digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Number of Obama Donors Passes the 1.5 million mark

my.barackobama.com — On the eve of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, we reached another incredible landmark: the 1,500,000th person made a donation to this campaign.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • anshuman, on 05/07/2008, -5/+19"Unstoppable!!!"
    • theapplegod, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1And think with our economy where it is how much money is being wasted on this election. Bravo!
      • Barackalypse, on 05/07/2008, -5/+0Nothing compared to how much is going to be wasted if any of his big government ideas get implemented.
        • fluxion, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3and after bush has worked so hard to streamline our government and reduce our spending!
          • Barackalypse, on 05/07/2008, -3/+0Bush is a moron but he did lower my taxes and at least tried to do something about Social Security.
    • ravage86, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Over 1.5 million Obama donors? That's a lot of donors. I still have both my Obamas, does anyone know of where I can sell one of my Obamas? I guess with 1.5 million people giving them away for free, I'd have a hard time selling mine, but I don't want to get cut open for nothing.
  • tcbishop12, on 05/07/2008, -7/+22I'm wearing my one of a million T-shirt to the office today. I remain hopeful that the Clinton hack machine cannot stop the message.

    Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does. We inherit nothing truly, but what our actions make us worthy of. Nothing splendid has ever been achieved except by those who dared believe that something inside them was superior to circumstance.


    Hope begins in the dark, the stubborn hope that if you just show up and try to do the right thing, the dawn will come. You wait and watch and work: You don't give up.

    We are here to enlarge hope and add to the sum of human goodness.To prove the thing exists.And however futile each individual act of courage or generosity, self-sacrifice or grace may seem - it still proves that goodness exists. Each act adds to the fund.

    I am an American Obamacan.

    It is our mission to keep hope alive.
    • Stochio, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2Let's talk about his actual platform, shall we?

      "Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods."

      Such a measure would increase long-term unemployment by encouraging firms to relocate overseas. You want French unemployment-type laws? Then you'll get French level unemployment.

      I'm eager to hear thoughts on his actual platform beyond hope, change, and "new politics."
      • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Increasing tax incentives for companies that do business in America would offset the cost of increased wages, thus, less need for strikes.
        • Stochio, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Not sure I follow. To keep things simple let's assume there are no taxes initially. We have revenue of $100/yr. We are a firm with one owner and one additional employee. We pay the worker $50/yr. Our profit is then $50/yr.

          Now, we add a tax credit. Who pays the tax credit? The government. Who is the government? The people. Who are the people? Our worker and our owner. Suppose each pays $10/yr of their income to support this program. Now, the revenue is $120. The worker demands a higher wage like you say and he gets $60/yr. The owner is left with $60. Taxes are paid of $10/person and the owner and the firm are left with $50.

          So, we have no change in income and we assume (rather generously) that the act of taxing income, applying for the credit, and enforcing the program cost $0. Further, the strike that the worker undertook to get his $60 wage would be costly for the productive capacity of the economy but we ignored that.

          But what is money, really? Money is a record keeper. Really we need to talk about resources. So in reality we wasted resources in excess of $0 redistributing wealth around.

          These tax incentives that you're talking about are *resources* that have to come from somewhere. You're ignoring where they come from.
          • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1You are assuming that the worker and employer are taxed evenly. Most likely the worker will pay less in taxes than the employer meaning the worker will take home additional income to spend into the economy forming a net gain. Also, we can assume that additional tax revenue will be received from businesses that choose to still operate outside of the US as well as foreign origin businesses. The idea is to insulate and support our own countries owners while taking revenue from those who choose to operate outside. So..

            Lets take our $100/yr and split it 50/50. The government recieves $20 from overseas tarrifs and gives that to the employer in the form of a tax break. The worker demands a raise and now makes $60/yr while the employer has $60/yr. This money is now invested "locally" and helps to further support the economy.
          • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Meanwhile all the ***** I buy is 50% more expensive and I'm paying higher taxes to boot. You've discovered a fantastic way of instituting runaway inflation and raising my taxes without creating anything of value.
          • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1The idea is to move business back into the US. Half the reason ***** is so expensive is because we import everything and the dollar is weak. I don't see how increasing the value of the dollar causes inflation. Also, I never suggested raising your taxes, unless you are planning on starting a multimillion dollar corporation in Singapore.
          • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1What "*****" is so expensive? Having traveled to numerous other countries, I'd say we're getting a pretty good deal. I don't know where you think consumer products of comparable quality are so much cheaper. I can think of very few goods that are as cheap in other countries as they are here.

