digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Bill Clinton Suggests Young Voters Too Easily Fooled

huffingtonpost.com — "Good job, Bill! Marginalize and ridicule the younger voters so that they vote for Obama in droves. I and all of Obama's supporters Thank You."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BabushkaBlue, on 04/16/2008, -11/+113Hillary needs to put a muzzle on his big uncontrollable mouth.
    • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -41/+5That was well thought out and insightful. You truly speak for young america.
      • kiubo, on 04/16/2008, -2/+13is there some insight youd like to share with us?
        • ChromeWalnut, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1his insight was that his comment - which focused more upon inserting an insulting quip rather than presenting actual facts and information - is perfectly representative of the youth demographic, thus proving Clinton's original point to a certain extent..
    • aliengoods, on 04/16/2008, -4/+79This isn't about Bill Clinton's mouth. He's just parroting everything her campaign has said in the last 4 months. If you don't vote for her, you've either been fooled or you're a moron, and the two haven't been mutually exclusive.

      They've also made the case that you don't count, because the millions of people voting for Obama don't represent America. Did you caucus? Then you don't count. Are you from a small state? Then you don't count. Are you from a large state that didn't go Hillary's way? Then you don't count. Are you young? Then you don't count. Are you college educated? Then you don't count. Are you black? Then you don't count. The list goes on and on.

      She just can't seem to understand that many people WANT Obama to be president. There was a time when I felt that after 8 years of Bush, any Democrat would do. Now, only one will get my vote.
      • ngmcs8203, on 04/16/2008, -24/+2"Now, only one will get my vote."
        You were originally planning on voting for more than one candidate?? Or are you telling us that they must fight to the death, and only then, will the winner be the one who gets your vote?
        • cr0ss, on 04/16/2008, -1/+18You're an idiot.
          • ngmcs8203, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3I guess I should have thrown a /s there cuz there was no way I was serious. His last line just sounded like it came from a Highlander tag line.
          • StepCousin, on 04/16/2008, -4/+1ngmcs,

            You're joke was very good (I even caught the Highlander reference). The fact that you would have to explain it to @cr0ss is really amazing....speaks volumes about my previous posts (that all Democrats are complete imbeciles).
      • donttaseme, on 04/16/2008, -4/+6If we are easily fooled, then what does it say about her campaign. That ***** will never fool us. Send that cold bitch back to her hell.
        • 11oops, on 04/16/2008, -3/+2And yet you quickly show yourself to be an immature fool all the same.
          • Rustymetal, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5What he is immature because he called her a ***** and send her back to hell?

            Are you blind? the clitons sold their soul long time ago, along with MANY politicians. Back to hell is the most fitting.
      • keishax, on 04/16/2008, -0/+15Didn't he run after the youth vote during his first campaign. How hypocritical!

        The 1992 Campaign:Youth Vote; Clinton Goes Eye to Eye With MTV Generation http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0 ... In a response to a question about feminist backlash, the Arkansas Governor also offered a spirited defense of his wife, Hillary, who has received adverse publicity for statements both she and her husband have made about her role as a potential First Lady. "The real thing that's frustrating for me now is that voters are now voting for women in greater numbers than ever before," he said. "You nominated two women for the Senate. I don't see why my wife should check her lifetime of work and experience and intelligence and passion and compassion at the front door just so I can get elected President." .... He said the goal was to "demystify" the political process by making "the young people the king of the show." Mr. Clinton was questioned today by members of an audience of 200 people, most of them 18 to 24 years old and many students at colleges in the Los Angeles area. Both President Bush and Ross Perot have been invited to take part, but neither has accepted so far.
        • Eezyville, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1ZING!!!
        • exoendo, on 04/16/2008, -3/+3yes, he went after you stupid doe eyed retards back then and it worked wonderfully. If I was running a campaign I'd go after the stupidest voters too.
    • StepCousin, on 04/16/2008, -41/+5What he said is true, but he forgot to mention seniors. Young and old voters are absolute idiots. I'd even take it a step further by saying that ALL Democrats are ***** morons.

      If you're a young Democrat, chances are you'll become more and more conservative as you age (unless you're an idiot in the first place). This NEVER happens in the reverse (conservative turning liberal).
      • MoralThreat, on 04/16/2008, -5/+36*****. I grew up in a republican family and voted as such until 2004. Then I finally realized what a bunch of clownshoes they are and switched parties.
        • Malacandra95, on 04/16/2008, -4/+17Yeah. Among the people who NEVER existed: former Republicans Markos Moulitsas, Arianna Huffington and David Brock, oh... and Hillary Clinton (who was a Goldwater Girl).
          • nihilite, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5Goldwater was a republican, but in today's environment he is closer to the definition of a libertarian. Today's republicans are so different than the old days.
          • StepCousin, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2I shouldn't have said, "never". I agree with you that those people are definite morons. Thank you for the correction.
        • StepCousin, on 04/16/2008, -17/+10Then you would fall into the "unless you're an idiot in the first place" category.

          Nowadays, Republicans and Democrats are too similar (corrupt globalists). In the olden days, Republicans were fiscally responsible, proponents of limited government, strong on national defense, and champions of civil rights. I personally prescribe to that ideology.
          • AttilaD, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4When was the last fiscally responsible Republican that was strong on national defense? Abraham Lincoln?
          • StepCousin, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Newt Gingrich was the last one.
        • coyote1284, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4@StepCousin
          How true about the Repubs. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
          • StepCousin, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2Yes, they're despicable. I used to vote for the lesser of two evils, but I've chosen to stop perpetuating this gradual slide into socialism.

            I know this will make all of the digg ***** happy; I'm not voting for McCain or any other RINO like him ever again (and just to clarify....I'm not voting for the hag or the racist either).
        • JEWestbrookJR, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4Dugg for clownshoes.
        • heypetray, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Dammit! JEWestbrook beat me to it!
      • danlowlite, on 04/16/2008, -9/+7It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.
        --Robert Anton Wilson
      • PhantomRogue, on 04/16/2008, -1/+28Way to sound like the biggest idiot. UNINFORMED voters are idiots. Republicans and Democrats who vote based on Issues and stances are perfectly fine and I just wish more people voted with an informed opinion. Informed does NOT mean what the MSM and campaign rhetoric is spewed in the 3 weeks before your States primary. Informed America is the Enemy of Hilary and McCain. Out of all the people who ever ran, Obama and Paul were the only ones, in my opinion, who actually talked to the American People as if they aren't two-bit fools.
        • MWeather, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1"Republicans and Democrats who vote based on Issues and stances are perfectly fine and I just wish more people voted with an informed opinion"

          Unless they're voting based on wedge issues they won't consistently vote for either party. In fact, if they're voting based on important issues, it's doubtful they'd vote for either party.
        • gandhii, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I'd include Gravel in your list... but he never really got a chance to talk.
        • StepCousin, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Oddly enough, both Ron Paul and Barack Obama are racists. If you identify with those haters, chances are you're a racist as well.
      • wendelgee2, on 04/16/2008, -5/+16Because there are no adult liberals...none. And the ones there are, are stupid. There aren't entire college campuses full of the brightest minds of our generation, professors of humanities, sciences, social sciences who are firmly liberal. There aren't gigantic meccas of culture, commerce, and learning like New York City, Boston, and San Francisco that are overwhelmingly liberal. You can continue to make up your little stories, but the fact is that the engine that powers this nation is liberalism.
        • MWeather, on 04/16/2008, -3/+10Well, the nation WAS founded by a bunch of liberals.
          • StepCousin, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2WhaaaAAATTTTTTTFFFFFFF??!!! Who's been washing your brain?
        • heypetray, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4And Conservatism picks up the manure, and starts wars. What's your point?
          /Sarc
        • gandhii, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Yes.. all of this is true... but these days most mis-define the term as a type of democrat or a socialist.
        • StepCousin, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3"...the engine that powers this nation is liberalism."

          What?!!! This great country was built on capitalism, the arch-enemy of liberalism.

          Do you actually believe that a large federal government and the redistribution of wealth (high taxes) spur the economy? If so, you are sadly mistaken.

          Wealthy people (and/or corporations) are the employers of lower and middle class people. When the federal government punishes the wealthy, there's a trickle-down effect. Reagan spoke extensively about this subject.

