for allowing Clinton to leave her name on the ballot and doing exactly jack to her as punishment.

        I don't blame Clinton at all. She figured she could leave her name on the ballot and get away with it because of her name and her front-runner status at the time, and she was right. Genius!

        Obama supporters like myself are happy that at least Obama had the decency and integrity to follow the rules. The same can't be said about Michigan politicians and Clinton.
  • donsnyc, on 04/25/2008, -11/+30Stop the Drama! Vote Obama!
  • uziko, on 04/25/2008, -34/+5which he will never get because obama is a fag
    • jason221, on 04/25/2008, -9/+2+1
    • Fafnir43, on 04/25/2008, -2/+13Buried, reported, suck my dick.
    • rdoger6424, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Thank god you're not of voting age!
    • srondizzle, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0 I'm sorry that Obama's homosexuality only exists within your wildest sexual fantasies...maybe you can suck off a dude who sort of looks like him.
  • brownrecluse888, on 04/25/2008, -19/+7The ONLY way Obama can win is to choose Clinton(bring on the digg downs!!) as his running mate. Why? Because hellllloooo folks, she is only 100 odd delegates behind and Obama desperately needs the majority of the Clinton Supporters to join him...without them he has NO chance against McCain...
    • InnerRayg, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5I think he needs to promise her a cabinet position, not necessarily VP. She would do a lot more good as one anyway in my opinion, unless she intended to pull a Cheney on us.
      • keishax, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Personally, if he even offers her a cabinet seat it won't be just her. It would be her and Bill. She would still be polarizing. After all the crap she has pulled, I don't even want her in the senate.
      • Aensland, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Shoot someone by mistake? :o
      • SydBarrett420, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1If Obama gives Hilldog a spot in his cabinet he is a hypocrite. To campaign for "change" only to install the same tired people including the woman you just campaigned against in your cabinet would be the first and only sign I would need to know that Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

        Thankfully, I don't think he will offer her a position and ultimately, she will run for governor of NY in 2010.
  • HMTKSteve, on 04/25/2008, -6/+13Funny how the party of "count every vote" is looking to the super delegates to decide the nominee before all the votes have been counted.
    • NumNutz, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4ironic isnt it? count every vote...wait, only count these votes...on second thought, dont let anyone else vote.........wait, wait, heres another option................ack!!!!!
    • irightthebook, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3There's a party that openly advocates not letting every vote count? Count me in! Oh...wait...
    • georgiom, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2A tip of the hat to you good sir.
    • runCMD, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Or to ignore the millions that chose to vote in Michigan and Florida.
      • MightyE, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Even though not all of the candidates names were on the ballot? Maybe in the 2008 presidential election they can give everyone a ballot with only ☑ George Bush on it. I'm sure someone will vote that way, then he gets 100% of the decided vote even though he's not even a candidate!

        Come on, you can't seriously believe you should count votes from a ballot which is missing candidates, do you? Heck, in Michigan, Hillary STILL managed to get less than half the votes, people voted undecided rather than vote for her when she was the only real option!
    • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1The democrat party reminds me of an elementary school teacher who does not want any of her students to lose in race. After all, they are all winners, in her mind.
      • franklymister, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1It's called the Democratic party, thanks.

        • jbenson2, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1OK, it sounds stilted but I'll try to remember.
          • franklymister, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1That's funny, because "democrat party" sounds stilted to me. I guess it's all in what you're used to.

            The point is, "democrat party" is a Lee ***** invention, and it's used instead of the real name "Democratic party" as kind of a put-down. You know, like if they said "democratic" they'd be admitting that it was based on Democratic principles or something...
    • MightyE, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Do you really believe you should count votes from a ballot which was missing options?
  • zanderw00t, on 04/25/2008, -4/+17As I'm not too keen on the working of politics just yet, could someone explain to me the repercussions if Obama were to just forget Clinton starting today and start campaigning against McCain?
    • MJDub, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Excellent point. That would totally kill her entire argument about her having more balls than he does.
    • thawkth, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0I'd say that's risky. He might come off looking pretentious and elitist - Hillary will claim he doesn't care about the will of the people, etc etc
      On the other hand, it might cause people to percieve him as above the petty high school crud and ready to be president - not just mudslinging.
      Either way it's not likely just yet. Things are in his favor and he probably won't do much to rock the boat. Whether that's a critical mistake or not remains to be seen
    • MightyE, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I agree with Thawkth, if Obama started ignoring Clinton, it would give her a ton of fuel for the fire. It would lower him in the eyes of a lot of people, it's too presumptuous. Maybe if Clinton's mathematical chance of winning was less than 5% or something (eg, if she had to win 90% of the delegates from here on out). Unfortunately although the math favors Obama right now, it doesn't do so to the level where he could safely ignore her threat.
  • brettt, on 04/25/2008, -12/+13Yes, Hillary is so irrelevant. That's why you talk about her every day.

