digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Howard Dean: Obama Or Clinton Must Drop Out In June

huffingtonpost.com — Finally, an end in sight?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • presidentblogs, on 04/29/2008, -15/+27if she cant win in indiana, id be betting she will pull the pin - lest she be totally seen as the absolute spoiler.
    • redcolumbine, on 04/29/2008, -7/+77You have a lot more faith in Senator Clinton than I do, but I sincerely hope you're right.
      • parisian327, on 04/29/2008, -8/+30I think this woman will have to be dragged kicking and screaming - her bloody fingernails clawing the carpet - before she ever quits this race. (cue maniacal screams!)....
        • Drahkar, on 04/29/2008, -2/+9I'm afraid I have to agree with you. She's already showed she'll stoop to any level to try and destroy her opponent. I don't think she'll just walk away.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 04/29/2008, -5/+3I sure hope guys are right.
          • skrowl, on 04/29/2008, -8/+8Nothing could be better for this country than prolonging the Clinton Obama wars long enough to ensure a McCain win.
          • hittnrun, on 04/29/2008, -8/+5Wait a minute, where are the Obama/Wright articles? The Obama Express has had a head on collision with the Rev. Wright. It could prove fatal. I want to read you liberals defending all of this. It's the end of your dreams for CHANGE!!!!!! hee!
          • chaosium, on 04/29/2008, -5/+3"Wait a minute, where are the Obama/Wright articles?"

            The same place as the Clinton/Wright articles.
        • SteeleJK, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5She can't just quit, she has too many people backing here, putting in millions for her campaign. She owes it to a lot a people and needs to be able to say she fought till the very end
      • rezist, on 04/29/2008, -11/+3But we why do we care about your faith? You see that the race is close right? Also you must notice that Obama isn't winning states that matter, I'm so frustrated that we are going to lose this pres. election. I wonder if all of the people who voted in their primaries this time who have never even noticed politics before will realize what they did when McCain keeps America's kids in Iraq, invades Iran and ***** the middle class over a Little bit more.
        • sqwirl, on 04/29/2008, -4/+4"You see that the race is close right?"

          No. No it's not. The only people who even suggest it's close are our media pundits (puppets), who are basking in some of the highest ratings they've had in years, and will do anything to make sure this race goes all the way to the convention.
          • rezist, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Can you name another race that was closer 1729 delegates to 1599?
        • ssn697, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4"Also you must notice that Obama isn't winning states that matter,"

          Really, really poor argument. Do you really think Obama will lose traditionally Democratic states come general election, just because Hillary won them in a primary? Do you think Hillary will win Texas, because she won the Dem primary there (caucus not withstanding)?

          The "Hillary is winning the important states, argument is silly.
          • rezist, on 04/29/2008, -3/+2I think it's silly to believe that in the U.S. today people will accept a bi-racial candidate. The information that has been dug up about Obama and will be, if he is nominated is so damaging in the eyes of the ignorant masses populating America that he could not possibly win. I live in a country where the assholes who vote are racist, and gather their political ideals from a book about magic (bible) Obama supporters need to try their "change" experiment some other time when our country isn't involved in a war. Mark my words... Obama will not win the general election. I hope our part learns something from this race.
          • ssn697, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4You can make the bi-racial argument, fine. But it has nothing to do with the "Hillary won the important states" argument.
          • acero47, on 04/29/2008, -2/+3@rezist:
            I think it's silly to believe that in the U.S. today people will accept a female candidate. The information that has been dug up about Hillary and will be, if she is nominated is so damaging in the eyes of the ignorant masses populating America that she could not possibly win. I live in a country where the assholes who vote are sexist, and gather their political ideals from a book about magic (bible) Hillary supporters need to try their "ready for anything" experiment some other time when our country isn't involved in a war. Mark my words... Hillary will not win the general election. I hope our part learns something from this race.

            Goes both ways. Note: I don't actually believe this, I just wanted to prove what an empty argument this was.
      • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -12/+5I was really into this race enjoying the fact that I thought we had two good people to fight over. But then I noticed people's votes were not being counted. For example, Oklahoma voted for Clinton however the gov and some super dels from Oklahoma are supporting Obama. This means the people that voted for Clinton had their votes removed and not counted. I am saddened that the first "black" person might win ONLY by denying people their vote. For a people that suffered and were disenfranchised, why would they do it to others? Do I not have the right to have my vote counted? As a life long Dem I find myself at a crossroads.
        • skrowl, on 04/29/2008, -5/+5Heh, you're getting dugg down for truth. Sad digg bias... sad.
        • diggduggDOOM, on 04/29/2008, -2/+3"For example, Oklahoma voted for Clinton however the gov and some super dels from Oklahoma are supporting Obama. This means the people that voted for Clinton had their votes removed and not counted."

          You're saying that because some superdelegates in OK are supporting Obama it has invalidated people who voted in the primary? Really? That doesn't make any sense.
          • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2How does it not make sense? Would you understand it better if Oklahoma had voted for Obama and the governor and superdelegates from Oklahoma voted for Clinton? Would that not be unfair? Flip that around now and that is what is happening with Clinton.
          • diggduggDOOM, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4No, flipping the actors around doesn't make a difference. The nomination is won by both pledged delegates (from primaries and caucuses) and superdelegates.. Superdelegates that also happen to be elected officials are under NO obligation to vote the way their constituents did. It might not be a wise decision, but they certainly are not invalidating the actions of the voters. All of those pledged delegates still count.

            As I understand it, the guidelines (not rules or obligations) for the superdelegates is to make the decision that is best for the Democratic Party AND gives them the best chance at winning the general election.
          • JaronDiggGuy, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3DiggduggDOOM, You're right, but these people don't understand. Technically, NO delegates are under penalty to vote the way their district did, but it's generally a good idea. RX, the governor can vote for whoever the ***** he/she wants, and so can superdelegates. To reiterate, the superdelegates also should probably vote for who their constituents voted a majority for, but there you go.
          • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1JaronDiggGuy, I agree the governor can vote for whom he wants however as the elected spokesperson for the state, his endorsement for Obama ***** everyone that voted for Clinton in Oklahoma in the ass. If Obama wins and later in the race electors from Obama states vote for McCain, you all will be crying foul. Do not allow our vote to be tossed out unless you are willing to lose your own right to vote.
          • tannerpetry, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3Again....your vote counted. Your governor can vote for whomever he/she wants to. They get a vote just like you do. His/her vote should have absolutely nothing to do with the way the rest of the state voted.
            You're not getting ***** in the ass. Judging by your logic, you may have been mind ***** by the Clinton camp....
          • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1tannerpetry if you can't see that he is wrong openly endorsing Obama when the people of the state spoke and cast their vote for Clinton then I am waisting time. If Obama wins and he runs against McCain and lets say Obama wins Texas. What if the Texas Governor comes out backing Clinton and the Texas Electors vote for Clinton. Will you still whistle the same tune?
          • JaronDiggGuy, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2I still don't understand how even an endorsement is wrong for him to do. Not only do most politicians do it, but there's nothing wrong with it. It's saying, "Hey, if you like me and appreciate what I do, you should check out this guy, I put my faith and word in him." It's not saying "Too bad suckers, I see how you voted but watch me endorse who I want and...poof! All your votes are for naught!"
            By your logic, what right did Bush have in endorsing McCain? He took away everybody's vote for Huckabee. And Romney. And that other *****.
        • RX9735, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1JaronDiggGuy, The people of the State of Oklahoma held the primary when told to do so and voted for Clinton. Guess who the state endorses, Obama. Sounds like a ***** to me. Bush, for once in his life, did the right thing and waited until McCain was the only one left before supporting him. Obama is only ahead because people in at least three states now have been disenfranchised. (Fla. Mich. and now Okla.)
          • JaronDiggGuy, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1When you say 'state'....who do you mean, exactly? The governor? People in the Legislature? Cause I'm pretty sure a great deal of legislators in Texas endorsed Clinton, but Obama won Texas.

