digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at eyesonobama.com

Bush's Attack Helps Barack Obama

eyesonobama.com — By taking aim at Barack Obama in his statements to the Knesset in Israel earlier this week, George W. Bush may have given the Democrat an enormous advantage: with his approval rating standing at just 27%, he made himself Obama's opponent, and a surrogate punching bag for the Republican nominee, John McCain.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BurningGiraffe, on 05/19/2008, -56/+17The Media is helping everything help Obama.
    • abby11, on 05/19/2008, -8/+9Huh,what?
    • 5urr3al5am, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Why is it that when you point out what a liberal/democrat candidate believes their base feels called out and then they throw up their collective arms and get offended? The fact of the matter is OBama is the most liberal candidate this country has every seen, even more liberal than Al Gore, or John Kerry.
  • kdawg1012, on 05/19/2008, -24/+130Another point. Obama's quick and strong response shows that he ill not be swift boated by the Republicans.
    • cashman57, on 05/19/2008, -29/+6His response proves he's not ready to be a leader. Bush didn't mention him by name so he must consider himself an appeaser in order to be upset about it.
      • cquinnd, on 05/19/2008, -3/+15His response shows he recognized the same political play on Bush's part that everyone else saw.
        The only one trying to appease here was Bush himself.
      • p0s3r, on 05/19/2008, -19/+4"Swift Boated" = to tell the truth about a Democrat.
      • bicyclethief, on 05/19/2008, -2/+10"Swift Boated" = another example of Republican character attacks on nebulous qualities like patriotism for the dittohead masses because they cannot possibly debate on real, concrete issues that really matter
      • cypriss9, on 05/19/2008, -2/+22The funny thing about this "appeasement" battle is that no one on either side wants to do anything close to appeasement. Appeasement means giving in to demands of aggressors in order to avoid war. Merely talking to someone does in no way imply appeasement.
        • jameskong15, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9No logic allowed here good sir; please go.
      • minorthreat, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1funny the morons just repeat the same terminology Bush does and think that is enough to back their claim. First off, quoting words from the Bush man himself isn't that great of an idea considering his limited vocabulary. Second, You just like the one you look up to, have no idea what the "big and long" words actually mean.

        Keep calling Obama an appeaser, it just makes you look more like an idiot.
    • jbenson2, on 05/19/2008, -18/+2Quick? Yes
      Strong? Nope
      Narcissistic, conceited, self-centered person? Definitely

      The O-man is hyper sensitive about his idea that having a cup of tea with the leaders of Iran will solve the world's problems. It is especially sanctimonious to see how easily the Messiah is offended, when President Bush was obviously referring to the peanut farmer's visit to the terrorists.
      • jake8689, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5how does ignoring them help, talking to people can solve problems, by talking to them we show that we do want good to happen to both parties not just us.
        • jbenson2, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2A very naive question. When the President agrees to talk to terrorist organizations at the drop of a hat with no pre-conditions (as the O-man stated), he legitimizes the terrorists and strengthens their base. Do you really want to do good to people who want to kill us?
    • piper999, on 05/19/2008, -2/+33Being British and living in England from the early 70's up until the late 90's (most of my life) with the continual threat of terrorism related to Northern Ireland my jaw just dropped at Bush's speech. Wrong, wrong, wrong. He feeds terrorism by implying terrorists are more powerful than they really are.

      Britain resolved the problem of terrorism not by pretending it wasn't happening or claiming "if we talk to the IRA the next thing we know the IRA tanks will be rolling across Europe" but by negotiation. Bush's stance will never, ever result in resolution.

      He is not a laughing stock any more. Its not funny. He needs to go and I'm not even a Democrat (can't vote in this country - not a citizen). Everyone needs to stand up and be counted over this. If it takes four or eight years of Democrats in power then so be it but change has to happen and happen soon.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/19/2008, -0/+9That's the point. The Neo-Conservative movement needs an enemy.
        What they do is sell fears instead of dreams. That's their innovation in politics.
        (Not traditional Conservatives)

        It allows them to justify activities/laws that would otherwise outrage the public.

        The only way the Terrorists can win is if the masses are scared into doing something. Where an earlier President would have told everyone that the attacks can't really hurt the country, Bush tries to convince everyone that there is an imminent threat to their lives.

        This is what they did with Soviet Union. Where it was actually in a state of collapse.
        (Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz also worked for Pres. Ronald Reagan)

        Bush also goes further where he tries to divorce Authority from Responsibility.
    • mitch77, on 05/19/2008, -10/+2You Probably Think This Speech Is About You
      President Bush spoke before Israel's Knesset yesterday. According to Barack Obama, Bush's speech was a "political attack" on Barack Obama, as the Jerusalem Post reports:

      "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," [Obama] said in a statement. "Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power--including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy--to pressure countries like Iran and Syria."

      Obama added that Bush was aware that the candidate had never supported talking to terrorists, "and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

      Other Democrats backed Obama and bashed Bush. Politico quotes this statesmanlike pronouncement from Sen. Joe Biden: "This is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement."

      Fox News reports that "even Hillary Clinton . . . piled on":
      "President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous, on the face of it and especially in light of his failures in foreign policy," she said. "This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced."

      So, what exactly did President Bush say? Here's the passage from his speech:

      There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

      Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

      Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.


      So what are we to make of the pricky defensiveness of Obama and his fellow Democrats in the face of the president's speech?

      The cynical interpretation is that Democrats have concluded Bush is so unpopular that opposing any position he takes will redound to their political benefit. By this logic, if Bush says "God bless America," voters can be expected to rally behind the fellow who says "God damn America."

