digg

Join DiggAbout

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

LA Times Endorses Obama

latimes.com — We urge voters to make the most of this historic moment by choosing the Democrat most focused on steering the nation toward constructive change: We strongly endorse Barack Obama.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • FcukAllYall, on 02/01/2008, -28/+158Amazing....such a great choice! Come on Cali, UNITE for this man!
    GOBAMA 08
    • LLamaStar, on 02/01/2008, -15/+4I really hope he win's california. There are a ton of rich white women here though. D:
      • aliengoods, on 02/01/2008, -6/+20Every rich white woman knows that once you go black....
        • TeakJolson, on 02/01/2008, -29/+12you get AIDs
          • lust, on 02/01/2008, -1/+21First all black people don't have AIDS.
            Second "S" in the acronym AIDS needs to be capitalized.
            Buried for being a dumb racial schmuck.
          • green67, on 02/02/2008, -0/+8you're an ignorant man.....this is not a time for levity....to say such a terribly callous remark is mind numbing....you may think of your self as "clever".....but your true colors are represented in your comment.....I hope your children(if you're fortunate enough to have any) progresses beyond your need for self indulgence.....
      • jerryparid, on 02/01/2008, -2/+10Obama has very strong support in the most educated group; he does better than Hillary in high income districts.
        • smackjack, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Look at the exit polls from New Hampshire and you'll see that the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to vote for Hillary.
    • odessit, on 02/02/2008, -12/+7hmmm....so all of those Fox-bashing diggers who say that Fox isn't reporting news but pushes it's conservative agenda aren't speaking out here against the blatant fact of newspapers loosing it's balanced stance (if there ever was one) by endorsing one candidate over the other!! I think it's called hypocrisy
      • kibbled, on 02/02/2008, -2/+9The endorsement is from the LA Times Editorial page. It is well labeled as the editors' opinion.
        Besides, the Times endorsed McCain for the republican primary.
        http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-gop3feb0 ...
        • guestworker, on 02/02/2008, -0/+32 wrongs don't make it right!
          ABC - Anybody But Clinton
      • barfooz, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3All newspapers endorse candidates. You have obviously been living under a rock. No media source presents unbiased news.
    • Mustard911, on 02/02/2008, -8/+2BURIED DUE TO BRITNEY SPEARS TYPE VOTERS
    • chubbybubba, on 02/02/2008, -4/+1The only thing that could ruin Obama's chances in 2008 would be an endorsement from Sadam himself. (you can bet the GOP's praying for another Sadam video).
      • badjoke, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2He got hanged. :-/

        Do you mean Osama?
      • sonofabeast, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1The American public: "What's the difference?"
    • thatsmyaibo, on 02/02/2008, -2/+4I personally think that a media outlet should stay away from endorsements. Give the people info and let them decide rather than sway them towards someone. People are lemmings.
    • sonofabeast, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2Yeah!!!! GO CFR!!!!!
      I for one, welcome our Illuminati-controlled hand puppet of "change".
      Your going to be very disappointed. Bury me, you poor delusional bastards.
      • markvand, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Look guys, I know you like to pretend you're still living in a democracy but you're not. sonofabeast is right Obama does NOT mean change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j61H4Uxa1
        He and Hillary love eachother. He's perfect at playing the fake opposition that won't protest when his votes are stolen. Did I mention Obama voted IN SUPPORT of the patriot act? And when was the last time you saw him vote against a military spending bill? I can understand if you want to vote for a Democrat, but please don't go for Obama, go for Mike Gravel.
      • ISIfunded911, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Exactly!
        The truth about Obama:
        http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID ...
        One more billionaires' puppet.
        Why do you think TV (owned by billionaires) loves him so much?
        Why do you think Kucinich and Gravel were not allowed in the last Democratic TV debates even though they were still candidates?
        As long as you people behave like stupid blind loving fans, you will be fools who elect candidates pre-selected by the oligarchy.
    • anonydg1, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Use that profanity on yourself, moron.
  • Minarchian, on 02/01/2008, -96/+19Getting the endorsement from the LA Times is the equivalent to getting an endorsement from The Communist Party USA.
    • Herkimer56, on 02/01/2008, -12/+21Envy is one of the seven deadly sins.
      • lust, on 02/01/2008, -4/+2But the real question is, Can I still drink beer?
      • green67, on 02/02/2008, -5/+2yes...and wipe down the seat when you're done peeing...
    • cecinestpasvrai, on 02/01/2008, -4/+38This is wrong on, well about all levels. The LA times is a respected paper, and has 37 pulitzer prizes. It also published an op-ed last year titled simply "Bomb Iran", seen here:
      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-muravchi ...
      The op-ed page does skew to the left, it's base is in L.A., otherwise, the LA. times is a solid endorsement to get in California. As for the communist part of the USA, I'm fairly certain they have their own candidate.
      • green67, on 02/02/2008, -11/+1ok.....you've said your piece......you must be proud or yourself for making all the "right" choices in your life....now go to bed!!
      • chaughn, on 02/04/2008, -1/+0yeah, Obama would be that one. And can anyone tell me why he is running as a BLACK man when everyone knows he has a WHITE mother!! As a white person who is told NOT to discriminate ALL the time, wouldn't that be something of the same thing. He is NOT BLACK now is he. So if he lies about that what else is he lying about.? I am deeply offended by his denying his WHITE heritage!!!
    • MattnJax, on 02/01/2008, -9/+21And FauxNews giving an endorsement is equilent to getting an endorsement from the Gestapo you Republican scumbag.
      • PaxImperium, on 02/01/2008, -5/+15Minarchian is not a Republican. He's a RINO who's a fanatic Ron Paul supporter. He's also insane.
        • green67, on 02/02/2008, -6/+3ok...if I understand this correctly...Ron Paul is the Republicans answer to Howard Dean?.....both extreme and raised allot of cash on the internet....and we all know how Howard Dean's campaign went.....and so goes Ron Paul's.....and yes....I voted for him......H.D. that is.....
        • Minarchian, on 02/02/2008, -7/+3Pax you're an idiot.

          You say I'm a Paul fanatic....but one look at your profile it's easy to see that you have a fetish against Paul.

          You're a joke
      • Minarchian, on 02/02/2008, -9/+4MattnJax,

        You do realize that Joseph McCarthy was factually correct when he was saying the Commies are trying to take over the Country...do you?

        Obama & Hillary are outcroppings of that movement.

        Tell me...do you wear your hammer & sickle when you go out?
    • orca94, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6Keep the paper bag over your face you dumb ugly *****.
    • ISIfunded911, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2The LA Times is a capitalist newspaper, like Obama is a capitalist candidate.
      They both are the propaganda agents of the billionaires who really are in charge.
      Billionaires despise you and laugh so much when they see you so perfectly manipulated that you become fans of their puppets.
      • Los2002, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Other way around, buddy. All conservatives care about are corporate profits and keeping the upper class disproportionately wealthy.
  • ShemDaimwood, on 02/01/2008, -10/+256This is the L.A. Times' first presidential endorsement in almost forty years.
    • drband36, on 02/01/2008, -2/+54STUNNING. And the widely-believed theory, until recently, was that the LA Times would endorse Clinton.

      This might be his most important endorsement yet.
      • ummfada, on 02/01/2008, -21/+5Is Digg Obama.com?
        • BadseedJR, on 02/01/2008, -9/+3Diggers got tired of Ron Paul, so they've switched to Obama it would seem
        • EditorResponse, on 02/01/2008, -15/+2It is time to form a bury brigade for Obama. This could go on for another year.
        • jwolcott, on 02/02/2008, -3/+20'Is Digg Obama.com?"

