digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com —

McCain Grilled On Roe v Wade

huffingtonpost.com — He was grilled on Sarah Palin, his Obama sex-ed for kids attack ads, his view on Roe v. Wade, the separation of church and state and more.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • brianjlowry, on 09/12/2008, -16/+210I'm glad to see people are snapping to and seeing through his terrible campaign policies and practices. It is a shame he even has a chance at winning... we need to oust the lying and bad-mouthing from politics entirely.

    Good to hear him talk about issues again. It has been awhile, and in my opinion Obama will win if this election goes back to the issues.
    • QuadZeroRoute, on 09/12/2008, -41/+9Obama only talks good game on gender pay equity.

      "Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work," Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Aug. 28 in his convention acceptance speech. He told the crowd in Denver: "I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons."

      Obama's campaign website is even more specific. Under the heading "Fighting for Pay Equity," the women's issues page laments that, "Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act..."

      Obama's commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.

      A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. "We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible," its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm's official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.

      The most recent statistics are for the half-year from Oct. 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last Feb. 29, extrapolating up to six months' service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year's worth of Senate employees' paychecks should look.

      Based on these calculations, Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.

      Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.

      Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.

      Again, on average, Obama's female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama's campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama's rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.

      Obama responded Aug. 31 to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's Republican vice-presidential nomination. Palin "seems like a very engaging person," Obama told voters in Toledo, Ohio. "But I've got to say, she's opposed -- like John McCain is -- to equal pay for equal work. That doesn't make much sense to me."

      Obama's criticism notwithstanding, McCain's payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams.

      McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.

      On average, according to these data, women in John McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart -- while adding $10,726 to her annual income -- by leaving Barack Obama's office and going to work for John McCain.

      How could this be?

      http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/378772_murdo ...
      • charm803, on 09/12/2008, -7/+12Obama has higher standards.

        McCain hires people who are unqualified. To work with Obama, you better bring your A game!
      • QuadZeroRoute, on 09/12/2008, -24/+6"Obama has higher standards." Hahaha....totally GHETTO Obama has higher standards! That's a rip!




        McCain/Palin 08!
      • WasabiBomb, on 09/12/2008, -3/+18Once again, QuadZeroRoute doesn't pay attention to the story, he just "refutes" it by trying to smear Obama on a completely different topic.

        I guess if you can't defend, then attack.
      • urbandistrict, on 09/12/2008, -3/+4You math is flawed, who do you know that is paid on an average?
      • haydesigner, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6QuadZeroRoute is *the* definition of non sequitur.
      • charm803, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6@quadzero-

        First, you guys call him an elitist then ghetto. Make up your mind!

        How is Obama ghetto?

        Because he went to college and graduated top of his class? Because he helped his community at 22? Because he sticks to the issues while McCain does nothing but smear and lie?

        Which part if ghetto?

        Because if I remember correctly, Palin is the one who has a pregnant 17 year old unmarried daughter and McCain called his wife a trollup, graduated bottom of his class and lies.

        You should have higher standards for your own Presidential nominee.
      • bman1984, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1@QuadZero

        I don't understand what your point is. Women should get paid the same as men. A women with 2 years experience would not get paid the same as a man doing the same job with 6 years experience. What you are suggesting as pay equality sounds more communist than any dem in America has every thought of being. Pay equality does not mean if you have 6 top advisers, 3 must be women. It means that all 6 top advisers should be paid equally, based upon education and experience of course. Trying to mandate anything other than that, is against everything your party is supposed to stand for. You guys just cant keep your ***** straight anymore.

        Did you thoroughly investigate each employee of the Obama campaign.

        What you are suggesting exactly? I am curious to hear about
    • zacharytelschow, on 09/12/2008, -29/+2Be careful what you wish for; Obama doesn't have a prayer of winning if it goes back to the issues. While Palin is conservative through and through, McCain is the guy actually running for POTUS and he's relatively moderate. Both Biden and Obama are extreme leftists. A moderate will win an election of this nature the vast majority of the time.
      • MWeather, on 09/12/2008, -0/+11Palin is only socially conservative, the type of conservatism real conservatives keep out of the government.
      • urbandistrict, on 09/12/2008, -1/+10EXTREME LEFTISTS!

        Bill O s that you or just an echo?
      • zombies187, on 09/12/2008, -1/+11Please explain how McCain is a moderate.
      • homercles337, on 09/12/2008, -1/+14Wow, what bizarro world are you living in? McCain relatively moderate? Biden and Obama are extreme leftists? You are either *grossly* uninformed or mildly retarded. My guess is both.
      • overridemymind, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5I'm sorry, but I'm going to be blunt here.... If you think McCain is "relatively moderate" then you must have your head up your ass! Anti-gay marriage, Pro-life, pro-war...etc. etc. etc.

        If that's not right-wing policies, then WTF is?
      • rowjimmy, on 09/13/2008, -2/+1ha. it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad that people equate the corporate american political spectrum with an actual political spectrum. both major party candidates aren't really right or left economically - they both support corporate hegemony above and beyond anything else. socially, mccain and his cronies are super far right, obama & his are only pretty far right. seriously, take a course on politics in western europe, or even most of the developing world. the "choice" we are offered is CEO mouthpiece #1 (who doesn't hate gays that much, although he still thinks they are evil sinners) and CEO mouthpiece #2 (who really, really hates gays)
    • streak, on 09/12/2008, -8/+10Hidden agenda: Palin to sell Air Force One on Ebay; Palin to personally cater all Whitehouse functions; Palin to home school our children on abstinence.
      Just say NO to Palin-McCain!
    • changedmind, on 09/12/2008, -20/+0Riiigghhtt ... it's so terrible that McCain/Pail don't want kids to be killed by their mothers.
      • SammyJr, on 09/12/2008, -1/+14The real reason that Republicans are opposed to abortion, birth control, sex ed, etc. is because they want a steady supply of impoverished people to join the military out of desperation. Quantity over quality.

        War is only true Republican value.
      • zombies187, on 09/12/2008, -1/+9McCain/Palin want to force underage rape victims to give birth even if it kills them. If they were moderates they would leave it up to the states, or at least promise to veto any abortion bill that does not include an exemption for the life of the mother.
      • StaticThunder, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7Republicans also can afford to send their teenage daughters out of the country for an abortion if the child isn't going to be used as a campaign prop. Whereas everybody else, well, who gives a ***** about them.

        Since when have Republicans done jack about abortion anyway? They talk big before elections, but then never move on the issue when they have the power to.
      • StarlessKnight, on 09/12/2008, -1/+8@SammyJr: I believe George Carlin said it best: "...but once you're born, F*** you!" (Self-censor while on public system)

        @StaticThunder: Indeed. They had the Legislative and Executive branches for 6 years with influence in the Judicial and they accomplished nothing in terms of "over turning Roe v. Wade." They had the power and did *nothing.*
      • charm803, on 09/13/2008, -0/+5No, what's terrible is that he wants to kill them when they are older and they join the military.

        He certainly doesn't care that innocent Iraqis are dying. So much for Christian values.
    • chr0nic21, on 09/12/2008, -0/+14I don't normally watch talk shows..but I gotta give props to these ladies. Compared to other interviews that McCain has done, these ladies got MAJOR BALLS.

      Whopi FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • CandidateZero, on 09/13/2008, -1/+2He didn't do that bad, really. The worst interview he did was with that local Maine reporter. But rarely was he made to stumble or pause in his rhetoric here. And he tried his best not to look dead.
    • unclenewman, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2when media attacks! i hope all this results in lower poll numbers.
    • rotundo, on 09/13/2008, -1/+2Nobody is seeing though anything. I should start taking $100 bets on McCain being our next president. And I'm voting for Obama.

      Seriously, this country is not made up of the people you hang out with.
      • gridity, on 09/13/2008, -1/+2I know... I'm afraid there are more dumb people in our country than smart ones...and Obama appeals to the smart crowd.
    • dtfinch, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1McCain just broke 50% on the Intrade prediction market today. :(
    • forbush, on 09/13/2008, -1/+1I want to know how anyone can stop a beating heart knowingly and not call that death and murder?
  • Blasphemous88, on 09/12/2008, -14/+174I'm sure he called them all the C-word after the interview was over.
    • ScoobyG, on 09/12/2008, -4/+74Yes but in his defense, he was a POW.

