digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at rawstory.com

Kerry: Limbaugh's 'tampering' gave Clinton Indiana victory

rawstory.com — "If it hadn't been for Republicans taking Democratic ballots, he likely would have won in Indiana," Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said Wednesday on a conference call hosted by the Obama campaign. "Rush Limbaugh was tampering with the primary and the GOP has clearly declared they want Clinton as a candidate."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • tcbishop12, on 05/07/2008, -11/+74I must say that now is not the time to breathe any sigh of relief or let up in getting our opinion that Hillary must drop out for the good of the party to the mainstream media.

    I insist that the pressure by kept on and that we should learn from recent history: Clinton's psyche is the "ruthless psychological" manipulator." Just when you think she's finished, the apple-cheeked destroyer comes roaring back up like Glenn Close emerging from the bathwater in 'Fatal Attraction.'

    Mrs. Clinton may describe herself as playing the "heartfelt, compassionate comeback kid", but we must be mindful that she still pounces like a heavyweight Rottweiler on any slip of her opponent's.

    It is time to end it. Keep the pressure on. Contact the undececided or undeclared supers in your congressional district and get them to commit. Don't let Hillary stumble across the next viral idea structure or "meme" that will grab the media's attention to assist her few remaining backers in deluding the Democratic party that she can win without destroying the fabric of democracy and decency.

    Above all, we must insure that Rush Limbaugh's efforts to derail Sen. Obama are not rewarded. End the Clinton campaign now. She is pinned. Do not let her up off the mat.

    It is our future that is at stake. Let's secure it now.
    • wild, on 05/07/2008, -3/+16Are you implying HRC is a bunny boiler?


      and seriously:
      "Contact the undececided or undeclared supers in your congressional district and get them to commit."

      DON'T do this. The Obama campaign has specifically asked supporters to leave them alone and allow the campaign to handle the conversation.
      • TheAngryMob, on 05/07/2008, -6/+10Yes. Heaven forbid we the voters get a say in our representative government.
        • 11oops, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4If you want to help then sign up to volunteer to help the campaign.
    • DigitAl56K, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3"I insist that the pressure by kept on and that we should learn from recent history"

      Well, since you insist, alrighty then!
    • koft, on 05/07/2008, -10/+10My girlfriend and I voted for Obama yesterday in NC.
      • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5Measurements?
      • FlagrantDrugUse, on 05/07/2008, -1/+10*pat on the back*


        is that what you wanted?
      • PDubNYC, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6you and your "girlfriend" Lefthandgela count as one vote I'm afraid

      • MisterChirish, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4I don't know why you're getting dugg down for telling people you voted for Obama on a fairly pro-Obama thread.

        Must be Hillary supporters, or maybe more of those wacky Operation Chaos operatives...
    • petebot, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2spoiler alert!
    • FutureGuy, on 05/07/2008, -7/+3Isn't it illegal what Rush Limbaugh is doing? Can't the DNC take him to court or do they not have the balls for that?
      • mwrl, on 05/07/2008, -4/+5He isn't doing anything, You have the right to vote however you want. Democrats do it all the time.
        • jmas9, on 05/07/2008, -3/+5Is there any chance we can get Anon to leave Co$ alone for a while and go after Rush? This guy is a complete douchebag.
        • WasabiBomb, on 05/07/2008, -2/+7"Democrats do it all the time."
          Not to the extent that Rush proposed. And, personally, I can only think of one time it was done by the Dems. However, that's beside the point- we need to stop using "But the other party did it!" as an excuse.

          If it was wrong for them to do it, then, it's wrong for you to do it, now.
        • kithogan, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1We switched parties to vote for Obama to stop Hillary.
      • FlagrantDrugUse, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3I really dunno if it is or not. People will vote for who they want to, even if it's just so that person will lose later on.
      • johnpaul191, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6Certain states have laws that may technically have been violated if you can consider what he did a conspiracy to manipulate an election. Most states don't seem to have any such law, and that's probably because under normal circumstances there is some shady crap that happens in election.... and those shady acts are committed by the politicians that write the laws and the judges that enforce them. Remember the Democrats were doing the same thing in some states.
        Unfortunately i think this crap will not help states with a closed primary change the system.
      • MisterChirish, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Ultimately, they would have to prove that Rush Limbaugh made people vote for Hillary Clinton in these primaries. Chances are the case would be based on a lot of flimsy evidence and conclusions that probably wouldn't stand up in court.

        It would be nice if they could screw over the fat-man, but chances are they'd just give him more fodder to flap his jowls about...
      • daiatan, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Nothing Illegal about it,
        Open ballot, Republicans were free to vote and theres nothing illegal about political advocacy...though there probably should be.
    • PepeGSay, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3LImbaugh has said from the beginning that Operation Chaos has **CHAOS** as it's goal, not giving the victory to one or the other candidate. I would suspect that it's a bit of projection... or delusion... to assume that he wants to derail Obama because he wants to go against Clinton in the general election.
      • oscenester, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Right. because that conservative right wing nut definately doesn't want the candidate most likely to be voted president to be McCains adversary in the election. Your an idiot.
        • insertAliasHere, on 05/07/2008, -0/+11I can't help but laugh when someone writes "your" an idiot.
        • oscenester, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1lol. caught me. sorry i was one hand typing and not thinking. redtube is just too interesting.
    • outkaster, on 05/07/2008, -5/+3Above all, we must insure that Rush Limbaugh's efforts to derail Sen. Obama are not rewarded. End the Clinton campaign now. She is pinned. Do not let her up off the mat.

