digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at eyesonobama.com

Clinton Demonstrators Threaten to Vote for McCain

eyesonobama.com — This is exactly the wrong sentiment to be spreading for the national news media to grab onto.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • plimpton777, on 06/01/2008, -59/+67Stubborn bitches!
    • Puffles, on 06/02/2008, -11/+35Why is he being dugg down? Any Clinton supporter who's threatening to vote for McCain is, in fact, a bitch.
      • mrsteveman1, on 06/02/2008, -3/+10Well, I've heard a number of women claim to be voting for McCain in November because of this issue with the 2 states, as if this is intentional because Hillary is a women.

        Get something straight, this didn't start out as a Hillary issue, or a womans issue, those 2 states moved up their primaries violating the rules, and those elections were likely to be invalidated by the party before the people ever voted. It was only when Hillary won that morons started turning this into a Hillary issue and not a rules issue.

        And, I'm getting ***** tired of hearing people say that anything bad anyone says about Hillary, or when she loses, its because shes a woman, as if she should be winning because she is a woman and anyone who opposes her must be sexist. That is enough for me to pull out that word, bitch, and apply it to all involved. So, ***** YOU protesters, shut the ***** up.
        • DangerMouse9, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1"And, I'm getting ***** tired of hearing people say that anything bad anyone says about Hillary, or when she loses, its because shes a woman, as if she should be winning because she is a woman and anyone who opposes her must be sexist."

          The same could be said about Obama, anyone that doesn't vote for him is a racist.
        • mrsteveman1, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3Yea mr mouse, i haven't heard anyone say that about obama, while Hillary supporters go on TV and specifically talk about sexism.

          So no, the same can't be said for obama supporters.
    • DOCKAUF55, on 06/02/2008, -2/+12Well I always thought the only way McCain has made it this far is some kind of practical joke.

      I guess I'm not that far off.
    • funkywood, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1They are bound to say that cuz otherwise the superdelegates would have no reason to switch if they say oh we'll vote for Obama anyway. Whether they mean it is another matter.

      I saw on C-Span (yeah, the BBC broadcasts it for a few hours on Sundays) a comment that John Kerry was too unknown to be picked over the well known, if stupid, Bush (Al Gore, why didn't you try again?). Hillary might actually be doing Obama a favour by getting all his crap out now and getting the media and people to find out about him.
  • jforjools, on 06/01/2008, -28/+111Hey, I just checked plimpton's profile...and saw what I've been seeing a *lot* of lately. ...The nastiest anti-clinton comments are *not* coming from Obama supporters (as so many seem to assume).

    this particular comment is from a Paul supporter. He has a right to his/her own thoughts...but I do not want them attributed to the group of supporters to which I belong.
    • bxblox, on 06/01/2008, -8/+27There are just as many obsessed obama supporters. There's no monopoly on crazy around these parts.
      • waxoff, on 06/01/2008, -7/+21I'll admit there are some obsessed Obama supports. But I've yet to see ones as bat ***** crazy as some of the Clinton obsessed. Case in point: the "god damn the Democrats" lady. Did you listen to the RBC hearing yesterday? Wow.
        • oldhick, on 06/01/2008, -9/+10Oh come on... In any group you're going to believe the other is more crazy. Politics just makes everyone stupid. You can keep pretending its the 'other' camps if that makes you feel better.
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/02/2008, -6/+13No, the Clinton camp is more crazy, because the Clinton's have fostered their sort of rhetoric ever since Obama became a viable opponent.

          Obama has stood in opposition of those who would speak ill of Hillary, and his supporters behaviour reflects their respect for his requests.

          Case in point, the hecklers at the RBC hearing were Clinton supporters.
      • Gabberwok, on 06/01/2008, -6/+20Paul supporters are mad at pretty much everybody.
      • magus_melchior, on 06/02/2008, -2/+4Remember: the perception of anonymity emboldens the Web surfer. Those Clinton bashers could just as easily be Limbaugh Republicans or even Clinton supporters hoping to toss dirt on Obama indirectly.
    • noseeme, on 06/01/2008, -19/+40Ron Paul: Forever leading the fight against street signs. Because I don't need the GOVERNMENT to tell me when to stop at an intersection!
      • masterm1nd, on 06/02/2008, -20/+7You don't think we would have street signs if the government didn't do it? Not only would people put them up where they are needed, they would more importantly not put them up where they're not needed.
        • Loonacy, on 06/02/2008, -5/+9Yeah, and people would decide when to obey them and when not to.
        • Mejari, on 06/02/2008, -3/+6And I would name my street Mejari Lane, and no one would have any ***** clue how to get anywhere.
        • masterm1nd, on 06/02/2008, -6/+3I think there are enough people with enough motive/value in being able to drive and travel that a safer more efficient system would be privately funded and developed. I'm not sure why anyone would want to disobey a sign meant to save their life unless it was indeed unnecessary or not tailored to their specific driving ability. In any case, I bet most people would start reasonably obeying road rules given everyone else gets to be the judge jury and executioner.
        • InnerRayg, on 06/02/2008, -2/+4You have a lot of faith in mankind masterm1nd. Surely nobody would ever consider breaking a traffic law meant to keep them safe, especially when there is absolutely no threat of consequence from Police like with a private system.

          "Not tailored to their specific driving ability". Man, that's a hoot. So basically, if they don't "care" to stop because it's not their specific ability, they shouldn't have to? Good plans, good plans.
        • masterm1nd, on 06/02/2008, -9/+4You have a lot of faith in government. Which is just the epitome of mankind.

          First of all the police system would be you and me, and it would be a lot more effective. Anyone could be a potential cop for someone putting others lives at risk, and any of them could be a bad cop. Do you really need to STOP, when all you need to do is YIELD to see there is if you are safe to go? Maybe if there is a tree blocking the view, in which case you would then STOP. If I'm a life long race car driver and I'm driving a Lamborghini, do you really think I need to slow down to 10 MPH around the curve? It's not like our current cops have stopped people from driving dangerously. It's not like getting away from cops is the biggest instigator of insane dangerous driving.
        • bagboyrebel, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3Is masterm1nd really suggesting that anarchy is a good direction?
      • slappy83, on 06/02/2008, -15/+15That has to be the lamest anti Ron Paul comments I've ever read. Judging from your statement, you're probably the type of person that needs the government to wipe your ass.
      • NeverReturnKid, on 06/02/2008, -15/+7Please tell me when Ron Paul has said anything regarding traffic signs.
      • logicet, on 06/02/2008, -8/+20Following the Constitution, traffic signs are a state/local issue.

        EPIC FAIL
        • MudMan69, on 06/02/2008, -2/+2Libertarians

          EPIC FAIL
        • noseeme, on 06/02/2008, -3/+2That still counts as government. I didn't say "federal government".
      • byrdgang, on 06/02/2008, -0/+14I am a Ron Paul supporter and that was funny. LOL
        • DOCKAUF55, on 06/02/2008, -2/+7I'm an athletic supporter and I found that offensive.
      • Arramol, on 06/02/2008, -0/+8I should go into business selling and repairing sarcasm/satire detectors. Digg could make me a fortune.
      • diceau, on 06/02/2008, -3/+1I'd laugh but because his reputation was already falsely destroyed I just hate you.
    • Hangly, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3Or someone who claims to be either a Paul or Obama supporter. There's no way to be sure, and most sides in this race aren't above deceiving the public in order to win.
    • JettaMan, on 06/02/2008, -1/+9As a Ron Paul supporter, it would suck if they voted for McCain. We need McCain to lose this year so Paul can run again in 2012 after the Republican party takeover.
      • masterm1nd, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2I would think McCain's policies would be closer to Paul's compared to the other two, if only by a bit. Anyways McCain says he'll only run once and his age confirms it.
        • PopcornDave, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3Once is one times too many.
        • jforjools, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1I believe he's come close to hinting that he may only run once...but I don't believe (nor do I expect) he's actually crossed the threshold of saying "I'll only be a one-term president."
      • bxblox, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I like paul.... but he's older than McCain and not getting any younger.
        • JettaMan, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1He's in way better shape than McCain physically (he didn't spend time in a Vietnam prison) and he's sharper mentally than Hillary or Obama. He'll be fine in 4 more years.
      • magus_melchior, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2"...after the Republican party takeover."

        Don't let this goal dominate your thinking, because that's how Gingrich and the neocons took power.
      • funkywood, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Vote Bob Barr then. Why the hell does it take a non american like me to point out that Ron Paul is not the only libertarian candidate? He's too meak to be president anyway and never will be but you can still vote for his principles.

        I don't care either way (so yeah non-americans can definitely be Obama and Paul supporters, just don't give us any more Bush) I just think Ron Paul supporters are more deluded and obsessed with the name than Hillarys, instead of looking at the principles.
        • JettaMan, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1He's a strong man - far stronger than McCain or Obama. He actually sticks with his principles despite extreme hostility from the mainstream. That takes a lot of courage. McObama are easily bought and will do whatever the CFR tells them to do.
    • dstz, on 06/02/2008, -1/+9Let's conveniently forget that 90% of Digg users were pro-Ron Paul and are now at 90% pro-Obama. Surely there's no overlap at all between both supporters.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1Who gives a ***** who's supporters said what? Everyone should judge candidates by what they are saying and doing and not by their supporters. This is the same kind of argument when Fox News says "The terrorists support Obama!"

