digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Democrats, you MUST see this! watch!

youtube.com — Before it's too late!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • gmurray, on 02/10/2008, -22/+171Twice the party has been split on its candidate and twice it was never able to get back together and win the generals. Obama can bring the party together and defeat McCain so that we can continue undoing the damage of the Bush Administration.
    • hoovcluck, on 02/10/2008, -6/+43Sorry, I didn't know we started undoing the damage.
      • Cgeoffrion, on 02/10/2008, -17/+10Yeah, I really don't see either of them taking any real steps to make real changes to the problems we face. I really don't know what to do anymore.
        • ZPWeeks, on 02/10/2008, -3/+1Why is Cgeoffrion being dugg down? Don't digg people down because you simply disagree- there is a significant amount of people in this country who are fed up with a political system where there are two parties in power, and neither of which actually accomplish real, tangible change for their constituents.
          I support Obama, but I can COMPLETELY relate with the people who have grown apathetic towards their choices for president each election year.
      • delfin1, on 02/10/2008, -3/+2apology accepted.
    • Groovemaster, on 02/10/2008, -41/+14Obama is AIPAC and the CFR's wet dream.

      If you honestly believe he'll take America in any direction other than the one it's already on, prepare to be gravely disappointed.
      • pintomp3, on 02/10/2008, -4/+16mccain and hillary are worse
        http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtm ...
        • americangoy, on 02/10/2008, -4/+10Lets face the facts here - all politicians and presidents in the USA currently will do whatever AIPAC wants them to do. OTOH Obama at least is on the record that he was against the Iraq War - hence the hatred of AIPAC and the Israel first Americans.
          • streak, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1(ahem!) Obama became senator nearly 2 years after the war began. If his colleagues had passed his 18-month withdrawal legislation, we'd be out of Iraq next month (yeah, right). And HRC was working on healthcare reform before Obama even took up smoking. Sounds to me like Obama is a johnny-come-lately.
      • copypastry, on 02/10/2008, -6/+11What does the canadian finals rodeo have to do with anything?
        • LLLSecretChimp, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1US politics has been controlled by Canadian rodeo for a long time. It's an open secret in Washington.
      • franklymister, on 02/10/2008, -8/+9Any time I hear someone start using AIPAC and CFR as if they were household names, I know they're about to make an argument that we have to replace everyone in the government with, I don't know, George Galloway clones or something.

        It's also generally a short path from "lookout here comes the CFR" to believing that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is real.
        • americangoy, on 02/10/2008, -7/+8Except the AIPAC is real and is a very very VERY powerful lobby which does affect US foreign policy.

          Look up Iraq war and necons, PNAC and AIPAC.

          Just google it. That's all..
          PS
          Protocols of Zion is an old fabrication done in the times in Tsarist Russia, XIX century I believe. Why anybody would bring this up other than to discredit himself (as you have just done) is beyond me.
          • franklymister, on 02/10/2008, -4/+6Yes, there's a powerful pro-Israeli lobby. There are also powerful Saudi lobbyists, powerful Chinese lobbyists, etc., etc.
            We give a lot of foreign aid to Israel - the second largest. We also give a lot to the other Middle Eastern nations. Iraq was number one, getting $10.2 billion (Israel got $2.6b), Afghanistan, Egypt, and Jordan all got big checks as well. In fact, the vast majority of our foreign aid goes to Muslim nations.

            As for PNAC, well, yup, there are conservative groups lobbying in Washington. Guess what? There are liberal groups, too. These aren't conspiracies, they're just politics.

            Well done on identifying the PoZ as a fabrication. I brought it up as an example of the kind of junk that conspiracy theorists tend to buy into as real. I think you misunderstood.
          • saisumimen, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1You forgot to mention how much we let Israel get away with in terms of flagrant UN violations, spying, stealing of US technology and secrets (remember when they stole all that uranium?), and much, much more.

            Yes, we donate money to countries other than Israel, but you just can't compare their relationship to those other countries -- they don't even come close.
      • bluezinc, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1Reported as spam. I'm so tired of this copy-paste spamming on Obama stories. You have no argument and you know it, most of you guys are just angry trolls still pissed that Paul isn't doing better in the primaries. Spamming ***** about other candidates =! votes for YOUR candidate.
    • chickenbig, on 02/10/2008, -30/+2And how is socialism going to do that???
      • badjoke, on 02/10/2008, -0/+14They might not cut taxes, but hopefully they'll cut overuse of punctuation.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/10/2008, -2/+5Well since Bush's mistakes have pretty much all been using the people as tools for various private interests, how could anything BUT socialism fix it?
          • chickenbig, on 02/10/2008, -8/+3You scare me...you must be one of those losers who stand to benefit by stealing money from people who actually earn it.
          • smurfsahoy, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1By "earn," you must mean "being lucky enough to have lots of money in the first place and then making more money from it by loaning it to people who actually work hard as you sit on your ass and do nothing, collecting paychecks from their efforts?" Then yes, you're right, I am one of those losers who wants to stop that from happening by allowing normal, hard working people to benefit instead.
        • chickenbig, on 02/10/2008, -6/+0Aren't you the clever one? Perhaps you don't understand the myriad of questions underlying that one grand question. Go back 10 spaces to high school social science class.
      • bluezinc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1OOOH! The commies are a commin to git ya! Quick! Run and tell Reagan! Tell him to bring the rifles!
      • sweetholymosiah, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Socialism is all about the dangers of central planning right? central banking, centralized economy... Sounds familiar? Wake the ***** up and stop categorizing your "enemies" as something you don't understand. Left and Right have been used to limit the political thought of Americans.
    • runCMD, on 02/10/2008, -20/+0Except that about half the party knows that Barack can't win. So IF Obama cares about his party - he'll pull back on the snow job now and let the best qualified candidate own the race she's fully prepared to win.

      now, before its a day later than right now.
    • Uggamugg, on 02/10/2008, -10/+4Did you know both candidates running for Democratic nomination were in senate during Bush's years? Amazing, I know. They could have stood up to Bush. They could have used all their "experience" and innovative ideas for "change" to sway Congress to stand up to Bush and perhaps undo some of the damage done by his Administration.

      Or they could have not spoken up. They could have ignored (or been compliant) to all damage done to civil liberties and our economy by Bush. They could have even voted for some of those bills that made all this mess possible.

      So please inform me how 4 years with either of these two politicians would make a difference let alone make this country better?

      FYI I would rather eat my shoe than vote for John "100 year crusade" McCain. F*** that guy.
      • Synova, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1If the democrats control congress and Obama is president, prepare to be amazed in 8 years is my guess.
    • jakdracula, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6Yea, that Majority Democrat Congress and Senate have really done a lot of damage to the Bush Administration. Right?
    • FutureGuy, on 02/10/2008, -4/+6In other news Fox News endorses Billary.
    • Alfonzo, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1God damn, I hope you're right. . .
    • pjpark, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1In December, Huckabee was polling better than Romney who was polling ahead of McCain. Why even have a primary? Why not let the know-nothing blowhards at CNN pick your nominee?
    • ICSU, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1According to the poll, white males support McCain much more than any democrat.
      must be all those disgusting obese pseudo-patriots
  • PeoplesChoice, on 02/10/2008, -26/+469What Hillary Clinton should say on Monday:

