digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Hillary Clinton's word: It's worth nothing

unionleader.com — A New Hampshire newspaper tears into Hillary Clinton for breaking her pledge not to campaign in Florida: "Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jhuckabee, on 01/30/2008, -82/+388She's exactly the filthy, lowly, scum politician that Barack Obama opposes in Washington.

    Americans unite for Barack Obama. Let's show Washington that we will no longer stand for this kind of BS!
    • dartmanx, on 01/30/2008, -4/+124You have a very ironic name for an Obama supporter.
      • Balanced, on 01/30/2008, -11/+26It could be, you know, his real name?
        • ploop, on 01/30/2008, -1/+62That doesn't mean it's not ironic.
        • funkytaco, on 01/30/2008, -1/+16That was a fair and balanced comment there, Balanced.
      • BassCadet, on 01/30/2008, -31/+14Hillary Clinton DID NOT CAMPAIGN IN FLORIDA. Buried as inaccurate. And for those who want to argue:

        "Both the Flordia Republican and Democratic parties were snactioned and "punished" by their respective National Committees - the Florida Republicans lost half of their alloted delegates, the Florida Democrats lost all of them (as did Michigan's). Hillary honored her promise not to campaign in either state, unlike Obama who let national cable TV ads air in Florida. Ignoring the votes of over 3 million people in a key swing state, including the 850,000+ who voted FOR Hillary, is the height of arrogance, if not stupidity. If nothing else, Hillary's shrewd and ethical management of the opportunities in Florida and Michigan stand in marked contrast to the amateur and ineffectual idealism of her outmaneuvered opponents."

        "Clinton did not campaign in Florida - she attended a private fundraising event in Sarasota earlier this week - just as Obama did in St. Petersburg a few months ago. Fundraising is allowable under the terms of the pledge."
        • kipmartin, on 01/30/2008, -11/+28i think youd better check your source--and perhaps identify it as quotation marks do not ensure accuracy or veracity. Hillary did indeed stump in Florida as was reported in the NY Times, and Time Magazine. and since when is 'fund raising' sunstantially different from 'campaigning'?

          secondly, using the term 'ethical' in a description of Hillary is always laughable. she is a hard-nosed, take-no-prisoners, conniving, chess player. her shredness is her strong suit, but it isnt working against 'the amateur and ineffectuak idealism of her outmaneuvered opponents'. at least not Obamas.

          come one--havent we had enough of the Clintons and the Bushs? cant we elect someone who isnt all script and branding a get a real person? Obama represents change. Hillary represents staleness and Washington.
          • BassCadet, on 01/30/2008, -8/+12I did check my sources.

            Here are two articles from the NYTimes that clearly state that Clinton has not campaigned in the state! So what the heck are you talking about??

            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/us/politics/28we ...

            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/opinion/29tue2.h ...

            AGAIN....I will repeat...HILLARY CLINTON DID NOT CAMPAIGN IN FLORIDA. C'mon, Digg! Let's start FACT-CHECKING these liars who spam our boards!
          • allatti2d, on 01/30/2008, -9/+7Thank you, BassCadet.

            I'm beginning to think that many of the "Hillary-haters" on Digg are actually right-wing conservatives, because they talk about her *exactly* the same way as the evangelical right-wingers do. I sure hope not. It's a tough choice between Hillary and Barack because they are very similar in so many ways -- including their voting records in the Senate.

            It's not that I'm "all for Hillary," but I do expect people to research candidates themselves instead of jumping on a bandwagon because of misplaced hate.
        • ninjasdash, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1you and your facts are unwelcome here on digg, now begone
      • babar77, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5She started touting Florida interests in the couple of days before the primary. We're just arguing location. THAT'S IT! You start mentioning Florida by name, and your campaigning to Florida. She had MONTHS to try and convince her colleges otherwise and waited until the last moment, putting everyone else into potentially unethical situation.

        Is this what Hillary plans for our country? A return of word-smithing and moral relativism? Do we have to start asking her what the meaning of the word "is" is? I'm tired of this crap. Get her the heck out of politics all together.

        Can we remove Florida from the election process? How many more times are they just going to screw this crap up? First it's chads, now this.
    • GamerSDG, on 01/30/2008, -36/+9that's why obama is just getting pay to do Nothing for most of his votes as senator he either voted Present or absent so if he is president we will be paying him $400,000 a year for doing nothing.
      • LeadOffMan, on 01/30/2008, -40/+10he will do SOMETHING:
        raise taxes
        illegal aliens get drivers licenses
        de-facto socialist healthcare failure
        invade Pakistan
        now that's worth $400k a year right? I didn't think so
        • kipmartin, on 01/30/2008, -10/+10step away from the podium, Mr. Paul. its time for your nap.
        • jsmith39, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3*****, even that is better than what we've put up with the last 8 years
      • Isileth, on 01/30/2008, -1/+26You realise a present vote isnt doing nothing right?
        It shows you agree with part of it but not all of it.
        So rather than just vote against it which would come across as a full NO against it you vote present to show that if it was changed you would then agree with it enough to vote for it.
      • Ysaric, on 01/30/2008, -1/+5If only we could have a President that did nothing. Short of a President actually willing to dial back the monstrosity that is the federal machine, doing nothing is the best we can hope for. That is one of the nice things about Congress and the President being of different parties.
      • digitalarcanum, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1gentleman, you're acting like politicians that do nothing are a bad thing. I'd rather have a politician do nothing than be a complete *****-up when he does anything (see: our president)
    • LeadOffMan, on 01/30/2008, -30/+13well, you're right about Billary, but uhm, Obama is nothing but hot air
    • bitspace, on 01/30/2008, -2/+9This is one of the rare times when I agree with the Useless Leader. It is historically a fairly conservative paper with respect to political taint, and is often just plain wrong. Also: read the comments attached to that article. Some are... interesting.
    • scrappyvintage, on 01/30/2008, -8/+25Read the comments. Coming from an objective viewpoint, it seems she (at least) did not campaign in Florida.
      With that said, remember to vote for the man, never for the party.
      ***** Democrats.
      ***** Republicans.
      • silveravnt, on 01/30/2008, -2/+8Dugg for FD/FR
      • philzone, on 01/30/2008, -9/+0Party trumps person every time.
        • voyvf, on 01/30/2008, -0/+7Because whether they're Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, people tend to gravitate toward herd mentality. It's incredibly stupid, and one would think that in this day and age the masses would have grown beyond that by now.

          But then again, one would also think that America wouldn't have been so moronic as to vote Bush into office two terms in a row.
    • ElbertF, on 01/30/2008, -4/+11http://digg.com/users/kavigrace
      http://digg.com/users/kavigrace/history/submission ...

      Do you get paid for submitting and digging these articles?
    • More4, on 01/30/2008, -4/+6this paper has is more evil than Fox News, long record of questionable ethics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Loeb
    • imorgan82, on 01/30/2008, -3/+6How is this being marked as inaccurate? Once again, these are FACTS being reported. You might not like them, but the harsh reality is that Hillary signed that pledge with the DNC, just like all of the other Dem candidates. It just so happens that she's down and is figuring that a win in FL will get her momentum for Feb 5. It's strategy, not sincerity. All it says about her character is that she's desperate to win and this is how she is trying to play it.
    • hollyminkowski, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3I feel that Obama is a much better person than Clinton.
      If Obama gets the nomination then the Clintons will somehow manage to sabotage the election and make certain the republican wins.
      She could run again in 2012 but not if a democrat is incumbent.... trying to steal the nomination from an incumbent = epic fail.
      If she had to wait 8yrs to try again she would be an older and even more bitter version of herself...again = epic fail.
      I think that if Obama is the candidate then that will give us 4yrs of McCain...and he is some kind of lunatic.
      • babar77, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I don't think so.. if the incumbent is highly unpopular, wouldn't you want to replace them?
    • theelectricafro, on 01/30/2008, -7/+6Obama has said nothing about the Federal Reserve.
      Obama is a member of the CFR.
      Obama is the rhetoric of change.
      There is only one candidate left that is actually going to change anything. Digg me down cause the truth hurts.
      • cmackattack, on 01/30/2008, -1/+5This is very important stuff people, why are you burying?

