digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Beleagured Hillary Defies DNC Rules - Heads to Florida

youdecide08.foxnews.com — Hillary Clinton said she will go to Florida to assure Democrats that “their voices are heard” and to underscore her pledge to seat the state’s delegation at the convention. Though Democratic candidates largely have heeded the DNC’s request that they not campaign publicly in Florida, Clinton said it’s time to pay attention to FL voters.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 01/28/2008, -17/+446She will say and do anything to win.

    this has nothing to do with the voters. she doenst care about the voters. She only cares about her belief that she deserves and has to be president It's not about the voters... it's all about her.
    • malfourmed, on 01/28/2008, -41/+12The DNC does not prohibit holding fundraising functions in Florida, something that both Clinton AND Obama have taken advantage of. For example Obama has held fundraisers inTampa and Sarasota (and possibly other places). And in Tampa last year he implied that he would seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, in contravention to DNC rulings by stating that he would "do what's right by Florida voters." But could it be that now, days away from the empty hand primary, that polls show him at a distinct disadvantage in Florida he is more reluctant to reiterate this sentiment?

      http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows ...
      http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071106/NEWS ...

      The Digg community can be passionately partisan about certain anointed candidates. I have little doubt for instance that if it was HE who was pushing for Florida and Michigan to be included at the convention that the narrative would be "Obama stands up for disenfranchised voters" rather than "Clinton will do anything to win".

      For the record, I would personally be happier if Obama became President as his policies are consistently more progressive (despite his rhetoric of bipartisan outreach which, quite frankly, is noble but somewhat unrealistic). I also believe that Clinton has the better chance during the general election campaign, particularly if it gets as nasty as it did during 2004. My dream outcome is a Clinton/Obama ticket that sets up the next 16 years.
      • cheesegrits, on 01/28/2008, -12/+3I share your beliefs- you get the feeling the mob is ruling here? Not whole lot of political discussion, mainly name calling and slogans. And they seem to pick some one such as Ron Paul or Barack Obama, who is the next best thing to sliced bread.
        But if you look at the technology section the same thing happens- the "I-anything" rules and all others suck.
        • oldhick, on 01/28/2008, -0/+8To be fair, Diggers have spent a lot of time discussing Hilary and the bottom line is the majority have developed a loathing of her. So yes, that leads to spin...
          • Iconoclast25, on 01/29/2008, -0/+5Corrected for accuracy: "To be fair, the loathing for the hildabitch pre-dates Digg by the best part of twenty years."
      • TubaTechno, on 01/28/2008, -2/+3I'm sorry, how does that set up for the next 16 years? Former presidents cannot be vice presidents.
        • 1of42, on 01/28/2008, -2/+0...Clinton with Obama as VP for the next 8 years, then 8 years of Obama as Pres. Not too difficult to grasp.
          • Iconoclast25, on 01/29/2008, -0/+4The very thought is enough to make thinking people suffer projectile vomiting.
        • mrsteveman1, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Interesting that you completely avoided the fact that vice presidents can go on to be elected president.....
      • nirav72, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2"The Digg community can be passionately partisan about certain anointed candidates."

        Wait..how the hell can be this be considered partisan when this is all related to the same party?
        • RpgActioN, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2The word partisan isn't exclusive in application to the word "party." It simply implies a bias towards one side in a situation with two or more sides to choose from...in this case, a bias towards either of the candidates.
    • COlson87, on 01/28/2008, -9/+28Your comment "She will say and do anything to win." reminds me of this recent article on Digg:
      http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/How_To_Ruin_ ...

      From the article: "Always manipulate the language, affixing labels to those who oppose your policies, repeating those labels in negative contexts until each of them retains the power to convey evil or harm simply by invoking them."

      Interesting how Diggers, being so informed and immersed in a diverse pool of information, can still be manipulated.

      For the record, I agree Hillary is a bitch.
      • Innova69, on 01/28/2008, -22/+1Agreed.
        Buried for linking to Faux News.
      • TubaTechno, on 01/28/2008, -7/+6Ah yes, ANY news from Fox is bad. Even if it's the truth. well I guess I could be like you and bury anything new source that I think is dumb, like ThinkProgress.

        But then again, I try not to be an ignorant intolerant idiot.
    • Innova69, on 01/28/2008, -28/+4Agreed.
      Buried for linking to Faux News.
      • MacEnvy, on 01/28/2008, -1/+15Burying for linking to FNC makes you no better than those who bury a story just because it comes from Raw Story. Both are biased media, but to bury based on the source rather than the information is not the way to go about things.

        Argue ideas, it's the only way to remain unbiased toward facts.
      • Iconoclast25, on 01/28/2008, -2/+2. . . buried for being a left wing idiot (excuse the redundancy).
    • McGuinness, on 01/28/2008, -23/+33Can you really be surprised though? I'll go ahead and be the horrible person to say it. Shes acting just like a woman. She cries to get what she wants and then when she doesnt win, she'll try any way to change that. Because lets face it, women always have to win. They'll lie and manipulate to do so.
      • NSResponder, on 01/28/2008, -5/+15Oh, come on now. Yeah, Hillary's being a complete bitch, but to tar all women with that brush is ridiculous.

        -jcr
        • michelspc, on 01/29/2008, -0/+5To classify Hillary as a woman would be a mistake.
      • kipmartin, on 01/28/2008, -1/+12now there's an enlightened, sensitive man of the New Millenium. sheesh. Hillary is not like any woman i know--ruthlessly ambitious, spoiled, and a bully. shes more like Mitt than people want to believe.

        dont paint all women like her--the human species needs to sustain itself.
      • qwerter, on 01/28/2008, -2/+12Are you kidding? I hope you're kidding. Because this is exactly the kind of chauvinistic rhetoric that makes people vote for her in her defense.
        (Seriously, who's digging this guy up?)
      • larsone86, on 01/29/2008, -3/+1Hey McGuinness - are you paid by Clinton to come on here and make comments like that? If not I suggest you shut the ***** up.
      • skyh, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1That must mean Romney is a woman then.
      • Ryosen, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1When you put it that way, she sounds like a Republican.
    • ncnavguy, on 01/28/2008, -1/+61Not only will she do anything to win but cares nothing for people who support her when she loses. Anyone notice that the night she lost in SC she was already in Tennessee, not even staying to talk to the 140k people that supported her in the state. I not a big fan of John Edwards but at least he had the decency to thank his supporters in SC before heading out to campaign more. Hillary shows her lack of class and exactly how she would treat anyone that did not agree with her agenda if she became president.
      • NSResponder, on 01/28/2008, -3/+9Maybe Edwards is thinking of running again someday, while Hillary knows that this is her only shot.

