digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Message from Obama camp re: $5M Hillary loan

my.barackobama.com — The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary and Bill Clinton injected $5 million of their personal fortune into her campaign a few days ago. This is a dramatic move, and a clear acknowledgement that our campaign has the momentum. We saw undeniable evidence of that last night as the results came in.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gyrfalcon, on 02/07/2008, -167/+27P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act:

    Paul: NO
    Obama: YES (reauthorization)

    P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act II

    Paul: NO
    Obama: YES

    Real ID:

    Paul: NO
    Obama: YES

    Iraq War funding:

    Paul: NO
    Obama: YES
    • TremorX, on 02/07/2008, -21/+138Has a snowball's chance in Hell:

      Paul: NO
      Obama: YES
      • TheAstronomer, on 02/07/2008, -28/+11Ron Paul is the man
        • orca94, on 02/07/2008, -11/+16No, your mom is.
          • lust, on 02/07/2008, -23/+8What kind of ***** comeback is that? no, your mom is???? Get the ***** out of here.
      • lust, on 02/07/2008, -5/+12And how many states did Ron win so far??? NONE
      • imikedaman, on 02/07/2008, -7/+17I wonder if the 55 people who dugg you so far realized that having a snowball's chance in hell is a *bad* thing. You basically just said Obama has no chance of winning.
        • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+8I think he was referring to the hell that's frozen over.
        • TremorX, on 02/07/2008, -0/+8Yeah, I realized my semantical snafu about a half-second after the edit option ended. I ADMIT MY MISTAKES AND LEARN FROM THEM. Hillary could really learn a lot from me, I think.
        • feoren, on 02/07/2008, -2/+8Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.
          Obama does have (at least) a snowball's chance in Hell.

          You're like those people who say "I could care less" without realizing what they're saying. Congrats on making someone who used the expression correctly think he messed up, though.
      • CCoe, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4You're doing it wrong.
    • Xizer, on 02/07/2008, -15/+16PRON HAULLLLLLLLLL
    • Ajajadude, on 02/07/2008, -7/+10Hooray for copy and paste!
    • chall85, on 02/07/2008, -22/+28***** ron paul nobody gives a *****.
    • legendxx, on 02/07/2008, -20/+59POLICIES WOULD ONLY WORK IN 1800's

      Paul: YES
      Obama: NO
    • Jarhead085, on 02/07/2008, -18/+24I'm so sick of Ron Paul it makes me sick, and I thought apple fanboys were bad.
      • scbysnx, on 02/07/2008, -10/+6yeah.. those dumbasses who were fanatical about taxes were annoying to.. I mean.. dude they threw all our tea in the water!
        • Jarhead085, on 02/07/2008, -3/+3Seriously WTF.
        • BrainInAJar, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4you realize that the boston tea party was because britain /lowered/ tea taxes... right?
          • EuroMarkus, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4You're miss-reading it -- the tea tax was dropped and Dutch East India flooded the colonies with cheap tea under-cutting local dealers. This was the King's way of breaking the boycott after the uprising to the stamp tax.
          • scbysnx, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1my point was that groups of fanatics are the ones who have made changes in this country
        • Butros, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3uh that was taxation without representation... nub
      • evilgeniuscow, on 02/07/2008, -6/+2I'm so sick of Obama it makes me sick, and I thought the Paul fanboys were bad.
    • br0ck, on 02/07/2008, -4/+25P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act: Obama wasn't in office

      P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act II:
      Obama introduced legislation to restore civil liberties lost in the Patriot Act, but the House killed it. He then had only two choices. A YEA vote would add civil rights fixes to the Patriot act and a NAY vote would let the old patriot act stand with no civil rights fixes. YEA was really the only choice for those that wanted to at least fix some of the problems. He gave an impassioned speech before the vote to the senate to not let this die and to fix all the civil rights violations. A more nuanced explanation is here http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/01/not_a_cont ... and his speech is at http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statem ...

      Real ID:
      The senate never really a direct vote on the issue like the House did. Read this letter from Obama which explains that he doesn't like it and explains how it got through the senate attached by the House to a tsunami relief and veterans support bill : http://www.eduwrit.com/blog/?p=1004

      Iraq War funding:
      Q: then why did he vote for war funding
      A: “Once we had our troops two years into a war, it was important that we try to do the best possible job on it. So is Sen. Clinton’s argument is that the only people who were principled about this were people who voted against funding all the time, if that’s the case, she should talk to Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer (war critics who also voted for the funding). Apparently they weren’t against the war the entire time.”
      http://thepage.time.com/full-comments-from-obamas- ...
      • orca94, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2Not a single reply from the Paul fans. Why? Because logic makes their heads explode, it's great watching it in person.
    • Azio, on 02/07/2008, -18/+14Published and signed racist newsletters with his name in the title
      Obama: NO
      Paul: YES

      Takes donations from white supremacists, poses in photographs with white supremacists, and allegedly eats out weekly with white supremacists
      Obama: NO
      Paul: YES

      Claims that he does not take donations from interests that he does not agree with
      Obama: NO
      Paul: YES

      Is therefore a liar and/or a ***** insane right-wing racist
      Obama: NO
      Paul: YES
      • rv36116, on 02/07/2008, -3/+2Knows the problem with our economy:

        You: can't even begin to fathom what our economic problems would entail
        Me: Understands our foreign policy and our currency matter more than your little minded digg comments.
    • HYPEractive, on 02/07/2008, -3/+12EVOLUTION:
      Paul: NO
      Obama: YES
      • gyrfalcon, on 02/16/2008, -1/+1You obviously don't know anything about evolution.
    • IKORKYI, on 02/07/2008, -3/+3You = Douche. According to Digg TOS - comment spam is being offensive. Please join me in removing username: gyralcon from Digg. Please submit a report if you bury him for spamming.

      PS: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397 ...
      • gyrfalcon, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Awww poor spammer gets upset with spam.
  • economyisland, on 02/07/2008, -11/+103Obama didn't vote for the original Patriot Act, he voted for a modified verison. Still dissapointing but you're misrepresenting facts.

    Iraq war fudning isn't as simple as supporting the war or not. When did Obama vote for realid?
    • Napoleone, on 02/07/2008, -36/+11The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act he voted for was left virtually unchaged from the original. Don't hide the facts.

      The Real ID he voted for was no secret to him, being on the Homeland Security Committee. And he wants it to get MORE money.

      The Iraq War he voted to fund three times is the same ***** up war Bush started.