        The FED is some of the most true evil in our system, the issue needs to be addressed. The FED is unconstitutional. It is congress that should be in control of money and coin, not some private bankers. This type of system is the true reason for the revolutionary war. The FED has been waging war on us that's been ongoing for the past 100 years and you don't even realize it. Oh! It's not that bad right now. And, nothing bad will happen to me....pfft...

        The Sixteenth amendment, income tax, is unconstitutional. It should be repealed as it was never ratified by 3/4 of the States in the first place. News flash, income tax is not the primary nor only way the government receives income for its policies.
        How many of you, your friends, or family out there that are suffering from economic hardship would still be suffering if you had all of your tax money back in your pocket? How many people would still default on a mortgage or go hungry? Better question...how many people here would actually own there own home instead of still paying on your mortgage? How many people would be closer to retirement? How many people won't be retiring at all? That's the point. You are made to be a slave. The FED doesn't want you to be able to get ahead, or retire. Everyone thinks that they can, and some ***** is going to say that you can...but you are wrong. There is only room enough for a certain amount of well to do if we continue on this path. How many people actually have a significant amount of education and motivation yet still cannot find a job for which they are trained?

        If the economy is truly the biggest issue as it is being presented...the why is it not being addressed? The stimulus plans are stupid. Yeah, they might help you one month or two, or you might just put it towards retirement if you are lucky....but what are you going to do next year? What about the falling dollar? What are you going to do if your are lucky enough to be one of the ones with a nice stock portfolio or 401K for retirement when the system crashes worse than that of 87, 29, and more permanently?

        What are you going to do then? Wish you had done something different in the past, just as many always do with they become depressed, disappointed, or falling victim of feelings of unfulfillment. If I only would have (blank)

        Stop that. Stop that right now. Do something about it...and don't just talk. Take action. Demand action. See change. Take hope.
    • heypetray, on 01/30/2008, -5/+4I'm so sick of all you OBAMA spammers!! Blaaaah!!!!
      • Bilabrin, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1LOL, that's the new algorythm at work!
    • BeyondDGrave, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4Obama has said nothing about the Federal Reserve.
      Obama is a member of the CFR.
      Obama is the rhetoric of change.
      There is only one candidate left that is actually going to change anything. Digg me down cause the truth hurts.

      Oh So True.
    • Bilabrin, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1I see the effect of the new Digg algorythm- out with Paul, in with Obama it would seem. Probably a calculated move with potential Digg buyers in mind....
    • hadleyh98, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0So you think it is ok to disregard the wishes of an entire state so you can get enough votes for Obama to win. Didnt your kind fix the last two elections.
    • jbham184, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnAnepmlbsI
  • nfkiller, on 01/30/2008, -32/+13http://digg.com/political_opinion/Al_Gore_Your_Cou ...
  • wolfegh, on 01/30/2008, -43/+155this is exactly what I've been trying to tell people about Billary. He/she is completely untrustworthy, which is precisely the problem we already have with the Bush Administration. There needs to be more transparency in our government and only Obama is pushing for more open and honest government. OBAMA '08
    • yesimahuman, on 01/30/2008, -4/+4Having a hard time getting people to listen??? Hmm....
      • wolfegh, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4actually, no. most people I've spoken with about Obama have started telling me they are warming up to the idea of an Obama presidency. That goes for my conservative friends and liberal friends who previously supported Hillary.
      • yesimahuman, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Yea I was drunk...kind of a pointless comment like all of my comments!
    • bmc31190, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2I wish I could digg you up a second time for the Cardinals icon
    • virtualme7, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1This is just getting sad now. Any of you from Florida? The only campaigning was done by Obama and Hillary still won. I told you all, but you were to busy being hippocrates, bashing Hillary and saying you want unity. Just because you don't like Hillary doesn't mean Obama is the answer and those who would rather vote republican even tho you claim to be Dem. are just retarded. Obama ran a great campaign, but seriously he just isn't goin to win the nomination. No need to keep up with the lies. Lose with some class.
  • darrenjohnson, on 01/30/2008, -30/+81I agree. To be fair, she stands for a lot of good principles. But she cannot be trusted, so all of her positions are basically meaningless...
    • LeadOffMan, on 01/30/2008, -14/+21what good principles? stay with a cheating husband so that you can hold unto power?
      • voyvf, on 01/30/2008, -3/+9Disclaimer: I would far rather have Obama in office than Hillary. IMHO he's a much better candidate and would make a much better president.

        That said, I have to point out that if Hillary's marital choices are the best ammunition you have against her, you need to go spend some time in a library. Has it occurred to you that she might have simply forgiven him? I mean, I've seen pictures of them when they were young - they looked quite happy. It's entirely possible that she wanted to hold onto him, as opposed to holding onto power. Furthermore, I'm not certain how their marriage and the turbulence therein has anything to do with her political motivations.

        JFK cheated like a mofo with Marilyn, but you don't hear about people demonizing him for it. You know why? Because it's none of our ***** business. That's why.
        • MindStalker, on 01/30/2008, -5/+2No what we are saying is that she didn't stand up against her husband because she was concerned it would hurt her carrer. And yes MANY other politician's wifes haven't stood up against their husband, so this really isn't new, but we don't want an insecure politician's wife in the Presidency now do we? So which is it, is she insecure or is it an issue of political caution.
        • jsmith39, on 01/30/2008, -3/+2No, it's because it was Marilyn... who the heck wouldn't have tapped that. Monica? Bill was the only one willing to give her a spin and even he stopped at a BJ.
    • wildone71, on 01/30/2008, -10/+29LOL, this woman has NO principles, what are you talking about? She's as dirty as the bottom of my toilet.
      • DephexTwin, on 01/30/2008, -4/+5Hell, she's as dirty as a keyboard.
      • Kumah, on 01/30/2008, -4/+11Inaccurate. Toilets get cleaned.
      • ds22, on 01/30/2008, -1/+0Wildone needs some cleaning. Maybe Kumah can help.
  • CunningLinguist, on 01/30/2008, -16/+238My main problem with the Clintons (aside from how gleefully they play dirty politics) is if Hillary is the Democratic nomination then you will have a catalyst that unites every Republican in the country and will get out the GOP vote while at the same time many democratic supporters like myself will lose motivation to get out. What is wrong with democrats that they cannot see this?
    • SheilaNoya, on 01/30/2008, -20/+22I'm for Obama, but I'll still vote for Hillary if I must. There is no way in hell I will accept another Republican in the White House now. Besides, America was thriving under Clinton, so it might not be so bad. At least it won't be as bad as if we let a Republican win.