          Take the political quiz to learn how whacked your ideology really is: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
          • Jio666, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1You seem to be mixing up liberalism with socialism. Free market capitalism is a main part of liberalism, as is a small government.
        • BAFrayd, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Your statement is an example of near-complete ignorance.
          True, there are adult liberals, and the vast majority of them are academics, public workers, and/or former hippies who have never ventured into the private sector. Most have spent their lives in a government-sponsored state of theoretical intellectualism that never engages the real-world experiences of capitalism and business - the true "engine that powers this nation".
          Instead, they have spent their lives inside their own heads, and the heads of their colleagues, chasing the utopian fallacy.
          As a result, they think nothing of a monetary policy of deficit-spending that feeds a political policy of do-good, feel-good legislation designed to "help the little guy" and "make the world a better place". Fiscal conservation is really not a concern when the money isn't coming out of one's own pocket, I suppose.
          At any rate, the result of this big-government approach has transformed our nation from the largest lender-nation into the largest debtor-nation in the world.
          In the process, our federal government has become insolvent.
          Ironically, in the end, the "little guy" gets hurts the most through massive inflation and a further dependence on government hand-outs - something that, up to this point, has been a slow and steady process, but recently has rapidly increased, on it's way to a complete failure of the system.
          Without the government reverting back to a much more conservative and fiscally responsible paradigm, complete failure is a forgone conclusion.
      • eddy23170, on 04/16/2008, -2/+7you're right ...being mean spirited is the way to go. New Reupublican Slogan: Mean Warmongers n' Stuff
        • StepCousin, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2If I were CIC, we would've invaded and conquered Iran, Iraq, and Syria (in that order). Hezbollah would dry up after their funding (Iran) was vanquished, and Hamas would dry up after I cut their funding (USA). We would then take control of their oil production (we giveth technology, and we taketh away). Voila!! No more oil crisis!!

          In essence, we would depose the religious death cultists, Ahmadinejad and the clerics, and impose Democracy and our superior way of life. No more anger, death, hatred of women, intolerance of other religions, and no more Sharia law.

          I might even consider adding a few more States to the Union.

          God Bless America
          • travis6690, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1"Whenever I found religion in my life I found strife, the attempt of one individual or group to rule another in the name of God. The naked will to power always seemed to walk in the wake of a hymn."
            -Richard Wright, author of Black Boy and American Hunger
      • kiubo, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Wasnt Ariana Huffington a conservative? Hardly an idiot Id say. Anyway your arguement if anything, is self fulfilling but the otherway around... you know what mean? Just switch the party names around around and think about your argument and youll see what i mean.
      • BigMrWiggly, on 04/16/2008, -7/+2I'm a young person and I agree with what he said. Most young people just want to vote for Obama because he's in style. He's young and good looking and so is his wife. They treat him just like they do everything else. He's like an Apple product. People just buy them because they are "in" Most of young people have no idea what his policies are or anything about how what he wants will destroy America.
        • OneLess, on 04/16/2008, -0/+9If the young people you know are only supporting Obama because he's "in style," you need to hang out with other people.
          • MWeather, on 04/16/2008, -4/+2If the young people you know are well versed in any politician's policies, you need to hang out with other people.
        • ehalasey, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Forget the part where he's telling young voters that they actually matter. That has NOTHING to do with it.
        • MWeather, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Agreed. I think young people should educate themselves on the ways each candidate wants to destroy America.
        • gandhii, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1This can and should be said about most voters regardless of age. Many support Obama for the reasons you mentioned. Many many woman support Hillary because she is a woman and they want to see a woman in office and other issues including ethics and corruption are secondary. Many support McCain just because he is "the republican" candidate and therefore is not one of those vile hated 'democrats'. And as much as it hurts me to say this, many supported Ron Paul just because he was for making marijuana legal. It isn't just this country. It is everybody around the world. It doesn't bother me that everyone isn't interested in studying the issues and backgrounds of the various candidates. But it does piss me off that they don't have enough sense of responsibility to abstain from voting until they do have the interest and time to do so.
      • unreg, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Curious. If Obama wasn't in the game with the Digg Kids be fawning all over Hillary?
    • Gryffydd, on 04/16/2008, -2/+8Funny, that's not what people usually say she should put a muzzle on...
      • joebob793, on 04/17/2008, -0/+0Not that it really matters, young people haven't voted for anyone historically. They're such a small margin that no political party should really give a *****.
    • didiman, on 04/16/2008, -20/+9All you have to do is turn to digg to realize that that statement is actually true. The majority of diggers are robotic sheep drinking from the same kool-aid punch bowl. Groupthink is the norm.
      • hayzeus, on 04/16/2008, -2/+7Yes, baaa. Groupthink is the norm. More punch please.
      • aliengoods, on 04/16/2008, -2/+7[said while walking with arms extended forward and glazed eyes] Groupthink is the norm......Groupthink is the norm.....
      • mattn, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6I prefer to think of it as the thinking equivalent of parallel computing.
      • StarlessKnight, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9Like minded people commenting on the same social news website? Perish the thought! It's too outlandish, too uncouth, too terrifying to be true!
        • heypetray, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3That's it. I'm done with digg. Time to dive into a forum with people I have nothing in common with. This whole 'like-mindedness' makes me feel so weak. I despise my inability to critically think about topical issues and express my opinions with people who may affirm my findings.
      • MikeSD34, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6I don't know what you're talking about. *Sips Starbucks* *takes a bight out of his Big Mac* I mean why would I be a sheep? *spills starbucks on jeans that were bought pre-ripped* It's positively silly. Oh The Fray is playing on my iPod! bbl.
      • coyote1284, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3*mechanical bleating* Mmmm, purple stuff, doubleplusgood.
    • drjones78, on 04/16/2008, -7/+3Except he's right. Young people dont seem to understand, you arent supposed to like politicians. Even the guy your voting for. It is essential that you hate them, otherwise you make excuses for all the bad ***** they do.
      • howlinrain, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0If you have hate in your heart let it out
    • isage, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4She should have tried that with Monica too.
    • dsmx, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Bill maybe right, people did vote for Hillary.
    • TheUngod, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7A once great man (or at least acceptable) turns to garbage like this? How the mighty have fallen.
      • keishax, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Didn't he run after the youth vote during his first campaign. How hypocritical!
        The 1992 Campaign:Youth Vote; Clinton Goes Eye to Eye With MTV Generation http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0 ... In a response to a question about feminist backlash, the Arkansas Governor also offered a spirited defense of his wife, Hillary, who has received adverse publicity for statements both she and her husband have made about her role as a potential First Lady. "The real thing that's frustrating for me now is that voters are now voting for women in greater numbers than ever before," he said. "You nominated two women for the Senate. I don't see why my wife should check her lifetime of work and experience and intelligence and passion and compassion at the front door just so I can get elected President." .... He said the goal was to "demystify" the political process by making "the young people the king of the show." Mr. Clinton was questioned today by members of an audience of 200 people, most of them 18 to 24 years old and many students at colleges in the Los Angeles area. Both President Bush and Ross Perot have been invited to take part, but neither has accepted so far.
      • StepCousin, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Great man????!!!

