digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at msnbc.msn.com

Barack Obama wins Iowa Caucuses!!!

msnbc.msn.com — All the news outlets are showing Obama as the winner! We have a good election ahead of us!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • wheninva1, on 01/04/2008, -34/+409Even though in the grand scheme of things this could mean nothing, it's a great day for America.
    • TheKarmaCrip, on 01/04/2008, -103/+9Yeah, right. Talk about a Manchurian Candidate
      • sockpuppets, on 01/04/2008, -7/+78I fail to see what chinese food has to do with this.
        • UtubReptilian, on 01/04/2008, -29/+3Wow, does this mean that all the passionate Ron Paul meetup groups and all the AOL Straw Poll voters in Iowa just decided to stay home, yeah right... http://news.aol.com/political-machine/straw-poll/ ... Make sure every vote counts no matter whom the media said the black box machines calculated was the winner http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Uncounted_A_ ...
          • supermanred, on 01/04/2008, -0/+16Uh, wasn't Obama running on the Democratic side, what does Ron Paul have to do with this? I'm confused, or maybe you are.
          • OwdenBowden, on 01/04/2008, -2/+2Take your Ron Paul Bull ***** to Slashdot.
        • OwdenBowden, on 01/04/2008, -5/+1Obama can win all the Caucuses he wants - in the end he will not be the President of the United States. Lest we forget that (1) in 1948 Thomas E. Dewey was declared president but actually lost. (2) William Jefferson Clinton did not win Iowa, New Hampshire and still was elected president of the United States of America.
          EDITORIAL:::::::::::::::::
          Frankly, of all the people who are running in this election (on both sides) the only people that have the capabilities, knowledge, and know-how to effectively and efficiently act / do the job as President is Hillary Clinton (forgive me lord) and Fred Thompson (don't let his roll in TV and movies fool you. He is a VERY intelligent political figure). However - I see a Dark Horse come into this race (late of course); WINNING and finally be sworn into office and that person is: Al Gore.
          I think what took place in Iowa was the people sending a wake-up call to all political parties "straighten up and fly right"
          SIDEBAR::::::::::::::::
          I do think the biggest joke in this race is Rudy who is still using the old Bush adage - "If you scare them then they will vote." This man did nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G on 9/11 except to take credit for things that he did not do. A vote for him is a vote for Bush/Cheney.

          Thank you Diggers.
      • UtubReptilian, on 01/04/2008, -32/+3Wow, an Israeli company counted the votes secretly without any way for us Americans to verify results. Ron Paul supporters showed up in droves and he supposedly only got 10%. http://www.digg.com/politics/RON_PAUL_WON_IOWA_Vot ...
        • oxymorgan, on 01/04/2008, -2/+20YEP. THATS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

          and 9/11 is a coverup.

          guess we will see what happens when my canidate becomes president, and ron paul DOESNT.
        • planksconstant, on 01/04/2008, -1/+10aaaand my faith in the digg user is once again shattered.
    • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -122/+13He's a socialist that wants to interfere with the economy and steal our guns.
      • cranium, on 01/04/2008, -7/+80As much as I hate both of those ideas, it beats the hell out of Bush's 1984 police state.
        • norman619, on 01/04/2008, -43/+7You do know that Bush is on his way out and not up for re-election right? Try illustrating what makes this clown great instead of saying "At least he's better than Bush."
        • cranium, on 01/04/2008, -5/+39@norman619
          I'll type slow, so you can understand. Obama would be an i-m-p-r-o-v-e-m-e-n-t, as opposed to Bush or any leading Republican which would not be.
          QED
        • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -29/+1Is Obama the only option? Would no one else be an 'improvement' as well?
          • cranium, on 01/04/2008, -4/+34The context is "Obama's victory". Try to keep up, dear.
          • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -28/+4You're arrogant, aren't you?

            With your original quote (and still, apparently) you are fallaciously assuming there are only two options, or one really. "We should support obama as he is better than bush!" But..... there are more candidates to support besides bush, many more. Sure this topic is about his victory, but that doesn't mean logical argumentation goes out the window and he's the only candidate.
        • StepCousin, on 01/04/2008, -10/+1....which would not be (what)?
          • cranium, on 01/04/2008, -3/+9an i-m-p-r-o-v-e-m-e-n-t
          • StepCousin, on 01/04/2008, -6/+1"which would not be" was kind of redundant, don't you think?
        • janeuner, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Short term improvement, long term expense.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 01/04/2008, -5/+48Translation: I LIKE MONEY AND BOOMSTICKS
        Maybe if you could find a Republican candidate who was both popular and not a complete ***** you'd convince me even the minutest bit.
        • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -38/+9Paul.

          I like prosperity and freedom- don't you?
          • norman619, on 01/04/2008, -13/+38Yep which is why I'm not taking Ron Paul seriously.
          • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -23/+6Paul supports free market capitalism- the best bet for both of those.
          • pintomp3, on 01/04/2008, -8/+8yeah, that worked out great for chile under pinochet.
          • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -10/+4He wasn't a libertarian.

            Look at the US at certain points before the new deal or Hong Kong.
          • pintomp3, on 01/04/2008, -4/+18before the new deal we had robber barons, child labor, unsafe working conditions, and the great depression. wonderful. the economic system under pinochet was hand crafted by chicago school grads and miltion friedman himself few down to advise pinochet. do you not consider miltion friedman a libertarian?
          • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -23/+6Leftist propaganda.

            The great depression was caused by the government, not capitalism.

          • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -12/+4Economic policy is different than social policy.
          • DogBotherer, on 01/04/2008, -3/+4The great depression was caused by certain hugely wealthy individuals more than by government, but it certainly wasn't caused by capitalism per se.
        • actionmann50, on 01/04/2008, -4/+13I like money and guns. You'd be hard-pressed to find people who didn't at least like money.
          • sockpuppets, on 01/04/2008, -2/+10Check a chrematophobia support group.
          • sockpuppets, on 01/04/2008, -1/+19chrematophobia, the fear of money. Get it?

            Is this thing on?
        • thebellmaster1x, on 01/04/2008, -1/+17I like paying the same for access to all Internet sites—don't you?
          • scubasteve377, on 01/04/2008, -0/+8Then it would be awesome if the FCC allowed competition and didn't prop up regional ***** monopolies, like Comcast.
      • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -55/+7If you want 1984 look over at Obama.

        Obama supports the Patriot Act, and wants more and more socialistic interference. 1984 was a parody of the socialist USSR.
        • rz8472, on 01/04/2008, -1/+18AND of the far-right Nazi regime.

          Let's not forget that Orwell was a liberal "socialist", depending on your definition of socialism.
          • terrordome, on 01/04/2008, -5/+1Orwell was not a "liberal socialist". Most likely a democratic or libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist.
        • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -15/+2But his parodies were directly of the USSR- NOT the "Far right". While the Nazi's might fall into 1984, animal farm, etc, the USSR was his primary target. He didn't like how the USSR was organized and erroneously thought all of the problems with socialism would be solved if it were 'democratic'.
        • brufleth, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4@DucoNihilum
          You weren't supposed to argue about what Animal Farm was a parody of. You were supposed to lay it on top of your current state and take it as a caution. It wasn't an attack on socialism. It was an attack on oppressive governments limiting the flow of information, silencing dissent, and exploiting the population. This happens in almost all governments I can think of.
      • polymorph505, on 01/04/2008, -3/+13If by "supports" you mean "supports the revision of", then I guess you're right.
        • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -16/+4He voted for it.
        • polymorph505, on 01/04/2008, -3/+16He wasn't even in office when the patriot act was voted on.
        • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -12/+303/02/2006 USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Y

          http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_ ...
          • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -6/+2Digg down the facts if they disagree with your point of view!
        • polymorph505, on 01/04/2008, -2/+6Why do you think I said "supports the revision of". When you say it like a tard you make it sound like he voted on the patriot act, instead of the reauthorization of the patriot act.
        • scubasteve377, on 01/04/2008, -2/+2@polymorph
          Do you not understand that laws expire in this country? If Barack and his fellow establishment shills wouldn't have renewed it, it would have gone away. That's what REAUTHORIZATION means, retard.
      • mdoerr, on 01/04/2008, -6/+1Socialist? This isn't John Edwards we're talking about....
      • IpecacNeat, on 01/04/2008, -2/+10He isn't a Socialist, and NO candidate is going to take away guns. Get a grip. Don't you want change in this country? Don't you want a better America? Please, this country needs your help.
        • scubasteve377, on 01/04/2008, -2/+2Yes, I want to change this country. Yes, I want a better America. That's exactly why I would never ever vote for someone who voted to renew the PATRIOT Act. Hint: your boy Obama did. http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006s ...
        • t3soro, on 01/04/2008, -3/+4"Don't you want change in this country? Don't you want a better America?" It looks like you're falling for Obama's punchlines. "Change hope change reform better change new america hope" is all you hear from him. Obama has no real solutions; he attracts the irrational emotional response through his language and charisma.

