digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Obama (certifiably) wins Texas

statesman.com — Obama landed a lead of nine delegates to the national convention thanks to Texas' caucuses, upheld in today's county conventions. Despite the Clinton campaign's widespread attempts to prevent many Texans from participating in their district convention, the voters of Texas confirmed Senator Obama’s important delegate win in the Lone Star State.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ShemDaimwood, on 03/30/2008, -7/+169And on a personal note, my own county convention today was an Obama blowout. We sent 42 Obama delegates to Texas' state convention, while Hillary only received 4 delegates.
    • ShemDaimwood, on 03/30/2008, -1/+22FTA, which has been updated since last night: The percentages for all county conventions combined work out to Obama with 66% and Hillary with 34% percent.
      • bongowaxx, on 03/30/2008, -0/+7You in Jefferson county? (I'm from Beaumont originally, so I checked on my old hometown to see if they made me proud.... sure enough, they did!)
        • DavidBGie, on 03/30/2008, -17/+1Obama is trying to prove that a Black racist Redneck can win the presidency. It is stunning that all the liberals that use the term racist for their enemies on a daily basis are fooled by Obama. Obama hates everything about the US. Liberals AND conservatives! You guys might as well vote for Osama. Obama is that quiet guy with extreme ideas. Look at his friends!
          • hittnrun, on 03/30/2008, -11/+2can one of you super smart liberals out there tell me the purpose of a "superdelegate"? Is it to say, "ditto" to the voters or is it to keep the voters from making a mistake by falling for a slick talking, inexperienced, extremist who doesn't have the experience to do the job? I guess your party bosses realized the dumbfvcks you are and put in a safety net. Hope they use it.
          • motivatedmama, on 03/30/2008, -1/+6I like Obama's "extreme" ideas. I hope he takes the White House as far Left as it can go! The "Right" has only led us wrong.
          • franklymister, on 03/31/2008, -1/+6Hey David, my vote cancels yours out. Whoever you're voting for, it doesn't matter, cause I just canceled yours out. Ouch, huh?
          • scotticus, on 03/31/2008, -1/+4hittnrun: I think the purpose is that the party could avoid a brokered convention in the event of a tie or close race. The superdelegates could get behind a candidate, easing the selection process. I think most super smart liberals oppose the concept of the superdelegate as well as the caucus because of their potential to disenfranchise voters. That said, as a super smart liberal, I'm happy to see that the caucus system allowed a well-organized and effective leader get the nomination (well, soon anyway). I think there's something to be said for someone who has inspired a set of highly motivated campaign volunteers.

            Personally, considering their track record, I don't think idiotic, mouth-breathing, war-mongering republicans should be allowed to comment on this election cycle without being ridiculed. They handed the keys over to a drunk with no international experience (much less geography knowledge) who bankrupted several companies (twice)... and we know how that turned out.
    • nigh7dagger, on 03/30/2008, -4/+23Yeah, now I'm not ashamed to be from Texas. I died a little inside when I thought Clinton won Texas.
      • vortex22222, on 03/30/2008, -0/+14At least you aren't from Ohio.....We've screwed up twice...
        • netant, on 03/30/2008, -2/+16As a NYer, I have to say this. I am starting to hate Ohio even more than Texas.

          Texas gave us LBJ, GWB, 2000 & 2004, and Tom DeLay. But its just expected to attach "asshole" to the end of that state's name (and the same for my home state).

          But what's your excuse Ohio??? You're supposed to be the sensible Midwest. What happened to integrity and bedrock values? Chicago is in Illinois, can't use them as an excuse. You get ripped off by your Secretary of State, and you let him stonewall the investigations you have a right to demand as a voter. And your state did not screwed up twice, it screwed up three times. You voted for Shrub the first time in 2000, center staged yourself in 2004, and you went 20% in favor of the Democratic anti-Christ in the primary. What kind of crapola state thinks its okay to put in 4 working polling booths in a CITY district with thousands of voters? You really think you can run a democracy when you blatantly deny citizens their right to vote? What kind of chump thinks Obama favors NAFTA over the woman who helped campaign for it in 1993? Don't you people even watch 60 Minutes? You don't realize there's a problem when the white guy stands up and says "I hear Obama's a Muslim an' doesn't know the National Anthem, 'n' problems like that..". Do you people have libraries? Is there a problem getting the Internet out there? Can you people even read? AAAAAaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggggghghgh!!!!
          • scotticus, on 03/31/2008, -4/+2Your now former governor ***** whores and your state voted for Hilary. She's your Senator.

            Ohio sucks, but you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.
          • mrASSMAN, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Yeah I was screaming at my TV when I saw those random Ohioans interviewed on 60 minutes. What a bunch of morons.
          • netant, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2@scotticus

            Governor whore *****: So what? Its his money. I'm now supposed to hate/fire anyone who's paid to use a whore? Mind you, I can throw that stone, I don't do one night stands, let alone ever pay for a whore. But I'm also a Christian. And you should know what Jesus thought of throwing stones at whores, hypocrite.

            The only blessing I can see to Spitzer resigning is if he could run again for NY AG. Oh Lord, how I would love him going after the Wall Street thieves.

            Hillary didn't get elected Senator because we love her. She got elected because the Republican (Lazio) was an even bigger tool. Her Republican opponent's credentials in the last election was that she sold sofas. And even then, I voted for the Green party candidate (Tasino?).

