digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at cnn.com

Barack Obama Takes the Lead in Superdelegates

cnn.com — Sen. Barack Obama has surpassed Sen. Hillary Clinton in the race for superdelegates, according to CNN's latest count.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • theWrkncacnter, on 05/13/2008, -22/+33I think it's kind of cool both Barack and Hillary are still in the race -- it gives people a bigger reason to get up and vote in the primaries. Come november, lots more people will be riled up and voting.
    • aliengoods, on 05/13/2008, -4/+68I disagree. McCain is getting a free pass on all of the dumb ***** he's said because the media is focused entirely on Barack and Hillary. Her staying in this is giving McCain another month of being able to rile up his base without the consequences of media attention.
      • jbenson2, on 05/13/2008, -10/+9Operation Chaos in all its glory,
      • exomni, on 05/13/2008, -1/+8Like everyone always says: no press is good press, right?

        Oh wait...
      • Nougat, on 05/13/2008, -0/+8On the other hand, McCain hasn't had a free media pass to say anything nationally, dumb or not. Very little attention is being paid to McCain, so he doesn't have the long opportunity to rally his troops. Provided the Democrats can come together in strength after this long primary, they'll be leading the presidential race, instead of trying to keep up with McCain.

        That, however, is a big if.
      • ThreeE, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0Please elaborate on what dumb *****.
    • dougdiggerton, on 05/13/2008, -33/+8OBAMA is overrepresented on digg. just because of his suave look and mocha skin does not mean he will make a decent president.
      • goomba323, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7President David Palmer
      • cranium, on 05/13/2008, -1/+20Those aren't the reasons we support him, and frankly you're not all that bright if that's what you think.

        Oh hell, I just fed the troll.
        • Nougat, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4OM NOM NOM NOM
        • didiman, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2You support him because you're brain cells are soaked in kool-aid and incapable of independent thought.
          • oscenester, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3says the guy who's only comments in any digg stories involve using kool-aid as a derogatory. You support a false hero. your obviously the sheep incapable of any thought, independent or otherwise. McCain's an idiot, and his own party members are abondoning him to vote for a black dem. wake up dude.
      • fletcherrr, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2mocha skin?? are you hiding something?
      • oscenester, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5It has nothing to do with the fact that the man seems honest and sincere in his wanting for hope and change, and that he is intelligent and can write moving speaches on his own, nor the fact that he has inspired so many people to get out and do something about this election.

        no, your right man. I love him because of his mocha colored skin. Makes me think of mocha frappucinnos. which makes me think about the hott blondes at starbucks before work in the morning.

        thank you man.
    • anomaly65, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3every republican I know is voting in force for obama. Hmmm, think they have an idea there?
    • joeanon, on 05/13/2008, -7/+2The McCain getting a free pass theory is more or less dead.

      This is simply what the MEDIA has been trying to push. It's come right out of Fox News and propogating through the supposed 'liberal media'.

      Just consider this. IF the extended primary was REALLY hurting the DEMS.... would Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the GOP storm troopers be telling us ? Would Fox News war the DEMS their extended battle is hurting their chances to win. They'd only say that as a means to propigate the truth they want us to believe.

      If you hadn't noticed. The theory of the extended primary hurtin the dems... died when Obama and Hilary both distanced themselves from McCain in national election polls.

      Obama is like 12 points up and growing... so how do you figure this is hurting him ? Is the GOP fixing that poll also ? Someone needs to lay down th law on these guys. Manipulating elections simply isn't legal.
      They aren't voting... they are manipulating. Also open primaries are JUST STUPID. How dumb can your sate be to open the primary and just ASK for corruption.

      Whats really happening is that while Hilary and Obama duke it out. McCain doesn't exist. He can't buy press time.

      Not only that, but the Dems are washing their own dirty laundry right in the public. So, come general election time people are TIRED of hearing slander about Obama. BUT.... on McCain... we've just begun.

      There is NOTHING wrong with saving your slander for the general election. It's far more likey to get and KEEP the publics attention when you wait until right before they vote.

      The GOP isn't going to be left with much when it comes general election time... AND the slander fest has made negative campaigning more difficult for McCain.. so now... he has to run on the issues.

      If you think that's not a Dem advantage... you're snorting heroin with Rush.

      I think we aren't used to is, so we initially view it as a bad thing. But common sense and the polls tell us that it's an advantage to have mutiple strong candidates. Plus airing out your dirty laundry pre general election is more ideal than getting blind sided in the general election as Kerry did by the Swift Boat Nazi's for Propaganda.

      I'm saying the DNC has barely gotten started on McCain. It doesn't take more than a week to open up a can of negative media kick ass on a candidate. Look how fast Giuliani went down basically from one media report. He went from most likely candidate to NOTHING. McCain's 100 years of war, his BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN song, his random anger outbursts, his forgetfulness and inability to seemingly know what he is talking about.

      He really has no chance again Obama or Hialry. He looks good when you're not actually comparing him to anything, but I think you'l see waiting until the general election is more ideal. If you run negative adds too soon or too much they become less effective as people become apathetic.

      What bothers me... is Obama's lack of details on his plans on how to 'fix' things. He promises are certianly well spoken, but I wouldn't mind if he grunted out the end of foreign oil. Political reform is all good, but we still need solid answers to lower energy and medical costs.

      I am not sure what to think of the DEMS health care plan. I've devided that their strategy is to get American's hooked on cheap health care and then turn it into a battle of the people against high prices.

      Once people get cheap health care, they aren't going back. So if you can just convince enough people via cheap federal insurance, THEN you can push your private/government hybrid system we have now into more of a national health care system.

      I can only hope this is their plan and they don't honeslty think their health care bills are ACTUALLY lowering costs. I mean... obviously... if you offer cheap health care to people who can't afford expensive health care... THEN.... everyone is going to want cheap health care.

