digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Carter and Gore to ask Clinton to step down

news.scotsman.com — DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de gr âce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president."They're in discussions," a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. "Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • caferrell, on 04/13/2008, -17/+284It is a good sign, but I wager that she won't back down anyway. We are going to get a glimpse of the monster that lives beneath the surface
    • iching, on 04/13/2008, -5/+37The Loch Nessie monster of American politics will resurface and the "MONSTER" that she is will be revealed.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 04/13/2008, -55/+14Oh, this is RICH... AL GORE is going to ask Hillary to step aside.

        The same AL GORE who held America hostage and put us through seemingly endless recounts in 2000.

        It sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit in the making...
        • 3HackBug77, on 04/13/2008, -7/+38The same Al Gore who won the popular vote in that election. JSUK: he was still a great vice pres and would have made a great pres.
          • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 04/13/2008, -4/+25and he was defrauded by Bush and his kin, a family that have more than a passing acquaintance with high crimes and misdemeanors
          • Charlotte_Web, on 04/13/2008, -30/+6Awww, too bad we don't elect the president based on the popular vote! KTHXBYE!
          • Charlotte_Web, on 04/13/2008, -28/+7Defrauded how?

            When was Al Gore ever ahead in the official Florida recount?

            Gore's team chose the counties that were a) sufficiently large and b) heavily Democratic in a fishing expedition to turn up more votes. Still didn't win.
        • boogie606, on 04/13/2008, -9/+4It doesn't appear that people on digg really care to hear the truth, only their distorted view of reality. Gore lost his home state for God's sake and basically wanted to try and guess which way someone in florida was voting,,,to hell with the rules.
          the funny thing is that the democrats for clinton have no problem with overturning the popular vote, and neither would the obama camp if the roles were reversed...
          • Eiknujrac, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6Its funny how you speculate on the attitude obama supporters would have if the tables were turned. Its also funny how you claim democrats have no problem overturning the popular vote. Which party won the popular vote in 2000? Which party was put into the white house?
      • LeeSoong, on 04/13/2008, -23/+2Why?
        So the republicans can win?

        Obama insults Americans saying they just 'Cling to Guns and Religion...' ?

        By God, Americans have 5 words for Obama:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B_UZNtEk4

        and good luck ripping that Bible from their hands, Barack Hussein
        • chromerium, on 04/13/2008, -1/+10That comment isn't taken out of context in the slightest. No sirree. We should all just take your selective editing on the face of it.

          Dumbass.

          Are you a shill for Hillary or McCain?
      • sovietninja, on 04/13/2008, -0/+5Nooooo, how dare you compare cute lil Nessie to that monster! Hillary looks and acts more like a slimy Hutt... Pizza or otherwise!
      • edkopp4, on 04/13/2008, -1/+4Don't be dissing the Pizza Hut. They have a darned good lunch buffet. Hillary wishes she had as much going for her as Pizza Hut does.
    • mrfreeziexp, on 04/13/2008, -3/+35Let's say she doesn't step down, will anyone really support her after that?
      • Nitrodist88, on 04/13/2008, -3/+8Will it matter since she's already going to lose?
      • BaronVonZ, on 04/13/2008, -4/+2Has anyone been supporting her to this point?
        • nandasunu, on 04/13/2008, -0/+5obviously yes, there is more to public opinion than digg.
      • poxonyou, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7Yeah, idiots who believe her and the MSM, like those falling for this elitist BS, or the orange juice scandal a few days before that.
      • Ebonsteel, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7I wish I could say "no" to your question, Mr. Freeze - but I never thought anyone would be able to support the corrupt monsters in the white house now. In a political landscape where Bush still has ANY supporters, it becomes obvious that some people will always be willing to buy the lies and vote against their own best interests for the hollow political icon of their choosing.
    • peestandingup, on 04/13/2008, -8/+10It'll be 10 times more gruesome than that corny Cloverfield monster ever thought about being.
    • killbert24, on 04/13/2008, -6/+45I don't know what Hillary is trying to prove. Oh wow Hillary you're a woman who won't back down. Hear you roar. Whoop-de-*****-doo.
      • m0tbaillie, on 04/13/2008, -3/+19I think this goes beyond her being a "strong-willed woman" and really what it comes down to is the fact that she's an arrogant, egotistical, self-indulgent bitch who has too much pride to back down even if it means bringing down the democratic party and further dividing the country.
        • imgstacke, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Send that to Gore or Carter, they need suggestions on how to break the news to her, gently.
      • NSResponder, on 04/13/2008, -1/+15"I don't know what Hillary is trying to prove."

        It's not a matter of trying to prove something. The woman is a megalomaniac, who sincerely believes that she's entitled to be obeyed by the peasants.

        -jcr
      • netant, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3There are only two rational possibilities:

        1) She is too blinded by her craving for power to see she has lost.

        2) She thinks she has a shot of running in 2012 if McCain beats Obama. If Obama wins, and is successful, she has to wait to 2016, and run against Obama's VP.

        3) The TRAGEDY is if she gracefully withdrew after TX/OH, instead of starting the smear campaign, she would have been looked upon as a good sport, concerned about Democratic issues. There was no lock that Obama would beat McCain, she still would have had a shot in 2012. If she insisted upon the VP spot as a price to end her race, she would still have been in prime position to be president in 2016. (2012 would presume a negative Obama presidency.)
    • jbenson2, on 04/13/2008, -28/+4The monster beneath the surface... Is that Carter or Gore?
    • x0epyon0x, on 04/13/2008, -13/+5SEELE certainly won't sit idly by when the monster inside the Hillary awakens.

      /obscure and mostly stupid Evangelion reference
      • tyywebb, on 04/13/2008, -3/+1The Eva series was born from Adam. Now we're using the force which caused the Second Impact to defeat the Angels. Attempting to harness the engine of our own destruction... only humans are so foolish.
    • dizilbdog, on 04/13/2008, -5/+28I want to see her get dragged off stage, any stage will do.
      • RRJackson, on 04/13/2008, -8/+1Would you settle for seeing Obama being sent home from Denver without the nomination?
        • theaceoffire, on 04/13/2008, -1/+4If he doesn't earn it, that is fine.
          If it is taken from him, no.
          • RRJackson, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1It doesn't matter if the nomination is handed to her by the supers, she's still earned it.
      • arjung, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1stage 6?
    • RRJackson, on 04/13/2008, -64/+3And that monster is Obama, whose minions keep trying to shame the other candidate into conceding when the race is within a percentage point or two of being a dead heat. If he gets the nomination is he going to start trying to shame McCain into dropping out? "Now see here. Can't you tell that I'm BLACK! I'm all about CHANGE! For the good of Islam...er, I mean AMERICA...uh, you simply must step down! If Air Force One don't fit you must acquit...or something like that. Damn, why did Johnny Cochran have to die!?!?!"
      • x0epyon0x, on 04/13/2008, -2/+32Wow, you need to lay off whatever it is you're on. I'm not burying you because you oppose Hillary stepping down. No, I'm burying you because that was one of the most ***** insane rants I've seen this side of a John McCain speech. Or Tom Cruise video.
      • therealgt, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2wait wait Johnny Cochran died? when the ***** was this? holy ***** where have I been living!?!?!
      • BaronVonZ, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3Dear Sir,
        Please enjoy this bury.
        Good day!
        BaronVonZ.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/13/2008, -1/+6Class, this is what a crazy person looks like. Please stay in school
    • PopcornDave, on 04/13/2008, -8/+3Could someone please tell Hillary that Reanimator was only a movie. Give it up already.
    • aUScitizen, on 04/13/2008, -23/+1Let's see.Should the Wicked Witch back down? Or maybe the Antichrist she is campaigning against? Personaly I'd like to see "Hell ary" & "Berzerk Obama" drop off the face of Earth.
    • hauntedchippy, on 04/13/2008, -10/+5Her penis?
    • tyywebb, on 04/13/2008, -3/+2Sounds like an H.P. Lovecraft novel.
    • flink405, on 04/13/2008, -15/+3Gore and Carter: Two of the biggest losers in the Democratic party....
      Carter brought the world Islamic radicalism with his failure in Iran.
      And Gore? He road the coat-tails of the Clintons to the VP office then blew it in his bid for the Presidency. Now he shills the public with his global warming hocus-pocus.
      I hope HIllary goes all the way to the Convention with her bid for the Presidency.
      • imgstacke, on 04/13/2008, -2/+6The CIA brought about the mess in Iran (1953) and the SCOTUS gave Bush the presidency. Grow a brain.
        • aceakm, on 04/13/2008, -3/+2Haha, it baffles me how many ignorant people there are in this world.
      • Eiknujrac, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2"....blew it in his bid for the Presidency."