      (God that never gets old :-))
      • Blasphemous88, on 09/12/2008, -4/+20Yea. If I ever want to be president, I need to get myself captured behind enemy lines so no matter what I do or say on the campaign trail, I can hide behind it.
      • RIB08, on 09/12/2008, -3/+16Whaaat? McCain was a POW? I hadn't heard that mentioned. You'd think he'd bring that up to help further his campaign.

        Destroy the PNAC
      • ScoobyG, on 09/12/2008, -3/+78Saw a cartoon the other day (paraphrasing):

        Campaign manager: "I think we've overplayed the POW card."
        McCain: "Well for five and half years I wasn't allowed to play cards."

        Priceless :-)
      • BigPapi, on 09/12/2008, -1/+12I'd rather vote for the dude who got away.
      • StaticThunder, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2And President Rambo takes the oath of office...
      • Manther, on 09/12/2008, -1/+17"Guantanamo Bay isn't a prison, it's a Future Leaders of the World Camp!"

        -John Stewart
    • QuadZeroRoute, on 09/12/2008, -37/+5That has already been proven to be false but keep playing that tune....the race is almost over. The ***** Obama is down 5% in all polls that came out today and due to Obama's negative attacks on Palin even Congress is now going to the Republicans. So Keep up the attacks....its working.


      Thanks
      McCain/Palin 08!


      Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/110263/Battle-Congress- ...

      McCain takes slim lead over Obama in AP-GfK poll
      http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9359T6G1& ...

      Gallup Daily: McCain 48%, Obama 45%
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/110266/Gallup-Daily-McC ...

      Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: McCain 49% Obama 46%
      http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol ...

      • Br3ach, on 09/12/2008, -4/+3Too bad the public vote doenst mean anything, it is all up to the Electoral College to save this country from itself.
      • walkertexas69, on 09/12/2008, -2/+8Do you work for the republican party? Every digg you have is an up of old man mccain... and an attack on Obama.
      • scubaman5000, on 09/12/2008, -2/+10Hey Quad, keep an eye on those polls once Sarah Palin's interview is aired. It'll be interesting to see how Americans respond to a VP candidate that understands less about government on a national scale than most average Americans. Hell even YOU would be more qualified to be VP.

        I'll expect you to be posting McCain's standing in the polls after they fall like like a lead weight.
      • naner, on 09/12/2008, -2/+9I hate to feed the trolls... but when and how did that get proven to be false? And why does a 5% lead in four polls (that may or may not be accurate/skewed towards an agenda) matter when we're over two months away from the election and haven't had a Vice Presidential OR primary Presidential debate?

        Forgetting either of our obvious biases towards one side or the other, let's look at the ISSUES. When the debates roll around and both candidates and their vice presidential nominees are in front of crowds, cameras and the world and asked point blank about the ISSUES, they will be forced to answer them in a satisfactory manner. The tangents and distractions from BOTH SIDES will not be the focus. The people of America will see where these candidates stand.

        You don't think the results of that could possibly change those poll results? It could make a dramatic shift towards McCain OR Obama. Or do you really think that 5% is locked in stone from now until election day?
      • StaticThunder, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5QZR thinks if he says it enough times to enough Democrats it will keep them from voting.

        Its over when its over QZR, and pray you don't get what you want, which is endless war, more surveillance and a tanking economy that will shortly be having a fire sale of national assets to China.
      • gnocchi1442, on 09/12/2008, -1/+1It's sad to see this kind of Stockholm Syndrome, bend-over-and-take-it from your tormentor pathology in anyone, even a dumbass, ***** Repuke.

        Quad, seek help. Get it soon before the Great Palin/McCain Depression forces you to spend the rest of your life living out of a cardboard box.

    • PosedMagnet, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6Is this part of a joke I missed or something?

      Why would he call them *****?
      • StaticThunder, on 09/12/2008, -1/+12http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled ...

        http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/05/02/194648. ...

        He also "met" his current wife while he was married to his first...

      • urbandistrict, on 09/12/2008, -2/+11In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you *****." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
      • Rikkochet, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4Nono, he was going to call them Conservatives.
    • DangerCollie, on 09/12/2008, -1/+8I loved the look on his face. Deer meets headlights.
    • Griberal, on 09/12/2008, -6/+3What, Communists.
    • TheNinjaJesus, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2Lol, reminded me of this.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euu_DMhsXQo
  • liberD, on 09/12/2008, -10/+57Listen between the lines. It's all smoke and mirrors talking.
    • m0zzie, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2it's Matt Groening talking.. http://digg.com/comedy/John_McCain_and_Sarah_Palin
    • joeanon, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2Consider the election part of McCain's career.

      Why would he answer in ways that will risk his electability ?

      It should be common sense that a GOP candidate isn't going to really be forthwright.

      Their entire ruling strategy of the GOP is that they are smarter than the dumb masses who are capable of governing themselves.
      • liberD, on 09/13/2008, -0/+0This rings true...so, how do you outfox a wicked, twisted old fox? For this we must do.
  • ScoobyG, on 09/12/2008, -13/+176In other words - The View does the MSM's job. Now what's wrong with this picture?
    • brieeyeball, on 09/12/2008, -17/+1What? I thought The View was part of the MSM.
      I must be mistaken.
    • DaviDTC, on 09/12/2008, -1/+21Ya, pretty sad it takes a show like The View to ask the questions that should be asked by everyone in the news. As much as I think the show is completely retarded, I am glad they can ask the real questions that people want to know about.
    • Br3ach, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5Hell must be chilly this morning
    • Sogui, on 09/12/2008, -6/+2McCain and his campaign get hit like this all the time on cable news. Maybe if you guys got your news somewhere BESIDES Digg/Blogs you'd realize that McCain gets hit with these questions all the time... it just won't make your Huffington Post feed.
    • paintgrl, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Your so right. What has the News (snicker choke) become when a light fluff talk show like the view hits with the real hard questions.
    • skealoha86, on 09/13/2008, -0/+3They aren't making the same salaries as O'Reily and Hannity - they can get away with asking tough questions without it affecting their pay.
    • orlyfactor, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1Starr Jones?
  • seldon21, on 09/12/2008, -12/+53This is the 9 millionth time Mr. McCain has said he wants Townhall's. How does this equal up. John are you saying that you will speak about someone basically behind their back but when you are in front of that person you will be nice. And if these mythical Townhall meetings too place your surrogates and lackeys wouldn't be on the attack. COME ON!!!

    Say it three times:
    Focus on the issues, Focus on the Issues. Focus on the Issues
    • bluefieldgreens, on 09/12/2008, -4/+15It's appalling (or A Palin...) and insulting to us all that Jmac would to try and blame / say it's Barack's fault for his continued negative campaigning. As if we can't see through his "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" tactics! He really thinks we're stupid.
      • scubaman5000, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5"He really thinks we're stupid"

        Well Americans did put Bush into office...twice. I'd say he has sufficient evidence to support that idea. Hopefully that'll change this time around.
    • minoss, on 09/12/2008, -1/+8Yea, this is a real serious issue. In the last 8 years of having a conservative, pro-life president it's had exact 0 effect on it. Of course during election time it's very important for reasons I have yet to understand.
    • jocampbe, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2McCain wants town halls because the security guards only let bushies in. He knows he'll just get a few softball questions and that's it.
      • cwright213, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1I call for everyone to invade McCain's town halls and ask him the real questions! What do they check voter registration cards? Just an idea
  • VelveetaJones, on 09/12/2008, -11/+83Wow! Looks like the "real" journalists are on the View! Thank you Barbara, Joy and Whoopi for asking the hard hitting questions that we want our candidates to answer!!
    • sjsuarez, on 09/12/2008, -2/+16You're right - yay, for Barbara. She definitely cornered him into answering questions that he was dodging or trying to 'cloud' with lots of words. Whoopi made a good point too - great job girls.
    • zacharytelschow, on 09/12/2008, -1/+17"Saying he'd nominate justices who strictly interpret the constitution, Whoopi asked if that meant she'd be returned to slavery."