      Also, you can support more than one person. It is possible to a be a Paul and an Obama supporter.
      • jforjools, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1It's important to Obama supporters to not appear as being cruel or bitchy towards Clinton supporters....I was just pointing out that very much of the time, the anti-Clinton statements are being made by non-Obama people (and falsely attributed by many who read it.)

        On the very anonymous web, we can never truly assume to know what's up with a certain comment...But it doesn't hurt to check out the user profile. In this instance, it was a profile of someone who is strongly identified (by their own posts and comments...and also by their 'friend of Paul', which is not so telling in itself) with Ron Paul.

        Just pointing out a simple exercise that we can all do when we see a post of the nasty variety that will be assumed by many to be from the Obama camp.
        • TsuruchiBrian, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1You can't control who joins or wants to join your group. You also can't control the behavior of all the members of your group.

          What I am saying is that hypothetically, if Obama supporters were largely comprised of douchebags, but Obama was still the best candidate, would you still vote for him? Do you think it would be a valid attack on Obama to say his supporters are not good people?

          It's great that every single person who supports Obama represents the best of humanity, but do you really want to use that as an argument for why he should be president? Because the group of people that comprise the category of Obama supporters could easily change. In fact it is probably going to change now that Hillary is about to lose.
  • LewP, on 06/01/2008, -11/+55Frankly, I think this is all moot. I think Obama wins regardless. He's not my candidate, it's just my opinion Obama wins.
    • noseeme, on 06/01/2008, -26/+3Moot?
      #fortune goes in all fields
      >newfags can't greentext
      RON PAUL /b/
      • ChiffX, on 06/02/2008, -1/+5You just took newfaggotry to a whole new level.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/02/2008, -10/+7He'll win regardless?

      1-Regardless of 20 percent of Hillary's camp that will probably vote for Mccain.( not to mention those that will simply not vote )

      2- There are swing voters that in no way in hell want an inexperienced newbie in office.

      3- oh and there is that other little thing, called the Republican party had last time had about 50% of the American vote.

      So exactly where is your brain in this? And will the democrats ever let you have it again?
      • sephiroth965, on 06/02/2008, -0/+13If you don't count her years as first lady (which we shouldn't) Obama has more experience than Hillary.
      • factoryale, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Though it has dropped somewhat since the clintonites have been tearing him down, Obama does still stand in front of McCain in the polls. That lead should return now that Florida and Michigan have been decided and the nomination (finally) comes to a close.
      • OrangeSoda31, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4Distribution of voters is more important than number. California could go democrat by 1 vote, and all of its delegates go blue. Popular vote is worthless in this system.
      • Gerz1219, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/J ...

        According to the latest polls, Obama wins a slim majority in the electoral college. Now polls this far ahead of the election don't necessarily mean a whole lot, but it kind of refutes the notion that Obama *can't* win this election.

        These polls capture Obama's support among Democrats at its lowest ebb, since the party is still being ripped in two by Hillary. That will change once the primary race is over, even if some Hillary supporters do move over to McCain.

        How do we square this polling data with your assertions?

        1 - Maybe a lot of Hillary voters are just lying to exit pollsters about voting for McCain because they think it will give their candidate more leverage, or because they're frustrated and threatening to vote for the Republican makes them feel powerful. But if the 20-30% figure is accurate, Obama should be trailing McCain by ten points, and he isn't.

        2 - Voters may be uncomfortable with Obama's inexperience, but they're even more uncomfortable about McCain running for Bush's third term. This is a change election, and voters want the 2000 McCain, not the 2008 McCain. They're different people.

        3 - Maybe the Republican Party is so weak after eight years of Bush that a 10% drop in Democratic turnout won't cost Obama the election. They won 51% of the vote in 2004. It's not 2004 anymore. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a substantial margin. Your 50/50 split is off by at least ten points.
      • Arramol, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5I don't think he'll win "regardless," but I suspect he's going to win over a lot of the Clintonites once they realize they really do have to choose between him and McCain. Furthermore, this is a very different election environment than '04. Discontent with the Republicans is much higher now than then, and Obama has an ability to attract votes that Kerry never had.
        • PopcornDave, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Hillary seems to have aligned herself more in line with McCain's policies than Obama's to differentiate herself so they might just go with McCain. Although since McCain has been saying so much about anything lately it's hard to know where his election propaganda stands at the moment.
      • Cuchanu, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Jabberwolf your argument makes it obvious that you aren't some sort of political genious

        1.) I think that 20% of voter's actively going out to vote for McCain simply because their feelings are hurt is INCREDIBLY unrealistic. I agree that plenty will stay home. But in the end the differences between Clinton and Obama are small, yet the differences between Obama and McCain are huge.

        2.) Saying swing voters don't want a newbie in office is just stupid. You can't stereotype an entire group of voters. And BTW isn't it well known that there are many non-democrats who are exited about Obama?

        3.) "there is that other little thing, called the Republican party" Well that's something new! There is always a republican party that doesn't seem like an argument against Obama winning. Besides Bush has been ***** us with no vaseline for 8 years and many people are scared to death of anything remotely close to more Bush terms.

        The only reason he won is that Karl Rove's scare tacticts made people's dislike of Bush all but forgotten when they were worried about their safety. I don't think they will fall for the same ***** again and what else does McCain have? He is white, so the racist voters will go to him, that's about it. The old fart can't get his facts about Iraq straight so the first debate they have will make his polling numbers plummet I'm sure.

        In the end people will go to Obama out of the hope that things can honestly change, with McCain it will be more of the same. Anybody who believes he isn't is crazy.
        • texpundit, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1"Jabberwolf your argument makes it obvious that you aren't some sort of political genious"

          Oh, the irony. /facepalm
    • Fantom05, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5I think he was referring to the fact that Obama has won the Democratic primary.

      Regardless, any Hillary supporter that votes for McCain is simply shooting themselves in the foot. Obama and Hillary agree on most issues.
    • ljkelley, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1You guys don't get it. This is about Voters who feel Obama and the Democrats are taking them for granted and are willing to shoot themselves in the head to push the point that they shouldn't be taken for granted.

      I think I and many others realize the implications but we won't be but scared into voting for Obama (talk about a Republican method). Yes I don't want McCain and i'm scared of him, but I won't on the the other hand be taken for granted, feel rightly or wrongly discriminated against and to watch and see racist and sexist comments from the Obama friends, supporters, etc...

      And go ahead and do the usual and digg me down but I cannot currently in good consience support Obama and lambasting Hillary or her supporters (when regardless of how you look at it she has a unpredecent amount of voters come out for her either more or just slighty less than Obama depending on how you look at it). Yes Bush has been horrible and McCain will surely be just as bad but I will not be forced into support Obama just because and that they can ask Hillary to quit from Day 1 (after Iowa) and be rude and yet expect people to just forget and move on. Florida and Michigan were punished (and Florida because they were between a rock and hard place with the Republican Governor and Legislature and an extremely idiot DNC). Now the Democrats may likely be punished and the only way to stop it is to somehow unite the party and by you blaming everything on Hillary is just making the wounds go deeper.

      Look I don't just want the Democrats in 2008 because the Republicans are so bad. We need a Democrats than can lead and this is not leading or counting every vote or being Democratic. If it takes 4-8 years for a better party that can do things right for America... its a punishement I will just have to bear.
      • ljkelley, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1And don't reply and say i'm stupid or ignorant or I should blindly belieive what you tell me is the truth about Obama. That is not healing the wounds.

        You don't deserve out votes automatically and making further fun of us or Hillary will not allow us time to study and analyze the situation best to what our conscience calls.
      • journey4712, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3They dont have to get your vote automatically. But your not allowed to complain about us still fighting in iraq after 8 years of mccain if you vote for him.
        • antidense, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Or if he elects conservative judges to Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade....
      • antidense, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1I understand that, but please try not to mistake racist/sexist comments from Republicans for racist/sexist comments from Obama supporters. Republicans have no doubt fueling the fire and pitting Democrats against each other. Yes, there's a lot of venting going on, and even I've said a harsh thing or two about Hillary without realizing it, but it has actually been other Obama supporters that have called me out on it.

        By the same token, Hillary needs to follow the same standards and set an example to her supporters. We are told again and again to give her the benefit of the doubt and not to do so would be sexist: that the RFK comment didn't mean she was subconsciously expecting Obama to end up like him or that her white voters comment didn't mean that she was shamelessly relying on the support of ignorant racists. Okay, that's fine. But she can't jump on the "bitter" comments without giving Obama the benefit of the doubt at the same time either.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/01/2008, -24/+7This will make many Democrats switch over to be Independents. Both parties are alienating loyal supporters.
    • sulthernao, on 06/01/2008, -6/+11These Clinton "supporters" are a very small minority, the looniest and nuttiest of the bunch. What's funny is that they were actually alienating other Clinton supporters in the RBC meeting - a lot of those Clinton supporters actually were disgusted by these "supporters'" actions. What more, these morons actually hurt their cause because they started attacking members of the RBC who were actually Clinton supporters. I'm sure that went over real well.

      These people aren't "loyal" party supporters but Clinton sycophants.
    • ckrickett, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Why because they will have to vote for Obama instead of Hillary? Pretty sure last I checked they both are Democrats. Instead of pushing her supporters to push her sense of elitism, she should graciously step down and help unite the Democratic party. Not throw a hissy fit when she lost and threaten to have her supporters vote Republican. That's ridiculous!
      • Julik, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Do you think that Obama votes are going to vote for Hillary in the general election if she somehow pulls off getting the nomination?