            And I don't see how protecting labor markets inexorably causes the dollar to strengthen. I suspect that the effect, to the extent that exists, would be negligible. Our industrial base has been hollowed out for decades but the dollar only recently started going south. I supect there are other causal factors in play.
          • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Have you not gone shopping lately? Have you not purchased fuel. Everything that has to be shipped or imported is more expensive.
          • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Have you been to any other countries in the last 20 years? Go to anywhere in Europe if you want to see expensive fuel. And a pair of Nikes manufactured in Vietnam costs more in Saigon than it does in NYC. Why is that?

            And no, I haven't seen my daily expenditures rise that sharply. Aside from gas, the things I buy cost pretty much the same as they did two years ago. Many cost even less. I just bought a bigass bag of wild caught salmon at costco for $18.
          • Stochio, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1@danmiller. Ok, take your scenario with tariffs. The government receives $20 in tariffs. You ignore 2 factors. (1) Local consumers are denied the benefits of additional consumption that would occur were the tariff not in place. (2) You ignore the cost to our firm of exporting something of value abroad and receiving $20. It is indeed a cost. This is the confusion of playing loose with money and capital. Suppose we are in the habit of accumulating money year after year after year, ad infinatum. If at the end of our life, we have $20M in the bank have we experienced the pleasures of a wealthy lifestyle? No. How can this be? Because we have done favors for society in exchange for an I.O.U. which we have never redeemed. So my question to you is this, danmiller: What is the origin of this $20 that you speak of? Your balance sheet is not balanced.
      • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I agree wholeheartedly but I support Obama anyway. I suspect he's just pandering to the unions and won't lift a finger to help them once he gets into office. He's just to smart to buy into the pro-union *****, but it's not the sort of thing he can stand against on principle like the gas tax "holiday" without losing a singnifant constituency.

        If I'm wrong, I'll be pissed.
        • Stochio, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Ok, good. Thanks for actually considering the substance of what he's proposing. Let's look at another issue:

          On obesity:
          "Foster Healthy Communities: ... nearly one-third of Americans live in neighborhoods without sidewalks and less than half of our country’s children have a playground within walking distance of their homes. This lack of a safe place to walk and play is a major contributor to the growing numbers of overweight children."

          Top obesity areas:
          http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/fit.nation/obesit ...
          Top crime areas:
          http://www.city-data.com/top2/c404.html

          I don't see a strong correlation. Are there studies on this? It seems a bit of a stretch to me to link crime to obesity. Doesn't it make more sense to link obesity to bad food? Fast food is an inferior good in the economic sense so doesn't it make sense to look to causes of why healthy food is more expensive? And if that is the case, doesn't removing the protections on agriculture bring down the cost of quality food? And in this context, doesn't talking about food itself make more sense than talking a complicated governmental plan for building playgrounds in the scientifically optimal location?
          • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Why do you equate lack of safety with crime? Kids who live in sprawling subdivisions can't safely walk to the playground not because of crime but because it's like eight miles away and there's probably a highway or two in between.

            Frankly, I think another part of the problem is that playgrounds suck now because the equipment is ***** and boring because the good stuff creates too much of an insurnace liability. You will notice this if you look at the playgrounds in Canada, which often have ***** awesomely dangerous equipment. There should be provisiions in the law that exempt playgrounds from liability when little billy cracks his spine and winds up a parapalegic.

            http://plaintiffslaw.com/CM/PracticeAreaDescriptio ...

            "And in this context, doesn't talking about food itself make more sense than talking a complicated governmental plan for building playgrounds in the scientifically optimal location?"

            The two are not mutually exclusive. But telling fatties to eat less fat isn't a good way to win elections in the "heartland."
          • Stochio, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1@petro: Point taken. It doesn't have to be crime. And I think you agree with me based on your closing statement. I had hours of fun as a kid literally rolling around in the dirt of a sandbox. I built forts out of chairs, blankets, and stuff. The point is that this is all rhetoric. The government cannot force kids to be less fat. The best chance for that lies with parents, as children have not yet reached an age of reason. "Stop watching television!" and keeping crappy food out of the cupboard go a long way. The consensus being that someone in Washington cannot make you a better person. Shall I move on to another bullet in the platform?
          • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Frankly, these issues are fluff as far as I'm concerned. You can nitpick away and find flaws in pretty much any domestic policy that involves government meddling.

            I support Obama because of his administrative philosophy and his emphasis on "soft paternalism." Government can operate more efficiently and more effectively if it takes into consideration some of the principles of behavioral economics. Obama seems to recognize the wisdom of this approach. I think he's more of a believer in markets than people tend to give him credit for. His emphasis on transparency is important as well. People make better decisions when they're better informed. He's taken steps in this direction as a senator and I know it constitutes much of his approach to government.

