digg

Join DiggAbout

MSNBC's Russert: 'We Now Know Who the Nominee Will Be' watch!

youtube.com — Tim Russert, on MSNBC, points out that after the Indiana and North Carolina Primaries, 'We now know who the Democratic Nominee Will Be.'

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BobTGoon, on 05/07/2008, -14/+142It's over!
    • cr4ft, on 05/07/2008, -4/+11A source close to logic and reason says she's going to drop out by the 13th (West Virginia Primary)
      • RoroCo, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5That source probably does not work for Hillary. Everyone in her camp is trying to change the delegate count and move forward with this thing until the end.
      • bernlin2000, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Other sources too: like most of the people who supported her throughout the campaign, sense, grace, and sanity.
    • zero, on 05/07/2008, -3/+13Some would argue its just beginning
    • Revovisionary, on 05/07/2008, -0/+119Until Hillary bursts out of Obama's chest to steal the nomination
      • 47f0, on 05/07/2008, -1/+17Thanks. That's one set of nightmares I didn't need to add to my stable. I'm not sure even Sigourney can take out a Queen Hillary in the middle of her nest.
      • sovietninja, on 05/07/2008, -1/+29This is exactly the situation Californians have feared would one day come, and the reason why we elected Schwarzenegger.
    • MidgardMurda, on 05/07/2008, -3/+31We knew how many months ago?
      • theviceroy, on 05/07/2008, -1/+52 months.
        • omnis, on 05/07/2008, -1/+42, 2.5, it doesn't really matter.
        • bernlin2000, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4Yep just about 2-2 and a half. It was really that February streak that was a slaughter.
    • RX9735, on 05/07/2008, -52/+5Yeah once she steps down we will all know McCain will be the next president. Thanks people. You elected Bush thinking he was your Obama and now you turn against the only family in Amaerica for the last 30 years that even gives a ***** about the poor and working classes. My family have been Dems forever and now we might have to cast a protest vote for McCain to teach the DNC not to take votes away from the people in their own party. Obama, give me a break. You all just ***** on the lady that would have put money back in american family's hands.
      • futureb, on 05/07/2008, -3/+32if you think the clintons care about working class people then you're pathetically naive.
        • RX9735, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1If you think they don't you must be super rich or so poor have no access to the internet and google where you can search and find evidence that Bill and Hilary have spent their lives helping the little person.
      • Solis, on 05/07/2008, -4/+16So do mental handicaps run in your family too?
        • RX9735, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1No. Sorry they don't. Sorry to hear they run in yours. (The "too" means in addition to his family)
      • petebot, on 05/07/2008, -2/+18Obama and Clinton agree way more on policy than Clinton and McCain. That doesn't make any sense.
        • RX9735, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1This has to do with taking the right to vote away and not policy. Put Mich and Flor back in and I will support whoever the DNC picks. Fair?
      • DarkprinceArmon, on 05/07/2008, -1/+11It's pretty clear that McCain = 4 more years of Bush policy to the 10 degree. Unless he flips on the issues again after Obama becomes the nominee I doubt any sane American who has had to endure 8 years of Bush will be listening to what McCain has to say.
        • sleepwalkers, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6It seems like a lot of independents or moderates who are leaning towards McCain are going on their impressions of him from the last time he ran for the presidential nomination, where I remember him being a much more moderate, sane candidate than he is now.
          • CiXeL, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3my girlfriend has a picture with mccain and even she who used to be a huge mccain supporter says he isnt the person he was and that its just voting for bush.
          • artliquide, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4I agree. I'm in Arizona, and I've loved McCain as one of our long time senators, but I really can't support him anymore. This election really put him in negative light for me. I'm independent, so I hold no bias toward either dems nor reps...I just support whoever is the most reasonable and ethical nominee. Too bad McCain is no longer in that category for me.
          • mystcnurse, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1maybe some kind of agressive, senile dementia?
      • sleepwalkers, on 05/07/2008, -4/+10What you're doing makes no sense, then. Clinton and Obama are extremely similar in policies, but Obama's approach seems to have proven to be the more popular one. If you honestly cared about politics enough to do that thing called "thinking logically" you'd realize that you're going against your *own* beliefs in voting for McCain and also proving to be a gigantic idiot.
        This is another shining example of why citizens need an IQ test before they're allowed to vote.
        • LeatherCow, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0IQ and logical thinking have nothing to do with one another.
        • mystcnurse, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1But if they did, everyone would be doing a "write in" IQ = 142
      • Surferess, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2Eventually, you Obama folks are going to realize you will need us to win this election, and you are still treating us like crap. You would be smarter if you stepped off your high horse ASAP. Since your candidate has now won the nomination you can only do damage by being a jerk to the other half of your party. Get a clue!
        • fin01, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1Usually people without college degrees vote Republican
          • LeatherCow, on 05/07/2008, -3/+0Only because people with college degrees were tainted by hippie liberal douchebag professors.
      • artliquide, on 05/07/2008, -2/+6Man, all this sore loser boo hooing is ridiculous. "you're treating us like crap" and "we're going to vote for McCain if you don't support Billary, neener neener neener"

        Silly and juvenile. This is an important election and you'd rather waste it to prove a point.
        • Surferess, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Those are 2 different posts by 2 different people. I certainly didn't say anything about voting Republican. That would not go along with my personal political stance. Additionally, I didn't even say you should vote for HRC. What I am saying is you will need us, and very soon. Do you disagree with this point, or do you really think you can win the election w/o us? Is your post to prove you aren't treating us like crap? Because, if it is, perhaps you might want to read it again.
          • artliquide, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1No, my point is that you should toughen up and not expect people to send you "I'm sorry Hillary lost" flowers. This is an election, and people should vote their conscience, not expect to be bribed for their votes.
      • bernlin2000, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4-40 diggs....wow nobody likes you. That's probably because voting for McCain because your ***** Hillary has lost the nomination is about as dumb as you get...on policy there is very little difference. It's the attitude towards politics that has given Obama the nomination: he's not pandering to his audience, doing whatever he can to make them vote for him. He knows what this country needs, and he wants US to work together to fix our country's problems.
        • RX9735, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2In all fairness I love ***** you Obama fans off and I shouldn't and many may be please to hear that my wife gets on me about antagonizing you all. The reason besides be fun is that I have never met a such a strange group of people claiming that change was in the air and hope was finally here. And it would be great if it was but open your eyes. It is 2008 and the people of Mich and Flor have been disenfranchised. Where is the hope for those people? In Oklahoma we voted for HRC yet I hear our Gov, electors and superD's are voting and vouching for Obama. If Obama orders or request the superD's vote the way the people of their state votes and makes sure Mich and Flor counts, he will have my vote. Any takers?
    • NJank, on 05/07/2008, -6/+4sorry Bob, this thing just ain't dying any time soon.
    • mochaman, on 05/07/2008, -3/+3She has no good argument for the super delegates to continue in the race, but at this point only money and 183 pledge delegates can definitely put an end to her campaign.
      • bernlin2000, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Seems that way: apparently the will of the American People isn't enough for her...some populist she is.
        • RX9735, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1You mean the will of the Obama people. Obam is not 50% ahead or 90% ahead. Her and Obama are so close even with kicking out the votes of two major states that happened to vote HRC. Lets throw out two states that are Pro Obama and that are equal in votes to Flor and MIch and see who is ahead. If supporting Obama means ***** over voters why support him?
    • corneliusJones, on 05/07/2008, -2/+15It's been "over" for weeks, but try telling that to Mrs. Clinton.
    • Boodie, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I thought so too until I saw this.
      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/primary_rdp;_ylt=AvEjm6 ...
    • davidkeithjones, on 05/07/2008, -8/+2Ok, so Obama will win. He will then be president. How long until a "crazy man" comes along and caps his ass?
      • omnis, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Well, supposedly Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president. If no one in 8 years took out him, why would they take out Obama which apparently everyone likes?