            Am I happy that NY went Hillary in the primaries? Hell no. But NY is a party machine state, and all the connected electeds supported Hillary. Voters here see one hypocritical liar, and they say, "Hello Senator Schumer. Hello, Congressman Rangel. Hello, Majority Leader Bruno. We're gonna miss you when the Feds indict you...(not)" Obama probably didn't get any traction here because this state is not used to seeing a politician with character. We're not used to voting for politicians based on "faith". But the voters here aren't going "duh, Obama's a Muslim terrorist lover".

            And hey, I believe in saying nice things when a state I hate actually does the right thing. (How often do I get to to that? Ann Richards, that was it.) But Ohio? You elected & re-elected GWB, the American Anti-Christ. The reincarnation of Warren G. Harding. (I love ***** on Republicans like Hoover, but even *I* can't bring myself to compare him to Bush. He was an engineer.) The guy who brought in the new American values, like pre-emptive foreign invasions based on lies, that its okay to violate the Constitution when the President does it, and American torture. No, screw Ohio. You get behind Texas and Florida.
        • Spottswood, on 03/30/2008, -1/+12Least uve got Kucinich. Hold onto him while you still can.
        • JergoR, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1O-AITCH-EYE-O
          I DONT WANNA GO
    • mal1964, on 03/30/2008, -3/+4I cant seem to find another source to confirm this story, anyone know one?
      • ShemDaimwood, on 03/30/2008, -2/+12You're looking for a more authoritative source for Texas politics than the Austin American-Statesman? There isn't one.
    • AgentMull, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Same thing with my County in Kansas a few weeks ago. I think Hillary only got like 2 from Douglas County in Kansas.
  • motafett, on 03/30/2008, -3/+101Me and my brother were there, our first convention. Senate district 9 came out to 66% Obama, 33% Clinton.
    • zappa717, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2IBEW?
      • shizamonkey, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1What does that stand for?
        • merripen, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
    • ensert13, on 03/30/2008, -6/+26My brother and I**
      • kipmartin, on 03/30/2008, -5/+11Good to have some ass hat here correcting English. You must be a big hit at parties.
    • donaho, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6My first convention, too! Senate District 13 went 80% Obama, 20% Clinton. All the challenges to Obama delegates were stamped out.
  • DiggLive, on 03/30/2008, -5/+89I'd love to see Hillary drop out, but I love seeing her get pwned. Just wait until her tax releases a week before Pennsylvania. Something BIG is going to go down!
    • jamesbrownlord, on 03/30/2008, -21/+2she says that Obama is the big thing going down,
      • hittnrun, on 03/30/2008, -32/+1yeah, I saw the surliness and arrogance of the Osama koolade drinkers on my local news this morning. Seems if you are for someone other than the David Koresch of the Dim party, you get bullied and ridiculed until you leave. Oh. I meant obama. lol. sorry. God damn America, god damn yourselves.
        • cathpah, on 03/30/2008, -1/+16uhh.......what????
          • chicofaraby, on 03/30/2008, -1/+15Another hard right wing fanatic bitter because his ideology is a failure. They get less cogent every day.
    • bobcoxocn, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4What if her tax releases show nothing bad? I mean, I am Obama all the way, but what if she is just getting people all riled up to show them "Hey, look, there's nothing bad on here."
      • starkruzr, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2This is the only potential scenario right now. She wouldn't be willing to release them before PA in the first place if there was anything incriminating on them.
    • jaihu, on 03/30/2008, -1/+7i also love seeing her get pwned... but the longer she stays in it, the more detriment to the democratic party, and the more detriment to women around the world. anyone with a sexist bone in their body's suspicions were confirmed when the first female candidate became CATTY
      • Jennadickes, on 03/30/2008, -1/+8I completely agree. Hillary has represented herself as exactly what sexist assholes claim a female president would be. It's pretty obvious that if she did become president she'd completely ruin the chances of another female getting elected for decades.
        • netant, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Decades? Try GENERATION. Try "In Living Memory". Be happy kids don't like reading "recorded history"...
    • 33PercentGod, on 03/30/2008, -0/+7I've lived up here in Pennsylvania my whole life. Clinton and Obama just came up here to Scranton (about 15 minutes from me,I go there regularly). I'm sorry to say this is a very pro Clinton state as far as I can remember. I've actually seen more Ron Paul signs up here than Obama. Sad,but true.

      That being said,Obama has my vote April 22nd.
      • westerner22, on 03/30/2008, -3/+0You are in a right place, do all you can do, please. Talk to people, do they want more war? Tell them Mike Huckabee and Clinton's former church in Washington DC defended Rev. Wright. Which means Clinton's former pastor does not approve of what she is doing. This is Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington. The Senior Pastor Dean Snyder has a great Easter sermon on the matter at their webside. You could pass it on some folks. Stay positive. Time is on our side.
        • MoofTheStoof, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4Religion has no place in politics (at least, according to the Constitution it doesn't). We need less talk of preachers, not more.
    • insomniac8400, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4Most of the corrupt money was paid in millions of dollars for Bill to give private speeches. Then the money Hillary gave to her own campaign was considered self financing, despite being paid for by the private sector. It's basically like embezzlement. The problem releasing this stuff causes is that people will know who paid Bill and be checking what he did for the money and when. I wouldn't doubt if he was paid millions for a speech on a certain date he wasn't even in the same state that speech was given in. Corruption all around.
  • mooseontheloose, on 03/30/2008, -57/+9What a coincidence - Obama is certifiable
    • jamesbrownlord, on 03/30/2008, -2/+7as what?
      • Chalax, on 03/31/2008, -0/+7Certifiable as awesome. He needs some kind of certificate so he can put it up on his wall next to his law degree and his coolness trophies.
    • nblsavage, on 03/30/2008, -4/+13which would still put him miles above the truthers poster boy Paul.
    • buhbyebot, on 03/30/2008, -0/+12He is certifiable. A certifiable leader... you are a certifiable mooseonthelooser... heh
  • ForTh3W1n, on 03/30/2008, -9/+15Hillary's not gonna drop out any time soon. She said it herself: " Why should I drop out, when its going so well".