        This is a dumb story... This could have been said for either candidate.
  • SheilaNoya, on 06/01/2008, -17/+213Well, I'm an old white woman who's mad at............ HILLARY.

    Hillary helped create this monster with all of her false claims of "sexism" and her speeches about trying to hold women down.

    Hillary is the one who needs to fix this now. If she can't calm down all of the anger and hatred she created, then she can kiss her future political career goodbye.

    I certainly don't want anyone believeing that all of us women act like this, or that we all fell for Hillary's idiotic lies.
    • Ajajadude, on 06/01/2008, -3/+15She's already (supposedly) taking her ball and going home if she doesn't get the presidential (or vice presidential) nomination.
    • locamama, on 06/02/2008, -25/+3False claims? Where have you been? What do you think sexism is? Do you think she has been treated with the same respect that a male candidate is treated with? She has been treated horribly.
      • romistrub, on 06/02/2008, -2/+20"Do you think she has been treated with the same respect that a male candidate is treated with?"

        Correlation != causation.

        QED
      • gryphon50, on 06/02/2008, -14/+5I think there has been alot of sexism against Hillary. Everything from comments on her hair, weight, whether she will wash clothes or make a sandwich, etc. ad nauseum. Everything sexist that can be said, has been said. Even so, I think she's a terrible candidate, has pulled a bunch of dirty tricks in this campaign and she certainly doesn't have my vote. But the sexism is there, nonetheless.
        • nirav72, on 06/02/2008, -1/+7It comes with the territory. If she choose to run for president, she should have been prepared for that.

          I haven't quite decided on Obama just yet. But he took a lot of flak also from the Clintons over race and also the country in general over the whole pastor issue. This isn't some election for city council.

          Get over it...
      • Mejari, on 06/02/2008, -3/+5Just because she was treated horribly doesn't mean people are sexist, it means she acted so horribly that no one respected her enough to treat her with respect.
      • boombye, on 06/02/2008, -0/+8She's been treated like a big fat liar who won't stop lying. I think it's fair how she's been treated, even my Grandmother can't stand her and she voted for Bill.
    • romistrub, on 06/02/2008, -1/+21Holy *****, I wish I could digg you up to infinity.
    • Zacktopia, on 06/02/2008, -15/+3Blaming Hillary will not help you in November. Matter of fact, it only makes us more determined to defeat you. If you want your guy to win, you'll need to sing Her praises to High Heaven and worship Her for the Goddess that she is. If Obama gets the nomination, he better get on his knees and acknowledge Hillary as his Lord and Savior. Otherwise, McCain's centrist coalition will beat him like a drum.
      • InnerRayg, on 06/02/2008, -0/+13Ok, doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on here, that was creepy as hell.
      • rezonq3, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Can't tell if he's joking...

        a /sarcasm would be helpful here, assuming it was...
    • Weejay, on 06/02/2008, -1/+12I wish all grandmas were as smart and educated as you are.
    • leoofborg, on 06/02/2008, -2/+0[qualifier, I'm a Conservative. *Not* NeoCon] Realistically? The way things are going, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this is Miss Rodham's *last shot* at the presidency. If she doesn't get it, she's messed herself for *2 terms*.

      Whether Obama or McCain get it, we're in a recession right now, and *2 terms* Miss Rodham cannot wait. She knows that. So it's either the presidency, or a feeding tube along with Carter. What would you do in her position?

      McCain's not that much better, hiring Carly Fiorina to his advisory panel... sheesh, talk about trying to out-Hillary Hillary.
    • magus_melchior, on 06/02/2008, -1/+8Your wisdom is laudable, and I encourage you to set people straight given the opportunity.
    • bunghole999, on 06/02/2008, -3/+0Don't worry, we won't blame you. It is unfair to blame 1 percent of women for the way 99 percent of women act !!!
    • Ajnag, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4God I wish you would talk to my mom. We had a political discussion a few months ago, and something she said really bothers me. She said "I'd really like to see a female president in my lifetime. So I'm voting Hillary." I replied "Do you know how sexist and anti-feminist that is? Choosing to vote for a woman for the mere fact she is a woman is just as sexist as not voting for a woman for the same reason."

      I have nothing against the idea of a female president. But does it HAVE to be this particular woman?
      • MaddieCakes, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Oh my God, I have female family members who are just like that. And I get called an 'anti-feminist' for being a woman that doesn't like Hillary.
        • ThePwnyExpress, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1i have female and male family members like this....

          bottom line: if you're now a hillary clinton supporter who will vote for mccain in november merely because obama is about to defeat her in the primaries, than you're either an independent or an idiot... but you're not a democrat.
  • damnfunny1, on 06/01/2008, -33/+8Democrats should be out anyways they just cause way to much in taxes for everyone
    • Zarokima, on 06/01/2008, -3/+21You're against Democrats for monetary reasons? Where the ***** have you been the last eight years?
      • vinnyvenus, on 06/01/2008, -17/+2Enjoying taxcuts that President Bush gave me.
        • Ajajadude, on 06/01/2008, -1/+14And enjoying the slow downward-spiral of the country and its economy?
        • InnerRayg, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3That's nice. Now tell him to start giving them to my family, because we're not seeing any of it. Or anybody whose remotely near my social class.
        • bagboyrebel, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1sarcasm? please let it be sarcasm.
      • masterm1nd, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Don't you get it, the problem is that the last eight years of monetary policy was basically watered down democrat policy. I'm not sure how taking what didn't work to the extreme is the next logical choice. We're probably ***** on this one no matter who it comes down to.
    • chronically420, on 06/01/2008, -3/+10youre a ***** idiot. then this wouldnt be AMERICA. see its dolts like you that ***** our country up. closed minded and ignorant. and tell me...over the past 8 years, a republican has been in the house and what has happened? because of YOUR party, america is much less safe, more hated, going to *****, and seen as arrogant assholes. yes you're part of the reason the rest of the world doesnt favor us. how does that make your dumb one-track mind feel? if you dont feel like crap for that, you're the stereotypical arrogant ***** american as seen by other countries and youre the exact reason we're not liked.
      • tomasII, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2I love it when someone accuses another of being an idiot when their post has so many mistakes it is tedious to count them. Anothther post by a pimply faced high school student who can't spell or use capital letters correctly. Just makes you look stupid buddy.
        • tomasII, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Another,

          Dang :)
        • chronically420, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1OMG THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS. GOOD THING U KEPT ME IN CHECK!!_)!2-!)!_)!)_@01~!!~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • jabberwolf, on 06/02/2008, -9/+1We'll he's right.
      If you think Bush was off whack in over spending, you havent seen anything compared to Democrats.

      In a up economy you can tax, and get away with it without much problem as Bill Clinton did, with the economy in ***** straights you will get a screwed over economy like Carter had.

      Bush is the worst president that the Republicans have ever had, and most republicans agree, and THAT is why they like Mccain so much. He is on just about every pork barrel busting committee out there.
      Obama is not.



  • matt70, on 06/01/2008, -12/+124I've sat on the sidelines for awhile. I used to be very active on Digg and decided (out of respect for the process) to not engage in Hillary bashing or to contribute to further division. This kind of things has me incensed, and I cannot resist the urge to respond. Do people forget what's going on in our Nation and exactly where Senator McCain stands? Some unfortunate (read STUPID) posters claim that Dems want to raise taxes...well that's partly true. They want to get rid of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans while offering tax CUTS for the middle class. If your wealthy, then you'd be better off under McCain. If you're like the rest of us, you're better off with the Dems. McCain will continue the unlawful war in Iraq, will probably invade Iran, will appoint conservative Supreme Court justices (note to all Hillary's female supporters...good bye Roe V Wade), will not lift a finger to help the average American with health care or anything else economically (not even for troops he claims to "support"), and will give us four more years of GW. If the idea of electing a black man is that offensive to you that you're willing to vote for all these things, then I guess I've really misread where our nation really is.
    • locamama, on 06/02/2008, -15/+4That's called fear mongering. goodbye roe v. wade - are you holding my uterus hostage? I have no problem voting for a qualified black man. I do have a problem voting for inexperienced and unqualified Obama.
      • diggrnumber1, on 06/02/2008, -1/+8roe v. wade could get overturned regardless of who becomes the next president. It's supposed to get ruled-on soon, and analysts say that they know that 4 justices will vote for it and 4 justices will vote against it. they still haven't figured out where justice kennedy stands on the issue though. as long as none of the justices die before the ruling, roe v. wade will come down to kennedy's decision when the vote is held (probably within only a few months). (btw, kennedy is not related to the political family: he used to be a strong republican).
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/02/2008, -2/+10"inexperienced and unqualified Obama. "

        Well I have a problem with baseless, repeated smears. Obama has at least as much political experience and qualification as Billary, and it's worth noting his honesty record is pristine compared to hers. That you believe what a compulsive liar tells you without qualification proves you to be shameless, ignorant, failure as a voter. Furthermore, some of the WORST presidents in history hand mountains of experience. Why don't you try judging candidates on their own merits rather then some arbitrary, meaningless talking point like "experience." Please, tell me what "experience" and "qualified" means in this context. Can you?
        • locamama, on 06/02/2008, -8/+1Are you really unaware of all the lies that have come out of Obama's mouth? I suppose you only watch Keith Olberman and only read Huff Po.