      If Obama agrees with Bush that terrorists can't be appeased, he could say so, or refrain from saying anything. If he disagrees, he could put forward an argument to the contrary.
      Instead he whines about an imaginary Bush "attack" on him.
      • CeeAyy, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Hi Mitch

        Welcome to earth. Will you be here for a while? I hope that you enjoy your stay. There are a few things that you should know while you are here.

        One important thing to know is that there is this thing called insinuation. It's kind of tricky, so pay attention. It's a sneak attack of sorts. It happens when someone starts talking about someone yet refuses to name them personally. The describe the person by talking about traits that are specific to them. They try to be vague in the hopes that people who get the message can attach the words to the target without the target having a clear path to respond.

        An example would be if I talked about someone who posted before me who was very wordy but really had no clue. He was someone who disliked Sen. Obama yet really didn't have a grasp of what his stances are. He seemed to think that all democrats would vote out of spite as he doesn't think of people as individuals but as groups. In his post he seemed like something of a ditto head. He thought of himself as well informed yet didn't really have all of the facts. He was seen to be arrogant because of that. He was unaware that Sen. McCain and Pres. Bush BOTH advocated negotiating with Hamas in the past yet seemed to think that Sen. Obama was weak for advocating the same thing. He failed to see the hypocrisy in that. Basically he was an uninformed idiot...

        Now, you would probably think I was talking about you Mitch, but we know that you are incapable of the "pricky" defensiveness that you attribute to Sen. Obama. Here is a question for you... Do you REALLY believe that Pres. Bush would go that far out of his way to talk about Pres. Carter? He was in Israel to talk about peace and he decides to talk about a former President in a negative light? (He was there to help broker a peace yet he is advocating war over negotiation... Hmmmm.) What would be the benefit of going all the way to Israel to talk about a former leader? Isn't the real political benefit to talk about the current candidate that the world is very interested in? Are you THAT unaware of how politicians operate? Are you that unaware of how Pres. Bush operates? He is not an honorable man. He is not too subtle. He was talking about who we ALL know he was talking about.
      • piradians, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3"If Obama agrees with Bush that terrorists can't be appeased, he could say so, or refrain from saying anything. If he disagrees, he could put forward an argument to the contrary." I guess you didn't bother to actually hear what Obama said, since he did just what you requested here in his reply.

        More selective ignorance by the anti-Obamas.
      • mitbac, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Thanks Mitch! I liked being able to read it for myself. I'm going to have to agree with Bush on this one. Terrorists aren't people we should ever consider negotiating with.
        Perhaps it was an insinuation, but it was applicable and not out of place in such a place as Israel...considering their past.
        • CeeAyy, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1You "agree with Bush on this one", yet you fail to see the hypocrisy of Bush stating that he is against negotiating with an "terrorist" enemy while he recently insisted on doing just that with what was called a terrorist enemy... North Korea. North Korea was a part of his Axis of Evil, right?

          You might believe that negotiating is weak and that is your right to believe that even if you're wrong, but please don't be fooled by Bush and McCain. It's not what they really believe. This was a political stunt. They negotiate with enemies. You can't kill all of your enemies. It's not possible. You will ALWAYS have enemies. Eventually you will realize that negotiation works sometimes too. BTW, no one ever advocated appeasement. Appeasement and negotiation are not the same thing.
    • boejangles, on 05/19/2008, -0/+10If you missed Barack Obamas press conference response, He basically said...."HEY! ***** you buddy"
      • GRVeee2, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2Bush responds: "I'M NOT YOUR BUDDY, GUY!!"
  • parkernicky50, on 05/19/2008, -25/+15nice post
  • transcendsmas, on 05/19/2008, -46/+25Okay Obama Troops, game on! It's time to start hitting McCain hard! DIGG, DIGG, DIGG! The Repubs won't know what hit them!!!!

    Yes We Can!
    • Bkaufman, on 05/19/2008, -7/+8No you can't.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/19/2008, -12/+2Yes you can what exactly? Make the front page of Digg? Continue to ignore the fact that your candidate's position on the Iraq war funding, Patriot Act re-authorization, and border fence construction don't match your own? Help me out here.
      • CeeAyy, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3What are his position on each of those? I'm SURE that you don't have a clue.
    • Bugsy33, on 05/19/2008, -14/+2IF WE JUST TALK TO THE TERRORIST THEY WILL STOP KILLING PEOPLE. WE ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS!!!

      /capslock
      /whine
      /sarcasm
      Wow, why does everyone overlook the fact that Bush actually had a decent point. We can't expect everyone to get along, it's not realistic. And subjecting the United States to the demands of hostile nations should be out of the question.
      • breadfred, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6Not talking if you have an argument. Really good solution. Yeah right. Bet you aren't married. In other words, NOT talking causes greater distance between the involved parties.
      • CeeAyy, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3It MIGHT be a good point for him if it wasn't hypocritical. Bush actually advocated negotiating with North Korea, the same country that he called a part of his "Axis of Evil". BTW, do you remember what other countries were a part of that AOE? Was one of them Iran? Hmmm. Wait, North Korea doesn't have oil and it's not in the Middle East. It doesn't fit the plan. The US can't invade that country then. We'll just have to settle on Iraq and Iran.

        Oh, and if you didn't know... McCain ALSO advocated negotiating with HAMAS. Isn't that considered a terrorist group by Sen. McCain AND Pres. Bush? Hmmm. Something is wrong here. They would not be for something before they were against it, would they? That would be hypocritical. That would mean they are "flip flopping" on issues for political purposes. That's not possible, is it? Isn't Pres. Bush a straight shooter... or is it McCain? It's hard to keep score. They are both so similar.
      • oscenester, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1When did any hostile nation subject us to ANYTHING?

        As far as I could tell, we're illegally occupying foreign soil to protect the oil pipeline we built through Iraq?

