digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

MORE, MORE, MORE superdelegates, endorsements for Obama

online.wsj.com — Wall Street Journal (3/31) ...MN Senator/Superdelegate Amy Klobuchar is expected to endorse Sen. Obama Monday. Meanwhile, North Carolina's 7 Dem. House members are poised to endorse Obama as a group before that state's May 6 primary, several Democrats say. Obama has more support in House & Senate these days. ...MORE, MORE, MORE, MORE, MORE!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Stonecipher26, on 03/31/2008, -1/+52Hopefully all those undeclared, but not undecided SDs come out before April 22. A win in PA for Obama would end this thing once and for all.
    • thefirstenemy, on 03/31/2008, -10/+25Obama won't win PA. Don't set Obama up for a larger failure by setting his expectations of winning at anything more than a win being as close as possible to Clinton in the delegate count.
      • wild, on 03/31/2008, -3/+8The man makes sense. I don't understand why you guys are digging him down.
      • Toupee, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8I don't know... 20,000 people attended his rally here at Penn State's main campus yesterday. It was the talk of the town without a doubt and just before that he was bowling in Altoona. It's true that there are a lot of Hillary signs outside of the bigger towns though...
    • rizzo2008, on 03/31/2008, -28/+5OSPAMA!!!!!
    • ziptnf, on 03/31/2008, -3/+29Clinton is way ahead of Obama in PA, and it doesn't look like he'll be able to make up the difference in that state. Despite the calls for her to quit, Clinton won't quit till the convention, because she's a delusional bitch. Obama will still be our nominee, but it's going to go down to the wire.
      • wild, on 03/31/2008, -6/+4I was with you until you slipped in "bitch." Makes all of your relevant points look worthless.
        • ziptnf, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7Only if you're too young/naive to get offended by that kind of thing.
        • dafragsta, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7Is your point that it's sexist? I beg to differ. If "she" were a "he," "he'd" be an an "*****." Don't make complaints of sexism, sister. There are a lot more douchebag, dickweed, dickwad, assclown, asshat, assmaster, *****, *****, bastard, son-of-a-bitch, (but no daughter-of-a-bastard?), *****, cockmaster, cockknocker, *****, and *****-for-brains labels which are rarely applied when it's known that the subject of discussion is a woman. Granted, we can always ball the nastiness of all those words up into one and call a woman a ***** and unleash the fury.

          /whooooooaaa... I didn't say it! ;)
      • dafragsta, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2How many times this year have the polls been wrong?
      • robthom, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Haha, dugg for "delusional bitch",
        I love it.
    • sugarhigh4242, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4The remaining primaries are an illusion. They aren't going to tell us anything we don't already know. Its up to the Super Delegates to put an end to this thing. They can either do it today or they can do it in August.
    • OwdenBowden, on 03/31/2008, -12/+1The democrats would shoot off there head despite their nose when it comes to anything named Clinton. What all these supporters and endorsers of Barack Hussein Obama are doing is setting the stage for Citizens to vote for John McCain. Obama is dangerous and he is doing a hell-of-a-job Hoodwinking all.

      Just Say "NO" to "O" in 08
      • dmark77, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5While your statement may carry some truth, you are also trying to antagonize with Fox News like tactics.

        Aside from pamphlet fud, can you offer a clear-conscise explination as to why Obama is so dangerous?

      • wild, on 03/31/2008, -0/+10You know that using "Huessein" invalidates anything you say, right? It pegs you instantly as someone who has little interest in real issues and likes to play the "lets just slander" game. I for one am tired of it. And the more you guys come out of the woodwork, the stronger my conviction gets to back Obama.
        • logan074, on 03/31/2008, -3/+0I support Obama but it is his middle name. I have a problem with the people that use Osama in there though.
        • ThugThrasher, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6Well, it'd be different if he had ALSO said John Sidney McCain because then he would have been consistent. But it's obvious that when someone mentions more than one candidate and the ONLY middle name they mention is Hussein, then the entire point of mentioning it is to try and associate Obama with someone ELSE named Hussein.
      • OwdenBowden, on 03/31/2008, -6/+1I typed his full name to type his full name. You are seeking to make a bigger deal about this than ever was presented and does not invalidate anything I said to anyone but yourself. When I look to the people running for office I vote for who is either the Best for the job or the lesser of evil. I also see who is the snake oil salesperson. Obama makes really nice speeches but has been lying about his associations to really bad people (his spiritual leader, his terrorists supporting friends are just some of the people he has associated with) and these associations just tell me that HE does not have the proper Judgment required to make crucial decisions that will have a lasting effect on myself and my family. Further, his lack of proper judgment tell me that my family and their live are in jeopardy wit this person and I will not vote for for him nor help him hurt anyone. OIf it took Obama 20 Years to finally realize that his views are not the same views of the man he holds near and dear to his heart (Rev. J.W.) then how long will it take him to figure out that he cannot make the right decision for the entire country? thats right it will be in the year 2029 that Obama will have the ephifany that he did not know what he was doing.

        Like it or not - Obama is bad news for us all.

