digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at politico.com

Another superdelegate for Obama!!!!

politico.com — Blog: Illinois Congressman Dan Lipinski endorses Obama.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nsummy, on 03/27/2008, -18/+88Do we really have to post a one paragraph story every time a super delegate backs someone?
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/27/2008, -26/+9Haven't you heard? This the Obama campaign RSS feed until November!
      • theRedLasso, on 03/27/2008, -12/+10i agree, i want just one day, or even one hour where I can go to digg and not see bashing of clinton or fox news or how much we all want to suck obamas dick.
      • xyu1, on 03/27/2008, -4/+4lol, you might not be far off with that. I don't see how you got so many negative diggs just for saying that either. Digg him/her back up guys!
      • Pillage, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2I've stopped believing anything I read about Obama on Digg, you can't trust agenda's.
        • Neo829, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4You can't trust apostrophes either. Those filthy little bastards sneak into all kinds of places they don't belong.
    • thcobbs, on 03/27/2008, -3/+7Where's the uproar in the democratic party over superdelegates like there is over the electoral college?
      • wendelgee2, on 03/27/2008, -4/+1There is uproar.
        Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4"Few Complainers On Digg" =/= "Uproar"
      • iPirate, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Political Parties are private entities and can do as they wish.
        • thcobbs, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4They sure are.... congratulations....

          Just don't cry foul when someone points out the hypocrisy.
        • stonewaljacksn, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Let's start the Digger Party we already got hypocrisy DOWN
      • Pillage, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2There will be if Obama doesn't win.
    • neogoblin, on 03/27/2008, -10/+1Yes we do.
    • xerigen, on 03/27/2008, -9/+4Thank you! At any given time you can look on the front page and see an anti-clinton/pro-obama story. If it's something substantial (no, Clinton lying about Bosnia isn't substantial, we all know she is a lying bitch; and no, Obama calling his grandmother a "typical white woman" isn't substantial, nobody gives a *****), fine, post it. Otherwise, get this ***** off the front page and stop digging it up mindlessly like this website is obamarulesclintondrools.com.
      • MrThinkingMan, on 03/27/2008, -2/+0I like that. Thanks! Obamarulesclintondrools.com Sweet!
      • kipmartin, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1OK Diggers. Do as xerigen says!
    • MrThinkingMan, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2Yep!!!
    • avidwriter, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2why not.
    • youjettisonme, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4Because it wastes your precious time right? And yet you have plenty of time to click on the link, read the comments, and then whine about. Sure, makes sense. You're just worried about how other people are "wasting their time". So really, you're a utilitarian. Thanks!
      • stonewaljacksn, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Actually he didn't say anything about wasting time. You did. It's retarded that the election section is dominated by these pointless articles while real unbiased news gets dugg down. It's not that its a waste of time, it's that Digg is becoming the TMZ of politics.
    • NoStoppingUs, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4The Democrat Gov. of Puerto Rico just got indicted on 19 counts. He was also an Obama superdelegate. Maybe this guy can take his place...

      Of course, being indicted will only give him MORE credibility within the Democrat party..
    • richbleak, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2It does suck that the ol' tubes can only support so many stories. If only we hadn't max'd out the internets with these one-paragraph stories we wouldn't be missing all the LOL Cats and pictures of people screwing in really high places. Some ass-holes actually follow politics; it sucks that there is no means by which we can filter our views to only see the types of articles we are interested in. /Every Word of it sarcasm - You are an asshat.
    • sylvok, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1As long as the users keep digging him I say why not, that is the point of digg, let the users decide what goes up and what goes down.
      We decide the news on this site, no one else
    • Mobiletek, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1.....this ***** is going to get worse and worse everday till November playa so set it straight...
  • kurosen, on 03/27/2008, -52/+25Regardless of who wins, I can't wait for the elections to be over. I'm tired of seeing all this back and forth mud-slinging between political diggers, and miss checking out the more interesting stuff that used to make it to the front page.

    SCREW OBAMA! SCREW CLINTON! SCREW RON PAUL!

    GIVE ME MY DIGG.COM BACK!!!

    Go ahead and digg me down, political diggers... I've said my piece...
    • wild, on 03/27/2008, -10/+65Yea, these political stories are really getting in the way of all the lolcats and top 10 lists that made this site about hard hitting content.

