digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Clinton, Nixon; Nixon, Clinton

economist.com — SIX days ahead of the North Carolina primary comes a story of real sleaze —not Jeremiah Wright-style buffoonery, but Nixon-style illegality designed to dupe and disenfranchise voters...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • actorboy, on 05/04/2008, -7/+125What's the chance of the mainstream media picking this up prior to Tuesday? Very little, my guess.
    • norman666, on 05/04/2008, -6/+17And the Economist is not mainstream?
      • RoroCo, on 05/04/2008, -2/+20MSM = news in the evening and cartoons on Saturdays...
        • mikelieman, on 05/04/2008, -4/+22You mean "The Today Show" and it's clones... Owned by GE and Westinghouse and Disney? Those are the companies *producing* "Election 08 - the reality show"
        • Elissar, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1If that were 100% true (and I'm granting they aren't totally clean here) then don't you think the non-establishment underdog would have been eliminated by now?
      • jforjools, on 05/04/2008, -4/+15The Economist is **top-top-A-list** Real News Source.
        The mainstream media consists of the soundbites that run the public opnion in this country. So, RoroCo is absolutely correct: MSM is network newscasts (and cartoons.)
    • actorboy, on 05/04/2008, -2/+39norm, The Economist is a British pub targeted toward readers with a higher IQ. Do you really think the non-college educated, blue-collar voters Hillary is trying to woo read The Economist? Most Americans don't venture beyond local papers and the national news broadcasts.
      • PopcornDave, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1You would think, but one of my fondest memories is seeing a homeless man in San Fransisco reading a copy of the Economist - upside down! I wish I had a camera with me that day, that was a priceless sight.
        You are right, however. The Economist is geared towards more of a global higher IQ audience or at least it used to be. I gave up reading it years ago as it seemed to be getting dumbed down a bit. Hopefully it's come back to its higher standards.
      • fuzzybeard, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Even at that, most people switch off anything other than predigested capsules of "news" that are usually a bare half-step above something like "Inside Edition."
    • gclef, on 05/04/2008, -0/+18try:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

      that's as of today, with lots more info (they've been ordered to stop by the NC attorney general, there was an NPR story on them that Obama's campaign is sending around). This has the MSM's attention, apparently.
      • PopcornDave, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2They being the people placing the phone calls, not the Washington Post. Best to make that clear lest the people that are skimming comments are going to think that the NC attorney general is ordering the WP to stop the story.
    • phybere, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7http://www.usnpl.com/ncnews.php is a list of newspapers. They won't pick up on it unless we give them the heads up.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/04/2008, -28/+1Haahaha. I was reading this article and the whole time thinking wtf cares? Seriously you really have to be digging deep for trivial ***** like this. Maybe the Obama camp is sweating now. The great black hope is followed by a bunch of dumb dopes. The future of America is bright... without them.
      • dlllb, on 05/05/2008, -1/+5Hey, Jackass! It's people like you that make people like me dislike Americans. Why don't you start putting your blind-assed patriotism to some good use, unite, for the greater of the American people. Or is that waaaay too high over that dumb little head of yours?

        Oh, and FYI - wtf means WHAT THE *****
    • kedohmen, on 05/04/2008, -0/+10i just sent the link to Olbermann....
    • omnivoross, on 05/04/2008, -1/+7this story needs to be re-posted somehow with a better headline... i almost passed it over cuz i had no idea what it was about, and thus didn't care. after reading it I fear more people might have the same reaction I initially did.
    • Siraf, on 05/04/2008, -0/+6npr picked it up
  • kaoru777, on 05/04/2008, -4/+70I was wondering the same thing, but I'm planning on emailing local NC papers and anyone else I can think of tomorrow morning.
    • phybere, on 05/04/2008, -0/+6http://www.usnpl.com/ncnews.php provides a good list of newspapers. Email now, the story could be out tomorrow.
      If someone could come up with a good list of contact email addresses, it would make things much easier rather than having to browse each site for their email.
    • jwk4heels, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3I might do that, too. I'm from Winston-Salem and I'm in Chapel Hill right now, and I'd be happy to get this story out to some local papers. Unfortunately, the demographic this underhanded organization is aiming at is not the demographic that reads newspapers. Actually, these days there's not really any demographic that consistently reads newspapers. I'll be angry when my Winston-Salem Journal and Sunday Times stop coming. =(
    • SomewhatSane, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Matt Drudge. E-mail Matt Drudge.