          On the bright side, I'd take him over Hilldog any day.
        • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -4/+1Look at his voting records.

          His home state already virtually outlaws firearms, I can't own a gun where I live and use it.
          • nihilite, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3You are either an idiot or a liar.
            i live in illinois (nw chicago burbs), and i own several guns. They were very easy to buy. Went to the store, filled out a form, waited 1 day, picked them up.
      • n3dm, on 01/04/2008, -8/+0yeah all you fags are wrong, hes a total dirty socialist
      • jellygraph, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Most of the best countries in the world are socialist. It's like calling someone intelligent and thinking it's an insult.
        You, sir, are an idiot...
    • hoju7887, on 01/04/2008, -14/+151Im Canadian and im ***** excited as hell
      • StepCousin, on 01/04/2008, -60/+12It doesn't take much for Canadians, does it?

        That place sucks.
        • MacEnvy, on 01/04/2008, -19/+5I want to disagree with you, but I heard they watch curling up there to pass the time.

          *Curling*, for Pete's sake.
          • StepCousin, on 01/04/2008, -24/+2And they drink Molsen and whack off to mooses *****, FFS.

            Half of my relatives live in Canada. They'll tell you how bad it sucks.
          • Hemloch, on 01/04/2008, -3/+11Fail moar at trolling. Jesus, it only takes a bit of effort.
          • StepCousin, on 01/04/2008, -19/+3It only takes a bit of effort to communicate effectively. You, my inferior, have failed miserably.
          • MacEnvy, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Wow, I guess I lot more people on digg like curling than I thought.
        • themastersb, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Well as long as it's better than the US I don't mind it.
      • Araxen, on 01/04/2008, -2/+17Come on New Hampshire. Vote for Obama and put an end to the Clinton campaign!
    • KRNpro, on 01/04/2008, -5/+162Yes, it is great that Obama wins the Caucus. But it also BLOODY SUCKS that Huckabee won his side of the caucus.

      *groans
      • Neiby, on 01/04/2008, -5/+76My feelings exactly. I'm glad that Obama trounced Hillary. Hillary would be the worst thing to hit this country since, well, Bush. I think Obama is mostly honest and a truly kind person with a good heart. I disagree with him on most issues but I think he has character. Hillary absolutely does not. She's a snake.

        On the Republican side, I'm saddened to see proof that nutball religious conservatives have a firm hold on the party. The only Republican I would want to see in office would be Paul. All of the others would be disasters.
        • ADWestCo, on 01/04/2008, -1/+26I agree totally. If Huckleberry ends up being president, I'm moving to Australia!
          • theblooms, on 01/04/2008, -5/+25Liar.
          • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -2/+21Well, uh, I'll at least move to the garage!
          • LocalDocal, on 01/04/2008, -5/+2I agree with Neilby, but I would change ADWest's suggestion to Giuliani.

            I'm lost on the Republicans this election. They got Rudy '9/11' Giuliani and Fred 'Who are my voters' Thompson? Christ!
          • brufleth, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Apparently it is really hard to find work in Australia. I agree with the sentiment though.
        • PrincessSalami, on 01/04/2008, -6/+2More like every other choice is the WRONG one. At least Obama vs Paul would be exciting... from the coverage of digg front pages alone. I knew Huckabee would win, he had '***** Chuck Norris' in a commercial! He wasn't a woman, and he was bought and paid for long ago.

          http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Did_Governor_Huc ...
          he was the only logical choice because Ron Paul will never win, on account of him not being a puppet. And actually caring about us ' the average person ' but the next day when Obama or Huckabee is elected the protesters will hit the streets and The people who seek to maintain rule over us must face the people! They will have to succumb to reason truth and justice.... or the world is ***** and I'm going to try to organize people into buying an island, then name it The P.R.O.R.P.E.R. Government.
          The Peoples Republic Of Ron Paul. Ergo: Reefer.

          ...the world could be a better place... *sigh*
      • IpecacNeat, on 01/04/2008, -1/+24Huckabee will be easy to beat in the national election.
        • elint6, on 01/04/2008, -1/+26That's what they said about Bush. Don't keep your fingers crossed.
          • shupy, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Bush had a lot of political tradition and really big business money behind him. He also managed to get the Christian conservatives behind him.
            Huckabee may get the Christians, but big business and old political power is not going to support him.
        • j33buscr1p3s, on 01/04/2008, -1/+10Yes, but Bush had Karl Rove running his campaign. Although Huckabee does have Chuck Norris, the only person more terrifying than Rove...
      • tabularassa, on 01/04/2008, -0/+15Man, Huckabee winning sure scares me. With his death-to-the-IRS idea and all the religious nuts out there supporting him he'll sure get a ***** of votes
      • themastersb, on 01/04/2008, -1/+4Yea I hope no Republican except Ron Paul gets close to being president in 2008. BTW if someone registers as a republican and Ron Paul doesn't make it to the final votes would they have to keep their vote Republican? (Doesn't know much about US voting system)
        • brufleth, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2If I understand your question right the answer is no.
          It varies from state to state I think but you can vote in the primary for a republican and then re-register independent (I think my state actually calls it "undecided" which is BS) and then vote for whoever you want in the actual election.
          • slvrbullet87, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1you can vote for whoever you want in the actual election... the only reason you register rep/dem is for your primary
      • BabaRamDass, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2You have to recognize the demographic that is Iowa. Huckabee, a terror-fearing Christian evangelist winning is not very surprising to me. NH is much different territory with more independent-thinking people. Paul will do much better, and Huckabee will do much worse in NH.

        I dunno about the rest of the nation though.
      • shupy, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Yes, there really is two Americas.
    • tape250, on 01/04/2008, -11/+129The Iowa caucus really doesn't matter at all.
      FACT: Since 1972, only 1 non-incumbant candidate has won both the Iowa caucus and the presidential race. That candidate was George Bush in 2000.
      FACT: In 1992, Bill Clinton only won 3% of the delegates in the Iowa caucus before going on to win the presidential race.

      It's not over yet...

      Source: http://www.theiowacaucus.com/Iowa-caucus-history-r ...
      • 69ers, on 01/04/2008, -5/+18Why is tape250 getting dugg down? He's right, look at the stats. Bill Clinton came back from 3% in Iowa to win the presidency in '92. It's still anyone's game.
        • u2wedge, on 01/04/2008, -0/+10224,000 people caucused... vs. 124,000 only 4 years ago. This is a new time in America and, quite frankly, the Clinton's represent nothing but the past.
        • tape250, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1However, in 2004, the caucus was held on January 19, after most colleges and school start back up again. This year, it was held on January 3. Thus, a large percentage of voters (17% of Democrat voters according to exit polls) were in the 18-24 age group, a group that has always had a low percentage of voting. Needless to say, when college starts up again and the primaries continue, the 18-24 voter turnout will drop drastically as people don't want to return home to vote.

          Look at the stats: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225980

          The older generation vastly favors Hilary Clinton and John Edwards over Obama, and they're the ones who actually vote in the presidential race.
      • davin510, on 01/04/2008, -1/+37Bill Clinton also didn't campaign in the state since one of his opponents was from Iowa.
        • 69ers, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3The Democratic winner of the Iowa caucus has only gone on to win the Democratic nominee in 4 out of 8 contested contests since 1972. The Republican winner of the Iowa caucus has only gone on to win the Republican nominee in 3 out of 5 contested contests since 1972.
      • IpecacNeat, on 01/04/2008, -4/+14Obama has gotten a big jump in the polls here in New Hampshire. He is looking like a front runner here. Plus this win gives him more donations. South Carolina has a large minority Democrat voting base and Nevada is looking for a clear front runner to throw their money behind. This day is huge for Obama. This day is huge for America. United we stand. Divided we fall.
        • elint6, on 01/04/2008, -3/+3Dugg for at least trying to be inspirational. God only knows we have enough trolls in the interwebs.
      • warrenterr, on 01/04/2008, -4/+2aarrgg stop being negative!
      • goldenratio, on 01/04/2008, -1/+9tape250: interesting factoids, but I'm not sure your interpretation is correct. wikipedia has a different take, for sure:

        "Although only about one percent of the nation's delegates are chosen by the Iowa state convention, the initial caucus has served as an early indication of which candidates for President might win the nomination of their political party at that party's national convention."