      Hook, line, and sinker. This is exactly the type of in fighting within the Democratic party that operation chaos is meant to provoke.
  • FukUrCouch, on 05/07/2008, -36/+41Rush Limbaugh has the biggest drug induced ego in America. The problem is that there are thousands of people who can't think for themselves and rather be part of the bandwagon. I'm sure if Rush told those people to give him a blow job they would ask..how do you like it?
    • Julik, on 05/07/2008, -20/+15The bandwagon is just as large, if not larger on the other side.
      • Andrew626, on 05/07/2008, -9/+5True!!!! 5 months ago there was nothing on digg about obama, now theres 57 posts a day
        • darkzealot89, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2You mean 5 months ago it was nothing but RON PAUL on digg. Obama is FP'ing because what he is doing is the change America needs right now!
          • Nerys, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1and the only reasons we are not still talking about ron paul is the media has done limbaugh one better and virtually banned him from TV which completely obliterated any fair election shot he may or may not have had. That what your talking about?
      • black27696, on 05/07/2008, -7/+4Exactly. Most of the arguments for why people want to vote for Obama is "Bush Sucks!" but no one ever backs themselves up with something. If you want to vote for a democrat, that's fine. Just give a reason for it.
        • orientis, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Obama is perhaps the most presidential candidate any party has fielded for the last twenty years in your strange country. The entire world looks at your election and hopes Obama wins. He has the potential to unify your country and make it a vehicle for peace and charity instead of war and destruction. I, for one prejudiced against the US for your governments actions over decades, would love to look upon your country and its citizens with goodwill. The US needs Obama. Vote for him.
    • UTKEngineer, on 05/07/2008, -20/+9Only about half of them would indeed ask "How do you like it?"
      The other half already have their mouths full of Obama.
      • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+8Half of Rush's listeners are on Obama's jock? No wonder he wants Hitlery to get the nod...
    • cha5e, on 05/07/2008, -2/+11I'll start out by saying I'm pretty liberal, and voted for Obama (if only because Gravel wasn't an option).
      I was listening to a radio station here in Indy on Tuesday morning, and a Republican guy called in and urged his fellow Republicans to vote for Obama, on the argument of "Of course we want McCain to win in November, but if he *does* lose, really, who would you rather have as president, Obama or Clinton?". Agree with his political viewpoint or not, but I thought that guy was a class act.
      • HoratioHellpop, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1// a Republican guy called in and urged his fellow Republicans to vote for Obama, on the argument of "Of course we want McCain to win in November, but if he *does* lose, really, who would you rather have as president, Obama or Clinton?"/// .... still trying to see the logic in that statement .... or is it "Hoosier logic"?
        • cha5e, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1My point was:
          Rush said "hey, cross over and vote for the democrat you like the least".
          This guy said "hey, even though you like McCain better than either democrat, since he is running unopposed and will get his party's nomination regardless, cross over and vote for the democrat you like most".
        • cha5e, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2...in other words, Rush was advising people to act disingenuously. Rush may get the craftiness points, but radio guy gets the warmfuzzy points. And, hypothetically, consider the following 4 scenarios, from a Republican's point of view. Let's assume that between Clinton and Obama, Clinton is the candidate who is less desirable to Republicans (but of course the logic below still works if you make the opposite assumption, just swap "Clinton" and "Obama" in the text below):
          Scenario 1: Republicans follow Rush's advice in droves, and vote for Clinton, giving her the nomination. McCain beats Clinton, though. Republicans are happy.
          Scenario 2: Republicans follow Radio Guy's advice in droves, and vote for Obama, giving him the nomination. McCain beats Obama, though. Republicans are happy.
          Scenario 3: Republicans follow Rush's advice in droves, and vote for Clinton, giving her the nomination. And then she beats McCain. Republicans say "Oh, crap, we really shot ourselves in the foot, didn't we?"
          Scenario 4: Republicans follow Radio Guy's advice in droves, and vote for Obama, giving him the nomination. Obama beats McCain. Republicans aren't as happy as they would have been in scenarios 1 and 2...but are still happier than they would have been in scenario 3.

          It's kind of a Pascal's Wager thing, in a weird sort of way.

          Of course, yes, I have glossed over the fact that my logic above assumes that (the odds of scenario 1 vs scenario 3) == (the odds of scenario 2 vs scenario 4), and that assumption certainly may be faulty.
    • PepeGSay, on 05/07/2008, -3/+5People have been accusing Limbaugh of leading his followers to do things, when he has very very very rarely actually done so. Now, this is the one time he is openly and actively doing just that and it has all of these people completely flustered. lol
    • IslandDog, on 05/07/2008, -6/+4The same can be said for the Obama supporters.
    • stilesja, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1My cousin is a gay escort in West Palm Beach Florida and supposedly Rush uses his services quite regularly under the assumed name of Max Shore. Mostly likes recieving BJ's though and says the other stuff is "too gay"
  • rancemo, on 05/07/2008, -18/+110If Rush is tampering, then so is the rest of the mainstream media.
    • Chahrlie5, on 05/07/2008, -8/+12Jedi hand wave * You will vote for Obama *
      • freedomkeeper, on 05/07/2008, -15/+5One finger salute, "No, I won't!"
      • orangefly, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1freedomkeeper must be Toydarian....or hutt....
      • t3rmv3locity, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1More like
        Jedi hand wave * You will vote for Clinton *
    • cha5e, on 05/07/2008, -3/+13Not *quite* as blatantly, though. But yeah, I'm ticked that the MSM narrowed the field to 3 candidates from each party from day 1.
    • Briankb68, on 05/07/2008, -2/+15Jedi hand wave "Get me a taco"
      • dualscreenman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Heh heh, tacos rule!
      • black27696, on 05/07/2008, -7/+1If that doesn't work: Jedi hand wave "sudo give me a taco"

        And yes, I'm referencing XKCD, so don't post a bunch of crap saying "OMG J00 sT0L3 frum X kay see D"
        • JaronDiggGuy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2That's not why we hate you.

