digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at gawker.com

Hillary Is Done, Say Three Big Media Outlets

gawker.com — Matt Drudge, Tim Russert of MSNBC and adviser to President Bill Clinton David Gergen on CNN all say Hillary is done.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tcbishop12, on 05/07/2008, -20/+121Clinton needs to say she's done. I am hoping her supporters will convince her to do so soon, for the future and good of the party (and this nation).
    • tfletch, on 05/07/2008, -5/+14This is somewhat of a misleading headline
      • pedo, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2more like inaccurate headline. i didn't know douchebag conservative/tabloid bloggers had the power to announce call the winner of the democratic primary election....
    • rholland356, on 05/07/2008, -5/+35I think it is time for Hillary Clinton to DEMONSTRATE her vaunted degree of JUDGEMENT, thank the country for validating her as a national politician, BOW OUT gracefully, then GIVE FULL SUPPORT TO BARACK OBAMA. Otherwise, she is cements her reputation as just another uppity white baby boomer bitch.
      • Gorgamel, on 05/08/2008, -2/+13I like to EMPHASIZE every other WORD by CAPITALIZING to get my POINT ACROSS.
        • rholland356, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Thank you, NET NANNY, that is precisely what I did and precisely why I did it. Thank you for recognizing and saluting my written precision. After looking at the way Digg places that animated display ad in the upper right, I felt it was important to compete with those badly dancing mortgage lenders.

          There are very few text-only techniques for adding emphasis. Do you phone your local newspaper editor each day when you run across words in bold or italics? How do you react to the display ads? I doubt a few caps words hurt your little eyeballs, so I can only conclude you have, well, nothing to add to the conversation.
    • 11b1p, on 05/07/2008, -11/+9Half the people that voted disagree
      • 5celery, on 05/07/2008, -7/+15and a good portion of them seem to be republicans
        • omnis, on 05/07/2008, -6/+4No proof. Just skepticism.
        • jp12380, on 05/07/2008, -3/+10Yeah there is no "proof" other then people polled had admitted they were republicans that had no intention of voting for her in the actual election.
        • 11b1p, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2how many do you think actually did that honestly?
          • 5celery, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3exit polls indicate that 13% of them did
        • Tacob5005, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3I know for a fact my father does it.
      • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 05/07/2008, -14/+6Actually more than half. She still leads Obama in the total popular vote.
      • Gigs, on 05/08/2008, -1/+10Wrong. As of April 24, after PA, she had a 100,000 popular vote lead if you count MI and FL. After last night, Obama gained about 225,000 in NC, and lost about 25,000 (all Op Chaos Repulicans) in IN. SO, hes about 100,000 in the lead now, even if you count the rogue states.
        Q.E.D. Shes ***** in every hole.
        Why do you think she wasn't bragging about it??
        Here's the article about her lead after PA: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/24/campaign.wr ...
        • KingPsyz, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2and you can't count the rouge votes anyway. so the point is moot.

          Hillary knew what she was doing by campaigning in the rouge primaries, she started it after Obama took the first contest by upwards of 20% if memory serves and knew it might be a backdoor to her nomination.

          Is this really who the other dems want in charge of this country? a manipulative and coniving politician of the worst order?
          • KMartSheriff, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1You actually want that crazy bitch to win? Jesus whats wrong with you. I mean sure Obama's not perfect, but Hilary!? Yikes...no wonder this country is so ***** up.
          • KingPsyz, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1are you retarded?

            I'm pretty sure I just slammed Hillary for campaigning regardless of party rules in two primaries that ment about as much as a high school ASB election.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/07/2008, -3/+5No!!!
      She needs to wind down and gradually and endorse Obama.

      That would be a lot better then simply announcing her submission, and reluctantly wishing Obama well.
      • dn11, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2I think you're right. It would be best if she started to run a Huckabee like campaign. She needs to go on for a bit longer but stop attacking Obama, in fact she needs to start praising him and aim her attacks at McCain. She has to start easing her supporters who she has turned against Obama so harshly back over to reality.
    • runCMD, on 05/07/2008, -7/+6WHY tell voters that disagree with you that they don't deserve the chance to disagree ? Is voting no longer a right ?
      Go Hillary Clinton : ) Thank you for standing up to the drone mentality and pouring your heart, soul, and your own money into this race. I am convinced you are fighting FOR this country and you have my vote.
      • apophenic, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2Voting in primary contests is not a right, no. People later on in the cycle rarely get the chance to vote in any kind of meaningful way.
      • Kyan, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Yes, thank you for pouring your money into this race. Now please pay off your campaign vendor debts. kthxbai.
    • apophenic, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Clinton's supporters will never do that. If they haven't accepted the delegate math for weeks, they're not going to suddenly realize it now.
    • incredibilistic, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2The problem with the MSM asking/telling her to drop out is that this just stokes her fire to continue to move on. The media is so fickle and they need to stop trying to push Hillary out of the race and allow her to do it on her own and realize that no matter what she won't get enough delegates to win the nomination.

      I think Obama has been through the worst of it and with the MSM already declaring "Wright Free Zones" there's little chance this will have any effect on him in the general election and yet he's still on top. And while she should quit it won't happen unless SHE makes the decision and if history is any indication she won't quit until the Super Delegates vote her out.
    • CanIGetAWitness, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1You might be confusing Clinton supporters with Democratic party supporters.
    • stilesja, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Oh so when the MSM is telling us what we want to hear then they are relevant?
    • mattlreese, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Yeah but there is a strong chance she will win WVA next week which will give her enough reason to stick around even longer.
  • scy1192, on 05/07/2008, -66/+522digg this comment up for Obama and down for Clinton
    • MattNF, on 05/07/2008, -32/+21That's a clever way to get dugg.
    • zephc, on 05/07/2008, -31/+12I'm writing in Ron Paul this November, but unfortunately there is no thumb button sticking outwards from the screen, orthognonal to the up/down buttons; McCain would already have both the left AND right thumb buttons.
      • zephc, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10Oops, looks like I mentioned a name that shouldn't be mentioned in Obama articles :-o

        FWIW, Obama, despite his large-government policies, at least seems to have his heart in the right place, and if (that other candidate) hadn't run, I'd probably be voting for Obama.
      • theaceoffire, on 05/07/2008, -1/+8More power to you. Thank you for not voting for McCain.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Orthogonal means perpendicular.
        • apophenic, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1MacSuxWindozSuxSux
        • zephc, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Yes, I know: Obama is up, Clinton is down, McCain is both left and right, and RP has a whole other direction.
    • Somedude2137, on 05/07/2008, -36/+20buried for such a desperate and pathetic way to get diggs
    • topherbook, on 05/07/2008, -33/+12You use this ploy as if diggs give you some sort of personal validation. I cannot possibly dig you down hard enough.
    • gldfshnpcklejar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+25If the new comment system were put in this would have been neat.
    • Goathead2008, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Haha, i've been there before too...
    • mal1964, on 05/07/2008, -7/+5Diggers are far more politically savvy when compared to your typical average voter.
      • Gorgamel, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5/sarcasm