      Vote for the guy, but don't lie to other voters about his record. His hands are dirty.
      • Ajajadude, on 02/07/2008, -2/+13Bush wasn't going to leave Iraq quickly. He still won't. Until the likes of Pelosi and others sack up, the troops need the funding.
      • Hipple, on 02/07/2008, -4/+19The Iraq War funding is for funding the troops. If Ron Paul feels that the troops in Iraq aren't entitled to body armor, that's fine, but I won't be voting for him.

        Not everyone shares your views about Real ID. I know that may be shocking, but it's true.

        As far as the Patriot Act goes: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/clinton-s ...

        And more importantly, Ron Paul isn't running against Obama. He's not going to win the nomination, and you Ron Paul supporters are increasingly coming across as just sour grapes. Get over it.
        • Hipple, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4Whoops, here's the link for the Patriot Act: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/clinton-s ...

          Scroll down to Obama's quote
          • Napoleone, on 02/07/2008, -4/+1Words and deeds are quite distinct.
        • BlakeEM, on 02/07/2008, -7/+3s "The Iraq War funding is for funding the troops. If Ron Paul feels that the troops in Iraq aren't entitled to body armor, that's fine, but I won't be voting for him."

          Oh man, that one's right out of the Neo-con play book, it's what they said to stop the dems from voting against these bills. Why the ***** would someone vote for a bill that funds future war/killings? I know I sure wouldn't. If Bush sends them in without body armor that ihis fault not the people that voted against these bills. Anyway, the military already had billions in the pipeline for anything they need anyway.
        • Ranvier, on 02/07/2008, -1/+5For BlakeEM:

          The soldiers will get sent in whether they have the body armor or not. So even though it wouldn't be those voting against the funding's fault, the soldiers would still be suffering. I don't care if the war is wrong or not [which it is], the soldier still deserve to have a chance at surviving out there. It's not their war, it's Bush's, so don't take it out on them.
        • nolesshabitual, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6blake:
          this may be from the neo-cons playbook, but there's a grain of the truth in it. those troops don't deserve to die simply to prove a political point. what's your objective, to laugh in bush's face and say "ha all your troops are dead so now you can't have your war!"???? it's no better than bush parlaying 3000 dead americans who were killed by mostly saudi agents into a reason to attack iraq in the first place.
      • BlakeEM, on 02/07/2008, -2/+1 .
      • Synova, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Actually the Senate version made significant changes, while the House bill did not. When the commitee combined them they basically ignored all senate changes and went with the ***** version in the House.
    • amber00, on 02/07/2008, -28/+5Your softballing this, a vote for Patriot Act is a vote against the Republic, and Real ID? Barak Obama is Benedict Arnold. What about his Yes we can Invade Pakistan speach? He want's to pull troops out of Iraq and send them into Pakistan? This isn't serious right, you would really rather have this clown then Ron Paul?
      • polymorph505, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2Uh, no. We would rather have this clown than Clinton/McCain.
    • NSResponder, on 02/07/2008, -23/+5"he voted for a modified verison."

      Oh, gag me. Like that's supposed to convince me that he's any better than any other congresscritter who votes for a bill without reading it?

      -jcr
    • jake07, on 02/07/2008, -6/+13It's been forty years since America landed on the moon. Nothing, from then to now, has rallied the American majority to unite around a common cause. It's a sad irony that 911 was an opportunity missed. It only heightened the cynicism people like you and me feel. Barack has hope and integrity and is uniting unlikely constituents under a progressive cause we can actually get behind. A way forward. His gift of a silk voice rallies the downtrodden. He vocally opposed the war from the beginning, supports research and implementing alternative fuel, has a plan for lower health care costs, etc. etc. But the issues are beside the point if you cannot unite the people to their nation, and bring the nation back to its international role of inspiring peace, justice and liberty. Who better than a man from his background?
      "But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there." JFK
      I want to put this man in office. Sometimes it feels as difficult as putting a man on the moon. But it feels like the real American story. This is the way forward. And with cynicism on the rise it's been too long since we inspired one another. For a change, this campaign is about hope, not fear. And, "In the unlikely story that is America, there is nothing false about hope."
    • rolf, on 02/07/2008, -5/+3He voted for the reauthorization. As in if it didn't come to vote or voted against it (and if there were enough votes against it) the Patriot Act would be no more.

      Please don't pretend he didn't vote for it. The original Patriot Act had sunset provisions, that if not renewed, it would have been expired.
      • floatingpoints, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2People like you pretend to know about history, but fail.
    • Jenadae, on 02/07/2008, -2/+1Obama didn't vote for RealID because the bill didn't offer the program enough funding. No i wont back this up with the quote or a link to it atm because I'm busy but if someone else would that'd be great
  • Walldo, on 02/07/2008, -4/+56Go ahead and dig this but by the time it gets to the front page he'll already have his $5 million and a whole lot more (:

    Current count: $4.25 million
    • davidrools, on 02/07/2008, -3/+18how the HELL do hillary and bill have $5 million sitting in the bank that they can throw at their campaign. Please tell me how an honest politician can get that rich.
      • Ajajadude, on 02/07/2008, -1/+32Someone who has been a U.S. president can make mad bank by just going around doing speeches. I'm sure he's also made money from books and signing away the rights to stories, etc.
        • mrASSMAN, on 02/07/2008, -0/+7Competent US presidents anyway.. can't imagine Bush getting paid too much to speak..
      • LBobRife, on 02/07/2008, -0/+19Speeches man. They make BANK for speeches.
      • inputusername, on 02/07/2008, -0/+24Bill Clinton got the largest book advance in history for "My Life" at $12 million. Hillary got $8 million for her book "Living History". Plus, Bill makes around $150,000 per speaking engagement.
      • VeganG, on 02/07/2008, -3/+3If you ask me, no politician should have that much money.
      • OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3I looked at hillary's financial disclosure (the kind you need to make yearly to hold public office). Bill made over 5 million in 2005 just giving speeches. he toured the world and gave less than 100 speeches that year and took about 4 months where he didn't do any work at all. Meanwhile, Obama's NET WORTH is less than a million dollars. He's practically broke compared to his colleagues in the senate. Makes him more like us imo.
    • DinosWillDie13, on 02/07/2008, -0/+15Romney has poured much much more than that into his own campaign. I'm just glad Obama is getting his financial support the right way.
      • KirbyMeister, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1To be fair, Romney's money is his own, from owning a business instead of giving speeches for large sums of money. And hey, if he can manage to manage business money I think he'd have a good shot at balancing the US Budget. Sadly he's being outvoted by McCain who pretty much has the election in the bag. I guess the only hope for us now is Barack Obama.
  • dagnabbit, on 02/07/2008, -5/+79$4.25 million so far today. Simply amazing.