            I honestly can't see your point, but hey, agree to disagree.
    • motivatedmama, on 04/29/2008, -16/+13Dude. They the "Supreme" court upheld the law today that a valid state ID will be required to vote in Indiana. Take from that what you will.
      http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080428/pl_nm/usa_poli ...
      • cheeze_ballz, on 04/29/2008, -5/+14this may be a dumb question, but what am I supposed to take from that? I thought that was standard procedure (it is here anyways) -- I'm not sure what you're implying.
        • jdenzer, on 04/29/2008, -9/+4What you are suppose to take from it is voter suppression. Since many younger voters don't have driver ID. It is believed that the Clinton campaign may use that in hopes to suppress the votes for Obama, thus giving he a win or Obama a 1% win and giving her the argument to continue on with the race. Seems far fetched,but not totally impossible. Remember that the Clinton camp has resorted to republican/rove tactics to derail the Obama camp. So I would not put it past them. Republicans are not the only ones of such tactics.
          • Gerz1219, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4I should think younger voters would be more likely to have a current photo ID, as they are more likely to be carded when buying alcohol. As someone said above, this is more likely to affect the elderly.
          • skrowl, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Drivers license isn't the only kind of photo ID you can get. Any age child can get a government issued photo ID at will. Have you ever heard of a passport? Do you think children under 18 just magically get in at the border:?
        • DoubtingThomas, on 04/29/2008, -3/+5If you don't have a driver's id, get a state id, it is that simple. If the "younger voters" are so lazy as to be bothered by getting a state id they really have no cause to vote.
          • pintomp3, on 04/29/2008, -5/+312% of the population in indiana don't have goverment issued ID. most of them are the poor and elderly. many of them cannot drive, so getting going around and coming up with the funds to get ID, especially if you don't have your birth certificate, is a burden. some states do require some form of ID, but a utility bill or a studend ID is adequate. indiana's new law takes it to a new level by requiring a government issued ID. all of this is unnecessary considering there haven't been any cases of voter fraud in indiana. if they were really worried about voting fraud, they would require electronic voting machines to be open source and have paper trails.
          • dagamer34, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1IF you don't have a birth certificate, I think you have a worse problem on your hands than voting.
          • tannerpetry, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1If you can't get around to get an ID, then you probably can't get around to vote. And it's not like this election was some big surprise party. They've had 4 years since the last election to go through the long, painstaking, odyssey of getting a government ID. Seriously, I got mine in 15 minutes.
      • didiman, on 04/29/2008, -11/+29As they should have. Only a moron would be opposed to such a law.
        • Nougat, on 04/29/2008, -13/+7All you should need to vote is a voter registration card.
          • AndrewDB, on 04/29/2008, -2/+7No, you need a government issued ID.
          • ssn697, on 04/29/2008, -3/+6Th ID cards are free in Indiana. The is no "tax" to vote.
          • AndrewDB, on 04/29/2008, -5/+4ID's cost 10 bucks, and you have to have 3 forms of previous identification to get one.

            I know. I live in Indiana.
          • darkzealot89, on 04/29/2008, -1/+6@AndrewDB

            What are you dense? The ID Cards are free in Indiana, otherwise the Supreme Court would have ruled it unconstitutional. Even if you do live in Indiana you are at least misguided. The ID cards are free.
          • wishninja, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1You guys do not even know what problems this system in Indiana has. My wife was denied because she used beth on her state ID card but her name is elizibeth. It was not free to replace that Divers Liscence because she wanted to vote. Students are at the biggest disadvantaged group because cities(where students live for only months of the year for school) often have high taxes that students have to pay. According to the law they have to get a new ID every time they move. Its ***** killing the youth vote so expect Obama to lose big time when all of those student get turned away.
        • BobSconce, on 04/29/2008, -4/+11Nougat -- Voter registration card doesn't prevent somebody from taking the card and using it. There are plenty of cases of dead people voting in Philly and Chicago.

          Voting roles are a bit of a quandary -- you don't want to pull people off them who are eligible to vote, but you do want to pull people off who aren't. No matter how you cull the voter lists, you're going to make some mistake -- the only question is which mistakes you make -- do you over-cull and fix it by letting people cast provisional ballots, or do you under-cull and fix it by either (1) assuming people are honest or (2) requiring ID.

          The house next door to us has had 3 different sets of owners in 5 years. All three sets are still registered at that address. If someone wanted to, they could go down to the polls, say Ithey're one of the former occupants and vote, and have very, very, very low likelihood of being caught -- there's no ID check and no video so you can go back after the fact and see who signed in as "Bob Smith."

          Many jurisdictions cull voters after a number of years of not voting. That's why when a popular presidential election comes along, you get all these people who say "I was registered, but they turned me away at the polls.' Sure you were registered, maybe 10 years ago.
        • iofthestorm, on 04/29/2008, -2/+8Well, the problem is here, in the article, and if you had any common sense about the status of others you might realize this too:

          "Resolving a partisan political battle, the country's high court voted 6-3 to reject a legal challenge by Democrats that Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law would deter minorities, the elderly and others from casting ballots."
          ""Denying a fundamental right -- the right to vote -- because a person is indigent, lacks a birth certificate or has no access to a vehicle goes against America's better values," Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said.
          Angela Ciccolo of the NAACP civil rights group said the law would have its greatest impact on voters who are poor, elderly, belong to racial minorities or have disabilities."

          I agree with BobSconce, it's really hard to reform voting laws without culling some legitimate voters, and in some ways this basically amounts to a poll tax with another name. However, since this was already a law and the SC simply upheld it, I would think that anyone who was going to vote in the primary should already have an ID anyway. Personally, I agree with voter verification but there needs to be a proper method of making sure everyone has an ID.
        • pintomp3, on 04/29/2008, -3/+7it was a solution in search of a problem. there hasn't been any cases of voter fraud in indiana. meanwhile, 12% of voters don't have any government issued ID there, most of them poor and elderly. all the law does is create a barrier for them when there was no substantial threat of voter fraud. there is a reason no democrats voted for it and only republicans pushed it. the elderly and poor tend to vote democrat. this is voter suppression masquerading as a security measure.
      • cjhowe, on 04/29/2008, -4/+3It's a no brainer for why the Supreme Court upheld the law as there are very few election issues that are discussed in the Constitution (age, gender, race), so this should be certainly left to the discretion of the state. However, it is ridiculous for a state to make a photo ID a requirement to vote. Voter fraud doesn't occur by the people lying to the poll worker, it comes from the poll worker lying to the people.
      • wishninja, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Its way more then just the photo and the ID, everything on the ID must match the records. If you move you are screwed. If you live in the state but are away at a college you are not allowed to vote at the school you have to go home to vote. Obama is a goner. He might do ok because of the open primary but he will lose several points. In 2006 they were turning people away in droves, I was there. In my polling station while I was there I personally saw 3 people turned away for the address didn't match. My wife was also turned away because of a small difference in her name. It does rock the vote and should not be discounted as small deal. I also saw a military vet turned way the man was yelling he had never missed a vote since he came home from the war. He had an old military ID without a pic on it. So it plays a little both ways. It suppresses mainly the student's and the old people that can't get out and get all of the paperwork you need to apply.
    • ProfessorSYM, on 04/29/2008, -3/+13Yeah, the problem is that she may actually win Indiana.

      Obama needs to step it up and take her out at the knees (which he should have done in Pennsylvania). I'm not talking about using the same kind of insinuation and Rove tactics that Clinton has been using, but at the very least pointing out the dishonest, hypocritical, mean-spirited and gutter politics behavior she has been exhibiting this primary season.

      The sad part is that if they had focused solely on promoting the ideas listed in their campaign platforms during this primary season rather than breaking each other down, the winner would have emerged naturally with no harm done to the party. I blame Chairman Dean for letting it get out of hand (and for not having the balls to stand up to the Clintons when they went negative).
      • rezist, on 04/29/2008, -10/+1It's not a problem. She is winning states that allow presidential candidates to get into office. The "Clinton's" didn't go negative, your country did. Have you ever paid attention to another election? The Clinton camp realizes what is needed to beat the Republicans. Obama and his people are in no way ready for what will come if he gets the nomination. He's a good man who has done good work but instead of throwing this election and letting the war continue, and basically allowing the Republicans to ***** my country up further, we (dems.) should nominate someone who can get in there.
        • Dragular, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4Yeah 'cause Clinton's announced she'll pull us out of Iraq yeah?
          • rezist, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Obama: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office [and] if there's no timetable [for withdrawal], then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there.

            Clinton: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting.... I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated.... [But there] may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.

            Yeah, yeah!
        • ProfessorSYM, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3"The Clinton camp realizes what is needed to beat the Republicans. "

          So she uses those tactics against another Democrat?