        He was a ***** president, a rapist (raped Juanita Broaddrick....incidentally, the Lisa Myers interview no longer exists), and an all-around ***** human being (and still is).
    • worldsbestgamer, on 04/16/2008, -4/+2That's right. Remember when he said that Pennsylvanians all stick to their religion and guns? Someone needs to quiet him.
    • Modizzle, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Obama, at the very least, accused Bill of not tackling the issue he's going to tackle by saying, "many of the problems facing the country today were simmering long before President Bush took office seven-plus years ago." Now a voter who was 11, 7 years ago, who would be 18 now, might be led to believe that the Clintons don't care or failed to recognize the problems. Now, if you were in Bill's shoes, and you were accused of being a careless president, what would you say? Probably something a bit more worse, I'd imagine.
    • mnky9800n, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Someone needs to put a muzzle on Hillary.
    • actorboy, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2As an Obama supporter, I say let Bill keep talking.
    • exomni, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1More like she needs to put him down.
    • zardoz73, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1It's really curious just how many times Bill Clinton says the wrong thing. He's making as many gaffes as Hillary. It makes me wonder if he's actually sabotaging Hillary's campaign. Who knows, maybe he hates the woman deep down. And maybe he really wants Obama to win.
    • fokov, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Put the muzzle on Hillary, give Bill a cigar and send him to Gitmo for lying under oath. He is a POS, traitor.
  • dsmyre, on 04/16/2008, -8/+151If she can't control Bill in the campaign, she sure as hell can't control him in the White House. We've had enough of the Clinton circus, thankyouverymuch and goodbye.
    • Johnnyp1231, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5I don't know, from my understanding Bill did a fine job as president, He did great stuff for the economy was good on national relations.
      • gh0st32, on 04/16/2008, -7/+10meh, Clinton got lucky. Al Gore invented the internet and Clinton hopped along for the ride.
        • o0joshua0o, on 04/16/2008, -2/+19Al Gore didn't mean he literally invented the Internet. He meant that he is the one who made it possible for ordinary citizens to have network access, by developing the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill")
        • cadeucsb, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1If clinton got lucky, did Bush just get really unlucky?
      • BigMrWiggly, on 04/16/2008, -10/+3Bill inherited a good economy. He didn't do anything to help.
        • nicc, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7Bill inherited a what?!
          as a conservative, your comment makes me laugh
        • AttilaD, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4Boy, you'll believe ANYTHING they tell you, huh. Hey, by the way, I'm a Nigerian prince, how would you like to make $50,000?
      • SzaszMan, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Bill has demented more than a bit in the last eight years...
    • dannyminick, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1i agree with you. the clintons suck.
    • Devdude30, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2kthanksbai?
    • fokov, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1She can't even run a campaign in the black, how in the hell is she doing to run the country that is already in the red and covered in blood?
  • carpin, on 04/16/2008, -7/+108I think Monica blew all his brains out.
  • kynn, on 04/16/2008, -8/+337Bill Clinton has it exactly backwards: Hillary is stronger with older voters because these voters are more likely to get their news mostly from the MSM, while younger voters rely more on the Web. On the Web, Hillary's spin gets shots to smithereens in seconds, whereas it has a much longer halflife on the MSM. The MSM is far more manageable by candidates than the Web is. The Web EMPOWERS its readers to get answers to their questions; they don't need to settle for and second-guess the narrow, cautiously worded narratives that the MSM puts out. For this reason, the MSM not only promotes ignorance, it also promotes self-mistrust in one's understanding of the political landscape (because consciously or not one is aware of the fact that the MSM is not being 100% level in its reporting).

    So Clinton's take is utterly clueless. But then again, he himself probably couldn't run a Google search if his life depended on it.
    • Retnuh730, on 04/16/2008, -29/+12I would say that the majority of young voters watch barely any news at all, let alone the MSM or the web. The internet is just a large echo chamber right now, there's not as much people online as you think. Just look at Ron Paul's campaign, six months ago everyone assumed he would be the next president because Digg and other websites were spammed to all hell with him. Internet presence and real-world presence are two very different things. I'd look at the 2012 elections for a point where the internet vote actually matters.
      • aliengoods, on 04/16/2008, -2/+20There were sites with a large number of Ron Paul supporters, Digg included, but even though I'm a daily digger I never assumed he would be president. I really doubt the number of people who made that assumption was large.
        • opiniastrous, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2I didn't think so either, but when Retnuh said "everyone", he didn't actually mean everyone. He was referring to the number of RP supporters who regularly backed up their own opinions and enthusiasm through an incredible example of groupthink. I remember all the Digg posts about the MSM being so incredibly biased and ignoring the power of the RP machine in their polls, etc. etc.

          Who was right though? Diggers or the MSM?

          I have never seen a forum in which groupthink is more prominent. If you actually want to solve this, and be right more of the time, everyone (and I don't mean everyone) is going to have to learn how to make a logical argument, and ignore their own biases.
      • Pherdnut, on 04/16/2008, -0/+19Don't confuse Ron Paul supporter enthusiasm for the vast majority of the politically active web. The point that everybody is missing here is that Obama isn't winning with the kids this time. He wasn't expected to do as well as polls already suggest because he didn't have the student advantage in PA. He's winning over the blue collar voters. That's a very significant development.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 04/16/2008, -1/+10Younger voters, if they watch any kind of news on television, are more likely to be getting it from The Daily Show than anywhere else.
        • ChromeWalnut, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1yup, and theres no spin there for sure...
      • awills, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3I don't know why people are digging you down. I never assumed that Ron Paul would be President, but your point is still valid. Online hype ≠ real world hype. Snakes on a Plane anyone?
      • xaeon, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2I don't know. From my experience the 19 to 25 demographic are one of the most news aware.
        • ChromeWalnut, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1wrong.
          • xaeon, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Maybe in America this is not so; and as I said I'm only speaking from my experience. The people I know in that age range are some of the most clued up about what's going on in the world.
      • cybrguy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4When I talk to my grandparents who get their news from Fox, I am appauled at their ignorance. And they don't want to hear otherwise.

        When I talk to my parents who watch most MSM and read online a bit, I can at least reason with them and provide evidence contrary to what they see on TV.

        When I talk to my peers(young working class) they will take what I say and either add too it or offer an intelligent rebuttle and provide a url/citation.
        • sparkleton, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2I had to digg you up because my grandma lives in PA and watches a ton of Fox News. She calls us every once in awhile just to vent about her fear of us getting killed in terrorist attacks. We do our best to try and play down her fears but to no avail. She IS voting by the way.
    • khail250, on 04/16/2008, -26/+5yea and the web loved Ron Paul and Kucinich, sadly the web isn't quite big enough yet to chose a competent president
      • khail250, on 04/16/2008, -3/+4not sure why I am getting buried, why?

        I am just saying that fads come and go really quickly on digg/internet and dont leave a lasting impression. I wanted Kucinich to win, he was the Only candidate i have donated to, but its obviously not the internet craze that affects decisions in the US, long term..
        • chocolatetacos, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1You're getting buried by those who don't believe either of those two people are competent. I am one of them.
    • DEIx15x8, on 04/16/2008, -23/+7Exactly, and the problem with the web is that it is the most biased place. There is no way anyone can deny that Digg is Obama biased. Anything anti Obama is denied until it can be twisted. That means that anyone using the web to decide how to vote is getting "easily fooled"!
      • 4bit, on 04/16/2008, -2/+13So, let me get this straight.

        You say: The web is Obama based.
        Hillary says: The MSM is Obama based.

        At some point, you have to think... maybe it's her. Or maybe he really is what he says he is.

        I guess the next question is that if all the sources of information are saying Obama is great, where did you get the idea that Hillary is?
      • hayzeus, on 04/16/2008, -0/+12Digg != Web. You're welcome for the clue.
      • Monkeywithacold, on 04/16/2008, -5/+3The fact that you are being buried just goes to prove your point.
    • drizzlelicious, on 04/16/2008, -6/+22The web is also where popular opinions get momentum through groupthink. Bury in 5... 4... 3...
      • orangefly, on 04/16/2008, -0/+112....1-i cut the blue wire....
        • AshamedAmerican, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Now Kit-Kat, how did you know about that little blue wire?
      • demiurgency, on 04/16/2008, -0/+18True. Both mediums of information are susceptible to their own forms of corruption and manipulation.
        MSM can be directly manipulated by those who own/control the source of news (looking at you, Fox news).
        The internet is susceptible to viral marketing and popularity contests.
        It is a very good thing that we have access to both sources for news, both a centrally controlled source, and a distributed voice, to form a system of checks and balances on each other.
        Wow. That's starting to almost sound like a mirror of the executive and legislative branches of government. Maybe the American founding fathers were onto something. Who knew?
        • bjkuzara, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1A truly thoughtful comment that I can't say I've heard before. Kudos.
        • mbonnin, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2This comment is too well thought out and reasoned. It has no place on Digg.
      • GhostyBoy, on 04/16/2008, -2/+9At least the groupthink is controlled by groups of people on the internet, instead of people twisting public opinion for their own agenda.

