Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers
huffingtonpost.com — Arianna Huffington: "I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake. Tacking to the center is a losing strategy. And don't let the latest head-to-head poll numbers lull you the way they lulled Clinton in December. Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn't work for Al Gore in 2000."
MakiMaki- 1232 diggs
- digg it
- nsareadthis, on 06/30/2008, -15/+100I so hope Obama will reconsider going against the stance where he promised to support stripping immunity from the bill.
No one, especially not big corporations, should ever get the law retroactively changed to exonerate their past lawbreaking. They do not need immunity if they did not knowingly or negligently break the law. No one can sue anyone and win anything unless they can prove damages. The White House and the telecoms would never have fought this hard for immunity unless they have done some heinous sh*t.
Our government should not be writing the blank check of immunity for crimes and damages inflicted which they have no idea what they are immunizing.- thegreenspanput, on 07/01/2008, -7/+26people used to laugh when I said "Obama is one of them".
- Sephiriz, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Having been one of those people, I must apologize and admit that any hope I had for an amazing presidency with Obama is pretty much close to gone. I'm still holding out and rationalizing (ex. the guy has to garner enough votes somehow, if this is the only way to win, lets hope the end justifies the means).
- Andysan, on 07/01/2008, -13/+6I think Obama is moving to the center less for political policy reasons and more to avoid a big "Oh *****" moment. The left is now clearly responsible for outrageous gas prices, outrageous food prices, and all manner of economic problems stemming from the mindless strangling of the U.S. energy supply. Suddenly Obama is finding himself at the center of this mess.
His big moment is similar to that of a guy who pushes a bunch of motorcycles over, goes into a Hell's Angels bar and yells "get those f..king motorcycles out of my way. He then looks around at those faces and says "Oh *****." That moment is real close and Obama knows it.- quandrum, on 07/01/2008, -4/+5How is the left responsible for all those things? Do you even know why gas and food prices are so high?
Hint: It has nothing to do with how much land we give the oil companies in the gulf and it has nothing to do with Arabian Countries or how much oil they produce
Second Hint: Look up the Anglo Disease - nycmac247, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4as long as you swallow the Right vs. Left crap you'll be enslaved
- BallJoint, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4You know what.... Your right!
If it weren't for those damn liberals our gas might be $0.20 cheaper! That is as long as the oil companies and speculators don't just manipulate the market and then we don't save anything............ Which is exactly what would happen!
LOL DAMN LIBERALS!!!! - Terr01, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2You're an idiot.
The actual statistics contradict each of your claims, and in many cases the problems you cite existed back when Republicans had majorities in every branch of Government. - BallJoint, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1I am being sarcastic!!!!
I know the republicans enacted all the loopholes that are currently being used by speculators.
I just think its funny when Conservatives blame democrats for the high cost of gas.
Thus the sarcastic response..............
- quandrum, on 07/01/2008, -4/+5How is the left responsible for all those things? Do you even know why gas and food prices are so high?
- BetterOffEd, on 07/01/2008, -6/+23“Moving to the middle is for losers?”
I've got news for you: If you (a politician or a member of the public) just *happen* to staunchly believe the exact same way that either of the two major political parties do on ALL of the issues, then you’re a sheep and you’re just following an agenda that’s been fed to you.
It’s been my experience that people who actually THINK for themselves usually fall somewhere on a spectrum that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
So if Obama does have *some* conservative-leaning views on *some* issues, and they are genuine and not just political pandering, then for god’s sake let the man be. At least he’s being true to himself and the future that he sees for America. The same goes for McCain.- Wargalas, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4Sshhhh!! It's Queen Arianna! People look down upon that! She knows all! She hears all!
- thebaron2, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6I don't think the issue is that he has some centrist ideas. From the article, it seems like they're more pissed that he may backtrack on some statements he made during the primaries that were far-left, and move to a centrist position during the election race.
FTA:
------------------
In an interview with Nina Easton in Fortune Magazine, Obama was asked about having called NAFTA "a big mistake" and "devastating." Obama's reply: "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified."
Overheated? So when he was campaigning in the Midwest, many parts of which have been, yes, devastated by economic changes since the passage of NAFTA, and he pledged to make use of a six-month opt-out clause in the trade agreement, that was "overheated?" Or was that one "amplified?"
Because if that's the case, it would be helpful going forward if Obama would let us know which of his powerful rhetoric is "overheated" and/or "amplified," so voters will know not to get their hopes too high.
-----------------
I agree completely with your post, but the issue here is changing stances now that he's won the primary, and leaving the further-left voters by the wayside - not being true to some conservative-leaning ideals that he's always held. - Franswahili, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Is there anything socially liberal about Telecom immunity? He isn't thinking for himself, he's following the agenda of the two parties-- you know, that whole 'destroying the constitution' agenda. He's just more of the same, it's so obvious it's funny. But whatever, a good speech is enough to fool any fool.
- BetterOffEd, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2@Franswahili... Wait... Lemme guess... Frustrated Ron Paul Robot?
We're all doomed? The system is out to get us? We should go back to buying cars with gold bricks? Am I warm yet?
I'm a libertarian and actually like Ron Paul. I just loathe the people that support him. That's all. - Franswahili, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Well, so what if my version of the future may be a bit dramatic. It is what it is, look at our economy, look at the war, look at the other war about to break out with Iran. I don't know about using gold bricks, but money should be definitely taken out of the control of the world bank who answers to no one. You're kind of trying to frame me unfairly, O'Reilly much?
- br0ck, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1"I so hope Obama will reconsider going against the stance where he promised to support stripping immunity from the bill."
He never went against his stance. He supported and said he'd participate in the failed filibuster last week. He participated in getting the legislation delayed until after the 4th of July.
From, http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Rendell_Obama_hasnt_ ... "RENDELL: When you're in the Senate, you have to weigh the entire bill. The bill on FISA was court supervision of wiretaps. That's a huge victory for individual rights in America. Senator Obama believed that was more important, that he had to go along and vote for it even though it didn't have the immunity provision or did have the immunity provision, but he has pledged later on in the Senate to try to strip the immunity position."
Anyway, Bush is in total control on this one. The House has created a bill that adds FISA oversight to his wiretaps, but Bush has said he'll veto it if telecom immunity isn't included. He wins either way. What is the right answer for the senate? Kill immunity and Bush can keep wiretapping.. kill wiretapping and telecoms get immunity.- jameskong15, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2He never went against his stance eh?
Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/22/moveon-ob ...
"I will work in the Senate to remove this provision [immunity] so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses"
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/20 ...
“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise”
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/20 ...
Which stance is he not going against this week? Is he going to filibuster any bill that includes it? Is he just simply going to “work” to remove the provision? Or does he just support the compromise now even if the immunity stays in because it is “too important to delay”? - br0ck, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1@james: it's not that complicated. Obama's position has NOT changed one tiny bit. He supports and has supported the core of the bill which is to add FISA oversight back to Bush's wiretapping programs. He opposes and has opposed telecom immunity since it was first thought up. He hopes to be able to vote for a bill which includes the improved oversight, but doesn't include telecom immunity. He supports and will participate in any methods that the Senate use to remove telecom immunity including filibusters or amendments.
It is all fruitless though, because Bush will veto the FISA court oversight of wiretapping if telecom immunity is not included. If Obama and the democratic Senate members kill the bill due to telecom immunity, then Bush gets to keep wiretapping with no court oversight. If they pass the bill with telecom immunity, then Bush vetoes it and gets to keep wiretapping with no court oversight. If the Senate passes the bill with telecom immunity, Bush gets reigned in, but the telecom companies get excepted from civil (but not criminal) lawsuits. - jameskong15, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2"it's not that complicated. Obama's position has NOT changed one tiny bit"
So he is going to actually follow what he originally said and "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies" then? Or is he going to "support the compromise" because it is "too important to delay"? Or is he working to get the immunity out, but will vote for it even if he doesn't succeed? Or is he going to vote against the bill because I thought he wanted to filibuster it originally because the immunity was such a bad thing, but then again what about “I support the compromise”?
Your claim is just patently false, as shown by the previous quotes. He vowed to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies," but he has done no such thing in this case. All he has done is now say he will "work" to get the immunity out (notice no mention of a filibuster?) while ALSO qualifying that decision with "providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise."
So he originally says he will filibuster over this issue, then he will only work to get it out, and then he will vote for it even if he fails to get it out.
He was against it before he was for it apparently. Change we can believe in. - br0ck, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Obama supported the filibuster and told the other senators that were attempting it that he would participate. The filibuster failed. Obama supports any efforts to remove civil immunity clauses, but in doing so he now faces the very real possibility that Bush is going to continue on spying on Americans with no FISA court oversight. How could he possibly let that continue? Bush and the government are the real criminals. Obama needs to get FISA court oversight in place NOW. Telecom immunity is just a side issue compared to the ramifications of having a unchecked executive branch.
Was was against telecom immunity and is still against it, but to get it he has to allow Bush to wiretap freely as he wishes. That is an insanely difficult conundrum! - jameskong15, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Please provide a link to prove this claim, "Obama supported the filibuster and told the other senators that were attempting it that he would participate." I want to see where exactly he supported this filibuster for this item. Where is the vote or show of support in any major forum?
- jameskong15, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2He never went against his stance eh?