    Yes, Paul raised more in one day. But that was after days of organizing for it all over the net. This is completely organic, just a reaction to his overwhelming success and momentum after Feb 5.
    • rhinocero, on 02/07/2008, -1/+17It is a bit misleading to call it completely organic, since it's certainly been encouraged and spurred on by the Obama campaign. It is nevertheless simply incredible that it sprung up in under twenty-four hours.
      • dagnabbit, on 02/07/2008, -0/+17You're right, bad choice of words. But I mean it was more of an immediate reaction rather than a planned event on a certain day.
      • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -0/+9Of course, but if Obama's supporters weren't serious they wouldn't have answered the call.
      • Gabberwok, on 02/07/2008, -0/+12There was a groundswell of donations well before they announced the drive. I held off until today to donate because I wanted to make sure Obama could make it past Super Tuesday before giving him my money. I'm sure I wasn't the only one, and I donated today before hearing about this. They didn't announce this "drive" until 6:30 PM, so unless most of that $4.8 million was donated in the last 3 hours it was pretty much just "organic".
    • Napoleone, on 02/07/2008, -14/+5Don't diminish Paul's accomplishment. Democrats have tens of millions of individuals in their party. That takes years to accomplish. It's hardly organic.

      What you're seeing is the Obama machine, not a grassroots effort.
      • gyrfalcon, on 02/07/2008, -15/+4It's definitely a machine... You have normal folks trying to get Ron Paul elected, and paid politicians and interest groups working to get Obama in office.
        • kmj2l, on 02/07/2008, -2/+11I'm neither a paid politician, nor an interest group.
        • IKORKYI, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2a machine that is working = obama, your self invisioned ron paul spamming machine is in full force, however, SUCKS and FAILS
      • Anzat, on 02/07/2008, -1/+11We ARE the Obama machine. My $25. My friend's $25. Another student's $10. Hundreds of thousands of $25, $50, and $100 contributors are the Obama machine. That's a machine I'm happy to see in power.
        • CC440, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5I'm the $10, donated 5 minutes ago. How can I see the live donation feed?
      • tattertech, on 02/07/2008, -1/+6I'm no Obama supporter, but you're seriously mis-characterizing the movement. It is very much driven by individuals rallying together, not interest groups.
    • amber00, on 02/07/2008, -6/+12Paul's zeitgeist came after a complete mainstream media black out about him, he did't have Oprah, and LA Times endorsing him. Your talking apples and oranges comparing the two.
      • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -10/+8Maybe because he's an insane and dangerous candidate that appeals to nobody but people who read Digg all day and actually believe everything they read on it? Maybe nobody endorsed him because, well, you know, he'd run the country into the ground and isn't that great of a candidate, and the non-internet-obsessed demographic understands that. Did you ever consider that one? Or did we just jump straight into the conspiracy theories that evil aliens from the planet Xenu hate freedom and therefore Ron Paul?
        • KirbyMeister, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Are you saying $cientology controls the election?
    • greenamp, on 02/07/2008, -1/+6Obama supporters really have no need to be viral towards Ron Paul supporters. Hell, most of us will vote for Obama over McCain if it comes down to it.
    • michaelschmitt, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4Clinton winning California is what led me to donate to Obama. I'd been thinking about it, but Hillary's success in my home state led me to make my first campaign contribution ever.

      Go Obama!
  • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -29/+146Made website that showed where all government money goes:
    Obama: YES
    Paul: NO

    Represents an area that gets a disproportionately large sum of money from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in pork/riders:
    Obama: NO
    Paul: YES

    Has most of their money in gold and gold production while advocating an economy-destroying gold standard:
    Obama: NO
    Paul: YES
    • synaesthesia, on 02/07/2008, -14/+71May actually become President of the United States:
      Obama: YES
      Paul: NO

      edit; beaten
    • gyrfalcon, on 02/07/2008, -34/+7"Made website that showed where all government money goes"

      You're an idiot if you don't know where government money goes: http://www.elunah.com/US%20Budget%202007.jpg

      "Represents an area that gets a disproportionately large sum of money from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in pork/riders"

      You are a complete idiot if you say this represents Ron Paul.

      "Has most of their money in gold and gold production while advocating an economy-destroying gold standard"

      Yeah you're a complete moron... Economy is already destroyed, and having a gold (commodity backed) currency wouldn't hurt anyone.
      • Hipple, on 02/07/2008, -4/+22I like your arguments!

        "You're an idiot.."

        "You are a complete idiot..."

        "Yeah you're a complete moron..."
      • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -3/+16Calling me a moron doesn't change the facts. Or make me a moron.

        On government money: that is a jpeg that shows the general picture but doesn't show who is getting the money, and for what. Check out http://www.usaspending.gov/ even though it is a tool of BIG GOVERNMENT to fund a website to show you where the money is actually going.

        On pork barrel spending: How the hell does it NOT represent Ron Paul when he cries about the evil huge government then takes advantage of it more than anyone else?

        On gold: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4QbJ3phEYs sums it up, also you really are a complete idiot if you think that having large trade deficits to china then switching to a gold standard "won't hurt anyone". Read an economics 101 textbook you nub.
        • crowbar77, on 02/07/2008, -3/+5I dont get it... so his big plan is to spend all this time running for president, just to switch us to the gold standard to make himself some money? Brilliant!!! Especially after he returnes a part of his salary every year, doesn't come off as the greedy kind of guy.
        • nolesshabitual, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4crowbar: would he need that salary if he inflated the value of the gold he invested in? Paul has some good ideas, he also has .00001% chance of being the republican candidate, with over 1/2 the states having voted he has not carried a single one. So here's the homework assignment for all you Paulites, research the viable candidates to figure out who you'll back in the general election....
        • mkrfctr, on 02/07/2008, -3/+2I'm sorry if the choices for "viable candidates" are between two socialists who will steal all my money and destroy the currency and economy in the process, a war monger who will need to instate a draft to satisfy his war plans and destroy the currency and economy, and a lying sack used car salesman who believes Jesus hung out in the good ol' USofA and wants to double gitmo and will destroy the currency and economy.