      Wow, Whoopi really nailed it on the head and asked the hard hitting questions there! I believe the polite place to refer to where that question came from is "out of left field."
      • benbfree, on 09/13/2008, -2/+2Yeah, especially given the fact that the 13th amendment prohibits slavery. It's the Supreme court's job to interpret the law. If the constitution needs an amendment, that's conress' job. Does Whoopi not realize that the 13th amendment is there? Wow, that's scary, thinking that she's considered a 'real' journalist and doesn't even understand the constitution or how the government works.
    • asskicker32, on 09/12/2008, -0/+14Im shocked to admit this, but I accidentally watched the view the other day and I was blown away at the logic and reason that Whoopie uses. They were talking about suggetsive clothing for kids and Whoopi put the other girls in their place...

      I think I love Whoopi Goldberg.
      • benbfree, on 09/13/2008, -2/+3hmmm, is it logical to suggest that strict constitutional interpretation will lead to a reinstatement of slavery? The 13th amendment prohibits slavery. Silly Whoopi.
    • samoan27, on 09/12/2008, -5/+7"Saying he'd nominate justices who strictly interpret the constitution, Whoopi asked if that meant she'd be returned to slavery"

      Anyone understand that response? Is there something in the Constitution saying black people (or possibly bad actresses) should be slaves?
      • LukeD, on 09/12/2008, -0/+13I believe its probably an extrapolation from Article 1 Section 2 : "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

        Although that was changed by the 14th Amendment, a strict interpretation relegates slaves to being 3/5 of a citizen, and since Sen. McCain was talking about the intention of the Founding Fathers, we're still in the region of slave == black person. Its a bit of a leap on her part, but not that massive - the point is that the world has moved on and your Constitution has to move with it. However, on the other hand, Roe vs Wade is not a part of the Constitution, its a legislative precedent, so really, arguing that you would appoint judges with a strict interpretation of the Constitution is ducking the heart of the problem.
      • EllimistX, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4McCain was saying that he wanted to return to the interpretation of the constitution that the founders had. Whoopi was making the point that before the 1860's, black people were slaves, and the founders lived before the 1860's, with some owning slaves themselves. So a strict interpretation of the constitution from the founders' viewpoints would not have allowed her to be free.
      • Dustee, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2And McBush wouldn't have to go up against Obama.
    • gridity, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1Yea, Whoopi's question was ummm...dumb and distracting.
      But in fairness, to those who are bringing up the 13th amendment as if she didn't know about it....John McCain had said something like - strictly interpreting as *our founding fathers had* - which if someone were to actually do that, it would NOT include any of the amendments. So...along with slavery would also come back women not being allowed to vote.
      Just another "whoops" statement from John McCain, pointed out by Whoopi. :)

      I really can't wait for the debates. I want to watch Obama run circles around him.
  • codeninja123, on 09/12/2008, -10/+71It's a shame when talk shows are asking tougher questions than the Main Stream Media. We have really regressed when it comes to public accountability.
    • sjsuarez, on 09/12/2008, -1/+11I would love to see Barbara interview Palin one-on-one.
      • emehrkay, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1she said that they will ask barrack about townhalls when they put palin on the show(the view) great stuff
    • zacharytelschow, on 09/12/2008, -3/+1You don't think the MSM does a good job? Ignore them and use alternative sources. If they want to continue their ways and keep declining in revenue and readership/viewership, that's their choice.
      • crichton101, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1Ignore them? How can we ignore them when most people get their news from them. If the news is inaccurate, or is presented in a light as to cause us to think a certain way about someone, and the masses listen, we are just supposed to ignore it? You cannot change something or fix something by ignoring the problem.
    • enclaved, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4It's great that they ask tough questions, but when they don't call him on ***** answers, what's the point?

      Lincoln, the 16th president, nearly a hundred years after 1776 was a founding father?
      In god we trust, which first appeared the same year lincoln entered office, and made an official motto in 1956, when McCain was a child was a value the country was founded on?
      'I don't support roe v wade' only 8 years after saying 'I support roe v wade'

      They don't bother pointing out that he's explicitly said the plane was sold ON ebay, for a profit. When it was anything but.

      they don't bother doing this, and if someone did we all know he would flip his lid and it'd be over.

      What's the point in asking tough questions when you let him give ***** answers?
      The man is a joke, I can't imagine the future I'll be entitled to if he wins this election.
    • TheInformer, on 09/12/2008, -3/+1Now the question is:when will they grill Obama the same way?

      Huffingtonpost SPAM. Buried.
      • enclaved, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2They, as in the View, already did.
      • Twee, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1I don't see Obama making as many appearances in the media as McCain has made, for example on Jay Leno, Conan, etc. I just see Obama at a bunch of political rallies. AND I'm a democrat.
  • edgefield, on 09/12/2008, -11/+57This is just pathetic. McCain doesn't have legitimate answers for any of these questions...And I agree with the posts above, why aren't the news journalists asking these tough questions? Doesn't the American public have the right to know McCain and Palin's view on the important issues that we will face over the next 4-8 years?
    • brianjlowry, on 09/12/2008, -3/+4They are legit. I just don't agree with them.
    • bicyclethief, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6One of the problems is that the campaigns can boycott media that grill them. Ex: CNN's Campbell Brown grills John McCain strategist Tucker Bounds on Palin; McCain cancels a scheduled appearance on CNN's Larry King as a result.

      If a campaign shuns a media outlet, not allow them access, it could make reporting very hard for them I would think.

      It's ***** up.
  • banderwocky, on 09/12/2008, -10/+67Wow did he stumble. He just can't give a straight answer.
    • scubaman5000, on 09/12/2008, -0/+9I guess the straight talk was just...talk?
    • TotalHalibut, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1Safe to say the straight talk express derailed and crashed into an orphanage a long time ago.
  • bushisafag, on 09/12/2008, -11/+58Wait a minute...

    McCain was a POW?
    • whahaa, on 09/12/2008, -2/+10no, but he was a BOOM, a KABLAM, and occasionally a THWAP.
    • kingmanic, on 09/12/2008, -3/+11Pissed Off Whiteguy?
    • mediaspree, on 09/12/2008, -1/+24McCain was against being a POW before he was for it.
      • enclaved, on 09/12/2008, -0/+8If my grandfather wouldn't kill me for it I'd totally wear that on a shirt.
      • Indiscipline, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1Mine's dead (and he'd agree anyway). Where can I get that in a Medium?
  • bunnyandzombie, on 09/12/2008, -9/+85Why does it take a candidate going on "The View" before they're asked any hard hitting questions? American politics and the media are as equally ridiculous.
    • shack95, on 09/12/2008, -0/+7Because if they go on any non-Fox network - it's the "Liberal Media Smearing the candidate".
      When they go on Fox, no one except bible-thumping extreme nut cases will listen (and they're already voting for McTemperhead).

      But hey, if they're on a talk show - the people who bring you the latest fall fashions and trends wont steer you wrong!

      Now watch as I get buried for the McTemperhead comment....
  • grlykool, on 09/12/2008, -12/+38I don't see how he can lie to our faces. That is not very Christian of him.
    • moolaismyfriend, on 09/12/2008, -8/+19Most Christians don't know he's lying, that's why they are Christians in the first place.
      • sousademiami, on 09/12/2008, -2/+9You are thinking of "Evangelicals" or as I like to call them "Oysters." (Think Alice in Wonderland) I and many other Christians don't have an issue with being liberal, embracing Science and interpreting the Bible in a metaphorical sense. Don't lump us all in, ok!?
      • mcnasby, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2+1 additional digg. :)
  • Muzikal203, on 09/12/2008, -10/+37Great job ladies! How interesting that what was supposed to be a "softball" interview, ended up being tougher than anything any OTHER "journalist" has done in the last year on McCain't.
  • soot, on 09/12/2008, -8/+49Where does he get off saying that his use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig" was legitimate because he was talking about an issue (health care), but Obama wasn't? He was speaking about the entire GOP brand (Bush Administration et al.) when he said it, that's a more than valid use of the term.