            I'm kind of cheating though, because I know a great deal about him through personal contacts (long story). I don't know how anyone could get any of this from his campaign speeches, and I've never really looked at his web site.
          • Stochio, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1If these elements of his platform are fluff, I welcome you to posit what isn't fluff. I have no luck getting anyone talking about change/hope/"new politics" to talk about anything of meaning so I was making an attempt by selecting issues. Specifically, which soft paternalism stance do you think is beneficial?
          • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1His health care plan being non-mandatory is probably the most notable example of how his thinking is influenced soft paternalism. Under his plan, people have the option of opting out, whereas hillary would force you to enroll. Hillary = you have no choice and will be penalized if you don't enroll. Obama = if you're risk averse you can make a decision that reflects your preference and receive a tax credit for expenditures toward private insurance if you so choose.

            Read was Cass Sunstein has to say on the topic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cass-r-sunstein/the- ...

            Sunstein has written a great deal about soft/libertarian paternalism and he's close to Obama personally.
          • Stochio, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The link you've provided doesn't work for me.

            From Obama's site:
            "Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt."

            That doesn't sound to me like there is no penalty for not enrolling. If my employer is penalized for not offering a plan, that is no different than penalizing me as an employee. This is because the cost of hiring me includes the cost of dealing with regulation. Second, the exemption for small employers sounds nice but creates economic rents for companies staying small. Why grow my business beyond a certain threshold if it exposes me to new, onerous federal mandates? Unemployment will be increased as a result.

            You said "people have the option of opting out". Not so for *all* people. From his site: "Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans."

            At the core of the problem is a misunderstanding of the concept of insurance. What is insurance for? Insurance is to protect you from economic ruin. Insurance with insanely low deductibles is not insurance. And if deductibles are universally low it prevents the price system from working. If the price system doesn't work, signals that encourage thrift are not sent. So the result is an inefficient usage of the limited resources that we have. And this is what money and price is. It is a reflection of resources. So when we argue that prices do not matter and that deductibles "ought" to be low or non-existant, we argue that there are no constraints on the resources of this world. Rubbish.
          • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Working link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cass-r-sunstein/the- ...

            His health care proposal is far from ideal, but it probably superior to the current system in which transaction costs generate massive inefficiencies and the cost of providing care to the uninsured is largely externalized. If a government health care system can be engineered to be more cost effective than its private counterparts, there's no reason to believe that it won't be able to provide an adequate level of care at a reasonable price.

            Insurance with insanely low deductibles creates a moral hazard, to be sure, but that can be offset with higher premiums. I don't have any reason to believe that the government can't find an optimal balance between the quality of the health care it provides and the economic burden it places on society. The goal is to eliminate risk entirely, but to spread it evenly so that it does not become catastrophic for any one individual (unless that individual prefers to assume that risk, which Obama's plan allows him to do).


            Your argument that Obama's plan will prevent small businesses from growing just doesn't make sense to me. That's like claiming that you wouldn't want to win the lottery because it will put you in a higher tax bracket. Ultimately the cost of insuring employees is passed on in the form of lower salaries, but how is that any different from mandating that the coverage be financed out of pocket by the employee when he files taxes? If we can achieve better economies of scale by taxing the employer rather than the individual employees, it seems reasonable to do so.
        • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I would be interested to see this statement in it's entirety. Many cities have inacted plans to unlock school playgrounds after hours for safe places to play. I don't see anywhere in this quote you have provided that Obama has a "plan" to build additional equipment or sidewalks.
    • taradisiac, on 05/07/2008, -4/+0Wow you sound like you've been indoctrinated. All politicians are the same, some are a bit better than others but they're just using you. You'll understand when you're older.
      • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I'm an Obama supporter but I think the union issue is legit. I wish unions would just die tomorrow so that democrats don't have to waste any more time trying to court these assholes.

        And don't anyone tell me how the unions are so great because "they gave us the weekend" or some such nonsense. You're talking ancient history, not 2008. In 2008, unions do ***** all for society at large.
  • Wundur, on 05/07/2008, -28/+1And those wall street bankers and military corporates have donated the most to their much valued puppets, eh, being Obama, Clinton and McCain.
    Wake up kiddies, Obama is just another corporate controlled conman and Federal Reserve ass licker.
    • neognostic, on 05/07/2008, -2/+13Does RP have any anger management in any of his books? Perhaps you need to read his books before you subject us to your rousing discourse.
      • onetimer, on 05/07/2008, -3/+6Apparently not:

        http://tinyurl.com/yv6mnw

        It starts to get hilarious around the half way mark. The radio host pretends he can't hear him at the end too, just so the audience can continue laughing at this crazy.
        • skiltonian, on 05/07/2008, -6/+3Onetimer....You go around bashing candidates. Other than basketball and watermelons....tell us.. Who do you support 1heimer? Or are you just a troll?
          • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -3/+4"Who do you support 1heimer?"