        Here's another insightful article from Newsweek:

        http://www.newsweek.com/id/84290

        "With his victory tonight, Barack Obama is now the strong favorite to be the Democratic nominee for president... It's hard to believe a few thousand votes in Iowa can have so shaken the political landscape, but the front-loading of the primary process—originally meant to be a way to settle on Hillary Clinton early so she could concentrate on defeating the GOP in November—has backfired badly for the Democratic Party establishment.

        Unless he makes a terrible mistake in this weekend's WMUR debate in New Hampshire, Obama will be the strong favorite to win in the Granite State. That leaves 18 days until the South Carolina primary, but even that time will probably not be enough for Clinton to fight her way back. With half of South Carolina's Democrats being African-American, her chances won't be good.

        Many blacks have been waiting to see if Obama was for real. Now that white Iowa has voted for him, they will likely move strongly toward him. That was the pattern among black voters when Obama ran for the Senate in Illinois.

        Sources within John Edwards's campaign tell me that if Edwards drops out (unlikely before New Hampshire), he will throw his support to Obama. Should the Illinois senator win New Hampshire and South Carolina, it will be next to impossible to prevent him from becoming the nominee on Feb. 5, Super Tuesday."
      • shupy, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1There's a new fact broken everyday. If it's happened before, it can happen again.
    • Aggaman, on 01/04/2008, -3/+2I'm just waiting for Fuzzy Zoeller to make a racist comment about food.
    • stackered, on 01/04/2008, -14/+5It's too bad there is still lingering racism in our country otherwise Obama's win here could mean something (not to be negative, just realistic - I just don't see it happening with so many people still being racist in our country)
      • ThunderFalcon, on 01/04/2008, -1/+22i was thinking that too, but Iowa is 93% white and Obama won it, so it gives me hope
        • LLamaStar, on 01/04/2008, -1/+14Iowa isn't southern white though.
        • IpecacNeat, on 01/04/2008, -1/+10Southern Caucasians would not vote for a Democrat regardless.
          • JoeDiggsIt, on 01/04/2008, -1/+5Wow, you are riding the train to Sterotypeville. I live in North Florida, which pretty much means if you walk outside and you listen hard you can hear the Deliverance banjo music. I know many many "southern whites" who would definitely vote for Obama.
          • shupy, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2The South used to be solidly democratic. Yeah, there is a train to stereotypeville and a lot of young diggers are on it.
        • scubasteve377, on 01/04/2008, -2/+3How to spot people who have only seen the south on TV.^^^^
      • IpecacNeat, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5Well, if you support his message, don't be "realistic". If you support what he says, you can help bring about change. Get out there, inform people. And most importantly VOTE!
        • rezist, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1what has he changed?
          • shupy, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1The fact that a black man is a front runner is a huge change. The fact that a black man has a shot at winning is monumental.
      • elint6, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5Dems need to carry every state that Kerry carried plus Ohio and/or Florida. Neither one of those are Southern-white (Florida doesn't count), so it's looking good.
        • brufleth, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Check again. Ohio is split. That's why it is a battle ground state. You have the northeastern part which is liberal and you have the southwestern part which is conservative. I lived in Cincinnati during the 2004 election. There's plenty of what people stereotypically expect from southern states there. It is part of the bible belt and there is massive amounts of racism. Oh and if Ken Blackwell or someone like him is running the election again in Ohio it'll almost certainly go Republican.
          • shupy, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1The state of Ohio voted out the Republican state leaders in the last election. The Democrats are throwing out the rigged voting machines and going back to paper ballots. Cincinnati is not representative of the central and northern part of the state. Central and northern Ohio have gone solidly Democratic. Blackwell was voted out and will probably never hold state-wide office again.
      • dev0null, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2If you acquiesce then you're just giving into your own self-fulfilling prophecy.

        If you support the idea of Obama winning, then, if Obama doesn't win then at least it'll be easier for the next try, or, if he does win, then the effort clearly isn't futile. Either way you can fight racism.

        But I can't stop you from making your own decision.
      • megadan76, on 01/04/2008, -2/+2Racism is so 1998. Get with the times. White people are over compensating, now. Being not racist is the new being racist.
        • shupy, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1Boy, you must be young!
          Racism is so 1964. But you probably weren't around then
    • al3x24, on 01/04/2008, -1/+9I have a big feeling that this time its different. I can't explain right now I'm too excited but it just seems different. This win has given him so much momentum and has broke down the "Obama won't do well in the prominently white states" doubt. Plus this is going to really hurt one of his biggest opponent, Hillary Clinton, and the "I'm voting for her because shes inevitable to win in November" thing.
      • wildbillhick, on 01/04/2008, -8/+3Prominent white states except the south. Once they realize Obama doesn't have a tan, and his name sounds like Osama, we will be saluting Fuhrer Huckabee.
        • shupy, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1I'm sure a lot of southerners will be a bit insulted that you assume everyone below the Mason Dixon line is a slope-headed ridge runner with an IQ that is the same as his shoe size.
          Even Texas has elected black representatives and women.
    • DogBotherer, on 01/04/2008, -15/+4He's a corporate no-change candidate, don't be deceived...
      • DogBotherer, on 01/04/2008, -3/+1Ha, that comment was a karmic buzzkill. Okay, we'll talk again in 4 years if he gets anywhere...
    • wildbillhick, on 01/04/2008, -7/+0is anyone else bothered by the fact that a bunch of ignorant hicks have this much clout in who is a "viable" candidate. i mean, come on. if anyone is easy to deceive it has to be these people.
      • slvrbullet87, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2oh god dont let the average american farmer or small buisness owner choose anything... people in the heartland arent people!
    • scubasteve377, on 01/04/2008, -8/+3Sweet!!!! Go Barack!!! PATRIOT Acts for everyone!!!!!!!
      http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006s ...
    • sjl127, on 01/04/2008, -6/+2Bap babe, slide a piece of the porter, drink side 'round the java. (black jive dude on airplane).
    • bluetrevian, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1So it'll be Barak vs. ???
    • Rich711, on 01/04/2008, -1/+4In a state that is 94.9% white, could this also mean an end to media generated racism?
    • shredluc, on 01/04/2008, -7/+5Great. Obama. One step closer to communism. Ron Paul is our only way to freedom.
    • shupy, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3But, it is a sign that racism may not be the big issue people think it is.
  • dav314, on 01/04/2008, -145/+647Looks like Paul is going to get 6th in the republican race... Cue voter fraud charges and break out the tin foil hats (and burying this comment into oblivion).
    • vorbalhorde, on 01/04/2008, -51/+11Maybe if you post that comment in a few more stories you'll get your wish.
    • Salgat, on 01/04/2008, -33/+395He beat Giuliani, so theres no excuses for rejecting him from any future debates.
      • fadeout, on 01/04/2008, -38/+25Giuliani is going to win Florida, maybe Pennsylvania and New York. Ron Paul is not going to win a single delegate.
        • elscorcho717, on 01/04/2008, -4/+37Guiliani won't win New York by a long shot.
        • slayerab, on 01/04/2008, -3/+14Actually he might, polls show that he has a really big lead here in NY, unfortunately
          • MacEnvy, on 01/04/2008, -0/+6I'm guessing it's mostly from Westchester/Upstate. Damn you, fellow CNYers. Maybe I can organize an anti-Giuliani rally up here or something.