      Let's just hope that the Republicans who hate McCain will stay home on election day. There are plenty of them if you believe Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, James Dobson, etc.
      • LeadOffMan, on 01/30/2008, -32/+25America thrived during the 90's because of the preceeding 12 years of Republicans fixing the Carter years, and the legislative branch was controlled by conservatives. There's nothing more annoying than listening to a liberal pining for the Clinton years
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/30/2008, -20/+16The truly sad thing is, you probably believe that tripe...
        • nirav72, on 01/30/2008, -7/+30"the legislative branch was controlled by conservatives. "
          Right, and the legislative branch was controlled by republicans up until 2006. What happened there? Have you seen the economy lately? Oh did I mention the republicans controlled pretty much controlled every branch of the government since 2000? They still ***** it up!
        • NoCt1, on 01/30/2008, -19/+8@nirav

          whats wrong with the economy? We are not in a recession. The housing market collapsed? Well thank a banking system on that. Not the gov.
          • nirav72, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6"whats wrong with the economy? We are not in a recession."
            We're not a in recession? So the feds just decided to lower the interest rates by .75%. One of the largest reductions in history for NO apperant reason? Just because the fed is feeling ***** generous? We have the highest inflation period in last 26 years for no reason. We have stock markets dropping around the world for hell of it. WTF ARE YOU SMOKING???? Oh wait..you're a republican who's out of touch with the common man on the street. ***** Troll.
          • thallium205, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2A banking system created by Woodrow Wilson.. **cough** democrat **cough**
        • Bobtastic, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2NoCt1: Are you serious? I mean, really? Yes, we are in a recession. We have been in it since 9/11. It's projected to get worse. The tax refund we are all getting is all about getting money back into the economy. They want us all to go spend it. A stock collapse is projected to hit. Some analysts think it might be worse than any market fall we've ever seen (futures opened up two or three days ago to plummeting prices).
          • cmackattack, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1stimulus plan does not address the real issue...
        • voyvf, on 01/30/2008, -2/+3It's time for your revisionist history classes, folks. Just sit right down, put on the goggles, and try not to blink while watching the screen.

          Don't worry, LeadOffMan, you're doing doubleplusgood!
      • Wargalas, on 01/30/2008, -8/+16So, you like to generalize eh? Ok, I'll generalize with you. Democratic supporters are nothing more then spineless complainers who say they want a "revolution", yet aren't willing to roll up their sleeves and do something about it.

        Not all Republicans are "bad" as you say, and not all Democrats are "liars" either. But if you want to stereotype, I'll be happy to bring up several Democratic shortcomings.
      • xposiactionx, on 01/30/2008, -5/+24There isnt much difference between Hillary and the current admin. Same back door deals will be made.
        • PopcornDave, on 01/30/2008, -0/+9And for the country it's just gonna be same hole, different pole.
    • mrgreenjeans9, on 01/30/2008, -2/+12boy, you nailed that one.
    • wheezyninja, on 01/30/2008, -0/+28I definately concur, I'm a republican and I think that Obama stands closer to what I believe than any of the current GOP candidates. That being said, in my group of republican friends who aren't big fans of either GOP candidate will go and vote for them if another Clinton is on the ballot. So seriously Dem's it up to you to give me a reason to vote Dem this year...
    • CraigJ, on 01/30/2008, -1/+15You speak the truth. I'm not all that interested in any of the candidates but if Hillary gets the nomination I will take a trip to the polls specifically to vote against her.
    • lewhich, on 01/30/2008, -1/+21Democrats have that "rare" talent of choosing the wrong candidate. ...
    • Horace, on 01/30/2008, -21/+0"if Hillary is the Democratic nomination then you will have a catalyst that unites every Republican"

      As opposed to a Black Muslim?
      • allatti2d, on 01/30/2008, -0/+8OMG what an idiot. What are you doing on digg??? I thought this place was just for intelligent people. Did you sneak in a window or something?
        • bacon_skoda, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3digg? intelligent people? that left when the ron paulies came in.
        • jsmith39, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2I don't think diggers are neccesarily smarter than most people, but I did think you had to be able to log onto a computer in order to get here. Who logged you on Horrace? Who's the dirty douche who logged you on!
      • appletoapple, on 01/30/2008, -1/+9Dumbass. Obama is a Christian. Do I don't know, like 10 seconds worth of research.
        • MindStalker, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3Yes, dumbass, but I still know of several people personally who think Obama is a Muslim.
          Just saying, it will be a small factor.
          • jsmith39, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5I know, my own father is still convinced that he is not only a closet Muslim but a closet fanatical muslim. I don't know if I'm going to vote for Obama yet but damn... if you're not going to vote for the guy at least snub him accurately.
          • str1fe, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1My Chemistry teacher was talking about how he was brought up Muslim and raised be a radical Muslim father.

            I don't know how much of that is true (I haven't been doing research like I should), but it's pretty clear that he's not a Muslim now.
      • jgzman, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3One: Obama claims to be a Christian, not a Muslim
        Two: Why do we care if he's black or Muslim? I've never quite figured that out.
      • blckt, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2WTF, get off digg you racist bigot
    • Cyrus042, on 01/30/2008, -0/+7Thus is the issue of primaries in general and is also a fundamental flaw of super delegates. If Obama manages to do well on Super Tuesday and make it a tight race, the Clintons can lobby support at the DNC and push the super delegates to give Clinton the majority. If this happens and Clinton gets the nom due to super delegates, and McCain wins the Rep nom, then she will likely lose. If this happens, you can expect to see some reforms in the DNC for 2012.

      Loyal democrats need to realize that they can't just ride on the coattail of bad Republican president into office and they have to take electability into consideration. On the flip side, many republicans are realizing this and are most likely going to nominate McCain as a consolation to conservative democrats.
      • allatti2d, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1If it's Clinton vs. McCain, I think the vote will come down to just 2 things: the war and the economy.

        If a majority of Americans want to end the war, Hillary may win on that front. However, having been the victim of an idiotic war himself, McCain has a lot of influence about how to handle Iraq.

        Clinton can very well beat McCain over the economy, too; Willard Romney has already pointed out that McCain said he didn't know much about economics, so Clinton will definitely use that to her advantage. Also, on her side, Clinton has an association with a balanced budget and a national surplus from her husband's presidency.

        It's going to be a tough battle for McCain on those fronts, I think.
        • Cyrus042, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Those are definitely going to be influential things in the general election, but I don't think McCain is necessarily weak in those points. Both of them voted for the war. If McCain can argue that staying in the region is in the best interest for Americans in the long run, then he might be able to undermine Clinton especially given his military history.

          On the economy... well, McCain has always been for a balanced budget, and reducing pork barrel, both things that are important to democrats and republicans. I'm not sure who would be strongest in that realm, and it would be interesting to see them debate it out. The President only directs general policy to guide the budget, which is approved by congress, or revised etc. Their strongest power is going to be in the veto. Shutting down legislation that doesn't provide a balanced budget and in that respect, McCain is viable. (I expect Clinton would be as well)

          What it comes down to is likability. Clinton is a polarizing figure, and she has to repair that image if she wants to be viable in the general election. Politics is a mixture of policy and personality and Clinton is really hampered on personality whereas Obama is not.
        • theelectricafro, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah you are right if you want to continue to use the federal reserve banking cartel vote clinton and mccain.
          If you want more wars vote for clinton and mccain.
          Who is perpetuating the myth that there is a major policy difference between any of the media darlings?
        • babar77, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Clinton does not have an association to a balanced budget - at least not factually.
          1) She wasn't the damn president.
          2) It was Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America that forced the balanced budget down Clinton's throat. For some reason people miss that.

          The Republican party was not what it is now in the 90s. The evangelicals didn't have so much stake into the party like they do now. You can thank Clinton for that too, because he was the one that started the whole moral relativism. You never knew what the guy thought was right and wrong, and that churned up the evangelicals.