            Irrelevant.
          • skiltonian, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2It is very much so relevant. The fact that nobody answers it proves that the troll brigade is only here to tear things down.
        • ssn697, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5"yes you are"

          "no I'm not"

          Add in the "that trash Lincoln"

          Oh *****. Too funny when he snaps about officers. Great stuff. You can hear the guy spitting while he yells.

          I love how he screams forever, then abruptly stops and says "except for Ron Paul". Absolutely a classic clip.
    • DreadPirate, on 05/07/2008, -1/+12Again with the ass-licking comments. Are you speaking from personal experience or preference, Wundur?
    • onetimer, on 05/07/2008, -2/+9You forgot "CFR SHILL!" and "Ron Paul '08!"

      EDIT: looks like you took care of both below. You nutjobs are so predictable.
    • skiltonian, on 05/07/2008, -6/+11Heimer spends a lot of time bashing candidates and their supporters. Who do you support Onetimer?
      • chaosium, on 05/07/2008, -1/+4Broken record, broken mind.
        • skiltonian, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1Well they never answer. It must mean that their only purpose on Digg is to troll. BTW Who do you support chaosium?
    • skiltonian, on 05/07/2008, -7/+1Notice that 1heimer will never answer the simple question. Who do you support for President 1heimer?
      • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Why are you so anxious to shift the discussion?
  • PeoplesChoice, on 05/07/2008, -4/+16WOW!

    Meanwhile, in his spare time, Barack Obama has been working behind the scenes to stop sniper fires in the Niger Delta, not making up stories about sniper fire in Bosnia.

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_Seems_To_H ...

    By the way, that's also a more effective way to bring down the price of oil.
  • rewinn, on 05/07/2008, -3/+20Obama figured out social networking on the internet 'way before any other politician. That's the sort of smarts American needs in a leader, because the one thing we know for sure, is that something new is going to happen in 2009, 2010, 2011 ... that no-one can predict. Sadly, Hillary is stuck in the last decade, and McCain? Heh.
    • BinaryDelt, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Yeah, we don't need a President who thinks the internet is "a series of tubes", or one who can't pour her own coffee, or one who...who...well, George W. Bush.
    • minox, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I thought Howard Dean was supposed to have revolutionized this approach when he ran?
      • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Lyndon LaRouche was using "social networking" as far back as the early 70s.
    • TheDudeDiggs, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1so because Obama can work myspace he should be president? Are you kidding me? That's the worst reason for voting for someone i have ever heard!
    • Tyrghast, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Have we already forgotten the massive ron paul internet campaign?
  • obama44thpres, on 05/07/2008, -3/+12EXCELLENT ! The movement has made history !!!

    It's time for REAL change in Washington, it's time for Barack Obama for president ! http://barackobama44thpresidentofusa.blogspot.com
    • Barackalypse, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0How does electing an incumbent member of one of the lowest rated Congresses of all time count as change exactly? His voting record is nearly identical to Hillary (check it out). Obama is the same brand of big government politician that we've had in Washington for a good part of the last century. How is he any different than Johnson's Great Society or Roosevelts New Deal?
  • Hillsfar, on 05/07/2008, -3/+12It's not just new donors we need. We need sustained giving. Plan on it. Budget it out. Give once a month so his fundraising numbers show steady.
  • lundeja, on 05/07/2008, -3/+18Feels good to know I'm one in 1.5 million :-D
  • michael532111, on 05/07/2008, -4/+8If the uncommitted Democratic superdelegates do not understand what is happening here, and do not publicly announce their support for Obama immediately, then the Democratic party deserves to loose the election in November.
  • Wundur, on 05/07/2008, -17/+3If you discount any member of the CFR, owned by military corporates and or are Federal Reserve ass lickers then there is no other candidate that is a viable choice other than Ron Paul.
    • onetimer, on 05/07/2008, -4/+13No thanks; I actually LIKE my anti-trust laws, FDA, scientific research funds, abortions, and Net Neutrality.
      • LadyKofNYC, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2How many abortions have you had? Was it SSN who knock you up?
    • ssn697, on 05/07/2008, -5/+9Ass lickers agree: Ron Paul is their candidate of choice!
      • LadyKofNYC, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1So Ron Paul *IS* your candidate of choice! Ron Paul's base is so wide that even ass lickers like you are welcome.
    • BinaryDelt, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1=) (*)

      WTF mate?
  • CouchTomato, on 05/07/2008, -2/+15I think he deserves at least 25 bucks from me for that NC speech that he just gave.
    • theapplegod, on 05/07/2008, -6/+0Send away lemming.... if you can afford it at $4 a gallon...
      • fadeout, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1"Chris Nygaard (theapplegod)
        A 31 year-old male from Charlotte, NC (US) who joined Digg on March 5th, 2008"

        Hello, sockpuppet!
        • theapplegod, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0Yadda, yadda, yadda. Send away Mr. Moneypants. See where that gets you in November when McCain gets the nomination.

