digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at cnn.com

***** Alert: Clinton Now Claims She Leads In Popular Vote

cnn.com — What she doesn't tell you is that her opponent, Senator Barack Obama, wasn't even on the ballot in one of the states she's including in that count--Michigan, who's primary (along with Florida's) she herself signed an agreement not to count! Aside from it now being statistically impossible for her to win, she's now lying about her very own numbers!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Bowie, on 04/25/2008, -55/+228In order to win the nomination, this woman would need to win by a 38% margain in every remaining primary... That means the turnout would have to be 88% Clinton vs 12% Obama, in every single contest. Why the HELL is she continuing this?
    • tcbishop12, on 04/25/2008, -2/+67Narcissism and selfish ambition. The only big ideas behind mad Hillary's campaign today is a thirst for power that all the Gatorade in Texas and Florida can't quench.
      • Jackson0909, on 04/25/2008, -12/+1"Narcissism and selfish ambition"........ kinda sounds like the Obama campaign also.
        • chaosium, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4Except that it has nothing to do with that.
          • Jackson0909, on 04/25/2008, -7/+2No.......... You choose to see things differently. The man is after the exact same thing. He has been building for this moment for probably 15 years. He just didn't all of a sudden say, "Hey, I think I should run for president." If that isn't selfish ambition then I don't know what is.
          • 0biKwiet, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I don't think you know what selfish ambition means.
          • onefreakykid, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3@Jackson
            Sir, I think it is you who chooses to see things differently. Which is fine, we are all entitled to our own ideas. But please keep them that way.
        • heypetray, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5The difference is in the way they run their campaigns. I'm choosing to not vote for Hillary because I don't support the way in which she is running, not the fact that she is running.
          Campaign tactics tell a lot about a candidate.
          • chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Exactly. I don't see an incredible difference in the proposed policies, I see a difference in character which explains my endorsement of Obama.

            Seeing as I do not agree with McCain's character OR policy, I will still vote for Hillary if she somehow snags the nomination.
      • MrTulip, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8but it's got what plants crave
    • Gabberwok, on 04/25/2008, -5/+134Um, wouldn't that be a 76% margin? You're not supposed to double it. It's 50 ± 19%, not 50 ± 38%. A 38% margin would be 69% to 31% - still ridiculous, but nowhere near what you said.
    • buhbyebot, on 04/25/2008, -5/+15If she continues, then Rush and all those like him will get their way and there just may be a riot at the DNC. It seems like an impossible and dier situation for the Democratic Party, and nobody really seems to give a *****. At least from the DNC. Is it that they just can't talk to her? Is she that stubborn and single-minded? Can they just withdraw her status as a Democrat?
      • Jackson0909, on 04/25/2008, -9/+0She could say the same thing about Obama. Why does he just automatically deserve the nomination? She is still having 10 point wins in very large states. States like Pennsylvania and Ohio that he will not be able to win in the General Election. Just because it poses a problem for you doesn't mean that she should go ahead and concede. Does it not bother that he is unelectable? He will be defeated by a far wider margin that Kerry.
        • pizzas, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8hello media puppet
          • Jackson0909, on 04/25/2008, -10/+0Hello kool-aid drinker.
          • zeusthemoose, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Kool-aid drinker??? Have you looked in the mirror lately...
        • Inquisition, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5You forget the fact that Obama leads in every category that counts. Overall delegates, the popular vote (no, Florida and Michigan don't count; they broke party rules, and knew the consequences) and number of states won. Think for a second that those ***** polls that say that registered Democrats would rather vote for McCain instead of Obama(the answers to those polls are emotionally charged, and will not (in my opinion) reflect rational Democrats once Obama gets the nomination.) In all those "large" states that clinton won, there will be a large Democrat framework to turn the wheels for the Democrat that is running against a Republican. A framework that Obama can use as well as Hilary once there is only one Democrat in the race.
      • heypetray, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7Unfortunately, this is one of those 'historical' things where a black man is running against a white woman for president. I'm not saying this to play into the whole media ***** about "black vs. white, man vs woman" etc.. I'm just saying that this is a pretty defining time in the fights of civil rights for blacks, as well as feminists, and I don't think either will 'stand down' to the other.
        There's just too much subtext that can't be abandoned, and it will unfortunately become a problem in the general election.

        @Jackson:
        Unelectable? Wider margin that Kerry? How do you figure?
    • rahamm, on 04/25/2008, -3/+16That isn't even true she does however need to win 60-40% in most of the remaining primaries and the same for the remaining super delgates
      You do the math it is fun
      http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.co ...
      • Coven, on 04/25/2008, -1/+10She needs to win 67-43 in all the remaining contests BEFORE the superdelegates come into play. If she wants the superdelegates to take her side she needs to be the people's choice.
        • slvrbullet87, on 04/25/2008, -6/+1Well if she goes 60-40 should be the peoples choice, she would take the popular vote
        • Acolyte357, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9No, she still would be trailing in popular vote.
        • heypetray, on 04/25/2008, -0/+867+43=110
          • Coven, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1*****...you're right. Its 67-33 then. Reading comprehension > me
      • o6uoq, on 04/25/2008, -10/+3like I'd believe a CNN poll.
        • Coven, on 04/25/2008, -1/+11Its not a poll. It is a delegate calculator and it is fairly accurate. There are others like it at other news sites.
      • mmortal03, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1To be pedantic, it's actually 61 to 39 across the remaining states and superdelegates, plus one extra vote somewhere in there.
        • sinrtb, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I am getting 69/31 for the remaining states and thats with Hillary at 159/147 in super delegates.
          • mmortal03, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1That also works, and it is probably the more likely way for it to happen, because, if she is going to get the super delegate votes, she is going to need that kind of margin in the remaining states.
    • eliot2000, on 04/25/2008, -5/+31Why is she continuing? The HRC campaign is deep in the red. If the campaign were to close up shop now, they still owe money, including $5Million to HRC herself. Instead of bowing out gracefully, they're scrabbling furiously to project the illusion that she is still a legitimate candidate, and the campaign in turning around- shouting about how everyone has been donating like crazy, and asking for more. It's not about winning anymore- it's about paying the check.
      • rahamm, on 04/25/2008, -7/+5they raised 10 million dollars yesterday
        • smacksaw, on 04/25/2008, -1/+20That's 5 days. Her campaign is $2mil per day just to run and that does not include her debts nor people still waiting to be paid.
          • Jwoey, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3debts or people still waiting to get paid?
            what's the difference?
          • smacksaw, on 04/25/2008, -0/+16I knew after I typed that someone was going to say that, LOL!

            With her debts, I meant the money she personally loaned the campaign and the people waiting to be paid are her creditors.

            My bad.
          • Coven, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Creditors, campaign employees, health insurance policies for said employees, etc.
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 04/25/2008, -6/+3I have to call shenanigans on that one. There is no way she is going on only to try to pay her debts of with donations. I don't believe it, and it doesn't even add up.
        • eliot2000, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2What else does a presidential campaign pay debts with?
    • bluezinc, on 04/25/2008, -3/+17I guess the whole "I'm the underdog!!" angle didn't take as people aren't really sympathetic to a blonde, rich, white, former first lady.

      However, the "HE'S the underdog" act might actually work against her, just a hunch.
    • smacksaw, on 04/25/2008, -0/+23She has to let it run it's course or she will be rendered impotent. She's not just fighting for the presidency, she's fighting for her Senate seat and her husband's legacy. This is a referendum on her at this point. She is vulnerable. The party could easily push competitors for her seat in the Senate, people who are/would be loyal to Obama or the DNC. She has flown in the face of the party leadership. Right now she is negotiating her security by playing tough.

      This has nothing to do with the election anymore and everything to do with what her role is, post-primaries. By backing off, she is trying to guarantee her spot as a power broker in the Senate...or even a spot there in the future. She has really screwed herself.
    • BinaryDelt, on 04/25/2008, -3/+632012. Set Obama up for failure in '08, run in 2012. She only cares about being President, not the party or the country.
      • iruber1337, on 04/25/2008, -0/+52012 eh? Damn the Mayans were correct!
      • diggrnumber1, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2i'm an obama supporter, but i don't think obama will make it past his first term. If there is an upcoming major recession, it will probably start getting really bad during the next president's term. And most people will ignorantly blame their economic woes on the president, as they always do. the economy is the single biggest factor in a president's popularity, as has been shown in elections time and time again. basically, whoever becomes president will only be president for one term (this would also apply to hillary and mccain). Hillary could easily take advantage of the situation, riding in on her trusty steed in 2012 to save america from the "obama menace." this would be quite easy, because the majority of people in this country (as in all countries) are profoundly stupid, and their opinions are easily swayed.
    • Bilabrin, on 04/25/2008, -2/+54It might take a village to raise a child but it only takes one selfish shrew to ruin our chance to put a democrat in the White House in 2009.
      • chalkboy, on 04/25/2008, -0/+10I love it
        • CraveThought, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1Though the second analogy has nothing to do with the first.
        • Bilabrin, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Village:child =/= shrew:ruined chances ?
      • Kerrigore, on 04/25/2008, -0/+10I cannot dig you up enough times, sir.
    • edrift101, on 04/25/2008, -0/+13I have this feeling that she's been promising favors for campaign contributions... If she drops out - a lot of companies might be looking for their money back or bigger favors in the future.
      • scottc, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4That's a standard practice in this country - or at least a standard expectation even when not explicitly requested or promised. I don't know if Obama does it or not. He didn't do it for Rezko, anyway, and he was a big donor early in Obama's career.
    • BOSyooper, on 04/25/2008, -6/+7Dugg down for bad math.
    • OwdenBowden, on 04/25/2008, -24/+2I am rather happy she is continuing because she has THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE.