          Experience means more than a few years as a senator. Experience means that when you are a Senator you at least show up and vote and represent your constituents. Experience means that when you do show up to vote you don't cop out and vote present.
        • Aensland, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2@locamama: what are these alleged lies? As opposed to the under sniper fire stuff? You're seriously implying Obama lies but HRC doesn't lie? De nile, it is in Egypt.
      • brianjlowry, on 06/02/2008, -2/+8How is he unqualified? What exactly ARE the qualifications for President? Wasn't Bush "qualified"?

        I don't buy into the qualification argument at all. Please, change my mind.
        • locamama, on 06/02/2008, -6/+1He may be qualified enough for your vote but not mine. At least Hillary knows how Washington works and knows policy. At least she is able to see the big picture and talk about details not just mindlessly repeat, change...hope...change...hope.

          Obama just knows rhetoric. He has made so many fundamental errors it's ridiculous. I want a President who knows what language they speak in Afganistan, how many states are in our country, doesn't go to a wacko church, whose foreign policy is NOT "well Iran and Syria are going to have to step up if Iraq collapses".

        • Seldon2639, on 06/02/2008, -4/+0Tell me if any of these campaign concepts sound familiar:

          "I'm not running as a Washington insider"

          "I'm going to change Washington"

          "I'm just a normal guy, like you"

          "I'm a new kind of politician"

          If you answered "Obama", you're half right. Go back and look at Bush's first campaign. He ran as a Washington outsider, new blood into the system. They downplayed policy perspectives and focused on how likable he was (and he was likable at the time, remember). He ran on the idea that he wouldn't just be the same old Washington politics, that he was a new kind of politician. I, personally, draw more parallels between Bush and Obama than Bush and McCain
        • s3rgi0, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2The only way we should compare experience in a presidential election is between a Senator and a Governor. Seeing as Senators deal with the legislative branch, their experience will not matter that much. A Governor, being a small scale President, would have much more viable experience and be able to successfully play the experience card.
        • InnerRayg, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Seldon, I'm pretty sure every President for the last 80 years has run on the "Change Washington" wagon. It's always been about looking like you are just "another guy" who represents the common man.
      • RebeL5K, on 06/02/2008, -2/+5That's not fear mongering - that's McCain's viewpoint.
      • jaxcs, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2McCain has actually pointed out that he would be in a position to put in more conservative judges. Open your eyes and learn the facts. Not the facts as interpreted by a right wing or left wing pubs but as the delegate actually states.
      • sleepysteve, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Locamama: By all means, enlighten me as to all these lies Obama has been telling. I beg you.
        You say Obama is all "Hope, change, hope, change" but all you hear from Hillary is "Experience, I like the working class, experience, I like the working class." Oh wait, I forgot about the blatant lies. Sniper fire in Bosnia? Bringing peace to Northern Ireland? She helped get SCHIP passed?
        When Obama misspeaks, he messes up one word or a number like any other human being. When Hillary 'misspeaks,' she tells long-winded, false stories about herself. Oh yeah, and she tells them multiple times.
        I gave a few examples off the top of my head of Hillary's utter bulls**t, please give me some for Obama if you're going to call him a liar. And while you're at it, please define experience for me and explain why Hillary has it from being the president's wife. Even if you can, let me reference brianjlowry's post above me and say how do her so-called 'qualifications' actually give you reason to believe she can be a great president.
    • Seldon2639, on 06/02/2008, -5/+2I was with you right until the end. I agree with you about McCain's stances, and that many of them are really, really, unreasonable. I even agree that the conversation about policy is the right conversation to have. But then you lost me.

      Not everyone who's against Obama is against him simply because he's a black man. That's like saying that everyone who's against McCain is a white-hating minority. Come on, that's just not right, man (or woman, as the case may be). If we're going to discuss things in a reasonable and rational manner, we need to not jump to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with us is stupid, mean, or racist.
      • matt70, on 06/02/2008, -1/+5Seldon,

        I simply cannot come up with any other reason why a Democrat who supports Hillary would vote for McCain unless it is because of the color of his skin. Sorry, but Hillary and Bill played the race card...not Barack.
        • rentmitchum, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I agree, that sort of ignorance is displayed rarely in this world, and prejudice is the only reason I feel anyone would make that sort of ridiculous decision. That's pure hate, not politics. Hate.
        • magus_melchior, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2The thing is, delusion is a funny beast-- it prevents one from really examining what one really believes (a great example is Scott McClellan's recent experience). Obama opponents seriously believe that their candidate has the best platform possible, even though they don't do their research or evaluate the character of their candidate. They will believe on the surface that they're not supporting Clinton because of the color of the skin, but when it comes down to it they'd rather not have him because his appearance scares them on a very basic level.

          One needs to remember just how deeply ingrained racism is in the US; there was a This American Life act involving an African-American lawyer who spent some time working as a bus-boy at an all-white country club just to see what it was like. It wasn't during the height of the Civil Rights movement, it was at least two decades later, if memory serves.
        • supaklaw, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Hilary supporters are not racist... but you are correct in noting that for them to be so hell-bent on victory as to go against the very principles and issues they are supporting simply out of spite proves this is more of about celebrity worship than politics.
    • BlackwatchPlaid, on 06/02/2008, -1/+7I love that people can feel this passionately about a political candidate (especially a democratic one, which has been a rare phenomenon for a while now) but democrats should be excited that we have two viable candidates at all, not which one will ultimately win the nomination. Go ahead, accuse me of riding the fence, but what is important here is that McCain doesn't win. I actually used to have a lot of respect for Senator McCain, but he's simply spent to much time in the Bush camp and it's turned him, plain and simple. He cannot win, because if he does we'll run out of troops to support. Several of my best friends are in the armed forces and I could not have more respect for what they do, but we cannot have a soldier in the White House right now; we need a diplomat.
      I think Howard Dean said it best when he declared that the most important person in the election (for the dems) is the one who loses the nomination. It will be up to them to support the democratic nominee, uniting democrats to ensure that McCain does not take us down the wrong road in the world. We cannot have calls for a recount or bickering over delegates. I think the year 2000 proved that to us all. Come convention time, the 2nd place finisher must step aside and work to unite the party, proving that democrats really are big enough to vote for the right candidate, even if it's not their candidate. Tax cuts be damned, there are much bigger events at hand.
      • jaxcs, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3I like the moderate, no nonsense, truth teller McCain, but he is pulling to the right to win the election and he lost me along the way.
    • slearwig, on 06/02/2008, -2/+7George Bush sends requests in his name via U.S. Mail for donations to the GOP...In these letters Bush promises that donating to the GOP and electing McCain and the Republican slate will protect every single policy Bush has championed during his eight years in office.
      The letters are authorized by McCain 2008...enough said.
      • magus_melchior, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I think that the White House has kept Bush so insulated and so misinformed, that should he see concrete evidence of the deceit and failure of his tenure, he'll have a nervous breakdown. So they let him continue to believe he's doing a great job, largely out of pity.
    • kball75, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2Don't be bringing none of those "facts" or "reasonings" around these parts. There is no place for those in todays America!
  • smacksaw, on 06/01/2008, -18/+73Let them threaten. Let them do it. If the tables were turned I would vote McCain over Clinton. The difference is that I'd vote McCain over Clinton because it would end Hillary and the Clintons if they lost and maybe Obama might run again in 4 years.

    But if these Hillary people vote McCain over Obama, there's no real strategy or intelligence to it. It's just racism and these people won't admit it. Clinton and Obama have strikingly similar platforms. The only difference is how they'd implement it. Seriously, would Hillary Democrats be that upset if Obama got elected against their will and enacted sweeping left-wing reforms? Probably. Why? Because hate and racism aren't about logic.
    • vinnyvenus, on 06/01/2008, -14/+3You voting for Maccain over Clinton can be construed as sexism.
      • carpespasm, on 06/01/2008, -1/+17voting for clinton over mccain because he's a man can be construed as sexism.
      • Gabberwok, on 06/01/2008, -1/+8Something I'm a bit unclear on... as far as elections go, women are actually a majority. Women are a slim majority of the general public, and they turn out to vote in greater numbers than men. While there were probably men who voted against Hillary solely because she is a woman, there were far more women who voted for Hillary solely because she is a woman.

        My own personal distaste for Hillary can be boiled down to her attempts to prove how tough she is (voting for Iraq, Kyl-Lieberman, obliterating Iran comment) and her blatant pandering (all politicians do this, but she is far too obvious about it). Had she treated the American public with respect and not as an obstacle to be manipulated, she would have had much stronger support.
      • romistrub, on 06/02/2008, -2/+9CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!

        *****!
      • sephiroth965, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2It could also be construed as foolish.
        • theWrkncacnter, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1first sensible comment in this thread
    • locamama, on 06/02/2008, -11/+6Yes, the cries of racism are so loud. Have you ever considered that there are other reasons besides racism to not want Obama to be President? I know his supporters all think he is perfect but he is far from it.
      • brianjlowry, on 06/02/2008, -2/+7I didn't call you a racist, nor say he was perfect.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/02/2008, -1/+10Did you see the results of West Virginia and Kentucky primaries? THAT IS BLATANT AND OPEN RACISM.

        In light of those two primaries alone it is clear to any reasonable person that racism has been a factor working against Obama through this process. The disgusting part is that the Clintons have accepted these wins without a whisper of protest to the means by which they were gained for them. Then, Hillary has had the gal to turn around and decry some form of sexism is the reason she has not performed as well as she should have given her lead coming into the primaries initially. Unlike racism hurting Obama, there is very little evidence that sexism has been a serious factor for Clinton, and yet she is the one who cries "Sexism!" every chance she gets. Obama chooses not to enumerate and finger-point when it comes to the reasons for his loses even when the injustice and unfairness of them are as obvious as they were in Kentucky and West Virginia. That is called integrity.