          At least Hillary kept from having this "feel good" near American Idol elected before you fools wake up and go "uh oh."
  • BinaryDelt, on 05/07/2008, -3/+20Got my economic stimulus rebate of $600.00 today. What a better way to stimulate the economy than to give Obama another $25.00 for his pursuit of the White House. To date, I've donated 4 times, a total of over $150.00. I am one of Barack Obama's special interests, and that's the way it should be.
    • taradisiac, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2lol @ "stimulate the economy". It's your money, put yourselves first people!
    • oselznick, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Me, too, BinaryDelt. Waytago! I've also donated as much as I can as often as I can. He says "We" and what's-her-name says "I" -- big difference.
      He is our last, best hope to bring the U.S. back to the top spot in the world, earning the respect of other nations that we once had, then lost. He'll get it back for all of us.
  • Khaos, on 05/07/2008, -8/+1think we can hit 1 billion?
    • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -3/+2only 98.5 million more....maybe his kid will run.
      • BinaryDelt, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Your misunderstanding of numbers and simple math makes me want to punch infants, though I have been drinking.

        Khaos is a bit farther off...well a lot farther off on understanding, so I give you a pass.
        • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2I guess that's what happens when you post this ***** late. I'll pretend like I misread his post I was figuring for 100 million
      • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2He's got 901,500,000 donors?
        • DanMiller, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1You're late to the party, already addressed that mistake.
    • baldr, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3no, there are only 300 million americans and non-americans can't donate
  • taradisiac, on 05/07/2008, -9/+2I think Obama is bitter about not clinging the nomination after so campaigning for long. Maybe he'll get an NRA membership card, join a southern church and start bashing mexicans for not supporting him.
    • BinaryDelt, on 05/07/2008, -0/+6I think you meant "clinching", not "clinging". It's Hillary who is clinging. Nice try though.

      Stay in school.
    • BishkekBuddy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1And by the way... it's Hillary who is always changing her stripes to fit the situation... you really DO have your candidates mixed up, don't you!
  • OfNumbers, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1In before *****.
  • AndrewDB, on 05/07/2008, -2/+5Indiana voted Hilary, but only by two percent more than Obama.

    I'm so proud of my state that we didn't give Hilary /that/ much of a lead. Granted, I'd of loved it even more if Indiana had given Obama the win, but this is good enough.

    Time to donate another fifty bucks to Obama's coffers.
    • CouchTomato, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3Actually, I think you guys won it for Barack. Indiana was graceful in not treating Billary the way she has been dishing out to the Obama campaign, and yet the message was delivered. She is gonna take some time off to rethink.
      • Stochio, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1What is the message?
        • CouchTomato, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Win at all cost philosophy will cost you dearly.
      • BetterOffEd, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1"Time off to rethink?" Are you kidding? The Clintons are if nothing tenacious because they know this is their last shot at getting back into major national prominence. It's sad, but this crazy wench will take this all the way to the Convention.
    • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Time to move to a less ***** state.
    • theapplegod, on 05/07/2008, -3/+0Glad you have it to throw away... at least you can claim it next year on your taxes either way.

      Bottom line... he is not going to be McCain.
      • petrodollar, on 05/07/2008, -2/+2I can't think of any reason why anyone would want to "be" McCain except to have a wife worth $millions who still lets you call her a *****.
        • theapplegod, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0Typo. I'm not perfect. It should have said "not going to beat McCain."
    • itsontheway, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Obama would have won if it were not for Republicans voting in that primary in hopes that Clinton would get the nomination and lose to McCain in the fall.
  • RedViper1999, on 05/07/2008, -2/+11Well I just became a first time contributor. I've been wanting to for a long time and I finally had the money to do it.
    • AndrewDB, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1It's never too late RV. :]
    • theapplegod, on 05/07/2008, -7/+0Too bad you could have used it on something for YOU like gas or your families groceries. Guess all the Obama Spanks on Digg just have money to burn. Just take it off on your 1040 next year.
  • Wundur, on 05/07/2008, -10/+5Seems Obama has brainwashed nearly as many as Oprah!
  • oselznick, on 05/07/2008, -3/+7I haven't ever seen a grass roots movement like this -- Obama truly has given us hope that our corrupt, lying, thieving politicians in Washington will finally "get it" -- we want truth, honor, and decency in our president.
    We will have it with Obama.
    • Stochio, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Do you like any particular part of his fiscal platform?
  • diggum85, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4Keep on Pushin' bro...I love you man...
  • johnchaney3, on 05/07/2008, -11/+4Obama is an *****.
    • theapplegod, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1And an eloquent brainwashing America.
      • Tyrghast, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1So easily he riled you up. If four simple words about a man it's likely you've never met and more likely never hung out with can cause so much emotion that you retaliate by insulting his ability for free, cognizant thought, is it really johnchaney3 who is brainwashed? Does he disagree with Obama's beliefs, promises, and various other statements? You can be a great public speaker and desire to help mankind and still be an ***** (on the personal level). Who are you to say he isn't an *****?
        I'm just messin with ya, bury that johnchaney3 *****...
    • BetterOffEd, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1You KNOW OBAMA?