          /penny-arcade reference.
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/07/2008, -13/+5Hahahahahahahaha
  • jh9110, on 05/07/2008, -19/+5Doesn't matter that bitch couldn't even pull of a decent victory with tampering.
  • fleischner, on 05/07/2008, -18/+29Kerry who?
    • dpcamp, on 05/07/2008, -3/+12they guy married to the ketchup lady..
    • HoratioHellpop, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2aka Swiftboat Johnny
    • Dgen_X, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Frankenstein
    • Trick07, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1The Democrat to mess things up and keep the big D out of the oval office.
    • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1With friends like that....
  • hammerpants, on 05/07/2008, -6/+31*ignorant, misinformed comment based on logical fallacies*
    • breckinshire, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5*Comment informing you that I dugg your comment due to some quote contained therein*
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3In other words, standard Digg fare.
    • t3rmv3locity, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2*Rambling comment filled with inaccurate information eventually linking to another digg story which happens to be a funny but related video*
      Might as well post the comment too:

      Well technically thats not quite accurate. If they lost the primary but won the popular vote then they can petition the super-delegates for a 'revote' which, if successful would result in a revote in each state which seated delegates but only if the state held a primary not a caucus because if the state held a caucus the state senate democratic party would hold the revote and if passed by a margin which is more then the margin by which the candidate lost in that states caucus then the states super-delegates would hold a meeting and vote as a block in a national seating of the democratic super-delegates and if the revote passed by the margin which the candidate lost then the candidate would be allowed to run for pubic office again providing that the candidate had the endorsement of more then two thirds of the state democratic parties and the endorsement of the national democratic party but each party has their own rules and regulations regarding candidates re-election so any process may vary in any state which allows for the possibility that a candidate's application may be automatically denied.
      Explained here: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hilarious_explan ...
  • laserdog, on 05/07/2008, -11/+5I don't think Limbaugh has thought his cunning plan all the way through.

    Having people registered to other parties is going to muck up their ability to get out the vote when it'll matter, not to mention not being able to send them the all important "give us money!" fliers.
    • Nougat, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4People who are motivated enough to switch parties just to cast a ballot to mess with the opponents' primary are going to keep themselves in the know. They don't need the party to come chase them down.
      • laserdog, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4They're also the ones most likely to give you money when you remind them to.
    • cyberdependent, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3But see, in Indiana, you don't register to a party. You simply show up and the poll worker asks if you want a republican or democratic ballot. There would be no negative repercussions for a die-hard republican to ask for a ballot to vote for Clinton, other then they wouldn't get to vote for their favorite republicans in their primary.
    • relentless1914, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2No the real thing this will do is to convince the parties that they both had more "crossover" votes than they really had. It may actually be a good thing in the end as it may convince the parties to put forward more moderate candidates.
    • JakobVirgil, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1They have already had problems with this in Texas.
      -Jake
  • superkendall, on 05/07/2008, -8/+27More Republicans cross over to vote for Obama than Clinton. I know a number of Republicans who have voted for Obama because they think he's a better person, who more deserves a chance at election.
    • fleischner, on 05/07/2008, -21/+9Then these people you know aren't Republicans. Or conservatives. Or very bright.
    • freedomkeeper, on 05/07/2008, -3/+0You have a few friends? superkendall IS John Kerry!
    • Treoinmypocket, on 05/07/2008, -1/+9"More Republicans cross over to vote for Obama than Clinton. "

      You wouldn't by any chance have any ...you know...facts to back that statement up would you?
      • superkendall, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Just a number of friends who did exactly that in Colorado, and previous reports I've seen detailing republicans who crossed over to vote for Obama.

        At the very least, it's way too simplistic to quote that 11% of primary voters in Indiana were Republican and assume all of them were voting for Clinton.

      • Trick07, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I crossed over for Obama... not because I am part of this "Operational Chaos" thing... I didn't even know about that. I did it for ABC.

        Anyone But Clinton.
    • bpoteat, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3Even if what you say is true (which I doubt), changing your vote because you want the nominee to actually win the election (good) is a lot different than changing your vote to nominate the person you think would lose to who you really want to win (bad). It's just a dirty tactic that tarnishes the democratic process or our republic.
      • BECoole, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2It is a fair replacement for "None of the above".
        Why should votes be limited to expressing approval?
        • Rizzen, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0if the vote for Hillary was simply a none of the above it would be different. The reason its being done is FOR McCain, however, to make the main election easier on him
    • ADVIZR, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Yeah, but that's because they actually support Obama, which is completely different from voting for Clinton solely to cause trouble and inflate her sense of entitlement.
      • superkendall, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2I'll grant you that, though personally even though I'd prefer to see Obama as the Democratic nominee - I feel as an independent I have no business interfering with the Democrats (or Republicans) nomination process. I honestly think it's stupid of the Democrats to allow open voting like that, in any state.
    • superkendall, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Aha, so in another post below someone notes the actual figures for Republicans voted is 54% for Hillary vs. 46% for Obama. So while I was slightly wrong, the main point that I was trying to make is that the number you saw (11% of voters being Republican) didn't really lead to hillary winning - the numbers are just too small with the Republican Democratic primary vote being just about evenly split.

      Like I said, there ARE a lot of Republicans crossing over to vote for Obama because they like him.
      • rezistance, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1again as said above the republicans voting for Obama support him and will in the general election. the republicans voting for hillary are doing so in order for a better chance for the republicans in the general election.
  • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 05/07/2008, -12/+45While Limbaugh is a dick, the victory he and Operation Chaos is claiming is almost irrelevant. Hillary was supposed to win Indiana by like 10 points and only did so by 2, and from many posts I've read across the internets Limbaugh's ***** pissed off alot of Republicans. They look more like a bunch of inept, antisocial morons than political operatives at this point.
    • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -4/+6At THIS point?
    • clickmyface, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2"Hillary was supposed to win Indiana by like 10 points and only did so by 2"

      Can we at least use the truth? The national average of polls over the last 2 months had her winning by 1.4%.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...
      • lwgoodman, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Good reading comprehension there clickmyface. The 1.4% was the final VOTE. The RCP average was Hillary by 5.0%, and some of the polls did indeed have Hillary over 10%
        • clickmyface, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1My apologies, yes the RCP has her at 5%. Although that number shrinks to nothing when you exclude surveyUSA, which was well outside the standard deviation and margin of error.