          Well then you'll excuse me of hating the other so called citizens who think our country has unlimited amounts of money to blow on ***** like supporting an empire overseas, fighting wars against brown people with ak47s, and giving free healthcare to everyone.
      • tattertech, on 02/07/2008, -3/+8Gold standard is a really bad idea (and really not much less arbitrary than our current system).
        • twiztidsinz, on 02/07/2008, -4/+4Do tell how...
        • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -1/+9We have a huge trade debt to china. If we switch to a gold standard we'd pretty much be obligated to ship the entire gold reserves of planet earth to china on demand. If you need more reasons than that, plenty exist, but that should do.
          • poppacherry, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2if the gold standard doesnt seem logical, then what the ***** do you propose when these debts catch up to us and rest of the world realizes the true value of our dollar?
      • JavanSClark, on 02/07/2008, -3/+6So.. um.. how is Ron Paul doing this year? hehe
        • poppacherry, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2he's old, *****, and beaten. kind of like your mom's *****.
      • IKORKYI, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Do you get dugg down on literally every comment you post? Digg should give the option to automatically filter comments from people who have more than 70% of their comments dugg down. With you included, the total removal of idiots from the internet would progress us into the next technological revolution.
        • gyrfalcon, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1You're not very bright... Of course my comments get dugg down when I piss off a bunch of Obama supporters.
    • geekee, on 02/07/2008, -26/+6Wants to increase the size of govt.
      Obama: YES
      Paul: NO

      You are either evil or stupid in the way you choose questions to lie about the reality of things. Paul wants to stop spending money. Obama wants to spend more money, whether it's healthcare, subprime loan bail-out, etc.
      • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -4/+25Some of us don't have a knee jerk reaction that ALL GOVERNMENT IS BAD NO MATTER WHAT. Nobody likes being regulated within an inch of their life, but you know, having affordable healthcare for everyone wouldn't really be a bad thing, nor would it trounce all over the constitution. The free market utterly fails at providing reasonable health care solutions, and while the free market is great for many things, it is not the solution to everything.

        Seriously, grow up a bit if you are going to start throwing around the word "evil" because OMG "BIG GOVERNMENT BAD" because someone disagrees with you. There's nothing that proves that a minimalist govenment is the best, either. I'm not lying about Obama's positions or misrepresented them at all, and I'm sorry you feel that the solution to all of our govenrment's problems is simple and drastic, and I hope that some day you can grow up and achieve a much more mature and complex view of reality.
        • geekee, on 02/07/2008, -7/+2I pay your taxes. I'm tired of it. It's not a knee jerk reaction. I'm siock of being your slave. Slavery is evil. So is lying and misleading people, which your are good at.
        • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5ALL TAXES ARE COERCION AND BLAH BLAH, ugh. Taxes are paying money for a service afforded to you by the government, and a social safety net isn't really a bad service to pay for. Calling it "slavery" to have to pay an extra couple bucks a month to cover for someone else's health insurance or help them up when they're down (so they can get back up and contribute to the economy, mind) is ridiculous and immature hyperbole.
          I hope for you, geekee, that you can someday grow up and out of the ridiculous "f--- you, I got mine" mentality of Libertarianism like the rest of us. :)
        • 0livero, on 02/07/2008, -3/+1Here's the deal: every time you give the government more power, you lose liberties, period. You want socialist health care? Fine - go to a socialist state. Our country was founded on the idea of democracy, and I'm dearly afraid the government, because of it's expansion, is limiting said democracy. Obama wants to continue to expand the government. I'm sorry, but I cannot support that.
        • alisdairo, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1geekee - slavery would imply you are forced to labour. No one forces you to stay in the US. There's simply a charge for being there. It gets you things like the fire brigade, policemen, roads, and other wonderful stuff. If you don't like it, you are free to leave.

          Olivero - democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive. The (extremely mild) forms of socialism practised by other states like the UK, France, Canada, etc, simply have a slightly different economic policy that institutionalises giving a damn about people other than yourself. It doesn't interfere with any of the principles of democracy. As you delve deeper that can change, sure, but programs such as universal healthcare aren't going to do it.
          • crowbar77, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2In Canada the government basically takes half of what you earn, at least as a buisness owner. There is a ton of wasteful spending that has nothing to do with the majority of us paying for it. If you want universal healthcare, be prepared to pay for it. It's real fun paying for people who smoke all there lives and get lung cancer.
          • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3It's real fun dying of a preventable disease because your insurance company won't pay for it, too.
          • br0ck, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1Crowbar, remember that in the US, Companies and employees pay through the nose to cover everyone too. Companies now pay $11,500 (family of four) per employee for insurance and employees each pay an average of $3,000 for insurance. Health care costs average $6,700 per person per year after insurance. That's $24,400 per year for the average employee going to cover health care and health insurance. This doesn't even count the 6.1% employer and 6.1% employee (>$6,000 for an average employee) which comes out of everyone's checks to cover Medicare and Social Security.
      • JavanSClark, on 02/07/2008, -2/+4 um.. yeah.. better watch it man, the big bad government is watching your every move, and your crazy Uncle RuPaul is the only one who can save you...
        • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -1/+6Hahaha. I'd definitely vote for RuPaul before voting for Ron Paul. Screw the gold standard, let's move to the FABULOUS standard! :D
        • geekee, on 02/07/2008, -5/+2"um.. yeah.. better watch it man, the big bad government is watching your every move, and your crazy Uncle RuPaul is the only one who can save you..."

          Spoken like a loser that relies on me to pay his taxes for him, and Obama wants to point the gun at me.
    • crowbar77, on 02/07/2008, -11/+4Have fun in pakistan. Whether you agree with Paul's views on the economy or not, its hard to argue with his foreign policy. Bin Ladin has implied himself the reason he attacked the US was from there occupation of Saudi Arabia. Don't forget he hasn't ruled against going into iran either or reducing the amount of foreign military bases, I believe the number is around 700? Why does the US need a base in China or Europe? What gives you the right to have a military force in a foreign country? You as tax payers are going to have to make up for the trillion dollars a year maintaing this empire.
    • twiztidsinz, on 02/07/2008, -10/+3How is the gold standard a bad thing?
      It work for many years before we recently changed it (I have a few silver certificates, some which I got as CHANGE meaning there are some still in circulation). I'd rather have REAL money than FAKE money, I'd rather know that what I have in my pocket will be roughly the value in 6 months to a year unlike now.
      • orca94, on 02/07/2008, -0/+9Currency is a form of wealth exchange, it shouldn't be tied to the discovery of precious metals. How would it make sense to try and represent the wealth of a nation in terms of precious metals when the annual wealth produced by many nations exceeds the total value of precious metals discovered in a year?
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/07/2008, -7/+3What's stopping the government from printing as many bills as they want. Nothing.

