Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Hillary Clinton, Fratricidal Maniac
cbsnews.com — Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves these steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (while cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) & then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the voters.
nancym17- 2716 diggs
- digg it
- digichris, on 03/09/2008, -35/+16Bish.
- LeeSoong, on 03/09/2008, -9/+15FTA: "Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? " - Clinton's have had a reputation of being unlucky to be around ...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/ ... - 1longtime, on 03/09/2008, -35/+10ARE YOU ***** KIDDING ME. Just the title alone is such slanted *****. THIS ISN'T NEWS, THIS IS OBAMA PROPAGANDA.
- cate508, on 03/09/2008, -4/+11It's a political opinion commentary, Einstein.
- gquaglia, on 03/09/2008, -6/+5Maybe so, but its still true.
- quantumparticle, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1I don't see the banner at the top of the article saying "Warning: this may be inaccurate" so therefore it must be true (including title)...
*tongue in cheek*
- JettaMan, on 03/09/2008, -23/+5The Obama cult is losing it. There is nothing wrong with being competitive in a primary. To suggest she might kill him.... right. Go back to watching CSI.
- aliengoods, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4It wasn't suggesting she's going to kill him, it was saying that at this point that's the only way she can win.
- TopherT, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1There IS something wrong with being competitive in a primary if you support the party's platform. Fighting will only give ammunition to John McCain and god knows if she does take out Obama somehow McCain has a much stronger chance of actually winning the presidency. Thats right 100 year Iraq war McCain, does it still not matter to you?
- LeeSoong, on 03/09/2008, -9/+15FTA: "Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? " - Clinton's have had a reputation of being unlucky to be around ...
- gwayo, on 03/09/2008, -7/+113FTA: "Clinton's justification for this strategy is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election-if he can't handle her attacks, he'll never stand up to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy." So Clinton's offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her slim thread of a chance, not caring - or possibly even hoping, with an eye toward 2012 - that she would destroy Obama's chances of defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected her motives."
- Dysarthria, on 03/09/2008, -13/+38We need to toughen up Hilldog by reminding her of her one-day 10,000% profit (payoff) on cattle futures, her health care debacle, her illegal possession of FBI files of people she just happened not to like, her travel-office firings, her union-busting at Walmart, her brutal cross-examination of a child rape victim, the funny habit of people dying around her and her husband, the rape allegations (they've never been denied) by at least 2 women against her husband, her blaming the "vast right-wing conspiracy" for making up the Monica Lewinsky story, her handling of "bimbo eruptions" when Bill ran that first time, and top it all off with all sorts of rumors she's a lesbian or bi-sexual.
Yeah, thats how the Democratic party should treat her.
What an evil, sad woman.- eyreka, on 03/09/2008, -6/+19You just had to add in that "lesbian or bi-sexual" bit and allegations against her husband didn't you -- otherwise you might have something except for the most part it's unsubstantiated anti-Clinton propaganda.
- senatorpjt, on 03/09/2008, -2/+10It doesn't matter if it's unsubstantiated. The point is they are rumors that are out there and will be exploited by the other side. Just because Obama might be too polite to bring them up doesn't mean some Republican operative won't.
- Dysarthria, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3Oh, I do have something - you just don't want to see it.
1) The 2 or 3 women who allege the rapes are hardly part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and I believe them more than a convicted liar.
2) The lesbian stuff may not be true, but then neither is Obama a Muslim who loves to play dress-up in a turban - all stuff released by the Clinton campaign.
The list of Clinton sins are so long (I didn't mention selling the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder or the selling of presidential pardons for donations to the Clinton library) that we Democrats have a unique luxury of picking and choosing which ones to deny and which others to ignore. Isn't it time to turn the page and let this sick pack of slimeballs fade away? Lets vote for Obama, get someone who's a leader not a coattail rider, and start getting involved in the system.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -11/+6Nothing wrong with union busting. America works less when you say union yes.
- Skooma714, on 03/09/2008, -2/+7To be fair, unless she was involved in some way the rape allegation against her husband are not her fault.
But still, she is horrible. If I owned a diner or something and she came in I'd immediately tell her and her minions to get the ***** out.- Dysarthria, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2She is involved if she helped cover them up, pressure the women not to talk, or try to disgrace them publicly.
- Triskozko, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3"People dying around her and her husband"? I see you're continuing the great political tact of Jerry Falwell (Clinton Chronicles).
- eyreka, on 03/09/2008, -6/+19You just had to add in that "lesbian or bi-sexual" bit and allegations against her husband didn't you -- otherwise you might have something except for the most part it's unsubstantiated anti-Clinton propaganda.
- Typhoon2009, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4Isn't it lightning rod?
- mrvalue, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3Haha, good catch - it was in the original that way. What's better is that I double clicked on the word in the article and it brought up a definition:
light·en·ing (līt'n-ĭng) n.
The sensation of decreased abdominal distention during the latter weeks of pregnancy following the descent of the fetal head into the pelvic inlet.
That clarifies it a lot. I can only imaging what a "lightening rod" must be. - Nonplussed, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1A more common definition, I'd say, is "to make light or clear," or "to make lighter."
However, particularly interesting: an archaic definition is "to enlighten." As in Obama is enlightening us that a target of rancor and contrived controversy doesn't necessarily have to stoop to that level to deflect it?
Thanks, Clinton campaign. I concur.
Amazing to see how a misplaced letter or comma can change meaning (and reveal idiocy).
- mrvalue, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3Haha, good catch - it was in the original that way. What's better is that I double clicked on the word in the article and it brought up a definition:
- Vagabondjohn, on 03/09/2008, -3/+5Do other people see a long comment and just skip over it?
- WhatInThe42o, on 03/10/2008, -1/+0Only the lazy.
- xartion, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1No, because some people actually want to learn a thing or two (or at least read what someone else has to say) AND some people have larger attention spans than a two year old.
- artliquide, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2She needs to point her finger at herself. Obama has already endured much criticism from her without cracking. She has cracked many times over. Who's the more level headed candidate to deal with right wing criticism? The answer is obvious to me.
- Ajenthavoc, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1what a twist...
- Dysarthria, on 03/09/2008, -13/+38We need to toughen up Hilldog by reminding her of her one-day 10,000% profit (payoff) on cattle futures, her health care debacle, her illegal possession of FBI files of people she just happened not to like, her travel-office firings, her union-busting at Walmart, her brutal cross-examination of a child rape victim, the funny habit of people dying around her and her husband, the rape allegations (they've never been denied) by at least 2 women against her husband, her blaming the "vast right-wing conspiracy" for making up the Monica Lewinsky story, her handling of "bimbo eruptions" when Bill ran that first time, and top it all off with all sorts of rumors she's a lesbian or bi-sexual.
- DeadElephantORG, on 03/09/2008, -12/+85holy sh#t this article is well-written. A must read.
- cbuddha42, on 03/09/2008, -2/+4TLDR people, skip to the last sentence.
Um the only conclusions in the article are a) Hillary is fratricidal, b) Hillary hasn't backed out, c) Hillary campaigning against Obama hurts his chances in the general election, and d) Primaries are a bad idea. 2 of those are bloody obvious, 1 is a random hyperbole based on the obvious ones, and the last *shrug* no one forced the Democratic Party to have primaries. If they don't want their candidates pointing out how they are better than the other candidates (ie: more experience, not a fratricidal maniac, whatever) then just give all the votes to the super delegates or make primary season shorter. They could also just make some rules along the lines of "only talk about yourself during primary season."
That said I find some of the things Hillary is attacked for laughable. The author attacks her for trying to get Florida and Michigan represented...I mean I know she wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't in her best interest, but isn't giving people representation you know...democratic?
In closing I'd like to point out that while the author is being all high and mighty about how Hillary shouldn't value her race over the party, he or she is doing the exact same thing. That's the author values Obama winning the nomination over Democrats winning in November. If Obama wins the nomination then this article is a non argument, but if Hillary wins then all McCain's campaign has to do is mail this to swing voters and go look even her own party thinks she's a piece of *****. Sorry but attacking people for valuing the primary over the general while clearly valuing the primary over the general --> no credibility.- cwcentral, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Funny I haven't seen OPINIONS and EDITORIALS (which pass for news, i.e. facts, on digg) from the Clinton campaign machine nor the media.
Shame on TNR for giving in to slander journalism. I expected better.
- cwcentral, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Funny I haven't seen OPINIONS and EDITORIALS (which pass for news, i.e. facts, on digg) from the Clinton campaign machine nor the media.
- Fooord, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1What's that second word...? I can't tell because of that # sign replacing one of the letters...
- cbuddha42, on 03/09/2008, -2/+4TLDR people, skip to the last sentence.
- spaceman84, on 03/09/2008, -6/+80Win at all costs. That's the Hillary Clinton imperative.
- RRJackson, on 03/09/2008, -37/+7That's exactly why I voted for her.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -5/+16Except that she's still losing.
- FATEorFORTUNE, on 03/09/2008, -10/+3and obama isn't trying to win at any cost? please
- cwcentral, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1If obama doesn't try to win at all costs, he'll lose to McCain as 1/2 of Obama independents will swing. I guarantee. Then again, Obama is tryig to win at all costs: by raising millions of your dollars setting the benchmark that money does buy elections.
Independents are not committed to Obama--they'd be called democrats.