        The MSM convinces people that the Iraq war was a good idea. The internet just won't stop RickRolling them.
      • SzaszMan, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2No more so than anywhere else. BTW, your comment displays one of my biggest digg pet peeves: "My comment was just *so* on-target, which is why I'm getting dugg down!" (yeah, right)
      • opiniastrous, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2Digg is an excellent example of groupthink. First, there was Ron Paul, which was an incredible example of groupthink, and then there was Obama. Just like Diggers were sucked into the "RP is best" mindset, the majority have now been sucked into the "Obama is best" mindset. Now, I support Obama (though I can't vote in the US) but I recognise that all of this support for Obama is the product of some extremely illogical thinking. We think that we are rational beings, but it takes us immense effort to actually think logically all the time.

        In the case of the Clintons, this is proven over and over again. You can choose to be against them, sure, but back yourself up with a comprehensive logical argument. For instance, did anyone really consider that Bill may be correct, or did they just (unconsciously) think, "Clintons! They're saying something about someone! Be offended and bag them out on Digg!"? After all, we can all agree that young minds are typically less developed than older minds, yes? What's more, and much closer to Clinton's point, is that we can all agree that younger voters have had minimal experience with the Clinton administration, yes? Therefore, they would probably be more likely to fall victim to ignorance of Bill's time in office. If you want to argue against that, then make an actual argument! For instance, you could say that today's youth have access to a wide variety of sources that would provide that knowledge even if they hadn't lived the experience (counterpoint: do they bother to find that information, or find a balanced source of information?).

        I find it amazing that only a couple of years ago Diggers would bag out Bush and hark back to Bill's time in office, but now that respect has been completely shattered, and the Clintons have become pariahs. Well, actually, I'm not, because I understand the power of groupthink and other forms of illogical reasoning, but I'm shocked that Diggers don't understand this themselves.
        • sephiroth965, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1"After all, we can all agree that young minds are typically less developed than older minds, yes?"
          Well, You can't vote till you're at least 18 and your brainpower peaks in you 20's.
    • Vektuz, on 04/16/2008, -1/+11This is somewhat true. I think its more on the line of, the older folks are much easier to sway using Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. The younger ones google it and laugh.
      • ChromeWalnut, on 04/17/2008, -0/+3if anything, older people are less susceptible to fear and sensationalism; it's the younger ones who are always moved for change and rebellion...the older ones have heard too many unfaithful politicians to be swept up by the hype which most campaigns attempt to stir. Also, younger voters are far more likely to vote based on charisma and charm rather than issues and ability. (That's not a knock on Obama; that's just the truth)
    • Styrkur, on 04/16/2008, -9/+5That is why ROn Paul is the most popular candidate on the internet; smart people are on the net, not the t.v.
    • mal1964, on 04/16/2008, -4/+8I've seen dozens and dozens of stories on digg, when hundreds of diggers are fooled by a fake story and some never find out they were fooled. Am I the only one that has witnessed this?
      • chanop, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1list a couple of these stories, please
        • mal1964, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1You never witnessed one, Is that what you are saying? Because you didn't answer my question.
        • mal1964, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2If not google this; "fake stories on digg"
        • illegalcortex, on 04/16/2008, -0/+4http://digg.com/people/East_Texas_Teenager_Attacke ...
          http://digg.com/gaming_news/WoW_player_harrasses_w ...
          http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Japanese_Women_Conned_In ...
          http://digg.com/gadgets/Zune_Hacked_Share_songs_wi ...

          The list goes on and on.
        • WiseWeasel, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1You do make a good point, but there are typically retraction stories when false stories make it to the front page, and they often also make the front page. Otherwise, they at least become quite popular in the upcoming stories. So while there might not be the editorial integrity of a traditional publication, for those who pay attention, the necessary corrections typically do get made. The other aspect of this is a fundamental difference between online sources of information and traditional ones, as when you're online, you're only a google search away from confirmation or correction, and so there is less reliance on any single source of information. Add to this the discussion taking place in story comments, and we end up with an extremely well-balanced coverage of most issues, often going well beyond what we can get from traditional media.
      • Picaroon, on 04/16/2008, -3/+4I see it all the time. You're definitely not alone. After 3000+ diggs it finally shows up as "possibly inaccurate" and a few astute readers may notice that they've been had.
      • Hyperion1144, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3And 24 hours later, the truth comes out, and most of the people who Dugg the story in first place see the follow-up (not a "few" there Picaroon. The "Possibly Inaccurate" stories are labeled in red for a reason! How many newspapers label their corrections on the front page in bold red type???). Error corrected, we move on. Being informed does not imply that one does not make mistakes. It implies that one is able to identify and correct mistakes quickly. Don't tell me that doesn't happen here. With the sheer volume of information that floods the social news networks on any given day, I would say they would be far more suspect if some stories were not proven wrong. Are you telling me you actually think Digg would be more trustworthy if somehow, magically, there were no mistakes ever??? Cause that would sound to me more like the whole system was being rigged, and would look very suspicious.
        • illegalcortex, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, the labelling of "Possibly Inaccurate" has itself become increasingly inaccurate. They changed the algorithm because it used to be hard as hell to get something marked inaccurate. Now a portion of people who just don't like the story will frequently get things labelled as inaccurate.
    • mistergoomba, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1well put
    • PabloMac, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1I agree with Kynn's comments, but that doesn't make me like either Socialist on the left.
    • Picaroon, on 04/16/2008, -2/+13Dude, citing the internet as why Obama is doing better than Hillary only makes Bill Clinton's point for him.
      I'd argue that Obama's doing better because he has more character and honesty than Hillary.
    • worldsbestgamer, on 04/16/2008, -3/+6Yes, because if its on the Internet, it must be factual and free from bias!
    • mecharabbit, on 04/16/2008, -1/+10The new Clinton slogan: "Don't trust anyone under 60!"
      • cybrguy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1From what I have seen, the older generations are becoming more and more like lemmings every day. But since the system promotes group think, its inevitable.
    • robbiemuffin, on 04/16/2008, -4/+2I think people might be siding with obama in this horizon of the internet because they are misusing the internet, not because they are using it.

      I agree with the idea that there are differences between those sources. suggesting that the internet is better as a whole I agree with too. But linking that aspect, the superiority of the whole of the internet, to the bias induced selection of Obama is wrong. You aren't distinguishing between mob/herd mentality and plural sources of information.
    • 11b1p, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1I'd agree except young people will never vote so whatever!
      • cybrguy, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Young people almost overturned my local republican convention, and I was one of them. It was litterally the under 30 crowd vs everyone else.
      • mugan, on 04/17/2008, -1/+0I think in this upcoming election the young people might surprise you. People between 18 and 25 are a lot more informed and involved than the previous generation of young people.
    • robbiemuffin, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2oops, please bury my above comment: that's instinct not rationality.
      The fact is, maybe people really are selecting obama over clinton on the right reasons. but, that is true if and only if the internet is not one of those reasons.
    • chanon, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6In addition to young people, people with higher education are also more likely to support Obama:
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/106360/Obama-Dominates- ...
      • cybrguy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Friggin awesome poll. Wealth aside, the more education you have, the better equipped you are to make important decisions. If people who have the knowledge are voting one way over the other there is probably reason behind the trend.
      • allengeer, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1so therefor, the most intelligent people are too wise to be fooled by Obama's rhetoric. now lets see... intelligent people are the most leaned... and wise means to be learned.... wait a minute... Bill appears to be stuck in a paradox.
    • moush, on 04/16/2008, -8/+1He makes sense to me, digg users are for the majority younger, and they're all morons.
      • Hyperion1144, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Irony anyone? Hey moush, guess what??? You just posted on Digg! You know what that makes you???
    • kingUssop, on 04/16/2008, -0/+6Well said. The internet is not perfect, and in the huge volume of articles, misinformation can crop up. Even so, as you said this is the place where questions can be answered. The MSM is utterly whipped, Christian-whipped, Republican-whipped, advertiser whipped, corporate head whipped... it is so afraid of speaking at this point that all the comes out are reports so painstakingly censored that they are effectively just a stage for the select few with "credentials" to drop their PR stinkbombs on. In that climate, yeah older folks see a Hillary that rarely gets called out on nonsense. And they see other things such as the recently manufactured "bitter" incident that the MSM *made* an incident, not voters.
      • robbiemuffin, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1*manufactured* is the key word for this election. (not manufactured like 'you have no vote', manufactured like a James Bond script — it reads well, I just don't want my life/society that way)

        I want to burn people at the stake for how artificial they've made this. but obviously that isn't right. best just not to vote... and this is the election for it. never in my life have all the candidates been so indistinguishable.
        • WiseWeasel, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2The core issue is that you, and everyone else in the US, believes that there are only three candidates in the race. As long as the political discussion is allowed to be artificially narrowed by the media filter, we're stuck with these poor choices. We can only hope that changes in popular methods of information distribution will allow citizens to control the direction of political discussion, and give a chance to representatives who we would actually like to represent us.
    • casuallyevil, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4So - young people AREN'T too easily fooled because they get their information from other young people? That's pretty faulty logic.