          "Some of the polls" is not accurate. In the 20+ published polls in the month leading up to Indiana (as provided in my link above), only SurveyUSA had her above 10%. Which polls are you talking about?
    • oldgal, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1almost irrelevant?
    • Suricou, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1"from many posts I've read across the internets Limbaugh's ***** pissed off alot of Republicans."
      Limbaugh's ***** has been ongoing for many, many years. All republicans have the ability to blank him from their mind: If they did not, they would have given up politics long ago.
  • 919kwjc, on 05/07/2008, -32/+12Get a clue liberals! Rush isn't trying to get Hillary nominated, he's trying beat the crap out of both of these losers since spineless McCain and the Republican party won't do it. It's not about who's easier to defeat in November, it's about messing with the Democrats to make them easier to beat. And it's working! HA!
    • bicyclethief, on 05/07/2008, -5/+6lol
      You sound like a good henchman.
    • eagle200363, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3Could not have said it better myself.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4That's basically exactly what he said the point was in his own words.... but nevermind that since it hasn't gone through third paty media distortion.

      I don't think he's had much of an effect, I think the fact that Hilliary is such a selfish void of character is the main reason there's been any fight in the DNC after February. Although they created the monster themselves, letting her and Bubba get away with everything under the sone for 15 years wihtout a peep....
      • zooplibob, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Im sure he had enough of an effect to give Hillary the few thousand extra votes she needed in Indiana to win. Even though it wasnt by much, if she lost, she would have to quit. Now shes vowed to stay in til its over.
    • Tebixan, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4Obvious point is obvious
    • p51d007, on 05/07/2008, -12/+4You are asking liberals to think objectively, and rationally.......BOTH are impossible. They think with EMOTIONS.
      The more money the DNC, Hussein Obama or Hillary has to spend in the primary run up, the less they have to spend in the general
      election.
      I think it is funny as hell what Rush is doing.
      Oh, and to those that call him "fatass" (or worse), when was the last time you took a look at him? He's probably thinner than you.
      Get out of your parents basements, get outside and get some sun & lay off the red bull!
      • ColonelJessup, on 05/07/2008, -5/+1WIN!
      • JaronDiggGuy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Maybe "drug-addled hypocrite" works, then.
      • Tebixan, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Ya know what, these kind of comments make my smile, and I'm a big time Obama supporter.

        When you guys have to resort to talking about Obama's middle name, and the biggest victory you can achieve is a prolonged Democratic primary, it shows me that the Republicans have no hope in 08
  • DreKor, on 05/07/2008, -6/+5Crap, what if they're using reverse psychology. Vote for Clinton to make it seem like that's who they want to face in November. That way the Democrats will pull for Obama because they think that's exactly who the Republicans don't want to see. But in reality...
    • chambana, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Possibly. But to see a 72 year old against a 47 year old is not something Repubs have got to want. You can try to undercut Obama with distraction issues like Wright but overall, Obama can just play it that McCain is thinking in a different century and nowhere near has the expertise to take the United States into the future. Britain will have a new prime minister by 2010 who'll be born in 1966; I doubt we'll look that great on the world stage with a man born in 1937 representing us. The comparison will come through quite dramatically when the media treats Obama like the nominee.
    • ADVIZR, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1No worries there. True, they're smart enough to think one step ahead of themselves... but not two steps ahead.
  • msk275, on 05/07/2008, -6/+12Busted Tees girl is looking hot today... wait what? I know a lot of my Repub. friends want Clinton to be nominated. They don't explain why.. they just say they do and don't want to give me reasons. This has been obvious for some time now. For me, any Democrat will do, I prefer Obama because he has a lot of energy that will steer this country in the right direction (IMO), and he hasn't been in Washington long enough to be in someone's back pocket/check book. But the Repub. mindset of thinking has gone on for 8 years, it's time for a switch up.
    • bicyclethief, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4They probably feel that a common hatred for Clinton will unify the fractured Republican support.
    • boonesfarm, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Saying what we've all thought.... about the Busted Tees girl that is.
      As someone who can't stand either Dem this year, I'd prefer to see Hillary get it because Obama supporters are much less likely to follow Clinton if she were to get the nod. Most Hillary supporters would just sigh and meander over to Obama if he wins (IMO). I'm not going to sing a song about McCain, but he is a moderate... unlike Clinton and Obama who are extremists in their party.
      I've had some laughs at the "Operation Chaos" shtick, but I wouldn't doubt that it tipped Indiana and prolonged this election. I wouldn't like it if it were done to the people i support, but I have no doubt that leftists would do the same thing if the GOP had a tarded nomination process.
  • Haroshia, on 05/07/2008, -10/+11Even though Hillary "Won" the margin she won by was inconsequential. Can we please not give that fat drug addicted *****, Limbaugh any credit at all? His show is inconsequential, and his "tampering" didn't change a god damn thing. He's a pointless ***** on radio, and soon, very soon, he will likely die from an overdose of either pills or cheeseburgers, and many many people will cheer at his passing.

    It's ***** like him that make me wish for an afterlife, so they can see how much the world despises them from it.
    • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3If only something like 35% of the republicans who voted for Shrillary did so because of Operation Chaos, it would have been enough to tilt the balance in her favor.
    • outkaster, on 05/07/2008, -0/+8Funny how you get so angry over someone who is so inconsequential.
      • Trick07, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Probably pounds the table in utter anger every day, between 12PM to 3PM. 9AM to 12PM on the West Coast.
    • seattlelulu, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0You use the word inconsequential too much, Dr. Evil.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 05/07/2008, -7/+10Wait... Kerry's still in the Senate?
  • koft, on 05/07/2008, -14/+11Rush is really overrated. Few people actually heard his *****. Hillary didn't get the slight lead in that state because of idiot Rush.
    • Pillage, on 05/07/2008, -2/+9Rush ***** Kicks Ass. 2112 Forever!
    • 919kwjc, on 05/07/2008, -3/+4Read Obama's campaign talking points, they say Rush had an impact. An 20 million people listen each week, that's a lot. And, liberals are stupid.
    • Trick07, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4Overrated is Air America. Like Rush or not, the man has the audience most people can only dream about.
  • DeFex, on 05/07/2008, -11/+5isn't election tampering treason or something?
    • Pillage, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5But he isn't tampering.
    • PDF84, on 05/07/2008, -4/+6It's not tampering! People have the ability to make up their own minds. They are not being force to do it. They do it under their own accord.

      • laserdog, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Just like the *actual* democrats have the right to have their opinion heard?