- cwcentral, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1If obama doesn't try to win at all costs, he'll lose to McCain as 1/2 of Obama independents will swing. I guarantee. Then again, Obama is tryig to win at all costs: by raising millions of your dollars setting the benchmark that money does buy elections.
- Alegoo92, on 03/09/2008, -6/+5Liberals are 100x worst than conservatives with campaign ethics. Look at how you people are demonizing her just because you don't support her: and glorify everything about the hollow promise that is Obama.
- RRJackson, on 03/09/2008, -4/+2Exactly. And this is from someone who's been a lifelong registered Democrat.
- RRJackson, on 03/09/2008, -37/+7That's exactly why I voted for her.
- jon30041, on 03/09/2008, -12/+130Good god, she is a scary bitch... How can EVERY picture of you look bad?! It's like cameras actually see into your soul or something...
The pictures of her mind are something I expect to be especially horrendous.- rhedwolf, on 03/09/2008, -4/+12She looks like Ursula (the evil sea witch!) from The Little Mermaid. Someone should make a side-by-side comparison pic.
- ripple123, on 03/09/2008, -8/+13Your assuming she has a soul.
- runCMD, on 03/09/2008, -16/+11LOL You guys are complete morons. Looking at Senator Obama as someone different in the world of politics, as I see that's the road he led you down - but given your adoration of the man - the next time you get ready to say something personally negative against Senator Clinton - just think to yourself "What Would Obama Do" .... I sincerely doubt he would condone your hateful barbs.
- Jenadae, on 03/09/2008, -2/+9Obama is who i want to be president, not God...
- parisian327, on 03/09/2008, -5/+5And with Bill behind her, pushing her to win the presidency at all costs it's like some freaky Frankenstein flick.
- Skooma714, on 03/09/2008, -3/+4The concept of a soul is moot to a machine.
We should demand she take a Voight-Kampf test. - HeyPace, on 03/09/2008, -0/+0Hillary is a PHONY. She says what people want to hear. A robot politician.
- imgstacke, on 03/09/2008, -10/+132She's a Monster!
- runCMD, on 03/09/2008, -12/+2It's called projection. You are good at it.
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -3/+12She's like that Glenn Close character who stalked Michael Douglas. I'm waiting for her to boil a bunny.
-jcr- nycmac247, on 03/09/2008, -1/+5good one!
- stackered, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5*Clap* *Clap* *Point*
- richardstaboner, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1*Point*
- dougdiggerton, on 03/09/2008, -7/+2she's beautiful, how could slick willy cheat on that..
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1That's enough for you, sir. Please leave the bar.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1That's enough for you, sir. Please leave the bar.
- OttawaMarcin, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Bad publicity is still publicity.
- Lephtovermeet, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4She's a ***** *****
- blup3ace, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4http://i29.tinypic.com/2i9s4m9.jpg
truely...SHE'S A MONSTER!!! - clickmyface, on 03/09/2008, -3/+1This thread is why I don't respect the Obama camp. And there is a very good chance that your candidate will win the nomination without winning the popular vote. Do you remember the last time that happened? Apparently not. Caucus's are not a reflection of the popular vote. In fact, as WA State proved, they can be about 16% off of reality. Go America.
- dudeguy1234, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3Exactly HOW are Caucuses not popular vote? Hmm? Never been to one? Riiight.
- cnot3, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1shooooooooooooot haaaaaaaaar
- rapincandy, on 03/09/2008, -47/+6I find Hillary hot. she's a milf.
- whataboutdave, on 03/09/2008, -3/+23Seek help.
- Dumbledorito, on 03/09/2008, -0/+30I think he means "Mother I'd Like to Filibuster."
- ronaldinho, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Sadly, I think I find many much hotter ones on the internet. Then again, that's like the homeless guy who appeared on the Howard Stern show who said she wanted to ***** Condoleeza Rice and Laura Bush.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -2/+3Lesbian?
- gquaglia, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Sorry, she doesn't like men.
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2At her age/appearance, its more like GILF. Looks like Chelsea needs to get on the stick...
- sonofabeast, on 03/09/2008, -73/+10Buried as Obamaniac spam. You relentless douche bags are ruining this site.
If he gets the nomination, I'd like to see an October surprise such as a tape of Obama smoking crack.- malman4, on 03/09/2008, -11/+1Or selling it.........
- jellygraph, on 03/09/2008, -3/+17reported as offensive... i am offended by your lack of intelligence
- vade79, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1How do you figure he would have more skeletons in his closet than Hillary?
- diggB, on 03/09/2008, -9/+213In many ways, I feel digg is being over saturated with Obama articles. The trouble is that when a truly well written and meaningful Obama article comes along, it gets lost in the noise of the other articles. This is one such article that should NOT be lost. It clearly describes how Hillary will destroy anyone, especially someone within her own party, to selfishly achieve HER goals. If she can't win in 2008, then by God, she'd rather have McCain win so that she can run against him in four more years. Truly, truly despicable. I used to like Bill Clinton. I really did. Now, all the respect that I have for the Clintons is dead and pissed on.
- eyreka, on 03/09/2008, -16/+8Why is digg so pro Obama. I think you all are letting yourselves be carried away by the press hype and though I'd prefer him to any Republican I don't yet see much beyond that hype.
- Sansui, on 03/09/2008, -3/+30I think the exposure to all these Obama stories has helped many of us understand who he is and what he stands for. I wasn't an active supporter in this race until I started reading up on him - checking out his past, his legislation, initiatives he's worked with, and of course numerous speeches. The religion and government speech was amazing, and when I saw that a month or so ago I was convinced that this was an intelligent and sincere man who is simply filled with sensibility. Hype aside, there is real substance beneath this man.
Last year I was a Clinton supporter, just because she was the only candidate I thought I knew (key word is thought. I never imagined she would be so vile to her own party). The number of materials I've been presented with on Digg to research the details and nitty gritty of Obama have allowed me to really get to know him as a candidate, and it was a very, very easy thing to switch support.
This election is too important to screw up, and we've got a great opportunity to elect an amazing candidate. I hope the minority on Digg who feel inconvenienced by the election stories realize just how important this thing is. - poxonyou, on 03/09/2008, -7/+12Guess you haven't noticed. The press hype is long over. Since the Clinton camp bashed the media and made an example out of David Schuster, they have been firmly pro-Hillary and harsh on Obama, with very few exceptions (Olbermann, and occasionally Maddow). CNN has been more supportive of Hillary from the beginning, as they've had a long history of having Clinton affiliated people as their top Democratic pundits. FOX and Republican pundits want to stir up trouble by promoting whoever is the underdog at the moment, and also would just plainly prefer Clinton vs McCain as McCain has a better chance of winning. Then you have influential New York based comedy/comedy-news like the Daily Show and SNL, who seem to be favorable to anyone representing New York in some way.
- thedingman, on 03/09/2008, -1/+6If you watch 'The Daily Show', it's fairly obvious that Stewart is not a fan of Hillary. Many jokes are about her 'dark' side, and most of the jokes swung at Obama are simply making fun of the people mocking him. Any mention of Obama on either 'The Daily Show' or 'Colbert Report' get huge applause and cheering from the audience.
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2But Stewart was willing to giver her airtime right before the OH/TX/VT/RI primaries, and didn't rip her a new one. If Stewart was such a Hillary hater, he wouldn't have had her on that day. My guess he's a "doesn't matter as long as its a Democrat".
- thedingman, on 03/09/2008, -1/+6If you watch 'The Daily Show', it's fairly obvious that Stewart is not a fan of Hillary. Many jokes are about her 'dark' side, and most of the jokes swung at Obama are simply making fun of the people mocking him. Any mention of Obama on either 'The Daily Show' or 'Colbert Report' get huge applause and cheering from the audience.
- Ouze, on 03/09/2008, -17/+7Digg is so pro-obama because despite an unwarranted delusion of superiority, the average digger is a bandwagon hopping, intensely conformist, moron. Guaranteed all these people posting YES WE CAN were the same ones 6 months ago ranting about Ron Paul.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -5/+24"Why is digg so pro Obama."
Because most Americans are?- mrASSMAN, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Especially well-educated ones. (this is a factually accurate statement, not an opinion)
- wendelgee2, on 03/09/2008, -4/+14Digg is saturated with Obama articles because the fate of our nation may well hang in the balance of this primary. If nothing else, it's more important than some damn lolcats.
- senatorpjt, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5I'm not pro-Obama, I'm anti-Hillary. Have been ever since she moved here to take Moynihan's job. I'd vote straight-ticket Democrat if she weren't on the ballot.
- Sansui, on 03/09/2008, -3/+30I think the exposure to all these Obama stories has helped many of us understand who he is and what he stands for. I wasn't an active supporter in this race until I started reading up on him - checking out his past, his legislation, initiatives he's worked with, and of course numerous speeches. The religion and government speech was amazing, and when I saw that a month or so ago I was convinced that this was an intelligent and sincere man who is simply filled with sensibility. Hype aside, there is real substance beneath this man.