        Lastly, I'd love for you to inform us all of these other reasons to not want Obama to be president so strongly that you would vote for John McCain when you support Clinton who has a platform nearly identical to Barak's.
    • Seldon2639, on 06/02/2008, -1/+8Wait a sec, if you please. So, it's reasonable for you to help put McCain in the White House because you don't like Clinton, but it's unreasonable for someone to help put McCain in the White House because he or she doesn't like Obama? That's a bit of a double standard. You then point out that Clinton and Obama have similar policy stances, so your objection to Clinton is entirely personal

      You can't have it both ways. Either we should vote based on policy (in which case Clinton people's refusal to vote for Obama is unreasonable, as well as your ostensible refusal to vote for Clinton, is unreasonable), or we should vote on the idea of a "strategy" of hurting the candidate we don't like on a personal level.

      Your "strategy" is that if Clinton loses, she'll be done in politics. That's a fine stance, but how is that at all different from the strategy of not wanting Obama to win because I don't feel he'd make a good President?

      It's not all racism and hatred, maybe some people just don't like Obama in the same way you just don't like Clinton. Something to think about
    • ErrorS, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3I can't believe people are this way? what the hell?
      you basically said:
      "Its stupid for people to vote mccain instead of obama, that's racism, their platforms are the same and they are basically the same people.. but im voting for mccain over clinton if she wins"
      what the? Am I the ONLY one that actually read and understood what this guy just said? jesus christ, no wonder people don't take Digg politics seriously, you people are a joke.
      • Seldon2639, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1I would have (and did) explain that without the invective, but your point is essentially sound.

        We all need to take a deep breath and stop with the personal attacks. We can have serious discussions, and I feel that many of the people on this site are mature enough to handle that, if we can hold ourselves to making only valid points, rather than slanderous attacks on each others character
    • djskyler, on 06/02/2008, -4/+1LOL @ "non-racist" Dems flipping the race card in our faces. Yeah, you're right, people who don't vote Obama are racist. And the President after that needs to be Hispanic, or else you're racist. And we need to get an Asian in there somewhere too, or else....
    • leoofborg, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0[again, somewhat Conservative gadfly here]
      You know, it's thinking like THIS that gets the GOP in office for 2+ terms. Listen to yourselves: You're going to hand a ***3rd term*** and probably a **4th** to the GOP.

      This is just the kind of thinking that comes from.. Mr BaldyGlasses? Slick Willie's campaign manager? The guy who screwed over the Bolivian elections? Snarky? Damn, whathisname? Carville!

      The landscape changes. The pendulum has come around. The average folks what change, and you're carping defeatism and NOT WORKING with what you have [or have been given by your DNC]. In four years the ground will shift again and you'll be out. Again!

      Carp about Bush being an idiot all you want. You guys really don't understand history, do you? If 'the next candidate' [McCain], who happens to be a soldier, during a recession, doesn't mess up THAT MUCH, he'll be re-elected. In fact, if he scales back Iraq, and does a few things here or there he'll be kept a second term.

      On the bright side [for you guys], Obama will be even more seasoned, Miss Rodham will have a nice bed in a nice home somewhere, etc etc etc -and you guys can 'get around' to running the country again, right? Right??

      If you guys are going to do something you'd better come to an accord NOW while there is discontent. N-O-W now. I think Obama is the best you're going to get -- and given the choice of junior senator or senior shrew from nyew yahk I'll take Barack Hussein. Thank you very much!

      On the other side, I'm not that happy with McCain, I'd rather have Powell as in Colin for president. McCain's VP hopefuls are all stuffed shirts, hair and teeth, but at least they're no Cheney. I'd *rather* see Colin Powell or Ron Paul as VP on our ticket *now*. But that's just me.
    • Micktion, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Divide and conquer!

      NEO CONSERVATIVES WIN!!

      You've all been suckered in my the media which has been beating up the whole "Obama vs Clinton" like "Godzilla vs Mothra" thing since day one.

      The fix is already in, there are people out there who already know the 08 presidential election results and the propaganda machine is all geared up to ensure no one will question McCain's inevitable victory.

      Don't get me wrong, I think this sucks big time, but there's no doubt about it, this is whats going to happen.
    • Apocrypha, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Voting McCain over Clinton is just as bad as her supporters saying they would vote McCain over Obama. Don't you know you are just going to do way, way, way more damage if McCain were to actually be elected president? Don't be so irresponsible. Vote for the party that most closely matches your beliefs. That's what voting is supposed to be about. Not about color or who makes the most ridiculous promises. Any democrat who votes for McCain should be ashamed of themselves for being part of the problem and not part of the solution.
  • chris9902, on 06/01/2008, -19/+3This is what happens when you let them out the kitchen. lesson learned.
    • redcolumbine, on 06/01/2008, -3/+1That was WAY too snarky for this crowd. May I offer you an emoticon? ;-)
  • preneel, on 06/01/2008, -9/+83I can't believe any women who is concerned for reproductive rights or the future of this country would vote Republican.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 06/01/2008, -7/+19I can't believe anyone with an IQ over 85 would vote for McCain.

      He's Bush. There is no difference between him and Bush. It would be like re-electing Bush after he declared a war under false pretences, oh, yeah, hmm, nevermind.

      • carpespasm, on 06/01/2008, -2/+17That's the thing. there appear to be plenty of people with an IQ below 85.
      • locamama, on 06/02/2008, -5/+4So all the smart people agree with Mr. Assowipo? Ha!
    • Rioracer916, on 06/02/2008, -5/+5I'm sure if McCain required all women to wear burkas, the Clinton supporters would still rally behind him to spite the fact that Hillary lost to Obama.

      There is no logic in the women for Hillary camp cutting off their nose to spite their face.
  • macweirdo42, on 06/01/2008, -7/+53What the hell!? Clinton has run a bumbling campaign from the start. On top of that, she has used tactics so dirty that, pardon my saying, they're downright Republican. She has lied, she has said horrible, stupid things, she has manipulated... And yet, it's Clinton supporters who feel slighted? What is this world coming to? I don't even understand how she's managed to hold on to so many supporters this far in the race. I mean, other than the obvious, which is that her supporters seem to be foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics.
    • locamama, on 06/02/2008, -10/+2And the Obama campaign has what? Taken the high road. Keep deluding yourself.
      • RebeL5K, on 06/02/2008, -0/+6Yes, yes it has.

        Take for example yesterday's RBC meeting; while Clinton supporters were protesting and threatening to destroy the Democratic party by voting for McCain, Obama supporters were out registering NEW voters at his request to not protest but instead HELP the party.
        • locamama, on 06/02/2008, -7/+1Of course, the RBC meeting wouldn't have been necessary if Obama had agreed to a re-vote. Maybe the Clinton supporters were protesting that they just GAVE Obama four of her delegates...um, just because. Maybe the Hillary supporters have figured out that Obama and RBC committee doesn't WANT to count everyone's vote. That's the basics of democracy, you count the votes, unless that hurts Obama. Then they don't count.
        • RebeL5K, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2And if YOU'D watched the hearing you would have heard the admission by both Obama AND Clinton supporters that he played absolutely no role in "blocking a revote", contrary to what you may have heard over at hillaryis44.

          And no, her protesters were not protesting that any of "her" delegates had been given away, that ruling didn't come until about 7pm - they were there all day. But, to elaborate further, she didn't HAVE any delegates. The official delegate score per the agreed upon rules was Clinton-0 Obama-0. What came out was a compromise, a generous one on Obama's behalf being as Clinton should not have benefitted at ALL from the compromise and he had enough votes on the panel to make it 50-50 if he had wanted. So, in actuality, he indulged her with 10 delegates, not vice-versa.
        • Darksoul, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Oh please you want them to count those votes because it will help her win Obama wasn't even put on the ticket for those two states you know what I find to be laughable is the fact that she said it was fine that they where not counted but then once she realizes she was going to lose her and all you supporters of her started to whine and cry and demand they be counted. So its ok to accept those votes when he was not put on the ticket just to give her a false win.

          Are you seeing your ignorance here locamama or what.? they broke the dam rules get over it they will not be counted. Obama like RebelL5K said has indulged her quite a bit which he didn't have to not like she has with him right.
        • purzzzell, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1@Darksoul - you're echoing the exact sentiment I've been parroting for months - she's not so concerned about "the people's voice" being echoed by the supers, is she? No, they should vote based on their judgment - but Michigan and Florida, "The people need to be heard".

          Her attitudes are based on what can help her win - she's not taking the "high road" by making sure these votes are counted, she's taking the road that gives her the "best" (read: still slim) chance of winning.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5Compared to the Clinton Campaign I have no problem saying that the Obama camp has taken the high road.