        I have a dream - I dream that this country does not vote Obama President for safety sake.
        • wild, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4I hope you realize you are not being dugg down because you have a different viewpoint, but because you are trying to defend it with baseless comments and slanderous language.
        • motivatedmama, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I was thinking about this today, this paranoia about Obama's "dangerous" associations and just once I would like for someone to lay out his dark evil plan. Exactly how would Barack use his executive power in regards to his friends (Rev. J.W.) views? Order the firstborn Caucasian male of every Caucasian family slain? I mean really! Will he support Palestine? So what if he did or does? The Israelis scoff at Condoleeza, they build settlements on Palestinian land etc. As for his "terrorist" friends, Obama sticks to his own principals. He debated with Edwards in Edwards own home about health care, instead of kissing ass like Hillary. Judgment? What about Hillary being unable to open her mouth without spewing lies and McCain who doesn't even know what he truly believes anymore. Obama is articulate, intelligent and genuine. I just really want to know what his nefarious plan is!
  • kwazyhulk, on 03/31/2008, -0/+67I can't wait for the Clinton camp to tell us that Super ("Automatic") delegates don't matter either...
    • ProfessorSYM, on 03/31/2008, -2/+12She will take this thing to the Supreme Court!
      • InfamousAtheist, on 03/31/2008, -0/+15The SC shouldn't touch it - it's a party matter governed by party rules, unlike the general election.
        • Double0Doug, on 03/31/2008, -3/+7That doesn't mean she won't try
        • TheUnlearn, on 03/31/2008, -5/+0so the democratic party answers to no one? they can do whatever the hell they want and no one can question them, even though the happenings in their primaries directly effect the entire country? It's great to see oligarchy in action.
          • diggduggDOOM, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4For your own sake I suggest you learn about the differences between a primary election and the general election. The Democratic Party, being a private party (like all political parties, including the Republican Party) answers to itself, its members, its own rules, and (where applicable) state laws regarding the voting procedures.

            The primary election does not have the same legal protection that the general election does. Political parties were not intended to be a part of the framework of the founding of the USA In fact, some of the 'Founding Fathers' were very concerned about the presence and power that political parties might one day hold.
          • TheUnlearn, on 04/01/2008, -0/+0I know the difference between primaries and the general election. That's why i said "their *primaries* directly effect the entire country." For your own sake i suggest you learn reading comprehension. Also, i wasn't attempting to make this a D vs. R issue. i just mentioned democrats because that's what the article and comments are about. It's still an oligarchy running this country.
        • ThugThrasher, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4TheUnlearn:
          They don't answer to anyone, as long as their candidates obey the various election laws. This is one of the problems some of us have with the 2-party system. In theory, they don't have to answer to anyone because it is a private party that can do what they want and if the people don't like it, they can just support a different candidate from a new party (or no party). However, with all of the barriers in place to make sure that no one but a Republican or Democrat gets much exposure or can get on the ballot in every state, people don't have all that much choice in the matter. (Look at the Libertarians for an example, they are the largest 3rd party and they can't get their candidate on the ballot in every state)
    • runCMD, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2What are you talking about ? LOL. Quick make some more stuff up - this stuff is way funny.
  • scottc, on 03/31/2008, -0/+47She sees the writing on the wall with the superdelegates. That's why last week she started telling pledged delegates - the ones people voted for to represent their choice at the national convention - that they were free to break their pledge and vote for her. While there are legitimate arguments either way regarding the supers, asking the pledged delegates to change their vote is an attempt to steal the election, IMO.
  • thefirstenemy, on 03/31/2008, -10/+2I just want to point out, I don't think state representatives are superdelegates to the DNC.
    • mugsoh, on 03/31/2008, -0/+12Representatives TO the state legislature are not super delegates. But, this article clearly says representatives FROM North Carolina (to Congress) and they most certainly ARE super delegates.Any democrat elected to national office is a super delegate.
      • thefirstenemy, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Right, in this article they list one actual superdelegate who is endorsing Obama. The Digg article and summary made it a little unclear over who was a superdelegate endorsement, and who was just state legislature endorsements.
        • Revovisionary, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1They are not "state" legislatures. They are members of the US House of Representatives that happen to be from North Carolina. They haven't endorsed yet, but they probably will soon.
  • DiggLive, on 03/31/2008, -0/+16This ***** is getting so exciting! The agonizing wait until her tax returns, supers going for Obama because of that and the Bosnia "sniper fire", the pending fall out from supers based on April 15th and 22nd. *****, if this thing isn't settled in the last week of April, it sure will be in the second week of May.
    • runCMD, on 03/31/2008, -6/+1As far as I'm concerned, it's settled already. : ) Sorry Obama.
  • Robozilla, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5This was over a month ago. But I'm glad to see more and more articles proving it.
  • dilibau, on 03/31/2008, -15/+2buried for that stupid repetition in the title... I'm not blind thank you
    • Kurlumbenus, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Reptition isn't utilized for visual acuity. It's used to make concepts memorable.
      • Dudeee, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2oh obama! more more more
        • SteveIsTheDude, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4In the midnight hour... she cried "more more more".... With a Rebel Yell!
      • mrmrok, on 03/31/2008, -0/+0that's so true, that's so true
      • TheUnlearn, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1head on, apply directly to the forehead!
  • colonelbuckshot, on 03/31/2008, -29/+7MORE, MORE, MORE spam for Obama
    • iainc, on 03/31/2008, -4/+4Here, have a tissue you big cry-baby wuss.