      As bad as the MSM can be, you can't seriously consider places like Huffington Post, Crooksandliars, Rawstory, and Digg comments to be a more balanced and realistic source of information. People are most easily fooled when in a group of others that they generally agree with - sound a little like Digg to you?
      • cybrguy, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Young people have more access to differing viewpoints than old people. So they won't be forced to put their head in the sand when something doesn't make sense to them.
      • WiseWeasel, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Yes, I believe all those sources combined, along with NY Times, Fox, CNN, ABC, Washington Post, and all the other traditional sources of information which also make it to Digg, are a better source of information than TV or radio news, where a vast majority of the population gets their political coverage. The level of hubris, disinformation, and blatant advertising shown in traditional media sources make them largely worthless on their own. It's only when we meld all these different sources, and put them through a populist filter, that we get a semblance of relevant "news". To me, watching TV news is largely a waste of time, as there will be maybe 5% that I'm at all interested in, and its coverage is merely a teaser, forcing me to turn to other sources for any kind of in-depth information. All the rest is about celebrities, latest movies or commercial products, some random lame feel-good stories or social commentary, and sports, and it's a complete waste of my time. The level of real, actual news that affects us covered in most TV media is shameful at best.
      • allengeer, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Keep in mind, good sir, that its the online medium exposing these people for all their BS... not the MSM... the whole hillary bosnia hoax... that started with a video on you tube. Reverand Wright... video on you tube. Its becoming a state where the MSM is lead by the internet media.
    • Armakillo, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Ahaha so apparently the fact that youth read liberal-stuffed, hormone-fueled, emotion-driven media proves they're less ignorant? It's very satisfying to think you're more knowledgeable than those foolish old people who watch "MSM", but holy crap, you're reading the seven thousandth Huffington Post article to be put on Digg--there is way more selection and bias than on the news. I've never, ever, ever seen a pro-McCain article on Digg, for example.
    • Attol, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1*ahem* ronpaultards
    • richmomz, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Dead on. The Internet is much more open to free thought and difficult to manipulate than the corporate controlled television (telescreen?) networks. When you consider where each age group gets the majority of its information, it is pretty clear who is being "fooled" and who is well-informed.
      • Armakillo, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Free thought is good, but it means you get the crap along with the good stuff. Mainstream media gives you relatively balanced, real news--not the Huffington Post pro-bama news.
  • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -69/+20Well they are. Young people are energetic and full of enthusiasm, but they dont know their ass from a hole in the ground.
    • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -37/+8Let me amend that, MOST young people.
      • argaen21, on 04/16/2008, -9/+16Let me amend that for you -1
        • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -24/+3How long did that take your childlike mind to muster up? It must be sleepy time after all that effort.
        • buhbyebot, on 04/16/2008, -5/+6combo breaker.
          • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -17/+3"Combo breaker"?
            Is that from your videogame or something? Gee, I hope your not of voting age.
          • sephiroth965, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Wow, because some references video games they must be childish right? Maybe people just like referencing things they grew up with.
          • ru1dt, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1i don't think so, tim...
      • Turambar, on 04/16/2008, -1/+18allright allright! i'll get off your freakin lawn!
      • GOW619, on 04/16/2008, -7/+2yea event though im young i agree with you most people 18- maybe 26 are pretty stupid and barely beginning to see and make right choices...
        • chanop, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4You're too young to attack young peoples credibility
          • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Mabey he's one of the smart ones. You dont know him well enough to attack his.
      • coyote1284, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Yeah, like, one day I was just walking, minding my own business when I fell into an ***** and thought "Who is the hole-in-the-ground that dug this here!"
    • TheWorm, on 04/16/2008, -6/+32As a young person who with most of my peers, will be able to vote for the first time in November, I can say that's an insulting and misinformed analysis. I think that because Barack Obama is a candidate who is able to appeal to the young voter (without sounding lame and forced like Hilary's "viral" campaign), a lot of people my age are BECOMING more politically informed. It's not a fad, based on the number of my peers I talked to at the local Obama rally who had intelligent things to say about politics, it really is a movement for change. Young people are reaching out to listen what this guy has to say. That should be encouraged.
      • userperson, on 04/16/2008, -10/+3"a lot of people my age are BECOMING more politically informed"
        Then why are they still voting?
        • StarlessKnight, on 04/16/2008, -0/+9What would you rather they do? Watch American Idol? Overthrow the government? Pray tell what should they do?
          • userperson, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1Stop telling other people what to do
            Stop listening to other people telling you what to do
            Stop using coercive force at the drop of a hat
            Stop advocating that coercive force be used

            Be happy
            Be free

            Politics doesn't usually make things better, usually it makes things worse. You're voting for Clinton, Obama, or McCain. You're not voting for the war to end, for lower taxes, or for some such healthcare. They're all lying anyway and will do whatever the hell they can to give themselves more power. They could unleash unknown horror upon all of us. All you can say is "I didn't know".
            I don't know either, I'm no genius, I just know that the system doesn't work, and to try to use it's devices to fix it is meaningless/only makes it stronger.

            In addition, all these little ideas people want gov't to do, they should quit trying to convince bureaucrats to steal people's money for them, and do it on their own.
            Want to invade X-beckistan, lock & load, ship out. Want to feed the hungry, grab a sandwich for somebody.
            Put up or shut up.

            Thanks for asking, now digg this down.
          • Loki101, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3IRT userperson
            There are many people who I disagree with in politics, but only one who I detest - the man who bitches how everything is broken, but refuses to do anything. The lazy, emo, faux-sophisticate, immature mind that somehow believes that nihilistic cynicism is a sign of intellectual maturity.
            Great people change things. Common people adapt to things. Sheep bleat.
          • userperson, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1@"Great people"
            Refuse to do anything? read, think, then speak.
            If you stick a gun peoples' face / get your goons to, you can change things alright. Good luck with that and being "great".
          • Loki101, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1IRT userperson

            Nice piece of self-fellatio.

            Don't like what's going on? Use "the system's" tools against it. Vote. Get friends to vote. Get your message out, start a blog, spread the word, and when the worst happens you'll have a reason to bitch.

            Don't like democracy? Fine. There are plenty of other countries that don't have Democracy. Go live in one of them.

            Don't like government? There are plenty of deserted islands in the middle of nowhere. Indonesia has about 1000.

            Don't like it that Ron Paul didn't make it? Heh. I can't believe it took me this long to figure that out.
          • userperson, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Nice short-sighted insult.
            Indeed as per democracy & government, I was writing about how I believed things should be, not how things are. I hope for change. Shame on me. You are correct, governments are in most places. Clearly I should move if I disagree, just as those who disagree with the Iraq war should stop paying taxes and move as well.

            I didn't vote for Paul.

