digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com —

Clinton: Gore And Kerry Lost Viewed As Elitist

huffingtonpost.com — Speaking to reporters in Pennsylvania on Sunday, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said that previous Democratic nominees lost in the general election because they were viewed as out of touch with the nation.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 04/14/2008, -13/+122That's a nice way to piss of a man who hasnt endorsed yet and is rumored to be working to get you out of the race.
    • RepubOperative, on 04/14/2008, -31/+4Here is the king of liars:
      http://tinyurl.com/6mufda
      • tmslak, on 04/14/2008, -1/+10God damnit...you republican ***** do realize that ANYONE can put ANYTHING on the internet, right? THAT DOESN'T ***** MAKE IT TRUE, OR EVEN REALISTIC.

        ***** moron.
        • ForestRangerBen, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Just like Obama's *****? Just because he has more diggs doesn't mean the entire country supports him eh?
    • stonewaljacksn, on 04/14/2008, -26/+12You Obama operatives are really getting on my nerves. Are you really that ignorant to think that the Republicans won't cast Obama as an elitist? How foolish can you be? All your talk about how non-elitist he is to your Obama-bubble friends who all agree with you means nothing. He will be cast as the candidate for "latte sipping liberals" just like Kerry by the repubs and Howard Dean by his own party. This article is incredibly pointless. The fact of the matter is that liberal candidates ARE out of touch with the conservatives in this nation. They are in touch with us liberals, but it is completely ignorant of you to think that everyone's values are the same. but go ahead, keep making your obama support just a reaction to hillary.
      buried.
      • lordmike, on 04/14/2008, -1/+16Do you really think that Hillary will be spared the same treatment just 'cos she's pandering to the "Beer and whiskey" crowd right now? If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. Every Democrat (even Hillary) is going to be slammed with this mischaracterization... Now, you can fight back with pandering (which is what Hillary and Kerry have done), or fight back on the merits of the argument (which is what Obama is doing). Pandering has failed in the past.... perhaps hitting it head on would be better...
      • rholland356, on 04/14/2008, -1/+10I see 3 pots calling 3 kettles black. Why do senators lose presidential races? Because they are out-of-touch legislators working in a rarified atmosphere. This year, though, we have a generational challenge: we have doddering old grandpa, bitchy babyboomer Aunt Sadie, and Uncle Gen-X. It's a given that grandpa is quite a few straws short of a bale.
        And, really, aren't we all quite tired of that overbearing woman telling us how she's gonna fight for us, yet can't really demonstrate how she FOUGHT and won anything of merit. So, we have a chance to sweep all that away and choose the youngsta with the promise of a second camelot.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 04/14/2008, -4/+3she wont be spared the same treatment!! THATS WHY THIS ARTICLE IS POINTLESS PROPAGANDA!!
      • gn0stik, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Wait a few months and the headline would be "Clinton, Gore, and Kerry lost, viewed as elitist." Doesn't she know her propaganda isn't working?
      • brstilson, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5And all the democrats have to point out to McCain is his 8 houses and hundreds of millions of dollars. Obama's net worth is a fraction of what the other two candidate's are.
    • ProjectGSX, on 04/14/2008, -2/+18Thats the whole point man. These two are about to pick Obama so she pre-emptively attempts to discredit them. Its not a bad move.
      • opticwind, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Wow, you might actually be onto something.
      • digitalhair, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1sure, but it's bad for America, and so is she. Sure it's a game to be won, but why is she still in the race if she can't win on principle?
      • YourDoom123, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2kerry already endorsed obama
    • Stormwern, on 04/14/2008, -2/+8Clinton reminds me more and more of someone trying to swat flies with a shotgun..indoors.
    • judolphin, on 04/14/2008, -3/+8Well AttomeBoy, for anyone old enough to remember the 2000 elections, Al Gore basically lost the election, among other things, because cameras caught him sighing and shaking his head at GWB like a disapproving schoolteacher every time he spoke in debates. It made him look like a know-it-all smartypants, and turned some people off Gore. As silly as it seems, this was true,

      Kerry lost, among other things, because he was perceived by many in the public to be an out-of-touch elitist who married money.

      Even though Bill Clinton and GWB are both aristocrats, they were both perceived as down-homey guys that regular people could relate to (especially more true for Bush in 2000 than 2004).

      A Dutch man asked me on vacation in 2005 how we could possibly have voted for Bush. My answer was, "As much as Americans hate Bush, many of them REALLY couldn't stand Kerry." He was perceived as an elitist.

      The problem isn't reality (they're ALL elitists), it's perception. And Obama just spilled the beans on what he really though. Hillary Clinton probably feels the same way. SHe was just smart enough not to say it.
      • brstilson, on 04/14/2008, -4/+10Al Gore won the election. The Supreme Court is who picked the president.
        • Pimptastic, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4Read the actual supreme court case. You might be surprised at what was actually ruled on.
        • innocentsinner, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5But the point still stands. While Gore may have been viewed as elitist, most of the country voted for him.
        • deanlowe, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Imagine what the winning margin would have been if more people didn't think he was elitist.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1I don't know. I kind of like Obama more for talking about people clinging to guns and religion. I think his honesty is making a mark on the public. I think we are getting to the point where a majority of people would rather have an honest person that they don't agree with than a politician that pretends to care about them.
        • rholland356, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Obama's greatest challenge will be to force McCain't to address racism, racial divide and poverty, instead of glossing over it as he has done to date.
      • Stormwern, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Kerry was not very charismatic or inspiring, and gore was a lousy rethoric. Those are both character flaws, which is a lot better than the moral flaw of being an elitist.
    • ForestRangerBen, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I like how you're the first one to respond to your post, way to go Obama Drone!
  • soundarya, on 04/14/2008, -93/+4Contact Super Delegates

    22nd April, PA Primary, let’s make Hillary win…
    Here is the list of Super Delegates who are supporting Hillary from PA


    Allyson Y Schwartz
    John P Murtha
    Joe Sestak
    Ed Rendell
    Paul F Kanjorski
    Marcel Groen
    Ruth C. Rudy
    T.J. Rooney
    Jean A. Milko
    Ian Murray
    Evelyn D. Richardson
    Rena Baumgartner
    Let’s urge them to Keep Pledge to vote for Clinton.
    Here is the list of Obama Supporters

    Patrick J. Murphy
    Chaka Fattah
    Leon Lynch
    Carol Ann Campbell
    Robert P. Casey, Jr.
    Let’s urge them to switch their Convention voting pledge from Barack Obama to Clinton
    And here is the list of Un-committed Delegates

    Ronald R. Donatucci
    Robert Brady
    Michael F Doyle
    Christopher P Carney
    Tim Holden
    Jason Altmire
    William M. George
    Sophie Masloff
    Let’s urge them to end their Uncommitted stance, and make a public pledge to vote for Clinton.
    Contact super delegates – http://www.LobbyDelegates.com
    • argaen21, on 04/14/2008, -1/+35***** off
    • zephyear, on 04/14/2008, -1/+29how about no

      even clintons supporters want to steal delegates

    • PantsB, on 04/14/2008, -0/+37How about we do the opposite and call HRC's superdelegates?
    • iainc, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6no thanks.
    • Fordi, on 04/14/2008, -0/+19Why on earth would anyone want to support a condescending sort like Hillary. It's like she doesn't even know what 'Out of Touch' means.