      It would be great if Digg could add a feature to, oh I don't know, filter out these lame political stories...
    • oldhick, on 03/27/2008, -0/+27You don't have to read the political stories...
      • thcobbs, on 03/27/2008, -8/+7In his defense.... its hard to look at the front page and NOT at least see them.
        • manitoba98xp, on 03/27/2008, -0/+13He could uncheck the "2008 US Elections" topic in his profile settings. It takes ten seconds, and fixes it perfectly.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6Oh My God! He has to SEE them! The Humanity! It's not like it's Goatse Pics or Two Girls and a Cup. It's a freakin headline.
      • xerigen, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1I WANT to read political stories but not when they're completely worthless like this one.
    • kurosen, on 03/27/2008, -12/+5I never said I didn't enjoy reading about politics on digg, but this mud-slinging... all the propoganda.... it's such garbage!

      Yes, I'd rather see lolcats than all this utter crap to influence the digg populace into voting based on a technological smear campaign for EITHER side.... If you are voting based on what is on digg, shame on you!
      • aliengoods, on 03/27/2008, -4/+6I thought you said your piece?
      • wendelgee2, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6How is this mudslinging and propaganda?
        Do you know what the word propaganda means?
    • Shadowtheweak, on 03/27/2008, -4/+4A-*****-men
    • tehstyles, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3yeah, digg is great for info, but if you're voting solely on what you read on digg, then you're just a sheep.
    • rcarroll215, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2We got a piece of your peace... yay!
    • mummbleswers, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I didn't respond to it quite like that with the whole screw everybody notion, but I totally agree. I even wrote this whole thing about how we talk ***** to each other when we're all probably part of the same party and somebody asked if I was a total ***** idiot... yeah, it's *****.
  • brokenspatula, on 03/27/2008, -32/+7looks like obama is cheating too,
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/27/2008, -18/+2He is now trying to steal pledged delegates from Texas:

      http://redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/why_the ...
      • aliengoods, on 03/27/2008, -2/+11Wrong. You fail.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1With a fact-filled response like that, I just don't know how to respond. It scares me that 8 other sheep lacking critical thinking dugg you up.
      • tsf5000, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Using redstate.com as a reference? Really?
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1So I'm guessing it also bothers you when rawstory/HuffPo/DailyKos/Any other liberal site makes the front page?

          If you actually looked at the link, they have pictures of the Obama propaganda being sent to all the pledged delegates.

          I guess you can't do that though when you are to busy making ad hominem logical fallacies.
        • tsf5000, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1I don't read rawstory, huffington, dailykos, or any of those other sites because I know they're full of *****. But you obviously read redstate.com because you linked to it, so don't criticize others for reading sites with a slant.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1I didn't criticize you for reading any website. I was calling you out on your ad hominem fallacy.
          • tsf5000, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1If you think you aren't committing the same fallacy, you're fooling yourself.
      • L4WL3RS34L, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Delegates from the Texas Caucus (but not the Texas primary) can change their opinion and switch candidates whenever they want, which is a retarded rule IMO. It has always been like that, and probably always will be...he's not stealing any delegates.
    • oldhick, on 03/27/2008, -3/+14How is Obama cheating? Obama won the Illinois primary with 64% of the vote, Hillary had 33%... Obama should get the Super Delegates. Obviously the people of Illinois have chosen Obama. The super delegates should listen to the voice of the people. Actually, there shouldn't be super delegates, but thats another debate.
      • thcobbs, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7"Obama should get the Super Delegates"