    In my entire career, I've had all kinds of opponents. But I've never had an opponent who inspires me. That was the difficult part of running against Senator Obama. But Bill and I love this party so much and losing in November is just unthinkable. That's why I've decided to suspend my campaign from this day and join forces with Senator Obama in defeating the heir of George Bush. Let us roll our sleeves and give the Republican nomineee the trouble that Senator Obama and I gave each other.
    • phyl0x, on 02/10/2008, -10/+59The Clinton's are well known for putting themselves above the party, we wont see her giving up without a fight.
      Bill almost destroyed the party his second term, his actions galvanized the republicans in 2000 (remember that whole restoring dignity to the White House stuff?), and this indirectly/directly led to George W Bush winning the election (well we know Gore really won..but Bush is president). Bill remained a low profile in both Gore and Kerry's campaign despite them wanting him to take a larger role. The DNC leadership and the Clintons aren't exactly best friends (Clintons are far more centrist than the DNC would like as well). We'll never see her quit unless theres no choice, she'll fight for those FL and MI delegates and do whatever it takes. Its gonna be messy.
      • iraq, on 02/10/2008, -9/+28Say what you will, but Bill Clinton is still among the most popular American presidents we've had. If you ask Democrats, they absolutely loved him and when he travels throughout the world (unlike Bush) people adore him. Few citizens outside our borders have any affinity towards George W. Bush, not even Iraqi citizens appreciate their "liberator".
        • masterm1nd, on 02/10/2008, -26/+7Because what matters is that foreigners like our president, not us.
          • cephelo, on 02/10/2008, -3/+31If you think a US president's foreign standing has no bearing on us, you're grossly deluded.
          • masterm1nd, on 02/10/2008, -18/+5Of course it does, but is it more important than native standing? Not even close.
          • bizkit00, on 02/10/2008, -12/+1the president's only power is to be the commander in chief of the military, so yes.
          • michaelb1, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4That is why you fail.
      • akatsuki, on 02/10/2008, -4/+14Bill Clinton screwed Gore to make room for Hillary. So although people love Bill for the dot-com boom, he definitely would put the Clinton interest over the party. That speech will never happen.
        • krnldmp, on 02/10/2008, -5/+14Only very stupid, ignorant people love Bill Clinton for the dot com boom.
          • franklymister, on 02/10/2008, -5/+15If you're going to love any politician for the dot com boom, you can thank Gore.
            It was the Gore Bill of 1991 that gave us all the foundations of the internet and the web as we know it today - from the National Information Infrastructure and the fiber optic networks across the nation, to the NCSA where the first web browser, Mosaic, was created.
        • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 02/10/2008, -6/+3Bill Clinton screwed Gore to make room for Bush
          http://files.meetup.com/483516/bush1_bill_golf.jpg
          Why do you think the Bush Whitehouse is so behind Billary....?
          • stevene, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4It's probably pretty hard to remember your username, isn't it?
          • michaelb1, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2I bet you have to count the r's everytime.
          • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1@ stevene LOL No. It's really pretty easy. The 'grrr' username is not irrational anger as perhaps you're suggesting, the selection was actually a total fluke. If it has any meaning in political threads like this it would be a discomfort with the political propaganda of the false right-left, so readily consumed by a trance addled populace, when objective investigation and independent research suggests markedly different probable outcomes.
            Keep it real dude...
        • deanlowe, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2How did Bill Clinton screw Al Gore?
        • Laxaloot, on 02/10/2008, -1/+7Well, one thing is for sure, Bill wasn't screwing Hillary back in the day...
          /me being dumb
      • supaklaw, on 02/10/2008, -1/+22Um, every staunch party member of the DNC is backing Clinton. You got it ass backwards. Clinton represents old school DNC fatcats... essentially the Republicans of the Democratic party... you know, the ones that voted for war, and were too pussyish to fight Bush. The more liberal members of the DNC are for Obama. But why most Dems have an issue with the Clintons is, they do behave very ruthlessly at times... Bill got elected in just as ruthless a way as Bush did. He's a smart guy but they are a bit shady. Unfortunately for me, Hilary is a lot more conservative than Bill, and a lot more willing to make consessions with people that should be called out for being unethical. Unfortunately she's put herself in a position she can't call someone unethical without seeming like a total hypocrite, Obama can.

        But the main problem is, the next 2 years are going to be mired in recession... and the next 10 with massive debt thanks to Dubya. The next president of any party is seriously *****.
      • wbeavis, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Gore's biggest failure was Tennesee. He never once campaigned in Tennesee during his Presidential bid. He assumed that it was a lock. That one mistake was enough to cost him the election. Sure there are other reasons, but that one stung.

        /for those who don't know, Tennesee is his home State
        • RockeN5, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1My neighbors are too stupid to have voted for Gore.
        • poxonyou, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1His VP didn't help either. Many Democrats were frustrated by what they perceived as a Republican-lite Bill Clinton. Gore did little to separate himself from that, and made that perception even worse with his pick of Lieberman. Hence, quite a few Democrats went Green that year, others just weren't motivated to vote.
      • mal1964, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Digg Comments = Inside Information.
        Keep up the good work, phy10x!
      • delfin1, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2May the best MAN win, who is not a republican.
    • p0s3r, on 02/10/2008, -17/+6LOL. The Clintons would Arkancide Obama before that ever happened.
    • cashman57, on 02/10/2008, -16/+7HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
    • zephyr42, on 02/10/2008, -2/+26I thought about that myself.... It would be the best thing for the COUNTRY and the PARTY.

      Why won't she do it? Same reason she's still with Bill, she's stubborn beyond belief.
      • rhinopig, on 02/10/2008, -4/+6I thought about that myself.... It would be the best thing for the COUNTRY and the PARTY.

        Why won't she do it? Same reason she's still with Bill, she's ambitious beyond belief.
        • MacEnvy, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5She's a modern MacBeth ... ambition can be a fatal flaw. I guess they didn't teach Shakespeare at Wellesley.
      • purplelantern, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Probably the same reason Obama wouldn't say that...
      • LordSubtle, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4Which incidentally is the same reason she'd be a terrible leader
        • delfin1, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1actually this shows some leadership, it doesn't mean she would be a terrible leader.
    • rdoger6424, on 02/10/2008, -4/+4The primaries have become nicer as soon as Obama and Clinton toned down the bitchslapping during the debates. More boring, but nicer nonetheless
      • runCMD, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Still plenty nasty here on Digg though. Go Obama Supporters Go.
    • hierophantus, on 02/10/2008, -3/+8Nothing about how she can't let her candidacy cause us to surrender to terrorists?
      • foreignwarren, on 02/10/2008, -1/+11man I know........***** Mitt Romney!!!
    • kirakun, on 02/10/2008, -3/+14That would only happen if Billary Clinton is genuinely caring for America. Unfortunately, she's just an ambitious selfish fake who just wants to be the first female American president.

      So, good luck with that.
    • Malevolant, on 02/10/2008, -12/+2http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gbama1ws8 ...
      • orca94, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Go home.
      • bluezinc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Get a hobby, go outside, meet a girl, just GET OFF THE ***** INTERNET!
    • mal1964, on 02/10/2008, -10/+5Nice try, Obama!
    • mal1964, on 02/10/2008, -8/+4This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen
    • runCMD, on 02/10/2008, -11/+0You guys are hilarious. This will play out the way it always does because Obama has become part of the institution now. With corporate sponsors and big name endorsements and a fan club on Digg. Nope - he cares nothing for the party. I do believe that if he cares for America as much as you believe that he will see he needs to step back. But then, that's just my opinion.
      • madroneDorf, on 02/10/2008, -0/+7this makes no sense because Obama is almost univerally shown to have higher chances of winning the general election
    • erkokite, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6No one with millions of dollars sunk into their campaign with a good shot of winning the primaries will give it up.
    • Daedalus17, on 02/10/2008, -1/+7"defeating the heir of George Bush"
      What makes you think Hillary Clinton isn't the true heir of GWB?
    • bluezinc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Hillary has disgusted me to a point (in how she has run this campaign) where if she were to share a ticket with Obama, I might not vote for Obama just because it would also be voting for Hillary. Of course, then I'd look at McCain's chipmunk face and quickly scribble Obama's name on the ballot.
    • maelstromwar, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Forget Hillary, It'll be Obama/Edwards '08.
    • moush, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Obama would be more willing to do that than Hillary, and he won't.
    • sweetholymosiah, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Obama/Kucinich!

      haha...
  • Simonft, on 02/10/2008, -32/+16Was anyone else really annoyed by that voice?
    • Ireland, on 02/10/2008, -1/+11Hilary's? Yes.
      • rentmitchum, on 02/10/2008, -1/+5She didn't speak in the video, but she didn't have to. Her face is like the wailing wall. (what is the wailing wall from? D&D? I dunno.. it's covered in eyeballs and it SCREAMS and yea I think it's from D&D cause the shock can kill you.. awesome..)
    • zephyr42, on 02/10/2008, -6/+9Bury Me!!
    • Simonft, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Not Obama's, the announcers.
  • mrfreeziexp, on 02/10/2008, -20/+350If Hillary wins the nomination, the Democratic party will lose the general election. That's just a fact, the numbers support it.
    • rentmitchum, on 02/10/2008, -11/+6How could she win the nomination then? Not being snarky, I really don't know much about the whole genre politique. If so many more like Obama, isn't he a shoe-in? Or at least like, a few laces-in?
      • gr3yn3t, on 02/10/2008, -0/+7if 51% of the democrats support hillary, she would get the nomination, and that is 25% of the total population.