      .
  • URnotheonly1, on 05/07/2008, -4/+2EVERY VOTE MUST COUNT!





    hehehehe
    • theapplegod, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0Referring to Indiana issues today? That was stupid.

      In NC, you didn't even need your voter card to vote rather just your name to look up as a voter. Talk about backwoods.

      Every American should (and need) to have a voice.
    • BishkekBuddy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Oh man... I dug you up before I saw your "hehehehe" remark. Why don't you go live in Russia where votes don't really count. I'm sure you'd be very happy there.
  • backside180, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/dt2 ...
  • TheDudeDiggs, on 05/07/2008, -9/+2Obama is a joke! I'm amazed at how many people are actually supporting him. But as they say, ignorance is bliss and the United States is full of ignorant people. Open your eyes America and see Obama for the fraud that he is!
  • johnchaney3, on 05/07/2008, -5/+2He must be the messiah....
    • mateoberry, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Considering all other options, well, yes.
  • Infidelcastr0, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3Generic comment about diggers being gay for Obama.
  • odinfire, on 05/07/2008, -6/+1You see... Obama may have figured out social networking, but actual socializing is a skill that he and his "internet" socializers still need to grasp. Including those here at digg. You know, Obama CANNOT win a general election without the support of a good deal of Clinton supporters. I dont know... I'm a lifelong democrat and Clinton supporter and should he get the nomination (which seems inevitable), I dont know what anyone could say to get me to vote for him. I'm bitter. The comments of Obama supporters against Clinton have been so harsh, I will most likely sit the general election out, or vote for Nader. It's going to be one great magic show to see how Obama can get bitter and frustrated Clinton backers to vote for him come November. My advice... Obama supporters better start playing nice.
    • OfNumbers, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3***** your advice.
    • SupaNeeb, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1The fact that you feel his supporters need to appease you for your vote is disturbing. Vote for the individual and their issues as playing devil's advocate only hurts both sides.
    • xexx, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Clinton will back Obama when he gets the nomination and so will 98% of clinton supporters. Any democrat with any worth will back Obama as well. As soon as this is over people will be viewing things in terms of republicans vs democrats.
    • BetterOffEd, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1"Playing nice?" Are you insane? If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. The immoral tactics and Rove-esque strategies that Clinton has utilized in this campaign are absolutely abhorrent. The "Elitist" crap; The Annie Oakley pandering; The continuous Reverend Wright references;.....

      I ask you: What has Obama done at all to smear Hillary?

      STICK to the ISSUES Hill-dog.

      .
    • BishkekBuddy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I guess I find it amazing that you think your vote is a vote for supporters rather than the candidate. There are some truly disgusting people out there - and they are found everywhere. Look to the candidate and HIS message - if you can find anything mean or nasty about him, and you feel that Nader would run this country better, then please, cast your vote for Nader... however I'm certain you'll find that there are a lot of people who support Nader who are just as mean and nasty and some Obama supporters and some Clinton supporters and some Paul supporters and, and, and.....
  • aserer511, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1the day he crosses teh threshold to be the dem candidate is the day Johnny M gets some $$ from me (and I know obaam is our next president)
  • Wundur, on 05/07/2008, -8/+2Obama has only given the brainwashed brigade words, empty words from the empty vessel of a conman.

    When it comes to actions Obama will do as his corporate masters demand and not serve the people's will as has been the norm for many years.

    Here are some "great" accomplishments by OIbama the CFR lapdog.

    Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act.

    He voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State.

    He opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens.

    He shamefully distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo.

    He refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran.

    A conman through and through!
    • Tyrghast, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1l2citesources
    • johnsonjoeb, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2yes because EVERYTHING about the patriot act is wrong and meant to destroy us *sarcasm*

      who voted AGAINST condoleeza rice? she had NO TRACK record of what she was capable of and most of the things the did she did at the behest of this idiots who run this current administration. you can't fault obama for that.