        Got family in the military? ask them what their assignment is...tell me if they don't see a pipeline nearby...

        lol. As if we ever acquiesced to Iraq's demands or something.
    • CeeAyy, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1transcendsmas... Are you being a troll or are you really serious? I'm betting troll. I hope that you aren't stupid enough to think that DIGGing hurts one party or another.
  • redcolumbine, on 05/19/2008, -24/+12What the heck, if bin Laden can help Bush, I guess Bush can help Obama. Whadda mixup!
  • chicofaraby, on 05/19/2008, -26/+8It's not like the Democrats weren't going to stick George Bush up John McCain's ass before this. Stupid stuff like this just puts sand in the KY.
    • Gemfinder, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3*Boggle*
      There was gonna be KY??!?
      • chicofaraby, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5Yeah, the Democrats are weak. If they were an actual opposition party they would have broken Donald Rumsfeld off in George Bush's ass in 2004. With valve grinding compound for lube.
        • lickmylovepump, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Sand in the KY That sounds like pain.
        • Blandyman, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4That happened once to me... me and this guy... i mean, my girlfriend... were on the beach and i gave him an angry seagull. Lots of fun
    • JoeVet, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5The democrats don't need to but Bush up John McCain's ass, McCain has been running on Bush's record. McCain is in fact trying to get up Bush's ass. The man has lost all of his self respect and independence that main stream America admired. http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/mccain%2 ...
  • JimmySpaza, on 05/19/2008, -62/+14Actually, all Bush did was refer to the idea of appeasement...and Obama went nuts. He couldn't handle it...and he wasn't even mentioned by name. Good grief. When McCain starts pointing out Obama's liberalism on national television during the debates, it's all over for Obama. His liberalism can only be hidden for so long.
    • xtinamo, on 05/19/2008, -5/+20What the ***** is so wrong about liberalism?

      "Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

      Sounds like good stuff to me.

      • taradisiac, on 05/19/2008, -14/+3American "liberalism" is what's wrong.
        • PhilliesBlunt, on 05/19/2008, -3/+8American conservativeism is what got us in the current ***** that we're in.
        • MammasMilk, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Ohhhhh, it's "wrong". Thanks so much for explaining.
      • vinnyvenus, on 05/19/2008, -12/+4But democrats want "equal outcome" not "equal opportunity". This is why they want to tax successful people to the oblivion.
    • Monarch818, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4Huh..? Isn't McCain one of the MOST Liberal Republican politicians in the U.S.? Hell, I've heard hard line conservatives say they would vote for Hillary before McCain, as she is more conservative than he is.
    • jameskong15, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3Trying to deny this was a veiled shot at Obama, Carter, and other democrats is just so hilarious… Now allow me to turn to my wife and say, “hey, some idiots on digg think Bush wasn’t talking about Obama in his recent speech.” I never mentioned you specifically (just like Bush didn’t mention Obama), but we all know what I’m actually saying (just like anyone with some common sense knows what Bush was saying).
    • Omodis420, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3Maybe just maybe this country is ready for a Liberal President.
    • vibrate, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1lol, you dont even know what 'Liberal' means do you?
    • Sean42, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3i stopped reading the incredibly stupid,pandering and immature replies from jimmyspaza a long time ago. i suggest you just bury and move on.
      carry on jimmy-boy.
  • cashman57, on 05/19/2008, -32/+9When you see the type of reaction to this as we saw with Obama you realize he really is a rookie with no ability to lead.
    His nutso response to the president and the comments show he is so close to the deep end he can't be trusted under pressure.
    The fact is Obama has no foreign policy experience or expertise and even though he was given the chair of a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee he never convened it.
    Add to that the fact he's against our right to be secure and to keep and bear arms and you get the idea he's the last person who should be allowed in the White House without a visitors pass.
    • Schul983, on 05/19/2008, -2/+10Your comment shows that you have no idea what your talking about. Bush compares the Appeasement of the democrats willing to talk to other countries to the buildup of nazi germany. Chamberlain in Britain along with other nations let hitler INVADE AND CONQUER other countries. All that Obama and the democrats want to do is talk to other nations. If you understood that single fact alone you would see the outrageousness of Bush's comment. You should be the last person allowed to vote.
    • cypriss9, on 05/19/2008, -2/+9Actually, in terms of leadership, Obama is leaps and bounds ahead of the competition. He's built the largest grass roots organization. He's inspired the most Americans. Just today, there was a 75,000 person rally in Oregon. THAT is leadership.
    • Omodis420, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2
      Just because some people want stricter gun laws, it does not make them Anti-guns. I swear some people can't stand the fact of having to a background check. If you own something that can and is easily killing people all over the world, then yes you should have to go through some kind of waiting period. It also seems to me that all the NRA camp already owns guns why are the so opposed to tougher gun laws.
    • caramba420, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Anything is better than Bush's policies. Even if we had a coin-toss as president, it would be right half the time.
  • s4g4n, on 05/19/2008, -36/+4What rhymes Osama and Bomb, and its so easy a 2 year old can pronounce? Obama
    • Yakovzoya, on 05/19/2008, -6/+16It looks like you're having a bit of trouble putting a sentence together.
    • FairDinkumMate, on 05/19/2008, -5/+1And understand what the word rhyme means!

      Here I'll give you some help -

      SAT rhymes with CAT, MAT, BAT

      ME rhymes with SEE, BE, HE

      BOMB rhymes with PROM, FROM & MOM

      See - it's so easy, even a 2 year old(Democrat!) can do it....