      There, now you have something to be upset about.
  • rolfv, on 03/31/2008, -0/+22All you people want is MORE MORE MORE, LEAVE HILLARY ALONE D': (seriously, plz don't give her any more delegates)
  • zephyear, on 03/31/2008, -0/+53no wait guys, superdelegates don't matter

    oh wait you mean those are the things i was basing my entire campaign around?

    oh well, i misspoke
    • tdogg241, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Understandable, with the sleep-deprivation and all.
  • kynn, on 03/31/2008, -1/+19Setbacks continue to pile up for Hillary: losing Texas after all her premature hoopla, superdelegates and other high-profile endorsements going to her opponent, her finances in disarray, her amply padded résumé becoming the laughingstock of this election, but she marches on, oblivious to all this... In her refusal to accept reality, Clinton is showing herself to be George Bush's pant-suited twin. The country is tired of politicians that confuse tenacity with stubbornness and stupidity, and I expect that she will continue to get hammered in opinion polls over the next weeks...
    • runCMD, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2What you fail to recognize is that it's the VOTERS that are keeping Hillary Clinton's campaign alive. Why disenfranchise those that choose the other candidate. In fairness to both candidates - and the democratic process - this thing needs to go to convention. Unless Obama accepts Hillary's olive branch and accepts unity over selfish goals - this race is lost to the republicans. If Hillary manages to pull back the clouds and wins the nomination - then you are guaranteed of party unity. Unless Obama still chooses to reject it. Just MHO
      • jchrome, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4"Unless Obama accepts Hillary's olive branch and accepts unity over selfish goals.." The delusional thinking of HRC and her blind-zealot supporters is just mind-blowing. So, he leads by every conceivable measure yet he should give the spot to her *for no rational reason* and take a backseat as VP? This fantasy-land spin-zone thinking is killing party unity and could hand this thing over to Bush's lapdog: McCain. Wake up.
        • runCMD, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Amusing retort there jchrome. Speaking of blind-zealot supporters - THAT is hilarious coming from an Obama supporter : ) Does anyone else see the elephant in the room. ?
          As a rational and sane individual who has not been taken in by the slick talking hand hiding Barack Obama - I beg to differ. I have weighed the options and chosen rationally rather than emotionally. The same cannot be said for that 'majority' of supporters for the candidate of your choice. Neither Hillary ( nor I for that matter ) suggested either candidate should take second fiddle. You read your own fear into my statement and her original offer. It was for a dual ticket - whomever comes out on top. For the sake of party unity - she offered her hand first - and he scoffed. THAT is what I'M talking about. This interesting campaign should continue through as long as both candidates have credible support from the VOTERS - and they both do. At the convention is where they should announce combining forces. ... regardless of who's on top
  • rizzo2008, on 03/31/2008, -33/+5ZOMG!!! OBAMA OBAMA!! HE IS OUR SAVIOR HE WILL SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS lololololl!!!!

    NO MAS OSPAMA!! If he wasn't running you all would be worshiping Hilary. If you think Obama will solve our problems you are an incredible tool and he won't be any better than Hilary or Mccain.
    • brstilson, on 03/31/2008, -0/+15If Obama wasn't running I think the race would either be between Edwards and Clinton or Clinton will have secured the nomination and we'd all be complaining that we picked another John Kerry this year.
      • Kurlumbenus, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8If Obama wasn't running I'd be voting for McCain. ***** blindly voting along party lines.
    • dcshiderly, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Cthulu 2008. Why pick the lesser evil?

      /he'll devour your soul
      //me first!
      • Kurlumbenus, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Welcome to 1996 - Population: You
    • Ell3, on 03/31/2008, -15/+3Obama will indeed "save" Americans. He'll save them from the personal responsibilities and occasional hardships that are associated with living in freedom.
      • klco, on 03/31/2008, -1/+11Just like Bush 'saved' certain Americans from having the terrible burden of having to follow the law...
      • orangefly, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7seriously....???....a republican talking about taking freedom from americans.....???....
        • rizzo2008, on 03/31/2008, -4/+1seriously??? Assuming he is a republican because he believes in the government staying out of our lives? Damn socialists and pig statists
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4I'd be voting for McCain if Hillary was the only choice regardless of Obama. I'm pretty pissed about the war and Hillary's choice to puss out on that is a big problem. But I also see special interests as a big part of this mess and McCain is a lot more serious about that than Clinton. If I have to stomach an Iraq war/Bush collaborator I'll take the one that still stands for something at least.
  • senator32, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3It will be interesting to see how the super delegates vote. Either way, I don't think we will see an end to this until after the convention...but this is a good step for Obama. Check out Obama's federal legislation currently in the senate: http://www.statesurge.com/members/923 .
  • schnikies79, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1Why can't the delegates (including super) just vote the way their constituents want?

    Hopefully that is Obama, but they should never veer from what the people want.
    • likesoy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Because not all super-delegates have constituents, in fact I think a good many don't (living ex-presidents like Jimmy Carter, for instance.)
      HRC's camp has been trying to float this for a while.
    • NJexec03, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2As the voters are voting for their choice, why have delegates, super or otherwise? Just go with the vote and be done with it. Delegates are voters too right?.. so let them vote and forget this ridiculous system!
      • thanakar, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2We should get rid of the electoral college to and just base it all on popular vote
        • NJexec03, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I'll second that!! It's all so ridiculous. The actual votes are counted anyway so why not just base an election on the actual votes?
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2The delegate thing is outdated and more than a little crazy but I don't hate that there are superdelegates. The party leadership should be able to add some extra weight to the nomination since they're the ones who are supposed to be the political experts but I wonder if they don't have a little bit too much extra weight in this regard. Part of the reason a lot of these guys aren't committing is because they want political favors and that's an annoying thing to have to see your candidate burdened with.
      • jforjools, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1The superdelegates can be very useful. If there is a three-way contest, or even a Nader-type three-way where one of them is not even strong (but takes away from on particular candidate) this would a situation where superdelegates could correct things and still even be within the will of their constituents.
    • runCMD, on 03/31/2008, -2/+4Gov. Richardson's endorsement came at the expense of the will of his constituency. He agreed that super delegates should vote the will of their electorate - and then turned against the will of the people and endorsed Obama. : ) When you are a fanboy - all the rules disappear.