      The only ***** I keep seeing in this campaigne is coming from one source - OBAMA
      • bangerznmash, on 04/25/2008, -0/+14I liked that you tried to spell campaign like champagne. But she doesn't have the right to continue when she can't provide her supporters with health insurance, she can't mathematically win, and she's ruining the chance of a fellow party member winning in the general. Contrary to your dumbass belief, it's not about the candidate it's about the voters.
        • hittnrun, on 04/25/2008, -16/+1oh, SHUTUP
          • chaosium, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Hillary might be doing better in the polls if people like yourself shut up more.
        • credence, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8ah, the intellectual counterpoint.
      • diggrnumber1, on 04/26/2008, -0/+5Obama's been putting bull ***** in champagne? That's disgusting. Why isn't the FDA on this one?
    • gpageau, on 04/25/2008, -8/+2Just wondering, look at it another way: If the positions were switched, would everyone by clamoring for Obama to drop out? Think so? Also, look at the states where Clinton has actually won: Major states like California (by a wide margin), Texas and New York. Those are must-have states in November election.
      • mschoolov, on 04/25/2008, -1/+9Clinton did not win Texas. She won the primary by a certain margin, but Obama won the caucus by a greater margin, giving him a net delegate lead in Texas.
        • DanMiller, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4It's funny. The primaries for the Democratic Party have specific rules. Why is it every time a door slams on Hillary we have a new way to calculate te winner. It doesn't matter how many big states she won, what matters is how many delegates Obama has won versus Clinton. The idea that those Democratic voters that voted for Clinton in the primary in large states won't flip to Obama is absurd.
          • chaosium, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4"Why is it every time a door slams on Hillary we have a new way to calculate te winner."

            Because she changes the rules based on what gives her the greatest advantage?

            (See Hilly campaigning such as Michigan and Fl as she promised not to, and so on.)
        • hittnrun, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1In other words, the voters don't matter to democrats, just the party elites & nutjobs at the caususes??? Nice. I am sure you won't mind the Superduper delegates disenfranchising the normal delegates at the convention?
      • diggduggDOOM, on 04/25/2008, -2/+9You're delusional if you think TX will elect a Democrat in the general or that CA or NY will elect a Republican in the general. You're better served making the swing state argument with regard to a state like Ohio.
      • diggduggDOOM, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6And "Yes" to answer your question about the roles being reversed. The second (and below) place candidates are usually asked to drop out when the numbers appear insurmountable. Huckabee was asked to drop out when it was clear McCain would be almost impossible to beat.

        If anything, Clinton has received less pressure than usual. Partly this is due to how close the race was for so long, but mostly I think it's due to her name and power within the Democratic Party.
      • queotic, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4Yes, everyone would be clamoring for Obama to drop out if he was losing, most vocally Clinton. Think about it - if Hillary Rodham Clinton - member of the Clinton administration, former First Lady of the United States and of Arkansas, a Goldwater girl - was leading in pledged delegates, in the popular vote and had won 30 out of 45 contests, do you really think she would be fine with a first term US Senator who was barely known refusing to drop out of the race? Hell, she offered him the VP position, virtually asking him to drop out of the race, even when he was winning!
    • skrowl, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Math is only against her to win the primaries. She can still (easily) steal the nomination using mostly super delegates even if every race from here on out is 50/50 tie.
      • chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2"She can still (easily) steal the nomination using mostly super delegates even if every race from here on out is 50/50 tie."

        *****, that's not even possible at this point in his momentum.
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3SHE IS A WOMAN ! They never admit defeat.
  • Bowie, on 04/25/2008, -14/+253Oops.. Math bug. She would have to win by 69% vs. 31%. Even still, absolutely impossible.

    (..hey, at least I didn't "misspeak"..lol..)
    • Gabberwok, on 04/25/2008, -1/+21It's alright - after North Carolina & Indiana, there's a good chance she'll need >100% of the remaining vote to get the pledged delegate lead. O:-)
      • JigoroKano, on 04/25/2008, -3/+7Just because you ace the final, doesn't mean you make an A in the class.
    • Observer001, on 04/25/2008, -2/+26I respect your willingness to admit fault. Enjoy another digg!
    • Cattywampus, on 04/25/2008, -0/+20(..hey, at least I didn't "misspeak"..lol..)

      Maybe you just temporarily misremembered. ;-)
      • starkruzr, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8The problem is that we misunderestimated him.
    • mtg1287, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6You know, earlier in the contest I thought i just disagreed with Hillary a lot. But as of lately i have come to the conclusion that I just straight hate her. There, I said it - I hate Hillary!
  • jbdobd, on 04/25/2008, -8/+212Hillary's numbers are no more honest than her words:
    POPULAR VOTE numbers...
    - Without MI/FL: Obama: 14,447,566 Clinton: 13,965,192
    - With FL, but NOT MI: Obama: 15,016,607 Clinton: 14,822,400
    - With MI/FL, including "uncommitted" for Obama: Obama: 15,254,369 Clinton: 15,150,551
    - With MI/FL, giving Obama 0 in MI and Clinton 328,000-plus (the only metric which gives her a lead): Clinton: 15,150,551 Obama: 15,016,607
    • Bowie, on 04/25/2008, -2/+25Ding ding ding..!

      Thank you. :)
    • aliengoods, on 04/25/2008, -2/+31And that's without adjusting for the number of people caucusing for Obama. Remember, the caucus count is far less than the raw number of people who caucused for him.
      • lukemann, on 04/25/2008, -10/+2Just because he won the caucus doesn't mean he would have won the popular vote there. Hilary won the popular vote in Texas but lost the caucus. The truth is if those caucus were all primaries, Obama would have lost probably half of them. His caucus skills are the only reason he's even ahead.
        • defska42, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1You sound like Hilary: "let's just pick the votes we want to count, after the rules have already been established."
      • SzaszMan, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7Riiight, because caucuses don't count as real votes, because caucuses are just run by liberal activists within the party.... who tend to hate Hillary's guts (so they shouldn't be counted).
    • chubbybubba, on 04/25/2008, -29/+2Whatever way you wish to spin it, this is BAD for Obama. Sure he'll probably get the nomination but he'll be going into the general election with barelyl over half the party. Me thinks OBAMA CLINTON may be the only solution.
      • NJank, on 04/25/2008, -1/+15please no, please no, please no...
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 04/25/2008, -1/+10I think that it's safe to say Clinton supporters will vote for Obama after she loses the nomination. WTF else do you think would happen? They vote for McCain out of spite??? How about the fact that there are many conservatives who aren't ***** insane who like Obama? If you are only caring about the democratic party, that makes you about as good as G.W. my friend.
        • ArmandoM, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8I don't think there's a lot of Clinton supporters would vote McCain if Obama gets the nomination, but there's a lot of people who just despise Hillary, and if she were to win, I can see a significant number voting McCain just to keep Hillary out of office.
          • SzaszMan, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2I would rather gargle with a cup of rusty nails rather than vote for that insane old fool McCain. However, I would never vote Hillary either, so if she somehow cons her way into the nomination, I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate.
        • RRJackson, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2I wouldn't vote for Obama even if the other option was a third term for Bush. If Clinton loses the nomination I'll vote for McCain. The same thing will happen among a lot of Obama supporters if Clinton wins the nomination, though. They'll be looking at third-party candidates or writing in Obama's name. Any way you slice it, McCain ends up president. Unfortunate, but that's what this long primary has served up.
          • papipablo, on 04/26/2008, -2/+3You leave comments on Digg "dittoing" Rush's call for a riot at the Democratic convention. You weren't going to vote for Obama and you weren't going to vote for Hillary either.
          • RRJackson, on 04/26/2008, -3/+2I didn't call for a riot. Someone said that if Obama doesn't get the nomination there will be a riot in Denver (in that typically petulant way that Obama's supporters seem to view the world) and I said I'd find it extremely entertaining if I got to see a lot of Obama supporters being clubbed and tasered on TV.