        It wouldn't be far-fetched to guess that democrats that don't support hillary _could_ vote McCain...
        • cashman57, on 02/10/2008, -10/+2since McAmnesty votes like a Democrat
        • TGMD, on 02/10/2008, -0/+14Ahem... Cashman... you do realize that Reagan gave Amnesty right?
      • peterjmag, on 02/10/2008, -3/+5Among the Democrats that've been voting in the primaries, Hillary's more popular. However, Obama's reaching more Independent and Republican voters than Hillary is, which is why Obama's more popular among the general public.
        • smotpoker, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3That is not exactly true. Most polls show Obama with the popular vote but Hillary with more delegates. Furthermore, they indicate Obama won more states and more states by large margins (He gained 70% of the vote in 3-4 states while Hillary only managed to do that with her home state of Arkansas).
          I suspect feminism, fear of racial backlash (ie fear racism is enough of a problem to a big factor), ignorance of Obama's stances, ignorance of how many others really believe in those stances and passion to get Bush out of office no matter what the cost are the main reasons why she fared as well as she did.
          You assume Obama is stealing republican candidates when what he is doing is inspiring the young and the disillusioned that they are not alone in their beliefs, their votes count and that they have a chance to take a true positve step forward for the first time in decades (if not centuries). Conservatives were always the minority, they just sometimes manage to manipulate/oppress/persecute people to the point of forgetting and giving up for long periods of time and then forget after a couple of generations of family coverups
      • Pimptastic, on 02/10/2008, -0/+11the problem is there are enough crazy right wingers that would come out of the woodwork to vote against Hillary. There isn't that hatred for Obama that some of us right wingers have compared to how much we despised the whole Clinton era.
        • jakdracula, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2I couldn't have said it better ma' self. Wait. I did say that earlier in the week here!
        • purplelantern, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1So... In other words... Crazy right wingers are more comfortable with Obama than Clinton.

          Some say judge a person by the company he keeps. In some cases, it is more accurate to judge a person by the enemy he makes.
        • laserdog, on 02/14/2008, -0/+2No, there has just been 10 years of very effective marketing done by the Republicans against "the Clintons".

          It will make an amazing rallying cry, that would bring the republican base together to vote for McCain.

          Without Clinton, McCain has to run on his own merits, which don't excite a lot of conservatives.
      • TGMD, on 02/10/2008, -2/+24Democrats have the tendency to pick a candidate that can't win in the general.
        Kerry (rich, boring, aloof), Gore (boring, aloof, etc), Dukakis (easy target, 'new england liberal'), Mondale (need I say more?), McGovern

        Clinton would just be another in a long line of qualified, but unelectable democratic nominees.
        If they did choose Obama he would most definitely win the general. McCain and Obama both appeal to the independents, but what gives Obama the win is that he can get democratic liberal base to back him while McCain can't do the same for the Conservative base... But it Hilary gets the nomination, not only will independents flock to McCain the conservative base will vote just to make sure she doesn't get in...

        People generally don't like Hilary... Hell if I had a choice between Hilary and McCain I'd choose McCain.. and I'm a libertarian who HATES McCain...

        OH well... I'm writing John Adams in... (nothing in the constitution says you can't elect a dead president)
        • smotpoker, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3You're absolutely right. How could they, or the american people, be so naive as to think a *politician* could be boring, aloof, rich or liberal?!
          Thanks for the insight about the typical attributes most conservatives use to determine their candidates ...I guess
        • madroneDorf, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2I'm a democrat, and I generally agree with him, democrats are masters are shooting ourself in the foot.

          Sure back in 72 things might have went better if it wasnt' for eagleston, dukakis coulda avoided his flub about death penalty and his wife and the tank, but overall, we democrats tend to nominate people without wide appeal outside the base.
          • smotpoker, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1That is more attributable to political corruption and distancing yourselves from the left more and more, I think. Large chunks of the populace don't/haven't voted in decades due to alienation by government, conservatives and businesses. I would say 95% of conservatives are completely brainwashed/directly bribed - the other 5% have no illusions and run the show. 50% of democrats somewhat indoctrinated/brainwashed (the other 50% are more to the left but hang in there because they feel it is the only way to slow/stop conservatives from establishing some form of elitist monarchy). Democrats and republicans combined probably only count for like 60-70% of adult population though and 90% who are independent or don't normally vote lean to the left

            DISCLAIMER: I didn't bother trying to look any of those figures up or calculate them [yet]. They are based on my observations of various polls and experiences talking to different people, reactions on/by the media, general demeanor of lots of people and probably a few other factors, but basically they're "guesstimates"

            Personally, I'm a leftist and very liberal so I"m not offended or anything, but keep in mind last 4 dem candidates actually WON
      • Tenareth, on 02/10/2008, -2/+0Did you not see the super bowl? 2 halves don't have the same overall skill/support.
    • abran1984, on 02/10/2008, -6/+7True, the polls have been dead-on so far
      • whataboutdave, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3With the lone notable exception of New Hampshire Democratic race - yeah, pretty much the polls have been dead accurate.
      • TheAtomicMoose, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Although I agree with you, I buried you for the sake of hope... huzzah?
    • Kautylia, on 02/10/2008, -4/+3The political situation is going to be far different in November than it is right now. Obama has has a surge of support recently that is entirely due to momentum. Momentum doesn't last forever though. I'm not saying that Hillary will necessarily do better than Obama in november, but that's 9 months away. Numbers today don't necessarily reflect what the reality will be then.
      • contigo, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1"Numbers today don't necessarily reflect what the reality will be then"

        True, but when have a majority of people liked Hillary over the past 16 years? Thinking that her appeal will suddenly go up a lot by November is a long shot IMO.
      • cwcentral, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1"suddenly go up a lot by November is a long shot IMO"

        Look at Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, even Kennedy, momentum is a very important thing. Kerry was leading until the end (swift boats), Gore was a shoe-in until Summer (Bush surged!!), Kennedy wasn't supposed to win until the party picked LBJ!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_preside ...

        Momentum is a very important political tool. Momentum is related to money. You need to spend all your money when the time is right so you peak at the right point. Kerry lost momentum right at the last minute--he ran out of money as a result. Obama did a good job in spending 3x as much as Clinton in January and it paid off in super Tuesday. So he's got the momentum now, but can it can another 4 montths? Or like on digg, will we get tired of all the Obama diggs (some call it spam already)?
    • Intercon, on 02/10/2008, -17/+6*****, please! Plenty of people who don't support Hillary would vote for her over that chump McCain in a New York minute. McCain will never be president of this nation. Period. The Republican farce is over!!!
      • skew009, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1The neocon takeover of the Republican Party has ensured it's death. It needs to die in order to rebuild itself on actual conservative values. Neocons are farther left than Democrats and the Democrats have been moving farther to the center. It's sad because many people have the wrong idea of what the Republican Party is, they didn't use to stand for the kinds of things they are doing now. The Democrats are closer to what the Republicans used to be than the Republican party itself is. Sad.
    • Genghis1, on 02/10/2008, -16/+2Obama is too liberal, Hillary is more moderate
    • crakbot, on 02/10/2008, -8/+3Wrong. In the general election Obama can't carry the white vote. I love the guy but it's the truth. Mcain can beat Hillary or Obama. It's a sad day for us all.
      • lamprey187, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6wrong......check the polls, Idaho, Nebraska, just to name a few. Also The USA is only 60% white........get with the times, it is the 21st century. Race is not the big issue the fear mongers would like you to believe.
      • mistergoomba, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1actually, the percentage of whites who believe in obama are higher than the percentage of blacks...

        saw it on tv once
      • madroneDorf, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3whites wouldn't vote for obama over 50%, but that has a lot more to do with the fact that Whites tend to be republican, not some large amount of racism.

        Is there racism? absolutely, but its not enough to prevent a win for Obama
      • noelsusman, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Why is everything always about race? Move on people, racism was so 100 years ago. Nobody cares anymore.
    • aboutlogin, on 02/10/2008, -1/+5Here's the problem. The Obama campaign wasn't supposed to do this good. They were supposed to keep it remotely interesting for TV and then HillBill would emerge with the inevitable lead and the Dems would buy into it and go along just to keep the Republicans out of the White House. The Republican nominee would be some easily beatable candidate, perhaps someone that could be easily sold as a continuation of the status quo, better yet if his own party could turn against him. Check. Now the only problem is this Obama guy isn't playing along. The pickle the Bush-Clinton camp is in now is how to sell America the demise of the Obama campaign...
      • Spirckle, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Bush-Clinton camp has been push-pulling this country toward disaster for the last 20 years and want to continue for at least 8 more. However I've got the terrible suspicion that Obama is their backup plan. He is related to both Bush and Cheney by the way, and for as appealing as his personality is to me, I also know that with the lizards, blood-lines win.
      • cwcentral, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2I don't know, but when you spend the most money campaigning, you have a pretty good chance to win (Obama, though raising more $$, is spending more than Clinton in Nov/Dec/Jan and currently Feb, and the results show it).