      I mean seriously... Even before I had made up my mind, Obama speeches made me think, "Aw yeah! Somebody gets it!", while Clinton speeches made me think, "Ok, what's she trying to pull?"
    • digitalhair, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3contact them to tell them you WANT YOUR ***** DEMOCRACY BACK ... and let them know you want restitution for the shame you now experience after realizing that your votes in all of the previous elections probably didn't matter very much thanks to elitist gerrymandering like this...

      Politicians like Hillary just looooove democracy - this idea that the majority should decide - except when it comes to their own damn election...CROOKS.
    • msk275, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1no no no. don't post that here. rwar.
    • cadon35, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Each it and i
    • mizatt, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3we don't take too kindly to you types in these parts
      • blackcloud333, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2We don't take kindly to people who don't take kindly in these here parts.
    • afterlife23, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2that was a joke right
      • opticwind, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1We don't take kindly to those that don't take kindly to jokes.
    • truthhammer, on 04/14/2008, -4/+0Lest there be any doubt this site is an Obamabot stronghold....-77 diggs in 11 hours. Just because you want someone not named Obama. It's sad when people just try to silence those they disagree with rather then debating.
      • afterlife23, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1thye debate finished a long time ago
    • dinot, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1You're not helping her.
    • sq2shooter, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Clinton is a lying douche? How anyone can support her is beyond me.
  • kitebro, on 04/14/2008, -11/+84Republicans want Hillary to win. And that is because she would lose in November. We don't need four more years of failed policies and tax breaks for the elite.
    • IslandDog, on 04/14/2008, -22/+4Obama and Hillary can both easily lose in Obama. The more the "real" Obama comes out the better.

      We certainly don't need four years of higher taxes and socialism.
      • kipmartin, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6hahahaha. stfu.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1You'll get that if either of them get elected. Hillary wants your money to pay for socialized medicine and Obama wants to give your money to the UN. They'll have to raise taxes because neither of them has the political courage to cut pork from the bloated budget.
      • goomba323, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1The average American favors lower taxes with an increase in government spending. The average Republican thinks this is a good idea.
        • mcquitty, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1I don't. As a republican, I want better cost controls over spending. I am furious that the republicans, after getting control of the house, senate and white house, decided to spend on pork rather than control spending and reducing the tax burden. I don't mind paying taxes. I hate paying for programs that have no business being there in the first place.

          I am against tax breaks for oil just as much as I am against tax breaks for farmers. Let the market place decide the price of oil and corn. Why are there subsidies on growing corn for ethanol? It's driving up the cost of corn which is used for farm animals and then all of the "high fructose corn syrup" products. I am more free market, let's not subsidize farmers.

          I am against the TSA, yet another large beauracacy who provides subpar service for above normal prices. I am against bailing out homeowners who spent far beyond their means to buy a house. "I deserve it!" I want to call my senator say, "I am current on my house payments. How many house payments do I need to be behind before you help me?" I am against government bail outs for bad corporate decisions.

          I am for gas taxes to pay for roads, property tax to pay for schools and other reasonable taxes. I don't want roads to nowhere, or $74 million to store peanuts. Why is my federal money being used for this?

          I, as a republican, want accountability for the money I send to washington. I believe the same tax and spend mentality will be there if Obama holds the white house and the democrats hold both the house and senate. I believe that the adversarial system is best served by checks and balances. The democrats have proved, just as the republicans did, that once they are in power, they will spend with no constraints.

          To think that republicans can be painted with your broad simplistic brush is to stereotype in the same manner RepubOperative does.

          But what do I know, I care more about the issues than blindly following a party or personality. While I am a republican, it doesn't mean I vote solely for republicans. I would rather vote for who I feel is going to do the best job.
          • goomba323, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Dugg you up for a reasonable response. And yes, I agree with what you saying (and I'm a Democrat). The problem really isn't that we are spending out of our ass as much as it is we're spending out of our ass on things that we don't necessarily need/can potentially save money on. This is one of the main reasons I am against the war because the oppurtunity-cost of the war isn't there for me. I'd rather have the slight threat of terrorism than to pay for a war to prevent an inevitable civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. Why should we play peace-keeper in their civil disputes (which will eventually land us in a war against both Sunni's and Shiite's since Bush has recently stated that "Iran and Al Queda are the number 1 and 2 threats to America").
          • mcquitty, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0@goobama323,

            Thank you. I do take offense at all the generalizations of Republicans. The simple fact of the matter is, Republican seems to be a dirty word on this site. For many, Republican = fascist. It's not even close to being true.

            It seems people prefer to be childish and name call around here rather than have real discussions. Slashdot is much better about comment system, as there are categories (troll, informative, interesting, etc...) Rather than accepting discourse, the policy on digg seems to be to bury people for not having the same views, even if they are valid.

            If I say "Go Obama!", which adds nothing to a discussion, I get dugg up. If I bring up real issues, I get dugg down simply for being honest about a discussion.

            Thanks for the digg and for the reasonable response.
      • leftyslament, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Socialism- That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
    • RepubOperative, on 04/14/2008, -25/+4Actually Republicans want the black man to win because a greater number of Democrats, up to 28%, will vote for McCain. But we certainly want folks to get all riled up and vote for Hillary so the big disappointment sets in when she loses.
      • WasabiBomb, on 04/14/2008, -4/+9McWho?

        He's that bland white guy you guys want to run for president, right? Haven't heard anything about him in a while. How's his stance on the war? How about on torture? Has he figured out the difference between Sunnis and Shiites yet? What's he think about evolution?
      • stonewaljacksn, on 04/14/2008, -10/+4God Wasabibomb you just summed up everything that is wrong with liberals. There are a HELL of a lot of people in this country who believe in evolution and support finishing up this war. Im not saying I'm voting for McCain, I just wish people like you didn't make my side of the political spectrum look bad by showing how much you refuse to understand the points of view of people who think differently from you. People like you are the reason liberals get charged with being elitist, ivory tower pricks.
        You are in for a rude awakening. This election is not a Democratic cakewalk. I know of NO republicans who are considering switching to vote for Obama in my PERSONAL life, though Im sure u can find retarded articles on digg about one republican who is defecting. What I DO see, is people here in New Jersey who normally would vote Democrat defecting for McCain already.
        Digg lies and misleads. Listen to what people are saying outside of your circle of friends in the real world.
        • kipmartin, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7"I just wish people like you didn't make my side of the political spectrum look bad by showing how much you refuse to understand the points of view of people who think differently from you."

          sucks when it happens to you, huh? we liberals have gotten used to it.
        • WasabiBomb, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1So being concerned about issues such as torture, the war, and evolution is being elitist?

