Digg - Most powerful pro-Obama speech of the year. Union style...

526 Comments
Who Dugg It?

cagedog, on 10/02/2008, -16/+363That guy's a badass.
- StevenColbert, on 10/02/2008, -3/+51Let's see that guy as a guest on Fox - he'd eat their souls!!!
  - deathfix, on 10/02/2008, -2/+28I can picture him having (and winning) a shouting match with Bill O'reilly.
  - hesuresh, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8its a split!
  - robdazomba, on 10/02/2008, -0/+11If they had souls.
  - kabes, on 10/02/2008, -0/+13They'd cut his mic, but he would still come through on O'Reilly's mic.
  - IglooBurner, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6@deathfix
    I would pay to watch that.
  - fasda, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3They have souls?
  - OwdenBowden, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2Not for nothing but at this point in time where Corporations are portraied as evil and only out for themselves - we always seem to over look another evil - The Unions. No, I am not saying all of them are bad and corrupt; but I must point out the fact that these unions are holding Corporations Hostage. They have all these benefits that most of us are forces to pay for and they get them all free and clear. They seem to be sucking the Manufacturing end of our country and economy to the death. Example - the UAW of GM. GM is on the verge of being 100 percent out of business. Dead. No Jobs. No Nothing. And what does the UAW do - they go on strike.
    
    What the UAW should have done is worked with the company and even taken a decrees or hold off on benefits for a set period of time so that they could help to build up the company and then get what they are seeking - But they did not and that is why the Unions SUCK.
  - leerayIG88, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1om nom nom nom
  - Hermmunster, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Personally I am not a union supporter or detractor. So, the stance on unions means nothing to me. I understand what they are trying to do and I also understand the motives of corporate business. With that said....
    
    When Reagan was in office the notion of trickle down was an interesting idea. Corporates made profits and those profits meant they could do more R&D and expansion. That worked for a while, but then we had globalization become part of the picture. What happened was we lost the trickle down and instead the profits went into the pockets of the share holders. It defeated and conquered the idea of more profits meant more jobs and better products. When they began to outsource jobs it meant more profits for corporate because they weren't hiring American workers they were expanding out of the country.
    
    Trickle down failed because share holder value became all important and that meant no need to consider American jobs as long as they could produce their product and put the profit in their pockets. Outsourcing of jobs is the fail. Pure share holder value is the fail. Invest in Americans and you win. We have more prosperity for everyone. Now we see Wall Street failing because of the same utter incompetence that fails to recognize that trickle down doesn't work if investment in America isn't there instead having those job go over seas.
    
    Recently you could see Gates' Microsoft saying they will reduce the price of their products in China. This means that we, in America, pay more for products while other countries get price breaks on products. This isn't just software products at issue. It's every product. They'll pay less to them and sell for less to them while the same products cost us more at home. Even though our products at home cost more you say we make more income so we can afford more. That's trickle up. It doesn't work either. The idea behind globalization was to bring the world more in line with the purchasing power of the US thus providing more markets to sell one's products, but when those products are being sold for significantly less where's the profit for the American people? We loose jobs to them, they pay less for the goods than we do, and they have protectionism of their businesses and markets that our laws don't permit. The one thing that remains is that corporate America will ultimately make even more profits and relegate American workers to the same standard of living of which we have been trying to raise. It's a catch-22. We make them more wealthy so they can buy our products but those products are being made by them and purchased by them for less than we pay while our jobs are going by the way side, they get control of our technology, of which we'll never be able to cut them off because soon they'll have the money for R&D and jobs and we won't and our people will no longer have a voice because our country will have become so weakened that the only real value we'll have are in the young men able to die, literally die, for it in times of war.
- m8ymerc1, on 10/02/2008, -4/+18Could someone mash this up with Sarah Palins speach from the RNC.
  
  I'm high right now and can't do it
- AnalJustice, on 10/02/2008, -21/+4pro-obama = badass
  
  pro-mccain = epic fail
  
  ah digg
  - RhoVisions, on 10/02/2008, -1/+11Find someone like this for McCain and I'll call him badass...
  - TheNinjaJesus, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5'Find someone like this for McCain and I'll call him badass...'
    
    Ditto.
  - apec766, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3Times 3.
  - Lungkisser, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6I don't know why you're getting dugg down, I completely agree that being pro-Obama is badass and being pro-McCain is epic fail.
  - billin, on 10/02/2008, -0/+0Even before I read your comment, your username told me that you were a Republican.
    
    ANAL JUSTICE FOR MCCAIN!!!!!!!
- NinjaBull, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7he's like a wrestler
  - scalded, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Even more bad ass than a wrestler. He's like Mike Ditka.
- ideology, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6I often read the first few comments before checking out an article but on this occasion I didn't...
  
  ...that is the funniest and most truthful first comment I've seen for a while on Digg.
  
  Bravo sir.
- kg37, on 10/02/2008, -1/+12Wow, I actually just shed a tear. I'm such a wuss, but that was one damn fine speech.
  - Nick519, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1word. i have never heard of him before this clip, but i want to shake his hand now.
- MachineMessiah, on 10/02/2008, -8/+1He's good, but not nearly as badass as Ron Paul
- davidkeithjones, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7Raise your hand if he reminds you of your own dad.
  - DDayDawg, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7You nailed it. I was wondering why I liked this guy so much. It's just so brutally honest. He walks up to racism and kicks it in the nuts without one hint of apology. This is how we need to address racism, not all apologetic and sensitive, just walk right up and smack it around.
- djcgmcse, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5He actually reminds me a little bit of Matt Foley, just he didn't break the podium.
  
  Awesome speech though.
- Futile, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2I was waiting for him to say:
  
  "and I live in a VAN, down by the RIVER!"
- bobdobolena, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1I wonder if Chuck Norris is a member of his Union....or is he a member of Chuck's Union?
- eviljolly, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1He's like...a really awesome speaker trapped in the body of Milton from Office Space.
travist120, on 10/02/2008, -35/+5
- cg4et, on 10/02/2008, -0/+12nah. I will digg you up. Not because I agree with you, but because I would like others to see you for your ignorance.
- orelses, on 10/02/2008, -0/+16More than dugg down my friend. Reported. I bet its hard to say n*gger with your tongue that far up Ron Paul's ass.
  - byrdgang, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I see nothing in travist120's comments history (all 33 comments) that says anything about Ron Paul. Where did you get the idea he's an RP supporter?
    
    I am an RP supporter and I am definitely not racist (might not make sense being racist since I am black).
- travist120, on 10/02/2008, -10/+2I did it for the "lulz"
  
  Obama sucks though, I'll give him that.
  - rioduran, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Wow. You are a special kind of stupid.
- UltraMegaFilms, on 10/02/2008, -1/+9That was stupid. You'll get banned before this story fades away. I think Fox has a forum though...
- shadus, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2As you should be, racist values ceased to be acceptable decades ago. People aren't defined by the color of their skin, sex, weight, or age. People are defined by their beliefs and values. If everyone quit judging people based on superficial qualities and what party they're part of and actually looked at what they stood for our government would be in far better shape than it is now and we'd have minimal corruption.
- benzweifel, on 10/02/2008, -0/+0Oh look, a member of the much sought after racist redneck demographic. I wonder how they poll?
  
  /sarcasm
- Pusod, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1not only will you get dugg down, the people you offended with that vile and disgusting remark are reporting you so that your account gets suspended. adios mother *****!
vwnj, on 10/02/2008, -52/+2
- UltraMegaFilms, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5Look who's talking.
annla899, on 10/02/2008, -100/+35Racist troll.
- PovRayMan, on 10/02/2008, -93/+3The hilarious part about this moron is he doesn't seem to realize that Obama/Biden hate the idea of American gun owners and will continue to seek disarmament of the public. Their first target? The working class. We certainly can't allow THEM to be well armed, they might be able overthrow us!
  - hwy9nightkid, on 10/02/2008, -14/+3then I can just buy guns on the black market like the rest of amerika
  - Rhythmicidea, on 10/02/2008, -0/+29You clearly haven't seen Bidens position on gun control.
  - metaliq, on 10/02/2008, -0/+32Being absolutely wrong is one thing. Being passionate about your incorrectness is just laughable.
  - fungalboom, on 10/02/2008, -1/+14You remind me of someone who said Obama flipflopped on the DC gun ban. If you look at the video he posted as evidence, Obama's older interview shows he supported the idea of communities getting rid of illegally possessed handguns. But from what I understand he never even supported the ban. It was a mistaken aide who falsely alluded he did.
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFSWG2ut0Cc
    
    Show me that Obama wants to take guns willy-nilly and I'll recant.
  - sharpfork, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6What flavor is the NRA coolaid these daze?
  - graeh, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2@sharpfork: napalm - tastes good in the morning.
  - Mujokan, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3You try to take my Beretta off me, and you'll find exactly how much damage a finely-made Italian firearm can do to your spleen!
    
    Except that I saw that episode of the Sopranos where they dissed Beretta shotguns. Now what am I supposed to think?
    
