digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Mike Gravel says "Follow the money!"... corporations buy the president

philly.com — In money from "pharmaceuticals/health products," it's Romney first ($277,455), Hillary second ($172,150) and Obama third ($160,572). Edwards is a dismal 11 of 17, with a paltry $6,758. (Guess they remember malpractice or personal-injury suits he won.) Don't weep for Edwards. The North Carolina trial lawyer is remembered well by colleagues.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -16/+218If Kucinich or Gravel doesn't make the nomination then the Democrats will have shown they don't care about truth. Same goes for Ron Paul and the Republicans.
    • tucsonsun13, on 10/10/2007, -6/+29well said.
    • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -4/+41It will show they don't care about the people, the workers, the poor and middle class.
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25 I'm already convinced they don't care about these groups of people already.
        • GoodOldJacob, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Agreed. Liberals need to abandon the Democratic party.
    • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -3/+35Vote Gravel and you get a vote. He believes in letting the people making the major decisions rather than the representatives we elect.

      I would rather we, ourselves, be the morons that sink this country, than have someone else do it for us.
      • vfrex, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5Take a good look around at your fellow citizens, and tell me if you really want "ourselves" making the major decisions

        ...

        thought so
        • BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Heh. He does have a point.
        • bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2definitely a good point that the problems with the country really come down to the problems with it's citizens...

          vote for someone who is big on education for the love of god...
        • ColonelJessup, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why? Do you live around a bunch of idiots?

          I'm really sorry that you live around a bunch of stupid people. Maybe you should move.
          • BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Visit the local Walmart some times and tell me that you want these people making any kind of decisions.
        • bumb1ebee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2There's a reason why the Founding Fathers abhorred democracy. Democracy is mob rule where the minority ends up with no rights. Can you imagine if we had a democracy during the Jim Crow era? Blacks would not have had any rights at all in the south because that was what the majority wanted. I like Gravel, but I disagree greatly with him on this issue.
      • glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3you won't be getting a vote if he ends up losing the election. also, the president has less power then the congress.
        • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5they actually have equal power. all three branches of our government are co-equal.
          it's called checks and balances.
          • 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2No, they're not equal. The executive is meant to be the weakest branch of government, because it is the most susceptible to being abused, as I would think should be quite evident by this point.
        • glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2While neither the executive or legislative branches can enact laws without the approval of the other, the legislative branch can cut off all funding to the executive branch; it can also impeach the executive branch and remove the executive from office. It seems to me that the congress has more power. And the courts are ***** impotent. They can’t even do anything unless somebody comes to them with a complaint. They are completely passive.
          • phoephus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1They can pick a president in a disputed election.
        • MacMan88, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1have you been hiding under a rock for the past 6 years?
    • joeyjojo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Which truth are you talking about?
      • misterjangles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2(spoken in phil hartman real estate broker voice)

        There's the TRUTH... :-) ... and there's the truth :-(
    • glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Actually, it will show that they care more about assuring a win and hopefully reversing some of the Republican mess then electing a candidate who will spend his time trying to tear down the admittedly corrupt and overblown political system we are all forced to deal with.

      We need instant runoff elections. That’s the only way any of these “conscience” candidates will win on the high steaks national stage.

      I’m all for getting people like Gravel and Paul into higher offices, but not nearly as much as I want the neo-cons out.
      • Seefate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Neocon's need to get out, yes. But we don't need to replace them with the other side of the same coin. If you this Hilliary or Obama are going to do much better then think again, they just have a different brand of corruption.
        • glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I used to think the same way, but the last 6 years have changed my mind. Mike Gravel is a Democrat and a politician. He is on that other side of the coin. He just happens to have the luxury of not being a front runner and thus he is able to say what he want’s. Ron Paul is a Republican, he is a politician. All these guys are playing the same game, some of them are just a bit better then others.

          If you think Gravel or Paul are going to somehow change the way our government is run, or stir things up so much that all the dems and repugs are going to fall in line, you got another thing coming. You need to remember that no laws are passed without the congress and senate approving them.

          Sorry, I would love to see one of them in a VP role, or in the cabinet, but at this point we need a progressive president who can muster popular support in order to get some serious legislation pushed through congress and onto his/her desk.

          National heath care, removal of our troops from Iraq and a real solution for Africa and I’m happy.
          • 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You have some pretty defective priorities. First of all, any president as the commander in chief could remove the troops from Iraq without congressional approval. As far as national health care and Africa, wouldn't you think that eliminating the patriot act and restoring executive power to its constitutionally intended limits would be somewhat more important? You can't honestly expect that Hillary will do that. She voted for the damn thing -- and for the Iraq war for that matter.
          • thefaithful, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Your position wanting to halt interference in Iraq but then wanting US interference in Africa is confusing.
        • Seefate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3@glasnostic I would agree with some of what you said but I truly don't feel that Paul and Gravel are politically on the same ground as the front runners. The front runners are quite corrupt and have something to lose finically. I know Paul specifically has nothing to lose except the freedoms this country was built upon which is proven by his voting record.