      At this rate of 10% a year cost increaes however there really isn't a lot of other choices and more an dmore people will need low cost health care.

      A lot of the ASSHOLES against national health care are people who... already have health care adn are too stupid to grasp that they are therefore already paying more for health care than they would under a national health care system. OR the even BIGGER assholes who work for the government and already get cheap health care AT OUR EXPENSIVE.

      Those are the types of assholes who don't want national health care. People who basically have no clue what they pay in health care beause their employer and insurance do all the work for them.

      You're letting a for profit industry manage your costs for you. You don't KNOW what it costs to go the hospital most of the time OR if you insurance will cover it. How can you even have an opinion on health care when you shieled from knowledge by your insurance and group health care.

      So, if state employees won't vote for health care.. I say we end health care benefits for government workers. Won't take long for them to see the light after that. To see that they are owned by health care costa and that switching careers or even changing jobs has become a great risk for Americans. Many of you are slaves to your need for group health insurance.

      In any case.... the GOP is VERY desperate. This 'operation chaois' is borderline illegal and certainly makes Rush look desperate to get any hope of a win in November.

      Everything points to the extended primary not havnig any significant negative impact on the general election.

      I think the ONLY thing getting hurt here.. is Hilary's reputation.

      McCain .. WHO.. He just isn't on TV, he isn't getting funds for his campaign, he is trying to win town hall by town hall because that's more or less all he can do with limited funs and no free media pass.

      Obama needs but speak and the press covers him gleefully.

      I'd say that its working to Obama's advantage. BUT on the other hand... McCain might just do better by not talking :P

      He does flip flop about 10 times per interview. The DNC hasnn't serious even begun adds against him.
      Think of all the money that is saving. There is no need to launch adds against someone who has no media attention.

      Save it all up and let DEMS do their own dirty laundry at the pace they want.

      Beside Jeremish Write being a unstable variable, I think it's going great and for once the election is kind of interesting and different.

      Though.. I think the dems aren't taking the leadership opportunity that owning the media attention could get them. The DEMS feel they MUST win and taking chances to rally the people is also an opportunity to say something people won't like.

      The dems should be throwing the economy in the face of the GOP. They should have PAGES upeon PAGES of economic ideas, energy plans, withdraw and stabalization plans, infrastructure upgrades.

      I think they'd rather just wait and win office because the details of their plans involve taxes and spending, which most stupid American's think they don't want. BUT.. in reality... it takes money to fix things. Money that we unfortunatley just spent through Bush's grubby hands.

      So, we HAVE to raise taxes and maybe even borrow if anyone would actually lend us money anymore.
      You should NEVER run you nation with less taxes than it takes to break even.
      The GOP talks a lot about fiscal responsibility, but the reality is the spend FAR more than the Democrats.

      If we gave the DEMS the 8 TRILLION dollars that GOP leaders have spent we'd have renewable energy, national health care, national education and likely levees that would have preventd some of the New Orleans flooding among lots of other DOMESTIC investment.

      That's the real difference. The GOP wants to spend your money by giving it to corporations and foreign powers.. The Dems want to spend it on domestic services and science investments.

      Face it.. the GOP strategy is retarded. The GOP left the conservative platform back in the 70s and they've been selling out to corporations ever since. Reagan was likely the worst of them all, but so few of you are educated enough to know history from your *****. Reagan killed renewable energy, third party drug reviews, gave the largest tax cut for the WEALTHY in history, put is into debt, funded the idiotic Star Wars program, reignited the war on drugs which Carter was ending, wages secret arms races and shipped TENS OF THOUSANDS of tons of weapons to Muslim Extremists.

      That's the worst President in history... even Bush isn't that bad, he is just here and now so we hate him more.

      Bush at least didn't give massive tax breaks to the wealthy or kill renewable energy. We are basically screwed today because the GOP killed renewable energy inventives in the 80s.

      Had that not happened the US would be the epicenter of renewable energy technology. We'd be far ahead of Europe with basically an extra 20 years of research that we throw away to let market forces guide us.

      YEA well here we are... where market forces have taken us. How long until you realize pure market forces work vastly in the wealthy's favor ? We have a democracy for a reason... so we don't HAVE to rely on marke forces making a handful of people super wealthy while we all slowy get poorer.

      Check out the documentary... The Corporation to really understand the mutant evolution that is the US corporation. My fav fact is how corporate lawyer used the abolition of slavery to propose their case that being held to public will via democracy was defying the corporations freedom.

      SO, via that surpeme court ruling, we gave up democratic control over corproations, which is how it worked up until then. At that point corporations become powerful entities able to operate without any public oversight... since public oversight would be invading their privacy rights and all..

      ***** lawyers

      We need to repeal the law that says corporations are considered 'people' under the law. Perhaps even an ammendment that says you actually have to be a person.. to have personal rights provided in the constitution.

      We don't provide those rights to buildings and bank accounts. They are for individuals to prevent oppression.

      When you give anti oppression laws to corporations you just empower them even further.

      At that point they become INSANELY wealthy 'people' with reduce accountability.

      That's just a combination of bad ideas... reduced acountability, added rights, and nearly unlimited wealth.

      WTF kind of model for freedom is that people ? Obviously under that model.. corporations will someday rule the world... oh that right

      TOO LATE they already do.
  • DiggLive, on 05/13/2008, -44/+12Where's the outrage about how there's such a thing called superdelegates? Are they ok now because Obama has more?
    • SPThom, on 05/13/2008, -2/+29The issue is that superdelegates can potentially reverse the course of the popular vote and directly "elected" delegates. Since the superdelegates, elected delegates, and the popular vote all favor the same candidate now, why would there be an outrage?