            I know a lot of people hate his guts in the city though.
        • tyzent, on 01/04/2008, -1/+10***** him winning in Pennsylvania, we hardly matter in the caucuses but ***** Giuliani, Huckabee too
        • redoctane, on 01/04/2008, -9/+3Bill Clinton, anybody?
        • scubasteve377, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5***** that *****! I'll burn my beloved Florida to the ground before I let that ***** have it.
      • harlowsmonkeys, on 01/04/2008, -19/+52Giuliani put no effort into Iowa, instead concentrating on other states. Anyone with a pulse and access to a Kinko's could have beaten him in Iowa.
        • rz8472, on 01/04/2008, -3/+31By "[...]anyone with a pulse" are you implying he's a vampire? He does bear an uncanny resemblance to Nosferatu...
          • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3You mean Count Orlok.
          • Scarfy, on 01/04/2008, -1/+5Count Chocula?
          • JoeDiggsIt, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Holy shiite, your right! and also, the original Nosferatu movie is much scarier than 75% of the crappy scary movies nowadays.
        • janeuner, on 01/04/2008, -11/+8Paul put in the same amount of effort as Giuliani did. Straw Man arguments ftl.
        • vat0r, on 01/04/2008, -10/+3I think Paul tried less then Guliani in Iowa.
        • ZenFountain, on 01/04/2008, -0/+12To be fair Giuliani did beat Alan Keyes, although many have described Keyes as little more than a windbag with access to Kinko's.
        • DarkReign16, on 01/05/2008, -2/+1You're actually wrong, Rudy did more campaigning in Iowa than the Paul campaign did. Keep in mind that the grassroots did the vast majority of campaigning for Paul, unofficially.
      • reed311, on 01/04/2008, -5/+30Rudy didn't campaign in Iowa. He was expected to lose in NH and Iowa, which is why nobody in the media is counting this is a loss. He is putting his chips on Florida and beyond.
        • turpenine, on 01/04/2008, -1/+19because florida is full of excellent voters.
        • hmunkey, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Hey, Florida made GW win.
      • vault, on 01/04/2008, -16/+5Giuliani left Iowa on Wednesday...his strategy is the Feb 5th states, however I think the nomination will go to Thompson.
        • MacEnvy, on 01/04/2008, -0/+12Yeah, Thompson. Sure.

          The guy can barely exert himself enough to get himself enough on the ballot. Maybe someday he'll actually want to be president, and he'll try harder, but you're as deluded as the Duncan Hunter supporters if you think Thompson's got a chance.
        • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -3/+9or as deluded as the Ron Paul supporters.
      • Synova, on 01/04/2008, -1/+5Giuliani 4%
      • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -5/+23Guiliani got what he and his supporters expected. Ron Paul probably got about what he expected too. However, his delusional supporters were expecting much better.
        • stevetrojanman, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Well, considering that 2 out of every 1 Americans (yes, I wrote that correctly) is a Ron Paul supporter in their eyes, he'd have to get at least 100% of the vote or there is some kind of fraud going on.

          /sarcasm (as if it's needed)
      • doctorfungi, on 01/04/2008, -8/+7Except the fact that Giuliani is leading the national polls, where as Ron Paul's national polling results are lower than Giuliani's Iowa results.
      • blorc, on 01/04/2008, -2/+14It doesn't matter if Rudy didn't campaign in Iowa. He has national name recognition and gets plugged consistently by the MSM. Ron Paul's public name recognition isn't even remotely close to Giuliani's, and he came out just shy of McCain and Thompson, who are also so-called "front runners."

        The fact that Paul pulled in 10% to McCain/Thompson's 13% is still exceptional. New Hampshire will be a completely different beast.
        • bingobongony, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Yes...you are smarter on this subject than people whose entire CAREERS are centered around being knowledgable in politics, and therefore how results of caucuses play out. They disagree with you, but I will take YOUR word for it. Befcause you have so much expertise on this subject.
      • mrcabnit, on 01/04/2008, -1/+6Giuliani FTL
      • slaizer, on 01/04/2008, -2/+6Rudy focuses on Florida and Ohio and other states, where elections can be rigged better to his favor.
    • airwalkery2k, on 01/04/2008, -7/+77*Ahem* 5th, currently. The spike in Giulliani votes was some sort of miscommunication I suppose.
    • rz8472, on 01/04/2008, -7/+28Even though I probably will be voting Democrat, I hope this won't his Howard Dean moment (minus the scream). The media was terribly unfair to both people, by attacking and portraying Dean in a negative light, and outright ignoring Paul. Both people did not try to triangulate what they said (especially notable for Dean, as he was officially a 'frontrunner') and it's sad to see how marginalized Dean is right now.
      • buddhistMonkey, on 01/04/2008, -1/+18I agree, except that Howard Dean isn't marginalized. He's the head of the Democratic National Committee, and he's got an enormous amount of behind-the-scenes power. More than just about anyone else, Dean and his "50 state strategy" are responsible for the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate last year.
        • macsox, on 01/04/2008, -10/+6Incorrect. Dean's "strategy" was useless. If it had a role, one would expect gains in unusual, often neglected places. That didn't happen. The Dems won in 2006 because of Bush and Iraq. George is the one most responsible.
      • u2wedge, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2John Edwards came very close to a Howard Dean moment with that tidal wave of change sweeping through all the states he named in a row... only thing missing WAS the scream.
      • Nonplussed, on 01/04/2008, -3/+16Screw that. The only way you can claim that this candidate polling generally at 4th, 5th and 6th has been "ignored" by the media is if you've ignored the media. I honestly have nothing against Paul, but his movement has had a substantial amount of coverage for a bottom-rung candidate. Just because your guy's not on top, don't blame it on the media. It's such a scapegoat. Be real here. The media reflect society, and society's not digging Dr. No.
        Sorry.
    • InfinitySnatch, on 01/04/2008, -32/+20People always say they'll be buried down only as a defense mechanism against actually being buried down. Stop it.
    • yellowcalx, on 01/04/2008, -25/+45whats funny is every time youd mention a poll to a ron paul supporter they'd say it was rigged or the sample size was too small or some other excuse. looks like the polls were pretty accurate and he never had much support at all. thats a shame.
      • rizzo2008, on 01/04/2008, -10/+14actually there was a very small number of people of people who participated in the polls and it is in one rural midwestern state. Somehow people are treating this like a national election though
        • abravo56, on 01/04/2008, -3/+26You seem to be treating this as a meaningless vote. Paul won't MAKE it to a national election with results like this.
        • ithasacarb, on 01/04/2008, -3/+5Keep watching..It's not over yet.
          • stevetrojanman, on 01/04/2008, -3/+4I'll bet my house that Ron Paul does not finish in the top 3 for the Republican nomination.
    • DarkReign16, on 01/04/2008, -36/+6Paul moved up to 4th place now. Your comment seems dumber by the minute.
      • KMye, on 01/04/2008, -0/+20Looks like Paul's still solidly in 5th place to me, according to CNN.com...
        • Tycho7, on 01/04/2008, -1/+9Well, CNN is conspiring against Ron Paul, so that makes perfect sense.

          /sarcasm
      • adwarereport, on 01/04/2008, -0/+14in 5th, both on MSNBC and CNN. I've been watching it all night, he never came close to 4th.
        • DarkReign16, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1He actually came close to 3rd, He had about 11.5K votes, and the 3rd and 4th place have about 13 to 15k votes. So at most 3-4k away from 3rd.
      • rz8472, on 01/04/2008, -1/+6He was close at one point, trailing McCain by about 500 votes at one point. Then McCain pulled away.
        • amoirae, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Probably trying to avoid being tainted by Paul's ambient aura of crazy.
      • tdelet, on 01/04/2008, -1/+14th, 5th, 400th...still a loss...still not even close to winning, thankfully.
      • DarkReign16, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Well when I saw that two candidates both had 13%, I assumed they were tied for third, and Paul had 4th. I was incorrect.
    • EndersGame, on 01/04/2008, -24/+127Does this mean I can have my Digg back? The old Digg that I used to know and love.
      • aussieNickuss, on 01/04/2008, -9/+50Oh it is going to be so nice at the end of the year to be able to see a digg page without a single mention whatsoever of Ron Paul.
        • Norochj, on 01/04/2008, -5/+5I doubt it. I can see people posting RP stuff just to spite you :-P
        • MacEnvy, on 01/04/2008, -2/+16Or Huckabee, or Giuliani, or Romney, or Clinton. Yes, it will be nice when the election is over and we can get on with our lives for a year or so (until the midterm gets underway again).

          In the meantime, I welcome political news. You can disable the US Elections topic if it bothers you that much.
        • lucciinthesky, on 01/04/2008, -0/+6Tasers never go away.
      • loudintl, on 01/04/2008, -3/+17The old Digg went away long before Ron Paul came around. 2005, now those were the times.
    • Nosnevets02, on 01/04/2008, -5/+58Precaucus Polling Data/ Actual Results:

      Huckabee 29.7% / 34%
      Romney 26.7% / 25%
      McCain 11.8% / 13%
      Thompson 11.7% / 13%
      Paul 7.3% / 10%
    • ray4389, on 01/04/2008, -15/+7Stop trolling
    • More4, on 01/04/2008, -22/+7Paul's looking good!
      http://www.marklevinfan.com/Images/RP_black.jpg
      • Joshuarr, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Ron Paul is Lucious Malfoy? I don't get it.
    • captainspud, on 01/04/2008, -40/+29Does that mean no more of these ***** Ron Paul diggbots? Cuz the last six months have been excruciating.
    • DemsFTW, on 01/04/2008, -23/+13first Ron Paul comment I've liked in 6 months. Eat that Ron Paul spammers!
    • Pritchard, on 01/04/2008, -13/+22Paul hardly got any time in Iowa. I really, really don't care. I'm more worried about the Iowans having voted for Huckabee than I am them having not voted for Paul - Paul got in there late and the advertisement space was all bought by then.
      • mharvey, on 01/04/2008, -2/+9You actually raise two great questions:
        1) How much did Paul spend on advertising? (Specifically in Iowa)
        2) How much did Paul raise?
        (These are trick questions to ask of any candidate, however. Until the candidates file their fundraising and expense reports with the FEC, you can't really say.)
      • Klak, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3i live in des moines and rp had plenty of billboards and commercials.
        • Pritchard, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Sure did, but he was a late start there nonetheless.