        ...right? please tell me its sarcasm.
        • mal1964, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Big time,. But that same quote was part of someones reply to me not that long ago.
    • mal1964, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2He gets a break, Because he cant legally vote in a real Presidential election until 2012
    • Startemus, on 05/07/2008, -8/+1Dugg for making a comment w/100+ Diggs.
      • MattNF, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5Are you new here?
        • Startemus, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Relax. That was aimed at the whiners against that comment.
    • MaxD, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Currently, according to http://www.neaveru.com, it stands at up 457 and down 57.
    • fuckdiggdotcom, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2dug down not for clinton, but for being a stupid comment
  • x0rcist, on 05/07/2008, -7/+41Clinton really needs to drop out and in her drop out speech she needs to do the absolute best she can to promote Obama and the Democratic party. We can not afford to split her supporters with McCain in November. If she does that, all of this douchebaggery will not be as bad as it could have been.
    • kinzas, on 05/07/2008, -21/+0She should not be supporting Obama, she herself is the ideal cadidate with her resilience, judgemnet and compassion as a woman. She should be continuing.
      undicided rebublicans would never vote for Obama, he is too liberal
      • shadygrove, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7hillary should drop out simply because to do otherwise would be to disenfranchise the voters in favor of the party bosses. i suspect this would alienate more people than a superdelegate imposed hillary nomination.
        • theaceoffire, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5If Hillary cares about her future career, she needs to be supportive of Barack now.
          If he gets elected president, and gets a chance to show how awesome he is, she needs to be a "I saw his potential" person to try again.

          Not that I mind her destroying her own chances, I just feel pity at this point.
      • ngmcs8203, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Continue on and further split the party? Yea, that's a good idea. She should drop out because the she'd have to run the table on these last few primaries to sniff the democratic ticket. Obama is about 30 pledged delegates away from locking it up. As he said last night, she has been a formidable opponent, but it's time to unite the party and start the presidential campaign. If she had any care for the party, she'd see the writing on the wall, drop out and ask to be Obama's running mate. Therefore securing most of the Clinton votes for the democratic party.
      • aussiejan, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2And conservativism has been working so well lately? Liberal is not a bad word you know. Look it up in the dictionary some time. OK, I'll do it for you:
        Liberal:
        # broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
        # having political or social views favoring reform and progress
        # tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
        # a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
        I seem to remember Bush described himself as a "compassionate conservative". I'd hate to think what a "non-compassionate conservative" would be like. I think a liberal is just what the doctor ordered. Maybe he could dig up the constitution for one thing.
        • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Very well said, the Republican party has gone to great lengths to make Liberal a bad word. It's the same as Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, infererring negative connotation on a subjective topic.
    • nightwing2000, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5So what's her strategy now?
      If you can't be Prez, aim for Veep.
      If she gracefully bows out, then Obama is under no pressure to pick her as VP.
      As long as she's still running, and her supporters are still riled enough to say "If Obama bleeps her over, I'll vote McCain", then the pressure's on Obama to at least come to her and ask her to be Veep.

      After all, she can technically stay runing until the convention, even if a majority commit to Obama. If we told people they had to quit when it was hopeless, McCain would have been out before NH and we'd be arguing Romney/Giuliani/whatever.

      I suppose she's waiting for Obama to slip up and say "God Damn America!"
      • ngmcs8203, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2She is waiting for a major slip up on Obama's part, but what's wrong with her being his VP? Doesn't that pretty much shore up the votes that would have not gone to Obama if she hadn't won the nomination?
        • Ultrace, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Likely, but it also... Makes her the VP. Whether the position lacks the influence and power of the presidency, it's still not one you want to put someone incredibly unpopular in. Also, if people really think she would pull out all the stops to win, there's always the potential--albeit farfetched--for a presidential assassination that would put the VP--Hillary in charge. Crazy? Absolutely. But people will still consider it.
        • Azriel7, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Most of the people who are supporting her are women votes who are just voting because she is a woman(sorry if it doesn't sound PC but its true), Obama should put a woman as VP, someone who has good credentials, intelligent, can defend herself, can speak intelligently and plainly in an interview, has no/little political baggage, and bonus points if she is good looking(to shore up the hot blooded male vote). This will shore up the women vote.
      • runCMD, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Night Wing - you forgot to add the end to you last sentence. So let me help you out : )

        "Out Loud"
  • skunks, on 05/07/2008, -9/+64Well, if Matt Drudge says it, it must be true.
    • Jexie, on 05/07/2008, -1/+8Even Matt Drudge can see the glaringly obvious, too bad Hillary can't.
      • kinzas, on 05/07/2008, -19/+2because Hillary believes in herself, just like the rest of us. She is resilient, smart and compassionate

        You have to be a little bit more pragmatic. Undecided republicans with nerve vote for Obama he is too liberal for them
        • rholland356, on 05/07/2008, -0/+9Undecided republicans with nerve just stay home come November. Or, they think back to how good it felt to follow Limbaugh's guidance, and they go out and vote Democratic again!
        • Jexie, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5The problem is the 'us' you speak of is a minority compared to the 'us' (I don't count, I'm not an American) supporting Obama. George Bush believed in himself too and look where that got America. I prefer seeing someone willing to actually take a side, not flip flopping to pander to every vote they can squeeze out of the country.
        • KingPsyz, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2broken record much? do you just CTRL + V all your posts?
        • scubaman5000, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3"She is resilient, smart and compassionate"
          No she's delusional, blind and selfish.
        • SpectralSounds, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1She is stubborn, unintelligent and heartless. She doesn't give a ***** about you or anybody else. She is all about the $$$ and power.
    • scubaman5000, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Didn't everybody already know this was going to be the outcome months ago?
    • FatLoser, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5Wow, pulled 2 nobodies from a couple networks and claim that the "Networks" said so.