          No, Digg is just for the best candidate because it's a community made up of mostly highly-intelligent and free-thinking individuals.
          • thatsmyaibo, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Mostly? I don't think so. There indeed some smart thinkers that use digg but for the most part, this site has become riddled with kids that make fart jokes. Not only that, some people are so pompous and 1 sided that they don't leave the floor open for debate on many issues.
          • ummfada, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Obama's cool, I am just noticing a pattern every Dugg political story is Obama... am I wrong?
          • BadseedJR, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0I like that when people support Obama, they are "highly-intelligent and free-thinking individuals," but when they support Ron Paul they are crazy or spammers.
        • vegascoop, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3Yeah... we rule. Seriously.
    • TyroPyro, on 02/01/2008, -3/+38Yes! Their last endorsement was in 1972. The article does not disappoint, this was really well written and is right on the mark with the reasons to go Obama.
    • FutureGuy, on 02/01/2008, -3/+5And a big thanks for doing something that other key Dems (Al Gore, Edwards) have shy-ed away from.
    • darkha1f, on 02/01/2008, -15/+12Yes and they also endorsed McCain so stop thinking this is a big deal. It only means the LA Times prefer Obama over Hillary.
      http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-gop3feb0 ...
      • darkha1f, on 02/01/2008, -5/+8Yeah digg it down because you can't stand to hear it.
      • jwolcott, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5I'm pretty sure Gramps isn't the reason they broke their historic silence and chose to endorse a candidate from each party this election year.
    • Rickler, on 02/02/2008, -13/+7Lawl they also endorsed GOP candidate MCCain. What's that tell you? Both want to increase military spending. Yummy, more big government contracts in the name of the war on terror.
      • ISIfunded911, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Don't bother! This thread is full of naive people who have been brainwashed by TV and by the only talent of Obama (what a great comedian! Like Reagan!) into becoming blind-loving fans who care about one thing only: they want to feel like winners by identifying with this puppet of the establishment, this puppet and not another one! Because he does not look like an establishment puppet since he is new and not a WASP.
        So please go away with your horrible FACTS! Fans cannot be bothered with facts like these:
        http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID ...
    • molecool, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5It was never needed so desperately. Good move.
    • TomJx, on 02/02/2008, -2/+6The LA Times endorsement of Obama was stronger than their endorsement of McCain. Neither endorsement pulled any punches - well done!
    • NotAChickenHawk, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Small correction: this is the LA Times first endorsement (along with their endorsement of McCain) in the Presidential primary elections in almost 40 years. They always endorse in the general election.
    • PxCxG, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5The real question is why does anyone care who the LA times endorses -- or any other media outlet for that matter? The LA times editors have no more knowledge than any other informed observer.
      • poxonyou, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1It's more about boosting a campaign. The campaigns need the endorsement. An endorsement by a newspaper is incredible advertising. Of course, no one, I hope, is going to vote for a candidate just because of a paper's endorsement.
        • thatsmyaibo, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately advertising sells. There will be a ton of people who will sway towards what they read. And as a resident of LA I can tell you here more than anywhere people follow trends.
      • ISIfunded911, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Most people suffer from a complex of inferiority, so they need powerful media companies to tell them they are right to be fans of this establishment puppet. This way people feel more secure about their beliefs.
        Poor blind idiots.
      • pigtown, on 02/02/2008, -0/+0these are the people that live and breath campaign news. They've been watching campaigns forever. They see the consequences of actions more acutely than most because they study it every day. I'm not going to say I'll vote for Obama because of this. I was planning to beforehand. They of course have their own biases. That being said, I doubt the average Joe, or digg user, has as much intelligence on politics as the average editor. Myself included.
    • lamprey187, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Si se puede!
  • thephoenix1, on 02/01/2008, -10/+161Beautifully put:
    "In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration."
    • RansomHoldiay, on 02/01/2008, -3/+42we don't need a manager, we need a leader.
      • Napoleone, on 02/02/2008, -2/+7By jove, you all sound like Germans.
      • Mohanned, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1You're right. I think the Presidential responsibilities have been exaggerated for too long. Local government should manage because it's best represented and comprised of those who make it up, while the President and federal government should unite the country, defend the country, and represent the country to the rest of the world.
    • RRJackson, on 02/01/2008, -13/+4What they mean is that he's 'slick.'
    • FutureGuy, on 02/01/2008, -5/+9Couldn't have put it much better myself, except I am not sure if I put the words "Clinton " and "reasoned" in the same sentence.
      • Ireland, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3Yeah that was far too generous to her.
    • zeiben, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3I actually thought that was the lamest part of what was otherwise an extremely thoughtful piece. It's hard to make the argument that he's just as competent as clinton and then use this metaphor, which only works against the thrust of the article.
    • febryle, on 02/02/2008, -10/+8And Ron Paul would be a joke.
    • ISIfunded911, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1People are stupid EMOs who fall for emotions.
      They are not rational, they do not want to think, so they do not care about the facts about Obama:
      http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID ...
      He is as much a puppet of the billionaires ruling this country as Hillay.
  • iamcjh, on 02/01/2008, -13/+130As a Canadian I may not be able to vote, but I can always DIGG, and I digg Barack Obama!
    • xXMetalJesusXx, on 02/01/2008, -0/+21Same here...
      American politics affect us so much it's not even funny....I'd rather have Harper kissing Obama's ass than some Neo-Con
    • Thumper13, on 02/02/2008, -0/+12I'm not some squishy lib, and generally don't care what other countries think about the U.S., but this is one of the reasons I am voting for Barack Obama. It helps our economy and security if the rest of the world views us in a good light. Obama will help our stature in the world.
      As a Republican, I find this important now after Bush has ***** off so many of our friends in the world. Our closest friends should like us even more.
      Republicans for Obama!
    • bakshi, on 02/02/2008, -10/+1Canadians' shouldn't ever be able to vote. It's good that they are still prohibited from that freedom.

      //digg down
      • Jebral, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5They do vote. Are you stupid or something? He just can't vote in the USA.
      • xXMetalJesusXx, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4You are either retarded...or fail at being funny...

    • Mustard911, on 02/02/2008, -7/+3BURIED DUE TO BRITNEY SPEARS TYPE VOTERS
  • imhotep40, on 02/01/2008, -8/+2Powerful endorsement! Great articulation.
    As for the "Dream Ticket" scenario . . . Hillary is a technocrat, like any good Chief of Staff, Department Head or Presidential adviser, not a VP.
    • thegoodreverend, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2Yeah, but in terms of the VP being an attack dog, she's shown that she can do that very well. Or maybe we should have Bill do that.
      • vegascoop, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Is Hilary the emperor? (ala Cheney?) That's cool.
  • LLamaStar, on 02/01/2008, -2/+77"...Nowhere was that judgment more needed than in 2003, when Congress was called upon to accept or reject the disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a test and FAILED, joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war."