      It's still a stupid system, but it's not changing this year, so most people will be happy with the fact that they aren't undermining the process.
    • baldick, on 05/13/2008, -3/+14Does it piss you off that the SD actually represent their voters? that's all that was asked. For the SD to GIVE Hillary Rodent Clinton the win denying the will of the voters was the issue. Since that is NOT the issue any longer, why fix a system that is NOT broken?
      • jgtg32a, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2like the electoral college?
      • Enasni1212, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3Well if they're not allowed to overturn the vote (and I agree that they shouldn't be), then what's the point of even having them? If they never get to vote against the popular vote, then they might as well not exist. In fact, without the supers, this primary would already be over. I say get rid of them and allow people to choose their own candidate, without the threat of their choice getting snatched away.
  • SqueakyWheel, on 05/13/2008, -128/+17Obama will represent "all 57 states" of Islam.
    • alexiocowabunga, on 05/13/2008, -8/+38I'm absolutely loving your ignorance and casual hatred, I thought natural selection should have got ridden of people like you but clearly that is something you probably wouldn't believe in either.
    • mryokai, on 05/13/2008, -7/+34You represent 100% of douchebaggery

      GTFO
    • aliengoods, on 05/13/2008, -9/+20Buried, blocked, reported. It's the only thing to be done with your ignorance and malice.
      • 11b1p, on 05/13/2008, -6/+5hmm you report him but people can say hillary is a ***** and get away with it... yeah real fair
        • Enasni1212, on 05/13/2008, -1/+8But Hillary actually is a *****, so...
        • RadiatedAnt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2/action rimshot
        • aliengoods, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Feel free to bury, block, and report me if you think I'm being malicious.
    • baldick, on 05/13/2008, -4/+19I wonder how you'll feel when he's your commander in chief, ass.
    • dougdiggerton, on 05/13/2008, -16/+7yeah, he's a terrorist for sure.
    • anillop, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5wait, what the hell are you even talking about?
    • OralCavity, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4he's a troll, just ignore him and he'll go away.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2If enough people report him for his racist *****, he really will go away.
    • mcnasby, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Look at this guy's history. He has been spamming nearly every recent Obama story with the same exact comment. It's time for Digg to take action against these douchebags.
  • bhod, on 05/13/2008, -23/+31finally! now i can sleep easy knowing that obama is going to win. he's totally going to fix this country. mccain doesn't stand a chance. obama 08!
    • nessus359, on 05/13/2008, -16/+4Glad to hear it! I am still waiting to hear HOW he is going to totally fix this country....all I have heard is that is it something we can believe in. So is the tooth fairy, but I don't think that will totally change the country either. Still..he has my vote on the off chance he won't be shut down by congress.
      • MacEnvy, on 05/13/2008, -2/+11http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
        • nessus359, on 05/13/2008, -3/+9Thanks, Read it... now if he talked these details then maybe the huge number of voters that either don't bother with or just don't have access to the Internet would be better informed. These are exactly the topics that need to be discussed, compared and contrasted with what McCain is saying. The simply isn't enough of this information getting out.
          • MacEnvy, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5A lot of it is in his speeches, but policy points don't make for good media coverage. You're going to see him absolutely destroy McCain in the debates though - McCain could barely hold his own in the *Republican* debates. General Election is the big leagues.
          • sagien, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1What you just did there.. it made me wish I didn't digg down your original comment.

        • acegi, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0you only have so much time for speech unfortunately
    • baldick, on 05/13/2008, -6/+8Why are you being dugg down? does anyone think that McCain can fix this country?

      http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/38133-mccain-s-spiri ...
      • bill1237, on 05/13/2008, -10/+1Does anyone think the country needs fixing? We sure don't need some communist like Obama installing a Soviet style command and control economy. You have read what his pappy had to say and what his Islamic younger years were all about, and how about his organizing as "collectivism. You do know that collectives are just code words for Communists, don't you?
        Your freedoms and responsibilities are linked, give up your responsibilities, you surrender your rights. Heath care is a responsibility not a right. Liberals always use that ploy to dupe you out of your individual rights and liberties. Free isn't free, someone always pays, and when they decide to quit paying, it all falls apart. All free does is provide and endless pit of demand for what is free.
        You should read up on the subject, the young is so easily led, surrender their rights so easily -- right off the cliff, all in the name of change. Change what? How? To what?
        • Dokkodo, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0"Free isn't free, someone always pays, and when they decide to quit paying, it all falls apart. All free does is provide and endless pit of demand for what is free."

          Spoken like a true Communist.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2If you don't think that a lot of things in this country need to be fixed, then you're probably part of what's wrong with it.
      • doshindude, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2McCain=bush 2.0
    • bill1237, on 05/13/2008, -7/+1All the world's revolutionaries are communists, you notice that? I wonder why? Collectivism is just communism with a different pretty sounding name. Have you noticed how much Obama sounds like an old style Soviet communist? Or Lenin with his "change we can live by" slogans? Be careful what you ask for, Communism wasn't pretty.

      The Marxist Hillary isn't much better.