      One day an "MSM IS DUMB" article makes to the front page, the next they are being heralded as the authority on the same subject. I voted for Obama, but the hypocrisy and downright ignorance of the vast majority of Diggers on politics in general and Obama and Hillary in particular, is appalling and frustrating.
  • 33PercentGod, on 05/07/2008, -7/+42How many theoretical scenarios did she have to lose before they realized this?
    • calipan, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6I think she is still waiting for the 'Hell to Freeze Over' scenario to pan out for her.
    • chonuts, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1I think the Clinton campaign realizes they're pretty much out of it -- there's gotta be SOMEONE in that group that can do the math. The only thing Hillary has left is to try and drudge up more garbage about Obama's history in the hopes that she can sway the remaining superdelegates, which she most certainly will try to do. At this point, she's only killing the Democratic party's chances against McCain. *sigh*
  • jabberwolf, on 05/07/2008, -41/+5Last several states dont have the "black" support that Obama got from North Carolina. Only Oregon looks to lean toward Obama.
    She does need Florida to make a difference though, no reason the supers should discount the 4th largest state in the USA because some politicians screwed up.
    • BadseedJR, on 05/07/2008, -1/+34When the screw up was: "Don't do this or it will NOT count!" and they did it anyway... I'm ok with discounting it.
      • ngmcs8203, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7And both candidates signed off on it as well.
    • EvolutionTheory, on 05/07/2008, -1/+26hahaha no.
      The state screwed up. The politicians represent the people. The people's politicians tried to cheat.
      There no reason to give Hillary an obvious victory in a state that Obama didn't even think he should campaign in because it wasnt going to be counted.

      Its laughable and absurd to expect those states to count. The very premise behind arguments like your post Jabberwolf is what has kept the LOSING hillary in the race so long and screwed the democrats over for such a lengthy time. Wake up and do the math.
      • kinzas, on 05/07/2008, -18/+1that is because Americans are stupid and chauvinistic sexists. They can not accept a woman as a leader. Th ye do not realize Hillary's unique values. She should never give up
        • OralCavity, on 05/07/2008, -1/+12i'm fine with woman leaders. i love and respect women. the thing is, hillary doesn't represent all women. she's just one woman. a woman that i happen to disagree with and after her recent political strategy to sabotage obama, she's a woman that i happen to dislike.
        • RebeL5K, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Yeah, obviously we can't bear to see a woman in charge. If we could, we'd probably have a female Speaker of the House or som... oh, wait, we do. Sorry to quelch your excuse, but there are a lot more racists than there are sexists. Obama has won this thing fair and square; you bunch of bloody rags need to stop voting with your uteri and start voting with your brains.
        • honeyhouston, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1I, too, agree that HIllary should never give up. To quote the old saying "It ain't over till it's over!". IMHO, HIllary is the ONLY person in the race who is worthy of occuping the Oval Office!

          I am not a feminist; however, I believe a woman, especially Hillary, would do a MUCH better job than any of the men who have occupied that office during the entire history of our country. Women have a unique outlook on things which men simply do not possess. She is also a mother which means she has experience dealing with a child. I have 3 sons and speak from experience when I say it takes a woman to deal with children. Basically, being the President of the United States is like being a mother to millions of children.

          I expect to be totally shot down by lots of people for my comments; however, I couldn't give a **** less!
          • RebeL5K, on 05/07/2008, -0/+51) From your comments, not only are you a feminist, you're also sexist. Just as there is such a thing as reverse racism, there is a thing as reverse-sexism.
            2) You highlight another grave weakness of the Clinton campaign when you point out that she is going to be the mummy dearest to step in to deal with the country, a bunch of children. So all American's are children now? And if this is the case, are you trusting those same "children"'s judgement to put her in office? Is that why she feels the need to speak down to the whole country as if we are a bunch of children, lying and pandering?
            3) I agree that it's not over until it's over. If it wasn't over, then...it...wouldn't be over. It's a circular argument, However, much as it pains me, it IS over.
            4) Hillary has already occupied the oval office. Remember, if you're going to count hose 8 years as experience you can't cherry pick which aspects you want to take credit for and others not. Term limits, anyone?
            5) You believe Hillary would do a better job than any of the men who have ever occupied the office? Well I doubt you know all that much about the other 43 Presidents, but it doesn't matter because no one is voting for any of the men who have ever held the presidency, we're voting in Barack Obama who, to my knowledge, has never been president.

            Damn your statement had more holes than swiss cheese...
          • JaronDiggGuy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Rebel, that was epic and you made me smile.
          • BadseedJR, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Yeah, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, FDR... they've got nothing on Hillary. What are you, ***** retarded?
        • burnblue, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Come on. Seriously? Kinzas and honeyhouston, wouldn't you prefer a woman who made it to the top on her own rather than as some dude's wife?

          Serious question: Who seems more compassionate from oberving this election: Obama or Clinton? If you say Clinton then you're sexist, as all she does is talk tough.
    • 0Zeitgeist0, on 05/07/2008, -1/+16Blacks represents 15% of the Nation's population and your telling me that he was able win all these primaries based on just 15%... Some other race must be voting him also right???
      • theaceoffire, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6The American race.
        And hopefully we will keep supporting him for a while to come.
      • ngmcs8203, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4Absurd isn't it? The fact that there are uneducated, low-income, and old people out there that don't have any clue as to what their candidates really support. Maybe there's something to be said that the majority of new and educated voters are running to the polls to vote for Obama. Maybe because they did the research to find out what the candidates really mean. It's sad that the Clinton's campaign relies on the lazy and dumb to not get off their couch and do a little research.
        • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1You might consider however that of that 15% Obama has netted at times 90% of their votes. Even small voting blocks can be powerful if they vote in such massive majority for a candidate.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/07/2008, -5/+1It's not just the blacks, the elitist also support him.
    • zardoz73, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4She can have Florida. Call it a token of good will from Obama. (Michigan is out, because no matter how you slice it, Obama was NOT on the freakin' ballot). Even if you give her Florida, her math doesn't add up. It's over for her.

      She's just jockeying for a VP spot now, to which Obama will rightly say "Yeah, right. Screw you."
      • honeyhouston, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I hope I don't have to eat these words; however, IMHO Hillary would NEVER...I repeat NEVER...accept an offer from Obama to be his running mate. This presumes that Obama turns out to be the candidate for the Democrats. Since I seriously doubt he will win the nomination at the convention, this really is a moot point.

        To quote one of my HIllary shirts, "Madame President (get used to it)...
  • unreg, on 05/07/2008, -40/+6Can the just anoint the next president too? Then we can dispell with all this election crap and get back to just being sheeple.

    I'm sure if Obama was trailing the story would be different.
    • mlrigsby, on 05/07/2008, -1/+18If Obama had lost 15 of the last 18 states, he would have been run out of the race.
      • theaceoffire, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3If Obama had lost 7 of the last 18 states, he would have been run out.
      • unreg, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2But would the masses be calling for him to bow out? When Ron Paul didn't have a chance in hell was the Digg Nation calling upon him to quit?