          I also tried to let the National Health Care thing pass but really, take a good hard look at our government. Would you REALLY trust them with your health? I would rather pay the insurance companies directly rather then pay the government and get what ever crap they give me in return. Thats the thing about America we have CHOICE and when we are forced into things like national health care and Socical Security that removes that choice.
          • Rickler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I would rather just pay the hospital/clinic directly. 25 stitches for that cut on your leg? $50 bucks. No middleman. Either that or free health care; but defiantly no government sponsored middleman.
          • Pssdoff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hilary and Obama's national health care is giving 65 billion dollars a year to insurance companies, paid for by raising taxes. Government needs LESS spending, not more.

            There are far more important things to base your vote on in this election other than universal health care...
        • glasnostic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1@Seefate

          They have something to loose because they are front runners, being in the front does not necessarily make you corrupt.

          As for national heath care. You can have national heath care and still have a choice to go elsewhere. Same with social security. You don’t have to rely on social security for your retirement, you probably shouldn’t. but its there for those who need it.

          You don’t have to rely on the police or the fire department for protection either. You can get a gun and a huge water hose. But its there for the rest of us.

          Should we get rid of socialized police and fire protection?
          • Shroommaster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Although with national health care and social security whether you use it or not you still have to pay for it.
        • sunroom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Give me a break. Hillary or Obama wouldn't be perfect, but saying they wouldn't be that much better than the Bush Admin. is silly. Sure, they may not provide all of the drastic changes that I want for the country, but at least (as was said earlier) they would steer the country away from a fanatical, religious, unconstitutional method of leadership.
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3It's sad but true... our presidential process is really messed up...
    • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Sad, but true, our presidential process is really messed up... Follow the money as Gravel says... We need to ban Lobbyists and corporate donations...
    • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I wonder though, with all of the candidates being wealthy and have executive experience for the most part. Would America vote FOR a common person who only has say $10,000 savings or something typical of the average wealth the middle class has? Someone whose work experience only includes maybe small companies, or something average of the middle class?
    • slicedoranges, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11If Kucinich or Gravel get elected, my faith in America would be renewed (finally).
    • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not that they don't care about truth, it's that they don't have the truth. The electorate is badly misinformed and the blame goes to the media... the corporate media.
  • nakani, on 10/10/2007, -9/+165I'm a registered Republican and plan on voting for Ron Paul, but I can't help but admire Gravel's efforts to bring truth to the Democratic candidates.
    • NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19This is the difference between a politician and a statesman. Party lines don't matter to the statesman when he's working for the best thing for the state.
      • vuke69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3...politician and a statesman...

        Well said. I hope you don't mind, but I HAVE to steal that nugget of wisdom. I'll probably slightly modify it though (change state to people).
    • Stewmoney, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Why does money matter though? Why can't the best candidate just win?
      • skyh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Cause then people wouldn't be able to abuse the power of government for personal gain nearly as easily. And by people, I mean the super rich.
      • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4If our government answered to the people, then it would be the case. but big corporations own our legislators and the presidential race is an auction. whoever has the most money wins. and the people are the ones who suffer for it.
      • obxjdt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Put you name on the ballot, then tell why you didn't win.....
      • Pssdoff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Because too many people vote based on what they watch on TV. Those poor deluded fools will never understand the system that controls them.
    • Darksaber11, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm turning 18 shortly before the next election, and between Ron Paul and Gravel I'm beginning to see the first hope for this country's (political) future I've seen in my lifetime. For any of you who read that article a while back, Paul and Gravel are both candidates that I could say "I didn't vote for him, but he's my president and I hope he does a good job." about, even if whichever one I end up voting for doesn't win.
    • dacjames, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0I'm sorry to say this, but Ron Paul is crazy. He is in favor of nothing. No immigration reform other militarizing the borders, no health care reform, no tax reform, no NOTHING. If you think America is perfect the way it is now, vote for Ron Paul. If you there is anything you want to change, vote for Gravel. If you enjoy laws that make you feel good, vote for Clinton or Obama. If you're in favor of wiretapping and torture, vote Giuliani. If you're in favor of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's dieing in a pointless war, vote for any of the other republican candidates.
      • michael4lsu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ron Paul is for the Constitution, for America, and for the American people.
      • karel747, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You have a gross misunderstanding of Ron Paul's (and, by association, Mike Gravel's) position. Paul wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve, and the IRS...If that isn't tax reform, I don't know what is.

        Actually, thinking about it, I will admit that you do have some point: Paul doesn't want to be a political figure, casting blanket-decisions onto the US through party lines, the way all the other candidates (except Gravel) want to do - Paul and Gravel want to give the people the power - to give the state the right to represent its people, rather than the government. This is the way it was meant to be - Are you pro-choice? Move to a pro-choice state. Hate socialized medicine? Move to a state which doesn't use it. So, while it's true that Paul and Gravel don't have a position on abortion/education/health-care, etc,* which they want to enforce onto 300,000,000 people, I fear anyone who does - and that includes all the other candidates.