        Look at Romney, even if you're terrible candidate, ads and spending money do get you some votes.
    • mistergoomba, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4if hillary wins the nomination, she's already beaten the numbers
    • culbeda, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3The numbers don't say she'll lose, they say it will be a much closer race with a higher chance of losing. The best case scenario with Clinton is that it will be another narrow margin of victory and another 4-8 years of the country being divided by partisan bickering. And she wouldn't have the mandate or the sufficient backing in congress to move any liberal component of her platform forward. Although I'm sure corporate interested would be well served.
    • KeepOffMyLawn, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1No, the issue is that, if it comes down to superdelegates, (who make up 20% of the total democratic delegates), Hillary's got a majority. Simple as that. I know they're free to change their opinion and all, but she's ahead (in recent numbers) by nearly one hundred superdelegates, which may end up, as much as everyone would hate it, swinging the election in her favor.
    • Isoptera4, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1That's a fact? Someone here is basing their opinions on faith rather than fact. You sound like another religious moron.
    • nickgriffiths, on 02/10/2008, -1/+0The numbers support it? The phrase "***** you Frank!" springs to mind.
    • moush, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1If you think anyone besides a democrat is going to win, you're a moron. Why do you think there's hardly any news about republican candidates compared to democrats?
      • androo, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2not that i disagree necessarily, but a lot of it has to do with the fact that the democratic race is much closer, and they would both be the first black/female president.
    • sweetholymosiah, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Clinton would not be a loss for the Dems, but a massive victory for the neo-cons. They can't lose! I cannot imagine the American electorate being coerced and ignored for another 8 years, but by then you'll all be too poor to really stand up and fight for your freedoms. Amazing how much energy you lose when you can't afford real nutrition, and I'm not talking massive intakes of calories. This is it! You fat bastards have really got your work cut out for you!
  • pigtown, on 02/10/2008, -47/+12buried for a ***** stupid headline. Not to mention I saw this on CNN. Twice.
    • PeoplesChoice, on 02/10/2008, -3/+10If you saw it twice, that's good. I hope you took serious note, because Democrats CANNOT afford to lose again. Now, there are millions of Democrats who didn't see it on CNN and they're the target of this submission. For you to bury it just because you already sawit, makes you come across as a pig.

      I'm not saying you're a pig, just referring to your decision to bury a fine submission that is in the interest of all Democrats and DOES NOT have anything bashful or inaccurate against any one candidate.
      • cashman57, on 02/10/2008, -5/+1I can tell you are an Obama fan, you came out on both sides of calling "pig"
        LOL!!!
      • unitedstatians, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1"DOES NOT have anything bashful or inaccurate against any one candidate."

        I'll happily, reveal an inaccuracy in the youtube edited clip and your statements above, linked on this story. Listen very closely at 1:12min into the clip, the faceless narrator, falsely claims there are only TWO democratic candidate running for the whitehouse in '08. As of 2/10/2008 they're three active Democratic candidates.

        The omitted candidate is MIKE GRAVEL.
        http://www.digg.com/elections/
    • pigtown, on 02/10/2008, -1/+8Good point. Un-burried.
    • DavidGX, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Oh, excuse us, we didn't know king pigtownington the 14th had already seen it. We shall now kill ourselves in hopes that our blood will cleanse the earth of our mistakes. Please forgive us!
  • ganlet, on 02/10/2008, -7/+184Ive watched nearly all the debates and carefully watched their campaigns. One of the big reasons I am for Obama is because he, time after time, has stressed the idea of working with the Republicans to unite the country. Where as Clinton always talks about how she is the better candidate to go against them. It feels like Obama wants to work together and Clinton wants to continue the drift
    (I'm sry if I have spell anything wrong I'm rather sick today)
    • Ireland, on 02/10/2008, -1/+55dugg because you're sick
      • MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -0/+13Don't digg him because he's sick! You'll catch it! Don't you know that's how the virus transfers?
    • ItsMyWii, on 02/10/2008, -15/+4You spelled sorry wrong...
    • minox, on 02/10/2008, -7/+2My problem with your read is that Obama has a more liberal voting record in the senate than even Harry Reid. If he is all about working in a bipartisan matter, it isn't evident because he hasn't given an inch. He doesn't hold any views that aren't orthodox party line positions. While people view Hillary as more of a centrist than Obama, the only differences between the two campaigns, aside from Obama's rhetorical flair, is that Hillary's health care plan is more expansive. They also argue over Hillary's voting record on the war, but she has since disowned that vote.
      • fluoro, on 02/10/2008, -0/+8When has she disowned her voting record on the war? She never said "sorry, I ***** up.. over and over again." She just kept saying "I was tricked into voting that way with false information. But then I kept voting in favor of it anyway."
        • minox, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1They have both funded the war. She may not have disowned the vote in the way you look, but the fact is that both she and Obama are both vaguely anti-war now.
        • smotpoker, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4@minox- Obama has always been very greatly anti-war. Agreeing to not cut funds isn't the same as supporting a war. The distinguishing factor between them on this issue is that he always stood against the war and never faltered, while Hillary supported it the first year or two and finally admitted it was based on someone else's mistake and she did nothing wrong.
          Personally, I feel anyone who was dumb enough to invade or support invasion based on the evidence provided is too dumb to be given rule over 6billion people; Anyone who doesn't have enough principle to admit their mistakes or stand by their beliefs is lacking character/principle. Government full of those dicks is how we got here to begin with so our votes need to show that this is intolerable ...IMO
      • Blondenough, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Her initial health care plan introduced when Bill was in office generated so much backlash I wouldn't be surprised if it was enough to ruin her presidential electability. I'm for universal health care but the thought of making it mandated sure makes me uncomfortable.
    • drachasor, on 02/10/2008, -5/+0By the same people that declared Kerry the most liberal voter in the senate for the 2004 election? You know there's a socialist in the Senate, so I rather doubt the source of that study.
    • madroneDorf, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I don't see how anyone could say Obama has been the most liberal in the senate, what about bernie the socialist sanders heh
      • Syric, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Don't forget lovable rascal Dennis the Menace.
        • letitbleed62, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1hes in the house not the senate
    • oldgal, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2In California, Clinton borrowed Obama's message - unite and change. It was too dramatic a shift to be credible.
    • cwcentral, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1In the end, Clinton has set the agenda: healthcare, fairness between rich and poor, globalization. congress collaboration. Really, she was preaching this two years ago! Obama, who is now campaigning as the front runner, has assume ownership of those issues, yet his private-public solutions and foreign policy are either pro-corporation, or pro-European--he's got to consider the needs of his greatest contributor (Goldman Sachs).

      Obama has motivated the affluent base, independents, and minority vote--in essence, has got the popular vote. But you got to give credit to Clinton, she has set the agenda--otherwise, we'd be talking about the republician agenda of morals, abortion, and character.
    • juankovo, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1When a politician seeks "unity," it just means that (s)he wants everyone else to agree with what (s)he is saying.
  • kprooney, on 02/10/2008, -71/+11once again who gives a *****?
    • stormgren, on 02/10/2008, -1/+36The 300 million people in the United States.
      • Dylson, on 02/10/2008, -0/+11Ya and the other 6 billion people that share our planet, who think we Americans suck due to George.
        • Akintunde, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1oh? you two are on a first name basis now? XD
    • Pimptastic, on 02/10/2008, -0/+25I would think the whole world would care. Anyone want another George Bush in office?
    • Akintunde, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6I do.
    • madm0nk, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4Pay this idiot no mind he just wants attention.
    • TheButterThief, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2At least 1418 diggers, at 10:20 PM central time.
    • TonyLocNE, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1obamabots don't give a *****, they just submit *****
  • Ireland, on 02/10/2008, -17/+104We got your back Barack
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/10/2008, -0/+7As a Paul supporter, I for one thought that all Obama's speeches were just vague yet inspiring sounding *****. You know, just another politician. Then I saw this:

      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_Talks_Abou ...

      Now I will admit that Paul is a truly revolutionary candidate, and his issues are closest to mine, but Obama undeniably demonstrates here that he is extremely intelligent and has some very good ideas. This cat would definitely bring respect to the U.S. on the international stage.

      Hillary I think is pretty unlikeable. The media might be able to sell her to SOME Americans, but the rest of the world ain't buyin' it.