        Ummm.... correct me if I'm wrong.... but the superdelegates get to make up their OWN mind..... Not that I agree with the idea, but its the party rules!
        • yojiffyskippy, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5Exactly. That is the bastardized system the Dems put in place. The super delegates were put in place to compensate for the ignorance of the Democratic voters. It's very simple, the Democratic party doesn't trust the people to pick the candidate that the party wants nominated.
        • oldhick, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1No you're absolutely right. Its just screwed up. I don't have a problem with super delegates voting for the candidate carrying the popular vote. I DO have a problem with super delegates voting for someone who has only 33%...
          • thcobbs, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1so as long as they agree with the majority, its OK!
          • oldhick, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1No, I'm saying they shouldn't exist at all. If you feel differently, please explain why.
    • richbleak, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1It is only cheating when the superdelegates are disproportionately against the winner of the actual state primaries and caucuses. This is a case of someone winning a party nomination fairly. Unthinkable to the Clintons, apparently.
  • AManWithNoName, on 03/27/2008, -13/+46As much as I like Obama and want him to be president, I don't need an article every time he does something like make a speech, win a state, get a superdelegate, wipe his ass, take a breath...I'm just saying, there's a fine line between supporting your candidate and stalking him.
    • ziptnf, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6This just in: OBAMA TAKES A *****!!! WATCH A VIDEO ON YOUTUBE!
    • youjettisonme, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Actually, you do need an article every time this happens. If you weren't interested in it, you wouldn't click on it, read the comments, and then post your opinion about how unnecessary it is. Submitters who post these stories give you a reason to complain, and therefore, a reason to live. You should thank them. Otherwise, here's a hint. If you read the title of a story that you don't like... DON'T CLICK IT!
    • stonewaljacksn, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Well said amanwithnoname. good job buttering the diggers up too by starting with how much you like Obama. This is like when there would be front page pictures of Ron Paul with a damn "small government" paperweight on his desk. Digg is weird.
    • Pillage, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3The Crowd goes wild when Obama Sneezes (litterally): http://youtube.com/watch?v=UEnI-1IdFLs
    • MrThinkingMan, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Yes... feel free to thank me!!!
  • Radigg, on 03/27/2008, -1/+25Will he be called a Judas aswell, or is he lucky that he doesn't owe the Clinton's any favours?
    • JlmAWP, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3He's from Illinois. We voted about 65% for Obama here in February, so I would assume this is pretty much expected. She'll find a way to spin it...in her own head, anyway.
      • malman4, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1His vote has been paid for by Chicago politicos a long time ago.
  • NelsonR, on 03/27/2008, -11/+4The article is important to many so if you bloviate (Bill O'Reilly) and hate these kind of articles, easy don't read them. Goodbye Hillary.
  • Equinox1, on 03/27/2008, -17/+8Now, this is a story all about how
    My life got flipped-turned upside down
    And I liked to take a minute
    Just sit right there
    I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel Air
  • DexterHarvey, on 03/27/2008, -8/+3More need to do this now, only hope for the dems to win.
  • SwordofKahless, on 03/27/2008, -26/+4This is very depressing considering that with Obama as President the new theme of American politics will be to reward bad behavior at the expense of honest Americans.
    • wendelgee2, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7Wait...Obama's running for president? Isn't he that guy who threw that puppy off a cliff?
    • docquan, on 03/27/2008, -1/+8Hooray for ignorance! What are you even talking about?
    • yojiffyskippy, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2He's no different than any other Democrat.
    • topgigmedia, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Lemme guess. If Hillary or even better... McWrinkles is president - all is good will have been restored in the universe? What are you talking about young, clueless one?
      • SwordofKahless, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1Ignorance is automatically believing a vote against Obama is a vote for Hillary or McCain.
        • docquan, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I mean.. isn't it? Technically? Just playing devil's advocate here. We're all gonna have to pick one eventually.
  • Hetman, on 03/27/2008, -13/+4superDelegates are so wrong. Anyone who is a superdelegate should be tried for treason for circumventing the right of the people. Whoever decided we needed Superdelegates should also be tried for treason. Finally whoever decided who gets to become a superdelegate should be tried for treason.
    • rotten777, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2The party set themselves up this way. It isn't as if the superdelegates forced themselves into position. Quit being such a knee-jerk reaction sort and think about things for a second.
    • Hetman, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3OK will whoever inside the party who decided we need superdelegates should be tried for treason. They are giving superdelegates a voice that is not supported by the people. That is wrong.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6The Democratic Party set this up - in 80 or 84 in order to select the most "electable" candidate. It was absolutely designed to circumvent the will of the people and override the Primary system. - the Republicans have no such thing.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3The super delegates were created/selected and given the option of "circumventing" the will of the people. That is the purpose of the super delegate system. The Democratic party should be tried for treason for blatantly manipulating elections using "super delegates".
    • wacomwacoff, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Treason? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
      It's not treason. "The people" are the delegates and superdelegates.
    • anillop, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2I don't think you know what treason means.
    • BIim, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Listen people: By voting for the Democratic nomination, you are NOT voting for President! You are deciding to take part in the Democratic party's elections. You can take it up with DNC leaders, but this can in no way be treason!
  • knupso, on 03/27/2008, -14/+10I wonder what favors Obama will owe him once the election is over. You know super delegates don't just give away their vote for free. McCain, Clinton, and Obama are all corporate owned. It would of been nice to have seen Kucinich vs. Paul this November. At least we would have had candidates with the peoples interest at heart.
    • z0l0pht, on 03/27/2008, -7/+2Obama doesn't take any money from corporations or special interests... He doesn't own anyone anything.
      • Hetman, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6You are lieig to yourself if you believe that. The only way to get a superdelegate is to straight out bribe them or offer them jobs with in the amdinistration.
      • knupso, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4Wow just wow. I guess ignorance can make the ***** smell like roses.
      • sigg14, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1lol, I get it that was sarcasm
    • Hetman, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6I agree 100% with you. It takes favors, our out right bribes to get superdelegates. The system is flawed and needs to be fixed.
    • docquan, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2Obama's working from within the system to change it. That's why almost 100% of his campaign funding has come from individual supporters in amounts of $100 or less.
      • knupso, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2*****. If almost 100% gave $100 or less he would have hardly any money.
        • docquan, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1How do you figure? If you have one million supporters who give you $100 a piece, you walk away with $100M.
      • sigg14, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1wrong try again
      • docquan, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N ...