        Plus, it wouldn't be "crazy man". Why the quotations? If they killed the president, they definitely have issues.
        • mesasone, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I think he's insinuating that it would be an inside job to get Obama out of the presidency.
          • FanofFilm, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1more likely a member of some fringe super extremist hate group, which is something bush doesn't have to fear. like a skinhead or maybe an eskimo.
        • VcTrMASO, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4Bad rational. Remember Kennedy? Approval/ Disapproval have nothing to do with if a president will be assassinated.
        • cupid311, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1yeah approval doesn't mean much. Usually people who get assassinated are the people who tell us to live in peace.
      • zeiben, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Hillary would like to know that, too. Would help her figure out how much longer she has to keep loaning herself money
      • sweetholymosiah, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1It wouldn't be the People who take out Obama. Rich white folk want to kill Obama, obviously!!!
      • mystcnurse, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1nobody is going to kill Obama, because he'll do whatever his CFR daddies tell him to do, just like Hillary, McCain or Bush.
    • ManOfVirtues, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Promises Promises.
    • IglooBurner, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3ain't over till hillary sings.
      • Densonlad, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4She's like one of those monsters that just won't die....
        • cupid311, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1She's like T1000. We might need to call on Schwarzenegger for this one too (referring to earlier comment).
    • msk275, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4I pray that Hillary will back Obama soon. I see that as a fit conclusion to a fight well fought on both sides.
    • GregFD3S, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3This is exactly what I said in my head...

      "Good! Finally! Its over!"
      • mystcnurse, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Kind of like the winner of American Idol, right?
    • jabberwolf, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3~~~~~~~~~THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE~~~~~~~~~ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      • cupid311, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1'cept in this no one decapitates the other..... well maybe..... now that would be interesting way of settling this.
    • Abram730, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Hillary's last chance to win.... Time travel.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGyuYKlxIg
  • xbandaidx, on 05/07/2008, -6/+427Even with this, I still have a gut feeling that Clinton will continue.
    • poopdigger, on 05/07/2008, -5/+62She will take a losing campaign to convention no matter what people say, because that's the way she is. But if the rest of the mainstream media can follow MSNBC's lead and make it clear to the public that the race is statistically over, it would put an end to any kind of fighting chance she has left.
      • danconia, on 05/07/2008, -8/+28But is it really statistically over? And *should* the media really take part in reporting as biased as trying to specifically influence a democratic race/process?
        • Opiate, on 05/07/2008, -28/+3This is Obamabots we are talking about, like you had to ask.
          • Nitrodist88, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7Because *obviously* if someone has widespread support, then their supporters are automatically some combination of bots + spam + name of the person.

            Get real. We're talking about 1 out of 2 largest political parties in the US. The support for him is real. Stop trying to write it off as "spam" or anything as asinine as that.
        • sleepwalkers, on 05/07/2008, -1/+12If, in all likelihood, Clinton cannot get the bid, then it should be reported as such. Regardless of which candidate you like, it seems as though the media has been terrible at reporting exactly what is going on in terms of the numbers and what the chances of each outcome are, and it's most likely because they want to keep covering the primaries.
          • danconia, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5You have a good point. I bet the primaries bring in very high ratings especially in a somewhat neck-and-neck race like the one we're seeing. They really HAVE been very vague about the exact numbers.
        • trappleton, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3What, you think we should stop running op-ed pieces during election season?
          • danconia, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Okay I'll admit you have a point here.
        • ochito, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1In fact, yes, it is statistically over. Obama only needs about 30-35 (33 by his site's estimates, which tend to be the most accurate) pledged delegates in order to win an outright majority among them. If he only makes viability (15%, a ridiculously low estimate) in each of the remaining congressional districts, he gets a delegate out of each, plus at least one at large and one add-on for each state. This total alone would easily give him that majority.

          As soon as he crosses the majority threshold, he gets the automatic support of the Pelosi bunch, who have all vowed to support whoever wins the pledged delegate race. A very conservative estimate puts their numbers between 30 and 40.

          So as you can see, statistically speaking, if he doesn't get killed, he wouldn't even have to contest anything from here on out, and he would still get to the end of the primaries with very close to 2000 delegates. It is a statistical impossibility that of a remaining pool of around 200 delegates (assuming no more supers keep endorsing him from here on out), he won't be able to get the 10% that he will need to reach 2025 and an outright win.

          So, to sum up, yes, it is statistically impossible.
      • peteace, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I do find it a little hypocritical that people would want the MSM to push Clinton out of the race now when they complain so much about them skewing voter's opinions when it comes to Barack recently, Ron Paul previously, etc. They should just report the numbers and shut up.
        • danconia, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure I follow exactly what you are saying. What do you mean about "skewing voter's opinions" regarding Obama and Paul?
    • obliviousfool, on 05/07/2008, -5/+14Kinda like the terminator.
      • tuxerware, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10No that's Cheney, he won't stop ever until all of us are dead!!
      • whodoes, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1more like the Living Dead.
      • msk275, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1More like sequel Stallone movies.
      • bernlin2000, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1More like Senator Byrd...man he's old!
    • chrisegilbert, on 05/07/2008, -5/+29She drops May 21st after the May 20th Kentucky (win) and Oregon (loss) primary. But, she's going to be quiet until then because she knows it's over and is broke as a joke. She won't drop before May 20th because she doesn't want to risk Barack losing the awkwardly racist states of WV and KY to her when he's the presumptive nominee. Booorrrriiiinnnngggg.
    • dn11, on 05/07/2008, -1/+29She needs to raise more money to pay off her debts first. But the superdelegates will not be siding with her from here on out. Even if Michigan and Florida are counted exactly as they are, with their skewed results, it won't be enough. It is truly over, the only question is when will she officially bow out.
      • ZandorMonkeyBoy, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6Word on the street is that Obama's camp will wrangle the money to pay her debts and get her out of the game in the next few days.
        • cupid311, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1source? That would be very cool if it happened.
    • motogoat, on 05/07/2008, -2/+17She will because her desire for power is stronger than her acceptance of the cold, hard truth unfortunately.
    • Hangly, on 05/07/2008, -2/+27Braaaaaains, superdelegate braaaaaaains...
    • DisposableRob, on 05/07/2008, -1/+15"...as I have said on many occasions that no matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party, because we must win in November. " -from Clinton's speech last night

      That's about as close to a concession as she has given so far. She is moving toward a unifying position before the inevitable drop-out.
    • rentmitchum, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4She shall try to steal it away somehow, her language shows a lack of respect for the true wants (needs) of the US populous.
    • 47f0, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4I had the same gut feeling that Hillary won't die. Try some antacid - it helped me.
    • Pilot85, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6She'll try to seat the michigan and florida delegations at the end of the month, or at least get new votes going. So no, she won't stop now.
    • BelatedHero, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2She'll switch to Independent or something and screw it all up for the Dems. Seeing as there is so much divisiveness between the Obama and Clinton supporters.
    • culbeda, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4I had that same impression after hearing her say that she would continue on until the convention, no matter what. After the 5th time I heard her say it, I was pretty sure... that she was insane.
    • Kohaxx, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4If she has any character left at this point she'll start promoting herself by attacking McCain and quit the attacks on Barack. If she can't win but still insists on staying in, it would be for the best to attempt to unite the party, for her sake and ours.
    • whodoes, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7She is arsenic in the town well. She is extremely Drug Resistant Tuberculosis. She is poison ivy under a full-body cast. She is an accidental erection in the locker room. She is a ring finger in my chili bowl. She is an empty tank on a back-road shortcut through mutant country. She is a leaking roof on a new house. She is an angry monkey in the canopy hurling fist-fulls of... outmoded political tricks and trash talk.
    • DeskFlyer, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, you're correct: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAMPAIGN_RD ...
    • BobOki, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Well.... that's one chance closer to me NOT having top leave this country.
      I promised myself that if Giuliani or Clinton won, I am out of here.
    • Myonosken, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1She's too far in to drop out now. This campaign has cost her big time.
  • poopdigger, on 05/07/2008, -14/+221Once the MSM goes Barack, there's no going back.
    • rentmitchum, on 05/07/2008, -28/+2It'd work better if people didn't normally say it like "Buh-rock". If only we could start mispronouncing it like "I-RACK"
      • digitalunit, on 05/07/2008, -0/+9You're mentally retarded.
        • Bilabrin, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2"Jeffy highly fuctioning developementally disabled"
        • hmunkey, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Don't insult the mentally retarded population please.
        • rentmitchum, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1lol.. you showed me! +1 to you sir.
      • the2989, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6That's the stupidest thing I've read all day.
        • CiXeL, on 05/07/2008, -0/+8barack out with your ***** out