            It's funny how since you've been stalking me you've found that you couldn't argue the ideas without resorting to lies and personal attack. Obsessive fanatics seem to be central to Obama's support, though.
      • kreneskyp, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2most candidates go in with only about half the party
      • EtherGnat, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3Hillary did graciously offer to let Obama be her VP. /sarcasm
    • RRJackson, on 04/25/2008, -25/+7Look at your own numbers. There's less than a 2% difference in the votes cast in even the most cynical portrayal of the election. It's a dead heat. Stop pretending that Obama's winning by a landslide.
      • Spektr4, on 04/25/2008, -2/+18No one said it's a landslide. Who have you been talking to? What is true, however, is that she can't catch up in the delegate count. That is what people have been saying. "Landslide" is YOUR word.
        • RRJackson, on 04/25/2008, -8/+2He can't get enough delegates to win, either. When you make these comments about Clinton it's like you're saying, "But what she fails to realize is that there's no way she's ever going to be able to use her skin to convert light into energy via photosynthesis. Does she think the voters don't know that?" As if Obama *can* accomplish what you're accusing Clinton of not being able to accomplish.
          • chubbybubba, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2@RRJackson. What you say IS reasonable AND true. Sad that it falls on deaf ears. It seems some diggers are so caught up in Obama fanboyism they just refuse to use reason. It doesn't matter if it's Obama or Ron Paul or Apple or whatever, some diggers comments are so biased its like they empower further bias from other diggers, to the point they ALL reach an extreme they can no longer come back to thinking coherently. It's like one big contest of who can Love Obama/Ron Paul/Apple/nintendo/etc... More.
        • DanMiller, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4@RRJackson However, the majority of the popular vote is Obama. The majority of the available Delegates are Obama's. The majority of the states won are Obama's. The only thing Clinton can say is that she has won the larger states to which she claims makes her the only viable canidate. The argument seems to be that if Obama was to run in the general election none of the voters who voted for Clinton would vote for Obama. It is absolutely absurd, not to mention a huge disenfranchisement, to think about having the superdelegates overturning the will of the majority. Giving Clinton the nomination is like playing a baseball game to the 7th inning and calling it for rain. At the end, the losing team claims it should get the win since it scored 5 runs in the 2nd while the other team only scored 1 per inning.
          • RRJackson, on 04/25/2008, -6/+1FIrst off, the rules of the process don't say that whoever pulls out ahead by a point or two wins. They say that a candidate needs 2025 delegates to secure the nomination. Neither candidate is going to get 2025 before Denver. So all this brouhaha is just that. The process is going forward and it looks like the supers will make the final decision in Denver, which is exactly how the process is supposed to work in cases like this. The incessant whining about how Senator Clinton should quit because Senator Obama is ever-so-slightly ahead of her borders on the ridiculous. It isn't baseball. It isn't water polo. It isn't any sport. It's American politics and this is how the rules are structured. Don't like it? Get involved and see if you can change the rules. FWIW, if Obama wins the nomination I'll vote for McCain. I'm sure a lot of Obama voters will refuse to vote for Clinton if she wins. Either way the primary process goes it's likely to lead to a McCain presidency. Which may not be so bad. The Republicans hate him, so he can't be all bad.
          • DanMiller, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2It's called an analogy. The idea that superdelegates should swing to bring a result outside of the MAJORITY is absurd. I never said that Clinton should quit, what I did say is that the logic that she should win because she has more large states is beyond ridiculous. So, if Clinton wants to stick it out and attempt to garner a nearly impossible number of votes in the remaining contests that is her call, however, if her aim is to attempt to destroy Obama so that the only viable choice is herself then her constituants should reevaluate her true motives.
          • RRJackson, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1The idea that superdelegates should swing to bring a result outside of the MAJORITY is why there are supers in the first place. If they weren't there to potentially change the outcome of the popular vote there would be no reason for them to exist at all.
          • DanMiller, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2Yes, similar to how electoral votes can be cast for the opposing party if the representatives saw fit. We have many checks and balances put in place in an effort to control situtions that could potentially be damaging to the country. However, there has yet to be anything released that would truly represent a reason that Obama is not a viable canidate capable of beating the Republican nominee. For some reason Clinton supporters seem to be forgetting that Clinton is HATED by Republicans and they have a list of attack points they would just love to use. It is beyond comprehension how you could sit here and say that the majority of voters should be cast aside under the pretense that the superdelagates know better. Go ahead and vote for McCain, I'm beginning to wonder if you may be a closet Republican just leading the Hillary cheer.
          • RRJackson, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1Yes, because anyone who doesn't worship Obama must be a Republican. Or old enough to know better.
          • papipablo, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2The fact that you quote Rush Limbaugh and actually are rooting for a riot at the Democratic convention pretty much establishes you as a Republican.
          • RRJackson, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1More lies and distortions from my stalker. Do you do it just for attention? Doesn't anyone in your life pay attention to you?
          • DanMiller, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2No one said anything about your dislike of Obama making you Republican. Just your unfounded belief that the loser of a contest should get the win because she's created a new standard to judge. It doesn't matter though because no superdelegate in office is going to vote against his districts nomination in an election year.
          • RRJackson, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1It's a neck-and-neck race and it looks like the DNC will decide who they'd rather field in November. It's unusual, but not outside the realm of how things are structured to work. Clinton's right, though, if we had the winner-take-all system that the Republicans use this would all be over already.
      • UltraMegaFilms, on 04/25/2008, -1/+14Calm down. There's no landslide, but he's winning for sure. That's why we are looking at the numbers.
      • lukemann, on 04/25/2008, -13/+2Even with all the extra money, CNN/MSNBC openly rooting for him, 92% of African Americans voting for him and all of the Clinton Hate.... He can't beat her by more then 1%. That says a lot more about him then it does her. Good luck in November.
        • DanMiller, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3So, a strong part of the Democratic base voted for him, wild...
      • coyote1284, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Sure, but can the child within her heart rise above?
    • rblancarte, on 04/25/2008, -1/+8IMHO - who cares? Clinton can claim whatever she wants. She can claim the sky is orange, New Coke tasted better than Classic Coke, and that her Husband didn't have sexual relations with that woman.
      The fact is, she still has to win more states to really have a chance in this race. Her claims are just that - claims. The Super Delegates, for the most part are very much in the know. The bulk will see what the real popular vote stats are, how they are skewed, etc.
      I think the bigger issue is May 6. If Obama can hold his lead in North Carolina, and stay even in Indiana, he should be able to deliver the knockout blow, and put this all to rest completely.
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
    • scamper22, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3In almost any other field, this kind of difference would be considered negligible.
      Without MI/FL: Obama: 14,447,566 Clinton: 13,965,192 (difference of 482374) without Michigan or Florida.

      Out of a total of 28412758 votes. The gap between the two is 482374/28412758 = 1.7%
      Dare I say... Put in terms of percentages, Obama is hardly trouncing Clinton.
      Then again, most votes in the USA are practically 50/50.

      In 2004, by population George bush was like 50.7%, while Kerry was 48.3% (or so a quick google says).
      wooo, how many of you are really willing to say any president has a mandate over another with a mere 1-2% vote difference?

      What's that they say about the spirit of the law, versus the letter of the law.
      What happened to the spirit of the democracy as opposed to the letter of democracy.

      • mbraynard, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Actually, most votes in the US are not 50/50. They are mostly 60+/40-.
        • scamper22, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2yeah, maybe I'm just thinking of the past few elections. Maybe I'll look it up sometime.
          Nonetheless, even 60/40 is hardly enough to talk about a mandate in my view.

          If you have a group of 10
          If you're deciding where to go on vacation and 6 agree on one place, and the other 4 are totally opposed. Do you just ignore the 4, or do you try and find a place that is more acceptable to everyone.
          • mbraynard, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Well, it sure is cute that you have your own definition of a mandate. I think historically, 55% has been enough to cut it in this country.

            And this is a Democratic Republic, so yes, you ignore what the 4 people who are opposed think. It could be worse, like in the UK, where since you don't directly elect a PM and they can ignore what all the people think.
      • RRJackson, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3Nixon had a mandate in '72. He won every state but Massachusetts. Even in terms of the popular vote he had 47,168,710 votes vs. McGovern's 29,173,222. Wikipedia says it's the 4th largest margin of victory ever, but they don't say who did better. I just remembered the Nixon landslide vividly because it pissed off my family so bad at the time. ;-)
        • RRJackson, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2BTW, isn't 'mandate' a strange word? It sounds a lot like, 'man-date.' It's a little amusing to think about Nixon having a man-date. With Kissinger, maybe?
        • iruber1337, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Word on the street is Kissinger love playing the Dragon Lady for Nixon...
    • toonworld, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Hillary's credibility (along with her looks) took a nose dive off the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down a long time ago.
      • mbraynard, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Wonderful. The left is now giving the 'she is ugly' treatment to one of their own after giving it to Katherine Harris and Linda Tripp.
      • colomboj, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0I'll agree with credibility, but she doesn't look bad for being as old as she is. Now McCain's wife might still have her beat in the age/looks race...
      • uremomsnitemare, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1are you actually saying that she was attractive at some point?