- runCMD, on 03/09/2008, -24/+3If you do truly feel that way about Senator Clinton - then you haven't looked very hard at Senator Obama - or any other politican for that matter. It's how politics works in washington. Its why she's the better candidate for the presidency. Obama's idea that he can somehow change that place is evidence that he would be a fish out of water on day one. I thought this morning about the horror of terrorism - and the awful scenes that have come out of Afghanistan and Iraq over the last few years. That 3 am call ad that Hillary posted recently - it works on so many levels. It's not just about 3AM - it's not just about kids - it about keeping America safe, about being ready to answer that call - ANY call. I envision that junior senator from Illinois buckling under all that pressure. I believe him to be a good man, but not a tried man. As a kid - he couldn't even handle peer pressure and succumed to escapism admittedly using illicit drugs when he could afford them. His rage against men of my color was the most telling. How low do you have to go to hate someone because of their color ? I believe - given our country's past - very low. I envision 'president' Clinton - with all the qualities you guys complain about - being able to stand up in that time of need and carry out those duties.
You talk about her selfishly trying to achieve HER goals ... "Her goals" represent 'my goals' - and the same can be said for half the electorate. She's not voting for herself in all these elections. WE are. WE support her candidacy. You have fallen prey to the anti-Clinton brigade here on Digg. Sorry you fell by the side on this journey to the whitehouse. It is going to be sweet. I was disappointed to hear that Senator Obama might actually refuse to run with Senator Clinton on the same ticket - in what was her apparent effort to unify the party. From the reports - it seems he's only interested in the presidency - and not interested committing to running together. That decision belies someone 'selfishly looking out' for their own goals. Unity is the only way for the democrats to beat the replicans. IMHO
You guys have said it all along. She is tuff. She is the right one for the job this time around.- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -6/+6"it about keeping America safe"
Her husband started a war to deflect media attention away from stories about his dick licking ho. He also crawled in bed with filthy Indonesian chinamen and then had ron brown killed because he wouldn't go along with his dirty deals.- sixspeed, on 03/09/2008, -2/+4Oh good grief. Call your mother and tell her you're a part of the lunatic fringe.
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -1/+5Bill tried to do the one responsible thing and attack the organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and you criticize it. And then you claim to be a patriotic American. You are the idiot selling out this country.
- cate508, on 03/09/2008, -2/+3Garbage. That's all the time I'll spend on that comment.
- runCMD, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Garbage in - Garbage out.
- senatorpjt, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2That 3AM ad is stupid. McCain could just run the ad again after the nomination.
- sixspeed, on 03/09/2008, -3/+1Your "Humble Opinion" is spot on. Well put.
- thedingman, on 03/09/2008, -1/+5You talk about Obama buckling under pressure like Hillary's so called experience makes her better suited to work under pressure. I would think that one's character, morals, and personal strength makes a bigger difference than having been a former president's wife. Deanna Favre may know a lot about football, but I guarantee that a high school freshman quarterback could play a better game.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -6/+6"it about keeping America safe"
- cate508, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Well said.
- Homerr, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1I agree, great article with one flaw. The author invoked Godwin's Law.
- brainboy77, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1yeah this article is number one of all digg news, pretty sure won't get lost.
- mugicha, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1I don't see a problem with a lot of articles on Obama getting to the front page. Things make it to the front page because people find them interesting or the content of the article somehow resonates with them. Complaining about what makes it to the front page has as much effect on the process as cheering for your favorite sports team in your living room: in other words none. Saying that its going to get "lost in the noise" trivializes peoples' ability to read through a variety of articles and discern for themselves what's important or not.
- eyreka, on 03/09/2008, -16/+8Why is digg so pro Obama. I think you all are letting yourselves be carried away by the press hype and though I'd prefer him to any Republican I don't yet see much beyond that hype.
- Dysarthria, on 03/09/2008, -5/+35In my experience, the worst people in the world to deal with are those with a blind, relentless ambition to "be something". Whether it was in sports, on the job, or even socially (I WILL BE HER BOYFRIEND!), the biggest and worst assholes were always the guys who just had this one-dimensional personality; and ironically they were only rarely the best athlete, worker, or guy you wanted at a party. In fact, you really didn't want anything to do with them, they were bad news.
Thats, kinda how I see Hilldog, a woman whose blind ambition (exemplified by "loyalty" to a husband who publicly humiliated her through their marriage) knows no bounds and serves no purpose.- parisian327, on 03/09/2008, -2/+8I think you nailed it. I wonder what these two would be without politics as an outlet for their massive egos and ambition. Makes me wonder what they're really capable of if they're ever pushed far enough.
- Spudster, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Don't get the idea that Obama doesn't share Hillary's ambition either... You never get as high into politics as these two figures do because they have values that go above their own ego. What you need to accept is that blind ambition is a given and select candidates according to what you think they will achieve.
- clickmyface, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1I'm amazed that you come to this summary of Hillary while ignoring the fact that 50% of the Democratic party supports her over Obama. You, and the writer of this article, seem to think you can discount the fact that millions of people prefer her to be our next president. You prefer to think this is because she put some sort of spell on exactly half the party, but ignore the fact that maybe people just think he has not proven him ready to be their leader.
The article reads that Hillary has "an enormous deficit in delegates." Really? Enormous? Despite the fact that this is one of the closest nomination processes in our nations history, and the amount of delegates in PA alone is x2 greater than what she is down by. Not to mention that Obama is winning without Florida and Michigan, two states for which Hillary has been polled to win for 2 years.
You ignore the political reality very easily.- orangedude, on 03/09/2008, -0/+0You honestly think Clinton would win Michigan, with a large % of African-Americans? They will split the wins between two states, or at worst give Clinton a handful of delegates. That's nowhere near the 150 pledged delegate lead Obama has.
Someone here is delusional and not very good at math.
Education yourself, or don't post.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010
- orangedude, on 03/09/2008, -0/+0You honestly think Clinton would win Michigan, with a large % of African-Americans? They will split the wins between two states, or at worst give Clinton a handful of delegates. That's nowhere near the 150 pledged delegate lead Obama has.
- Rotzooi, on 03/09/2008, -37/+11Now, nation, I'm no fan, but just like the pro-Ron Paul spam, the anti-Hillary spam is getting annoying.
- rhedwolf, on 03/09/2008, -7/+12Except it is so appropriate.
- eyreka, on 03/09/2008, -7/+5no it isn't!
- eyreka, on 03/09/2008, -7/+7agree whole heartily
- Ouze, on 03/09/2008, -4/+3hah, you disagreed even though you were right. Look at that avalanche of buries
WISDOM OF TEH CROWDS LOL
- Ouze, on 03/09/2008, -4/+3hah, you disagreed even though you were right. Look at that avalanche of buries
- JCPahl, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5I don't think "spam" means what you think it means. Everybody hates spam, but popular subjects rising to the fore often are clearly not hated.
The *really* annoying thing is all the whiners complaining about recurring subjects they dislike and branding them with misplaced Internet bywords. - senatorpjt, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1I'd normally agree, but it's valid if you're from NY, especially western NY. Fortunately that gives me license to bitch about Hillary. She doesn't give a ***** about any of us here, and she's just using us as a tool to try to screw the rest of the country too.
- Wartz, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1Hear hear! Upstate/West NY has been rotting for decades and shes done absolutely nothing for us as Senator.
- rhedwolf, on 03/09/2008, -7/+12Except it is so appropriate.
- steveoco, on 03/09/2008, -8/+25Even the people signing up to fix America are destructive. Come on America, it is a pretty clean choice... do the rest of the world a favor and vote Obama... trust us... we have have an unfiltered view of whats going on over there.
- SomeDrunk, on 03/09/2008, -3/+9Unfiltered? Perhaps you'd enlighten us as to who owns your media outlets.
- Daedalus17, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Surely not the government?!
- runCMD, on 03/09/2008, -15/+4Sorry, Trust is earned. That takes time. Time Senator Obama hasn't had enough of in Washington.
- DarkLance, on 03/09/2008, -2/+12trust? What "experience" does Hilary have? She's a senator from NY, where I happen to live and did NOT vote for her. She's done very little for our state, only used it as a springboard for her Washington politics and run for president. Riding your husbands coattails is not much experience in my opinion. In reality, she is pretty well tied with Obama.
- Wartz, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3Another upstate NYer chiming in,
Hilary does not care one bit about NY or our needs, the only thing she cares about is pushing her political career forward. I'm sad to say I voted for her when she ran for Senate. Worst mistake I ever made. And its the last one too. (at least in terms of voting for her, I may make mistakes elsewhere)- netant, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1No, it wasn't. Lazio was an even bigger tool than Hillary, if that could be believed. He had a record of supporting every Gingrich measure, didn't do jack for New York, other than let Grumman move out of Long Island. Hillary is not shy about using earmarks to swing pork YOUR way, either.
- Duffeh, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1In terms of White House experience she has as much as Laura Bush. In terms of experience as an elected official she has 4 years less than Obama. In terms pre-political experience she was on the board of Walmart while Obama was teaching constitutional law at Chicago University's School of Law (for TEN years).
Obama is light-years ahead of Hillary on the RIGHT type of experience.
- Wartz, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3Another upstate NYer chiming in,
- alep85, on 03/09/2008, -1/+8Yeah, because every politician that stays as the incumbent has just been the most honest, straight-forward politician ever.....**sarcasm**
I think it's actually GOOD not to have someone who's been tainted by lobbyists for years. Its time to get some more fresh blood into the White House instead of the aging legacy of corruption in the Clinton "regime" or the stagnant Bush policies we'll see with McCain. - scottc, on 03/09/2008, -1/+9That is exactly Hillary's problem...she has had 7 years to earn our trust as a politician in her own right and she has failed to overcome the lack of trust that was created when she bungled the health care change proposal as First Lady.