    Back when they were looking for a new automatic pistol for the US Armed Services after WWII, Beretta came out on top more than once. In the end, they just set up a manufacturing plant in the US to avoid the drama about "buying American".
    
    So I can understand where Joe Biden is coming from, but at the same time, I am quite conflicted on the details of supporting Beretta. It's a delicate political issue. If Joe Biden is proud of owning a Beretta, does that mean he's pro-American or anti-American?
    
    Life is so complicated.
    
    I guess I'll just vote for Obama, since unlike McCain, he's not a dick.
  - Mujokan, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1I can't believe anyone dugg me for that incoherent drunken ramble. I'm raising a glass to you! What I was trying to say was that Obama does have a middle ground position on the second amendment, as Biden pointed out memorably quite recently.
  - batkins, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1You sir, are a retard. This isn't stalinist russia, this is America!
- txtphile, on 10/02/2008, -19/+2Apparently the only racism left in the US comes from the people saying racism still exists in the US.
  
  *****.
  - Aero347, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Come down to Florida it's alive and well, as well as stupidity and ignorance. You'd be surprised how evil people can actually be.
- sharpfork, on 10/02/2008, -0/+19To be fair, when this article was first posted, comment #2 was calling Obama a n***er. I think this post was meant as a response to the now removed comment.
sharpfork, on 10/02/2008, -10/+254"there's not a single good reason for any worker - especially any union member - to vote against Barack Obama.
There's only one really bad reason to vote against him: because he's not white."
- TSK05, on 10/02/2008, -66/+13Oh yeah, paint everyone who doesn't vote for Obama as racist! That's the way. Not voting for Obama? You're a racist bastard!
  - pintomp3, on 10/02/2008, -7/+31not everyone silly. some are just stupid.
  - TSK05, on 10/02/2008, -32/+5You must really enjoy a circle jerk. Everyone who doesn't hold your opinions is stupid... ... ... right. You realize that in itself is a really stupid thing to think?
  - bbatsell, on 10/02/2008, -5/+51Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
    
    The speaker does not, in any way, shape, or form, say that those who vote against Obama are racist, he says that it is terrible to vote against Obama for racist reasons. The two are not even remotely synonymous.
  - blackdaisies, on 10/02/2008, -4/+18"Stupid" is a fair statement. Trumka said "There's only one really bad reason to vote against him...because he's not white". Which most people will agree with. Voting for or against someone because of their gender or the color of their skin is a bad reason to vote against someone. Trumka is right, but it doesn't mean that there aren't any good reasons to vote against him.
  - TSK05, on 10/02/2008, -28/+5Argument through ad-hom's IS your strong suit, isn't it?
    
    The speaker implies that if you don't vote for Obama, it probably means you're racist. if you don't see that by watching the clip, I cannot explain it to you any better.
  - bbatsell, on 10/02/2008, -2/+18You're right, you can't explain it — because it isn't true.
    
    The speaker is addressing the very real, admitted problem of racism prevalent in labor unions. He literally states that "there's only one really bad reason to vote against [him]", and that is racism. From his perspective, there is no "good reason" to vote against him, but his argument explicitly distinguishes "bad" reasons (again, from his perspective, as a leader of a labor union speaking to his fellow members) to vote against him that do not rise to the level of racism, from that of the "really bad" reason of racism.
  - craeyon, on 10/02/2008, -3/+13ACTUALLY who doesn't vote for Obama will probably vote for McCain/Palin and if you think Palin should step into any sort of position into the white house then you are not racist you are just out of your mother ***** mind.
  - bamatime, on 10/02/2008, -1/+0Too bad it's true in all the cases I know.
  - Mujokan, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4If you are working class, there's no good reason to prefer McCain to Obama. That's my opinion. Maybe you have another opinion, such as "tax cuts for the rich are good for the working class" or "occupying Iraq is good for the working class". If so, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. But it's mistaken.
  - ircgoliath, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Way to completely miss the point... but since you decided to go there, all I can say is ***** you! ***** you to you and those people who accused me of being a traitor and terrorist supporter for voting against Bush in 2004.
- MrFunStuff, on 10/02/2008, -40/+4Really Not one, what if you care about the value of the U.S dollar. Obama has never said he planned to get rid of the Federal Reserve or limit it's power.(September 29th, 2008) The Fed pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system.Can you say inflation (A.K.A Higher food and gas prices) If the Fed is left unchecked this will only get worse. Y would workers vote for Obama or Mcain? They have ALMOST identical polices. It is Bush's police. Do you want to know a secret nether BUSH, OBAMA or MCAIN came up with their policies.They benefit Mainly war profiteers and international bakers. Obama does want universal health care But how could we pay for it. The USA is 10,028,271,205,803.05$ in Debt and still climbing, y becaues of are monetary POLICES (And Reckless Spending).The same BUSH has. The same POLICES OBAMA has. The SAME POLICES MCAIN has. A vote for them is a vote for more senseless wars, more under minding of are Constitution, and A DEBT bases monitory system(A.K.A the Federal Reserve a private company). Y not look at 3rd Party candidates that has good policies and show your support to them.(this will encourage more honest candidates because they know they will be supported) or Dont vote out of protest because none of these candidates deserves your vote.
  
  U.S.A's Debt clock http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
  
  learn what good polices look like.
  http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/
  
  Here are the 3rd Party candidates (BTW they all address The Federal Reserve)
  http://www.baldwin08.com/ (constitution party)
  Chuck Baldwin
  http://www.bobbarr2008.com/home/skip/?s=0618 (libertarian party)
  Bob Barr
  http://www.votenader.org/index.html?submitted and nader (Independent party)
  Ralph Nader
  
  Obama says Congress ultimately will pass bailout
  http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSWAT01 ...
  http://digg.com/political_opinion/Bush_Sidesteps_C ...
  - crowbar77, on 10/02/2008, -6/+1Dude don't bring facts up in an Obama article. Don't you know McCains evil and he's the only one who can save us!!
    
    see you at the bottom.
  - DrNovacaine, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Or, the facts could be stated in a coherent fashion, and not just be yelling out the same points over and over again post for post. Maybe, by chance, you could use proper spelling, grammar, capitalization and an intelligent use of abbreviation. Now I won't act like I'm the best speller and God/god/gods knows my grammar is atrocious. But honestly, the whole argument Mr.FunStuff bring up is about the Federal Reserve and he basically screams it out at you. A proper and calmly written message would be far more appropriate.
    
    "Wow, I can think of a good reason, the federal reserve. Hey, check out these links that validate my point."
    
    I quoted that because that was hypothetical talking, not screaming out in word form.
  - phosphor112, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3FYI...ever since the federal reserve was put into place...the value of the dollar has gone down...
    "This note is legal tender" Whats that mean? It means the paper means nothing. Before the federal reserve money was equivalent to its "value in gold."
    
    Learn your ***** then speak up.
- cheesehound, on 10/02/2008, -17/+3race? Is that really it? I know there is a lot of "his name sounds Muslim" racism foolishness out there, but I've felt for a while that the main difference-maker for Democrats losing the presidential elections of late was more just one issue voters on gay marriage and abortion.
  
  Hint: if you're a one issue voter, whatever your stance or issue might be, then you likely ought to be a hell of a lot less apathetic and realize that there are many, many other things on the line in elections.
- chaserm, on 10/02/2008, -27/+3I'm voting against him because he's a cocksucking traitor to our country for voting for the bailout of the rich ***** of america. McSame voted for it also so ***** him!
  - cheesehound, on 10/02/2008, -1/+14Hey, look. A one issue voter.
  - aliengoods, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3And it's the most recent issue at that. Maybe someone will have an abortion in the next month and he'll vote for McCain, or a factory will be outsourced to China and he'll vote for Obama. For people like him, the events of Nov. 3rd will determine who he wants to lead the country for the next four years. Pathetic.
- TheInformer, on 10/02/2008, -12/+7"there's not a single good reason for any worker - especially any union member - to vote against Barack Obama."
  
  So says Big Union. So says the monolithic group that has poured untold amounts of money into the Obama campaign. If Obama wins, Big Union will expect to be paid back. How will Obama pay back Big Union? The elimination of the secret ballot, for one. Every ballot will be in the open and thus Big Union can intimidate people into voting a certain way. Lovely, isn't it? Think what else Obama will do for Big Union. Scary, isn't it? They're pulling his strings even now.
  
  "There's only one really bad reason to vote against him: because he's not white."
  
  Voting against Obama because he's black is just as stupid as voting for him because he's black. Individual people and groups of people that vote for Obama because he's black show that they are easily manipulated and only look at simplistic reasoning. These people also believe that you really have a chance of winning the Powerball lottery if you buy a single ticket.
  - cmootoo, on 10/02/2008, -2/+8I'm sure you have some kind of evidence to back up your assumptions.
    
    Lets say McCain wins, with his obvious lack of knowledge, obvious lies and erratic behavior and Palin's blatant ignorance what can we expect from them when the next disaster strikes? We also have former lobbyists with ties to their lobbying practices and deregulators who helped architect this latest financial failure. These are the guys that write McCain's policies. What can we expect them to receive or take for themselves if McCain wins?
  - aliengoods, on 10/02/2008, -2/+12Big union? Yeah, working for higher wages, better healthcare, and job security for the middle class.....*****!
- widman, on 10/02/2008, -15/+9Not one? Allow me to say in my free speech right that Obama is least bad compared to McCain but he is very questionable.
  