      I'm just sayin' ....
  • amightywind, on 03/31/2008, -30/+3You gotta love the democrats. Millions of good faith votes cast, and a few fat cat party insiders will decide the issue out of misplaced liberal guilt for racism. Hillary is smart. She wants to give Obama and his abundant baggage time to marinate in the media. She is hoping for his self-destruction. Whatever. Republicans, rev up the 527's! Obama has given us lots of good material: drugs (dealing?), a flirtation with islam, a vile racist for a mentor. What fun!
    • Ell3, on 03/31/2008, -17/+3You're right. Obama is so un-electable. The Democrats are driving their bus right over the edge of the cliff.
      • amightywind, on 03/31/2008, -11/+1Dug up for being a hottie!
      • theaceoffire, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6Yeah, ***** guys who can spell, think, and do things for other people. We need (Fill in douche)!
    • ziptnf, on 03/31/2008, -3/+14Automatically assume that anyone who has ever experimented with drugs deals them, someone who was born from a muslim father is still muslim, and every word out of his pastors mouth was racist. That wouldn't be very characteristic of a dumbass republican.
      • amightywind, on 03/31/2008, -15/+2Obama was rumored to be an intense coke user. Who knows what he did. He won't tell us what he really believed before he joined his black separatist church. We know he studied in an Indonesian madrassa. He sat in the pews for 20 years listening to Reverend Wright's vile diatribes. Did he also cavort and cheer with the rest of the congregation at the dirty punch lines?
        • NJexec03, on 03/31/2008, -0/+0And this matters why? *****.. Clinton smoked pot but neve inhaled LOL.. he smoked cigars but never smoked them- instead he used them as dildos for his intern. Give me a break
    • sponeil, on 03/31/2008, -3/+6Too bad you don't have even a shred of McCain's integrity. He's got more integrity than any Republican I've seen run for President yet, but the fact that he represents millions of people like you will still keep me from voting for him. Keep up the good work in driving people toward the lesser of two evils.
      • amightywind, on 03/31/2008, -12/+1McCain was not my first choice. I preferred Romney and Guilliani. McCain really is a pretty bad Republican. He votes against President Bush's wildly successful tax cuts. The Gang of 14 should have been enough to drum him out of the party. He is a global warming hysteric. However, he is 70% of what I am looking for. Compared to B. Hussein, that is good enough!
        • klco, on 03/31/2008, -2/+10Wildly successful tax cuts!?! I am going to have to call BS on that...
          • amightywind, on 03/31/2008, -9/+1Do you think people who save money on taxes spend them only on fur coats and cigars? No, they invest them and spend them in the economy. A dollar redistributed by the government ads 1/3 the value to the economy over one directly spent. Thank lazy government workers for that phenomenon. Get your head out of your can.
          • WasabiBomb, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Seruioulsy, klco- all you have to do is look at the newspaper headlines to see how "wildly successful" Bush's tax cuts have been. As amightywind points out, Reaganomics have been trickling down all over us like a golden shower, and we're just too lazy to realize how much a recession is going to benefit all of us!

            Why do you hate America so much?

            (This message brings you 100% of your daily recommended amount of sarcasm)
        • elhaf, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Do you also downgrade Muhammad Ali for being an (actual) Muslim?
          • amightywind, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1I greatly admire Cassius Clay. I scorn Muhammad Ali, his alter ego.
        • JavanSClark, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2no. he downgrades him for being black.
  • thedogfatherx, on 03/31/2008, -18/+3Again.....who gives a *****.
  • Ell3, on 03/31/2008, -35/+6MORE, MORE, MORE may equal less. What are the chances that a majority of Americans will vote for an extremely liberal black man with a Muslim name, an Islamic background and Louis Farrakhan II as a mentor?

    Not to mention that little problem Obama has about being an American. Obama's got a very UN-American attitude about America, so clearly evident by his mentor of 20 years, his failure to wear a flag pin, his failure to place his hand over his heart during America's national anthem, his wife's comments about never being proud of America, his willingness to trash American sovereignty, his legislation subjugating all Americans to United Nation Taxes, etc, etc, etc.....

    The majority of Americans are not going to vote for a President that doesn't believe in, or cherish, American ideals.

    Obama is a man that values Fairness over Freedom; values Equal Outcomes over Equal Opportunity. While I'm sure those phrases sound desirable to feeble minded Democrats, they're the very definition of Communism.