Obama, on the other hand, has his detractors, but that's because they disagree with his positions, not because he's disingenuous.
- DarkLance, on 03/09/2008, -2/+12trust? What "experience" does Hilary have? She's a senator from NY, where I happen to live and did NOT vote for her. She's done very little for our state, only used it as a springboard for her Washington politics and run for president. Riding your husbands coattails is not much experience in my opinion. In reality, she is pretty well tied with Obama.
- SomeDrunk, on 03/09/2008, -3/+9Unfiltered? Perhaps you'd enlighten us as to who owns your media outlets.
- dattaway, on 03/09/2008, -6/+78I don't see the problem. She seems corrupt enough to be President.
- cate508, on 03/09/2008, -0/+6ha. perfect.
- RRJackson, on 03/09/2008, -21/+2*****.
- Acewrap, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3What a well reasoned argument.
- RRJackson, on 03/09/2008, -3/+1Just as well-reasoned as this latest (of what, 500?) attack on Senator Clinton by rabid Obamaphiles.
- Acewrap, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3What a well reasoned argument.
- welovebooks, on 03/09/2008, -24/+0i cant konw enough English www.356a.cn
- notsurewhen, on 03/09/2008, -19/+3insane is the new black
- dudeguy1234, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1rrrrrrrracist!
- rafor, on 03/09/2008, -4/+8Hey, we have to remember what kind o power they are fighting for. This presidential race means so much more that elections past. With all of the presidential powers Bush has acquired during his presidency, they don't just go away. Those "super-president" powers of being able to put anyone in jail for three years without trial, wiretapping without full jurisdiction or authority, etc. all get passed on to the next president. Clinton is power hungry and looking for the prize, they all are.
I personally think some of the topics to come up in the debates should be how they are going to reduce the presidential powers once they get into oice, not just pull the troops out of iraq. Of course they aren't going to talk about this because they want to keep those powers so they can have a stangle hold on the United States.
We need to look at the big picture here people.- Testify.Alex, on 03/09/2008, -0/+19Obama has said that he will review all Executive Orders made by the Bush admin and overturn ones that are unconstitutional and unnecessary. I wouldn't say that I'm an Obama supporter myself but that's enough to get me interested in voting for him.
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4That's a start, but to really make some progress, he'll have to overturn illegal and unconstitutional executive orders going back to the Johnson administration.
-jcr- rafor, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Good point. I just think we need to be mindful of the power whoever becomes the next president will inherit. As the saing goes, absolute power currupts absolutely.
- kreneskyp, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2agreed. i think obama will be the only person to make such a claim. mccain and hillary are frothing over the idea of getting to abuse the powers bush has claimed
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4That's a start, but to really make some progress, he'll have to overturn illegal and unconstitutional executive orders going back to the Johnson administration.
- jellygraph, on 03/09/2008, -5/+5obama said he would revoke a lot of the executive orders that bush signed... so *****
- Testify.Alex, on 03/09/2008, -0/+19Obama has said that he will review all Executive Orders made by the Bush admin and overturn ones that are unconstitutional and unnecessary. I wouldn't say that I'm an Obama supporter myself but that's enough to get me interested in voting for him.
- Chip53, on 03/09/2008, -33/+5Neither of the 2 Dems are qualified to be POTUS. McCain is. End of discussion.
- dagamer34, on 03/09/2008, -2/+10I don't remember "being old" as one of the qualifications.
- Ouze, on 03/09/2008, -0/+16I think what he meant was "being republican". Because I think everyone would like to continue the halycon, wonder-filled period of international co-operation, domestic calm, economic stability, upholding of the rule of law, and general feeling of well-being and optimism the last 8 years of this administration brought us.
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Don't forget his effectiveness in allieviating the Katrina disaster, and his attention to matters like increasing fuel costs.
- oldgal, on 03/09/2008, -1/+11I'll take competence over experience every time. My generation has displayed it's remarkable incompetence given the state of the nation today. Time to turn it over to the kids - I know they are smarter than we are, hopefully they will prove more competent.
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah, who would pick a rookie like John F Kennedy over Richard M Nixon? Or some hayseed like Bill Clinton over George H. W. Bush? Come to think of it, Jimmy Carter had 4 years more experience than Ronald Reagan.
- FatherVic, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5No matter who wins, we are all screwed... McCain included.
- senatorpjt, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4You bury this guy down, but if Hillary wants to make this election about experience, she's doomed - McCain was in the senate while she was still in law school. The only way for the Democrats to win is to make this NOT about experience, like Obama is trying to do.
- Acewrap, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Care to back that up Chip?
- skinturtle, on 03/09/2008, -2/+12Just let them go right ahead and vote for either McCain or Hillary by golly. Then we'll see some whining. One will sell you to the corporate dogs and hide the paper trail and the other will cash you in for a hundred years of war while they watch as the money rolls in.
America is great alright...great for the powers that be.- jsebrech, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3People get the government they think they deserve. If americans truly felt they deserved better, they'd vote accordingly.
- mal1964, on 03/09/2008, -15/+5A big percentage of diggers were around 8 when Clinton left office, but they know everything about a senator from NY. They should quit studying Clinton and study Obama. this is a quote from a comment from someone who is backing Obama and knows everything about Hillary.
"Obama voted against the war in Iraq"
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Wyoming_Clinton_ ...- jellygraph, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5the average digger is 16 ? i doubt it.... i'd say closer to 25, but thats just my own gut feeling (which is sooo accurate)
- mal1964, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1"A big percentage,were around 8"
- runCMD, on 03/09/2008, -8/+3I've been exactly where you are. I wish there were some way to impart the meaning of experience to you. Buy neither you - nor Senator Obama have it. yet.
It takes time.- Jenadae, on 03/09/2008, -2/+2And. youre grammer dosn;t eather,
- wendelgee2, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Lincoln had less experience than Obama. So, what is the value of experience again?
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Bad example. You're citing the one presidential candidate that could raise more ire in the South than Hillary Clinton. And just picture HC recreating Lincoln's footsteps.
- d3ficit, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2DUDE YOU HAVE HIT THE JACKPOT THIS IS WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING, diggers are just like the ppl in the new luelinks, new to everything, you guys didnt see how corporate america hated the clintons, but hey listen to the media hugging Obamas side, WAIT!!! The media is controlled by corportations!!!
TUN TUN!! You my friends have been snared like your parents were snared with Reagan. Lol America is never gonna learn what political deception is about.
- jellygraph, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5the average digger is 16 ? i doubt it.... i'd say closer to 25, but thats just my own gut feeling (which is sooo accurate)
- darthjure, on 03/09/2008, -4/+18Clinton is the new HUCKABEE!
- jellygraph, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1lol!
- TremorX, on 03/09/2008, -0/+13Only she isn't even mildly entertaining. At least ol' Huck was fun to watch on the late-night talk show circuit.
- BarleyWind, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Huckabee would kick the ***** out of her in an air hockey match.
- wtfpwned98, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2No, he was never as bad...he knew he would be supporting McCain eventually. You're being very unfair to Huckabee. Hillary is, in fact, a monster.
- ElphabaLives, on 03/09/2008, -4/+4Dugg for both the super-eloquent description and for the scary melty-candle photo.
- aaapples, on 03/09/2008, -3/+49Dugg for the expression: 'Nixonian ruthlessness'
I can't wait for the speech where she finally cracks and screams "If I'm going down I'm taking every one of you bastards with me" and then starts firing into the crowd- JCPahl, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4Few less mindless Clinton supporters...
(Almost totally not serious.) - cate508, on 03/09/2008, -1/+0You actually got a "real" laugh out loud~
- Texmurphy01, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1I don't think I ever heard of Nixon doing that...
- JCPahl, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4Few less mindless Clinton supporters...
- diggimator, on 03/09/2008, -1/+22It really sounds like she wants to team up with McCain. Strange.
- iainc, on 03/09/2008, -4/+2Has Oven Chip nominated a VP, yet? If not, I'm wondering if he's waiting to see if Hillary jumps ship to the Republican party.
- senatorpjt, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5Why not, she already jumped ship to the Democratic party - she used to be a Republican. If anything she'd just be going back home.
- iainc, on 03/09/2008, -4/+2Has Oven Chip nominated a VP, yet? If not, I'm wondering if he's waiting to see if Hillary jumps ship to the Republican party.
- notabotiamnot, on 03/09/2008, -33/+6Can I BUST all your Lamah KneeCaps wide open? wake up people and understand the reality, Odumba is NON-ELECTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I repeat
N O N - E L E C T A B L E
Understand?
he has no chance, not because he is black or any matter like that.
He has NO Experience to put him in a high position. Therefore
he is just making a *Donkey* out of himself.- jp12380, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5It is hard to tell if you are being sarcastic. I hope you are.
- jellygraph, on 03/09/2008, -2/+9er, please state what experience is required and then name and count all the presidents which had that experience... and you will realize you are a complete loser and a mindless Hillary Clinton drone... i hope you get banned from dig for life
- MrSlumberjack, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4shut up, clinton
- LMControl, on 03/09/2008, -16/+19C.U.N.T.