          Glad to know that you're seeing billboards around though. Maybe Iowans will consider their thoughts over a bit. I see no reason for his support in Iowa to diminish with time.
    • alphaterminus, on 01/04/2008, -3/+40As someone who caucused for Paul I say congratulations to Obama. He's the only Democrat that I could vote for and if he's the nominee in November he has my vote. (I know they are different but I've explained why Obama is my second choice in many other threads.) Hope for America, a slogan shared by two great statesmen.
    • mrfreeziexp, on 01/04/2008, -14/+9I don't know, it's going to be at least a year after the elections when the "Fact: polls were rigged against Ron Paul" stories die down. I know Ron Paul is the internet's favorite candidate, but the fact he put so much effort into Iowa and only beat Giulliani by a small amount, who put NO effort into Iowa is not a a good sign.
      • greenspikefrog, on 01/04/2008, -8/+4I thought we've concluded that by the time Paul got to Iowa it was kinda late providing most of the air time had been bought up? This means nothing and furthermore I think 10% is a good number for Ron Paul to go with from this point forward.
        See you in new hampshire. Ron Paul 2008
      • byrdgang, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1You don't know what you're talking about, do you? First of all, "Rudy Giuliani made more visits to Iowa than Ron Paul" (www.ronpaul2008.com). Second, Iowans were well aware of who Giuliani is. It is not as if they hardly knew his name, but they still decided to go with Dr. Paul in many more numbers.

        Do some homework, buddy.
    • byrdgang, on 01/04/2008, -13/+7How do you come to that conclusion, especially considering that absentee ballots have not been counted? I have never expressed what you are saying I expressed as a Ron Paul supporter.

      Also, let's keep in mind that President Reagan lost Iowa. It is a shame that Dr. Paul didn't make it into the top three, but it is only the beginning, and I am not making excuses.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/04/2008, -17/+10I definitely participated in the burying of your comment. The battle is lost, but the war is far from over!!!! RALLY MY RON PAULITES! RALLY!!!!!
    • Nerys, on 01/04/2008, -14/+7I don't know about you guys but I am pretty happy with 10% thats nothing to scoff that thats 1/3 the votes of 1st and 2nd place though I can not help but notice he would have skinned them if he ran democrat :-) he got more votes than tha top democrat did ? is that number of voters or number of counties? I can't see there being that many counties so I am assuming thats individual voters.

      IE he got more votes than the best of the democrats. NOT BAD if you ask me especially for someone late into the mix and virtually ignored on purpose by major media.

      Not bad at all. I look forward to seeing how things progress.

      Of the rest of the candidates the only one that does not leave me wanting to vomit is obama but he stills leaves a nasty taste and dry heaves in my mouth. While I still will not vote for him I would rather he win than any of the rest if I can not have ron paul.

      Come next November I am voting for ron paul whether he is on the ballot or not. (you DID realize you can do that right :-)
    • phike, on 01/04/2008, -4/+11Paul's state is NH, always has been. My prediction is he will definately be in the top 4 in NH, probably 3rd
      • tdelet, on 01/04/2008, -2/+2But coming in--at best--third in one small New England state is hardly enough to be taken seriously. I seem to recall that Pat Robertson once won a primary...so coming in third (once!) won't cut it.
        • BabaRamDass, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1NH is still largely up in the air IMO. It wouldn't surprise me if Paul doesn't grab that state (stranger things have happened). But OTOH it wouldn't surprise me if Romney or McCain doesn't grab it either.

          I predict Paul will place higher than Huckabee in NH. Iowa was just the territory of a candidate like Huckabee; let's pray the rest of the nation isn't that way (at least when it comes to the Republican side--congrats Obama).

          BTW, coming in the top 3 in NH would most certainly be enough to be taken seriously.
      • Nidy1, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1Oo, ouch, looks like he pulled in steady with number 5 in NH.
    • buckrogers1965, on 01/04/2008, -2/+7Looks more like a dead heat for 3rd place.

      2 people with national name recognition came in just 3% higher. One guy is on a TV show that all the old people watch. The other guy is constantly mentioned on national television in a positive light. The media has tried to ignore Paul, and every time they were forced to mention him, once in a blue moon, they called his supporters names and made fun of his fringe candidacy, saying he was in single digits in every poll.

      Well, the caucus is a double digit poll you can't deny.

      I think it is very telling that the polls in Iowa averaged over the past few weeks were about half the actual support that Ron Paul got. You can pretty much double what Ron Paul is polling at to see what his real percentage will be in any particular state.

      My estimate for Paul in NH is 18%. Just enough to place in a solid 3rd, enough to get him taken seriously as a candidate. I also think the steady climb from 5th to 3rd will generate a lot of interest in Paul. It will be perceived as momentum.
      • tdelet, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Yep. A very dead heat starring three dead candidates.
  • airwalkery2k, on 01/04/2008, -45/+640As far as the Democrats go, I stand by my "Anybody but Hillary" stance, simply because she reminds me too much of Bush except with healthcare plans and the mere possibility of a vagina.
    • rz8472, on 01/04/2008, -2/+52I remember how she refused to apologize or even say her Iraq vote was a mistake (Edwards, Dodd, and Biden at LEAST did that)... and justified the vote as one to "allow the inspectors back in" or some crap. Then she added "Well OBVIOUSLY if I had been given the intelligence we have right now I wouldn't have voted yes", as if we are to automatically trust her on foreign policy matters.

      The only thing that's obvious to me is that she failed.
    • purpmint008, on 01/04/2008, -8/+143Word.
      Obama > Edwards > Hillary
      • pintomp3, on 01/04/2008, -14/+50Kucinich>Obama>Edwards>Paul>the rest>>>Hillary>Guliani>Huckabee.
        • MacEnvy, on 01/04/2008, -3/+13Perfect.
        • anselm83, on 01/04/2008, -5/+4Fred ***** Thompson is better than Hillary Clinton to you?
          • pintomp3, on 01/04/2008, -1/+24yes, because he is lazy. he won't get a whole lot of evil done.
          • whoaohh, on 01/04/2008, -4/+1fred thompson > giuliani, romney, and huckabee
        • timjim31, on 01/04/2008, -11/+7***** kucinich
    • thebellmaster1x, on 01/04/2008, -4/+13Quick correction:
      She has ***** healthcare plans. Always say it like that because the other Democrats with healthcare plans actually put over a minute's thought into them.
      • MacEnvy, on 01/04/2008, -1/+8Oh, she put thought into it all right. Unfortunately, those thoughts were influenced heavily by the insurance lobby, making the whole thing a big crappy mess. Obama's healthcare plan is actually less "well thought out" in my opinion (less detailed), but it's a lot less evil overall than Clinton's, and it actually makes a much more honest effort to help the average American.
    • cranium, on 01/04/2008, -5/+57Bush has a greater possibility of a vagina, I'm afraid. See ya at Guantanamo.
      • superkendall, on 01/04/2008, -2/+6Why, you planning to vacation there?

        If people insulting George Bush were sent to Guantanamo, Digg would be a ghost town with three users.
        • DestroyFascism, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Oh lol...it could still happen.....
          • stevetrojanman, on 01/04/2008, -1/+0Oh, yes, because Bush really gives a ***** what numbskulls on Digg say... Paranoia is unbecoming and becoming more and more rampant. Get a grip.
        • stevetrojanman, on 01/04/2008, -1/+0Wrong reply.
      • taintedzodiac, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5I disagree. It takes alot of balls to ruin our country in less than 8 years. Heck, you could argue he did it in 2-4.
        • slvrbullet87, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1Ruined country? i forgot everybody is starving homeless jobless and dying
        • bluesdealer, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2"Ruined country? i forgot everybody is starving homeless jobless and dying"

          No, but more and more people in our country are doing so as we pour money into wars, bloated government institutions, and lobbyist/corporation-friendly policies, while the middle class shrinks and the gap between the rich poor increases every day.
    • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -3/+1Not much over than a minutes thought, otherwise they wouldn't have kept with them.
    • ScoobyG, on 01/04/2008, -3/+12Dude, that's offensive.