  Obama's recent record:
  
  - Flipped and supported US government spying on its citizens, forgiving big telcos.
  - Flipped on Net Neutrality, he is against it now.
  - Flipped on Wall St. Bailout, he strongly supports whatever plan the big cats throw.
  - Flipped on ending the Iraq war.
  
  I see three very good reasons. And in all three there it gets compounded by his change of promise to something completely opposite to what he said he would do. And he didn't get elected yet.
  
  Bipartisan candidates are horrible. In fact, this is ultra bipartisantism becaue not even decent candidates in both main parties get a chance to reach audience, from Ron Paul to Dennis Kucinich.
  
  The elites support Obama because they know he'll is already on their leash.
  - DDayDawg, on 10/02/2008, -6/+13Well, let's look at this steaming pile of BS you are offering...
    
    - Flipped and supported US government spying on its citizens, forgiving big telcos.
    I'll give you partial credit. Obama did vote for the bill that forgave Telcos but two major points: 1. He never flipped, said he was going to vote for it from the start. 2. He was not excited or happy about the bill but it was tied to legislation that had they not passed would have effectively ended the United States ability to protect ourselves from terrorists. Let's not lose sight of the fact that they have stopped a number of planned attacks. I hate the loss of our freedoms, and I think it is wrong, but some of the other things in this bill we really needed.
    
    - Flipped on Net Neutrality, he is against it now.
    This is the same bill as above that you are referring too. Barack has NOT flipped on Net Neutrality. He has always been a strong supporter and continues to be. He has promised, and upheld, that this will be something that he will fight for. Just because one bill includes some language that those of us in the Net Neutrality camp don't like does not mean he has switched sides.
    
    - Flipped on Wall St. Bailout, he strongly supports whatever plan the big cats throw.
    Never flipped, he was always for the bailout. He was for including taxpayer protections, limiting the payout to CEOs, increasing the FDIC coverage, and many of the things that made it into the Senate bill which is MUCH better than what Bush proposed. Now, I'm completely against the bailout and I wish Obama was too. But, he never flipped because he was never against the bailout in the form that the Senate passed it.
    
    - Flipped on ending the Iraq war.
    Are you on crack? This is the stupidest thing I have heard said about Obama in a long time. Cite a source! He has ALWAYS been for ending the war in Iraq. He has never wavered. He wants a time table for us to get out (you don't just pull a plug on a war, it takes some time to get out). This statement is simply ignorant.
    
    Just because you repeat the same ignorant things over and over does not make them true. You really need to do some research before you come spouting things like this.
  - widman, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2@DDayDawg
    
    - Government spying you conceded, ok, one less. But you think it was RIGHT?! You don't seem to understand privacy.
    
    - Net Neutrality has NOTHING to do with government spying. It's about ISPs and Telcos taxing web services for allowing them to reach the consumers in their networks. Obama flipping on this after picking the VP candidate was on Digg frontpage and many newspapers.
    
    - Barack Obama voted in favour of the insane bill that passed in the senate, he even shaked the hand of McCain. Even with all the weird add-ons to give money to unrelated industries.
    
    - Barack Obama flipped on the current situation of Iraq. He used to say he would pull out quickly but now he backs the surge and doesn't give any kind of timelike (just like Bush & co.)
    
    You are on denial, cognitive dissonance is playing in your mind
LooseFur, on 10/02/2008, -14/+240Kudos to Trumka for telling it as it is: only racism stands in the way of the best-qualified candidate to save our country.

Folks, if South Africa could do it, what the hell excuse do we have for not beating racism and apartheid? We're the ones calling ourselves "the policemen of the world" and yet the race issue is still on the table?

This is our last chance to save our country, America. In the worlds of Donald Trump, "DON'T blow it."
- kevinwiz, on 10/02/2008, -3/+14Ironically, Trump is a McCain supporter
  - MiDNiGHTS, on 10/02/2008, -4/+38He just doesn't want to get taxed fairly for his mountains of cash.
- SpenderH, on 10/02/2008, -16/+4Well, racism and liberalism. And baby killing. Oh, and his association with a terrorist and other shady characters. Almost forgot his vote for the $700 Billion bailout. And that reminds me of all of his "present" votes on issues that were too politically sensitive for him to take sides.
  - juliehardman, on 10/02/2008, -4/+3McCain voted for the bail-out to idiot!
  - crgnetworks, on 10/02/2008, -4/+3You're an ignorant *****.
    
    McCain voted for the bailout too.
  - SpenderH, on 10/02/2008, -2/+5I didn't stump for McCain, did I? Interesting that the 2 replies don't refute the other 4 issues I brought up. No defense?
- vester72, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3South Africa might not be the best example here - have you noticed what is happening there?
- kwasmosis, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1I want to be in the worlds of Donald Trump...
- loki49152, on 10/02/2008, -0/+0Racism kept Ron Paul from winning?
  - magus_melchior, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1No, radical ideas that were diametrically opposed to his party's platform prevented him from getting any real GOP support.
    
    He did try a Libertarian stint once, but he came back to the Republican Party. I'm pretty sure a number of GOP leaders treat him like Grandpa Simpson now, and that's a shame. He's a very bright man.
toptopics, on 10/02/2008, -12/+167Great speech.. let's all register to vote for Obama and not let some ignorant racist fools decide the fate of America! Let's create history..
- get2knowjb, on 10/02/2008, -27/+3So you are going to vote for him just because he is black, and that is what makes him a better candidate? You are racist...
  
  Racist
  1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
  
  Because there are still ignorant people to race around should not be a driving factor to vote for a candidate. I cannot tell you how disturbing that is. We are voting for a man to assume the most visibly important job in this country. This post has nothing to do with Obama, or McCain, it's principal. You put yourself in a complete paradox to encourage voting just because of the color of is skin and then call other people ignorant.
  
  It would be great to create history, but it should not be compelled just to make history. Both candidates are not what this country needs right now no matter how much we want to believe they are. All their promises and policies are not going to mean diddly squat when the dollar crashes. The FED and our currency needs fixed. Most people do not even realize our real position in this country with regard to the Federal Government, learn more about what the 14th amendment really means. The change that needs to occur is for people to start learning PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and quit trying to get handouts from the Government. We are not a bunch of babies and the Government is not our mommy and daddy.
  - pandorazboxx, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1We need sarcasm tags ..
- ax8284, on 10/02/2008, -1/+12Actually no that doesn't make them racist according to your definition. toptopics never said..vote obama because he is black. you implied that. The implication I got was that Obama's policies (anti-lobbyist, pro new energy technology, healthcare, position on diplomacy, etc. etc.) show that he has plans to make some major changes that will in fact set us on a significantly different course than we are now and I think that alone qualifies him as a historical candidate for presidency. Also it was never implied that a black person was superior to a white person or vice-versa.
  
  Also you might want to be a little more specific when you reference the 14th amendment as it has 5 sections. As far as it relates to "our position in regard to the Federal Government", it actually outlines some new rules to protect the civil rights of a lot of new citizens (former slaves born in America). It also made sure that the federal government wasn't responsible to pay back the debt the south had acquired in their slave trade. What I think you are referring to is the part in section 4 when it says" The validity of Public Debt...shall not be questioned". Which was actually almost a reminder of something already established (Article I section 8). Our country was in debt when we declared independence. Most countries are in a great deal of debt just like us. We have certainly let our debt get out of control.. perhaps the debt ceiling raises have been part of it. The reality is though that we've functioned pretty well over the last 200 years and we've been in a lot of debt the whole time. There are certainly some regulations and a mentality change that needs to happen in terms of spending, but I think a lot of people are beginning to realize that.. including Obama and the democratic party.. and I'm confident he remains the best choice out of all candidates on the ballot for President of the United States.
  
  Obama IS black. Which considering our extremely racist history is inevitably a big ***** deal. It's not racist to acknowledge and celebrate the first black nomination for president. It won't be racist on inauguration day when he takes oath and millions of minorities feel a burn in their chest because not too long ago there was a man who declared he "had a dream"..and it's finally materializing..and another step toward equality has been taken. This is our history. It's where we come from and it's ok to accept that and be glad that we've evolved to be just a little more civil to each other.
  - get2knowjb, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2--Great speech.. let's all register to vote for Obama and not let some ignorant racist fools decide the fate of America! Let's create history..--
    
    This does not mention any policies as you stated either, I interpenetrate it as a reaction to a great speech about race issues and the reaction they wrote seemed to be a vote for Obama to offset the race issues we have, he said, "not let some ignorant racist fools decide". That is all and wanted to create some objectivity to provoke thought ensuring that people don't forget there should be more to it than that.
    