    • jamesbrownlord, on 03/30/2008, -6/+3she does not want to spend time with willy.
    • ishotthedoor, on 03/30/2008, -4/+14I bet that's her same reasoning for staying in her marriage
    • jhuebel, on 03/30/2008, -1/+12"So?" -- Vice President Dick Cheney, in response to a poll showing that the majority of Americans don't believe the war in Iraq is worth it.

      See the similarity there?
      • motivatedmama, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Exactly. She doesn't give a rip what the majority want. We'll just have to show her.
        I wish to God I didn't live in KY. How shameful it will be when she wins this state. Rednecks. Gah!
  • macjaeh, on 03/30/2008, -8/+35Get elected or die trying. This won't be over soon.

    G08ama
  • mehan, on 03/30/2008, -71/+10too bad that he doesn't stand a chance against McCain
    • etgryphon, on 03/30/2008, -41/+6This is actually a true statement...Obama is going to get pwned in the general election. Not because McCain is so great, i can't stand the guy, but because people are going to start wising up to the whole 'Messianic Obama' message and realize that he is way too liberal and can't back up his statements with action.
      • zephyear, on 03/30/2008, -3/+23you know they said kennedy was too liberal too
      • mehan, on 03/30/2008, -24/+1it's not even that, it's just that he is ...of dark complexion.
        • buhbyebot, on 03/30/2008, -3/+17Racist much?
          • LordVance, on 03/30/2008, -1/+6There is a difference between choosing not to vote for someone based on the color of their skin, and acknowledging that there exists a sect to our society which would do that.

            Bringing up the fact that there are racists in this country does not make you a racist. That said, I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday - and if he gets the nomination - I'll gladly vote for him again when the general election rolls around.

            McCain and the Hilldabest are both just Bush Lite (TM).
        • hinchb, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6This would only be a racist comment if he's going to be the only one voting, because I got the feeling he was talking about the American voters. Some people see keywords and jump to conclusions without using their head, as shown here.
    • chicofaraby, on 03/30/2008, -1/+16Yeah, everyone is so happy with the last decade of right wing rule, McCain is a shoe in. You can relax. No one in America wants anything to change. Just look how great the economy is. Those tax cuts for Paris Hilton worked great!
      • etgryphon, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1As a matter of fact they did...It's the crappy war and overburden of social programs that is the problem.
    • rosullivan, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Fail.
  • NATED066, on 03/30/2008, -5/+45I can't wait for the headline:
    Hillary Clinton goes (Certifiably) Insane
    • parisian327, on 03/30/2008, -1/+13With that crazed look on her face I've seen lately, I think she's already lost it.
  • BabushkaBlue, on 03/30/2008, -10/+63"Too bad he doesn't stand a chance against McCain" says the noter. You mean "Bomb Bomb McCain"? You mean the McCain who says we could stay in Iraq for 100 years? Yeah. Sure. Riiiiiiiiiiiight. I'm guessing the American people will choose to NOT live through another 4 or 8 years of the same set of lies, incompetence and war crimes.
    • citizen782, on 03/30/2008, -8/+15I hope you're right BUT.... I've recently met many, many, old guard Republicans who are in fact voting for McCain. Bush won his second election because theirs is an enormous base in this country that did not vote for him but against Kerry. There's no way the mentality of this type of person will allow them to vote for a black Democrat. Do not ever underestimate the power of the old, white, gun toting, red neck, NASCAR vote. They do not vote using logic to define their position or through careful analysis of economic and social issues. Their position is established and their vote is cast against what they see as "unsavory" for this country and the culture they hold dear. It's a culture based on the establishment of more prisons, no (zero) oversight of corporation and financial markets and the bible. These are the people that believe there is a darn good reason 1 in 9 black males between 18-24 are in prison. As a white male I am privy to their conversations all the time. Don't ask them for an explanation for even in inner circles one is never provided for they know their positions are often hypocritical and they do not care but prefer it be unspoken. This base is large and unlike many, many Democrats such as myself they will go vote.
      • netant, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3I don't see why people are digging you down for speaking the truth. Would I be dugg down for saying "the sky is blue", "The Confederacy upheld the practice of slavery"? I just hope you're wrong about the magnitude of your generalization.
        • MoofTheStoof, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3He's being dugg down because the asshats he's referring to are thankfully not going to be in the majority, this November. Looking at the Democratic turnout compared to Republican turnout in the primaries, as well as the financial numbers, it's almost certain that we're going to have a Democratic President and a heavily Democratic House and Senate. Which is what's going to save this country. Again.
          • masterofshadows, on 03/31/2008, -2/+2the primary numbers mean nothing. Republicans have known for quite a while that their candidate would be McCain, they saw no real motivation to get out the vote yet. Wait until the primaries are done and watch them scale up the "get out and vote" stuff.
      • motivatedmama, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4Example: I my daughter just had a friend over who's entire knowledge of Obama is: He's from New Orleans and that we are at war with New Orleans. How bizarre is that? This is what this poor child is getting from the adults in her life here in KY. I'm gonna get an Obama bumper sticker, pray my car doesn't get keyed and soldier on. *sigh*
        • netant, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2If you put on an Obama sticker, your car is getting keyed.