        I'll concede that my percentages were way off. Doesn't change the overall point that he's running a grassroots campaign built on the backs of individual donations instead of corporate blood money.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3While Kucinich and Paul may be heads & shoulders above the dopes we have still in the race, they were still a long way from having the "peoples interest at heart". They're only marginally better and certainly not worth getting excited about.
      • laserblazer, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1Please don't group Kucinich with a Republican; he's earned better.
      • sigg14, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1please explain
  • dehnomac, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5It doesn't matter who they say they're backing now. It only matters who they choose at the convention ;)
    • yojiffyskippy, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1A lot of "convincing" could pass under the tables between now and then.
  • z0l0pht, on 03/27/2008, -2/+17No offense, but Obama gets a superdelegate from _Illinois_? Come on, as much as I love him, it was going to happen anyway...
  • pedo, on 03/27/2008, -3/+15this guy is from illinois and it took him this long to endorse obama?
    • silkyd, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0Exactly. But knowing Lipiniski, he was probably holding out to see if Cheney was running so that he could have voted for him. Why exactly is Lipinski a Dem again? No idea.
    • Pillage, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1now that is what the headline should be.
  • FcukAllYall, on 03/27/2008, -6/+3BTW Diggers, peep the memo the Obama campaign wrote.
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_memo_CRUSH ...
  • tung353, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6"who represents Chicago's whitest" is that referring to white people?
  • plhearn, on 03/27/2008, -12/+6 Obama campaign doesn't want to discuss its candidate's record and prefers personal attacks instead.

    Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he'd get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.
    • docquan, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5If you compare his record in the senate to Hillary's, you'll see that not only are his bills generally better-worded, but they generally receive more co-sponsors and pass more often.

      Grassroots Mom at the DailyKos, who was originally a Hillary supporter, has compiled a really excellent list, all fact-checked at the Library of Congress website. You can check it out here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807 ...
    • avidwriter, on 03/27/2008, -2/+0yeah, like such awesome experience as passing ***** bills like dedicating a monument or naming a national park. wow what a champ
      • docquan, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Way to do your research there, chief.
    • WasabiBomb, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2He's got a ton more practical political experience than Hillary does. The only reason Hillary's gotten this far is because of her last name.
    • laserblazer, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2The record of Bush's 'tenure' as Governor of Texas is illegally sealed in his father's office. Clearly, experience isn't requisite for the post of POTUS, nor is disclosure, as Hillary Clinton has recently proven. Obama doesn't stink of guilt and shame like the Republicans of the last five decades, so he deserves a chance.
  • petrodollar, on 03/27/2008, -5/+2lol @ Rahm Emmanuel for having his tongue so far up the Clintons' asses but being too politically hamstrung in his home state to actually pull the trigger for Hitlery.
  • mal1964, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4Digg likes to count!
  • morgino, on 03/27/2008, -13/+8"I like Obama cause he is like, half black and helps me get rid of my white guilt. I know he really hasn't passed one significant bill but he's like half black and he speaks really well."
    Signed,
    typical Obama lover
    • WasabiBomb, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4"I hate Obama because he's like, black and well-spoken."
      Signed, Morgino.
    • JointVenture, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2Most Obama supporters dont know WHY they supporter, even Bill Richardson said he didnt know why.
  • SwordofKahless, on 03/27/2008, -13/+8As a Obama supporter which category do you fall into?