    Love his cute face when he's called out on his *****.
    • dblespresso, on 09/12/2008, -15/+3Do you honestly think that the crowd where Obama was speaking thought of only the saying, not a rebuttal to the pit bull line. Watch the video, notice the pause before, and reaction.
      1 is a person, 1 is a bill/proposal there is a difference.
      I really dont care about the name calling, but the equivalence game gets old. If this is all ya got, you have bigger problems.
      • soot, on 09/12/2008, -1/+8McCain got some laughs when he said it, too. Who cares what some in the crowd thought, he never used her name and wasn't even referring to her.
      • SatoriSeeker, on 09/12/2008, -0/+9Uh yes it was about Hillary, watch the video, the question asked of him specifically states this.
    • ldkronos, on 09/13/2008, -0/+3Well, if you watch the video, McCain explains that. It's because Obama carefully chooses his words. Presumably that means McCain just randomly picks his from a dictionary. That explains why McCain's weren't attacks (they were just random words coincidentally stuck together). It also explains why McCain is so incoherent in many of his responses all the time.
      • gridity, on 09/13/2008, -0/+3Well put - I was thinking the same thing - "don't you realize what you just implied about YOURSELF?"
  • cabooglio2, on 09/12/2008, -7/+37How is it that the ladies of The View did a better job of grilling this candidate than any "journalist" I've seen previously? Shame on every "reporter" working for the traditional media. It's a sad day when Whoopi Goldberg is leading the way.

    ... not that I have anything against Whoopi Goldberg. But come on... "Sister Act 2"?
    • whahaa, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5there's a good reason why Picard takes Guinan seriously.
    • publiclurker, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2Wasn't she also in a cop film with a dinosaur?
    • jackelopeus, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1The redhead was hot in both...
    • joeanon, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1Goldberg used to be the raging, vulgar, liberal comedian back in the day.

      Go back and watch some of her stand up or Jumpin Jack Flash or even Burgler.

      Sister Act I and II are later in her life when her acting career started to die.

      Before that she was politiclaly incorrect in a time when being PC was dominating the landscape.

  • BlueFranco, on 09/12/2008, -21/+10Obama camp lays a BIG SMACKDOWN of the lying reTHUGlican warmonger appearance on the view
    bwahahaha


    "Today on "The View," John McCain defended his campaign's latest ad campaign, which has been debunked repeatedly as both false and sleazy. In running the sleaziest campaign since South Carolina in 2000 and standing by completely debunked lies on national television, it's clear that John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election."
  • holesome, on 09/12/2008, -9/+30The facts are plain: McCain wants the campaign to be about Palin, because when it's about issues he's one of them.
  • jjsullivan, on 09/12/2008, -11/+70so let me get this straight - it was wrong for Obama to use the lipstick on a pig comment because he "chooses his words very carefully". So by that reasoning, it was ok for McCain to say the EXACT same phrase only because he doesn't think before he speaks so he therefore shouldn't be held accountable?
    • ErickStevenson, on 09/12/2008, -2/+16Neocon Hypocrisy at it's finest!
    • dblespresso, on 09/12/2008, -12/+2Words have context, maybe not for knee-jerkers. Look at the context, and think
      • publiclurker, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6They are looking at the context and they are thinking. What's your excuse?
    • zombies187, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6He called her a pig when she is clearly a dog.
      McCain 08!
    • Dustee, on 09/13/2008, -0/+3No, it's ok when McTwin does it because he was a P.O.W.
  • mthemordant, on 09/12/2008, -15/+55This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

    More juicy lies from the Republicans. You know, they wouldn't keep spewing their nonsense if their delegates didn't lap them up with such fervor.
    How does it FEEL to be such a liar, Mr. McCain? Going around with your pants CONSTANTLY on fire?

    For the record, and everyone pass this around: There is no "In God We Trust" in the Constitution. There is NO MENTION OF GOD anywhere in the Constitution of the United States of America. Our Founding Fathers were very clever men who carefully worded that document to prevent such muddling of secular, political decisions with the gray area of personal faith. Not everyone can or should agree on a god, but they hoped we could come together and agree on what is best for the people on a whole as a nation.
    The motto of "In God We Trust" first appeared on a United States coin in 1864, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.

    Stop using this "Judeo/Christian Faith at the core of the Constitution" rhetoric to further your faith-based agenda. Whether or not they had such faith is irrelevant, our Founding Fathers saw past their beliefs and difference in religion in order for an AMAZING work of art that is our constitution and based it on Logic, Reason, and Common Decency, all of which the Republicans have put aside for TOO LONG.

    And, MY GOD. Roe v. Wade was a "bad decision"??
    If you are a woman, and you vote for McCain, you are giving up the rights to your own body. You should REALLY think about what that MEANS. Palin wants you to carry to term babies that are the results of Rapes and Incest, and she'll even make you PAY for the rape kit.

    Go Obama!
    • zacharytelschow, on 09/12/2008, -10/+3Some basic hints for you:

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

      There is also no mention of the false doctrine of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution either. The phrase first appeared in a letter from a founder to a pastor, assuring the pastor that the state would not influence the church but that the church could and should influence the state. Personal religious convictions are supposed to affect US policy, but the US isn't to favor any religion over another.

      Second, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. The Constitution reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the state. This is a states right issue and should be decided at the state level, not by a court.
      • orbitaldiamonds, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3A "wall of separation between church and state" was one of the first Supreme Court decisions. And McCain is a moron if he thinks it's not the place of the judiciary to legislate. It's called CASE LAW.
      • StarlessKnight, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3"This is a states right issue and should be decided at the state level, not by a court."

        So's homosexual marriage, but what's this talk I hear about amending the Constitution or passing Federal law banning it? Don't throw the Defense of Marriage Act at me, either; Democrats aren't the ones pretending to be for small government.

        PS: Civil Unions + Rights = Homosexual Marriages, so banning one and pulling the "it crosses state borders" while allowing the other also doesn't work.
    • haikuFU, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6You forgot to mention that the Treaty of Tripoli specifically states that the US was NOT founded on ANY religion.
    • thbigtiket21, on 09/13/2008, -2/+1the women's right is to use contraceptives, not kill the human living inside of her.
      • moomle, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2A lot of people who are extremely pro-life are also anti-contraceptives, they see them as a form of abortion.
      • idreamwideyed, on 09/13/2008, -1/+3NEWS FLASH: until you reach your third trimester, the thing you carry in your womb is still a developing organism that, one day, will be a human being. youre not a 'human' until you slide screaming and bloody out of your mothers vag. you're a fetus, a parasite feeding off of your mother. once that umbilical chord is cut, separating you from your former host, then you can be considered a human being. i love how people feel that the thing growing inside of a woman is more important than the woman herself. people have abortions for reasons other than a form of birth control. thankfully, i live in NY, and even if roe v wade was overturned, i know my state would have the common sense to continue to provide abortions until the second trimester. I would have died giving birth to parasite inside of me if it had been otherwise.
      • ldkronos, on 09/13/2008, -1/+1"Excuse me, sir. If you are going to rape me, could you please at least put on a condom"
      • Calinthalus, on 09/13/2008, -1/+1NEWS FLASH: At 6 to 8 weeks after conception a fetus creates it's own brain waves and exhibits REM sleep. That's long before the third trimester. If your comments were contained to the first trimester only, I might agree with you.

        Saying you aren't human until you leave the vagina is akin to saying you aren't human until you can leave your parents house. Vagina, house, it's just a matter of location, neither a 2 year old or a fetus can take care of itself.
      • pcghost, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1And this is why I support abortion to the age of 18. People like Calinthalus could have been prevented.
      • Calinthalus, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1Wow, how hateful. It is statements like that which hurt my feelings. People that don't even know me want me to have died before I was 18. People think I could have been prevented and maybe I should have. What is the purpose of my life, why should I go on.

        /sarcasm off

        Did you write that comment yourself, or did your mother/sister help with the spelling?
    • gridity, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1Yea, the thing I don't get is that we already *tried* making abortion illegal before and all it led to was women getting illegal abortions and putting their safety and health at risk. Abortions still happened, only they were also killing the mothers! Overturning Roe v Wade would be a lose-lose.