      I laughed anyway :-)
    • matrixbandit, on 01/04/2008, -3/+7Vagina?
      You mean coitus?
      He fixes the cable?
      • Sensai, on 01/04/2008, -1/+5This is what happens when you ***** a stranger in the ass.
        • j33buscr1p3s, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Look at our current situation with that camel ***** over in Iraq. Pacifism is not something to hide behind.
    • Scumbunny, on 01/04/2008, -1/+14Dugg for Vagina.
      • digjam, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1Damn you beat me ! Dugg you anyways
      • DephexTwin, on 01/04/2008, -0/+15And? Did your excavations turn up anything?
    • PamalaLauren, on 01/04/2008, -1/+8I'm beyond glad she came in third. If the ticket is Obama/Edwards I'd vote Dem no problem. Don't do what they did last time and put some dumbass on the ballot!
      • jcm267, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3Then why would you want Edwards to be Obama's running mate?
    • fugazied, on 01/04/2008, -0/+19Hillary = a continuation of the american empire where powerful families stay in power.
    • DurtyJ, on 01/04/2008, -1/+4Dugg for "mere"
  • vapblack, on 01/04/2008, -2/+21http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ...
    cnn
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22484066/
    msnbc

    • davidrools, on 01/04/2008, -3/+2yeah the article this story linked to sucks. bury it and digg a better one.
  • owna1, on 01/04/2008, -9/+150a day to remember. Thank you Iowa!!!!!!!!
    • mhaus, on 01/04/2008, -2/+15You're welcome:)
      I caucused for him and it was amazing. We had an enormous turn-out.
      It was insane seeing how many people who were either first time caucus goers, former republicans or independents coming out to show their support for Obama.
      America wants change.
    • namurt, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5Obama's speech was amazing and inspirational. Reminding me of the Kennedy brothers, I believe Obama is the man for the job. Tonight my brother and I sat among like minded people, packed to the brim in a gym in Davenport. Tonight we gave our voices for hope, tonight we and so many others gave our voices for change. Tonight can be the beginning for so much more. Tonight I pledge to help this inspirational man and the ideas he and so many others support. I am proud tonight of so many and thank those that worked so hard. Hopefully others will join this cause and pledge themselves. Hopefully tonight will be a catalyst for great things to come.
      • rezonq3, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2I bet money that not much will change with Obama. Though I don't know the future, I think it's a fair bet that you won't see much change with regards to the war, our thinning civil liberties, nor our national sovereignty. He sounds good, but actions speak louder than words.

        Time will tell.
  • vorbalhorde, on 01/04/2008, -10/+148Had me worried that Hillary might win this one, but this is good news.
    • norman619, on 01/04/2008, -3/+14When she sites being 1st lady as sufficient qualification for being president you know something is wrong.
      • ahoy, on 01/04/2008, -6/+3....yeah because you don't learn ***** when you're married to the President for 8 years and then taking over as a senator of new york for 6 years. You're ***** retarded.
        • mysql101, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5Name one thing she's done for NY while she was in office for 6 years.
      • ryan83189, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0A lot of first ladies helped to run the country. Hillary was not one of them.
    • kylejn, on 01/04/2008, -1/+8The most recent results I've seen actually place her in 3rd, behind Edwards, which is great, IMHO.
  • ZenFountain, on 01/04/2008, -33/+304Great news for Obama supporters, I don't care how trivial the Iowa Caucus is. After seeing this site overran by Paul supporters the past six months I feel justified to gloat over the Paul showing as well, although he should do better in New Hampshire.
    • davin510, on 01/04/2008, -41/+33On a similar note, I hope that the Paul supporters finally realize that "President Paul" was just a pipe-dream and get behind a candidate with a similar view on Iraq but with real electability (OBAMA). And don't be so goddamn annoying this time around.
      • BigW, on 01/04/2008, -16/+18You realize that Iraq was the only thing Paul and Obama agree on don't you. That's not a very good reason to switch to Obama. I still think Paul needs to stay in the race through New Hampshire and Super Tuesday.


        • davin510, on 01/04/2008, -3/+13I can't help it if Paul has a poor platform on abortion, immigration, foreign relations, the environment, or the economy... But all things aside, many times I've heard Ron Paul supporters admit to overlooking his questionable social stances (ie no separation of church and state, repeal Roe v. Wade) because of his strong criticisms on the Iraqi War.
    • jveezy, on 01/04/2008, -22/+89As a Paul supporter, I was kinda hoping for around 15 to 20 percent, but getting 10 percent isn't too bad either. The Iowa Caucus is trivial in terms of delegates, but it is pretty important in terms of publicity. Don't forget that the Iowa Caucus led to the Dean scream and his drop in the polls and gave momentum to John Kerry in 2004. Getting 10% of the vote and beating out Giuliani is enough to make at least some people turn their heads and at least look up Ron Paul.

      Whether you agree with his message or not or whether you're sick and tired of his supporters, I think most people that actually take a look at everything he stands for and take the time to listen to what the guy says would agree that he's a much better candidate than some of the people ahead of him on the Republican side. At least to me, the Iowa vote wasn't about winning. It's more about generating enough publicity to get more people to take a closer look at Paul and to give him a chance to contend with the heavyweights.

      Hopefully he does better in New Hampshire like you say he will and hopefully that will give him even more airtime to convey his message, because the real motivation behind all of the "spamming" of the Ron Paul movement stems from the fact that all we really want is for the rest of the country to take a look and judge him for yourself before you let the media cast him aside.
      • obelisky, on 01/04/2008, -22/+18we have judged him, and he is a horrible, horrible person.
        • klipseracer, on 01/04/2008, -7/+3speak for youself and quit voting the same as your daddy does. horrible people and horrible views on politics are very different. asshat.
      • adwarereport, on 01/04/2008, -20/+1510% is not enough to turn anybody's head. His campaign is dead.

        BTW, I am a Ron Paul supporter and have donated multiple times.
        • klipseracer, on 01/04/2008, -4/+4just because people say you cant win doesnt mean its not possible... especially when you have no faith. even if he DOESN'T win, you have to try and support your beliefs.
        • jveezy, on 01/04/2008, -3/+6Jeez. It's round one and there's plenty more coming up. He doesn't have to turn that many heads from just Iowa. Maybe just a few in Iowa. A few more in New Hampshire. A few more in Wyoming. As long as he manages to outlast a few of the more mainstream candidates, I think he'll be in good shape, and even if he doesn't win the nomination, he'll at least be able to get his message out.
        • AustinMandi, on 01/04/2008, -4/+6RP's campaign is dead??? Um, this is just Iowa. And none of us expected him to win there. I personally was hoping for 3rd or 4th, but he did better than the pundits were predicting.

          BTW, this is the second comment I have read from you tonight where you claim to be a RP supporter but state that now he has no viability. Are you just a troll, or a really crappy activist? Either way, it's lame.
      • rz8472, on 01/04/2008, -3/+14Dont forget about Wyoming on the 5th. The population may be tiny, but its supposedly libertarian territory and a potential momentum generator for Paul.
    • KRNpro, on 01/04/2008, -4/+50But you should understand this - while some voted for Ron Paul - a whole crapload of them voted for Huckabee.
      Hmm. If this doesn't show the average intellectual capacity of the Republican party I do not know what does.
      *cough cough bible thumpers *cough *cough
      • endersadvocate, on 01/04/2008, -3/+13*
      • tommy7154, on 01/04/2008, -3/+6Yah it's really very sad...screw the Constitution that this country was founded on, god will save us all! ::rolleyes::
        • StandupShowcase, on 01/04/2008, -5/+4yea ron paul is the only one who knows how to interpret the constitution, all others who disagree with him are obviously wrong. get a clue, your corporate laissez faire "revolution" just died.
          • tommy7154, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Apologies my comment was meant more to criticize the garbage that is religion and it being mixed with politics. If I worshipped a magical fairy would you vote for me in the next election or would you more likely think I was a delusional nutcase? Maybe I was sent to a building where fairies were worshipped and given a book to read that talked of this great fairy and it's magical fairy dust that created you and I. Why is that objectively any less believable than any other God?
      • Malevolant, on 01/04/2008, -5/+1No, what it shows you is that not everyone thinks like you and that's it. It doesn't make them wrong or evil, it makes them different, in terms of what they believe in.
        • Nerys, on 01/04/2008, -2/+4No but it does make them partially uneducated like the rest of us (the deterioration of our educational standards in the last 50 years is damned scary) An Educated population will vote ron paul NOT because he is a good guy or anything like that but because he has a SIMPLE platform. FOLLOW THE DAMNED LAW.

