DiggJoin DiggAbout
See the original image at cagle.com —

Monty Python and Barack Obama

cagle.com — Political cartoon perfectly summarizes this campaign. Ironically, Obama's not the black knight.

made popular 320 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community.Take the Tour to learn more.

Related by Keyword BETA!

Monty Python's John Cleese backs Barack Obama

  • 1780 diggs
  • Made popular 275 days ago
  • 234
  • www.news.com.au

‘Iron Man 2’ Screenwriter Insists Theme Of Sequel will be...

  • 734 diggs
  • Made popular 1 day 10 hr ago
  • 152
  • splashpage.mtv.com

Rourke, Rockwell To Play Villains in Iron Man 2

  • 600 diggs
  • Made popular 12 hr 40 min ago
  • 79
  • www.hollywoodreporter.com

How are these related stories? Tell us!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ScottooMc, on 02/23/2008, -116/+30Q: Why didn't Helen Keller scream when she fell off the cliff?

    A: She was wearing mittens.
    • eleli, on 02/23/2008, -54/+35Why was Helen Keller such a bad driver?


      Because she was a woman!
      • goomba323, on 02/23/2008, -39/+4Cause she was blind?
      • john2782, on 02/23/2008, -9/+50
        • antiorblkflag9, on 02/23/2008, -3/+34You answered your own question when you noticed they were douchebags
      • KarthVader, on 02/23/2008, -2/+11SILENCE!! Or we shall Ni to you!
        • coolmos, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4Do you really think the Digg-police would let you say Ni! to a total stranger?
    • greenlight2001, on 02/23/2008, -9/+117Q. Why is there a Helen Keller joke in this thread?

      A. Because ScottooMc is an *****.
      • fajitamelt, on 02/23/2008, -30/+9Great sense of humor you have there! If everybody was just like you, I'm sure the world would be a much happier place!
      • purzzzell, on 02/23/2008, -5/+12@fajitamelt - was that at the op, or at greenlight? I think you replied to the wrong person.

        If it was at greenlight, you deserve the burying - it was at scottoo, you are redeemed.
        • fajitamelt, on 02/23/2008, -21/+4I was replying to greenlight. Even if the first guy's joke is irrelevent, even if it wasn't funny, it shows that at least one person has a sense of humor.
    • Perigren, on 02/23/2008, -8/+10Ummmm how does this relate? Ohh right because Hilary is "blind" to the fact shes lost. Still not very funny.
  • Djerrid, on 02/23/2008, -28/+438Wow, so many options...
    --
    We are the knights who say CHANGE!
    --
    That was nicely drawn and quartered.
    --
    Next quest? Remove the Shrubbery.
    --
    What makes you think she's a witch?
    Well, she turned me into a Ron Paul supporter!
    A Ron Paul supporter?
    [meekly after a long pause] ... I got better.
    --
    We're delegates of the Round Table, we elect whoe'er is capable
    Of bringing restitution to the constitution or just making sure we're re-elect-able.
    --
    Listen, strange women lyin' under Oval Office desks buffin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aristocratic ceremony.
    --
    Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
    • SaneDrain, on 02/23/2008, -6/+55My version...
      Listen. Strange women lying in speeches, distributing propaganda is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical political ceremony.
      • Thater, on 02/23/2008, -2/+88Come and see the hypocrisy inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm getting depressed!
        • darienphoenix, on 02/23/2008, -19/+10*being repressed
          • Thater, on 02/23/2008, -0/+19I was reappropriating the quote and altering it slightly to fit into the context of the democratic primaries. If this was a "spot the misquoted Monty Python" quiz you'd only be half right anyway, because "hypocrisy" was originally "violence".
        • Kraemahz, on 02/23/2008, -0/+7Depressed is far funnier in this context. Thater scored a win by being original, and you think he should have stuck to the cliched line? For shame.
    • antiorblkflag9, on 02/23/2008, -0/+52I don't know, Obama is going to have a hard time fighting against her "clap clap point point" move
      • danielplainview, on 02/23/2008, -20/+2Reference to the white people instructional dance video... dugg
      • freshpow, on 02/23/2008, -0/+16^ wrong. Colbert reference. Dugg
      • coolmos, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Oh, i don't know. As soon as someone has made the Monty Python video 'Spot the Looney' with a small piece of footage of Hillary she's probably done.
    • crazyhorse13, on 02/23/2008, -9/+2Knight of Ni: We want.....
      (pregnant pause)
      A SHRUBBERY!!!!
      (dramatic minor chord)
      • rezophonic, on 02/24/2008, -0/+5I believe the chord was actually diminished, possibly even diminished seventh...
    • down4twenty, on 02/23/2008, -8/+1aefq
    • Sohosoutherner, on 02/23/2008, -6/+18Props on the Ron Paul one. T'was funny.
      • Erik1, on 02/23/2008, -1/+33I don't think I have ever heard 'props' and 't'was' used in the same line.