    Thank you L.A. Times for saying what I have yet to see other news organizations say. She has already failed a major test of decision making.
    • trizzlelv, on 02/01/2008, -5/+5While I do agree, I think a lot of the senate has been given a bad rap over that vote. Do you remember all the false patriotism that was brewing in the country at that time? If you voted against that act, you would have been labeled anti-American. Even though I've already cast my vote for Barack, and will continue to support him, I can almost GUARANTEE he would have voted for that bill as well if he were in the senate.
      • ClarkNoHeart, on 02/01/2008, -0/+6True, but we elect them as our political leaders to make decisions for us. This is their job. They should not be allowed to get swept up by such things as we are.
      • razor150, on 02/01/2008, -0/+5No, it was a vote of political expediency. Also look back and see Bush was hugely popular and Democrats were afraid of ***** the electorate off so they rubber stamped the War along with the Republicans. Democrats shouldn't be getting a free pass for their role in making this mess possible, and Hillary is one of the Democrats who should be held responsible.
      • JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4That is exactly the time that leaders stand out. When false patriotism and peer pressure work to lead us down the wrong path, we needed some one strong enough to buck the trend and do what is right. Clinton failed. Obama I suspect would have failed judging by his votes on the telecom forgiveness bill, continued war funding and patriot act. The only candidates who stood out during the Iraq war vote were the fringe candidates, Kucinich and Paul. Too bad one sees UFOs and the other is an extreme christian fundamentalist.
      • deanlowe, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2You guys have really short memories. Think Vietnam...
      • Thumper13, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3Clinton would have gained a lot of points if she was a human and admitted her mistake. I don't like Edwards, but at least he came out and said he was wrong. Clinton was embarrassing talking her way around that last night.
      • Nougat, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1IIRC, the only person who voted against on that was Russ Feingold from WI. And for as much noise as the whole "voted for war" thing gets, you don't see anyone calling for him to run for president.
        • poxonyou, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Nougat: actually, I remember Feingold being a list of candidates people hoped would run, like Gore, if you followed Democrat websites. A more important lesson is that Feingold still has his job despite taking unpopular positions against the president. Democracy, the way it's set up here, has some problems if politicians are not going to do what's responsible because they fear they may lose their job due to a public whipped up into an irrational frenzy.
    • NotAChickenHawk, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Just an observsation: I cannot understand how, in one breath, the LA Times can condem Clinton for voting for the war, while in the same day's paper endorsing the biggest warmonger outside of the current administration in the form of John McCain.
      • Napoleone, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3It's called having an agenda. They know Republicans despise McCain. They know most of them will stay home and not go out and vote, if he becomes their candidate. They're setting the Republicans up for failure. Much like how Colbert is trying to do the same by propping up Huckabee.

        Disenfranchisement through propaganda. It's all a ***** game to them.
  • N3tw0rk, on 02/01/2008, -12/+54Obama can restore hope for all Americans, he truly is the right choice because he cares about everyday people. Nobody else running for president, besides Obama, has jumped off the career track for three or four years to help other people. Obama was a community organizer and led a voter-registration effort in Chicago that added tens of thousands of people to the rolls. He was a civil rights attorney and taught at one of the nation's premier universities. He helped pass complicated measures in the Illinois legislature on the death penalty, racial profiling, health care and more. In Washington, he has worked with Republicans on nuclear proliferation, government waste and global warming, amassing a record that speaks to a fast start while lacking the heft of years of service. After college, Obama moved to Chicago for a low-paying job as a community organizer. He worked with poor families on the South Side to get improvements in public housing, particularly the removal of asbestos. Obama also fought for student summer jobs and a program to keep at-risk children from dropping out of school. More importantly, say those who worked with Obama, he showed people how to organize and confront powerful interests. Obama was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, when Democrats were in the minority. He proposed hundreds of new laws, including universal health care, tougher gun control and expanded welfare. He passed legislation sharply restricting the gifts that Illinois politicians could accept from lobbyists. Illinois has notoriously weak government ethics laws, and the Gift Ban Act was the first major new restriction since the Watergate era.
    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jfwiTMvbxKZec4z ...
    • theelectricafro, on 02/02/2008, -10/+5Obama does not care about dollar devaluation, so he does not care about the average American.
      "Nobody else running for president, besides Obama, has jumped off the career track for three or four years to help other people" Totally not true. One example is Ron Paul who has left a successful medical practice. You can be pro Obama just dont lie about it. I have not seen one quote from Obama regarding the Federal Reserve. He really is the facade of Change. He really is the Rhetoric of Change. Now that Said I would still rather see an Obama ticket or presidency than any other democrat.
    • legendxx, on 02/02/2008, -4/+2i learned a paragraph had a maximum of 5 sentences in 1st grade.
      • atezun, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3The wonders of public education!
      • 47f0, on 02/02/2008, -3/+3Apparently your learning stopped somewhere around "1st" grade.
        - First person singular - always capitalized.
        - First word of a sentence - always capitalized.
        - 1st - should be spelled out - "first", not 1st.
        - 5 - small numbers should be spelled out - "five" not 5.
      • poxonyou, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Also, always limiting yourself to 5 sentences is a bit unrealistic.
    • painhertz, on 02/02/2008, -3/+3Wait until his dealings with Rezko come out the end of this month. You might think differently about him then. Rezko is going to sing like a canary.
      • jamesalfaro, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1The truth is that Obama had put in five hours of work as a junior law firm associate helping to represent a community organization that had partnered with the businessman. The truth is also that Obama fought slumlords as a community organizer.
        http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/01/24/200 ...

        Of all people, Sen. Clinton should know better. During the Whitewater investigation, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigated the legal work performed by Hillary Clinton, then a partner in the Rose law firm, on behalf of Jim McDougal and his bank, Madison Guaranty. Mr. Starr believed that Hillary helped orchestrate the fraudulent land deal known as Castle Grande. He subpoenaed her billing records, hauled her before a grand jury, and relentlessly pursued her. Yet, when an opportunity presented itself in the debate, Mrs. Clinton, without so much as a blink of an eye or the slightest blush, denounced Sen. Obama for representing Tony Rezko. Her accusation invites scrutiny.
        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120173880879730385 ...

        NBC then presented Clinton with a photo of Rezko posing between Sen. Clinton as first lady and her husband during his presidency. Asked if she remembered meeting Rezko, Clinton said she did not.
        http://www.drudgereport.com/rez.jpg
        • RRJR, on 02/02/2008, -1/+0Obammy boy is full of it and it will be so sweet to see him crash and take a lot of stupid peoples money with him and it's great old drunk Ted kennedy backs him what more could some one want than to have an old crooked rich drunk who played around on his wife with young women and around 1969 drove one in to a bay and let her die at the bottom of the bay. yea old bammy boy is probably just like him. And can't wait till it's proved he an the slum lord were just alike till he thought it was about to get to hot for him.
      • poxonyou, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2I'd take up whatever tiny scandal they can try to make about Obama's past to all the dirt they have already dug up on the Clinton's, and the additonal shady stuff that has happened since 98 (see the recent NY Times article).
    • Mohanned, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Digg should have a feature that prevents copying and pasting over 150 characters of text.
  • missbarbie, on 02/01/2008, -6/+33This article was so masterfully written, and I could not be happier that they have endorsed him. Now, if only we could have a miracle and have the OC Register follow suit.
  • chrisegilbert, on 02/01/2008, -9/+21Sarcastically - has anyone not endorsed Obama? Obama 08! P.S. What happens if everyone endorses Obama and Hill somehow gets the nomination because she's "tricked" enough stupid americans - the hillary clinton demographic - into voting for her? I assume that's not a good thing for the dems.
    • solarweasel, on 02/01/2008, -0/+15what were seeing is the jfk effect. younger generations (those more likely to be browsing a site like digg) trend toward the fresher of the candidates, who is more in touch with their generation. older voters stick with the candidate who has been on the political stage the longest... and with a namesake like clinton that is hillary.