          Not that I think its acceptable activity, I just accept the fact that assholes exist in the world.
      • Phylodome, on 03/31/2008, -2/+1I resent your assertion that free-market policies are inextricably linked with a culture of ignorant beliefs and impotent logical ability. You said it yourself, they do not think. Therefore, they do not think enough to have a worthy opinion on matters of economic import, and your associations fall flat on their face. Look into some history; every time markets are constrained people starve, economies implode, and our ability to further understand our world is hindered. Please don't point to the EU either, as they have worse problems with wealth concentration than we do, and are now trying to undo a large degree of their socialization programs.
    • citizen782, on 03/30/2008, -1/+9"This base is large and unlike many, many Democrats such as myself they will go vote."
      I mis-spoke. I will go vote. My point was that I'm a Democrat that will when so many won't. Damn edit time out got me....
    • cephelo, on 03/30/2008, -1/+5You forget that the Republican party is made of more elderly people than the Democratic party. They are dying year after year, while the Democrats & Independents are picking up the young voters.
      • countingthedays, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4And the young people are getting old, or being swayed by the other people.
        • netant, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1"You grow up and you calm down" (Working for the Clampdown)
          "You start wearing blue and brown" (Working for the Clampdown)...
      • motivatedmama, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6Dugg for mentioning the masses of dying Republicans.
    • jm4847, on 03/30/2008, -2/+6The American people was stupid enough to believe the Invasion of Iraq had a legitimate reason when everyone abroad knew better. And they reelected Bush. Don't underestimate their idiocy.
      • LordVance, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3The American People were*

        If you are going to throw out blanket generalizations...
      • laserblazer, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3War shrouded in lies, stolen elections - Americans have little to do with what their elected (and unelected) officials have been doing for a while now.
        • motivatedmama, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3In order to go to war the administration deceived, black balled, strong armed and back stabbed high ranking members and agencies. (Powell, Rice, Tennett etc.) Congress dropped the damn ball big time. Cheney manipulated the media. Tony Blair mistakenly trusted Bush. The "Coalition of the Willing" was actually the "Coalition of the Coerced" The apathetic masses didn't stand a chance.
    • roebeet, on 03/30/2008, -0/+8From what I've seen so far, Obama is no John Kerry. And the 2004 elections are not a good comparison - a lot has changed in 4 years, imo.
      • citizen782, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Your right. Obama is no Kerry. He's a black man. If you don't think certain Republican sects will mobilize specifically to vote against a black man you're desperately mistaken. It's a sad commentary for this country but true that they will mobilize in greater numbers against a black than a white woman. Deep racism exists in America (on all sides) even though it's comforting to think we've gotten past it. We haven't and therefore our only hope is that the numbers game works in favor of those with common sensibilities.
  • yourpalOZ, on 03/30/2008, -42/+5If Hillary Clinton was a young voter she would VOTE FOR OBAMA if you check her record. But I will vote for McCain as his history proves integrety
    • nblsavage, on 03/30/2008, -4/+26His history shows nothing of the sort. He'll say anything to get elected. "The Straight Talk Express" derailed a long time ago.
    • saxreturns, on 03/30/2008, -4/+29His history proves that he's undeniably a weak-minded flip-flopper who doesn't really have a clue about his own policies.
    • zephyear, on 03/30/2008, -1/+21mccain is no longer a maverick, he lost his integrety years ago
    • dannydyer1000, on 03/30/2008, -1/+7check your info again, there, pal.
    • buhbyebot, on 03/30/2008, -0/+12She used to be a Republican *****.
    • Kurando, on 03/30/2008, -0/+13Just because you're in the military doesn't mean you're qualified to be president, we really need to stop thinking this.
      • Chalax, on 03/31/2008, -1/+5No officer in the military is qualified to be the president. The only people in the military that are even close to being qualified are the senior enlisted troops because they're the ones that actually get things done.
      • ronaldinho, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1it's not the 1800s dude
    • jeremyosborne81, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5Integrity he gave up when he started campaigning for president.
  • Armor1901, on 03/30/2008, -24/+17Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Hil.

    God I hate that evil bitch.
  • mishaco, on 03/30/2008, -2/+21so , when's hillary's retraction ? i keep hearing how hillary wins all the 'big' states
    • parisian327, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5The Wicked Witch of the West comes to mind: " I'll get you, my pretty!!!! "
    • adrianmonk, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6Once it became clear Obama would walk away with more Texas delegates, Hillary's campaign started subtly phrasing it more like, "She has won the primaries in all the larger states." That's a true statement; it's just a little misleading because it makes it sound like she actually won the state as a whole.
    • defska42, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4Top four states (in terms of elected delegates) to vote so far are California (370), New York (232), Texas (193), and Illinois (153). They have split those. Another failed Clinton argument intended only to influence her uneducated voters.
  • srfrogger, on 03/30/2008, -3/+64 Which means that this is Obama's first big state win.