          If money has no backing its basically worthless.
          • orca94, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Money is only worthless when people don't want it. If you don't want yours, give it to me.
        • marksven, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8If the US government actually falls apart then gold is going to be useful as a doorstop. You can't feed your kids with it. It's a shiny metal that is impervious to corrosion. In such a situation you'll really need soap, toilet paper, and ammo. Not to mention what we are facing is a deflationary collapse, not hyperinflation. Right now much more money is being destroyed than is being created through new credit lending. The mortgage mess will wipe out possibly trillions of dollars of capitol in the end.
          • twiztidsinz, on 02/07/2008, -5/+1It can be sold to other countries as opposed to worthless/inflated pieces of paper.
            wipe your ass with a $100 or sell your 100Euro worth of gold for toilet paper and food. your choice
      • diggduggjoe, on 02/07/2008, -4/+2If, you listen to Dr Paul, he does not say we force a gold standard. He just feels that having some gold backed instruments will force the Fed to keep it real. Currently, the housing crash is forcing the Fed to print more money which IS inflationary. No one will deny that. They just keep doing it over and over with ever larger bubbles forming. I am certain that Ron Paul understands there is not enough gold in our reserves, even the world to put the US on the gold standard. He seeks to make the Fed accountable by having an alternative in which the average American can vote with their wallet. If, the Fed is doing a smart job FRNs will be just a popular as gold notes. They didn't bust the Liberty Dollar for nothing. It was competition that was gaining acceptance. We cannot have that now can we.

        Do not fear the free market, embrace it.
        • Patchmach, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2We used to have a freer market and it didn't work so well. We had monopolies, terrible working conditions and dangerous products being sold with NO oversight at all. While there are still problems in those areas today they are much less severe than they were then. I agree with the poster who said that gold really isn't that much less arbitrary than the current system where the dollar is floated. The dollar represents value in proportion to U.S. goods and services. It has to do with scarcity. The dollar is basically another good that can be traded. Its really all in our heads, I think the reason that backing it with gold is so attractive to so many people is that gold is also a tangible, scarce thing. What we have right now is the dollar being tied to the value of all U.S. goods and services as opposed to just the gold in our vaults. Its just a more abstract concept, that I really don't grasp 100% of the time.
          • diggduggjoe, on 02/07/2008, -2/+1The consumer is the ultimate regulatory oversight. However, people do not do their job. The boobtube and youtube are more important. I would not mind backing the dollar to real good and services in our economy, which is what it is now, but the Fed does not admit the true inflation rate is far in excess of the 2 percent they will agree to. Our gold reserves are smaller than our M0, so we could not even back our pocket cash. However, by having a gold note available, it would be clear that when the Fed puts out too many FRNs most stores would soon have 2 prices on everything. Today, the legal tender laws make that impossible. If, I do not accept payment in FRNs the debt is automatically void. It is easier to hide inflation than suddenly having everyone "know" the gold notes are a better bet. Wiith good management a fiat system may work, but such systems always fail for no true controls are ever put in place and you end up with what we have now. A house of cards nearly total collapse. I have no doubt we will end up with commodity money, we will end up with barter when the FRNs become worthless, which will happen within my lifetime for sure. I cannot tell you when we will run out of track, but if they keep overfilling the hopper, this doomed train will only meet the end of the line sooner.

            Do you really thing Obama will hold spending down and pay off the debt? While providing universal heath care? Without huge tax increases? At least Ron Paul understand physical limits. I worried about his gold stance until I heard him speak about it and it was clear he knows that it cannot be done completely, but he clearly stated competition to the FRN would force the Fed to act responsibly. The problem with RP is that 30 sec sound bites cannot contain enough info to make him make sense. Real problems need real solutions and not fluff.
    • iofthestorm, on 02/07/2008, -6/+12Seriously, while his foreign policy is probably the best of any Republican (not saying much...) his economic ideas are pure folly. Going back to the gold standard wouldn't stabilize the economy, it would completely ***** it over. Just look at how rapidly the price of gold has been rising.
      • mkrfctr, on 02/07/2008, -3/+5wow most ignorant comment evah.

        that's not the cost of gold going up, that's the value of the dollar plummeting ...

        had you been using a currency backed by gold you wouldn't have lost 30% of the value of any money you had accumulated over the years, either in a bank account, your stock portfolio, your 401k, or your house.

        gg nub, learn economics before speaking on the subject.
      • badenglishihave, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3You do know that the price of gold is rising because the value of the dollar is falling, right?
        • rv36116, on 02/07/2008, -3/+2exactly, what the ***** are these parrots of "oh no, the gold standard would destroy us..." *****?
          THE GOLD STANDARD WAS HERE UNTIL the friggin 1970's people, wake the ***** up. You're a ***** lemming if you just keep saying this with no understanding. Jeezus, idiots, I'm surrounded by'em.
    • orca94, on 02/07/2008, -10/+36Is Pro-Choice despite religious morality?
      Obama: Yes
      Paul: No

      Supports a gold based currency that doesn't make any sense in today's global economies?
      Obama: No
      Paul: Yes

      Supports a national sales tax based scheme, and thus regressive tax which greatly favors the rich?
      Obama: No
      Paul: Yes

      Supports unhindered operations of corporations in the name of free markets?
      Obama: No
      Paul: Yes

      Wants to renege on U.S. membership to the U.N. which despite how broken it is still represents a world forum that the world's largest economy should be a part of?
      Obama: No
      Paul: Yes

      Printed racist and offensive material in a newsletter representing his views?
      Obama: No
      Paul: Yes
      • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -0/+12Hi, I'm Space Kimchi and I endorse the parent comment.
      • jeffwmartin, on 02/07/2008, -8/+8Supports a national sales tax based scheme, and thus regressive tax which greatly favors the rich?
        Paul: No
        You are confusing Huckabee's plan. Paul wants to get rid of the IRS and not replace it.

        Supports unhindered operations of corporations in the name of free markets?
        Paul: No
        Free markets? Yes. Corporations? No
        • orca94, on 02/07/2008, -0/+9Paul on a national Sales Tax:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI5lC4Z_T80

          Straight from the horses mouth.
        • sotopheavy, on 02/07/2008, -2/+1Yea, jeffwmartin is correct on this one. Also it's not like he printed that racist material or knew the contents of the letter. McCain not only calls Asians "gooks" but he "hates them."
          • orca94, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2No, he's not. See the video I posted in reply, Paul himself says he's for a national sales tax.
          • chaosium, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2"Also it's not like he printed that racist material or knew the contents of the letter"