          I'm not buying it, and neither are the majority of Democrats who have voted overwhelmingly for Obama at this point. Believe what you want, but Obama is the nominee, and once Hillary is out of the picture (and no longer distracting and dividing Democrats with her gutter politics), we will all unite against John McCain.
          • rezist, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1"She" didn't use those tactics... this is the way our political sys. works don't be naive. The democrats haven't voted overwhelmingly for Obama the count is extremely close.
          • tannerpetry, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3@rezist
            Obama has proven that those tactics are not necessary. He has run a 95% clean campaign and is winning. It may be the way the political system has worked, but it's not the way it has to work. That's one of the "changes" Obama supporters are always talking about.
        • Emceay, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0No one ever seems to take into account that Clinton's wins have been so narrow that such an argument about being electable is absurd. If Obama managed to capture the other 45%, then even with the defection from Hillary to McCain counted in he's still got sound numbers. Not just that, but he's maintaining a strong grip on the delegates each contest. I think he's being discounted, and small insecurities are being overblown. Not to mention complete speculation on the value of Wright's supposed effect on voters.

          When you factor in that Democratic turnout is at record-breaking levels, I don't think Obama would have much problem winning the general election against an anemic republican base.
    • didiman, on 04/29/2008, -8/+11I'm no fan of Clinton, but nobody puts much weight in what Howard Dean has to say.
    • Dragular, on 04/29/2008, -2/+5What happens if the stars align in some freakish way and there's a tie?
      • sircomix, on 04/29/2008, -1/+7Hillary will claim victory and stagger on to smear another day.
      • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4If it is up to people on Digg, Clinton will have to step down.
    • devophl, on 04/29/2008, -3/+12She probably will win Indiana. I think it would be an upset for Obama to win there because the demographics that led Hillary to big wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania are very true in Indiana as well. The only reason Obama is close is because of Illinois being next door.

      Also, I don't see Hillary leaving before the convention. I think she has proven that white America has a serious issue with Obama and throughout the primaries, in nearly every state, Obama has been unable to get more than 35-40% of the white vote. He has not even made a dent into Hillary's support there. Many supporters of Hillary are quick to point this out. Obama has a race issue.

      So until we can convince America that Obama is not black, he is not Muslim, he is not hyper liberal, that he does have the experience, there will be a glass ceiling on what he can get in a general election. The Clinton camp thoroughly believes nominating Obama means sure loss in November. Even though I don't believe it, I do believe Obama will have a harder time winning in November than Hillary.

      So because of this, I can't see Hillary dropping out before the convention. Her whole ploy now is that Obama is unelectable and to give in now would be giving in to her core belief. And I also believe that many in the higher echelons of the Democratic party also believe this.

      Barring something major, this is going to Denver!
      • saikyan, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4It's painfully disappointing, but I have to agree.
      • ProfessorSYM, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2I disagree.

        The "higher echelons" of the Democratic party are simply too intimidated by Clinton's war machine to force her out. In the meantime, they're sitting back while she tears down the eventual nominee.

        Also, you said:

        "The Clinton camp thoroughly believes nominating Obama means sure loss in November."

        Yeah, it means a sure loss for Hillary because she won't be the nominee. You aren't dealing with the young idealistic Clintons that we had when Bill first ran for office. You are dealing with a cynical, power-corrupted Carville and Begala (not to mention Mark Penn and the other people working for Hillary), whose sole aim is to get Hillary the nomination no matter what.
      • Kazbaeden, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3The flip side of that argument is that democrats never win without the Black vote, and Obama has been picking that up by margins upward of 60%.
        • chodges4, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Exactly...If i remember correctly Pennsylvania he was takin in the black vote in the 90's while she was in the single digits. I think 40% is much better than 5%..
      • Emceay, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0Hillary's working to make her beliefs into everyone's reality. She'll tear him down until he is unelectable - and not by valid claims either. Instead, all his time will be wasted exonerating stupid racially prejudiced insinuations, the burden of guilt by association, and contrived assumptions about faith that those passing judgment would not be found innocent of themselves. All distractions that America is too fickle to see through.

        One thing gives me hope though; my friend who's never bothered to register, and didn't vote in the primary, would double my vote for Obama come the general election. So I have a little problem believing this speculation on what's going to happen once primary season is over, because there's still a wave of people that didn't or don't bother with primaries.
    • sleepycoder, on 04/29/2008, -2/+6This is the woman who recently claimed that she had the popular vote, but forgot to mention that she was counting Michigan where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. If she doesn't win Indiana, it's obviously because it's not an important state. The woman is willing to deceive anyone and everyone (perhaps including herself) to keep on going. She will find ways to spin the story to justify her campaign until the wheels fall off and she finally runs out of money.
      • ralphodog, on 04/29/2008, -2/+0She correctly stated more people cast ballots for her than Obama, which is true. She even stated that this was because all Americans have the right to vote, even those in Michigan and Florida.
      • JaronDiggGuy, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2I don't know why you're getting dugg down, it's true.
    • chodges4, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1The longer she stays in the race the worse it is for Obama in November. We cannot believe she honestly thinks she can win the nomination, so she's just hoping that its McCain in '08 and not Obama. And if it's McCain the better chance she has of getting elected in 2012 instead of having to wait 8 years for Obama to finish fixing all of our problems. If Obama wins in November, that puts her in the mid to late 70's before she has a chance to run again. She doesn't care about the democratic party, she only cares about herself. It makes me wonder why anybody thinks she gives a ***** about them...she is calculating every move and saying whatever people want to hear just so she can be in power. That is scary, that is not the kind of person you want running this country.
  • littlequeenie, on 04/29/2008, -14/+71Why should he say Obama or Clinton? Doesn't Obama have more votes and delegates? Jeez, unless HRC throws the entire kitchen at him - which I don't put past her - and something ridiculous sticks - he will still be the one with the most votes and delegates.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 04/29/2008, -2/+49because as chairman of the party Howard Dean seems to be the only damn person on the democratic side who isn't trying to alienate anyone. He is speaking as someone whose goal is to keep the party united.
      • EntropyFan, on 04/29/2008, -3/+8I wish I could digg you up more then once. For all of the 'Obama want unity' talk, many of his supporters are the most derisive and party splitting people around. It's their way or 'your a ***** idiot'.
        I applaud Dean. Nice to see statesmanship isn't dead.
        • antidense, on 04/29/2008, -7/+4The more divisive thing is pretending there is still a contest. Like littlequeenie said, unless HRC throws another kitchen's sink at him and it sticks, he'll win and by the rules.
        • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3 antidense, what rules? Super dels are voting for themselves and not the will of the people in some states. You would ***** bricks and eat them if Super Dels in states Obama won went against the will of the people and voted for Clinton.
          • antidense, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3winning by super dels and dels is (unfortunately or unfortunately) by the rules. it will still take another kitchen sink strategy to get the rest to go for Clinton or at least not to Obama.
          • Emceay, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0Will of the popular vote that counted.
        • lotsa1s, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2I vote for candidates. If you vote on party line your a complete ***** idiot.
      • asdf2000, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Umm, well it seems to me like his priority right now should be having a fair, democratic election process in which the democrats pick the candidate that the people actually want.

        Just my opinion though.
    • plhearn, on 04/29/2008, -27/+4Obama has lost to Hillary in every debate thus far. He knows he can't beat Hillary in a 1v1 debate so his camp will just keep making up excuses as to why a debate isn't important. Quite frankly, its obvious that Obama's campaign is going downhill fast. He couldn't deal with Hillary picking on him before and now that the media has him targeted its more pressure than hes able to handle. Hillary has been ruthlessly hounded up until this point and it hasn't slowed her down one bit. Its a good thing these candidates get scrutinized by the media because the weaker candidates like Obama need to be weeded out.
      • ninetimes, on 04/29/2008, -3/+17Oh, he lost? I guess I kept missing that part of the debate, where they declared the winner.
      • crweaks23, on 04/29/2008, -2/+16um... actually it was hillary whining about unfair questions and blaming the media for her numbers... and obama was the superior debater in every contest but one... the ABC "debate" in which both candidates sucked, but obama was grilled the hardest. If you're a hillary supporter, great, but think through for a second at the fact that a former presidents wife with ties to a significant number of people and organizations plus a huge lead in early polls is now fighting tooth and nail against a newcomer. This should have been an easy win for hillary if she was a good candidate. The majority of us think she is not.
      • thesonofdarwin, on 04/29/2008, -2/+7What is left to talk about? Boxers or briefs? Suave or Pantene? Crest or Colgate?