    If Obama gets the nomination, the Democrats have won the battle, but lost the war. Obama is un-electable.
    • ziptnf, on 03/31/2008, -4/+12Shut up.
    • Ell3, on 03/31/2008, -20/+4Notice how articulate and well educated and well informed the typical Obama supporter is.
      • iainc, on 03/31/2008, -2/+10Yes, I do. And for most of those Digg-based supporters who are familiar with your anti-Obama rants, "Shut up" seems to about cover it. I mean how much more flowery would you like it?
    • AntoniusMaximus, on 03/31/2008, -2/+15True Americans with flag pins and hands over their chests like the ones who put you in this quagmire? I say bin the prejudice and give the man a chance.
    • vinyl18, on 03/31/2008, -1/+12....you're kidding me right? Seeing as how Obama will win the same northeast states Hillary will win and he opens up a few southern and midwestern states. Never mind the fact he has the youth vote at record numbers and the african american vote as well as the latino vote which will jump to his side when he gets the nomination. All that's needed is the uneducated white person vote.
    • theaceoffire, on 03/31/2008, -1/+18If my middle name was "terrorist", people like you would have shot me. Doesn't matter if I fed the poor and saved your kids from a fire, "OMG WTF TERRORIST" and that would have been it.
      Didn't making fun of people's name die out in kindergarten?
    • sponeil, on 03/31/2008, -1/+11What a load of crap. Several polls have shown that Obama stands a much better chance of winning against McCain than Hillary does. Polls are easy to fake, but when every poll you read about points the same way, it is not entirely unbelievable. Personally, I know a lot of Democrats who will either vote for McCain or not vote at all if Hillary gets the nomination. Not only do I not hear people saying the same about Obama, but I hear quite a few Republicans saying they will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination.

      Every argument you made against Obama is also crap. It's all either words taken out of context (his pastor's comments), something that makes no sense (you're not supposed to place your hand over your heart during the national anthem), or something that's just plain wrong (anyone who has been proud of what America's been doing since WWII is either immoral or stupid). If American ideals are that it's a good thing to use our military might to exploit other countries, then I either want a change or I want out.
    • DharmaDog, on 03/31/2008, -1/+13What does not wearing a flag pin have to do with anything? It's not a show of patriotism any more than having a stupid "support the troops" yellow ribbon magnet on your car does anything to actually support the troops. It's a way to pander to those you strike fear in with your propaganda. Obama isn't about fear; he's about hope and change. A real patriot doesn't need a flag pin. A real patriot doesn't blindly follow the government, but instead measures the government against the constitution. My allegiance is to that document, no to whatever Skull and Bones lackey's turn it is be President. You do understand that it's possible to dislike the government and still love the country, don't you? I don't need a flag on my lapel or a flag on my car to be a patriot. What you seem to be advocating is strict nationalism. It's not the same thing as patriotism. Please stop confusing the two.
      • iainc, on 03/31/2008, -1/+7Wearing a flag pin is what *some* non-Patriots do to avoid having their patriotism called into question by idiots who have stopped thinking.
    • amightywind, on 03/31/2008, -13/+2Amen, sister. Sometimes the hard work of freedom means being dugg down 50x.
      • WasabiBomb, on 03/31/2008, -2/+10... and sometimes, being dugg down is just an indication that you're a right wing troll.
        • amightywind, on 03/31/2008, -10/+1I don' care about being dugg up or down. To me it is the absolute valule that matters.
      • apetrie, on 03/31/2008, -2/+7Yes, you two are martyrs. /sarcasm
    • Shadic, on 03/31/2008, -0/+6"his failure to place his hand over his heart during America's national anthem" Yeah, he was too busy SINGING, you dolt.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4FD-j_Dqq8
    • JavanSClark, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5Haha. You 2 need to join pos3r and RRJackass in the, "White Nationalist who have come out of the closet" club. Every time you open your mouth you say something stupid. Why not just submit to the temptation and start tossing the N word around, because at teh end of the day, all you really care about is stoppng a black man from reaching POTUS. All this nonsense about racist pastors,(which have been debunked, and proven a non issue to BHO... the only people who are going to allow this to sway them... weren't going to vote for a black man anyway.) and pointing dissent as signs of a lack of patriotism, paint all of you as FAUX zombies, who believe it's only Patriotic when you celebrate a government no matter what.

      Truth: It's not Un-American to voice dissent no matter who you are. Without dissent there would be no USA.
      Myth: There are more people in America that think like you do. Look to the polls. He's 10 points up and climbing. Democratic turnout is at an all time high, Republican turn out has hit record lows in some states.

      Truth: John McCain will not get a free pass once the Nomination has been decided. Anyone remember his comments on the O'Reilly show, "The biggest threat immigration poses, is the White Male Christian Power Base.", "I agree, I totally agree", says John McCain..? Then Hagee, and other controversies, like his real connection to the lobbyists, his lack of money, and a slew of other issues being reported at an ever increasing rate, including
      just how wrong he was about the surge. The violence in Iraq is as bad now as it's ever been.

      Myth: Barack H. Obama will lose the election vs. John McCain. Johnny Mac, has now been welded to GWB at the hip. With an economy in ruins, largely because of Repugnican action and failed tax cuts, and failed, illegal war, signals an end to Republican rule for at least 4 years.
    • exronin, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1hahahah you just sound plain desperate now.
  • Enron1985, on 03/31/2008, -24/+2I am a tobacco lobbiest and I pledge my support for Obama. A president who smokes is just the kind of endorsement we tobacco companies need. The real reason why the U.S. never had a good relationship with Cuba is because former presidents wouldn't have a cigar with Castro. Obama will bring the change we need!
    • theaceoffire, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Actually, you seem to be a member of Enron.
      Bitter?
      • Enron1985, on 03/31/2008, -5/+0I had a change in employment for obvious reasons. And no, im not bitter, its a great time for tobacco.
      • NJexec03, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Cuban Cigars! Finally a sensible reason to open talks trade with Cuba and why not? We buy lead based painted toys from China and they're much more communistic than Cuba ;)
    • SteveIsTheDude, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3He stopped smoking, Mr. Dumas.
    • sponeil, on 03/31/2008, -1/+0Wow, that was the funniest post I've read in a while. ;-)
  • Dudeee, on 03/31/2008, -4/+3don't vote America when ever you do something bad happens
    • theaceoffire, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1"When a problem comes along, you must (ignore it and pray, woot, I am saving the world)"
  • oscenester, on 03/31/2008, -0/+9Her campaign must be suffering due to the constant sniper fire she is forced to hide from...
  • IPublius, on 03/31/2008, -0/+17Am I the only one who sees that Clinton is calling for every (normal) vote to count unless she doesn't have the lead in pledged delegates and popular vote, in which case she wants the super-delegates to "do the job they were created for" and overturn the democratic vote of the people and give her the nomination.
    She claims that she does not want the voters in Florida and Michigan to be disenfranchised, but then calls for the super-delegates to disenfranchise the voters in all 50 states by overturning the electorate with party insider votes.
    • jforjools, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3EXACTLY, exactly!!