          The political environment was heavily poisoned under Clinton's regime, and that's what will happen if Hillary gets the nomination. Republicans will regurgitate all the crap from the 90s, and conservatives will march out in force.
      • jgzman, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Hell, if the superdelegates give it to Clinton, I may vote republican. At least you KNOW the Republicans are gonna screw you.
    • thallium205, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4I was not planning on voting for president, but if Hillary gets the nomination, I will have to do my duty to protect the motherland from that fascist.
    • RealHyperX, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Democrats have lost the 2008 elections. US is not ready for Obama or Clinton. 100% guaranteed. If Ron Paul goes with Bloomberg, we may have the first independent win in decades.
  • weneedobama, on 01/30/2008, -20/+79Amen to everyone. Haven't we had enough of a President who lies with every breath he takes?
    • a2fan, on 01/30/2008, -8/+33Definately don't need another lying Clinton in the White House.
      • moush, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2You seem to know a lot about these claims, please elaborate.
        • babar77, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
          "I balanced the budget" - The Republicans and the Contract with America did that. The government shut down in a showdown with Clinton because he didn't want it. Now he claims he did it!
          "I'm for gay rights" How is "don't ask don't tell" a pro-gay policy? What would he have done in the 60s if it was black and woman rights? You can't hide those facts Bill.

          He's not called "Slick Willy" for nothing.
      • ericdano, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Agreed!
    • natchiketa, on 01/30/2008, -3/+6yeah but never one that lies with every breath SHE takes, so...
      • aaabatteries, on 01/30/2008, -3/+4hillary is a woman?
        • Drax0n, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Thats debatable... but the real question is.. what sex is billary?
  • Ridgeliner7, on 01/30/2008, -22/+9Clinton/Nixon, Nixon/Clinton. Too bad Dick has passed on....what a great team Bill/Hill and Tricky Dick would have made!!
    • hmmmok, on 01/30/2008, -3/+11Nixon lied to cover up his cronies. Clinton cronies lied (and took jail sentences) to cover for the Clintons.
      • silveravnt, on 01/30/2008, -2/+7I believe Nixon's motivation was what he thought was best for America. Clinton's motivation was clearly personal gain and sexual gratification.
  • elshizzo, on 01/30/2008, -10/+88meh, this is still not even close to the worst things she's done during this campaign
    • falstaff, on 01/30/2008, -0/+11But if she manages to get her backers in the national party to reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegates at the convention, and that pushes her over the top (she's already gotten the backing of the majority of the superdelegates, I believe) she will have effectively stolen the nomination. She could very easily go into the convention winning fewer delegates than Obama in the normal primary process, but come away with the nomination. This particular lie may not seem like much by itself, but it absolutely is a part of a much bigger plan.
      • goomba323, on 01/30/2008, -4/+7That would be a shame. I fear that as well. ***** that conniving bitch. She gives women a bad name.
        • DruSam, on 01/30/2008, -1/+7Hillary Clinton gives humanity a bad name.
      • MindStalker, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3And she will in the process LOSE the general election for such an act. Many people would rather vote third party than vote for someone who cheated their way into an election.
    • theDunedan, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4If she does this, steal the nomination by seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, she will guarantee that the republican nominee wins the election.
  • StepCousin, on 01/30/2008, -13/+43I have no doubt that Hillary would perform a blumpkin for your vote.
    • LeadOffMan, on 01/30/2008, -5/+8and then have you pay for it with higher taxes after she's elected
    • xposiactionx, on 01/30/2008, -2/+26dug for the sheer horror of the mental picture you induced. well played sir.
      • StepCousin, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1If that horrifies you, I dare you to picture the same scenario in a porta-blumpkin.
    • CheLives, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Hahaha... well played indeed
    • swiftekho, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4I would vote for her NOT to give me a blumpkin
  • McCainHuck08, on 01/30/2008, -12/+7Check out "Much Ado About No Delegates", political humor from the Washington Post: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Much_Ado_About_N ...
  • FadieZ, on 01/30/2008, -14/+9Some people just need to get laid. soon.

    good thing I'M not running for president...
  • maretten, on 01/30/2008, -20/+4Whats that? The Silly Penis train!!! Wooot Wooot!
  • medalian1, on 01/30/2008, -18/+15Clinton + Obama both came to Florida recently.
  • trav12221, on 01/30/2008, -15/+5This will mean nothing if should doesnt win the nomination.

    GOBAMA!
  • dayalsoap, on 01/30/2008, -25/+20I've noticed that Digg seems to support Ron Paul and Barack Obama.
    I've pretty muched noticed that anything, relating to politics, that Digg users want, tends to not happen.
    It's going to be between Hillary and McCain, with McCain winning; deal with it.
    • ftblstr2319, on 01/30/2008, -5/+12Why? Are you happy being in a war in Iraq? Oh you must not know anyone that is over there nor care who gets killed. You do no care that the GOP lied to you and told you that Saddam was behind it all! The mastermind and he was gonna blow us up.

      McCain has no desire to get out. No clue how to unite. Only War.
      • dayalsoap, on 01/30/2008, -2/+15What makes you think the Democrats are so against interventionism? Bill Clinton had a very intervention-based foreign policy; he even signed the Iraqi Liberation act.
        And now, because of that act, the Iraqi's we gave money and weapons, to defeat Saddam, are fighting against us.
        INTERVENTION FTW
        /sarcasm.
        Seriously, both parties want big government. They just argue blindly against what the other side is doing, even if it was along the lines of what they were doing in previous years!
        And no, I don't like McCain or Hillary.
        • ftblstr2319, on 01/30/2008, -3/+11But Barack AND Ron Paul Voted AGAINST the war in the first place! That is my point.

          I'd rather have RP in their just cause he's a crazy bastard that could mix things up a bit. But Obama is second because, well he's nothing like I've ever seen before. Not completely broken down by the MACHINE

          (I'm 23)
          • Rustymetal, on 01/30/2008, -8/+4Maybe you should do some fact checking, Obama voted for the war, not the other way around.
          • allatti2d, on 01/30/2008, -0/+5Barack never voted against the war. He was not a Senator at that time. He spoke out against it, but he couldn't vote against it. He is voting to fund the war, which is not necessarily the same thing as being FOR the war.
        • brstilson, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4"Seriously, both parties want big government."

          I cannot stress enough how true that statement is.
          Democrats want to spend the money we don't have on health care, while Republicans want to spend the money we don't have on war.
          • jsmith39, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I want to spend money I don't have too, but the stupid banks won't let me. bastards.
      • schnikies79, on 01/30/2008, -0/+8The fact is, like it or not, that the Iraq war is pretty far down the list of concerns for people at the moment. You can argue about polls all you want, but for the last few weeks, Iraq has been down to at least 4th place in almost every poll I've seen, behind the economy, immigration and I don't remember the 3rd.

        I've got (close) family in Iraq, so I do care. It just seems that most of America, including democrats, don't. You rarely hear about it in either side's debates anymore. It's just turning out to be a non-issue in this election.
        • ftblstr2319, on 01/30/2008, -2/+6Alright lets talk about the economy. Well *****, by some strange twist of fate..we seem to be spending billions every week on that "thing noone cares about" which is less important to people than a couple mexicans jumping over the border.
          • schnikies79, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying the way it is. You can have any opinion you want, but it doesn't jive with the current state of things. Overall, the American people (and the candidates) just aren't that worried about Iraq. It's not at the forefront of any discussion and it's not going to be a decider in the upcoming election. The economic worries are directly related to the housing crunch, not the war, if you go by what the candidates are saying.

            We shouldn't be spending those billions on anything. I'm a firm believer that the government should have a balanced budget, no matter what the circumstances are. Hell, a spending cap for the federal government wouldn't bad either, say no more than a 3% increase over inflation per year.
    • martalli, on 01/30/2008, -0/+14Point taken, but I hope you are wrong.
    • test5477, on 01/30/2008, -7/+4good find, yes the digg community is completely out of touch in their choices.
      keep dreaming people. Hillary '08
      • Drax0n, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Silly people! and their dreaming of a life without a liar in teh whitehouse.
        How absurd. We can't have a president tell the truth it could be the end of america as we know it!
        Go Billary 08!
    • macguy815, on 01/30/2008, -1/+5Obama is winning in terms of delegates at the moment... it's very much so anyone's race.
      • schnikies79, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Unless I'm not reading it right, this shows that Clinton is leading in delegates, 232 to 138. I don't fully understand the primary process, so I could very well be wrong, but every delegate count I've seen has Hillary ahead.

        http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ...
        • MindStalker, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2They are including Super-Delegates in that count. Essentially all Democatic House and Senate members plus another 400 or so of "important" democrats all get votes. So far around 200 have come out and promised their support of Hillary another 100 have promised their support for Obama, and the rest are undecided.