- scroobyrooberoo, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9CHANGE!! CHANGE!! CHANGE!!
wait..
DON'T CHANGE!! DON'T CHANGE!! DON'T CHANGE!! - RX9735, on 07/01/2008, -9/+5I warned all of you about Obama. Did anyone listen? No. Did everyone digg me down? Yes. I have since moved on to Reddit.com however I do come back here to say "I told you so". Please search my posting history and you will see I was never an Obama sheep.
- TokenBlack, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6You're still a douche...
- jsully, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6We also think you're a douche over at Reddit.
- birch25, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4after looking into the bill (and actually reading some of it myself) you'll notice that the telecoms are not protected from criminal charges, only civil suits. people need to stop looking at this bill as the worst attack on freedom ever seen. jesus...
also, bob barr/ron paul and barack obama are on complete opposite ends of the political spectrum. i don't comprehend how so many people can support both sides when they believe the total opposite on most issues.- Terr01, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1All Bush needs to do is issue a bunch of pardons on his last day. Poof, no criminal trial possible, no civil trial possible.
- br0ck, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1"All Bush needs to do is issue a bunch of pardons on his last day."
Well, he can't pardon a company, so to do that, he'd have to pardon every employee of the telecoms and every government employee that was involved at any level which would be almost impossible.
- sanman, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Well, please provide some kind of scenario in which Telecom companies would be inclined to break the law on eavesdropping, privacy, etc. Otherwise, it sounds like you're more interested in Deep Pockets strategy (ie. looking to create a scapegoat with money whom you can sue purely for the purpose of enriching yourself)
I need to better understand from you why you feel Telecom companies would feel inclined to incur the risk of breaking the law by conducting eavesdropping. Because there are plenty of gold-diggers out there, including one Arianna Huffington who married purely to gain wealth.- Terr01, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2WTF?
This isn't about money from lawsuits. It's about evidence discovery. I don't think you've really been following the issue.
- Terr01, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2WTF?
- rz8472, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2In any case, it's weird that "liberal" has somehow become this toxic word while the term "conservative" somehow seems to represent something much more wholesome and family-friendly... even after the disasters of the Bush Administration. Granted, there is debate over whether he IS a conservative at all, but still...
- Terr01, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2If Bush "isn't a conservative", that a whole lot of people who call themselves conservatives must be lying.
IMO it makes more sense to define "liberal" and "conservative" in terms of group identities, and then put qualifiers on the frozen-in-time philosophies. (e.g. "Classical Conservatism")
- Terr01, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2If Bush "isn't a conservative", that a whole lot of people who call themselves conservatives must be lying.
- jdotter, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2He chose the 4th Amendment over immunity and the 4th Amendment which in this Senate equals no bill passage and would have destroyed him in the general election. I'll take this stance and an Obama win in Nov. rather than hardheaded liberal posturing and 4 more years of disastrous leadership. It's just like the Patriot Act vote, he knew if he joined in standing in the way regardless of the progress the bill showed it wouldn't get passed and it would mean nothing changes and he losses credibility as a legislator who is willing to bridge the divide. When it comes to national security I think a president must show some sense of understanding about it and that's what this vote shows. I may disagree on his vote but I don't expect to agree with him on every bullet point of politics. I think immunity is unacceptable but going forward they can't break the law as they could before. It is what America wants. There are more than 60 Senators in favor of this bill so it's over. Until there is a clear majority in the Senate, 60-40 for cloture and to kill a filibuster, this is what you get, a bill that appeases the majority but leaves many unhappy.
- OwdenBowden, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I just hope Obama doesn't win. The world will be a much better place with Mr. I have a dream-alot not in office because he is writing checks he cannot cash and when his "Supporters" finally wake up and see what a world of ***** they are living in - they will lynch his ass.
Fact is neither of these candidates for president are qualified, nor do they have the ability to do this job. We need leaders not mouthpieces. - noprtyaff, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I realize the Fluffingtonpost needs something to fluff about. But with the election 5 months away, there really isn't anything to discuss. Both Obama and McCain are awful candidates. The only thing to do is oppose them both in November.
Have a nice day.
- thegreenspanput, on 07/01/2008, -7/+26people used to laugh when I said "Obama is one of them".
- cruzecon, on 06/30/2008, -23/+31What kind of blackmail does the GOP attack machine have on every Democrat in Congress and the Senate that makes them all squeal lilke pigs every time "W" or Cheney or Carl Rove says, "No" or "If you do anything except what I want you are not a Patriot"?
If Obama starts down the same, Democratic Leadership Committee crap of lets just jump on the "economy of Wal Street" bandwagon and abandon any semblence of standing up for minorities, the oppressed, Unions or working people, and focus on getting White men in the south to vote for us instead of the "more corrupt" Repubs, than showing a backbone that IS about changing Washington --HE WILL LOSE. The Country will lose! And the Constitution will be damned!
I think "the people who make up these elusive swing voters" are the real wafflers. They just want to be on the winning side. They don't make up their minds they are the ones who put the wet fingers in the air to see what their "viewpoints" SHOULD BE as told them by the feckless "journalists".- digitalhair, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6only speculation, but I imagine the highest paid neo-brownshirts behind the neocon movement are the ones that are willing to wear the other team's jersey just long enough for their idealogical peers to quietly move into "checkmate."
- licnyc, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Lieberman
- digitalhair, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I agree with your suspicion of his intentions, but he's no longer a democrat and has been too obvious to be a subversive player. I'm talking about the kind of deception where the operative is the one who represents the opposite of what your intuition tells you.
These neocons treat politics the same way they treat war and so the lessons about deception from Sun Tzu and his book The Art of War apply accordingly.
- shauncorleone, on 07/01/2008, -3/+10I love how every seemingly negative thing Obama does is because of the "GOP attack machine". It must be exhausting for Liberal Democrats to constantly play the abused victim card. You're truly naiive if you think it was anything but expected for Obama to start pretending he's more moderate than he really is.
- johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -3/+11"And the Constitution will be damned! "
-Read some of Obama's policies. Half of the social programs he wants aren't constitutional anyway. I'm not saying those are new ideas, but it was never the government's job to "provide for the people"; especially when it involves taking away from others.
-He's big on redistributing wealth also. I thought this was America? Isn't our economic system based on doing things yourself, and reaping the benefits from your own hard work?
-I didn't know the government ever had the power to force everyone to get healthcare from them (I understand that is not exactly Obama's policy, but I brought it up anyway)
-I have Obama's issues page bookmarked, and I read a lot of it. It really sounds like a lot of empty promises to me, to be honest, because we (all the taxpayers) just will not be able to handle all of these programs, and most of them aren't even radical changes or anything...
-Lastly, Supreme Court judges. Liberals love to rape the Constitution, if Obama had his way, that gun legislation would've been shot down after he appointed two new SC judges.
-You know, if the democratic congress would've actually done something these past two years instead of sticking their tails between their legs, I might give Obama a chance.- curtisag, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4I'm amazed you have positive diggs. Maybe people are finally waking up.
- digitalhair, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6only speculation, but I imagine the highest paid neo-brownshirts behind the neocon movement are the ones that are willing to wear the other team's jersey just long enough for their idealogical peers to quietly move into "checkmate."
- jedmed, on 06/30/2008, -23/+31Leaving the rhetoric aside for a moment. Senator Obama is first and foremost a politician. His job is to get Americans to vote for him.
He said what people needed to hear to get the votes necessary to win the primary.
He is now saying what people need to hear to get their votes for the general election.
What's the problem?- Cuchanu, on 06/30/2008, -14/+9True but he seems to be idolized like he is not merely a politician. And for some, including myself it makes it a little more disappointing. But in the end I want him to win. And if sometimes that requires giving in to the middle ground than so be it.
***** compared to McCain Obama has been solid and unwavering as a rock. To run for president McCain eliminated everything that made him "The Maverick" and he is now a boring old version of Bush, with the notable exception of actually seeming to recognize that environmentalism does not equal extremism.- tomasII, on 07/01/2008, -4/+6You have got to be kidding. He has wavered on nearly every issue in the last two months . You want me to make a list of flip flops for Obama? It is long and sad and it will shatter the image of your messiah. Obama is just the new and unimproved version of Jimmy Carter, and we all know what a success he was.
- SouthsideIrish, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3This is why we always get crap. Stick to your damn principles, whether conservative, liberal, or libertarian and stop voting for these damn politicians. I would rather vote for somebody that believed in something, even if I was against it, then vote for a lie.
- Cuchanu, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2to tomasll: If you feel like it make a list of his flip-flops go ahead, but I can google it if you want to save yourself the time. I'm under no spell of Obama's and I'm probably aware of most of these flip-flops. Obama, however is still the same basic politician. But I think McCain has had more serious policy changes than Obama in order to appeal to the republican base which had rejected him. Ones like offshore drilling are forgivable, because things change. But social security privatization/abortion/tax cuts for wealthy/opposing his own immigration and campaign finance plans/opposed to torture and Gitmo, now for it. I mean this aren't just flip flops. This is changing who you are. If he had to change this many major things to win maybe somebody else should have been the Republican nominee.
BTW in McCain and Obama's defense: it's easy to judge them for these flip flops but it's probably impossible for somebody to win an election without ever flip-flopping.