      We want everyone's vote to 'count' is the message on minute.

      And the next, we want the superdelegates to ignore those votes if they don't turn out the way we want.
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Sadly both candidates haven't been very consistent about their stances on the primaries. It's all quite "tactical" as Obama has said critically of Hillary's maneuvering in the past. I wish his campaign would stick to one stance on Michigan and Florida.
    • motivatedmama, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Don't forget about her recent praise of the Electoral College which she completely dissed before. The Electoral College angle is a BS take on this situation anyway. Has no bearing. Just one more way for her to spin the election.
  • chrissku, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7The Super Delegates are starting to move to Obama in bigger and bigger numbers. It's gonna take a large number of the uncommitted delegates to move to Obama before Clinton is going to drop out. She seems to think she has a reasonable shot of winning. I would have to disagree.
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Or she thinks her unidentified campaign financiers are going to carry some weight with the delegates. It bothers me that she can't seem to acknowledge how much of a failure it would be on the part of the DFL to take the air out of this fresh new set of tires we've got.
  • CypressQ, on 03/31/2008, -14/+1Obama, Hillary....who cares? Neither will win come November.
    • zephyear, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5of course you'd love to think that, based on all your (stupid) comments
    • SteveIsTheDude, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5No, Obama will. Sorry.
    • WasabiBomb, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2You seriously think Mr. "I'll have to check to see what my position is on that" will win? I mean, the man doesn't even know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. He doesn't know why we're in Iraq. He's flipflopped on the torture issue- he was against it until he started seriously running for prez, now he's all for it.
      Why the hell would you want him to win, anyway? Is it merely because he's got an (R) after his name?
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Nuh uh, YOU'RE wrong. Wait who? What does it matter. I didn't bother to say why or how so it's completely irrelevant. Get my point people?
  • Haohmaru, on 03/31/2008, -11/+3If these super-delegates were all lining up behind Hillary, everyone would be declaring how unconstitutional the super-delegate system is. And it shouldn't be used to decide on a nominee. But since it's working in their favor, no one is really making an issue out of it.
    • RomgRim, on 03/31/2008, -8/+1Oh but it won't work in his favour. Clue: Obama's only won ONE major important state. Guess which one that is. The superdelegate system was implemented specifically to prevent things like Obama happening. Five months remain. Obama's a flash in the pan. Got popular early this year. Three months ago. He's already died so to speak. What a clumsy campaign too. He's finished - stick a fork and you'll see he's done.
    • sharpfork, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7To say something would be perceived as "unconstitutional " when it has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution shows you obviously do not understand the process you are commenting on. The process is defined by the Democratic party, not the founding fathers. Lt me rewrite your last sentence to fit reality:
      Since this process is following the rules setup by the DNC and a majority of Democrats do not want Hillary as the nominee, no one is really making an issue out of it.
      • runCMD, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1LOL. 'a majority of democrats ?' - a little more than half the democrats support Obama. That is not a mandate for his policy - it's more a mandate for the message. One incredibly similar to Senator Clinton's message calling for real change. If he takes the nomination - and doesn't choose Senator Clinton as a running mate - as she had offered to do for party unity - then what kind of message does that send to the general election. ? That half of the democrats choose Obama - so hopefully eveyone in the country will follow suit ? right.
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3I'm an Obama supporter. I will gladly say that the DFL nomination process is monkey !@#$ing insane even though it's working in our favor atm.
  • rrc7cz, on 03/31/2008, -9/+12Can somebody please explain to me why the Digg community is so excited about Obama, when him and Hillary have voted in unison 98% of the same time? They're both the same... why all the fanfare?
    • Xanrez, on 03/31/2008, -2/+3Think for yourself. Don't rely on what others tell you. Including this remark....
    • RomgRim, on 03/31/2008, -11/+5Because Obama passes out Kool-Aid for free and most of these people are feeble minded. But you knew that already, didn't youj?
    • mrjah, on 03/31/2008, -1/+9rrc7cz: If you can't see a huge and obvious difference between the way Obama and Hillary are running their respective campaigns and representing themselves, then for your own sake I hope you're blind and deaf and can't read Braille.
      • runCMD, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3Exactly. Look at their character. Look at how one misleads the public with sweet tasty lies - and the other feeds the stark hard truth about the world we live in and the world we inherit. One chooses to bathe themselves and their family in a spiritual bath of bigotry and hate speech while thinking of people of opposite color as 'captors' in their youth. The other has chosen to live a life of diversity and empowerment for all. Choice is pretty clear - especially if you're blind and deaf. That way you're immune to the sweet cadance of Obamaspeak and can choose with clear thought and analysis.
    • klco, on 03/31/2008, -2/+5Honestly, for me at least, it has a lot to do with the idea of ending the 51% majority. Hillary Clinton (and Bill, Karl Rove, and a lot of the Democratic & Republican leadership before them) seem to think that the best way to win an election is to win 51% in 2-3 'important' states while antagonizing the rest of the the country. You can win with 51%, but you can't govern effectively (see the US government circa 1990's - now). I think Obama represents the 50 state strategy - that in order to win we need to compete in every state and try to win over a true majority.
    • fani, on 03/31/2008, -4/+4Humans and apes share 99% dna..... why all the fanfare about being human ?