    1. The truly ignorant. You have fallen for the hype but when asked specifics about his plans do not have a clue and just spout anti -Clinton, McCain or Republican rhetoric.

    2. Supporter of Socialists, Communists, the Extreme Left and the policies of Collectivism.

    3. Benefit from his economic polices of rewarding bad behavior at the expense of honest taxpayers. You brought a house with a mortgage you could not afford or made a foolish choice on an adjustable rate mortgage, are a lobbiest or a recipent of some government program at the expense of hard working Americans.

    4. A racist or just want to see a black President regardless of his policies despite that there are far more qualified African Americans.

    5. Combination of any one of these.
    • BaronVonTito, on 03/27/2008, -5/+3As an Obama opposer, which category do you fall into?

      1. A good ol' fashioned racist.

      2. Someone who assumes anything belief that's more liberal than yours is socialism.

      3. A sheep who believes whatever crap Fox News feeds you.

      4. A combination of any of these great qualities!
    • Hetman, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2I fall into the category. I think Hillary socialist programs are more extreme than obama's and I do not want a 100 year war with the middle east. I will probably end up writing my vote in for paul but that is basically like giving a vote to the republicans. O well like always we get stuck with the 3 biggest losers of the entire bunch.
      • laserblazer, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Writing in a Republican is like giving a vote to the Republicans? The Hell you say.
      • Hetman, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Me writing my vote in for ron paul would cancel my vote that would go to Obama.Who i would vote for if their was no ron paul.I cannot really say who anyone else is going to vote for.
        • SwordofKahless, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1One or both of these candidates you have not researched. This since how can you go from voting for a candidate that believes in less government and less taxes to Obama who believes in more government and high taxes.
    • xen0blue, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2I foresee a wrath of politically correct phrases coming forth in your future

      logic is not welcomed in the people's republic of digg
    • onetimer, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3As a ron paul supporter, which category do you fall into?

      1) an ignorant internet-bandwagon-rider who saw some buzzwords like "freedomz is populuarz" and got swept up with campaign slogans without looking at any details, and is a huge zealous asshole ("constitution/freedom hater!!") to anyone who doesn't support him?

      2) Supporter of extreme christian right wing agenda (anti-gay marriage, anti abortion, etc)

      3) NWO/911/NAU truther who saw some ***** documentary on the internet and think they and only they can see through the ***** and everyone else is just a sheep?

      4) Benefit from the complete abolishment of anti-trust and corporate regulation that would bring back the iron-fist ruling days of the industrial revolution where consumers are completely at the will of the money-hungry conglomerates?

      5) A racist who supports the statements that he admitted writing too in a 1996 interview with the dallas monthly?

      6) a combination of the above.


      Isn't generalizing fun?
    • sigg14, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2.
  • DiscoLando, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7You know it's an important story when there are four exclamation marks in the title!!!!
  • chesbo, on 03/27/2008, -14/+6yes!!!!! HOPE...CHANGE....HOPE...CHANGE...WE MUST PRAISE OBAMA. HE IS OUR SAVIOR!! ..HOPE..CHANGE..HOPE..CHANGE. WE NEED GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES AND OBAMA IS OUR GUY.
  • katorga, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Everyone realizes, I hope, that primaries do not represent the "will of the people"; they represent the "will of the party". They are a party operation and are not mentioned in the US Constitution. This is why HRC is still in the race; she hasn't lost until the convention actually names a candidate.
    • seantaylor, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1That's absolutely right katorga,

      If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to http://www.lobbydelegates.com and convince them to support either Clinton or Obama.

      Obama supporters:
      Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It's that easy...

      Clinton supporters:
      It takes a moment, but what's a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?!

      Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it's appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It's that easy...

  • ftx437, on 03/27/2008, -4/+4whooodi freakin dooo
  • salinemist, on 03/27/2008, -7/+5Please Please Please nominate Obama.

    Please.