        You're right, unless you consider who the American people wanted to put in office. If the popular vote decided elections, and not the supreme court, Al Gore would not have "blown it."
  • kwazyhulk, on 04/13/2008, -11/+179It's about time. She's in complete frothing, psycho mode right now trying to gain any sort of traction with the public and media.
    • jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -6/+6Yeah, it's a 3-D monster movie (B-grade, at best.) But I'd actually pay for tickets if the movie was titled the same as this article:

      "It's Obama, stupid: Carter and Gore to end Clinton bid"
      • jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2I'm a little confused by why this was dug down. ....That really is the written title of this article--and I was just saying that I like it.

        whatever.
    • jbenson2, on 04/13/2008, -41/+3No, you have it wrong.
      It is Gore that is in complete frothing, psycho mode right now trying to gain any sort of traction with the public and media.
      • 3HackBug77, on 04/13/2008, -1/+18I like how that holds little to no relevance and is completely inaccurate.
    • plhearn, on 04/13/2008, -2/+5WTF? They are gonna ask her to step down and she'll say no. Why are you guys acting like this is actually gonna change anything?
    • workfaster, on 04/13/2008, -4/+2I hear she's planning to name Lieberman as her running mate...
    • Elissar, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2She's unacustomed to losing, and it is making both her and Bill go into damage control for something they can't stop.
    • xatx2, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1i love those words you used to describe her, nice
  • Enche, on 04/13/2008, -11/+143I wonder what Hilary is thinking. She can't win the nomination at this point, so she's simply hurting her own party.
    • chocobomog, on 04/13/2008, -4/+60She is thinking she has a better chance of winning in 2012 if she sabotages the Democrats in 2008 and McCain wins. If Obama wins 2008, she can't overcome an incumbent president in 2012.
      • qwerter, on 04/13/2008, -3/+23Is she banking on the collective amnesia of the American public? Are we supposed to just forget about her lies and deceit just because it's a new campaign? I don't trust her now, and I doubt I'll trust her four years from now.
        • pintomp3, on 04/13/2008, -1/+27"Is she banking on the collective amnesia of the American public?" i'de say that's a pretty safe bet. most americans still think the terrorists hate our freedoms and don't think our meddling in the middle east, overthrowing over governments, and backing of dictators have anything to do with it. i don't think she really wants to inherit a failed war and sinking economy. whoever takes that on will have a hard time as an incumbant in 2012, they will be blamed for it.
          • netant, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Nixon is the archtype model. He lost against JFK, and he was so unpopular, he even lost his run for CA governor. He withdrew from politics, but came back in 1968, running on the Southern state backlash, and the unpopular Democrat Vietnam War. His Republican opponents weren't savvy enough to overcome Nixon's negatives.
        • bradspangler, on 04/13/2008, -3/+17She's positioning herself to claim after an Obama loss to McCain that the Dems would have won if they had nominated her. It's plausible enough at first glance and who's to say it wouldn't work? To paraphrase P.T. Barnum, nobody ever went broke by overestimating the intelligence of the typical American voter.
          • qwerter, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6We'll see, I guess. But she sure is collecting a lot of animosity from people--the Republicans would jump at the chance to vote against her, and she's earning a lot of ill will from fellow Democrats. She's certainly not making too many friends. Maybe when she loses in 2012 she'll finally get the message.

            I just don't want to waste two elections on her education.
          • cranium, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3Ahem, that's "underestimating", and it's Mencken not Barnum.
          • bradspangler, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2@cranium -- quite right, thanks for the assist
    • jbenson2, on 04/13/2008, -18/+5So she's simply hurting her own party ... and isn't it just wonderful.
    • locojones, on 04/13/2008, -18/+3"She can't win the nomination at this point"

      At this point, neither can Obama, so why doesn't he step down too? That sounds like silly, biased logic to me.
      • Jibberwalk, on 04/13/2008, -0/+5I don't think the point is whether or not either of them have enough delegates at the moment... the point is that Obama still has a chance to mathmatically to win... whereas it is nearly mathmatically impossible for Hillary to win.
      • smackjack, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4No matter how you spin this, Obama will be ahead in everything
      • locojones, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1Thanks to the Obama-heads for digging me down without understanding the substance of my comment. If the argument is "Hillary can't win enough delegates to win the nomination, so she should step down," I was just pointing out that the same argument applies to Obama. Neither candidate will win enough delegates to break the 2025 margin, barring a series of grossly disproportionate wins (like 90-10) in the upcoming states, or revotes in Michigan and Florida. And with both candidates virtually splitting delegates in every state, the mathematical chance might as well be theoretical. That's why there's been so much emphasis put on who the superdelagtes will vote for.
        • netant, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2But Obama will win the superdelegate vote anyway, without Clinton pulling a palace coup.

          Superdelegates will not want to vote against the "popular" voter's choice, even if its by a 1% lead, unless they think Obama is unelectable. And that's just not the case. To vote against a 1% popular voter's majority, will cause a riot in Denver, ala 1968. The record showing by "new' Democrats will be lost. Barring a palace coup or spectacular gaffe on Obama's part, its impossible for them to overcome his 130+ delegate lead, and it will only take one more superdelegate vote over Hillary's total to win the race. It will happen statistically that way, unless there is chicanery.

          Hillary is either too stupid to see she has lost, or she prefers to sabotage the Democratic nominee in order to give her a chance to run in the next election. I don't think Hillary is stupid.
      • Yatata, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1i don't understand these people that say "Obama has no chance" against Mcain - have they been looking at voter turnout numbers? there have been MILLIONS of more voters flooding to the democrats in these primaries alone - the turnout of republican voters has been laughable - but to maintain this air of "competition" the MSM gives you percentage opinions from small swathes of voters with no reflection as to actual party turnout. That's why Romney dropped out - he knows that the republicans actually have NO chance of winning this one. When you have hundreds of thousands of republicans voting in a state primary, compared to MILLIONS in a democratic state primary... it's a hard one to argue that there is a question of democratic defeat. the numbers don't lie.
    • regeya, on 04/13/2008, -1/+8The Clintons aren't known for their class, in case you didn't notice before.
    • CypressQ, on 04/13/2008, -9/+3'she's simply hurting her own party."

      You say that like it's a bad thing
      • apophenic, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1It's time for the Democratic party to dissolve. It's ***** useless.
    • neilapril, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Obama can't win the nomination out right either. It's going to the super-delegates. You know the Party Elite. They are going to pick the next democratic candidate. She is counting on obama screwing up in the end and she can sway the them. It might work.
  • zephyear, on 04/13/2008, -18/+152YES

    GORE ENDORSEMENT

    END THIS
    • mikesbaker, on 04/13/2008, -3/+68don't shout i'm kind of hung over
    • serif69, on 04/13/2008, -8/+33OBAMA IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
      • starkruzr, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7I thought about raging for 9001 nanoseconds, but then I lol'd. Hard.
    • Rambeezle, on 04/13/2008, -36/+5Gore is a droll, undeserving failbot. I don't care who gets the democratic nomination I just hate that sanctimonious *****.
      • brownr21, on 04/13/2008, -8/+11Wtf? Go kill yourself.
        • nonstop87, on 04/13/2008, -11/+3Seriously, I don't mind Gore, but if you're going to say something to an anti-gore person, please have something to help own, don't just go "OMG KILLYOURSELF!"
          • brownr21, on 04/13/2008, -3/+6He's a hero and a great man. If you don't at least see the value of an honest man like Gore, you should do society a favor and kill yourself. Either that or never vote.
          • JMSantos, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1How is he a hero again?
      • dho331, on 04/13/2008, -9/+3why do they always Vote down comments like this. It's 100% accurate, and Digg has too many stupid assholes voting this down.
      • mkling176, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6I bet you think you're cool cause you know words like sanctimonious.
      • NyteStarNyne, on 04/13/2008, -2/+5If it wasn't for Gore there would be no internet for you to troll.
    • kinerry, on 04/13/2008, -13/+6F4T4L1TY
    • wildbillhick, on 04/13/2008, -9/+5telling clinton to step down is not a gore endorsement. it's away of getting back at clinton's zipper for hurting his own bid for the white house.
      • Knikes, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2I think the initial comment was implying that if gore were to endorse Obama it would end the race for sure.
        • wildbillhick, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1what is your textual basis for that interpretation, other than "i think"?
    • mochaman, on 04/13/2008, -2/+11I hate to rain on your parade but she is not going to quit!
      She is not quitting even if Jesus came down to ask her to quit!
      • gwolf, on 04/13/2008, -1/+5Then so be it. This will only help make it even more obvious how selfish and out of touch she really is. If putting your own ambitions above the good of the country isn't the most selfish thing anyone has ever done, tell me what is.
      • MJDub, on 04/13/2008, -5/+2So it seems they called the wrong candidate a Muslim.
    • ModernChem, on 04/13/2008, -15/+3Al gore is a self inflated boob
      • therealgt, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Surely you wouldn't prefer an externally-inflated boob instead?
    • ncrep, on 04/13/2008, -22/+2gore is gay
      and btw global warming does not exist
      • mateoberry, on 04/13/2008, -2/+4you don't exist. buried.
      • Eiknujrac, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2You provide so much convincing evidence, its hard not to agree! Global Warming must be a lie!
    • Herostratos, on 04/13/2008, -6/+3Anything to stop the Obamaspam.
    • Tyrghast, on 04/13/2008, -2/+3Even worse, Jimmy Carter giving someone advice? Buwahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
    • rmxz, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3I was hoping they could get Monica Lewinsky. to give her the message.