Clinton Undermines National Trust- iainc, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4What I would have given to hear Obama say "See You Next Tuesday" before TX/OH/RI.
- adoxtater, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5Ok that ***** right there was funny :)
- scorched03, on 03/09/2008, -9/+1experience has nothing to do with it cuz its not like she was sitting there alone influencing change. true experience comes from going out and doing it on your own. however that's never possible cuz someone is ALWAYS HELPING OUT! this hold true for almost anything.
however one thing that should be pointed out and its interesting to think about. how gracious are obama and hillary? how gracious are they to each other in win or defeat? isn't this how they'd treat foreign leaders that have a cold relationship with the US?
a person's personality and temperament as a leader is important. as an ex-POW, does McCain possess this calm temperament when it comes to war? Hillary when when critics mention her lack of experience? Obama when faced with racial issues?
there's pros and cons to both parties and all candidates. the message cannot just be "ME"/"Elect ME". some people in the election are more personable and more sincere than others. However a general message of "ME" "ME" "ME" in many instances is terrible. having a stance softened by advice from campaign managers to start saying "for the people" after the fact makes it look even less sincere. there's only 1 candidate would has from the start said something about empowering and helping the general population rather than themselves- cate508, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Seems to me Obama has been and continues to be, gracious. Can you give an example of when he "attacked" personally and not in defending his policy position or landed a punch below the belt?
- memetomancer, on 03/09/2008, -18/+6digg people: your unrelenting smear attack against mrs clinton is driving me crazy. i don't actually care one way or the other on who gets the dem nom. but if you people are representative of obama supporters, damn.
this muck raking crap on digg is far worse than anything clinton has done. think about that.- rhedwolf, on 03/09/2008, -5/+15You don't have to support obama to smear hillary. I digg articles like these not because I support obama, but because I think that she is a corrupt megalomaniac.
- Ouze, on 03/09/2008, -4/+1LOL WISDOM OF TEH CROWDS
- jp12380, on 03/09/2008, -3/+7She is clearly losing now. She had said previously that she would support who the people wanted. It is clear that she only meant that IF she was winning. As long as she continues to run she is taking votes away from obama. She does not care what the people want she only cares about what she wants and that is to become the next president. No, we are not worse then she sorry.
- runCMD, on 03/09/2008, -5/+3Wrong. It's clear that half the electorate is behind her, supporting her, giving her money, sending her thougts of encouragement. Or she wouldn't only be 100 delegates behind. She is going to continue to recieve votes from those that agree she is the best nominiee - and neither will get the required number of delegates before the nomination. I voted for her in the GA primary. Not because I think she is perfect - or that much different than Obama - but because She is who she says she is. She has never hated people because of their color - as Obama has admitted to do. Unfortunately, urban dens - like Atlanta - negate a great deal of reasoned votes from other areas in GA - and we end up with the mess we have today.
Unity is the only way to win this contest.- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -3/+2"She has never hated people because of their color"
No, she doesn't. In fact, she positively EMBRACED corrupt chinamen who used their connections to her and her husband to steal billions of dollars from the world bank and asian development bank.
Do you know who Tommy Suharto is? The son of the genocidal indonesian dictator, who earned billions as a result of a jiggered joint venture operation with a korean car manufacturer that was negotiated secretly by Bill Clinton's World Bank appointees and did nothing but line his pockets with foreign aid dollars. He later murdered the JUDGE who found him guilty and sentenced him to prison for fraud. Clinton did this because his corrupt associates James Riady and John Huang illegally raised millions for his 1992 presidential campaign.
These are the people the Clinton's saddle up with in return for money and power. When you vote for Hillary YOU are complicity in THEIR CRIMES!
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -3/+2"She has never hated people because of their color"
- runCMD, on 03/09/2008, -5/+3Wrong. It's clear that half the electorate is behind her, supporting her, giving her money, sending her thougts of encouragement. Or she wouldn't only be 100 delegates behind. She is going to continue to recieve votes from those that agree she is the best nominiee - and neither will get the required number of delegates before the nomination. I voted for her in the GA primary. Not because I think she is perfect - or that much different than Obama - but because She is who she says she is. She has never hated people because of their color - as Obama has admitted to do. Unfortunately, urban dens - like Atlanta - negate a great deal of reasoned votes from other areas in GA - and we end up with the mess we have today.
- JCPahl, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4It is most certainly *not* worse than anything the Clintons have done. Do some research.
- dkern, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Since you are obviously too lazy to research Hillary- I have done it for you. Here is a video of why the republican party may pull off their coup with Hillary- the secret neocon slut: http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-ira ...
- mattmollysdad, on 03/09/2008, -2/+8why can't we all get along?
- Ouze, on 03/09/2008, -14/+7Good job linking Clinton with Nixon. Very unbiased reporting.
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -5/+5If the shoe fits.
BTW, you know that Slick Willie and Tricky Dick were good buddies, right? Clinton tried damn hard to rehabilitate Dick Nixon before he died.
-jcr- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -5/+3Wrong. Haven't you seen the photos? Clinton is now BFF with BUSH SR. Look at this horrendous *****: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/03/tsunami.president ...
And why are you bashing Nixon all of a sudden? Why do you have a problem with the president who brought us peace with honor in vietnam, who undercut the soviets by going to china, and who kept the USA on top of the world after the failed policies of LBJ trashed out image and left us in the *****? Don't you love your country? What's wrong with you?- revisrev, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4Because a President shouldn't be drunk by 6PM nightly? Because a President should not be using his office as a way to criminalize his opponents? I could go on, but damn, this horse is pretty dead. It's not like Digg invented Nixon bashing.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -4/+1"Because a President shouldn't be drunk by 6PM nightly?*
Yes he should. You want some teetotally pussy like Carter to have his finger on the button.
"Because a President should not be using his office as a way to criminalize his opponents?"
He should when his opponents are criminals who backed corrupt dicatators like Ngo Dinh Diem.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -4/+1"Because a President shouldn't be drunk by 6PM nightly?*
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2"why are you bashing Nixon all of a sudden?"
All of a sudden? I've had the same opinion of Nixon since I became aware of him.
My main objection to him (besides the watergate cover-up), is that he vastly overstepped his constitutional authority to 1) devalue the dollar, and 2) impose wage and price controls to prevent the market from responding to inflation.
-jcr
- revisrev, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4Because a President shouldn't be drunk by 6PM nightly? Because a President should not be using his office as a way to criminalize his opponents? I could go on, but damn, this horse is pretty dead. It's not like Digg invented Nixon bashing.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -5/+3Wrong. Haven't you seen the photos? Clinton is now BFF with BUSH SR. Look at this horrendous *****: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/03/tsunami.president ...
- scottc, on 03/09/2008, -2/+3Good job reading... this is an OPINION column from the New Republic.
- elipabst, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1The Clintons have had that reputation for a long time.
- grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Hillary started out as a Republican Nixon Girl
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11142007.html
and became a Watergate prosecutor
http://www.slate.com/id/2184373 and [WARNING: Freeper alert]:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/814539/post ...
She's quite the political shape-shifter. If there's any common denominator it is the power and advancement of Hillary
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -5/+5If the shoe fits.
- pilotss, on 03/09/2008, -3/+31What experience does SHE have? Apparently "visiting" countries around the world has given her the expertise and skill of trade and foreign negotiations. If that is true I should be the President of the Dominican Republic, King of Holland, and Chancellor of Germany with as much time as I have spent overseas.
Add the years of service up. She has no more REAL experience than Obama.- bloodmoney, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4No *****. I went to Norway 9 times in 2 years. Maybe I can be an ambassador.
- unearth, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1"In fact, Obama has served on the Foreign Relations Committee since his election to the Senate and has visited Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa as a senator. Additionally, Obama has sponsored foreign policy legislation such as the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007 to eliminate weapons stockpiles and reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction -- portions of which were enacted as part of the omnibus appropriations bill for FY 2008 -- and the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, which was enacted on December 22, 2006."
That seems like real experience to me.- pilotss, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Spot on!
- SKbSuJ, on 03/09/2008, -8/+2Sieg Heil Clintons!
- ronaldinho, on 03/09/2008, -2/+8We can tell how she only cares about winning with her smear tactics, especially when she went so low to the point where she praised the other party's candidate (McCain). You just don't do that to your own party. I hope the superdelegates will quickly commit to Obama so she will STFU. I know smearing is normal, but potentially giving the election to McCain just for a chance to win really made me angry with her.
- badqat, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Yes, because above all else, be loyal to the party!
- Ansible, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2It really makes me wonder if Obama is the real thing when a corrupt corporate shill like Clinton would rather have the other party win.
- mongrel, on 03/09/2008, -5/+3What's especially neat is that digging this (if viewed of course) drives the story to CBS News' front page. Too bad it's not CNN or somewhere the general population actually GOES for news...
- Acewrap, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Go away troll.
- xlar54, on 03/09/2008, -10/+2Gee...this article isnt biased at all.... :/
- JCPahl, on 03/09/2008, -1/+6Biased? What? It's an opinion column for crying out loud. Quit your whining.
- xlar54, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1An awful lot of opinions around here... mine is one of them... call it whining or whatever, but there it is. You Obamites are worse than Ron Paul fans ever were. At least they STOOD for something *knowing* the deck was stacked against them.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4It's an editorial you maroon.