          You're right. We should just vote for the guy we'd rather have a beer with.
        • goomba323, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2I personally know at least 3 Republicans who have said they would vote for Obama over that "old man" McCain. But then again, I go to a University so it's understandable that us college kids feel that a 72 year old man won't be able to be in touch with any of our views.
      • brstilson, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Bickering between Obama and Clinton is driving that. By the time November comes, the Democrats will have rallied around their nominee. You can't take polls seriously this long before an election.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1I seriously don't think it matters to the Reps. If Obama is nominated then they'll easily rally the redneck sector of the party. On the other hand, if Hillary is nominated all they'll have to say is "Do you want a Clinton back in the Whitehouse?" That alone will be enough to rally their base. It's a win-win for them. All the infighting within the DNC right now is just icing on the cake.
    • Wargalas, on 04/14/2008, -10/+9Tell me something Kitebro. How is it that McCain asks for cuts in spending rather than increases, does that make for "failed policies"? Even your Almighty Obama has advocated for bigger and bigger increases in spending on things such as Universal Health Care and other things? Tell me, with everyone, including Democrats screaming about our massive debt, are you and others so blindly supporting someone who's advocating MORE SPENDING when we're already up to our eyes in debt?
      • Malacandra95, on 04/14/2008, -4/+12Yeah, it makes for failed policies. The GOP had total control of every branch of government and just added mountains of debts by giving out ruinous tax cuts to the very wealthy without any fiscal restraint on spending whatsoever, squandering surpluses left for them by the Clinton administration. Republicans originally claimed that such cuts would be offsets by increased revenues created by greater economic growth, an assertion refuted by all date since the 80's when it was originally made.

        It's time for the conservatives to accept that there's something worse than tax-and-spend Democrats - which is borrow-and-spend Republicans.
        • thebaron2, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2"just added mountains of debts by giving out ruinous tax cuts to the very wealthy without any fiscal restraint on spending whatsoever"

          That pretty much sums up McCain's stance on the tax cuts. He voted against them because they weren't paired with cuts in spending. He was pro tax cuts, but *only* if the same bill "attached" those cuts to similar cuts in spending.

          Don't look now, but you sound like McCain.
          • yojiffyskippy, on 04/14/2008, -3/+1I hate it when you people use facts and reason! Repeat after me "Facts and Reason are not allowed on Digg!"
          • Malacandra95, on 04/15/2008, -1/+0Ah, so I should look at what McCain says, not what he does. Like when he voted to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2006 and again this year. The same ones he voted against in 2001. McCain was for fiscal responsibility before he was against it, I guess.
      • rholland356, on 04/14/2008, -2/+4Dude, spending and warmaking are the only things governments can do. So, we shift dollars from warmaking to address other priorities. And there are LOTS o' dollars to be shifted around.
        True, the next 8 years won't be as PROFITABLE for Dick Cheney, but who's to say his cast iron ticker won't need warranty repair?
      • SQLserver, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4The War Spending >>>>>>>>>>>> 100 * Any amount Obama can spend.
    • jregenstein, on 04/14/2008, -7/+8The Bush Tax Cuts helped me, how is getting a tax break for having kids "Elitism"? And I have clients who don't pay any taxes now, I'm sure they would say they were helped too. Rolling back the tax cuts will cost anyone with children, married or poor greatly. Also, not everyone who invests in the stock market are filthy rich, paying higher capital gains rates will cut investment return. Raising taxes will not create more private sector jobs and will certainly stifle the economy more than it already is.
      • Malacandra95, on 04/14/2008, -4/+11That's what the GOP said before Clinton raised taxes... right before the greatest economic expansion in our country's history.
        • sjaskow, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3Clinton had the advantage of being president during the .com bubble and the Y2K spending binge. I doubt the economy would have been in that good of shape had those two not happened as well.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Please tell me that your position isn't that raising taxes creates economic expansion.
          • jregenstein, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0It is the position of the left that more government equals a better life.
          • Malacandra95, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0No. What I said merely contradicted the assertion, which some consider an article of faith, that tax cuts inevitably cool down the economy. It's not the same thing to say that the lack of a negative implies a positive.
        • jregenstein, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0Clinton doesn't have anything to do with the Bush Tax cuts. Unemployment is still lower now than during the Clinton years. Higher taxes create less new job creation and eventually job losses. The GOP was right and that's why they ousted the Dems '94. I voted for Clinton, but after seeing his proposals for new taxes beyond the hike he passed and Hillary's health care debacle, I realized I was on the wrong side. Liberalism is a dream, wake up!
      • lordmike, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7There's that pesky deficit and national debt thing we have to pay off... and the Iraq wart that will cost us a trilliion dollars... I guess that will be paid off in funny money... and the roads, and schools, and other infrastructure improvements that are needed for our economy to thrive will be paid with funny money. So, your client pays no taxes... great... he is going to pay more for health care, and gasoline, and education for his kids, and mortgages on his house (the debt drives up interest rates), etc... He's going to be worse off than if he actually contributes to the growth of America...
        • jregenstein, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0My clients are senior citizens living off of VA benefits, Social Security and the money they saved for retirement. High fuel costs, health care, taxes embedded in all products and the continued erosion of the dollar devastate people on fixed incomes. Most of them have no debt, own their homes and their children are grown. If it makes you feel better keep reaching into their pockets and they will be 100% dependent on the Govt since they won't be able to make it on their own.
          • lordmike, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1They are already dependent on the government... you said they are getting Social Security.. What do you think PAYS for social Security and Medicare? That's right... evil TAXES! Maybe you can explain to your clients that they will be paid in funny money form now on, since tax revenue is bad...
      • laserdog, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2It's true, the tax cuts did include a spoonful of sugar for 99% of the citizens, but they came attached to getting rid of the "death tax" (a.k.a the "Paris Hilton" tax), as well as getting rid of any tax on capital gains.

        Both of these encourage the rich to sit on their ass and get richer. So that next year they and their kids can get richer, in perpetuity. No one with an economics background could, with a straight face, say that those are intended to stimulate the economy, and/or assist anyone but the top 1%.

        And if they could, I hear the administration is constantly hiring. =)
        • mcquitty, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0Are you that inept? The capital tax rate was never eliminated. It was reduced to 10-15% depedning on your AGI IF you held your investments for MORE THAN ONE YEAR. If you turnover your stocks, then you would pay the same tax rate as if it were earned income.