        -jcr
    • theutopian, on 01/28/2008, -21/+6She's a woman, what do you expect?
      • alkajazz, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4 Booooo
      • kipmartin, on 01/28/2008, -8/+1and youre a ***** who hates women.
        • theutopian, on 01/28/2008, -2/+4Nah, I don't hate women actually. I just hate Hillary.
          • mrsteveman1, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2Something tells me your first comment "She's a woman, what do you expect?" and your second comment "Nah, I don't hate women actually. I just hate Hillary." don't fit together.
    • iainc, on 01/28/2008, -2/+17Ho ho. If she wins, the Dems can probably kiss the 2012 elections goodbye; (oh and 2012 just happens to be the end of the Mayan calendar - not that that should weigh heavily on peoples' thoughts). It would be nice to see someone in the Whitehouse who doesn't have the name of Clinton or Bush.
    • wishninja, on 01/28/2008, -11/+4I hope people are considering the source of this "news" while they read it.
    • werkerb33, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Agree 100%.

      Witness the blatant race baiting taking place right now. They are making Obama the "Black" candidate knowing full well it will disenfranchise him from most latino and some white voters. This could have a huge effect in California and the Southwest.

      I hate seeing Billary turn cultures and race against each other for fun and profit.
    • AsusMobo, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3No offense but, all politicians are like this. None of them give a crap about you. What, you thought Obama did? Heh. There is an elite club in American and we're not in it, yet we constantly elect the same fools over and over again whose only goal is to take more from us to make more for them.
  • elkram, on 01/28/2008, -38/+16She's pandering to the Hispanic voters.
    • AtHomeBoy2000, on 01/28/2008, -1/+45no, she is trying to change the rules so she can win. She wants Michigan and Florida to count because she is going to win those states since no one is campaigning there. She won, and is winning, based purely on name recognition. The fact that she leads in states until people start campaigning there and then she drops in the poll sis proof of this.
      • elkram, on 01/28/2008, -7/+8Okay I can agree with that, but isn't it possible she also sees it as a chance to curry favor with Hispanics being as it appears Obama has the majority of African american voters behind him.
        • Ridgeliner7, on 01/28/2008, -1/+12Highly possible, but don't believe the press reports. Obama is getting lots of Hispanic voters, indicating there isn't some big divergence of minority voters.
          • m00kie, on 01/28/2008, -10/+3obama looks like a cuban. get'em in a straw hat and a nice tropical print shirt and khakis and you'll think he's ricki ricardo incarnate.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Hispanics only constitute about 11% of Florida's voters...

      http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/orl-v ...
      • kipmartin, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3if you remember, .01% means the difference between winning and losing florida. ask al gore.
    • norman619, on 01/28/2008, -0/+7I'm surprised she hasn't claimed to have a relative or ancestor who crossed the Rio Grande and understands their pain.
  • ArrowheadAddict, on 01/28/2008, -10/+252The effing Clintons are not bigger than the Democratic party. It's time to put a stop to these to over-the-hill clowns.
    • foxhaze, on 01/28/2008, -27/+5The Democratic party is acting like a whiny little girl. "Boo hoo, Florida moved their primary up, it's ruining our PERFECT primary system :(..." Things didn't go their way, so they gave Florida 0 delegates, and expected candidates to avoid it. Now that Hillary Clinton isn't following their "rules," here they are, crying again. Boo hoo hoo. She's still going to lose, you idiots.
      • chaosium, on 01/28/2008, -0/+12"Boo hoo hoo. She's still going to lose, you idiots."

        I hope you're right.
      • saintdesy, on 01/28/2008, -0/+8The party had to do something. They really went overboard, but if you didn't have some sort of strict timeline for the primary, you would have states constantly advancing their primaries to beat out the other states to the point where we would be beginning the primary for the 2012 election in 2009 or something.
      • gerbco, on 01/28/2008, -1/+6If she doesn't respect the parties rules perhpas she should forgo the parties nomination and run as an independent. She is trying to win THE PARTIES NOMINATION.... what is so hard to understand about that?
        • gerbco, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1**Party's Nomination** responding to dumb post makes me stupider.
    • rmxz, on 01/28/2008, -1/+17Sadly, I fear the Clintions are about as big as the Democratic party.

      If the Democratic Party indeed had any substance left, it would have impeached Bush by now.

      However, (with a couple exceptions that don't represent the party as a whole) the Democratic Party and Hillary are both just neocon-lite who's only actual position on any issue is "we're not sure if we like wars, but so long as Bush says so we'll follow him".
    • Toast1185, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3I dunno, I would have loved it if Clinton, Obama or anyone else would have came to Michigan. The candidates may not be bigger than the Democratic Party, but the people are the Democratic Party and I for one was really pissed when they turned their back on us. Good luck getting any money/support from me and many other Michiganders in the Presidential race
      • sonstone, on 01/28/2008, -1/+4Maybe you should have encouraged your legislature to not break the DNC rules...
      • Toast1185, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2No, I encouraged them to break the DNC rules. I see no reason why a few small, predominantly white states should have so much influence in the beginning of a presidential race.
    • ScottKeeler, on 01/28/2008, -8/+1You've got to love politics according to Digg:
      Democratic Party telling Michigan and Florida they will have no say in the candidate = GOOD
      Politician fights for the rights of those voters to be heard = BAD

      Democratic Party sets up Nevada elections so that an Obama supported union gets special voting privileges, including having each individual vote count as five official votes = GOOD
      Lawsuit to make sure that all votes are treated equally = BAD

      An inexperienced politician gets elected in 2000 based only on the charm of his speeches = BAD
      An inexperienced politician gets elected in 2008 based only on the charm of his speeches = GOOD