      Might get here attention faster than Gore and Carter could.
    • xatx2, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1i guess since gore is on apples board that all macfanboys agree and will vote democrat obama; any other thinking or voting a different way would be hypocritical, no?
    • completerobot, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4FINISH HER
      • droplet, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1that was my exact thought, mortal kombat announcer voice and all..
  • Pherdnut, on 04/13/2008, -26/+8Why would they do this? Carter has already endorsed Obama.
    • aussiejan, on 04/13/2008, -2/+49Carter has not officially endorsed Obama. He said that his entire family was supporting Obama leaving us to assume he was as well. What I think they should do is talk to Clinton together and Gore should say to her, "Hillary you can step down tomorrow, graciously with dignity and fully supporting Senator Obama or the next day President Carter and I will be joined by 50 super delegates on the steps of the Capital Dome to endorse him. You choose."
      • lgm1213, on 04/13/2008, -6/+1and give the presidency to McCain for 8 years and have another Regan like dynasty of several Republican controlled years
        • netant, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Notice how you say "Reagan" like, rather than "Bush" like dynasty.

          And besides, how is it better for me that the President becomes a gibbering vegetable in his second term?
    • mali1, on 04/13/2008, -5/+15Worst Case Scenario for Clinton: If Obama wins then he might get two terms, and his VP might get one or two for himself. Clinton will be senile or dead by then.
      • jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -2/+13...which brings up the best case scenario for Clinton: Obama is bloodied up and loses and she tries again in 2012.
        • OrangeCrush, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Not a great strategy either. The voting public is very unforgiving to failed nominees from contests past.
          • MacEnvy, on 04/13/2008, -0/+5Worked out alright for Nixon ...
          • rottencod, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3Yeah, but Clinton doesn't have as much moral integrity as Nixon had.
          • lgm1213, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1you are blind.
      • djvchris, on 04/13/2008, -0/+16Senile THEN?
      • kreneskyp, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1even if he wins 1 term hillary's chances are over. That means she will be around 70 the next time she can run.
    • jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -1/+10Well, even though Carter hasn't officially endorsed, it would be a whole 'nother ball-o-wax to ask HIllary to step away....And it would be HUGE if Gore an Carter act in concert. (Really, just having Gore throw his hat in is huge--but it'll have to be bigger than Gore to get any reaction out of the Clinton camp.)
      • qwerter, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Can't wait for them to call Gore another Judas. (What's the plural for Judas? Judasses? Judii?)
      • Gabberwok, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3It looks like it would be a 3rd declension noun in Latin, so almost anything, but i'd place my bet on Judates.
    • rahamm, on 04/13/2008, -5/+1Or you made that endorsement up
      • jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Huh?? It was all over the news a week or two ago....and it was expected anyway, as there is NO love lost between Bill and Jimmy.
        • lgm1213, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Carter has NOT endorsed Obama apparently
      • rahamm, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Yah I remember he said I am not endorsing anyone but I am from Georgia where Obama beat Hilary by 30% of the vote so you make your guess. That is not the shinning endorsement Obama wanted. I am right that is not an endorsement people no matter how much you bury me.
    • lgm1213, on 04/13/2008, -3/+2I think its kinda funny that the Candidate that reminds democrats of Carter is being endorsed by Carter. That is not a good thing btw
  • EugineMW, on 04/13/2008, -11/+128I'm a Hillary supporter and I also want her to stop down x.x She's only ruining the democrats chances of winning in November. But then, I have a feeling she wants that to happen if Barack wins the nomination. Oh well, sad. She's losing my confidence badly :(
    • zspade, on 04/13/2008, -1/+25At this point I'm surprised she has any left with anyone. I didn't hate her at the beginning of this election. I was honestly having a hard time trying to decide based on policies who to vote for. That said, she has nothing short of bring me, and a sizable portion of the American population to loathe and distrust her.
      • Codeblew, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2A sizable portion of the population loathed and despised her 8-16 years ago. We knew she was evil then.
      • imgstacke, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Half of the Democrats Hate her, and all of the Republicans Hate her. That's about 3/4 of the electorate.
    • byrdgang, on 04/13/2008, -24/+2It's my policy on Digg to digg down a comment made by a Clinton supporter regardless of whether that comment is critical of Clinton or not.
    • OutThisLife, on 04/13/2008, -4/+7I'm surprised you aren't getting Dugg down by people who happen to be closed minded.
      Bravo, Digg!
    • galewgleason, on 04/13/2008, -6/+1Identifying yourself on the opposition (weather you are or not) does not bolster the creditability of your statements.
      Just take out the "I'm a Hillary supporter and I also want her to stop down" part and your post valid (though not that original) but diggable.
    • d3mag0gu3, on 04/13/2008, -9/+1Are you a Hillary supporter or a filthy scum obamabot masquerading as a "hillary supporter"? Considering that Obama and Hillary are basically TIED. Why do you want Hillary to quit, but not Obama. Obama CAN'T win without support of the super delegates either just like Hillary. Also, Obama LOST NY, California, Texas, Ohio, NJ not to mention Michigan and Florida and soon Pennsylvannia. You are not going to win the election without these states cause the general election doesn't have "caucuses" where a vocal minority can take over an election. And if you lousy mindless obamabots really wanted change, you would've supported RP. But since the MSM didn't support RP and instead made Obama the "cool" choice, you idiotic ***** are supporting him. Obamabots FTW!
      • imgstacke, on 04/13/2008, -1/+4Psycho ^^
      • jmizzle7, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2Yes "tied". In the same way any 2 million vote lead can mean the candidates are tied. So, while Obama did win a very large number of caucuses, let's not forget that he also completely destroyed Hillary after Super Tuesday. Just because Obama didn't win a state in a primary, doesn't mean he is going to lose it during the election. California hasn't voted Republican since 1988, and there's no way they're changing this year.

        It's crazy ignorant fools like you that should have their voting rights taken away.
      • branekancer, on 04/13/2008, -1/+0You're accusing other people of being mindless when you are just regurgitating the "big state" talking point? Right. So, in the general election McCain would win NJ, NY or CA? and Hillary would win TX? And it's good of you not to mention Michigan and Florida because the other candidates did not campaign there.
    • branekancer, on 04/13/2008, -1/+0You're accusing other people of being mindless when you are just regurgitating the "big state" talking point? Right. So, in the general election McCain would win NJ, NY or CA? and Hillary would win TX? And it's good of you not to mention Michigan and Florida because the other candidates did not campaign there.
      • branekancer, on 04/13/2008, -1/+0hey! i did not submit this comment! i swear. digg me down.
    • joeanon, on 04/13/2008, -4/+1It's the democrats like you that are hypersensitive and controlled by the media that are the problem.

      Hilary is free to run and is a reasonable opponent.
      Obviously, you ONLY step down after a round of loses, not while tied.

      It wouldn't be smart for her to back down.

      AND if the Dem's chances of winning are SO WEAK they require Hilary to step down to make Obama appear stronger... we are better off riding out the storm than giving in to the media.

      You're being TOLD by the MEDIA that this hurts your general election chances and you MINDLESSLY believe it.

      The national polls are TOTAL BS until October or so when we are on the verge of a general election.

      These same polls your BASING your ENTIRE FEAR DRIVEN MINDSET off are the SAME POLLS that shows Hilary up double digits.

      STOP AND THINK people. It's a free open election for anyone who gets the public attention.

      You slander Hilary enough she might just run as an independent and then McCain will win.

      However, a win for McCain is still a win for the democrats. Just as electing Bush ultimately GAVE power to the democrats.


      McCain is just sinking deeper into the hole for the GOP.

      Dems are in a WIN WIN position and the MEDIA is ***** itself trying to convince you otherwise.


      GROW A PAIR PEOPLE and let Hilary do her thing. That's freedom.

      Using the internet and your limited personal views as a way to lobby against freedom is counter productive to the democratic process.

      You must be confident in democracy and not fear the media.

      Those asking Hilary to step down do so OUT OF FEAR.

      Just grow up, take a deep breathe and realize it's a free country.

      Cheney could jump in the election as an Independent. No one really knows what's going to happen yet. It's NOT EVEN JUNE and you political newbies think the election is over.

      The saddest part of this isn't Hilary sticking with her run. It's the spineless whimpering nature of desperate Democrats.

      If you party had ANY STRENGTH you'd allow a free choice system to happen without lobbying against her through grassroots and internet efforts.


      Just look at it this way. The GOP are the ones pushing this fantasy that Hilary's hurting the race.

      Do you really think they would be saying that if it were true ?

      NOOOOO, McCain can't even BUY PRESS with the Dems in the spotlight. Competition is healthy. IT WILL BE OK PEOPLE.

      You can't ask for more choices every year... and then in the face of choice then say OH NO choices hurt our ability to be hive minded.

      Think about it in the bigger picture. not just simply what the media and GOP is telling you. This is just another method of fear mongering.