        The Ghetto meets Ye Olde England.
    • iainc, on 02/24/2008, -0/+8While we're on the subject of the great Python. What I'd give to see a group of hecklers, suitably attired as peasants (of course), shout "Burn her!" at one of HRC's rallies :o)
    • joshgeek, on 02/24/2008, -9/+6"What makes you think she's a witch?
      Well, she turned me into a Ron Paul supporter!
      A Ron Paul supporter?
      [meekly after a long pause] ... I got better. "
      funny cuz its true. lol
      • Joshuarr, on 02/24/2008, -0/+8The first time I read that, I wasn't sure about it. But, now that you've copied and pasted it for me and added, "funny cuz its true. lol", I'm still not convinced.
      • piouspeter, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Funny because it's funny, not because you say it is. Even a ron paul supporter should be able to laugh at that though.
    • stealthc, on 02/24/2008, -9/+6I turned into a Ron Paul supporter long before any of these presidential campaigns started. And I still haven't "gotten better."

      Truth has a way of sticking. 2 + 2 still equals 4, no matter how many of you crazies vote for 5.
    • ZenMojo, on 02/24/2008, -1/+9Grave cold Miss Rodham rode forth from Arkansas.
      She was not afraid to lie, O grave Miss Rodham!
      She was not at all afraid to behave in nasty ways,
      Grave, Grave, Grave, Grave Miss Rodham!
      • jjmckay, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3Win! Great job!
      • mitoguard, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3She was not in the least bit sad to try to bash hope to a pulp
        Or to spread some lies about her opponent's record
        To have the party split and good feelings tossed away
        Or to use kindergarten papers, grave Miss Rodham
    • sarixe, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3meh, what's constitutional about public healthcare anyway? (though i do admire his vision of change)
      • piouspeter, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4well, for one, barrack's plan, at first, only slashes the price of health care and requires children to have health care, while clinton's plan requires every to have it and if you don't, maybe you happen to be too poor, she will quote "attack your wages", which seems a little bit of a communistic move, but that hasn't stopped her so far.
  • vishcool1, on 02/23/2008, -11/+35The only difference is that the real Hillary can steal elections to catch back up.
    • XopherMV, on 02/23/2008, -2/+4 BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
      ARTHUR: You're a looney.
      BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs!
    • 4d669, on 02/24/2008, -7/+3The only difference is that Obama is a CFR puppet who happens to be Cheney's cousin, who happens to be married to a woman part of CFR and who happens to have all the support from the media.
      He voted for the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act. Enjoy the same government that's been ruling our country for the past 8 years.
      • cbergeron, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1CFR?
        • LBobRife, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4Don't encourage him.
        • TheAssMan, on 02/24/2008, -2/+1Just because he's a paranoid moonbat, doesn't mean he's wrong.

          / 4 more years of the same old *****
        • TopherT, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Council on foreign relations, and they're right, its better to just ignore the crazy ones.
      • Yatata, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1what has he done to have you label him a "puppet" or is that just a label you're sticking on him based on a gut feeling?
    • SLutz, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0don't be stupid, obama wasn't in the senate when the Patriot Act was passed.

      "...this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.

      Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America."
      etc.
  • mrivorey, on 02/23/2008, -52/+19HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton
    • trotskyist, on 02/23/2008, -4/+50and here I was thinking it stood for hot robot chain.
      • TheReport, on 02/23/2008, -4/+16really? cause I thought it stood for Heartless Ruthless *****
    • Roger, on 02/23/2008, -2/+16Her?
      • arbouler, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6^i wish i could digg that comment multiple times for the arrested development reference ;)
      • bmunichman, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Is she funny or something?
      • KarthVader, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Ni!
    • nullx42, on 02/23/2008, -10/+4And here I thought it stood for a racist acronym.
    • exomni, on 02/23/2008, -8/+4Seriously? I thought it stood for Mitt Romney or something.
    • dhVyse, on 02/23/2008, -5/+17Thank you, Captain Obvious.
    • EpicSelekta, on 02/23/2008, -7/+6Her Rotten Crotch?
    • PhoenixAvatar2, on 02/23/2008, -3/+20Horn-Rimmed *****?
    • SpookyPig, on 02/23/2008, -8/+2No *****
    • HyperJack, on 02/23/2008, -1/+15I know everyone above me is being very sarcastic but thanks for pointing it out. /end clueless Brit !
    • kufu91, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3Horatio Rastaban Currie?
    • Proctor, on 02/23/2008, -15/+2Obama supporters know their stupid, but don't like to be shown that they really are. Thanks for the insight.
      • Handonam, on 02/23/2008, -0/+9they're?

        :(
      • trotskyist, on 02/23/2008, -0/+16I love the fact that you used "their" as opposed to the grammatically correct "they're" in your comment telling Obama supporters how stupid they are.
        Nice one.
        • Proctor, on 02/23/2008, -7/+1My bad Mr. Grammatically Correct Man!
    • CheLives, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Help Resuscitate Clinton?
    • someone173406, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1http://www.crashonmyhead.com/captain_obvious.jpg
    • Weaselboy, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Thank you captain obvious.
  • steelersfan7roe, on 02/23/2008, -6/+72So appropriate for this election.

    Hillary talks out of her ass and can't wield her sword. Obama is skillful in his trade.
    And Hillary doesn't know when she's been defeated.
    • fajitamelt, on 02/23/2008, -12/+3Why can't he just kill her instead of letting her sit there bleeding to death? Oh, wait, because she still has a chance!
      • atezun, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Oh yeah, one hell of chance! I bet she'll bite his legs off.
    • xyqxyq, on 02/23/2008, -0/+25And Hillary can survive multiple spontaneous limb amputations due to her starfish DNA.
    • Emnsta, on 02/23/2008, -12/+6So Obama's a good guy for cutting off all of a woman's limbs and leaving her to die in the wilderness?
      • TekTrixter, on 02/23/2008, -1/+14No, he's a good guy for cutting off all of *Hillary's* llimbs and leaving her to die in the wilderness
      • steelersfan7roe, on 02/23/2008, -0/+8have you seen monty python ass? its the black knight that attacks, and it's hillary that is attacking obama.
      • flintmecha, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5Wait, Hillary's a woman?
        • mathwiz1991, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1When did that happen?
        • coolmos, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Well, she was a man, but the Black Knight has been fighting her earlier. Err, him earlier. No, wait, aaaaahhhhhhhhh.......................
  • bluezinc, on 02/23/2008, -4/+460Obama: On second thought, let's not go to Washington. It is a silly place.
    • ell0bo, on 02/23/2008, -4/+63congrats for having the only comment on this thread worth reading
    • joshuabowers, on 02/23/2008, -1/+37It's only a model.
    • illspaz, on 02/23/2008, -9/+6actually, it's nice there in the summer. just not during silly season
    • stealthc, on 02/24/2008, -5/+5I hereby withdraw all my diggs in this thread and give them to you.
    • SupaFlyBonzai, on 02/24/2008, -13/+2***** dat gay
    • SkinnerBox, on 02/24/2008, -3/+3Bluezinc FTW

      I wish that there were some stronger form of comment digg that I could use, because just digging such a perfect comment doesn't feel like enough.
  • dogster, on 02/23/2008, -75/+18Obama = fake change = CFR

    Ron Paul = real deal
    • michaelfitz, on 02/23/2008, -2/+29http://youfail.org
    • iainc, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6Betting this is nooo or EditorResponse again. Not sure which one just yet.
    • purzzzell, on 02/23/2008, -4/+14I'm with you on the RP making a bigger and more real change than Obama

      But I'm BURYING you for mentioning the CFR - you're the type of crackhead that gets the rest of us RP supporters pegged as conspiracy nutters.
      • darienphoenix, on 02/23/2008, -0/+8Dugg.