    If she wins, despite Canadian4Obama the great journalist's opinion, i can't wait to read this site and see the explosion :-)
    • uziko, on 04/25/2008, -9/+1see my reply to the guy above that said "she is already irrelevant"

      The funny thing is that I personally don't even know a lot about either of the candidates, however I can tell who is better just based on who supports them. Mainly diggers who spend all day creating and digging articles about how hillary clinton can't win. Even though the facts are the she can win, she has a good chance of winning, and more importantly, she is currently the MOST relevant topic on digg at the moment. People like that are highly predictable in that they will support the worst candidate of the two. So it's quite easy for me to tell who is better.

      CLINTON 08' !!!!!!!!!!
      • metaliq, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I like how you used a ton of logic in that post...

        uh.
    • PhireN, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1Digg riot 2.0
      (BTW, whats with all the .0's everywhere)
  • beauTL, on 04/25/2008, -9/+4lol, Hillary has 1337 pledged delegates...
  • Apophis574, on 04/25/2008, -20/+131. dailykos.com is a joke.
    2. superdelegates are a joke.
  • Crossmenjeff, on 04/25/2008, -7/+8in related news, your vote doesn't mean anything.
  • Commonwealth, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5But they have so much to live for!
  • MattInChicago, on 04/25/2008, -18/+8I've already resigned myself to President McCain! BOTH of these people are "yahoos" and BOTH have baggage that will leave the us ***** as a party. This entire episode has soured the country and set McCain up for a win. I can't believe I think this but I fear this will be the result. Remember, people actually voted Bush in a second time! The average American voter is an uninformed idiot I'm convinced of that!
    • ceredron, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2The you're not a democrat, fool. If you leave "us" because you don't like our candidates, then chances are you don't like our party. Go become a republican hive bitch, then. I, for one, am going to try to stick up for my ideals and vote for someone who, although currently under fire and is returning it, will have both a backbone and a head on their shoulders. I like liberal policy, and I like a government that tries to help us out instead of it's friends. If you don't, the leave "us", the democratic party, and go over to the republican lapdogs where you belong.
      • str0ngbad, on 04/25/2008, -2/+0Ahh, typical liberal, supposedly for open exchange of ideas and respecting peoples opinions who differ from yours, but in reality just a left wing zealot who has the same mentality as the people he/she despises...
        • rdoger6424, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Hmm...
          "typical liberal", "left wing", "zealot"
          "same mentality as the people he/she despises" so do you...
    • aurispector, on 04/25/2008, -3/+0Don't forget, Kerry was an idiot who's entire platform seemed to be "I'm not Bush". Brought to you by the Democratic Party.
    • jayson040, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2"I've already resigned myself to President McCain!" & "The average American voter is an uninformed idiot I'm convinced of that!"

      I couldn't agree more with you....lol
  • DudeInAustin, on 04/25/2008, -7/+7I worked for years in an elected body where the members picked their leader (the Speaker). Speaker candidates got pledge cards, which members of this body actually signed. Guess what! Pledges sometimes changed their minds! Some even pledged to multiple candidates! Until the roll is called, these pledges are worth doo-doo. Some members wanted a secret ballot instead of a roll call, which meant breaking their promises could remain uncovered.

    Reality check time: politicians sometimes tell different people (even fellow politicians) different things and MAYBE play them off against each other for a better offer.

    Rest assured these super-delegates are wetting their fingers, seeking campaign cash from both candidates, asking for promises on pork, cabinets slots, favors and everything else behind the scenes in a free-for-all bidding war.

    The Obama supporters need to not get too snooty about this either. He pushed out campaign cash to super-delegates at rates higher than Hillary (how isn't that attempted vote-buying?). Obama also happily accepted a delegate victory in Texas where the caucuses overturned the popular vote for Hillary. So, he is happy to let the majority get reamed when it fits his ends.

    How can anyone support this convoluted system by the Democrats for picking their candidates. The GOP's system is far more rooted in the popular vote and really is more fair.

    As for the nomination, only one thing is going to matter when the roll is called: which candidate do the delegates think can win in November. Everything else will be tossed aside for that one consideration.
    • Pherdnut, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I'd prefer my donations went to getting super delegates to make a damned decision to Obama's impartiality being compromised if he becomes president. What I'd really prefer though would be for there to be a lot fewer people involved so that it's easier to hold the ones that are willing to risk our chances for political favor accountable.
    • MightyE, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1He won more delegates even though he lost the popular vote in a system designed by the Democrats years ago expressly for this purpose. The idea is that they weigh areas according to how many democratic voters turned out last election. This isn't an accident, it's by design, and it's a design which neither Hillary nor Obama had any hand in the creation of.

      It makes a lot of sense, if you have a county which voted 99% republican last election, but you award delegates based on population there, then the 1% of that county's population which is truly a democrat at heart each gets a much stronger say in the total outcome of the election than the individuals in an identically-populated county which is 99% Democrat.

      Basically, you weight each state, and each county in that state by how much support it will likely have for you in the upcoming general election. It also reduces the damage done by some of these Republican shenanigans such as crossing party lines to cast a sabotage vote, which we saw strongly in Texas and Ohio. This same behavior is almost certainly present in Pennsylvania to an even greater extent, but it's hard to say for certain since Republicans in PA who wanted to do this had to change their official pa