      /Canadian. Good luck America.
    • FutureGuy, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1He needs some money too, donate and vote!!! US simply cannot afford 4 more years of "conservative" rule.
  • jc801, on 02/10/2008, -28/+4obama kind of looks like that rapper Lloyd Banks in the thumbnail for this post.
  • VicHislop, on 02/10/2008, -12/+2This goes well with the digg post immediately below it...
  • neptunebk, on 02/10/2008, -33/+5Those polls are just *****. Nobody goes out and asks 5000+ people on who they will vote for, and 99% percent of the time people just blurt a name out to get those annoying poll-anals out of their face. So, stop thinking they are fact by linking us to stupid videos like this.
    I'm just an everyday normal guy, *****.
    • adrenaline33, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6The polls have been very accurate in this election so far, especially on Super Tuesday.
      • bitspace, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1They were pretty close then, but they were WAY off for NH. The way the polls have fluctuated, and the way the primaries themselves have fluctuated, I almost think the relative accuracy of the polls on "Super Tuesday" weren't just a lucky coincidence.
    • jdwest, on 02/10/2008, -2/+3Clearly, you have been polling for a very long time.
      • holygram, on 02/10/2008, -5/+1Clearly, he has been polled for a very long time....if you know what I mean.
    • lumbergh, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3wow. boy do I love the thumbs down button. You lose, reroll a new human and play again.
    • JulyZerg, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Glad to know you're "ordinary". See, if you were smart or something, your flawed opinion may mean something!
  • cryonix, on 02/10/2008, -20/+50Perhaps Hillary looses the male vote with her crying/staged emotional expression. That only shows her emotional instability, and how little can render her emotional. Imagine a larger issue, how emotionally instable would she become?
    • atienza2, on 02/10/2008, -21/+6shut the ***** up retard.
      • sgtpppr, on 02/10/2008, -1/+7Isn't there something in the 'report offensive' system that gets rid of people like Alex here?
        • fotbr, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3No. That's just there to make you feel like you did something.
    • ruddy, on 02/10/2008, -11/+9she would declare war that special day every month
      • bitspace, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Except that she's probably post-menopausal.
    • chickenbig, on 02/10/2008, -6/+7Give me a break. Real men don't vote for Hillary to begin with.
    • drdh, on 02/10/2008, -2/+14I'm surprised to see that this creaky stereotype of powerful women is still considered valid by anyone. Have you never met an intelligent, post-menopausal woman? Most of the ones I know are quite stable, emotionally, and, of course, they don't have "special days of the month." As for declaring war, it seems to me that the current administration is constantly having "special days."
    • skew009, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2I sad a report on this where they polled people. Men were actually more sympathetic to her than other women were and said they were MORE likely to vote for her. Other women saw it as weakness and said it hurt their chances of voting for her.
    • LowRentDiggs, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3Showing your emotions and emotional stability are two totally different things. Women aren't afraid to show their emotions while men are supposed to keep them pent up. The latter leads to being more unstable emotionally. I support Obama but don't be a dumbass.
      • CallMeUgly, on 02/10/2008, -2/+0This issue isn't that relevant to whom I vote for, but I think you are being too simplistic. Its very useful in crisis management to be able to *delay* your emotions. If you push them down and leave them there, then I agree you will be the worse off for it. But to be able to stay clear headed in the moment and deal with emotions after the fact is the goal. In my experience most older women can do that pretty good. Girls like under 30, hell no, but grown women can be just as well equipped as a man in that regard.

        Full disclosure, as it may relate to bias, I'm a 23 year old male.
    • someuser90, on 02/10/2008, -1/+0Pent up emotions my ass, I got slightly more emotions than the Terminator, and that only shows when I play sports.
      Maybe your just a nancy boy?
    • xdra, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1For those who haven't seen her "cry": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUX7zds7QVY

      The media, especially republican supporters, exaggerated Clinton's "emotional episode", and I'm surprised that so many follow, especially on digg, where we tend not to trust mainstream media. This doesn't make her seem "emotionally unstable" at all. It just reminds us that she is a politician trying to win votes, like the rest of the candidates.

      Then, again, she is female, therefore must be unstable, whether she cried or not. We can't take the risk of having a fragile woman as president, nor a black man, who's prone to violence and drugs. Let's "stay the course" people. It's done us good so far, right?
  • TrevorBradley, on 02/10/2008, -5/+98I'm surprised we haven't started hearing: "A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain" or "A vote for Hillary is a vote for invading Iran".

    Guess Barack really isn't into negative campaigning.
    • cashman57, on 02/10/2008, -13/+2didn't Barack( Barry) say he would attack Iran?
      • asauterChicago, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4no
      • Nanobe, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3He said he wanted to do *actual* diplomacy with Iran. But if I remember right, he refused to rule out any options, including attacking them. I doubt it would come to that, though, considering that they aren't really much of a threat.
        • br0ck, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Obama was actually misquoted on the now-famous 'all options are on the table' quote. "But in an interview with The New York Times that formed the basis for an article Krauthammer cited, Obama did not take military action against Iran "off the table." When asked whether he would "retain a military option for striking Iran's nuclear facilities," Obama said, "I don't think the president of the United States takes military options off the table, but I think that we obviously have to measure costs and benefits in all the decisions that we make." http://mediamatters.org/items/200711050003

          Some other actions show his Iran and nuclear weapons stances more clearly. First, Obama actually authored legislation to prohibit Bush from using the Iraq war documents as permission to attack Iran, while Clinton simply mailed a polite request for him to please not attack. Also, he, unlike Hillary, also vote against the Kyl-Liebermann amendmant that many see as a call to arms against Iran. As for all options being about Nuclear Weapons, he has a comprehensive plan for nuclear disarmament, has called for meetings with Iran to find other workable ways to prohibit them from becoming a nuclear power, and he has specifically said that Nukes are NOT on the table in fighting against terrorists: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008 ...
    • cashman57, on 02/10/2008, -10/+5As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?"

      He added, "[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."

      http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521
      • Rapter09, on 02/10/2008, -2/+8So what's that? Proof that Obama is a war mongerer? I really don't buy things like that. Obama is pretty slick with his words 'at what point... if any'. He's weighing different options. He's telling people what could happen, what probably won't happen. Isn't that what you want? Why would you push that away? Granted, saying "If", and weighing those options doesn't necessarily mean he's a good candidate, but at least it's out there.
        Yes we are all anti-war, at heart. None of us like war. But, Obama can't come down to the American public and say "We are absolutely not ever never going to attack Pakistan ever ever ever." That's foolishness. Obama has to keep his options open. He's defending a country. There may come a time that military action is indeed justified. The point is, he's probably not going to run willy-nilly into the country like Cowboy George. He already stated missiles strikes aren't going to do the trick, but what really does happen when RADICAL muslims get nuclear weapons? What are you going to do?

        Oh *****, Obama's president and he already promised you short-sighted yokels he wouldn't attack anybody. Damn. Oops. There goes Los Angeles under a mushroom cloud. -- The chances of that actually happening? Probably pretty slim to none. I don't see it happening in my lifetime, but... like I said. A President has to keep his options open.
        • cashman57, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Boy you really are lost. He's innoculating you so you won't be so upset when he attacks Iran.
      • madroneDorf, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1any canidate who says military options are off the table wont win the election.

        hell even from an international diplomacy standpoint, saying that militay is off the table is a bad idea.

        What matters is whether or not one thinks the individual would recklessly get us involved in a war.
      • wtfpwned98, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Who wouldn't be afraid of the nuts in Pakistan getting control of nukes? Yes, Pakistan has nukes now. No, the nuts aren't in control. Some of these freaks think they're sinning if they DON'T kill infidels.
    • Cyrus042, on 02/10/2008, -0/+12Clinton, Obama and McCain have all said that they would leave a military option on the table when dealing with Iran. In addition, all of them said it would be the last resort.
      • cashman57, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1All of them will use that "last resort" for political expediancy.
    • asurroca, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3Funny, I posted exactly that the other day... http://twitter.com/asurroca/statuses/682588462
    • Crazyloc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3Iran, hahha Hillarry was at SDSU last week and there were signs reading "leave Iran alone" in the crowd, and needless to say her security team was on their asses violently tearing the sign from the person, if Hilary gets elected Iran is next there is no doubt, and I thought we had freedom of speech!!!!
    • cashman57, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1http://www.cfr.org/publication/13974/
      It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan;"
      Yeah, he's the "peace" president who will only make war on the right battlefield.
      Are you really that far out of touch with your candidate?
  • vagrantwade, on 02/10/2008, -5/+64This isn't exactly new information. Unfortunately American voters like to ***** themselves over hard. i.e. 2000 & 2004.
    • pintomp3, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5while obama polls better than mccain, once the general election comes around the choice of vp may make a difference. i hope they don't screw obama by teaming him with someone like lieberman. the dnc will probably find away to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, again.
    • diskit, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Those two elections were rigged though.
    • jc801, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1well truth is nobody voted for bush aka The Douche in 2000, after the whole vote count debacle, he was forced into office by the supreme court justices his father had put into power when he was president... hmmm what a coincidence eh. and in 2004... well there doesn't seem to be any excuses for 2004.
      • chickenwing21, on 02/10/2008, -0/+0I thought Bush was the Turd Sandwich
  • Ranvier, on 02/10/2008, -11/+3This was posted on article format on here already.
  • zephyr42, on 02/10/2008, -5/+13Most of the candidates are saying the same thing and poking eachother once and a while. Democrats best bet is to nominate Obama.