        They are playing dirty pool, and it's masking the genuine opinion of the constituents of Indiana.
      • OralCavity, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1so inciting a riot isn't possible then?
    • freedomkeeper, on 05/07/2008, -3/+5I think it's called Freedom of Speech.
      • laserdog, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1By that metric so is internet trolling.

        Granted, it shouldn't be illegal. But that doesn't make it a noble expression of one's freedoms.

        It's just obnoxious and childish.
      • WasabiBomb, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Why don't you go practice your Freedom of Speech by shouting "Bomb!" in the closest airport? Let us know how it went.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/07/2008, -4/+5Yeah, if the election was actually tampered with, which is of course a cruise liner size steaming pile of dog crap of an accusation in this case.
    • VenTatsu, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Treason is taking up arms against the government or providing material support to those that have. So election tampering isn't even close. (Historical note: during the cold war the US passes laws creating special lesser forms of treason because it was almost impossible to convict soviet spies of treason.)
      It's not even clear from the story if what Rush did was even vote tampering, some states allow party crossover in primaries. It is pretty clearly a dirty tactic but to outlaw it would probably block a lot of legitimate forms of political endorsement.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3So what your saying is that the Democratic Party - since they invented the SuperDelegates in 1984 - should be tried for treason right?
    • Gemfinder, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1It's not treason. It is certainly slimy and could be a felony, albeit a low-grade one. More worrisome is him calling for riots in Denver to upset the Democratic Convention. We'll let the lawyers and judges decide that point.
      So in light of the Operation Chaos effect last night, Hillary only won Indiana by a razor margin of .78%. Not huge numbers, but in a race as close as this, it's the tenths of a second that decide who gets the blue ribbon and who gets the red.
    • Trick07, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Are you really saying Democrats think voting for the other guy is tampering? Will that be the first law you pass as well?
  • siktath, on 05/07/2008, -24/+3Can't handle the white woman backlash? Better get used to it. Obama will certainly go VP if his camp keeps up this crap.
    Isn't this like watching the slaves fight over which master is better?
    • EvolutionTheory, on 05/07/2008, -2/+7what the hell are you talking about? Hillary Lost. She'll withdraw on the 15th. Are you that stupid?
      • siktath, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1It's amazing to see how blinded you are to reality by your dictator to be.
        I hope you'll go so far as to sacrifice yourself for your master.
        • Trick07, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Oh but you are the epitome of a open mind who doesn't follow anyone, right?
          • siktath, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1I love how lost you are. It makes my job easier.
    • gwyrth, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Wait...what?
  • Acronym, on 05/07/2008, -6/+0where did he come from?
  • agentVivid, on 05/07/2008, -8/+11Obama and Clinton are not Heavyweight Boxers
    Limbaugh deserves to die of a slow overdose
    This election needs to hurry up and finish sucking
    ... : bury>
  • heysuburbia, on 05/07/2008, -15/+16Anyone who switched parties to vote to throw off the election process is a piece of ***** and should have their voting rights taken away. Shame on you.
    • mwrl, on 05/07/2008, -9/+4Pot calling the kettle black?
    • Treoinmypocket, on 05/07/2008, -7/+10HAHAHAHAAHA - big fan of democracy there aren't you?
      • wynja, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2WE DON'T LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY YOU *****. THIS IS A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. A TWO PARTY REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. IT IS DISHONEST TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE YOU DON'T LIKE IN ONE PARTY BECAUSE YOU THINK YOUR NOMINEE WILL BEAT THEM IN THE GENERAL ELECTION!!!!
        • Treoinmypocket, on 05/07/2008, -1/+21) Nothing anyone has done is illegal
          2) I never said we LIVE in a democracy but that HEYSUBURBIA was advocating a very undemocratic reaction
          3)two parties are not guaranteed in the Constitution - the United States is NOT a TWO-PARTY Representative Republic.
          4) Using a legitimate electoral process to ensure that a candidate is thoroughly vetted by the American public isn't dishonest, its wresting power away from the Parties and the Media.
          5) Operation Chaos isn't about nominating Hillary its about making sure Obama is stripped of the "hype & chance" and made to avow his actual beliefs and policies.
        • deskimo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0 It is illegal in Indiana to vote in the Democratic primary if you do not intend to vote Democratic in the election.
          • Treoinmypocket, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1No it isn't. Not to mention Supreme Court case law specifically ruled against such "oaths of intentions" decades ago.
    • 919kwjc, on 05/07/2008, -6/+6What about all the democrats who did just that in New Hampshire to help nominate McCain?
      • letherial, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3There just as bad as republicans (if that is what infact happened, i dont know but i have never heard of it)

        anyone who tampers with our spirit of vote in a fair way is not in-sync for what this country is about, you border on monarchy going that route. Someone like that would like to see bush declare martial law to keep us safe. It sickens me that either side can have there head so far up there ass to not worry about where the majority wants to take this country.

        to anyone on either party that did this, understand this, you are walking down a road that moves away from freedom, this country already has a HUGE problem with that and you want to go and screw with the election? how stupid could you possibly be?
        • Treoinmypocket, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1So you reject the very notion and purpose of Super Delegates correct?
  • bullcutter, on 05/07/2008, -10/+11Rush's influence will pale in comparison come the general election, as nearly everybody who is dumb enough to take him seriously was voting Republican anyway.

    Regardless of what the bastard says or thinks from here on out, Obama is going to destroy McCain in November.

    Maybe Rush should start an "Operation Dumbass" in which he encourages dickoheads to cross over and vote Democrat in the general election.
    • Trick07, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Obama may win. But he will not win by that much. I predict about 47% of the 43% who vote. Of course that will be enough for the shrill partisans to scream mandate...
      • bullcutter, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The shrill partisans? I hope you realize they did the exact same thing with Bush when he came to power.