- roosevans, on 07/01/2008, -3/+54So where is the "change we can believe in"?
- zacharytelschow, on 07/01/2008, -4/+36Elsewhere. Obama is like any other politician.
- Brownds, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4The change is in yourself not in a politician. "***** Happens" you have to adjust to what ever is thrown your way instead of relying on some suit to bring you back to the good ol' days. The only difference between Obama and McCain is the people voting for them. No president since Reagan has been worth a spit IMO.
- pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6it became "change we can hope for"
- allnone, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1I'm voting for him, because he's the best. If you're only voting for him, because of "hope" and "change," that sounds like a personal problem to me.
- skyz, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2well you were the one doing the 'believing' if you in fact did 'believe' no one forced you to it was your option
so you might want to take a long thought on why you 'believed' and why it takes so little for you to 'believe'
- jezsik, on 07/01/2008, -5/+20I don't want him to be a politician. I want him to be a leader.
- Brownds, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6Want in one hand and ***** in the other. Which gets filled first? The man is going to say what ever he thinks will get him votes. If he does not put his money were his mouth is he'll be out after his first term.
- tomasII, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1want in one hand crap in the other, see which one gets filled the fastest.
- Julik, on 07/01/2008, -1/+14That is pretty much what politicians do. I often wonder if they believe in any of their own "policies" or if they just pick them up because they think that they will get elected that way. Everyone "flip-flops" nowadays.
- scroobyrooberoo, on 07/01/2008, -2/+0Geez! Really? I never woulda thunk it!
- Meekus, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2If everyone flip flops, then that is OUR fault for voting these type of people into office. We need to hold these politicians to higher standards.
- mtschmie, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6The problem is that I was excited when he won the democratic nomination. Hell, I've actually registered (I've skipped the past 2 elections) because I was finally excited to vote for someone. If he "runs to the middle" he's just like every other douchebag politician, and my desire to vote come November will be at the same level it was for the past 8 years.
- parallax7d, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6A politician's job is to do the right thing for their constituency, not do anything for votes.
- skyz, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1well this leader you say you want may not come in a charming charismatic eloquent format
in fact you might find the person who had the real ability to lead not at all atrractive in many ways
just a thought....
- skyz, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1well this leader you say you want may not come in a charming charismatic eloquent format
- Cuchanu, on 06/30/2008, -14/+9True but he seems to be idolized like he is not merely a politician. And for some, including myself it makes it a little more disappointing. But in the end I want him to win. And if sometimes that requires giving in to the middle ground than so be it.
- wendelgee2, on 06/30/2008, -6/+10Nooooo!!!!
Why Why Why????- msturgill, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Wow. Really profound.
- wendelgee2, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I believe my statement sums up the feelings of betrayal that many of his fervent supporters on the left are feeling right now. What was the function of your comment?
- nycmac247, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1because you can't really play until your heart has been broken and you realize that you allowed it to happen
- wendelgee2, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Politics is a jerk.
- stuntiliator, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Because he's just another politician who's full of ***** like the rest of them. Once you've exhausted platitudes like hope, change, and yes we can, you have to actually start talking about issues and people realize he's not substantially different after all.
- msturgill, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Wow. Really profound.
- akamurph, on 06/30/2008, -47/+95Adrianna Huffington should do us all a favor and move to an abandoned island and stay there.
- didiman, on 07/01/2008, -8/+54If her site was down, Digg's front page would be empty.
- Woodman73, on 07/01/2008, -10/+24That's because so many diggers are tools that can't think for themselves. Let's just all go green and let the perverts and rapists run free in between their therapy sessions. What a bunch of wussifide tools we've all become. We are one fedora shy of being French. UUUGHHH!!!!
- chukd, on 07/01/2008, -4/+18Not true, DailyKOS, Raw Story and the rest of them would just take their place back.
- Alegoo92, on 07/01/2008, -6/+14Diggers love her and hang on her every word until she says something bad about Obama?
Business as usual I suppose. - growler1, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1"Let's just all go green and let the perverts and rapists run free in between their therapy sessions."
That is an exceedingly silly thing to say. And the French (stereotypically) wear berets, and last I checked, it wasn't their economy in the ***** or their citizens invading countries unnecessarily (at least, lately it isn't).
- WiretapStudios, on 07/01/2008, -13/+12Her name is Arianna...
- chukd, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Who can tell with that horrible accent she has?
- georgemason01, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Death to spelling/grammar Nazi's.
- m0llusk, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1I was thinking "gulch".
- PATSCRU, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2As an Obama supporter, i happen to like the fact that she's calling Obama out on swaying from his beliefs, we need more people like her to hold our politicians accountable.
- GhostyBoy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I thought this article gave her more credibility...they have been shilling endlessly for Obama and now they are making a stand for their actual principles.
- didiman, on 07/01/2008, -8/+54If her site was down, Digg's front page would be empty.
- barbiesnow, on 06/30/2008, -9/+23I lthink that the political operatives from the DNC who moved to Chicago should move to an abandoned island and let the grassroots people advise him as they did in the primaries..this is getting ludicrous..all of the gaffes and moves that are showing him to be wishy washy...C'mon Barack show us some leadership....again.
- Stevanoski, on 06/30/2008, -31/+59The only way Democrats can be elected is to lie about who they are and what they believe in. He knows if he was to ever come out and say exactly how he feels, his strong backers-the hard Left, would support him all the way, but there is no way he could be elected.
Like him or not, at least you knew where Ronald Regan stood.- wanderingbent, on 07/01/2008, -14/+15Especially on Iran-Contra...
- 55mph, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4and Unions.
- QuadZeroRoute, on 07/01/2008, -0/+255mph, so I take it you are in favor of a unionized air traffic control tower walk out in the middle of the day with thousands of flights in the air? That is what happened and he ordered them back to work. I think that was the smart thing to do.
- sodade, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1I love how these ***** douchebags digg down any mention of the fact that Regan was a ***** criminal. With all these ***** criminals, one wonders if Nixon didn't totally blow it by resigning.
- obamayomama, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Sodade, you ***** douche bag, did you know that you're not making any ***** sense? I mean, your comments here lead me to believe that you may only be a ***** douche bag, douche bag. And did you know that douche bag is actually two words? *****.
- chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -19/+10"his strong backers-the hard Left, "
Why would I as a leftist support a center-right candidate like Senator Obama?
Right wingers are so ***** stupid sometimes...- mnocket, on 07/01/2008, -6/+10Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Obama have one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate?
- Prosequi, on 07/01/2008, -6/+10Oh come-on, "center-right"? - in France maybe.
Whether you support him or not Obama is coming from the left of the political spectrum. - chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -4/+6It's not my fault you people have a myopic view of the political spectrum. Obama isn't on the left. Simply being less ***** insane right wing than the Republicans doesn't make him a leftist. The day he supports nationalizing the health insurance industry, I'll change my tune.
- pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4mnocket, you're wrong:
The ‘most liberal senator’ myth continues to linger
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/1501 ...
- gobbleplex, on 07/01/2008, -2/+8"He knows if he was to ever come out and say exactly how he feels, his strong backers-the hard Left, would support him all the way, but there is no way he could be elected."
Where is the proof of this? When was the last time in recent memory a democrat stuck by the base of their party and lost? It looks from here like the biggest losers have been the ones who took their base for granted and shifted to the right.- dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -4/+7"When was the last time in recent memory a democrat stuck by the base of their party and lost?"
John Kerry. - gobbleplex, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Nice try dan222555, but no cigar. How exactly did Kerry stick to his base? He was already a milquetoast centrist even at his farthest left.
- dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5Kerry ran as the most liberal democratic candidate since Dukakis. There's no disputing that.
- gobbleplex, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Guess what, I'm disputing it. Prove it.
- slackin, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3When was the last time in recent memory a democrat stuck by the base of their party and won?
- dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4So you're saying either Clinton or Gore were more liberal than John Kerry? That's just ridiculous and shows a willful disregard of what is essentially political fact. If we look at the last four Demoncratic Presidential candidates, the two that lost by the biggest margins are the two that ran the most liberal campaigns---Dukakis and Kerry. The only one of the four that won---Clinton---ran the most centrist campaign of the four. Your entire premise is backwards. The candidates in recent memory that did "stick to their base"---Kerry and Dukakis were the biggest losers.
- dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2btw I didn't mean to type "Demoncratic". That would be tearing a page out of the typical Digg liberal's book. But no, it's just a typo.
- dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -4/+7"When was the last time in recent memory a democrat stuck by the base of their party and lost?"
- booyahbitch, on 07/01/2008, -9/+10Yeah, we knew where he stood...right on the backs of hard working Americans with one foot on their chest and the other on their throats!
- dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -5/+6Which explains how he salvaged the US economy after Carter destroyed it, reestablished America's role in the world, and ended the Cold War...
- sodade, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2dan - you are a ***** tool if you believe that ***** you just spouted.
- dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2That's cute. Take your insults and go back to 8th grade. Leave the intelligent discussion to the big boys please.
- SQLserver, on 07/01/2008, -7/+3How the HELL are people digging you up?
- dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7Rational thoughts that disagree with the far-left party line being dugg up!!? Is it possible the far-left circle jerk that is Digg.com is cooling down?
- nycmac247, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1Why Obama Is A Sure Loser
And A Prelude To The McCain-Lieberman Disaster
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?nof ...
- pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -7/+7ronald reagan stood for supporting the apartheid south africa, for segregation, against martin luther king, against funding AIDS research, for Iran/Contra, for star wars. yeah, we knew where he stood.
- johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1Obama compared himself to Reagan dumbass, and for the wrong reasons too...
- wanderingbent, on 07/01/2008, -14/+15Especially on Iran-Contra...
- kroses, on 07/01/2008, -14/+13Barack Obama cannot win as a DLC operative! Those days are over, just as Bill and Hillary's days are over! We loved Barack the way he was, but he is listening to bad advice. We are his base, and he is losing us! If he wants back his base, he must stop listening to the DLC types, and start being true to himself. If this is his "true self," then he will have lost his base, because he was lying to us all along!!! We will not "settle!"
- Snuff99, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Speak for yourself. You don't know me.
I think he is doing and saying what he and his advisors feel is necessary to win, period. - mnocket, on 07/01/2008, -4/+9I bet you, and millions like you, do indeed settle.
- creepermclurker, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2I'll take that bet.
- riseabove, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1yeah because mccain will really do something about your civil liberties. give me a break
- johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0"yeah because mccain will really do something about your civil liberties. give me a break"
How about my civil liberty to choose my own healthcare? Hint: Read the 10th Amendment...
How about not wanting to appoint liberal judges to the SC? Hint: 10th Amendment + gun laws, etc...
Remember when Obama voted against the Telecom bill a few weeks ago?..or did he?
I could go on forever.
The liberals are just as bad with big government / loss of civil liberty as Bush is...
Barak 'Empty Suit' Obama '08, or plainly as "Any other politician"...
- saturnx8, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2don't speak for me I am part of we and I've never loved Obama, EVER. He is a politician and a lawyer, two entirely despicable professions that love to lie to people to their faces.
The days of good politicians are long gone. there is no change that he or any current candidate that is going to be voted in can do. - curtisag, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Actually you and many others like you WILL settle. You will grab your ankles and vote for the lesser of two evils, or as you probably call it, the more liberal of two evils. See, smart people in Obama's camp know this, and liberal rage over two terms of Bush is greater than any move by Obama to become more centrist. He wasn't kidding when he said "change you can believe in," with believe being the operative word here. It should have been "change you can count on."
- Snuff99, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Speak for yourself. You don't know me.
- UltramegaOK, on 07/01/2008, -21/+57Mr.Obama,
First, take off that damn lapel pin. It makes you look like an idiot. Secondly, I think you are a great candidate, but you don't have the answer for every problem. When someone promises "Change" on so many issues, I think the people have the right to be somewhat skeptical. By pandering to the conservative vote you are now alienating some of your strongest supporters on the left who believed you would bring "Change" from the very same ass-kissing politics you are practicing now.
Lastly, be a man of your word and "Change". Don't be just another politician.- Julik, on 07/01/2008, -9/+29He is just another politician. As you can tell from the fact that he actually got you buying into the "change" thing without any reason to believe him other than he gives a good speech.
- Alegoo92, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3I'll be sure this gets to him, Mr. UltramegaOK.
- bleutuna, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2HERE, HERE!!
- lpmiller, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3the liberal base hasn't won a presidential election in the last 100 years. I don't think Obama appealing to the far left is a winning strategy. He was never a far left candidate, ever. Politics is about realities.
- Franswahili, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1And realities don't change when idiots like you continue believing that. These people create that reality by scaring us from thinking outside of the box. Don't believe me? Well, you're lying to yourself then.
- lpmiller, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1And naturally, calling people idiots will in fact bring about the change you want, right? If you don't deal with the country the way it is, you'll never get it to where you want it to be.
- Franswahili, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Well, I have to call it like it is. The way the country is now is pure insanity. The 'reality' you want me to embrace is a fake reality. The goal for the powers that be is for us to embrace this fake reality and think that we'll ever change it. It's time for us to create a new reality that deals with the truth instead of just money.
- lpmiller, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1no, it's not a fake reality, because it's how the world works. It's not a reality you appreciate, but to call it 'fake' is blinding yourself. I don't say I support how things are, but it is what it is.
- ender7074, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2The only "change" this idiots going to bring is a change in how much in taxes we are going to pay to support his nutball programs.
- Monk22, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1cant wait for the increase in the income tax, the capitol gains tax, the death tax, and more to be announced! i was fairly certain i didn't need the money i earned anyway.
- NorthMass, on 07/01/2008, -13/+24Moving any direction without a sound reason just proves your a lier. Obama is just trying to sell himself to everyone at the same time, rather than give the same message to everyone, which proves he is no better than all the other crooked politicians. Whoever you vote for in 2008, please give your vote to a 3rd party candidate/Ralph Nader. These two mainstream candidates are absolute garbage.
- EntropyFan, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4crooked politicians?
A little harsh, I think. The problem isn't so much that they, the politicians, sell out ( and lets face it, every 4 years they start at the edges in the primary then run to the center ) , it is that the American people buy in.
There is no way to get elected if you don't. Plain and simple. I'm hoping Obama doesn't move entirely to the center, but he won't stand a chance if he remains out on the fringe. - treehugger87, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3I'll be voting for Nadar again this year.
- riseabove, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2keep it up, i'm sure one of these days "nadar" will make all your dreams come true
- EntropyFan, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4crooked politicians?
- FrankHope, on 07/01/2008, -12/+12I actually agree with AH. Scary thought. At least MakiMaki didn't put a picture of AH in the digg submission. (sigh of relief)
AH: "And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d'etre of the Obama campaign in the first place?"
Exactly! Why is the Peace and Anti-Lobby candidate appeasing the pro-War Israel Lobby in the form of AIPAC?
AH: "Watering down that brand is the political equivalent of New Coke. Call it Obama Zero."
I call it Bush-lite. About as watered down a taste as you can get!
Obama, where art thou Brother?
http://futurenewstoday.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama- ...
We're rapidly going from "change we can believe in" to "change, what change?"- plimpton777, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6We had our chance for change: Ron Paul. Obama has revealed himself to be just Hillary with a dick and a tan. I'm very disappointed in Obama.
- bleutuna, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Agreed, Frank.
- ender7074, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2And you're supprised? Those of us who werent spending our time worshiping this ***** were telling you Obamanations that hes nothing more than an empty suit. Now you see for yourself.
- Ridgeliner7, on 07/01/2008, -17/+29Is this story quoting the same Arianna Huffington who also once said that the election of Ronald Reagan was so important that democracy itself would be destroyed if he wasn't elected? The same Arianna that said California could only be saved by the election of Pete Wilson as Governor? That Arianna Huffington? She seems so changed. I wonder when she will change her mind again?
- chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -25/+8Yeah, same woman. She was a Republican. Then she realized that being evil was wrong. So she changed. When are the rest of you going to wise up?
- akilleen, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7That's like saying going from Hitler to Stalin is a good change.
Godwin FTW! - Monk22, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1i fail to see how wanting smaller gov., lower taxes, and states rights is evil.
- akilleen, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7That's like saying going from Hitler to Stalin is a good change.
- Salome666, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1You are awesome.
- chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -25/+8Yeah, same woman. She was a Republican. Then she realized that being evil was wrong. So she changed. When are the rest of you going to wise up?
- goodnrg, on 07/01/2008, -14/+18Don't know where Arianna Huffington gets off being a leading voice of liberal opinion anyway. She runs a web site where the unethical tactics and methods of people like Mayhill Fowler are tolerated and enabled, and comments are censored. For example, I posted the previous remarks as a comment on the original story, AND THEY WERE CENSORED AT HUFFPO. This doesn't seem very liberal to me, then again, she used to be conservative.
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9Not to mention that most of the huffington post articles are inaccurate, sensationalist or misleading.
Just yesterday she said that Bill Clinton said that Obama should "kiss his ass" for his support. Except he already gave him his support, Obama paid 10 million for it.
"Mr Obama has asked his fundraisers to help pay $10m (£5m) of Mrs Clinton's debts from her failed campaign."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7471924.stm - ender7074, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2So because you are finally seeing how liberals act, you try to blame it on conservatives. Idiot...
- Salome666, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Ahhhh--but that's so very rarely reported.
- ArmenTamzarian, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0I'm a liberal democrat. Actually, I'm probably a bit farther left than people who call themselves "liberal democrats," but I think the Huffington Post is pure sensationalist tripe. They are consistently hypocritical (if nothing else,) petty, redundant, and prone to near comical hyperbole. They opine from their smug and supposed high ground, but, in actuality, they are really just the left's answer to NEWSCORP. Huffington needs to shut her ***** trap.
However, on an unrelated note;
What is up with Obama moving supporting domestic spying, expansion of the death penalty, and telecom rights which supercede the greater good of the consumer? *****.
- AchaIemoipas, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9Not to mention that most of the huffington post articles are inaccurate, sensationalist or misleading.
- SheilaNoya, on 07/01/2008, -10/+27Here's what I'm confused about:
Everyone is jumping up and down wanting to sue the phone companies for spying. OK, but who told them to do it and who kept it a secret from us? Since Bush authorized this spying and even requested that they secretly comply, why isn't the focus on going after Bush? After all, Bush is the one who told them to break the law.