          Perhaps you've not had to pay taxes or don't have investments. If you did, you would know this.
        • jregenstein, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0Even the poorest of American pay a 5% Capital Gains rate. Anyone who sells a home for a profit benefit from the 15% Capital Gains rate. And every time corporate tax rates increase so does the cost of goods. They don't ultimately pay the tax, the consumer does. If you want to see the effect of taxes look at your phone bill, they have an entire section of all the taxes and fees imposed on the telecom companies. They just pass it along to all of us.
    • tierpinho, on 04/14/2008, -7/+5wake up they are all the same, it is a mere changing of the guard
      • kipmartin, on 04/14/2008, -2/+5one wants a long protracted war, the others dont. one wants tax breaks for the rich, the others dont. and one is a doddering, drooling Angry White Guy with 800 lbs of resentments, a flop-flop record that make Kerry look like the Gettysburg Address, and apparently sleeps with Dick Cheney. the others (both Hillary and Obma) have some starkly different ideas from tose espoused by Mr. Old Mean Guy.

        there are HUGE differences and to say they are all the same just shows how ignorant you are. they are NOT all the same--tell the parents of 4000 American servicemena and women they are all the same. the old 'Theyre all the same" argument doesnt hold water. if you were capable of thinking on your own rather than believing and repeating old cliches, you know that. YOU wake up.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Which one is it that "... wants a long protracted war ..."? All I know is that it isn't the only one of the three that actually knows what war is. Unless you count the "sniper fire" that Hillary was pinned down by as war. I assume it's Hillary "the Millionaire" Clinton that wants the tax breaks for the rich. The rest of your rant appears to be from a 1st grader so there's no need to comment on it other than to say "I'm rubber and you're glue....."
        • tierpinho, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1keep telling yourself that kipmartin. you are in a box with no concept of anything other then crooked dem or crooked rep. i was there too, now it is time to wake up, they are the same party that keeps in the box so you stay controlled. have fun.
    • msk275, on 04/14/2008, -5/+4Is it just me or is Hillary looking older and older with every picture? Don't go au natural Hillary! You are scaring the children!
      • PopcornDave, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Depends on the Botox. It's almost like watching the female version of Dorian Gray some days.
    • Troy64, on 04/14/2008, -1/+11At this point we don't care which one wins. They both are damaged enough that they can be defeated in the general election. We just want the fight to continue. It is fun to watch.

      By the way we never wanted McCain either. He is the furthest thing from a true conservative.

      Let the burying begin.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Yet somehow he still looks like a conservative compared to those two.
    • designer, on 04/14/2008, -2/+7Actually, we want Hillary to win PA so she stays in the race. Operation Chaos.
      • PopcornDave, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5Hillary could lose all of the primaries left and she's still not going to drop out, it's not in her nature. She's going to take this all the way to the convention floor and let someone else mop up the blood after the battle.
    • TheInformer, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Should the people that pay taxes or the ones that don't pay taxes get a tax break? Silly question, isn't it?
    • Malevolant, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3Actually, and you will bury/ignore this, she is right. Obama has way too much harsh stuff piling up on him. If he gets nominated he is going to be hit by a mack truck, in terms of Republicans going after him. No Democrat before him has had the type of racist baggage he has. I know a lot of you don't want to believe that it's relevant, but it will be, along with his friend who bombed the US in the 60's. people will pay attention and the Republicans will hit him harder than ever on it.

      You have to realize all of the Obama love will subside and he will have more to deal with, than he ever thought possible, if he's nominated. I am not insulting him, I am only stating the facts as to how this will pan out.
      • tmslak, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1I disagree. He's gonna have *****, but perhaps this will be one election where the vote that actually matters turns out - the college students. College aged support for Obama is strong, and if someone can actually convince us to vote, you're going to see a change in the tides.

        The world will never be the same.
      • piradians, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2"If he gets nominated he is going to be hit by a mack truck, in terms of Republicans going after him."
        News flash: They already are going after him. Right now he's getting it on two fronts.

        "No Democrat before him has had the type of racist baggage he has."
        Senator Byrd was in the KKK for crying out loud.
      • killaking, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1wait hold on an Hillary doesn't?
    • skyshock1, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2You're right, we don't need tax breaks for anyone. And we CERTAINLY don't need increased federal spending to hike taxes even further either (the way any democrat is sure to do). We need to CUT federal spending in half, and we need to use the tax money to pay down the national debt and get our currency worth a ***** again.
    • pontiac, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1With stuff like this http://drudgereport.com/flash1jm.htm out there it makes it hard to believe that people still don't get that McCain wants Hillary to win because he would destroy her in the general election. Either that or because they're so similar it wouldn't matter which one won.
    • truthhammer, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0They both would lose...this is just fun to watch. That's why I'm pulling for her to keep on truckin, lol. Let the digg downs commence!
  • Pherdnut, on 04/14/2008, -3/+37Yeah, Hill. We get what you're doing there. It's pretty damn obvious. Why do our candidates and the media take us for slack-jawed idiots?
    • Fordi, on 04/14/2008, -1/+21It's funny, too, because her attitude on the matter is so damned elitist to start with.
    • digitalhair, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4Yeah, let's just say it:

      We're all onto this SCAM. It's a SCAM, and WE'RE NOT GOING TO TOLERATE IT!!!
      No more tolerance, people.
      No more intellectual dishonesty.
      No more tolerance for PR, poll-punditry and disengenuous political *****.
      We're going to start calling things what they are, folks, and we're going to do this because WE ARE ANGRY - because it's time for good people to START GETTING ANGRY!!!

      Call it "righteous indignation" ... because that's what it is!
      • thcobbs, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3Wait, isn't the democratic party SUPPOSED to be about olerance?
        • digitalhair, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2and this kind of self-absorbed thinking is precisely what is wrong with the Democratic party today and why we continue to lose presidential elections over and over, continuously failing to hold election corruption up to scrutiny long enough to serve justice to our own candidate! Your idea of "tolerance" is the kind that comes across as "indecision", "weakness", "elitism", "ineffectiveness", and "unpatriotic." I'm talking about getting angry enough to hold YOURSELF and OTHERS accountable to promoting TRUTH and JUSTICE as what Americans want because I don't know about you but I'm tired of all of this opressive manipulation by evil people with endless mountains of money who already know what I'm telling you here.
    • malman4, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Duuuhhhhh.....because you are?
    • skyshock1, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Most people that read/post on Digg are fairly smart people. They're usually in the tech industry and well-educated. So yeah, everyone here is going to see through the BS, but by in large the American public aren't quite as insightful I don't feel, and that's why these tactics work.
      • digitalhair, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2so true...which is why I don't let my family/friends get away with apathetic / dismissive / untruthful and dogmatic comments and beliefs based on conventional wisdom or media lies (or lack of coverage), and I don't let people in Public get away with either.
        If we really care about our democracy, we need to be having this dialogue in the STREETS, NOW and not later. Sure, it's confrontational - rude even - but if people like us create this social pressure by being audible about promoting intellectual honesty and democratic dialogue in our daily lives and we all agree to do it, I think it would be an effective way to compell average joe to hit web and stock up on his factual knowledge.
        However, in order to make any political dialogue a patriotic and productive endeavor, Americans need to promote that it is ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTABLE to change your mind based on new information and newly acquired knowledge (regardless of how passionately we argued something in the past), and nurture that change accordingly. Americans, both educated and not educated, don't do this enough.

