The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Michelle Obama makes slur against whites! NRO
corner.nationalreview.com — This is from The National Review Online, a trusted source for conservative values!
uncajoe- 15 diggs
- digg it
- d2002, on 10/15/2008, -1/+6Made up report? Whowudathunkit?
- tjordanchat, on 10/15/2008, -1/+5That web site is not a credible news organization. Do not believe everything that you read on the internet.
- uncajoe, on 10/15/2008, -1/+6Did you read the article? Please don't prejudge this remarkable revelation, as you may be surprised by the facts.
- kayala, on 10/19/2008, -0/+3The fact, perhaps, that Michelle Obama is only alleged, by a shadowy and untrustworthy organization, to have said what the National Review claims?
- 2612, on 10/15/2008, -1/+2NRO is not credible, but thinkprogress.org is?? I noticed you've dugg some of their stories.
- uncajoe, on 10/15/2008, -1/+6Did you read the article? Please don't prejudge this remarkable revelation, as you may be surprised by the facts.
- PacificChef, on 10/15/2008, -1/+6How about Bill O'Reilly talking about "going on a lynching party against Michelle Obama". PEOPLE can we please admit that racism exists inn this country and that the GOP wants nothing more than to incite a violent and abhorent reaction to a BLACK man in a WHITE house?
- trolleyfan, on 10/15/2008, -1/+5"This is from The National Review Online, a trusted source for conservative values!" Which shows how crap "conservative values" are perfectly...
- surfrider81, on 10/16/2008, -0/+6Wednesday, October 15, 2008
That Michelle Obama Report [Byron York]
I'm sure a lot of you have seen references this morning to statements allegedly made by Michelle Obama in an interview with an organization called African Press International. I just asked the Obama campaign whether Michelle Obama did in fact speak to that organization, and spokesman Tommy Vietor answered:
The answer is no, it's not real, the report is made up. She did not speak to the organization.
10/15 11:04 AM - joand315, on 10/19/2008, -1/+4@surfrider81
Thanks for quoting the article. That clears up the misunderstanding. I'm glad to see the National Review retracted their previous story.
It could be that they want to maintain some credibility after firing Buckley for endorsing Obama.- eir574, on 10/19/2008, -0/+7If you read it carefully, all it says is that the Obama campaign denies the story. It does not say that the National Review recognizes that there's not a shred of evidence to support it, and it does not look like a retraction. Besides, even if they had retracted it, that won't matter to those who have such shoddy standards of proof that they think it's likely to be real.
- joand315, on 10/20/2008, -0/+1Thanks for pointing that out, eir574. I was over enthusiastic in my response.
- eir574, on 10/19/2008, -0/+7If you read it carefully, all it says is that the Obama campaign denies the story. It does not say that the National Review recognizes that there's not a shred of evidence to support it, and it does not look like a retraction. Besides, even if they had retracted it, that won't matter to those who have such shoddy standards of proof that they think it's likely to be real.
- kayala, on 10/19/2008, -0/+6So, how long have academic and intellectual dishonesty been "conservative values"? How about outright lying? How long has that been a "conservative value"?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is