        I hate Ron Paul supporters because people like dogster make them look like conspiracy theorist nutters who watch Zeitgeist and Endgame and think they've had an epiphany.
        • aliengoods, on 02/23/2008, -3/+4You can disagree with the conclusions of Zeitgeist, but not the facts. And yes, I've watched it and thought it was rather interesting.
        • stealthc, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1The section in Zeitgeist about Christianity has zero credibility. Scholars of ancient history consider that theory a cruel joke on people who don't understand history and how early Christianity actually happened. Just so you all know that.
      • tech42er, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1What is the CFR? I know it's like the NWO, but I don't actually know what it stands for.
  • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -64/+7Actually Mike Gravel = real deal
    Ron Paul = civic destruction

    But I agree with you Obama = fake change. He is pretty much a republican.
    http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
    • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -24/+3Seriously, those who dugg me down, did you click on the link? I guess I got Ron Paul AND Obama supporters against me.
      • sroop, on 02/23/2008, -2/+7What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior.
        • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -5/+3My language may have sounded like I was treating you like an inferior but I was simply asking for clarification. As in why digg me down without commenting? Hope that clears things up. I want to encourage discussion you know?
      • 0xception, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2my question is, on what basis did they come to these conclusions? i dont see if on the page, but maybe i'm missing it...
    • Pillage, on 02/23/2008, -3/+4How dare you have your own opinion!
      • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -7/+1How dare I have an opinion about your opinion!
        • aliengoods, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2I really don't have an opinion on that.
        • DiggBelfast, on 02/23/2008, -1/+0Yes, we are all individuals!

          I'm not...
      • purzzzell, on 02/23/2008, -1/+3He's entitled to an opinion - and others are entitled to bury him - not that I did, b/c I'm willing to accept a sourced, thought out, negative statement on RP.

        Just not the "you paultards are spammers and worthless scum" argument - that one I bury.
        • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -1/+4I didn't intend to make that statement but can see why some might think so. Its a little frustrating because people have opinions but do not discuss them. Digging someone down on a comment is not a discussion right? If I did someone down, I hope to have a reason for doing so and comment. I wonder if such an etiquette can develop on digg? Digg is about the democratic process. Without discussion it is pointless.

          So thanks for commenting.
    • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -3/+2My comment is ***** and should be dugg down. I wrote it in haste. If I can take it back I would. I think my second comment is better and more refined.
  • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -32/+7http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
    http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

    If you look at the political compass of the candidates
    Mike Gravel is closest to Dalai Lama and Gandhi,
    Obama is closest to Thatcher and Jacques Chirac,
    And Ron Paul is closest to Friedman who's ideas and policies destroyed Latin America.
    • Aeaus, on 02/23/2008, -0/+7According to that Kucinich is more of a libertarian then Paul
    • exomni, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6I'm closest to Nelson Mandela. Though I bounce back and forth from him to Stalin every couple months.
    • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2Do you guys think the political compass reflects positions in an interesting way or is it bogus? Because there are a lot of people digging me down. The only opinion that is mine is that Friedman's policies destroyed latin america. The other statements were just observational. I personally think the political compass is interesting but clearly only presents a limited view of the candidates.
      • 0xception, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2No i'm glad you posted these links, as i have never seen them before... i would have to look into the site a bit more to see if it's a biased source and all that other jazz... but from the looks of it is really interesting :)

        on a side note you would image that the good candidate for president (to represent the whole of the people) would be one who is right in the middle of that spectrum... and fully centered. Ignoring any other characteristics of the candidate and only strictly looking at their leanings.
        • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2That is true. It is very Buddhist of you. I guess my comment to that would be do people across the world equally span the spectrum? Or are most people on the left, top, bottom, or right? So the perfect candidate would be in the middle of where most people are if you average them out. I wonder if the political compass website can show that kind of data. I will contact them now! lol
        • 0xception, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2that's a good point. but i would think that the spectrum already takes that into account. because the entire thing is based off of people's subjective opinions of others positions then a candidate leans to one end of a spectrum depends directly on what they compare it to. So if there is a large concentration of people who believe that say the Free Market economy without government regulation (defensive or otherwise) then that would become the norm and the candidate would be pushed further left if they believed that Free market deserves defensive regulation. If however the vast majority of the people believed that the free market is an extreme idea then that same candidate's position might be considered further right.