        I predict the voter turnout to be much higher than that, the vast majority of newcomers voting for Obama.
        • Trick07, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1You mean there is a difference between the shrill partisans on either side? That is like saying there is a difference between Democrat and Republican politicians these days...
    • Suricou, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I think a lot depends on how much cheating takes place. Hillary would certinly cheat as much as she needs to win - disinformation calls, sabotage of the opponent, outright vote-rigging even. McCain probably would to. Obama is the least cheat-prone, I think - but don't think the moral high ground is a good thing here: Fighting dirty is a very powerful political method, and the dirty candidate has a great advantage over one who tries to play fair.
  • Yoda900, on 05/07/2008, -15/+10Nice work, Rush!
  • pagalchu, on 05/07/2008, -6/+11wait a minute....this guy still around? I thought we voted him out last time.
    • bpoteat, on 05/07/2008, -2/+6yeah, that's how it works. when someone isn't elected president they simply vanish from existence.
      • farfegnugen, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2If only this were true... Then we wouldn't have to worry about Hillary in 2012.
      • t3rmv3locity, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Well technically thats not quite accurate. If they lost the primary but won the popular vote then they can petition the super-delegates for a 'revote' which, if successful would result in a revote in each state which seated delegates but only if the state held a primary not a caucus because if the state held a caucus the state senate democratic party would hold the revote and if passed by a margin which is more then the margin by which the candidate lost in that states caucus then the states super-delegates would hold a meeting and vote as a block in a national seating of the democratic super-delegates and if the revote passed by the margin which the candidate lost then the candidate would be allowed to run for pubic office again providing that the candidate had the endorsement of more then two thirds of the state democratic parties and the endorsement of the national democratic party but each party has their own rules and regulations regarding candidates re-election so any process may vary in any state or national party and parties are not required to allow candidates to apply for a second election so there is a possibility that none may be possible.
        Explained here: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hilarious_explan ...
  • mal1964, on 05/07/2008, -12/+4Limbaugh isn't a resident of Indiana so he cant vote.
    Obama lost Indiana so what it happens, There no crying in politics.
  • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -11/+11What's amusing is that republicans like to claim that the election will a cakewalk for McCain if he faces Obama in November.

    Yet their claims are directly refuted by Limbaugh telling his loserish listeners to scurry out and vote for Hitlery.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 05/07/2008, -7/+3What's amusing is your complete lack of comprehension.
      • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Link?
        • Treoinmypocket, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Are you kidding? You want me to post a link...to Rush Limbaugh's website....because you can't find it?

          Operation Chaos has nothing to do with getting Hillary made the nominee.
    • PolishLogic, on 05/07/2008, -5/+1The guy has (arguably) 10 million-ish listeners throughout the country. I'd argue that maybe 200,000 of them would actually just blindly follow what some microphone jockey has to say.

      Besides, I recall stories about Limbaugh denouncing McCain and telling his listeners that he's now supporting Hillary, LONG before this "Operation *****" was uttered.

      But of course, don't lay blame on Hillary's prolonging of her losing campaign for a few extra months to continue the divide within her own party. Nah, just blame a talk show host, seems like an intelligent choice.

      (people give this pill-popping fatso entirely too much power)
      • wynja, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3You totally underestimate the Republican herd mentality. 90% of Rush's listeners will do exactly as he says without question. I should know. I've several family members that are devote Rush cronies.
        • Treoinmypocket, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1hmmmm....analysis of your statement by an unbiased mind would indicate that your DNA lends itself to weak minded decisions.
      • bullcutter, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I'm seconding wynja, he has completely brainwashed millions of people, who now think Obama is a racist, just from hearing him say the words "Obama" and "racist" close together ad nauseum, on a daily basis.

        But if you ask them to provide evidence of this they implode from not being able to compute. They don't even know why they think what they do because the hatred is so thoroughly ingrained in them at a base level.

        If you listen to talk radio for more than 10 hours a week, you are being brainwashed. FACT.

        If people took the time to actually think for themselves they would realize that Rush simply exists as an entertainer to make money, as do all the other fat rightwing radio fags, who have absolutely no allegiance to anything except the dollar bill.

        They might wrap themselves in flags and patriotism but that's only because they are too cowardly to defend their own positions.
    • superkendall, on 05/07/2008, -3/+4Not refuted at all, given that the stated reasons to vote for Hillary are simply to draw out the nomination process - I don't think Limbaugh has claimed Hillary can win. He just wants here and Obama to keep fighting.
      • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1"I don't think Limbaugh has claimed Hillary can win"

        Not anymore he isn't, but this was his express justification for the program not too long ago when it looked like she had a fighting chance.
      • bullcutter, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1yes, but can you imagine what a ridiculous douche Rush would look like if Hillary won the presidency?

        Pretty ***** douchey I'd say, for a guy who came to fame by ripping on Bill Clinton.

        But the dickoheads are so stupid they wouldn't even be disappointed in having Hildog as prez because it would make for entertaining radio, while Rush rails away on what a terrible person she is (that he helped elect).
    • seattlelulu, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Limbaugh is also not the official spokesperson for each and every single Republican out there.
  • tomlasusa, on 05/07/2008, -10/+9I said it before and I'll say it again -- Hey 'Anonymous', anytime you're bored with Scientology, maybe pay Rush a visit?
    • budgetguitar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2The "Excuses In Bulk" network

      Rush Limbaugh is for old people. Ever hear anyone under the age of 50 call in to that show? No wonder he lives in Florida
    • bdbthinker, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1-
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/07/2008, -10/+9tampering,... it's funny how democratic leadership never cares about counting the vote and voters rights when it doesn't support their agenda.... just ask Ralph Nader, DNC rape victim 2004, or any other Florida county other than Miami-Dade 2000

    And really, Rush's ego and unwavering support of the republicrats no matter what they do is bad enough, this is exactly what he wants to happen, DNC leadership to make hiprocritical asses out of themselves over his "chaos" thing, whose real net effect will be all but negligible in the big picture.
    • EvolutionTheory, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2All Ralph Nader has done was help RAPE the Democratic Party by taking votes away from decent candidates. Nader helped keep the greenest potential president in history from being elected and guaranteed the seat for Bush.