In addition, the phone companies were also held hostage by the Bush administration. Remember back a bit... the FCC was holding back on auctioning off airwaves which were depserately needed by the phone companies. Bush's legal cronies were also holding up regulatory rulings that allowed the phone companies to compete with the cable companies. To be perfectly fair, it sounds like they were backed into a corner and were told "Spy for us and keep your mouth shut and we'll give you what you want." Under Bush's cloak of "National Security" he could force them to remain quiet about this.
This whole thing stinks, but I still think everyone is wrongly focusing on the phone companies instead of going after the Bush Administration who forced them to do this.
OK - you can beat me up now, but at least consider going after the actual "cause" of this problem, instead of just putting all the focus on phone companies and letting Bush just skate away.- actorboy, on 07/01/2008, -4/+7I think we should go after both. Checks and balances failed under the Bush administration, which made these companies the last threshold to constitutional protected privacy. All they had to do was say, "Without a warrant, we can't legally allow access to our customer' private information and conversations." Instead, these companies put out a welcome mat. If they suffer no consequences, what will keep them from doing it again?
The Bush administration willfully disregarded laws put into place to protect the citizen. It was not the first administration to do so and it will not be the last. That's when the private sector has to step up and say, "No." - chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Yes Bush is a criminal, but everyone knows that.
The reason to sue the phone companies ragged is to make sure that corporations know they will have to face some punishment when they commit crimes.- riseabove, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2under this fisa compromise phone companies are still liable for CRIMINAL actions, and can be held accountable
- chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1"can be held accountable"
By the same administration that sanctioned their crimes.
Yeah. Sure.
- bentman78, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7Wrong. There was telecom line tapping under Clinton and even before him. Drop the BDS and get some logic.
If you want to find someone to blame, go after the American people before us that knew of this and continued to let it get worse then do nothing about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping
Wiretapping has been carried out under most Presidents, usually with a lawful warrant since the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional in 1928. Domestic wiretapping under the Clinton administration led to the capture of Aldrich Ames, a former Soviet spy in 1994. US Senator Robert F. Kennedy monitored the activity of Martin Luther King Jr. by wiretapping in 1966...
But I guess it's easier to blame Bush than learn the facts...- jgzman, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4Emphasis on 'with a lawful warrant.'
I don't mind the government wiretapping, as long as they are doing it legally. Hell, they've been dragging people off to prison for over two hundred years, usually with a lawful warrant. Should we strike out the warrant part, and let them start dragging people off to prison for the hell of it?
Clearly you know the facts; now, I want you to think about them. - Akronos, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1jgzman, I hope you know that FISA creates a secret court that would have approved all of the warrants anyway. The Bush Administration and NSA were just too lazy to even get a warrant so they went ahead and did it illegally. But even if they followed it legally, they would pretty much still be able to wiretap anyone they want because the FISA secret court would give it. FISA, the now expired Protect America Act of 2007, and the newer amendments, are all great leaps forward to a Big Brother style government. Hell no, I don't want that.
- jgzman, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1I am aware that the secret FISA court is damn near a rubber stamp. I'm not particularly happy about that. I have some hope that if a wiretap was requested between, say, Obama and Clinton on the basis of national security, the judge might not want to approve that.
Just think: whatever the Administration did was so out of line that they couldn't even trust the rubber stamp court to approve it.
- jgzman, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4Emphasis on 'with a lawful warrant.'
- jgzman, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6I believe the major desire to sue the phone companies is that one of two things will happen.
A) (preferred, in my mind) The telecoms defend themselves by presenting the written orders from the executive branch to violate huge swathes of law, and shed some light on the extent of illegal wiretapping. The telecoms get slapped on the wrist, and we have evidence to impeach Bush.
B) Telecoms fail to defend themselves because of 'national security' and therefor are found guilty of massive illegal wiretapping for no reason. Telecoms are penalized back to the stone age. Corporations will never again follow 'secret' orders from the government without extensive legal documentation.
I'll settle for option B.- Terr01, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Great response. I just wanted to address the "Why not just sue Bush?" question with a repost from another thread:
________________________
The basic charge is that Bush broke the Constitution/Federal law with a certain surveillance program involving cooperation with the telecoms. Attempts to sue were blocked on a technicality in the Supreme Court, because the plaintiffs couldn't *prove* that they, personally, were spied on by the system, and the Bush administration is predictably refusing to release a list of those spied upon or even confirm if particular people were being spied on.
So the other avenue is suing the telecom companies as accomplices.
___________________________________
I highly recommend blogger Glenn Greenwald for news on this. You might not like his politics, but you'll find all sorts of goodies in terms of quoting and source etc. (As opposed to many blogs which are merely talking-point dispersal combined with "OMG look at this".)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/01/ ...
- Terr01, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Great response. I just wanted to address the "Why not just sue Bush?" question with a repost from another thread:
- Meekus, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I'd personally say that FISA as a whole needs to be re-evaluated in terms of being constitutional.
- actorboy, on 07/01/2008, -4/+7I think we should go after both. Checks and balances failed under the Bush administration, which made these companies the last threshold to constitutional protected privacy. All they had to do was say, "Without a warrant, we can't legally allow access to our customer' private information and conversations." Instead, these companies put out a welcome mat. If they suffer no consequences, what will keep them from doing it again?
- knumbknuts, on 07/01/2008, -10/+3Who the hell is this guy?
- yellowcakewalk, on 07/01/2008, -32/+25Why do people think Obama is a "liberal"?
1) Funds Bush's wars of conquest at every vote
2) voted for the PATRIOT act
3) throws Wes Clark under the bus
4) won't call for impeachment or a new 9/11 commission
5) makes jingoistic speeches
6) sucks up to AIPAC
7) sides with telecoms against American public
***** Obama! I'm voting for Cynthia McKinney and/or Ralph Nader. A panhandler has more change than Obama.- obamayomama, on 07/01/2008, -4/+13Wow...you should pitch a tent at the Kremlin.
- jkr801, on 07/01/2008, -10/+2wow with the name you have you should die
- mnocket, on 07/01/2008, -1/+13Cynthia McKinney. ROFLMAO
- chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -4/+10"Why do people think Obama is a "liberal"?"
Because their television told them he is.
It certainly has nothing to do with his center-right positions on issues.- ender7074, on 07/01/2008, -4/+4You left wing nutjobs are completely insane if you think Obama is anything but a left wing nutjob. He is about as far from conservatism as you can get. You people are insane.
- chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Back up your ***** claim. Give us an example of Obama being "left wing."
- Monk22, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1# Extend and Expand Unemployment Insurance: Barack Obama believes we must extend and strengthen the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program to address the needs of the long-term unemployed, who currently make up nearly one-fifth of the unemployed and are often older workers who have lost their jobs in manufacturing or other industries and have a difficult time finding new employment. Expanding UI is one of the most effective ways to combat economic turmoil; every dollar invested in UI benefits results in $1.73 in economic output. Obama is calling for a temporary expansion of the UI program for those who have exhausted their current eligibility. Stimulus: $10 billion.
FAIL
Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.
This will only put small businesses out of business. and minimum wage WAS NEVER intended to support a family.
Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year.
Why is the government paying for peoples houses?
Every other program starts with "Obama will invest 10 billion" where the ***** is all this money coming from and if you say from stopping the iraq war. oh wait...
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
aka not leaving.
- legolas68, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3And urge all of your pinko friends to do the same.
- JaNkz, on 07/01/2008, -4/+3Why do people think Obama is a "liberal"?
Um.. maybe because he wants to take my tax dollars to provide health care for people who could afford it on their own if they just stopped buying weed, and beer every day.- crweaks23, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2I'm going to go ahead and call ***** on the idea that everyone that doesn't have health care is spending $700-$1000 on beer and weed, because that's about how much health care costs for a SINGLE, HEALTHY individual, and for a pretty basic, high deductible plan. Tack on some kids, couple of allergies, and you'd have to buy a ***** of weed and beer to spend as much as you would on health care.
The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,100 in 2007. That's $1000 a month, and it's a CHEAPER rate than what families would have to pay if they didn't have employee coverage. Hence the reason there are so many uninsured people. Individual plans? See for yourself: https://www.oxhp.com/secure/materials/brokers/ny/p ...
Just a measly $1,235.26 for individuals, $3,705.78 for a family POS plan. Yes, that's per month.
Buried for being ignorant. - JaNkz, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2Obviously these people should shop around more. I pay for my own insurance it's not provided by my employer, and I don't get any discounts. I pay $369 a month.
Now I'm sure there are some more expensive plans out there. My point was that if people were more careful with their money, more people could afford health care for themselves, without needing more government.
I'm not against people getting health care, I just happen to think government is not the answer to everything, unlike 90% of this website. - obamayomama, on 07/02/2008, -1/+0I pay 680 a month for a family of six... Apparently lefties aren't good shoppers.
- crweaks23, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2I'm going to go ahead and call ***** on the idea that everyone that doesn't have health care is spending $700-$1000 on beer and weed, because that's about how much health care costs for a SINGLE, HEALTHY individual, and for a pretty basic, high deductible plan. Tack on some kids, couple of allergies, and you'd have to buy a ***** of weed and beer to spend as much as you would on health care.
- obamayomama, on 07/01/2008, -4/+13Wow...you should pitch a tent at the Kremlin.