      this is truly a generational vote and it's up to young voters to nominate obama. after all, we are the ones who will be putting up with the consequences of the next 4 to 8 years of legislation longer than our older counterparts.
      • senatorpjt, on 02/02/2008, -4/+2If it's up to the young voters, Hillary has already won.
      • Gemfinder, on 02/13/2008, -0/+1Not so. Last night, Obama picked up an 11% gain in voters aged 65+ over Super Tuesday. He appeals across all dividing lines.
    • chrisegilbert, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Regardless of which candidate you support, the dems better hope Hillary doesn't win the primary because seemingly EVERY democrat has endorsed the other candidate. That's not going to be a good thing going into the general election.
      • poxonyou, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1No offense to house wives and grand mothers, but if she wins, well, thank your your mother (her support is mainly older and female). Just make sure they understand Obama's positions and past votes, as he's about equal to Hilary on women's issues. Also, during his last year in the senate, he has been #1 in progressive votes.
    • orca94, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Ann Coulter... Apparently she's a Hillary man. Of course Ann Coulter is a stupid bitch nobody with a brain cares about.
    • redduiker, on 02/02/2008, -0/+0Look at her website to see the list of endorsements. The media can't get passed their love-affair with Obama so they don't publish her endorsements. She's the candidate with the most congressional endorsements (with 88, check thehill.com) and has been endorsed by everyone from The NY Times to the Governor of Ohio to the California president of the NAACP. I saw your "sarcasm," but the media's portrayal of an unbalanced amount of endorsements is just plain false.
      • lamprey187, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1If you look at many of the Hillary endorsements, they came way back in the early stages of the campaign. Many have been republished lately, this was the case with the 2 Kennedys that endorsed her. It was done way back in November, but only brought out in the news when she needed to try to diminish Ted Kennedy and Caroline, and Patrick endorsing Obama.
        • redduiker, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0Ok, I grant that many of the congressional endorsements came early, but all three specific endorsements I mentioned were within the last couple of months.

          I would further add that the only reason her Kennedy endorsements must be republished is because they were never really published in the first place. I can't stand that no one knows who has endorsed her; and yet on the Obama side, endorsements are a huge deal in the media. Either they matter or they don't, can't be both ways though.
    • HellDonut, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Although I like Obama myself, just because one website that caters to one specific demographic (even if it's well distributed geographically) seems to like Obama doesn't mean the entire world does. There are real people - like you and me - who endorses Clinton, and they vote count just as much.
  • thegoodreverend, on 02/01/2008, -5/+29First time the LA Times has endorsed anyone for President since Nixon in 1972 (which was forced by the publisher -- the writers penned a letter to the editor that same day saying they planned to vote for McGovern). Nixon subsequently had the publisher of the LA Times investigated by the INS (amid other agencies) after the paper's editorialists began turning on Nixon, calling for an exit from Vietnam, etc.
    They've had 36 years -- more than enough time to think things through and start getting them right.
    • thegoodreverend, on 02/01/2008, -1/+8I should note that I believe they got this one right. :)
    • NotAChickenHawk, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Actually, they haven't endorsed anyone in the primaries since 1972. They have always endorsed in the general election for President.
  • jkbowman, on 02/01/2008, -9/+26Yes we can!
  • salileo13, on 02/01/2008, -7/+10Amen.............
  • seattlerock, on 02/01/2008, -6/+13Wow I am shocked.
    • Ireland, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Hopefully that's a good thing?
    • geekee, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Why? The LA Times picked the most liberal candidate who has a chance of winning. Totally expected. The only shock is they said it out loud.
      • poxonyou, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Guess that's why they also endorsed McCain and their last endorsement during a primary was NIXON. Damn liberals!
    • painhertz, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Why would you be? The LA Times is owned by the Tribune Corporation from beautiful and snowy Chicago, IL. Home of Barack Obama.
      • poxonyou, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Yes, if it's not a liberal conspiracy (see last comment), it's because the LA Times is actually beholden to the will of their parent company in Illinois, who apparently strongly supports Obama because he lived in Illinois.
  • Armitage, on 02/01/2008, -48/+8Mainstream media endorsing him + the fact that he's a member of the CFR should be a clue... He's bought and paid for. He's not going to bring any change. Wake up people.

    Enough with the Obama stories. BURIED.
    • TeakJolson, on 02/01/2008, -18/+2don't say that, the retard bury patrol will hear you
      • MrTito, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1We hear you! Digg hears you! And soon the people who buried the parent post will hear you!
    • pilot3033, on 02/01/2008, -0/+12rejecting anything you hear from a major entertainment (or I guess 'news') outlet flat out, is just stupid. Suggesting that an endorsement from an entity -no matter its size- alone is enough to convince you that foul play in involved, not only makes you ignorant, but it makes you a tool (the very thing you wish to avoid, as it may seem).
      • hierophantus, on 02/01/2008, -0/+9don't say that, the retard conspiracy crew will hear you
    • wreckosaurus, on 02/01/2008, -4/+4After the past months of non-stop ron paul spam, you have the nerve to say "enough with the obama stories?" Also, "wake up people" has got to be the most annoying catch phrase of all time.
      • jm4847, on 02/02/2008, -5/+2At least Ron Paul offered something different. Wake up people! Obama is more of the same!
    • petebot, on 02/01/2008, -1/+7Surprise Surprise! He's a Gravel and Paul fan!
    • razor150, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4Armitage, I hear Obama is also a member of the Skull and Bones and was involved with 9/11 as well. Spread the word. /sarcasm
  • GravityExNihilo, on 02/01/2008, -8/+49I can't believe it, I'm actually, a little bit... proud of our nation for this one.
    • TeakJolson, on 02/01/2008, -15/+4proud of the mainstream media for shamelessly pushing a candidate whose idea of change is superficial at best? ***** you
    • JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6Better brace yourself.....he still has to get elected and you know the intelligence of the average American voter (they elected Bush TWICE)
      • vanitea, on 02/02/2008, -0/+0No that was not all American voters, just the Republican "Conservative" American voters...
    • Thumper13, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Lets hope we can all be proud when he gets elected. I'm still worried about what tricks the Clinton machine has up it's sleeves.
      • RRJR, on 02/02/2008, -3/+0Will you be proud when he puts your wife, daughter and all other females in Berka's. I also wonder why he wont put his hand over his heart when the flag is raised or the pledge is said, Must be waiting on the Muslim Pledge.
        But than goodness we wont have to worry about that since he will fall on his face and John McCain can walk right over him. maybe old drunk ted will have a job for him.
        RON
  • Petrarch1603, on 02/01/2008, -30/+7the LA Times? they're still relevant?
  • u2wedge, on 02/01/2008, -6/+17This just gets better and better.
  • GravityExNihilo, on 02/01/2008, -4/+97The article with the second most diggs, ever, will probably be: Obama wins the democratic nominee!


    The article with the most diggs?:
    Obama is the United State's 44th president!
    • pyronik, on 02/01/2008, -12/+1or not
    • trizzlelv, on 02/01/2008, -2/+4If only I could double-digg you my friend!!
    • elint6, on 02/01/2008, -4/+5You can't beat 00-52-45-5D-67-D4.
      Yeah, I know those numbers are wrong, but you get the point. Besides, HD-DVD basically lost anyway.....
    • senatorpjt, on 02/02/2008, -3/+12Nobody on Digg will know who the president is, because everyone will bury the story if Hillary wins.
  • kenedamick, on 02/01/2008, -5/+21Say no to Hillary Lieber-woman and support Barack Obama.
  • Hetman, on 02/01/2008, -4/+34Damn the Neo con spammers are in full force today. I cannot go onto a thread about obama with out someone stating that "America will totally not vote for a black muslim" O well ignorants is bliss.
    • darkha1f, on 02/01/2008, -17/+3America will totally not vote for a black muslim
      • nblsavage, on 02/01/2008, -2/+11Good thing Obama isn't one then.
        • Moskie, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3I think that's his point.