      obama has shown time and time again that he is a candidate for RATIONAL change. charging current administration officials with warcrimes WHILE THEY REMAIN IN OFFICE is nothing more than symbolic *****. it won't work and makes you look that much more impotent when you try. it makes WAY more sense to get INTO office THEN make suggestions like that. we're trying to win elections right now Wundur...think baby steps, ok? baby steps.
  • agentsirus, on 05/07/2008, -2/+4This is the only time I have ever given money to a campaign.
  • brownrecluse888, on 05/07/2008, -6/+1Here is why Obama CANNOT beat McCain.....this is from today....."According to early exit polls, half of Clinton's supporters in Indiana would not vote for Obama in a general election matchup with Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. "
    • itsontheway, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Here is why you are wrong. Obama technically lost indiana by some 20,000 votes. Ask yourself how many of those voters were limbaugh´s voters? I bet a good number of them. In that case, they wouldn´t have voted for Obama anyway.
      • d3mag0gu3, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Do you know how to read? He wasn't talking about the 20,000 Obama lost by. He talking about the people who voted for Hillary yeah the 51% that voted for her in Indiana. Also the exit polls in NC showed that nearly 40% of Hillary's supporters would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I doubt this will happen cause Hillary will back Obama if he is the nominee and her supporters would follow. That is unless Hillary comes across all the obamaspam on digg.
  • brownrecluse888, on 05/07/2008, -4/+1Digg is to Obama as Fox News is to Bush.....like it or not its true....
  • johnsonjoeb, on 05/07/2008, -3/+4Why Obama Has My Vote...

    Yes he's inspirational. Yes he's a shining example of progress. Yes he's progressive but I'd like to have a serious (if that's possible on Digg) debate as to why tonight's victory shows why he should be the candidate of choice in 2008.

    1. Hillary is killing the Democratic party AND process.
    She cannot win now unless she convinces a LARGE number of super delegates to vote AGAINST their constituents. It's not possible. This will piss off people in more ways than you can imagine. McCain will win because so many voters will feel disenfranchised they'll vote for him or worse-not vote at all. All of the talk about this election being inspirational on multiple fronts will go down the ***** the day she causes that to happen. The same goes for the Michigan/Florida question. Everyone (including Hillary) knew what the rules were leading into this election. Changing those rules and allowing those wayward states back into the fold will show that with enough bitching and moaning we will accommodate rule breaking in our democratic process. EVEN with a revote the Michigan/Florida results will be suspect. I can imagine the pandering now "Obama didn't want you to vote. Show him how you really feel." The vote has already been tainted and it hasn't even been done.

    2. She is the queen of deceit and dirty tactics.
    Hillary has shown on more than one occasion DURING THIS RACE (not to mention her political "career") that she will do ANYTHING to suit her cause. Snipergate is the most vivid example of her preying on the imaginations of voters. Instead of her speaking up against the Rev. Wright issue in the media (the flames of which she fanned incessantly for a while) she rode the coattails into the Indiana primary. She WOULD NOT HAVE WON if Wright wasn't a pseudo-issue. Her narrow victory in Indiana was a victory of fear-mongering not inspiration. Even before Wright she stated that McCain was the only candidate comparable to her as if Obama was an anomaly. NOT ONCE in contemporary political history has a candidate so enthusiastically endorsed someone OUTSIDE of their party. Essentially if she can't have the Presidency, no one will. This mode of operation is reprehensible despite her recent attempts to make herself appear more Obama like by speaking about party unity. The "gas tax" is also prime evidence that she's the president who will tell you what you WANT to hear not what you NEED to hear. No economist on the globe agrees with this strategy. It's stupid.

    3. The World Is Watching
    And she doesn't seem to care. Why else is she already talking about nuking Iran BEFORE she's in office. We haven't finished in Afghanistan, Iraq is in chaos, and she's already talking about dropping bombs on Iran?!! It's comments like that that galvanize the rest of the world against us. Personally I think she's overcompensating because the world (not me-I don't give a *****) looks at her like a weak woman. It's that type of overcompensation that we don't need in the misogynistic Middle Eastern region of the globe. She needs to be humble and respectful, gather the support of other nations, and address each situation as it arises with some sense NOT blanket threats.

    4. The Republicans WANT her to win...
    Operation Chaos and Rev. Wright won her Indiana tonight. Case closed. Obama had this race locked until these two issues came into play. She is an obvious albatross around the Democratic party's neck and they know it. They HAVE their nominee and they're getting their game plan in top shape for the general election. The ammunition is already there for their Clinton assault. Obama is a rogue candidate. Traditional tactics won't work on him. He has charisma, conviction, and integrity of character. When he's been wrong he's stated it. He didn't try to cover it up or skirt the issue he addressed it and (where necessary) apologized. THAT'S Presidential. Not pandering, not easy answers, not politics but truly presidential. That's why he's the candidate of choice. Wake up America.

    You may start your 'Bamabashing now. My only request is that you please make your responses intelligent and support your counter-arguments with evidence. Please ignore my typos...I'll ignore yours.
    • Wundur, on 05/07/2008, -3/+1Only if and when the Federal Reserve is gone will there be any possibility of real change with Obama the conman being terrified of taking on this behemoth!