          see? i can beat that
        • Enasni1212, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2CiXeL, that went past stupid and out the other end.
          Dugg.
    • busybenj, on 05/07/2008, -3/+9Asian version: Brack
      • rentmitchum, on 05/07/2008, -0/+13You have to go to him to get a Boulder Badge.
    • Bilabrin, on 05/07/2008, -0/+10Can we call him Barry now?
    • XtheXlanternX, on 05/07/2008, -11/+3As if the media wasn't for Obama the whole time ?
      • mustache, on 05/07/2008, -0/+9Please. Did you forget about the Rev. Wright clips played ad nauseum for weeks on end?
    • ivandir, on 05/07/2008, -8/+3You are an idiot. poopdigger.

      "Once you go black you can't go back".
      That phrase first of all is to give black people empowerment through thinking they have sexual superiority. It brings a little bit of racism towards whites/asians and proposes that blacks are the biggest penis race when no scientific inquiries prove it to be true.

      I'm sure Barack will like hearing it.
      • FlagrantDrugUse, on 05/07/2008, -1/+8wtf?
      • DephexTwin, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Dugg for "blacks are the biggest penis race" even though nothing you said approached a rational thought.
      • tech42er, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Right. And Barack's black. Hence the joke...
    • Asheis, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2There's no indication that there's any truth in this. Obama was the MSM darling a few months back. Recently, and in the past as well, he's been deeply criticized for trivial matters from the same press that adored him. Talk about flip-floppers... anything to make a buck!
    • jabberwolf, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Man, it's like obama gave them all blo jobs!
      I've never seen a news station so whipped and biased.
      MSNBC was always campaigning for Obama for the last 6 months!
  • coffeebaby, on 05/07/2008, -9/+234fat lady: "lalalalalalalalaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!"
    • ConAmoreEFuoco, on 05/07/2008, -2/+38Hillary: I can't hear you, lalalalalalalala!
    • rentmitchum, on 05/07/2008, -1/+9Note: The fat lady bares a striking resemblance to Babe.
      • harronoob, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2That's exactly where my mind went with that too! Must be a generational thing.
    • savvy187, on 05/07/2008, -0/+13Fat Lady: "Na na nah nah. Na na nah nah. Hey, hey, hey. GOODBYE!"
    • homanh, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2Well even in this case it would be over cuz the fat lady sung.
  • cctoronto05, on 05/07/2008, -8/+70You could hear a hint of concession in her victory speech in Indiana tonight... plus, she's cancelled all of her morning appearances tomorrow, and there are rumours that the only financing her campaign will get after this pair of primaries, is the financing the Clintons personally put into it. Even she is just beginning to read the writing on the wall: it *is* over...
    • bsmang, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10hope
    • Chode2235, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2My guess is that she will cut a deal with Obama to have him pay all her campaign's debt, for her dropping out of the race.

      That's her bargaining leverage, and if she wins WV and KY she'll have more of it.
      • kreneskyp, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2i think this is a possibility but i'd be more convinced if we saw the actual numbers.

        She was in major debt going into april. noone really knows how much she raised after PA she may have overstated it to convince more people to donate. in fundraising money attracts money. only a few lines into her speech she was asking for money, again. I'm leaning towards the side that she probably went much further in debt this month and that trend will continue.
      • sleepwalkers, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3$20 says the media covers it as "Barack bribes Hillary to drop out."
      • crimson117, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I don't think that can happen - people donated to Obama's campaign, not Clinton's.
    • wbeavis, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4Depends on what your definition of *is* is.
  • thentro, on 05/07/2008, -18/+3The Nominee
  • wolfmotherlorsa, on 05/07/2008, -8/+60thank the FSM, its finally over!
    • Revovisionary, on 05/07/2008, -3/+31rAMEN
    • blindhammer, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Obama has been touched by its Noodly Appendages!
    • Nickooo, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7Correction: Thank Ceiling Cat, it's finally over!

      srsly.
    • Cogie, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5What does file server management have to do with it?.......oh damn it, I need to get a life
  • tcquad, on 05/07/2008, -9/+92Anyone who tells her she can win straight-up or is mathematically eliminated is lying to her. If she does continue, she must run a genial campaign where the discourse is positive and united against a common foe. Edwards did this in '04 (and, to a lesser extent, Huckabee while waiting for his "miracle"). The basic goal is to (a) be there if Obama screws up, (b) keep up the record Democratic turnout that's been seen and (c) establish Democratic bases and turn-out-the-vote mechanics that are needed in these last few states.

    She can save face, save her career and maybe even save a future shot at the White House by ending the primary process by running an honest, non-confrontational and, most importantly, anti-McCain campaign through these last few states.
    • WilliamDavis, on 05/07/2008, -14/+1Who's the common foe? Americans? They can both join forces with McCain and build a superteam for that.
      • StevenJV, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4common foe is mccain...
      • Rioracer916, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Who is the common foe for the Democrats!? You must be one of those "swing" voters...
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/07/2008, -12/+10She's in it to the end even though she knows she can't win. It's pitiful but it's the same thing that happened when Gore ran. He knew he was beat but the scent of the power was too alluring for him to exercise reason. He held on as long as he could until the party bosses begged him to stop his doomed power pursuit. He knew then, as she does now, that this is the only shot at the presidency and it's hard to let go.
      • robbiemuffin, on 05/07/2008, -6/+4I can't believe people voted you down .. this comment inspires some great rational thinking. Gore, Clinton, Obama, McCain ... everyone is their own driving force, they were/are all campaigning for change yes, but: each person was campaigning for their own brand of change. Part of what you stay in it for is not because you hope you have the better political machinery, but because you hope people, even your opponent, realizes yours is the better change to bring to America. Imagine what would have happened, if Gore just decided (or maybe this time through, if McCain just decided) mid way through the campaign after the parties are committed, to drop out.
      • mickman17, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7Really - Gore should have known? Based on the fact that he did win the Popular Vote overall and had the supreme court call the contest I believe you have your head on backwards. He stayed in it because it was not over - Florida was decided on politics not on votes.. I am just amazed that people to this day still spin the past to fit their opinions today. Please check your facts - GW did win florida which gave him the electoral votes needed but it was not a clear case like the contest today.
      • tech42er, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3You're an idiot. Gore lost the GENERAL election, not the primaries. You never pull out of the general election. Not to mention the fact that Gore actually won the popular vote.
    • builtby, on 05/07/2008, -3/+9Or she can try to knock Obama down a few notches so he can't win against McCain and then she can have her second chance 4 years from now.
      • teh_techie, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3No. I don't think that's going to happen.