      If Hillary can use conservative media, by golly, we can to!
      So people; send it!
      • PopcornDave, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Already sent, but I don't know if it's "sexy" enough with the euthanized horse, English elections and commencements around the country. We'll see...
    • doctorbasic, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Please do email this. Or do one better and take the story to them. Do the reporting for them. If you live in north Carolina find someone who has gotten these calls. Get their testimonial . Do the work for them. Tuesday is too close to sleep on this.
    • jwk4heels, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I emailed the Winston-Salem Journal and the News and Observer. Those are the biggest papers I'm familiar with. I don't know the Charlotte area well.
  • thirdcoastborn, on 05/04/2008, -4/+95for hillary clinton to have all this dirt on her and you have all these people still voting for her is a mystery to me. what is the real motive of a hillary vote?
    • mikelieman, on 05/04/2008, -12/+4Who ever said that the "votes" were actually counted, and mean anything?

      Didn't Emma Goldman warn about that almost a century ago?
      • Kas70, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5And didn't they deport her?
        • InnerRayg, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4J. Edgar Hoover did, and that man is the scariest person I have ever known. If McCarthy was the spark for the era of "McCarthysm", Hoover is the bloody beating heart that kept the entire thing going-and never stopped.
    • muffinmonk, on 05/04/2008, -0/+11It's because she can come out of your closet and scare you...
    • asauterChicago, on 05/04/2008, -0/+22Well check out this mailer they've been sending out in Indiana: http://digg.com/politics/This_is_what_the_Clinton_ ... . Forget the fact that it doesn't focus on any of her issues, just a "careful Indiana or a black man is going to take your guns..." ***** and it pisses me off.
    • ScienceDoc, on 05/04/2008, -1/+9The real tactic is to ensure a McBush victory. The sheep just go with the corporate media.
      • userperson, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3They've already done that... it's just a matter of which flavor.
    • eclectro, on 05/04/2008, -2/+8That she is going to throw a few pennies of gas tax money their way. Or that she has a vagina. One of those two. I'm not being misogynistic here, I'm stating fact. I have heard the phrase given by women "I think it's time that there is a woman in the white house" countless times. Fine. I'd vote for someone like Pelosi in a flash. But I'm not gonna vote for the shrill Hillary Clinton, and this story is just the latest installment of why.
      • Kyan, on 05/04/2008, -1/+6Like the idea of an Obama-Pelosi ticket?
        • jforjools, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I love the idea of Pelosi on the ticket.

          ...but I really think (for voting purposes) he needs to choose a gruff, stodgy (not super-left) old (older than obama, anyway) white guy.