      Ron Paul is the only real choice for a new direction with Obama, Clinton and McCain being corporate puppets.

      Get off your high horse johnson and have a look around at ground level.
      • johnsonjoeb, on 05/07/2008, -1/+3i'm sorry. i believe i asked for rational debate. your comment appears to be a ron paul handjob with no supporting evidence. there don't appear to be any seats for you in this section, wunder. good day sir.

        btw...replace the federal reserve with um...what? marshmallows?
        • Wundur, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Replace the Federal Reserve with what you ask?
          LOL, and you want a rational debate when you wouldn't know if your ass was on fire.
          No hope for some of you Oprahbamas.
          • johnsonjoeb, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2name calling and no solutions. more of the same, wunder. more of the same. see you in the new day friend. hopefully you won't be broke from using all of those masrhmallows as collateral when you break away from the US to start Ronpaulutopia. i wanted a debate. that means your arguments need to be supported with facts. where is your evidence against obama? i might take you seriously if you can come with more than rhetoric.
    • d3mag0gu3, on 05/07/2008, -1/+11. Hey dopey, you realize that Obama can't win without the super delegates either? So is he killing the Democratic party too? 2. Obama is a also politician who says exactly what you want to hear. How did he go from "I can't disown Wright" to disowning him in a few weeks time? 3. Doesn't make sense. If the world viewed Hillary as a "weak woman" they would be for Hillary because they want the US to be weak. 4. If you think Operation Chaos and Wright is the reason why she has garnerd 49% of all democratic votes then you are a lousy obamabot. You are trying to search for reasons why your god is getting only 51% of the support. It's not because of some conspiracy, it's because many people have brains are able to see and think past demagoguery. Obamabots FTW!
      • johnsonjoeb, on 05/07/2008, -1/+11. he has the popular vote. read the argument jackasss. he's not asking the superdelegates to go against their constituents, hillary is.

        2. how the hell do you know what I WANT to hear? you don't know me. have we met? this argument is FUBAR in more ways than one "dopey" as you so eloquently put it. telling the people that a gas tax is a BAD idea and won't save you that much money is contradictory to your statement. you fail. btw, he can change his mind on wright. it's simple. it's done. people can change affiliations with individuals, people, sutiations, whatever. adults do it all the time. especially when they make mistakes. he's not linked to wright by a ***** kidney. they're not RELATED. wright ***** up repeatedly and obama called him on it. case closed. pick another play out the republican playbook.

        4. incredbile mind reading skills. i didn't know the whole WORLD wanted us to be weak. the world wants us to participate in global society...not DICTATE policy as if we're parents. if we're weak what does that do for the world. we're a superpower. who does the world trade with? where does japan offload their cars? where does india gets its outsourced labor? where does Israel get its protection? the world doesnt' want a weak america d3ma. stop being scared and using it to justify your police state.

        4. read the news. read the internet. watch some CNN. look at the exit poll effect and how republicans (who already have a candidate voted in a democratic primary) d3mass. everyone on television isn't trying to lie to you 24/7 you ***** luddite. the wright and chaos issues are facts supported by evidence. all you've given me in these "answers" are speculation and opinion which are excellent tools for building a house of ***** but not an argument. good day sir. take a seat over there with wunder.
  • Anonemousk, on 05/07/2008, -9/+3Buried, who ***** cares?
  • SqueakyWheel, on 05/07/2008, -8/+2Obama will increase the poor in our country. Welfare + Amnesty = Destruction of Country
    • melfster, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Here 's what I don't get from you wacky Republicans you bitch and complain about welfare and illegal immigration but those aren't reason this country serious going down the tubes. Bush is essentially providing welfare to Iraq. They have 70 billion sitting in the bank. And you Republicans have no shame giving your hard earned tax money to corrupt government of Iraq. Don't forget it was Ronald Reagen who provided amnesty in the first place to illegal immigration and John McCain who supports Amnesty as well.
  • brownrecluse888, on 05/07/2008, -7/+1Buried.....yet more Obama spam from the Obama gay fan boyz....
  • SupaNeeb, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Awesome, Obama even has a better site design than Clinton. I love these colours.
  • Iztikeit, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1If people give you lots of money that makes you a good candidates? In America? Really? This is directed at very specific people.
  • jayscot, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Digg = Obama's Internet Propaganda Campaign Headquarters
  • Ricemanstm, on 05/07/2008, -2/+3Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Democratic Presidential Candidate...
    Barrak Hussein FAUX-bama!
  • Wundur, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Even though Oprahbama is a conman and corporate puppet I hope he is the dems nom but I certainly hope that neither he nor McCain become President.
    Ron Paul all the way!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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