        Being respectful toward your opponent and asking your supporters to do the same is a far cry from suggesting they might be assassinated, you see?
        • locamama, on 06/02/2008, -5/+1Hillary NEVER suggested Obama might be assasinated. That statement was taken so completely out of context. I don't think Obama has been respectful at all. Saying that "the claws came out" respectful? I don't think so.
      • arkboysooner, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2You're one of the foaming at the mouth lunatics he was talking about. Ground yourself in reality please.
    • pantone286, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Her supporters are people who still like bill.
  • doctorfungi, on 06/01/2008, -1/+49"Someone who differs only slightly from my candidate/opinions got the vote, therefore I shall vote for someone who differs majorly from my candidates/opinions". I'll never see that logic. Sorry.
    • masterm1nd, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3Maybe they are single issue voters where the slight/major difference between the three candidates changes.
      • ADVIZR, on 06/02/2008, -3/+3They're single issue voters, alright. Sexist voters, that is. They'll either elect a female, even one who's dishonest and spiteful, or the country be damned! And the nominee better not be someone with slightly more melanin in their skin, of all things! Oops, I guess they're double-issue voters.
    • winampman2, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3Well, unfortunately, a lot of them probably also think that Obama is trying to win the presidency "for Allah". In their narrow-minded, misinformed opinions, its better to vote McCain than a secret Muslim.

      And of course, we have Hillary to thank for creating supporters who think like that.
  • Easty, on 06/01/2008, -12/+6I thought you needed a mailing address to vote, and I don't know if 'park bench surrounded by cats and smell of urine' counts
  • Startemus, on 06/01/2008, -4/+73I don't think her supporters realize that if they vote for McCain he could become the next President.
    • LoveYouSomeEric, on 06/01/2008, -3/+30These Hillary Housewives are all stuck in a high school popularity contest mentality. I would bet that most of them don't even have an understanding of the issues, but are more drawn to her open-mouthed grins and snappy pantsuits.
      • RebeL5K, on 06/02/2008, -0/+7They sure love love those ***** pantsuits...
      • Seldon2639, on 06/02/2008, -5/+1You know, there's a good 30% of Obama supporters who would not vote for Clinton in the general election. Please tell me how that's different.
        • LoveYouSomeEric, on 06/02/2008, -1/+4Because I don't like Obama for his smile and pantsuits.
        • Seldon2639, on 06/02/2008, -4/+1That's circular logic. You're assuming that your appreciation of Obama (and lack thereof for Clinton) is more reasonable than the reverse, and prove this by explaining why Clinton's supporters are unreasonable simply by restating the original thesis that they like Clinton for her smile and pantsuits as a because.

          Prove that's really the only reason for someone to like Clinton, and you've got a case
        • LoveYouSomeEric, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2I prefer Obama over Clinton because he seems to be the candidate that is most in line with my values and beliefs. I believe that Hillary Clinton is ultimately beholden to the same corporate/upper-class interests that have been so damaging to our country over the past eight years. In fact, probably over the last 16 years. Hint hint.

          Despite my initial, somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment, I do not feel that all Clinton supporters are primarily enthralled by her smile and pantsuits. I was specifically referring to the white, middle-aged females who may be viewing Hillary as a "trend" that they should latch onto. "Clinton" is a brand, much like The Gap or Starbucks. I acknowledge that many people have legitimate reasons for supporting Clinton; I just disagree with those reasons. I think that Obama is the better candidate. I think that he would lead the country in a better direction. I think that Clinton's administration would be more similar to McCain's than it would to Obama's.

          That being said, in a general election that pitted Clinton against McCain (God forbid), I would vote for Clinton, because I recognize her as the closest of the two candidates to my own values and beliefs. It would be a vote cast with a certain lack of enthusiasm, and I would expect little in the way of real, honest reform in the following four years. Thankfully, it seems very unlikely that I will have to vote for Hillary Clinton for any office, at any time in the foreseeable future.

          I think that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States of America, and I think that he is the best chance we have of fixing the things that are destroying our republic from the inside. It's time that all reasonable people come together and support him this November.

          Obama '08!
        • Haroshia, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1Because not voting Clinton does not necessarily mean voting McCain. There's always the "Not voting" option.
        • Julik, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2I am pretty convinced that most have no idea about the different policies between Clinton, McCain, and Obama... and really I blame the media. It is all just bashing someone for saying something stupid.
    • jforjools, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Well, if they're thinking that by voting for McC, that they'll have a chance to get Hillary in office in 2012, they're not thinking very clearly.

      Hillary's political future now relies on Obama's success. If he loses in Nov, HRC will be blamed by enough Dems to ensure that she will not get the nomination next time around.

      Hilary's best fortunes will come to her if Obama wins in Nov. She'll have a *great* political future if she gets her supporters behind him and he wins in the general election.
  • eliot2000, on 06/01/2008, -7/+44And Obama supporters are the cult-ish ones? Even if Hillary came out on top, I'd still vote for her. She's not evil, and I like her policies because they're mostly the same as Obama's where it counts. There's a point at which you have to put your country ahead of your team.
    • 55mph, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4"She's not evil,"

      You haven't been paying attention. Ask Vince Foster what he thinks of Hillary. oops, he's dead under very suspicious circumstances.

      Hillary epitomizes EVIL. Fortunately you won't have the chance to change your opinion once you see her in the White House. I can only imagine the transparency she would eliminate if she were Queen.

      She would continue to double deal us into the Corporatrocracy her husband enabled and Bush pushed over the edge. NAFTA is not a fun loving Fraternity on some midwest college campus. It's another nail in America's coffin.
    • winampman2, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4I would have voted for her too, back in February. Then she started lying to everyone, slandering Obama, and using manipulative, dirty tactics. Theres no way in hell I want someone like that to be President.

      But that doesn't mean I would vote McCain either, if it was between them two. I'd vote neither. I'd stay home and chill. And mentally prepare myself for the next 4 years of more manipulative politics.
  • vinnyvenus, on 06/01/2008, -11/+6Obama needs to seriously unite the Democratic party otherwise he is in for a big November surprise.
    • BishkekBuddy, on 06/01/2008, -3/+17It's not OBAMA who needs to unite the party - it's HILLARY! She's the one who's been tearing it apart (with the Repugs help) and SHE'S the one who has the onus to help put it back together - but we've got a snowball's chance in hell of that happening because she's incapable of being a team player.
      • insomniacal, on 06/01/2008, -6/+6Wait, hold it right there. You want Hillary sidelined, but you still look to her for the leadership of uniting her party?

        That's insane. If Obama can't unite the Democrats, how will he ever unite the nation?

        Stop looking to Hillary for leadership. Put the onus where it belongs -- on Obama. If he's going to lead, now is a good time to start.
        • chaosblade77, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3It's kind of hard for him to start with Hillary still on his back though. Once she drops out a lot of the intelligent Clinton supporters will move to Obama, especially if/when she endorses him, because his policies are much are closer to what they want than McCain and the party will begin to unify. Others will probably follow McCain just because of issues like "Obama has no experience" or things like that, but there will still be those who simply vote out of spite, sadly.
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3The responsibility falls on them both, obviously.

          Hillary played no small part in making this mess, and she absolutely has an obligation to help clean it up by throwing her full support behind Obama and quelling all the animosity she has stirred up in her supporters.
      • leoofborg, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Sorry, but this is ALL on Miss Rodham and company. Repubs??

        You guys are to blame for your OWN train wreck.

        You have ONE CHANCE to get the the helm of the country and that's in November 2008. But if you're going to cede now... because you can't decide between an ethically challenged evil shrew and a black man with no record. I'll take the black man. NO hesitation. Though if I were to pick, I'd *rather* have Colin Powell.

        You guys did that last time, RIGHT???

        Chads in Florida, and Gore just wimpered off the stage.

        Is this your country or what??? If Hillary won't take responsibility then Barack and your quaint little DNC are up to bat.

        Git'r'done!

        Why is this sooo hard??

        So two the states have 'race issues' and there's no Utopia! What's the name of that website you guys have? Bueller? M-o-v-e-o-n?

        Sheesh, it's painful to watch this trainwreck from the other side of the fence.
    • muhadeeb, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2Obama needs to serve in the senate for at least one more term before i can label him as a pro, but for now he is still a rookie with no experience in uniting people in the congress as of yet.
      • leoofborg, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0Oh and what type of 'Pro' did you have in mind. One like TeddyK, DickC, or .. or... Dubya?

        Dubya came in with *less* experience than Barack has now.

        You're basically inferring that the presidency, a post usually manned by ex-state governors and senators-- all provincial schmucks when they enter office-- is too big for baby Barack.

        I don't think so. So what, you'd fill the post with an ethically challenged shrew? The anti-AnnCoulter? Miss Rodham?

        You. guys. need. help. Seriously. Get over the race thing and name the [much] lesser of two evils.
        • Julik, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1You need help... Seriously.

          Bush was a Governor for 6 years... He also won re-election before running for President.

          Obama has been a Senator for 3 years... 2 of which he was campaigning for President.

          Also the majority of US Presidents have been Governors because they are usually more experienced in running something... Governors run a state prior to running the country, which is a reason they tend to win more presidential elections.
  • Evolutuon, on 06/01/2008, -6/+45These ignorant women want change and their voices to be heard, but when Obama becomes the nominee, they'll vote for stagnation and deafness.

    Absolutely no common sense.
  • Hillsfar, on 06/01/2008, -13/+47To vote for McCain is to:
    * get 4 more years of Bush.
    * keep our troops in Iraq for many years to come.
    * continue Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
    * keep the health care system as it is.
    * allow cronies and lobbyists to continue to run Washington
    * keep at bay ethics reform and government transparency measures.

    Sounds like these disgruntled Clinton supporters are really Republicans.
    • B1663r, on 06/01/2008, -14/+4/me looks around at 99% of the comments on this thread...