        HIllary may be statistically out of it but at least she's keeping Obama on his toes.
    • RebeL5K, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Well being as you obviously support Hillary it is easy to see how good your powers of foresight are, because you obviously thought she was going to win this nomination. Anoint? Talk about audacity. he has more than twice as many states, more pledged delegates, more red states, more blue states, pretty soon more superdelegates, more money, more supporters, more senators, more House representatives, more governors. By any stretch of the imagination he has won. At what point will Hillary supporters sit back and just accept that he has won this, fair and square? And without even having to stoop to such low pandering techniques as pretending to be hugely pro-guns, supporting some lame-ass "gas tax" holiday, taking on a country accent, drinking for the cameras, etc.
      • honeyhouston, on 05/07/2008, -5/+1Of course he has more money...his frigging WIFE is a millionaire! Wonder who wears the pants in THAT family???? Do we really want ANOTHER wimp in the White House???? GGGGEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!
        • RebeL5K, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Um, check your facts. Michelle Obama is NOT a millionaire. You got the wrong candidates. It's Hillary''s spouse who makes more in one speech than the Obama's were making in a year, until recently. Plus, it is also not the Obama campaign who has had to lend itself money from its personal finances, so even if she was a millionaire, which she is not, it is a moot point.
        • burnblue, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Wait, weren't you just arguing for women's recognition and calling us chauvinistic a couple of comments earlier? Now sexist remarks that the woman can't make more than the man. What are you, 14?
    • palmer, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1"I'm sure if Obama was trailing"

      If he WERE trailing...
  • moolaismyfriend, on 05/07/2008, -23/+94Thank god she is irrelevant now.

    Now Obama can focus on defeating the fossil, anti-American, anti-troop, pro-torture John McCain.
    • dxgg, on 05/07/2008, -3/+41McCain is pro-torture? Oh, the irony.
    • mzx639, on 05/07/2008, -17/+3And what's wrong with torture? You bleeding-heart libs make me laugh....
      • dxgg, on 05/08/2008, -2/+8Are you a giver or a receiver, mate?
      • hitmonval, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3You've never been water-boarded.
        • mzx639, on 05/08/2008, -6/+1Yeah, I've been water-boarded, and I'm also writing this from Gitmo, idiot.
    • diggrnumber1, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2now digg will be free from the annoying anti-Clinton spam. a couple of stories is enough - i've had enough of her. i only dugg this story because it could signal the end. unfortunately, now digg will probably be bombarded with pro-obama spam.
    • runCMD, on 05/07/2008, -10/+3With you as an example - Obama's America will be one nasty place to live.
    • poopdigger, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2amazing to see what faith diggers have in John McCain
  • GhostyBoy, on 05/07/2008, -3/+97Whatever you do, do not take your eyes off the corpse until the coroner gets here.
    • snotrokit, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4I'm not taking my eyes off of that body until the daisy's bloom over the grave.
    • SpinningHead, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1Should we call Buffy?
  • Hypersapien, on 05/07/2008, -4/+138Someone need to organize a debate between McCain and Obama and not invite Clinton.

    That should send her the message.
    • makenshin, on 05/07/2008, -0/+37Unfortunately, Obama would be against that. Whenever she gets the short end of the stick, more often than not he's for fair play (where Clinton and McCain are for Fair Game), even when it has come to McCain issues. Whereas McCain and Clinton take every advantage they can get, no matter how unfair or fabricated it is.
    • EvolutionTheory, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3haha brilliant!
    • Plantagenet, on 05/07/2008, -19/+1Every knows Obama's afraid to debate Hillary anyway after she whooped him in Pennsylvania.
      • Gerz1219, on 05/07/2008, -0/+9Yes, Obama is so afraid of debating Hillary that he only agreed to a measly 21 debates. A 22nd debate would clearly have derailed his candidacy in a way that the preceding 21 debates hadn't.

        Obama is so scared of debates, I bet he only agrees to three with McCain.
      • aussiejan, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5That was not a debate. It was a side-show.
      • celkin, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Why are you on Digg?
    • JonTheGoose, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7"Oh! Hey Hillary.... The Debate? Oh that, yea uh....we totally tried to call you and everything but I guess you were out or something....we left a message for you with.....um.....Frank."
    • Schweppes7T4, on 05/07/2008, -3/+0that'd be great, but it'd never be televised... its currently illegal to not give someone a chance for rebuttal (even though i think her chance should have been gone a long time ago)
  • Archcoder, on 05/07/2008, -16/+10Hillary is done, say the propaganda machine.

    I wasn't going to vote for her, but I think it's retarded when media outlet- ...news sources declare things like this.
    • Shadic, on 05/07/2008, -0/+12Do the math. It's been obvious for a while.
      • theaceoffire, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Math is elitist. ^_~
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Doesn't that math also say that Obama doesn't have the required delegates?
  • lpmiller, on 05/07/2008, -3/+13well good, as long as big media is calling it for us, then I'm ok. Apparently the reality of math wasn't enough to do it, but thank you big media!
    • SpinningHead, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Math is for elitists. This is Mericuh
  • dunyasi, on 05/07/2008, -7/+49I am not even American and seem to be delighted by this news.

    We, the rest of the world, are rooting for you brother!
    • form3hide, on 05/07/2008, -13/+3Who are you rooting for? I don't get it? America? Obama?
      • dunyasi, on 05/07/2008, -1/+10are you living under a rock or something? I hope your answer is yes, otherwise you are a complete idiot.

        Hint: "delighted by this news" "Rooting for you brother!"

        Last time I checked this "news" was in support of Obama and Hillary is no "brother"...unless there is something I am missing?
        • form3hide, on 05/07/2008, -11/+1This "news" was in support of Obama? All it states is that Hillary is done? So you're assuming that Brother = Obama?
          • dunyasi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4because the only other person that could possibly benefit from Hillary dropping out is McCain amirite?

          • DaHuuuuuudge, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Dunyasi was obviously referring to Obama when he said "brother."
          • form3hide, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1brother? because Obama is black?
          • dunyasi, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1No, because I am a guy and he is a guy, hence we both guys refer to each other as Brothers.
      • Fordi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+8Obama fan, as much of the world outside the US is.
      • OralCavity, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3both
    • mzx639, on 05/07/2008, -17/+1That comment alone says it all, any candidate that someone from some other country wants as MY President will in no way get my vote.
      • dunyasi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6No one is stopping you from throwing away your vote, thats why there is Hillary and McCain.
        • runCMD, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3No one stopped you either. : ) Aint America great.
          • dunyasi, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3what vote? I have 0 say in your countries electoral process.
        • skunks, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2"No one is stopping you from throwing away your vote, thats why there is Hillary and McCain." And Nader.
      • Smiff2, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5haha, real intelligent there. how's Bush working out for you? Do you realise one of the few groups outside America who definitely beneftted from your current president, would be terrorists?