      Thats the diff between Obama (human) and Clinton (ape)
    • Gryffydd, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3So Obama looks and feels different, yet votes the same as Hillary 98% of the time. I guess that makes him the lesser of two evils. But you just can't underestimate the effectiveness of a cult of personality with a good looking and charismatic person like Obama. After watching him speak Hillary looks *and* sounds like a braying donkey. (no pun intended)
    • sigg14, on 03/31/2008, -3/+3not the same. obama is a much better liar than hillary
    • Wagnerian, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4There are some crucial differences between Obama and Clinton. My attraction to Obama started with his stance on the Iraq war. You can't underscore the importance of that as far as I'm concerned. Go watch the vide on Youtube where Hillary announces her support for the Iraq invasion and chalks it up to her 'experience' that led her to make the decision. I never trust Hillary. I don't know where she stands. I think she takes positions on issues only after she has tested thee political waters. Obama, on the other hand, is instantly believable. His general attitude and somber sincerity are refreshing. He takes stands for identifiable reasons and is consistent about it. Then later there was one of the first attacks that Hillary laid on him accusing him of being 'soft on crime' because he did not support mandatory sentencing. I thought that underscored a real difference between Barack and Clinton. Clinton doesn't even realize the racism inherenet in mandatory sentencing and the criminal justice system. So much so that she was oblivious to the fact that her attacking Barack and revealing her obliviousness would backfire on her. I get the sense from the Clintons that they don't really understand the challenges of people outside their own economic and social backgrounds. Also, I just plain hated Bill Clinton. Nafta, DOMA, Don't ask Don't Tell, Welfare reform, I never voted for him. For a while Hillary was insinuating that her and Bill would be a co-presidency. Whereas Bill and Hillary are raging narcisscists, Obama is always really carefully to make a point about using 'we' statements and foregrounding that it is government in service to the people and not the other way around. His incredibly successfull GRASS-ROOTS campaign says volumes about how he will be as president, I think. And his oratory is inspiring. Words matter. Words communicate intent and intent leads to action. His Philly speech on Race was astounding to me, Me and my friends talked about to each other with mouths agape. When have any of us ever heard a politician get that real? I mean come on! The man is something something else. A thinker and an intellectual. A peace-maker. I see Obama as the best hope for repairing America's relationships around the world. I see him reminding Americans of what is truly great about America and inspiring people to take action. The Clinton camp, as is shown by the way they run their campaign, can't really match him. Obama 2008.
    • elhaf, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2The difference is that Hillary is pro-war warmonger, and Obama will end the war. But that only accounts for 2% of their votes. They agree on most everything else.
      • Wagnerian, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2That's a giant difference just by itself. 4000 soldiers dead, 28,000 maimed, 98,000 dead Iraqis...
      • motivatedmama, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2From what I've seen she agrees after he's put forth an idea. He covers a slew of issues while she sticks to the talking points and parrots him when he gets the jump on her.
    • mustbepatient, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3rrc7cz, there is much more to being a leader than what you vote on directly. Obama has a demonstrated ability to uplift other people, and Clinton does not appear to have such leadership qualities.
    • kynn, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1If you honestly care to know, Lawrence Lessig has made a video that answers your question quite well:

      http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_s ...

      I for one agree with pretty much Lessig says. I could add a couple more reasons of my own, but I think that Lessig's list has all the major ones.

      Also, Lessig recently gave a very nice talk at U Penn were he goes over some points in great detail:

      http://lessig.org/blog/2008/03/me_upenn_4_barack.h ...

  • Velvolver, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4Who ended up winning texas anyone got a link?
    • RomgRim, on 03/31/2008, -10/+2Hillary won Texas. Currently the DNC are processing over 2,000 complaints about irregularities perpetrated by the Obamabots. It'll take a while. But she won.
      • WasabiBomb, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5Nope, sorry. But hey, if denial is what gets you through the day, have fun.
    • digg50, on 03/31/2008, -1/+8Obama won texas. check any of the recent news from the last 2 days.
    • bongowaxx, on 03/31/2008, -0/+8http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ...