      So it would be fair to call all the "unity" speech "shuck and jive", because it certainly appears that Obama supporters are not interested in my vote.

      For all that hypothetical stuff, none of it changes that Obama and his supporters are a bunch of ass holes.
      • Hillsfar, on 06/02/2008, -3/+7Question for you. What words have you said that tell us that you interested in courting the votes of Obama supporters even while you've been advocating for Clinton? Have you been courteous to Obama voters, courteous of Barack Obama? If the situation were reversed, what good example have you lead that would lead us Obama supporters to want to vote for Hillary Clinton?

        Remember, it was you who wrote that you consider Obama a "monster." I just wrote in here that to vote for McCain means voting ant-Democratic. It means voting for Republican ideals.
      • RebeL5K, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5Ok, and Clinton and her supporters are not only a bunch of *****, but also losers.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/02/2008, -13/+5To vote for McCain is to:
      * get 4 more years of Bush.
      OBAMATARD PROPOGANDA! - Mccain has criticized Bushes management of the budget and war more than any other voice, including Democrats.

      * keep our troops in Iraq for many years to come.
      100 YEAR LIE - DEBUNKED - just need to watch the full answer

      * continue Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
      SOMEWHAT TRUE - but also taxes will rise for most Americans, just more so for weathier, which usually provide most of the jobs.

      * keep the health care system as it is.
      You can blame BOTH parties and NOT MCCAIN who hates the pharmaceutical companies from blocking generic drugs for competing... its anti capistlist.

      * allow cronies and lobbyists to continue to run Washington
      Again Mccain protests the most about over spending, misspending, and on the most pork barrel busting committees than anyone else. Obama is an ALMOST 2 term newbie.

      * keep at bay ethics reform and government transparency measures.
      Mccain openly a victim of torture, wants it eliminated and GITMO closed !

      So thats it for left wing Obamatard lies on this post - NEXT!!!
      • s3rgi0, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5Using the word obamatard is blatant propaganda, not to mention a complete logical fallacy. It is a clear attack on the person and not on the idea.
        • Grok22, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1Its a clear attack on a group of people, not just an individual.
    • jahurt, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Please don't forget that the next president is going to nominate at least one and possibly three supreme court justices.
    • BlackJackJester, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2My only problem is...what are "the wealthiest americans"? Anyone who makes more than 60k? *****, in the Bay Area, that's poverty.
      • Hillsfar, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Obama's plan is those who make more than $100,000 per year. The people in the Bay Area and New York City don't seem to mind. And in the rest of the country, $100,000 buys a McMansion.
    • Andrwmorph, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1I almost hope McCain wins just so all these morons who voted form him out of spite get their just desserts.
  • deadbaby, on 06/01/2008, -28/+30Typical women. Vindictive as *****. You're only proving the stereotype ladies.
    • brightlight4, on 06/01/2008, -4/+8Don't put all women in the same boat please I NEVER liked Clinton as US president and if I lived in the US would vote for Obama.
    • B1663r, on 06/01/2008, -11/+4Makin it easy to vote for McCain... And I though I was gonna have to hold my nose.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Go right ahead. You will only be hurting yourself. It's worth saying so too since that is the only thing you seem to care about.

        "IF I CAN'T HAVE MY WAY YOU CAN'T YOURS!!"
        • Jiffylush, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1I am pretty sure that is Hillary's new slogan.
      • FrenchAnarchy, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1@ B1663r
        I'm a little confused why comments on Digg are really effecting your vote? I guess the issues don't count?
    • gryphon50, on 06/02/2008, -9/+4if women tend to be vindictive against you, that is more of a commentary on your personality than theirs.
    • ghostoftomjoad, on 06/02/2008, -7/+6and making blanket sexist statements is only proving their point about males. do us a favor and stfu
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Actually this will be a true test. Are most women vindictive and petty or is that a completely undeserved myth? We shall see.
  • chicoer2001, on 06/01/2008, -4/+35People it's a primary. You have no right to vote in a primary. Today Puerto Rico votes, but they cant vote in November. Stop being such sore losers. Your states knew the outcome and called the DNC's bluff. The DNC then bent the rules because of a bunch on whiners.
  • brightlight4, on 06/01/2008, -9/+4Just goes to prove the intelligence of the Pro Clinton voters!!! Or are Clinton policies close the McCain I wonder? STUPID!!!
  • 666dorado, on 06/01/2008, -6/+20anyone who would vote mccain to spite obama isn't a team player, just a hillary supporter...or maybe they aren't democrat in the first place.
  • XxpokemasterxX, on 06/01/2008, -6/+15they are selfish
    • Hangly, on 06/02/2008, -0/+4Deliberately damaging your own side is a bit worse than selfish. It's psychotic.
  • LoveYouSomeEric, on 06/01/2008, -4/+44Clinton Demonstrators Threaten to Cut off Nose to Spite Face.
    • estate, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3The fact that this article has made the front page is hilarious.
      I'm a huge Obama fan, but seriously, the number of times I've read "If she wins the nomination I'll vote for McCain" makes this article's presence here a complete joke. It's almost certain that some (not all) people who dugg this article have also either posted or dugg identical comments in favour of Obama.

      The fact this article hit the front page of Digg demonstrates how many hypocrits there are here.

      Hopefully once he's wrapped it up later this week we (well, you, I'm Australian) can get back to focusing on November.
      • LoveYouSomeEric, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2I don't think that digging an article necessarily implies that one AGREES with the general ideas expressed in it, only that one finds it interesting or newsworthy.
  • 99CentFreedom, on 06/01/2008, -24/+4Although I'm certainly no fan of McCain, a vote for him is certainly better than a vote for Barack -HUSSEIN- Obama. It I were them I'd write in Dr. Ron Paul just to be safe, nobody knows how this election will go.
    • B1663r, on 06/01/2008, -8/+2No fan of McCain here either. Right now I am leaning McCain only to prevent a monster like Obama from taking the office.
      • FrenchAnarchy, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1How is Barck Obama a monster to a Hilary supporter? He is not far off Hilary's positions on nearly all the issues.
    • jesushitler, on 06/02/2008, -2/+3wow...
  • Noodleson, on 06/01/2008, -11/+10Would you guys stop it with the petty insults? You wonder why the party isn't uniting while simultaneously calling Clinton and her supporters every name in the book. I know it's just a small percentage of Obama supporters doing it, but still, it's not helping, it's just arrogant.
    • B1663r, on 06/01/2008, -8/+5Wow, it is just too late at this point. It is sort of like leaving the trinity church after all the damage is done(unless there is more bad crap coming;) ). The best you can do now, is convince me not to vote. I will not be voting for Obama.
      • eyepennies, on 06/02/2008, -2/+5Wow. Just, wow. First of all, I don't need to convince you of anything. Are you telling me that you would vote for McCain over Obama? That is fine, but please don't insult me by pretending that you are a progressive or a Democrat.

        You, sir, fail.

        Epically.
      • RebeL5K, on 06/02/2008, -2/+3Well if it's too late then I may as well point out that you and your losing choice of candidate are both miserable ***** who have proven that you are not Democrats, you are Clinton fans. The fact that your second choice after Clinton is McCain proves that you were never supportive of her policies, but, well...her *****. ***** you.
      • s3rgi0, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3May I ask why not?
        At this point last year Obama and Clinton were even in my book. Neither held an advantage over the other in my mind. Since then I've lost a lot of respect for Hillary. To me she has refused to give up, and stopped at nothing to achieve her goal. Her ambition causes her to resort to some dirty politicking. Her tenacious pursuit of the nomination and willingness to pull out all of the stops show me just how much she wants to be in power.
        Some have said that the best leader is one who does not seek to lead. A want of power and leadership is a selfish one, and a dangerous one.
    • Jiffylush, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3So you call out a small percentage of Obama supporters?

      Why not call out the Clinton *EMPLOYEES* who are doing the same thing?
  • JMSantos, on 06/01/2008, -4/+11Wow! People are dumb.
  • brokenspatula, on 06/01/2008, -17/+10MCCAIN > OBAMA
  • Gabberwok, on 06/01/2008, -5/+20Once Clinton is no longer newsworthy and the media focuses on Obama v. McCain, the decision will be very clear. McCain is having a lot of trouble staying on-message and has had to walk a narrow tight-rope to satisfy the far right base and at the same time appeal to independents. Now that he's the nominee he's swinging to the center and dumping the far right baggage he accumulated to get there (Hagee, etc.), but he will lose his conservative base by doing that and not make enough of an increase in independents.

    My money is on Obama - if Michael Moore and Rupert Murdoch can agree on a candidate I think it's going to be close to impossible to stop him.
    • B1663r, on 06/01/2008, -15/+2Clinton has now won the popular vote, that means she is news worthy until the convention;)
      • RebeL5K, on 06/02/2008, -0/+10No, she hasn't. Sorry to disillusion you. Her lead in the popular vote is about as real as the sniper fire she was ducking in Bosnia.
      • Mejari, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3You realize that for that to be true she needed to have at least 2 million voters in Puerto Rico today, right? And she only got around 250k for herself. And even if that were true, that doesn't count several caucus states, and does include places that can't actually vote in the election. I appreciate and value those votes, but they do not jive with Hillary's statement that her popular vote 'lead', if it existed in the first place, would mean that she is better positioned for the general election.
  • jozb, on 06/01/2008, -7/+9If McCain wins i'm moving to Canada or Australia, how's the weather down there?
    • Pedobear, on 06/01/2008, -3/+7I know it's not a serious question, but I'll still give it a serious answer. (in b4 serious cat, serious thread etc)

      Australia's weather can get pretty hot and dry, depending on where you decide to stay. Generally, the summers are hot (it can reach over 100 degrees in the middle and northern territories) and the winters are mild (60-70 degrees on average). However, Australia is really ***** dry, even in the coastal areas -- they've been facing a drought for over 10 years and in places like Brisbane, the government has had to instate major water restrictions with the goal of limiting personal water use to 140 liters a day per person. That's less than one bathtub a day. With the climate change going on in Australia, things don't look to get much better in the near future.