    About the 14th amendment..
    I am referencing Section 1. The problem with section 1 is that it is very misleading. While I applaud it for it's intent to fee the slaves, it created a new class of citizen. That citizen is with a lowercase "c" for everyone born in the U.S. Before the 14th Amendment all citizen's were referenced with a capital "C" which means they were Sovereign and under common law jurisdiction. Since the 14th Amendment Section 1. those born in the united states are citizen's with a lower case c. They do not have inalienable rights, they have civil liberties which can be granted and taken away, we are given "privileges and Immunities". When you get privileges from the Government you enter into commercial contract under the Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction which is foreign as defined by the Constitution. Doing so makes you subject to any Statutes etc. that are created and you must obey by default. The UCC, Uniform Commercial Code has an article that does fortunately state that you can reserve your rights under Common Law but you must do so implicitly before any infraction of the instrument.
    
    1. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (1776) (More Info…)
    Read it, because you will see it was implemented to prevent what we are now facing.
    2. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1787) (More Info…)
    Outlining our government and their restrictions, not restrictions on the people.
    3. THE WHISKEY TAX AND REBELLION (1792-1794) (More Info…)
    A large tax was imposed on whiskey, farmers refused, starting path for IRS, Washington used “Commander in Chief” first time and exercised first military force.
    4. THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACT of 1798 (More Info…)
    Obligated the President to make a declaration of a state of war or of threatened invasion, which entitled him to use new powers. Precursor to allowing “war on drugs”, “war on poverty” etc.
    5. THE CIVIL WAR 1861-1865 (VERY IMPORTANT) (More Info…)
    Seven southern states walked out of congress; President obtained power; Lincoln declared a state of war and exercised his powers as Commander in Chief; Instituted martial law under a state of emergency; Congress never legally reconvened under the Constitution; Congress still sits today under military authority, by order of the President accomplished through the Lieber Laws of 1863; United States government into bankruptcy in 1863; 1040 Bonds were used and a form 1040 was used by the government; Congress created the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1861; Comptroller of the Treasury was created in 1863;
    The United States government is in bankruptcy and Congress are the trustees. It is a legal maxim that a bankrupt is ‘civilly dead’. That means that Congress cannot legally make positive law in bankruptcy, because they have no legal standing. The federal government has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy from 1863 to today, and sits at the pleasure of the Commander in Chief, waiting to do his bidding.
    6. 14th Amendment 1868 (Loss of Inalienable Rights) (More Info…)
    Passed while under military rule; did not need to be properly ratified by the states; states were now under the federal government, under martial law, and the states changed their constitutions to reflect that change in order to be readmitted to the union; The 14th Amendment applied to ‘citizens’. “Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to it’s jurisdiction is a citizen.”
    7. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA created 1871 (More Info…)
    A new federal government was created by incorporation of the District of Columbia; This new corporation was called “United States”; Unless government is permanently established by those who have law, there is no state of peace. Therefore we are still under military law.
    8. TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT October 6, 1917 (More Info…)
    Passed during World War 1; “define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes.” With this Act Congress defined WHO the enemy was. It also gave the government total authority over the individuals defined as the “enemy”. In the definition of enemy there was an exception in Section 2, Subdivision (c). It was: “other than citizens of the United States.”
    9. EMERGENCY BANKING ACT March 9, 1933 (More Info…)
    President Roosevelt called for a special and extraordinary session of Congress in Proclamation 2038. At that session he presented a bill, an Act, to provide for relief in the existing national ‘emergency’ in banking and for other purposes.
    In this Act of March 9, 1933, it states in Title 1 Section 1:
    “The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.”
    Congress just wrote a blank check to the President. ANYTHING he wants to do is approved, IN ADVANCE! By simply including in this amendment “any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, citizens of the United States were now included in the definition of ‘enemies of the United States’! As far as any commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, United States citizens were no longer any different from any other enemy of the United States.
    
    This previous was snippets from http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/C ...
    
    So the problem is that it was not constructed to just free the slaves, it was wound together in a package to put everyone in a status that you automatically DO inherent debt of the nation owed to the FED. Look on all the applications, registrations, etc of the Government documents, and truly read what it says. You just illustrate that you are not a free person but willingly waive your rights for privileges. Unfortunately it is all so compelled throughout every day life.
  - ax8284, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2I'm wasn't accusing you of being a racist, but you did flat out call toptopics a racist for supporting Obama. I see your point in context of the speech, but I think it's also wrong to assume that one would vote for Obama, not because of his policy, but JUST because he is black. Of course people recognize that he is black..but if he were to have an approach like Alan Keyes (2008), or Al Sharpton (2004), or Jesse Jackson (1988) he wouldn't be where he is now. You can't help but be excited to see someone of color with a very strong campaign and message running for president (and currently the lead in polls). I agree with you I don't think anyone should vote for someone or not vote for them because of their skin color. I'm voting for Obama because he's smart, he's shown a tremendous ability to lead, he cares about the job he is doing and how it effects a broad range of americans, his position on the war in iraq, his position on foreign oil and new energy, his position on civil rights, his position on healthcare, and yea his character too because he's shown a lot of grace over the course of his campaign. The fact that he is black isn't as important to me (if I didn't think he would make a good president I wouldn't support him..much like I didn't support keyes or sharpton), but it IS important on some level because of what it says about the state of our civility in this country and how far it has come.
    
    Before I get on to this next stuff I'd like to note that it is great that you did some research here or at least put the effor to gather some facts that you already knew. It's good to know that you have an actual opinion you are defending. That being said I would like to disagree with you..
    
    First of all you've got to look at each of these cases in context and get the NWO conspiracies out of your mind just for a moment. The 14th amendment is NOT an attempt to form a new class of citizen apart from the "Citizen" mentioned in the constitution. It was an amendment that needed to be passed because there were a large group of black people who were recently freed from their chains and needed to become a part of the system in order to have the same rights and laws applied to them as every white man. Second, the people that wrote this, the people that enforce our laws, are citizens just like us. Just because the word "citizen" is not capitalized does not mean we are automatically "subjects" of the government. It means that citizenship was now something extended to black people after the abolishment of slavery. It means that we are "subject to the jurisdiction of..." not "subject" of our government. You've taken the amendment out of context of the time period it was written and the reason it was written. Look at Marbury V. Madison Sorry but the argument does not make sense. It's a half truth.
    
    As far as the banking and financial sector goes. well you really haven't made a point other than to say that the president has some power in a time of crisis. Well..duh? Thats why we hire the guy right? I see the linies you are trying to draw. That there is some sort of ghostly cult group ruling the world and we're all doomed! Well in fact there isn't. It's just people. Sure there are a lot of folks with a lot of money and a lot of power but in the end it's all humans. There are some serious economic issues I will agree with you there. I don't necessarily think the Federal Reserve Act was such a great idea for our country, I think the Public Debt Act and the raise on debt ceilings has been an ongoing act of recklessness. When it comes down to it though, most people want to live in a decent world and be remembered for being a positive part of it. It's just not an easy task to fix the world's problems, there are bound to be areas in which we fail and need to fix and areas where we succeed and prosper.
  - get2knowjb, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1I am in complete agreement with you about the 14th Amendment. Given the time frame of it's inception it was based on necessity in order to accomplish such at that time. I believe that it was adopted with good faith and proper hearts and minds. As well it provided a playing field of control to aid if there were to be any rebellions whether it be future ones of the south or retaliation from the slaves against those who had previously been oppressing them.
    
    All that was a precursor to illustrate the absolutely disturbing amount of power that the Federal Government has written itself into law, 1933 was the start towards the financial institutions and within the last 20 years or so those previous good intentions have been utilized in ways that are very bad for freedom.
    
    Yes we are all flesh and blood humans under the same citizen status, however even with recent events such as Paulson trying to get passed in the bill he is immune from any court of law Nationally or Internationally and virtually assumes a dictatorship over the items under his control, it is very perverse.
    
    I would like to add more detail but do not have the time at the moment. Thanks for the info above.
- timewarp424, on 10/02/2008, -0/+9I won't be voting for Barack, but I really liked this speech. I I hope no one votes against Barack just because he's black. I hope in this day and age people should be voting by the issues not the color of one's skin. As republicans and democrats, I think we can all agree on this one.
- batkins, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3get2knowjb; You're an idiot. He's not saying to vote for him because he's black, he's saying that voting against him because he's black is bad. Did you even watch the movie? Just don't even bother commenting next time until you've actually looked at the content. Good grief.
  - get2knowjb, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1"Great speech.. let's all register to vote for Obama and not let some ignorant racist fools decide the fate of America! Let's create history.."
    
    I watched the video and it is a great video and my comment has nothing to do with the video but only this persons reaction to the video. I am being objective to the fact that in the same sentence he is using vote for Obama in the same sentence he is pointing out other people are ignorant and racist. I don't want ignorant racist fools deciding the fate of America either. That comment does not reference "saying that voting against him because he's black is bad".
    