            As I've written I'm not so smart, this link ( http://is.gd/72Y ) makes a better and more clear argument than I ever could.
            The author is a nut job like me who believes people shouldn't be randomly killed, enslaved, or stolen from.
            Though as you correctly note, if one does not support these things they should move to some remote deserted island, to allow everyone else to continue the virtuous business of murder, control, and theft.
            Thanks for correcting the errors of my ways.
        • coyote1284, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3HACK THE WORLD!
      • BAFrayd, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2You're correct it should be encouraged. Along with the encouragement, however, a young person needs to extract a strong degree of discernment. This requires a certain amount of experience and application. While applying oneself to political process may not be an issue for some, there just isn't a whole lot of life experience to be had when one hasn't been around the block a few times. Too often young folks get caught up on catch-phrase politics and single-cause politics and are exploited because of this. This is most likely what Bill was referring to.
    • WomenObama, on 04/16/2008, -8/+4Oh and we are meant to forgive you, just as you will not forgive obamas coment? That is what I call hypocrytical and elitist
      • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -13/+2WTF are you talking about sweetheart?! Lol.
        ^Exhibit #500687
        • toxicshok, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5WTF are you talking about?
          • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4Its over your head, dont worry about. Go play videogames.
    • eliot2000, on 04/16/2008, -2/+31I disagree. During the last campaign, when I spoke to people who were voting for bush, most of them older, the majority said they were voting for him because he was a man of faith, or because he had integrity. The polling data after the elections also confirmed that the deciding votes were based on moral and faith issues. Seems like shorthand for "I'm not really sure why i'm voting for this person."

      by comparison, ask one of the young Paul or Obama people on here how they feel about NAFTA, Stem Cell Research, economic policy, or a hundred other things and you'll get an earful.
      • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -19/+6"by comparison, ask one of the young Paul or Obama people on here how they feel about NAFTA, Stem Cell Research, economic policy, or a hundred other things and you'll get an earful."

        *****! But thats a cute story.
        Dugg!
      • Sidzilla, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7Voting based on the character of a candidate is not as dumb as it sounds at first. Obama and Hillary have almost identical voting records. Of 265 votes they differed on only 10, and of those 10 different votes they covered only 3 issues. (Those were numbers from last year). When their is little difference in candidates actual deeds, you have to evaluate their character to make an informed decision. Hillary is a power hungry woman who scares me. Obama is at least a chance for real change.
        • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1I agree with judging the character behind the rhetoric. But that kind of sensitivity takes unusual maturity for a young person or experience to develop.
          • sephiroth965, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2You're just an elitist piece of ***** aren't you?!
        • userperson, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1"Voting based on the character of a candidate is not as dumb as it sounds at first."
          Yes it is.
          case in point: "Obama is at least a chance for real change." ... 'um yeah that'll happen. /S
          Well, change, could happen ... but not the changes you were promised. *smirk*
    • chanop, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3Hey robthom, My vote negates yours.
    • Rikkochet, on 04/16/2008, -0/+10The older I get, the dumber older people are, too.
      Face it, stupidity isn't divided along ethnic or age grounds. It is 100% evenly distributed across the board.
      • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Thats true. Dumb young people grow up into dumb older people. But the difference is maturity and experience. A dumb older person will make a better informed decision than a dumb young one just from having the benefit of experience.
      • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1If fact I apologize if I implied that Young people are inherently dumb. Thats not exactly what I meant. I meant that young people are more easily led into doing dumb things and making bad decisions because of their lack of experience. That's not necessarily stupidity, its at least partially the plain old naiveté that most of us eventually grow out of.
      • Armakillo, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Face it, older people are wiser and smarter. It may be incomprehensible at this point that you don't know everything, but wait.
    • Sauwan, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3I seem to be able to differentiate my ass from that hole you've dugg yourself there.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1That's pretty much correct, especially going below college age.
    • AncientNewborn, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Or maybe the younger voters are still in school having our minds challenged everyday, forcing us to stretch our thinking to new limits. As opposed to the people who go to their office everyday and do nearly the same thing who don't necessary need to do any critical thinking, wouldn't the youth be at least as good of political assessors? How can you elder folks simply generalize all of the younger voters like that. I do admit lots of kids here vote simply because of the hype that their peers are throwing out, but there are still lots of critical thinkers in our generation.
  • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -43/+18Bill Clinton states the obvious, the fools act foolishly.
    • WomenObama, on 04/16/2008, -5/+4Well I guess you are not a parent! Because if you were you would not talk this way. Either that or you do not have confidence in your ability to make the next generation smarter, which would be a reflection of yourself. lol
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -9/+4I'm a man who outgrowed his foolishness. And I have two sons.

      And all three of us agree, we're surrounded by apes.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -4/+5Outgrowed? Damn. Talking about foolishness...
      • userperson, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5Unless you care for primates, that's insulting to apes. Otherwise point taken and endorsed.
      • hayzeus, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6Most apes I know, however, know not to use 'outgrowed' in a sentence.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3So there's still a portion of apes you know that use "outgrowed" in a sentence.
          • hayzeus, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Quite a few, actually. Always coming around her in the middle of the night, swiping my fruit and jibbering ungrammatically... Don't even get me started.
    • neognostic, on 04/16/2008, -3/+5Speaking of fools, how is Ron Paul doing in the race ElAss?
      • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -8/+6Badly, it's expected. Smart people can't get elected in the US.
        • userperson, on 04/16/2008, -0/+7Smart people do get elected, just not smart people with good intentions.
  • allnone, on 04/16/2008, -11/+134People over 60 barely use the internet, so they only know what CBS tells them for 30 minutes a day, but we actually do research.
    • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -28/+11On youtube and myspace. Get over yourself spartacus.
    • khail250, on 04/16/2008, -1/+19but who are the ones to vote?
      • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -4/+3Dugg for existentialism.
      • NJank, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3leave Pete Townshend out of this.
      • coyote1284, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Who will vote the voters?
      • cybrguy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1If enough young politically active people get involved we can overthrow the old people. It almost happened at my local republican convention.
    • timbofirstblood, on 04/16/2008, -4/+38First of all, I don't think cruising Digg comment pages qualifies good research. Second, as khail250 alluded to, 72.5% of people aged 65-74 voted in 2004 compared to 38.8% of people 18-24. Percentage of voters by age increases steadily until age 75, when it plateaus at 71%. Maybe that means you should spend less time doing "research" and more time actually doing something. How's that for research? (Source: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cp ...
      • thelock65, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3touche...
      • Mejari, on 04/16/2008, -2/+7If you payed any attention, you'd see that the point is that MORE young people are getting involved (get it? That means they weren't involved before). Although you do raise an interesting point, Bill's blaming why his wife cant get elected on the young-uns, but like you said, most voters are older, so it must mean she's just a ***** candidate.
        • timbofirstblood, on 04/16/2008, -4/+5I don't see any mention anywhere, either in the article or in the comment I responded to, of an increase in young people's involvement in politics. The point of the article is that younger people are more susceptible to specious rhetoric.
      • phantom_mullet, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Digg, fix the damn comment system. These cut-off links have got to go. Please. If I wanted cut-offs, I would be a nevernude.
      • Hyperion1144, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1It does if the commenter's cite their sources when laying down facts. That allows the reader to follow-up on their own, and helps to quiet ill-informed counter-arguments. Which is why I always try to cite when posting a fact. I guess college wasn't entirely useless...
    • Malevolant, on 04/16/2008, -4/+13That is utter b.s. as far as people here doing research. Completely laughable. How many of these stories get a million diggs then turn out to be "inaccurate"? Way to many to mention, and repeating things others said and/or copying and pasting from wikipedia, is not research.
      • familynight, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4hold on a second. i agree that there are many opinions published on the internet that do not have very much supporting research. however, the fact that digg has a mechanic to allow a story to be reported as inaccurate has to go in the plus column for internet news. i may not do a whole lot of independent research on issues, but that doesn't mean that i don't benefit from the secondary research of social bookmarking sites like digg. reading an article on digg and then reading through the accompanying comments gives you a much better and more reliable view of a story than anything that you'll get on tv news, and really the vast majority of print news. the digg user base has biases as a group but it also allows for a wide variety of views to be published. so, maybe there is a lot of nonsense on digg and in the comments, but i'll take this flood of varying degrees of nonsense and bias over the single source of nonsense and bias (although it may be slightly better researched than your average digg article) of the tv news.
        saying that "we do research" goes a bit far, at least in the classic sense of research. research is more than the sourcing of statements and the checking of facts. it is a process whereby one arrives at an understanding of a subject. for this purpose, i believe that digg (and the internet generally because it is integral to the use of digg) is clearly a more robust tool than the entirety of tv news. so, yeah, we do research. of course, our research is prone to problems, just as is any form of research.
      • stretch611, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2How many accurate stories have been labeled as inaccurate because a mass of people that want to hide the truth? I have seen it happen on many anti-Bush and Scientology articles.
    • ralph12c41, on 04/16/2008, -4/+11Digg is research? The Internet blogs are mostly biased opinion or someone using them to sell books ( Ms Huffington) or increase their marketability. A relatively small number of people getting stirred up by a handful of strongly partisan blogs on both sides.
      • familynight, on 04/16/2008, -3/+4are you saying that tv news isn't prone to very similar problems? if so, that's just naive. how many people on the news on tv in a given day don't have a product that they're selling, directly or indirectly?
      • Rikkochet, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Welcome to the world. It hasn't changed a bit since the first Athenian orators.
    • surfstoked, on 04/16/2008, -1/+8Damfool kid! A lot of us who are 60 were 20 something in the 60's. Where do you think saying like "Question Authority" came from.?? Who do you think invented the Internet. All of us didn't fossilize.
      • familynight, on 04/16/2008, -3/+3just a point of irony, but wasn't "don't trust anyone over thirty" also a famous quote from the same era?
    • homanh, on 04/16/2008, -3/+7Young people may do a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT of things on the internet [porn, games, rickroll, digg, facebook...] but research is NOT one of them rofl.