          ... explaining why he's doing quite well so far.

          I mean, seriously here, do you think the U.S. would elect a black muslim as president?
      • elint6, on 02/01/2008, -2/+1you're getting buried because you forgot the /s
    • SuperFarStucker, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1I agree with your sentiment, although I'd hardly call them spammers. I see what happened to 'ignorance' there, too.
    • RRJackson, on 02/01/2008, -3/+8He doesn't have to *be* a Muslim. Wait until the attack ads start hitting his middle name and showing a map of Indonesia with a voiceover saying, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama grew up in a nation that's almost 90% Muslim, yet he claims to be a practicing Christian. Well then why did his church support Louis Farrakhan? In November the people who remember 9/11 will be voting for an American hero with a proven record of patriotism. McCain 2008 if you love America."
      • Optic7, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Ouch. Disgusting, but so true. You just know it will happen. Unless McCain sends a strong message that this kind of thing unacceptable (which I would not be surprised to see McCain do - he seems like a decent charater).
        • RRJR, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1McCain is honest, and knows how to protect this country and his church does not support that good old boy from the nation of Islam like bammy boys church does. Bammy has no idea how to fight for this country and has never sacrficed for our country like Mc Cain already has. Bammy boy would cave in at the first threat and all of us would be Muslims and old Bill JR. [Hillery] she would want to sit down and have tea with them as the fited her for her Berka.
          Ron
        • jsebrech, on 02/02/2008, -1/+0@RRJR

          Yes, muslims are right at the american borders, just waiting for a slight crack in the eternal vigilance to wash over it and conquer the nation... not.

          Maybe Barack and Hillary would dare to say the truth and do the honorable thing when it came to muslim terrorism? Like admit that it is a direct result of putting military bases in other people's countries, and start a plan for decreasing the military presence of america throughout the middle east? If the saudi's put a military base in the town next to yours, would you not support terrorist tactics against them also? Or would you just sit down and say "well, ok, I guess I can't stop you"? I'm not saying they're right to attack civilians, I'm just saying YOU would do the exact same thing in the same situation, and supporting the same old politics of "get the moose-limbs" is hypocritical.

      • senatorpjt, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Unfortunately he's running for President in a country that's almost 90% idiots.
        • RRJackson, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3"Honey, did you see that? Indonesia ain't in the Gulf of Mexico, after all. That Obama damn near tricked us."
      • goomba323, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3An ad like that would 100% backfire these days. It would vilify whoever made it and be looked at as cheap and dirty and uncalled for. It's too much of a risk to attack someone based on their name (it's not something they choose, might as well attack his skin color). And he isn't Muslim, so it would be factually incorrect, and I'm sure there would be an outcry from both parties to reprimand such an ad. You think Hillary bringing up Obama's past drug use backfired? Just wait for an ad attacking his race/religion.
        • RRJackson, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Sure, attack ads never work. People still think John Kerry was a traitor in Vietnam.
    • geekee, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1""America will totally not vote for a black muslim" O well ignorants is bliss."

      Why would a "neo-con" want to warn someone of this. If it were true (which it's not) then it would be to the Republicans' advantage if the Democrats picked Obama. Sounds more like something a Clinton supporter would be saying at this stage in the race.
  • proseandpromise, on 02/01/2008, -2/+10We're the LA Times sponsors of the debate? That they came out of the debate and sponsored Obama speaks to how well he did.
    • proseandpromise, on 02/01/2008, -3/+2*Edit
      I meant "Wait the LA Times..." I don't know why "we're" came out. Whoops.
    • hierophantus, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3I doubt it was the debate. I'm an Obama guy, and I think that other than on Iraq, Hillary was slightly better last night (on performance, not substance).
      • ComeOutSwingin, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I agree. I'm supporting Obama, but Hillary did seem more in control and fluid. IMO Obama needed to do better.
  • silicongat, on 02/01/2008, -28/+6Sweet, now we can increase the size of government, implement REAL ID, go to war with Pakistan, have a mandatory medical insurance and so on. The guy is pro war, just like the Clintons. How could anyone back this inexperienced flip flopper?
    • MrTito, on 02/02/2008, -6/+6Could have something to do with him not being a wingnut Libertarian with an even nuttier fanboybase.
    • chilipeppers4u, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Actually Hilary is the only one advocating mandatory health insurance (and even she will allow you to keep your private health insurance if you want to). Obama wants to offer affordable government insurance to those who want to buy it, but will not force people to buy insurance if they don't want to (with the exception of health insurance for children).
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0DGdfHnBE4
      Skip to 1:20 if you don't want to watch the whole video. See the same users other videos for the entire Democratic and Republican debates from this week.
  • u2wedge, on 02/01/2008, -7/+1aspiration is a bad thing, right?
  • zephyear, on 02/01/2008, -13/+15Yay for endorsements for obama.

    Hopefully the paultards realize he isn't going to win no matter how much anyone wants him to win and vote for obama.
    • skew009, on 02/02/2008, -2/+7Unfortunately this 'paultard' doesn't care who is or isn't going to win. I only care about voting for what I believe in and my principles. I can't vote for Obama because he has continued to vote for funding for the Iraq war and he voted to renew the Patriot Act. Anyone who supports the Patriot Act automatically fails my litmus test.
      • Pake, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1He's funding the troops, not the war. Just stopping the funding is going to end the war, as they'll just cut back on the troops.
    • geekee, on 02/02/2008, -4/+1Ron Paul supporters have no interest in voting for a socialist. McCain is more closely aligned on most issues to Ron Paul than Obama (except Iraq)
      • doyoulikeworms, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5Even then, McCain is a liberal. They're all liberals. Except Paul.
      • marrod1977, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Wahat???!!!! Are you serious?! Ron Paul and McCain closely aligned?????? I am a republican Ron Paul supporter but at least Obama understands the consequences of our foreign intervention(blowback) and I would vote for him waaaay before I vote for MCCain(another neocon warmonger!!!!)
    • billyjack1958, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I cannot vote for a candidate who voted for the Patriot Act, continues to vote for war funds , and never gives a totally straight answer to a question. He's a great orator but I don't see him walking his talk. In the beginning, I sent money to Obama. After further, extensive, in-depth research, I will vote for Ron Paul because I feel he is the Only who will restore our Bill of Rights and do what he says he will do. There is No arguing with Dr Paul's voting record...and I find lots to argue about with Obama's voting record. I see Obama just falling in line with the status quo if he's elected. Check out Obama's voting record and where his campaign funds are coming from...
  • darkha1f, on 02/01/2008, -12/+7Ummmm..... did you forget to leave out the fact that the LA Times also endorsed McCain.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-gop3feb0 ...
    • tbikkle, on 02/01/2008, -3/+7It is customary for a paper to endorse both a Democratic and Republican candidate. Their support of McCain is guarded, at best. Would you rather they have endorsed Romney?
      • darkha1f, on 02/01/2008, -2/+3Would rather they chose Ron Paul actually.
        • senatorpjt, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1I may agree with Ron Paul on some things, but I agree with myself even more. I could write my own name on the ballot and get the same result.
    • monkeyrun, on 02/01/2008, -8/+3LOL, I love how you get dugg down.
      I bet the headline will be "LA Times Endorses McCain and Hillary" if they choses to endorse Hillary.