        Or I guess we need to hear it one more time about religious connections and Bosnia cause some people are just to thick to get it in the previous dozens of debates.
      • antidense, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5Oh here comes another metric that we should use instead. As I recall, Kerry won most of his debates with Bush... but it didn't help him.
      • Emceay, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0You are Faux News' target audience.
    • mgags, on 04/29/2008, -3/+5I also bet... if he could have said Hillary in all caps and Obama in 2pt font, he would have...
    • kreneskyp, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6because unfortunately hillary is making headway with her electability arguments. I think obama has a much better chance even still but other less informed people are more easily swayed by the cheap tricks hillary pulls
      • Kautylia, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4And it's possible that informed people might want to vote for her too. You're making the same "Obama or your an idiot" argument that is divisive about Obama's supporters.
        • lotsa1s, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Obama's supporters are voting for a candidate, and not on some artificial party line like some tool.

          I don't want a democrat in the white house, I want OBAMA. Your ***** right I'm derisive.
    • jbenson2, on 04/29/2008, -8/+3And the O-man is in the middle of a meltdown which he seems powerless to stop.
      • sqwirl, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5If by 'meltdown' you mean character assassination by the media, then I agree.
        • skrowl, on 04/29/2008, -8/+1Hahah.. a lefty complaining about character assassination by the media. Search google news for "George Bush".
        • toastjam, on 04/29/2008, -1/+7Um, Bush had no character to assassinate...
        • JaronDiggGuy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Skrowl, there is no nice way of saying this: If you still think that 90% of the things that are said and reported about Bush are unwarranted, you don't deserve to live, it's really that simple.
          Also, we're gonna need you to leave a body part or two on your way out. You know, to ensure that your genes don't live on. Sorry.
        • jbenson2, on 04/29/2008, -4/+1By 'meltdown' I mean character assassination by the the O-man himself. A classic case of shooting himself in the foot over and over.
    • tillerman00, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1How does that help anything? How about suggesting the one with the least votes, delegates, and states drop out, for *****. Someone give me a new party to vote for, I'm sick of these jackasses.
  • mazerrackham, on 04/29/2008, -16/+185June?? Try "Tuesday". We don't need another month of this crap
    • Gram1213, on 04/29/2008, -5/+9Couldn't agree more!!!
      • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -4/+4Move to a country were people can't vote if you feel that way.
        • skrowl, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Suppress all opinions that oppose your own. It's the digg way!
    • iPirate, on 04/29/2008, -14/+17Another month of what? Democracy?
      • str1fe, on 04/29/2008, -2/+17He'll probably get buried, but iPirate brings up a good point. These past several months are the closest thing we have to the democratic process, might as well enjoy them.
        • noahhoward, on 04/29/2008, -4/+21So the true democratic process is misinformed decision based on lies and deceit?
      • BinaryDelt, on 04/29/2008, -4/+16Yeah, arguing over sniper fire and pastors is really democracy. People stopped voting based on the issues over a month ago. It's silly season now.
        • thcobbs, on 04/29/2008, -2/+3You gotta take the good with the bad. Unless you think that you can dictate what people can and can't debate about.
        • flossdaily, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1well, arguing over sniper fire and pastors is REALLY just arguing over credibility. What's being debated isn't the issues, but an equally important consideration: electability.
      • MrErr, on 04/29/2008, -2/+3No. But another month of gutter politics.
      • CthulhuDawn, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1Democratix.
    • jbenson2, on 04/29/2008, -5/+2Many of the Democratic superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple — they just want a winner in November.

      The problem is, after nearly four months of primaries and caucuses in 46 states, territories and the District of Columbia, they still aren't sure who that is, don't seem be in any hurry to make up their minds and aren't interested in any artificial process that might force them to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

      Operation Chaos has succeeded!
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2don't you mean terrortories
      • StarlessKnight, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Correlation, causation, etc. etc. Won't bother making a deep argument, because you (jbenson2) don't care.
    • Jo9100, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2I am not targeting anyone of you two, HILLARY.
  • Gram1213, on 04/29/2008, -12/+148One drop out? If this was reversed and Clinton had won the most states, most delegates (forget the Super ones) and the MOST POPULAR votes by now....it would have been over long ago! Enough is enough. How many more times do we have to be insulted by the Clinton's changing the goal post for her nomination? The longer this goes on the longer our Party is going to be split apart more than it is now. People have had it! Remember one thing, Obama has brought more young people into our Party, more Independents, more Republicans and if this is taken away from him by Super Delegates....believe me, all those new people will rebel and either not vote or choose to vote AGAINST Clinton and we'll have 4 more years of Bush! (Frankly, I think Clinton's campaigning for 2012 anyway!) I'm tired, too, of the Media asking "Why can't Obama close the deal" instead of asking "Why hasn't Hillary closed the deal with her 35 yrs. of experience"?
    • parisian327, on 04/29/2008, -23/+5Bush can't be president for another term. He's already had two.
      • str1fe, on 04/29/2008, -7/+24You missed the point. Putting someone like Hillary or McCain in office would effectively be 4 more years of bush.
        • V3n0M, on 04/29/2008, -8/+1Correction: Putting someone like Hillary, Obama, or McCain in office would effectively be 4 more years of bush.
        • lmulaire, on 04/29/2008, -3/+2Correction: Whoever gets voted in (pays more) it's gonna be 4 more years of bush.
    • barfooz, on 04/29/2008, -19/+15The media is asking "Why can't Obama close the deal" because he has been the front-runner since mid-February. They were asking why Clinton couldn't close the deal in February, now it's Obama's turn to receive the increased scrutiny that the front-runner's role entails. And it's a valid question, because Obama needs the Ohio/Pennsylvania vote in order to win in November. The same voters that like Clinton would currently vote for McCain in these crucial swing states, come the general election.
      • lewhich, on 04/29/2008, -4/+13Well, she's the one going around talking about experience ... and the media always fails to mention that Nixon was the most experienced president while Lincoln was the least. Hell, even Bush had plenty of experience (while Kenedy had almost none) ... do you see the trend?
        • Kautylia, on 04/29/2008, -5/+2You honestly think that's a trend? You sir are fooled by randomness.
        • lotsa1s, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5Power corrupts.

          Cheney had an extremely impressive resume, especially in foreign policy, and he is the devil incarnate. Imagine him answering the phone at 3 am...
        • Kautylia, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2My point wasn't that more experience necessarily makes a better candidate. Just that listing a few examples doesn't represent a trend that anyone should trust when it comes time to vote.
      • avaugha4, on 04/29/2008, -1/+8He has closed the deal. Just just won't quit, much like Huckabee did to McCain.
    • shagen454, on 04/29/2008, -1/+6Yep, I switched parties to vote for Obama. Not that Obama will actually pull all troops out of Iraq (he won't - he'll keep the military bases operational) but he is by far the lesser of the other two evils.
      • flossdaily, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1He'll pull the COMBAT troops out. That's what matters.

        Frankly, having a permanent military base over there is an excellent strategic move for us in the military sense. It allows us access to Iran (and easier movement into Pakistan[?]).
        • lotsa1s, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Having a permanent military base anywhere but in the territorial United States is absolute folly and is the reason the world hates us so much. We are not meant to police the world, and our military should be concerned ONLY with things that directly threaten the safety and security of the United States, and not go bombing countries because they're "dangerous".

          If Iran has a nuke, they wont be shooting it at the United States, they'll be popping it off at Israel. Its not our problem, but we MAKE it our problem by taking a gigantic ***** all over the region every half decade. And when its our problem, crazy assholes fly planes into tall buildings.
    • Shuukyoku, on 04/29/2008, -4/+5You know, I'm getting a little sick of people saying what the candidates have to do and when. The race is, quite literally, neck and neck when you go by delegates. Now I know that Obama has already been declared the victor and next president of the United States, but it seems to me that "Because its gone on too long without producing a definitive winner" isn't really a good reason for candidates to start thinking about leaving a presidential race.
      • CosmicJustice, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Particularly before all of the votes are in. I'm tired of elections being called before all of the states have had held their primaries.
        • flossdaily, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Oh, are you from one of those small states that think they matter?
        • tannerpetry, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Dean said a decision needs to be reached by June, when all the votes will be in. You're only arguing with yourself here. Does ANYONE think that stretching out the democratic primary will help either candidate in the GE?
      • mustbepatient, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2No, not literally.
      • flossdaily, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Literally? So Clinton and Obama are actually having a real footrace where sideline observers would perceive the candidates' necks to be in near perfect alignment relative to racetrack? Because, frankly that seems unlikely.

        Or are you just one of those people that uses the word "literally" in place of its polar opposite "figuratively"?