      Freedom is so tough to achieve, so easy to lose.
      • anttanant, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3What I've noticed is the similarities Chimpy has to Stalin (Communist). What similarities? Chimpy has gradually consolidated power like Stalin did. Chimpy, like Stalin, has escalated his war machine and showed little concern for his domestic economy -- workers’ incomes suffered as a result. Wages have also stagnated under Chimpy like they did Stalin. I won't bother mentioning all of the other loses to our personal freedoms. So STFU about losing freedom, Bill. You're a one trick pony with your Communist comparisons. Just take a look at your comment history.
    • ObeseEurotrash, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2You know when I'm on the internet I believe this, then everyone I meet in public talks about McCain. ***** you biased digg.
      • Dokkodo, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Go cry in your pillow.
      • Mejari, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Maybe you should, you know, try and change their minds?
  • Maver1c, on 05/13/2008, -18/+35Who is this Barack Obama you speak of?
    • damnyooneek, on 05/13/2008, -3/+27next president of the united states
    • tech10171968, on 05/13/2008, -4/+15I'm sure that Clinton was asking herself the same question at the start of this whole thing. I'll bet she knows who Obama is now.
    • dsmx, on 05/13/2008, -3/+6Apparently he's a senator or something.
    • bonds, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1He's this guy, man.
    • Lockhart, on 05/13/2008, -5/+3i herd dat he wuz sum blak muslim dude runnin' fo predisent... i tink dat is outageous!
    • doshindude, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1That's PRESIDENT Barack Obama to you!
    • Zwartbaard, on 05/13/2008, -4/+3Barack HUSSEIN Obama to you! :P
      • geoff1210, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1Yeah, digg him down, it's not his name!
  • WinterWolf33, on 05/13/2008, -37/+8Nooooo! Hilary....don't....give.....up!! There is always hope.
    • Enasni1212, on 05/13/2008, -0/+8Yep. Obama might spontaneously combust, and then McCain might have a heart attack.
      Hey, it could happen.
      • Mejari, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1That second one is infinitely more likely than the first.
    • RonBurgundy76, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Throw in some tears and it might help a little.
  • mooseontheloose, on 05/13/2008, -37/+10Digg this up! Hopefully it will replace all the stories where we Bamabots complained about superdelegates when Hillary was getting them. You know, the ones where we said they're undemocratic and evil? HAHA well J/K guys we love them now!
    • rentmitchum, on 05/13/2008, -10/+3Buried for pointing out hypocrisy.
    • nblsavage, on 05/13/2008, -0/+6I don't approve of them but if those are the rules, those are the rules.
    • richbleak, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3Pointing out a win under a corrupt system is not the same as giving approval for that system. This is not hard to understand.
    • Mejari, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Wait, when was Hillary getting all these superdelegates you speak of? Any time she's gotten any they've been uncommitted, while Obama is raking in the uncommitted delegates as well as all the ones that are abandoning Hillary by the truckload. Other than right at the start of the race Hillary hasn't had a huge number of supers endorsing her.
  • rentmitchum, on 05/13/2008, -9/+73Superdelegates are still *****, just like the electoral college.
    • nexus, on 05/13/2008, -8/+1agreed. Meaning at this point anyone voting in a democratic primary is wasting their time, because your vote counts for nothing.
    • ceredron, on 05/13/2008, -7/+2Um... god forbid those deep in the political spectrum cast their votes and they mean more, cause ex-presidents and senators don't actually know what they're talking about. Electoral College is *****, superdelegates are just a part of a largely republic-oriented system where both the larger public AND the highly informed leaders have a say. I mean, we can't have people with years of experience in politics deciding on a candidate, can we? Of course not...
      • whahaa, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3democracy was meant to protect us from those you speak of,
        not be ruled and nanny'd by them.
        • Mejari, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Actually, this is a republic, so we elect who speaks for us, not ruling directly. A lot of the supers are ex-elected people, so now they shouldn't have any say?
      • RockeN5, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1You know that whole thing about every man being equal? That whole super-delegate thing kinda goes against equality. In fact, it makes us unequal to the super delegates.
    • kipmartin, on 05/13/2008, -4/+1they both help perpetuate the concept of deliberative decision making. without deliberation or intentional slowing down of governmental action, things would get done by whim. the founding fathers built the deliberative process into our system for a reason. superdelegates slow the process down like the college does. this is a good thing.

      by the way, the electoral college was built into the system by the founding fathers, based on models that had been in existence in the Church and medieval states. if you think these colleges are are *****, you must feel Jefferson and Franklin and the other framers were ***** too.

      we need deliberation becaus government is designed to act slowly--we wait til our decisions are vetted before acting. thats called 'being a grownup'.
    • rentmitchum, on 05/13/2008, -2/+6It's called someone who isn't who everyone voted to be president can win. It's called 8 years of Bush because of some *****. Excuse me for not trusting high ranking politician's opinions after 8 years of being lied to by the highest office.
      • ceredron, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2You're complaining about the ***** ELECTORAL COLLEGE and the SUPREME COURT.

        Not, I repeat, NOT superdelegates.
    • amdahlj, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Parties are PRIVATE institutions. You have no right to vote in them. They need not be any more democratic than any other private institution. All primaries are is a process by which a certain person wins the endorsement of a private party. That's it! That's all they are. When people talk about primaries in the same way as the general election it really really bothers me. More importantly, it reveals the big problem in our electoral system: the parties have become institutionalized. Because our election laws favor the two main parties so heavily, 3rd party and non-partisan candidates are denied ballot access and media coverage, forcing all viable candidates to go through the Democratic or Republican primary process. The only reason the fairness of party elections matter in any real sense is that non-party candidates have no chance.
  • Simonft, on 05/13/2008, -8/+93Congratulations CNN, your only about a week behind the freaking BBC!
  • seth553, on 05/13/2008, -0/+37I agree that superdelegates are *****, that's exactly why this is such good news: one less lame reason for Clinton to stick around. Now, there is no metric by which she is "ahead". Nobody said this was the most important nail in Clinton's coffin - it's just the most recent one.
    • Nougat, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1To switch metaphors: the most important straw is the last one on the camel.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -3/+0She isn't going away, because what mechanism is there to stop superdelegates from publically supporting Obama and then just voting for Clinton? You seriously trust a group of politicians? Haven't these people already shown you that regardless of what they say that causes you to elect them, they'll vote however they want?
    • Reaper2806, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2What is the point in shouting about a lead in Popular Vote? That means off all people, of all party affiliations, those people want you to be the nominee. That includes the opposite party, who will vote for the weakest oposition. Shouting about a lead in popular vote is screaming how much the OTHER side would LOVE to face off against you!