- xlar54, on 03/09/2008, -2/+1Bite me. There's my editorial, bitch.
- scottc, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4You're right, opinion columns shouldn't contain any bias at all.
- JCPahl, on 03/09/2008, -1/+6Biased? What? It's an opinion column for crying out loud. Quit your whining.
- smacksaw, on 03/09/2008, -0/+20Meet The Press was pretty scary this morning. They were all deluded into thinking she could be Obama's VP.
This should scare Obama supporters. I am making it known that there is no Obama vote from me if Hillary Clinton is on the ticket. I'll vote for McCain by voting for Nader.
I could imagine how she'd end up President from VP...1 short step.- scottc, on 03/09/2008, -0/+8Hillary is hinting about a joint ticket only to give the superdelegates a way out of their dilemma, with the idea that they'll think giving Obama the VP slot will placate Obama supporters and bring on board those who don't like Clinton but are unsure about Obama. I think she knows Obama wouldn't accept the VP position and I certainly don't think she ever would. She'll just wait and hope he screws up (or worse, figure out a way to cause trouble for him during his term) so she can run against him again in 2012.
I will vote for President, regardless of who the VP choice may be. That means either Obama or McCain for me. - iainc, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5Ooh, I think Swillary has well and truly blown that bridge. She stands for a style of politics that Obama won't put up with, or want to be associated with. I swear to God that if she loses this, she will go over to the other side. She'll take it as such a slap in the face that she'll feel justified, and maybe her pal John McCain will put her on his ticket. That's a nightmare scenario, and Obama might be screwed because the Hillbots and Feminazis will jump ship, too. I really think there's more to this than meets the eye and that Dean is really in a quandry.
The superdelegates need to end this now. If it goes to the convention the Dems are *****!- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3I disagree with you for the last sentence. Its obvious we're better off having the candidate resolved now, rather than wait for the convention. Hillary can't realistically win without a brokered convention (the bildeburgers/CFR swinging ALL the superdelegates her way). The advantage is insurmountably Obama's.
But we're not "*****". We'll merely miss the 4 month opportunity to spend McCain into the ground. We all saw what a lousy "swift boat" campaign could do when Kerry didn't address it. It will be like McClellan with the Army of the Potomac, continually cringing from Robert E Lee.
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3I disagree with you for the last sentence. Its obvious we're better off having the candidate resolved now, rather than wait for the convention. Hillary can't realistically win without a brokered convention (the bildeburgers/CFR swinging ALL the superdelegates her way). The advantage is insurmountably Obama's.
- senatorpjt, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5That alone is a good reason to vote for Obama. Hillary would need Obama as VP to pick up all the people that won't vote for her otherwise. Obama doesn't need Hillary as VP to pick up her votes, he can nominate someone like Richardson who would pick up even more votes. It's the perfect ticket, Richardson is experienced as hell, from the southwest, and hispanic.
- Spoomeister, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Or Obama could have someone like Colin Powell, thereby blunting the "no military experience" line and also ensuring every liberal white male in the country would vote for him...
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Does Colin Powell really any clout at this point?
He knew the UN speech was wrong, but he did it anyway. He was utterly ineffective in countering the Cheney cabal, and even Condoleeza has accomplished more as Secretary of State than he did.
The rightwing nutjobs, on the other hand, think he's some liberal trying to run interference against GWB's Iraq agenda.
My attitude is "Keep him away from the Democrats. Don't let him switch sides."
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Does Colin Powell really any clout at this point?
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4In fact, I think having Hillary as VP would do Obama more harm. Sure it might resolve the feminist rift, but she'll drive the biblethumpers and John Birchers into a frenzy for McCain. Unfortunately, presuming Hillary wanted the VP spot, I don't think Obama could decline without risking a huge chunk of party disunity.
- Spoomeister, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Or Obama could have someone like Colin Powell, thereby blunting the "no military experience" line and also ensuring every liberal white male in the country would vote for him...
- scottc, on 03/09/2008, -0/+8Hillary is hinting about a joint ticket only to give the superdelegates a way out of their dilemma, with the idea that they'll think giving Obama the VP slot will placate Obama supporters and bring on board those who don't like Clinton but are unsure about Obama. I think she knows Obama wouldn't accept the VP position and I certainly don't think she ever would. She'll just wait and hope he screws up (or worse, figure out a way to cause trouble for him during his term) so she can run against him again in 2012.
- amightywind, on 03/09/2008, -12/+2Inspiring? "We are the change!" "We are the ones we've been looking for!" "Water, water. Give her some water. Give her room. Here is a bottle." What a bunch of morons.
- undine900, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Why are you just reducing everything to soundbites?
- nblsavage, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3because that is the limit of his mentality
- amightywind, on 03/09/2008, -2/+2My point is Obama's campaign is *entirely* soundbites. The Hussein Obama campaign is about as substantive as the Oprah Winfrey show. The press has given him a free ride. But that is coming to an end.
- undine900, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Why are you just reducing everything to soundbites?
- Lamadave222, on 03/09/2008, -19/+1Perhaps Barack Hussein Obama will commit suicide for the good of the party, like Vince Foster, or perhaps his plane will go down, like Ron Brown's did, and then Hillary can unite the party. The article is written from the point of view that believes the American electorate bases their vote on some sort of merit. Please, the media coverage of the presidential election is like some sort of beauty contest with no consequences. And unelectable Tom Daschel springs back into the limelight to tell us how proud he is the "we" got Barack to win more elections than Hillary. Right, Tom. The electorate votes with their feelings instead of with their intellect so your guy won. Which candidate had the most experience doing things like strategic economic planning, building businesses and meeting payrolls. Oh darn, he isn't running anymore so we get to choose from these statist aparatchiks. I can hardly wait.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -1/+8Only Rush Limbaugh listeners care what Tom Daschle says. The rest of us didn't even realize he was still alive.
- iainc, on 03/09/2008, -1/+8Or, perhaps you can commit suicide for the sake of the Human gene pool?
- physt, on 03/09/2008, -5/+5Hillary Derangement Syndrome in Action! It's great to have a thread for this so all you right wingnuts have a place to agree with each other.
If you voted for Bush, you are part of the problem.- ronmac, on 03/09/2008, -1/+0Yeah...and if you are going to vote for Obama...you and your left-wing no-nothing companions are going to ge a part of the new problem...
- Sheavenger, on 03/09/2008, -1/+8Another scandalous action in OUR ELECTORAL Process, by the Clintonites, in the pursuit of Power. At least Barack said he would go back to the Constitution and Presidential Powers before Bush regime. He said it early last year in his speeches in Iowa and would have said so in NH, if the "kidgate" and "fantasygate" hadn't occurred by Bill Clinton. It didn't work then and it won't work now.
Besides what Bill Clinton is witnessing and I guess has the utmost respect for is the precision of the Obama Campaign for a Change message in DC that resonates even more, than when Bill had it in 1992.
He beat the Establishment then, and Obama will also. Hillary is the Establishment in the DLC.
We the People want change and not just gender.- runCMD, on 03/09/2008, -5/+3We the People are split between two candidates for nominee. Obama supporters here live in a plastic bubble and just pretend no one in the country supports Hillary. They are practically EVEN in the counts. They will remain that way until the convention. Unity is the only way to get through this.
- jm4847, on 03/09/2008, -12/+9"Fratricidal Maniac"
Why that seems like a totally objective and professional article. I am SO reading it RIGHT NOW.
Not.- Mr.Gone, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4A Clinton trying to become president, someone using the term "Not!". Did I miss something or is it the 90's again?
- Wartz, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2I dont know if you noticed, but its an OPINION article.
- Spudster, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Somehow I doubt that Obama is the second coming of Christ either.
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -3/+17Hillary Clinton is the only democrat who could possibly lose to McCain after that "100 years in Iraq" remark. The democrats could nominate a ham sandwich, and it would beat McCain. John Kerry and Al Gore SHOULD have taught the democrats that nominating the most pompous, self-absorbed and arrogant candidate they can find is not a winning strategy.
-jcr- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -9/+2 McCain knows what he's talking about. He knows we can't just cut and run. That's why he has so much crossover appeal. He knows how to stand on principle and tell it straight to the American people.
Why are you such a pussy, Mr. NSResponder? Why do you want to run away from our commitments to allies in the Middle East? You are an embarrassment to everything the founding fathers stood for. Do the planet a favor and drink a bottle of bleach and take a nap.- revisrev, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3I'd like to hear McCain explain how we can afford 100 years in Iraq. As everybody who knows about it has said, "It's unsustainable." That is, unless you want a nice extra war tax... and a conscription act or two.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -4/+2Iraq has lots of oil. All we need to do is pump it out and sell it and use it to finance the war.
We could also do things a lot more cheaply if we had a competent military commander who inspires the troops instead of having our military controlled by a corrupt oil junta that allows private contractors to steal hundreds of billions of dollars from american taxpayers.- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1"Iraq has lots of oil. All we need to do is pump it out and sell it and use it to finance the war. "
Yeah, we heard that three years ago. Trouble is, our government has nothing to gain from making Iraq a self-funded adventure, because doing so would reduce their excuse to tax us more and more.
You need to realize, taxation isn't about the money, it's about power.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1"Iraq has lots of oil. All we need to do is pump it out and sell it and use it to finance the war. "
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -4/+2Iraq has lots of oil. All we need to do is pump it out and sell it and use it to finance the war.