        Paul or Gravel for 2008

        * I know that Paul is against abortion since he's devoutly religious, but I don't know how or if he would enforce it through legislation - If he does, then I would hate to have to call him a hypocrite.
    • Kavok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Mike Gravel may come off as ***** crazy but I believe he sincerely cares about the United States and its people. He is passionate and honest, its quite refreshing. I doubt he will win the nomination but I am extremely happy that he was in on most of the debates calling people out.
  • LarryLacuna, on 10/10/2007, -10/+95I wish Gravel had a change of winning, it's nice to see honesty in a presidential candidate.
    • zweben, on 10/10/2007, -2/+34Vote for him anyway. One of the biggest reasons he doesn't have a chance of winning is because you think he doesn't have a chance of winning and vote elsewhere.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19BINGO! Somebody gets it. Self fulfilling prophecy FTW!
      • cat6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7@zweben

        You're exactly right. Everyone that even considers voting for him needs to realize this.
    • Lionhart, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21He does have a chance. I don't know if you remember but when Clinton started running he was a longshot candidate just like Gravel.
    • NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13It's incredibly frustrating to see this mindset, because the media is acting the same way, and SO MANY Americans rely on the media to tell them what to think. After all, why should the debates shrink and eliminate candidates? Why SHOULDN'T we have six or more candidates up for President from each party? Why does it have to be one of each? Why do we have such an archaic system? And why do we the people let others decide who we should have left to vote for?
      • cjhowe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Last I checked (2 weeks ago), there were 125 people who had filed the papers with the FEC declaring their candidacy for the 2008 presidential election. The media has no responsibility other than to sell advertisements.
      • cjhowe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Last I checked (2 weeks ago), there were 125 people who had filed the papers with the FEC declaring their candidacy for the 2008 presidential election. The media has no responsibility other than to sell advertisements.
    • deadsenator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I don't care what anybody says. I'd vote for him. Heck, I'll even write in his name if he doesn't win the nomination. I refuse to vote for the same talking (and lying) heads any longer.
    • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I've been sending him money. I don't have any illusion that he'll win the nomination, but I want him to be at every debate to call out the other candidates. I used to proudly vote Democrat, but it's become painfully obvious in the last 15 years or so how corrupt the party has become as a whole.
    • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Step one is for you to realize that your single vote is not going to make a difference. Statistically, it will never ever happen for a presidential election. No, not a "really small chance." Never. You'll win the lottery three times in a row before it ever happens. After you realize that, you'll have a much easier time "throwing your vote away" and voting for someone you actually believe in.
    • heresy_fnord, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Vote for him and he'll have your chance you want him to have.
  • rhysmd, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24I wonder if the money the health care industry gives Hillary, Obama, and Romney just indicates how much the industry would like the feds taking money from Americans and giving it to the companies.
    • joeyjojo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1I'm all for it, then. Whatever it takes to get universal health care.
    • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3AMEN!!! Universal Health Care, College Education (for those who earn it with good GPAs/test scores). Give the lower-middle class a chance, the same people that's in the vacuum of too poor to pay on their own but too "rich" to qualify for help.
      • Rickler, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Free college education for everyone regardless of scores. I rather have intelligent and somewhat intelligent then an intelligent and stupid divide.
      • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Or, get government out of it altogether so the price will go down and they will be able to afford it themselves, and they will feel a lot more satisfied.
    • skyh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The reason these big companies are interested in certain candidates is because they believe they can get them to do what they want. It has everything to do with trying to get richer, and nothing to do with wanting what's best for the people. If the people benefit, it's just a coincidence.
    • tony4moroney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Obama and Hillary are the top Democratic candidates. They want to introduce UHC and the companies are protecting their future interests. Theyre realizing, hey the dems have a good chance of winning this election and introducing UHC we better give them special interest money so they take good care of us if/ when they do introduce UHC
  • kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -4/+46Time to make my second presidential campaign donation. This guy needs to be heard as much as possible.
  • Harboggles, on 10/10/2007, -9/+64I love Gravel. I think he has the experience and knowledge to be a president combined with the wisdom. I would give my left nut to see it come out to be Gravel Vs. Ron Paul.

    However.

    Gravel and Ron Paul have a minimal chance of winning. Then again, Carter had 2% recognition when he started.

    Gravel needs to stop coming off as the crazy old man and Ron Paul needs to change one or two of his policies (Withdrawing from the UN? We can't deny the existence of problems in the World)
    • jeffiek, on 10/10/2007, -10/+13The UN is not necessary for the US to conduct diplomatic relations. Open communication is one thing, and that's beneficial. A UN with all its programs and "peace keeping" operations is a dismal failure.
      • cybermort, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5a world stage for diplomatic discourse is needed. There is just no argument against that. If the current system is not working, is no a problem with the idea but the implementation of the system. Blame all of the big five for that. Specially the ring leader.
    • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Ron Paul is GREAT except he is too naive about the "innocence" and "utopia" of the free market. The problem with the free market is MUCH bigger than monopolies and oligarchs.
      • BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Very true. Just as the case with communism and other utopian systems, unabashed capitalism doesn't work due to the flaws in human nature.
      • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2He's not naive, he just doesn't have time to read you a 300 page dissertation every time he speaks. The man is clearly intelligent and he gets it 98% right. For crying out loud, call it a day and lend your support. Am I going to say, "Gee, I really consider myself more Chicago School than Austrian." Of course not. We say "good enough" and we get behind a candidate. That's how a republic works.
        • tony4moroney, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4it doesnt matter how much hes read about laissez-faire economics. I can promise you its a failure. Its theoretically the best principles to run the capitalist marketplace because its free from unnecessary governmental interventions but it has one shortcoming... it necessitates honesty and integrity on the half of corporations, something we've time and time again been shown they significantly lack.
      • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3It works fine when there is rule of law and there is a general respect of property rights i.e. _not_ like in Russia. But government always grows, and a few scares like bank runs and depressions can get people wanting even more government, even though it was the government that created the problem in the first place. If you pick any of the typical myths of where capitalism has failed and examine it more carefully you'll see that government was the source of the problem.
      • bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I'm confused because I'm not sure what you mean about monopolies. A successful monopoly cannot exist in a free-market. I'll challenge you to find one that doesn't get it's monopoly status from the State.