      In the end... NONE of this changes people's ideals enough that they would vote for McCain over Hilary or Obama.

      SURE people will say that out of spite, but like their political leaders... they are all liars.

      Obama, the snowflake of civil rights leadership VOTED FOR THE PATRIOT ACT... twice.
      His Health Care plan doesn't add up AND EVERYONE is saying so... not just the GOP and Hilary, but democrats from all corners.

      Most of you are blinded by the media's bombardment of misinformation and sensational journalism.

      The Clinton's did JUST SO HAPPEN to run the nation during the LONGEST PERIOD OF ECONOMIC EXPANSION IN US HISTORY.

      We should AT LEAST, be honest and admit the real facts. Hilary could most likely beat McCain fairly easily once they were paired against each other and not a three way race. National polls cannot be relied upon fully, they vary in accuracy by double digits at times.

      At this point McCain is more or less an unknown in this race. Most people know he is in politics... somewhere and they MIGHT know he was in a POW camp... but that's about it.

      When it comes general election time the DNC will release all their anti-McCain ads at once and it will be more effective.

      The dems are HOLDING back the GOP propaganda machine because the GOP doesn't have a strategy for a extended primary... except to say THEY THINK it will hurt.

      Yeah I'm SO SURE the GOP and Rush are giving the Dems valid advice on how to beat them.

      The TRUTH IS the GOP would ***** ITSELF if the Dems got a dual ticket with either Hilary or Gore.

      You don't have to like it, but that would make the Obama administration that much more powerful and obviously Hilary has the support more than Gore... though persnoally I'd prefer Gore's more technical and environmental knowledge. On the flip side..> Hilary is the ONLY one WHO EVER OFFERED us National Health Care.... and we laughed her off... just like now.

      I think she is more out of touch than Obama, but all in all they are ALL wealthy people with little in common with the working class.

      All in ALL NONE of them are offering any real solutions.. no national health care... NO national education... NO major energy policy reform... NO major election reform... NO real ideas to MAKE THE CHANGE they preach about.

      That's why allowing the race to play out is better... The competition DRIVES innovative ideas IT keep Obama looking for THAT EDGE that he is honestly lacking.

      Without Hilary we would have NOTHING but two polarized views.

      Don't you see... When Obama says politics need to change.. HE MEANS THIS KIND OF STUFF.

      You don't just love one side and hate the other.

      The REASON there is diversity in politics is BECAUSE NO ONE PERSON HAS THE ANSWERS nor can they be relied upon to provide unbiased leadership. Diversity is a good thing.

      The GOP wouldn't tell you that Hilary is hurting Obama's general election chances... if it were true... WOULD THEY...

      WOULD THEY ?

      THINK FOR YOURSELF>..

      Remember what Obama said..... STOP WATCHING CABLE NEWS !! The media is driving a wedge in the democratic party and the DEM voters are too daft to notice.

      WAKE UP !!! Competition is good.. Hilary is a powerful a proven democrat WHO HAS BEEN FIGHTING Bush and the GOP for a decade.

      Obama ONLY stopped taking PAC money for THIS ELECTION. He has taken PAC in all his other elections. That is called a POLITICAL PLOY. He makes Hilary look like the old guard more so by opting out of PAC.. this time.

      Obama is no FDR... he has not suffered polio and depression and learned to WALK AGAIN and rising up to be President and the greatest leader for the working class ever.

      Obama's life has been a fairy tale where all his dreams have come true.

      It's good he sides with the working class to a degree, but he is not EVER been tested by hard times... not EVER in his life have things really gone wrong for him.

      He is young and highly successful... head of his class at Harvard and chose to work as a civil rights lawyer.
      Good things sure... but he didn't educate himself and rise against all odd like Lincoln.

      With the PEOPLE, Obama can be great, but on his own... he has not made the speech that rings throughout history, he has not introduce the reform that provides working class equality.

      You should HOLD Obama to the level of his true accomplishments, not exaggerate him. You should LEARN MORE about him as I have done and LEARN more about the great presidents in history and what shaped them to be that great.

      Hilary deserves a level of respect that the undereducated and zealous voters are simply not providing. Doing so is an insult to democracy and insult to her fight against the GOP and ultimately an insult to your own comprehension of current events.

      It's an insult to me... to have to be a citizen of such an undereducated nation. Just as the public who allowed McCarthyism I'm ashamed of many of your neo-con .. or truly fascist like strategies.

      You've embraced propaganda, disinformation, sensationalism, nationalism, totalitarianism.

      And now you THINK YOU KNOW about politics..

      Please... your the same people that sat still while they passed the Patriot Act. YOU DON'T KNOW JACK.

      The Founding Father's were elitists people. There is a GREAT REASON to follow the advice of those VASTLY more education than yourself.

      You don't truthfully have the capacity to make the best long term decision in general.. that's why YOU RELY on representation via wealthy elites. Lawyers, doctors, judges. You don't elect plumbers to congress.

      You don't fully understand the realities you live in, you don't have the perspective to know if you need a civil rights layers for a President or a poker player.

      You can't know, you can only believe the limited BS they feed you.
      You''re too busy slandering Hilary to ask questions that matter.

      The reality is.. the solutions to the recession, to medical costs, to energy costs.. are all simple.
      If Obama was half the leader you think he COULD BE he SHOULD know these solutions..

      But how can he..... He is just a lawyer. Harvard or not... just a lawyer same as Hilary.
      He is certainly not the "Philosopher King" you are hoping for... if you even know what I mean.

      The problem is your all pretty ***** STUPID.

      Who thinks the public isn't stupid ?

      Even the public thinks the public is stupid.

      And that makes them THAT MUCH easier to control.. which sadly is the one important truth they fail to see.

      You over passionate support of Obama's lack of mistakes is NOT a true qualification or testament of his superior performance to be as President.

      You will get MORE, by allowing the competition to continue. When Hilary drops out, the debate will become one sided and polarized.

      Hilary allows Dems unhappy with Obama's lack of solutions to express themselves more than admitting that they have no other choice but to vote for Obama.

      Candidate diversity is EXACTLY what the nation needs. I'm sure even Obama would agree to that. Perhaps Hilary isn't the best choice, since she in some abstract way represent the old guard.

      Though that is simply not accurate since in the last 30 years or so we've ONLY had ONE democratic administration and IT DID FREAKING GREAT. Economic stats under the Clinton's are simply unmatched, at least in modern history. Go to google and run the stock market back to 1970 and watch the little line nearly going vertical under the Clintons..

      See these things I weave into my conversations... They are called facts and I see them rarely used in these Obama vs Hilary contests.

      You don't have to SLANDER Hilary to say Obama is better... do you ?

      If you do, then you can't truly be part of the platform of change because though you support Obama, you are not embracing his message THAT POLITICS MUST CHANGE.

      That doesn't just mean Hilary has to change. It means YOU need to change, YOU need to force the media to change, YOU need to inform your friends and family of the FACTS... The facts you likely didn't bother to learn before forming your opinion.

      How will Obama enact change. Lets start forcing that issue.
      How does Hilary's health care plan truly compare to Obama's... we NEED facts and honest analysis, but the reality is the media has their own agenda and most of you get your facts straight from CNN and other highly biased sources.

      Compare and Contrast people... you MAY have learned about it in college, but that's right... most of you didn't go.


      • LemurDaddy, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2You were doing pretty well until you decided to end by insulting your audience. Unless you can do that and be very, very funny, not a good road to take. Buried.
  • lhbaker, on 04/13/2008, -14/+200I liked Hillary early on, but mostly because my life was pretty excellent when Bill was President. But the truth is, Obama is a LOT more like Bill Clinton that Hillary ever will be.

    P.S. Digg: Please add the word Obama to the spell checker.
    • peestandingup, on 04/13/2008, -4/+24The fact is, many people think like that & are Hilary supporters BECAUSE she is a Clinton. So they think its the next best thing to getting Bill again, which is ***** retarded. She's a Clinton by MARRIAGE only.
      • serif69, on 04/13/2008, -5/+9If you can imagine, the reason I've been against her from the beginning is because she's a Clinton. Those of us who really didn't like Bill saw what the Clinton style of politics is like well before she started her campaign of craziness.
    • rahamm, on 04/13/2008, -4/+8Bill was a red democrat lets be serious Obama is more like a Jimmy Carter who I liked ALOT personally.
      • jackalsclaw, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2Jimmy carter didn't do to good as a president.
        • DephexTwin, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Do to good as you would have good do to you.
      • rahamm, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1He did just what he said he would do not his fault he kept his word to the American people if only all leaders were so honest.
    • Gabberwok, on 04/13/2008, -0/+9As long as it doesn't correct Obama to Osama I'm happy.
    • loconet, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3>P.S. Digg: Please add the word Obama to the spell checker

      Get Firefox, it has its own spell checker (with red underlines on errors) and you can add your own words to the dict.
      • bsmang, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1I was gonna say -- who the hell uses an "extra-step" spell checker any more?
    • floor, on 04/13/2008, -5/+2Yea, my life was better back then too, but it had a lot more to do with a Republican Congress and a moderate Democrat President.