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1The Iraq occupation is BANKRUPTING this country. We can't be a "superpower" if economically we resemble the USSR. The terrorists are obviously in Pakistan. Why on earth are we screwing around in Iraq? We're afraid of Osama? Oh right, it CAN'T POSSIBLY BE ABOUT THE OIL...
- revisrev, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3I'd like to hear McCain explain how we can afford 100 years in Iraq. As everybody who knows about it has said, "It's unsustainable." That is, unless you want a nice extra war tax... and a conscription act or two.
- badqat, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3Wait...a ham sandwich could beat McCain but Hillary couldn't? Pictures or it didn't happen.
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Yeah.. People don't hate ham sandwiches.
-jcr- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Anti-semite.
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Not at all. Jews won't *eat* ham sandwiches, but they don't *hate* them.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Not at all. Jews won't *eat* ham sandwiches, but they don't *hate* them.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Anti-semite.
- NSResponder, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Yeah.. People don't hate ham sandwiches.
- MJDub, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Stop signing your comments.
- DharmaTurtle, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1auto digg down for the sig
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -9/+2 McCain knows what he's talking about. He knows we can't just cut and run. That's why he has so much crossover appeal. He knows how to stand on principle and tell it straight to the American people.
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -5/+6Never forget how the Clintons cuckolded wealthy, corrupt chinese businessmen like James Riady. Riady was affiliated with a shady Indonesian bank that bilked US tax payers for billions of dollars. He was only able to accomplish this goal by illegally raising millions of dollars for Bill Clinton's presidential campaign, felony crimes for which he was eventually found guilty and fined over $8 million dollars.
The Clintons also did business with on John Huang, another Indonesian chinese businessman who raised millions of illegal donations to Bill Clinton and was convicted of felony charges as a result. Like Riady, Huang had numerous ties to the corrupt, genocidal Suharto government, which used its close ties to the Clintons to funnel billions of dollars from the World Bank and the Asian Develop Bank to its corrupt cronies.
Hillary Clinton recently accepted huge donations from Norman Hsu, a fugitive felon who was convicted of numerous fraud charges. Instead of returning the money, she referred to him at a campaign rally as "our friend Norman."
Why do Hillary supporters insist on overlooking these grave crimes? Why don't they blanch when their candidate saddles up alongside filthy, corrupt asian bankers? Why do they support a candidate who inked dirty deals with a genocidal Indonesian dictator who was overthrown by his own people when they could no longer stomach his corruption?
What is their excuse?- badqat, on 03/09/2008, -6/+3Probably the same reason Obama supporters gloss over the whole Larry Sinclair and Resko issues, right?
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -4/+5Obama has returned what little money he received from criminals. The Clintons EMBRACED felon fraudsters and gave them PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT! They thanked them publicly and funneled BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to a genocidal dictator in return for campaign donations. The worst anyone can accuse Obama of is getting a deal on a house! Can't you understand the difference? How monumentally stupid are you?
- badqat, on 03/09/2008, -5/+3So, Obama EMRACING a soon to be felon fraudster to get a budget house is a-ok?
- p0s3r, on 03/09/2008, -3/+2Of course it is, for He is the Messiah. He is to judge, not to be judged. So sayeth The Shepard, So sayteh the Flock!
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -1/+6Obama didn't EMBRACE anyone you moron. He REPUDIATED him. Tony Rezko is currently on trial in federal district court and so far no one has produced a shred of evidence that Obama was tied up in any of his illegal operations.
James Riady and John Huang, on the other hand, were convicted of felony campaign finance violations for the FUNDRAISING THEY DID FOR THE CLINTONS. The worst you can say about Obama is that he bought a house from some guy who later turned out to be corrupt. The Clintons and their dirty campaign activities were the REASON two chinamen were convicted of felonies in federal court. GET IT NOW?
And no, I don't care if Obama got a honey of a deal on a house. Good for him. Unlike with Bill and Hillary, he didn't help a genocidal dictator bilk millions from poor, starving Indonesians. No harm, no foul. - ronmac, on 03/09/2008, -2/+0Obama knows nothing, has done nothing and will more than likely get this country into a war with the Russians or the Chinese by showing weakness. Bush is an idiot, but he is no better. Just better spoken.
- badqat, on 03/09/2008, -5/+3So, Obama EMRACING a soon to be felon fraudster to get a budget house is a-ok?
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -4/+5Obama has returned what little money he received from criminals. The Clintons EMBRACED felon fraudsters and gave them PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT! They thanked them publicly and funneled BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to a genocidal dictator in return for campaign donations. The worst anyone can accuse Obama of is getting a deal on a house! Can't you understand the difference? How monumentally stupid are you?
- badqat, on 03/09/2008, -6/+3Probably the same reason Obama supporters gloss over the whole Larry Sinclair and Resko issues, right?
- JavertHolmes, on 03/09/2008, -5/+7If you are digging this to the front page, is your hope that other people who are on the fence or pro-clinton will read it and change their mind?
If that is your goal, you're doing it incorrectly. Take a look at the front page article history. There have been so many articles pushed to the front page in so short a time -- many articles that are poorly written/subjective/unbalanced -- that anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence (this is key) has come to the conclusion that this is a bunch of propaganda being pushed by a minority subset of users and stopped reading.
Your strategy SHOULD HAVE been to put maybe one high quality article up a day discussing the candidates beliefs, going into their histories in voting, etc. Articles with stupid, disgustingly subjective titles like "fratricidal maniac" will make anyone with a clump of more than 1,000 neurons just go "this is subjective crap. I'll pass."
If your goal of pushing this to the front page was to have a continuous 24/7 obama GOOD clinton BAD article circle jerk, well then you've succeeded in this. Please continue. Anyone possessing any form critical analysis skills will see it for what it is.- badqat, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1You mean the circle jerk isn't the goal? Shucks...
- revisrev, on 03/09/2008, -2/+0Well, there you have it. Proof that there isn't an "Obamabot" conspiracy to flood the front page with Pro-Obama stories. It's just a whole lot of unrelated, Pro-Obama diggers individually digging up Pro-Obama articles.
- cate508, on 03/09/2008, -1/+0I see your point, but you're overlooking the exponential.... this gets passed along to friends, family, media, blogs yadda yadda. I do so, anyway, as do quite a largenumber of folks I know. This stuff goes viral pretty fast, as I'm sure you know. Just a thought.
- Cattywampus, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1Yes, this same user submitted the original New Republic article, and now has submitted the same article as picked up by CBS. I guess political partisans feel obligated to make sure everyone shares their point of view by clubbing every Digg user over the head with the same article again and again until they "come around" to the submitter's point of view! How tiresome.
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5The problem is that the digg users here are reacting with emotion, and the fact they are disenfranchised, because their viewpoint is not fairly reported by the MSM.
I understand it. I sort of felt that way in 2000. "How on earth could this country vote in this clown for president, who only has a documented record of business failure?". I pretty much got to frothing at the mouth in 2004, when I thought "This country is literally thumbing their noses at a decorated war hero, not even marginally acknowledging the Swiftboat campaign was a bunch of obvious lies, for a guy who's proven to be an idiot, allowed 9/11 to happen, and "initially" botched the Iraq occupation".
Here's the thing. Its true NEITHER candidate can get enough delegates to be declared the outright winner. But Obama has, what any politically COMPETENT analyst can see, is an insurmountable lead in Democratic delegates. Its not because 100 delegates is a lot, its because nearly all the races are over. Only repealing statistics as a mathematical discipline could get Clinton even with Obama in his delegate lead. And its not only 100 individuals that think Obama is better. Its thousands of Democrats, they are represented by 100 delegates who are there to choose Obama the nominee.
The only way Clinton can get the nomination is by a party boss coup. She would have to get almost all the superdelegates to go with her. Even by inertia, she can't win. And she's no sure thing against McCain. Every Democrat (except the most exceptionally stupid) knows she'll do something McCain can't, which is mobilize every inbred biblethumper and uberconservative to support McCain's candidacy (they hate his guts). All the independents prefer Obama over Hillary; the Democrats alone cannot decide the election. The only rationale I can see for preferring Hillary is that the old people seem to like her better than Obama. My elderly parents lean towards Hillary. My mother worships the ground she walks upon; no amount of rational argument can sway her. My father dislikes BOTH of them, (and I suspect Obama's decisive negative to him is that Obama's black) but he can't see himself voting for McCain (blame the jackass for the past eight years).
The only SMART thing to do is for Hillary to end her campaign, and wrangle a VP spot, if that's what she'll settle for. Instead, Hillary is choosing to HURT the Democratic party, by subsidizing McCain's attacks on Obama, and be McCain's attack laboratory for the general election. If she organizes a party boss coup, she will get what she truly values, ahead of what best secures Democratic interests. She will KILL the momentum for the Democrats (leaving a lot of pissed off Obama supporters who are the majority), she will energize her Republican opponent's machine, she won't have the grass root organizations Obama setup in all 50 states, and won't be able to help Democratic Senators, Congress, and Governor candidates unseat their incumbent opponents. This is why we view her as a "fratricidal maniac".