        Also, Paul doesn't say a free-market is utopia, but if you understand what a basic trade is, then you'd see it is much better than a 3rd party, like a government, interfering. A trade in a true free-market ONLY occurs when both parties to that trade (buyer and seller) believe at that moment in time that what they are getting in return is worth more than what they are giving up. If either party believes at that moment otherwise, the trade doesn't occur.
      • matador3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think most people who say that haven't actually read much about Austrian economics. No offense. I just started reading about it myself so I'm no expert but from what I understand so far it makes a great deal of sense.

        www.mises.org
    • Lionhart, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Is everyone forgetting what happened when the US didn't join the League of Nations?
      • bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I hope you're not saying WW II came about because we didn't join the League of Nations. If so, perhaps you should do a little more reading.
    • mntnbkr7, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I'd take that bet.
    • frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Yeah, I'd give a nut for that.
      • Mrnut333, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The campaign futures see an increase in testicles to the Gravel campaign. Current market predictions see balls as a necessary counter to deployed capitol of major market controlling forces. As of now, the total number of balls in the Gravel campaign comes in at 4, for a solid pair of nuts.
    • forgottenhope, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The resolution as to why we went to war was a UN resolution. We went to war with Iraq because congress made up some illegal hand over of power and bush took a UN piece of paper and made it a war.

      The UN is a scam, the US has no business spreading its corrupt form of government to the rest of the world.
    • kevisazombie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Ron paul lost me with being an advocate for "prayer in school"
    • trurevmbr07, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0emulation is the way to go, as ron says, not authoritarian force through the UN
  • tucsonsun13, on 10/10/2007, -4/+83For the candidates in both parties' "debates" on cable tv:

    1. Distance from center inversely proportional to campaign funds.
    2. Speaking time directly proportional to campaign funds.
    3. Candidates with least chance of winning = most honest, free-speaking.
    • Stewmoney, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Dugg ya... So true, why does it have to be like this? Why can't people just vote for the honest person instead of the one with all the money.
      • frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Because people are stupid. They always have been, and always will be.
        • Stewmoney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The majority of people on Digg seem to know what's going on. If we can figure it out the rest of the country should be able to.
        • Hananda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@Stewmoney

          Ah, but do they have any inclination to? It's much faster to just vote for whoever gets the most airtime, or just vote along party lines.
        • ColonelJessup, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow. Aren't you a cheery fellow.

          This is what the world need LESS of. This is what divided us. This "You're stupid, and I'm smarter and better than you" crap is why the people can't unite and get behind the good fight.

          Congratulations for being so insightful.
    • keviniskool, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3By your logic, Gravel would have talked for approximately 0.5 seconds.
      • Kavok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Apparently you haven't seen any of the debates. The only reason he talks so long is that he won't let them stop him.
    • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So according to rule (2), what does a candidate with negative net assets do? (Other than sing "Bomb, Bomb Iran" to the tune of "Barbara Ann")
  • tucsonsun13, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5If Gravel could just learn to accept more dirty corporate "contributions" and lower his age by about 20 years, he'd be a surefire winner.
    • tony4moroney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3yeah but that would make him like every other lying, manipulative presidential candidate.
  • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4FANTASTIC digg. The way the article breaks down the corporate cash each frontronner gets is priceless. But...but Gravel is an angry old man! It isn't possible that he is stating, truly, and factually, the causes of his anger!
    • kidcodea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1have some respect for people that fought and contributed for your chance to choose to be here and not blowing up to pieces somewhere else.
  • KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Article Dugg. It raises an important question though - is it possible these days to use the word 'Corporation' without the word "Evil" in the same sentence?
    • fivestarsoul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5itd be a little redundant if we did, wouldnt it? ;)
    • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Corporations do not equate to an automatic evil, BUT the temptation is GREAT for them to lose their conscience for profit, profit at-all-cost. We NEED the market, but it needs to be held accountable. Would you trust Corporate America if it said "please stop all regulations, you can trust us. we will behave"? Please.
      • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2By your logic, the forex market wouldn't exist due to a complex lack of regulation.
    • Kavok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Google. :)
      • trurevmbr07, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0their privacy policies have been coming into question lately, good point though
  • dgh1973, on 10/10/2007, -0/+39Mixing money from special interest groups with politicians is probably the single most dangerous thing about the way our country works.

    Separation of corporation and state should be just as important as separation of church and state IMHO.
    • bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Remove the unconstitutional power from DC and you will see the incentive to lobby and donate to candidates end overnight.
    • rednorth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1that is just such an awesome point!
    • macman2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I recommend separation of PARTY and STATE. No where in the constitution does it make provisions for parties. The parties have too much control and should not be officially recognized by the government in ANY fashion.

      You can't stop people from organizing outside of government, but we shouldn't have the government election and voting policies based upon parties.