      Obama is a nice enough guy, but this is not the time to put a far left winger like him in the White House. The House & Senate will stay in dem control, so the best bet is a moderate President and that would be McCain. Reid is pretty shifty and Pelosi is a complete whacko; they had best be balanced out for the overall direction of the federal government to keep anywhere near in line with mainstream America.
      • bsmang, on 04/13/2008, -2/+3You call "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" moderate? Yowza...
        • floor, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1If it turns out as well as President Reagan's "The bombing starts in 5 minutes..." then, yea.
      • precision256, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Wait ... so instead of electing a leftist to swing policy back to the center you'd be satisfied with a moderate purporting more of the same ineptitude? I completely disagree.
    • Liability, on 04/13/2008, -2/+3When it comes to re-instituting the draft and continuing a protracted, unwinnable war ad-infinitum McCain's not moderate at all.
      • floor, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Isn't Charley Rangel (Dem NY) the only one asking for a draft?
        • precision256, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2McCain's a pretty extreme nationalist he'd sign it as soon as he could.
  • kinseyincanada, on 04/13/2008, -28/+5but she still has a chance right guys?
    • michael532111, on 04/13/2008, -2/+13No, she doesn't.
    • 5suki, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1If you weren't kidding...uh yeah, maybe of being hit by lightning WAY before ever winning this nomination.
    • vault, on 04/13/2008, -1/+8Hillary is unlikely to secure enough delegates to cinch the nomination but this could still go to convention, and you never know what will happen with superdelegates. Just saying...

      Read up on Whitewater if you want to see a small sample of the shady ***** the Clintons have been involved in.
      • SargedeathXmode, on 04/13/2008, -3/+2And the only reason the Clintons have all this "*****" on them is because they've been politicians for quite some time. A new politician like Barrack doesn't have enough public years on him for some "*****" to cling on or become known. Of course, one can say Barrack may not end up as a shady politician like every other politician before him, but lets just say they have history against them.
        • theaceoffire, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Oh, and the constant lying on videotape by the Clintons has been a bad choice as well.
    • cheezintern, on 04/13/2008, -1/+16If Obama went live on national television and stated that he was a communist and wished to make America a communist nation, and then McCain went on television right after and said he endorses Obama's communist ideals and wished to take part....then yes, Hillary still has a chance.
    • runCMD, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1Neither has a chance of getting enough committed delegates before the convention. So - the contest is currently undecided. Asking either viable candidate to step down would toll the death knoll for the 'democratic' democratic party. This contest isn't over until the votes are counted. Hillary Clinton has already said she's not backing down - Obama has said the same. So - the ride continues. Sweet.
      • starkruzr, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3Uh. No, it wouldn't sound the death knell. It would say "the Democratic Party wants to move forward with this now instead of prolonging the inevitable." Look at the math before you say things like this.
        • runCMD, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Everyone who looks at the math says that neither candidate has the delegates to win. so - quickly now, take another look yourself. This aint over, whooppeeee! : )
  • emcc24, on 04/13/2008, -7/+44Sounds awfully like pure speculation. But damn it's some nice sounding speculation.
  • protodon, on 04/13/2008, -27/+411I hope it starts out: " Listen Bitch..."
    • SpectreFire, on 04/13/2008, -3/+64And ends with "... and ***** you!"
      • tyywebb, on 04/13/2008, -1/+9"...and the horse you rode in on!"
        • Netrilix, on 04/13/2008, -0/+13Hey, no need to bring Bill into this.
    • 335io07, on 04/13/2008, -6/+15I really LOL'd at this one. hahaha
    • runCMD, on 04/13/2008, -2/+6You'z guys are pathetic. : ) In the best possible meaning of that word.
    • tabularassa, on 04/13/2008, -3/+31And ends with "... in the butt!"
    • 4321234, on 04/13/2008, -11/+12"Hillary, you ignorant slut......"
    • morpheousx, on 04/13/2008, -12/+1LMFAOO AWWW MAN,THIS IS FUNNY ON SO MANY LEVELS ^_^
      • rickytan, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3Seriously? Just browsing through these comments you're the second person posting anime smileys from 1997. ^_^ GTFO.
    • Elissar, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2Yes, exactly where we need to go with it...
    • robthom, on 04/13/2008, -4/+4Dugg! Lol!
    • Westford, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0First it wasn't that funny to me.

      But then you imagine Al Gore actually saying that lol.
  • ChaosProfessor, on 04/13/2008, -24/+29i really do hear that she has a snuke in her snizz
    • arbouler, on 04/13/2008, -1/+12why the ***** did people dig you down for that priceless south park quote???
      • starkruzr, on 04/13/2008, -0/+9I don't know, but I just did my part to fix it.
      • renegadeafk, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Are you crazy? I'm not sending any of my men in there!
  • 89vision, on 04/13/2008, -4/+17Somehow I doubt this.
    • GODdestroyer, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0I don't think this is a reliable source. I Googled it, it seems conjured.

      OBAMA WINS ANYWAY!!!
  • Joshuarr, on 04/13/2008, -27/+76I am an Obama supporter, and I want her to step down too. BUT I think publicly asking her to step down is an insult to the democratic process. Obama is only 5.7% ahead, according to real clear politics, and up by 136 delegates. This is one of the closest races in history. I hate Hillary as much as everyone else, and I think she is a lying sycophant, but if the standings were reversed and people were calling for Obama to step down, I'd be pissed.

    "Obama has an ALMOST unassailable lead in the battle for nomination delegates,"


    • armynixon, on 04/13/2008, -3/+43I'm sympathetic to the view that the process should be allowed to play out, but consider this: If TV networks were counting ballots and Candidate A led Candidate B by 5.7% with 83% of the vote in, they would call it for candidate A.

      • Cattywampus, on 04/13/2008, -7/+5TV networks are always facing competitive pressure to be the first to break a story, so they call an election for a candidate as soon as they possibly can.

        Fortunately, TV networks are not running the elections. On second thought, the networks probably couldn't do any worse than the elections people in Florida and some other states...
        • jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -2/+14TV networks are not running the elections?

          ???
        • Cattywampus, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1No, your local election commission is. TV networks certainly have a big influence on reporting on them, but they are not at the polling place, checking my name and address, running the voting machine, etc.
      • theone3, on 04/13/2008, -0/+5There is an important statistical difference. In an election, you can assume the vote count is a random sampling of 100% of the votes. During the race, circumstances and votes may change. If voting periods in elections lasted for three months, calling the election after votes had been taken but before all ballots have been counted would be very different to ending the election early.
      • JSager, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Yeah, like when they called Florida for Gore. Oh, wait...
    • jbenson2, on 04/13/2008, -13/+3Does not matter who has the lead. Let them fight it out and burn off their money before the general election. It makes for great theater.
      • CypressQ, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1The Democratic party IS great theater!
    • seasleepy, on 04/13/2008, -0/+285.7% and 136 delegates may not sound like much, but it honestly is pretty much insurmountable at this point. Hillary would have to win every state from here on out by something like 70% to 30%, which she's never come close to in any contest thus far. And if she fails to get that in PA, there aren't really any large states delegate-wise left for her to make up that deficit.
      • Coven, on 04/13/2008, -0/+9Actually, she managed a >30% win in Arkansas. But then again, its Arkansas...She couldnt even break 60% in New York!
    • Knikes, on 04/13/2008, -3/+32The thing is, if Obama were in Hillary's position right now I truly believe he would have stepped down by now. He seems like he would want whats best for his country and his party, unlike Hilldog over there.....