        This has seemed to be effective in my sphere of influence...maybe someone out there has a better idea...
    • NuclearWookie, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Perhaps the media and Big Mother treat Democratic primary voters like idiots because they have a proven record of liking to be bribed with their own money? I mean, one of the main platforms of HRC's campaign is that people are too stupid to figure out health insurance on their own.
  • dinobot, on 04/14/2008, -6/+20Hey Keetle, you're black! said the Pot
    • jonnyboy1544, on 04/14/2008, -3/+5Who the hell is Keetle? Is that some sort of elitest code??
      • ElectricKetchup, on 04/14/2008, -0/+8It's the name of one of the snipers that's after Hillary.
    • e36wheelman, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Yeah, take that Keetle!
    • incredibilistic, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Dugg for being AWESOME!!! I laughed out loud to that one.

      And to "jonnyboy1544" if you don't get the joke don't comment.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Pot, you are a racist scumbag. I hope Keetle hunts you down and throttles you.
  • DomesticDiva, on 04/14/2008, -7/+23Aarrrrrrgh! I can not stand this woman. Hillary !!!! your application for the presidency has been denied! She is the biggest hiprocrite, I have lost all respect for her during these past months shame on her!
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Did you really respect her in the past? For?
  • hillarycat, on 04/14/2008, -17/+11shhhh guys, I'm an insider on the Hillary campaign (usually located on the lap of Hillary as she strokes me while explaining her latest plot to her henchmen), and I'm here to tell you guys how she plans to win. Her plan is simply to piss people off so much that they will smash the voting booths in blind fits of rage, and accidentally vote for her. Its brilliant, when you think about it
    • MattNF, on 04/14/2008, -6/+5And this folks is a failed attempt at being funny.
      • hillarycat, on 04/14/2008, -1/+8Hillarycat finds your comment silly, as it doesn't matter if you find it funny. Hillarycat only cares about the super delegates.
    • lazyfisherman, on 04/14/2008, -1/+15"Usually located on the lap of Hillary as she strokes me while explaining her latest plot to her henchmen"

      You are her clitoris?
      • exronin, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2lol owned
      • hillarycat, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5Hillarycat finds your comment amusing, but it does raise disturbing images in Hillarycats mind
        • yojiffyskippy, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Why does Hillarycat refer to herself in 3rd person? Is Hillarycat really Bob Dole?
  • mali1, on 04/14/2008, -21/+18***** you, you damned delusional *****.
    • incredibilistic, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
  • dickardwa, on 04/14/2008, -16/+11Missed a "common"? Your Hillary hatred is endearing but get it together.
    • ozydingo, on 04/14/2008, -2/+16And you missed the reply button, I take it.
    • digitalhair, on 04/14/2008, -3/+1your criticism is endearing, which is hilarious! +1 digg
  • Sarki, on 04/14/2008, -14/+12This won't make me popular, but she speaks the truth. As an Obama fan, I really hope he can overcome this problem. I think Hillary suffers from it, too, but Kerry's elitism is intellectual like Obama's, and it hurt him in the long run.
    • wild, on 04/14/2008, -3/+29except Obama isn't an elitist. Don't confuse being smart and educated with out of touch. Look at the community organization work he did in Illinois. Look where he comes from. The man is not an elitist.
      • RepubOperative, on 04/14/2008, -12/+5The man is an elitist. Raised by his rich white granny, sent to Columbia then Harvard. Bowls a 39! The man is an elitist. He's soaking in it.
        • WasabiBomb, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5So you're not going to vote at all? 'Cause, he's a lot less "elitist"* than Hillary or McCain.

          *You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
        • alk509, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2OK, face it: you're in love with him, aren't you?
        • brstilson, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5OH MY GOD BOWLING SKILL IS SO IMPORTANT IN PICKING A PRESIDENT!!

          Maybe instead of elections we should have bowling tournaments. The results will probably be equally as bad anyway.
      • noahhoward, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7Take a look around, you're talking about the US, being smart and intellectual in public pisses off 90% of the people and gets you labeled as elitist.
        • sodade, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4Exactly! I am sure some huge portion of people who consider themselves conservative have no real ***** clue what that means.
          Idiot America FTL
        • incredibilistic, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1So by that account we should let yet another completely uneducated moron who can't string two sentences together to be our president... again.

          This entire issue is being blown out proportion and based on how quickly the Clinton campaign jumped on this only continues to show that they have NOTHING to really go against Obama with. They have to wait for him to make a so-called mistake because they're so screwed up.

          The fact that Bill had to once again tell people to back off the Bosnia story proves that they're hurting for any chance to gain any kind of momentum in this race. If she loses Penn (which is very possible) then it's time for her to concede.
          • noahhoward, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1No no, I'm not defending the Clinton campaign at all. I'm well beyond hoping she simply loses at this point. I'd really like seeing her jailed. I was simply pointing out that correct or not, Obama has to be cautious about that image.
    • olbap, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Thank you wild. DO NOT CONFUSE BEING SMART AND EDUCATED WITH BEING OUT OF TOUCH!!!!
    • oldhick, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1I think Obama's comments this weekend about small town folks certainly could be viewed as elitist... But any politician to some degree is an elitist.
    • madroneDorf, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1You're right unfortunately. Americans do not want "smart" people for president, they do not want someone who is an intellectual.
      They vote not on who is intelligent, but on who "they'd have a beer with" or superfiical qualities like "patriotism" Votes get the President they deserve, unfortunately.