- ImperialRome, on 07/01/2008, -6/+7Shelia, you are tying two things together that have nothing in common
One, the phone companies that need FCC airwave auctions are for future technologies, not for present operations. The cell phone providers are not the same thing as the "phone companies".
Those "phone companies" are the 'baby bells' the broken up AT&T regional providers, now with names like Verizon (GTE) and Qwest (US West). Those baby bells are the network backbone providers, the major fiber optic phone carriers. Cell phone companies and Internet service providers all "piggyback" on the major telco carriers fiber optic backbone.
Two, the telecomms are lobbying for immunity protections because of ACLU lawsuits that cost them so much time and legal expense to defend themselves, when the Feds promised them that they were complying with the law.
So, rather than just eat the costs of a thousands of lawsuits, or take the risk that one adverse judgement would cost them millions in a very competitive market, they would rather see such lawsuits blocked entirely.
Oh, just for your enjoyment, the warrantless wiretapping program is legal, was legal and Constitutional, and completely aboveboard. See US v Troung, US v Duggan, US v Butenko, and my favorite, Sealed Case 02-001. The case was sealed because it is an actual FISA case heard in FISA court, and they ruled that the Fourth Amendment requirements for warrants do not apply to foreign intelligence investigations.
Since the courts have already ruled numerous times that the President has extensive powers regarding the collection of foreign intelligence, and that warrant requirements for wiretaps are an onerous legal burden to bear in these cases, the Executive branch has legal right to conduct such wiretaps of any person who is deemed an agent of a foreign power.
The ACLU knows this, so they know they cannot be heard on suing Bush over the program, so they instead sued the major telecomms, knowing full well that they wouldn't win, because it stirs up the pot and gets them media time, which is like free advertising. They get more donations because of their defeats than they do from their legal victories.- billyliberty, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Yeah, the ACLU was definitely swamped with donations following Skokie...
- bitt3n, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2hey good news imperialrome, I just decided you're an "agent of a foreign power"! I didn't need a court to justify my decision, so now I have full transcripts of all your chats on that beastiality sex line.
my only real question now is, how do they get a goat to talk on the phone like that?- ImperialRome, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1One, those chats would still be inadmissable in court except to a charge of espionage, where they would get a laugh, but not prove anything.
Two, they don't need a court to justify that decision, they already have the law / case precedent on their side. But they still can't use the material in any other way. So, your "argument" falls flat in the real world test.
- ImperialRome, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1One, those chats would still be inadmissable in court except to a charge of espionage, where they would get a laugh, but not prove anything.
- jgzman, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3If the wiretapping is legal, then the lawsuits should be very short. Flash the wiretap permit at the judge. After about the third case, start requesting legal fees from the ACLU for frivolous lawsuits.
If the telecoms do not have a wiretap permit, then what they did was not legal.
If the permit is 'classified, national security' then the telecoms are paying the price of serving their nation, and should think carefully about helping an administration that will hang them out to dry. - jaythree9, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1is it really so frikken hard for people to use the 'reply' button to answer to a specific comment?
sheez.
- ImperialRome, on 07/01/2008, -5/+17As for "moving to the middle" being for losers, that is historically incorrect.
Presidential politics are similar every election. You run to your base in the primaries, you run to the middle in the General election. It happens every time. Why? Because in the General elections, the decisive vote is not cast by the Democrat or Republican faithful party members, but by the independant voters who only show interest in politics during the final 6 weeks of the election cycle.
The mushy middle casts the deciding vote, and has cast the deciding vote for the last ten elections that I can remember. Obama knows this, and as much as it pains the Moveon.org crowd, he will run away from them in the General election because he needs those "sensible centrists" to get elected in November.- chukd, on 07/01/2008, -2/+8However, this counters is whole idea he is a different kind of politician. He will change the way politics are done. By doing the same old political move, he destroys the message he built over the primary.
- creepermclurker, on 07/01/2008, -5/+3Exactly. Plus him being a liar and all.
- dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7Did anyone honestly believe he was "a different kind of politician"?
- chukd, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2All politicians are liars. It is expected sadly enough.
I knew he was in the same old form of a politician and plenty of others knew as well. However, there was a whole group of believers he inspired that were/are blinded by the speeches and excuses that will be disappointed.
- chukd, on 07/01/2008, -2/+8However, this counters is whole idea he is a different kind of politician. He will change the way politics are done. By doing the same old political move, he destroys the message he built over the primary.
- Ramble, on 07/01/2008, -16/+11Or, it did help Al Gore, because he did win.
- LeadOffMan, on 07/01/2008, -7/+14the worse thing about being a loser, is not being able to admit it. Seek help
- titokane, on 07/01/2008, -9/+7Gore got 543,895 more votes in the popular election.
The worst thing about having a bullsh*t electoral system is not being able to admit it. Seek help.- bentman78, on 07/01/2008, -4/+8You need to go to civics class. The EC is there to stop the radical elements of the country from dictating the elections...
Of course if it went your way, you wouldn't complain.
- bentman78, on 07/01/2008, -4/+8You need to go to civics class. The EC is there to stop the radical elements of the country from dictating the elections...
- brainboy77, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5here's the problem with using the pop. vote. the candidates would only focus on the big states, and smaller states would be forgotten. digg is all about sticking it at the big guy, yet you guys pull a role reversal on this issue.
- jakdracula, on 07/01/2008, -17/+45Huffington Post = Buried as LAME.
- kalderon, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3This man has a point, when it comes to news, the Huffington Post is the liberal equivalent of Fox news.
If you feel dirty right now it's because you, like many other diggers, have read many of the articles and you know it to be true.
- kalderon, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3This man has a point, when it comes to news, the Huffington Post is the liberal equivalent of Fox news.
- Iphis, on 07/01/2008, -6/+8I didn't think I would come to this but I am once again considering throwing away my vote for an independent. His support for the gun decision, his support for the Telecoms, his beating around the bush (pun intended) on Iraq. What is the point of having two candidates if they support the same stuff. I had so much hope in him, almost made me think the Govt didn't have to be run by special interests and lobbyists. But now I see the truth once again.
- creepermclurker, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4I'm with you all the way.
Such a disappointment. - ender7074, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Wooo hoo the left wing nutjob speaks. Support for the gun decision? Thats written in the Constitution moron. Its a guarenteed right and was so important that it was the second thing that the Founding Fathers put into the Bill of Rights. DC subverted the constitution with that law 30 years ago and its finally been tossed out like the trash it is. Hes not going to do a damn thing about Iraq and has said so on multiple occasions. It seems that you need to relocate to some sort of socialist haven like, oh, Poland or Cuba or even Romania to see how wonderful your belief system is.
- Iphis, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1Hmmm. I was in the army for four years and I recall having weapons and systems that could take out your Pansie ass with your semi auto and home made pipe bombs in a fraction of a second. If you think gun rights give you some edge over the man you should lock yourself in that air sealed closet with all your antiquated weapon systems and suffocate.
Weapons don't fire bullets anymore man, they fire words and are delivered on the internet, your tv, your radio. They're not trying to take over your body, they want your mind. What more could they ask for.
- Iphis, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1Hmmm. I was in the army for four years and I recall having weapons and systems that could take out your Pansie ass with your semi auto and home made pipe bombs in a fraction of a second. If you think gun rights give you some edge over the man you should lock yourself in that air sealed closet with all your antiquated weapon systems and suffocate.
- Bkaufman, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2So you think that wiretapping is unconstitutional but preventing people from protecting themselves is constitutional? Typical Liberal.
- creepermclurker, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4I'm with you all the way.
- TCSavant, on 07/01/2008, -6/+24The left has never won an election. The middle makes winners.
- Mightbiteyou, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4why are people digging TCSavant's comment down? You may not like it but it is true, the same can be said for the right. The economy will grow because all businesses want to grow. The gov just needs to do as little as possible without the little guy or the environment getting wrecked.
- Salome666, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Plus Obama has been in the middle all along. JFC . . . he was for capital punishment & pistol hunting (of animals - in-season) while in the IL state legislature. He views the world from a very central even-handed place. I never understood how he bore the terrible label of "most liberal Senator."
I don't even know what "liberal" really means. Do you? I drive a V-8 & eat meat. I monitor it so as to remain sustainable but still . . . . people throw around these terms like they are badges of honor while at the same time freaking out live on the air one night when the fat hit the fire a bit too quickly.
Lame. Let me break it down for you:
I am liberal on the interpretation of the 13th & 14th amendment. I am conservative on everything else.
Figure that one out.
- obamayomama, on 07/01/2008, -10/+17Memo to the Huffnuts: There aren't as many of you wackos as you'd like to think, and there's no way Obama can get elected hawking wind-powered cars and chewing tree bark the way you want him to.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/01/2008, -10/+28Dear Political Noobs,
We told you so.
Also, please stop and think for a minute and ask yourself if Obama is only moving to the middle now or if he was just telling you far left nutcases what you wanted to hear back during the primaries so that you would get all hot and bothered and not care when he showed his true colors during the general elections.- Prosequi, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7Why would his stance in the general elections necessarily be "his true colors" - it could just as easily be the other way around - unfortunately we will not know until its all over.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/01/2008, -3/+10All I said was stop and consider the possibility. Either way, it is clear that a very large number of people have fallen victim to a smooth talker who, at the moment, doesn't seem to stand for anything.