  • fakekevinrose, on 05/19/2008, -12/+2Token appears to be invalid
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/19/2008, -6/+58Bush is bascially in the same spot as Clinton in 2000, every endorsement he makes is potentially fatal.
    • Elranzer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Al Gore might have done better in 2000 if he accepted endorsement from Bill Clinton rather than try to distance himself from Clinton.
  • bb112266, on 05/19/2008, -11/+1NonLeftistDiggrNonLeftistDiggr, when you do wrong like Clinton and Bush doing wrong with the war in Iraq, that old saying, "What comes around, goes around" will haunt you. It is sad that everyone else in the nation has to fall with those two Presidents. :(
  • lickmylovepump, on 05/19/2008, -24/+10Obama this, Obama that. You people remind me of the Ron Paul people. It seems like people will follow a cult leader no matter what he does, huh. Once you crazy sheep get yourself someone you look up to, you just don't see too cleary, do ya?
    • onetimer, on 05/19/2008, -7/+10To be fair, i've never been told by Obama supporters that "you hate freedom" or "You must hate liberty" simply for disagreeing with Obama...
    • Barackalypse, on 05/19/2008, -8/+6The difference with Ron Paul is that he actually has a 20+ year voting record backing up his promises. Obama's voting record runs counter to the wishes of his anti-war, anti-Patriot Act supporters.
      • EtherGnat, on 05/19/2008, -4/+12That's funny, I thought the difference between Obama and Ron Paul is that people actually vote for Obama. ;)
      • onetimer, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4a voting record that actually backs up his promises?

        Oh right, that's why he is running as a "fiscal conservative", yet has the highest earmark-per-capita of all four remaining candidates...


        • Barackalypse, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3How many of those earmark bills did he VOTE for? To quote the man himself "I've never voted for an earmark in my life." I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back. I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22379734/
      • lickmylovepump, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2Don't you mean Obamesiah?
      • ssn697, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2Well, 20 years ago he promised a race war. Did he vote for it as well?

        He also promised America would destroy itself, so he laid out the top 10 ways to keep your survivalist group under the radar.

        He promised he would keep gays in the closet, but his We the People Act failed.

        He sure has made a lot of promises!
  • Barackalypse, on 05/19/2008, -25/+9Yes, but Obama is part of a Democratically controlled Congress that has an 18% approval rating, even lower than Bush has. You've got to be doing a pretty crap job to have substantially lower numbers than Bush these days between the war and the economy.

    http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/05/14/a ...
    • chicofaraby, on 05/19/2008, -1/+11"Who do you want to see take the lead role in setting policy for the country: George W. Bush or the Congress?"

      Bush 21% Congress 62%

      http://www.pollingreport.com/congress.htm#misc
      • masterm1nd, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2The democrats recently just achieved the lowest approval rating ever recorded. Even further than Bush's record. You really can find a poll to say anything you want.

        http://www.google.com/search?q=congress+lowest+app ...
        • chicofaraby, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2"What is your preference for the outcome of this year's congressional elections: a Congress controlled by Republicans or a Congress controlled by Democrats?"

          Democrats 49% Republicans 34%

          http://www.pollingreport.com/cong2008.htm
        • pdxmark, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Just recently? You realize that the most recent poll that comes up at the top of that search is from Sept, 2007 - and some of them are over a year old...

          I was pretty frustrated with Congress a year ago because they wouldn't stand up to Bush and "impeachment was off the table." That doesn't mean I don't want a Democratic congress...
      • jbenson2, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1I certainly don't want to see the O-man setting policy for the country, especially after viewing his voting record.

        Support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)
        Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
        Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
        Extend welfare and Medicaid to immigrants. (Jul 1998)
        Battles legislatively against the death penalty. (Jul 2004)
        Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
        Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
        Rated 100% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
        Supports affirmative action in colleges and government. (Jul 1998)
        Supports alternative sentencing and rehabilitation. (Jul 1998)
        Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
        Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
        Refused to vote on the “support Petraeus” resolution (Sep 2007)
        • Xizer, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3So basically what you're saying is you're a racist who hates gays. The Republican Party is that way ->
        • CeeAyy, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1I was set to do a point by point rebuttal, but then I realized who was posting. I would be wasting my time with you. You're obviously intolerant of anything different than you and it's sad. You don't even realize that some of the things that you stand for are contradictory.

          Example... a ban on flag burning, a flag which represents freedom of speech among other things, is a ban on an individuals freedom of speech. The irony of that is lost on you, I am sure. Oh, and before anyone gets confused... I would never burn a flag but I respect what it stands for enough to allow for someone else's freedom of expression. The flag itself is not the important thing but what it stands for. The symbol is not the point, it's not what's important. What it means is what is important.
        • jbenson2, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1WTF does burning the flag have to do with the far-left policy position of the O-man?
        • CeeAyy, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1You mentioned that he "Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)"

          That is what I was responding to. If you can't pay attention to what I wrote, can you at least pay attention to what you wrote? Keep up with me or at least yourself.
  • 55mph, on 05/19/2008, -12/+22just a question ??

    If Barak Obama is, and i believe he is, truly a mandate for change in American politics, why has the Mainstream Media given him such strong support?

    in other words, What's their agenda?
    • chicofaraby, on 05/19/2008, -6/+29"why has the Mainstream Media given him such strong support?"

      You're kidding, right?
      • dexter411, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Seriously? If you don't believe the media is in Obama's boat, explain to me how any of the anchors on MSNBC, most of the ones on CNN, and at least two from ABC are still on the air.
    • 55mph, on 05/19/2008, -4/+5chico, thanks for the non-answer.

      No, i'm not kidding. Once Obama sees the the pay to play government that exists from the inside out, once he truly understands the unbridled power and conflicts of interest of our privately owned central bank, once he is privy to government secrets and the pentagon's agenda , he's bound to say the right thing to the wrong person. Based on what i've seen of his character, he's not going to roll over an play dead.