          The Public does NOT ultimately make the choice in the democratic primary, its all about the super-delegates, THOUGH the public does sway this by a lot as the super delegates wouldn't go against someone who won overwhelmingly.
    • breezytrees, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3Republicans won't win this election.
      • dayalsoap, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4Well, considering McCain will be going up against Hillary, I wouldn't count it out.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2meh.. I'm not so sure.. Hillary is awful
      • Drax0n, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1It will be quite easy for the republicans to beat hillary...
    • cococrispies, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1oh i forgot dayasoap was
      a) a fortune teller
      b) a political analyst
      c) a tool
      d) all of the above
    • JohnBoyer, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1with McCain winning?
      On what basis? Continue the Iraq war. More wars coming. No economics exp. The jobs arn't coming back. Hates "gooks."
      are you joking?
      • dayalsoap, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2I like how people fail to understand that what they want, and believe is correct, is not what's going to happen.

        The people are going to vote for McCain over Hillary. Deal with it.
      • Drax0n, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Sigh... the sad thing is as much as I disagree with McCain, I respect him he tell tell it like he sees it (even if I think he's wrong) for instance the time he said "most those jobs arn't coming back" guess what!? he was right they arn't and no amount of wishfull thinking, day dreaming, or political lieing (most candidates would ahve said vote for me and i'll get them back) no amount of any of that will magically get those jobs back.

        Funny how people claim to want honesty... yet when someone gives you honesty you dont want to hear you blow up again. As for war yes I agree with you he is for the war, he is a military man who has served and even spent time as a pow. So even though i think he is wrong he knows a hell of a lot more than you or I ever will about wars.
  • hydroplane, on 01/30/2008, -3/+7The goggles! They do nothing!
    • codyman, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4Bill Clinton must have a custom pair of goggles cause otherwise I don't know how he does it.... unless he's lying about his love... which actually makes more sense because he has lied in that area before....
    • dev0null, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1maybe it's more "business" than "pleasure".
  • turbopro, on 01/30/2008, -15/+16***** her couch. Seriously, WTF.
  • FloorModel, on 01/30/2008, -12/+19god people whine too much. She must threaten people quite a bit. My motto is: don't whine about it now, just make sure you vote later.
    • illwil, on 01/30/2008, -6/+1I tire, also, of insecure people "picking at the low hanging fruit."
      She signed something that said she wouldn't campaign in Florida, and then she campaigned, and a bunch of Hillary detractors complain about it? Apparently, she now sees value in spreading her message to people in the state.
      The only thing worse than a politician is a policital critic.
      • Ravatar, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3She's also fighting to get Florida's delegates reinstated AFTER THE FACT. As well as Michigans despite the fact she was the ONLY candidate on the ballot.
    • manicallday, on 01/30/2008, -1/+5Like voting matters anymore. Diiebold decides for us now.
      • GhostyBoy, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2Let the media help, too.

        Kuccinich, Paul and Gravel supporters: Open invitation up to Canada! I want more people in my country who make critical decisions based on intelligence instead of what the television says. We have REAL VOTING too!
    • likesoy, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6"Threatened"? You mean in the trite feminist sense?
      Um, no. That's a cop-out, and counter-feminist, to be honest. Being a woman should not be a license to be an a$$hole without consequence.
      No, people just don't like her. She's snarky, smug, cynical and shrill and as this case demonstrates, completely insincere.
    • theDunedan, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2What you call whining, I call free speech. Stop trying to intimidate people from saying what they think.
    • SkinnerBox, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1He's right, none of this matters if young people don't vote. It's our disillusionment that keeps old people choosing crappy candidate after crappy candidate.
  • test5477, on 01/30/2008, -23/+11People are such whiners. She did not go to Florida till the polls were closed, she will win big in this debate and will win on Super Tuesday. She actually can give explanation of her plans, her ideas are not just dreams like Obama loves to PREACH. I like them both but the Obama Diggers are making me go for her all the way.

    Hillary '08, She can get things done, not just talk about them.


    • StarlessKnight, on 01/30/2008, -0/+7"I like them both but the Obama Diggers are making me go for her all the way." Your decision is swayed just by the behavior of a candidate's supporters, despite the fact the candidate almost certainly doesn't know them from Adam or Eve and most likely hasn't endorsed their behavior? You just want to get back at those "Obama Diggers" by voting for the "other guy (gal)?" Well, that's your right, of course, but it's petty.

      PS: No one is *making* you vote/support either way except arguably the media, but that's a different story.
    • catalysis, on 01/30/2008, -1/+10Hillary supporters are exactly like Bush supporters. They will let her do or say anything and still defend her until the pathetic end.
    • manicallday, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4What has she exactly done besides ***** a president? Other than that, I really don't know why she's even on the stage. She's a horrible choice. I think that McCain would be a better Democratic choice than Hillary.
      • CraigJ, on 01/30/2008, -1/+6Big assumption. (I don't think Bill's hit that since 1970)
      • allatti2d, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3manicallday - I think yours is one of the more ignorant comments I've read all day. Why don't you look ***** up? Are you too lazy? You just want to jump on some hateful bandwagon?
    • test5477, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4and this is the reason why digg people are usually ignorant when it comes to politics. To even think that all she has done is sleep with Bill is the stupidest thing i have heard. Do some homework little kid, she has done a lot, certainly more than Obama has.

      Starless, I was for Hillary before the digg Obama bandwagon formed, nothig petty about my support, no spite involved.

      Catalysis, Obama supporters are mesmerized by his speech, by the dreams he talks about but when it gets down to details his followers have now clue because Obama doesn't either.
      • cknyan, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Right on the money. Obama's given no real answers. Hope is nice to have, but it's not gonna solve anything unless it's support actual plans.
    • brstilson, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Your right to vote should be revoked if you're going to do so for such asinine reasons
      • rubicante, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I don't think voters think the way you think they think, and that's not to say it's asinine because we're all guilty of it to a degree.
        http://tinyurl.com/2hqsdl [nytimes.com]
    • Drax0n, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1The ONLY thing Billary would get done is start World War 3

      And line the pockets of her supporters on cash.
  • Hodor, on 01/30/2008, -7/+10Wow, a politician that changed their mind/position/lies/whatnot? Ruh Roh, that's NEWS.
  • ant9821, on 01/30/2008, -15/+29If you read the comments of the article, people from FL are saying that she did NOT campaign in FL. Not that I like Hillary or anything, but false news is false news. Buried as inaccurate.
    • LuxFX, on 01/30/2008, -2/+5But if you read the article itself, you'll see she "signed a pledge not to "campaign or _participate_"" (emphasis mine). Speaking to the voters is participating, no matter how you cut it. Yes, she technically only did so within the state lines after the polls had closed, but 'participation' covers taking any part in the voting process at all. And after-polls-closed speeches are common and part of the process. Also just because she didn't campaign for FL while _in_ FL meant that she wasn't doing anything wrong. Her pledge was not to campaign in the Florida _primary_, not just within the Florida _state lines_.
    • cusoman, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4What the FL people aren't understanding is that "campaigning" doesn't just mean "the actual candidate going to the state and talking with people", it also includes any advocacy and things that the campaign offices do, and according to a lot of sources, there were a lot of campaign workers out speaking for Hillary.
    • sagat, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1She was down there "fundraising" a couple of times before the poll. Fundraising my arse!
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/30/2008, -24/+37LOL!