    Since he is objecting to racists in the same sentence as vote for Obama, there is an implicit correlation. That's all,
    Good grief.
Singulariter, on 10/02/2008, -11/+157This is the passion that true a leader inspires.
cctoronto05, on 10/02/2008, -8/+154WOW! That was an awesome speech!!
It was like Barack incredible speech on race,
in Philadelphia,
but WITH a sledgehammer!!! :-D
- T8erT0T, on 10/02/2008, -1/+9Sledgehammer = Bitchin' mustache!
NocturnalLee, on 12/08/2008, -8/+114Incredibly powerful speech!

Obama '08!
- dlite922, on 10/03/2008, -0/+4I don't know. To me I was shy to listen to it, embarrased that he was actually so bluntly mentioned racism.
  
  Maybe where I live I hardly see or communicate with a racist person and I understand that there exists racism elsewhere in the US.
  
  I guess I felt I wasn't really the audience for it. But who cares, I'm voting for Obama if his skin turned aqua blue so I do I need a speech. The racists need this speech more than I do.
  
  Dugg anyway!
  - JenniferInMO, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Dlite922: I dugg your comment because you are right in that many people don't discuss racism. It needs to be discussed. Discussion won't help anyone whose racism comes from a place of hate, but it will help everyone else who has some racial bias that we refuse to admit to. Most of the white people I know who are even vocal opponents of racism still have some lingering fears which do not mean they are bad people it just means they haven't challenged those thoughts.
    
    Let me give you an example: If Obama was the one with a pregnant teenaged daughter do you think most people you know would be rallying around her and supporting Palin as such a great parent for having her daughter keep the baby or do you think the focus would be on the bad parenting of the Obamas?
    
    I think most people who are not racist, but who have racial biases might have a different view if the tables were turned, but they wouldn't think about the reason why. For those friends of yours who say "I don't like McCain, but I just don't trust that Obama guy" I think they need to be challenged on the reason why they don't trust him. There is a list of reasons longer than my arm to distrust McCain, but none that I can think of (other than the nasty smears) which would apply to Obama.
    
    Unless we bring our racial biases out into the open they will remain deeply implanted in our brains, affecting our actions without our knowledge. They must be openly challenged to be overcome.
byrdgang, on 10/02/2008, -14/+115As a black person, I am deeply saddened (not angered, saddened/troubled) by people's refusal to vote for Obama on racist grounds. I won't be voting for Obama myself (I'll be voting for Nader), but I am certainly not voting against Obama (especially because of his race). Vote for someone else for any reason, but please don't do it because he's black.

I am willing to bet quite a few people who say they won't vote for him because they think he's Muslim are really voting against him because he's black.
- notperm, on 10/02/2008, -59/+5^^ Check it out guys - black dude on the internet ^^
  - ivand67, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1I hope that you're just kidding and were just trying to be edgy and politically incorrect. Whatever the case, you failed miserably. Buried.
- singularityv, on 10/02/2008, -1/+15Thank you.
- IpecacNeat, on 10/02/2008, -9/+18Hey, I'm all for Obama, but the racism thing goes both ways. In many polls Obama has 90 percent of the African American vote. Now I bet a lot of that has to do with what Obama stands for, but 90 percent? Some of that has to do with race. Racism is on all sides.
  - crowbar77, on 10/02/2008, -2/+14The difference is the red neck white population is much higher than the voting black population.
  - voxlisa999, on 10/02/2008, -3/+28IpecacNeat: Newsflash: AA always vote 90% Democratic. They voted for Kerry, Gore, Clinton, etc. What is wrong with you? Besides, he didn't even starting winning them over until almost a 1 1/2 years after he started running. Hillary was always way ahead.
  - wave789, on 10/02/2008, -0/+9It's closer to 96%...
    
    Obama '08
  - uncleosbert, on 10/02/2008, -1/+13actually, voxlisa999 is right and clinton lost them pretty early in the race:
    In a national survey by CNN/Opinion Research Corp., 59 percent of black Democrats backed Obama, an Illinois Democrat, for their party's presidential nomination, with 31 percent supporting Clinton, the senator from New York.
    
    The 28 point lead for Obama is a major reversal from October, when Clinton held a 24 point lead among black Democrats.
    
    "There's been a huge shift among African-American Democrats from Clinton to Obama. African-American Democrats used to be reluctant to support Obama because they didn't think a black man could be elected. Then Obama won Iowa and nearly won New Hampshire. Now they believe," said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst.
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/18/poll.2008/i ...
  - Rioracer916, on 10/02/2008, -3/+16Well duh it's 90%. African Americans tend to turn out in the 90 percentile for Democrats in almost EVERY election.
    
    Wanna know why? Because the Democrats were and still are the only party that wants to give them a seat at the table in this country. I should say, the only party with a realistic chance of getting elected; sorry Nader I have nothing against you personally. The Democrats fought to help establish civil rights and workplace equality.
    
    You can paint this anyway you want. It's obvious you have NEVER asked actual African Americans why they vote Democrat before. It's easier to play the mythical reverse discrimination card.
    
    And by the way, my mother is African American and she's a Hillary supporter all the way. She's only voting for Obama (grudgingly) because he's the lesser of the two evils now that Hillary is out.
  - IpecacNeat, on 10/02/2008, -2/+4Thanks for the info guys, except Riotracer916 (you're an *****). I didn't realize that the percentages were that high. They are a bit higher this time around, but Barack is an exceptional candidate. And Riotracer916, I'm not going to validate the amount of African American friends I have or my knowledge of why they vote for who they vote for. I wasn't trying to paint anything, I was simply raising a point that I thought was valid because of my lack of knowledge about the voting percentages. Turns out I was wrong.
  - x1soundgarden1x, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7I love how you discount the reasons behind voting for Obama and act as if black people are a giant voting block that makes decisions solely based on skin pigment. Tons of blacks were in Clinton's camp when the campaign started. but you only reference polling after Obama won that demographic. Tons of articles by black journalists were written saying Obama was not black enough and shouldn't get the black vote. But you ignore those.
    
    Where were you in the past twenty years when black voters overwhelmingly disregarded voting for and supporting Carol Moseley-Braun and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice? Why didn't I hear your cries of racial preference amongst black voters then? Or could it just maybe, maybe be that Obama is such a leader and candidate that he transcends race and is that compelling for African American Democratic voters? I love how black democratic voters voting for an amazing black candidate is racist, but white democratic voters voting for Kerry is A-Ok. Ah, white privilege...when it's a white candidate, white people are voting on principle, when it's a black candidate, it's simply because blacks vote for blacks.
  - Fubeman, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7Aah, I don't think you know what the definition of racism, do you? Voting for someone because of the color of their skin is not necessarily racism. The true definition of racism is:
    
    "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
    
    So basically, voting for someone solely BECAUSE of their race (white or black) may be an ill-conceived preference (heck, we whites have been doing it for over 200 years), but it is not racism. But voting for someone because of their race based on the assumption that they are an inferior race IS racism.
    
    See the difference?
    
    Plus, if you are black and have been seeing your whole life and the many generations before you nothing but white candidates and along comes an eloquent, intelligent and thoughtful candidate like Barack Obama, wouldn't you vote for him as well?
  - Rioracer916, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Oh, I'm the ***** for trying to stop another ignorant and vaguely racist tirade on Digg from someone woefully ignorant of voting history/ demographics in America.
    
    Gotcha
    
    This situation isn't as simple as you lead yourself to believe. As other have said, this isn't a new phenomena because Obama is half black.
    
    I do have to say that I am very proud of the Democrats and the progressive white voters who gave Obama a chance on day one. It wasn't until later on in the primary campaign that others, including African Americans who trusted the Clinton "brand name", started swinging toward Obama in huge numbers.
    
    The resounding reason why a lot of people favored Hillary over Obama was that they "wanted to win" in November. I'm glad that, as a country, we can show we have faith in a person's character and ability despite the color their skin, or how their name sounds.
  - IpecacNeat, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1^ Yes, yes you are. I was corrected by a bunch of people, but you were condescending about it. That being said, I'm voting Obama.
  - uncleosbert, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2ipecacneat, the person who takes the time to correct you gets to be condescending because you sounded so ignorant. 9 people gave you points when you were totally wrong (and pretty racist). only about 5 of us tried to show you the truth.
    
    take some pride in your opinions before you mislead people. most of us will not check your claims. that's the whole point of the first amendment: theoretically, you have thought about what you're saying before it falls out of your mouth.
- Sefus, on 10/02/2008, -5/+48Nader? really? ok, but...um. You know he's not gonna win right?
  - FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4ya know, phucked, that's not how people vote in this country. sure we all should, but that's just not how it is.
    
    being that the case, we all have a responsibility to use our vote most wisely, where it will mean the most, not throwing that vote away out of principle. that's just cutting your nose off to spite your face.
    
    the problem with that is is that it's all of our noses and all of our faces.
- eyepennies, on 10/02/2008, -3/+34A vote for any third-party candidate is a vote for whomever you deem the least desirable of the 2 major party candidates. Think about it.
  - chaosblade77, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8This is true. I'll support a third party candidate through the primaries and into the main race, but in order to get my vote they also need the support and popularity to actually win. Once September rolls around and nine of ten people don't know who Barr or Baldwin are, and have never heard of their parties, it's safe to say they don't stand a chance at all. A third party candidate - not Independent - getting into debates would do absolute wonders for them even if it only got their name out there for next time.
    