      In many ways todays political parties have almost become religions with most people just "believing" in one party or another.
    • colberrep, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1yes and this is a huge problem with libertarians.they want no separation..they want a corporate run country.
      • trurevmbr07, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0wow thats the dumbest comment i've come across yet good job
  • Wonkanobi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+56I found it quite funny how, as Obama pointed out, the only reason Gravel knew where the money was coming from is because of Obama's bill that required campaign finance disclosure.

    Commence digg down...
    • PrettyMuchBryce, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1I found it funny too. What kind of idiot makes a bill for finance disclosure and then takes money from special interests? Or rather -- take money from third parties that take the money from the special interests.
      • tony4moroney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4an idiot thats willing to receive contributions but wants to be honest about where hes getting his money from?
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Probably someone with nothing to hide.
      • gwalms, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Or somebody who hopes you would assume that, and go on with your life.. you should go to factcheck.org there is more to Obama and Gravels spat than you think..
    • gwalms, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0digg down, messed up
    • 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9That's because Obama thinks people are stupid. You introduce a bill that says everyone has to disclose their finances and it makes you look good -- and people are too lazy to actually look at your (or anyone else's) finances anyway, so it still doesn't hurt you, even if you're bought and paid for.
      • gwalms, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I pointed this out before, in response to catalysis, and I was dugg down for some reason..
      • mtrip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Then why even bother with the law in the first place? If people are too lazy to look up the money, surely they're too lazy to wonder why there's no such law to begin with.
      • SuperMoses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The corporate media won't report on it. How many people knew about this before Obama had to defend himself?
    • chrgrose, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thats kinda like saying we can all get along with bush and support him again if he at least admits he completely ***** up the united states of america.
  • TheMeatball, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Honesty doesn't win elections, unfortunately. It'll be Obama for the dems.
    • tony4moroney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Obama has been incredibly open and honest. Tell me one thing that he's lied about? He even forced candidates to disclose their funding. he received contributions from the health corps but he was honest about it, evidently he has nothing to hide.
  • modad, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2If the corporations keep the receipt and the original packaging, does that mean they can send their purchased candidate back?
  • worldinmyeyes, on 10/10/2007, -4/+44The only thing stopping Gravel, Kucinich, or Paul from getting the nomination is the knowledge of the American people (i.e. brainwashing of the main stream media). We here at Digg need to do our part to relay this message to our circle of influence. Best of luck diggers.
    • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Here, here!
      • forgottenhope, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Then they take our passion label it as spam and spin paul into something he is not. What he is, is a free speaking, patriot. No one here has the balls to tell the Global Elite his plans on getting the IRS out of our lives along with the Federal Reserve Scam.
  • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Like Tony Benn said in Sicko, if we had TRUE democracy (like the people vote directly on issues) the poor would come out and vote for what represents them. It would take the power away FROM the wallet (Wall Street, banking, corporate greed, rich politicians) TO the polling station. And then you would see a REAL revolution. Now THAT would be an interesting day in the USA. Scary and exciting. To see what the COMMON man really wants.

    Watch and LISTEN to what he says: http://www.bennites.com/SICKO.html
    • SirGunslinger, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I would be frightened at how the "common man" would vote on a lot of things... given how most people are prone to "knee-jerk" reactions are woefully ignorant on the facts behind even common issues. If the general populous were more knowledgeable about what goes on around them then sure, but until then I will stick to a Republic.
      • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But that assumes that you were given higher authority, a "I know what is right" position. Who are you or anyone else to say that other people are not smart enough. YES, I agree that with the freedom to vote and be a citizen....REQUIRES a responsibility to be educated, knowledgeable on the issue, AND to participate and serve society in some way. But the poor don't care, not because they aren't smart enough, but for 100 years no one listened to them so they are demoralized and hopeless.
        • matador3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The higher authority is the rule of law based on the principle of natural inalienable INDIVIDUAL rights so no person or group is given higher authority. Not even the people who wrote the bill of rights if you accept the idea that these individual rights are preexisting. The Constitution enumerated some of these rights but it didn't grant them.
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Only if the majority were poor, which is clearly not the case.
      • SirGunslinger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I have seen a remarkable amount of well to do people that seem to be oblivious to the functions of our government, and what goes on around them. I suppose they min-maxed their knowledges and skills. =)
    • IcarusAngelus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Now here's a guy who doesn't have enough bread and circuses!
    • jarjarjanks, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Yes, but the poor are stupid and dont care. They are more concerned with who will win American Idol and getting 20 inch rims on their car.
      • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Ignorant response, very judgmental. The reason the poor don't care is NOT because they aren't smart enough, but for 100 years no one listened to them so they are demoralized and hopeless.
      • ColonelJessup, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Jesus christ. What is it with you people? Why are you so negative when it comes to issues like this? "Everyone's and idiot, and I'm so smart!"

        This is the exact reason why nothing ever gets done in this country. People like you who say stupid, ignorant, and un-inspiring *****. People like you are holding everyone else back. Shut your ***** mouth, and stay out of this. Let the grown-ups talk here. Go sit at the kids table.
    • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Like Tony Benn said (I am assuming he came up with it, but I don't know). The human race is like survivors on a life raft, with only 1 loaf of bread. There are 3 ways of distributing it. 1. The strong take it all and keep it. 2. They sell it to the rich. 3. Share it. Somehow the fact that I believe in number 3, makes me a guy who "doesn't have enough bread and circuses!" ?? Nonsense.
    • ryansasteroid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Whats stopping the lower class from voting now and creating this "revolution" you seem to want? Poll numbers from the lower class are abysmal. Nobody wants to acknowledge the fact that there is a huge sum of people out there who genuinely don't care. Hell, under 60% of eligible voters actually voted in the last presidential election and that was the best turn out since 1968.
    • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Excuse me, but I know several people who simply do not vote. According to you, it's because they don't care about the "health" of our society.