            The printer is a personal friend of his, and he DID know the exact contents of the letter as per interviews from 1996.
      • Shabonkerz, on 02/07/2008, -4/+6Even though I'm an Obama supporter, I don't see the need to bash Ron Paul. It's not ok to lie about Ron Paul. He never wrote that racist stuff, some newletter that used his name did. It's old, and has been debunked several times. I don't think a gold standard is senseless. Ron Paul makes an excellent case when debating foreign and monetary policy. Not that Ron Paul is a perfect candidate obviously since he does not support women's rights and doesn't believe in evolution while being a doctor.
        • orca94, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4Didn't say he wrote it. I did say it was printed in his newsletter, and it was. That's essentially supporting the statements by default.
        • mkrfctr, on 02/07/2008, -4/+1Right and steve forbes reads everything that goes out under his name, and turner watches everything before it goes out on his network, Get real.
          • chaosium, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Neither of them associates with horrible racist ***** that act in their stead.
        • kumarei, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Yes, but steve forbes has a lot more going out under his name, and he and turner do control and are ultimately responsible for what goes out in their name. Turner has thousands of things going out every year, and only one or two scandals about what's in them.
          Paul has one newsletter a year. One. And racist comments didn't just appear in it once, they were practically a theme.
          Do we really want someone for president that can't keep track of their own yearly newspaper? That speaks pretty poorly of his ability to lead the country.
    • TheDHC, on 02/07/2008, -3/+8why do you all have to constantly make this paul v. obama ***** happen. paul has nowhere near the amount of support that obama has, he's not a threat, and when paul quits, i plan on lending my support to obama. stop trying to be so divisive, you need all the help you can get.

  • Adrnshw6, on 02/07/2008, -2/+48Go Obama go! I can see us breaking $10 million by Saturday. Incredible.
  • synaesthesia, on 02/07/2008, -2/+68Her big-money backers have already donated the maximum amount to her campaign and can't give any more- now Hillary is getting desperate and throwing in her own personal fortune, Romney-style.

    Obama, on the other hand, is pulling in millions per day from US, average Americans from all walks of life. Five bucks here, ten bucks there- when such a large number of people agree with the message of Change it adds up to phenomenal numbers. Donate now and show the power of the newly most important demographic-- us!
    • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -1/+7Hillary Clinton, Steve Forbes, Mitt Romney, and Ross Perot. What do these candidates have in common?
      • iofthestorm, on 02/07/2008, -0/+9They're all men? *ducks*
        (kidding, I don't mind Hillary THAT much).
      • bitspace, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3The only connection I can make is that they're all indebted to corporate interests.
        • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3For those of you that don't get it it the answer is "they all threw millions of their own fortune into a presidential campaign and got destroyed"
      • carleethian, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3all douches?
  • jkbowman, on 02/07/2008, -2/+31Does this mean she's run the lobbyist well dry? Has big oil, big pharma, and big insurance finally read the writing on the wall? - I am proud to have a candidate who is not backed by special interest and no matter what is said to rationalize this issue by the Hillary supporters I know they are not proud. They'd rather this issue (and Iraq) simply not come up. It's easier to ignore the writing on the wall, isn't it? - I donated to Obama's campaign again today with a clear conscious knowing that I was backing a candidate not some unknown corporate interest.
    • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -0/+16I don't think there's anyone who's in politics who's not beholden to somebody, but at least with Obama we know that we're getting someone who is at least trying to keep that down to a minimum.
    • phunlee, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Is this campaign finance at work? I hope so. Individual donors were limited to $2300 for a campaign. Obama's raising money $10-$100 at a time. That's a lot of folks giving a little money -- reminds me of that concept called democracy. I love Emergence at work.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
  • jimmyhoffa2222, on 02/07/2008, -5/+31Obama is up to $4.5 million. Hillary Clinton is evil.
    • u2wedge, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8evil and broke and desperate
    • Gabberwok, on 02/07/2008, -3/+12She would not make a good president, but she is not evil. Hyperbole isn't going to help us win over her supporters.
      • guestworker, on 02/07/2008, -4/+1She is evil.
        ABC - Anybody But Clinton
      • PopcornDave, on 02/07/2008, -0/+10Evil is perhaps a bit harsh, so how about power hungry and conniving?
      • RobotCitizen, on 02/07/2008, -2/+5How about "soulless"?
      • iofthestorm, on 02/07/2008, -1/+5Yeah, she might be power hungry but calling her evil is not the way to unite Americans under Obama.
  • holdencaulfield, on 02/07/2008, -0/+26Keep it going! https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/yes ...
  • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -0/+31Money might be the mother's milk of politics, but lots of money from lots of little donors shows a much better groundswell of support, and is therefore likely to carry much farther. This is why Ross Perot couldn't buy the presidency, Romney's attempt to buy it failed, and Hillary's will too. I really hope this is a harbinger for things to come for Obama.
  • Robozilla, on 02/07/2008, -2/+544.6 million. 15 bucks of that is mine.
    • jake07, on 02/07/2008, -0/+13I'll donate 15 bucks and raise you 5 hours of home phone-banking support.
    • twrife, on 02/07/2008, -0/+7That is _exactly_ why Mr. Obama will be the next president - he makes you feel like you're actually a part of what's going on. Just watching one video on his site made me tear up in admiration for the man. He is so charismatic it's impossible not to like him.
  • inputusername, on 02/07/2008, -0/+32I'm in for $100. We can crush this goal! Then we can bring Hillary down a notch! We have all of the momentum!!!
  • plebiscite, on 02/07/2008, -1/+63"We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us. For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary's campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform," - Bill Clinton
  • Gabberwok, on 02/07/2008, -0/+21$4.8 million. I gave $100 before I knew about this... now wish I had enough to spare to give some more.
  • infinity777, on 02/07/2008, -4/+52I just donated ANOTHER $50, you can too!!

    https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/yes ...

    OBAMA 08
    YES WE CAN
    • kinggps, on 02/07/2008, -8/+1CHANGE

      lolzzz, style over substance my friends, style over substance
  • miketrash, on 02/07/2008, -1/+31+50$
  • phytolacca, on 02/07/2008, -1/+28I'm in for 25 and everyone of those is spent on sweet, juicy justice!
  • j0hneb0y81, on 02/07/2008, -0/+24"Thanks to your overwhelming support, our servers are a bit overwhelmed right now."
    that's a good sign!
  • infinity777, on 02/07/2008, -1/+24I will phonebank for him again too, I had fun last time. It was great hearing a 80 year old grandmother pick up the phone and be so excited that I was calling, she totally wanted me to talk to her daughter too. I could have stayed on the phone for hours I'm sure but they told me I should go remind more people that super tuesday was coming up. Together We Can Change This Country! Obama is the peoples candidate and will win the presidency with our help and not even Clintons bought and paid for superdelegates can stop him!!!
  • mooseontheloose, on 02/07/2008, -9/+10Obama: the best president money can buy
    • johnhummel, on 02/07/2008, -0/+7Hey, spread across a million people at $25 each, I'd say it's a bargain. I threw in $25 since I get paid tomorrow, and I'll be phone banking Friday on my day off.