      Proven experience fixing a dramatically broken economy and ending a recession caused by a Bush = BAD
      Putting an inexperienced charmer in charge of the most badly damaged United States economy of most of our lifetimes = GOOD

      • versusgorilla, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Semantics!
      • chicagodigger, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Are you Hillary Clinton, cause you sure can turn words to your warped point of view.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1BILL CLINTON'S A DIGGER!!! Wow!
  • jhuckabee, on 01/28/2008, -39/+70She and her husband are the evil, dirty, and lowly scum of the scum.
    • shifty2, on 01/28/2008, -5/+13When I talk about Hillary and Bill I refer to them as: "HillBilly"
  • wampeter, on 01/28/2008, -9/+156PLEASE digg this!!! It is not getting nearly enough coverage and perfectly underscores everything that is wrong with the Clintons and politics in general. She is blatantly trying to CHEAT to win the democratic nomination.
    • Ridgeliner7, on 01/28/2008, -6/+4I so agree! Pass the link on to everyone on your lists.
      • norman619, on 01/28/2008, -6/+3Spamming isn't cool. Don't we get enough of that from the Ron Paul camp?
    • nittanylion06, on 01/28/2008, -18/+2Cheating? I guess many people are wiling to bash Clinton, and to hell with disenfranchised voters.
      • Manhigh, on 01/28/2008, -0/+20I don't agree with the disenfranchisement either, but if she had a problem with the rules, she shouldn't have agreed to go along with them in the first place. If she wasn't backing out of her previous agreement and trying to change the rules halfway through, people wouldn't have a problem with this.
        • dev0null, on 01/28/2008, -4/+9Talk about "ends justifying the means." Wouldn't be the first time for the Clinton's to change the rules as they see fit.
        • nittanylion06, on 01/28/2008, -10/+3No, you've got it backwards. If Obama/Edwards supporters are pissed that she's going after these votes, then THEY should have never agreed to withdraw their names from FL and MI ballots. Obama/Edwards agreed to let her have MI/FL, and it was no secret that many people were going to push to have MI/FL delegates seated -- they shouldn't be able to cry foul now.
          • chaosium, on 01/28/2008, -0/+6"THEY should have never agreed to withdraw their names from FL and MI ballots"

            No one can remove their names from the ballot due to Florida law, that never happened.
          • kipmartin, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1what the hell are you talking about?
      • dev0null, on 01/28/2008, -0/+14any sense of "disenfranchised" is between the Dem. party and Florida. Hillary isn't there to save the the voters, that's for sure, only herself to make up for past losses.
    • wild, on 01/28/2008, -3/+12But its on FoxNews.com! Thats like agreeing they have a point! Between this and Jack Thompson defending Mass Effect, the Apocalypse is clearly coming to pass!
    • runCMD, on 01/28/2008, -3/+2I disagree with the tone.
      • GhostyBoy, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Yeah really. PLEASE!!! We need ALL OF DIGG to dislike Hillary Clinton and it's going to take every last one of us diggers who ALREADY HATE HER to finish the job.
  • RansomHoldiay, on 01/28/2008, -3/+124More power to her. Let her waste her time and further alienate her supporters from the rest of the democratic party. The DNC will be thinking of what is going to happen in November, and they will realized that Obama is the only hope to unify the country, let alone the democrats.

    If by some chance Hillary won the nomination and the election it would be split 50-50 again, and nothing would change in the end. She, unlike Obama, sees republicans as the enemy, and they see her as the enemy. And that is not what our country needs.
    • DevDuck, on 01/28/2008, -1/+5If Hillary "wins" the primary it won't be a 50-50. Hillary has less of a chance of winning the general election then Rudy "9-11" Guiliani does.
      • rderveloy, on 01/28/2008, -0/+9You underestimate the power of the dark side. Hillary is not someone easily dismissed.
        • norman619, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah cuz she's a woman after all. Right?
    • Iconoclast25, on 01/29/2008, -7/+2That's fair, because in turn many conservatives regard the left ***in its entirety*** as their enemy. The hildabitch and former first pimp are old vermin, b. hussein a new form of vermin, but all the left are still a lower life form than the parasites in the alimentary canal of a maggot. What this country *needs* is to reduce the population by 20 million illegals and fifty million gutless imbecilic lefties.
  • jasqwerty, on 01/28/2008, -2/+179I'm sure she's very proud of her 1st place Michigan finish as well, which involved her running against herself.
    • kopf1988, on 01/28/2008, -0/+8Lol, nice.
    • nerfherderguy, on 01/28/2008, -0/+47Yep, she was actually bragging about "winning" Michigan in an interview yesterday.
    • A2TrueBlue, on 01/28/2008, -0/+32The problem is also that she is now trying to have the DNC seat the delegates that were taken away from Michigan. She just happened to "not file the paperwork" in time to pull out of the race like Obama and Edwards did. I would rather have my state's votes not count than give half of our votes to Hillary just because she is too incompetent to file paperwork and is trying to blatantly cheat the rules that the DNC set forth.

      The DNC has the opportunity to screw me twice. Once by taking my vote away (which I subsequently voted for RP with) and once by giving it back to a person who was the only real candidate on the ballot yet couldn't even get 60% against an option that was essentially ANYONE BUT HILLARY except worded differently I'm assuming to confuse people.
    • aliengoods, on 01/28/2008, -1/+44You missed the funniest point of hillary running against herself. She only got 66% of the vote. Apparently vacuous space is more appealing to a third of Michigan voters than she is.
      • Wartz, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4I lol'd
      • saintdesy, on 01/28/2008, -1/+4More like 55%. So she is just barely more preferable than nothing.
    • 2diggnot2digg, on 01/28/2008, -3/+11Speaking as a MI voter who would have really liked to have cast my vote for Obama and regarding her desire to have [Florida's voters voices heard] - ***** YOU you vindictive, manipulative hussy!
      • Synova, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Heard of write-ins?
        • badplacebo, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Write-ins were not allowed in Michigan. That is why supporters of Edwards and Obama made a heavy campaign for people to vote "Uncommitted". Against a ballot that said, Clinton, Kuccinich, Gravel, Uncommitted... When she was the ONLY big name candidate on the ballot, Clinton only got 55% of the vote while Uncommitted hit 40%. Truly a strong message for anyone but Clinton!!
      • r00fus, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Dude, get a grip. I don't support Hillary clinton, but you should really be pissed at your frickin State Democratic party that tried to stare down the DNC and lost. I mean, it sucks that the primary calendar is so lopsided (why TF does Iowa get first billing every god-damned time?).