    Arriving after the polls close is campaigning?!

    It's amazing how people will lie to demonize Hillary...
    • elliotys, on 01/30/2008, -8/+20Seriously. "DIGG HATES THE ***** OUT OF HILLARY", should be the title of every Hillary Clinton story.
      • jsmith39, on 01/30/2008, -3/+5You say that like is a bad thing
      • elliotys, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1It is what it is. I just hope it's based off policy, and not petty personal attacks.
    • Optic7, on 01/30/2008, -4/+3Publicly talking about how you're going to make an appearance in the state on the night of the election, and also releasing statements before the election saying that you're going to seat the Florida delegates is tantamount to campaigning.
      • noelsusman, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Just because you used the word tantamount doesn't make that statement any more true. To campaign in a state, usually you have to run ads and actually be in the state before the polls close. Is the woman not allowed to thank those sorry souls who voted for her?

        I hate Hillary just as much as the next guy, but this story is completely ridiculous
    • solistus, on 01/30/2008, -1/+4Agreed. The whole thing is ridiculous. I'm an Obama supporter (inasmuch as I support _any_ of these tools, Obama is the least repugnant), but misrepresenting Hillary's trip to Florida is unnecessary. She looks silly enough for staging a victory celebration in a state with no delegates and no competitive campaigning.

      Optic7: Oh, come on. The DNC rules don't require the candidates to boycott the states entirely or pretend they don't exist; the rules simply state no campaigning until after the primaries have been held. Publicising a planned trip to the state after the elections are to be held does not break those rules. She certainly changed her tune a bit on Florida, but it's hardly the massive hypocrisy it's being spun into.
    • Kruez, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1You're right, there's no need to lie to demonize her. The truth will do it for us.
  • notfaded1, on 01/30/2008, -8/+30Hillary vs. McCain is the best situation for the GOP. McCain can actually beat Hillary. He can get the center vote and many liberals who don't like the Clinton's. If the GOP base realizes it soon enough and can learn to except McCain which some signs show is starting to happen... could be be ingredients for a real race.
    • popstop785, on 01/30/2008, -15/+1liberals are *****
      • MicrosoftBob, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1Why don't you go tell that to some of the liberal Marines I know.

        That's what I thought.
        • breezytrees, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Is that what you thought? really?
      • jsebrech, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1If you're not old enough to vote, you should stay out of these political discussions.

        Run along now, kiddo.
        • solistus, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1This is the second dumbest comment on this thread (the dumbest being jsebrech, of course). If you're under 18, you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion? jsebrech may very well have been 30; he's just an idiot. I know plenty of high school-aged people who would never use '*****' as a derogatory term and have a far more advanced understanding of politics than the parent displayed, and I know plenty of voting aged people who are ***** morons.
      • jsmith39, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1All the Republicans that got bitch slapped out of the closet in the last year and that's the line you're going with?
    • pjpark, on 01/30/2008, -6/+5There isn't enough difference between McCain and Hillary for it to matter who wins if they are the nominees. McCain winning against Hillary would be worse for Republicnas than George Bush. Remember, the worst things Bush did were done with the help and support of John McCain. The only thing John McCain fought President Bush on was lower tax rates. So John McCain = George Bush plus Higher Taxes = Hillary Clinton. They even run their campaigns the same way; i.e., lying about their records and their opponents.
      • sindex, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4That may be true, but many people (like my freaking parents) still think of McCain as the ballsy maverick from 2000 because they haven't paid attention to his complete shift in positions in the last 8 years. Regardless of politics, I think McCain could beat Hillary. Romney may even be able to beat Hillary (although I find that hard to believe). But no one's going to beat Obama if he manages to maintain the momentum he's riding right now. No one.
        • allatti2d, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3I think our world would be a lot better right now if McCain had been president on 9/11/01 instead of Bush. I could be wrong, but I think McCain would have made better choices at that time... like yes to Afghanistan and NO to invading Iraq.
          • sindex, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Pure speculation, but I entirely agree.
        • pjpark, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I don't see Obama being that unstoppable. He'll still have to win on something other than platitudes, and I don't think the big government give-aways will win the day for either he or Hillary against a conservative -- even with the head start Bush gives them.
        • Mike668, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I don't know about that. Obama is a lot further left than Hillary and a more centrist candidate is likely to be more successful.
      • allatti2d, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2pjpark - great observation! I liked John McCain until he became a Bushie. But you are right about going along those lines of McCain=Bush, which I hadn't thought of before.

        I know that McCain and Clinton are good friends, too, which would make for a really weird fight. And I don't necessarily think that Clinton would equal higher taxes, because anything she does to end the war would seem like tax relief to everyone. It seems that these days the Democrats are the ones who are fiscally conservative, not the Bushpublicans.
    • breezytrees, on 01/30/2008, -2/+3McCain vs Hillary would be the worst election in united states history.... ugh

      I sense it happening, however.. :-/
      • jsmith39, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2I see what you're saying but still I think the Bush vs. whomever the Dems settled on elections of the last 8 will stand the test of time when it comes to worst elections
    • arplayer2k, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1The presidency worse than Gerorge W's, just when we thought things couldn't get worse.... McCain or HIllary in office. I have seriously lost faith in the system/country/people.
  • tufftugg, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Compared to what other Politician?
  • katie212, on 01/30/2008, -11/+21Just say NO to warmongering McCain!
  • SEGA4life, on 01/30/2008, -11/+6Wow a politician doing something wrong and dishonest? You act like this is the first time.

    This election is to be (President Of The United States) not President of a Book Club, you do what you have to, to win.

    I live in Florida, I see commercials non stop on TV from everyone of the people running, isn't that in some way campaigning?
  • employeeno5, on 01/30/2008, -8/+31Hi, I live in New Hampshire.
    Though they may be right about Hillary breaking her word, I think it's important that you know a couple things about the Union Leader (the paper publishing). They are well know for being about as crazy as Fox News when it comes to right wing make-believe baby talk on issues, not just spinning but making things up, and completely failing to ever bring proper focus to vital issues nationally and abroad (like the fact we're in a couple wars and our economy is in taters; their excuse being that they specialize in local news). Yet, they're famous for publishing right-wing tirades on the front page rather than the editorial section.
    I don't like Hillary, and the article has totally valid points, but I just wanted to enlighten people a bit on it's source.
    • employeeno5, on 01/30/2008, -0/+7I'm hearing now that she didn't campaign in Florida; I don't know the facts. It wouldn't surprise me though. It goes to what I wrote above, as much I don't like her, be very wary of anything the Union Leader publishes. They are in fantasy land; like Stan Smith from "American Dad" level of fantasy.
      • Touchet, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0She did campaign there, but didn't not break any agreement, the agreement between all of them was that they were allowed to campaign after the primary was done. Also, they were allowed to hold fund raisers as well. The article is totally bogus. When you EVER hear an arguement that has any kind of attack in it. It is false. For instance, Billy is a lier, therefore you shouldn't vote for him. This is an abusive fallacy. Just calling someone a lier doesn't count. Why is he a liar. If you say it is because someone said so, even if that person is an authority in your eyes, doesn't mean its correct. In fact that is yet another fallacy called a call to authority. For example, Tim is a great guy, he says Billy is a liar, therefore Billy has to be a liar. You are right to say you don't know the facts. I applaud you for at least admitting that much, it made your arguement a whole lot more respectable.
    • MrTito, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Mmm, taters...
  • drunkturkey, on 01/30/2008, -13/+4If anything, this shows that she actually cares about people in those states and not about politics as dictated by the DNC. I do not necessarily agree with her politics, and I've long thought that she is the "establishment" candidate - but this also shows that she can be anti-establishment if it suites her.
    • breezytrees, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4allow me to paraphrase:

      "She loves playing the establishment because it's easier to lobby for funds and power, but she'll also go against all that if necessary to benefit herself for her own personal gain."