      But honestly, if Obama had lost 11 states in a row, do you think the media would be treating him the same way? The media would have killed him off months ago.
    • pintomp3, on 04/13/2008, -1/+10i agree. she shouldn't have to step down, just cut out the negative attacks.
    • maelstromwar, on 04/13/2008, -1/+5Dugg for proper use of sycophant.
    • ruyen, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Obama would have dropped out already and recognized that he would only be hurting the party as this point. Plus he wouldn't stoop to negative campaigning, which is almost always required to win if you're behind like this.
    • precision256, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1It's not so bad because they get so much more free news and campaign coverage because they're doing a lot more than McCain.
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/13/2008, -42/+8Wow, if this is going to come from those two largre than life douches I hope she stays in until August.
    • cheezintern, on 04/13/2008, -6/+14personally, i'm voting for the turd sandwich.
    • SaperKain, on 04/13/2008, -2/+1Why you are such a pest? Why can’t just stop pissing people off all the time.
      • cheezintern, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1watch south park, i.e. the giant douche and turd sandwich episode.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/13/2008, -3/+1I wonder the same thing about most other diggers.
  • kithogan, on 04/13/2008, -43/+6Gore and Carter are HUGE losers....alk about lack of character...still, anything that stops the Clinton machine and keeps Bill out of the White House is fine by me.
    • HCviolence, on 04/13/2008, -1/+7His name is Jimmy and he likes to shimmy. Break it down.
    • peestandingup, on 04/13/2008, -2/+8Cant be too big of a loser. He did win the popular vote & probably the presidency as well.
      • imgstacke, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Both of them won the Nobel Prize. How many Presidents or VP's have accomplished that?
  • scairborn, on 04/13/2008, -1/+46I'll believe it when I see it.
  • jbenson2, on 04/13/2008, -41/+7Carter and Gore are as useless as ***** on a bull. There is no way Hillary will step down now, especially after Obama's fiasco in San Francisco just days before the Pennsylvania primary.
  • ginestony, on 04/13/2008, -7/+16Jesus Harold Christ on a rubber crutch! It's about time!!
    • serif69, on 04/13/2008, -1/+8I always thought that H was his middle name, kinda like Harry S Truman.
    • Gemfinder, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Dugg for adding another item to my "creative 'Jesus Christ' oaths" repertoire...
    • GeoffChang, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1You really had to mention the crutch. Real classy, dude.
  • Xihix, on 04/13/2008, -37/+7Who the ***** cares what they say? Look, Obama fans... You need to learn some party rules. Clinton and Obama have just about the same chances of winning the nomination. Fact is, there is much more to delegates than some numbers you hear on the television. I don't even feel like elaborating, but expect to see some freaky ***** happen at the national convention.
    • azpat, on 04/13/2008, -4/+5Bring it on! If some "freaky *****" happens at the convention the Democratic Party will die that day.
      • Xihix, on 04/13/2008, -4/+3Bring it on? There's not much to bring on, and it's not like it hasn't happened before. Look at the 1932 Democratic convention.
    • onetimer, on 04/13/2008, -5/+18Maybe delegate counts and momentum don't matter to those in ron-paulitie fantasy land, but everyone else in reality watching knows there is only a very remote chance hillary could somehow make a comeback at this point.

      You are mistaken if you think they have the "same chance" just because they're both in the race still...
      • Xihix, on 04/13/2008, -14/+2Jesus Christ dude. Learn a little about politics. And that doesn't mean listen to some commenter on CNN. I honestly don't even know how to respond to this comment without strangling you.
        • onetimer, on 04/13/2008, -2/+13Well, a good start would be learning to reply without invoking a pseudo-intellectually-snobbish comment that implied that I MUST get my news from CNN. I mean, we can't ALL get our news of lewrockwell.com, right? (oops! See what I did there?)

          strangling?

          Ah... ♥♥♥ (yes I'm a little tipsy right now)
        • cheezintern, on 04/13/2008, -3/+6Hillary's double digit lead several weeks ago is now a statistical tie in PA. So yes, technically they have the same chance, however momentum is an important thing in politics.
        • Xihix, on 04/13/2008, -11/+1I actually don't even know what the hell Lew Rockwell is, and I'm not even sure even after Googling it. Anyway, how about you take that head thats out of your ass, and use it to learn what I mentioned earlier, party rules? See, if you did, you could actually probably help your beloved candidate win. It's what the Paul supporters are doing.
        • Xihix, on 04/13/2008, -8/+1Cheez... Thats not what I'm even talking about... Ugh, there's no sense in talking to you people. The most you know about politics, as it seems, is just the surface. Basically, you see a candidate, and start liking them, support them, though you probably don't know how, for example, county conventions or state conventions work.
        • onetimer, on 04/13/2008, -1/+13You see, you're under the assumption the EVEN IF Obama had a majority of pledged delegates, popular vote, and most likely by Denver, the majority of super delegates, that clinton would somehow snake away with the nomination.

          Yes, I saw your FDR '32 example; but it's kind of an irrelevant comparison in the modern age of 24 hr news media (I'm not even sure WHY you're making the comparison; FDR won the majority of primaries in '32) The dems aren't as stupid as you think; they know in a scenario like the one I outlined, that nominating hillary would be political suicide at this point.

          The thing is, you still haven't EXPLAINED what you think is going to happen and why. They have an "equal chance" of winning in the same sense that the Heat would have of beating the Hornets. You keep deflecting with comments like "i'm not even going to explain" or "I want to strangle you" (why so violent dude? it's the internet)

          I don't recall mentioning that Obama was my candidate either. You don't need to support him to see the writing on the wall for Hillary.

          Paul can't win at this point, and even his supporters know that. That's why digg isn't being inundated with "ron paul took a *****" articles anymore.

          I would LOVE a civil response from you, if you're even capable.
        • jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -1/+10Please enlighten me. I'm a precinct chair in MN--and I was a delegate to my county convention. What is this amazing info you know? Please provide details and enlighten us instead of just calling us *****.

          What you need to know is that in today's info-era, backroomdealing will not stand in this presidential nomination race. If it does, the democratic party will be obliterated, complete implosion. ...And that final outcome is what all the backroomdealers (except the Clintons, of course) fear the most.

          Believing that this will not be a backroom ***** does not make a person uninformed or stupid, it makes them logical.
        • ssn697, on 04/13/2008, -1/+5Amazing work, Xihix. You managed to post absolutely NOTHING of substance in this thread, while bitching that other people "just don't understand".

          Congratulations. You win douche of the week! You slid in just under the wire...
    • Infidelcastr0, on 04/13/2008, -3/+4If the rest of the primaries from here on out go 50-50, Obama wins. Throw in a couple small Clinton victories, Obama wins, and besides Obama will definitely win a few of em and he has gained a lot of ground in Pennsylvania. The best she can hope for is a stalemate. In which case she tries to mess with the super delegates at the convention. Which shes pretty much said she'll do. If she somehow pulls that off the Democratic party is screwed and the Neocons get to spend four more years trashing our once great country while the rest of the world laughs at us.
      • Xihix, on 04/13/2008, -6/+1God damn it, the fact none of you realize what I'm talking about makes me so damn angry. Winning primaries won't guarantee you the delegates in that state. Not by far. If you wish to learn, do what I already suggested: learn your party's rules.
        • jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6I tried to respond civilly and logically. I'm extremely familiar with the party rules for my state--which is where my delegates are chosen.

          Noone is saying that it's "technically impossible" for Hillary to go nuclear and 'create' a way to win this thing. (This would include your suggestion that delegates don't necessarily have to match up with the primary results.)

          If you're upset because you think noone sees this 'technical' scenario, chill. I think everyone would concede it's technically possible--in fact, the media concedes this point **every day** that they continue to cover this race as if it's actually still 'close'.

          But along with rules and technicalities comes logic.
          And logic says (as I pointed out previously) that Hillary won't be able to overturn the will of the voters. The only way for her to do it is to ask the party heavyweights to help murder the party--along with all of it's associated politicians currently holding office. Logic wins over rules/technicalities: why would they want a complete party implosion?

          Now stop bothering diggers with 'learn your party's rules' comments. If you want to spar about rules, come right and say what's on your mind.
        • starkruzr, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2I know what you're saying. Faithless delegates are as much of a problem as faithless electors -- which is to say, not very, because they face dire repercussions if they go against the will of their constituency.
    • Gabberwok, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2We're not worried about the primary - Obama will win. We're worried about what Clinton will do to his general election chances in the meantime. That's what the superdelegates are thinking about too....
  • onetimer, on 04/13/2008, -6/+42A Gore endorsement is veritably the most coveted endorsement a democratic candidate can hope to get.

    Hillary will barely scrape by in PA, and will be CRUSHED in NC (I'm talking 15-20 pts from what i've seen around here)

    If this is true, she's done.
    • Gemfinder, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3The way things are going, she's going to get squashed here in Oregon, too.
  • dho331, on 04/13/2008, -34/+0Yay! I'm so glad the other retard who has an IQ of 69 is beating this one with an IQ of 42! :)
    • LilBoyLuver, on 04/13/2008, -0/+16Yeah those ***** Yale and Harvard grads with their low IQs
      • dho331, on 04/13/2008, -13/+0IQs don't mean *****.
        • cyrix, on 04/13/2008, -1/+10Yet you made that the main focus of your initial post. Hypocrite much?
        • Gabberwok, on 04/13/2008, -3/+2Honestly, neither does a degree from Harvard or Yale. Some very smart people go there, but some very stupid people go there as well.
        • JavanSClark, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Which completely explains why you didn't go there right Gabberwok? You're so much smarter than everyone else.
      • Jawoodyablowme, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1If you're a legacy or Mommy and Daddy donate $$$, you can be a retard and get into Harvard or Yale, like, well, Bush.
  • whatthefu, on 04/13/2008, -3/+7The picture in the article is hilarious.
  • azpat, on 04/13/2008, -5/+10She might be viable against McCain, but the longer this goes on the more I don't want her as President. It's been downright scary. I'm talking George Bush scary. We know how that turned out. In 2000 I thought it would either be McCain or Gore, and both weren't too appealing but Bush was scary. Right now we have McCain, Obama or Clinton, and one of them scares the hell out of me.
    • CypressQ, on 04/13/2008, -8/+3You're exactly right. Obama scares the ***** out of me!
    • bsmang, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2I would have to rate McCain just as scary as Hillary... Maybe even moreso as his IQ seems similar to Bush's.
  • kevinsand, on 04/13/2008, -14/+3Does no one remember 93-01 we already know what kind of president Hillary will be. she was already acting as president when Bill was too busy with Monica to do the whole president thing!