        *shudders*
      • DanMiller, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't say she's ugly but those crazy eyes and smile make me shudder.
    • mbraynard, on 04/25/2008, -10/+1It is salient point. You want to consider it: More Democrats showed up to vote in their primaries and pushed the button for Hillary than for any other candidate. That is a statement that is simple to understand and completely true.

      And consider this. This is the big leagues. Obama decided not to put his name on the MI ballot. Clinton did. Had Obama put his name on the ballot, this would not be an issue. So if Obama lacked the foresight to take this step and Clinton did, what does this tell you about their ability to fight a hard general election campaign?
      • scottc, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5"More Democrats showed up to vote in their primaries and pushed the button for Hillary than for any other candidate. That is a statement that is simple to understand and completely true."

        It's also simple to understand that that statement has almost no relevance on the race for the nomination. The process and the rules have been known from the beginning. Hillary has almost no chance of winning at this point - regardless of how you count the votes. Her last hope is convincing superdelegates that she's the better choice or persuading the pledged delegates to break their pledge to the voters. She won't stop trying but her chances of succeeding are very, very slim at this point.
      • BlkGuyAtThePrty, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6For someone who knows how to correctly use a word such as "salient"; you sure are stupid.

        The MI and FL votes don't count, period. It was disrespectful of the HRC campaign to even put her name on the ballot after her party voted to penalize those states. This was not a sly move by a wily veteran, it was an underhanded deceitful ploy by a power hungry illusionist.
        • mbraynard, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2Does not change the simple fact that the statement is still T-R-U-E. More Democrats showed up and voted for Hilldog than Hussein.

          It doesn't matter if he wasn't on the ballot in MI. It was his decision not too and his failure to put her away when he had the chance in TX, OH, and PA.

          Hussein has lost the 5 states to Hillary that alone would be enough to elect her President if this was run like the general election.
        • DanMiller, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1You are an idiot. Real witty, refering to Obama by his middle name. The sad thing is we are all going to have to listen to you halfwits through the general election while you push this ridiculous Obama's name rhymes with a terrorist. Why don't you do the world a favor and go drown yourself.
  • mikestone1783, on 04/25/2008, -6/+144She is running for president where trust and respectability are important. This stunt shows she has neither.
    • Bowie, on 04/25/2008, -3/+21I'm just astounded sometimes.. After 7 and a half years of this same *****, it's like everyones nostrils have gotten used to the smell..Well, mine haven't.

      It is NOT too much to ask that our ***** elected officials have at least some semblance of dignity, and refuse to put personal ambition ahead of the truth. The problem is, the outflow rate of ***** so high that the "Hey, wait a minute.. that's *****!" just goes completely overwhelmed, drowned out, reduced to meaningless background noise. The common sense of individuals gets lumped together with sour grapes, fanaticism, partisanship and "the usual criticism of any elected official".

      Inert and voiceless is precisely what they want you to be. As I see it, you have an obligation as an American to call ***** when you see it. At least we still have the right to do that much.
      • PabloMac, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4"***** Alert: Clinton Now Claims..."
    • akatherder, on 04/25/2008, -1/+12"She is running for president where trust and respectability are important"

      WHAT ***** PLANET ARE YOU FROM?
      • mikestone1783, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Touche my friend, touche
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Ahhhh to be young and naive. Those were the days. /*sigh*/
        • TheImmigrant, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Im still young and naive what am I missing tell me now before its TOO LATE!?
    • rblancarte, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Add integrity to this list. Oops, none of that either.
  • JlmAWP, on 04/25/2008, -4/+170I just cannot get passed the fact that she (and the media) are actually counting the popular vote of a state where Obama WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT. If a grilled cheese sandwich had been on the ballot, it would have gotten more votes than him, since, you know, he WAS NOT ON THE BALLOT. I wish my imagination was that creative.

    I'm hoping that somebody, some extra-special person in the MSM will see those caps and actually absorb them. Then, they could...I don't know....repeat it on the air. I think....yeah, that would be called "reporting." Not sure though, haven't seen much of it lately to compare.
    • brycelb, on 04/25/2008, -46/+5Well.... He took himself off the ballot. He did it as a political play. If it back fires on him it's his own fault. He did not have to remove himself from the ballot. There is almost no difference in this and some other candidate basically ignoring a winner take all state because of a perceived poor showing. It's a political play both ways. Deal with it.
      • wacomwacoff, on 04/25/2008, -0/+11So did Edwards.
      • apec766, on 04/25/2008, -0/+40You DO realize that the Democratic party flat out stated that Michigan and Florida primaries would not count... right?
      • pojut, on 04/25/2008, -0/+33Actually, he removed himself from the ballot because BOTH of them agreed not to campaign there because they KNEW that the delegates/votes wouldn't count. He did it to show his acceptance of the DNC's ruling. Clinton agreed to the rulings, yet still campaigned in Florida and kept her name on both ballots.

        No political agenda behind it, no closed-door agreement, nothing. All out in the open, fully disclosed and public. Florida and Michigan have no one to blame but their own state leaders. They knew the rules. They agreed to follow the rules. They broke the rules. Plain and simple.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -14/+2Are you serious? Of course there was political agenda behind his decision. Obama isn't an idiot. You really should wrap you narrow mind around the fact that Obama is a politician and not the messiah.
          • pojut, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9Don't go assuming that everyone you "meet" on the internet has a narrow mind. You know nothing about me, just as I know nothing about you.

            If you are a young kid, you will find that in the real world an attitude like that will get you no where. I highly suggest you adjust it.

            If you are an adult, stop acting like a young kid. In the real world an attitude like that will get you no where. I highly suggest you adjust it.
          • scottc, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6Alright, genius. Tell us exactly what political agenda would have worked to Obama's advantage by taking his name off the ballot. You guys are as desperate as Hillary - some of you claim it was a political move and others claim he wasn't smart enough to know better and leave his name on the ballot in spite of the rules.
      • ChromaticDragon, on 04/25/2008, -0/+25He "took himself off" largely because of their mutual agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida.

        You should reflect on the fact that for this to backfire on Obama would require all parties to acquiese to pressure to flout the DNC rulings on the sheninagins of Michigan and Florida. Furthermore, as others have already shown, you'd have to give ZERO votes from Michigan to Obama to conclude Clinton is truly in the lead of the popular vote.

        But all this ignores how messed up the voting in Florida and Michigan was. Nobody should take those contests seriously. The impact on turnout, voting, etc., was hugely affected by the realization it didn't matter.

        Stop and think. Do we want someone in the White House who willfully schemes around and generally ignores rules and laws? Or someone who abides by and executes the laws?

        People in Michigan and Florida have every right to be angry, but not at Obama. The DNC maybe. Their state legislators, absolutely. But not the candidates.

        Where this will "backfire" on Obama, unfortunately, is that this mess all but guarantees his loss of Florida in the general election.

        • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2Partially true. And yes Obama will lose in FL but Hillary probably would have lost in FL too if she were nominated. But you are correct. The MI/FL mess is just another instance of the Democratic party bosses creating a mess which completely ignores the will of their people. It's not as blatant as the super-delegate mess that they have but it's still a collective middle finger to their constituents. I'm surprised anyone can still support the Dems without being embarrassed. Hopefully when the Dems lose this election, it will be enough to kick-start a viable third party.
      • kipmartin, on 04/25/2008, -1/+17you really should read up on what transpired in MI and FL. your understanding of the situation is lacking and kind of goes a long way towards proving you are not the brightest bulb on the tree.

        both Hillary and Obama signed and agreed to NOT count either state BEFORE the primaries. both states wanted their 15 minutes of fame by moving their primaries up. the DNC said 'No!', and both Hillary and Obama were on board with that decision. now, Hillary has decided to count those votes. they are not her votes, they never will be--the DNC and courts have said the votes wont be counted. end of story. yet Hillary is using those states' numbers and the MSM is, for some reason, being particularly retard and going along with it. i believe they want a protracted and suspense-filled convention to keep their Nielsens and other ratings up, so they are going with it. or maybe its more insidious than that. i dont really know. all i DO know is that the votes wont be counted because both Obama and Hillary signed off on the wishes of the DNC, and now Hillary is duplicitly pumping her numbers up with a fabrication.

        Hillary wants a 'do over'. there are no 'do overs' in elections unless gross malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance can be proved.

        shes sunk. and sorry youre stupid, pal. must suck being a moron.
        • brycelb, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1That was a very interesting read. I wish the gesture was reciprocated. If you would have bothered to read my comment you would have noticed that I made no mention of the "agreement" they made and simply stated the obvious. If the circumstances change, and they most certainly could, then Obama is going to have to deal with the consequences. I simply do not give a ***** if you like it or not. What I DO know is this is far from a settled issue. Is the DNC actually going to proceed with the convention and only recognize 48 states. That would be a huge blow to the entire party.