          Hopefully that made sense...

          Funny that you mentioned the Buddhist nature :) i tend to find the middle way appealing but as the same w/ religion i like a mixture of different philosophies (normally Buddhist Taoist), but that's off topic..
      • 0xception, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2after talking about this a bit more w/ my wife, she brought up the point that it could be they are comparing the candidates to each other or to other specific people that they deemed to represent some space on the spectrum, in which case it takes no consideration of what the majority of people believe or where they sit.

        again it would be nice to know what their point of comparison is.
        • mempko, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Thats a very good point. I sent them a message to ask if they can show a chart of where most people are and where the candidates are. I predict that there is going to be a disconnect between the people and the candidates.
    • purzzzell, on 02/23/2008, -3/+1This one I'm burying b/c you just posted the same link twice in a row.
      • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1You know what, you are right! I would prefer you bury my first comment though. I do not like it as much as this one :P It is more refined and represents what I wanted to say better. If I can take back the first one I would.
    • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -4/+2Oh for an interesting read on Friedman here is a link
      http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=1085
      I know I know, its on a socialist anti capitalist website. But really, would you get any critical look at Friedman's ideas on a pro-capitalist website? Its interesting to read other perspectives. So do not left the socialist thing scare you off.
      • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -3/+2Haha, is that a Freudian slip? "So do not **left** the socialist thing scare you off". I of course meant "let". The brain works in mysterious ways.
      • Hananda, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4I don't know where to begin with this one. There isn't even a pretense of objectivity here. There is nothing separating this article from a tabloid attack piece. No purpose other than to advance the agenda of the author and gratify the audience. How about a mention that it was not Friedman's suggestion to fix Chilean currency to the US dollar, and that that does, in fact, run counter to Chicago School economic theory? I really can't take an article that assigns blame in part to a monopolized banking system, but continues on the pretense that Chile was a Capitalist failure seriously.

        And really, Friedman destroyed Latin America? How about, say, The United Fruit Company, the CIA, US drug policy, the colonial powers who set the original conditions, maybe the warlords and dictators themselves deserve some of the credit, eh?

        A similar argument could be made that Keynes is directly responsible for the interventionist policy and completely unjustifiable military budget that the US has maintained since WWII and through the fall of the Soviet Union. The Military Industrial Complex is Keynesian make-work with a touch of corporatism, and we've got to bomb something to justify its existence. Communists, terrorists, whatever.
        • mempko, on 02/24/2008, -2/+1"Friedman had no qualms over the military overthrow of Chile's democratically elected Allende government in 1973, because Allende was interfering with business control of Chilean society" -Robert W. McChesney
          Yes you are right that CIA and military intervention and militarism in general was destructive. The warlords do deserve some credit. It was good for business frankly. Capitalism does not require democracy and Friedman clearly had no problem with military intervention.
          In could almost be said that our capitalist economy is completely Dependant on our militarized society.
          Friedmans capitalism justifies the "unjustifiable military budget that the US has maintained since WWII and through the fall of the Soviet Union." if you believe that economic indicators are the most important assessment of progress.
    • bthug7, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2BOGUS website
    • tech42er, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Attacking Friedman? That's pretty ridiculous. He was probably the best economist of the 20th century. I mean, you're entitled to be anti-capitalist and obviously you'd oppose Friedman's practical libertarianism then, but you cannot say his policies "destroyed Latin America". Pinochet's problem was that he was a dictator, not that he believed in the free market.
  • yoshitomi, on 02/23/2008, -2/+35Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
  • Deodrus, on 02/23/2008, -2/+18+1 for accuracy... and dismemberment.
  • turdblossom1, on 02/23/2008, -2/+40Hillary jumped the Shark thursday. Her campaign is toast http://youtube.com/watch?v=rEOjttmqIrc
  • jdavscru, on 02/23/2008, -4/+33why did Obama kill Horned Rimmed Glasses?
    • H1tchh1k3r, on 02/23/2008, -0/+25to get to the other side
    • Lennalf, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5Oooooooh Hillary Rodham... I get it now. At first I read "HRC" as "Human Rights Campaign" and I was worried.
  • HotDogBun, on 02/23/2008, -21/+4It's a shame that hillary and bill will either have Obama assassinated like they did to Ron Brown, or will pull some sort of hardcore fraud out of their hat to defeat him in the end.
    • txtphile, on 02/23/2008, -2/+6You're thinking of Vince Foster. Ron Brown was assassinated by S.P.E.C.T.R.E in collusion with the military-undustriaaaaaaaaaa! Help! They've broken in! You'll never win you fascists! (Connection reset)
    • gak001, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1Does that foil hat ever get itchy?
      • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1Do those foil hat jokes ever lose credibility?