    I'm prouder to be a Texan today.
    • zephyear, on 03/30/2008, -1/+17he won illinois too
    • jon30041, on 03/30/2008, -0/+18He won Illinois... we not a big state? =(
      • fluxion, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6you guys might be big, but you'll never be 4 popped collars big like texas
    • ShemDaimwood, on 03/30/2008, -0/+12Virginia and Georgia are both "big states" population-wise, but the media doesn't seem to count them on account of their African-American populations.
      • adrianmonk, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2I love that kind of reasoning. It's so forward-thinking. Maybe we should only count 3/5 of the votes from states that are predominantly made up of "other Persons".
    • parisian327, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5You go Texas!! Yeeeaaaahhhhh !!!! Even though I don't live there anymore, I carry you in my heart!!!!
    • ramunenke, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2you and me both, even though i go to school out of state, i'm still so damn glad we gave him a big one
    • jwkpiano1, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Don't be dissing Illinois, dude.
    • westerner22, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1I am adding my big Yeeeeeeeeaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!, even though I lived there only for 3 months, 20 years ago. GO Texas! The feeling is back.
      BWY, CNN projected Obama as Texas winner already about 2 weeks ago, but this got burried somewhere on the way, and I have not seen it anywhere else.
  • zephyear, on 03/30/2008, -0/+16burnt orange report has obama with a 15% lead, with 81% of the delegates out.

    hopefully it stays that way
  • easy4lif, on 03/30/2008, -33/+2Keep smoking the black man's crack
    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems30m ...
  • Radigg, on 03/30/2008, -0/+13how come it took so long to count them all?
    • zephyear, on 03/30/2008, -6/+17it's texas
      • dannydyer1000, on 03/30/2008, -6/+4which is the ***** balls of the country ... hot and sweaty all the time, with plenty of scum to boot
        (i want to move so bad)
        • MooNinja, on 03/30/2008, -1/+9You're an idiot, and I do hope you leave. I love Texas, and there is a reason why it is the destination state for the last 10 years.
        • Dokkodo, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1You must not live in Austin, but if you do, you need to leave.
        • dannydyer1000, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Living in Texas after coming from Wisconsin and Montana is kinda harsh, and plus I live in a crappy part of Houston. Maybe I generalized too much, but thanks for being assholes about it anyways.
    • adrianmonk, on 03/30/2008, -0/+17Because it's not a process of counting. At the local caucus (at your regular polling place), which is also called the "precinct convention", you elect some representatives. That happens on the day you vote in the primary. Those representatives then go to a convention at the county convention, which is called the "county convention". Then delegates from there go to the state convention.

      So it's kind of a bubble-up, hierarchical thing. It's weird, I know, but that's how it works. The system was set up as someone's artificial attempt to get people involved in the party. That was an understandable goal here in Texas, here Democrats usually lose to Republicans, but it does take forever to get the results. I think one of the major problems is that, while the precinct conventions normally would informally report the results to the party right away so they can get a preliminary count, they're not actually obligated to this. So some of them passed on the info earlier and some of them waited until yesterday when they were actually required to do it.
    • jaznova, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4
      Maybe someone can help clarify, but basicly Texas, along with Iowa, Nevada and others have multistep caucuses where delegates are apportioned. Precinct level conventions happened back on March 4, and county level conventions happened Saturday, March 29th. Texas opted to wait to release counts untill now partially because turnout was so high in the first local round, complicating the count
      edit: what adrianmonk said ^^
    • nurall, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1some friends of mine who were delegates blame Hilliary shenanigans. luckily they are both lawyers and obama won our caucus even tho Hilliary overwhelmingly won the primary here.
  • gibbwake, on 03/30/2008, -37/+2Dont support the establishment war hawk Obama. He is more pro war than Bush - he said he would bomb and invade Pakistan, he wants to leave the nuclear bomb option on the table with Iran, hes spoke in favor of the SPP to merge the USA, Mexico And Canada into a regional government, making ours obsolete. So much for that constitution and bill of rights.

    He is pure establishment - his wife is a director of the chicago CFR, hes adopted the foreign policy of the anti russian, anti american Zbigniew Brzezinski, whos said that Americans have had it good for too long. Via operation cyclone, Zbig is also the creator of Al Qaeda - the enemy Obama will chase and invade whatever country they go in, Bush style, just like the plan was all along. Read more about the Anglo American Establishment that Obama is a part of here: http://www.bravenewbookstore.com/product_info.php? ...

    Hillary, Obama, Huckabee, McCain are ALL connected to this group. Dont vote for the establishment demagogue.

    Listen to this for a true analysis of Obamas objectives. http://nw0.info/files/Radio/World%20Crisis%20Radio ...
    • ShemDaimwood, on 03/30/2008, -1/+16How's that Ron Paul RE[LOVE]UTION going?
    • zephyear, on 03/30/2008, -7/+2gb2ronpaulforums.com
    • JointVenture, on 03/30/2008, -19/+1Look, you cant point out ANYTHING bad about Obama to the Obamabots.

      Someone should really go digg up his mothers grave and see if it contains a Jackal. doh
      • chicofaraby, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4Stay classy, sweetheart.
        • JointVenture, on 03/30/2008, -3/+1I thought it was kind of funny if you're a fan of the movies.
    • amadeusdemarzi, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2I hope to god that was sarcasm.

      Otherwise may I recommend you invest in a new tinfoil hat, this one seems a bit weak in its composition.
    • imgstacke, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Stop Listening to Alex Jones...
  • JointVenture, on 03/30/2008, -16/+1Obama wins caucuses, and hill wins primaries.