      Wrong! It's because they GAVE UP on the BS politicians and voting for someone, see all the bickering in Washington, and nothing gets done. And they make less $$ now than they did 30 years ago, if you factor inflation/value of the dollar/purchase power.

      They don't vote b/c they think it doesn't matter. Nothing will change- according to them.
    • bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There is a reason the word democracy doesn't appear in the Constitution, because it is mob rule, or two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
      • OutcastJiob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin was a wise man.
        • trurevmbr07, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0good job finishing 1 of the smartest things ever said about government
  • sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Can someone explain to me what Gravel was saying during the Youtube debate about Baskin-Robins in Vietnam. I feel like if we had won in 'Nam, there would surely be at least one Baskin-Robbins.
    • PrettyMuchBryce, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10He was saying that vietnam was pointless, and that the soldiers in vietnam died in vain. We trade with them now, but they're still a communist country. Over 3 million people died and for what? That's dying in vain if you ask me.
      • sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Well this is kind of paradoxical then isn't it? If he helped force a withdrawal of our troops, he made it easier for the one who died to have died in vain.
        • gwalms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yet he also made sure that more soldiers didn't die in vain..
        • sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1@qwalms So what you're saying is that even if we had won in Vietnam, all those deaths would still have been in vain?
        • forgottenhope, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Define winning. Do you know how the Vietnam war started? Do you know what the Gulf of Tonkin was? If not please look it up.
        • sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@forgottenhope The Vietnam War started when France withdrew from the land of Vietnam and we wanted to stop the land from being taken over by Communists. I believe it was after the Korean War in the mid 1950's. Good point about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident though. But the basis for the War was not that one fabrication; it was to keep communism from spreading. I guess it all comes down to whether you believe the spreading of democracy is a worthy cause.
        • dillibob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1even though the democratic leader of south vietnam was a crooked president who took bribes from the rich and banned any religon except christianity, despite only 10% of the country being christian
    • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It says that either you are too young to understand what really happened in the 60s and 70s or that you are dumb.
      • sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1wtf? I'm ***** asking questions because I want to ***** understand. I guess you have to be born with a certain intelligence that doesn't even have to be rational to be dugg up.
    • sgtbutterscotch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I was going to edit but my time ran out. This is what I was going to add:
      I could read a bunch of history books with conflicting viewpoints of what happened in the 60s and 70s and still not understand. I guess you have to turn your head one way to be deemed correct by the people of Digg. Heck, I didn't even state my opinion, I just asked a ***** question so that I could better understand something that seems paradoxical to me. It's people like you who almost make me despise most of these people on Digg. You know what, if you're so sure that you know what you're talking about then why don't you tell me what happened in the 60s and 70s. All I do is question and you answer me by assuming that what "happened in the 60s and 70s" is completely obvious. You, sir, are an ass.
  • BandarBush, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1The only reason Gravel's panties are twisted is because he can't get those same corporations to buy him out. He solicits to the same donors but coming up dry so he is trying to run an "insurgency campaign" by attacking others to keep himself in the headlines. It's not working. Fall off the bottom tier already...
    • jarjarjanks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7He doesnt want their money. He cant be bought. He's mad becasue americans are so stupid and dont give a *****
    • Stochio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Right, because reading thousands of pages of the Pentagon Papers was self serving. (Dripping with sarcasm)
  • Authustian, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14I wish we could see Ron Paul for pres with his running mate being Mike gravel for vp.

    But then i guess they'd have to run as independents or libertarians or something. Still, it would be great to see.
    • SirGunslinger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1In the past, the winner of the electoral ballot became president, and the runner-up became vice president.
      • gwalms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4but then the corrupt party system got in the way of that..
    • gwalms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0maybe that could be the unity08 ticket authustian?
    • Xevec, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Um....I can't see Ron Paul and Mike gravel agreeing on economic policy. They are polar opposites when they come to that. To the war..they are the few who say "we want IMMEDIATE withdrawl. None of this time ***** that obama and hillary approve of.
    • dtschwe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Jesse Ventura would be better
    • colberrep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you have no idea what you are talking about. Ron Paul wants no restrictions on corporate money. In fact, he wants the govt. to be privatized by corporations-- except for the military.
  • Cornstar23, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I agree.
  • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8"Mike Gravel says "Follow the money!"... corporations buy US politicians"

    There fixed that for you.
  • Disillusion, on 10/10/2007, -3/+37People need to stop saying ***** like "Gravel has as much chance of being president as he does matching Hillary's money." Many people get locked into the mindset that they have to vote for one of the "top" people as told to us by the media, because otherwise their vote is wasted. It's thinking like this that will doom us all. Don't tell people "Gravel is great, but he doesn't have a chance in hell to win," because now you just told that person to go vote for Hillary or Obama.