      Canada is looking better and better
  • Railz, on 04/14/2008, -3/+95Being smart means being elitist now? Whoops. Thank goodness for the American Education, keeping us down. Always looking out for us.
    • laola1, on 04/14/2008, -1/+10Yeah, Hillary believes Americans don't want a smart president - that's why she still thinks she can win...
      • stretch611, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Hillary believes that because Obama had a slip of the tongue and said something politically incorrect that she can tear down his campaign and have a chance to win.
        However, I believe that most people care more about what someone meant when they said something as opposed to how others can manipulate the meaning. I think most people realize that Obama's remarks were not condescending no matter what spin Hillary tries to apply to them.
        When it comes down to it people will realize who is more in touch with their problems and right now Hillary is in the proverbial glass house throwing stones when she talks about elitism.
    • lazyfisherman, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4People can't relate to (and don't like) a candidate with too much edjamication. ?
    • GothAlice, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1It's not about being "smart", it's about sucking less.
  • knickboy87, on 04/14/2008, -5/+46I hate this stuff...just because you're smart and knowledgable, doesn't mean you're an elitist. We had a President who's a "regular guy" already, and look where it got us. Smart people SHOULD be running the country, no?
    • garg, on 04/14/2008, -1/+11She's basically saying that, Gore, Kerry, Obama are too smart and the American people are dumb people who only vote for dumb candidates so vote for Hilary because she's dumb.
    • Malevolant, on 04/14/2008, -4/+2Stop trying to spin it into being about education/being smart. It's about what he said, and how he said it. He has only himself to blame and spinning things isn't going to change anything.
      • fluxion, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5it's exactly what she's doing with the obama comment, spinning it to make it sound like an elitist judgement about the people. she has it coming to her.
      • incredibilistic, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4EVERYTHING anyone says can be spun good or bad. On the surface it's not an offensive comment unless you want it to be. Hillary wants it to be an offensive comment so she's spinning as best she can so this will hurt him.

        She's hoping that with this comment her Bosnia story will go away. Notice that it didn't take more than a day for her to jump on this. Fortunately Obama met the challenge immediately and has since explained what he meant. No matter how you slice it saying you misspoke about getting shot at has no spin. What's worse is that she's joking about it like it was nothing yet it's one of the biggest lies she's ever told or, at least, ever been caught on.

        And if she was truly fatigued when telling the story (on three different occasions) what else did she "misspeak" about?
    • kelek, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Most intelligent people come off as not having heart, soul, or compassion, whereas most non-intelligent, non-elitist people come off as having more heart, soul, and compassion. One thing that helped bush was people gave him a feeling that he was more compassionate than Gore or Kerry, and that Gore or Kerry would make decisions by numbers, without heart. Obama, on the other hand, has proven that he not only has the heart, but also is reasonably intelligent. I think as long as Obama can show how he's compassionate it will offset any elitism that people try to tag to his name.
  • garryw, on 04/14/2008, -19/+10As a lifelong Republican I can't help laughing at Digg's obscession with nailing Clinton. Ironic how the liberals eat thier own like a praying mantis.
    • bicyclethief, on 04/14/2008, -2/+15Yeah, I remember a few years ago during the Republican primaries when the Bush camp suggested McCain's adopted Bengladeshi daughter was his own illegitimate black baby.

      If you could see beyond your partisan short-sightedness, you'd know this is politics everywhere, not just with liberals.
      • garryw, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Anything to stop McCain is fine by me. I dont like him much, unless he gets Romney as VP.
    • doctechnical, on 04/14/2008, -4/+3I am so looking forward to the Democratic convention. So many exploding heads, so little to to enjoy them.
    • ozydingo, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3What makes that ironinc exactly?
      • garryw, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Ironic becauase we (Republicans) assumed it was our job to slay the dragon. Now her own minions have turned on her.
    • brstilson, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Man, for a party represented by an animal that never forgets, you guys sure have short memories!
  • Jovensdesciple, on 04/14/2008, -6/+11Clinton: Gore and Kerry Lost Viewed as Assholes. She's just a bitch so she should do much better.
  • rmxz, on 04/14/2008, -2/+19Kerry lost because his platform was "Well, I don't like the war quite as much as George does but I support it too". He was running as George-Lite, with additional spending on a few other issues too, not as a democrat.
    • NuclearWookie, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Uhh, I don't know what your definition of a Democrat is, but Nancy Pelosi's Congress sounds like your definition of George-lite. Maybe Kucinich would qualify as an actual Democrat.
  • arkarrel, on 04/14/2008, -5/+1...and as a result of my being out of touch with the nation, I am ending my campaign. Good Luck Obama!
  • SwordofKahless, on 04/14/2008, -2/+7Just like Clinton, McCain and Obama being out of touch with people that believe in freedom from government interference in the lives and in their wallets. Expanding government is not the solution it is the problem.
    • madroneDorf, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Most people don't want freedom from government.

      They want government out of what they want to do, and want government to do everything else.

      I respect, although strongly disagree with true libertarians, but few really exist
      • SwordofKahless, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2It all depends who you roll with. Most people I know work hard for a living and are sick of the government stealing from them only to be wasted.
        I think it is more likely people that receive something from goverment do not want freedom from government.
        • westerner22, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1And who really receives from the government anymore? Multimillionaire farmers perhaps. Nothing indicates that Obama will enlarge the government. Quitting Iraq is by itself much much less government, is it not? I am intellectually a libertarian, so I can't understand how the heck Republicans commune their belief in less government with the war in Iraq. Well, if we were profiting from it, but we clearly are not. And then, the Republican pro-life stand, how does this combine with killing 18 year old children of both sexes there, and thousands of Iraqis. How is this pro-life?
          • SwordofKahless, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2What is it with people that if you are against big government that you must be a Republican and be for the war in Iraq. This fantasy belief is what is going to bankrupt us since we will be going from bad to worse if Obama is elected. Contrary to popular belief being against Obama does mean me you are going to vote for Hillary or McCain.
  • Willy99, on 04/14/2008, -4/+8i thought the republicans stole the election. never heard the elitist theory before. this smells like Karl Rove.
    • IslandDog, on 04/14/2008, -6/+6Election was not stolen. Put your tin foil hat back on.
      • Willy99, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6it was a weak attempt at dry humor, not delusion of electoral theft.
        • insertAliasHere, on 04/14/2008, -0/+5Yeah....but considering that only 7 posts above yours:
          "Proven, beyond all doubt and argument, that both Gore and Kerry had their elections stolen from them illegally..."
          Is getting dugg way up, and doesn't seem to contain any humor at all, you can see why some people missed your sarcasm.
  • HookmasterCH47, on 04/14/2008, -1/+17That's right, because your typical American makes hundreds of millions a year and has to deal with sniper fire on a regular basis.
  • Langford, on 04/14/2008, -1/+9So she makes a declaration that elitist can't win, and makes comments to try to make people believe her opponent is an elitist. Could her evil intentions be any more transparent?
    • Jektal, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2And this happens right when her other arm is trying to slander Obama as elitist and demeaning because of his "bitter" comments.
  • jzuska, on 04/14/2008, -11/+6Obama is about to feel this.
    I am clinging onto my gun *****!
    • WasabiBomb, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7That's not your gun. Get your hands out of your pants.
  • azpat, on 04/14/2008, -3/+13Hmm. Gore and Kerry lost for being labled as "elitist." Instead we got the great comman man tag-team of President's son George Bush and Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney. How'd that work out for us again?
    What Obama said wasn't out of touch and elitist, but even if it was, is the alternative really better?
    • jzuska, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7Perception is reality.
    • azpat, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1comman should be common. My fingers are trained to follow comm with and right now (command). I didn't quite fix it.
  • gluecode, on 04/14/2008, -7/+4The other person who is not "elitist" is Bush = Hillary.
  • kingUssop, on 04/14/2008, -6/+23They lost because they were smeared to death! Exactly what you're doing to Obama, you sad old fool.
  • Kireblade, on 04/14/2008, -6/+18"If you're not a gun toting Christian with the Confederate flag on your car, you're an elitist"...right wing talk radio has done a good job of pounding this myth into people's heads.
    • stretch611, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2Fortunately after 5 years of an ill-thought out war and 7 years of a puppet president while Cheney and Rove run everything; the right wing media is reaching a lot fewer people.
  • JasonCox, on 04/14/2008, -6/+14Dear Hillary:
    Please take your elitist views and go f*** yourself.
    Signed,
    -The American People
    • Malevolant, on 04/14/2008, -3/+4you mean signed, by some obama fanboi, which hardly speaks for the American people.
      • westerner22, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1I pressed a wrong button. Bury this! please.
    • stretch611, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1She has too, Bill won't touch her.
  • frankinuld, on 04/14/2008, -4/+7Hello Pot, have you met my friend Kettle?
    • insertAliasHere, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4You shouldn't introduce them; I heard Pot calling Kettle "black" just a few minutes ago.
  • amawg9, on 04/14/2008, -2/+17Yeah, the candidate making $109mil is holding the elevator for the candidate who doesn't make that in his entire life. COME ON!
    • spidoman, on 04/14/2008, -0/+9Yeah sure, like she'd hold the elevator in her 4,000 dollar pant suit COME ON!
    • PopcornDave, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2If it were up to her, he'd be the one running the elevator, not for president.
  • aver25, on 04/14/2008, -5/+10McCain, Clinton, and Obama are three wealthy individuals arguing over who is the least elite. If you just count dollars, Obama has a substantially smaller net worth than McCain or Clinton, and will receive my vote.