    Life is a Bitch!
    Don't Vote For One!
    • azpat, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3It's that kind of language that gives the extreme feminists ammo for arguing that Obama is only winning because we're a sexist nation.
      • therealgt, on 04/13/2008, -1/+0You may be right. Who wants their wife for a president anyhow? I wouldn't trust my wife with running the damn country, I don't see it faring too well for men in the long run. Scary thought, but true.
    • lgm1213, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1I remember that time from om January 20, 1993 - January 20, 2001 with a balanced budget, a surplus, creation of 22.5 million jobs, unemployment at 4 % the lowest ever in US history and was under 5% for 40 consecutive months, 67.7 % homeowner ship another record in history, bringing 7 million people out of poverty from the previous administration, and the lowest amount of people enrolled in welfare since 1969, Approved bills like the Family Medical Leave Act and increased the minimum wage. So your saying since she was incharge she is responsible for this. and Not to vote for her because of it. I think i might do the opposite and vote for her because of it
  • brion182, on 04/13/2008, -14/+5Gore? who dragged the country through a protracted recount in lieu of doing the right thing and do what was good for the country and his party and concede. Carter, well the worst president of my generation. Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment. No matter how bad they are trying to convince you the economy is, its nothing compared to life under the Carter administration.
    • Cattywampus, on 04/13/2008, -1/+5The inflation was not all Carter's fault, it was already a big problem when he took office. Surely you remember Gerald Ford and his "WIN" buttons ("Whip Inflation Now")?

      And It's certainly not the fault of Carter, or Ford, that the Arab countries decided to stage an oil boycott.
      • lgm1213, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Its America's fault, and since he was America's leader it was up to him to do something about it which he didn't do well.
        • Cattywampus, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1You could just as easily say inflation was Ford's problem, and it's his fault for not doing more to solve it during his administration.

          Inflation, recession, etc. often happen due to economic cycles... being the president of the U.S. doesn't automatically mean having the power to change economic trends. Weren't other countries having similar problems? Can't blame a U.S. president for that.
        • JavanSClark, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1No no.. he would rather hide his head in the sand and spout nonsense.
        • Jawoodyablowme, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Exactly. And don't forget folks, back then we were even more dependent on oil than we are now - believe it or not.
          Just watch the economy over next few months. This high price of oil is going to really kick our asses along with the credit and housing crunch.
          But hey, this is Digg: we can't let the facts or rational argument get in the way of jingoism, mindless rhetoric, and just plain partisan nonsense lifted from the left and right wing media nutjobs out there.
    • Malarie, on 04/13/2008, -3/+4Heh, you have the intelligence of a Sandwich. Its clear the elections were stolen back in 2000. Its pathetic to think otherwise. If you are certain your elections were not stolen, then you are absolute morons to choose this facist instead of a nobel prize winner as your president.
      • brion182, on 04/13/2008, -4/+3I'm no Bush fan but it is a proven fact that he won that very close election after many recounts by newspapers after the fact have proven that out and journalist who covered the US supreme court have stated that the supreme court halted the Florida recounts because they believed the Florida supreme court was trying to steal the election for Gore. If Gore would have just conceded early on I believe he could have ran again in 2004 and won.
        • lgm1213, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2Bush did not win FL. I live in FL and newspapers like the Miami Herald who did recounts would disagree with you and say that Gore won the popular vote.
        • JavanSClark, on 04/13/2008, -2/+3Bush didn't win. It's Widely known. Republican insiders publicly admit that fact. Why can't you?
      • proliance, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3Bush won the recounts. All of them. Gore kept suing for recounts ONLY in counties where the majority of voters were registered Democrats. Gore's performance was a scam and a national shame. If he wanted a true recount he could have asked for a recount of the entire state, but he didn't.

        What the Supreme Court did was to tell him to sit down, shut up and accept the consequences of a close election that he lost fair and square, instead of trying to cheat and steal the election by choosing recounts in areas favorable to him, and denying recounts of the ballots of all the people
        • Eiknujrac, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1If by "Fair and Square" you mean, "you won the popular vote but lost the election overall," then yes he did lose fair and square.
    • brownr21, on 04/13/2008, -2/+4Umm... you mean Gore held on to the hope of a great America instead of a ***** up mess? He got more people to vote for him than bush, and bush cheated!
    • Infidelcastr0, on 04/13/2008, -3/+5Nixon/Ford caused a bunch of problems and passed em on to Carter, Carter fixed them, Reagan took the credit. Regan/Bush created more problems, Bill Clinton fixed them, The Neocons and then Hillary took the credit.
      • brion182, on 04/13/2008, -4/+2"Carter fixed them, Reagan took the credit" have you ever heard of trickle down economics or Reganomics? That is how this country recovered from the disaster that was Jimmy Carter.
        • Infidelcastr0, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2Oh you mean lowering taxes, increasing spending, and borrowing money? Yea that works.... It's workin really well right now under dubya, our economy's never been better. IT WAS CARTER THAT FIXED PROBLEMS HE INHERITED, Reagan simply reaped the benefits of Carter and Volcker's measures to fight inflation.
          • brion182, on 04/13/2008, -2/+2Inflation rose each year Jimmy Carter held office. In 1980 inflation and interest rates were both beyond 18%! His forth year in office!! He was with out a doubt the worst president of the 20Th century.
          • JavanSClark, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3Stop it. You're repeating the old Right Wing Line: Take credit for everything the other guy does. In two years, this very same ***** will be on digg, telling us the economic mess was in no way related to the current administrations policies, and it's all Obama or Hillary's fault... somehow...

            Lets get one thing straight. The "lets just print more money!!" strategy didn't start with this Bush. Last time I checked that has something to with the value of our dollar dropping.
          • brion182, on 04/13/2008, -2/+3In 1980 interest rates and inflation were above 18%. I am just stating a fact! Look it up. Fact: Inflation rose each year Jimmy Carter was president. So, no I wont "stop" telling the truth.
          • dosware, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Very true- I was making a killing on my money market fund with those insanely high interest rates.
  • digitallysick, on 04/13/2008, -4/+7She needs to, she is making the democratic party look like fools.
    • Gemfinder, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1And besmirching her husband's well-regarded tenure.
      I don't want "Clinton" to become an obscenity.
    • Jawoodyablowme, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1The Democratic Party doesn't need Hillary to look like fools.
  • Axemantitan, on 04/13/2008, -4/+34Just so long as McCain doesn't win. He is the worst of all possible candidates. He will be Dubya with a vengeance.
    • Elissar, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3He'll do the same ***** up *****, and there won't be the excuse of him not knowing any better.
      • Axemantitan, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1True, but there shouldn't be any excuses. The President of the United States is expected to know what he is doing and, furthermore, has no shortage of qualified advisors. I'm sure they knew exactly what they were doing.
    • jayb1rd, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1I would vote for McCain over Hilldog any day.
  • Malarie, on 04/13/2008, -4/+18Its Okay Hillary its over, accept it, go home and you will finally be able to Divorce.
    • jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Well, I thought they'd never, ever break up....But after Bill's multiple gaffs and now his over-60 comments about her, he'd better get ready for an ass-kicking.
      • dho331, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1there's no doubt Bill Clinton is going to be impeached (sorry for the irony) if she loses the campaign.
  • jwiesenborn, on 04/13/2008, -6/+6The dominoes are starting to fall
  • kerby132, on 04/13/2008, -5/+8A Scottish newspaper? If this is true it would be one of the biggest news stories in the race right now; don't you think that one of the major American news outlets would cover this? And don't say they aren't covering it because they are "pro-Clinton." This is some crazy reporters speculation. Give me a break.

    Gore isn't going to ask her to step down, it would be very undemocratic. He isn't stupid. Don't forget that half the Democratic Party supports Clinton. You guys act like it is such a small number, when in reality its huge.
    • jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -1/+2This is from the April 13th edition. Keep in mind that the last Carter story (where he essentially endorses Obama) was first reported in Nigeria--and didn't show up in our MSM for a couple more days.
      • kerby132, on 04/13/2008, -2/+0I like the "where he ESSENTIALLY endorses Obama." Again, give me a break. Obama supporters use more spin than Clinton supporters.

        I hope people realize that they are "essentially" the same candidate. They barely differ on issues, and they are both strong democrats.
        People cut down Clinton like she came into this race to kill everything. Clinton is a very good politician, and has done so many good things for the party.
        Support Obama, but give Clinton the respect she deserves.
        • u2wedge, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1I don't give my respect to anyone unless they earn it. Hillary's running a deficit right now... big time. Do I sound bitter?
        • Lazydriver, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1It's not so much the issue of the politician's issues, it's the means to get what they want.

          And Hilary... Well, I understand she invested a ton of money to be president, but it's extremely selfish of her to want to put the United States to have even more irreversible damage underneath McCain. She knows she has no chance of winning, she's just trying to ruin Obama's chances of victory so that McCain will win and she'll nab it for 2012.