        But when your State dem party got warned of a smack down by the DNC, they thought they could still move the date and get away with it.

        Write them and tell THEM you're pissed your primary vote got trashed.
    • uptown, on 01/28/2008, -1/+8Yeah, in a race where she was running against nobody, she only got 55% of the votes.
      If that's not pathetic, I don't know what is.
      • DevDuck, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4The real voice of Michigan's democratic voters may well be that almost as many people showed up to vote "Nobody" as showed up to vote for her.

        I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that she won Michigan, yet she's running around bragging about having done so.
    • babar77, on 01/28/2008, -0/+5She shouldn't be allowed the Michigan Delegates no matter what now. Write-ins were not counted. Therefore the entire Michigan Primary is a waste. She's also failing to mention that usually candidates win in the high 80s to 90s when running uncontested. 55% while running uncontested (with no write-ins being counted) is as much of an embarrassment as SC.
    • HellDonut, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1..And she still lost.
    • geekee, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Kucinich ran in Mich.
  • electionEve, on 01/28/2008, -2/+43So much for promises. They cheat and lie. I'm totally disgusted with them.
    • Ridgeliner7, on 01/28/2008, -4/+15It amazes me how much Bill and Hillary really emulate Nixon, in their political tactics......
    • ProKid, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1She's sweatin now
  • Elderon, on 01/28/2008, -30/+14I don't support Hillary in any way, but this is stupid. Who the ***** are they to tell candidates they can't run in certain states? That's just bullcrap. This is where the party itself has to much power over campaigning. Candidates should be able to campaign and run in ALL states. ***** those who think that my voice should or shouldn't be heard based on the petulant tantrums of party officials. Bunch of pansies.
    • Andareed, on 01/28/2008, -3/+18But the candidates generally agreed not to campaign in those states.
    • Coven, on 01/28/2008, -3/+30It's like me and a buddy both liking a girl, then agreeing that neither of us should try to date her, and then go and date her behind my buddy's back. It is dishonest and shows what kind of a person she really is.
    • theuniversal, on 01/28/2008, -2/+41Clinton chose to sign the pledge. Now she's choosing to break it. Not only that, but she's pretending she's breaking it out of her concern for the "democratic process" - which is an outright lie.

      And Florida was told far in advance that if it pushed its primary back, its delegates would be stripped. The parties have to exercise control over the nomination process. If all states went at the same time, every candidate would look like Mitt Romney, since its only candidates like that who could afford to run hours and hours of ads nationwide. There are good reasons to put a few small states first and gradually build up to a day like Feb. 5.
      • aliengoods, on 01/28/2008, -1/+12Agreed, on both points. Also, if anyone is in doubt, ask yourself this. Do you really thing Hillary would care about the Democratic process if she had won Iowa and South Carolina?
      • Sabarok, on 01/28/2008, -1/+0The bigger question is who is responsible for deciding to change that date? If Florida is a state that was polling to vote heavily in favour of one candidate, by moving the date and thereby rendering their delegates meaningless, they have also stripped the votes away from that candidate. It's a way for the party elite to control who would win the election. And if Clinton wins her fight to have Michigan & Florida's delegates represented, it would show even more the sham of the election, by having taken advantage of those candidates with integrity
    • jellygraph, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1This message was brought to you by the Clinton Propaganda team.
      Have a nice day.
  • DukeMojo, on 01/28/2008, -32/+6I don't understand. Shouldn't the candidates be able to campaign wherever they want to? How is it "cheating" to try and gain legit votes? I'm sure if Obama (who I support) was to go to Florida then people would probably praise him for trying to gain votes.
    • Andareed, on 01/28/2008, -0/+20The candidates generally agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan.
      • DukeMojo, on 01/28/2008, -6/+4But, WHY!?
        • Andareed, on 01/28/2008, -1/+25Florida and Michigan violated DNC rules by holding their primaries/caucuses before Feb 5. So the DNC stripped these states of their delegates and candidates agreed not to campaign. Clinton did campaign in Michigan and Florida, while Obama and Edwards did not. Now Clinton is reneging on this agreement and wants to have the states count. Do you see why some people are crying foul?
        • babar77, on 01/28/2008, -0/+7The DNC purposely allows smaller states to vote early in the various regions to allow them to have more of a voice. Plus it allows the candidates to prove themselves on smaller stages first before having to go to a full national campaign. Florida and Michigan decided they didn't like that and moved their primaries up. Little did they know that the race would still be well undecided when it got to Super Tuesday, therefore they shot themselves in the foot.

          This is all brought upon by the politics of the last 20 years, where people have to shout to be heard. No one trusts our leaders to listen to us anymore. The politics of the Clintons/Bushes created this mess, and now she's trying to claim she's fighting for them.
        • DukeMojo, on 01/28/2008, -0/+5Oh I get it now. Thank you both for your explanation.
    • nittanylion06, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3It'd b e nice if Obama won Florida if only to watch a lot of people here attempt to avoid eating the crow they so richly deserve.
      • badplacebo, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1There would be no crow to eat. If Obama won the state after sticking to his pledge and not campaigning in Florida against a candidate that is now dropping the word Florida as fast as Giuliani says "9/11"... it would be a landmark victory for Obama. No crow to be had my friend.
        This is all fairy tales though; Clinton is only talking about Florida because she is polling well in Florida and she needs ANYTHING to try to imply momentum going into Super Tuesday. Plus if she succeeded in getting the delegates reinstated, she would have successfully STOLE the election, and just like Bush, she would have done it in Florida! Vote Clinton for Change... errr, never mind.
      • muchachoburacho, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1He's not even on the ballot just like he wasnt in michigan. Hillary wants the votes counted in those places because shes the only one on the ballot
    • Gerz1219, on 01/28/2008, -0/+13What Hillary is doing is roughly equivalent to a football team calling timeout, then running down the field for a touchdown while the opposing team watches on the sidelines. It's a dirty, dishonest trick -- clearly the wrong thing to do -- and it speaks volumes about how Hillary would run her government.
  • Balath, on 01/28/2008, -2/+20One word: Ruthless.
    Okay, two: Ruthless politics.
  • Balath, on 01/28/2008, -2/+35The state of Florida went against DNC wishes by moving their primary forward. The DNC is well within its rights to tell Florida and it's candidates to go to hell. I'm not saying it's fair to Florida, or that the nomination process is fair, but this is the way it has to be.