        We need a Godwin's law for foil hats.
  • mal1964, on 02/23/2008, -1/+9"With Apologies To Monty Python"
  • EpicSelekta, on 02/23/2008, -20/+2Why is the "Obama" knight white? Is that part of the statement?
    • turdblossom1, on 02/23/2008, -0/+10because the black knight was the idiot in the movie, adn the white knight the good one. duh
      • aliengoods, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3Also, the black knight initially attacked the white knight.
    • ganlet, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1EpicSelekta, have you seen the movie and if not its Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
  • lajaw, on 02/23/2008, -33/+4that toon is indicative of what Obama will do to this country if he ascends to the presidency.
  • NyteStarNyne, on 02/23/2008, -0/+32Is it just me or did Clinton just say Obama's campaign is dishonest & he should be ashamed of himself? It must be me because no one is that big of an ignorant hypocrite. Right?
    • purzzzell, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1dugg :)
    • Reap, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3Hey- it's ok. She compared him to Rove too; that makes everything all right.
  • paulface12, on 02/23/2008, -2/+126Next up for defeat: The Knights Who Say "NeoCon".
    • jjmckay, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2What is the word the Knights Who Say NeoCon must not hear?! RonPaul!!
  • spacecoyote1966, on 02/23/2008, -5/+8I think the Black Knight could also apply to Huckabee. He gets his butt kicked in primary after primary but is still in denial that he's lost.
    • eean, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Well he says he is in it only because he believes in miracles. That's not much denial.
  • Tanktunker, on 02/23/2008, -21/+9So when Obama was behind by a 100 he's gaining momentum, but when Hillary's behind by 60 she's been dismembered and has lost for sure?
    • Schul983, on 02/23/2008, -0/+14yea she was ahead because of superdelegates who chose allegiance before even the iowa caucus. When's the last time that hillary won 10 in a row, let alone 2?
      • DevDuck, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3Totally agree but you've got it backwards. It should be "When did she win 2 in a row, let alone 10?" The phrase is to point out an easier task and then "let alone" a more difficult one.