Experience is not a winning campaign message. It didn't win against JFK in 1960, and it didn't win against Bubba in 1992. And McCain has more of it than Hillary anyway. Bush hatred is not enough to win the election. It wasn't enough in 2004, and its McCain running in 2008, not Bush. "Pipedreams of Hope" may not seem rationally a strong argument for a candidate, but it won in 1960, (arguably) in 1964, in 1976, in 1980, in 1992, and oddly, in 2000. I think "trust in experience" only won with Eisenhower over Stevenson (and I'm not old enough to remember Adlai as an optimism candidate). And I'd have better reasons to "trust" McCain over Hillary, if I weren't an issues voter.
For me, It boils down to this (as a left leaning, registered independent from NY). I've hated Bush and the scumbag academy claiming to represent Republican values for so long, I'll vote for the pointless, overrated she-witch over the 2-face McCain. But if she pisses me off, particularly at the Democratic Convention, I'll vote Nader. (I am HAPPY he's running. I hate voting "none of the above" even more.)
Lets face it, you Hillary zealots have shown nothing but contempt for a guy who has measurably run a smarter (not luckier) election campaign. Why on earth would I choose the misguided, disorganized, ineffective campaigner? Why would I want for President someone who presumed she'll sweep SuperTuesday, did not have a backup plan when things don't go as expected, and gave up on 11 races, giving Obama his 100 delegate lead? BTW, its the same kind of strategy that lost Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004, and as far as I'm concerned, there were less OBVIOUS surface flaws. Is THIS the person I want responding a crisis at 3AM in the morning?
Hopefully, the Hillary zealots will at least GRASP the perspective of her non-supporters with my missive. You can't have Hillary as the Democratic candidate without risking burning down the Democratic House. Keep it in mind, dummies, you can't be happy just winning battles.- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Oh yeah, there's a term for it: Pyhrric victory.
- JCPahl, on 03/09/2008, -2/+8No wonder Bill had to cheat. What a monster he's married to. If only he had told us all when he was on trial!
- gquaglia, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1This movie comes to mind when I think of Hillary.
http://www.teethmovie.com/
- gquaglia, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1This movie comes to mind when I think of Hillary.
- crazywarthog, on 03/09/2008, -6/+2If this is new to you and someone has to tell you this information then you are either under 30, out of touch with the world, get your news from CNN, BBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, a die hard feminist, ignorant or just a plain old fashion dumb schmuck !
- netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Under 30??? You mean over 30. Obama's support is primarily with the young.
- dragonopolis, on 03/09/2008, -2/+16Obama is far from socialist. There are too many ignorant American people who don't even know what socialism means. I'm not talking about the brainwashing, name calling, Republican Party americanized definition of a socialist. As most of the world has pointed out, we really don't have a real "left-wing" politics. Obama is a Moderate, plain and simple. I used to hard core conservative but people in that party changed, lied, or were complete hypocrites. I wanted to like Ron Paul but after doing research on him his policies scream I'm a Corporatist (person who supports corporatism) more than I'm a Libertarian or Republican and I will never vote an person supporting corporatism. John McCain is a stooge and the government will run him and not the other way around. That's why President Bush was able to give his endorsement. For me, George Bush giving his thumb up for McCain chased my vote away as a conservative. I really don't think the Republican Party even knows who and what they stand for anymore. Democrats argue over semantics but most of their goals are pretty similar. Hillary was usually cool when the pressure is on but I guess her true nature has shown. She is like a wild cat, that when feeling cornered, lets the adrenaline kick in and attacks regardless if there were other alternatives safer than attacking. Don't think I want a president who feels the need to attack every time he or she feels America is getting backed into the corner. We already had a President like that and his name is George W. Bush.
Obama may be young, may be inexperience, but he is a very intelligent man that has some pretty good ideas for this country. I think the fact that his freshness as a politician is actually quite appealing but he is far from being an inexperience leader. People who say this haven't done their research on this man. He has done some tremendous work helping people throughout his life - not just his political career.
Obama ' 08 for President the first moderate candidate that got me to vote the other way (with a lot of help on the Republican side whose offerings are pathetic to say the least)- badqat, on 03/09/2008, -4/+1So you did an about face on your ideology because you don't like certain people? And there are no hypocrites or liars in the democratic party?
A pretty malleable person, aren't you?- trekkie, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1if, like me, the OP is a real republican and not this new theocratic republican, then he didn't change his ideology, he ran from the RINOs.
- badqat, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Of which there are many. But into the arms of a socialist?
- trekkie, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1if, like me, the OP is a real republican and not this new theocratic republican, then he didn't change his ideology, he ran from the RINOs.
- ronmac, on 03/09/2008, -3/+1If Obama's a moderate, then he needs to repudiate most everything Ted Kennedy is about. I get ill everytime I think about him having easy access to the Whitelhouse with Obama in it...
- Pherdnut, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't fault McCain for accepting the endorsement. What the Hell was he supposed to do, tell the sitting president to !@#$ off? Granted, it was kinda icky.
- dragonopolis, on 03/10/2008, -0/+0first of all I don't vote based on party but on issues and character. As I said before we don't have a real left party. Voting for Obama in my opinion still keeps me in my conservative nature with the exception that we are putting a bit of money and resources back into this country. However, I do feel we need to focus more on issues that affected Americans here at home rather than "policing the world" No country has the economic structure to support this behavior and requires multiple support from countries which we ignored when we went into Iraq. We Americans don't have the economic structure to continue this war and the WORLD needs to solve the world's problems - not America. We have a lot of issues domestically that require money and resources but are ignored primarily by our government but also by the people as well. These issues need to be addressed or we are in a heap of trouble.
- badqat, on 03/09/2008, -4/+1So you did an about face on your ideology because you don't like certain people? And there are no hypocrites or liars in the democratic party?
- jsparrow1, on 03/09/2008, -15/+5Obama is a phony. He's done nothing but run for the next highest office in the most self-centered way possible, with complete lack of concern for his own constituents. If you can handle the truth about Barack read this article:
http://dallasobserver.com/2008-02-28/news/obama-an ...- starphish, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1FTA: "After all, I admired the guy—and still do."
- OpenIntro, on 03/09/2008, -1/+0Quote the REST of the article too mr. cherry picker.....
- starphish, on 03/09/2008, -0/+0The rest of the article is WAY too long to quote. People can read it for themselves.
This guy likes Barack Obama. He is just holding him up to scrutiny, just like all reporters should. We should hold even people we support up to scrutiny. When someone we support does something we don't like, we should tell them. That's all this guy is doing. After all his criticisms, he still admires him.
- starphish, on 03/09/2008, -0/+0The rest of the article is WAY too long to quote. People can read it for themselves.
- OpenIntro, on 03/09/2008, -1/+0Quote the REST of the article too mr. cherry picker.....
- Pherdnut, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1It brings up some points of concern but it's a pretty sloppy piece of journalism. There's a ton of uncorroborated hearsay and I'm not sure why the author is so intent on demonstrating that he's lived in near-poverty on Chicago's South side unless it's to drive home that he's a black man critical of Obama which casts huge doubts on his journalistic integrity.
He also paints things in a negative light that I don't really see as a problem. If your opponents are going to be so sloppy as to not even get the basics of a 745 signature petition done properly, then they deserve to be ejected. A lot of Chicago's corruption is so blatant and patently absurd that it's ultimately just laziness. I don't mind people losing contests on simple technicalities over things like "the people who petitioned for you aren't from your district" because they haven't done anything to prove they deserve their "voice" in government. And why would Obama waste valuable air-time making sure somebody who didn't support him gets mentioned as a fellow bill sponsor every time he brings up his qualifications? I'm not surprised the Sun Times and the Trib weren't interested in this guy. He clearly doesn't understand the basics of good reporting, writing a well-reasoned op-ed piece, or making it clear which of the two his stories are supposed to be. - netant, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Captain Spivak: Obama's campaign is now closed! Leave the premises immediately!
Obama: You can't just shut me down! What's the charge?
Captain Spivak: I'm shocked, SHOCKED! to see you've been practicing politics, Obama. (And you're not the resistance fighter you claim to be...)
MSM: Here's the page hits for your character assassination piece, Mr. Spivak.
Captain Spivak: Oh, why thank you...
But thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of the article. Let me return the favor:
http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2008/02/28/spivak-and ...
- starphish, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1FTA: "After all, I admired the guy—and still do."
- petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -2/+4Unlike Obama, Hillary Clinton won't release her tax records because she doesn't want the American people to know how she and her husband accepted millions of dollars from corrupt, dirty, chinese criminals who were complicit in a brutal indonesian dictator's crimes against humanity.
Obama has been thoroughly vetted. He earned his money fair and square by teaching constitutional law at a top law school, working as a US Senator, and writing two bestselling autobiographies in which he came clean about his past experiences and explained how his travails as a young man taught him the value of honesty and hard work. His wife is a partner at a prestigious law firm who earned her wealth by escaping the ghettos of chicago to attend princeton and harvard law school.
In contrast, the Clintons took millions of dollars from corrupt asian bankers and whored themselves out to criminal dictators. Now they claim they "don't have time" to release their financial records because they know that voters would be enraged if they knew the true extent of their corrupt dealings.
Anyone who can't see the difference between the two candidates is being willfully dishonest and should kill self. - lexpattison, on 03/09/2008, -6/+0DUPLICATE - please check your submissions.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Hillary_s_No_Win ...- diggB, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Dead link.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