    Logic strikes again!
    • cashman57, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Logic has nothing to do with Obama.
  • gonzojeff, on 02/10/2008, -6/+44It's not simply a matter of Obama appealing to more voters than Clinton. There's also the fact that most far-right Republicans absolutely hate the Clintons. These people don't have much love for McCain either, and if McCain is running against Obama, many will likely stay home rather than have to hold their nose to vote for one or the other. But, if McCain is running against Clinton, the right-wingers will come out in force to vote for McCain just to keep the Clintons from returning to the White House.
    • dawheelo, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6I agree except that republicans (especially older republicans) always come out to vote. I believe it really comes down to motivating lazy, younger dems to get off their asses. This is the single reason we had to endure Bush/Cheney for the last 3 years!
      • bitspace, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3Interestingly enough Obama seems to have been able to do this, at least for the primaries.
  • Herolint, on 02/10/2008, -8/+132Democrats, please take heed. I am a conservative, but the only way I would possibly vote for McCain is if you put up Hillary as your candidate. I think, and this video suggests I'm right, that there are a lot of Republicans and Independants that feel this way too. If you want to win the election in 2008, make sure that Obama is your candidate. I, for one, will vote for him.
    • CrazyZ, on 02/10/2008, -3/+14Yep. I'll vote for anyone over Hillary. I'll vote for Obama over McCain.
    • Malevolant, on 02/10/2008, -16/+5***** post. There's no way to prove you are a conservative, and more likely, you're just feedy the frenzy known as Obama. The idiots here will eat this up though, because it fits into their simple minded agenda.
      http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gbama10ya ...
      • Herolint, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1What's with all the mind readers lately?

        For you information, I've posted here on Digg for quite some time and you are welcome to go read my history where you can clearly see that I am a conservative.
    • RockeN5, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4If it were Hillary vs. McCain, I wouldn't vote for either of them.
    • cavedog0, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1I'll agree and hit reply too.
    • LawSchoolGuy, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Im also Republican, and I completely agree with the above comment.
    • buddycordova, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1So as a conservative you would vote for America's most liberal senator of 2007 according to the National Journal? Can you say 'contradiction'?
      • thafooz, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4McCain is hardly a model conservative, there isn't a contradiction in preferring Obama to him. Traditional conservatives aren't very fond of nation building and bankrupting the government...
        • buddycordova, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1True about McCain (I can't stand the guy) but at least he has some conservative values. Obama does not. Conservatives do not vote for liberals. Period. Liberals vote for liberals and claiming otherwise is a huge contradiction whether you are capable of recognizing it or not. Liberals are just as adept at bankrupting government BTW.
      • ceraphin, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1the party of god are no longer conservative in the sense that they used to be
        • buddycordova, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Ron Paul is the only conservative in the party of god. Other than that I do agree but liberals never were conservative.
  • gettempapa, on 02/10/2008, -4/+41I voted for Obama in the Washington caucuses today. This was one of the primary reasons. I even used this reason to help sway people who were undecided.
    • DephexTwin, on 02/10/2008, -0/+11Dugg for "primary reasons".

      /The irony is, you had a caucus.
    • mrASSMAN, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6I voted too.. Washington is going overwhelmingly with Obama, I guarantee it.

      (brought to you by george zimmer)
  • davebrook, on 02/10/2008, -10/+46God I hate Hillary! Go Barack Obama! Go!!
  • kds405, on 02/10/2008, -18/+2Have a Obama/Clinton ticket!
  • codepedaler, on 02/10/2008, -4/+10I hope the remaining Democrats that have not voted yet think about this when making their choice in candidates. We need to keep our eyes on the White House. Poll or no poll, I believe Obama is the best candidate to go up against the crafty Republican machine.
  • Hazed2008, on 02/10/2008, -15/+16Democrats don't need to worry, McCain is a democrat with an R by his name anyway.
    • kesin, on 02/10/2008, -2/+24yeah hes a democrat that wants to stay in iraq for 100 years ::rolls eyes::
      • chetg, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2...and a democrat who wants to roll back Roe. v Wade. Wrong.
      • NSResponder, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Question: what makes the Iraq war *different* from the Vietnam war and the Korean war?

        Answer: it was started by a Republican president.

        Don't kid yourself. Democrats are just fine with sending our troops to fight without a declaration of war.

        -jcr
    • thafooz, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3McCain may have effectively been a democrat 8 years ago, but he fell back in line with his party when GWB took office to prepare for this election. So who the hell knows his core beliefs are now?
  • Potent1al, on 02/10/2008, -21/+5First black president or first female president...either way it will be a revolution!
    • zephyr42, on 02/10/2008, -5/+6It doesn't *really* matter those are superficial reasons and why the "woman" vote is equally as retarted.
      • Brad324, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4retarted, v - to retransform a de-tarted plate of sauce into a tart, thereby re-tarting the sauce. "Man, I'm sure glad that sauce was retarted, because otherwise I'd be drinking sauce, rather than eating this tasty dessert."
    • salinemist, on 02/10/2008, -1/+15Yes, if you're racist or sexist. I prefer to vote for the best candidate regardless of their sex or skin color.
      • bitspace, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I agree 100%, but unfortunately the fact that the Democratic candidates are a woman and a black man is actually a big deal for a lot of people. It's sad that we (empirically) consider it revolutionary to be nominating somebody on gender or race.
    • iainc, on 02/10/2008, -2/+10Michelle Obama would make a better president than HRC. Hillary is poison.
    • RRJackson, on 02/10/2008, -5/+3This will be remembered as the "novelty campaign" that helped keep the Republicans in power.
      • salinemist, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1It's laughable that no party's members are excited about their candidates except for the Obamaites.
  • dreamflow, on 02/10/2008, -14/+4For those who doubt if Obama has subtance:

    OBAMA TALKS ABOUT ATHEISM
    http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_Talks_ ...
  • Bonz0, on 02/10/2008, -11/+14why does videos upload by his campaign always block comments.. Good way to show your support for free speech.
    • Malevolant, on 02/10/2008, -2/+13It's an anti-spam feature and when people spam certain services to ad nauseam, there is a protection in place. This has nothing to do with free speech, but thanks for trying.
      • Bonz0, on 02/10/2008, -6/+2Well if u get down to it spam is free speech is it not?
        • bitspace, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3No, it's not. To quote the often-used example, free speech doesn't mean you're free to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater. There are reasonable limits on free speech.
      • ThinkAwake, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Spam is still free speech buddy. It does not infringe on any of your constitutional rights or cause harm to anyone. It's a shame, people don't know their rights anymore. I've noticed something interesting... In Obama's top youtube videos there are comments allowed, but they are filtered (pending approval). so if we are to post anything that could point you away from Obama, it would be weeded out. This is not free speech, this is propaganda.

        Obama is the ultimate illusion of hope.
    • stealthc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Because YouTube comments are the absolute rock-bottom sludge of the Internet, and we're all better off without them.
  • Kr4t05, on 02/10/2008, -10/+36I was actually a big Ron Paul supporter until I saw the numbers (or lack thereof) for Super Tuesday. Now that I'm looking at the other candidates, I really think Obama is the closest I might get to a satisfactory president. And, with these numbers, I think he has a chance.
    • dawheelo, on 02/10/2008, -14/+5I was interested in Ron Paul until I saw his goofy ass in a debate. Yikes!
      • gettempapa, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1Dugg for use of the word "goofy."
      • RockeN5, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1..and you saw him in a debate and realized how great Ron Paul is?
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/10/2008, -2/+8Obama will rob the republicans of damn near every Paul vote. It is a big enough block to swing the election if it's tight, which it looks like it will be.