      • chicofaraby, on 05/19/2008, -1/+16You asked "why has the Mainstream Media given him such strong support?" I am simply pointing out that is not the case. They have focused on insignificant ***** like lapel pins and preachers. The corporate media is not helping Senator Obama.
      • JoeVet, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3I agree with Chicofaraby, the MSM are businesses run by republicans and they are nit picking Obama about anything they can while at the same time giving McCain a free pass. Everyone knows that whoever controls the media controls the people and democrats do not have any control of the media.
        • drspanklebum, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Except isn't the fact that Obama has come so far proof that the media does not control the people? If that were the case, Hillary would still be running and Obama would have had no impact on anyone at all. Obama has inspired people to see through the BS in the media, and it has worked.
      • bradleyland, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3What? Did you miss the days upon days of Rev. Wright coverage. It's like there is a moratorium on meaningful information in the media these days.
      • XSVFizz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1The mainstream media only supports the mainstream media. Whatever gets more viewers is going to be shown, and this usually means conflict or scandal, because that is what makes the most ad revenue. They supported Obama early in the race because they wanted a closer democratic primary, so more people would watch the outcomes on their stations.
    • pyrotix, on 05/19/2008, -9/+1Because the military industrial complex now has a new, young, believable face through which to promote their lies and propaganda. And this time it will be even more believable.

      Just sayin'.
    • dagamer34, on 05/19/2008, -1/+25You've already forgotten the Wright scandal? The media definitely wasn't on his side back then.
    • cquinnd, on 05/19/2008, -1/+18The MSM follows whoever has the best chance to bring in good ratings, whether their personal endorsement is positive or negative.
    • oscenester, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4What the hell? are you ***** kidding me?

      They almost destroyed him! The only reason it SEEMS like they like him now is becuase they realized that THE PEOPLE actually love him, and that them digging at him was losing them ratings...

      I seriously can't believe how naive some people are..
    • davewashere, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3They will still attack him at any opportunity. It took the MSM a long time to warm up to Obama. Just a couple of months ago, a conversation between CNN producers was leaked and it revealed that they were avoiding an interview with a Democratic governor and superdelegate because he was endorsing Obama over Clinton. The MSM will try to follow the general mood of the people for ratings, but they also will try to covertly support the candidate who supports the head corporation's interests.
  • taradisiac, on 05/19/2008, -17/+4Obama is doing fairly well taking the heat, maybe Hillary will ask him to be her VP.
    • bmorlok, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9Don't do drugs kids! You may end up as loony as this one.
  • Badandy127, on 05/19/2008, -16/+4Stop with the Obama articles, holy crap.


    OH LORD CAN YOU FEEL THE CHANGE? IT'S SO FULL OF HOPE....AND CHANGE. IT'S SO...CHANGING!!!!
    • Badandy127, on 05/19/2008, -1/+0Seriously, it's rushing over me like a torrential rain in the summer. It's coursing through my veins like a heroine injection. OMG, the CHANGE IS HERE!!!!

      *steps out of pulpit
    • JoeVet, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Its sad that some people are so afraid of change that they would rather stay with a failing system. Its a good thing that the majority of people are beginning to see the futility of staying the course.
  • Thefascist, on 05/19/2008, -24/+5I think as we see more and more attacks on him, we will see his inner OJ come out. I'm telling you the guy is a monster. Read my other posts on him.
    • Doomshot, on 05/19/2008, -2/+6This coming from a guy named "TheFascist." Unless your username is somehow supposed to be stylishly ironic, you have no right to be calling other people monsters.

      Also, not every famous black person is OJ Simpson, who, by the way, was found not guilty, furthering the ridiculousness of your statement. Looking at some of your comments above, it seems you have other prejudices, making you not only "TheFascist" but also "TheDoucheWhoShouldQuitTheInternet."
      • Thefascist, on 05/19/2008, -8/+1You must be atleast 50 years old. If not then you must be no more than 17.
        • Arcan, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5That's the strangest ad hom I've ever seen. "You must be old. Or young."
  • Thefascist, on 05/19/2008, -16/+2You white people out there are not a bit disconcerted by 90 % of black people voting for him instead of Hillary. That doesn't bother you.
    • vibrate, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1I don't know if this is a statement or a badly punctuated question.
    • Endemoniada, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2I don't care how other people vote, and neither should you. Vote for the candidate you want as president, that's all you have to do. If you think the election is rigged, flawed or otherwise insane, there's nothing you can do about it anyway. Just do your part, cast your vote and take pride in being a good citizen.
    • CeeAyy, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1You are missing what is really going on. MOST people are voting for him regardless of group. This is not a black and white thing. If that's the way it is in your mind, well, you must lead a sad life full of fear of things you don't understand. You must get terrified turning on a light bulb. Are you afraid that it might blow up one day? lol. It's not magic, I promise. Lol.
  • Thefascist, on 05/19/2008, -14/+4If race isn't an issue then what's the problem with Hillary, both of them have said that their politics are like 98% percent the same. Hillary is even more radical than he is with things like Universal healthcare and Education for everyone, paid by the taxpayer offcourse.
    • Omodis420, on 05/19/2008, -3/+0Oh no paid for by the taxpayers. If everyone would chip in and not be so damn greedy we could solve this countries problems. Humanity in my opinion just came out wrong. Rich people should be the ones most apt to help the poor. They are in the best position.(the ones in power anyways) Especially sense tons of them walk around thumping the bible over all our heads
    • CeeAyy, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2You must have a problem with your long term memory. It's widely known that Black people were very big supporters of the Clintons. Ethnicity had nothing to do with that. Now that she has shown herself in a different light, MOST PEOPLE are no longer interested in supporting her. Ethnicity STILL has nothing to do with that.