Some agent for change, huh? - nycmac247, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?nof ...
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/01/2008, -3/+10All I said was stop and consider the possibility. Either way, it is clear that a very large number of people have fallen victim to a smooth talker who, at the moment, doesn't seem to stand for anything.
- warhol15, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6I agree with you vexingmodstwo.... that's what made the primaries so perplexing for me. If anyone here had a concern about Obama we were labeled as "lazy idiots" who couldn't just "go to his website" and see what his plans were.... as if his "plans" were really somehow going to magically become policy on election day. sigh...what a waste.... let the revelations begin.
- tkstock, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Based on his voting record, he really believes what he was telling the left in the primaries - he's known as the most liberal senator.
He's now trying to change his rhetoric to be more centrist during the general election.
I hope the public will see it for what it is: political expediency of a politician who will do what he has to get elected - he's incapable of making a principled stance.
- Prosequi, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7Why would his stance in the general elections necessarily be "his true colors" - it could just as easily be the other way around - unfortunately we will not know until its all over.
- chadisawesome, on 07/01/2008, -4/+20I would think that moving to the middle would be a good thing considering that's where MOST americans fall. I know that I don't agree with a lot of Liberal views, and I also don't agree with a lot of Conservative views. I know many people like that.. the world isn't only black and white, and I think that candidates that see that, and vote and act how the actually feel instead of what the party TELLS them to fell, maybe we would have a better situation in politics.
If all candidates were in the middle, it would probably be easier to find candidates that fall more in line with the beliefs and views of the average citizen.- jsmith39, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2I kind of understand what you're saying (I'm not a liberal either on most platforms) but one of the main things that has made me want to vote for Obama was that he has seemed to stand for his beliefs, and even though I haven't always agreed with him I respect him. There is never going to be a person running for office that mirrors my views on everything so character is a big pull for me when it comes to elections. I sincerely hope he does not lose that.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6The keyword in your comment is "seemed".
Folks, you've been played by a smooth talking politician. It's time to face that fact. I know it is a tough pill to swallow but it is better to learn this lesson young.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6The keyword in your comment is "seemed".
- jsmith39, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2I kind of understand what you're saying (I'm not a liberal either on most platforms) but one of the main things that has made me want to vote for Obama was that he has seemed to stand for his beliefs, and even though I haven't always agreed with him I respect him. There is never going to be a person running for office that mirrors my views on everything so character is a big pull for me when it comes to elections. I sincerely hope he does not lose that.
- Debmood, on 07/01/2008, -7/+22Ariana Huffington and George Stephanopoulos would do us a good service by exiting the United States permanently. I can't believe people still watch George. He is an idiot wrapped in a moron. I can't stand the site of him. Huffington Post is no more than Tabloid trash. Go away Ariana and George. Get married. You deserve each other.
- bentman78, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3At least a majority of Americans don't believe their trash. These two make me sick.
- ProUSADigger, on 07/01/2008, -3/+0It would be much more entertaining to watch them dragged from their houses, beaten horribly, and finally
hanged from the nearest light pole. But, having them exit the US would suffice, I guess. ;)
/For all the liberals who are surely to respond with their usual whiny liberal BS...it was a joke. I don't
want to actually watch them hanged. While it would provide years of mental masturbatory material,
I don't want to actually see them hanged.- chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Jokes are funny. Murder isn't. Blocked, buried, reported.
- evo8ftw, on 07/01/2008, -17/+18Obama isn't that bright. He got on TV yesterday at lunch time with a big look at me sign and started blahabling a bunch of BS that he had some pawn right for him. He compared himself to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams then proceed to call out Lincoln and Truman(which were really Roosevelt's) for their actions during war time.
"Change you can believe in" anyone that supports Obama I feel sorry for you as you are a few eggs shy of a dozen.- skyz, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6i agree
obama is clever but he is no way brilliant
this comparing himself to the truly great is 'hope' and 'wish' not real
he is not all that and....
but he managed to convince enough people for enough time because people are all too easy to convinnce - evo8ftw, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2If you are going to bury this comment at least try and make an make an educated argument for your case.
- johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5Any politician comparing themselves to our forefathers ought to be outright shot. Those men were light years ahead mentally/politically than all of these lame brains in Washington today.
- riseabove, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1you sound like mccain, idiot
- johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2You sound like a moron, and I don't give a ***** who I sound like, because it's the truth.
Obama, McCain, Bush, none of these morons could ever work together to craft such an excellent basis for this country and our rights.
- skyz, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6i agree
- minorthreat, on 07/01/2008, -1/+11I like Obama sure and I know this is starting to be cliche to say, but Huffington post is really starting to get on my nerves. It sinks to the lows of Fox news and attempts to do the same tactics. This would have been useful say in 2003 or so, but its 2008 and I thought the we were above that level by now.
- zacharytelschow, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9"Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn't work for Al Gore in 2000."
I'm not as sure. It made the race darn close, much closer than it probably would have been otherwise.- kalderon, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0Al Gore won in 2000 too, didn't he?
- amightywind, on 07/01/2008, -12/+6Obama will now abandon the radical leftist voters who got him where he is. He is backpedaling on almost all of his wacky leftist positions. He is sounding a little like ... GDub. If he is such a patriot, why does he hang around unrepentant terrorists like Bill Ayers? And why does he employ such slimy surrogates as Wesley "White Flag" Clark.
- SQLserver, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3YOU are the one starting to sound like.... GDub.
- Cayfox, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Radical leftist views? Obama? What kind of jackbooted wingnut world do you live in? You neocons would be adorable if it wasn't for the whole war in the Middle East and slide towards totalitarianism.
- Noiremorte, on 07/01/2008, -2/+19It's nice to see that HuffPost finally got off Obama's dick, but it seems like they're trying to make up for it now. Regardless I think HuffPost is *****.
- CHANNELOCK, on 07/01/2008, -13/+6Whats behind the Obama flip flopping .
1.Banks/Wall Street
2.Oil Companies.
3.Military
4.Israel
5.Neo-Cons that will still staff all branches of the Government even without their wooden dummy Bush taking the heat.
Then you have.
1.Liberal Actors and Moore type propagandist that cant act or produce anything memorable.
2.Huffington post
3.Starbuck and Borders Book employees blogging after work about how the Messiah is making them feel sad.
4.College students that have never worked at any other job besides Starbucks and Borders books
5.Hairy pompous unkempt diggers writting in bold type "WE MUST TAKE BACK AMERICA VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!"- CHANNELOCK, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Dam!... your one angry son of a bitch
- j0hnk377y, on 07/01/2008, -4/+17And so it begins....the typical Democratic candidate coming out of the primary only to try and completely reinvent him/herself for the general election. I'm sure he's going to "firm up" on: capital punishment, immigration, Iraq, bombing Iran (I think he already got firm on this), lapel pin (check, covered that a few weeks ago), religion (check, canned his minister of 20+ years)....
Change = Same old gameplan- legolas68, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3A left-wing candidate who comes into the general election gets blown out 9 times out of 10.
Wellstone, Kennedy, Frank, and the other fruities are a few exceptions to the rule. - scroobyrooberoo, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Yeah, he took his opportunity on capital punishment last week when the Supreme Court ruled that states can't execute for rape. So Obama comes out and says basically that not only should they be able to execute for rape, but states should be able to execute for anything they feel is acceptable by passing it in the state legislature. I guess they'll be executing gays in Oklahoma pretty soon, and geee whillikers that's Okie-dokie by Obama.
Oh and I didn't hear any of the "Obamaniacs" crying foul on that one. They hardly even noticed because they're too busy groveling in front of their "New God, but I'm still an athiest." Haha.- johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Read the 10th Amendment.
The states are given the power over any laws not provided or denied in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has no business ruling on what a state can/cannot do unless it's specified with the Constitution and the Amendments.
Regardless of whether you agree with capital punishment, I'd think upholding the Constitution and our rights are the bigger issue. - johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0By the way, I forgot to mention the 8th Amendment, but I am a little impartial to child molesters, especially for the degree of molestations that they were talking about executions for.
- johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Read the 10th Amendment.
- legolas68, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3A left-wing candidate who comes into the general election gets blown out 9 times out of 10.
- Iphis, on 07/01/2008, -15/+8Looks like it's time to give up DIGG. I didn't realize it had become a surrogate of the RNC.
- legolas68, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9One bad article about the rock star Obama and you run to the hills. We on the right have been dealing with the leftward slant since Obama even hinted at running.
- dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6The scale is weighted so heavily to the left and then someone drops a pebble on the right side and you go running. Sad.
- ProUSADigger, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3"I didn't realize it (Digg) had become a surrogate of the RNC."
Wow. Now that's just crazy in a Kucinich sort of way. - GreatSunJester, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4wow.. just wow...... logic leaps like that are what keep me reading Digg! :)
- melondoc, on 07/01/2008, -6/+4I'm sure McCain and his supporters would also like to urge Obama to move as far to the Left as possible. Moving to the center is just pandering to the will of most of the voters.
- LeadOffMan, on 07/01/2008, -9/+8hope-boy moving to the center, that's hilarious
- Shao00, on 07/01/2008, -5/+8one of my history teachers back in HS used to say, pick one side of the road or the other, if you stand in the middle you only end up getting hit by a truck.