    I don't vote Republican, and that excludes both Clinton and McCain.
    • Malevolant, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2Net worth hardly equates to being elite and/or non-elite. There are plenty of people who are rich, yet are altruistic. None of the three candidates running are about altruism.
  • V0lk, on 04/14/2008, -2/+10Yes...forget that Hillary is a total liar and hypocrite.....Obama is an ELITIST!
  • elliotys, on 04/14/2008, -6/+12Unfortunately the far-right has turned the term elitist in to anyone who is educated and disagrees with them. For the right to have actually succeeded in convincing over half the county that being highly educated is a fault, well, is only something that can happen to a public lacking education.
    I for one am proud to be an elitist.
  • mannyv, on 04/14/2008, -2/+7So...when Clinton 2 loses, will it be because she's elitist?
    • stretch611, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2No, it will be because she is a liar and she is divisive. She doesn't have the (financial) skills to effectively run a campaign. There are other reasons as well. Being an elitist will be one of many reasons why she loses, not the only one.
    • dxgg, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1I can think of SO many better reasons why she's going to lose.
  • Ultra99, on 04/14/2008, -6/+5Excellent. She just buried herself.
    • moraldebate, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1I wish. This is buried at the bottom of every political/news website today while they continue to broadcast the completely irrelevant "bitter" commentary and take it out of context.

      The next time SNL tells or Hillary tells you the media is biased towards Obama, I want everyone to think back to this moment. She's so full of ***** I just want to punch the TV.
  • TearsofaClown, on 04/14/2008, -14/+7Lol. Saying that americans are racist idiots who cling to religion and guns because they don't know any better and need something to "explain their frustrations" is pretty elitist. But saying that obama is smart for saying it is even more elitist of you to say. Obama knows he F**ked up but he's too much of a prick to admit it. Did you hear his weak apology. "O, did the way I worded the truth offend you? im sorry my poll numbers might sink because of that...you know, for being right...I'm just going to focus on the 'bitter' part of that. Because it's the part no one got angry at but I can convince people that that's what the controversy was about"
    • spidoman, on 04/14/2008, -2/+5Did you even hear the speech, he said that people cling to those issues instead of the real ones. He said that instead of focusing on the economy or our war, the politicians convince people to focus on Gay marriage, or guns. Stuff that won't be dealt with by the federal government, and should be dealt with by the states. He didn't say people cling to their guns and religion.
      • Malevolant, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2You are just spinning for your messiah. Anyone who read or heard, what he says, knows what he meant. It was very clear. I support none of the candidates so I have no dog in this fight, unlike your biased self.
    • Jektal, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1This word you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it means.
  • RRJackson, on 04/14/2008, -9/+4There's no way on Earth the DNC can win in November with either of their remaining candidates, so I don't know why it's such an issue. They handed the election to McCain when they reduced the field to Clinton and Obama.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 04/14/2008, -2/+4Man, you are living in some kind of rainbow GOP fantasy land. That crazy old ***** has no chance, whoever comes out of the convention.
      • sodade, on 04/14/2008, -2/+4You do realize with the aging of the baby boomers that this once-great nation is now FULL of "crazy old *****?"
        • papipablo, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Sadly Vietnam didn't clean out enough of their ranks.
      • PopcornDave, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2Honestly, I really believe that it depends on who McCain picks as a running mate and that most republicans are going to really be voting for a possible president-to-be rather than for McCain himself.
      • opticwind, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2He's got a shot against Clinton.
        • PopcornDave, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Herbert Hoover would have a shot against Clinton.
          • papipablo, on 04/14/2008, -3/+1You liberal scumbag. Calvin Coolidge ruined this nation and Hoover was left holding the bag.
          • PopcornDave, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Oh ***** me, I made a mistake. Geez. But they'd both have a better shot, even being dead and that was really the point. Christ, Lucritia Borgia would probably have a better shot at this point than Hillary.
  • cambob76, on 04/14/2008, -1/+9That headline hurt my brain. Please re-read before submitting. Thank you.
    • Saq0, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2No doubt. I had to read it like 4 times, then I clicked on it just to understand what it was about. I think it's a tactic to get more views ;)
  • papipablo, on 04/14/2008, -2/+8If anyone is out of touch it's the junior Senator from New York. She might know what's best for her corporate lobbyists, but she doesn't have a clue what's going on in the real America.
  • RedStateRandy, on 04/14/2008, -18/+2Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.

    Those are some of the more provocative doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama’s church.

    Which of these outrageous positions of his pastor and longtime spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, does Barack Obama endorse?

    That African-Americans should not say "God Bless America," but rather "God damn America" for "killing innocent people"?

    That 9/11 was a case of "America's chickens coming home to roost"?

    That Zionism has an element of "white racism"?

    The one implied by his decision to make a pilgrimage to Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy with Louis Farrakhan - a man Wright's church has hailed for having "truly epitomized greatness"?

    These are not idle questions. And certainly not unfair ones.