        At least this rant wasn't a waste- I can tell you're one of those people who "COULD care less."
    • siszam, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1How is the party "split apart". I keep seeing that and hearing that but see no proof of it. So explain it to me. There is less vitriol and more unity than I've ever seen in any election. Anytime Clinton and Obama exchange a mean look someone goes, "Oh my God! You're so mean you're tearing the party apart. Never before in the history of man has anyone been so gosh darn mean, you meany pants."
      Grow up for Gods sake. Republicans love to hear hear Democrats whining about a split and damaged party. Why feed into that bull? It's childish and serves no purpose. Let Hillary go on as far as she can. Obama will win in the end anyway. Let Hillary burn herself out and ensure for all time that she will be so hated that she'll never successfully run for President. Just let her go.
    • goonnoodles, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Hey.....Your awesome.
  • Arishia, on 04/29/2008, -16/+33Give Dean a break. He is up against the Clinton political machine.
    • nosecohn, on 04/29/2008, -8/+9I like Dean, but it's hard to argue that he's done what's best for his party. The Democratic Congressional leadership failed to carry out the mandate of the voters who brought them there. Michigan and Florida, two of the most populous states, had the entirety of their Democratic voters disenfranchised. When major networks fought legal battles to exclude some Democratic presidential candidates from the televised debates, the party sided with the networks over their own candidates. And now we've got this drawn-out, potentially damaging process between two candidates whose only remaining move is to help John McCain beat the other one. If he's going to head the party, he's got to show some leadership and foresight. Those seem to be qualities that he is seriously lacking.
      • Hillsfar, on 04/29/2008, -2/+11At least give him some credit. It's Dean's 50-State Strategy and on-line Fundraising that Obama's campaign is following.
        • flossdaily, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Oh give me a break. Barrack had to use a fifty state strategy to show that a black man could be elected in the south and midwest. And as far as the internet is concerned- every candidate has been attempting to use the internet since 2000- well before Dean.
      • ADVIZR, on 04/29/2008, -3/+21To be fair, it's not Dean's fault that Michigan and Florida completely violated the rules, knowing full-well the terms. The fact that Dean is upholding the rules means that he has real integrity. That's a good thing. Those states had the option of paying for new primaries but have not done so.

        I think Obama will come out from all of this much stronger. Reality will set in with most Americans -- liberals, independents, libertarians, conservatives -- that it's time to repair some of the crimes of the Bush & neocons: their pillaging the US and the world's resources.
        • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -7/+2So party rules over-ride the U.S. constitution? I think not. States have to right to hold elections when and where they want.
          • r00ts, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2And which U.S. constitution would you be refering to?
          • flossdaily, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Do we have a new amendment that I didn't hear about or something?
          • tannerpetry, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1"States have to right to hold elections when and where they want."
            No they don't. That's why we're in this mess. How about New Jersey decides to hold the 2012 Presidential Election in Guam next Thursday? Are you OK with that, since "states have the right to hold elections when and where they want?"
        • nosecohn, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Have you ever run your own business? If there's a revolt, it's a consequence of lack of foresight and leadership at the top.

          Dean should have been lobbying in Michigan or Florida every day when their legislatures were contemplating the date changes. He should have said, "Look guys, I understand you're frustration. But for the first time in a generation, we have a chance to win the Presidency and hold majorities in both houses of Congress. Let's not do something silly as individual states to blow our chances as a party." He also could have offered a compromise proposal. Instead, he made threats, essentially daring two of the most populous states to break rules that were silly in the first place.

          You may be right about Obama coming out stronger, and Dean did stand his ground, but the party ended up looking divided and disorganized. It's poor leadership.
        • YourDoom123, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6@RX9735: it isn't your constitutional right to vote in a primary. primaries are something that come with political parties, a concept that didn't exist during the writing of the constitution.
          • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1More reason not to let johnny come lately parties come along and try to change the rules. States do have the right to hold any type of elections including primaries when they want. We can't punish the voters of the states just because they voted early. Who should they listen to the State or a party? I would hope the State.
      • jaxontyler, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6Yeah dude, Flordia and Mich disenfranchised themselves. If anything people in Flordia and Michigan should be oustting their local leaders.
      • Hillsfar, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinton_s_Campai ...
    • bullcutter, on 04/29/2008, -6/+3this is not a man that "needs a break". he has already broken from reality, he needs a "fix"
    • lewhich, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Some machine ... seems to be malfunctioning and destroying everything insight
      • rezist, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2or it has won states where people realize that Obama isn't electable and managed to keep the race close.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 04/29/2008, -2/+6You need to stop thinking that Howard Dean is Barack Obama's servant. He is serving the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, damn near 50% of which supports CLINTON. He's played it VERY well in my opinion and is allowing free and fair competition without giving in to either side which could in turn SERIOUSLY hurt the unity of the party. So, stop your complaining about Howard Dean if it is completely based off of your love of Obama.
      • brentinkc, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4The only thing that's going to hurt the unity of this party is if Hillary gets the nomination after losing the popular vote.
        • lotsa1s, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1If Hilary gets the nomination I'm voting for McCain. I'd much prefer being divisive and douchebaggy by voting for an HONEST candidate then voting for that scheming whore of an embarrassment to the democratic party.
        • tannerpetry, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2You're smarter then that. Don't vote McCain just because Obama isn't the nominee.
          • lotsa1s, on 04/29/2008, -1/+0No, no I am not "smarter then that". If you want a democrat in the white house, you better be damn sure its Obama.
    • jbenson2, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2Now that Hillary has won Pennsylvania, it will take a village to help Obama escape from the suffocating embrace of his rival. Certainly Howard Dean will be of no use steering her to the exit. It’s like Micronesia telling Russia to denuke.

      “You know, some people counted me out and said to drop out,” said a glowing Hillary at her Philadelphia victory party, with Bill and Chelsea by her side. “Well, the American people don’t quit. And they deserve a president who doesn’t quit, either.”
  • ozymandias2012, on 04/29/2008, -14/+37Yeeahhhh!!!!!
    • DeskFlyer, on 04/29/2008, -8/+8No, it's YEEAAAARRRGH
    • h0merg0mez, on 04/29/2008, -7/+3NYAUUUURRRRGH!!!!!
    • Diderotten, on 04/29/2008, -5/+23Howard Dean's NYAUUUURRRRGHtergate was a completely overblown exagerration. No matter how many times they showed the video, it doesn't make him a maniac. Between Clinton's crying and Mccain's temper, Howard Dean comes off like a sane member of society.
      • 11oops, on 04/29/2008, -1/+6And sadly that single yell is what most likely caused us the last four years of Bush since Dean was far more electable than Kerry.
        • vbullinger, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3As a Republican, I concur.
        • KbuPlatinum, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3Not the yell itself, but the delicious replaying from the news networks
      • vbullinger, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1The real problem was that he pointed out how Bush knew about 9/11 in advance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOraRCSM1as
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/29/2008, -7/+7You all fail.

      it's BYAAAAAAAAAAAH! BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
      • AegisC, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4Right! Dave Chappelle even had a music video that spelled it out in the term's correct spelling. They all forgot to put the 'B' in.
      • teejer, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2i love how you're both soooo correct, and yet, they all bury you :- you're like the Obama to their Clinton. gg digg politics.

        BYAAAAAAH!@#!
      • goonnoodles, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2"BEEYAWW!"
  • OnlineMuckraker, on 04/29/2008, -23/+14Or maybe it is Wright to end it!!!!
    • bullcutter, on 04/29/2008, -8/+10the whole Wright "scandal" only ended up gaining Obama delegate votes
      • thebaron2, on 04/29/2008, -3/+9How do you figure?

        The best thing this guy could have done for Obama would have been to disappear under a rock. Instead he's out promoting a forthcoming book and stirring up more *****.
        • ProfessorSYM, on 04/29/2008, -3/+10Considering Wright is now his "former" pastor and that their relationship has chilled considerably since Obama disavowed his comments, I don't think Jeremiah Wright is looking out for anyone but himself at this point.