    What I really want to know is why cant DIGG fix its spell check so that it doesnt flag Obama every single time.
  • iHatemacintosh, on 03/30/2008, -2/+15I thought barack won a month ago ?
    • ShemDaimwood, on 03/30/2008, -1/+14The projections had him ahead, but that could've changed at the county conventions. The results weren't certified until today.
  • JointVenture, on 03/30/2008, -17/+2Obama supports reparations.

    "This book is about the great still-unfolding massive crime of official and unofficial America against Africa, African slaves, and their descents in America." p. 8

    "Whether the monetary obligation is legally enforceable or not, a large debt is owed by America to the decedents of America's slaves." p. 231 (notice he says LEGALLY, hes really good at Jumping around this issue when confronted)

    Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 Obama opposed reparations for slavery. After his election, Obama subtly changed his view, stating he was against "just signing over checks to African-Americans," leaving open the possibility of other forms of reparations would be acceptable to him (Chicago Tribune 11/14/2004).

    nuff said
    • Gerz1219, on 03/30/2008, -1/+7Wow, you sure proved your point, and you did it with solid, clear quotes that were in context. Congratulations on intelligently arguing for your wildly controversial thesis, and doing so in a way which was not at all vague and unfounded. Lesser people would have simply settled for leading innuendo.
      • JointVenture, on 03/30/2008, -5/+2Its not me who avoids the subject but obama, just go look at his convoluted 250 word answer he gave Anderson Cooper during the debate.

        NOTICE that not one of you bots could disprove the assertion.
        • Gerz1219, on 03/30/2008, -0/+7I can't disprove God either. You can't provide a single quote that actually has Obama saying "I support reparations," so you comb through his comments out of context and look for code words. To disprove your assertion that Obama secretly believes in reparations, I would have to enter his head and read his thoughts. This is an unreasonable (and impractical) standard of evidence.
          • JointVenture, on 03/30/2008, -4/+1Yes I can, he was asked and he didnt say NO.

            Its a yes or no answer, he dances around it and supports pro reparations folks in Chicago.

            Till he says no when asked a question the answer is yes/maybe...which is yes.
    • shortysmyname, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2He does not support reparations for slavery, and has said so.
      Sen. Barack Obama said "fixing public schools would be reparations to African-Americans for generations of slavery", a position that won wide applause in the CNN/YouTube debate in South Carolina.

      http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/23/ob ...
  • hittnrun, on 03/30/2008, -20/+5This obama lovefest is more sickeing than the Ru Paul lovefest WAS.
    • Shadowtheweak, on 03/30/2008, -4/+3true dat
    • chicofaraby, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4You are really going to be sick by 2016 when President Obama leaves office.
      • hittnrun, on 03/30/2008, -3/+2a democrats lov never lats thaat long. The next new, cool, hip, thing will show up and distract you. Don't believe it? The Clintons were once where osama is now.
        • chicofaraby, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4Sober up before posting. That last one is completely incoherent.
  • mal1964, on 03/30/2008, -17/+3The Obamas Donated Less Than 1% of Their 2000-2004 Income
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/25/ ...
    • bsmang, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5Yeah? Good for them! I don't tend to trust charities too much either. It's hard to find one that you can trust AND that does something that you actually support.
      • mal1964, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2You don't have any money!
      • Ender008, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I donate to Doctors Without Borders, check 'em out. It's a good cause.
    • thefirstenemy, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2And after the release of his book, when he had more disposable income, his donation amounts increased by a lot.
  • jmcsk8, on 03/30/2008, -3/+5then why do other websites like NPR say clinton won with 51%?
    • stalefries, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6I imagine they're talking about the primary and not the caucuses as well.
    • ShemDaimwood, on 03/30/2008, -2/+9Because the Clinton-friendly media only wanted to report half of Texas' delegate selection process.
    • stubadub, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Within a week of the Texas primary and caucas NPR reported that Obama would win the overall delegate advantage
    • westerner22, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1You can google Secretary of State, Texas. Better than many other SOS sites. On the election night this sos was showing the LIVE results! every 3 minutes updates. You will find therenow the original source of information. It was so good not to depend on cnn or fox that night.
    • breached, on 03/30/2008, -2/+3NPR and NYT are both establishment liberal media organizations that continually demonstrate their bias against Obama. This will only strengthen the need for truly independent media sources.
      • chicofaraby, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3I haven't seen anything to indicate NPR or NYT are in any way liberal. We may have different ideas of what constitutes "liberal." A media source that criticizes the effectiveness of George Bush's illegal murder of Iraqis without pointing out the fact that it is illegal for the US to be committing murder in Iraq to begin with doesn't seem "liberal" to me. NPR, NYT, PBS, ABCNNBCBS and the WaPo are all great examples of what I'm talking about. They carp about the strategy failure in Iraq, but never speak of the fact that it's a crime against humanity in the first place.
    • Seldon2639, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Because she did. If you count the total votes cast, she got more by tens of thousands. The issue with Texas was the dual primary/caucus system they implemented. Obama won fewer votes, but more delegates, because a lot of his victory was in the caucus. Even with the caucus deciding fewer delegates (1/3rd), fewer votes still influences more of the election. Digg me down if you want, and I imagine you will, because I'm not deriding the results as indicative of bias, but the real result was: Hillary wins the popular vote, Obama wins the delegates.
      • illegalcortex, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2Secondary reason: because Republicans who followed Rush's advice to vote for Hillary in order to hamstring the Democrats didn't go to the trouble of voting in the caucuses.
      • nurall, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1guess the Hillary supporters don't like her as much as obama supporters like him.
  • jm4847, on 03/30/2008, -32/+5He won't beat McCain, they don't call it the White House just because of the painting you know...
  • RRJackson, on 03/30/2008, -23/+3And yet Senator Clinton will win the nomination in Denver. I love checks and balances.
    • darkfus, on 03/30/2008, -3/+11And yet on November 4th, Obama will be elected as the 44th president and you'll still be wrong. Funny how reality works.
      • RRJackson, on 03/30/2008, -5/+2The DNC can't win this election. The fun part will be over after Denver. The party is split. Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton if she's the nominee and Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama. I know I'll vote for McCain if he should happen to get the nomination. Nader will bleed off votes, too. McCain wins no matter who we nominate.
        • motivatedmama, on 03/30/2008, -1/+6Piffle. The party will rally. If Hillary looks this bad next to Obama, McCain't will look infinitely worse.
          Keep dreamin' tho.
        • starkruzr, on 03/31/2008, -1/+3"Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama."