        you know, maybe most of the world doesn't actually hate America, they just feel sad to see how incredibly badly it's gone downhill since Clinton left office...
        • mzx639, on 05/08/2008, -7/+1What the libs don't get is that other countries do NOT have the United States best interests in mind. For whatever reasons libs think that if we are 'nice', or if we as a country show we 'care', or include other countries in our decision making process, that SOMEHOW they will respect us, like us, maybe even love us! haha! The reality is those countries want to see the U.S. FAIL! Those other countries will NEVER like us, or respect us, and they DO NOT want to see the U.S. succeed. I'm not sure why libs feel we need to be 'liked' by the rest of the world, what does the rest of the world do for us to make us like them?? They ask for money when they need it, then they call us every possible derogatory name in the book. They ask for our help, then despise us because we gave them help. It will never change, wake up libs. If a foreign country is supporting a political candidate, they have THEIR interests in mind, not the interests of the United States citizens, they can care less about you! Take off the rose colored glasses, put down the flowers, stop singing Kum ba yah, and face reality!
          • dunyasi, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6Yea you are right, thats why you voted for Bush right? He had the best interest of your country in mind lol
        • mzx639, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1Downhill since Clinton? Oh, the guy that got impeached? Terrible president, many of the problems we face now were his doing.
        • Chiphort, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2I still think he was the best one we had
          • mzx639, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1The best what? President?? haha, you're funny.
      • atticus8, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4There has never been a better method of picking a President. I commend you for your flawless reasoning. I should warn you, though, against being a hypocrite. What I mean is that I know at least two people, one Nicaraguan and one.... gasp!.... French who would enjoy voting for McCain if they could. So you can't vote for McCain - your own airtight reasoning prevents it. However, I am certain, mzx, that if you search through America hard enough, you will find a person so spiteful, so angry, so demented and perverted, bigoted, racist-against-all-races, xenophobic, hateful, warmongering, and absolutely unhinged enough to be repugnant, offensive, and distasteful to the 6.3 billion other people of the world. And there, in that wonderful manifestation in a single person of every possible negative quality that could ever be reprehensible to anyone from "some other country", you would have your ideal Republican candidate. Good luck, seeker! I pray you convince the RNC to nominate this ideal candidate as a replacement for John McCain... a man who has an on-record number of foreign supporters above zero and thus a man not quite despicable enough to be president. Find us the worst, mzx, and nominate him for the highest.
        Air. Tight. Reasoning.
        • mzx639, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1Thank you Mr. Logic for your rhetorical diatribe. For the record, if you're not a U.S. citizen, I could care less what your opinion is of MY country, and the U.S. political process or any of the Presidential candidates for that matter. Your opinion means nothing to me. That being said, it's obvious you don't understand at all my point, or you are just playing the part of a complete idiot, or maybe you are an idiot. For some reason you assume I would support a Republican candidate, which is not necessarily the case. I never said who I would or wouldn't support as President. I support the candidate that has THIS country, MY country, the UNITED STATES best interests in mind. I also find it entertaining that this imaginary figure you envision who is "so spiteful, so angry, so demented and perverted, bigoted, blah, blah, blah, would be, in your small brain, a Republican! You are so paper-thin, you are see-through! You are a typical, liberal, America-hating loser. Learn to think, see the bigger picture. Don't take everything completely literal, see more then black and white. And use some of your "air tight reasoning" to get a clue about the real world.
        • chavarin, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2I don't get digg. I do get that the community is made up of mostly liberal young people. many of them astute and thoughtful, many of them arrogant and rude(atticus8). While there are far fewer moderate/conservatives there tends to be just as stark divide among them- some smart, some DUMB(mzx639). What never changes though- except in very rare instances- is that either of these kind of people choose to be so hostile toward a person who holds different opinions, instead of taking issue with their ideology. It's so strange, in the real world, that is- the physical world, you encounter nice people everyday who may or may not be the reflection of your every idea. They learn to get along and appreciate each others different perspectives. Or at least, mature adults do. On digg, the anonymity of the internet seems to have given way to outright unfounded hatred. Since when did disagreeing on how to run a government form grounds to hate another human person?
          • mzx639, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1I can hear the violins now, and you almost brought tears to my eyes.... "choose to be so hostile toward a person who holds different opinions", haha, so because I disagree with YOU, I'm the 'bad guy'? You think the world is all sunshine and rainbows, and I'M the 'dumb' one? haha. When people like you hate MY country, you can be sure I will not be 'nice'. You are an appeaser, and a hypocrite, and yes I despise people like you. Grow up, get a clue.
        • chavarin, on 05/17/2008, -0/+0I don't hate this country, which is mine as well, and I don't hate anyone. Hating is useless. It's immature. How is your being so rude changing anything? Who's mind are you changing and what are you helping to accomplish? Was I wrong? Are you actually an ***** in person as well? Well, I do apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt. You are not a "bad guy," as you might find I don't believe the world is made up of "good and bad guys." It's more complicated and it's problems will not be solved by getting rid of one person's idea of "the enemy." You are only one small mind who is hateful and irrational. I don't now why it's "appeasing" and "hypocritical" to want to argue an issue instead immediately hating a person, it seems a hell of a lot more productive, but you go on and hate. You'll find that the only people who'll bother listening to are other hateful people, who didn't need your help to hate in the first place. So, thankfully, you'll change nothing. You are nothing, least of "the bad guy."
    • mzx639, on 05/08/2008, -11/+2You're not even from the U.S., your thoughts and opinions mean less then zero.
      • MaxD, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5I've often wondered about this, why the American presidential race gets so much coverage outside of the US, and I guess it's because the US and how the US behaves impacts many smaller nations in not insignificant (yes I like my double negatives) ways.

        You may not care what the rest of the world thinks, you may consider it to be none of their business, and I can understand that (I think it's shortsighted, but not incomprehensible) however the rest of the world cares what you, and the rest of your population thinks. We have a vested interest in how you decide (no right to try and influence, that's your call, but the outcome DOES affect us).
        • mzx639, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2I do not believe as a U.S. citizen, putting my own countries best interests first is 'shortsighted'. What should be most important to any U.S. citizen is what is best for the United Stated first, the rest of the world second, period. Tell me about other countries that put the U.S. interests in front of their own? I will tell you, there is none, and that's the way it should be. Other countries put their own interests FIRST, and the U.S. should be no different! But the 'rest of the world', and many people in the U.S. believe because of the powerful position of the U.S., that somehow the U.S. owes the' rest of the world' a voice in OUR decisions. That the U.S. should be influenced by the opinions of other countries that have their OWN best interests in mind, and could care less about the U.S., except for how THEY will be affected by the outcome. I don't want other countries having any influence over the decisions my country makes, and I believe that U.S. citizens that DO believe other coutries should have a voice in the country and either naive, hypocrites, and America haters.
          • MaxD, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Of course you should do what you think is best, that's how the system is set up, isn't it? I'm personally of the belief that telling your allies and the rest of the world to ***** off (is kinda what I got from 'your thoughts and opinions mean less than zero'), is perhaps not in your best interest (especially given the strict isolationist policy you guys adhere to) - but hey, I'm not you - I don't get to vote (and nor should I), hell - I haven't even expressed an opinion one way or the other in this. My only point was this: the rest of the world (yes, I'm talking on behalf of the rest of the world, take it with a grain of salt) cares because however you guys decide it will affect us. All I was trying to justify is why somebody, from outside your country, might have an opinion on your political process. Can you understand this?
      • SpectralSounds, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Dubya, is that you? Jesus... we have both Hillary and Dubya in this thread.
  • Plantagenet, on 05/07/2008, -13/+6No sense having any more messy elections where the voters decide on the nominee. Just let the unelected SUPERDELEGATES pick the democratic nominee. After all, they know best.
    • Fordi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Most of the Superdelegates are elected officials. In fact, every democrat in congress is a superdelegate.