      For me, I feel like both sides -pro-choice and pro-life are ignoring the real issue which is that when a woman becomes pregnant, this country, this culture has VERY LITTLE support for them. Imagine a culture where - when you get pregnant at a young age (or hell, any age!) - you have the FULL SUPPORT of the community - to help take care of the baby, to help take care of yourself, to still get a good education, to still have somewhat of a "life." That your life AND the baby's life matters.

      Here - we're in a culture of "everyone's out for themselves" and that doesn't work well for babies, mothers or actually anyone. Sarah Pallin's daughter has tons of support -financial and otherwise - and that's why for her it's a relatively easy "choice" to make. (Tho I doubt she really had much choice in the matter...given who her mom is...) Regardless, she is fully supported. But not all women come from such stable families with the resources to help her out. And if you don't have support, having a baby is a HUGE burden.

      I am not saying "more welfare" - I'm just saying, we need to take a look at our culture and ask ourselves - why are women in this position to begin with? No woman, unless mentally ill, WANTS an abortion. They are not pleasant experiences - on an emotional level and physical level. Isn't there some way we could support them better?

      I had my first baby two years ago and I'm a professional, well-educated and financially stable woman with a hard working husband, who was "totally ready" for motherhood. And this baby kicked my ass! :) I mean... it is HARD HARD HARD WORK. Waaaay harder than any job I'd ever had, even the "work 80 hours a week" jobs or the times I worked 3 jobs at a time.... So I just cannot imagine trying to do this job without having been "ready" for it or wanting it. Even when you're ready, you're not ready. Unless - you have a LOT of support. The times I was with my extended family with the baby, I saw "hey, this is do-able, I wish it were like this everyday...I'd be so much happier/healthier...." - I had others around playing with the baby, holding him, cuddling him - giving me lots of mini-breaks, while I could sit and eat a warm meal and was able to partake in some rare "adult" conversations. I was still there for the baby, but it wasn't nearly as intense and overwhelming as when I am trying to care for him by myself day in and day out.

      I just wish pro-lifers would point their efforts in the direction of a "win win" scenario - instead of this lose-lose one they are steering towards. How do we support women such that there's *no reason* to choose between their own life and well being and their baby's. That they can have their life AND the baby can grow up in a great environment too. Is that really so crazy an idea?

      This is obviously waaaay more complex a problem to solve - but if we *could* solve that problem - both sides would win.
  • sjsuarez, on 09/12/2008, -8/+30I think the truth is finally being realized, this team is not good for country. McCain and Palin must NOT be elected. They can't get their stories straight and make us as a country, look really stupid.
  • jlee2081, on 09/12/2008, -6/+34Those are some tough broads.

    Why is it that we need the women from The View to ask the hard questions. Where is the rest of MSM??
    • charm803, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7I like how Elisabeth was quiet most of the time. She couldn't come up with a good question to ask her candidate for all the View listeners to hear.
    • zacharytelschow, on 09/12/2008, -8/+2Obama's back pocket.
    • dn11, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2McCain took a month off from doing interviews
  • popstalin, on 09/12/2008, -8/+25It was a great interview by, apparently, the only hard-hitting journalists left in this country. What scares me though is that he was allowed to get away with some lies and the low-informed voter won't hear anything but the lie. I think the ladies should have Obama back on and ask him similar questions.

    I have to admit it was a scary moment when McCain said he wants strict Constitutional interpretations by Supreme Court justices. Whoopi asked if we could expect to see a return of slavery and I wonder, would a woman's right to vote be taken away too? If voters don't stop and think beyond, "Hey, she's got boobs too!" or "Hey, she's hot!" this country could go in a direction not many of those supporters imagined.
    • singularityv, on 09/12/2008, -8/+2So Whoopi is a sensationalist nutjob then.
    • dblespresso, on 09/12/2008, -2/+7Slavery was ended by ammendments, not by judges..
    • booyahbitch, on 09/12/2008, -2/+2Whoopi is a woman?!?!? :o) KIDDING!!!
    • zacharytelschow, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3So strict Constitutional interpretations are a bad thing when used by SCOTUS judges interpreting the law, but a good thing when applied to terrorists receiving habeas corpus. Got it.
    • gridity, on 09/13/2008, -1/+1I feel bad for Barbara Walters... she is so much more intelligent and serious than some of the knuckleheads on that show. I can't imagine she likes doing these kind of "committee style" interviews. I would have preferred just hearing her question him alone.
  • SethEllis, on 09/12/2008, -16/+16The earmarks issue is becoming ridiculous. Do you expect us to believe that states shouldn't seek ANY funding from the national government?

    As far as the view goes: I'm all for asking good hard hitting questions, and in this respect The View did a great job. However, their bias and disrespect was sickening. For instance Barbara Walters interrupted McCain when he mentioned the airplane by saying "she sold the plane at a loss". This comment had absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand. These hosts were desperately trying to do everything they could to make McCain look bad.
    • SmartfulDodger, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4Federal funds given to states should be legitimate, and not just pet-projects of government officials. When McCain talks about getting rid of earmarks, I assume, he is talking about special interest earmarks.

      Why were you surprised that The View was biased? It's a talk show after all, not a news program.
      • SethEllis, on 09/12/2008, -2/+1SmartfulDodger: I think you have a very good point here. I see a lot of people on the GOP side saying that this is more evidence of media bias. Fact is The View is not a new program it's a talk show, and they can be as bias as they want. However, I would also expect such a high rated show to be a little bit more respectful to their guests. The View guests turned the interview into a shouting match. It reflects poorly on the show.
    • davotoast, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6while yes it is reasonable for the states to receive some federal aid, the amounts she has asked for far exceeed "reasonable" both as a governer and a mayor.

      and mentioning she sold the plane at a loss is completely relevant when he is arguing that she was saving the government money by selling something that cost the state $2.6m for $2.1m the following year. the value was at least $2.4m, and some estimates put it even higher than that.

      http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/th ...
    • cramtod, on 09/12/2008, -2/+4They didn't have to try hard, McCain make McCain look bad all by himself.
    • zacharytelschow, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5Everyone (and by everyone I mean liberals who are intentionally ignoring critical thinking on this issue) seems shocked and appalled that she sold the plane at a loss. Because they are both forms of transportation which utilize petroleum products for propulsion, I would assume that like cars, planes depreciate with age and miles driven (or in this case, hours of use). When is the last time you didn't sell a car you owned "at a loss?"
      • publiclurker, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3Every indication I've seen was that she sold the plane for less than the depreciated value, however. I drive a 12 year old car. If I was to sell if for $1.50, I would have a hard time claiming that the low price was due to depreciation.
      • zacharytelschow, on 09/12/2008, -0/+3From what I can gather (stories relating to this topic tend to be rants), the state of Alaska purchased the jet in 2005 for $2.7 million. After listing the jet on eBay for $2.5 million, where it didn't sell, Palin had the jet sold through a broker (in 2007, for $2.1 million). It sounds as if Palin made every effort to receive the maximum value she could for the jet. The overall depreciation costs to the state and efforts made to sell the jet all seem completely reasonable; more like selling your 12 year old car for $1,000 instead of $1,200. You need to keep in mind the great overriding rule in a free market: things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them. Sticking with the car parallel, sitting on a newer jet is like sitting on a newer Ferrari: the market is very small and the longer you decide not to sell the asset, the more it (quickly) depreciates.
      • JStrange, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2Alaska, Here's How to Sell a Plane.

        http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20080909_Rend ...