          It must be difficult roaming through life as an ignorant tool but it would be in your best interest to listen and not assume that you have the only opinion in this world. I know it's going to be tough for you.
      • SzaszMan, on 04/25/2008, -1/+12Following the rules = "political play" ?

        Spoken like a Clinton supporter.
      • snotrokit, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6um yeah, they ALL signed an agreement to voluntarily remove themselves from the ballot, which they all did with the exception of HRC. Her campaign insisted that the request was made, but there must have been some technical difficulties, or it was lost in the mail.
        She had the intent to lie and use this from "day one" all along. Further evidence that she, and her campaign represents dishonesty and the sacrifice of reason for political gain.
    • wacki, on 04/25/2008, -0/+32Dugg for the grilled cheese sandwich
    • Conwaysb0718, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I bet cafferty brings it up.
    • saikyan, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Mmmm grilled cheese
    • Cattywampus, on 04/25/2008, -25/+1Obama CHOSE not to be on the ballot in Michigan... he pulled his name off. He was not required to do so.

      Clinton, Gravel, Dodd, and Kucinich all left their names on the ballot, as they were allowed to do.

      The fact that Obama's name was not on the Mich. ballot is nobody's doing but Obama's.

      • kipmartin, on 04/25/2008, -2/+15he took his name off because the primary meant nothing. and the DNC has made its ruling.
        • Cattywampus, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Well, if the DNC had decided to seat some of the Mich. or Fla. delegates, then the primary *wouldn't* mean nothing. In fact, until recently the Democrats were debating whether to seat some portion of those delegates.

          The fact that people have dugg down my comment without offering any response seems to indicate that they can't refute what I said, and that this was indeed a possibly bad mistake on Obama's part.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -11/+1Actually removing his name was clearly a tactical decision on Obama's part. Whether it helps or hurts him has yet to be decided but at this point it looks like it was a smart move. It gives him the political justification for leaving FL/MI out of the primary which is what he wants. He just has to walk on eggshells around the subject because he'll need FL and MI if he's going to be elected president.
    • coyote1284, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4Can I has grild cheez fro Prez?
      • magus_melchior, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1You know, a lolcat with grilled cheese would be more effective than the current administration.
    • Hraes, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2***** man, now I want a sandwich. Screw the presidency, I'm hungry.
    • demiurgency, on 04/25/2008, -0/+7Grilled Cheese 2008!
    • Fragalishus, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Actually, I saw someone mention that once...briefly. They were basically alluding to the fact that even Clinton's own advisers were trying to persuade her not to bring Michigan into it, I'm guessing because it would make her look like a desperate fool. But since it's absolutely the only way she can get ahead in any way, shape, or form she's going for it.
    • mbraynard, on 04/25/2008, -11/+1Stop whining. It was Obama's lack of judgment and foresight that he wasn't on the ballot. He screwed up.
      • Sonofglory, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3have you not been paying attention to what has been repeated about 50 times already??

        read carefully:

        MI & FL were discounted BEFORE the primary was held. Hillary ***** up not Obama.
        • mbraynard, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Then how come Obama has allowed Hillary this opening? Had he simply put his name on the ballot in MI, this would not be a REALLY GOOD selling point to super delegates.

          Face it. If this was a general election between Hillary and Obama, Hillary would be president solely on the basis of winning five states: TX, FL, CA, PA, and NY.
    • sinrtb, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8Take a look at the actual numbers of those votes Hillary would have lost to a grilled cheese sandwich.
      • Sonofglory, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Not if a pbj was on the ballot as well. PBJ FTW!!
        • diggduggDOOM, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Hey! Hey! PBJ! How many guts did you fill today?
    • bonhoeffer, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1So if Clinton can remove her name from the remaining ballots, Obama can't count the the votes there? Wow, she should have thought of that before IL and GA primaries.
      Actually, there was no "signed agreement" not to count the primary votes in FL and MI; the candidates agreed not to campaign there, and the DNC said the delegates would not get credentials for the convention.
      • scottc, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1"and the DNC said the delegates would not get credentials for the convention" = the primary votes won't count. What part of that don't you understand? And yes, it was a signed agreement. Hillary even issued a press release on September 1st announcing that she would sign it.
  • Bigzz, on 04/25/2008, -5/+105I thought that you couldn't serve as President if you were clinically insane?
    • Gabberwok, on 04/25/2008, -5/+34However, functionally retarded is perfectly acceptable (apparently).
    • Reaper2806, on 04/25/2008, -0/+11I thought you had to show signs of insanity to even be considered as a candidate these days?
    • gwyrth, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3God I wish I could digg you twice, Bigzz.
    • MaximusD, on 04/25/2008, -0/+18Andrew Jackson fought people to the death with pistols on the White House lawn. And carried out genocide. We've definitely had some crazy leaders in our past.
      • Digger1218, on 04/25/2008, -0/+10Old Hickory FTW
        • jaybird1905, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8hahahaha.
          thank you for that, literally made me laugh out loud.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Why would you think that? The evidence suggests otherwise.
    • Smaugrens, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1After the actions of the past recent administrations do you really need to ask this?
    • Jerryskid02, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Don't you mean...CLINTONally insane?! HAHAHAHAHA HOLY ***** DAMN I'M FUNNY!!!
  • ScienceDoc, on 04/25/2008, -4/+26Maniacal! Can someone put her in a padded room and tell her she lost?
    • kneelB4zod, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Then add a really horny gorilla to the equation (^_^)
  • shadoweva09, on 04/25/2008, -12/+11You know, we accuse Russia of the same tactic of only one person on the ballot every time they hold an election. I'm just saying.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6We're privileged in the US. Our government gives us two to chose from.
      • Bilabrin, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5In soviet Russia, president chooses you!
    • kreneskyp, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4not everytime. but this has happened in several countries and we called them out on it.

      even if you were optimistic (hillarys point of view) in your calculations and used the biggest spread she's had in any state (~60/40) she would not have gained enough votes in Michigan.
  • brycelb, on 04/25/2008, -35/+13I could basically care less about who gets the Dem nomination but I am starting to get excited about the prospect of all the Digg/Obama fanatics having to vote for Hillary. Lets be honest here, who else are you gonna vote for if it happens. There has been an escalation in the mindlessness of most of the comments here and I am getting antsy about seeing this train wreck go down. It's not over till it's over.
    • iheartboobs, on 04/25/2008, -3/+24I'd vote for McCain over Hillary. I vote for what's best for my country not for the candidate with the closest political beliefs. Her truth bending politics would be just as bad for this country as George W's.
      • Sonofglory, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4This may be true, but i don't know which one is worse... her stretching of the truth for personal gain or mccain's willingness to take it in the ass for a win (flopping on every important issue to impress those who "matter")
    • cranium, on 04/25/2008, -1/+13> who else are you gonna vote for
      Nader. Or McCain. Hell, I'll write in Mickey Mouse.
    • mattus, on 04/25/2008, -1/+11COULDN'T care less. Not could, COULDN'T.
    • boner79, on 04/25/2008, -0/+9If Hillary steals the nomination I'm voting for Nader. I know for all practical purposes that would be throwing away my vote but I in good conscience could not vote for Hillary or McCain. It's become evident lately that Hillary is just as pathological as George W to the point that I hit the mute button on the TV whenever she gives a speech, the same as when W talks. Also her sense of entitlement and inevitability to her becoming president is sickening. McCain has disappointed me but giving in and pandering to the Christian right and I find his militaristic world-view disturbing and obsolete.
      • sagien, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1I can't even watch her image on the news anymore. I get this sickening feeling in my stomach and I am just filled with anger and bitterness about this woman.

        What an ugly, ugly person she turned out to be. A monster.
    • Bilabrin, on 04/25/2008, -4/+11Seriously, I would consider going for McInsain if Shrillary gets the dem nom. He may be a neocon but at least I'd believe him if he told me what he ate for lunch that day.
      • pojut, on 04/25/2008, -5/+6I know nothing about you, and I don't think I've ever seen any of your comments. Please don't take offense to this, it's just simple advice.

        Stop with the name twisting. It's immature, annoying, and just plain stupid.

        That is all.
        • Bilabrin, on 04/25/2008, -6/+3That's one opinion, another is that it's witty, descriptive and accruate but I'll let our Dig/bury ratio's tell tale. For those reading this if you agree with me dig me and bury him, but if he's correct, bury me and digg him. The totals will tell which of us is more in tune with the sentiment of the digg community.
          • pojut, on 04/25/2008, -5/+5? This isn't a contenst, nor am I trying to start a flame war. I'm simply telling you that twisting names around like that (just like Brangelina, and other similar type names) are just plain annoying. They serve no purpose.