    Nader is kind of an interesting case. I think most Americans who don't understand politics see him as more of a joke candidate, but they have at least heard of him. Around here, most people don't like him because of his views on marijuana.
  - snotrokit, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I heard someone call him "Corvair Killer" the other day. I laughed at them, loudly.
- Rhythmicidea, on 10/02/2008, -0/+18I am not voting because of his race, I am voting because he has inspired a nation. That is the type of leadership we need right now. We need hope in times of despair, we are so used to the Bush administration using its fear policies on us. We need it badly.
- jinnie, on 10/02/2008, -2/+19breaking the two-party system was my leading issue, so i decided to vote for nader too... 8 years ago!
  
  the consequences are too high, i can't afford to make a statement that idealistic this nov. 4.
  
  whatever your reason, i ask you to consider the risk of your vote going to mccain/palin.
- kmrdigg, on 10/02/2008, -3/+12Nader won't win, so in essence you are voting for McCain. I guess you are glad that Bush defeated Gore?
  - magus_melchior, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1@kmrdigg: After 2000, I would be surprised if someone votes Nader when they would otherwise vote Democrat.
    
    Democrats have been expanding their registration and voting by leaps and bounds largely because of Obama's groundwork and superior organization. I don't think that independent voters going for non-mainstream candidates will really hurt them; if anything, they'll be taking away votes that McCain really needs.
- tcr008, on 10/02/2008, -2/+24In a race that CANNOT AFFORD TO BE CLOSE, Nader CANNOT BE AN OPTION.
  - dbixler, on 10/02/2008, -1/+9I was going to say the exact same thing. I was going to write in Ron Paul, but that's simply not an option. McCain MUST NOT be elected, regardless of whom I really want to be president. I have no choice BUT to vote Obama lest we have no country for my children. Do I think Obama is the BEST candidate? No, but nor do I feel he is the worst. You could create a philosophical argument that by doing this, I'm simply giving in. If that's true, than yes, I'm giving in, but only because this time, there is no choice.
  - vanimal, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3Where are you from? If it's not a battleground state, it doesn't matter who you vote for, so it might as well be the person who best represents what you believe in.
  - a2fan, on 10/02/2008, -2/+1tcr008 wants anyone not voting for Obama to throw away their principals, their personal convictions, and not vote for their candidate of choice. tcr008 is a fascist.
- eliot2000, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7Back in his "Unsafe at Any Speed" days, Nader used to fire staffers for such infractions as looking at him the wrong way, and having occasional family obligations. Not to mention his Palin-esque level of experience with foreign affairs. He's great with one or two issues I support, and null on everything else. He'd be a frightening candidate if he had a chance to win.
  
  I know he's not one of the major candidates, but simply being an alternative doesn't automatically make him a viable one.
- onebeat, on 10/02/2008, -0/+14"I am willing to bet quite a few people who say they won't vote for him because they think he's Muslim are really voting against him because he's black."
  
  i completely agree with this. bigotry against muslims is far more acceptable than bigotry against blacks, so people are just wrapping up their racism in a more palatable form of hate. it's gross, and really sad.
  - roadnottaken, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2True.
    
    Consider how many people in this country would vote AGAINST a highly qualified, educated, well-spoken candidate specifically because that candidate is one or more of these:
    * female
    * ugly
    * Jewish
    * gay/lesbian
    * atheist
    * very overweight (especially if female)
    * blind
    * deaf
    
    We're getting there on the racism issue, and if (hopefully WHEN!) Obama wins, we'll have made a huge step, but we've a long way to go before our country is truly fair and balanced.
- Mujokan, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3It depends what state you are in. If you're in Massachusetts, send a message, by all means. If you are in Ohio, voting for Nader = voting for McCain. Not saying don't do it, just saying be aware of all the consequences.
- coopaloop, on 10/02/2008, -1/+10Nader?!? I just saw Nader speak at my school (Cal Poly) on Sunday and was unimpressed. He and his supporters seem proud they screwed up the election in 2000. His entire rhetoric was trying to paint Obama just like McCain and it was not working. Like Michelle said at her speech at the DNC, you can't make a big election about small issues. On every big issue, Obama's stance is much better for America than McCain's. On a few of the small issues Nader may be better, but I urge any potential Nader or Green party supporters to suck it up and vote Obama.
- antipoet, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Hey, vote for who you want and be proud of it.
- XFireAlchemistX, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2Nader? That's like giving the vote to McCain.
  Might as well vote for Obama.
  Please no more botched elections.
- reuscel, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3I will agree that Ralph Nader is a great man. Without him, we wouldn't have a lot of the consumer protections we now take for granted. He is an intellectual, he is a truly great American, and he will never, ever be president. While he can rail on and on about his quest to rid the country of its corporate fascism, he is not a politician and lacks the political connections necessary to affect change in Washington. What happens if he does win? He still has a Congress dominated by the two major parties, and we'll end up with gridlock worse than we have ever seen. With all due respect to Mr. Nader and all the great thing he has done for America, his runs for the presidency are nothing but egomaniacal, myopic stupidity. The country would be better served if Nader decided to work within the framework of the current system, rather than trying to reboot it from scratch. We need progress, not another bitter, pissed-off old white dude. Nader is more useful in the private sector where he can affect real change. The current political landscape, like it or not, just wasn't made for people like him.
  
  Obama/Biden '08!
- SatoriSeeker, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1People sure want to give you a piece of their mind if you tell them you're voting third party. As if somehow the lesser of two evils paradox hasn't dawned on you and you haven't realized it's ***** reasoning by unfree minds. Good little blue teamers, good little red teamers, keep the corporate parties in power. Good for you. It's worked so well so far. You're the one voting for an evil, not me.
abajaj2280, on 10/02/2008, -6/+96You ***** tell them!
America needs to get over this race problem, it has absolutely no effect on the performance of a candidate for the presidency. Age, on the other hand does. I don't think McCain's medications allow him to take the call at 3AM.
- mikelist, on 10/10/2008, -0/+0one of the saddest things longterm, about racism is the way many young blacks have learned from it that they may as well be screwups, gangsters, thugs,dope peddlers, etc, since the largest part of america will regard them as such, no matter what they do.
  
  that is a stereotype (and i admit to some level of vestigial racism), but living in a diverse mostly black neighborhood, it is more accurate than most such observations. i hope that president obama will have a high enough identification factor to reverse that trend. anyone who doesn't vote for obama because of his race has a bigger personal deficit than racism, ie stupidity.
streak, on 10/02/2008, -43/+11I don't see how the unions will ever regain much power in a global economy. Am I fatalistic?
- MorganMghee, on 10/02/2008, -5/+13No, maybe just forgetting what things were like before unions. Most of us do, it was a long time ago and it doesn't come up much in conversation. But when you look at that history, factor in the lack of progress since the Taft–Hartley Act, then it becomes hard to imagine a global economy without unions.
  
  Support Unions - Defeat Taft–Hartley Act
  - solorender, on 10/02/2008, -0/+10people can thank unions for the 40 hr work week and paid vacations. Without them, many things most workers take for granted wouldn't be here.
  - streak, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1The 40hr work week etc. were instituted long before the global economy emerged. I didn't say there wouldn't be unions or that they wouldn't be important, but on a multi-national scale, I don't see how individual unions will ever be so powerful as before.
- thisguy457, on 10/02/2008, -4/+4I really hope they don't. Unions are nothing but a liability in the global market place. For example, it should be no mystery that Toyota and Honda make better cars than American companies. The UAW has ruined American competitiveness to the point that we have to send work over to Mexico and Canada. If you want a car built by Americans, you have to buy a Japanese car! And low and behold, it's a better car!
  
  If anyone doubts what I say, consider this, why hasn't the tech sector unionized? Why aren't there software developer unions or IT specialist unions? Think about it.
  
  P.S. You guys realize that Obama is not pro-union, right? He's secretly too smart for that. If you don't believe me, take a look at his economic advisors, Austen Goolsbee and Jason Furman.
  - 5toedsloth, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3You do realize that Toyota and Honda are only non-union here in the US. Their Japanese plants are organized. The main reasons they are not union here are that 1)the UAW balked at the idea of scale differences amongst various jobs, (something they have now bought into post the American axle fiasco).
    and 2) Because they could get away with it here because of the anti union sentiment that has been seeded, fed and encouraged by big business.
  - tamuengineer, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1@5toedsloth, the UAW's policies are antiquated and non-productive in today's society. Toyota's labor rate is around $35/hr here in the US, compared to ~$45/hr for the "Big Three" American companies. That is a nearly 30% difference. The UAW is dragging US companies down. If this continues they will be going down with them.
  - thisguy457, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2@5toedsloth: I'm not terribly concerned with what Toyota and Honda do in Japan. I don't live in Japan. My point is, non-union Japanese car companies are beating the piss out of union American car companies.
    