        Gov. Rendell, Democrat of Pennsylvania, got $1.375 million for the plane that the state bought for $1 million 16 years before. I especially liked the part where they did not go the eBay route to try to sell it because they would have had to pay a 2.5% commission (over $35,000) if they had. Instead, they only paid $700 commission. Now that's how to look out for the taxpayers!
    • nicheplayer, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Right. It's not about earmarks, per se. It's about building your reputation as a "reformer" on the lie that you refused earmarks. THAT's the issue.
    • 0xbaadf00d, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1The thing about earmarks is that if you are a legislator or state official, and you DON'T seek them, you are shortchanging your constituency, who payed into the federal pot from which earmarks are doled out of. Don't hate the PLAYER, hate the GAME. Even Ron Paul defended his seeking of earmarks with this argument, when he was on Meet the Press. Only the President currently has the power to end this, by simply not signing bills with earmarks. Or Congress could change the rules on earmarks, but that is likely to never happen. Therefore, I think it is a noble effort for McCain to say he would end earmarks. However I feel sorry for his constituency who have payed in through federal taxes, but have gotten less out by McCain not seeking earmarks.
  • PuterPrsn, on 09/12/2008, -26/+18I can see from the majority of posts here that apparently everyone is OK with the notion that if a baby is not what you want, you can wait until it's born and then just let it die by neglect in the corner. It's OK for Planned Parenthood to target the minority and lower class areas as a method of controlling the numbers of minorities - you won't find them in mostly caucausian or mostly upperclass neighborhoods.

    I can also see the level of intelligence. The comments are about a fourth to seventh grade issue. I haven't heard a serious "pants on fire" since I was in grade school. There are very, very few facts related here, just a lot of venom and name-calling. A lot of calling for talk about the issues, but very little comment on them.

    If this is the best that the Democrats on Digg can do, the Libertarians start to look very good.
    • Cuchanu, on 09/12/2008, -4/+3I haven't heard somebody accuse Planned Parenthood of that before, although I have noticed the same thing. You could be right, I mean a lot of people think the government has these types of programs for the people (including medicare, welfare, food stamps, etc) but they are really saving wealthy and rich people a lot of headaches. History shows if there are too many hungry people there is room for a revolution.

      For the government it's better to give an abortion that have to pay for a child to grow up. Especially when the child could end up in a situation that makes criminal behavior an attractive alternate to the square life.

      -End Rant-
      • uqdroma, on 09/12/2008, -2/+0Haven't heard? FOX even played phone recordings proving it. Oh, but then you'd have to watch FOX. Because CNN, MSNBC, and the others ignored the issue all together.

        FOXNews plant: "So you're saying I can make sure my donation can go to a "black" abortion? Because God knows we have too many."

        Planned Parenthood rep: "Sure if that's what you want." (light chuckle from the rep)
      • Cuchanu, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1Interesting. Leave it to FOX to call and ask such a thing, though. I guarantee there is no way for them to allocate money based on race. Their plant was just talking to a ***** idiot.

        As bad as that may be I don't think it proves that they are trying to eliminate minority babies. Not that they aren't, I just don't that when you have a secret that shocking that you tell your dimwit call center reps about it, you know what I mean?
    • singularityv, on 09/12/2008, -7/+6Bingo.

      I'm not voting for McCain. I found his latest sex education ad particularly offensive. But good lord, the people here act like children. It's making me almost want McCain to win just to spite them.
    • mthemordant, on 09/12/2008, -5/+1The Pants on fire was a joke. From the Venture Bros.
    • SmartfulDodger, on 09/12/2008, -1/+11It's a fact that pregnancy rates drop in a society when income increases. Perhaps Planned Parenthood sets up shop in lower-income neighborhoods because that's where it's most needed.
      • orbitaldiamonds, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3A decline in birth rates would do wonders for the state of the planet. Do we really need going on seven billion humans?
      • SmartfulDodger, on 09/12/2008, -1/+5I'd like to see birth rates even out too, and history proves the best way to do this is by raising the income levels of the poor on a global scale.
      • synik, on 09/13/2008, -1/+1declining birth rates in the Western world achieves nothing. The third world is the problem.
    • cramtod, on 09/12/2008, -3/+10Wow! Insane conspiracy theories on digg, inconceivable. Has it ever occurred to you that since income correlates to education which correlates to unplanned pregnancies, Planned Parenthood has chosen to put their clinics where they're needed most?

      "wait until it's born then just let it die by neglect"
      /golfclap That would be the Republicans. They fight for "life", but once the child is born, they lose interest. It's the Democrats that want social programs to help children once they're born.
    • johnnr2, on 09/12/2008, -2/+1Are you voting based on Digg posts?
    • synik, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2the minority and lower class areas seem to struggle more with the idea of contraception. It makes sense for planned parenthood to be in those areas.
      • reconsldr74d, on 09/13/2008, -1/+0You know I was going to present a logical rebuttal to your idea that the lower class and minorities 'struggle with the idea of contraception' but I figured it would be lost on you. What race and income level is the pope by the way?
  • Cuchanu, on 09/12/2008, -7/+16I'm surprised that they were that tough on him. The standard interviewer may ask tough questions, but they still allow the interviewee to give ***** answers. They weren't having any of that.
  • LordoftheFly, on 09/12/2008, -3/+15There are more complete versions on youtube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lST-VU9bgPY
  • moolaismyfriend, on 09/12/2008, -10/+18McCain is an ideologue that is just trying to lie himself into the presidency.

    Anyone who votes for this guy is an anti-American *****.
    • runCMD, on 09/12/2008, -2/+3moolaismyfriend - Anyone who votes for 'this guy' is an anti-American ? I think your comment is anti-American. Vote for whoever you please. Don't tell me who to vote for. Obama's vitriolic supporters spread such hatred - its so sad to see his message getting so lost in their negativity. You get one vote. Don't let anybody tell you what to do with it. Voting one candidate over the other doesn't make you cool, or accepted, or part-of-the-crowd, ---- it's gives you the opportunity to exercise your right to have your opinion count.

      Exercise your conscience. Reject the fear.
    • videodroner, on 09/13/2008, -1/+1I know! Democracy is so Anti-American! The American way is to vote for Socialism.
      • krisbuffington, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2Do you seriously believe that we live in a democratic society and that the ballot you cast actually means something? And why can't socialism be democratic?

        Continue being apart of the charade.
  • damian7, on 09/12/2008, -15/+6Wow, nice to see the Trollop ***** on the View finally revealing their testicles

    Wait, what?
  • j0hnk377y, on 09/12/2008, -27/+2877 days in a row with a Huffington Post article hitting the front page.
    • B1663r, on 09/12/2008, -6/+3Only 54 more days!
    • Beevo, on 09/12/2008, -2/+16How many straight XKCD Comics? How many lame Cracked top 10 lists? Escapists Videos?

      Digg likes certain things, either deal with it or don't but don't act shocked when something predictable happens.
      • thbigtiket21, on 09/13/2008, -2/+2would you say the same thing if there were fox news stories up all the time?
      • Beevo, on 09/15/2008, -0/+1No, if this website were more republitard slanted, I just wouldn't have it bookmarked or as my homepage.
    • dn11, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3Maybe 100, that would be fine with me...
  • Princeamor, on 09/12/2008, -12/+4and he's STILL gonna win the election... what a disgrace...
  • ericjohnson0, on 09/12/2008, -34/+9PUFFHO SPAM!!! BURIED!!! BEFORE IT CAN HURT DIGG's traffic anymore!

    http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/ ...
    • gtluke, on 09/12/2008, -10/+5i've been contemplating leaving digg for a while now because of the insane obamabots. its not news here anymore, its just huffpo spam over and over and over again. we hardly ever get front page stories that aren't just palin/mccain bashes.
      BORING
      • dblespresso, on 09/12/2008, -4/+3But the hypocrisy has to give ya the chuckles
      • snotrokit, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4then do what i do, watch the video, DON"T read the Huffpo crap, and make your own decision.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lST-VU9bgPY
      • ultraseamus, on 09/12/2008, -4/+1True, I have been saying it for a while now. Hopefully after the election it will die down. Although if McCain wins it might be best to avoid Digg entirely for at least a week. I get the feeling that the Obamabots would not take bad news well.
      • ironhide, on 09/12/2008, -3/+6Take a hike. No one will miss you.
      • SatoriSeeker, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
    • kismetropolis, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6Newsflash.

      Even if it wasn't the Huffington Post, this was on the View. National TV.

      Which means that any responsible journalist -- emphasis on responsible -- would pick it up and shout from the rooftops that the man backpedals, lies, stammers, and tries to spindoctor himself when asked a straight question.