          This tactic, is disgusting. If you're running for president, don't do it because you think it'll give you more power, do it because you want to represent the issues of the people and listen and obey.
    • byrdgang, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1...yeah, as if our media keeps up with real news. I don't believe in the "If it's true, the media must be on top of it" BS. That assumes that the media is actively engaged in trying to get out important news.

      I stopped watching CNN's Headline News altogether because of this. I decided to no longer say "But that's not news" all the time when watching it. I just stopped watching.

      You must not be from the United States to not know this.
  • tufftugg, on 04/13/2008, -3/+18 For a large nation, the U.S. sure has a limited choice for a leader.
    • KyleGoetz, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Yeah, I know. A liberal young black man, a "moderate" middle-aged white woman, and an conservative old white man.
    • MacEnvy, on 04/13/2008, -2/+5We started out with something like 19, and narrowed it down state by state in a rather dignified and rational manner. If you'd been paying attention to the primaries 6 months ago you'd know this.

      You can't end the primaries with 19 candidates - we'd end up like some third world nation, having a president who only got 12% of the vote because half the damn country was running. That's what we saw going on with the California recall election a few years ago.
      • CorneliusStump, on 04/13/2008, -7/+1you're knowledge of parliamentary politics is fail
      • Flann11, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Ah, but a candidate can't win unless he/she receives a majority, not a plurality. That is, more than 50% of the vote, not just more than any other candidate. If they didn't, it would go to the House to decide.
    • suminona, on 04/13/2008, -1/+0tufftugg makes a good point. Although the American political process is democratic to a certain extent, it does give the illusion of choice, in the sense that the candidates we have, whether democratic or republican, are relatively homogeneous, i.e. - fundamentally they are the same with a difference of maybe 15% in policy. You have to remember that we classify them as "liberal" and "conservative" within a fairly narrow political spectrum. While it is true that ethnically or age-istically -- if that's a word -- the candidates are different, I think that's more of an ad hominem response.

      The first point was made by Chomsky. According to him, a good way of keeping the populace in check is either by ignoring the possibility of an alternative or presenting two near-identical alternatives to give the illusion of choice. You'll notice that one of the more diverse candidates, Mr. Paul, was swept under the rug by the media. I believe this would have happened whether he was socialist or libertarian.
  • ras1398, on 04/13/2008, -6/+7why dont the just FORMALLY endorse Obama ?

    I dont like clinton but she has the right to run as long as she wants..

    • jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1The article clearly says that they might just go about it precisely in that manner.
      • motivatedmama, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1 If two *men* ask her to step down you know exactly how she'll play it.
        Just imagine it though, consider the clout of these two men and Hillary's subsequent obstinate whining about "being bullied by the boys".
        Nope, she wouldn't be a able to whine her way out of that one, and the screams of the Clintonistas would sound shrill and petty indeed.
        I hope it comes to pass one way or the other and soon! When her back is against the wall she freaks, and it's just sooo damn amusing to watch!
  • Asterra2, on 04/13/2008, -3/+10When this happens, it won't matter how stubborn Hillary is. The writing on the wall, regardless of whether Hillary pays it any heed, WILL be seen by the people who represent her only legitimate purpose in continuing her farce. The superdelegates will - quite gratefully, I'm sure - use the watershed event as the tipping point for finally giving public endorsements to Obama. Once there isn't even a technically arguable reason for Hillary to stay in the race, the party will tell her to shut the hell up and sit down.
    • bingobongony, on 04/13/2008, -3/+1You really think that Gore and Carter are hte tipping points? Are you honestly that ***** clueless?

      This shows nothing but that Obama is very worried about the two major primary states coming up. Big wins there could swing the superdelegates back in her favor. At the very least the ones htat jumped ship in February may come back.

      It is OBVIOUS that Obama is worried. And even moreso that his pathetic supporters (you included) are.
      • motivatedmama, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1No matter what She-berman's people try to say to say to disparage Gore and Carter, it comes down to clout and name recognition.
        Not worried, just impatient for the country to see reason and look to it's own best interests. That means She-berman needs to go ASAP.
        This battle is between McCain and Obama. Period.
  • SargedeathXmode, on 04/13/2008, -12/+2The columnist must be joking. Al Gore blame his loss to Bush because of Clinton's impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky case?!?!?!? Since when did the private faults of one man transfer to his co-worker? Al Gore was just not as good an orator as Bush was and he lost his political capital that Clinton gave him (after all, the economy was good during Clinton's presidency, unless you want to use the complicated measurements done by Republicans to say otherwise); and also, in the end, he did get more votes than Bush, it was just so close due to his horrible debates...
    This article is misleading (it claims that Gore and Carter are debating when to deliver the blow to Clinton, and then says there is still a good chance Clinton will remain in the race if she wins Pennsylvania, big or small, so if she wins, they can't land the blow). I have to admit, it does present both sides of the story well towards the end, though the argument just isn't consistent.
    • Elissar, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1Many people did not vote for Gore because he was, in their minds, linked to scandal in the White House. Granted, he wasn't the best candidate ever, but he most decidedly did not lose the debates to W. Al Gore's endorsement is huge for either candidate.
    • Jawoodyablowme, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0"Since when did the private faults of one man transfer to his co-worker?"

      This is America. We are distracted by unimportant ***** while the important ***** gets buried under the carpet. Just imagine what a mess we'd really be in if we were a true Democracy and not a Republic. it would be mob rule! Just like here on Digg.
  • mecharabbit, on 04/13/2008, -19/+2Yeah, like Carter & Gore have really been keepin' their pimp hand strong. On the other hand,
    " Obama is a long legged pimp-daddy, he pimps white women and black women". Long live President Obama! Viva Obama! Viva Obama!
  • JFallon126, on 04/13/2008, -5/+4I REALLY hope this happens.
  • chrissku, on 04/13/2008, -7/+5Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead!
  • JEM916, on 04/13/2008, -3/+5"Together with reports that Clinton's money troubles have left her unable to pay event organisers and even the health insurance of her staff, the impression is of a campaign in trouble." Hahaha, so ironic. After all she said about the importance of health care. And what would she do with a limited national budget for US citizens who need health care?
    • bingobongony, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1Yeah...becuase you can really make comparisons between the campaign and the US.

      You are a dumb *****.
  • p51d007, on 04/13/2008, -5/+14She can't quit! Operation KAOS has not run its course!
  • mal1964, on 04/13/2008, -4/+6If its on diggs front page it must be true.
    LOL!
  • azpat, on 04/13/2008, -3/+18Until I see something concrete, I'm digging this down. "sources say"? here's why. This gets front page. Numerous blogger start predicting the end of the race. Gore and Carter never do anything because the source was bogus. Clinton wins PA by single digits, blowing a 20+ point lead. All of a sudden the headlines are about another Clinton Comeback. "Clinton came back from what appeared to be the end of the race. Her stunning comeback could keep silent Democratic leaders who were rumored to be planning to ask her to withdraw from the race" She really is rocky? Why can't Obama seal the deal? etc. etc. etc. As an Obama supporter, I'm sticking with his party line on this one: It's a close race, she has a huge lead in PA, It's an uphill battle in PA. Clinton has no reason to withdraw from the race. We're gonna do our thing and show that Obama is the better candidate.
  • RRJackson, on 04/13/2008, -17/+3"Sources say"? To "The Scotsman"? *****. And even if "The Scotsman" has the inside line, who gives a ***** what Carter and Gore have to say?
  • lazyfisherman, on 04/13/2008, -3/+2And Hillary will listen to them because ??
  • x0rcist, on 04/13/2008, -1/+7If this happens I hope it brings together the Democratic Party like it needs to be brought together in order to beat McCain.
    • runCMD, on 04/13/2008, -1/+1If this happens, it means the democratic party no longer exists for the purpose it was founded. This is America folks.
  • Jovensdesciple, on 04/13/2008, -17/+3I'll ask Carter, Gore, Clinton and Obama to shut the ***** up. They only know that they hate themselves, rich people, and America, and should not be respected at all.
    • Jawoodyablowme, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0Which is ironic because all of them are rich - all are millionaires.

      Anyway, Democrats believe that if you're not on government aid you are rich. That's right: you're rich! Which in a way is true if you compare your lifestyle with someone from a third world country.
  • Hyperion1144, on 04/13/2008, -3/+19FINISH HER!!!
    • mecharabbit, on 04/13/2008, -0/+5Yeah, Sub-Zero -style, grab her spine and rip it out!
    • erkokite, on 04/13/2008, -7/+1FINISH HIM!!!
      • aUScitizen, on 04/13/2008, -8/+0FINISH BOTH OF THE DEMORATS !!!!
        • Westford, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0Hey you really hit below the belt when you call us Demo Rats.
    • Observer001, on 04/13/2008, -1/+4"We really think you're doing just a lot of damage to our party's chances of winning by dividing it into camps when you don't have much chance of winning, Ms. Clinton."

      POLITICALITY
  • LadyDoor, on 04/13/2008, -4/+7Carter and Gore! Knights in shining Armor! I will fall down and kiss the ground should this prove to be true. Oh Please Make Hillary stop!