        /Opinion
        • roosterjm2k2, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5Why not...she obviously holds her personal gain over that of the party...otherwise she wouldnt have worked so hard to do mccains job of digging up dirt on obama...
      • bjs3171, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1if she does that, she really doesn't deserve to even be in politics.
        • goldenratiophi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5But that's what politics is all about!
        • echotech, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1What politician does these days?
    • jamesLankford, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4"is mathematically eliminated is lying to her"
      no they're not
      • etsolow, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Yes they are. She's only "mathematically eliminated" when winning 100% of the remaining votes and getting all the super delegates on her side will no longer get her ahead.

        Too bad it's not going to happen...
    • scubaman5000, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5At this point I have trouble believing she's capable of running an honest, non-confrontational campaign.
    • mobbo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2You are correct, sir. I just really hope she actually DOES what you say and that her leeches/advisers don't convince her otherwise.
  • MajorLeague, on 05/07/2008, -22/+8McCain/Rice vs Obama/Clark, me thinks.
    • Bklynadam, on 05/07/2008, -2/+14Seriously, if McCain goes with Rice, things will become very interesting.
      • Altotus, on 05/07/2008, -1/+18Would that be Condoleeza Rice, or a sack of rice? I think the latter would be more popular.
      • OralCavity, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7Condie is one of the worst secretaries of state we've ever had by far. if he takes her into his campaign, then he does it for only pandering reasons. ....Not to mention that McCain doesn't like (read: hates) the Bush administration and the fact that she's part of it, it is unlikely.
      • 47f0, on 05/07/2008, -6/+2Why would McCain want Rice? His only possible voter base is the usual Republican white fundamentalist redneck vote. Do you really think they'll go for a black lesbian?
        • bpoteat, on 05/07/2008, -2/+12Really, lesbian? I thought she was asexual...like a robot. A republican robot.
          • ZandorMonkeyBoy, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5No robots are republican. It goes against the Azimovian Laws.
          • fatrandy13, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Asimovian
        • Rayhush, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4dude, she has dated Alec Baldwin.
          • 47f0, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Oh - *****. Now that would be a team. Alec could heap verbal abuse on his kids, and Condie could threaten them with UN sanctions that she couldn't back up. I seriously didn't think even Alec could get that drunk.
    • rz8472, on 05/07/2008, -2/+7I think Clark would make a great VP; he also opposed the war from the start and has a lot of foreign policy cred. He's also a Clinton supporter, which would mean a lot in helping regroup the party - especially since Hillary herself as VP might look bad after all that negative campaigning.

      Edwards or someone else (Schweitzer?) who is a genuine populist rather than Ms. I'm now opposed to NAFTA after supporting it for 16 years would also be a good choice.
      • WilliamDavis, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2I like Clark. He doesn't mind using the military for civilian law enforcement, and he knows how to use it. Clark opposes marijuana decriminalization, so that will keep Obama's crazy drug ideas in check.
        • tech42er, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1We get it. He's an authoritarian. You don't have to be so sarcastic.
    • catachip, on 05/07/2008, -0/+11McCain would never go with Rice because 1) she has been the worst secretary of state on record, 2) she ignored a report that said "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in America" days before 9/11, and 3) she has never held an elected office - she doesn't have any position known to the U.S. on any social or political issue outside of her appointed role.
      • malman4, on 05/07/2008, -13/+2But she IS black, and that is THE apparent advantage in some states.
        • OralCavity, on 05/07/2008, -0/+14yea... obviously, Iowa, Maine and Vermont went for Obama because of all the black voters. please continue to try to discredit his appeal based on his actual stances, it's a good joke.
        • ghostoftomjoad, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Do you seriously think its appropriate to say that someone is being swept into office because of their race? I mean besides that fact that most blacks vote dem anyway and that blacks are a minority in every state meaning they can't possibly explain a state turning over in his favor simply because his race, i think the KKK years of talking about someones race instead of what they do and what they believe are over
    • Hangly, on 05/07/2008, -4/+7Wesley Clark? Ack.

      Truly though, Obama could choose an orangutan as his running mate, he'll still win.
      • MagMarCat, on 05/07/2008, -16/+5What does that say about the intelligence of America? Obama has the weakest resume of anyone that has ever run for president.
        There are 37% African Americans in the US. Not all of them are registered to vote, but he is sure to get the votes of those that are... other than the black demographic, he has the super liberal and socialist populations. Those people reside in California, and Oregon, not in the swing states (middle America).
        I don't think it matters who they pick for their VP. McCain will expose Obama's inexperience and socialist points of view with out a doubt.
        Feel free to digg me down. Conservatives are about as popular on this site as Clinton supporters. It makes sense that Clinton supporters are going to go over to McCain in November.
        • OralCavity, on 05/07/2008, -3/+8Any Clinton supporter that goes to McCain is shooting themselves in the face. The two candidates have so little in common, it's absurd to even think that.
        • Crake, on 05/07/2008, -4/+9What are you talking about? "The weakest resume of anyone that has ever run for president"?

          I'm thinking of another man who served in the Illinois state legislature before serving a single two-year term as a representative in Congress. He went on to become the 16th president, one whom the majority of historians consider amongst the best three of all time, with most ranking him #1. Who am I thinking of?

          Abraham Lincoln.
          • MagMarCat, on 05/07/2008, -8/+2Keep thinking that Obama is the next Lincoln. I would vote for him if he was (Lincoln was a Republican!)
            For you to think Lincoln has a weak resume shows that you lack knowledge of Lincoln's life and accomplishments. He started his political career at 23. Elected to the state legislature at 25, taught himself law, and became one of the most successful lawyers in Illinois prior to turning 30. Lincoln focused on his career as a lawyer until 1854 when the Kansas - Nebraska act brought him back to politics.
            Obama, graduated from Harvard, and came back to Chicago to head up a voter registration drive. He taught for a little while at University of Chicago's Law school where he got to hang out with his buddy Bill Ayers (terrorist). He worked for a while on taxpayer-supported building rehabilitation loans for Tony Rezko (criminal).
            Obama won a lucky break to get his senate seat. That seat was sure to go to Jack Ryan, but due to his whore of an ex-wife, Obama got to run against Alan Keyes instead (a big idiot and not from Illinois) not tough to beat that!
            Obama is not even close to being as accomplished as Lincoln. But keep thinking that if it helps you sleep at night.
          • Nodaki, on 05/07/2008, -8/+2Lincoln was in my mind the worst president of all time with F.D.R. being a very close second.
        • bpoteat, on 05/07/2008, -2/+7"Obama has the weakest resume of anyone that has ever run for president."
          ^ shows a complete lack of any research on your part.
          • MagMarCat, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1Read above, and let me know what BIG accomplishments I left out?
          • bpoteat, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3You know, I don't need to name a single point for your argument to be dismissed. "Oh, of course not. Because you have none," you say. No, it's because:
            1) your obvious bias shows by not only including a reference to someone you label as a terrorist that, for all anyone knows, Obama knew no better than the occasional "Hello" in the hallway, but also leaving out 'trivial' details like, among other things, being elected as president of the most prestigious legal review in the country.
            2) you think that the Republican party of Lincoln even remotely resembles that of today. Unless your idea of more federal government is a good thing.
            3) Lincoln's resume includes constant political failure and was heavily argued by the opposing candidates to have not enough experience to be president. You seem to have left those little resume details out.
            It is impossible for any logical person to not look at the lives of Lincoln and Obama at similar points in their lives and not see an uncanny resemblance of their campaigns and political messages. The failure of you to do so, and your flawed arguments to prove otherwise, points to your blatant stubbornness to logic, which most likely is derived from what you feel is a strong party allegiance.
          • MagMarCat, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3So now we are going with "Obama didn't know he was a terrorist"?!?!? Come on! Bill Ayers has never tried to hide his beliefs, or his actions. I find it impossible to believe that Obama knew nothing about it while working and spending time with Ayers and his wife.

            What's next... Obama didn't know what a wackadoodle Rev. Wright is??? Obama has said that he didn't feel comfortable confronting his pastor regarding some beliefs he didn't agree with... yet this man is going to be able to handle foreign policy.