    The government cannot just simply make laws about how parties elect candidates. It could never do justice to all the different potential political parties out there. It would be considered unethical - like the government telling you how to structure your business or your High School chess club. It falls outside of the government's realm of responsibility and influence to make such laws.

    If you don't like the way a party elects its nominee, don't vote for that party.
    • elhaf, on 01/28/2008, -0/+16Yeah, I agree with everything you said, although I think for its own health the DNC should rotate the role of the first states to choose delegates. The really annoying thing is Hillary trying to get the delegates reinstated when her main opponents weren't even on the ballot. How does she think that is even possible, without open revolt from Obama and Edwards supporters, even within Michigan and Florida? Stupid.
      • babar77, on 01/28/2008, -0/+6but which states do you rotate to? The big states already have a huge voice - they have the most delegates. The whole purpose of having these few states do their primaries first is so that some smaller states get to have a little bit of a say as well. This is completely in line with the traditions of the country. As a Senator, Clinton should know that the whole purpose of the senate is so that the larger states don't implement a tyranny of the majority over the smaller ones. Plus having smaller states be part of the first primaries actually HELPS more candidates get their voice heard. If bigger states started moving their primaries up, the expense of running a campaign skyrockets, and therefore it excludes many small budgeted candidates.
        • senatorpjt, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because candidates with small budgets win with our current system.
        • r00fus, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Have 3 primary groups that are three distinct dates. Balance the approximate delegate count between those three, and pick states that add up to the 1/3 delegate count (approximate). Rotate the "primary group" position amongst those three every presidential primary season.

          Left as an excercise to the reader:
          Choose your 3 groups of states so the groups have similar total delegate counts.
          Extend this to N groups where N is 4, 5, and 10.
          What do you feel is the best number for N?
    • Pixelpaws, on 01/28/2008, -3/+3Democrats are a minority in Florida, and as such really couldn't have prevented Republicans from moving the date of the primary forward no matter what they tried. Thus, this is essentially punishing Florida Democrats (and everyone associated with the party) for something a Republican state legislature did. As a result, I get exactly zero say in who the nominee for president will be.
      • r00fus, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3Dude, do you understand primaries? Each party has it's own schedule. The Florida Republican primary was last week. So your argument doesn't hold any water.
        • Balath, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Thanks for setting him straight.
        • Memitim, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Part one: win. Part two: what in the ***** are you talking about? The primary is tomorrow.
    • bubba9999, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1It's easier to say when your vote actually counts for something. I'm equally pissed at both the DNC and the Florida Democratic Party for making this situation happen. I freaking dare either one of them to work up the nerve to call my ass for a contribution.
      • Balath, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Well, you should be used to your votes not counting by this point.
    • fuzzynyanko, on 01/28/2008, -3/+1I hate to say it, but I like what Hillary is doing to get our votes counted, even if it's for political gain. I hate that our votes are being forced to be ignored due to party policy.
  • jkbowman, on 01/28/2008, -1/+72With all due respect to Florida, since she's broken her commitment to the DNC shouldn't the Super Delegates be allowed to break their commitment to her?
    • nittanylion06, on 01/28/2008, -0/+15Super Delegates are voting for Clinton b/c they want her to be President, not because they're mandated to.
      • cusoman, on 01/28/2008, -1/+12I think that's his point :)
        • nittanylion06, on 01/28/2008, -0/+9No, the super delegates were never committed to anyone to begin with, so they don't have anything to break. The estimated SD that Clinton has are party officials that have openly endorsed / backed Clinton. They could've vote for Gravel if they really wanted to, it's just whoever they want to win.
    • aliengoods, on 01/28/2008, -0/+20The super delegates promised to her are just that: promised to her. They can break and go with Obama anytime they like. They just have to be careful about the political consequences if Hillary were to still win.
    • dualityim, on 01/29/2008, -3/+1She didn't break any commitments to the DNC. Check your facts before believing anything that's posted on Digg. The DNC doesn't allow candidates to campaign in Florida, but allows them to host fundraising efforts there. Hillary is only doing fundraising in Florida, which complies with DNC rules.
    • mattxb, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2and risk being on Bills enemy list?Id be willing to bet that half of Hillary's super delegates are voting for her out of self preservation.
    • asurroca, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3Super delegates don't have any commitments.
  • nerfherderguy, on 01/28/2008, -3/+108What concerns me about all this is that Hillary is now trying to get both Michigan and Florida's delegates reinstated. AFTER she neglected to remove her name from the Michigan ballot, even though Obama and Edwards both had their names removed.
    That's dirty.

    http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=28 ...
    From the link:
    ALL of the Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton, signed a promise to not campaign or PARTICIPATE in the Michigan and Florida primaries. That is why, because of this promise, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson removed their names from the ballot. To have left their names on the ballot would have meant they were participating in the Michigan primary.
    • nerfherderguy, on 01/28/2008, -1/+13Fixed the link: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=28 ...
    • bacon_skoda, on 01/28/2008, -10/+1it all sound stupid.
      why the "penalty" on michigan and florida. stop being children.
      • 471776, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4Gotta love idiots pouring scorn on intelligent people who make considered, rational decisions.