      Secondly if you want to look at who'll get the most votes in Nov, especially in these "key states", you need to look at how many of Clinton supporters would vote Obama, and how many Obama supporters would vote Clinton. Many Clinton supporters have already said they'd gladly vote Obama in November, but Clinton's tactics have put off many Obama supporters, who say they'll vote independant, not at all, or opposition rather than back Clinton.
      • Mejari, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Actually, it's quite the opposite. Every single poll I've seen says that more Obama supporters would vote for Hillary than would Hillary supporters vote for Obama. Of course, that means nothing once Obama is the official nominee and we can start letting everyone (Republicans, Independents, and Hillary voters) know that it's either a change in the system that's been broken for too long or another 4 years of Bush. Everyone will come around: lots of people are very adamant about their candidate and would hate to see them lose, so they say they won't vote for the other one, but once the choices are narrowed down, they'll do what's right (I hope).
  • baldick, on 05/13/2008, -7/+43Take this, Hillary Rodent Clinton.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -10/+1That rings kind of hollow coming from a supporter of a guy named Barack Hussein Obama. You can do far more clever things with that, like NObama 08. That's usually why they advise people in glass houses not to throw stones.
      • baldick, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3I only said Rodent because that's the first thing I think about when I see her face.....a rat or a mouse. When I hear Obama I usually think of Battle Star Galactica (Adama).

        Hussein or not, I guess the Democrats don't care judging by the recent news of her demise. Soon, we'll see if more than 50 percent of the US think it's a problem. I guess then we'll have to call it the "Glass house" instead of the "White house" since we would have taken the 1st steps in our society that prove we're on the way to transcend color.
        • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -4/+1No, our society took those steps back in the 1800's when we freed the slaves and let them stay here. Further progress was made in the 1900's when we allowed them to vote. There is no institutional discrimination, the only kind that exists does so in the hearts of men, and electing a black man isn't some magic sign that says "we've transcended color". We've transcended it when we stop talking about it like it matters.
          • Dokkodo, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1"There is no institutional discrimination, the only kind that exists does so in the hearts of men..."

            In case you hadn't noticed, the institutions are run by men.
          • Mejari, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1White men
        • whahaa, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1dugg mainly for BSG,
    • Krinkov, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4Ah, I see what you did there. Very clever.
    • rentmitchum, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5Ohohohoo it is funny because it is not her real name.. hohoo.. *wipes away tear*.
    • geoff1210, on 05/14/2008, -3/+2Yeah Barack Bin Laden Obama is really giving it to her! Oh, wait, it's not O.K. when I do it the other way...
      • Mejari, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1Because a small animal is exactly the same as a mass murderer terrorist. Glad we could clear that up, now I have to go smoke that sunofabitch that's been eating my cheese out of his cave... I mean hole.
  • takuansoho, on 05/13/2008, -6/+17THERE VILL BE ORDER IN MEIN PRIMARY!
  • arbouler, on 05/13/2008, -1/+50can someone explain to me how is it possible that some west virginians interviewed said they would vote for hillary if she were the democrat candidate but would vote for mccain if obama were the dem candidate?

    for what reason would they vote for hillary but not for obama when they both ran for the same causes (economy, health care, war) when mccain is the opposite in those issue? what is wrong with these people?
    • baldick, on 05/13/2008, -2/+51RACISM.

      "Josh Fry, a 24-year-old ambulance driver from Williamson, insisted he was not racist but said he would feel more comfortable with Mr McCain, the 71-year-old Vietnam war hero, in the White House. “I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president,” he said."
      • nexus, on 05/13/2008, -33/+6Well not so much racism as being sworn in on the Koran which is going to kill it for Obama.
        • MrTito, on 05/13/2008, -1/+26The was congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Barack Obama was sworn in on a Bible, because he's Christian. But why let a little thing like facts get in the way, huh?

          http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
        • baldick, on 05/13/2008, -0/+13I guess you confused Keith With Obama because all black people look alike? Are you sure your digg name "nexus" really reflect your ideology? how about not assuming that since Keith is black and Obama is black and you vaguely remember "that black senator" being swarn in on the Koran that they are both the same person? Could it actually be that we have TWO different black senators?
        • kipmartin, on 05/13/2008, -0/+14you stupid redneck. not only shouldnt you be permitted to vote, but you shouldnt be permitted to reproduce any buck-toothed, mullet-headed, bib-overalled, cousin-stalking trailer trash rug rats.

          were any of those words too big for you?
        • utdrew182, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Everyone no matter their opinion is permitted to vote, that's kind of the point. Reading comments like this make me emit a tiny sigh.
        • Mejari, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1@utdrew182: Just because they can doesn't mean they should
      • manitoba98xp, on 05/13/2008, -0/+28"full-blooded American"? I should point out that most Americans are immigrants if you go back a few centuries at most … does that mean people would be more comfortable with a Mohawk president?
    • jgtg32a, on 05/13/2008, -11/+1Maybe they're like me when someone runs on a Messiah ticket, they get nervous. They'd rather a candidate who "sins" are well known.
    • fani, on 05/13/2008, -1/+28because they're bible-thumping, gun-clinging, bitter racist people. They don't believe in any of those commandments, yet will shout loudly and pass judgement based on a person's skin color.
    • exomni, on 05/13/2008, -4/+19Ah, so you haven't noticed it yet: Obama is a *****.