          The way I see it, Jeremiah Wright has served his country in the Marine Corps so he has every right to exercise his First Amendment guarantee. Doesn't make him any less crazy though.
        • Digger1218, on 04/29/2008, -0/+9@professor, the way I see it, every American including Rev.Wright has the right to exercise their first amendment rights. Military service is irrelevant in relation to rights.
        • lazyfisherman, on 04/29/2008, -2/+7Wright sees dollar signs and his moment in the sun... and he's going to milk it for all it is worth.
          • keymanjim2, on 04/29/2008, -2/+3Like a poor mans sharpton.
          • slvrbullet87, on 04/29/2008, -2/+3@key
            I thought sharpton was already for the poor man
          • keymanjim2, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Just their warm bodies that he can use at marches so he can extort money from the "rich" man.
        • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -2/+8ProfessorSYM, tell that to Imus. Remember he got *****-canned for racist remarks. Racism flows in all directions. I am offended by what Wright said and I am not going to take it. It was wrong and very racist.
          • Digger1218, on 04/29/2008, -3/+2Indeed, but Imus was employed by a company that relies on advertising dollars to make money. Wright is a pastor at a church with a congregation that doesn't seem to mind his remarks, bat-***** insane as they may be. Imus was fired because sponsors pulled advertisements, and there was a significant backlash which in the eyes of the executives of Imus' company, necessitated his removal.
          • 11oops, on 04/29/2008, -5/+2Perhaps you should observe Wright's comments in the full context of his sermon, and not just the five second soundbites played in MSM non-stop. You may find that not only are you no longer offended, but that you may even agree with his intended overall message.
          • thebaron2, on 04/29/2008, -2/+511oops:

            Unless the context was "This is what I DON'T think..." or "Here are some examples of some crazy thinking..." then I don't think I'd change my mind. Feel free to post this context if you please, but saying that God should damn America (as one popular example) is damn near impossible to contextualize in a way that I'd find agreeable.

            And I don't give a crap if he was quoting someone like the whole "Chickens coming home to roost" bit. People quote other people because they AGREE with the message. Unless, like I mentioned, he preceded that quote with "Listen to the ***** up ***** this guy has to say..."
          • 11oops, on 04/29/2008, -5/+1 “I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.”

            “We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

            “We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

            “We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

            “We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

            “We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

            “We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

            “We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

            “Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

            “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

            “Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”
          • bullcutter, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2you don't have to "take it." try changing the channel dumbass
          • thebaron2, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4@11oops,

            You may want to email your arguments to Obama's campaign now, because he's saying Wright's appearance yesterday was an "outrage" and that Wright isn't "the person that [he] met 20 years ago." Even Obama is distancing himself from this nut, now (finally). Here's a link to Obama's press conference today, where he agrees with most of what everyone's been saying about Wright all along - the guy is divisive and hateful.

            http://en.sevenload.com/videos/yJCbwMN-Obama-bus
          • 11oops, on 04/29/2008, -3/+1@ The Baron
            I would expect nothing else from a politician, and if even one prospective voter was offended by Wright's remarks it was the correct move to make. However, the question should be asked if Obama would have disowned his pastor if it hadn't become main-stream news? If not, then one can assume that Obama does understand the context in which the sermons were given.

            And there is no need to email since my views and opinions are not Obama's, just as his are not mine. I am not running for political office, therefore I have the luxury of being able to say what I actually believe, rather than what I believe people want to hear in order to get myself elected.
        • 11oops, on 04/29/2008, -4/+1And the 'Goddamn America' sermon can be found here:
          http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-sto ...
          • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4Do you really believe this?
            “We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear." If you don't know that Africans sold Africans as slaves to the rest of the slave trading world you are missing out on a vital piece of information that may help you not be so hateful towards whites. Also in case you never thought about it, I nor my father nor my grandfather nor his ever owned a slave. I didn't steal or enslave anyone so Goddamn Write America.

          • 11oops, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1He states “All colonizers are not white. Turn to your neighbors and say that oppressors come in all colors.” Yes, Africans sold Africans, but Americans bought Africans, and Americans sold Africans. To say that Africans themselves are entirely to blame means that you are 'missing out on a vital piece of information that may help you' as well.

            At no point does he say or imply 'god damn America's citizens', but rather the government and policies. Pay particular attention to the first seven words in the Goddamn portion to realize how important context is:

            “And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent, she failed. She put them on reservations.”

            “When it came to putting her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in interment prison camps.”

            “When it came to putting the citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters. Put them on auction blocks. Put them in cotton fields. Put them in inferior schools. Put them in substandard housing. Put them scientific experiments. Put them in the lower paying jobs. Put them outside the equal protection of the law. Kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education, and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness.”

            “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing God Bless America. Naw, naw, naw. Not God Bless America. God Damn America! That’s in the Bible. For killing innocent people. God Damn America for treating us citizens as less than human. God Damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is Supreme.”

            *Full disclosure, I am white, non-religious, and not an Obama supporter, but am rather someone who can read and take the time to find and read the full passages, rather than relying on out-of-context soundbites to make a determination of my opinion. I will not allow myself to be spoonfed by the MSM as you are apparently so willing to do.
          • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2I did mention the “Slave trading world” Many were white and lucky for them that they are dead or they would have some answering to do. It has nothing to do with our generation. All that does is does is keep hate alive.
            Let’s examine the Indian line:
            “And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent, she failed. She put them on reservations.”
            The Indian way of life was not compatible with the American way of life at that point in time. Were the founding fathers expected to build a wall around the plains to protect the Indians? It could never be done. Once the railroad was built the bison herd was split and the way of the Indian could not exist anymore. Some people had bad intentions but there were also many good people that wanted to help the Indians.
            Is it not better to judge us based on what we do within our lifetime? Wright is riding the hate train and blaming white America for the slave and gangster culture many of his followers, white or black live by.
          • 11oops, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1Sections stated from within our's, our father's and our grandfather's lifetimes:

            "The government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. They wanted that resolution to get us in the Vietnam War. Governments lie. The government lied about Nelson Mandela and our CIA helped put him in prison and keep him there for 27 years. The South African government lied on Nelson Mandela. Governments lie.”

            “The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis. Governments lie. The government lied about bombing Cambodia and Richard Nixon stood in front of the camera, ‘Let me make myself perfectly clear…’ Governments lie. The government lied about the drugs for arms Contra scheme orchestrated by Oliver North, and then the government pardoned all the perpetrators so they could get better jobs in the government. Governments lie.”

            “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie. The government lied about a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and a connection between 9.11.01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie.”

            “The government lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq being a threat to the United States peace. And guess what else? If they don’t find them some weapons of mass destruction, they gonna do just like the LAPD, and plant the some weapons of mass destruction. Governments lie.”

            ...

            “Prior to Harry Truman’s government, the military was segregated. But governments change.”

            “Prior to the Civil Rights and equal accommodation laws of the government in this country, there was backed segregation by the country, legal discrimination by the government, prohibited blacks from voting by the government, you had to eat and sit in separate places by the government, you had sit in different places from white folks because the government said so, and you had to buried in a separate cemetery. It was apartheid, American style, from the cradle to the grave, all because the government backed it up.”

            “But guess what? Governments change. Under Bill Clinton, we got a messed up welfare to work bill, but under Clinton blacks had an intelligent friend in the Oval Office. Oh, but governments change.”

            “The election was stolen. We went from an intelligent friend to a dumb Dixiecrat. A rich Republican who has never held a job in his life; is against affirmative action (and) against education – I guess he is; against healthcare, against benefits for his own military, and gives tax breaks to the wealthiest contributors to his campaign. Governments change. Sometimes for the good, and sometimes for the bad.”

            ...

            Put them in inferior schools. Put them in substandard housing. Put them scientific experiments. Put them in the lower paying jobs. Put them outside the equal protection of the law. Kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education, and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness.”

            “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing God Bless America. Naw, naw, naw. Not God Bless America. God Damn America!
          • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4It seems Obama agrees with me. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24371827/
            Obama strongly denounces former pastor
            Candidate calls Wright's recent comments 'wrong and destructive'

            What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that contradicts what I am and what I stand for," Obama said.

            Thanks for the civil debate 11oops's. We don't see eye to eye but at least we are not burying each other because of beliefs.
          • 11oops, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Anytime.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 04/29/2008, -7/+4It's getting to the point where it seems like Wright is TRYING to screw Obama, or took some money from some rich White republicans to keep putting his Obama-killing face on TV. You think it's not so bad? Watch the field day the Repubs have with this.
      • Herkimer56, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3It's not the Republicans. This has Hillary's fingerprints all over it. Watch the field day that she has with this.
    • oldgal, on 04/29/2008, -4/+7Let's give the media some credit here. Wright made the press look foolish at the press club breakfast and is now paying the price. I have never seen such blatant misrepresentation as with the coverage of this speech. The press is working overtime to manufacture a scandal. And given the comments I am seeing from folks who pay attention to the media but haven't watched the speech, I would say they are succeeding beyond their wildest expectations.
      • keymanjim2, on 04/29/2008, -4/+4Yep, you bought into his racist lies.
        • oldgal, on 04/29/2008, -4/+4Please quote some of the lies of which you speak. Although I didn't agree with his interpretation of some events, I did not hear any lies.
          • keymanjim2, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3You've heard them. Don't deny that you haven't. Just because you've been brainwashed into ignoring the abuse of the white people in this country doesn't mean it's not happening.
            Quit being a lemming.
          • JohnReb, on 04/30/2008, -3/+3"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color"
            How about that one?
          • oldgal, on 04/30/2008, -2/+2If you listen carefully he didn't say that the government lied he said he believed that the government was capable of doing it. I disagree with him on this one, however, the Tuskegee experiments of which he speaks are well documented. He comes from an older generation and carries the bitterness well earned in that era. I'm white and still resent some of the stuff that happened when I went to college in Texas in the early 60s. This baggage is not helpful in solving todays problems, it is time to turn the leadership over to a younger world view that travels without this baggage - thanks to those who struggled before them.
          • JohnReb, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1No, he didn't say he thought the government was capable of it, he specifically said the government did it.