            You can be witty, descriptive, and accurate with words...no fad required.
          • Bilabrin, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4I'm not trying to start or perpetuate a flame war either but what annoys me is when people come along and act like they represent the voice of the community when they may just be one lonely voice in the crowd. It seems a bit arrogant to make blanket statements such as "It's immature, annoying, and just plain stupid" when actually you may be the only one who feels that way. I object to the presumptuous tone you took. Maybe something is a fad, maybe it's not but certainly no one person can dictate whether it is or not.
          • pojut, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5I don't represent a voice of a community, but I do represent my own voice. All I'm asking is you take a step back, examine what you are doing, and tell me that you truly and honestly think that combining two names that way is witty and makes you sound like an intelligent person.

            Considering the name-combination game got it's start in celebrity magazines, that to me says it's a fad. ::shrug:: Just my opinion, you are of course free to disagree with me.
          • theviceroy, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3twisting candidate's names into a pejorative nickname has been going on for a lot longer than you have been alive pojut, you're not going to stop it now.
      • scottc, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3McCain is not a neocon, though he is pandering to them at the moment in order to solidify support in his party.
        • Bilabrin, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3If it quacks like a duck and has feathers...
          • pojut, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3...it makes for a damn fine meal
          • scottc, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1This is politics. I recommend looking at his track record instead of believing what he's saying now, unless you think he's really changed his mind and is moving in a direction that is unpopular. There is a reason the neocons were so opposed to him in the primaries.
    • pojut, on 04/25/2008, -0/+11I would likely write in George Carlin. He may be an old ***** at this point, but I think he would do the job well.
    • chubbybubba, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3I too admit I'm enjoying the ride. American Politics is fun.
    • NJank, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Martin Sheen '08!
    • kreneskyp, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1i'll burn my vote registration card.
    • bpoteat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Many people who usually vote democrat are already considering voting for McCain, regardless of who wins the ticket. Hillary is a very dividing person for moderate voters whereas Obama (even though very liberal politically) and McCain are not. Every single person I've spoken with who considers themselves non-partisan and plans to vote for Obama has said they will vote McCain if Obama loses the ticket. And I will too.
      • pojut, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1This, to me, is what is really wrong with many of the voters.

        "The person who I wanted to win didn't. Just to make sure their rival doesn't win, I'm going to change my vote to a person who's policies and opinions are the exact opposite of my original choice!"

        Please. Obama and Hillary are more or less the same as far as policy is concerned. McCain is almost 100% different from both of them, as far as policy is concerned. You are free to vote for whoever you want... it doesn't matter, it's you're decision.. But choosing to vote for someone who has the opposite views of your original choice just because they "lost" so as to prevent their "rival" from "winning" is almost as stupid as my overuse of quotation marks...
        • pojut, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2YOUR

          Not YOU'RE

          /inbeforethegrammarnazis
        • scottc, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1You guys are discussing two different sets of voters. bpoteat is right - the non-partisans and the non-activist Democrats will have a tough decision to make if it's Clinton vs. McCain in the fall. pojut is talking about committed Obama supporters who will switch parties out of spite or to punish Hillary. The former groups will have an influence on the outcome of the general election, the latter probably will not - most of them will come around and support the party in the end.
        • Lithpiperpilot, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Yes. I'm part of the republican group that is going to vote for Obama in the fall, if he wins the nomination. He is just a better moral character than Hillary Clinton, and is moderate enough to be closer to my views. But If Hillary wins the nomination, I can not in good conscious vote for her, and will vote for McCain, not out of spite, but because he is alot better choice. He is uniting his party, instead of dividing it.
          • pojut, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2That I can fully agree with. You have a good solid reason for doing so. Unfortunately, most of the time, people's reason falls back to "because he/she is going to screw the country!"
        • bpoteat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0You are reading a lot into what I said. I never said I was voting for McCain out of spite against Hillary. You put those words out there and it's a misunderstanding.

          Firstly, Obama and McCain are not as far apart as you might think. I know they sponsored two bills together, both of which I agreed with, and I think they might've done two more about which I know nothing (this off of bad memory and too lazy to research). And they don't vote opposites down the line on every bill.

          They both come off as intelligent thinkers, who consider all details of an issue and weigh the options instead of just spouting the party line. Honestly, McCain seems MORE independent-minded than Obama (and WAY more like that than Hillary) but Obama's platform is obviously more in line with most liberal voters. Taking that into account and noting that Hillary, on the other hand, appears to be trying to win a game, not asking for the responsibility of running a government - McCain seems, to many people, to be the better option when given those two.

          So, in summary, it isn't about party policy to most moderate voters - it's about who would make better decisions regardless of the party line and Obama and McCain are the front-runners.
    • acero47, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Can't believe no one has said Stewart and/or Colbert.
    • youareretarded, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4If it was between Hillary and the McCain I knew from 2000, I'd go for McCain.

      But between Hillary and the "new" McCain, it would be a tough decision and I would Probably vote for Nader.

      I might vote for Hillary but I'd have to be willing to be content with the way things are now, because I doubt she would be able to get anything done in the net four years.
      • Disgod, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4I agree, McCain used to look like a good candidate back in 2000, way better than Bush even back then, but since then he has changed and become your standard political whore willing to say anything to get groups to support him. Now he's not as bad as Hillary, but he definitely has lost that important spark that made him an OK candidate in my mind. He once was an moderate conservative, now he's been buddying up with all the ultra conservatives and seems to have lost the ability to think independently. He wants to be president so badly he's lost what made him a good candidate in my mind
        As for Hillary, I had nothing against her when she started her campaign, but the last couple months have left me completely soured to her. I realize that elections aren't ever going to be "clean" but that woman has crossed the line a couple of times. But, if I want to be completely honest, I somehow doubt that if it was a man who was pulling the same stuff it would hardly be news worthy.
        Obama has honestly been the only candidate that hasn't broken from his morals or sold out, or thrown anybody under the bus. He is a really stand up guy, and that's what has made him such a great candidate, plus he is very independently minded. If we look at it that way, who has the best character I would always say Obama by a mile.
    • kenedamick, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I'll vote Green party if she somehow wins the nom.
  • airwalkery2k, on 04/25/2008, -2/+15Now, I wonder if they count the caucus state delegates as "votes" in the popular vote. Here in Nebraska, they only reported the state delegates to news agencies. Obama won by 68%, but it only looked like 26,000 people voted for him. But where I was, they said about every 12 people caucusing in the room made up one of those delegates.

    This could make a big difference considering how Obama has done well in caucus states.
    • lukemann, on 04/25/2008, -6/+0Again a caucus is not the popular vote. Clinton won the popular vote in Texas but lost the caucus. In all likely hood if those caucuses were primaries, Obama would have lost some of them.
    • kreneskyp, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2they count them as perceived votes i believe. though cnn did a breakdown of all the numbers with and without caucuses and he was still ahead.
    • poopdigger, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1how dare you mention such things! digg him down!
  • smacksaw, on 04/25/2008, -3/+39This should not be a surprise. She is going to say anything she wants. She already knows no one trusts or believes her. Her words are for the people who don't care about the facts or truth, to keep them interested in her for purely illogical reasons.

    It's going to get worse. She is going to say and do even more outrageous things as this goes on. That is why Dean is begging the superdelegates to weigh in now. She is already threatening and blackmailing people behind the scenes. These threats will come to fruition if she has a chance to let them unfold. If it ends now, she can't play her final trump cards.

    You can't imagine the sort of pressure her backers have on her and the promises she made to get their support and money. She's all-in and going for broke.
    • magus_melchior, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Not everyone distrusts her, as she has her share of blind fans. Who's to say that the people who voted for her in the primaries won't revolt if superdelegates effectively pulled the plug on her campaign now? The Democratic party decided to wait until someone had a clear advantage, but Clinton decided to pull the old Nazi stunt of repeating lies loudly and often, which will be sure to bring the more extreme supporters of both sides to blows. Now, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
  • rsek, on 04/25/2008, -5/+11another lie, i don't like a president who is telling BS , and that in her campaign, imagine what other things are BS in her campaign...
    her campaign is a lie
    • battletrax, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4her cake is a lie
    • jimbo50, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0You bozos are hilarious. You turn on your beloved Hillary when the first pretty face walks by. Remember when you guys stood up for the same when she and her husband were in the Whitehouse before? And you just now realize they are rotten? C'mon, open your foolish eyes and grasp reality and see the hypocrisy of what you are saying.
      • MrJingle, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0Thank you, Jimbo! Digg has become like this land of brainwashed double-thinkers. What was it? six months ago? a year ago, maybe, that Hilary was the darling leading the charge for all liberal thinkers which would conclude with a victory lap around the White House. Now, to read the gushing vitriol of these Digg posters, you'd think that she'd been in league with the devil, Bush, Cheney and Rove. The "***** Alert" this topic refers to should be the narrow-minded and rabid viewpoint of the Obama Digg goons.