        Sorry for being a grammar nazi...
        • Schul983, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1yea somethin seemed off after I posted it. haha thanks.
    • terribly1, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6Erm, that's exactly right...
      Since Obama was behind, and is now better/ahead/moving up (take your pick), while Hillary was ahead and is now erm, not, yes.
      It has nothing to do with how many delegates. It has everything to do with how they're moving.
      By your logic, buying low priced stock that's climbing is stupid when you can stay with the high priced stuff that's tanking.
    • bthug7, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1He was losing before it got started, she's getting killed in the heat of battle. I think differentiating is viable. But hey, the Japs owned us in Pearl Harbor, so I guess they won the war?
  • macdoc, on 02/23/2008, -18/+8Obamas speeches as well as Mrs. C's are getting boring and spew all the same crappy air.
    • Tanktunker, on 02/23/2008, -0/+10Yeah, they should change their position on all the issues between each speech to keep it fresh.
  • tricks574, on 02/23/2008, -14/+7So, when Obama is leading by a small number of delegates, he is destroyed Hilary and she is in denial, but when he was down by a small number of delegates, he was surging ahead and was destined to win? Obama might win the nomination, he might not, but its as premature to call it over right now as it was when he was down by about the same number after super Tuesday.
    • mempko, on 02/23/2008, -1/+5Right, its not a horse race. Especially November. Who knows, maybe people will lookup Mike Gravel and vote for him?
    • HellDonut, on 02/23/2008, -1/+5Or maybe there's the fact that when Obama was not the main contender, he acknowledged that by congratulating Hillary on her victores before his speeches (ie: NH), but Hillary hasn't done so on any of her recent 11 losses, publicly ignoring the fact and showing she'd go at any length to win the nomination - making FL and MI votes count, courting superdelegates over the public's vote, etc.
  • RaDeus, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6was hoping that hillary were going to be the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog but his seems just as good...
    • ryanadc, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3[imagines hillary on the receiving end of the Holy Hand Grenade] :)
  • haroonm, on 02/23/2008, -6/+1Jes, we can.
    http://digg.com/comedy/Jes_we_can_Hilarious_Obama_ ...
  • lousyhunter, on 02/23/2008, -2/+2Ten bucks says the artist gets a call from the secret service.
  • gregMF, on 02/23/2008, -39/+2monty python = ***** overrated comedy ever?

    yeah.
    • zephyr42, on 02/23/2008, -1/+8gregMF has no amount of sense of real humor?

      yeah.
      • Kraemahz, on 02/23/2008, -3/+3zephyr42 has making questions that include multiple sequential prepositions?

        yeah.
        • stealthc, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Kraemahz has inspiring of new internet meme?

          yeah.
    • Gazthrak, on 02/23/2008, -0/+11You must like Dane Cook then?
    • Jpotts12, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5Don't forget Carlos Mencia, the other really popular ***** comedian.
    • Arcesius, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4You don't really have a soul, do you?
  • jcroweall7, on 02/23/2008, -5/+3In this representation, Obama's campaign is white. +1 for that detail.
  • HellDonut, on 02/23/2008, -9/+4 On second thought, let's not ride to Texas. It is a silly place.
    • HellDonut, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1(In the voice of Hillary Clinton of course).
  • wschamps04, on 02/23/2008, -8/+2doesn't king arthur say "we'll call it a draw" ?
    • Kraemahz, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3No. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
      • wschamps04, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2uh...i watched that to check and king arthur definitely says it. why would the black knight call it a draw and then complain about them leaving? the difference in the voice of king arthur is because he first is only talking to the black knight, who's right there and then he yells louder to patsy.
        • Kraemahz, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3The Black Knight wouldn't admit to defeat so he called it a draw. Arthur would have no reason to call a fight he just won a draw. You can also clearly see the Black Knight is moving and looking up at Arthur, indicating he's talking. If you want to check a transcript, no transcript suggests that Arthur is claiming it's a draw. Here's one example: http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/judidench/116/ ...
  • afidler, on 02/23/2008, -2/+8Now we just have to tie Clinton up and throw her in a lake and see if she sinks or swims.
  • Skidmark66, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2he's mm m, m, ma , m mmamm ,m , ma ,m ma,m,m,m, mad sir
  • unfinite, on 02/23/2008, -2/+10I like how Obama is caricatured by his giant ears.
    • AndrewDB, on 02/23/2008, -5/+1Well, yeah, he hears what the people want and acts upon it. :)
    • Blade2000, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Because giant nostrils would be racist!
    • SoullessPoet, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Here's another caricature, this one from Japan, showing Obama with big ears. I don't think it's meant to be derogatory, but apparently, some caricaturists have taken note of that particular feature.

      http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/02/19/world ...
      • cerealjynx, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Heh, my brain wants to process it as a George Washington wig...
  • dopke, on 02/23/2008, -5/+0lol @ the big ears on obama
  • d3mag0gu3, on 02/23/2008, -14/+2This made the front page of digg? Digg is dying sheeple. We must fight the obamabots. Why don't you obamabots go to obama's website and stay there. "I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
    • Railz, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Curious, you have a " in your comment, but no end ". YOU STARTED A QUOTE WITHOUT FINISHING IT. I kept searching for the end of it =(
  • Viskisieppo, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4It's funny because it's true
  • diapper, on 02/23/2008, -8/+1RP 2008
    • Mothrog, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Fat Chance '08
    • stealthc, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I'm kind of over the presidential bid, though I am a candidate now for delegate and hope to represent my district and state at the convention(s).