      Welcome to America.
      • baldick, on 05/13/2008, -1/+14It is unfortunate how some people live life trapped in their own prejudice.
    • anomaly65, on 05/13/2008, -9/+0uhm, I'm white, he attends a church that preaches hatred of white people, and claims to have never heard that despite it being local common knowledge, and repeatedly in print over a period of years. Duh, gee, last time I was in any group of people and the leader said something that ignorant or racist, I dropped it like a hot potato. Obama did not. You do the math. She doesn't want someone who hates her race in the whitehouse. he may not, but his actions say otherwise.
    • truthhammer, on 05/13/2008, -2/+0If they're so similar, why not back Hillary?
    • Dokkodo, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Because they are simple-minded inbred rednecks.
    • RonBurgundy76, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Because there are a lot of ignorant, racist ***** in West Virginia.
    • wonderlandpr, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1It is the issue few are talking about, and Obama should, in the General Election.
      Some folks can cheer sports teams with African Amercans, even wear T shirts with their numbers. Few miss a Denzel movie.

      So, what happens when they, in their minds, cast a Barack Obama in a major role in our Nation? They would trust him with a rubber ball but not a Nation!

      Colin Powell, who quietly supports Obama, should give a compelling speech on race accompanied by the White 4 star generals who endorsed Barack Obama.
      And heck yes, bringin the endorser Bruce Springsteen along for some high energy on the trail concerts MIGHT, might break through a percentage of the prejudice.

      Barack has to look to broaden the electoral map, and not be totally confined by the old map and the old math of the past.

      Can you imagine if you woke up tomorrow and your skin had turned blue, or purple and your whole life changed? No one would want to have dinner with you or sit in church near you. You had trouble getting a job, into school and never mind a Purple person trying to run the country.

      Sounds absurd? And, it is..even when that color ...is Black!
  • quez, on 05/13/2008, -2/+12It appears as if our long national nightmare may soon be over.
    • kipmartin, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3not if you read what nexus wrote.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -6/+0No my friend, that's when the nightmare ends and the BARACKALYPSE begins, muaahahaha. I much prefer having to listen to the these morons lie about what they're actually going to do instead of having to live with it when its a law.
      • whahaa, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2dugg up because you sound like a ***** crazy pro-wrestler yelling at me from my tv.
        muaahahahahaaaaaaaaa.
  • mlrigsby, on 05/13/2008, -3/+44How long until the Clinton camp claims that superdelegates should have no role in the nomination process?
    • headzoo, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4I can't wait to see what kind of out-of-this-world math she's going to conjure up to show how she's really ahead in superdelegates.
      • whahaa, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4when math fails, there's always alchemy...
  • pedo, on 05/13/2008, -1/+16nice to see that cnn is reporting on ***** digg users knew four days ago.
    • RadiatedAnt, on 05/13/2008, -4/+1I'm intrigued, please tell me more about these ***** digg users...
      • superhiway, on 05/18/2008, -0/+0Obviously pedo missed using a key word that would have help you out. Try this: "...reporting on ***** THAT digg users knew four days ago..." And pedo is right.
  • Mohdoo, on 05/13/2008, -4/+5Hilary's last hope was super-delegates. She is now losing in super delegates. Hilary is still running. Why?
    EDIT: rofl, I like how CNN's bias crap still throws in "on eve of expected loss"
    • Tssst, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5Not bias, Obama himself admits it. It's one of the states where Clinton has a big lead.

      Anyhow, Obama '08!!
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0Hell, Hillary hasn't even begun to play dirty, everyone is still breathing.
  • bhattsan, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2Finally, the MSM isn't blindly trying to rescue Hilary. This race is over.
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/13/2008, -6/+1Shes not human.

    http://digg.com/politics/What_is_that_in_Hillary_r ...
  • cj485, on 05/13/2008, -8/+6GO 08AMA!
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -10/+1NObama 08
      I'd avoid stupid catchphrases when rour opposition's have more natural sounding ones. Mine can also be pronounced and still make sense, what exactly is an "oh eight ama" anyway?
      • Lockhart, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3what the ***** is "Barackalypse" then?
    • Lockhart, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2***** 08?
  • William36, on 05/13/2008, -9/+6To Tehrooni...

    Source, or it isn't going to happen.

    Obama and His wife and Children are a picture of flawless Americanism.
    Now stop spamming every Obama Article with this crap.
    seriously its lame.
    • fani, on 05/13/2008, -2/+5To William36 - learn to use the ***** Reply button.
      • headzoo, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2Wow, so now people deserve to be cursed at for making an honest mistake?
  • jgtg32a, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2about time.
  • lordenlil, on 05/13/2008, -3/+5It looks as if Hillary is changing her tactics too, becoming less harsh. She's probably hoping for a VP position from Obama, that'll be the day.
    • headzoo, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3It doesn't hurt that party leaders told her to chill out. They don't want her saying anything that could hurt Obama, because they're already sure he's going to be the democratic nominee.
      http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=483537 ...
    • bhod, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0we definitely don't want hillary as the vp because then she'd be a heartbeat away from the position she couldn't get by herself.
  • elshizzo, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4At the time of this article, he may have just passed her. But right now, he's passed her and then some. +9 at the time of this posting.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_D ...
    • jbenson2, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2And he has visited 57 states so far.
  • TwineHornet, on 05/13/2008, -4/+20I've never flashed anyone my ***** before, but I'd definitely flash Obama.