        "Oceania was at war with Eurasia now, but just four years ago, these two had formed an alliance against Eastasia. Winston remembered this clearly, but it made no difference what he or any other individual remembered, for the Party said that Eurasia had always been the Enemy and what the Party said was the Truth."
      • magus_melchior, on 04/28/2008, -0/+11) Painting with a wide brush means that everyone will set their sights on you. This applies doubly to you, because your Limbaugh is showing.
        2) As much as you probably don't want to believe this, a good portion of diggers-- and yes, even Democrats-- detest Clinton, even when she was First Lady. The only reason anyone might want to side with the Clintons is because they pursue turncoats to the grave, or because they believe they can get some of the quid pro quo action.
        3) You might want to turn your argument towards Republicans for re-electing Bush.
  • Ninjao, on 04/25/2008, -11/+5Bos taurus feces
  • insomniac8400, on 04/25/2008, -3/+15Popular vote is irrelevant. It weights the vote in republican and democratic areas equally. Which is pointless. The purpose of delegates is so areas historically democratic count more than republican loving areas. This is very important because you do not want republicans picking the democratic candidate. And that is exactly what trying to use the popular vote does. It is allowing republicans to pick the democratic candidate. It is so annoying that the media continues to pretend the popular vote matters.
    • akatherder, on 04/25/2008, -0/+7Exactly. Clinton was touting how she won big states like Texas and California. Aren't those states a foregone conclusion in the general election?
      • blameau, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Less of a foregone conclusion than south carolina, georgia, idaho or kansas. And, with that in mind, Hillary has won states with more electoral votes, which are what really matters in the end.
        • akatherder, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5The electoral votes don't necessarily matter in the primary stage. Hillary won Texas and California which have the most electoral votes. What are the chances that a Democrat can win Texas or a Republican can win California in the general election. Very slim.

          My point is to question who has a better chance of winning the battleground states. In my opinion, Florida and Michigan are fairly unknown at this point. But Hillary won Ohio and Pennsylvania. I think that has to give her the edge, but her claims on winning the large states that are completely red or completely blue are pretty pointless.
          • blameau, on 04/25/2008, -5/+0Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pa all states with ~3% margins of victory in past elections. Obama is fighting to keep the first two from being represented and he had sizable losses in the latter two. That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. If Florida and Michigan don't wind up seated, theres no way in hell they're going blue in November.

            Claims of winning those states isn't pointless, superdelegates do have discretion in determining who they vote for. Arguing the big, battleground states I listed paints Hillary as the more electable of the two, something that the supers will be taking into consideration. Obama's performance in true battleground states has been dismal in comparison(WI, MN, IA, VA vs. FL, OH, MI, PA) .
          • akatherder, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6As a Michigander, people are upset with "the Democrats" for holding the primary early and the national party for stripping us of our delegates. We are also upset with Hillary for going back on her word when she said she wouldn't campaign or put her name on the ballot in Michigan.

            We aren't upset with Obama though. He stuck to his word and kept his name off the void ballot. He wasn't the one who moved our primary. He also wasn't the one who stripped us of our delegates. He's not the reason, we didn't get a voice. He is just playing by the rules when he is against re-doing the primary or counting the ridiculous votes for Hillary.
          • insomniac8400, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Why are you upset with democrats? Republican legislatures caused all of this. Next time don't vote for those crappy legislatures. Blaming the democratic party for the action of republicans is stupid and ensures this type of situation can happen again.
        • EtherGnat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Also keep in mind Obama has been very shrewd tactically in the primaries. He's gone after the caucuses and small states because it was an effective strategy. He totally outmaneuvered Hillary who obviously thought she'd win with a few victories in large states.

          The game for the general election is different, but there's no reason to believe Obama won't be just as effective at playing it.
          • insomniac8400, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1No it's the same. Democrats get a big boost with california, but republicans get all the rural states worth 3 points.
    • IphtashuFitz, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Popular vote is relevant in such a close race where neither candidate will win an overwhelming majority of the delegates. She's hoping that by arguing that she's winning in the popular vote that many of the superdelegates who will eventually decide this race will vote for her. Of course one hopes that the superdelegates will see through this "Clintonian pseudo-math" and recognize that Obama still does in fact hold the majority of popular as well as electoral votes and cast their votes for him. But Clinton is now at the point where she needs to grasp at whatever straws she can. If Clinton truly was ahead in the popular vote then she'd have a more compelling argument for the superdelegates.
      • dagamer34, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Popular vote ignores caucus states where Obama trounced Clinton like no other. To be honest, Pennsylvania isn't as important to him as a state like Colorado where he netted 14 delegates to Clinton's 12 in Pennsylvania. I think because of his impressive wins before, his campaign is thinking that he doesn't NEED to continue blowout wins. It'd be nice, but it's just not true.

        And the media keeps thinking that Obama should win every state from here on out which is dumb. Demographics play way more into this contest than previous ones and they know it. If you created a hypothetical state with just young people, no amount of campaigning could turn it for Clinton. Again, if you make a hypothetical state with just seniors, realsticially, no amount of campaigning could turn it for Obama. However the general race isn't just about winning one block but many.

        And the way you win the "white-class working vote" in the general election is why saying that McCain himself said he knows nothing about economics. Regardless of whether you were a Hillary or Barack supporter, only an idiot would choose McCain then if their question was "who knows more about the economy?"
    • scamper22, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0while perhaps there is a chance republicans might act maliciously against the democratic party by picking the democratic candidate, don't you see the other perspective?

      That by favoring traditionally democratic states, it prevents the democratic party from becoming more centrist or adopting slightly different values.
      If anything, this only polarizes America by making sure the democrats only play to democratic states.
  • ggnictee, on 04/25/2008, -13/+9Clearly she's only staying in to help Obama (stay with me)
    The longer she stays in and the crazier she is: the more reasonable and smart he looks. Also; if she lobs attacks at a controllable pace: it won't leave time between nomination and election for the Rebulicans to attack him (bonus: any attack they make he can laugh off with "my last opponent made that comment and I beat them i'll beat you too")
    Also giving the Repubs a Clinton to take shots at keeps their attention split, even just a little. As soon as she's out the Wako Wing of the republican party is going to go nuts on him (Yes I know the dems have their own wako wing and that there are many reasonable republicans: but this isn't about that, stop being so defensive.)
    So really when you look at she's helping him. And if that's not the reason then why? why is she still running? The math doesn't work. What's your theory?
    • aspec, on 04/25/2008, -0/+12I like your theory, but you don't know this woman the way some of us do. She wants to be a player, not a pawn in someone else's game to win the presidency. I'm all for conspiracy theories, but the 9/11 truther movement has more stable ground that this one.
    • blameau, on 04/25/2008, -7/+0I disagree, and I was a major Obama fan up until last summer when the debates began. He looks like an idiot who can't perform on the spot, every debate just results in him stuttering, lacking confidence, and unable to keep his eyes directed at the camera. That's why the dkos crowd has pretty much abandoned him for Edwards up until Iowa.
    • Disgod, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1The problem with your theory is that it is a very dangerous game she would be playing. Political Russian Roulette. If she is staying in just to boost Obama, she can't know what "crisis" could actually become the silver bullet that kills Obama's campaign and then she would be the only Democrat left, and all the independent voters have been watching her be a vicious bitch as she attacks Obama, and watched as she has lied through her teeth many many times, I would think that she's lost a lot of those voters, and those are the important votes. Also, she is ruining her chances for a future run at the White House by playing it the way she is. Also as Aspec said, she wants to be the one in power, she obviously hates playing second fiddle to anybody.
    • jnosanov, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1She is among the top echelons of power brokers in the country. She does not care whether a democrat or republican wins the presidency. At her level they are the same. I don't have a reason to explain why she is still in the race when the math suggests she cannot win. Perhaps she is hoping to pull a Bush v. Gore and ask the Supreme Court to ignore the entire nomination process?
    • dagamer34, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Putting Osama bin Laden in a recent ad along with the stock market crash of 1929 shows that she isn't being friendly at all to him.
    • Qness, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Here's another spin: If she can't win the primary, she may as well damage Obama enough to help McCain win and then she can run as the savior from the Republicans in 2012. Everytime she says, I'm still in the race, we need to ask her what race that is. Her ego seems more important than the party or anything else for that matter.
  • farkis, on 04/25/2008, -41/+5Hey it worked for Bush. Besides she's electable and the other one isn't.
    • bpoteat, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4I've reread your post about 5 times now and still can't wrap my head around the fact that someone wrote that Hillary was more electable than Obama. Am I missing the punchline of the joke or something?
      • farkis, on 04/25/2008, -4/+0Clinton's been elected before. Obama hasn't. Check your facts before you post.
        • bpoteat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Oh, you were serious. Elected to what? If I'm not mistaken, neither of them has been elected president.
          • farkis, on 04/25/2008, -2/+0Don't kid yourself, kid. She was elected back in the '80s and ran the country while her husband was busy with his interns.
          • djscsi, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2In the 80s? Are you sure about that? Might want to check your dates. Also, what is your point? That her husband is a cheater or was absent from office, so she must be electable?