      Is the dude perfect? No - but he's going about it the right way, and I respect that.
  • synaesthesia, on 02/07/2008, -0/+214.95 Million! If you can't donate, get a friend to do it- its fast, easy and surprisingly fun!

    Today's youth are involved, aware, and powerful- we have deep, deep pockets and are not afraid to put our money where our mouth is!

    OBAMA 08!
  • wampeter, on 02/07/2008, -1/+18$50 here... Now is the time we show which candidate truly has the support of the people, not the special interests...
    • krnldmp, on 02/07/2008, -7/+1Right. George W. Bush was going to bring honesty and integrity to the White House too. You got it all figured out.
      • johnhummel, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4Considering that he was a failed oil man, who failed at the air force, and was financed by rich oil people and government contract folks - then yeah, people should have known he was a lying SOB.

        Compare that to a guy who worked as a volunteer, as a lawyer from the ground up, working for community interests - and the majority of his fund raising has come from individuals? I think we got his number.
  • inputusername, on 02/07/2008, -0/+31This is amazing! He has raised $400,000 in the last 15 minutes!!! Let's keep it going...we can hit $7 million tonight!!!
    • DinosWillDie13, on 02/07/2008, -0/+8i just notice that too. holy hell.
  • GregoryHarbin, on 02/07/2008, -1/+16I actually gave $25 right before (seriously, right before) I got the e-mail about this initiative. I'm proud to be a part of it. It looks like we'll reach $5 million before midnight! My GOD, this is exciting.
  • ieataquacrayons, on 02/07/2008, -4/+17I wish I could get 1% of these people to donate some money to me..I have some student loans to pay off....
    • intotheforest, on 02/07/2008, -0/+10Don't worry, when Obama is president he will help you wih that!
  • u2wedge, on 02/07/2008, -0/+15Just put in my $50.
  • Gabberwok, on 02/07/2008, -0/+15Over $5 million already!
  • kylespiles, on 02/07/2008, -3/+9boom goes the dynamite
    • Mikey706, on 02/07/2008, -0/+0Ha ha. I actually get and appreciate this comment.
  • kschramm, on 02/07/2008, -0/+16$5.1M
  • rp2008gogo, on 02/07/2008, -15/+2www.knowbeforeyouvote.com
    • SovereignGFC, on 02/07/2008, -1/+8www.*****.com
    • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -2/+3OMG DID YOU KNOW THAT B. HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A MUSLIM?!?!


      :rolleyes:
  • synaesthesia, on 02/07/2008, -0/+18Over 5 Million and why stop now?
  • appleseed1234, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3The capital of West Virginia?
  • inputusername, on 02/07/2008, -2/+11Think how much money we can raise if we can Digg this to the front page!!!
  • amightywind, on 02/07/2008, -1/+23This is a bad sign for Hillary. The media played the results as if they were a tie. Obama won the most states, votes, and delegates. Could the Clintons finally be on their way out?
  • Stonedonkey, on 02/07/2008, -1/+15At this rate, he'll be able to get us all ponies!

    I love ponies.
  • GregoryHarbin, on 02/07/2008, -1/+15Now it's $5.25 million! Hopefully they'll get a Digg bump as well. Too bad they're having server problems...remember, if you're having difficulty, just stay at it!

    Yes we can!
  • chall85, on 02/07/2008, -1/+15First I supported Kucinich, then Edwards, and now, Obama. I've always liked him since I saw his speech at the DNC in 2004. If he's not the nominee, I'll be looking at a third party.
    • intotheforest, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4So will most of us, (Hillary is no a change)
  • cookedchicken08, on 02/07/2008, -3/+19We are holding an Obama-Bomb fundraiser over on dailykos. Obama has been raising tonight about 1 million dollars per hour, and is already over his 5.1 million goal. We are going for the all time internet 24 hour fundraising record -- aiming for 7 million dollars:

    Please join us at:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/6/21551/00927 ...

    The Obama money graphic is here (please reload to watch the dollars rise):
    http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sincef ...
  • krnldmp, on 02/07/2008, -10/+3Who will be vice president for Obama? Oprah?
    • iofthestorm, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6A white woman would be a good guess, but I wouldn't bet on Hillary. Maybe Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of Kansas, since she endorsed him recently. A white woman would bring in many of the same demographics that Hillary brought in. Also, keep in mind that most Democrats would vote for Obama anyway, as well as independents, so he might not have as much of a need to balance the ticket anyway. Bill Richardson is another possibility I think, but of course that's all just speculation.
      • chall85, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Edwards deserves to be VP, since he set up Obama's and Hillary's campaign. But Sibelius or Claire McCaskill seem like good choices.
        • iofthestorm, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Oh yeah, I forgot about McCaskill, she was the other one I thought was likely.
  • elister, on 02/07/2008, -11/+2Obama needs more money? No problem, but theres no way in hell he's getting it from me over the internet. Nope the last time I did this was with Kerry and my name was sold to every democratic political agency out there. Obama is coming to town (Seattle) Friday, so I am hoping to show up at the rally and donate cash in person. Donating online may seem easier, but seriously, you're asking for a ***** load of spam by doing so.
    • LBobRife, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Where's he gonna be at in Seattle? I've definitely got time to go see him friday.
    • Stonedonkey, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5All you should be getting is a campaign newsletter, which you can opt out of.
    • Gemfinder, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I don't have a card so I can't jump on the gravy train, either. I'll be at the Seattle rally and I'll kick 'em a few when I'm there, too.
  • pinsomniac, on 02/07/2008, -0/+25Clinton reveals to the media that she loaned herself $5M -- four times his net worth. Obama supporters respond by giving him $5.25M (and counting!) in the past 24 hours.