      That has the delegate count as Obama 99 to Hillary's 95. Which makes Obama the winner in delegates. Hillary won the primary, but Obama won the caucus... Since these elections are nothing more than a race for delegates... You can count Obama as the winner. Also... if you count TOTAL votes Obama won the "popular" vote in Texas (problem with that argument is, in Texas.. .you can vote in both elections, so that argument is flawed.)
      • dagamer34, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2However you aren't "voting twice" for the same delegate pool. It's not really flawed, but unusual.
  • RomgRim, on 03/31/2008, -8/+2This is your first election - right, ass-wipe?
  • Evilsoup, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4Now imagine that, for some reason, it was Obama who was behind by 150 delegates because Hillary Clinton had performed much better in the early primary states. All other factors being equal, with Obama's narrow chance of victory riding on the superdelegates more than the pledged delegates, would we be making the argument that superdelegates ought to vote as their constituents did? I don't believe they should. The party has the right to choose their candidate by having them pull a sword from a stone if they so wish. In theory, the superdelegates are going to do what is best for the party, and Obama is better for the party, no doubt. All I'm saying is that if the tables were turned, he would still be the better candidate. I think a lot of people are unnecessarily worried that Clinton will somehow magically become more popular in the minds of the party leaders and so they ought to do this and that. Well, not all of the superdelegates are elected officials, and the argument that they ought to vote as their constituents do simply doesn't apply.
    • vanguardanon, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2I'm wondering if really should be the party's right to choose their candidate. I'd be fine with it if we didn't have a two party system. However, right now it feels like democratic leaders are choosing the next president. It doesn't seem democratic.
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I think the delegates need to consider the voters in their decision which is the whole point, I guess. Nomination requires strategy though, so I think it's reasonable to have some kind of system that gives the party leadership as much representative weight as the popular vote. A simpler system that gave 50% superdelegate and 50% popular vote would be fine by me.
    • elhaf, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Suppose rather than Obama winning the nomination, it was the Ron Paul Revolution, and they decided to make the Democratic primaries their path to success, and they all signed up as Democrats to do so. Then how would you feel about superdelegates? In fact, it is their job to ensure that the nominee matches up to Democratic party ideals. Fortunately, unlike Ron Paul, Obama is a Democrat.
  • Haroshia, on 03/31/2008, -0/+4...in the midnight hour, the submitter cried

    [/billy idol]
  • snafflepaffle, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1I also see another advantage to the party of Hillary pulling out. If Obama is allowed to gather enough of a lead he can have the Florida and Michigan delegates seated at the convention because they won't be able to overcome his lead. Then they won't be able to complain about non-representation, which is good for the Dems.

    I doubt Hillary sees it this way though.
  • poisonberry, on 03/31/2008, -5/+2If you really want to be liberal about it, he should give some of his to those that don't have as many. Kinda like we do with money.
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+5You know, it's weird, we've been trying to do this with the underrepresentation of clues among our GOP brothers and sisters for years now but it just won't take. Perhaps if we give all our extra clues to the smartest people they'll trickle down to the idiots.
  • AROERS, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1MN Senator/Superdelegate Amy Klobuchar? WTF?
    Its all a plan to split the vote, yeah democracy
  • jforjools, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Check out this new digg, which shows how the candidates' Senator-peers see the two. ...Obama is ahead among his peers.

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/OBAMA_LEADS_AMON ...
  • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1So, have their been ANY interesting declarations for Hillary outside of local Pennsylvania politics or am I just following too much of this thing from Digg?
    • eregorn, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Digg is an Obama fanboy site. That much should be clear. There are sites where people aren't so fixated though.

      And there have been declarations, but most media types are pro-Obama so you won't see when they do.
      • Revovisionary, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Those declarations being that Hillary promises to pay her bills.
  • eregorn, on 03/31/2008, -6/+1Obama is going to lose the election if he is the nominee. So funny how the democrats always find a way to blow it.
    • elhaf, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3If you believe in bigot-controlled politics, then it doesn't matter either way, does it? Hillary would lose the bigot vote just as easily as Obama.
  • sigg14, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x280/icebergsli ...
  • cobbwobbles, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2Don't ***** this up America.
  • tennesseepos, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1This story is inaccurate. I'm in a Super delagates' office, and he came in today denouncing the story.
  • greeblesnort, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1Oh goody, so when I don't vote for him I can get branded a racist, 'cuz you know it's coming...

    Don't get me wrong, every time I hear him speak, I *like* him. I think he'd be an awesome president if he wasn't also preparing to empty my already meager bank account to pay for all his fabulous new programs. Black, white, male, female, yellow with purple polka dots I couldn't care less about. Stealing my salary (even more than the current administration is doing by sucking all the value out of the dollar) to pay for his New Nanny World programs because someone can't be arsed to finish high school, pisses me off.
    • basumner, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3How can he pay for his fabulous new programs? He'll probably start by ending the waste of ($10 billion/month?) taxpayer money each month in Iraq . Perhaps from there, he could eliminate the Bush tax breaks for corporations who export good jobs to third world countries and for the obscenely wealthy. After that, many billions annually are available from the amazingly bloated Pentagon budget . Why does the USA spend more for its annual defense budget ($623 billion) than the rest of the world combined ($500 billion)? The only other super-power in the world, China, spends only $65 billion annually.
      • motivatedmama, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3Yup. This guy is administrator quality. He has already outlined many ways to cut spending. He covers this in his book T.A.O.H. It's not like we're not wasting money in several programs that could easily be streamlined to create more funds. Going with electronic filing alone will save tons. Read up on it.
  • licoricewhip, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1SNORE, SNORE, SNORE ... still nothing to see here. Hillary won't let Obama run free. Guaranteed.
  • 13373h4X0r, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2It's really sad that McCain appears to have a chance at winning the general election, regardless of the Democratic candidate. That should be impossible at this point, but I am reminded of a statement made on the front page of Britain's "Daily Mirror" after the 2004 election: "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?"

    There are *some* small benefits to continuing the primaries -- like energizing the voters and getting the controversies over with long before the general election -- but given how well McCain is polling right now, the Democratic party needs to choose Obama and start campaigning hard in the red states. It's crazy! The amount of work that needs to be done to educate the people in the red states is huge. Is 7 months enough? 8 YEARS evidently hasn't been enough!!! When will people learn that the Republican party is generally bad for America? The members of the Democratic party aren't all saints, but we have to make incremental steps in a better direction.
  •  

    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.