            You can beat me up for being a Republican all you want, currently I am taxed the hardest for all the liberal programs that democrats deem necessary. I work hard for my money, and I would appreciate not having to give it away to people that choose not to work.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/07/2008, -6/+8Rice? That's hilarious. One of, some argue the only perceived weakness of Obama is the simple fact that he's black. Dear Virginia, there isn't a Santa Claus and there is still racism in the US. If you look at anonymous polling of black -vs- white votes it becomes crystal clear that this primary was a racial battle. So adding Rice to the Republican ticket would be suicide to the Republican party. This would eliminate an Obama weakness and alienate the core Republican redneck vote. This would ultimately give Obama a real chance at winning which he doesn't have now.
      • truthhammer, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5"only perceived weakness of Obama is the simple fact that he's black." I've asked this before, but no one seems to know....isn't he half white? Why does everyone call him black? It's bizarre.
        • 47f0, on 05/07/2008, -2/+7I'll be generous, and assume that you're either not from America, or have been incredibly sheltered. Look up the "one drop rule" and prepare to be amazed by ignorance that persists to this day.
          • truthhammer, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0That isn't used today though, unless I'm mistaken
        • Joeyrev, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3Because black is easier to spell than mulatto.
        • MagMarCat, on 05/07/2008, -8/+2Seriously?
          1. He refers to himself as Black
          2. He prides himself on being the 5th African American Senator in US history
          3. He attends a black church, with black issue focused sermons.

          HE is forcing the black thing, not us. Do you think he is going to come out and highlight the fact that he is mulatto... doubt it. It's harder for a white man to disagree with a black man... that white man might be considered racist!
          • futureb, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4"us"...? or YOU...? definitely not ME.
          • MagMarCat, on 05/07/2008, -9/+1Of course that collective us did not include you... The "us" I was referring to would be the intelligent voting public. I don't believe you are included in that.
        • Nodaki, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2I have always thought it was weird that he identifies himself as black. The black father ditched out on him and his white mother. His white mother raised him with white values in a white area.

          Strike that I do understand why he identifies himself as black, for the scholarships, the perception of a large member, the ability to play sports, the political advantage to being a minority, and he gets that fine piece of black tail Michelle.
          • MagMarCat, on 05/07/2008, -6/+2Michelle is a total butter face... but the rest of your reasons make sense.
          • CiXeL, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1i agree but its a rule presidential wives cant be hot.
          • CiXeL, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1someone dug me down? oh yeah laura bush porn
          • tech42er, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Is that why Kucinich never wins?
    • futureb, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2McCain/Jindal v. Obama/Rendell
      • rugabug, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2My dad told me Rendell was most likely going to be Obama's choice. Though my dad is bat ***** crazy sometimes.
      • thelastknowngod, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Rendell would be awesome if he ran with Obama but i dont see it happening because he is such a huge Clinton supporter. i dont think he would do it out of respect for his relationship with her. i really like Rendell. i wish he would take the VP spot if offered although its unlikely.
  • chrisegilbert, on 05/07/2008, -14/+64We've known since the middle/end of February.
    • LloydBentsen, on 05/07/2008, -16/+4Nah, bro, you didn't.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/07/2008, -6/+4Why didn't you tell us? We could have skipped this whole ugly process. Please tell us who will win the presidency too so we can avoid the General election.
  • kcwyckoff, on 05/07/2008, -42/+5Tim Russert may be fat, but i'm pretty sure he doesn't have lady parts.

    • cr4ft, on 05/07/2008, -0/+36hahahha omg you're like a comedian only the opposite!
    • Nodaki, on 05/07/2008, -7/+1I found that funny...no idea why you are being dugg down.
      • Brad324, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure you have an idea why.
  • kingygk, on 05/07/2008, -28/+6Dont over estimate the power of Clinton's. I wouldn't be surprised if they figure out to manufacture a fatal accident for Barak Obama. The Clinton war room is still in business.
    • lolinyerface, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4Here's your tin foil hat.
    • truthhammer, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Wow...seriously? They are vicious, but...seriously?
    • Nodaki, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4I would be very nervous if I was Barak, I certainly would not take her as a VP for that reason alone. The Clintons are vicious and lack any sense of right and wrong when it come to maintaining power.
    • dinot, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1Right.... because the Clintons doing that wouldn't be obvious to anyone at all. They're greedy, manipulative, and power-hungry, but they're not retarded.
      • echotech, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Really?
        "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
        "Yes we can."
  • bethehammer, on 05/07/2008, -6/+38Finally we can have some non-election news like Nicole Richie's baby or Nicole Kidman's baby or some other celebrity we worship whose name I can't spell
    • CarStan, on 05/07/2008, -0/+16I'd like to know if Anna-Nicole Smith is still dead.
      • Funpolice2050, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Confirmed. She's still dead.
      • daithiocoinnigh, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2AFFIRMATIVE; I POKED HER SHE WAS DEAD
        • tech42er, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Evidently, diggers don't like "Flight of the Conchords".
      • FarvaRadio, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0O *****! I just checked, and shes a zombie now.
    • celkin, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2I want some more iPhone news. You can never get enough of the iPhone.

      /sarcasm
    • musicphreke, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Oh I'm sure it'll move onto stuff about McCain & Obama instead.
  • mrcupcakes, on 05/07/2008, -8/+207Clinton is the black knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
  • njbraun, on 05/07/2008, -6/+26I was just listening to Mark Penn, a chief campaign adviser for Clinton on NPR a couple of hours ago talk about how Clinton still has a chance..... a what!? The people have spoken, and now is not the time to divide the party anymore by coming up with lame reasons why Clinton can pull all the super delegates her way because of her recent advancements and blah blah blah, she's down by so many delegates, it doesn't matter!!!. I'm so eff'n relieved the margins were so pro Obama that we can end this. Obama'08!!
    • truthhammer, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7Well, she does have a chance. Like I have a chance to win the Power Ball. So, technically she does have a chance ;)
      • Kyan, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Just like there is a chance the particle accelerator will create a black hole that will swallow the earth? You talkin' about that chance?
      • truthhammer, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0Maybe less of a chance then that, lol
    • richmomz, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Penn's arse is on the line too so I am not surprised. The campaign spent millions on his "consulting" firm and look at what they have to show for it. The guy needs to go on a diet too, damn!
    • uzusan, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I had thought Mark Penn had been sacked from the clinton campaign (because of the lobbying he did for columbia on a free trade agreement that clinton opposes).

      However, looks like he is still giving advice and polling services. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Penn#2008_Hillar ...
  • Deodrus, on 05/07/2008, -7/+95I just did my math on the Delegate Calculator on CNN.

    http://fapomatic.com/show.php?loc=0818&f=nc_result ...

    What I found is that even if Clinton wins all the remaining contests by 60% to 40%, Barack Obama will almost touch 2025 delegates (the magic number), only being short of it by 2 delegates !!

    Meaning if 2 supers endorse him from now on and she wins with 60% in every state... HE STILL WINS !!

    I think it's time to give up for HRC.

    Do the math yourself:
    http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/080 ...