      And I love posters who make it sound like a historical event (like this one)
      "This is the L.A. Times' first presidential endorsement in almost forty years."

      OMG History in the making!!!!!
      • darkha1f, on 02/01/2008, -6/+1Exactly. This is not a big historic event. LA Times has simply decided to stop being an impartial news source and instead follow the NY Times as a politically biased circulation.

        Guess I'll have to stick to the Wall Street Journal.
        • moraldebate, on 02/01/2008, -2/+7You do realize the Wall Street Journal is now owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp - not exactly an organization dedicated to an unbiased press.
    • kurzweil4, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3What the hell? Why are they bothering to endorse anyone if they are going to endorse both a Republican AND a Democrat? Seems weak to me on their part.
      • darkha1f, on 02/02/2008, -2/+2That's exactly why this news is not newsworthy.
    • JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Well somebody's gotta win and they want to call in a favor when that happens.
    • absurdist, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Jesus ***** Christ, people, it's a PRIMARY. If you've ever picked up a newspaper in your lives, you'd see that they endorse a candidate from BOTH major parties for the primaries. Wait and see who they endorse in the actual election before you start showing off all that ignorance.
  • blitzo999, on 02/01/2008, -10/+4Obama is a great speaker, appears sincere, and is inspirational in many ways. I personally like him and he strangely does not give me that cringe-worthy vomit-in-the-mouth feeling that most politicians do. I also appreciate that he wants to bring the troops home. But let's be serious here. Obama's positions on illegal immigration, monetary policy, and health care are pure insanity. Driver's licenses for illegals? Education loans for illegals? Handouts for all? Keep printing money out of thin air and borrowing from China? He will do nothing but continue to run us into the ground with these insane economic policies. I'm also skeptical of any candidate that the media druels over like this. The currently corrupt and disgusting mainstream media will still have plenty of money to make with an Obama presidency, and that upsets me greatly. Not to mention that he will do nothing to stop the erosion of our borders and the end of American sovereignty. (Yeah, he's a globalist.) Sorry but these are the facts. This being said, I would much rather prefer him over Clinton or McCain.
    • lorddon, on 02/01/2008, -3/+1There's a problem with being a globalist? We can either join the global community or continue to sink further as a major world power by refusing to support anything unless it's on our terms.
      • blitzo999, on 02/01/2008, -1/+3Yes, there is a problem with being a globalist. If we allow the North American Union to be created, and then the Asian Union, & African Union, it will eventually become a global government after that. The more centralized power becomes the more corrupt and manipulative of the people it will become. The people who are orchestrating this plan are the scum of the earth and view humans as a commodity. We are doomed if we allow this to happen. The only way to preserve our freedoms is to continue to run this country as the Founding Fathers suggested and abide by the Constitution.
    • hierophantus, on 02/01/2008, -0/+3Yes, let's be serious. No one is going to overhaul the Fed. Drivers' licenses for illegals, whether or not a good idea, will have little to no impact on the economy. Education for illegals, whether or not a good idea, would have an unknown effect on the economy (ostensibly pay more for the education but likely get back some when some illegals become legal contributors to the economy). Subsidizing health care with an emphasis on preventive care is also likely to have no impact or a positive impact on the economy when more people stay healthy and out of the emergency room. Hardly insane.

      I don't know where the ***** you get "handouts for all" from, so I can't really respond to that one.
      • blitzo999, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1Only one candidate would overhaul the Fed. The Fed should be a public entity and broadcast its meetings. Driver's licenses for illegals is just another incentive for them to come here. Other incentives such as providing them health care, education, and jobs will perpetuate the problem. And the fact is we simply CANNOT afford to be subsidizing illegal immigrants when we area already going bankrupt and can barely take care of our own citizens. And haven't you seen the results when government gets control over anything? It goes to complete *****. There isn't a speck of evidence that we should trust them with our health.
        • helster83, on 02/02/2008, -0/+0well said... people just don't get it.
  • u2wedge, on 02/01/2008, -6/+2I love watching stacks like this.
  • 4d669, on 02/01/2008, -13/+8CFR has always had the support of the media, which is one of the biggest reasons they have gotten away with so much.
    • nblsavage, on 02/01/2008, -4/+6Do you check under your bed for CFR members before you go to bed?
    • wreckosaurus, on 02/01/2008, -5/+4SHUT UP YOU ***** TROOFERS
      • 4d669, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1Why don't you just google the following: 'Cheney Obama cousin' and 'Obama wife CFR'. Enjoy your denial.
  • monkeyrun, on 02/01/2008, -23/+2"Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility."

    Exactly why I will vote for Clinton over Obama. I want something solid, don't just give me hot air. Thanks.
    • JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2That's a hard decision for me. Young and idealistic will help re-energize the country but won't accomplish much, where as seasoned and jaded knows how to work the system better. Tough call.
      • monkeyrun, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3And Obama's really not that idealistic at all.
        Kucinich is what I called idealistic.
    • sesshin, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1It depends what you look for in a President. Those of us who remember JFK and Reagan know what its like to be inspired. I would rather have someone leading in the right direction with everyone following rather than someone who is trying to ram policy down a divided Congress. Thats what we'll get with Hillary.
    • iplayyouandme, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Dead on LA Times. I was all for Billary or Obama but she's tarnishing her image with all of her dirty politics. Now I'm only for Obama. As President, image is everything. Real leadership is providing a vision of future while surrounding yourself with "doers" that can carry that vision out. After all, JFK didn't do anything to get us to the moon, rather he inspired us with the collective will to do it. Healthcare for every American will also require this popular will or it will die just like Billary's former fight. We don't need a fighter or a (evil)doer, rather we need a leader with the vision to bring us together to get things done.