      So much for the Straight Talk express.

      If the candidate hadn't lied, there'd be no problem and you wouldn't have to click bury to hide the dirty stuff.
  • sebchabal, on 09/12/2008, -26/+13huff puff. digg is just an echo chamber for its demented rantings. sad.
  • yngtimmy, on 09/12/2008, -20/+133. three of the top 10 news stories on digg are about how bad mccain is. I don't recall 1 story ever about Obama being not all he's cracked up to be. Just saying.
    • ultraseamus, on 09/12/2008, -4/+7I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you implying that Digg is extremely biased, or that Obama is so perfect that there is simply no negative news to report?
      • uqdroma, on 09/12/2008, -4/+2How's the gumdrop slide in Candyland?
      • nemo001, on 09/12/2008, -6/+4The majority of digg users have the Obama kool aid in hand just waiting to be told to drink. Even digg management may. But who cares. This is fun.
    • youannoyme, on 09/12/2008, -2/+5That is a very common complaint. Seems like the solution shouldn't be too hard... Take a note of (or friend) the other users you see here saying the same thing. Go find yourself an article expressing what you want expressed. Post it. Shout it to those that will digg it. Let things take care of itself.

      ...I'm waiting...
      • 80sreject, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2Digg should put your post on the front page and stickie it. Thank you.
      • ultraseamus, on 09/12/2008, -2/+1That is an awesome idea. All this time I had thought that it would really tough for an average user to get a front page article, especially when it goes against how 90% of Digg users feel. You have inspired me, step aside babyman I shall become the next great abuser of the Digg system.
      • youannoyme, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1haha, ultraseamus, you kinda missed my point. This 10% always come on and complain about how nothing but negative republican articles come on and things are so unfair. So I was just suggesting that this was only the case because its the truth. Or at least the popular truth. Not that digg is broken (at least in the way they suggest)

        Heh, of course, had I said that bluntly, the first few of them to come along would have just burried me. But now it doesn't matter, the whole thread is burried!
      • ultraseamus, on 09/14/2008, -0/+1Lol, youannoyme, I am not ashamed to admit that I am still not exactly sure what your point was/is. But it sounds like it might be different from what I originally assumed, and you do not seem to be as crazy or aggressive as I figured. So all is forgiven ;P.

        Of course now it really does not matter because this thread is not only buried its been dead for a couple days.

        Edit: OK, so for some reason I was intrigued enough to scan through your old comments and found : "It only takes one person to post a comment, but it takes a mite bit more than that to get an article in the popular section. Maybe this tells you something about demographics." So as far as I can tell you are on the same page as me in believing that Digg has too many pro Obama / anti McCain Diggers for it to be reasonable for the remaining Diggers to even out the field (front page wise). Also it seems you might be suggesting that this is the case because that is simply the way the majority of the world feels, and that Digg is simply a reflection of that. But I do not think that is the case, I think that many of the most verbal Diggers are still relativity young and idealistic, which is exactly the crowd I think Obama seems to cater towards (not intended as an insult to anyone). This is more of a theory then anything else, and as a side note I do not necessarily want to see anti-McCain/pro-Obama article numbers to turn into pro-McCain/anti-Obama numbers. What I would really like it for Diggers to start focusing on the real issues and facts, less mudslinging and trying to force your views on others, and more presenting the candidates various views and allowing the other diggers to figure out for themselves who they prefer. I suppose it is also possible you were saying that republicans are simply unorganized, and not team players, but I will stick with my first guess. :)

        Wow I sure did ramble on for a long time, if somehow anyone out there makes it this far through my comment let me know, I am guessing the odds are very low for anyone even noticing that I made a comment.
    • SatoriSeeker, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3So the republican candidate sucks, the democrat sucks a lot less (still sucks from FISA vote though) and you want us to do what exactly?
    • ultraseamus, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2So, back to my original question, I can only assume that since 2 Obama fans replied to his post with sarcastic remarks that yngtimmy was in fact implying that "Digg is extremely biased". If people keep being so subtle it makes it hard for me to dish out my diggs appropriately.
  • morel42, on 09/12/2008, -4/+32
    Yes America, The VIEW has now shown more backbone and more journalistic quality then 99% of the MSM..

    Wow... Even though I'd rather burn my eyes out with a flamethrower then watch the show normally.. .You go girls.. :)
  • SilentRamble42, on 09/12/2008, -4/+40"He chooses his words very carefully. He shouldn't have said it."

    I would've killed for him to follow with "I, on the other-hand, say whatever the hell I want and get away with it because, let's face it, I'm senile."
    • paintgrl, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6Ha ha, gold Star for witty comment.
  • Stryder81, on 09/12/2008, -11/+6Sorry, Maybe I haven't come across something about " Slavery " in the Constitution. Where did it say that " Black People " had to be slaves in it?
    • charm803, on 09/12/2008, -0/+13To answer your first point, you must not be familiar with Amendment 13 from the Constitution. It mentions the "slavery" you haven't come across.

      Where are the white slaves you are talking about?


      • Stryder81, on 09/12/2008, -6/+1That was under Abraham Lincoln's term, meaning, before that amendment, it was never mentioned until' that.

        I should have been more detail with my question but I intended it to mean at the time it was created by the founding fathers.

        And your question about White Slaves, who said anything about that?
      • charm803, on 09/12/2008, -1/+6"Where did it say that " Black People " had to be slaves in it?"

        To me, although it didn't specifically mention "black" slaves, it was referring to "black" slaves. We don't exactly have a history of oppressing "white" voters or owning "white" slaves.


      • zacharytelschow, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3The 13th Amendment explicitly bans slavery, while no part of the Constitution requires. While Stryder81 didn't articulate quite what he meant, the point was how would a strict interpretation of the Constitution (of which the 13th Amendment is a part) require Whoopi to become a slave?
      • charm803, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4Ah, I see your point.

        In other words, nowhere does it say that we are required to own slaves, it just banned it.

        I see, said the blind man to the deaf man.


      • Stryder81, on 09/12/2008, -7/+1You both are amusing, trying to insult me, very mature.

        The power lied within the STATES not the FEDERAL, the Constitution was written to apply to all states and for future governance of the country as a whole.

        That is the whole point of states rights, what is right in NY isn't in NJ.

        It applied in some states ( although more and more were banning it in their own states in time )

        When you make a constitutional amendment, it is there for the future, your kids will recognize it, your kids kids and so forth. Individual Equality gets prevented because of it.

        Case And Point: Was it legal? Yes, In some states. Was it legal in the constitution? No.
      • charm803, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6We aren't trying to insult you, I was trying to respond to your comment.

        Geesh, can't people debate without getting their underwear all up in a knot? (DUH! I'm on digg, what do I expect.)

        Did you not read my comment: I understood what you were trying to say and at least I'm trying to see what your point was. I didn't offend you nor was I being sarcastic. I just maybe misread what you wrote.

        Don't get offended. For the record, zacharytelschow was not only NOT offending you, he was DEFENDING you.

        Dictionary-pick one up at your local bookstore! (Sorry, now you just have it coming.)
      • Stryder81, on 09/12/2008, -3/+1lol Talk about miscommunication

        You said " I see said the blind man to the deaf man " I took it as a sarcastic way of saying What I don't see I don't hear, like I'm being hard headed. ( I have heard that remark as a joke before, but not in a debate lol, sorry about that part )

        and as for Zach, I wasn't saying him, I was speaking to VicHislop -=O

        And don't know diggers, we're not all nuckin dupid -=p
      • charm803, on 09/12/2008, -1/+2I meant the "blind man" part for me, that now I see what you meant, in other words.

        Dammit, internets!

        lol.

    • VicHislop, on 09/12/2008, -0/+6Well there is that whole bit in Article 1 known as the 3/5ths Compromise. Granted it doesn't specifically mention race and was rendered useless following the Civil War (and the 13th and 14th Amendments), but it IS in the Constitution and it certainly does acknowledge slavery while it indirectly caused the practice to become more entrenched in American society.

      You probably haven't come across that because you haven't actually read the Constitution. You should. Really.
      • Stryder81, on 09/12/2008, -3/+1Let me get this straight.