      Obama supporters do the right thing. Don't insult and drive away this valuable and energetic Republican and independant voting block. Spend time talking with them and focus on points that you agree. Many of them are completely without representation in this race once Paul is officially out. Don't be stupid, win those votes.
      • rolf, on 02/10/2008, -4/+2Um, no. I and many other Paul supporters I talked to won't vote Obama. Sorry. Maybe 3rd party at best.
        • brettmurf, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Most Paul supporters I have talked to will vote Obama because they're scared ***** of their alternatives.

          Basically we are back to 2004, but at least it isn't Kerry.
          • consonance, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1If Obama is 2004, then it's a 2004 we can all live with.
          • rolf, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I guess those would be the more casual supporters. I get my impressions at ronpaulforums.com

            I don't see any difference between Obama and the other top tier in policy. He has already said:
            -he'd go into Pakistan if it's to get "terrorists"
            -would have voted for Real ID, if the proper funding was there
            -voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in 2006

            among other things. Apparently other RP supporters also see the differences going the rating of this recent video:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8
        • widman, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Well said. I hope Ron Paulers won't just stay home and throw away their chance to vote.
    • ndnspongebob, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2I'm a Ron Paul Supporter too that will vote Obama if Paul doesnt do a Independent run. I know people will say he still wont win, but if hes in the race, i have to vote with my principles. But if hes not, Obama is the only person i would be able to relate to even if my philosophy would be different.
    • RockeN5, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I support both Paul and Obama.
    • juankovo, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1If you are a "big" Ron Paul supporter, you won't be looking at other candidates until Paul actually declares his race over, which won't happen until after the national Republican convention in September. None of the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, care at all about obeying the law of the land. If everyone is free to ignore the Constitution, why even have one at all? It's time to stop voting for who you think will win, because that means you're only voting for whom someone else told you to vote. Democracy fails because people treat their ballots as betting cards.
  • BannedTwice, on 02/10/2008, -48/+5That guy is a ***** terrorist. He should be in gitmo, not running for president.
    • franklymister, on 02/10/2008, -2/+18Not surprised by your screen name. Take it somewhere else - Internet trolling is so 1990s.
    • Bonz0, on 02/10/2008, -2/+12I dont support him at all but damn man your comment was about retarded as hell
    • alexandramw, on 02/10/2008, -2/+13Looking at your name, I hope you're banned a third time. Jack off.
    • SovereignGFC, on 02/10/2008, -2/+5Buried, blocked and reported for major douchebaggery. The ***** about Obama being a "Muslim" needs to DIE. Only retards echo that *****.
    • lumbergh, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3I took your comment as humor and I LOL'ed. Hope you meant it as such.
  • MoralCuntPiss, on 02/10/2008, -30/+8Would anyone even give a ***** about him if he were white? He would just be another young, inexperienced, ultra-liberal slimeball politician.
    • orca94, on 02/10/2008, -3/+14Yes, and no. Also, go ***** yourself.
      • von8, on 02/10/2008, -9/+1The answer is no. If he weren't black, he'd never have a shot against Clinton. He would have been lumped in with the rest of the democrat candidates and nobody would have seen the difference between him and John Edwards, Gravel, Kuchinich, etc. Thats the reality.
        • orca94, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6And you're basing this off of what?
          I'd venture a guess that if anything the man's race is something that's working against him in a general election, not for him. Of course for those of us that are intelligent enough to look at the issues and decide on a candidate based on their worth Obama's race has nothing to do with it, he's just far and away the best candidate.
          • von8, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I am basing that on the way the media treats him, not by any statistic. It's obvious...all you have to do is watch the way he is treated by the media outlets....they love the fact that he is black. I personally could care less because I actually pay attention to the issues and I disagree with the dems on pretty much everything. But the majority of the voting public does not pay attention to issues.

            No. there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country clamoring for change. They don't even know what they want to change or why....they just want it. What better picture for change than a black man in the White House?

            I think it benefits Obama in the general election. I think there are hundreds of thousands of young voters that think that racism is going to end if Obama gets elected. I think if he's the candidate, he wins in a landslide. Then you get to hear for 4 years that he's the first black president, the media won't let it go....they'll just keep talking about the fact that his skin color is different. If you don't believe me, look at the early part of Tiger Woods career. That's just about all anybody asked him when he won tournaments.
  • noctu, on 02/10/2008, -4/+47free clue ms clinton, men don't equate crying with leadership!
    • Lilitou, on 02/10/2008, -4/+2Which might matter, if she'd actually cried.
      • widman, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Dude, she did, and for a very stupid question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVlwH7-05Fk

        Still the point of CNN polls looks quite disturbing. US should be ashamed for such shallow reasons for picking candidates.
        • Lilitou, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1That's not crying. That's hardly even choking up. And if a presidential frontrunner is going to get choked up about anything, I'd say that the direction of the country is a damn good subject.

          That said, I agree that citizens ought to cast their votes based on issues and not superficialities.
        • vade79, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Lilitou: The main point is Obama has all the positives of the Clinton(s), without the negatives and some positives of his own. The issue differences are pretty minor (and i like his health care better personally)... it is completely illogical to vote for Hillary, seems to be a lot of arbitrary women voting for a woman for the sake of gender.

          As for the pseudo-crying...I personally think she felt emotional and made a calculated move to let it out somewhat. but, it really doesnt matter.
          • Lilitou, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1vade79: I'm not sure why you felt the need to argue Obama's case to me, since it had nothing to do with my comments. I'm one of Hillary Clinton's constituents; believe me, I know her failings, and I didn't vote for her in my state's primary. It is not, however, "completely illogical" to vote for Hillary. While, as you say, the issue differences are vanishingly minor at this point, there are still a couple. (There are plenty of people, too, who won't ever forgive her for her Iraq invasion vote.) And while a great many people (myself included) discount HRC's years as First Lady in terms of political experience, many others point to those years as valuable in terms of learning the ins and outs of Washington political life, and they are not wrong to do so.

            Also, the female vote has been split between Obama and Clinton, sometimes going more strongly to one and sometimes to the other, and even if it didn't, that doesn't necessarily indicate that women are voting for Clinton simply because she's female. Undoubtedly identity politics have an impact on every voting demographic, but there are a lot of Democrats out there doing their damnedest to make a strong case for Clinton, and millions of them aren't women.

            As for the tearing up issue, I don't believe that it was calculated, but I do agree that, either way, it doesn't matter in the slightest. I found the fuss over the whole thing irritating and distracting. In fact, I strongly suspect that the wave of support Clinton got afterwards was because of the media pile-on and not the actual emotional display.
    • fullphaser, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I believe the word you are looking for is protip
  • uziko, on 02/10/2008, -19/+5I am so not voting, america chooses, obama and mccain, i choose maybe i should leave, people are too stupid.
    • cyclox, on 02/10/2008, -0/+7i still try write sentence, me not vote because i still try to figure out where i am, i so agree people, too stupid. i like, to use, commas,
    • ThinkAwake, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1The funny thing is, although he may improperly use punctuation, he has accurately described the ways and means of being free. By escaping this illusion of freedom. I'm off to Hong Kong.
  • PeoplesChoice, on 02/10/2008, -10/+3Voter Irregularities:

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Widespread_voter ...
  • knobtwiddler, on 02/10/2008, -19/+12RON PAUL
  • alexandramw, on 02/10/2008, -7/+9I'm a feminist and I favor Obama more than Hillary but it pisses me off that the only edge he has is the male vote, according to CNN. Not much change there.
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/10/2008, -1/+7She has absolutely no charisma. That's why she doesn't have the edge with women. This is not a result of sexism, it is the result of an unlikeable female candidate who inspires no one and panders shamelessly.
    • smotpoker, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2@Ghostyboy - Charisma has little to do with it. It's because she is part of the old political machine/philosophy everyone is trying to get rid of. Charisma/Looks is what gets you popular in Highschool and TV, not politics. You get votes by controlling big businesses, making fallacious ad campaigns, paying people to lie to droves of people that won't bother to verify anything, etc - at least in most cases. With Obama, his charm did get him noticed, but it was his principles and actions that got him on the ballot

      @alex - my condolences. if it makes ya feel any better i'd vote for her if there were no obama. I just feel it's time for a new/honest system of politics and that he is a better first step towards that than Hillary. Rhetoric aside, she has done a fair amount of political maneuvering from time to time, been less than candid, overreacted a couple of times and refuses to admit she could have been mistaken. Apparently those are all "qualities" to some people but such attributes are representative of why half of the true majority of people quit voting decades ago (or never started).
      Plus, consider this, what is more important: the first woman president be elected or that the first woman president elected *is honest and does a does a good job while standing by principle*. None of know exactly which Hillary would have been, but her past actions do not indicate the latter, in my view. She may have been ok compared to anyone in the last century but.... that isn't good enough
      • Blondenough, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2"Charisma/Looks is what gets you popular in Highschool and TV, not politics."