    I want him to be our ***** president already
    • synaesthesia, on 05/13/2008, -11/+9...What are you doing out of the kitchen?
    • absurdist, on 05/13/2008, -1/+18Hell, I'm a guy, and I'LL flash him my ***** if it'll help him get elected. ;)
      • Tssst, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2It will not.. in fact, it might do the opposite.. please don't flash if you are a guy :)
    • curiousgrge, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Dugg for tatas. Let's see the goods!
    • scottc, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5Pics or it won't happen.
    • mrmrok, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2If it makes you feel any better you can always flash 'em to me. I'll pretend to be Obama
    • vex67, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Democracy at its finest.
    • VinnieDaMac, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5Show me the goods and I'll vote for Obama thus you'll be helping Obama become president....okay goo!
    • RonBurgundy76, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Giggity.
  • drfluffer, on 05/13/2008, -12/+4In West Virginia, Clinton is ahead by more than a 40-point margin. Why? Because Obama is out of touch with reality. No matter who wins the nomination, McCain is our next president. Suck on it, libs!
    • headzoo, on 05/13/2008, -0/+9Why? Because too many W. Virgins are uneducated and racist.
      Newsflash: A presidential candidate doesn't need to win states like W. Virgina, they only need to win some really big states. Thankfully some of our largest states; New York, California, are liberal and educated.
      • 11b1p, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2and those states were won by...
        • scottc, on 05/13/2008, -1/+8The democrats. Same will happen in November, it doesn't matter who the nominee is for NY and CA.
          • 11b1p, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1Nice try... but the answer is Hillary Clinton.
          • scottc, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2No, what I said is correct. The democrats are the winners and the candidate doesn't matter, in those two states. Hillary is arguing that her winning those states somehow makes her more electable, but thanks to the winner-take-all electoral college it does not. The democrats will win there, period. In fact, it would be hard to find any state in which she would do better than Obama in the general election. Thankfully the process, though fraught with potential disasters (i.e. the supers overruling the voters), worked and the strongest candidate won.
          • 11b1p, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1no, you are wrong hillary has won all the big democratic states. Obama has only won the republican states and not nearly by enough that it would beat a republican.
          • scottc, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1You still don't get it. It doesn't matter that Hillary won the big democratic states. Any democrat will win them in the general election. Her problem is that she can't win the swing states in the general. She can't get the independent and republican voters that Obama can. That is why she won't be offered the VP slot. She would be a drag on the ticket in the swing states.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7Actually the joke is really on the conservatives, because McCain isn't one.
    • vex67, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3Yeah, I'm sure Bush being more disliked than Nixon on the day he resigned will have no impact on McCain (read: bush II).
  • William36, on 05/13/2008, -2/+8if McCain becomes pres i dont think he will last. he will either blunder or die...then we will have his VP
    the dude is to old and out of touch to be pres...of course that is just my opinion

    Gobama
    • bhod, on 05/13/2008, -2/+0and he's practically bush III. with obama we'd be getting change from the usual and we'd finally get out of iraq.
    • Mejari, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah, there was someone McCain was considering for his VP that was a few years younger than him and when asked about it he said that they needed someone younger so he wouldn't take the nomination.
  • larsonethan, on 05/13/2008, -3/+0This is so old. ABC had this on Friday. Why bring it up now?
    http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4836603 ...
  • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -4/+1Do they actually release the voting results when they occur? I don't truly believe every single one of these people is going to vote for the person they said they are going to vote for, especially if it is a secret ballot. Call me cynical, but politicians have a nasty habit of saing one thing and doing something else.
  • Krinkov, on 05/13/2008, -0/+9From the article, West Virginia Gov Joe Manchin Says...

    ""I think we see what happened in 2004, when Al Gore won the popular vote, and where the country has gone and the feelings toward government since then. I put a lot of stock in that," he said on CNN's "American Morning."

    oh yeah, we all remember when Al Gore ran against John Kerry in 2004.

    Insert West Virgina joke here:
  • chaos8787, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0Darn, krinkov beat me to it...
  • Barackalypse, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Also, the change mandate was a part of the last Congressional election cycle too, its why the Democrats now control Congress. The only thing missing is the change. Still in Iraq, still spending money like a drunken sailor, and still violating the civil rights of the American public (thanks Obama, Clinton, Bush, and McCain for re-authorizing the Patriot Act and for everyone who voted for telco immunity for domestic wiretapping!).
  • gtapro92, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1lmao at the fruity thumbnail
  • verevi, on 05/13/2008, -5/+4How this will play out: Hillary will win the popular vote, but not the delegates. The super delegates will have to choose between "more votes" or "more delegates" and go for the former (because she is closer to these party insiders anyway). Boom. Game over for Obama. You heard it here first.

    Man, I hope I'm wrong.
    • scottc, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3She's too far behind to win the popular vote.
    • vex67, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Yeah, you are wrong verevi. Really no way that can happen, not enough contests left, and those that are left are pretty small.
    • truthhammer, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0If they count Michigan and Florida, you may be right, but they won't.
  • pyrotix, on 05/13/2008, -5/+2This is the eighth time this has has been on the front page
    • bhod, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1and? everyones finally seen the light and we believe in obama. he's gonna lead this country to great new changes. i say, hit the frontpage and hit it hard for as long as possible. let the other people who haven't woken up, see it. because once they do, they will also believe.
      Obama 08!
  • SmokeyBBQ, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3So, ummm........now she's gonna throw in the towel, right?? (fingers crossed)
    • bhod, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1she's toast. the superdelegates were her back up plan. now that they are on obama's side (thank god) she's done. before i didn't like the idea of superdelegates because the were mostly going for her, but now that they have seen the light, i love them. bring on mccain.
  • lazaruswws, on 05/13/2008, -9/+3Yet all the people who voted for him could not screw in a light bulb collectively. Were you dropped as a child?
    • Mejari, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1So Obama supporters are stupid? Is that why Hillary is touting her relationship with the 'uneducated white people'?
  • BOYMAJOR20, on 05/13/2008, -3/+0Check out Obama video Change
    http://www.youtube.com/boymajor20
  • Tyrghast, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1Yay superdelegates! Yay buzzwords! Yay pounding our brains into a bloody pulp with 24/7 coverage of a primary that is currently annihilating any semblance of real politics!