          Then again if we had an educated population we would have skinned many of the presidents of the past few decades and bush would be in a prison cell right now.
          • Malevolant, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0I'm sorry but religious beliefs and education are mutually exclusive. I'm agnostic btw.
            I agree with the generalization about Americans being uneducated, because you can't dispute that fact. I'll preface my next comment by saying it's not an insult, because it's not....All you have to do to see many instances of uneducated Americans is read digg and the comments. Seriously, it's all there.
      • spinchange, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2No, it doesn't. He has a somewhat populist message that is really pissing off economic conservatives and the GOP. I am not a supporter, but I think it's refreshing to see a social conservative but socio-economic populist. It's a rare combination.
    • StandupShowcase, on 01/04/2008, -23/+18paul is the worst candidate ever. too far left on the war for his party and too far right on everything else for everybody else
      • rizzo2008, on 01/04/2008, -8/+6he's not a leftist he's a strict adherent to the constitution which is what conservatism was before the neocons or new left took over.
        • StandupShowcase, on 01/04/2008, -3/+7read my comment you paultard lemming. I said too far left on the war for his party and too far right on everything else for everybody else.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2too far right for everybody else? 10% is a lot of the nothing that's left after everybody else. also, the internet majority he represents is a lot of nothing left after after everybody else. get you're statistics and arithmetic right. We support the constitution, Is that fringe? We support limited government. Is that stratospheric? get a clue.
        • StandupShowcase, on 01/04/2008, -2/+3yeah too far to the right. want specifics? most americnans support minimum wage laws, environmental protections, anti-trust law, and desire universal health care. oh and you are right, he does have a nice following online, enjoy it.
          • Frnnkdlxx, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1MOST Americans don't support that trash you just stated standup. That's a lie. The majority of AMericans favor libertarianism, rather than far left fanatical big brother government junk like you just stated. Lol. And the people who do support those things are just stupid and don't understand how a nation works.
      • Nerys, on 01/04/2008, -3/+1I do not see him as left (I gave up figuring out this left right crap a long time ago)

        the war is illegal. It was started illegally it was continued illegally and it continues to this day illegaly AGAINST the best interests of the american people (those not in the top 1.5% profiting like mad from it)

        I do not car what "direction" you consider wanting out of iraq NOW to be in only a LEMMING would think otherwise. Unless your part of that 1.5% that profits from it OR part of that deluded portion of our population that actually thinks you can have a war on an ideology. THAT ALONE is enough of a reason to get the hell out of iraq. Just incase our soldiers DIEING FOR NOTHING is not enough for you.

        Use eminent domain to TAKE that god damned patent from chevron have electric cars on the road inside a YEAR that us meer mortals can afford and our OIL problem will freaking vanish. But then that top 1.5% could not milk us any longer. Go Figure.
    • fugazied, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1Good luck with huckabee.
    • Enderplayer1, on 01/04/2008, -1/+6I don't know what makes me happier Obama winning or the Ron Paul revolution playing around with Rudy in the kiddy pool
    • Dantetheinferno, on 01/04/2008, -1/+4Rudy lost because he didn't even try and campaign in iowa...

      I think everyone on digg forgot that.
      • mysql101, on 01/04/2008, -4/+1we didn't forget it, but we're smart enough to know even Ron Paul didn't campaign in Iowa and he still beat the living piss out of Rudy.
  • yodug007, on 01/04/2008, -39/+163The Obama revolution!!
    • AAK15, on 01/04/2008, -49/+19dont even compare Obama to the retarded Ron Paul
    • joegibes, on 01/04/2008, -3/+21Obamalution?
    • TheCasablancan, on 01/04/2008, -2/+16It's the OBAMA-RAMA!
      • TheRascalKing, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Catchy. I cant imagine why he doesnt use it as his political catch phrase.
    • KMye, on 01/04/2008, -7/+8Christ, watching his speech now, even though 99% of it is again rhetorical *****, he is a FANTASTIC orator.
      • Nerys, on 01/04/2008, -5/+3Alas that is one area where for the most part Paul is seriously lacking and its going to hurt him badly. Boy if I could combine the image of obama with the ideals and philosophies of ron paul THAT person would be unstoppable.
      • jdotter, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Rhetorical *****? He's been saying these things for 4 years on a national level and his history and record prove he believes it and lives it. Read The Audacity of Hope, it's his campaign play-book and he wrote it over a year ago, October 2006. I read it shortly before he announced his intention to run and have been on board ever since. He is like nothing else out there and that's why he's succeeding.
    • poiuytrewq44, on 01/04/2008, -1/+8You people are going to squirm when the Obama-brigade forms...
    • DogBotherer, on 01/04/2008, -9/+4Revolution my arse... Even if he secures the Democratic candidacy you're most likely damning yourselves to another 4 years (at least) of neo-con politics...
      • mchinsky, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Actually, I'm upset Hillary didn't win. Although, I know no worse nightmare than a hillary presidency (except maybe Kucinich), She is so beatable it's not funny
    • bluetrevian, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2OBAMANIA!!

      Source: The Daily Show
  • rz8472, on 01/04/2008, -5/+83Awesome; 7% is a pretty substantial lead especially given how far Clinton was leading early on, and things are looking up with rumors of Biden possibly supporting Obama along with Kucinich.

    But because New Hampshire and South Carolina is more Clinton territory, I'd still be wary.
    • txtphile, on 01/04/2008, -0/+6And Richardson. Still rumors tho...
      • cranium, on 01/04/2008, -3/+7Obama/Richardson. Take the white guys out of the picture. I love it -- and I'm white.
        • TenebrousX, on 01/04/2008, -2/+9because race and gender are relevant...
          • cranium, on 01/04/2008, -1/+7They are to the bad guys. It's like hitting them with their own weapon.
    • perogi21, on 01/04/2008, -1/+30NH is not Clinton territory. Mark my words.
      • perogi21, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Oh well, I guess more Massholes/NYers moved here than I thought =)
    • sulthernao, on 01/04/2008, -0/+10South Carolina is NOT Clinton territory, I believe the Obama is extremely viable there. There is a lot of speculation on the large amount of minority voters in that state and a lot of people are citing that as a strength for the Obama Campaign.
      • RonaldLewis, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1If we are to be "united," then there can't exist anything such as a "minority." That's social conditioning at its finest and you and everyone else continue to buy into the ***** that is race, religion, class and status.
        • brufleth, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2That's all well and good. Racism in this country is still there. I agree that the constant distinguishing between "minority groups" often works to propagate racism. Obama is not caucasian though. As heart breaking as it is that is enough to turn many people in this country off to him. That is a devastatingly stupid reason NOT to vote for someone. In a perfect world it would also be a stupid reason to vote FOR someone. In the real world it might just help offset the bigots who would rather vote for a lesser candidate because of racism.
    • xGeneric, on 01/04/2008, -2/+3I live in southern NH and it's not like every other house has a Hillary sign on their snow covered lawn. Candidate advertising seems spread pretty even among the top candidates(including Paul). Between Obama and Hillary, I don't see either one having an edge in the towns in my area.

      As to the results of the Caucus... good. I like Paul, but I think Obama is getting my vote. I can't see Paul getting elected, and really Obama is the only "electable"(God, I had that term, but it's true) candidate that I could vote for and still be able to sleep at night. Hillary would just divide us more... she seems to like being on the 'blue team', trying to quash the evil 'red team', a little to much. Our government, and citizens to a point, have been driven apart along political lines for the past 4-5 years, and I don't see many other candidates looking to bridge the gap. The majority of them seem to want to make it bigger... you're with us, or against us, and all that *****.

      It's exactly why Hillary and Rudy need to shut the ***** up. And ***** you Huck, there is indeed a separation between church and state, and no I don't believe you'd adhere to that. And hey, Mitt, that's great you got an add with a guy telling us the amazing tale of how you found his son... I don't give a *****, it doesn't mean you'd make a good president.