    @tamuengineer: I agree with you completely. For another example of why unions are completely absurd, take your local post office. That lady who sits behind the desk and sells you stamps? She's making well over $20 an hour. Yes, her salary is over $40k to sell stamps. All thanks to her union. Lucky for them, the federal government isn't going out of business in the near term.
  - 5toedsloth, on 10/11/2008, -0/+1@ tamuengineer: Do you really feel that the price of wages is the cause of the big 3 getting their asses handed to them? I would find it far more credible to say the lack of anything resembling innovation in design and function have far more to do with it. The workers make whatever car the companies tell them to do. If those companies really felt the workers were demanding too much pay, they should have just not signed the contract. Better to be forthright and stay competitive the continuously capitulating and bleeding to death
    @thisguy457
    Just to be clear, not all Japanese cars are made here non-union. In fact, Mazda, Mitsubishi and Toyota all have UAW facilities.
- douglasfactors, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1No reason to hide that comment.
MorganMghee, on 10/02/2008, -4/+24You know, (I can't believe I'm saying this) Clinton's speech in FL was pretty darn good too. (for a corporate party speech)
bunki8, on 10/02/2008, -5/+82As Obama says himself, he's only the excuse. People are busting at the seams to be given a chance to make a difference. When Obama says 'Change' he is not implying that he'll be the only one bring it. Change is what he'll encourage and unleash from the citizens of America.
- Jacolyte, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5I hope you're right.
  
  I have a horrible feeling that America will go back to sleep once Obama is in office however.
  
  I hope I'm wrong.
- deadonbroadway, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3This is what i've been saying all along. Once he is elected the only ones who can really fail is us.
  - loki49152, on 10/02/2008, -1/+0If he gets elected, we have failed.
    
    Then again, if McCain is elected we've failed, too.
  - deadonbroadway, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1That's exactly the cynical attitude that keeps us down.
Awspire, on 10/02/2008, -62/+11Woohoo! Union style, vote for my guy or I break your knee-caps. Their nothing but a bunch of leeching, intimidating thugs, and no surprise their all for Obama, since Obama has PLEDGED to empower Unions beyond the incredible power they already posses. Guess what that means, more strangle holds on companies by corrupt Unions, that will eventually force our companies to shut down domestically and seek foreign labor. Yet another reason I can never vote for Obama, the guy is nothing but a sentence away from communism.
- tunit000, on 10/02/2008, -8/+7Buried on: "Obama has PLEDGED to empower Unions beyond the incredible power they already posses. Guess what that means, more strangle holds on companies by corrupt Unions, that will eventually force our companies to shut down domestically and seek foreign labor....[Obama] is nothing but a sentence away from communism." [Citation needed]
- solorender, on 10/02/2008, -2/+14ya and every union is ran by the mafia.........oh wait that's hollywood. Unions make up a small percentage of the workforce in this country. The common rights that EVERY employee has such as an 8 hour day, sick leave, vacation time, minimum wage....all of those wouldn't exist if it weren't for unions. If it were left up to the employers, you would be taken advantage of. Look at all the CEO's with their golden parachutes in top companies....corrupt unions?.....right. Unions fight to take care of working families on a daily basis whether on the political side or the work side. Unions support the workforce of the country, the average middle class citizen.
  - boonesfarm, on 10/02/2008, -3/+3Do you think you have a "right" to 8 hour days and vacation time?
  - sloppychris, on 10/02/2008, -2/+18 hour work days, sick leave, minimum wage, etc. aren't "rights".
  - ohcyrus, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - The Deceleration of Independence
    
    The ability of most working Americans to pursue happiness can't be accomplished without a few basic rights that corporations must be forced to provide.
  - neonoodle, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3boonesfarm and sloppychris: who the ***** are you and when did you assholes sell your souls? Americans are the hardest working people out of any of the western countries, if not the world, and you're going to argue that we all have to work over 8 hours a day with no vacation*? Man you're scum.
    
    * if not literally, then on the a verbal technicality that those aren't considered "rights"
  - sloppychris, on 10/03/2008, -0/+2Neonoodleneonoodle, and those who agree, you have to understand that life isn't as simple as passing laws that sound like nice things to do.
    
    I could say that I support a law forcing people to be nice to each other. If you believe in freedom from government intrusion telling you how to act, you might not approve of such a law. Then I could make the same claim you did, and call you an ***** for not wanting people to be nice to each other.
    
    Of course I want people to be happy. Who doesn't? Your line of thinking is simple minded if you believe otherwise.
    
    Mandated sick time, working hours, minimum wage, and similar laws leave people worse off in the long run. The biggest downside is that those regulations create unnecessary unemployment, meaning work is unavailable to those who need it most.
    
    These issues are complicated, and to fully understand them you have to stop with the emotional reactions and study the evidence.
- geekwithsoul, on 10/02/2008, -1/+11"bunch of leeching, intimidating thugs"
  
  Yeah, unlike like those corporate titans on Wall Street -- "Hey give us $700 Billion dollars or else!"
- demizer, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4Hasn't the last 30 years, (forget eight, it is really 30) taught you anything at all?
- Misinformant, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4"Woohoo! Union style, vote for my guy or I break your knee-caps. Their nothing but a bunch of leeching, intimidating thugs,"
  
  You watch way too much TV if you really believe that ***** actually happens.
  
  Also, your grammar sucks.
- black27696, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2Take your sense and get out of here, your intelligence is not wanted on digg. Only liberal hate speech.
  
  By the way, this was a good speech about racism, but the only reason he's given me to vote FOR Obama is the fact that he's black. Empowering unions doesn't help, because the massive company that they work for (U.S. Steel, etc) gets nailed because of it. The liberal government tells big companies that they have to pay their workers more and tax them more, and the big companies tell the liberals to go to hell and they outsource. You want to keep jobs in America? Vote for a candidate that will favor the big companies that HAVE the ***** jobs. God you people are so ***** stupid I don't know if I can take it any more. What good is a strong union if you bash the companies they work for so hard that the companies leave? WAKE THE ***** UP! Stupid liberal sheep.
  
  McCain / Palin '08
  - ucbluman, on 10/02/2008, -0/+0if you want to vote for someone who's black, vote for tracy morgan. he's way blacker than obama.
  - Misinformant, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1A temperamental, senile half-corpse of a man and a gimmicky, mentally-retarded woman next in line to replace him when he croaks.
    
    Yeah, that's what we need...
    
    InSane / Failin '08
    
    EDIT: also lol @ "liberal hate speech." conservatives have the monopoly on fear & hate-mongering and you guys can keep it. we're happy with our monopoly on logic and intellect
F0rtysxity, on 10/02/2008, -7/+31Dude, that's Chuck Norris' uncle. Now you can see where Chuck gets it from.
- blackdaisies, on 10/02/2008, -1/+11Too bad Chuck Norris is voting for McCain :(
  - robespierrette, on 10/02/2008, -1/+10Ya know, you can repurpose all of the "angry" Chuck Norris jokes into John McCain jokes. (Not so much the sex ones).
    
    My current favorite: John McCain is like one of those Russian Dolls - if you split him open, inside you'll find a smaller, angrier John McCain.
- redcolumbine, on 10/02/2008, -2/+12Chuck Norris doesn't say uncle.
ncapone, on 10/02/2008, -23/+11At first I thought it was Onion style.
jbettineski, on 10/02/2008, -41/+9Obama, McCain, what's the difference.

A globalist is a globalist.
- singularityv, on 10/02/2008, -3/+7Globalism is the morally Superior ideology. Nationalism must be destroyed.
  
  Now, I am not voting for either Obama or McCain, because they both want government to dominate business and they both support environmentalism. Both of those positions are incompatible with globalism.
- zephyear, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2globalism and internationalism both rule
  
  nationalism is terrible, and ultranationalism helps pave the road to tyranny
- papusman, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4What's wrong with globalism? Would you propose we bubble ourselves off? Pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist? No new ideas, or inventions? Never see other places? I would NEVER live in such a closed-off society.
- JenniferInMO, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Why do people have to be so absolute, i.e. either we fight for globalization or isolationism. That's just stupid. Think out of the box. If anyone would ever to bother to read Obama's book "the Audacity of Hope" you would see that he has a unique perspective on trade.
  
  He believes that neither total free trade nor complete isolationism is the right answer for our country. He believes globalization and free trade will happen regardless of whether we want it or not, so he looks at trade agreements as a time for Congress to build in protections for American workers and to protect our tax dollars from going overseas. For example, he will not present to Congress a trade agreement without a companion bill that penalizes through the tax system companies which outsource labor or take operations overseas. If it looks like that won't be enough to keep the jobs he would further provide for retraining assistance and perhaps extended unemployment and healthcare benefits for those likely to lose out.
  