        "it all sound stupid." - fantastic reasoning.
      • mattxb, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3why the penalty?

        its the only way to discourage every state from trying to move their primary to an early date. But thats not even the issue at this point.
    • bffoley, on 01/28/2008, -0/+11Exactly. She acted like it would be too much work to get her name off the ballots in Michigan, and then when she wins by default she says "The voters must be heard!" because she's realizing she needs every delegate she can get. I dont think this surprises anyone
    • asurroca, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Holy *****, she's even more diabolical than I thought.... :-O
      • Kyan, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Wow, it just hit me why those voting machines are made by Diebold. Eery.
  • pax85, on 01/28/2008, -2/+50Her decision to campaign and the demand for reinstating the delegates in Michigan and Florida should make people think! Seriously!
    First she promises that she would not campaign there and then she breaks her promise by campaigning while the other candidates stood by their word.
    I don't know when they all agreed that they wouldn't campaign there, but couldn't been more than a couple of months.
    Now think about it and her arguments. Do you really think she is telling the truth about her goals if elected? She already broke her word within months, think long term, like 4 years of presidency!
    Never ever will she be honest!
    You've gotta be big time stupid to believe any of her words.
    Good luck Americans!
  • 1kewldude, on 01/28/2008, -6/+13Why is no one mentioning the brilliant well educated state legislators who changed Fla's primary date now effectively making at least half of Fla's primary seemingly meaningless - the party rules are stupid to begin with but come on guys at least try to use some common sense and logic - you other 49 states have only been subjected to one Bush - we here in Fla have been under the tyrant grips of 2 of these fuknuts.
    • SteelChicken, on 01/28/2008, -3/+8we still remember 2000, Floridians are so stupid you guys cant vote right or count right (recount10,000 times)
    • cranium, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4Both of those instances are *your ***** fault*. Thanks, Florida. We should give ya back to Spain.
    • mattxb, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1perhaps some sinister mastermind that the democratic party would penalize florida and in the process make its democratic voters feel marginalized, plus it keeps out early momentum for any democratic candidate. In the end this could help republicans win florida come genral election time.
  • Frostman3D, on 01/28/2008, -11/+27I can't wait until the people rise up and make it quite obvious that America does not want this ***** to be President. I loathe this bitch, and I can't wait till she gets what she deserves politically.
    • GhostyBoy, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2No offense but CNN is going to tell you who won hours before the counting is done like they always do and America is going to sit on their ass and take it.

      That's the new American way.
      • nicc, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1actually, the media is now barred from posting exit poll numbers before the close of voting.
        consequence of the "weird" exit poll numbers of the 2004 elections.
        • GhostyBoy, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Um....yeah okay that must have been what happened in Iowa when CNN "projected" the winners at 8:30pm and 48 hours later their was still missing precincts.
    • kipmartin, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Yikes! the 'C' word! i'm seeing worse stuff about Hillary here than i ever saw about Bush/Cheney/Rove!!!

      must be a Fox News thing to bring out the best in people.
  • sedek89, on 01/28/2008, -27/+22buried for using Fox as a source for news
    • johnhummel, on 01/28/2008, -1/+8I initially felt the same - but hey, even a clock smashed to pieces with the hands on the other side of the room might, in a rare circumstance, tell the right time. This is one of those rare occasions.
      • bacon_skoda, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1except the submitter inflamed the article.
      • dualityim, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1No, it's not. Once again Fox News has lied. They made it sound like Hillary broke party rules by campaigning in Florida. But she didn't. The DNC has allowed candidates to do fundraising in Florida, which is what Hillary is doing.

        Fox News is still Fox News, it seems.
    • Vohu, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4The source of the article is the Associated Press. The Sun Sentinel confirms she has campaigned in Florida.

      http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorid ...
      • dualityim, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Fundraising is not campaigning. You may think they are the same, but they are not in the Democratic party's eyes. The DNC has allowed candidates to fundraise in Florida, even though it doesn't allow candidates to campaign there. Hillary is fully complying with the DNC to host fundraising events there.
  • swrostmore, on 01/28/2008, -20/+6Why should the DNC have the right to disenfranchise an entire state from the electoral primary process? Hopefully Clinton's breaking ranks will cause the rest of the candidates (i.e. Obama) to follow suit in order to stay competitive. Whats the DNC going to do, boot them out of the race?
    • psuchad, on 01/28/2008, -4/+11Because each party chooses how they select the candidate. They are not disenfranchising anyone.
      • swrostmore, on 01/28/2008, -7/+3What kind of crazy doublespeak is that? Democrats in Florida who's primary vote doesn't count aren't disenfranchised because the party chose how to disenfranchise them?
        • HMTKSteve, on 01/28/2008, -1/+9This is a primary. The parties run the primary and have full power to make the rules.
        • swrostmore, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4right, HMTKSteve, they have the "full power" under their own rules to disenfranchise voters. How is this acceptable? I guarantee if this was your state you'd be screaming about it.
          • cranium, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2It's not like they weren't warned about moving the primaries, yet they did it anyway. You want to point the finger, point it at your legislature.
        • saintdesy, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1What your state party should have done is not participate in the formal primary and then have a primary by mail that counted its votes on Feb 5. That would have satisfied both the national party and have the votes count.
    • dohidied, on 01/28/2008, -0/+5When all of the states started moving their primaries up to get more attention, the DNC told them that they would have their delegates stripped if they went earlier than Feb. 5. Michigan and Florida defied the party and and had their delegates stripped. If the DNC didn't try to stop them, we would have had primaries last year. The voters of Michigan and Florida were disenfranchised by their state party officials.
      • Pixelpaws, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1Florida has a republican-controlled legislature. As such, the state republicans can ram any legislation they want through and the democrats can't stop it. So, as such, they moved up the primary date because nobody who would have been hurt by it could have stopped it.
      • bacon_skoda, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1and what's wrong with primaries last year?
        this is all a done deal 6 months ago.
        this is too stupid. DNC needs a timeout.
  • vermax, on 01/28/2008, -13/+2i wonder if the Repugs had any influence in getting the Fla Dems to move up their primary? it sure seems to be a very efficient way of taking a lot of voters out of the process, though i'm not sure what the Repugs would gain. then again, with them, it's not always so much about what they gain as how much they can ***** up the other guy, just to be assholes about it. so pathological.
    • smrekar, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2this is about coming together and hating the clintons. Dont eff it up.
  • Taciturn, on 01/28/2008, -3/+11Way to proofread your headlines, Fox. Undue != Undo. Christ, "Undue" isn't even a verb!
  • WoundedCow, on 01/28/2008, -10/+4I'd rather vote for Lur...Emperor of Omicron Perci 8...I'm just sayin'....
  • notfaded1, on 01/28/2008, -1/+12There's no such thing as fair play when it comes to politics here in the US. They spend more time on being elected / re-elected then they do doing any work for us the citizens they're supposed to work for.
    • Schul983, on 01/28/2008, -0/+5check out obama's civil duties
    • cheesegrits, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Did the rose colored glasses just slip down or what? What does your local congressman do for two years in between elections? I have a feeling he runs for the next one.
  • reuscel, on 01/28/2008, -7/+23Bill, why are you doing this to your legacy?!
    • krnldmp, on 01/28/2008, -3/+7I think you're merely finding out what Bill's legacy really is.
    • smrekar, on 01/28/2008, -4/+1because whoring up the oral office was such a great legacy.
  • Schul983, on 01/28/2008, -20/+15she's a ***** lying *****!
    • cheesegrits, on 01/28/2008, -7/+5That was a very intelligent comment. Is that the extent of the intellectual universe in your cranium?
      • Schul983, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2it was very crass for me to say that, but still, she sucks.
    • bacon_skoda, on 01/28/2008, -6/+1venting your loser ron paul angers on hillary?
      hahahhahahah!!!!
  • FloorModel, on 01/28/2008, -10/+4isn't whining about Hillary's whining kind of funny to anyone else?
    a politician who plays fair..... yeah that's gonna happen folks.
    maybe we should write in Lrrrr? or at the least Ndnd?
    • WoundedCow, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Feel free to borrow from my threads...I'd usually bitch, but them's some sexy legs in your photo
  • Rodalli, on 01/28/2008, -2/+27It's funny how the voters of Florida didn't need to be heard until Hillary needed their delegates. She didn't have any problem with the DNC stripping Florida's primaries back when she was promising not to campaign in Florida.