      Listening to you, some people would think young people spend their whole day on the internet "researching"
      • khail250, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1should be porn, digg, porn, porn, facebook
    • JointVenture, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4Wow I knew someone would say old folks dont use the internet or have access to the same info.

      Go to THE VILLAGES and stop by the internet cafe , it is jam packed.

      In fact I would wager that 80% of retired folks are on the internet more than 20 somethings, and when they are they arent watching vids or diggs, but reading news media.
    • RockMuncher, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2That's odd.. and here I thought that people over the age of 60 were the second fastest growing group to use technology and the internet. I guess the actual statistics must be wrong, because all older people are too old to understand things. Never mind that my mother and all of her friends (all over 60) get most of their news online, never mind the large numbers of retired people wandering the net for fun... older people are just too old to understand anything more recent than Neil Armstrong. Even if most the people who pioneered the technology we use now are over 50.
  • smacksaw, on 04/16/2008, -8/+8Oh Slick Willie, did you forget your oil change? I guess they don't sell flavoured KY jelly in small PA towns...
    • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -11/+1Young america has spoken.
      • kevxross, on 04/16/2008, -1/+7Or one Digg user. If you can't tell the difference between a dumb comment from a single Digg user and the way "young America" feels, is it really the young people who "dont know their ass from a hole in the ground" (a quote from robthom earlier in this thread)? I'd have to suggest that it is you who is ignorant and confused.
        • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -8/+1Obviously its just one dumb example. I cant collect them all and show them to you here. And if you read my other post then you already saw that I ammended my initial generalization to be more specific that not ALL, although I suspect most young americans think this way. But of course nobody would notice that because most young people are knee jerk monkeys when it come to any critical thought process. But whatever, your one of the most intelligent people on this thread so far. So congrats on that.
  • jeremyduffy, on 04/16/2008, -2/+71Brilliant maneuver. Insulting a segment of American voters is sure to help you get their votes.
    • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -11/+1Buried for making sense.
      • tHePeOPle, on 04/16/2008, -0/+5buried for being a hillary shill.
    • WomenObama, on 04/16/2008, -1/+8Well he has done that before, hasn't he, first the African American population and now the Youth. Two groups whom he does not think have any brains. That is racist and elitist
      • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5THE MAN GOT ELECTED BY PLAYING THE SAXOPHONE.
        • MacEnvy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2Which shows what a crappy president GHWB was to lose to him.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2If you're going to insult a group, that's the demographic to insult. Historically they don't vote. Hmmmmm if only we could just pop up a voting screen on XBox on election day.......
    • worldsbestgamer, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Thats right. Speaking of which, those Pennsylvanians cling to religion and guns.
    • acidwinter, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Sounds like someone is a sore loser.
  • TheWorm, on 04/16/2008, -6/+46And I used to really like Bill Clinton.
    • userperson, on 04/16/2008, -2/+7... and to think he called you foolish.
    • homanh, on 04/16/2008, -3/+4Clinton is getting old now, and there's also the fact that he HAS to support his wife no matter what.
      It doesn't change the fact that he was the best president in a LONG time.

      I also resent what barrack obama said about problems in Bush's term being from the clinton presidency rather than bush's stupid presidency itself. Its the first time Obama really said something that made me doubt his ability to be a good thinker and leader. Maybe all the dirty tactics from his peers is really having an adverse effect on him who knows.
      • CrunchyDeluxe, on 04/16/2008, -5/+2Best president in a LONG time? I'm sure China thinks so. Reagan was a hell of a lot better.
    • 10ofDiamonds, on 04/16/2008, -10/+4And your reasons for liking him were probably just as vapid as the reasons you like Obama. Weak minds turncoat easily. Bill Clinton is right, even if his motivations for saying this are entirely political.
      • cranium, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2He'd be saying exactly the opposite if Hillary was ahead in the youth demographic.
        • 10ofDiamonds, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0He would, and he'd be wrong in that instance. I am just agreeing with his position that young voters are easily fooled.
  • brandonchicago, on 04/16/2008, -4/+113Funny that he'd insult the very same base that helped him get elected as president two terms in a row. Nice one.
    • userperson, on 04/16/2008, -0/+8not the 'very same'. *smirk*

      He mean the young voters of Today. in the 90's it was completely different. /S
    • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -1/+9Thats called politics. There are no friends only allies. We got used. He wasn't the first and wont be the last. His point is valid, and he's the walking talking evidence.
      • userperson, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3Damn! so much said in just a line, so dead on.
    • nazl, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3Exactly! I was expecting him to follow it up with, "I mean, come on! They all voted for me because I said I didn't inhale!"
    • TheArcticFoxx, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4Now you understand how politicians really feel when they don't actually need any kind of vote. Your opinion is now expendable.
    • worldsbestgamer, on 04/16/2008, -2/+3no he didn't. the kids today are brainwashed by the internet. look at this site.
      • Drax0n, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2if by brainwashed you mean informed than yes we are, little things like the truth used to never get in the way of what people thought. Now that we can fact check ourself, now when they say they run around under sniper fire we can look back at the video on youtube and wonder what kind of a parent would bring their child to a place where there is sniper fire (chealsea is walking beside hillary in bosnia). We also wonder what kind of parent could simply for get if they spent an evening evading sniper fire with their teenage daughter.