          The polls say you're wrong.
        • netant, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Nader doesn't hurt Obama. Nader voters generally are people who protest "establishment" candidates. Only uberlefties associate Obama as the step-n-fetch of corporatocracy. If Hillary supporters decide to black ball Obama, they would vote for McCain if Nader wasn't running. If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, Independents will see Nader as an acceptable alternative. Independents look at Obama as an outsider, thus no Nader attraction.
    • WasabiBomb, on 03/30/2008, -2/+8You're obviously a little unclear as to what "checks and balances" means.
      • RRJackson, on 03/30/2008, -7/+2The supers exist to prevent the will of the people from being the single deciding factor in the nomination process and allow the party to retain some control. That's very similar to Montesquieu's concept of separation of powers. The party can't just choose a nominee outright, but they have the power to tip the scales one way or the other in a close race. Well, this race is close to about 1% and the system will undoubtedly do its work in Denver.
    • netant, on 03/30/2008, -6/+1"Bitch may be the new black, but the next president will be black... bitch".
  • gofalcons, on 03/30/2008, -15/+3OBAMA = GOD!!!!!
  • Hetman, on 03/30/2008, -11/+3I still do not know about Obama. His Economic policies of creating a bigger central government seems absurd to me. Their is no way you can create more social programs and still promise to lower taxes. His plans of withdrawing troops is also slower than Hillary's. "That is if you can trust Hillary to do what she says she is going to do."
    • ElSnuggles, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4how will anyone create a good balanced policy after the last 8 years? There is a ton of work to do. I'll take him over Clinton any day...at least he talks to us like adults. I'm sick to death of the slash and burn tactics of Clinton, at this point if vote for mccain over her.

      I'm so glad to hear that my home state voted for the right person. God bless Texas.
    • Hetman, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2I'm for Illinois so it was basically a given that Obama was going to win here. Anyways we will see. I guess my main thing against Obama is that I do not know if he can win an election against McCain. But we will see.
  • Theotherpachman, on 03/30/2008, -20/+12Wow this is mature. I look at the "below viewing threshold" comments, and many of them are people legitimately expressing their views for McCain or against Obama. That's mature, fellow Diggers. "They disagree with me, so I'm gonna make sure no one listens to them." I offer my congratulations to Obama for how well he's been doing, but I'm sorry sir, many of your followers have a lot to learn.

    My guess is within 30 minutes I'll be joining the group of "below viewing threshold" comments.
    • Hetman, on 03/30/2008, -2/+9That is the point of digg though. You digg down comments like you dislike and digg up comments you like.
    • mustache, on 03/30/2008, -2/+13You mean like these fine comments legitimately expressing their views:

      "the ron paul losers have moved to the communist muslim black" - nowwithdexter
      "He won't beat McCain, they don't call it the White House just because of the painting you know..." - jm4847
      "Keep smoking the black man's crack" - easy4lif

      This is Digg, that's how it works. Majority rules.
    • WasabiBomb, on 03/30/2008, -3/+8@Theotherpachman: "My guess is within 30 minutes I'll be joining the group of "below viewing threshold" comments."
      Only because you're wrong, not because you're being persecuted.

      We've seen this a lot on Digg: "If you digg me down, it's because I'm right!" No, it's usually because you're wrong. Predicting that you're going to be dugg down as the result of some conspiracy doesn't make you right, it just makes you look like an asshole.
      • Theotherpachman, on 03/30/2008, -5/+1Digging down comments should be reserved for things that are uncalled for, not as an oppression of someone's opinions.
        • imgstacke, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3What you think digg should be does not match what digg actually is.
  • sc4s2cg, on 03/30/2008, -0/+19So...why aren't the major news networks picking up on this?
    • junkwheel, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6Because they suck.
    • exomni, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Why do you give a ***** what the major news networks do?