    This chick is as transparent as they come.
  • monkeyrun, on 01/28/2008, -8/+10I wonder what Digg users will say if it's Obama who did it. lol
    • Aard88, on 01/28/2008, -5/+27The point is Obama didn't do it.
    • mnederlanden, on 01/28/2008, -0/+6I'd digg that story too.
    • bacon_skoda, on 01/28/2008, -3/+2the point is ron paul lost.
      and this is where the angers are pointing.
      • Schul983, on 01/29/2008, -0/+3the point is not that ron paul lost, but that hilary is clearly breaking an agreement she SIGNED. If this was obama doing this then I would digg and multiple others would digg it too.
  • Misinformant, on 01/28/2008, -5/+16Desperation is a stinky perfume.
  • saturnx8, on 01/28/2008, -2/+3when politicians speak the only thing that comes out of their mouth is *****, regardless who and what party the represent. Its all ***** and lies.
  • JK1150, on 01/28/2008, -4/+4Nice try with the vocab. Dugg down for improper spelling of "beleaguered."
    • cheesegrits, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Perhaps their vocabulary is beleaguered?
  • cheesegrits, on 01/28/2008, -8/+5I used to think digg.com was on par with a laundromat for political discussion but I can see I was impugning the reputation of laundromats everywhere.
    Mob rule=advertising revenue=increased number of sites where the lowest common denominator is in play.
    • moraldebate, on 01/28/2008, -1/+6And by that you mean that it saddens you greatly that the majority of young people don't support Hillary.
      • cheesegrits, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1It saddens me that I see a herd of gerbils running back and forth squeaking about nothing. Just slogans, name calling, and fan boy idealism of certain individuals/gadgets.
        A lack of maturity in the majority of posts I read on digg. Seems so much like high school, I have flashbacks.
  • jdissonant, on 01/28/2008, -3/+15She's really getting desperate, eh?
  • ljkelley, on 01/28/2008, -14/+5Regardless of your opinions against Hillary, I think the voters of Florida deserve to be heard. Obama is free to campaign. This is nothing to do with the Democratic Party but about democracy. Florida which is controlled by the Repbublicans set the primary date forward to disenfranchise Democrats and the DNC fell for it. My mother in law lives there and in certain parts going to vote on a seperate later Democratic Poll would be very bold and might loose you your job. Thus Democrats choose to keep the date as set by the State by a Republican Governor and Republican Legislature. Oddly enough, the Republicans will somewhat honour Democracy and allow delegates.
    • GeeWhiz2000, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1The Republicans would like nothing more than for Hillary to be the opposition.
  • jm4847, on 01/28/2008, -5/+14She is just transparent now. All she cares about is power. That is the goal of her life and nothing will get in her way.
    • MaceSoul, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Nothing except the 50% of the public who already knew that and the 50% who are starting to realize it.
  • carbonc6, on 01/28/2008, -5/+8How do you spell desperate?
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/28/2008, -11/+1O-b-a-m-a...
    • MaceSoul, on 01/28/2008, -4/+1You don't know? Because you typed it in. Did you have to look it up first? If so, did you have to ask?

      /The only catch phrase I hate more than "can you say ___?"
    • HunterSeeker42, on 01/29/2008, -0/+0It has a z in it, if I remember.
  • Treoinmypocket, on 01/28/2008, -14/+3I had to laugh - Obama was endorsed by that Drunk of the Senate...oh excuse me...LION of the Senate...Kennedy. Then Hillary heads to Florida with her own powerhouse endorsement...Janet Reno.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA....Janet ***** Reno...WOOOOOO that is aone compelling endorsement there. Janet's going down there to burn down the Republican campaign HQ for the state.
  • lohphat, on 01/28/2008, -4/+30Just like the Bush administration, they don't think rules apply to them. We no longer have a Republic we've returned to a monarchy.