    Gravel FTW!
    • frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9A vote not cast for the person you most want to see win is truly wasted.
    • dillibob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3most intelligent thing ive heard all day
    • pegasusdba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Damn Right! Look, there's already plenty of people voting for the top tier.YOU can't make a difference there. Your teenie vote only stands a chance of making a difference IF you cast it for the long-shot candidate. Pick your candidate, register to vote, choose 'R' or 'D' as required for the primary, and vote on paper ballots!
  • quickdickdean, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Gravel can afford to be honest because he knows he has no chance of winning. I doubt we'd see him saying this stuff if he was the frontrunner.
    • jarjarjanks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3you can only be a front runner if you're "business friendly" aka corporate shill
  • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3The employees of the companies are giving donations -- Gravel is just mad because he isn't getting any money. These numbers don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the millions of dollars, anyway. Buried.
    • forgottenhope, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Baseless, thats why its disclosed.
  • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20That being said, we need 2 things in this country.

    1. Government leaders that represent DEMOCRACY and the COMMON MAN.

    2. The COMMON MAN needs to GET more educated on issues and get more involved in the community/nation to make this better. Not rely SOLELY on someone else to fix things.
    • bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I'm not sure what all the fascination is about democracy. We are NOT a democracy, but rather a republic, which is a very important distinction. Think of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch and you'll understand exactly what democracy is -- MOB RULE.
    • macman2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Getting everyone to think of our country as a democracy, instead of a constitutional republic, is what makes people think that ANY law is "ok" if there is a "majority" vote.

      It is a trivial thing to manipulate the public / politicians to get a 51% vote. It is much more difficult to manipulate the interpretation of a constitution.
  • mal1964, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4This article changes the rules on everything, It seems money is the real issue.
    • forgottenhope, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Look at how its created. Look into the federal reserve scam. Money is the key, US money is oil/blood money.
    • mepol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"This article changes everything" ? You say this like it is some revalation! This is not new, it is just gaining momentum because people are tired of "politics as usual! I am so glad this is getting out to the people, but its not new. Go Mike, Go! Expose all of them for what they are, panderers!
  • megafan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I am not sure if Ron Paul or Gravel can win, because it seems like no even knows about them, because the ***** media wont pay attention to them. At the same time I dont think that Guliani or ***** Romney would win either because all people know about Guliani is that he is pro-war and people are fed-up of the war. And all people know about ***** Romney is that he gets all his money from these Bitches that only care for an
    • tony4moroney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Youre CLEARLY wrong. considering Giuliani is the GOP front-runner.
    • Xevec, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You have to give republicans credit. They NEVER compromise their views...for anyone. The national socialists didn't...and neither do the republicans. If republicans want ANY CHANCE of winning, they will go for paul. Oh, and I think Romney has an advantage over the other candidates on looks. I swear, I think he's a ***** robot. He says nothing...and gets applause.
    • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I know that. Yes we ARE a republic. So instead of 2 wolves and a sheep, we now have a wolf in sheeps clothing (Wall Street and Washington elites) telling us whats for dinner.

      Ummm, I guess the common man is so dumb, he is the tyrant mob, a wolf. Sad that you think most people are evil.
  • Noncentz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Ok Ok I had to log in just to Digg this..... Awesome Find
  • Sunfightersix, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Question to diggers, If you are against corporations and foundations giving money to political candidates are you also against individuals giving them money as well? If not then all you did was shift the money flow.
    • jarjarjanks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Multi-billion dollar international corporations have a bit more influence than individuals. Individuals also tend to have their own interests are heart rather than the interests of a corporation, who's sole interest is to make money.
    • tony4moroney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1people give money to candidates because they represent their interests. something the government is meant to do.
      corporations give candidates money to protect corporate interests. which normally means protecting malpractices to maintain obscene profits. a government is for the people not for corporations. so no, we wouldnt be against preventing people from funding candidates
  • davebg8r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+34Gravel and Paul do have a chance at winning. Vote for them, support them, encourage others to do so. DO NOT give in to the mentality of 'well they wont win so I wont waste my vote' or a something similar. The current system only continues because you compromise and continue to support it. Take a stand and have the convictions to hold that stand in the face of adversity.
  • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6That's why there are 2 parties anymore. Not republican or democrat.

    But Capitalist and Workers. Those with and those without.
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5BS.

      Most of the workers are Capitalists. The so called Capitalists aren't Capitalists at all. They're aristocratic socialists. They have the cash and they bank on Socialism protecting that.
    • 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Capitalists and workers my ass. More like the party of the oil companies and the party of the insurance companies, respectively.
  • ddxChrist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19It's a shame that all of these articles from the media on Gravel or Paul close with a line akin to: "Well, it's too bad they won't actually get elected." Why is that necessary? It pretty much demonstrates that they don't want these politicians to gain popularity. Repeating that these candidates have no chance will only serve to psychologically dissuade people from gaining interest in them.
    • jarjarjanks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8And thats exacly why the media does it.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i'm quite used to the mainstream glossing over candidates like paul, gravel, and kucinich. was surprised when listening to npr a guest said that they should remove candidates like gravel so that the other candidates have more time to speak. what BS. make the debates longer or maybe have less anderson cooper time. the true passionate firebrands are sidelines for the well-funded, meticulously polished, sound-bite whores. my worse fear is that we will have a guilani/clinton election thanks to an intentionally misinformed public.
    • Kevmike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We have conviction and the informational resources to talk passionately to our friends, loved ones, and any ol' person willing to give us a second. We can disarm the misinformation if we're diligent and respectful. Refuse to give in!
  • IMnotCIA, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Funny how they don't cite money given by oil companies to candidates.