      Also, things can be pretty expensive in Australia.

      So yeah, you might wanna look into Canada instead (or pray for an Obama victory).
    • PiGuy, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3Good luck getting a visa
    • romistrub, on 06/02/2008, -1/+7I live in Canada. It's really nice during the summer, and the winters vary greatly from year to year. I like Canada.
    • Hangly, on 06/02/2008, -0/+108 years of Bush haven't convinced you to move yet? What exactly are you waiting for?
    • JulyZerg, on 06/02/2008, -0/+6Canada's great! Except we can't elect Obama.

      We're living under a pretty draconian PM, though. Not as bad as Bush, but still pretty bad.
    • tomasII, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2buh bye
  • SheilaNoya, on 06/01/2008, -7/+29An important point we all need to remember...

    Hillary may have a few idiotic supporters who will actually vote for McCain out of spite, or even because of racial prejudice.
    HOWEVER, right now the Republican party is not energized and many of them still don't like McCain (especially the evangelicals). Now consider what would happen if Hillary's name was on the ballot in November. The Republicans passionately hate Hillary and she would be a huge incentive for them to vote (against her, more than for McCain).

    I wouldn't worry too much about a loud, but probably small, group of Hillary supporters who are willing to destroy America if they don't get their way. It would be much worse if Hillary was actually the Democratic nominee. That alone would cause the Republicans to rise up in anger and rush to the voting booths to defeat her.
    • slayerab, on 06/01/2008, -12/+2There are still narrow minded Obamabots, but I'm not gonna get into it because even if I do, I'll get dugg down by them.
      • s3rgi0, on 06/02/2008, -1/+4Please do.
        I won't digg you down for backing up your opinion and telling me why I should think that way too. But, if you just tell me what you think and don't even explain why YOU think it... well, that's another story.
      • InnerRayg, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3You still got dugg down anyway :P

        But yeah, the way I see it right now I think that the Republican Party is going to be dressed up as the Democratic party during the last eight years in this election-unorganized and unable to coalesce behind one leader. Especially with Ron Paul and his movement-I know he will never win, but I think that he's gonna get a ton of write-ins that will effectively negate a serious McCain lead...and I'm gonna guess that Obama will win the general election, barring some serious upset. Personally I'm excited just because I want to know how it will turn out. Either Obama is going to deliver spectacularly and be the next Roosevelt or this is going to be one of the most historically disgracing campaigns to hit the nation, somewhat like Nixon's runaway victories in the past.
    • majortom1981, on 06/02/2008, -2/+0You are wrong. If people like you keep bashing hillary supporters then he WILL LOSe. ITs more then a few supporters who feel this way.
  • jeanine22, on 06/01/2008, -18/+1Hillary/Paul 2008
  • isparadiselost, on 06/01/2008, -18/+5Obama, Hillary, McCain.......what's the difference? Either way the Constitution gets shoved further into a closet.
    • RebeL5K, on 06/02/2008, -1/+5If you're not satisfied with the current slate of candidates, get off your lazy ass and ***** do something about it. Sitting on your computer making snippy comments does nothing to protect the Constitution.
      • InnerRayg, on 06/02/2008, -1/+1The problem is armed rebellion tends to get you shot, and other then that you're pretty much stuck with snippy comments.
  • getpumped87, on 06/02/2008, -4/+7ladies and gentlemen...why a 2 party system will be the downfall of Democracy
    • logicet, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2Thank goodness our Republic will still stand.
      • InnerRayg, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1You do understand that we are not talking about the parties, right?
        • Ultrace, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0He's talking about the fact that we don't have a democracy, but a republic... Electing people who then make decisions for you is not a democracy, even if you have a democratic say in who those people are.
  • Vash3001, on 06/02/2008, -15/+10I love it. The democratic party is falling apart.
    • charm803, on 06/02/2008, -4/+3And no one to blame but themselves.....tsk tsk tsk....McCain is McLoving this...
    • RebeL5K, on 06/02/2008, -2/+4The Republican party fell apart in 2006. I'd rather be falling apart than already shattered into a million pieces.
      • Vash3001, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1lol if its "shattered into a million pieces" how did we ever decide on a candidate?
        I guess unified parties argue and mud slig until the last moment before deciding on a candidate.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/02/2008, -1/+6Go back to bed, Rush.

      Also, you might want to take a look at your own party. They aren't exactly super united.
      • Vash3001, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1You might want to look at my party again. We are very united. We are supporting McMcain a guy whom stands against about 50% of what we are for. Stop reading the huffington press and you might actually learn something.
    • SheilaNoya, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3The divisions you see in the Democratic party are just being magnified by the media and the Republican party. Angry people with big mouths make headlines.

      Don't forget, the Democrats were also laughing at the Republicans when Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter claimed that McCain would destroy the Republican party and NO ONE should vote for him. It looks like "most" of you guys are caving in now and willing to accept McCain, even if you have a bitter taste in your mouth when doing so.

      The Republicans still haven't convinced the Evangelicals to kiss McCain's ass, especially after McCain just spit on Hagee and Parsley and denounced them. They don't trust McCain (for very good reasons).

      The Ron Paul supporters are also eating away at McCain and stealing votes away from him, and don't forget about Bob Barr who is polling at 8% in Georgia right now and looking pretty appealing to the Evangelical voters.

      Before you laugh at the problems of the Democratic party, you really need to clean up the mess in your OWN party and figure out why McCain still can't get 20% to 25% of the Republican voters to choose his name on the ballot.

      • leoofborg, on 06/02/2008, -0/+0And this is why the Dems are a big bucket of FAIL.

        Yeah, we don't like McCain attending La Raza rallies. Yeah, he leaves a bad taste in our collective mouths. But in the end, we'll elect the SOB. Because he's *our* SOB. and a plus is he's not a chicken hawk like Dubya.

        You guys have *one shot* at taking the Executive Office and you're quibbling about us? We 'got'r'done MONTHS ago.

        There's no quibbling or HillaryDrama on our side of the fence like the trainwreck on *your side*.

        Factions of your party want to 'hand over' a 3rd term to the GOP? I think they used to tar'n'feature Whigs like that, right??

        No really, WTF??????

        Aren't you guys in this for the win?? Given the record of Miss ThugLife Rodham, Obama should be a **no brainer** for you guys.

        Are we going to have an HONEST election in 2008, or more shenanigans???

        Hell, with the train wreck on the DNC side, I'm betting on chads in Flo'da.
        • Vash3001, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Indeed. We Republicans might not like McCain very much, but dammit we will vote for his ass. He is better than whatever the democrats pull out of their ass.
  • Crossmenjeff, on 06/02/2008, -2/+16 Grow up a little, in order for a democracy to work you have to give and take, and if you're just gonna throw a fit every time things don't go your way, then you don't deserve the freedoms you have.
  • nubnub, on 06/02/2008, -7/+8Sounds a bit racist
    • sleepysteve, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2My father taught me since I was old enough to read that I must never play the 'race card.' It does nothing but hurt race relations in America.
      That being said, I couldn't help but think that some of these people really would vote for McCain because they can't bear to vote for the 'black candidate' (I despise that term). In no way am I saying that all or even most of these potential cross-party voters are racist. However I can't help but think that race is an issue for a lot of people after hearing about polls in which some Clinton supporters stated that very thing. I'm sure there were more too, just too embarrassed to say so. I think that was in West Virginia by the way.
  • Pedestrian101, on 06/02/2008, -4/+8Not to worry, these people are so stupid they'll forget Clinton ever ran in a couple of months.
  • macguys, on 06/02/2008, -3/+6I suspect that this is a "false flag" operation.
    • Hangly, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2People keep falling for them, so why not?
  • dadguy, on 06/02/2008, -11/+4With Hillary potentially out, Al Gore may run independent. He said he would not run against Clinton, that's real far away from saying he would not run. Democrat loyalty? LOL The GOP has always seen through your leftist self righteous BS. Now you reap it. If Barak wins 12 states I'll be amazed.

    • InnerRayg, on 06/02/2008, -1/+3So wait...you're chastising the party for a hypothetical situation you made up?

      Yeeeeeeeeeaaaaah.......
  • bovox, on 06/02/2008, -7/+6I wouldn't be surprised if they did vote for McCain. Hillary supporters aren't exactly the sharpest crayons in the box. There is a reason that every single exit poll has shown that the types of people who voted for Hillary are borderline retarded. No joke.
  • chrisbosh123, on 06/02/2008, -12/+7... VOTE RON PAUL.
    • JasonMath, on 06/02/2008, -0/+1Actually, Ron Paul could be a contender (even if it is a long shot). Should McCain die or get seriously ill (he has had health problems in the past) before the Republican National Convention, the delegates will have no choice but to vote for Ron Paul, since he is the only other person in the race. Then again, I don't know how healthy Paul is (since he is 72 years old),