      Ron Paul Renaissance!
  • BirdCatcher, on 02/23/2008, -1/+5so the black knight won this round...
  • k0001, on 02/23/2008, -3/+3dugg for "python" www.python.org
  • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4Obama should keep walking and put lots of distance between them.
  • hfx392, on 02/24/2008, -3/+3Am I the only one that saw this as Bush chopping off the limbs of the House Reform Committee?
    • jmccrox, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4umm... the title of the article is "Monty Python and Barack Obama"
      • hfx392, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1Yes, I can read, thank you - but I don't really see how the title relates to the comic. One might think the white knight would have slightly darker skin and ears that less resembled King George's, but then again, the title on digg should tell me what to think!

        Though the comic doesn't really make much sense in the context I get from it, unless it's a comic for neocons, I guess.
      • hfx392, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1Actually, it appears the Richmond Times Dispatch is a conservative newspaper - so I'm betting this comic has nothing to do with Hillary or Obama at all.

        GG Digg.
    • Scagli3tti, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1The Barack Obama campaign emblem on the white knight's back should be enough of a clue.
    • eean, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Yes
    • hfx392, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Ahh, I didn't know what the emblem stood for. If it wasn't there, I would still think the same thing.

      A poor cartoon, either way. (but hey diggers like it!)
  • coustoe, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1wouldn't this better represent MCcain vs huckkabe and ron paul?
    • stealthc, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1McCain has plenty of time and opportunity and likelihood of having a PR implosion between now and the convention. If it's bad enough there might be enough rebellion in the GOP to nominate somebody who isn't McCain. And I personally hope that would be Ron Paul. Slim odds, I know, but weirder things have happened.
      • Yatata, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1Romney's going withdraw his suspension from the race as soon as this story gets legs.
  • HopeLeaves, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1hahaha. This is my home newspaper.
  • finethug, on 02/24/2008, -2/+1I agree this should of been McCain, it would of be really funny
    • ironpirate, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Mccain will beat Obama in a general election. Obama is too liberal.
  • dwninjungleland, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Why, that IS ironic! HAHAHAha. ha.
  • milliamp, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Right now Clinton is down by ~150 delegates, she won Florida, but Florida's delegates were not counted.
    Had Florida been counted, the current score would be ~1298 to 1206

    At this point though, I would say the situation will only get worse for Clinton. Obama started mostly as an unknown, and Clinton did well early on. Now Obama is a household name who has won the last 10 states. Clinton's frustration with the situation only makes her look worse.

    How is she going to take to task the responsibility of being the most powerful peace keeper in the world if she is all catty and on the offensive in the democratic primary? Charging into conflict with guns blazing isn't what the U.S. foreign policy is in need of.
  • Yatata, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3"Had Florida been counted, the current score would be ~1298 to 1206"

    1298 Obama vs 1206 clinton? or the other way around? Hillary also wants to seat michigan so i wonder what that would look like... a friend of mine lives there and says that the people she knows have gone from Hillary to Obama. if they did use delegates from those states they should have a re-vote since so much has changed since then and the voters know more now.
    • ZenMojo, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Obama got 1/3rd of Florida's delegates, Hillary got 1/2. Hillary would still be way behind Obama even with Florida's delegates.
    • eean, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1And Obama wasn't even on the Michigan primary ballot.
  • throopmd, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2"I thought we were living in an autonomous collective."
    • jjmckay, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes repeatedly vote for stateist leaders like Clinton, Obama, Bush, McCain, etc.
  • stackered, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4[Insert very witty and epic Monty Python quote or reference here]
  • SignOfHope, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1damn right hes not the black knight.
    that guy's light skinned even on the cartoon.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 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. 2009 — 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.