    My god, this movement continues to amaze me.
  • morgino, on 02/07/2008, -18/+0Seriously what has this guy done? Kinda voted against the war, thats pretty much it. I think people are just so happy that a black guy might be president there white guilt is starting to get to them and giving them some type of psycholigical bend that this guy is something more than 7ust articulate.. If Obama was white he wouldnt even be known and thats a fact, the 500 pound gorilla no one wants to mention. Dood and Biden were so much more qualified than these two but thats what they get for being old white guys. Ironic isnt it?
    • TotalHalibut, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2There are no facts in your statement aside from 'Obama is black'. All you've got are opinions which you've failed to justify with any actual evidence.
  • Anzat, on 02/07/2008, -0/+12In for $25 on top of my previous donations.
    Hillary is trying to raise $3 million in 3 days after Super Tuesday. She loaned herself $5 million. That's $8 million we need to pull ahead. Let's go for it!
  • Stevo23, on 02/07/2008, -0/+18Donate using this link, and somebody will match your donation so it'll count twice as much! This will be good.

    http://www.barackobama.com/match
    • chall85, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2does this still work? it talks about january. huh. i guess i'll try it.
    • Stevo23, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I think they haven't updated the graphic, but it worked for me. I mean, money is money, no matter what month it is. And they told me some woman named Jennifer from IL matched my donation.
  • lionpirate, on 02/07/2008, -3/+7why do they need so much money? I find this sad, how many great leaders have been overlooked because they were not financially backed. Oh well, GO OBAMA!
  • icantbecool, on 02/07/2008, -13/+1I don't understand what everyone is making a big deal out of. She believes in her campaign and will do anything to make it happen. I admire her for it. Clinton won eight out of the ten biggest states Super Tuesday, popular vote, and the three highly contested states. (New Jersey, Massachusetts, and the biggest prize of them all California) In addition, she is ahead in the polls in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Obama is just trying to spin the media in his favor and it isn't working.
    • zioxide, on 02/07/2008, -1/+3Eh, Obama won more states and most importantly, more delegates. If Super Tuesday would have been in 2 weeks instead of yesterday, he would have gotten even more. Time is his biggest enemy now.
      • icantbecool, on 02/07/2008, -0/+2Sorry to say your wrong. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ...
        • JavanSClark, on 02/07/2008, -0/+3Sorry you are wrong. The Delegate count is in, and New Mexico hasn't been counted. Obama DID win more delegates. Furthermore, the race is in his favor now, because the remaining states have time to get to know him. With WA (we vote Saturday) and the other two Feb 9 states, 2 out of 3 are caucus states, and as tuseday shows he DOMINATES (7/8 in caucus states) he could conceivably stretch his lead even further. Then factor in the heavy African American populated states that also contain a high percentage of the educated white vote he tends to dominate in, Hillary is in a bucket of trouble, now add the confidence reduction that WILL come from her inability to generate money (some of her people are working for free) and it spells trouble. 30 states have voted, over the course of ten days 10 more will weigh in, and of those states, Obama is expected to do very well.

          The proportionate delegate system plays into Obama's hands even further. I appreciate your honest and sincere plea on behalf of Sen Clinton, but your facts are incorrect.

          P.S. New Mexico is expected to be a draw, delegates wise.
    • josereyes0, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4Obama has won the southern states, he has won the most # of states, the most delegates on Super Tuesday. A combination of the people donated enough to match what Hillary Clinton gave out of her own rich pocket. I think it speaks volumes that the people of America are gathering and giving for a candidate that's going up against tough odds to supersede. Clinton is well known, wealthy and privileged, and Obama has nothing but his good name and the people who believe in him so strongly. I think this country needs a candidate that can gather people together and encourage them sacrifice so much of their time, money and energy to better our world.
      • icantbecool, on 02/07/2008, -2/+2Obama has won the southern states that are republican. He is losing the delegates and popular vote. Senator Clinton will win for sure.
    • DinosWillDie13, on 02/07/2008, -1/+5Let's see. January:
      Obama $30+ mill
      Hillary around $10 mil?

      Now 6 days into February and Obama has $5.4 mil in less than a day while Hillary's staff is working without pay and she is dropping her own cash into the campaign. This shows the strength of Obama's constituency. Without the "Super Delegates" Obama would have a lead right now. Talk about elites.

      And whatever he is doing... it sure as hell IS working.
    • lhughey, on 02/07/2008, -1/+7"She .......will do anything to make it happen"
      That, my friend is the problem. She has no ethics and will win at any cost. Even if it means trying to create a racial divide to win. Even if it means not withdrawing your name off the ballot in Michigan, like you agreed to. Even if it means vowing not to campaign in Florida, but fly there for a fund raiser the night before the primary. Even if it means trying to get the delegates that have been taken away from the state reinstated because you ended up "winning" the state becuase the other candidates followed the rules and didnt campaign there
      • icantbecool, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2"It was the Obama camp who played the race card. A email surfaced telling the Obama people to make it a talking point. That's when the Obama people didn't want to talk about it anymore. Unfortunately, Obama won't hesitate to play the race card again to keep the Clinton camp from attacking him on issues. It was Obama who broke the rules in Florida by advertising there not Clinton. In the race for delegates, the people have been forgotten. Hillary Clinton went to Florida to thank the people for coming out to vote." BrenMac
        • JavanSClark, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1/sigh- yet again. WRONG. First. BILL Clinton on BEHALF of Hillary, raised teh spectre of the the race card. On his way out of SC he did it again. The Jesse Jackson comment had no place in teh discussion, and in fact was an UNSOLICITED comment, to a question that had nothing to do with what he was saying. Secondly, they announced days in ADVANCE of the Folrida Primary, that they were going to "thank" the Floridians for their support. Far enough in advance for it to be construed as a token of sympathy for their plight. A Plight that Sen Clinton agreed to place them in, but when times became desperate what did she do? She reneged on a deal she made because it suited her. You Clinton fans sure amaze me, as long as it's her doing the dirt it's ok, anyone else has so much as a hair out of place it's the Crime of the Century.
    • iplayyouandme, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2It's a big deal because it's a LOAN from Hillary! She's not giving any money to her campaign, instead she's expecting to be paid back by her supports. Her money is a loan but she's expecting us to give her a gift? WTF!!!
      • icantbecool, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1Wait what are you trying to say? "she's expecting to be paid back by her supports. Her money is a loan but she's expecting us to give her a gift? WTF!!!"
    • SpaceKimchi, on 02/07/2008, -1/+2Obama won more delegates check your facts please thanks in advance

      (also Hillary is almost out of stronghold states and there's a lot of Obama-friendly states coming up)
    • PenguinWrangler, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I refute the idea that California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey were highly contested states. Three weeks ago Obama was behind in double digits in every one of those states. She's had huge leads there (and virtually everywhere else since the word Go. Every stat he wins is a state she lost, every state she wins is a state she merely held on to.
  • Evanmontegarde, on 02/07/2008, -2/+14Wow - This could go on to be the largest single day donation...A record broken twice in one election? Gobama!
  • bustamove259, on 02/07/2008, -1/+12just put another $25 in today!!!

    GOBAMA!!!!!
  • KJSatz, on 02/07/2008, -0/+6I was born too late to be able to vote, but I just put in $25. It's kind of an odd feeling. But I'm glad I did it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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