      She is behind in all metrics. She is just not popular with any group, except for people in West Virginia and people who are poor, uneducated, white, & racist. Those are her two groups of supporters. Some would even go so far as to say that those two groups have a lot in common. It SEEMS (I don't really know) that people in WV voted for her because she is White and not because she is more qualified. If so, then that's the racism you were looking for.

      Also, do you truly understand what taxes are for? They are meant to pay for our school system among other things. What do YOU think our taxes are supposed to be used for?

      Lastly, do you honestly know what they both stand for? They may have similarities but they are FAR from the same. The biggest problem for her at the moment is that she is not perceived as truthful and as a part of everything that is wrong with this country, by large parts of this country. That's why most people are NOT voting for her.
  • Ricemanstm, on 05/19/2008, -14/+3Faux-bama ra ra piece. Get a life. Buried.
  • Omodis420, on 05/19/2008, -12/+11I have to agree with this article. Bush is just a transparent idiot for saying this. I don't understand how so many people voted for this guy. I mean I understand the second time. By then he had brain washed everyone with his fear tactics. Seriously his first election. HOW???
    • jbenson2, on 05/19/2008, -15/+1Barack Hussein Obama makes Dan Quayle look like Einstein
      • aliengoods, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Jbenson2, you make Dan Quayle look like Einstein.
  • sislam02, on 05/19/2008, -6/+10bush is goin' to hell
  • vexingmodstwo, on 05/19/2008, -8/+22A pro-Obama website claiming a political victory? You don't say...
  • AsylumAleikum, on 05/19/2008, -18/+6It is good to know that Snobama benefits from ass-whupping because he has a lot more of it coming in November.
    • TotalHalibut, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Snobama.. wow, spend all-night on that one did ya? Hick? YEHHAWW, LYNCH THE DARKIE! VOTE FOR THE OLD WHITE GUY THAT WILL LEAD THIS COUNTRY INTO ECONOMIC DISASTER!
  • Jamihabs, on 05/19/2008, -49/+6Let me get this straight: Bush says we should not appease terrorists. Obama cries like a little girl. The left loves him for it.

    In the twisted world of the left, maybe they like the fact that Obama’s wife has more testosterone than Obama has. Maybe they really do want to elect a woman, and Obama is more woman than Clinton is.
    • cquinnd, on 05/19/2008, -1/+8Weak Troll.
    • caleb4mj, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5Twisted world of the left?

      I don't know what world you live in, but I live in a world where I believe that a government that obstructs justice lacks justice. And if this was for justice and liberty for all, well, we FAIL. You FAIL. Oh, but you believe its fair to trade a few volunteer soldiers for your imperialist fear of WMDs, I mean freedom and democracy agenda, huh? You ***** coward.

      If you can't tell the truth, then lie yourself into oblivion.
    • pdxmark, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5Way to regurgitate the right wing talking points, you troll.

      Obama made a quick and clear response to bush's smear. That's the way to run a campaign.

    • SuperVepr308, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1He speaks his mind and he is a "troll"? Apparently, in your etheral plane a troll is someone that posts something you don't agree with. Way to go.
    • Sean42, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3jamihabs. You are a worthless piece of *****. have a nice day.
    • Hypersapien, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Most guys are probably more of a woman than Hillary Clinton is.
    • davewashere, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Bush was clearly directing his statement about appeasement at Obama, and he brought in the Neville Chamberlain/Nazi example because he saw an opportunity for an epic pseudo-Godwin-ing in front of his Israeli friends. The leader of the free world should be above statements like that, especially on foreign soil. Obama only said he would sit down and talk with our enemies, not that he was willing to give them anything at all. Eisenhower sat down with the enemy. Nixon sat down with the enemy. Even Saint Reagan sat down with the enemy. McCain said he'd talk with the enemy as recently as 2 years ago. Why does Obama get this kind of treatment when he says it? Does the Right think that he's going to sell this country out for some magic beans?
  • Khast, on 05/19/2008, -3/+11Shame on Bush, he used Godwin's Law....I don't know, but I am just waiting for the fireworks between now and November. This election year is turning out to be quite the mudslinger. I'd place a safe bet, that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
    • dougmc, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3You don't really `use' Godwin's law. Here it is, in case you've forgotten --

      "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
      approaches one."

      (Recent versions replace `Usenet' with `online discussion', but originally it was Usenet.)

      All Bush really did is suggest that it probably also applies outside of Usenet as well. That, and give Obama a little support (considering how unpopular Bush is right now, anybody he doesn't like can't be all bad!)

      In any event, the law does not say that you've lost the argument (though comparing somebody to Hitler is rarely a very strong argument) or that the thread is over or anything else like that.
  • WaldoX, on 05/19/2008, -1/+14the only way obama will lose the presidency is through voting irregularities (ie electronic voting manipulation)
  • PhotonCannon, on 05/19/2008, -8/+1I just stopped lurking to make a comment!

    What if that is what he wanted?