          Of course, it has to be someone who's qualified to be VP....but there's plenty of good choices. He just needs one of the mainstream white guys....and preferable not a very liberal one.
      • soulkitchen, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3Pelosi !? Whats so great about her? She took impeachment off the table, she's had no spine these last few months. Her most potent weapon is a somewhat sternly worded non binding resolution. I'll agree that she may have been VP material 2 or 3 years ago, but now she just has that doe in headlights quality when asked about anything. So uh, ***** her.
    • KargeOfTylenol, on 05/04/2008, -7/+5Because she's white and Americans are stupid and subconsciously racist.
      • ZenMojo, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4Don't forget, she's a 60 year old white woman and satisfying all of those ancient hopes that old white women have toward "one of them" finally getting the most powerful office in the land by any means possible.
        • Kas70, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3I guess the fact that all of the First Ladies have been white and Nancy Pelosi wasn't enough...
        • mozert, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I lol'd at Kas comment.
      • DVision2406, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Both of you just hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!!!
    • TheHolyLancer, on 05/04/2008, -0/+6A republican registered as a democrat?
    • warlokaz2004, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1Hillary is the Baby boomers last chance to impose their communist politics on this country.
      • userperson, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Yes, because there's nothing else that remotely resembles that anywhere in American politics.
        Nevermind Obama imposing such things.
    • Aethirig, on 05/04/2008, -3/+1dammit! accidentally hit thumbs down instead of thumbs up.
    • XSVfan, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4My sister is a Clinton supporter. When I ask her that same question she says I like her policies not her character. So she acts oblivious to all this
    • cheezintern, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7Every single individual I've seen with a Hillary sign is an older white woman. I'm guessing all they're thinking about is how prosperous the 90s were and connecting that with a Clinton, and about having a woman president.
      • geoboy, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Just about every single Hillary supporter falls into one of two categories:
        1. Those who think Bill did a great job and she can too
        2. Women (or even men) who think it's time for a woman, any woman, in the White House (even a deeply flawed woman)
    • HarryWatson00, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Operation Chaos!
  • CouchTomato, on 05/04/2008, -2/+29This is a good example of stealthy corruption any democratic process is vulnerable to and all of MSM should be investigating and reporting. Time to put the pressure on MSM and make them think!
    • iainc, on 05/04/2008, -1/+6I think it's high time the MSM was held to account for NOT doing its job. It's supposed to be impartial and to protect democracy by holding those who shape that democracy to account. American media is far from impartial and has more in common with a circus act. It's time that sections of the public started filing suit against these assclowns. Half of the networks are owned by foreign interests who should NOT be shaping American policy or the election results.
  • redcolumbine, on 05/04/2008, -3/+58That's not just lying and obfuscating, that's BREAKING THE LAW.
    • Arcueid01, on 05/04/2008, -0/+6These days it seems that politicians only get a slap on the wrist for breaking laws. McCain has broken campaign financing laws, Clinton deceiving voters, and on top of that there is an MSM which has miserably failed the American people by vegging them out on ***** stories about celebrities and just about any other bunch of crap to keep them distracted from what really matters.
      • netant, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5Even if its McCain has broken campaign financing laws, its a technicality by any rational person's measure. The fact is there isn't enough FERC members to even convene the issue. And anyone who understands MainStream Media should know its pointless to expect propriety from a whore.

        No, the real criminal is George Bush and Dick Cheney. Spying on American citizens without following the law is a crime. Deliberately misleading the country into a war with fabricated evidence is a crime. The stuff going on now are parking tickets, by comparison.
  • sickswaystop, on 05/04/2008, -9/+34bush, clinton, clinton, bush, bush, clinton, clinton?
  • alexm1309, on 05/04/2008, -20/+1god damn rickroll
  • AHHHHH, on 05/04/2008, -10/+1OH HAI
  • 533n, on 05/04/2008, -20/+4Feminist pigs
  • jforjools, on 05/04/2008, -2/+37I've seen the W.V.W.V story floating around for a few days--but this is the first I've seen of the clear description of the org's leadership (below)...and the first time I've heard a generalized description of who's getting the calls (black voters...who Hillary is apparently no longer expecting/receiving much support from.)

    Great. Call up people and tell them they're not yet registered (and do so after the registration deadline has passed.) ...Great way to try to fool people into staying home. ...Looks even uglier when you look at the Clinton lineup of WVWV bigwigs.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Guess which Democratic candidate WVWV's founder and president, Page Gardner, has donated $6,700 to (hint: it's not Barack Obama). Guess whose election campaign Joe Goode, WVWV's executive director, worked for (hint: it was in 1992, and it was a winning campaign). Guess whose chief of staff sits on WVWV's board of directors (hint: it was the president who served between two Bushes). And guess whose campaign manager was a member of WVWV's leadership team (hint: it's Hillary Clinton)."
  • cinematiks, on 05/04/2008, -10/+7digg this up!
  • catachip, on 05/04/2008, -1/+13How do we get this story idea to the major U.S. news outlets? Even to Politico and Huffington Post - usually the MSM trolls those sites for stories. Doesn't someone usually have a list of the story submission contacts for every major news outlet?
  • RRJackson, on 05/04/2008, -34/+6"Obama, Farrakhan; Farrakhan, Obama."
  • Nhmarine, on 05/04/2008, -0/+21This is so amazing! I never would have seen anything like this coming! I mean, who would imagine that Hillary Clinton's campaign is deceptive?
  • csonger, on 05/04/2008, -1/+15/sigh. This is exactly why I'm not a Hillary supporter. American politics continues to be a sewer because the people who participate are willing to engage in this kind of thing because they will do anything to win.
    • amightywind, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1Yah, and Obama is the latest in a long line of democrat turds to float by. He'll say anything to get elected.
  • Bovorik, on 05/04/2008, -13/+1Underhanded play, illegal possibly - but on a par with Nixon's shenanigans? Hardly.
    • saxreturns, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7I'm sure she would be more than capable of raising (or lowering) the bar to Nixon's level should she become president.
    • netant, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Not "possibly" illegal. Definitely illegal, as the law intended. Whether one can and will get CONVICTED for it, is a different story. Doesn't change the fact its criminal behavior.