      Oh, did I mention "***** Rudy" already? I did? Well, ***** Rudy and his red sweater too!
    • dgillz, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0Jesse Jackson won the '84 primary in South Carolina, mainly for being black. Obama, who is black but unlike Jesse a viable candidate, will cruise in SC.
  • jcm267, on 01/04/2008, -48/+17He hasn't won the primary yet, guys. Calm down.
    • vapblack, on 01/04/2008, -0/+16He's got iowa though as the Digg header says.
      • jcm267, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3And the description seems to me like the submitter is getting ahead of himself. Like he thinks that Obama has it sewn up. Maybe I was misreading it.
        • nolesshabitual, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2how the ***** do you misread "Barack Obama wins Iowa Caucuses!!!" the description says that the news outlets confirm this victory, and that it's an actual race with the hil-dog. i'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but i've read too many B.S. comments from you on political threads to do that
          • jcm267, on 01/04/2008, -3/+2Here is the description "All the news outlets are showing Obama as the winner! We have a good election ahead of us!"

            - A good election ahead of us? To me a good election is one where my candidate wins.

            "i'd give you the benefit of the doubt, but i've read too many B.S. comments from you on political threads to do that"
            - BS comments??? Like what? I try my best to remain honest and factual in every thread that I participate in.

            Perhaps you are a spiteful Ronbot or 9/11 Truther who doesn't like people like me who rely on facts instead of fantasies. I really don't know because I have never seen you participate in any thread before. I'll be waiting for some examples of my "B.S. comments".
    • wreckosaurus, on 01/04/2008, -1/+19can you go one thread without being an ass
      • jcm267, on 01/04/2008, -9/+1Why did you digg 4 submissions about this same story? I guess I can forgive the submission and a subsequent digg of an upcoming one. But four total submissions for the same story? You are no better than the Ronbots.
  • had3l, on 01/04/2008, -39/+156This guy actually has a very good shot people, we gotta get behind him!

    Realistically, there is a 90% chance that the next president is going to be a Democrat, and now that Edwards is pretty much dead, the race for the presidency is basically Obama vs. Clinton.

    If you still have hope for this country, you will get out there and vote for Obama.
    • KSUdesigner, on 01/04/2008, -6/+90Edwards is dead? I don't like the guy, but at the moment he's in a dead heat with Clinton for 2nd.
      • Discobreakin, on 01/04/2008, -3/+12Edwards is dead because he spent all of his money in Iowa.
      • Rob1430, on 01/04/2008, -3/+4Absolutely he is not dead. Beating the "inevitable" winner (Clinton) who broke all the fund raising records this campaign is not a bad finish.
      • freff, on 01/04/2008, -1/+6He's dead because he spent 6 years and just about all his cash campaigning in Iowa. He also has absolutely no organization beyond the 3rd primary state, and he REALLY needed a win here to keep him afloat beyond that. Eeking out a second place finish against someone the vast majority of the party is against in the place he made his own personal Waterloo won't help him. It just means he dies a little bit slower now.

        Tonight's big winner was Obama. And since Clinton is built to last (unfortunately), the big loser becomes Edwards.
    • Foundation12, on 01/04/2008, -1/+36I'm for Obama 100%, but Edwards is most definitely still in the race (Don't ignore all the fun southern states that don't particularly like black or female people in power). Regardless, I'm hoping for an Obama/Edwards ticket this November!
      • adwarereport, on 01/04/2008, -11/+6Obama/Edwards? Now that would be awesome.

        But what would be more awesome is Edwards/Obama
        • seldon452, on 01/04/2008, -0/+7OMFG, and Edwards support on this site? I thought I was the only one!
      • zeiben, on 01/04/2008, -0/+7Either way, it's 16 years of democrats in the white house (provided they don't ***** it up)
        • poiuytrewq44, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4I'm just hopeful that none of them ***** it up...
      • hierophantus, on 01/04/2008, -1/+4I'd prefer Obama/Dodd, myself. I think Dodd's economic pragmatism would nicely balance Obama's populist idealism.
      • Malevolant, on 01/04/2008, -2/+3Wow you completely stereotype the south as being totally racist. Just so you know, I've lived all over the US and the south doesn't have a monopoly on racism.
        • unitedstatians, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Its an old civil war joke, light him up!
      • Gabberwok, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Obama/Edwards would be a bad idea. They're both far too young and would not be taken as seriously. I'd like to see Obama/Biden, but I doubt it would happen.
        • u2wedge, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1kinda like Bill Clinton and Al Gore? Seems those two were a decent combination at the time.
    • zeiben, on 01/04/2008, -3/+5The money issue could be a positive for Edwards. If he sells his house and depletes his savings to stay in it, I daresay he'll convince me that he really believes in helping the middle class...
    • geezas, on 01/04/2008, -5/+1I think very similarly about Obama as does Gore Vidal in this interview
      http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdatas ...
    • darnit, on 01/04/2008, -0/+7He is beating Clinton for 2nd place.
    • Vigilo, on 01/04/2008, -6/+5Hillary will make a big comeback and take the Nomination. Obama will take VP because he is young and fresh and with her experience its a perfect combo. The whole thing is rigged people we have had voter fraud for god knows how long you think it stops now haha fools.
    • Sharky35, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2"This guy actually has a very good shot people, we gotta get behind him!"
      So your favorite NFL team must be the Patriots?
  • purpmint008, on 01/04/2008, -19/+265TOTAL WORLD OBAMINATION!
    • mnizzy0, on 01/04/2008, -2/+11i want that on a t-shirt
    • digjam, on 01/04/2008, -1/+6BARACKing the USA by OBAMinating?
    • Goodanswer, on 01/04/2008, -9/+4sorry you ment NEW WORLD OBMINATION
      please check your National ID card at the door
      and place all personal belongings in the basket.
      • 1337Einstein, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Stop hogging the tin foil, some people want to use that stuff for something other than hats.
    • Petrarch1603, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3okay, that's disturbing
    • Ireland, on 01/04/2008, -1/+7Obama is the man for the job, so remember, don't forget to ***** vote!
    • kutateli, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1I see what you did there.
    • Malevolant, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4Obamination is way too close to abomination or didn't you see that when you coined that horrible "word"?
  • jakebouma, on 01/04/2008, -9/+210I just got back from my precinct. It was incredible... Obama took half of the delegates.
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 01/04/2008, -42/+11Great, now go back to living your useless and meaningless life in Iowa.
      See you in four years.
      • poopz, on 01/04/2008, -1/+7where do you live? coastal city? where the most exciting thing in daily life is getting your mocha frap at the local coffee shop?

        my god i hate this nonsensical bashing of midwesterners. we're actually, for the most part, friendly, easygoing people who get along with everyone, unlike you
        • Gella321, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Hate much?
        • Gabberwok, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Yeah, but why does that make you qualified to choose presidential nominees for the rest of the country? I would like to see a candidate talk about public transportation rather than ethanol for once in their campaigns (for example)...
      • pintomp3, on 01/04/2008, -0/+9someone is bitter.
      • Erfman, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Oh well at least the only disaster that can wipe out our area is a meteor impact and shoveling snow gives me a chance to catch up on my podcasts.
    • poopz, on 01/04/2008, -0/+20Congrats for going out and voting! This is something America could really use, more involvement in politics and less apathy about national issues. And I don't care what your views are, just get out there and vote!
    • snotrokit, on 01/04/2008, -1/+9Thanks for going out and caucusing Jake. Really. This is what we need in this country. Kill Apathy, get off the couch and do something about it. Bravo Jake, and dugg ya poopz
    • namurt, on 01/04/2008, -1/+10My brother and I went to the Caucas in a gymnasium in Davenport, Iowa. We gave our voices for Senator Obama, along with 186 others. Barack won in our small gym with Barack 189, Clinton 80, and Biden 57. Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson were knocked out. I am proud tonight to be from Iowa, even if it isn't a large state.
    • Gella321, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2same here. Over 470 people came out. Over half went to Obama (including my girlfriend and I). About 130 went to Hillary and the rest went to Edwards.
  • 01l0, on 01/04/2008, -18/+10This may be considered spam, but my digg is a link to the AP/CSPAN running tally of the votes counted, updated roughly every other minute. Checks it out for the latest results (i.e. the exact percentage Obama is winning by)
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Iowa_Caucus_Resu ...
  • wisewaif, on 01/04/2008, -13/+62He's the OBOMB!!!
  • Harboggles, on 01/04/2008, -22/+162I hope this becomes obama/kucinich
    • vapblack, on 01/04/2008, -28/+7I hope for Obama/Paul. Oh, dreams...
    • DucoNihilum, on 01/04/2008, -27/+3Dont even compare Obama to Paul.

      Obama and Kucinich would be.... absolutely aweful. Kucinich is the favorite of the USA socia