        Slavery remained legal only in Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey. Everywhere else in the United States slaves had been freed by state action

        Keep in mind that slaves in the North actually got paid for their work, in the south it was more of the traditional form of slavery. Granted, It's slavery but what I am saying is, It was in the process of being removed completely before any amendment came along.

        To put something like the Amendments to abolish Slavery for example, it is something that is now remembered for ages to come. It makes a certain group superior or inferiror to another because of an amendment which in turn, is counter to what the Constitution is.

        Once again, you both said " It doesn't say blacks or slaves " and that was my point.

        10, 20 or 30, or 100 years down the line, when the world is different, people won't remember or look differently upon the next person, but because of an amendment, they are brought back to a person being " different " by law.

        Do you follow now?

        Next time, please don't " Assume " what I have read and have not read or I will smack you with another answer. :-)


      • VicHislop, on 09/12/2008, -0/+5Are you kidding? "smack" me with another answer? You're not even saying anything! You made a claim that slavery wasn't in the Constitution. It was. The race of the people affected by the 3/5ths Compromise wasn't defined in Article 1 because there was no need. That was the entire subject of the debate at the time!

        I know that some feel that when they make a foolish claim, that they then need to defend it at all costs even if it digs them in deeper. It is perfectly acceptable to admit you're wrong, though. It really is.
      • Stryder81, on 09/12/2008, -4/+1lol It isn't a foolish claim because it still doesn't speak about " Slavery " as it being legal or obligated to persist.

        When you have an amendment to abolish it, you are assuming that those 100 or further down the line will accept that they were once " different " or not the same as the next man.

        It defeats the purpose of an individuals liberty or being equal with contradicts the constitution as a whole.

        What don't you get?

        I know you're speaking from the conventional way, I'm not arguing that, you're speaking of what existed, what we've learned, heard and so forth, I'm speaking about the document and how it could have been done the right way without backlash that occured after the civil war.
      • paintgrl, on 09/12/2008, -1/+1Sweet! I just felt like I was in law school there for a sec. Wheres the next debate?
    • johnnr2, on 09/12/2008, -1/+3The founding fathers' intent was to continue using black people as slaves. duh.
  • digerz, on 09/12/2008, -17/+2Maybe they could also ask obama how it is that he thinks the supreme court is wrong and that capital punishment can be used beyond capital crimes....which is just stupid.....the taking of a life is only equal to that of another.

    http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/25/obama-supp ...
    • nemo001, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1That would be a tough question. Maybe on another show.
  • gtluke, on 09/12/2008, -9/+12stupid mccain, whats he doing defending the constitution
  • chiladelphia, on 09/12/2008, -3/+20republicans scare me
    • dblespresso, on 09/12/2008, -13/+5xenophobia, you and obama share it. Obama doesnt cross party lines, Mccain does. Obama picks washington insider, Mccain an outsider. Who has all of this "CHANGE" I keep hearing about.
      • soot, on 09/12/2008, -4/+6"Who has all of this "CHANGE" I keep hearing about."

        It's called running a campaign that isn't dominated by Washington lobbyists and actually crafting a comprehensive plan to tackle health care, education and the economy, instead of leeching off of the same proposals and solutions that have flown with 28% of the American population.
      • wedges, on 09/12/2008, -0/+2dblespresso... are you serious? you think mccain is change? mccain/palin represent ***** of earmarks, government spending, legislation in favor of lobbyists, tax breaks for the rich and powerful, tax breaks for corporations, jobs getting shipped overseas, more more more war, outdated moral code, and a thick coating of jesus-freak slathered on top of all that. show me change. i dare you.
    • Griberal, on 09/12/2008, -4/+1And that's why you're a democrat.
  • Klietz, on 09/12/2008, -21/+4dugg.. hard

    ***** you digg and certainly a hardy ***** you to huff
  • singularityv, on 09/12/2008, -17/+2So McCain lies just like every other politician in this country?

    How the ***** is that a surprise?
  • GoteamVenture, on 09/12/2008, -2/+16Sounds like, while although his polling numbers have gone up due to the increase in evangelical vote, women are not buying this pandering. Apparently they won't vote for someone just because she has a vagina. He tried to kill 2 birds with one stone, but is sounds like Hillary supporters and other undecided females aren't crazy about Palin's evangelical views.
  • ericjohnson0, on 09/12/2008, -18/+11In the meantime, nobody says jack about Biden admitting Obama blew the biggest decision of his career and this race:

    http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/9/11/3879 ...
    • gobber, on 09/12/2008, -5/+2You are right! In the next few days, we just may see Biden having some sort of family or medical issue that will just happen to cause him to walk away from the VP candidate spot
  • Keverwinkle, on 09/12/2008, -3/+21OMG, I just enjoyed watching the view. Do you see what these elections are doing to us?
  • ericjohnson0, on 09/12/2008, -15/+7http://digg.com/political_opinion/Why_our_elites_f ...

    300+ DIGGs and all we seem to get on the frontpage is PuffHo, KOS and Obama SPAM...
    • bobbarkerbilly, on 09/12/2008, -1/+4Probably because the ratio of burries to diggs. The comments read like a religious right love fest.
      • ericjohnson0, on 09/12/2008, -3/+1So? They're Americans, they have a right to voice.
      • bobbarkerbilly, on 09/12/2008, -0/+4Let's do an example comparison of frontpage articles.

        Article 1 - 800 diggs, 500 burries.
        Article 2 - 350 diggs, 50 burries.

        I think you can see which one is actually more popular even though they have a net 300 diggs.

        Digg works on popularity of an article. Not on "they're Americans, they have a right to voice".
      • nblsavage, on 09/12/2008, -0/+41. Digg is a private entity. It doesn't have to allow free speech
        2. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee anyone wants to hear what you have to say,
    • snotrokit, on 09/12/2008, -3/+1+1
    • ironhide, on 09/12/2008, -2/+4Wahhhh, no one wants to read religious twaddle, wahhh!
  • doremon313, on 09/12/2008, -4/+24when does Sarah gets to go on the show?
    • ericjohnson0, on 09/12/2008, -12/+3I hope not. Then again, maybe she would be more of a man than McCain and jackslap Whoopi for being stupid.
      • nemo001, on 09/12/2008, -5/+3Whoopi isn't stupid. She is just in the tank for Obama.
      • waxenpi, on 09/12/2008, -2/+9whoopi's not running for president. what's mccain's excuse?
      • jackelopeus, on 09/13/2008, -0/+2I bet Whoopi could take her.
    • avenu420, on 09/13/2008, -1/+5She won't, because all the women on The View are sexist towards women.
    • cwright213, on 09/13/2008, -0/+1Not after what McCain when through. "It's not in the best interest of the campaign."
  • Tichondrius74, on 09/12/2008, -22/+14Digg should change its name to AntiMcCain.com.
    • roxgod666, on 09/12/2008, -4/+1Already exists
      http://antimccain.com/phpBB3/
      not surprised one bit
    • Taiyoryu, on 09/12/2008, -2/+3I kinda liked the old McCain. He's talking change now, but that didn't mean he himself had to change for the worse.
    • SatoriSeeker, on 09/12/2008, -2/+6McCain is a traitor and a liar, diggers see this. Are you trying to say its something other than that?
      • AtomicTheory, on 09/12/2008, -0/+1I'm a digg user. You sure don't speak for me.
  • Pedestrian101, on 09/12/2008, -26/+11HuffSpam, burried.
  • Freepablo, on 09/12/2008, -7/+25It's embarrassing that The View are the only ones in the media who have done their jobs.
  • BlueFranco, on 09/12/2008, -14/+11Hey ReTHUG bigots you can TRY and hide my post I will just keep posting it

    Obama camp SMACKS DOWN McPalin the lying bigot


    "Today on "The View," John McCain defended his campaign's latest ad campaign, which has been debunked repeatedly as both false and sleazy. In running the sleaziest campaign since South Carolina in 2000 and standing by completely debunked lies on national television, it's clear that John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election."
    • DreKor, on 09/12/2008, -0/+7Look, no matter how much I agree with you, I'm going to bury you for being a tool and spamming your comments.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.