      And besides, what was Nixon's shenanigans which was worse than this? Covering up a burglary? How does that compare with Bush's crime of illegally spying on Americans without a court order? Or using fabricated evidence to start a war?
      • Bovorik, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0Organising and sanctioning the burglary and THEN, trying to cover it up. The Bush administration's bent the rules on many an occasion, but only did Nixon and his goons committ an outright crime (with prosecutions to boot).
        • netant, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1My memory may be faulty, but as I recall, Nixon did NOT ORGANIZE the breaking, and was not even SPECIFICALLY aware that the "plumbers" were going to break into Elsburgh's shrink's office. He did GENERALLY authorize those TYPES of activities. That makes Nixon guilty of "conspiracy" (and even that may not stand in a court of LAW), but not actually authorizing or executing a break-in.

          Prosecution is not the bar to determine whether a party has committed illegality. What the Reagan administration proved was that if you mislead and stalled, you can indefinitely avoid prosecution for a crime actually committed. And just think about the death squads Negroponte helped get into being. He wasn't even indicted for it.

          It took me until I was in my late '30's to realize that Nixon was a crook, but not a uniquely evil or corrupt President. He was the scum with hand in the cookie jar. And I tend to believe the Oliver Stone conspiracy theories that Nixon was pushed out as a powerplay by the people who pull the strings.
          • Bovorik, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Having set the plumbers up (his own intel outfit) there's little doubt he knew exactly what sort of nefarious and illegal things they were getting up to.

            Back onto why I originally said what I said - putting these Hill campaign shenanigans on a par with what Nixon did, just reeks of a lack of sense of proportion (either deliberate or out of ignorance).
  • koft, on 05/04/2008, -1/+41I've had enough of her ***** these past 6 months. I live in Raleigh and I'm voting Obama.
  • UltraDavid, on 05/04/2008, -0/+25A friend of mine went down to NC to help the Obama campaign a couple days ago, and he says he's met with a bunch of people who've gotten exactly this kind of call, most of them black. I didn't realize it was a multi-state effort.

    Somehow I doubt this'll be covered on tv.
    • TheCheckist, on 05/04/2008, -3/+0Exactly. And it is the same people who created the HIV virus and spread it in the Black community who are behind this latest outrage.
  • berserc, on 05/04/2008, -9/+4Now you see first hand what the GOP has been dealing with for years. This is a good example of the things the Democrat leadership pulls every election. Wake up, all they care about is winning.
    • roho76, on 05/04/2008, -0/+8The Republicans aren't much better. And I'm a Republican. Remember 2000, 2004? That was God awful.
      • InnerRayg, on 05/04/2008, -2/+3So we can all agree politicians in general are *****? Good? Yes? At last, clarity.
  • phybere, on 05/04/2008, -1/+27The audio call can be found at http://www.democracy-nc.org/nc/spprncall.wav
    It's innocent sounding, until you realize that it's after the deadline for registration and who the target audience is.
  • BurningSky, on 05/04/2008, -1/+7I'm almost tired of hearing stories like this. I just want the next couple of months to pass so that Obama can be the nominee and we can move on to the general election...
    • randy1711, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Obama can not win. He is un-electable. I wish this charade would end. I saw the same thing with Mondale until he lost 49 states, then finally silence. I guess the only way the Obamites will shutop is for a crushing defeat. They will just blame everyone but there God.
  • uwbonski, on 05/04/2008, -4/+7Why is HIllary not squashing this effort on her behalf? I am pretty confident she did not directly instigate this, but if it makes it to the Economist you can be sure she knows about it.