            He said “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie. The government lied about a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and a connection between 9.11.01 and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Governments lie.”
            Where in there is any doubt that the government lied when it claimed it didn't create HIV?
        • bullcutter, on 04/29/2008, -5/+4you'll never get a response from someone like key, like a parrot or a tape recorder they just regurgitate ***** propoganda being spewed by the fat fags of rightwing radio, because they've been completely brainwashed and they can't help themselves
          • keymanjim2, on 04/30/2008, -2/+3Go read the response and SUCK IT BITCH.
  • nosecohn, on 04/29/2008, -2/+19Apparently Dean doesn't think Hillary's going to push to seat Michigan and Florida at the convention. I hope he knows something that we don't.
    • Chirp08, on 04/29/2008, -3/+5Maybe Dean made up his mind regardless of what she wants about Michigan and Florida.
      • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Anyone thinking Michigan and Florida votes wont be counted are out of touch. Do the people of these states not have the right to vote and have it counted?
        • 11oops, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Considering that Florida is a democratic stronghold, the party should be hesitant to risk disenfranchising millions of voters who routinely vote democrat. These voters should already have a strong opinion that their vote doesn't count after the 2000 election, and now the democrats want to further prove them correct.
    • johnn11238, on 04/29/2008, -1/+19The Michigan/Florida issue is dead. Their state legislatures rejected re-votes.
      • RX9735, on 04/29/2008, -6/+2Because there is no need to re-vote. They didn't vote the way you wanted them to so ***** them? I think not.
        • fluxion, on 04/29/2008, -1/+9uhh...cuz obama's name WASNT EVEN ON THE BALLOT in michigan because he and hillary agreed not to campaign? and people who would have voted but were told their votes wouldnt count simply rephrained, so it's unfair to all of a sudden count the people who voted for ***** and giggles and not them?

          the states f'd it up again by not allowing a re-vote. that is ABSOLUTELY the only fair way that their votes could be counted.
        • StarlessKnight, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1What's wrong? Afraid a revote won't turn out in Clinton's favor? If she really has standing in the state, then the revote should turn out more or less like the "vote" right?

          To say nothing about the lack of Obama on the ballot (along with the other candidates) and the serious lack of campaigning due to agreements Clinton apparently feels free to renegade on.
          • johnn11238, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1I think it had more to do with the fact that it would have cost $6 Million.
      • jbenson2, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5It's not dead at the convention.
        • fluxion, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2is there talk of letting the delegates ignore the state elections and vote freely at the convention?
      • ralphodog, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure the Democrats will smart up and find a way to seat the delegates. A substantial percent of the democratic voters in those states (myself included) will refuse to vote Democat in November if our Democrat votes in January are counted.
    • ninetimes, on 04/29/2008, -0/+8I think Dean has implied that the delegates will be seated, but some arrangement will be made (such as automatically splitting them 50/50).

      However, the issue isn't entirely his decision.
    • jrm5100, on 04/29/2008, -2/+0I think that by the convention Obama will be well enough ahead that he can giver her FL and MI and she will still be significantly behind. She can push for them all she wants, it won't make a difference.
    • colomboj, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Maybe he read the rules... o snap we have rules? I know it comes as a surprise but the DNC has rules that govern when and how to change the dates of primary's, and caucus's. Both Florida and Michigan jumped the gun and did it the wrong way, so they don't count end of story! I know that everyones vote should count, but everyone needs to follow the rules as well! Otherwise what's the point in having rules?
  • brokenspatula, on 04/29/2008, -27/+12I stopped listening to deans garbage long ago
    • fx666, on 04/29/2008, -11/+4I agree. Dean is a complete idiot.
    • fluxion, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3his statements regarding this are completely reasonable. dont hate on the messenger
  • cheezeme, on 04/29/2008, -68/+6Dean has real hatred for the Clitons. It explains a lot of 0bamas success. I have to spell 0bama with a zero because the 0bama team is pushing all my posts into the floor.
    • farkis, on 04/29/2008, -5/+19Cheezeme, I just had to digg you down.
    • quetzzz, on 04/29/2008, -3/+23I find that my tin foil hat prevents my posts from getting buried.
    • Nougat, on 04/29/2008, -4/+21ch33z3m3 - I had to spell your nick with four "3s" because you're an idiot.
    • Inflammo, on 04/29/2008, -3/+6Ah, the mythical "clitons"...oh, wait...
  • rebotfc, on 04/29/2008, -19/+19Dean has shown absolutely no leadership, by allowing this contest to drag on and on he has given the republicans an unforgivable head start.
    • johnn11238, on 04/29/2008, -2/+15Dean has NO power to make ANYONE do ANYTHING. Traditional party power is concentrated in the the states, not the national office. It's been that way for decades.
      • flossdaily, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Dean has influence over the party, both by virtue of his elected station as head of the DNC, but also because in that capacity he has a very loud voice in the media. If he had used that influence to embarrass the spineless dems in the congress, we would have forced bush to put a timeline on withdrawal in exchange for troop funding. instead they all caved and dean was useless.
    • jgzman, on 04/29/2008, -2/+6May I remind you that he has no reason to do anything about it? The process has not ended yet. Sure, it appears to be a forgone conclusion, but Clinton is well within her rights to continue. Some of the ***** she has pulled is utter, utter *****, but simply remaining is not wrong, no matter how foolish it makes her look.
    • fluxion, on 04/29/2008, -2/+7we need a unified base. you cant expect that to happen without letting hillary drop out by her own decision, else you're giving a big "f*ck you" to her supporters.

      there was already a large backlash about this a month or so back when popular democrats started pressuring her to drop out. women, who've played a crucial role in this process, felt they were being push-aside, just as younger voters would feel if obama was stepped over.

      even obama knows this, and is letting her play ball till her campaign runs its course.

      dean is handling this well. we all know the eventual outcome anyway, he's simply setting it up for a civil ending.
      • flossdaily, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I don't understand why women feel they need Hillary as a feminist icon.

        #1) The gender wars are over- you won ladies. I can't turn on the TV without every commercial reminding me that guys are dumb and women are smart.

        #2) Hillary is abrasive and charmless. If Hillary were a guy she would have been out of this nomination process in the first week. Edwards had the same policies but was a lot more charming and pretty.

        #3) Give me a charming and electable liberal female candidate, and I'll not only vote for her, I'll quit my job and campaign for her full time.
    • h0stile17, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2And all of the McCainiacs the world over thank him for it. BYYYAAAHHHHHHH!!!
    • notanidiot, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1*****. All the attention the democrats are getting pretty much tells you which way the wind is blowing. McCain hasn't even been attacked yet! I can give my grandpa a 20 minute head start in a half mile race, but guess what:

      I'll still smoke him like a blunt!