    (direct link to the delegate counter so you can zoom in)
    [I'm copy-pasting this comment because I can't be bothered to rethink new ways of saying it]
    • Lasereth, on 05/07/2008, -0/+13Yeah and the sad part is that it's been that way for months. She could win every state 65/35 here on out and still lose.
      • xt0xicx, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Yep and theres actually no way shes going to get 65 35 in every state anyways lol. Oregon and Montana are both Obama strongholds.... can someone please just go up to her and explain the math
        • vawksel, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1If Obama were to be assassinated today, tomorrow, next week, then Clinton would be happy she stayed in the race.
    • feanix, on 05/07/2008, -1/+45Is there a reason why you chose to host that image on ... fapomatic? With the porn!? Prehaps imageshack may have been a better choice? Sheeesh!
    • jellygraph, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1CNN delegate counter never works for me (on different machines)... all I get is NaN and such instead of numbers... their javascript is borked, they need better developers
    • kylejn, on 05/07/2008, -0/+14Er... Fapomatic? Really?
    • limbikity, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5dugg for the flash "ad" of two girls making out with each other
    • moonlessrat, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3BOOBIES!!1!1!
    • silverbulletky, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1Try again.. after taking NC and Indiana into the results and doing 60% for Clinton on all the rest.. Obama is 96 short

      If you give Clinton 60% of the remaining states and 71% of the super delegates.. she wins
      • JakobVirgil, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3or you could say that if Clinton receives an unlikely 60% of the remaining state she needs a comical 77%
      • clickwir, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1However, if you leave the superdelegates at 50% each. Hillary doesn't actually gain a lead over Obama until ALL remaining states are won by 86% or more.

        By your assumption... 71% of the super delegates is not possible unless some switch from Obama to whats her face.

        She has a huge task before her, it's just not going to be possible for her to win by that much.
    • JakobVirgil, on 05/07/2008, -1/+5if you give Hillary 100% for the remaining races she only need 45% of the superdelegates to reach the magic number.
      -Jake
    • wbeavis, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5You're not counting Michigan and Florida, like the Clintons are doing!
    • SirSquishie, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1As of right now, if the supers were at 50/50 and Clinton took 78% of every remaining state, Obama would end with 2026 delegates to Clinton's 1993, but the supers aren't at 50/50, they seem to be at roughly 51/49 in Clinton's favor, so Obama may actually have to raise a finger to hold the lead. /sarcasm
    • jarvismak, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0The Hillary camp has always been hoping to persuade superdelegates who'd pledged themselves to Obama to switch to her.
    • cme884, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2The math is wrong with that delegate counter... for some reason it's possible for both candidates to have over 2025 when you throw in the super delegates. I'm not sure why... In any case it's time to stick a fork in her.
    • thentro, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Go ahead and add in FL and MI with the most pro-Clinton "compromise" possible. She still loses.
    • bhamster, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0mmmneeeehhhh, i trust your math
  • cr4ft, on 05/07/2008, -5/+37Na na na na, Na na na na....hey hey hey....goodbye!
    • caramba420, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6Ding, dong, the witch is dead!
      • leerayIG88, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I am a Grocery bag!
        --They Might be Giants
  • motogoat, on 05/07/2008, -4/+19Finally...someone within the MSM who looks at the facts and says the truth rather than pandering to the old guard Clinton supporters. Looks like the truth is getting ready to set her free!
  • mustangmike53, on 05/07/2008, -32/+13Good old MSM trying to force the decision, rather than report the facts. And NBC too - what a surprise!
    • catachip, on 05/07/2008, -3/+22No one is forcing anything. It's over for Hillary. Do you know how to add?
      • RRJackson, on 05/07/2008, -19/+2I know how to add. Obama has 1584 pledged delegates and Clinton has 1415. Neither of them can get 2025 before Denver. The supers will decide. And they're almost all people who owe the Clintons.
        • bsmang, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10Yeah, but as we've seen, Obama is so much a better candidate that even people who owe lots to the Clintons still have a tendency to side with him. Paying debts is important, but doing the right thing can be even more important.
          • RRJackson, on 05/07/2008, -12/+1They've been siding with him as long as that siding came with a lot of face-time on TV. In Denver it will be a whole different story.
          • bsmang, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7Yeah, I'm sure that was it. LOL. So tell me, what will you do when Obama is the dem candidate? Will you leave your lifelong democratic tendency just to vote against a black man? And what if he wins the general election? What will you do then? Deport yourself?
          • RRJackson, on 05/07/2008, -13/+1If Obama gets the nomination I'll vote for McCain. Not because Obama is black, but because Obama is a dangerous demagogue with really, really bad policies he wants to implement. Chances are I'll be voting for a black candidate, anyway, since Condoleeza Rice is likely to be McCain's VP.
          • blinkatron, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6Obama is a demagogue? Do you even know what that word means?
            Demagogue - a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

            If Obama is a demagogue, then so is McCain. And how are Obama's policies more dangerous that McCains? He wants to keep us in Iraq... that sounds pretty dangerous to me.
          • RRJackson, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1We should never leave Iraq. It serves important tactical purposes for the United States. That's why we took it in the first place.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 05/07/2008, -10/+3Why don't the Obama-bots understand this? It seems obvious to me. It's like they're saying "Our candidate sucks too but not as much as Hillary". The bottom line is that both of them will have to pander to the party bosses for super-delegate votes. It's going to (already has) get ugly, dirty, and more than likely break a lot of laws but that's the process that the Dems put together and that's the process that they must use. Not a glamorous way to select a candidate but nobody ever accused politics of being glamorous.
    • 47f0, on 05/07/2008, -1/+12Those are the facts. Hillary's last shred of hope was piling irrationalities on top of her Pennsylvania win - that win was completely wiped out last night, and with it, the house of cards she had precariously perched on it. She needed two victories last night. Instead, she got a tie and a beating.
      She's dead Jim.
      • RRJackson, on 05/07/2008, -11/+1There was no way she was ever going to win North Carolina and she knew that months ago. There are too many black voters in the Carolinas and Obama has been taking that vote by 90% or better. Let's not manufacture imaginary contests. She took Indiana by a couple of points and he took North Carolina by 14-15 points, just like everyone has always known he would. It will be a different story in West Virginia and Kentucky, though.
        • 47f0, on 05/07/2008, -2/+7Ahh yes - your old stomping grounds, where all your sister-cousins still hang out with their t-shirts that say "My Daddy's the best kisser in the trailer park" Good times.

          And what will be the massive delegate and popular vote injection from those two states? Oh really? That small, huh. Must be frustrating to get a drop when you need a bucket.
          • RRJackson, on 05/07/2008, -9/+1The spread is 2.2% right now. The race is still essentially neck-and-neck. All Clinton has to do is stay in the race until Denver and the supers will bring it home for her.
          • 47f0, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4S'cuse me, my naive little buddy, but you're forgetting one more very important vote. Money. Hillary's broke again, and even she and Bill can't afford to keep pumping blood into the hemorrhaging trauma victim her campaign has become. Odd, how when your base is illiterate rednecks that you have to hold your hand out to the backroom boys - but that support is fickle at best. Meanwhile little folks all over keep voting for Obama with their checkbooks.
          • RRJackson, on 05/07/2008, -12/+1Funny, I seem to remember the Clinton tax returns showing a massive income over the last decade. Certainly enough to offset the money Obama is pulling in.

            FWIW, I'm not interested in the ethics of how she wins. If she wins by having Obama sent to Gitmo it's fine with me. As long as she secures the nomination I'm 100% behind her.
          • 47f0, on 05/07/2008, -1/+6RR, we've known for a very long time that ethics are the last thing you worry about. You've made that abundantly clear, and reinforce that message with each post. But the fact is, the Clintons are not just power greedy - they are greedy for the root of power - money, and they won't dump much more of their personal fortune into a sinkhole just to make your nipples stiff.
          • RRJackson, on 05/07/2008, -7/+1We'll see.
  • SEGA4life, on 05/07/2008, -19/+7Didn't Obama say Indiana would be the tie breaker?


    • WilliamDavis, on 05/07/2008, -4/+6Nobody cares what Obama says around here. Digg is Hillary Country.
    • dinot, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2Yeah, he lost his self-described tie breaker.