    -The Republican Party
    • Philoushka, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3You have no idea what you're talking about.
  • AManWithNoName, on 03/27/2008, -6/+4Okay, Karmaticrogue, your racist use of Obama's middle name aside...How is he doing ANY of what you're saying? He's said that he disagrees with his "racist spiritual leader" already. He even made a whole damn speech about it. What more do you want, for him to lead a ***** crusade to attack the man for STATING HIS OPINION? Freedom of *****' speech. If you don't like freedom of speech, you are now free to leave the country.
    As for Obama being a racist, I don't have any clue where that came from. He has a white parent for god's sake. If he's trying to make the white man his enemy, then how come so many white people are supporting him? Please, support your claims with evidence if you want to be taken seriously. And good luck finding evidence for that.
  • Woaz, on 03/27/2008, -7/+2You can't stop the O-mentum!
    • JointVenture, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2I cant, but McCain can.
      • laserblazer, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1JointVenture is cleaning up the homophobic dialog, good good! Too bad he's still shilling for the Republicans.
    • JackWOrf, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0O yes u can.
  • shauncorleone, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2This is news akin to George Clooney boasting about bagging a local slut during a recent visit to his hometown. Buried for who the eff cares.
  • bingobongony, on 03/27/2008, -6/+6Another DIGG SPAM for Obama!

    It will be great when the Obama spam goes the same way as the Ron Paul Spam and NEVER makes it to the front page for the last 5 months of the general election campaign. That'll sure help him!
    • BillORights, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4Spamospamony, the king of spam and trolling, complaining about spamming and trolling!
  • SolaceShadow, on 03/27/2008, -4/+0lmao that's funny, I got my picture with the guy recently, and when i talked to him he seemed to be leaning towards Hillary. Glad he chose Obama instead.
  • mzx639, on 03/27/2008, -5/+4Yawn.....buried.
  • JointVenture, on 03/27/2008, -4/+5Bring it on Oby,

    McCain leads Barack Obama 51% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 51% to 41% (see recent daily results). McCain is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 41%. Obama’s reviews are 46% favorable and 52% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 44% favorable, 54% unfavorable (see recent daily results).

    So yes, I say GO OBAMA!!!
  • davea402, on 03/27/2008, -4/+1these dumbass obama (change the b to s and u got terror) fans don't know what to put on digg and what not to put on digg....obama's marketing campain targets the internet heavily through sites like digg and youtube....i am sure that they pay ppl to write digg comments over and over and say smack about hillary and mccain.....hahah now i get it..they also pay that obama prostitute on youtube that is the obama lover...she is hot and most guys will just do whatever to see some more of her skin....damn obama..u tricky bastard!!!!
    • d0onut, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Woah. A name similar to Osama. HE'S A HEATHEN!
  • JointVenture, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2The Democrats are showing their true colors, now the Gov of Puerto Rico , a demo and superdud has been indicted.
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Puerto_Rican_gov ...
    This going to be a fun election!
  • JointVenture, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3Oh yeah, you WIN one, you LOSE one,

    Acevedo, a superdelegate for the Democratic Party who has pledged to support Sen. Barack Obama, ...... tick tock , tick tock obamabots
  • Neo829, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4This is barely a story, let alone one worthy of four exclamation points.
  • feez, on 03/27/2008, -5/+3nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! dont let this muslim, black supremest in office!!!!!! in the words of ebonics, we be *****.
  • JackWOrf, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2Whoa! There's a big surprise! An Illinoisan coming out to support Obama! Wow, what a shocker. I guess Hillary can drop out of the race now.
  • Isoptera4, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Wonderful news...not. Superdelegates are the most unconstitutional thing I have ever seen. One person has the equivalent vote about one million citizens? Now that is *****!
  • eregorn, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2Obama lies, has close ties with racists, no experience, but hey, let's put him in control of the most powerful country in the world because he talks about change!!

    Americans are once again demonstrating the ignorance that put G.W. Bush in the White House for 8 years.
  • Scheissen, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2More obamaspam!
  • DUISnipe, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0Approximate time for all Digg users to change their mind and become cynical in unison: 3 hours.

    Bravo.
  • DarkReign16, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Where's the bury as redundant button?
  • botsmoke, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0Go Obama!
  • iainc, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Oh, lookie. Our friendly neighorhood troll, karmaticrogue got his ass banned from Digg.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.