    I can't stand the woman, particularly for her knife twisting tactics in the Pennsylvania debate, but that was just bad form. She is taking advantage of the fact that Obama is taking the high road by refraining from going after her on petty matters, by claiming the low road as her won. This on the other hand is immoral, wrong, racist, and likely illegal. She must be held accountable for not taking steps to end this. If the MSM does not pick up on the story and demand accountability, we should.
  • mckirkus, on 05/04/2008, -2/+4T.Hanks
  • LukasSmith, on 05/04/2008, -20/+3Haahahah. This article gave me a good laugh. THanks guys. Thanks for wasting my time with this trivial propaganda.
    • flossdaily, on 05/04/2008, -1/+11You really ought to examine your values if you think disenfranchising voters through misinformation is trivial. If it were my candidate doing this it would certainly give me pause.
    • LukasSmith, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Yawn. A. Doubt this really happened. B. Pics or it didnt happen.
  • netant, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4The question now is whether the local NC TV news support Hillary or Barack.
  • Ultra99, on 05/04/2008, -1/+9Um, how could any "sophisticated voter" possibly justify voting for her knowing stuff like this, again?
    • randy1711, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2AW garsh us gun totin' bible thumpin' ignoramuses are too stupid to vote for Bam Bam
  • JointVenture, on 05/04/2008, -20/+2This is fun watching the rats run about trying to fix the leaky boat that is Obama's campaign.
    • purzzzell, on 05/04/2008, -1/+11oh, you still think Hillary has a chance at the nomination - that's so cute.
      • JointVenture, on 05/04/2008, -11/+3He only won Guam by 7 votes. Considering his Hawaii roots this doesnt bode well for him.

        Want to look at some polls? Who's lost 10+ points in NC?

        I cant wait for the group cry we will be hearing Tuesday night.

        You want to look at some polls? Spooky stuff eh?
        • an0nymous, on 05/04/2008, -5/+2Whelp, either way McCain is going to lose.
          Baaaawww...
          • JointVenture, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1See you tuesday night for the big boo hooo hoooo.
    • jimmyjohnston, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4lol
    • flossdaily, on 05/04/2008, -2/+11You're cute. You know Obama's already won this thing, right?
  • JAT0, on 05/04/2008, -6/+2MSM will not pick up on this story. No matter how dirty this is, exposing it would hurt the democrats - ain't going to happen folks!
  • Disregard, on 05/04/2008, -3/+10Shouldn't surprise anyone - Clinton began her political career as a teenaged Nixon supporter.
    • netant, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2That's Goldwater supporter. She "worked" with the legal team to impeach Nixon.
    • Disregard, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1"Raised in a politically conservative household, at age thirteen Rodham helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, where she found evidence of electoral fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton

      She was in her 20s when Nixon was in power.
  • SOS84, on 05/04/2008, -6/+8Nixon? Heck, the GOP have been pulling stunts like this every elections season since blacks were given the the right to vote. Is it a coincidence that Hillary has more in common with the GOP than her political party? Conservative = Corrupt. The ideology in and of itself is at its heart anti-American.
    • InnerRayg, on 05/04/2008, -0/+8Now, give credit where it is deserved. Back when blacks -first- got the right to vote, during Reconstruction, it was the Democrats lynching blacks who tried and pulling way worse *****. Republicans used to be the shining example of good values...but something I think has gone wrong.
      • nbyn, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Now you're letting facts getting in the way of rhetoric.
  • flossdaily, on 05/04/2008, -4/+3I'm surprised to hear this coming from The Economist. Surely they want the Republican's to win the election- you'd think they'd be eager to have McCain face off against Clinton. It makes no sense to try and sink her now.
    • an0nymous, on 05/04/2008, -4/+8The Economist has a rightward editorial slant, but their journalistic standards are quite good.
      • netant, on 05/04/2008, -4/+3Also he presumes that the Economist wants McCain to win. The Economist is an England based publication, and what they want more than anything is policy sanity in the US.
    • wheelzr, on 05/04/2008, -3/+2Most people in the field of economics understand the importance of minimal government regulation in business. That's about as deep as the affiliation goes.
      • flossdaily, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Actually deregulation of businesses is why we're in so much trouble right now.
  • jumico, on 05/04/2008, -3/+2Was expecting something along the lines of
    badger badger badger badger badger badger mushroom mushroom
    but clinton clinton clinton clinton clinton clinton
  • momsshizzle, on 05/04/2008, -12/+2So...based on the title you're saying that Clinton will be a good president? Finally a pro Hillary article by the Obamabot sucking Digg.
  • Kas70, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3I know it was already mentioned, but someone really ought to resubmit this under a better title. I have no idea how to do that so it can't be me.
  • dimebag1000, on 05/04/2008, -3/+4RIICHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHARDDDDDDDDDDD NIXONNNNNNNNN
    • jazboy, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0how do you put that much emphasis on the H?
  • Kikinou, on 05/04/2008, -3/+4Y'all need to chill out, Obama is going to be the nominee, there is no doubt. This drawn-out primary is providing much needed cover from what the Republicans have in store for him, you ain't see nothin' yet, they won't be pulling any punches like Clinton is. It's going to be brutal. Think what they did to John Kerry. Multiply it by 10. It's going to be ugly. The longer this goes on, the better.
  • NycAl, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1Once again Hillary shows she will do anything to win, including taking away voters right to support and vote for the candidate of their choice.

    Btw, Great article but the bit about not all black voters being unsophisticated was a poor choice of words. Try taking out the "all" part.
  • edjenkins234, on 05/04/2008, -3/+1Man crazy liberal ranting economist........oh wait we should all take this really f'ing seriously.
    That and the media silence over on our end of the pond.
  • sperin4, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1This ***** makes me so sick. I wish all of the American public could see this *****, but unfortunately this will probably never see the light of day. If it does, there is at least a tiny fraction of justice in this world.
  • ILL_Robinson, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1This needs much more attention. It might not make the MSM, but at this point - its not so much the MSM that needs to know (though it should - even past Tuesday), but its the superdelegates that need to be aware of this level of manipulation. They can draw real opinions from tactics like this.
  • growler1, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Props to the Economist for actually being journalists and having the guts to dig into this thing. On the surface, it looks like it *could* be an honest mistake, but with a little bit of digging (no pun), it stinks to high heaven. Enough is enough. I hope Obama puts this thing away on Tuesday.
  • sisyphus00, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3Hillary and Bill are complete scumbags. It's obvious they will happily sink to ANY level to win. They are the epitome of "the end justify the means". Hillary will never be POTUS.
  • notzak, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3The radio actually beat digg. This story was covered by NPR a few days ago.

    Clearly, the end is nigh.
    • rupturexcore, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3NPR "actually beats" digg on quite a few fronts.
  • TheCheckist, on 05/04/2008, -6/+0Once again the evil racist white politicians are conspiring to oppress and disenfranchise black voters and stop the great black hope, Barak Obama!

    Frankly, if you're dumb enough to be duped by a phonecall like that, you have no business voting.

    • kronix, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2The constitution makes no distinction between who's good enough to vote and who isn't. Attitudes like this are the reason the little guy gets forgotten all the time.
  • TruPhan, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1Ironic, considering how she's against "disenfranchising voters"
  • 3zero3, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2God damn her entire low road campaign makes me want to ***** throw up.
  • randy1711, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Bam Bam--Mc Govern Bam Bam--------Loser
    Hillary will win
  • gthrank, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1If Clinton gets the nomination (which would take tricks like these), I will vote AGAINST her even if I have to vote for McCain. I utterly despise her.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1 I am in no way saying black voters, who SEEM to have received the lion's share of the calls, are all unsophisticated ==============
    SEEM?!? What do you mean by "seem", you lying through the rotten teeth commie pinko propagandist? If you don't know the percentage of calls received by the blacks, how could you claim that it was the lion's share? Besides, everybody on this side of the Pond knows that the blacks would not be deterred from voting by the lack of voter registration, and that they will vote thrice for a candidate of their choice.
  • Nutmegan, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Nixon? The most clearly stolen U.S. presidential election in history was stolen FROM Nixon. Cook County ring a bell?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 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.