        So yes brainwashed if the definition of brainwashed is no longer easting all the BS that comes right out of the Clintons or bush's mouths.
        • worldsbestgamer, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Truth is dictated still. You get info from sources, and much of the internet is BS. If you cannot see that, I a day comes when many kids can.
  • belril, on 04/16/2008, -11/+0Bill wasn't able to bring out young people either. Don't knock people who didn't vote for you in the first place.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4THE MAN GOT ELECTED BY PLAYING THE SAXOPHONE.
    • robthom, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3It may have been before your time homie, but Bubba was on MTV and the arsenio hall show. Talking about his drawers and blowing his horn. He was a like a pop star after bush 1 and young people loved him.
      • chanop, on 04/16/2008, -0/+2I loved him, I still have trouble getting over him even with the ***** he says today. I think he was a great president, but Hillary is not Bill. I'm especially disgusted with her letting NY go to ***** right now. She promised us she would bring 200,000 jobs to NY. All the large companies are moving out of NY (IBM, Watson Pharm.) .
        • ElAssoWipo, on 04/16/2008, -3/+1So you wanted her to pay lobbies to keep interests in your state?
          • MacEnvy, on 04/16/2008, -0/+3Better than paying them to move away, which is what we do now.
        • chanop, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1NY State gives IBM a *****-load of tax-breaks for them employing people here. Now that IBM is 1/3 (and still shrinking) the size it was, they still get these tax breaks. So, what macenvy says is correct, we're basically paying lobbyists to get rid of jobs. Not to mention, NY = highest taxes in the country.
  • ozymandias2012, on 04/16/2008, -1/+96Translation: You must be young and stupid if you don't like Hillary.
    • pearlygate, on 04/16/2008, -4/+1that's what steve jobs told me what to do
    • savantidiot, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1I wonder if there may be other motivation behind it than 'telling the kids like it is'. Knowing the younger vote is hopelessly lost, was it intended for older ears, intended to motivate less informed, less connected ears to go out and vote out of fear of their silly kids so they don't mess things up for mom?
    • jontalisman, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Well, if the shoe fits...
  • papipablo, on 04/16/2008, -5/+15I can't believe I voted for this dude. It was the first time I was eligible to vote, so I must have been fooled by his incumbency into believing he was anything other than a lying douche.
    • ApokalypseNow, on 04/16/2008, -6/+11To be fair, the country did leaps and bounds better under THAT lying douche than the CURRENT lying douche.
      • kettlehead, on 04/16/2008, -2/+10The difference is that Clinton was an intelligent parasite - one that knows it will fair better if its host remains healthy; unlike Bush and Cheney, who seem intent on sucking all the life out of it.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4They're both liars, but there are large differences in the degree of douchebaggery.
    • petebot, on 04/16/2008, -3/+9I think you forget that he was running against Bob Dole.
    • qwerter, on 04/16/2008, -3/+9Don't be so hard on yourself. He was the best choice at the time.
    • rex84, on 04/16/2008, -5/+6And you're about to get fooled again, shame on you.
  • zyklon, on 04/16/2008, -4/+18I used to be big Bill supporter. He's slowly moving toward the "Bush" side of my distaste now. Him and his anti-Christ wife.
    • eibborjames, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4Ahhhh, Bills still cool, he's just pissed he has to be campaigning when he could be out on his fishing boat and smoking doobies..
      • coyote1284, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2Waaait, so Slick Willy is actually attempting to derail his wife's camaign? Brilliant man! Keep doing what you're doing, Bill!
      • jaydoj, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1HOLD ON, Willy is smokin doobies? Where is this happening, I will bring a stash and match him.
      • tnoy, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1But, he doesnt inhale.
  • WraTH017, on 04/16/2008, -5/+56So, being called bitter is demeaning, but being called foolish (synonymous with stupid) isn't?

    Right. I say the Clinton's are out of touch AND elitist to boot.
  • ihavefish, on 04/16/2008, -20/+11Enough with these stupid Huffington Post articles--- they're almost as bad as Fox News
  • catachip, on 04/16/2008, -2/+28Bill Clinton has done more to hurt Hillary's race for the White House than Obama and McCain combined. Thank God for Bill Clinton.
    • qwerter, on 04/16/2008, -1/+8Don't count out Hillary's own self-destruction. She convinced me not to vote for her more than anyone else did.
    • shawn1122, on 04/16/2008, -1/+6Maybe he's on Obama's side after all...
    • mikesuds, on 04/16/2008, -2/+1I agree with your sentiment, though I'd rather thank the FSM.
  • jp12380, on 04/16/2008, -2/+5He is right, on a completely unrelated note I believe that the question asked to Hillary about when the last time she went to church or shot a gun is irrelevant.
    Hillary for president.
    Wait a second...
    • ripple123, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5Maybe she could borrow a gun off those snipers in bosnia.
  • GreatSunJester, on 04/16/2008, -1/+5which actually can be used to explain "Senator Clinton"
  • axeugene69, on 04/16/2008, -3/+7Perhaps the young voters are simply discerning the psychotic lying bitch that Hillary actually is
  • Verchiel77, on 04/16/2008, -1/+7Said the Arsenio Hall sax man...
  • drifter, on 04/16/2008, -17/+6First off young people will not vote. Everyone is hyping Obama and this whole election up. But just like the last election and despite the whole "vote or die" and everything else, young people did not vote.

    I am 18 and feel that all the college kids around me need to shut the ***** up cus i know they will end up to busy with class, smoking pot or other ***** come voting time.
    • hittnrun, on 04/16/2008, -14/+3 By the time November rolls around, they will be bored with Obama and his nausiating speech pattern and off to something else. True.
    • Zuggy, on 04/16/2008, -1/+2I seriously doubt that people that responded to a poll or are out campaigning, spreading the word about whatever their candidate of choice is, are going to say screw it I don't wanna vote, at the 11th hour.
    • azpat, on 04/16/2008, -1/+4Given that 40 or so states have already voted in primaries you should be able to produce numbers to support this claim.

      /does quick google search
      /copies headline from first result
      Super Tuesday Youth Voter Turnout Triples, Quadruples In Some States
      Voters under 30 were largely responsible for Barack Obama's victory in Missouri and Connecticut, as well as for Mike Huckabee's MO win.
      http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1581027/20080206/ ...

      You see, that's the point. ***** only goes so far with us youth voters because we can look it up and check it out for ourselves.
    • Walldo, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I am 20 years old and now only will I vote for Barack in November, I will be sure to ditch class to do so, and to smoke a lot of pot beforehand.
      • hittnrun, on 04/16/2008, -2/+2That's what it would take for me to vote for ANY DNC candidate, much less a black racist elitist.
    • Mattarang, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0It's hard not to agree with you. With young people, the difference between RL and the Internet is the same with voting- people are comfortable typing whatever they want online, but when they have to go out and do something, they won't. they can even reply to this comment and say they will, but years of statistics don't lie, and there's no reason to think that they'll suddenly start now (other than, perhaps, politics being far more trendier than we all thought).
  • anbublackops, on 04/16/2008, -2/+6Come on! Everyone knows he actually supports Obama!
  • toxicityj, on 04/16/2008, -2/+4It's amazing how someone so widely respected has managed to undo it all and become the center of a lot of hatred in a matter of months.
    • curtisag, on 04/16/2008, -1/+3He was never that widely respected, people just liked him because the economy was good during the 90's. People in tune with politics have known for many years that the Clintons are the biggest frauds and snake oil salesmen since Nixon. Their entire lives revolve around the plotting, acquisition, and retainment of power to fuel their own malformed egos. For them, being in the public spotlight is synonymous with life itself. People such as this, that put their own selfishness ahead of what's best for the nation, are not qualified to run for office. The fact that they came this close to the nomination is a testament to the gullibility of the average voter.
    • kgmurray, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Widely respected? By who????? Other than 20 year old interns that bend easily at the waist or knees, who else respected him?
  • insomniacal, on 04/16/2008, -1/+13Umm, wasn't Bill the one who played his sax on TV to lure young voters?
  • userperson, on 04/16/2008, -4/+1Yes, they're voting.
  • Malevolant, on 04/16/2008, -42/+54He is 100% correct, and you only need to look at digg for absolute proof. Think I'm full of it? Why then is digg constantly spammed with trivial b.s. as it pertains to obama? Why do you all bury anything and everything that isn't 100% positive about obama? Why is there no serious discussion about his record and stance on the issues? Why do the majority of you repeat the same obama talking points and know nothing about the man? Why do the majority of his supporters want him to win based on his personality and know very little about what he's done, or hasn't done? The obama Madison avenue p.r. campaign personifies what Clinton said. There are a million examples out there on how the overwhelming majority of obama supporters know nothing about him and want him to win based only on his speeches and "good guy" persona. Regardless of your support of his, you do yourselves a severe disservice, by not knowing much on what he's about, what he stands for, his xp, and not taking a critical look at someone who is running for the job as president. I know I'm preaching to the choir, and this will fall on deaf ears, but I'll say it anyway.
    P.S. Just look at how obama's opponents are attacked to ad nauseam, ad hominem style, hypocritically, at every opportunity. Idolatry is at work here and that's the worst thing.
    • wendelgee2, on 04/16/2008, -9/+23You have no idea what "preaching to the choir" means.
      And what sort of choir has "deaf ears"?
      • killahron, on 04/16/2008, -12/+5you guys are both right! this whole thing with obama reminds me of ron paul. if you just read what was on the internet, you would think ron paul actually had a chance. that being said, i'd rather have obama than clinton.
      • Mattarang, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1The tone-deaf one! THEY don't know that they're off-key...
    • Gloogle, on 04/16/2008, -6/+4I don't know Bill either as I know Obama, but I do like his reforms.
    • 4bit, on 04/16/2008, -6/+34Alrgiht. Go for it. I'm listening.

      The truth is, I DID research his record. And hers. and McCains. I do listen to what he says. I know what was said before and after the bitter