    /conspiracy theory
  • LansingSterling, on 05/19/2008, -12/+2Nice article but when November to remember comes McCain will win and lead the US to great heights.
    • reenie217, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2This will be the biggest win the Dem's have ever seen and Barack Obama will be our next potus. Macain was given up by his party because they knew they would lose this year.
    • Raptor007, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Great heights would be a nice change after how low we've sank with Bush. But I doubt McCain would take us there.
  • Pillage, on 05/19/2008, -13/+4"Bush is bad, don't say appeasement is bad, because that means me, even though I'm not an appeaser..so, er, you really were probably talking about Carter, who actually went and sat down with Hammas......Hope and Change *Smile*." Transcribed by Huffpo,Dkos,EyeonObama, instant front page, and we have what I like to call political masturbation. Self gratification of the highest order with no one to pretend that Obama jumped in a fight he may or may not have even been involved in.
    • JoeVet, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Even if Bush wasn't talking about Obama, the son of a Nazi sympathizer has no business talking about appeasing the Nazis.
      • Pillage, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't his father a fighter pilot in WWII? Who fought against the Axis? My history might be a little fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure you're a liar.
        • JoeVet, on 05/21/2008, -0/+1Not a liar just typed wrong. Meant to say grandson of a Nazi sympathizer. Prescott Bush continued to do business with the Nazis even after we declared war on them. In my book that makes him a traitor to his country.
  • caponumen, on 05/19/2008, -8/+2Has a 14th amendment citizens ever been elected President, and if so, is that allowed in the constitution?

    "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

    I guess an attack based on this rational these days is politically "beyond the pale".
    I have no problem with a non-white male President, I just hate to see a new precedent somehow used as a political weapon in the courts.
    Add this issue to the unwise situation of a ONE PARTY government and I start fantasizing about someone like Nader swooping in and
    knocking, you know who, out of the running. BTW *ALL* one party administrations have been a disaster economically. Study the REAL Carter administration for a good example of the interesting struggle between labor, power, greed and general human nature. Carter proved that even saints are sometimes fed to the wolves, and all, just for a buck or two.


    • FairDinkumMate, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6You do understand that the only candidate with any question of his eligibility under this was McCain right?
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4One party governments:
      All the other western nations have 3 or more parties in Government. It forces people to compromise.

      This is the single most thing that the American system desperately needs, a third party.
  • mitch77, on 05/19/2008, -12/+2You Probably Think This Speech Is About You

    So, what exactly did President Bush say? Here's the passage from his speech:

    There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

    Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

    Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.


    So what are we to make of the pricky defensiveness of Obama and his fellow Democrats in the face of the president's speech?

    The cynical interpretation is that Democrats have concluded Bush is so unpopular that opposing any position he takes will redound to their political benefit. By this logic, if Bush says "God bless America," voters can be expected to rally behind the fellow who says "God damn America."

    If Obama agrees with Bush that terrorists can't be appeased, he could say so, or refrain from saying anything. If he disagrees, he could put forward an argument to the contrary.
    Instead he whines about an imaginary Bush "attack" on him.
    • caponumen, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Well, in actuality the argument is always about who are the REAL criminals in these territorial incursions.
      It's the first step in the dehumanization process, that helps you rationalize taking lives and ironically, often destroying your own. The almost complete removal of Native Americans is a prime example of how how powerful, hate and prejudice, is as a weapon.
      BTW
      The only rational and civilized solution is a unification of Palestine with a true democratic *secular* government with true religious freedom. You will find next to no one in the region, that believes this, but this is the only path to a true peace. This can be archived with death and destruction or reconciliation. It's the question, of how much death and destruction, that make the latter a much smarter choice.
    • purzzzell, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Since you took the liberty of making way too long a comment, I'm going to reply with the same.

      RIGHT HERE:

      [quote]There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. [/quote]

      and here

      [quote]We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.[/quote]


      I don't know about you, but I take that as Bush saying "Someone who shall remain nameless is not going to handle the terror situations correctly and it has to be done my way. This idea is wrong."


      Even if you claim it WASN'T Obama about whom he was speaking, there's enough political tension about the way he's handling our military presence throughout the world that really, he's not speaking for our nation when he speaks out against negotiation. He's just being a "war[-mongering] president".
    • CeeAyy, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Since you want to copy and paste your comment, I will copy and paste my reply to you yet again...

      ====
      Previously on the young and the clueless....

      ====

      Hi Mitch

      Welcome to earth. Will you be here for a while? I hope that you enjoy your stay. There are a few things that you should know while you are here.

      One important thing to know is that there is this thing called insinuation. It's kind of tricky, so pay attention. It's a sneak attack of sorts. It happens when someone starts talking about someone yet refuses to name them personally. The describe the person by talking about traits that are specific to them. They try to be vague in the hopes that people who get the message can attach the words to the target without the target having a clear path to respond.

      An example would be if I talked about someone who posted before me who was very wordy but really had no clue. He was someone who disliked Sen. Obama yet really didn't have a grasp of what his stances are. He seemed to think that all democrats would vote out of spite as he doesn't think of people as individuals but as groups. In his post he seemed like something of a ditto head. He thought of himself as well informed yet didn't really have all of the facts. He was seen to be arrogant because of that. He was unaware that Sen. McCain and Pres. Bush BOTH advocated negotiating with Hamas in the past yet seemed to think that Sen. Obama was weak for advocating the same thing. He failed to see the hypocrisy in that. Basically he was an uninformed idiot...

      Now, you would probably think I was talking about you Mitch, but we know that you are incapable of the "pricky" defensiveness that you attribute to Sen. Obama. Here is a question for you... Do you REALLY believe that Pres. Bush would go that far out of his way to talk about Pres. Carter? He was in Israel to talk about peace and he decides to talk about a former President in a negative light? (He was there to help broker a peace yet he is advocating war over negotiation... Hmmmm.) What would be the benefit of going all the way to Israel to talk about a former leader? Isn't the real political benefit to talk about the current candidate that the world is very interested in? Are you THAT unaware of how politicians operate? Are you that unaware of how Pres. Bush operates? He is not an honorable man. He is not too subtle. He was talking about who we ALL know he was talking about.
  • username484767, on 05/19/2008, -3/+8Bush is an assholes, yes, multiple assholeS
    • itsfullofstars, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3English mothafukka!!! Do you speak it??
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Well it's certainly coming out his mouth.
  • SoulDrift404, on 05/19/2008, -3/+9Negotiation != appeasement.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scoblic1 ...
  • Mekanikles, on 05/19/2008, -7/+1Adolph. I imagine that's what he called himself wearing a top hat and a monocle. That posh prick.
  • amightywind, on 05/19/2008, -11/+2How can being labeled an appeaser by the President of the United States in front of our allies, the Israelis, be good for B. Hussein Obama? He already has problems with the white working class. This helps to cement his weakness in place. Obama is shaping up weak in states he must have in the general election.
    • abby11, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Take your American Flag DOWN.YOUR AN APPEASER!REAL AMERICANS DONT HAVE TO APPEASE THEIR NOT AFRAID TO TALK.
  • captmoroni, on 05/19/2008, -12/+4Obama needs to get over himself. President Bush was not talking about him. The 1930s-era US senator mentioned in the Israel speech was ***Republican*** Idaho Senator William Edgar Borah.