      Haven't you heard McCain sing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!" Yeah, really cool when you make jokes about war! He's done, and so are you. Bye now!
  • christopheles, on 04/29/2008, -3/+30Clinton or Obama? Way to be decisive Howie.
  • bullcutter, on 04/29/2008, -22/+7why is Howard Dean in charge of anything?!
    • Hillsfar, on 04/29/2008, -5/+10Dean masterminded the 50-state strategy that Obama's campaign is following. The goal is to organize and fight for votes in every state, not just the big ones. It's working out really well for Obama.
      • bullcutter, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2"Dean masterminded the 50-state strategy that Obama's campaign is following"

        sorry, but i have a hard time believing that ass is capable of "masterminding" anything...
    • Acewrap, on 04/29/2008, -2/+5Elections have consequences.
    • Griberal, on 04/29/2008, -5/+3He rose up to the leadership because he became popular with a fringe group with strong internet presence. He was also able to snow these sheep into donating tons of money to his campaign. Then with one scream, he was not only exposed as the buffoon that he is, but it ended any chance that he ever had at winning the presidency. His rise and fall sounds really familiar. You have to wonder if Reverend Wright's "scream" will do the internet candidate in this year.
      • Dibou, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2And here I thought it wasn't the scream but that he was an imbecile. Too bad the majority of Americans realized this way before the Democrats, but what else is new?
        • bullcutter, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2the majority of Americans _are_ Democrats.
    • bullcutter, on 04/29/2008, -3/+1but i mean, just look at him. just look at the pic of that empty tool. i've had turds that convey more intelligence.
  • WeirdEdsel, on 04/29/2008, -17/+10YEEEAAGH!
  • JoEBlack982, on 04/29/2008, -21/+6Yeah Hillary, stop winning primaries, that pisses us off. /sarcasm
  • svtspeed, on 04/29/2008, -28/+9To Hilldog,

    I don't even know what to say anymore. Oh wait, yes I do - please kindly DIAF.

    Thanks,
    The people who actually give a damn about this country

    P.S.
    You're a ***** and I don't like you.
    • cr4ft, on 04/29/2008, -4/+9How about you drop out of making comments for digg, they're equally as unpleasing and, oh, you're not funny either
    • psibladeZX, on 04/29/2008, -2/+3I agree with svtspeed... she's a bitch that needs to just drop out
  • aithk608, on 04/29/2008, -15/+10YEEAAHH!
  • spaceman84, on 04/29/2008, -14/+126We're gonna go to Michigan, we're gonna go to Vermont, we're going to Cancun for Spring Break, we're gonna go to Montreal, we're goin' to Vancouver, I'm goin' all over the world! And then I'm comin' all the way to Washington DC to take back the White House!

    BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

    I'm gonna kick open the door to the Oval Office and chop my *****' desk in half! BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! And then I'ma grab the the Secret Service like this and put him in a headlock and say BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! And then I'ma go straight into my bedroom and grab my wife like this and I'ma be like BYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
  • Pherdnut, on 04/29/2008, -4/+20or July... or whenever you guys think one of you should uh.. you know... if you feel like it.
  • MindyB, on 04/29/2008, -14/+9Why in the world did he say that either Clinton or Obama needs to pull out? Obama is winning and there is no way she can catch up to him, why should the option of dropping out include him?? I smell a big rat at the DNC!!!
    • Acewrap, on 04/29/2008, -1/+12Because he is the head of the DNC, he can not give an endorsement, which telling Hillary to drop out would amount to.
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 04/29/2008, -16/+3or else..... "ARRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!! hello, anybody out there? please please listen to me, like Michigan and Florida"
  • db0255, on 04/29/2008, -9/+2Did Howard Dean lose weight?
  • cr4ft, on 04/29/2008, -21/+58Listen, I want Obama to win....seriously, who doesnt? The fact is though, no one has the right to tell ANYONE to drop out.

    Sure, Hillary is most-likely going to lose...but she's still fighting and that's admirable. I mean, if I was boxer and someone told me to "just quit" - I'd tell them to STFU....if it goes to the convention then let it go to the convention.

    Eventually, Hillary will come to her own senses and realize that it's best for the party...so, I really couldn't give a monkey's ***** if I get dugg down...it's the truth and you know it
    • 1town, on 04/29/2008, -23/+14"Listen, I want Obama to win....seriously, who doesnt?"

      I dont.
      • kipmartin, on 04/29/2008, -7/+6yes you do. in your heart you know you do.

        look at your choices: an evil lying bitch from Hell, the PTSD poster boy, or the guy in the aluminum hat (that could be Ron Paul OR Ralph).
      • GeekyLotus, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3I want Obama to win, but I Dugg 1town up on principle along with others who simply stated that they don't want Obama to win.

        I would not ordinarily digg such comments up, but I feel they are more neutral comments, neither strong positive or negative. If anything, I think they deserve a slight positive to remind people that there is more than one collective of thought.

        I don't like the atmosphere of cookie-cutter groupthink even when it is in alignment with me.

        -T-
    • MattBlackCat, on 04/29/2008, -19/+11I don't either
    • ProfessorSYM, on 04/29/2008, -9/+41"Sure, Hillary is most-likely going to lose...but she's still fighting and that's admirable."

      Except that she is fighting dirty against another Democrat, and that is most definitely NOT admirable. The sad part is that if she ran completely on her own campaign platform, rather than throwing the "kitchen sink" at Obama (as her campaign so proudly declared they would), she would probably have clinched the nomination by now.

      As for your presumption that Hillary will come to her senses and realize what's best for the party, methinks you haven't been paying attention to her behavior during the primary. The Clintons embody everything that is wrong with the Democratic party today.
      • ad33lshahid, on 04/29/2008, -2/+6i dont think hillary cares about whats right for the party, kinda like lieberman who just ran for VP on the democratic ticket, and now endorsed mccain for president (!?!?!)
        • laserblazer, on 04/29/2008, -3/+4Lieberman makes Americans look bad - except for those who like him, who can't look any worse.
      • Dibou, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Yeah, Democrats should only fight dirty against Republicans, just like always.
      • UnterDenLinden, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Obama embodies everything that is wrong with the US. People looking past obvious faults because of some unquantifiable charisma.
      • rinote, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1If Obama can't take potshots from the Clinton machine what makes you think he'll be able to win against the Republicans?
    • amightywind, on 04/29/2008, -14/+9I don't, seriously.
    • garryw, on 04/29/2008, -13/+8I dont.
    • garryw, on 04/29/2008, -13/+8I DON'T
    • plhearn, on 04/29/2008, -15/+8I don't. Go Hillary!
    • mertster, on 04/29/2008, -8/+7I DO

      LOUD NOISES
    • exomni, on 04/29/2008, -3/+17Uh, yeah they do. It's the democrat's party, not Hillary Clinton's. Everyone who gives a ***** about the democratic party's chances of winning in November should be telling Hillary to drop out, they have every right and every obligation to.
      • plhearn, on 04/29/2008, -2/+6I'm tired of all this ***** about supporting the party. I vote based on which candidate is best for the job, regardless of party affiliation. Nobody cared about the party when Ron Paul was still in the race. Also, you can just as easily say that Obama should drop out for the good of the party since he can't beat McCain in a general election.

        http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/A ...
        http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps ...
        • exomni, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2What the hell are you talking about?

          Yeah, NY and CA are "weak" democratic states, and Texas is "barely" republican... yep, that there poll seems pretty accurate.
      • hobophobe, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2This is a reply to plhearn. Sorry, clicked the wrong reply spot.

        Can't is a strong word to put behind those maps. I like electoral-vote.com but those maps don't even account for margins of error. When you do those maps can look pretty different. Most any state with a white belly could flip, for example. Some of the data is also at least a few months old.

        Neither of those things is electoral-vote.com's fault. The data is interesting and you can draw some conclusions from it, but don't try to push it beyond what it represents.

        As for the question about whether Clinton or Obama should concede the nomination, I believe as long as the party allows them to do so they have every right to seek its nomination. I also believe the party has the right to deny anyone the nomination for any office for any reason.

        Political parties are private organizations that are not a part of the government. Any primaries, campaigns, and the like should be paid for solely by their respective party. I'd think Ron Paul could get behind that idea.
    • dxgg, on 04/29/2008, -3/+7"Eventually, Hillary will come to her own senses..."
      You had me until there.
    • 11oops, on 04/29/2008, -6/+5I don't. I want a democrat in the whitehouse, and the most current poll shows that Hillary is ahead of McCain by 9pts whereas Obama is equal. That worries me more than anything else because it shows that when it does go head to head with the republicans focusing all their smear tactics on Obama he will drop, and the country will once again be ***** for another four years.

      http://news.google.com/news?oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozil ...
      • typographics, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Hillary isn't very good with keeping a lead, and Obama is really good about coming back from behind...
      • UnterDenLinden, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Against Hilary, who made some big mistakes. I wouldn't count on McCain making those same mistakes, especially after watching Hilary make them.
    • kurosen, on 04/29/2008, -3/+7Regardless of whether I do or don't, this thread makes me sick...

      It's amazing that anyone who said "I don't" got dugg down.... Since when is it wrong for people to vote the way they want and express their opinions?

      What the hell happened to you political diggers who are all for a more democratic vote? Digging someone down solely on the fact that they want to vote for someone other than the