        Mitt Romney's former supporters disagree with you.
    • bitspace, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Statistically he has the advantage with younger voters, voters with more education, and voters who are more affluent as well. That last statistic confuses me a bit, though. I can see that Clinton might have more rural lower-income groups, but I would think Obama would have the support of urban lower-income groups.
    • NSResponder, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Feminists back Obama, because they know that if Hillary is the first female president, it could be a century or more before there's another one.

      -jcr
  • mthe0ry, on 02/10/2008, -7/+48"Clinton does not draw very well among men. Obama does"

    Let me rephrase that last sentence for you Mr. Pundit,

    "Clinton only draws well with women (who only seek the novelty of voting for a woman)"
    • asurroca, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2....and Hispanics, who will turn on her and vote for McCain in the general election anyway...
    • Jude007, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2The voice said women voted for Obama and Clinton equally.
    • Blondenough, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I suppose both candidates have their superficial draws. Still annoying when I talk to other women and they can't give any reason for voting for Hillary besides her gender. Would probably be the same if I ran into any Obama people who were only concerned with his race.
    • ryanwarnersteel, on 02/10/2008, -4/+1Jesus ***** christ, you are a sexist piece of *****.
  • franklymister, on 02/10/2008, -3/+32While the polls themselves should be enough to show Obama's advantage over Clinton in the general election, there's one more argument that polls don't show.

    Voter turnout.

    The Democratic primaries have set all-time records for participation, and it's that kind of thing that has given Obama the victory in several states. The general election isn't just going to come down to poll numbers, it's going to come down to which candidate can get the most voters into the booth on election day.

    Clinton will bring a lot of Republicans out to vote against her, no matter how many Democrats vote for her. Obama, on the other hand, will drive greater Democratic turnout, as people vote for him who have never voted in any election before.

    I doubt there will be a large number of Republicans driven purely by Obama-hatred the way they would be by Clinton. I read a comment on Free Republic (the ultra-conservative site) recently that I think sums up how the conservatives feel about this year's election:
    "Between McCain, Clinton, and Obama, Obama's the only one that hasn't spent the last ten years pissing me off."

    I think that sentiment is going to be a powerful force in this election.
    • chimcham3000, on 02/10/2008, -2/+3very true about all you get from the haters is that his name rhymes with osama.
      which is the intellectual equivalent of pulling out your genitals, jumping up and down, and screaming pee pee poo poo
      • franklymister, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3I would actually love to see Hannity, Rush, and the others do that.

        Ok, so maybe I don't want them to pull out their genitals, but I definitely want them to jump up and down and yell pee pee poo poo.
    • tgmxd, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1Dugg for giving me lulz
    • TheButterThief, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6Thank you so much for expressing exactly the point so eloquently. Full disclosure here: I'm a conservative voter living in Nebraska, and I watched the caucus scene here (our state's first, incidentally) unfold with wide-eyed amazement. What I say was nothing less than heartwarming: people genuinely EXCITED about voting, and coming out in record numbers to do so. People who had never been fired-up by politics in the past waited in lines for HOURS to caucus. It was truly inspirational.
  • DjViral, on 02/10/2008, -28/+8real mature cnn. racist polls. ***** all 3 candidates they've got nothing on Ron Paul, the real president.
    • DephexTwin, on 02/10/2008, -3/+10President of the Ron Paul fanclub, maybe.
    • AvidPreatorian, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2i really like ron paul's views but supporters of his like you just give him a bad image, especially those who never heard his views.
  • Trollmaster, on 02/10/2008, -9/+15Good to see that misogyny and racism are still alive and well nowadays.
    • Aitese, on 02/10/2008, -2/+9Where's the racism? Obama does slightly better with the white vote than Clinton against McCain.
    • lumbergh, on 02/10/2008, -2/+6Don't forget that in this case, misogyny and racism are pitted against each other. Do white men hate women in power more than someone not-completely-white in power? Looks like it.
    • fatcatman, on 02/27/2008, -0/+0Right, because we're misogynist or racist if we don't want to vote for either of these douchbags? No, our reasons couldn't have anything to do with their politics. Nothing at all. We just hate women and negros. Let me guess, I'm also a racist bigot who hates Mexicans, because I'm in favor of securing our borders?

      ***** off, liberal prick. Your handle suits you well.
  • TremorX, on 02/10/2008, -22/+6No one is voting for Hillary Clinton. No one.
    They're voting for her vagina.
    • Robitz, on 02/10/2008, -2/+12Pardon me while I throw up.
      • von8, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Wasn't that in a South Park episode? Something about her sniz? And then the doctor got eaten by it...
        • hoovcluck, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2its sooo cold...... and dark........
          ABORT! GET HIM OUT OF THERE!
    • DephexTwin, on 02/10/2008, -1/+7I will vote for whoever you want as long as you never ever say that again.
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5Little do they know that she is hiding a snuke in there...
      • powerfullogic, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6TremorX is right though has spoken crassly. Women are going berzerk wanting a woman in power, thinking they are still a minority and discriminated. They are voting out of insecurity not for who is the best candidate. Hillary happens to be a woman, who happens to be an incompetent politician riding on her husband's coat tails.
        • widman, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Women in USA are still second class citizens. Just have a look around you.
          • DephexTwin, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1But I'm using my laptop in 1st class.
        • TremorX, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Glad to see someone gets it. :-/
    • Blondenough, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah because no one can say that people are only voting for Obama because of his race. Either way, try not to lump all voters in with the ignorant ones that are only concerned with the superficial qualities of the candidates.
  • cadon35, on 02/10/2008, -12/+0O-O-Obama, O-O-O-O (the Right Stuff) ...
  • ThraxyWaxy, on 02/10/2008, -18/+3I hope Hillary wins then loses, in that order.
  • bbardlbradd, on 02/10/2008, -12/+4Dugg, I'm an independent, not even a Democrat.

    I am a male though, with a girlfriend. I don't want a woman in office.

    No but really, Ron Paul is probably who I'm voting for unless I think there's no hope for him. America needs a slap in the face.

    R. Paul or B. Obama ftw.
    • AtWorkSurfer, on 02/10/2008, -3/+6News Flash, there's no hope for Ron Paul. Coming from someone who, with great sadness, removed the Ron Paul stickers from both of his cars today.
      • Mutton, on 02/10/2008, -2/+4I thought RP supporters saw through the horse race journalism. Vote your conscience, not who has good poll numbers.
        • bbardlbradd, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3Well, I understand that not everyone agrees with me, I don't agree with everyone else, but if Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, I'll still try to put the better of the worst into office. It quickly becomes a fight to keep certain people out.
    • Blondenough, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2I feel sorry for your girlfriend, does she sleep at the foot of your bed like a faithful servant?
      • bbardlbradd, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1No, she makes me spoon her. :^]

        The girlfriend thing was just a joke, related to the video... did not watch?
        • Blondenough, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Lol I did, joke went right over my head still :)
  • mzx639, on 02/10/2008, -10/+8Polls mean nothing.
    • lumbergh, on 02/10/2008, -2/+6Slept through Statistics 101 too, did ya?
      • Isoptera4, on 02/10/2008, -2/+2How can a poll like this be considered statistically accurate when it covers less than one percent of the voting population?
        • Synova, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Slept through Statistics 101 did ya?
          • Isoptera4, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1No but apparently you and lumbergh did.
    • jm4847, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Polling is a very precise science, second only to weather forecasting.
    • sweetholymosiah, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I would say... polls mean very little.
  • MikeFallopian, on 02/10/2008, -4/+11Polls that attempt to predict a political event that's 9 months away are worthless. Remember how in August McCain was polling in the low teens / single digits?
    • contigo, on 02/10/2008, -2/+0Remember when the majority of people liked Hillary? I don't.
    • Synova, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I recall Guliani polling quite well. I'm sure he loves his 1 delegate.
  • TheMachine1, on 02/10/2008, -14/+8My some what racist southern dad (age 66) is against the war and he is a yellow dog Democrat. Clintion supported the war. If that ***** does not vote for Obama he
    is beyond hope. Ron Paul is the only Republican I feel strongly about its Obama or nothing now.
    • widman, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2real (but intoxicated) [ ]
      real (clear head) [ ]
      insane [ x ]
    • sweetholymosiah, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1Why do you get dugg down for expressing your opinion?? You make an excellent point.
  • bmmore, on 02/10/2008, -14/+0omg you had me rotflmao