      And yet everyone acknowledges that he still won, big. Pretty awesome, huh?
  • insomniacal, on 05/07/2008, -18/+5Too bad. I was looking forward to a political convention that actually meant something, not another glossy, scripted dog and pony show.
    • theviceroy, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1go back to the 19th century then!
  • fakekevinrose, on 05/07/2008, -18/+177░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄░░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░▄█████████████▄░░░░░
    ░░▄██████████████████▄░░░
    ░░████████████████████▄░░
    ░██████████████████████░░
    ░██████████████████████░░
    ░██████████████████████░░
    ░░█████████▀▀▀█████████░░
    ░░▀█████▀░░░░░░░▀█████░░░
    ░░░▀▀███░░█░░░█░░███▀░░░░
    ░░░░░░░█░░░░▀░░░░█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░▄██▄░░▀▀░▄█▀▄░░░░░░
    ░░░░▄▀░▀▄▀▀███▀▀▄▀░▀▄░░░░
    ░░░░█░░░░▀▄▀░▀▄▀░▄░░█░░░░
    ░░░░█░█░░░█░░░█░░█░░█░░░░
    ░░░░█░█░░░░▀▄▀▀▀▀█░░█░░░░
    ░░░░█░█░░░░░▄░░▄██▄▄▀░░░░
    ░░░░█░█░░░░░▄░░████░░░░░░
    ░░░░███▄░░░▄▄▄░░░▄▀░░░░░░
    ░░░░░▀▀█▀▀▀░▄░▀▀▀█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░█░░░░█░░░░█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░█░░░░█░░░░█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░█▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄█░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░██████▄▄▄▄▀░░░░░░░
    ░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░
    • Vodd9, on 05/07/2008, -3/+40Digg is not habbo hotel.
      • rentmitchum, on 05/07/2008, -7/+3You just referenced habbo hotel? lolwut?
        • limbikity, on 05/07/2008, -0/+7hooollly ***** i remember habbo hotel!
        • anarchyx34, on 05/07/2008, -0/+10I actually saw habbo hotel gift cards in Rite Aid yesterday. I was like WTF?!
    • Anonchrist, on 05/07/2008, -15/+10Election Closed due to AIDS?
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/07/2008, -23/+7"Not 'God bless America,' 'God damn America,'"
    • footfwd, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10what is this?? How does it relate?
    • rickygw, on 05/07/2008, -9/+4looks like denzel washington in american gangster
    • Rodalli, on 05/07/2008, -1/+7AfroMan approves this story?
    • DVision2406, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4Hey! How'd you get my picture??????????
    • rmany2k, on 05/07/2008, -0/+20On the contrary, it looks like a young Barack in EarthBound.
    • jmaxwell, on 05/07/2008, -0/+26polls closed
    • evillawngnome, on 05/07/2008, -5/+4This is not your home. Get back where you belong.
    • koft, on 05/07/2008, -2/+6Should I be embarrassed for knowing what this is? The pool is ***** closed.
    • ptanonimo, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2pol´s closed due to aid
    • Zedian, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Groovy.
    • thetanman, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1What it is, brotha?
    • veijeri, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Poll's closed indeed.
    • Sutibu, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1POOL'S CLOSED, CLINTON!!!
    • atticus8, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Oh, I get it: this is what is known in police enforcement circles as a sketch of the suspect.
  • jkbowman, on 05/07/2008, -13/+107Best of all, he won it clean and on actual issues. Let the Republicans, the creationists, the flag pin types, and the propagandists for big oil continue to focus on crappy little issues that don't matter to anyone. This is the day that America refused to die.
    • malman4, on 05/07/2008, -29/+4If he won it, it was for being black.
      • Gerz1219, on 05/07/2008, -1/+11Black people are people too. I don't see how black people voting for a black candidate is any different from older white women voting overwhelmingly for Hillary.
      • ADVIZR, on 05/07/2008, -2/+15Oh really? Tell that to Wisconsin and the slew of other "white states" that prefer Obama over Clinton. The Clintons also had a lot of support among "blacks" in the beginning but blew that with their idiotic statements of making race an issue. Like I said in another comment: either the Clintons wanted polarization and got it; or they showed an incredible lack of judgment and lack of respect.

        Also, consider that more educated voters vote for Obama. The fact is he won because of MANY reasons.

        Obama won it because he's one of the most unique, caring, wisest, and most intelligent individuals to come along in decades as a leading candidate. Does his white & black heritage play a part in it? Of course! It helped shape his understanding of the world for the better. But race is only one small part of the matter. He won because of who he is as a person.
      • 47f0, on 05/07/2008, -1/+11Yep. That explains our last few presidents. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes. Get over it. Paint Obama green - he's still the best candidate.
      • dinot, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3And Hillary lost it for being a pandering *****. Your point is?
      • artisresistance, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3If he would have lost it, it would have been because of you racist little bitches.
      • RANDUMpurple, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3There's no place for racists like you in this election.

        You're going to be quite upset come November..
      • saffrononyx, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Geraldine Ferraro? Is that you?
        • tech42er, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Might be John Kerry. It's shocking and depressing how many people think Obama is only winning because of the color of his skin.
    • truthhammer, on 05/07/2008, -10/+3Creationists? Where'd that come from? Flag pin types? WTF?
    • VengeanceNight, on 05/07/2008, -7/+1Well...if you consider winning on issues to be stating the issues and saying he'll fix them without really outlining a plan to do it...then I guess he did.
      • svargabell, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3exactly. abstract ideas that sound inspiring aren't going to get anything done. i've been disappointed with barak. i really hope he can step up and fight with actions.
        • edjenkins234, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Barak has laid out in detail how he will do and pay for everything he has suggested, but you just have to listen longer than the 30 seconds of a speech they show on the news.
          • svargabell, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1i've definitely followed both clinton and obama from the start, and listened to the full speeches of each. i didn't know from the beginning who i would vote for, and i made a well-educated choice. i'm very interested in politics and always have been. don't make stupid assumptions.

    • Defuser, on 05/07/2008, -5/+0Oil is somehow an "issue that doesn't matter to anyone?" Your comment is proof-positive that Diggers will Digg Up ANYONE, so long as they think the person sounds douchebaggy enough. Personally, I hope the first thing Obama does as President is address the oil crisis.
      • justinlarsen, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2With let me guess a gas-tax holiday? He already explained his issue with oil and alternative energy.
      • dreamtiger, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Nowhere in that comment did jkbowman say that oil is an issue that doesn't matter. The point was that Big Oil interests are using unimportant issues to distract and divide this country.
    • Loonatickle, on 05/07/2008, -7/+2Apparently it's possible to win on "actual issues" without discussing them in any real detail.
    • siszam, on 05/07/2008, -7/+5Many of us Creationists voted for Obama. We don't support war either and we aren't all in one little group worshiping Bush. To even imply that makes you as ignorant as the people you hate. Grow up child.
      • Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Grow up and accept Evolution.