      Mind you, part of the purpose of superdelegates is to give voting weight to an analogue of the electoral college as far as the general election goes.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1If by "analogue" you mean "complete opposite" then you are correct. The super-delegate system takes the power from the voters and gives it to the politicians while the electoral college keeps the power with the voters though redistributed and gives NO power to the politicians.
    • nightwing2000, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Don't forget, the main purpose of superdelegates is to help prevent things like one-issue takeovers. Since they represent the congress and senate elected 2 to 6 years before, elected party leaders for the last X years, etc. - they would be looking for what's good for the party, rather than some guy (or gal) who comes in from nwhere to hijack the party nominaton for their own agenda (you know, the Pat Robertson type.)
    • Dreww40, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1None of that democracy crap, let's let the media tell us who our nominees are!
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Exactly. Why doesn't the media just tell the super-delegates who to elect so they can tell the voting public what is best for them.
    • popfrogs, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1You forgot the sarcasm tag. I get you.
    • RebeL5K, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1The ignorance and sheer hypocrisy of Clinton supporters is simply astonishing to me;

      1) Superdelegates are ALL elected officials
      2) When Hillary Clinton had the nomination she didn't seem to give a damn about all 50 states. As a matter of fact, she agreed to the rules to exclude Florida and Michigan and it wasn't until she desparately needed them that she suddenly pretended to care. Take also for example McAuliffe back in January saying how, "as far as we're concerned, this is a 27 state race". But then they lost, big, on Super Tuesday. Oops.
      3) You are obviously being sarcastic about superdelegates knowing best. I'll bet you didn't have the same view when she was up with them by 100+. Not to mention her only "hope", if we can call that, is WITH the superdelegates somehow all being mentally deficient and voting for her.
  • LukasSmith, on 05/07/2008, -18/+2I don't know if I can trust people I've never heard of with strange ass names. Drudge? Russert? Gergen? wtf.
    • MegaMonkie, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7You're judging people based on last names.... uhuh. Right.
      • MrWally, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1DON'T VOTE FOR BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!!1!11!!!1!!!
    • LukasSmith, on 05/07/2008, -9/+1Mainly the fact that I've never heard of them. If they are that big of a deal people would know who they are.
      • tolbs, on 05/07/2008, -0/+10If you've never heard of Tim Russert (Meet The Press) and you are following Politics...well...

        I can't totally blame you for not knowing the other two..
      • OralCavity, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6it's pretty easy to avoid knowing who Tim Russert is... i mean, he only has had his own hour long political program on tv for how many years now? and the drudge report has only made a few headlines consistently over the years.
      • pbd1637, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5Time to move the rock away from your hole and come out into the light.
    • RebeL5K, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Yeah, since they obviously can do math, hence their determination, they're probably all elitists anyway, with their fancy schmancy "statistics" and "probabilities" and "stating facts" and "seeing the obvious"...
  • cj485, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5even though these big media outlets say she is done, i highly doubt she is going to give up sooner rather than later.
    • RebeL5K, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Yet the fact remains, she IS done. Mike Huckabee's decision to stay in the race when everyone knew he could not win did not change the inevitable fact that he had lost. Period.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Kind of a bad example. If he had 50% of the vote, he'd still be in the race. A better example would be Al Gore who knew he was done but it was so close that he tried to sue his way into the presidency. Hillary is that close, she just hasn't started suing ..... yet.
  • lendrick, on 05/07/2008, -2/+16Looks like someone slipped a pro-Clinton article onto Digg. Don't believe me? Read it. :)
    • Fordi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5I know; the author is either pro-Hillary, or cynical when it comes to big media proclamations. Or both.
    • burnblue, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Read it? Why would anyone do that?
  • DAaaMan64, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4Trust the media, they know when it's convenient for us.
    • RebeL5K, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2You all sure did when they were playing wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling coverage of Reverent Wright''s nonsense.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1Actually that really was Reverend "Racist" Wright in the video. Frankly I wouldn't have believed it if the media just told me that Obama's mentor was that big of a racist. But when I saw the video, I became a believer.
      • DAaaMan64, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1wooh there kiddo, I'm no Obama supporter.
  • denshuu, on 05/07/2008, -8/+1I could have sworn that headline said "Three Six Mafia"
  • digitallysick, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2About Time....
  • whiterice0, on 05/07/2008, -9/+2Yeah, but it's the fourth Big Media Outlet that really matters. Hang in their Hill! (On the other hand, how cool would it be if McCain chose Hillary as his running mate).
    • Fordi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4Cool is not the word. Terrifying is the word.

      I really hope, for the sake of your internal Digg reputation, that you merely forgot your sarcasm tag.
    • Goathead2008, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1That would be scary. Well at least the Bittergate Politicos will unite.
    • shadygrove, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2>On the other hand, how cool would it be if McCain chose Hillary as his running mate).
      ummmm, about as cool as the last seven and a half years?
    • merper, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4That would be incredible. You think republican's are going to cast a vote that would put Hilary a heartbeat from the presidency? Obama would sweep the electoral college.
    • jontalisman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2It would never happen, but McCain would crush Obama if it did. I think he'll win anyway, unfortunately. Repugnants are salivating at the chance to make Obama look like Osama's evil twin in the Fall. The ***** will really hit the fan when they prove Obama took drug money for his campaign...
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Drug money? Do tell.
      • barandon0D9, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2You're forgetting how much most republicans DESPISE the Clintons. My grandparents heads would explode if there was a Clinton on the Republican ticket.
    • RebeL5K, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2That would be awesome! The two most hated, wishy-washy politicians in America, on one ticket!
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Obama/Oprah -vs- McCain/Clinton ?!?!?!? Maybe a good celebrity fight night but neither would be good for the country.
  • Somedude2137, on 05/07/2008, -3/+12Must be the 283952358023589 post on digg with the words "Hillary is done"
    • moocow1452, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1As a matter of fact, I was. Recheck your math.
    • yammy1688, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0She's DONE!