    Yes. A Republican senator said: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided."

    Instead of taking that fact and running with it, Obama runs to accept the mantle of appeasement. What a fool.
    • boombye, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Actually he was attacking the Democratic party as a whole, which includes Obama and his supporters, by suggesting that talking to enemy nations would embolden terrorism or something, and said talking to enemy nations is somehow the same as giving away stuff like "Nazi appeasers".. One notable person associated with "Nazi appeasement" is Neville Chamberlain.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
    • CeeAyy, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1He wasn't talking about the Republican Senator... he was using him as a reference point to talk badly about Democrats in general and Sen. Obama specifically.

      Critical thinking... it's not a myth. It works. I promise. Try it.

      *Disclaimer: Has been known to a cause complete dislike of Pres. Bush and all Neocons. Has been known to have a similar effect on certain Democrats like Sen. Clinton as well. May cause you to become an independent. Use as directed.
    • captmoroni, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1It shows how green Obama is that he didn't take the Republican Senator angle and run with it.

      And it shows how green he is that he's running to assume this mantle of appeasement.
  • zolchor, on 05/19/2008, -9/+2It's sad that every single day, logging onto Digg is the most predictable experience possible. I miss my lurking of 2 or 3 years ago when Digg wasn't a combination of the repetitive fellating of Apple products, the Wii, and Obama. Please people, stop depressing me. You talk about being above some ***** or other, but could you seriously be more stereotypical?
    • SuperVepr308, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2I am fairly new here and I have seen nothing but a Marxist circle-jerk, Apple fanboyism and Bush-bashing. That's all 99% of these ***** can muster everyday.
    • Nanite, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5You, and anyone else who sits around bitching about being in the minority on digg can GTFO. It's a big internet, I'm sure someone will take you crying pussies in somewhere.
      • sandiegodude, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Actually, I see the same thing. I'm for Obama, I'd hate to see McCain win as we need change, not more republican rhetoric and *****... but it seems all I ever see now is extreme fanboi-ism to the point where when somebody does make a an intelligent, researched comment it still gets dug down immediately if its not 100% for Obama.

        The fanaticism is just as bad here as it is in the MSM, it just leans in the other direction.

        With all that said, time for my opinion =)

        ***** Bush. Everybody says he's a complete idiot but you know what? He's really getting the last laugh. Look how badly he's ***** this country up, and his scaremonger tactics still haven't changed.
        • SuperVepr308, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1While we don't agree on things, I appreciate your decency and well written post.
      • SuperVepr308, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Why in the ***** do you want this place to be of one opinion and one idea? Are your opinions so weak that you can't bear to put them in front of scruntiny? I said what I have seen since I joined here. I didn't say I wanted everyone to think just like me. That, sir, would be boring.
    • CeeAyy, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Insanity: repeatedly taking the same action yet expecting different results.

      Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
    • abby11, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2HOW OLD ARE YOU GROW THE ***** UP!
  • lopla, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1527% approval? LMFAO! I remember a few yrs ago when Bush was in the 50s and I would joke and exaggerate calling his dip ***** supporters the 20%ers. He's actually in the 20s now freakin hilarious, WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.
  • normalkid0615, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4the first 10 comments on the page are all from the same person, dont be fooled by spammers!
  • amightywind, on 05/19/2008, -4/+1Here is a story that discusses how divided the democrats are on Obama's simply minded foreign policy. He will eventually have to back off or risk further damage. GDub's sucker punch last week caught him flat footed.

    http://www2.nysun.com/national/republicans-sense-a ...
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/19/2008, -7/+5You're so vain
    You probably think this song is about you
    You're so vain
    I'll bet you think this song is about you
    Don't you? Don't you?
  • icexe, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5I'm an Obama supporter, but c'mon people, how much stock can you put into the objectivity and credibility of a site called "Eyes on Obama"? Let's stop fudging statistics just to make Obama look good. (E.g - Bush's rating is at 32%, not 27%). And let's stop drawing conclusions about how the Bush speech hurt McCain, because there is no evidence that public sentiments have changed about McCain since the speech.
    • mitbac, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Thank you for being non-partisan and just using your head!
  • JK1150, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1so says eyesonobama.com with nothing to back it up...
  • laquete, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1if the digg population represented america's population then obama would win hands down
    • Ricemanstm, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1If the Digg population represented America's population, we'd be third world nation conquered by Islam.
  • p2dc, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Can I just ask why 90% of black people voting Obama is an issue? Black people make up about 15% of the population. I think this might make up for the 15/20% of the white population that wouldn't dream of voting "fer one of dem *****"
  • felixleighton, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Bush: Who stole the cookie from the Cookie Jar?
    Obama: WHO ME!?
    Bush: ...Hold on, I haven't gotten there yet.
  • kam3lot, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0right cool man
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.