      I will never vote for her.
    • Thumper13, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1So you want another 4 to 8 years of the BushClinton dynasty?
      28 years of family rule. That's great!
      • monkeyrun, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3This is not even a reason.
        If you are voting for Obama just because you don't want your so called Bush Clinton dynasty, then you better not vote anymore.
        btw: I am sick of the Westerner dynasty also, let's vote an Asian in the white house.
  • StephenTC, on 02/01/2008, -15/+9Wow, good job LA Times, you sure know how to stay unbiased. /sarcasm
    • flycatcher, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6Yeah really. Seriously, should media outlets really be in the business of swaying public opinion?
      • LeCollectif, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1I'm not sure about down there, but in Canada, the tradition is for the media outlets to announce the candidate they back shortly before votes are cast. They all do it.
        Super Tuesday coming up makes me think you guys do the same thing.
  • BadseedJR, on 02/01/2008, -13/+8Obama will most likely win the election. Sadly, it is not the right time for him. Although his changes seem to be a breath of frsh air to a country that is suffocating, we simply don't have the money to do what he wants to do. I like the guy, he seems genuinely interested in bettering the country (unless he's just really good at acting), I just think he's going to step into a hole that the country can't get out of. We will either have to be taxed at 50% of income, or we will go bankrupt if all his plans are voted in. Too bad, he could represent real change.
    • iainc, on 02/01/2008, -1/+4When would the right time be? When it's too late? Nothing will change under Hillary. With Obama the future is pregnant with possibility. Don't be gloomy; be hopeful and optimistic.
      • BadseedJR, on 02/02/2008, -2/+0Oh god, Hillary should never be voted in, ever. For Obama's plans to improve the country, he really needs to cut spending first so we can pay for the things we already owe for, then he could implement his plans.
    • lorddon, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Because between him and all his advisors they won't form an intelligent strategy and will vote anything and everything in all at once?
      • BadseedJR, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1No. If you read my post at all, you'd get that the country is ALREADY in economic trouble. We have to cut spending if we even want to have a chance. Obama has no plans to cut spending, only increase it with things like universal healthcare.
    • Totalchaos02, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4Since when was America the nation of "We Can't"?
  • farsi, on 02/01/2008, -10/+3Is it just me, or shouldn't the media ASPIRE to be unbiased? Sure, most media have biases--but am I just an idealist for thinking that the press is part of the system of checks and balances? (I actually support Sen. Obama--but still.) ****My 2-cents: Media shouldn't endorse candidates.
    • amawg9, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4Every newspaper has an editorial section. In this section editors write opinion based articles. That is how they endorse a candidate, endorsements are always in the editorial section.
      • Thumper13, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Damn you and your understanding of how it all works!
    • elint6, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2I get your point, but when a president begins to outwardly rape the constitution, it becomes the media's responsibility to protect its own freedom [of the press] along with its' clients. That's why the L.A. times has endorsed a candidate for the first time in over 40 years. Also, it's customary to endorse a candidate of the other party too--that's why they chose McCain, although their endorsement for the senior senator is rather guarded if you ask me.
  • Scheissen, on 02/01/2008, -17/+6More obamaspam. Buried. Go to your obamaforums and jack off to endorsements.
    • moraldebate, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2You do realize that you don't have to ***** read this right? If you don't like it then don't bother, asshole.
  • elliotys, on 02/01/2008, -9/+3I really think they are two good candidates, and each have something to offer. I would give a slight edge to Hillary over Obama on foreign policy, simply because she brought up a lot of good points about the difficulty of immediate withdrawal during the debates. I think they would make a great Pres-Vice Pres combo with really either one in either position.
    • elliotys, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5Oh wait. I forgot I was on digg. I ***** hate Hillary (sarcasm). There. That should get me some positive diggs
    • RetlawST, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Heh, no worries, mate. I think people are just quick on the trigger as far as pro-Hillary comments are concerned. Digg is great for somethings, but not the place to go if you want a balanced discussion. In real life I would let you speak and would agree with you, but on Digg it's a black and white issue, up or down, with non-action a sign of indifference. But since people hate Hillary, down is the easiest option for them.
      • elliotys, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1May you live long and prosper. Are you australian?
  • Bisclavret, on 02/01/2008, -18/+2so i guess all the ron paul supporters left that bandwagon to join another.
    • moraldebate, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Not really. The Ron Paul guys would digg you down for anything negative. And while I'm at it - that Ron Paul bandwagon did pretty ***** well if I do say so myself.
  • theelectricafro, on 02/01/2008, -12/+7Yeah lets vote for more rhetoric. Change lets change. change is good. change for the better? change what? who cares change!!!
    Say what you will about Obama. He is better than re-electing the Clinton/Bush oligarchy. But he will not bring any change for the better. Bankruptcy is change. Is that good?
    • helster83, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1some people are just not naturally inquisitive.
  • QaSpel, on 02/01/2008, -10/+4There has been a rash of newspapers supporting candidates

    Whatever happened to media unbias? Shouldn't they at least pretend to not favor a particular political group?
    • amawg9, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5Every newspaper has an editorial section. In this section editors write opinion based articles. That is how they endorse a candidate, endorsements are always in the editorial section.
      • Thumper13, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1oh, you're at it again!
        QaSpel, here is your answer.
    • LeCollectif, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1As I said above, in Canada, the media outlets traditionally do this. Usually, it's no secret which way the papers and networks lean. But it's always fun to hear and read them "announce" it.
  • wrappedcherry, on 02/01/2008, -18/+2I don't read USA Today...but I'm going to start reading it this Saturday. The Los Angeles Times just lost my subscription.
    • LeCollectif, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Wow, that's like graduating from high school one day, then waking up and taking the short bus to kindergarten the next.
  • kavustock, on 02/01/2008, -2/+16The democratic establishment has already selected their candidate, and that's Hillary Clinton. Too bad they didn't check with the actual voters first. The people want Obama. Beware the Superdelegate . . . the establishment's tool of last resort to make sure they can keep actual voters in line. Bill Clinton has been strong-arming them into the wrong line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
    • MrTito, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4From the link you posted:
      "In the Democratic primary phase of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, Howard Dean acquired an early lead in delegate counts by obtaining the support of a number of superdelegates before even the first primaries were held."

      Yeah, things have a way of changing since Superdelegates can change their support at any time . As the count stands right now, Clinton has 184 Superdelegates, Obama has 95. That means there are still 517 up for grabs, along with all the primaries yet to be decided. In short, the establishment hasn't selected anything yet. Sorry to deflate your theory.
      • kavustock, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Regarding Superdelegates, I used to work for a democratic congressman that is now a senator. Once you've been inside the belly of the beast, you see the political process differently. I am sure there are a large number of Superdelegates that would like to come out for Obama but have not. Why? Easy, they have a lot to lose. The Clintons command a lot of power and money inside the party, nothing squelches an endorsement faster than a reminder about all the white house dinners you will not be invited to or all of the campaign contributions you will not get if dare endorse the wrong candidate. How far we have come from the days when the signers of The Declaration of Independence were willing to put their lives on the line for what they believed.

        Now, I am uncertain about what "theory" you think you deflated. To focus on the line about Howard Dean or the current *stated* superdelegate count is to miss the point entirely. If this is something you are truly interested in, pick up a copy of Rhodes Cook's book on the Presidential nominating process. This is from page 56, "After the 1980 election, party leaders -- concerned that the reform rules had gone too far in muting the infuence of party and elected officials in the nominating process -- created a special category of automatic delegate slots [Superdelegates] for party and elected officials . . . party officials had several goals in mind . . . create a firewall to blunt any outside party that built up a head of steam in the primaries." So I don't really have a "theory." Superdelegates are a point of fact. If I can raise a couple questions they would be along this line. Do Superdelegates, as a party device, provide a level of "control?" Why? Like other devices, can this one be used in a manner that is inconsistent with its originally stated purpose?

        I also find it strikingly funny that someone has has recently edited out the section of the wikipedia article about the mathematical weighting of Supderdelegate votes (citing something like the stat doesn't matter because the superdelegates are 'elected' and then mistakenly comparing them to the electoral college to justifying the edit). No doubt the recent editor likes things just the way they are. That's funny stuff.
  • KompressorV12, on 02/02/2008, -5/+22I don't care what your political affiliation is, this man is the most sincere presidential candidate I think our nation has ever had... If he wins presidency I think there will finally for once be new hope for America and our position in the world

    I will pray daily
    • flycatcher, on 02/02/2008, -8/+2I agree.
      I pray daily to Satan.
    • guestworker, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1I could live with Obama. Anybody But Clinton (ABC).
    • u2wedge, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3people will finally be able to remember how great America can be and THAT, my friends, is a weapon no one can stop.
    • BordrGuy108, on 02/02/2008, -3/+4uh Ron Paul?
    • titanxvx, on 02/02/2008, -0/+0Move beyond prayer and into action! Volunteer or contribute financially to his campaign. Become informed and express these ideas to friends and family.
      We can all make a difference if we just move beyond hoping it happens the way we wish. That said, I know he appreciates your positive thoughts.
  • flycatcher, on 02/02/2008, -9/+9Is it me, or does anyone else find newspapers or other supposedly unbiased media outlets that support political candidates unethical and dangerous? I can't wait until the people who own our debt start favoring political candidates. Democracy? Yeah, right.
    • dxgg, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4As we've been reminded in other comments, the LA Times has also endorsed John McCain. They've taken sides on which candidate they support for each party. Nothing biased, unethical, or dangerous about that.
      • guestworker, on 02/02/2008, -2/+0There sure is. Too bad you don't see it. I guess you support Hollywood for their "support".
    • caketank, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1God almighty, there's at least one in every endorsement thread isn't there?