    You don't get elected a US Senator in Alaska without taking money from the oil companies.
  • willistg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7dugg, though it's a pity that people are just now figuring this out. YAY INTERNETS
  • G_money, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Not just corporations buying candidates....Trial lawyers and Labor Unions seem to always get a free pass here.
  • Calann, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Baloney, if this was true, Bush and Cheney would have attacked another country in order to destroy their infrastructure, just so that they could give their corporate construction buddies huge reconstruction contracts.
    Oh Wait... Nevermind.
    • minorthreat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2dugg down for spelling bologna wrong :)
  • surfcat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11For the People by the People.........oops What I meant to say was For the Corporation by the Corporation.
  • duckrank, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3@Xuvious, worldinmyeyes
    Kucinich would be a terrible president! Look up his history in my home city of Cleveland, OH. If he couldn't run a city, what makes you think he can run a country?
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3First thing you want is not a president who is arrogant enough to say they want to run the country, the economy, or peoples lives :)
  • boredsam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Not that any of you will read it, but there's an interesting book by Fred S. McChesney called "Money for Nothing: Politicians, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion" where the case is made that politicians extort money from corporations as opposed to corporations buying politicians. This is known as rent extraction. It is more of a factor for people already in office, but still applies here. Instead of the commonly held belief that companies take their big bag o cash to a politician and say "I want x for y amount of money", the politicians goto the companies and say "give me y amount of money and I will do x for you". This shifts the "evil" factor from the companies and back where it belongs, our elected politicians.
    • ssmith2k3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I was going to say something about how Gravel really flips this issue around as if politicians were corrupted by the corporations and not the other way around. Hedge funds are a good current example. Politicians have threatened to regulate and raise taxes on the industry after hearing about how well HFs were doing. Surprise, surprise, Hedge Funds are starting to make political donations to pay tribute.
    • frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Either way, the system is inherently corrupt . Which is worse, having your government influenced by big business, or having your government run by people who extort money?
    • pegasusdba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, THAT explains why the pols don't want real, honest campaign finance reform!
      I though jesse jackson was the only one doing this, but it sounds plausible...
  • dwhitbeck, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Corporations buy the president and all of the rest of the politicians also.
  • gonknet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3FTA: "the front-runners are taking millions from pharmaceutical and health professionals"
    So apparently the people that work for corporations are the same as the corporations themselves?
  • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Well, Gravel can say that, because he has absolutely no shot.

    I abhor money in politics, too (if money is "free speech", you can have "more" free speech than someone else?), but Gravel's an embarrassing crank. If hell froze over and he became the frontrunner, you'd see him change his tune awfully quick.

    I know you guys think it's hip and post-modern to support the guy who has no chance (i.e., Paul, Gravel, Kucinich, Nader), but it's really just a colossal waste of time.
    • cat6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You think people are just supporting Gravel because it's cool to believe in the underdog? I think you are mistaken. It seems to me that many people have listened to Gravel's comment about where the money comes from. He has a great point. Do your research and you will see who is funding the "front runners."
  • neckfire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14I am voting for Gravel- if you feel he is right tell people you are going to vote for him and see how many people come around. He can win if you change your tune. The "there is no way he will win" argument is *****, speak your opinion and watch people follow.

  • andrgo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16I like Mike! Seriously, vote for this guy next year!
  • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4What the people who support fringe candidates and demand impeachment and the like don't understand is that representative democracy is SLOW. Really, really slow.

    You want money out of politics? Baby steps.
    Obama declining lobbyist money is a good start - and he still managed to bring in more dough than anyone else.
    • Darel99, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Obama has lied he recived lobbyist money to get to the senate...
  • Fallout911, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Mr Gravel is a hero.
    I will be voting for him.
  • THE4IRON, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Should have gotten a better pic...
  • keithburgun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I hate that this article ends with "But I like the fact that he reminds us all just what it costs to win high office and who's paying the way. *" you LIKE the fact that money chooses the president, not the people?!?!?! are you F*KING INSANEEEE?!?!? Everyone how has even the SLIGHTEST GRAIN of curiousity and intellect can tell that he is the only candidate worth voting for (Well, Kucinitch is good too, but he doesn't have the FIRE we need to really fix this country). Thanks Gravel for existing! You can do it

    Everyone, tell you friends about him! Please! Word of mouth is his only shot!
  • cricoste90, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Gravel, Kucinich, and Ron Paul.
    I hope at least one of them make it to the finals.
  • Xevec, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Ok, I used to think gravel sucked...but now I am seeing the true light about him. Oh dear god, he is a breath of fresh air to the DEMOCRATS. Ha, he's exposing the idea that the democratic "leaders" are not as good as they seem to be. He is attacking Clinton, Obama, and Edwards(who all said the SAME EXACT THING during the CNN/youtube debate on health care).

    Also, Bill Clinton was once in Gravel's and Paul's position. He was an "unknown." But he became president. Anything can happen people. That is all I am saying about their chance of winning.

    But personally, I can not vote for Gravel because of his views on economics. I believe he does support universal health care and expansion of government services. I can not endorse such a thing. But if Ron Paul does win the nomination...I hope TO GOD hillary wins...since Ron Paul can easily destroy her.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 83 of 83 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.