      283952358023590 and counting
    • cranium, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Only if you count the ones from Michigan and Florida.
  • gimmeslack12, on 05/07/2008, -7/+8You know what I've begin to notice with the Liberal Media outlets lately? That they all jump onboard 100% in unison on new headlines. If one reports it, the others are sure to follow very quickly.
    In short they JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS waaaay too fast. So I would take this with a grain of salt because I don't see Hilary bowing out so easily.
    • Fordi, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Notwithstanding the media's tendancy to make bold proclamations on little evidence...

      Hillary bowing out is irrelevant. She's either going to drop out now, with her present debts, or continue into the DNC, then file chapter 11. Either way, she isn't getting the nom (nom nom nom nom *looks up from chewing on keyboard* huh?)
    • shadygrove, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2does drudge report now get to qualify as "the liberal media"?
      oy vey!
    • WebWizard, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Yes, nothing like the fair, balanced, and independent reporting of Fox and the rest of the nutjob fringe.
    • bullhead2007, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1There are no "Liberal Media Outlets".

      The only thing the media outlets are biased towards are ratings.
    • DaviDaviDaviD, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Hey, that's how Bush won in 2000 right?
  • pintomp3, on 05/07/2008, -1/+24i guess they are done milking the process for ratings?
  • Kikinou, on 05/07/2008, -3/+6And as soon as she formally drops out, the Republican smear machine will commence their swiftboat style assault on Obama. I was hoping she'd be able to hang in there a while longer to delay the ugliness that is coming.
    • Marinium, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Yes because Democrats would never, EVER engage in this type of behavior.........
    • beeblebrox, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3DELAY the ugliness? Hillary has been an active and eager participant in it. She's handed the Republican smear machine more ammo and talking points than they were able to come up with on their own. Luckily, it only seems to have stuck with people who were never going to vote for Obama anyway, people who think he can actually be a communist, elitist, extremist Muslim, extremist Christian, extremist atheist and racist all at once.
    • JayTee44, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0the 'republican smear machine' was an independent group of veterans, and what they said about John Kerry was true. He did milk a short stay in vietnam, he did shamefully, and repeatedly, ask for purple hearts, he did shoot at a 14 year old boy, and he did stab his comrades in the back by writing a traitors tale of a book when he got back to the U.S., when his buddies were still over there in the trenches.
      So, to act like it's the republican party that did this is BS. And to act like it was untrue is BS. Not a man who fought with John Kerry can stand him- and that does say something.
      • Focher, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3It was hardly an independent group of veterans. It was started and financed by a Bush donor (who later got an ambassadorship to Belgium for his efforts) and to a letter, none of these veterans who had their stories promoted actually were in Kerry's unit. I would point you to the guy who actually spoke at the convention in 2004 who served with Kerry in the same unit for a more definitive opinion from someone who served with him.

        And just to add, you don't get purple hearts for asking. You get them from an independent military review board based on injuries in a combat situation. If you didn't like Kerry as a candidate, that's fine. Call him stiff, boring, criticize his positions, even question the extent of his service can be legitimate. But it's really disingenuous (and repulsive) to attack his service all the way down the line. A service, one should remember, that he volunteered for. That's why McCain refuted (and even Bush distanced himself pressed on it) the swift boat group's allegations.

        One last thing, this revisionist history about the Vietnam war really shouldn't get a pass. There are so many documented cases of atrocities by US soldiers against civilians in Vietnam that it strikes many of us ridiculous to allege that such claims were false. To allege that Kerry came back from Vietnam and made up stories about it is just patently false. Of course that doesn't earn you much support from those you accuse.
  • taradisiac, on 05/07/2008, -1/+8Funny how people on the Internet bash the MSM... unless it agrees with what they want. Personally I don't give a damn about the MSM's positions on anything
    • Lazydriver, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Same.

      Though it's finally nice they STFU'd about Billary, really, they're douchebags.
      • NightVortez, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1They are douchebags but if you're calling someone that it kind of makes you look like a hypocrite when you tell them to shut the ***** up and insult someone by changing their name.

        Just pointing it out for future sake.
    • yammy1688, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I'd still bash the MSM. I think the point here is that she's fallen so far behind that even the MSM can't spin this any further to give the appearance of a close race.
    • freqk, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1You don't? Sadly, most people do. And for most people, it's where they get their news from.
      I care.
  • mlrigsby, on 05/07/2008, -2/+13The isn't the media anointing a nominee people. The math speaks for itself. Barring something extraordinary, this is over.