      Hillary *CARES*
      • drunkturkey, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1I didn't say I agree with her - but those qualities do make a hell of a politician!
  • amr05h, on 01/30/2008, -9/+51Hey guys...
    She didn't campaign in Florida. I live here, I know - no television ads, no open appearances, no kissing of babies. She came for fund raising, just the same as Obama did, and came down here after the Polls closed yesterday.
    • bigfatpaulie, on 01/30/2008, -2/+11Going out of her way to say how she wants Florida delegates to count right before the primary is courting the Florida vote.
      • moduc, on 01/30/2008, -8/+6Making a whole state's vote mattered doesn't court any particular vote. That's courting for everyone. That makes Hilary a winner. It shows she cares for people. I'll get dug down for this. But heck, you can't go against the hurricane of hate here, but shut up is not a solution either.
      • allatti2d, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3Well duh! You think she's gonna say to Florida, "Don't vote for me in November"?? If YOU were running for President, you'd want to "court" as many states as you could, especially Florida, which carries a ton of electoral votes in the general election.
      • amr05h, on 01/30/2008, -5/+6Everybody wants Florida Delegates to count. Nobody wants to see an entire state of voters punished for what their legislature did. She's stating the obvious, not 'courting voters'.
        • jsebrech, on 01/30/2008, -3/+2Well, then they should organize another vote later in the season. They did it to themselves.
        • amr05h, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2If by 'They' you mean 'Their Legislature' then yes, yes you would be correct. No Florida voter went out there and said MOVE THE DATE UP! It was a political move by guys in our REPUBLICAN LED legislature to remove the Democratic Delegates. (Republicans only lost 1/2 of those delegates, good deal to silence the democrats of our state.)
          The voters did not do it to themselves, so stop punishing them and start putting a microscope up to the dirty politics happening in Tallahassee.
  • Barbrady, on 01/30/2008, -12/+7Libs are just now figuring this out? Conservatives had her pegged 15 years ago.
  • YodaJones, on 01/30/2008, -19/+21Hillary sucks. Oh wait, Monica told me she doesn't.
    • Timbertron3000, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Wow, way to hit someone below their [husband's] belt.

      Cold, evil and unforgiving. It must be election time.
  • popstop785, on 01/30/2008, -23/+1Osama erhm, I mean Obama and Bitchton erhm, I mean Clinton are the two worst people to run for pres. on the Dem. side.
    I am sorry but I do not like anything they say they are going to do. Not to mention I think half of the things they say is *****.
    People are voting for color and a vagina. . . *****, people do not even care what they say. People are making their choice based on the candidates genes, how sexist and racist is that crap.
    • Rustymetal, on 01/30/2008, -6/+1lmao yeah digg this man down because its true. The amercian sheep retards vote like this.
      • popstop785, on 01/30/2008, -4/+0They always do. They want to turn their backs to the truth and when someone informs them of it they get mad.
    • omega6, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I'm going to have to disagree with you. While some may do this, the majority are not voting based on color/sex. I've heard a lot of people say this but then when asked who they are voting for they say one of those very people even tho they are, say a white male. People aren't voting based on that, they just think everyone else is voting based on that. A very interesting situation but you are incorrect in your assumption.
    • sindex, on 01/30/2008, -0/+6You're calling a woman a bitch and "vagina" and implying a connection between a black American and a Middle Eastern terrorist mastermind, yet you're calling others sexist and racist? ***** a pile of you, hypocrite.
      Even if I thought you were correct in your assessment on why people support these two candidates, I'd be embarrassed to share your opinion.
      • jsmith39, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3I want to dig you up but '***** a pile of you'? I just can't do it.
    • skabyss, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Sorry, but did you think that 'Bitchton' crack was clever?
  • ninsei, on 01/30/2008, -4/+23Did anyone read the comments posted below the article?

    FTA:
    Just wondering if you got my comment submitted last night. I'lll say it again. Hillary did not campaign down here. You were wrong to say so. She did come in after the polls closed to thanks her supporters. As for Obama, I did not see, but heard in the news his TV ads did get into northern Fl. I would suggest he could have paid a brief visit last evening here to thank people who suportedhim.
    - Joanne Hannon, Pinellas Park, FL
    • moduc, on 01/30/2008, -3/+5IF your fact is correct, then it shows how much hatred and clueless, and baseless the Dig haters here are. If Hillary is not trust worthy, I rather have those 8 years of the Clinton's untrusted admin than any others. They have proved that they're trust worthy. They earned. None of you did to that level because none of you have been president.
  • highorbit, on 01/30/2008, -15/+5Bitch.
  • lgfaphile, on 01/30/2008, -16/+7"Hillary's word: It's worth nothing"

    No surprise there...she's a Clinton.

  • slapout, on 01/30/2008, -13/+4Republicans tried to tell you that you couldn't believe Bill or Hillary for 8 years and nobody would listen.
    • elliotys, on 01/30/2008, -2/+9Then they took over, and ***** everything up.
    • spamthecatcher, on 01/30/2008, -2/+3Republicans told me that I could believe W for 8 years. Too many people listened.
  • neiltc13, on 01/30/2008, -15/+6Since she's the next President of the USA, I kinda think her word is worth SOMETHING.
    • Mjolniir, on 01/30/2008, -1/+5She would be as bad as Bush. Don't talk such nightmarish nonsense.
      • allatti2d, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Would you please explain exactly how she would be "as bad as Bush"? I'd like details. To me the only people who would be "as bad as Bush" are all the Republicans (except for Ron Paul); a Democrat in office would be a huge improvement, even if that person isn't very good. And I'm not a Democrat! I have a lot of conservative views. But conservative does NOT equal war.
    • Orb9, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1troll..
  • thickape, on 01/30/2008, -2/+16It really depends on what your definitions of the words "campaign" and "participate" are.
    • dev0null, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2like the what the definition of "is" is?
  • jm4847, on 01/30/2008, -5/+7Don't be so naive people, most politicians's word is worthless, and the ones that are honest never get ahead.
  • Isoptera4, on 01/30/2008, -6/+12Obama is not much better as a politician than Hilary. Gravel has it right on nearly every issue yet and refuses to play the political game and yet he gets no attention. Both of those morons think a border fence will work which is pretty sad. Both of them refuse to buck up on the war. Neither is a good choice what with Hilary a liar and Obama with an indecisive voting record especially on morally controversial issues like women's rights and homosexuals' rights. I'm voting for Gravel because he is right on the issues. When he loses I will be forced to vote for one of these asses because both are better than any contard candidate on the board right now.
    • itchcity, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Thank you
    • tahney, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Gravel isn't in the CFR, neither is Dennis Kucinich. Neither is Ron Paul. Everyone else running for President is CFR. In order to get mass media promotion and attention, you must belong to the CFR or have strong ties to members in the CFR. There has not been a presidential administration in my lifetime that has not had connections to the CFR. Either the President, Vice President, or both were members. Everyone sitting on the Supreme Court is a member of the CFR. All of the mainstream media companies belong to the CFR. It makes sense that corporately owned mass media wants the American people to vote for the people that will persue the best interests of Corporate America, instead of allowing people to vote for real, honest politicians who will represent the American People.