            Also, they were both elected for the US Senate, although I'm sure you knew that.
  • chris9902, on 04/25/2008, -4/+8Miss Spoken has done it again
  • oceanrain, on 04/25/2008, -8/+14bbbb..bu..bu, but if Bush can steal an election, why can't I?"
    • yomomo, on 04/25/2008, -6/+2bush's stole the election by making sure votes didn't get counted. By your argument, it's the DNC who is manipulating and stealing this election.
      • jimbo50, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0making sure all votes were counted is "stealing" an election now? Interesting fiction.
    • snotrokit, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4bush stole it behind the scenes via illegal tactics. She is stealing the elections by lying, cheating, stealing, and hoping that there are enough people out there that will take her word at anything to vote for her and fight her battles.
      • MrJingle, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0"...hoping that there are enough people out there that will take her word at anything to vote for her and fight her battles."

        Sounds a lot like the Obama drones' tactics on Digg.
  • Flushnasty, on 04/25/2008, -10/+5Please stop talking already. Your embarrassing yourself
    • porkdanish, on 04/25/2008, -1/+15You're
      • Flushnasty, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6"your" not the first person to point out my horrible grammar sir
        • sagien, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Perhaps we should learn from our mistakes then.
  • SickMonkey, on 04/25/2008, -4/+28Clinton is full of *****. How she has the audacity to first formally accept the DNC rules on FL and MI and then completely flip after the fact is beyond me.
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8wX99qUo3Ow
    • blameau, on 04/25/2008, -5/+0Clearly, you don't know what the rules were.


      The only agreement they signed was an agreement that they would not campaign in any state pushing their primary ahead of those in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Not that it wouldn't count, just that they wouldn't campaign.

      Now.. keeping that in mind, it was Obama whom willingly removed his name from the ballot, in what Markos Moulitsas(major Obama whore) described at the time as "the ultimate pander to Iowa," and that "everyone knows they will be counted in the end." Obama also had ads running in Florida, in violation of the agreement he signed, and he still lost! The Clinton camp made a good-faith effort to hold a re-vote in Michigan, James Carville offering to fund half if the Obama camp would fund the other half. Who shot that down? Obama surrogate, MI State Senator Tupac Hunter.
      • nullchris, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3The ads that were visible in Florida were nationally broadcast.
        • SickMonkey, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Except this has nothing to do with ads. Watch the video. Clinton accepted the DNC rules about the primary calendar and agreed to the penalty - in writing - that any state that violates the calendar date will automatically have their delegates invalidated.
          • nullchris, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1You need to read these comments threaded, SickMonkey. I was responding to blameau saying Obama ran ads in Florida, by saying he ran national ads, not ads for the Florida market.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1That's as bad as agreeing to accept public campaign funding then ....... never mind.
    • klipsch, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Because she banks on the general amnesia of the voters and the MSM "journalists". Time and time again she says things that clearly contradict her earlier statements but for some reason thinks no one will go back and verify them. It's the same in this case as with the Bosnia sniper fire incident, her pre-war Iraq position, etc. She's her own historical revisionist.
  • MattBlackCat, on 04/25/2008, -25/+7I presume all the comments are from americans who do not understand the political process or the nature and history of politics.
    • calf85, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2That assessment appears to be correct.
    • wacomwacoff, on 04/25/2008, -1/+13You presume incorrectly. As an American who understands the political process, I think she's being disingenuous in the extreme. She's actively making herself look desperate and dishonest -- not a good tack.
      • Cattywampus, on 04/25/2008, -9/+3Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot. He wasn't required to. Other Dem. candidates besides Clinton were on the ballot. If Obama wasn't on the ballot, it was nobody's fault but his own.
        • wacomwacoff, on 04/25/2008, -1/+12Incorrect. Obama took his name off the ballot because of a mutual agreement among the Democratic candidates not to campaign in Michigan, since they were told its votes wouldn't count towards the nomination. Only Clinton and Dodd decided to stay on the ballot. Only now that she's behind in votes is Clinton claiming that the votes are meaningful.
          • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2It was a political tactic. The agreement wasn't to remove their names. Clearly he took a different tact. Luckily for him it's paying off.
        • o6uoq, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7http://digg.com/users/Cattywampus

          ^ why have you repeated yourself 3x ?
  • Tigers4ever, on 04/25/2008, -10/+2More on the topic here... http://digg.com/political_opinion/Clinton_Deluded
  • Enron1985, on 04/25/2008, -3/+34Ummm, isn't having a "***** alert" in regards to politics a bit of a lost cause?
    • grey580, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I guess it's sorta like taking Rush Limbaugh seriously.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Sure if by "sorta like" you mean "completely opposite.
  • Binarydemon, on 04/25/2008, -4/+76Ask Al Gore how useful the popular vote is...
    • jakeson2, on 04/25/2008, -14/+4Our President Bush had a majority vote in 2004. Clinton was elected with only a 48 percent of the vote. You PEOPLE are stirring mud with no point in doing so. Bush is protecting us, Clinton bombed an aspirin and baby milk factory only to take attention away from Monica's testimony. Bush had a majority vote and you hate him. Clinton had a minority vote and you just loved his adulterous ways. Go figure.
      • Adamlite, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2Seriously?
      • dxgg, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8Wrong! Bill Clinton won with 43% of the votes in 1992, but there were 3 candidates, not 2.
      • Smaugrens, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Actually I hate them both.
    • coyote1284, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Sure, Gore had the majority of popular votes nationally, however in each state, the candidate that had the majority of popular vote there got the Electoral votes.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Where is that little fella these days? How much did the Clintons pay him to keep his mouth shut or did they just give him a bunch of "global warming" charts and graphs to keep him busy?
      • snotrokit, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4The Clinton's probably have some dirt on him to keep him quiet.
    • snotrokit, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1totally different in a general election. Electoral vs Delegates.
  • m4lomb, on 04/25/2008, -14/+4The Clintons must have learnt from conservative politcs...
    • thedogfatherx, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3I usually don't like to call anyone names or attack people on here but......................your a dumbass.
    • CaptainShaun, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Conservative politics or conservative politicians? If the former, please explain how this is part of the conservative political ideology.
  • UtahApocalyse, on 04/25/2008, -3/+15Clinton is working to get McCain elected. the longer she drags the Democratic noms the less time the Dems (Obama) will have to go after him. Clinton is part of the same machine that gave you Bush/Clinton/Bush and so is McCain. They cannot risk losing the whitehouse to someone not in the pocket and on the same page. Obama is in a whole different book though, and now a real threat to the parties that be.
  • AndrewDB, on 04/25/2008, -6/+52Pathological liars, or "mythomaniacs," may be suffering from histrionic personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. The following comments basically reflect a pathological liar who has the characteristics of histrionic personality disorder.

    Some characteristics:

    1. Exaggerates things that are ridiculous.
    2. One-upping. Whatever you do, this person can do it better. You will never top them in their own mind, because they have a concerted need to be better than everyone else. This also applies to being right. If you try to confront an individual like this, no matter how lovingly and well-intentioned you might be - this will probably not be effective. It's threatening their fantasy of themselves, so they would rather argue with you and bring out the sharp knives than admit that there's anything wrong with them.
    3. They "construct" a reality around themselves. They don't value the truth, especially if they don't see it as hurting anyone. If you call them on a lie and they are backed into a corner, they will act very defensively and say ugly things (most likely but depends on personality), but they may eventually start to act like, "Well, what's the difference? You're making a big deal out of nothing!" (again, to refocus the conversation to your wrongdoing instead of theirs).
    4. Because these people don't value honesty, a lot of times they will not value loyalty. So watch what you tell them. They will not only tell others, but they will embellish to make you look worse. Their loyalty is fleeting, and because they are insecure people, they will find solace in confiding to whomever is in their favor at the moment.
    5. They may be somewhat of a hypochondriac. This can come in especially useful when caught in a lie, for example, they can claim that they have been sick, or that there's some mysteriously "illness" that has them all stressed out. It's another excuse tool for their behavior.
    6. Obviously, they will contradict what they say. This will become very clear over time. They usually aren't smart enough to keep track of so many lies (who would be?).

    * They lie about even the smallest things. For example, saying "I brushed my teeth today," when they didn't.
    * They add exaggerations to every sentence.
    * They change their story all the time.
    * They act very defensively when you question their statements.
    * They believe what they say is true, when everyone else knows it isn't.

    Here's an alternate "checklist":

    * Lies when it is very easy to tell the truth.
    * Lies to get sympathy, to look beter, to save their butt, etc.
    * Fools people at first but once they get to know him, no one believes anything they ever say.
    * May have a personality disorder.
    * Extremely manipulative.
    * Has been caught in lies repeatedly.
    * Never fesses up to the lies.
    * Is a legend in their own mind.

    ----

    Gee, does this sound like anyone we know?
    • RuSTeDs, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Actually it sounds like couple of people I personally know....lol.

      Besides that, yeah for Hillary its a do or die situation where she will throw Bill over the cliff if she ne