    It's not a sign of bias when a sports caster at a football game declares, "This one's over" when a team kneels on the ball with 40 seconds to go and a narrow lead. Sure, the QB could fumble the exchange and a defender could swoop in a return it for a TD, but it's tremendously unlikely.
  • Plantagenet, on 05/07/2008, -8/+1Hillary just said she's going on to West Virginia, then to Kentucky, then to Oregon and Puerto Rico and then to the convention. She's going to fight for voters in Florida and Michigan so they have their votes counted, and she's going to continue to fight for all the poor and working class people of this country.
    • akatsuki, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Gotta raise money for those loans she made.
    • Plantagenet, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0Yup. The convention is a long time coming.
    • mydigglogin, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2...and first and foremost, herself.
    • Plantagenet, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1Hillary can't match Obama's money, but she is still winning primaries despite being outspent by 3 to 1.
      • LondonV, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1actually she had a 20+ point lead in Ohio before either of them started pouring money into the state (if that is where you are referring too). Congratulations Hillary! you barely hung on to a state you should have easily won in double digits!
    • pbd1637, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2"...and she's going to continue to fight for all the poor and working class people of this country."
      Please, she is in this for herself and doesn't give a rats ass about any one else. It is time you moved the rock away from your hole and came to see the light.
  • raoulduke87, on 05/07/2008, -4/+23I'm no Hillary fan. In fact, I don't care for any of the candidates running for the two accepted parties. But I have to wonder why we're listening to what these ***** have to say about her being done with. I think I'm in the minority these days when I say that these people were hired to REPORT the news, not influence it. Aren't Americans sick of being told what to do and how to think by Tim ***** Russert and Sean Hannity? Jesus Christ, why don't you ***** people think for yourselves!
    • jontalisman, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4Exactly. It's more like NBC Opinions rather than NBC News these days. *sigh*
    • mzx639, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3Why don't people think for themselves? Because they can't! That's why so many look to the government to tell them what they think, what to do, what their opinions are. It's the liberal, elitist way! Let the government tell you what's best for you! Give us your tax dollars, we the government know how to spend it better then all of you dummies out there! Vote for us libs, we will implement all of these social programs to help all of you, since you are all too stupid to figure it out for yourselves! People, F-ing WAKE UP!!
      • Smiff2, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2um... ever watched Fox News? I think you'll find this applies to both sides of the political coin..
        • mzx639, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Fox News, Fox News, Fox News, Fox News, man can't you people EVER come up with something new?? EVERY OTHER media news station, other then Fox News is extremely liberal. Wake up!
      • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Because look what wonders 8 years of Bush has brought us.
    • kero552, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7I think you are mistaken. Media purpose is not to report, but to make money. There can be some exception, but all big players fall in that category.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2True. The problem isn't that the media is biased and attempts to influence public policy, the problem is that people continue to believe that the media is or should be unbiased. People need to realize that the media is biased and the media has their own agenda and that agenda isn't "reporting" the news.
  • H2Glitch2007, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1duh
  • 0Zeitgeist0, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4Turn it over and stick a fork in it..."she's done!"
  • Hetman, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4Wait so can we trust the big three media giants or not. I thought they were all about fear and propoganda so this must be false. Im confused.
    • jontalisman, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Listen you! Get in line with the rest of the Obama bots or we'll have to kick you off Digg!
  • BrendanSheehan, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3Just what America needs, another president who can't do simple math.
  • abortionsforall, on 05/07/2008, -2/+8Matt Drudge is a big media outlet? He links to other people's stories. No wonder the media has turned to *****. We lowered our expectations.
    • Elliuotatar, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3I was thinking the same thing. He's a blog writer. Whoop de doo. I don't read his blog. Mainly because of its horrible and unreadable web design, but he's also a hard line republican from what I hear, so I could give a crap what he thinks.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Judging by the candidates running, I'd say the whole country has lowered its expectations.
  • YodaJones, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Wow, the media was only about three months late on this one. They are catching up to reality.
  • thetanbark, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7There is no way she will quit now. She will keep going to solicit more donations that will then repay what she "loaned" her campaign.
    • 55mph, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1That's the thing. She'll use her position to reimburse herself. I wonder what sort of promises she'll make or which special interest she will advance.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1If she needs another loan then she may decide to quit.
  • gregorypierce, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5Hillary has been "DONE" for a long time. Obama would have had to simply not get more delegates and lose the remaining states with like a 50 point margin for her to even come close. Why the press finally got around to accepting this is beyond me. Why Hillary STILL hasn't conceded is one of the mysteries of the universe. What is she going to do, drag this all the way to the end and then appeal the result?
    • runCMD, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Hillary is fighting on for the voters that choose her as their nominee. Stop trying to deny them their own right to choose. pathetic.
      • starmanfalls, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Hillary is fighting on for the voters that choose her as their nominee. That is more ***** than one person could ever really believe. You are joking or you are a complete idiot. Oh and with no ability to perceive truth from lies.
      • FrenchAnarchy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1You are truly ***** in the brain.
      • runCMD, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Reading your comments about my very democratic opinion - its obvious which of us is **** in the head. Thanks.

        If he captures the nomination and somehow makes his way to the whitehouse, Obama has a very hard road ahead when he makes a policy decision that pee's you guys off. It will be a hard lesson. But I think you're up to the challenge.
  • chesscat, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4"Ding dong the witch is dead, witch is dead..." You know the rest.
    • skippy562, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1hey man, i voted for obama and supported him since the beginning BUT its not right to call her a witch, even though she a little nuts, its pretty excusable seeing as this race is so tight...the point is she did A LOT of positive stuff for this country in the past so if you really love america you shouldnt call someone a bad name who devoted their life to helping this falling nation.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/07/2008, -1/+17Drudge a big media outlet?!

    ROFLMAO!!!
  • jhails, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Well its about time! The media have been feeding this contest to inflate ratings and boost advertising revenue. The math finally hit home. Goodbye Clintons, goodbye Chelsea, goodbye White Water, goodbye Monica, goodbye to a whole lot of dishonest fat rich boomer generation ***** only interested in lining their pockets. Oh and bye the way Bill, you weren't that great a President either!
  • MikeFallopian, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I'm really surprised by the insistence by so many liberals that Clinton drop out asap. Every poll that I've seen on the issue has indicated that the Democratic party's stock has consistently risen during the Clinton/Obama race. Why do you want the media to stop almost-exclusively focusing on your party?
    • wharrislv, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Funny I always thought the same thing. It seems like McCain is hardly getting the kind of attention that the democrats are getting as a whole. People are framing the conflict around these two, which seems like the winner here will have quite a lot of momentum going forward. The dirt they dig out on each other can be harmful, but I've been feeling through my conversations with people that the only people that really care about dirt are the media. The voters are seeing past it and voting on their issues, or more commonly, their feelings. I've been a little suprised that no one has offered a major opinion piece on the pros and cons of this democrat conflict when compared against a quick end to the nomination and a focus on McCain.
  • treejohn, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0she pumped nearly $6 million of her own money into her campaign recently so i'm worried she still going to keep trying- even though she shouldn't

    either that or she's just paying off her debts in preparation to bow out- i hope
    • calipan, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1$6 million will give her about a month. That will carry here through W Virginia and then into Kentucky and Oregon, its a stall tactic. I think she is trying to buy herself some time to get to May 31st for the results on Florida and Michigan. So while $6 million won't help her win any more states she is banking on seating Michigan and Florida which would put the finish line out further and tighten the gap between her and Obama.

      Personally I don't think it will work because she can't afford to heavily campaign the next three states. Obama will win them with about a 3-6% margin each and all the work she put into Florida amd Michigan will just put here back to where we are now.
  • WestonP, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2For once, I agree with the media.
  • Cattywampus, on 05/07/2008, -0/+10I happen to agree that her campaign is all but over, BUT...
    Since when is Matt Drudge a "big media outlet"? His site is mostly links to other news stories, and his "news scoops" are usually wrong. Anybody remember in 2004 when he "broke" the story about John Kerry having an affair with an intern ? A great "scoop," except that there was no truth to it.
    As for David Gergen, he has been an advisor to three or four presidents, both Democratic and Republican. He didn't work for Bill Clinton all that long.
  • getbuzy, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Put a fork in her - she's done.
    • 223Sniper, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1i dont think bill would even do that anymore. or is allowed :)
  • diggmemphis, on 05/07/2008, -0/+14Matt Drudge -- a big three media outlet?
  • travisMarc, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4ding dong the...
  • jessefelder, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0hillary is invincible:
    http://mybackpagesbyjessefelder.blogspot.com/2008/ ...
  • jontalisman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3The media said the Patriots couldn't lose either!
    • jfg84, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2They weren't saying that in the middle of the fourth quarter.
  • teambosun, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3umm... it's about time?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 84 of 84 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.