      Way to go moronic Nader supporters.
      • EvolutionTheory, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2I'm being digged down for stating a fact?
        If Nader didnt take votes from Gore, Gore would have won. Thats not opinion...
        • Trick07, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2You are being dug down because you so arrogantly think that those who voted Nader would have went to Gore if Nader wasn't in the picture. Typical of your type. You think you can tell people how they can vote. This is why you are here now, all pissed off. People are not voting for who you want.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2You make my point even stronger, his effect on the elections outstanding, suing him so he's taken off on as many ballots as possible should never be the solution.
    • laserdog, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Honestly, if you are saying that some of Ralph Nader's votes weren't counted in 2004 you're going to need to at least cite a state or site, since it's hardly a well known story.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Wow.... is that what you think I'm saying? It appears you don't remeber 2004 completely.

        The DNC sued him into oblivion and back all over the country to keep his name off the ballots (that's the big one, and they were successful in many states), but on top of that that with the help of the media they successfully kept him out of most of the debates..... and that my friend, was hardly an obscure historical event.... but because it was the DNC and mass media wanted them in office, ther was no outrage over the disenfranchised green party voters.

        this isn't some obscure ***** I pull off some random 5 person conservative blog a year ago, millions of people including myself watched this happen and couldn't believe the party complaining about vote counting in 2000 was doing this.... Green party people went *****!!
  • tiraid, on 05/07/2008, -9/+8The only time I ever hear from this guy, he is whining. After awhile, you just tune it out.
    • laserdog, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1He's sent me some very upbeat postcards while he's off on sex tourism trips.
      • tiraid, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1ewww, I hope there wasn't ketchup all over them...
    • matador3, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Kerry or Rush?
      • tiraid, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I meant Kerry, but it would seem unfair to not spread it around, as long as I've got it.
  • stix213, on 05/07/2008, -8/+11Tampering??? Sorry to tell you Kerry, but most republicans don't follow Rush's orders. The Republicans had closed primaries this year because the Democrats did the same thing years ago that Kerry is accusing Republicans of doing, but for some reason the Democrats wanted to be more "inclusive" by allowing non-Democrats to help decide the Democratic nominee.... and now are complaining about what happens when you do that.

    How is Kerry still relevant?
    • laserdog, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5Sure most don't follow his orders, but do 2% of them?

      And exactly what person was on record inciting Democrats to be disingenuous in the 2004 primaries?
  • michellemarion, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1Would Bill Clinton made these errors? Where is he in all of this? Maybe Hillary is pulling a George W by childishly not taking advice from her husband, as Bush did with Bush senior.
  • voyetra8, on 05/07/2008, -12/+16To anyone who actually tried to manipulate the primary election by voting to introduce "chaos" within the Democratic party: ***** you.

    People fought and died for your right to vote, and using your vote in this manner is a ***** disgrace.
    • Yoda900, on 05/07/2008, -7/+12Get a grip on reality. The crossover vote is a legal and legitimate way to elect who you want. It's not chaos; it's not cheating.
      • voyetra8, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4You'd better tell Rush to change the name of his little "Operation," then.
        • budgetguitar, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Vote for the other candidate you will.

          The force is weak with this one.
        • BECoole, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Why change it? The name is very funny.
      • deskimo, on 05/08/2008, -2/+0No, no it is not. It is illegal to vote in the Indiana Democratic primary as a registered member of a different party if you do not intend to vote Democratic in the general election. It is mostly unenforcable, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.
        • deskimo, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0Why do I get dugg down for reporting the truth?
    • BECoole, on 05/07/2008, -2/+13Crossing over and voting for the underdog is a fair replacement for "None of the above".

      Why should votes be limited to expressing approval?
    • elxkid, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2amen. The practice is a complete perversion of our democracy.
    • Trick07, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4Oh boo-hoo. Come back and cry in 2012 when the Democrats attempt to do the same thing...
    • active1x0, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Letting someone else tell you that it's "manipulative" to vote for someone in a different party is a ***** disgrace. We live in America, we vote for who the ***** we want, when we want.

      Besides, Democrats have the freedom to close off their primaries to anyone but registered Democrats. But they haven't.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Why do some Democrats like to flaunt their ignorance?
  • Lonecow, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3So what are all you Obama supporters going to do if Clinton wins the ballot? Will you vote for her, McCain or not vote at all?

    Just curious.
    • crunshii, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3Then we are as fu**ed as if we were with bush.
      • Lonecow, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Really? Do you actually believe that? Are you that brainwashed?

        There is virtually no difference between Clinton or Obama other then a few pointless details. This whole debacle is born from the fact that Americans have grown board with American Idol and they transposed that same mentality to the American voting system.
    • Apocrypha, on 05/07/2008, -4/+6That's a non-question because Hillary isn't going to win. Obama is going to be the next president...not McCain or Clinton.
    • tst1212, on 05/07/2008, -3/+6You forgot the Riot option.
    • letherial, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0If the super take what is a obvious win from Obama because of some cracked out numbers game where the rules change ONLY if it favors hillary then i will not vote period...end of story...ever again, for either party.

      Lets assume she was winning, would obama be able to pull this kind of number game on her? hahahahaha...no, that wouldnt happen. nor would they take the win from her, she would of also had my vote. Obama is the democratic nominee, he has proven himself over and over and over again, he is winning in most states won, pop vote, delegates, and money, he has some morale credit she has long lost and he has a energy about him that hillary just cannot compete with.

    • Lonecow, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3So no one has a serious answer?
    • Trick07, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1ABC all the way. Anybody But Clinton. Not that it is much of a worry now... thank god.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3As an Obama supporter, if Clinton gets the nom, I'd have to see what my options are on the Independent side of things. If there aren't any serious candidates running 3rd party, I'd end up voting Clinton, because withholding my vote is counterproductive and a cop-out. But very, very grudgingly.
      • Lonecow, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Well voting third party is just as bad as not voting IMO. Three party system has never worked and will never work. The two main parties are broad and general for a reason, so they can sweep up big portions of the population. Third parties run with one specific goal in mind which is usually adopted eventually by one of the main parties.

        I don't know how many times history has to show us that THREE PARTIES CAN NOT WORK.
    • deskimo, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0Lonecow - No one has a serious answer because that's not a serious question. There is no legitimate way for Hillary to win now. Obama is our presumptive nominee. Get over it.
  • Ouhei, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2They actually looked at the stats of republicans voting in Indiana, 54% voted for Hillary, but that was only 11% of the total vote. That doesn't really give her much of an advantage. Obama got 54% of the independent vote, which was 22% of the total, so it negates the republican vote for Hillary.