    Voting for Hillary means at least 4 years of the same old crap.
    • smrekar, on 01/28/2008, -4/+3might want to say "like the last 16 years" remember when billy pardoned a few hundred people and then stole furniture from the white house? Or the time he got with Monica Lewensky?
  • Shabonkerz, on 01/28/2008, -12/+6While I don't support Hillary, I'm not digging anything from Faux News. Plus, allowing people to vote is just fine. Even Barack Obama is OK with this idea.
    • Devaney, on 01/28/2008, -4/+2agreed, Fox is just trying to sensationalize this story and make it look like the democrats are all turning against each other...it's their main tactic in their attempt to discredit any candidate who isn't a republican
      • pintomp3, on 01/28/2008, -1/+4well, their favorite candidate guilani looks all washed up. they are going for their 2nd favorite, hillary.
  • matthafling, on 01/28/2008, -4/+13More proof that all she cares about is getting to the white house, not what she'll do after she is there. She quit campaigning in South Carolina when she realized Obama was going to win big. You can't be "about the people" and then turn your back on them when it looks like they won't help you win. You can't be the honesty candidate and then turn your back on the agreement you made with your own party. You can't be the moral compass candidate and then try to steal delegates against the parties orders. This is a presidential election, not a game of connect four. The Clinton's seem to forget who they are representing. This election is about every citizen of the United States winning. Not every citizen named Clinton winning who might live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  • bjs3171, on 01/28/2008, -10/+4wait, why the hell aren't Democrats supposed to campaign in Florida???
    • pintomp3, on 01/28/2008, -2/+4florida lost their delegate seats because they moved their primary before feb 5. now that she thinks she needs them, she wants them to have them back.
    • chrisatwork, on 01/28/2008, -0/+5Because they moved the date of their primary forward against what the DNC told them. Michigan and Florida both did it and both of them have had their democrat delegates removed, so neither state has an effect on the democratic nomination.
      • drachasor, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1I'd add that both States had plenty of time to move their primaries back, but they refused. If you recall, this all happened when dozens of states were moving their primaries up a great deal -- we almost had Primaries in December! The DNC instituted such rules to stop that, and only two States didn't comply.
  • dunderballer, on 01/28/2008, -15/+6Good for her for not letting the DNC boss her around. It's time we take our elections back from the control of the two political parties.
    • LowFuel, on 01/28/2008, -1/+5Yeah I'm sure that is her motivation.
  • nomadhacker, on 01/28/2008, -2/+16I agree that it's stupid that Michigan and Florida were stripped of their delegates, but at this point it's too late, and for her to try and get them reinstated after the fact is ridiculous. It is like when you played tag as a kid and after you were tagged, claimed to be on base. If she had started making this noise much earlier, before it looked like she was having trouble with the election, then I would support her position on this. As it is, much as I think it was completely uncalled for to remove the delegates in the first place, at this point, after michigan has voted and right before the florida vote, it is too late to reinstate them in any fair way, and her clammoring for this is just unethical.
    • yacks, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1I agree that it's too late. It's a power play to where things aren't going her way, so she must change things to put things in her favor. but if she wants to reinstate the delegates, i call for a redo of the elections in Michigan.

      But to correct your analogy, it's like playing tag as a kid, getting tagged but you claimed to be on base that was not agreed to beforehand.. "Oh myfoot is on a crack! I'm safe!" "whaaaat?"
  • gavin422, on 01/28/2008, -14/+7Buried for Fox News.

    Sorry, the story may be true, but Fox does enough news manipulation that they shouldn't be rewarded.
  • elbowman, on 01/28/2008, -11/+10Consider your source on this story. Hillary is not campaigning in Florida. She is allowed to attend fund raisers in Florida. She was attending such an event and stopped and waved at folks standing outside. A reporter asked if she was going to defy the rules, and she said, "No." Faux-news all the time. You Hillary Haters ought to at least try to get a little truth into your b.s. stories.
    • VibhuC812, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Fox News is owned by... News Corp.
      News Corp is owned by... Rupert Murdoch.
      Rupert Murdoch supports... Hillary Clinton.
      Seems like Fox isn't a bunch of Hillary Haters...
  • dalittle, on 01/28/2008, -5/+12The Clintons are frustrated and desperate. This is proof positive. She had month and months to become a champion to the Florida Primary before now. The people running the Florida Primary knew for months that they were clearly broking the rules and also knew what the consequences of breaking the rules were months ago. The Florida Primary has no one to blame, but themselves for trying to break the rules and not have their delegates matter. And the Clinton's are obviously not learning their lesson about lying and being dirty. Bush acts like the Clintons and no one wants more Bush either. That is why the Clintons got beaten so badly in South Carolina and why they will continue to drop in the polls. They just don't get it, being corrupt and polarizing is bad.
    • Ridgeliner7, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Not Bush. Nixon! If Bush acted like them, he wouldn't be in such low poll numbers. The Clinton's continue to use Nixon's play book to guide their every move.....and like you said, they are sort of pathetic, not yet realizing most of us have caught on.....
  • pintomp3, on 01/28/2008, -8/+4the clinton's appear desperate right now, but they successfully made the election about race. it hurt them in the short term in SC, but it will probably play dividends on super tuesday. do not under estimate them, they are a powerful and entrenched political machine.
  • diggstar1, on 01/28/2008, -3/+0Doesn't anyone here want to see our first lesbian president?
  • Spoomeister, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3Super Tuesday will show us all how much the rest of the country is paying attention. To political / news junkies like us, it's clear as crystal what's going. To average working joe, who's been caught up with job and family and recession side effects and so on, they will likely be paying attention (if at all) only in the immediate few days before their state votes / caucuses. So Billary and their ilk can get away with things like this because they haven't been stupid enough yet to get caught in the immediate day or two before an election.

    Or to put it more simply: This sort of campaign tactics and nonsense actually work on the average person. Because... "Think about how stupid the average person is. Then realize, half of 'em are stupider than that!" - george carlin
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/28/2008, -6/+2Good for her, the other candidates should do it as well. And f**k the DNC for disenfranchising voters in Florida and Michigan!
    • drachasor, on 01/28/2008, -1/+5Their democratic leaders disenfrachised them, and they deserve the scorn. Both States had plenty of time to move their primaries to back, but wouldn't.
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/28/2008, -4/+2Nor should they had to. Ain't nothing special about Iowa and New Hampshire.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 101 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.