    Easy to see already see Republican attack ads against Obama. First open with videos of racist wife, Michelle, saying she was proud of America "for the first time" because of her husband's presidential candidacy, next Obama explaining that he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin or hold his hands to his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance because it is a "substitute for true patriotism." Then flash a clip of Obama explaining that his Caucasian grandmother was a "typical white person" because she uttered racial epithets and was afraid of black people. Finally, the coup de grace, pictures of Obama's angry, arm-waving preacher blaming the United States for 9/11 and shouting "God Damn America" to the rafters of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ and preaching the U.S. government formulated the HIV AIDS virus to commit genocide against blacks. Even though Obama supposedly condemning Wright's shocking verbal assaults against the U.S and White Americans, even last year; Obama was the first to public ally demand Don Imus ouster for making a racially insensitive remark, and Obama continues to support Wrights racism and remains at the church for more than 20 years, he and Michelle obviously feels it's a good environment to expose his young daughters too.
  • benny786, on 04/14/2008, -5/+6If hes an elitist... then shes a....... lesbian.
    • stretch611, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Obama is not an elitist, however I will not debate your other point.
  • dildoolielly, on 04/14/2008, -9/+6ANY BODY REMEMBER KERRY IN THE DEBATES

    ...and how he left that child behind?

    Remember how Presidential and distinguishing the war veteran looked as he waved to the crowd with his arms around his wife and daughters after he proved to Americans that a child left behind was running the country? And then remember how embarrassed the child left behind looked as his stepford wife and two skank whore kids quickly exited off the stage.

    Then remember how American's were screwed out of their vote by Diebold and a few special interests corporate interest groups.

    Remember that? Remember how Americans lost their country that night?

    There is one single reason for a seemingly Republican majority: Diebold.

    Remember this: exit polling was NEVER a theoretical science before 2004; it was absolutely rock-solid dependable, and never wrong. In 2004, all of a sudden, exit polling became a dubious science. Total bullsh*t.

    The vote was rigged. Most people didn't want these bastards in power. Why do you think it took such a short time for the Bushies to be so hated? Easy. They were never liked.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/wa ...

    Wake up, cons...your country needs you.
    • str1fe, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1You tell the conservatives that their country needs them...First off, is this not the liberals' country as well? I won't even bother debating your other points.
  • tierpinho, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1and so is hitlery the hack
  • amightywind, on 04/14/2008, -11/+2Here is some interesting reading.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120813002456911531 ...
    Obama is a twerp.
    • sodade, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1FTA: 'Well, you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community," Mr. Obama told a crowd in Indiana. But that still diminishes the convictions of those voters who care more about the right to bear arms, or faith in God, than they do about the AFL-CIO's agenda.
      Those voters who care more about minor restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights, gay marriage or abortion than disastrous foreign and economic policies lack critical judgment skills. We should call them out for their small-mindedness and chastise them for keeping the elections focused on right vs left jingoism and bumper sticker politics rather than honest assessment of each candidates policies and an individual assessment of their potential impacts.
      Idiot America FTL
      • amightywind, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1You use the term judgement, as does Obama in has rantings. What kind of judgment does a person have if they expose their children to a vile racist and anti-Semite every Sunday?
        • sodade, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2What kind of judgment does a person have if they expose their children to fairy tales of eternal life every Sunday?
          There, fixed that for ya.
          • amightywind, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1So you are secular. I don't care. How does that answer my question?
  • FortyCaliber, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6The problem with the Democrat nominees is that one is a woman and one is black; and as shallow as that may be, it's what people will and are thinking. The number one group that won't vote for Clinton: white republican women. The number two group that won't vote for Clinton: Any republican male and most black voters, period. The thing that is going to hurt Obama is that no matter what he says or who makes up the group sitting behind him at his speeches, Democrats or Republicans, from Maine to Florida to California "ain't gonna vote for no *****."
    Rich white democrats don't want a black man or a [any] woman in office anymore than rich white Republicans do. Doesn't matter what party you belong too... elitists are their own party, and rich white politicians are them.
    oh yeah, I'm prepared to be buried.
    • moraldebate, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6I love how everybody says this like it's straight fact. We've never had a black general election candidate, so how do you know so many people won't vote for him? Just because you've encountered racism in your life, doesn't mean you've had enough to experience to judge the entire voting populous of the United States of America.

      Have a little faith in your country.
    • incredibilistic, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3I have to agree with "moraldebate" on this one. While most black Americans face racial bias on a regular basis doesn't mean the country isn't ready for a change. There are many white Americans who are thinking about all the white men that have led this country and where is it today?

      I'm going to take the glass-half-full approach and be optimistic that that country is ready for a different kind of government and a different kind of leader. I'm sure the rest of the world won't mind a man of color leading our country. The UN is a friggin' Benetton ad anyway.
      • westerner22, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Trust me, the world wants Obama. The world is not white, have we noticed?
    • clockdist, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0keep hope alive
  • democrats, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5Well - I guess Gores gonna endorse Obama ...
  • fani, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3Haha. Thanks Hillary for the 2 more endorsements.
  • WTFppl, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5Quote Hillary Clinton- "Kerry and Gore were viewed as elitist". This is because the did a horrible job at making themselves look and act like average people. Both Bush's, father and son do that well! Kerry and Gore are elitist, so are the Bush's, as is Obama, the Clinton's, Rove(lol, freed of treason, lol), "any ***** in Politics", even Ron Paul...Show me an "average commoner" working in 'big' Gov!

    Didn't we have this conversation in '74?
  • tierpinho, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2it doesnt matter, they are all in cahoots together against the american people, they are all elitists eroding are liberties and bank accounts. it is a mere changing of the guard, wake up people!!! do you really think hitlery or mcscum are any different from each other?? u think that obama will be able to do as he pleases??.. they are all controlled by the bankers, corporations, and elites because of one thing: greed!!!
    • bikepundit, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah you might be right, but I think Obama is someone who can transition away from everything you just listed. Not going to happen over night with any candidate.
      • tierpinho, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1wrong, that would imply nobody is pulling his strings... other president who tried to deviate from the rulebook were assassinated, do some research. obama has a great personality but he will not change anything because he is controlled by elites and would be killed before any major change could take place
  • userperson, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1This Rules! I love when Hillary calls out politicians for being elitist and out of touch.
    A) She's right everyone IS out of touch.
    B) While the others aren't qualitatively better she's perhaps the most out of touch.
    C) she unveils the process for what it is, an overblown dog & pony show.
    Don't vote for idiots who don't represent you. Don't vote for evil.
  • newanalog, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2I guess she knows she is going to lose so she is preemptively saying that when it happens, it will be because she was so much better than the average American, that they just didn't feel comfortable electing her. What a moron. Gore wasn't out of touch with America, he was/is out of touch with reality. I'm not sure about Kerry though. He was just uglier than Bush I guess, but then again so is Hillary.
  • WTFppl, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1O'yeah, buy guns!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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