        Sorry, but it had to be said.
      • Beaver1279, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1Creationist? I thought you were for the war in the middle east as it will bring about the second coming. How do expect Jesus to come back if you don't support Bush's war? That man talks to god personally.
    • AvidPreatorian, on 05/07/2008, -4/+4Creationists? Obama is a Christian. Need any reason to bash religion? Digg is not what it used to be.
      • Beaver1279, on 05/08/2008, -2/+0Obama is an atheist. Read between the lines man. He just says he is christian because it is the only way he can become president.
    • Spudster, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2The only sad thing is that Clinton did have a better health care coverage plan than Obama (mandating coverage for everyone instead of just children.) I think it's important we call out those who demonize Clinton. Clinton's campaign did have positive aspects to it, but in the end, it was Obama's protection of civil rights that won my vote.
    • alieneggsac, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Wow, there was the biggest set of stereotypes I've ever seen. I'm non of those things, a person of color, and I am Republican. But it's ok, maybe if you repeat that white-racist claptrap enough times maybe your commie socialist friends will think your propoganda is true.
  • Kronos6948, on 05/07/2008, -3/+46Does she still have the Snuke in her Snizz?
    • ndesantis, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4no theres a snizz in her snatch
      • dudeguy1234, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1There may be a bizz in her botch, but she's still a bitch!
  • resipsa, on 05/07/2008, -1/+19They've known (or should have known) who the nominee will be for some time. C'mon, Clinton would have had to have won 60%+ votes in the remaining primaries since before Pennsylvania. I'm glad to see the MSM finally admit it, but it's disingenuous to say that they know only now.
  • exgop, on 05/07/2008, -39/+10With every Obama win, Israel is one step closer to destruction.
    • bsmang, on 05/07/2008, -4/+12I wouldn't say that, but if we're one step closer to some much needed changes in our foreign policy, then that's great.
      • exgop, on 05/07/2008, -13/+4Letting Communist China rule world events? Allowing sharia law to become stronger? That's change fascist can believe in.
        • bsmang, on 05/07/2008, -2/+10Huh? It's Bush who's been (massively) weakening us and (massively) strengthening those others. My hope is that Obama will reverse the trend.
        • oblique63, on 05/07/2008, -2/+7bush is an Obama supporter???...
        • DarkprinceArmon, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2You mean the policies McCain will love to continue to up hold. I believe that Obama wants the head of Osama, and wants to engage Iran in talks before mutually assuring its destruction.
    • Locnar, on 05/07/2008, -1/+10Israel does pretty well for it's self. Israel is not going anywhere...
      • peteosw, on 05/08/2008, -1/+0They'd be off the map if it weren't for:

        a) spying on their best ally
        b) their best ally giving them weapons systems.

        stfu, bye.
    • Arcesius, on 05/07/2008, -1/+13With every salmon hooked, it's thirteen horseshoes until cowbells.
      See? I can make nonsensical statements, too! *dances*
    • Bilabrin, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1C'mon, don't you think that might be a little bit of a silly statement?
  • KillaJazzBass, on 05/07/2008, -13/+73As a member of the U.S Air Force I cannot speak for anybody but myself, and have no official stance as a member. But, as an American, I would like to say that Barack Obama is MY choice for commander and chief. I would follow you to the gates of hell sir.
    • SuperVepr308, on 05/07/2008, -40/+7And that's where he would likely take you...
    • exgop, on 05/07/2008, -43/+6I was under the impression that military people were smart. You sure fooled me.
      • yellowfish04, on 05/07/2008, -3/+14douche.
      • dinot, on 05/07/2008, -1/+13I bet your mom must be proud of YOUR service to this country writing ***** comments under the veil of anonimity.
      • aeck, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2That's offensive. And even worse, UNPATRIOTIC!
      • tech42er, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3You just viciously attacked a member of the Armed Forces. I'm surprised a Republican who cares so much about aggressive foreign policy, such as yourself, can get away with that. And you're a total douche.
    • jmaxwell, on 05/07/2008, -7/+10thank you for your service to this nation
    • nullity, on 05/07/2008, -6/+12If you were actually in the military, you would know that it's "Commander-in-Chief".
    • 7come11, on 05/07/2008, -4/+3It's nice to see that our armed servicemen have more sense than many of the idiots in this country (including those that commented above..excluding jmaxwell).
      I hope for your sake and the sake of the entire U.S. military that Barack is the next CIC
    • DarkprinceArmon, on 05/07/2008, -5/+5Ignore the other two asshats post above mine and thanks for serving the American People. We appreciate it greatly.
    • momsshizzle, on 05/07/2008, -5/+1Yikes, that's a sad statement. I'm sure you'll wish your duty was up if he becomes prez.
  • ironpirate, on 05/07/2008, -41/+7he only won NC because 1 out 3 democratic voters were black......look it up
    • SuperVepr308, on 05/07/2008, -32/+5Shhhhhh! Them's facts! You'll get shanked around here for that!
      • swazo, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1if that is what you use as facts, i am starting to see where the chink in the chain begins to start.
    • catachip, on 05/07/2008, -6/+37Nearly one third of the democratic party in the United States is black.

      What's your point? Oh yeah, you're a ***** racist. Go sit in the corner with Bill, you need a time out.
      • truthhammer, on 05/07/2008, -11/+2He got over 90% of the black vote in a state where blacks make up almost 1/3 the population. That's why he won. Just the facts. Your sloppy use of the "racist" tag is nauseating.
        • catachip, on 05/07/2008, -0/+14When someone says he "only" won NC because the voters were black it implies that their votes are somehow not real, or equivalent to anyone elses. By that same token, Hillary "only" wont PA because the voters were white (and 20% in PA said race was a factor in their decision).
          • SuperVepr308, on 05/07/2008, -6/+1You seem to be more concerned about race than anyone else here. Who is the real racist?
          • enigmaneo, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Classic Hillary tactics. Now we see why you're a Clinton supporter.
          • cbittle, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2catachip: I have no idea what the two turds above me are talking about, but I would like to take the time to thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking. Dugg.
    • KbuPlatinum, on 05/07/2008, -1/+20So then why didn't the 2 white people left all vote for Hilary?
      • malman4, on 05/07/2008, -19/+1And why did 90% of the blacks vote for Osama?
        • Arcesius, on 05/07/2008, -0/+9Maybe because they hope a black man will actually care about their problems more than a privileged white woman?
        • truthhammer, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4He's half white. Why does everyone call him black?
        • DarkprinceArmon, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1you should learn how to spell.
    • ADVIZR, on 05/07/2008, -0/+25Obama also has overwhelming support among "whites" (and all colors) in certain demographics, like among more educated voters. Imagine that. More educated voters = more likely to vote for Obama.

      Remember that "blacks" weren't at all flocking to Obama in the beginning. It happened due to a series of many, many events, such as the Clinton camp & Bill making purely racial comments of discounting Obama as a Jesse Jackson. The Clintons wanted polarization; they got it. And if they didn't want it, their statements display a lack in judgment and lack of respect. The Clintons care more about "winning" than serving others. I don't want people like that back in power.

      Anyway, I do hate generalizations. But I find it rather humorous that some people (e.g. neocons and fanatic Clintonites) don't acknowledge the polarization that occurred. The history of this country is steeped in horrific injustice and racism, and the cultural ramifications of one group of people being made to feel like ***** for no other reason than their skin. Now there's one candidate who understands all walks of life, born of white & black. So, you can be sure "blacks" are proud of him. "Whites" are just as proud of him. And not because of skin, mind you... because of him. I don't care if he's green, purple, or orange.

      I'm as white as they come. I even have a shaved head. Scary. Should I (or white military members for that matter) be treated like skinheads? Think. You're an idiot if you can't understand the history of the US and have compassion. This country needs to get past racism and unite. It's not racist for many blacks to now support him. It's based on both him as a person and self-interests; that's the very point of voting.

      Anyway, Obama is not running on his race. Just remember that. He's running as his own person: a unique, caring, wise individual... a real leader that the US has lacked for decades.

      Obama 2008
    • sindex, on 05/07/2008, -1/+17Oh no! The blacks are voting!? This is an outrage! They're barely Americans at all! Next thing you know we'll have women in the workplace, women drivers, black-owned businesses, and integrated schools. This must be stopped, and their votes must not count! Only white men in office! Only white men in office!
      • celkin, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Sen. McCain, what are you doing on Digg?
    • jellygraph, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Don't black votes matter? Are white votes more important? Are you trying another Bill Clinton again?
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/07/2008, -6/+2Shhhhhh. don't rain on the parade. Let them think it's not about race so they're all surprised when Obama loses the general election.
    • fragile00, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1and your point is?
  • ADVIZR, on 05/07/2008, -4/+76Over? 2009:

    Obama: "...do solemnly swear..."
    -------
    Clinton: "I know the race is close, but with your help... hillaryclinton.com... blah blah..."