- WiretapStudios, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4That doesn't make any sense. The middle of two opposite roads is the double line...the least likely place to get hit of the three choices...
- Standing on the line- Shao00, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5you missed the point completely
- libertao, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Pick one side of the road, not one lane of the road.
- kmolleja, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4So your history teacher watched Karate Kid huh?
- WiretapStudios, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4That doesn't make any sense. The middle of two opposite roads is the double line...the least likely place to get hit of the three choices...
- WiretapStudios, on 07/01/2008, -4/+5Ariannas ex didn't just move to the middle...he switched teams.
- johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Maybe Obama should "switch teams"...
- odinfire, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1According to some, he already has.
- johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Maybe Obama should "switch teams"...
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/01/2008, -3/+8Speaking of moving to the center... Did the article on CNN about Obama ripping Moveon.org ever make it to the front page here?
- rhabd0mancer, on 07/01/2008, -5/+10I'm disappointed that Obama is pledging to increase funding for Bush's "faith-based" programs.
This isn't change I can believe in. This is pathetic pandering for the nutty evangelical vote.- legolas68, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5I hate to disappoint you but "faith-based" programs are a success whether you like it or not.
- rhabd0mancer, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Which ones are successful? The christian ones? The $cientology ones?
- legolas68, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Being a Christian I would have an obvious preference, but being in a country where congress "shall make no religion" I would be forbidden to force the issue. Obviously, yours is an excellent point.
It's a messy situation but shouldn't be cast aside because it's difficult.
- juanchopanza, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0This is solidifying the black vote. One of the strongest groups supporting faith-based programs is black churches and mosques.
- thebaron2, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1As if that group needs solidifying - Obama got 90%+ of the black vote already.
- legolas68, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5I hate to disappoint you but "faith-based" programs are a success whether you like it or not.
- abran1984, on 07/01/2008, -4/+9Obama is moving to expand faith-based programs...which candidate is Bush 2.0 again?
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_to_EXPAND_ ... - aleone31, on 07/01/2008, -3/+8Moving to the middle. Don't you mean politically expedient lying. If you don't know what I'm talking about, I just called your God and candidate a liar. Now thats change isn't it.
- yohnstoppable, on 07/01/2008, -2/+11I agree. Let's all just blindly follow partisan politics, and follow the quota for each dominant party. ***** all the people who want reduced government spending, but don't want the religious zealotry of the right along with it. ***** the people who oppose telecom immunity, but don't want unconstitutional gun laws.
The way digg zombies follow this woman's every word is frightening. Personally, I'm tired of having to accept all the baggage that comes with a candidate from either party.- creepermclurker, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1I honestly don't understand your post.
I would describe myself as someone who does not want their tax money wasted, want religion out of government, opposes immunity for telecoms (who know what they were doing was illegal at he time) and thinks the people have a right to arm themselves.
I don't follow how your first paragraph leads to your second.
If you are still around I would be interested in hearing you elaborate.- yohnstoppable, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1My first paragraph was basically illustrating how all of the issues from either party aren't linked. For instance, what core belief links reduced government spending and religious zealotry? What core belief links universal health care to gun control? Some of the issues that become partisan are mind boggling to me, as I just cannot conform my beliefs to either party.
The second paragraph was basically a comment on how digg doesn't seem to think for itself (zombies). Huffington makes an observation, and perspectives around here change. Looking back, it was a bit over the top, but that was out of frustration. The whole process has me feeling jaded at the fact that 2 parties which are so black and white have this much power, when most of the US considers itself in the middle ground.
As far as these paragraphs relating to each other, I feel digg's mentality is a good example of my partisan complaint. The general clark comments (which huffington also backed) are a good example of this as well.
- yohnstoppable, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1My first paragraph was basically illustrating how all of the issues from either party aren't linked. For instance, what core belief links reduced government spending and religious zealotry? What core belief links universal health care to gun control? Some of the issues that become partisan are mind boggling to me, as I just cannot conform my beliefs to either party.
- Cayfox, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2I think it's a mistake to assume that there's some kind of golden mean between the Democratic and Republican parties which gives everyone the best of both worlds. These are hardly opposite poles that represent the full breadth of political opinion, and in politics as with anything else, it's possible to reach a compromise that satisfies no one.
- thebaron2, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Did the story go over your head? This isn't about holding views that don't follow party lines 100% of the time.
It's about claiming you hold certain views during the primary (eg. NAFTA = evil) for political expediency, and then changing those views to appeal to a different group of voters during the general.
If he'd been saying the same thing all along there wouldn't be an issue, but he hasn't. Since winning the primary his positions are changing to appeal to a different subset of voters. Yeah that happens all the time and is part of the broken process, but Barack's entire appeal was that he was going to CHANGE that process, not fall right into line after winning the primary. - yohnstoppable, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3BTW, while I stand by my statements above, Obama has definitely gone off the deep end now
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_to_expand_ ...
- creepermclurker, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1I honestly don't understand your post.
- seraph582, on 07/01/2008, -1/+17And it's not like he's moving to the middle in the best possible way - socially liberal and fiscally conservative - no no no - he's going socially conservative (YUCK) and fiscally liberal (YUCK!!!)
color me disgusted! - obamayomama, on 07/01/2008, -10/+12It's becoming clear that the hardcore lefties won't support Obama in the end, and that's why McCain will win. Selfishly, I have to admit that it's fun watching his moon-bat support dry up. Obama is facing the political reality that most of America is to the right of you idealistic nut jobs, and so he's shifting in order to have a chance in this election. You and your ilk won't be happy unless he trades his dress shoes and flag lapel pin for Birkenstocks and Marx's manifesto. The fact is that Mr. Obama's advisers understand what the HP and it's kool aid drinking disciples still can't accept- that they're still (thank God) in the minority.
- bleutuna, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4Uh....not anymore. Thanks to Bush's war and the cost of gas, food, housing, and the economy being in the tanker, MOST of America is clearly behind Obama and not McCain.
- obamayomama, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1Is that why he barely won the nomination in his own party, and wouldn't have if the public had known about his radical associations sooner? Go ahead, believe the wishful-thinking L.A. Times polls- they had McGovern beating Reagan by 13 points.
- Defuser, on 07/01/2008, -3/+0You sir, are an idiot. Your entire moronic point seems to be that the "Hardcore Left" will decide to support a REPUBLICAN, merely because Obama isn't "Liberal enough". Maybe if you'd grow the hell up, you'd realize that very few people are as insane as you appear to be.
- obamayomama, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4You sir, call me a name that your sophomoric comment reveals you to be. Nowhere did I state that you crazies will vote for McCain, but a lot will become disillusioned and and stay home, or, more likely, at mom's house, longing for a a Kucinich/UFO resurgence.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Sweet! I was able to upvote the Kucinich/UFO resurgence comment twice!
- nycmac247, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2@obamayomama
Keep licking the boots of the corptocracy - "right" and "left" - and soon we'll live in a truly 3rd world country, just like _all_ of our current government supports.- obamayomama, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3OK, I know that you're a brilliant nonconformist but you may want to take note that "right" and "left" are how political leanings are defined. If we can't use these terms to designate ideology (something that's been done for quite some time now,) then it takes a whole lot of words to describe them, doesn't it? Perhaps we should defer to hip new terms like "corptocracy," only found in the "urban" dictionary. Yo, yo, s'up?
- tnoy, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1The "hardcore lefties" are going to vote for the "not McCain" ticket.
Who else are they going to vote for? They're the same group of peope that cry about Nader running, and that a vote for him will be a vote for McCain. They'll vote Democrat no matter who is running.- chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Not this one. I'm not voting for Democrats unless they vote for me. If Obama comes out for nationalizing the health insurance industry and cutting off the illegal war, I'll vote for him. If he doesn't, I'll vote Green or Nader or whoever the hell makes the ballot in Texas that isn't a Republican or a Democrat.
I survived George W Dumbass. John McCain doesn't scare me.
- chicofaraby, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Not this one. I'm not voting for Democrats unless they vote for me. If Obama comes out for nationalizing the health insurance industry and cutting off the illegal war, I'll vote for him. If he doesn't, I'll vote Green or Nader or whoever the hell makes the ballot in Texas that isn't a Republican or a Democrat.
- bleutuna, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4Uh....not anymore. Thanks to Bush's war and the cost of gas, food, housing, and the economy being in the tanker, MOST of America is clearly behind Obama and not McCain.
- ProUSADigger, on 07/01/2008, -5/+11Huffington Post....buried.
- FLUX, on 07/01/2008, -7/+14huffingpost= dugg down
get this hack partisan lying rag off the front page - jamesmcv, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7It's completely rational for Obama to "move to the middle". As described by Hotelling's law, a candidate will always have an incentive to aim their policies towards the middle so that they can capture as much of the vote to their "left" (if they're the "left wing" candidate) as possible.
- legolas68, on 07/01/2008, -4/+15Promises made during the primaries no longer matter because this guy is a boiler-plate democrat just like all the others.
Obama cannot win the general election with the same agenda he used to stir up the whackos on the far left to win the primaries. The far left agenda is not mainstream, and will never send a candidate to the white house.
This guy has to steer very hard to the center, and even right of center, to garner any kind of votes that will mak