  So you can pick the globalist who will negotiate treaties to allow our corporations' greed to run amok, or a globalist who sees globalization as call to create incentives and opportunities in our own country. As an American worker, which do you prefer?
couscous1, on 10/02/2008, -15/+0
- dipdog21, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Wrong story.
- sodariot, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1I think you're on the wrong tab of your browser
- sweetbean, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1FAIL
narupo, on 10/02/2008, -48/+8Nobama 08.
- axel000, on 10/02/2008, -4/+7Norepugs08
- DarkReign16, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8No puns. Ever.
juliehardman, on 10/02/2008, -4/+256I am for Obama myself. I had the most frustrating phone call with my dad last night. I am a 33 year old white male and it is hard to have a political conversation with my father because I don't want to be disrespectful to the man. However he spent a good hour telling me that Obama was a Muslim, he used the Koran, etc, etc. Pretty much all the talking points of Fox News, you know the B.S. station. I had to turn it on him and finally got him to admit that he was not voting for Obama because Obama is black. Then I spoke to my mother and guess what I got the same answer. They are both in their 50s so it really did not surprise me. What did surprise me is that my own father accused me of being a sexist because I would never in a billion years vote for Palin/McCain.

The point to this whole story is I just sent the link to this video to both my parents and asked them to take some time to watch it. I know neither of them will but I had to try. The sad part to all of this is that my dad lives in Florida, and my mother is in Ohio. Both of which are battle ground states, and it means that they probably have friends who think this way too. The old saying goes "birds of a feather flock together."

The only thing I can do is make sure that my two sons who are 12, and 9 realize that the color of ones skin does not make or break who that person is.
- SundayBrunch, on 10/02/2008, -69/+1take good care of your children, it would behoove you to keep them away from blacks.
  - juliehardman, on 10/02/2008, -0/+34My kids will be just fine and probably better than fine because of their cultural diversity. Unbelievable that people look at the color of skin to make a judgment on them. I know you are one of those "closet racists" that has a lot of black friends at work or you had a lot of black friends in high school and you use places like digg to spout your racist mantras. Stop being such a pussy and do it in public too.
  - SundayBrunch, on 10/02/2008, -34/+1what makes you think I don't. All my black friends know all my opinions, and guess what they can't do ***** about it. It's only a pussy like you that's afraid to voice your concerns. Listen, if you are apprehensive about blacks it's perfectly understandashable.
  - charm803, on 10/02/2008, -1/+23It would behoove julie to most DEFINITELY keep her children away from you, that's for sure.
  - will2000, on 10/02/2008, -1/+14sunday brunch...***** choke. thank you.
  - Rhythmicidea, on 10/02/2008, -2/+9Don't have children, it would make the world a better place.
  - juliehardman, on 10/02/2008, -0/+13@ SundayBrunch
    
    Have an argument with ignorance is pointless so I will not participate in such an argument.
- singularityv, on 10/02/2008, -30/+1Your parents do not deserve respect. They are horrible human beings, and if you have any principles, you should disown them and cut them out of your life.
  
  And I say this as someone who is not voting for Obama.
  - juliehardman, on 10/02/2008, -0/+12My parents deserve all of my respect in the world. They made me who I am and I love them for that. I will not disown them for their beliefs no matter how stupid or extreme they are.
    
    If you are going to disown the parents that gave you life because of their political or social beliefs maybe it is you who needs a little psychological help.
    
    This whole election has given me a new disease and I am calling it ESS (Election Stress Syndrome).
  - toptopics, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Talk about ESS.. I am not even in the US and I still have ESS especially after this bitch palin entered the scenario.. this bitch is a disgrace not only to the US but to humanity all over the world.
- ErickStevenson, on 10/02/2008, -1/+13I hear yah juliehardman It's the same with my parents, they keep saying all this stuff about Obama, his Muslim, etc... but when you pin them on the issue it basically comes down to his color. Sucks really, one good thing though atleast they don't watch FOX anymore. In the end I tell them to just vote third party, they do hate McCain/Palin though so it's not 100% bad. They say they might not vote this year, so it's all good hehe.
  - runCMD, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1You rejoice that your parents would choose to not exercise their vote - simply because they disagree with your choice ? Obama supporters are supposed to be above that right ? I mean --- if he is all good - then why supress the voices of others ?
- charm803, on 10/02/2008, -4/+16Tell them to vote for Nader!
  
  Anyway, glad that you are raising your children differently and may they become contributing members of society like yourself.
  
  It's a good thing some of us can see past color.
  
  I'm 29, and when I first saw that Hilary and Obama were running in the primaries, it didn't even cross my mind that it was a woman and a black man. I guess I always expected Hilary to run.
  
  We have definitely come a long way from the 60's.
  
  At the end, you did your part and tried. That's all that matters. You did what Mr. Tramke talked about: educated the voter.
  
  It's not your fault they see it otherwise.
  
  And for that, I thank you.
  - truthproduct, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Just don't tell them that Nader is of Arab decent. he he
- writie, on 10/02/2008, -1/+31Even apart from the hidden racism, there is another - more troubling - problem: McCain and Palin are just not fit for the job. They are not a valid plan B. So voting for them is voting against your own best interests.
- powermonay, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5Have them watch the documentary about Obama...then ask them... did the white man help the country in the last 8 years????Ask them if they care about the future of their grandchildren...hmmm have your kids call them and tell them, I think it will have a different impact.
  
  Hope they change their mind
  - Wagnerian, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2What documentary?
  - powermonay, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1I saw it on CNN couple of weeks ago, maybe you can search for it on Youtube
- eliot2000, on 10/02/2008, -1/+16Don't you hate talking to someone, and after a few minutes, they drop some factoid or opinion that is so bizarre or factually warped that you can immediately tell they're a fox news viewer?
  - TheNik, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Welcome to my writing class... :(
- paintgrl, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7Good for you. Keep trying.
- runCMD, on 10/02/2008, -9/+1There are those of us who do not support the junior Senators run for the Whitehouse - that do not believe he is a muslim.
  If you listen to Senator Obama talk about his early life - he mentions little to nothing about religion ... any religion. What he did talk about was the inner turmoil and wrenching angst at being mixed race. His inner fight led him into drug use and bigotry. He wrote in 'Dreams from my father' about his rage against 'the white man' for the injustices he felt. Rage that bubbled just under the surface making him want to strike out at the lighter pigmented people around him. If McCain's past had even the slightest hint of what Senator Obama has admitted - the outrage would be deafening. I am not an apologist for a politicians bad behavior ... Any politician - including the current president. I believe in personal responsibility. I think in the hardest times that Obama has had to face in his life - he turned to drugs as an escape ... or as he put it drugs helped him "to see the world more clearly"
  I see Obama as fundamentally weak. I will not be voting for Senator Obama based on my own very sound and personal convictions. I am saddened by the thought that others vote on misconceptions - like your fathers. Or on raw bigoted pride in the pigment of skin. If a dispassionate - clear headed discussion of character was held - Obama would certainly lose. I have voted Democrat my entire voting life - except for the occasional independent. This year the Democrats got it wrong.
  - frice, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Interesting. I always hear that Americans vote for their country. But that really isn't the case. People rather vote for the guy they like most than for the guy that has ideas that fit with their ideas on what direction the country should take. I guess that is the reason democracy doesn't work very well. I watch and learn.
  - runCMD, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1frice - Where do you always hear that Americans vote for their country ? If given a choice of voting for - say - Canada - then I'm assuming Americans would probably vote for America. : P
    When it comes to candidates for presidency - we generally vote for who we individually believe will best lead the nation forward. We don't all agree on who that person should be. And some times - like now ... it seems things like color and sex and age ( and the media ) play a role that they should not in the decision making process.
    In the land from which you hail - does everyone agree on who should lead ? I can't think of a better description of a democracy - than one where the majority of people who choose to participate in open and free elections - get their voices heard and registered.
  - laserdog, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2@runCMD
    
    Obviously you have to vote for who you think is best.
    
    But I think it is worth noting, that billions of dollars have been dumped into this campaign, chiefly into negative attack ads.
    
    If you find the biggest reason you are voting for someone is because you dislike the other guy so much, it is worth reexamining how that came to be.
    
    Now, I'm sure you could have an equally long post about attributes of McCain that you admire.
    
    IMHO that's the sort of stuff we should be discussing. Getting caught up in "narratives" of why you should hate the other guy is a hollow trap, it doesn't lead to discussing issues, and it does not serve to create an informed democracy.
  - runCMD, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2laserdog - when you have no perfect choice, then you go with the less of two evils. Choosing not to vote is a terrible waste. I think everyone who is eligible to vote should register and vote their preference. Who knows - if everyone did - this year, we might have ended up with an independent in the Whitehouse. : )
  - frice, on 10/02/2008, -0/+0Oh, I simply meant that voting seems like a beauty contest. The ideas of the person & party you are voting for are almost inconsequential. It is all about the right personality, likability, having the right religion, skin color, etc. The direction each of the two (main) parties want to take the country in is quite different, for example with the wars, economy, social security, health care, etc.
    
    When the choice between ideas is very small I understand that a choice between personalities becomes relevant. Unfortunately it seems a lot of voters don't really care to inform themselves on issues so they do

Most powerful pro-Obama speech of the year. Union style...

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Most powerful pro-Obama speech of the year. Union style...

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic]thumb

Related by Keyword

Our Presidents’ First 100 Days in Office [Infographic] thumb

TV 101: Why Leo Laporte represents the future of TV

12 Most Improbable Sport Moments in Movies last 25 Years