    She barely managed to win anyways, she's finished.
    • superkendall, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Aha, thank you, actual figures about how many Republicans voted each way. I thought it was slightly more for Obama but see it's the other way around - basically though the effect of Republicans voting was, as you say, a wash.
    • qeffect, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Those numbers are meaningless. The question is, how many Republicans have voted for Hillary for "Operation Chaos". No way to tell. But see it that way, if it where 10 or more percent of the rep voters, it makes a difference of 1% in the overall election. If 10% or more, they did infacht tip the scale. Absolutely possible, don't you think?
      Personally i find the strategie to vote for the opponents less likely to win candidate ok. It's not really nice, but it makes sense. The problem is that the dems election process allows this.
  • Maevirko69, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1This always happens in elections. It's never a big deal because it doesn't have a big impact overall. The Texas Electoral commission has even stated that there wasn't an increase in the number of crossover votes in the Texas Primary. Same is probably true in Indiana.
  • Pillage, on 05/07/2008, -3/+15Funny how they dismiss him, then claim he has this massive power to control elections.
    • mal1964, on 05/07/2008, -3/+5Obama fans on digg can change anything but a dirty diaper.
      • bjornski, on 05/07/2008, -5/+3Some of McCain staffers might need to do that from time to time.

        Maybe. Maybe not. Depends.
        • ColonelJessup, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2I see what you did there.
        • mal1964, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3That's ***** he's been changing his own for years.
  • Treoinmypocket, on 05/07/2008, -8/+5Operation Chaos has nothing to do with Hillary - it has to do with stripping the Obama hype away. McCain isn't doing it. The best man for the job is Hillary.

  • PolishLogic, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3They will have said this so often, that by the time the general election gets here, this will probably be used an excuse if McCain wins. Even then it will still make about as much sense as it does now.

    Looking to put blame somewhere? Put it on Clinton for living her pipe-dream for the last few months. If she'd have dropped during Obama's winning streak we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
  • tst1212, on 05/07/2008, -3/+6It's not fair! WHHHHHAAAAAAA
  • katorga, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2That doesn't make sense. Clinton was favored to win, and if Limbaugh had any effect, it should have magnified the win. Instead, it appears more crossover voters may have gone to Obama, which is the opposite of what Limbaugh is doing.
  • Plantagenet, on 05/07/2008, -6/+6Kerry the loser has a press conference to explain why Obama lost....what a whiner.
    • OfficeSpacing, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2I guess a US senator cannot voice his opinion because he isn't president, according to you. How incredibly moronic and assholish of you.
  • jpmulli, on 05/07/2008, -5/+12Wow! So now people believe that Rush Limbaugh has the power to influence an entire state....what's next...raising people from the dead...Is it just too hard for liberal democrats to believe that there are in fact a lot, a LOT of people that don't like or support Obama?
    • tst1212, on 05/07/2008, -3/+6Why wouldn't anyone love obama? Are you a RACIST?
      • michael43, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3I am. I'm against the growing "stupid race" of people that think they should vote for a person based on color or sex instead of qualifications. Voting for the leader of the free world with a "i'm going to prove I'm not racist" agenda isn't very bright.
    • michael43, on 05/07/2008, -4/+5No, they think everybody is on their obama suck train. I don't know who nauseates me the most; the racist s.o.b. obama, or the idiots that support him. For all you that are going to digg me down and make the "obama is God and will save the world" comments, let me just respond now and say kiss my white conservative ass.
    • breckinshire, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Inconceivable!
  • BECoole, on 05/07/2008, -4/+7Operation Chaos is a fair replacement for voting "None of the above".

    Why should votes be limited to expressing approval?
  • shiftclick, on 05/07/2008, -11/+5Boy, oh, boy - that John Kerry sure has his finger on the pulse of American politics! Don't believe the HOPE! http://www.dontvoteobama.net
  • Barbrady, on 05/07/2008, -5/+6Kerry = whiner. Operation Chaos is about drawing out the primary process as long as possible on the Dem side and having them beat up each other so whichever wins the nomination doesn't have a chance in November. The Dems. monkeyed around in the Republican primaries and that was just fine. Then the Republicans turned it around on the Dems and played their own game right back at them and now it's dirty pool.
  • RRJackson, on 05/07/2008, -5/+3"Obama woulda won, but Clinton shipped in Mexicans and had them voting using identification from dead men!!!"

    Desperate times call for desperate excuses, I guess.
  • radiofrequency, on 05/07/2008, -3/+5Let's all remember what happened when John Kerry ran for president in '04.

    He won all the debates, he was trying to oust a failed administration and despite all that couldn't garner the votes. Loser. Hopefully he's kicked to the curb with Ted Kennedy in MA in the next election cycle.
    • OfficeSpacing, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6That's only the fault of the idiotic democrats who didn't like Kerry because he wasn't superficially and meaninglessly 'inspiring', as Obama is. Oh yeah and he was smart, but that's automatically labeled 'elitist' so that's another thing they didn't like about him.
    • wacomwacoff, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Kerry lacked the one thing he needed: charisma. Obama, on the other hand, has huge charisma as well as brilliant ideas and an air of integrity.
  • BabyWookie, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg? One is a giant, flaming, Nazi gas-bag and the other is a German airship.
    • tst1212, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1That's good , what's the difference between a liberal and a whiny, bratty, snot-nose forth grader? ...... Nothing
    • LastVisibleDog, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Keep up liberal moron - Rush lost the weight like 10 years ago.
      What is the difference between BabyWookie and a leftist wussy that lives in his Mom's basement surfing the Net with his pants around his ankles.....heck if I know
  • JK1150, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5member of the GOP here. we don't "want" clinton as a candidate (we don't want any dem candidate for that matter), we want the infighting to continue. i doubt there were enough people doing this to make a difference in the race result though.
  • JointVenture, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2So when it suits you the Republicans crossing over are voting for Obama, and when it doesnt they are Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary?

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 72 of 72 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.