    Anyway, if somehow Obama doesn't win it all, I'm sure I'll be meeting some of you in Canada.
    • bhod, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1you'll definitely see me there if mccain wins. but i doubt that would ever happen since there's no stopping obama. so i'm safe. he is the best presidential candidate ever and will soon become the best president ever. i believe.
    • vex67, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0Yeah, we'll have to set up Obamavilles in Canada. I'm sure we'll all enjoy the intra-mural hockey leagues that will inevitable arise.
  • rawheadrex, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3"She said again Monday that no Democratic candidate since 1916 has gone on to win the White House without first winning West Virginia."


    That's such a ROFL statistic. And let's not forget Ohio! As goes Ohio, so goes the country!

    In the meantime, the most consistent bellwether state currently is Missouri, which has only missed to predict the president once (1956) since 1904, and has a perfect record since 1960, compared to Ohio, which has missed twice (1944, 1960) since 1896 and perfect only since 1964.

    And who was it that won Missouri this primary season? Wasn't it some guy with a funny name?


    But even that doesn't matter. To base a candidate's electability on this kind of statistic is like betting your entire stash on red at the roulette table, just because it's been red 9 times in a row (or, for that matter, betting it all on black for the same reason).
  • lobbydelegates, on 05/13/2008, -2/+065% visitors of http://www.lobbydelegates.com wants Obama as the President....but about those who wants to vote only for Clinton and if Obama is elected they wld go for Mccain ???
  • Stettenbauer, on 05/13/2008, -6/+6I am so sick of the Obama spam...he is the same old politician that the Washington political pigs love.If you want more BS vote Obama.
    • SuperVepr308, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2It amazes me that people forget that. They want him to be their Jesus Christ but he is no different than the rest. Money and power: those are his wants plain and simple.
    • DavidGX, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2SPAM is when someone goes into a topic that has nothing to do with Obama and says "OBAMA '08!!!!!" over and over again. This is an Obama story that was voted to the front page by users of digg.com. Learn what spam is or gtfo.
    • StrangeFamous, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2Right, so according to your logic we shouldn't vote at all, since Clinton and McCain are even BIGGER examples of the "same old politician".

      McCain has given up most of his old Maverick ways, and instead has adopted much of the policies of the current administration. He's courting the vote of the people who voted for Bush in 04.

      Clinton is convinced that she still has a chance at the nomination, and she's pulling out every petty negative thing she can think of to discredit Obama. She's no longer running on the merit of her own abilities and ideas for the country. Instead, she's merely trying to trash Obama enough to get people to vote for her as the alternative. There's even a movement among her supporters that calls for people to vote AGAINST Obama in the final election if she doesn't get nominated.


      The only spam in this article is your comment.
  • gibbwake, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2Dont be idiots tricked into supporting a war hawk when you yourself are anti war.
    Dont support the establishment war hawk Obama or the anti freedom Hitlery Clinton. He is more pro war than Bush - he said he would bomb and invade Pakistan, he wants to leave the nuclear bomb option on the table with Iran, hes spoke in favor of the SPP to merge the USA, Mexico And Canada into a regional government, making ours obsolete. So much for that constitution and bill of rights.
    He is pure establishment - his wife is a director of the chicago CFR, hes adopted the foreign policy of the anti russian, anti american Zbigniew Brzezinski, whos said that Americans have had it good for too long. Via operation cyclone, Zbig is also the creator of Al Qaeda - the enemy Obama will chase and invade whatever country they go in, Bush style, just like the plan was all along. Read more about the Anglo American Establishment that Obama is a part of here: http://www.bravenewbookstore.com/product_info.php? ...
    Hillary, Obama, Huckabee, McCain are ALL connected to this group. Dont vote for the establishment demagogue.
    Listen to this for a true analysis of Obamas objectives. http://nw0.info/files/Radio/World%20Crisis%20Radio ...
    • StrangeFamous, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3So who should we vote for? Paul?
      • SmokeyBBQ, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Yes, that is exactly who we should be voting for.
  • KingGoonie, on 05/13/2008, -7/+3Congrats superdelegates... you are insuring another 4 years of a Republican.

    OBAMA WILL NOT BEAT MCCAIN, CLINTON WILL, VOTE CLINTON!
    • StrangeFamous, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3This is exactly why people are leaving the Clinton campaign to support Obama. She is no longer running on her experience or her ideas for the future. All she's doing at this point is saying "HE ISN'T ELECTABLE."

      *****.
  • nelliedawg82, on 05/13/2008, -4/+1I thought there was no way we could have another republican in office after W but it looks like the Dems have found a way to throw away a clear slam dunk win!!! Obama will not win!! Lets face it america is not ready for a black elitist, with questionable ethics. His wife is a nut and he has shown bad judgement in his selection of friends and associates.
    • StrangeFamous, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2So instead, America is ready for a FEMALE elitist with questionable ethics? With a husband who throws out the race card when he gets frustrated with media coverage? A woman who has shown bad judgement in her selection of friends, associates and FUNDRAISING SUPPORTERS?

      Right, that's such a huge improvement.
  • hamobu, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Petition against having Hillary as a VP:
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Nightmare_Ticket ...
  • momsshizzle, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1Good for him.

    http://www.gop.com/

    McCain '08!
  • jjustice, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2This exact title is posted every two days or so. Not buried because it's a duplicate - buried because, which of these *actually* corresponds to Obama taking the lead?
    • Mejari, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1It depends: Each news network calculates supers differently, depending on how much of a declaration the supers give one way or the other they are willing to count. Some networks only count official public endorsements confirmed through several channels, others count something the superdelegate said once to a friend of his at a bar. But now Obama has passed Hillary in superdelegates by everyone's count, so it doesn't matter.
  • cathode, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1No thanks, Socialism.
  • hasslinthehoff, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Let's all wave to Hilary... bye bye.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    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.