      I refer you to the entire history of newspapers.
    • beejohnStone, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1it was in the opinion section thats where opinions belong, now what we need to worry about is when those political leanings run over into the world news
  • liquisoft, on 02/02/2008, -12/+5Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there were rules about media outlets endorsing political candidates. My understanding is that all media outlets are required to give candidates equal promotion. If my understanding is correct, then isn't the LATimes really breakin' the law?
    • febryle, on 02/02/2008, -1/+10No. It's the OPINION section. It is an EDITORIAL. You, are a JACKHOLE.
      • dxgg, on 02/05/2008, -3/+2Aggressively jumping down somebody's throat simply because they're mistaken certainly fits the "jackhole" definition to me. Can you say projection?
    • MrTito, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2No. It's called "editorializing".
    • painhertz, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2You're wrong. It's a time honoured tradition for a newspaper to tell you who to vote for and why. It's called an editorial.
  • odessit, on 02/02/2008, -8/+2hmmm....so all of those Fox-bashing diggers who say that Fox isn't reporting news but pushes it's conservative agenda aren't speaking out here against the blatant fact of newspapers loosing it's balanced stance (if there ever was one) by endorsing one candidate over the other!! I think it's called hypocrisy!!!
    • dxgg, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5*sigh* Once again...the LA Times has also endorsed Senator McCain. Balanced enough for ya?
    • LeCollectif, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4Again, papers do this by tradition.

      Secondly, there's a HUGE difference between an official endorsement and purposely delivering smear and misinformation.
  • gerran, on 02/02/2008, -1/+10The last sentence in the article says it all:

    "Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long -- a sense of aspiration."
    • krnldmp, on 02/02/2008, -9/+1A fitting end to a total fluff piece.
    • dennisclark, on 02/02/2008, -1/+0Sure can smell that Ass-piration. Nothing like a false sense of hope.
      • Ricardo2point0, on 02/10/2008, -0/+0Hope is still hope! A change is what is needed for America do you really want to carry on being one of the most hated countries in the world? or would you rather live up to the historic ideals of America i.e
  • DudeAsInCool, on 02/02/2008, -9/+3Wishful thinking doesn't make someone Presidential. I have yet to see Obama's plans. Will someone enlighten me about the programs he wants to put into place, as well as the specifics behind them. Edwards was far more specific than either Obama or Clinton.
    • wheeloffish9, on 02/02/2008, -0/+10http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
    • geekee, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2He thinks subprime speculators are innocent victims of the lending industry (even though they put no money down and often borrowed more than the price of the house), and wants to bail them out.
    • caketank, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1I know you know how to work the web dude, I can SEE YOU ON IT.
  • TheGreatBelow, on 02/02/2008, -18/+12Hell yes people. All of the Ron Paul sackriders need to jump ship and vote Obama! GOGOOGGOGOGOGO
    • BordrGuy108, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7Why would anyone who supports Ron Paul want to vote for Obama?
      • BDOUG, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Simple. There's more than one road to improving this country. And almost any road in any direction would be an improvement over what Bush left us. It's true that Obama and Paul have very, very different platforms. But that doesn't mean one must be evil and the other good, or one foolish and the other wise. Both men seem to have a ton of integrity and wisdom. WIth the possible exception of Kuicinich, all the other candidates so far are the usual emtpy suits full of bogus campaign promises. We don't really know that Obama and Paul are men of integrity, they just seem the most sincere and value driven so far, IMO.
        • nakani, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3Except Obama's policy will lead to spending that we simply cannot afford. We need to make massive cuts in federal spending, and end our massive foreign military empire because we're going broke.
      • caketank, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Because if they don't, the CFR and the Federal Reserve and NORAD will team up and build a big toll road that only takes fiat Ameros and then we'll all be doomed. DOOMED.
    • NotAChickenHawk, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6IMHO, Ron Paul and Obama have almost nothing in common as far as their actual positions are concerned. Both are against the war in Iraq, but Paul is categorically against foreign intervention while Obama is only against this particular war. Obama wants to expand the government, Paul wants to limit its role and shrink it. Obama wants to raise taxes, Paul wants to reduce them. I just don't seem them having any similarities in their actual positions that would compel the supporter of one to vote for the other.
      • Zasz, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Does being categorically against foreign intervention mean he would have done nothing in Europe during World Wars 1 & 2?
        Wow, what a guy.
        • NotAChickenHawk, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Most of America was categorically against foreign intervention in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor. That attack very quickly changed people's percenptions. Also,if I understand what Ron Paul has been saying, then he's not against a justified war with a congressional declaration of war - he is against wars like Iraq that are pre-emptive (meaning they are a foreign intervention) and are not declared by Congress as required in the Constitution.
        • mvent2, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1No, it means he wouldn't have started wars like the one in Iraq. WW1 and 2 were threats to America so he would've supported it lock, stock and barrel.
    • marrod1977, on 02/02/2008, -2/+1Well I am and always have been a voting Republican... but if Ron Paul doesn't win this nomination...or runs third party....There is NO Way in Hell I will be voting for another NeoCon Warmonger!...and even if Ron Paul runs third party....One less vote for Obama is one more for McCain?!....I Love and Believe in Ron Paul all the way....but I am realistic and John McCain as president is a really scary thought...He will probably bomb Iran his first week in office if Bush doesn't do it before November......So sorry but my vote will most likely go to Obama...I would like to see young Democrats learn from us "Paulites" and be more enthusiastic....put up signs and go canvass your Democrat neighbors for Obama! You could even print this awesome LA TImes piece and hand it out!
  • NYGiantsNYYanks, on 02/02/2008, -15/+6Newspapers should not be endorsing candidates, no matter who they are. If a newspaper was actually reporting real news instead of facts that are also completely bombarded by opinions, there would be no endorsements for particular candidates. I wish they would just report the news and that's it, because that's really all we need these writers for... I think most of us are smart enough to make our own choices.
    • BKLMabry, on 02/02/2008, -0/+0I -would- agree with you, however, the fact that Hillary is leading in many of the Super Tuesday states as well as in the national polls (despite the fact that her lead is steadily being eroded) tells me that people aren't as smart as I'd like to believe.
  • mh732, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4C'mon California, the rest of the Obama supporters around the country need you guys to stage an upset on Tuesday!
  • videolouis, on 02/02/2008, -9/+2SORRY TO EXPLODE YOUR BUBBLE
    but the LA TIMES who as said, never gives
    pres candidate endorsements
    at least in many years,
    ENDORSES both
    Mc CAIN & OBAMA

    now let's re-write our comments
    stop the liberal lies PLEASE.
    oh BTW Obama IS a great person and so is Mc Cain
    • blaze03, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4The hell are you talking about? Newspapers endorse a candidate for each party. Because in a primary election, people run against candidates in their own party, not against someone from another party.

      This submission is Obama. Feel free to submit one about McCain but nobody cares
    • rawheadrex, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3As someone else pointed out. Do you think the LA Times would have broken their silence and endorsed Clinton and McCain, if Obama hadn't been running? The McCain endorsement is simply a disguise, to give the appearance of balance, but clearly, the reason behind their sudden endorsements is Obama, not McCain.

      "stop the liberal lies PLEASE."

      Aww, does the truth hurt?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 89 of 89 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.