      If you want to stop this from happening, STOP voting for people who belong to the CFR. Don't vote for them ever because they will sell us all out to corporate america and special interests.
    • BlackJackJester, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I don't give a ***** about rights. How about the government stop making stupid laws about abortion, homosexuals, women, blacks, etc when the constitution already has it laid out. Seriously.
  • omgsideburns, on 01/30/2008, -3/+11what's it matter if they campaigned here? no delegates, our votes were useless. =(
    • amr05h, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1http://www.wtxl.tv/global/story.asp?s=7793042

      We did something about it :)
    • dev0null, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1Hillary wants to claim a victory, even a meaningless victory trumped up for the news cycle, to make up for momentum lost in South Carolina.
      The more you're paying attention, the less it means. The problem is the opposite is true too.
  • OriginalLucid1, on 01/30/2008, -15/+6I still get a kick out of the fact that you libs are just now acknowledging the fact that the Clintons are pathological liars!
    • spamthecatcher, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2I think that it's pretty amusing that you think all of us libs are buying into your ***** about anything, Clinton or otherwise.
  • johnbutler06, on 01/30/2008, -13/+7Is anyone really suprised that this woman has lied (again)?
  • NoCt1, on 01/30/2008, -5/+13Buried for unreliable source. Come on people lets try to keep the garbage off the front page. I expect to see things about pr0n and Richard pryor and chubby chase..(earlier headline)
  • elliotys, on 01/30/2008, -3/+15The real story hear is how dumb-***** retarded the democratic party has been (embarrassed cause im a member). Florida is a state that can really go either way, and was crucial for the republicans to win the 2000 election. So what does the "national democratic party" decide to do, tell every candidate not to campaign there? If I were a democrat in Florida, I would be pissed off (actually Im one in oregon and im pissed off). Seriously why the ***** does the democratic party have to be so cannibalistic. In my opinion, non of the candidates should have listened to the party, and instead should have campaigned aggresively in Florida.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 01/30/2008, -5/+2f**ck the DNC!
    • appletoapple, on 01/30/2008, -1/+5I totaly agree. They shot themselves in the foot on this one.
    • allatti2d, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2I'm not affiliated with a political party, and I'm also pissed about Florida and Michigan because the DNC has effectively told a huge segment of people that they don't count, their voices are being ignored, and that is the complete antithesis of democracy.
    • joshbradley, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1It is a bummer deal, but these campaigns are focused on winning their parties nomination. They need to conserve their resources for states that will give them delegates. The DNC may have shot themselves in the foot in November, but the candidates are just doing what is best for their campaign for the nomination.
    • oetyman, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0The problem is, if the DNC didn't do anything to Mich & FL, there is no way they could have any control at all over this or future year's primary schedules. Each state would crave the attention they receive and further front load the process. If you want to rail on anyone, rail on those states' selfish democratic leadership, they put themselves and/or their party into a no-win situation.
      Given that, this does suck for some key states where their Democratic 'leadership' messed them over. Any nominated person will need to reach out to those states to be inclusive.
      • elliotys, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I see what your saying, but whats wrong with front loading the process? Is it possible the DNC has ill-concieved rules?
        • oetyman, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0If you overload the front end, a decisive amount of the delegates could be distributed before the positions are state/refined/heard... and the candidates are able to get exposure. Front loading too much would hurt the democratic candidates overall. Now the current schedule process, if reviewed by a good game-theory dude would probably be sub-optimal but the answer isn't for the individual states to go off-menu and make their own decisions. And a candidate in desparation shouldn't try and take advantage of that.
    • dunamis99, on 02/03/2008, -0/+0The fact is the rules are the rules. The practical reason that you do not have any states other than Iowa, New Hampshire and now Nevada and South Carolina...are they are small states that are easier to campaign in and buy media time in. The field can be winnowed down and the process is more efficient. That is the reason. It isn't like the GOP and the DNC changed the rules after the game started....the GOP stripped them of half...the DNC said they were going to take them all if they moved it before Feb....because they didn't play by the rules and they did what they wanted to do...they don't get a say. What MI and FL voters should do is kickout the idiots that let it happen.
      I am not a prophet...but I am going to predict something...I promise you that Bill and Hillary are going to cry and complain and talk about how "disenfranchised" the voters are...and how wrong it is that MI and FL didn't get a say...then bring up how the election was stolen from Gore, etc. etc., etc.
      I supported Gore...but he was STUPID to ask for a recount in certain counties and not statewide. THAT is why he lost...you can't change the rules after the fact.
      The fact is if you join an organization...and they have rules you eithe r follow them or leave and do your own thing. It won't matter to Billary..because they have to win at all costs....and if they lie or twist the truth or take advantage of someone's ignorance....that is what they do.
  • Zecchetti, on 01/30/2008, -20/+6Quit voting for liars,

    Vote Ron Paul
    • BMNB1tches, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3808/robpaulpv8 ...
    • elliotys, on 01/30/2008, -2/+7Is it the fact he doesn't believe in separation of church and state, evolution, social programs, regulating big business, or federally funded education, why you like him? Just wondering?
      • Chux0r, on 01/30/2008, -5/+2An obvious troll, or just ignorance? I can't decide, so I'm replying. I'm disappointed in his comment about evolution, but it doesn't change the fact that he supports freedom of religion as dictated by the constitution, against FEDERAL social programs (constitution), federally funded education is stupid and wasteful (and not permitted by the constitution), and businesses only need regulating because they're GRANTED monopoly powers by the government (which is not allowed by the constitution). States can and will handle social programs and education much better than the federal government.
        • elliotys, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2I guess my problem with his religious stance is he is alright with states establishing religions (even though he doesn't specifically endorse it, which in my opinion is contrary to the constitution). My next question is did you go to college, and when? (just wondering how you paid for it). I am currently in my second year of pharmacy school (6 yr of college). My cost of living is 25000 during the school year, and without federal loans I would not be able to attend. I disagree with you about the states ability to handle social and education programs, simply because there are some very poor states, with little resources where I think these programs would suffer horribly. Finally I can see you believe in Evolution, or rather understand what it is, aren't you concerned about peoples levels of rationality who dismiss it. Anyways thanks for your response and feel free to reply.
  • baronsmeg, on 01/30/2008, -2/+4WOW this is funny, reading the comment here on digg, and on the unionleader, about this article...

    it's like night and day!
  • SinnopS, on 01/30/2008, -2/+15the 'Union Missleader' is a rag. I'm from Manchester and know exactly how this paper distorts the truth to get to its own ends. The editor LOVES Mcain so much its not even funny. Besides, this article does not even have an author attached to it. Who wrote this trash? Weather or not Clinton is a liar, i would not trust this news source.
    • Soyea, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2you must be import from MA. laughing.
    • NSResponder, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1"the 'Union Missleader' is a rag. "

      Can you refute what they stated, which is that Clinton pledged to do something, and then broke her word?

      Didn't think so. Thanks for playing.

      -jcr
  • lunarcanary, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0Digg is filled with Obama fanboys (which is okay, I have nothing against him) But many of his fans are idealizing with the idea that he will magically rid the country of all hypocrisy and wrong. Get this fairy tale out of your head. Speaking skills and Image != Presidential ability. Look at the issues -- after all, they are running for the same party for God sakes.
    • kgriffis, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0And Hillary? She is our Savior? No, she is exactly what I am and many here are hoping for and that is a fresh new direction in Washington. Caroline Kennedy endorsed him because she feels he is what people saw when they elected JFK. Well we could do with another JFK but not another Clinton.
  • kgriffis, on 01/30/2008, -1/+0Dirty politics at it's finest. Billary is also very successful in labeling Obama as the "Black" candidate instead of the "presidential" Candidate. She is racist from the word go. For the record, I am white.
    • popstop785, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1How can you call him black if he is half white?
      I really hate that when a person has a white and black parent and they claim the race that benefits them at the time.
      I am sorry but if you are born in America you are not "African-American" you are a damn American. He was not born in Africa so why claim African? *****, in that case I am Black, White, Irish, Swedish, and the list can go on.


      • kgriffis, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0You just make the same point I did. Exactly, we are all American's not blacks, whites, reds, or yellows but American's.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 144 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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