      You'd think with the advent of the internet people would start ignoring the ***** press...
      • sc4s2cg, on 03/31/2008, -0/+0Well, that's where most people get their news from. From networks like BBC, CNN, Fox, etc. If most people don't know about this, what kind of a country are we?
  • YodaJones, on 03/30/2008, -2/+4And I thought that Hillary was the only one certifiable in this election...
  • papipablo, on 03/30/2008, -17/+9Texas is racist with ties to radical Islam.
  • chrissku, on 03/30/2008, -2/+21Hillary Clinton is (certifiably) annoying.
    • shizamonkey, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Amen. But don't say that, remember she had a tough time when she visited Bosnia...ugh lol
  • chlsmith, on 03/30/2008, -3/+2When is this so called "certifiable" result going to be put up on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News? I saw it on Obama's website, but that's not the most credible when it comes to things like this.
    • ShemDaimwood, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2When will the big national media outlets *decide* to start covering it, you mean? That's an excellent question.
  • V0lk, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2yeah, but will this get any attention by the pundits on the news channels? There will still be dim-witted Hillary supporters on cable news talking about "well, Hillary has won all the big states",etc
  • TheInformer, on 03/30/2008, -15/+0I wonder why "Election 2008" on Digg isn't renamed to

    "Erection 2008 - We Digg lemmings are on Obama's pole"
    • Pillage, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3Why, there are plenty of articles on McCain and Hillary that make the front page: McCain's Pastor Problem,Hillary should drop out, Hillary lies, Bill Maher's Hillary Clinton Monologue. see....
  • LewP, on 03/30/2008, -1/+6I am Digging this story, but in no way does it mean I endorse Obama.
    • tim710, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2Then What does it mean?
      • exomni, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4That he likes to see truth prevail over misleading Clinton campaign lines.
      • imgstacke, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Means he loathes Clinton and is a McCain supporter.
  • turtlefuzz, on 03/30/2008, -7/+1I think I would rather have Obama rather than Clinton, but I also really wouldn't mind having McCain as President either. Either way Obama or McCain I would be quite content, I mean it really can't get any worse than the way it is now.
    • laserblazer, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2A McCain Administration could convince you otherwise, I fear.
    • zephyear, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5"I mean it really can't get any worse than the way it is now."

      well it could, if bush had a 3rd term. or you know, there was a nominee a lot like him who would essentialy be his 3rd term.

      gee i wonder who is
    • westerner22, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1OK, in case you still in doubt in Novemeber, VOTE OBAMA! you'll see the difference. It really is the question: do you really want more war?
      1. yes war- MCCAIN
      2. no war- OBAMA
  • laserblazer, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3Turn friendly fire off! Hillary is tk'ing so McCain wins!
  • chesbo, on 03/30/2008, -17/+1THATS RIGHT! OBAMA SHOULD BE LOOKED UPON BY GOD AS A MAN THAT BRINGS HOPE AND CHANGE. NO MATTER WHAT POLICIES OBAMA BRINGS FORWARD WE WILL GIVE HIM OUR PRAISE AND SUPPORT.
    OBAMA WILL FINALLY STEAR AMERICA AWAY FROM WHAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS INTENTED THIS COUNTRY TO BE. IT WILL NO LONGER BE THE LAND OF THE FREE, BUT RATHER THE LAND OF HOPE AND CHANGE.
    • naganooch, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2huh?
    • chesbo, on 03/30/2008, -2/+1HOPE...CHANGE...HOPE....CHANGE
    • botsmoke, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3Wow! You're rambling hate-speech has finally convinced me to alter my position about Senator Obama in a way that rational discourse never could! And the all-caps writing just helped seal the deal. After all, the Founding Fathers you reference WROTE THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WOULD HELP THEM TO MAKE A POINT right? You're a genius on par with Jefferson I would say! /SARC
  • DubYaSee, on 03/30/2008, -0/+7I keep waiting for someone to throw a bucket of water on Hillary and watch her melt and smoke.
  • TheInformer, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2OK Hillary haters. Here's an animated GIF for your viewing pleasure:

    http://nesworld.emuchrist.org/pics/hilltheevilempe ...
  • botsmoke, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6So you mean that Clinton isn't winning all the big states? Let me guess, now Texas shouldn't be considered a "Big, Must-Win" state, but rather an "Unimportant Contest" right? I think that Hillary should cameo in the next Transformers movie, she is good at changing her entire platform / position right before your eyes! /cue Transformer sound effect!
    • Seldon2639, on 03/30/2008, -0/+0It is interesting, though, when the general election rolls around, that all of the grassroots Obama Devotees only get the same one vote as everyone else. The primaries are a better measure of who has more support, and she won that part
  • digginDigs, on 03/30/2008, -0/+0she's going to run this into the ground.pcg3m
  • randy1711, on 03/30/2008, -11/+1I see DIGGFOX is still bashing Hillary. Pitiful
  • hugeposuer, on 03/30/2008, -2/+10I was a delegate for Obama yesterday. :D
    • nurall, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3so were a couple of my friends, then after wards we attended a party with heavy Hilliary support. it was buckets of fun.
  • junkwheel, on 03/30/2008, -0/+4Fukken strike!

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2395/2372246325_31d ...
  • whodat51773, on 03/30/2008, -5/+1His nomination is an obamanation!
    • Bologner, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Obama Nation. You are correct, sir!
  • exomni, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5People were saying before Texas that she had to win Texas by a fair margin to even stay in the game.

    Instead she lost Texas by a large margin.

    So why hasn't she dropped out yet?
    • Seldon2639, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2It depends on how you measures wins and losses. She won the popular vote (seriously, she did). She lost the delegate count. I hate to draw a comparison to Bush, but when Bush won the electoral college after winning the popular vote, we were up in arms. If the popular vote only meaningful for us when the person who wins it is the person we like? Weren't we the ones saying "the popular vote should decide everything"?
    • mightycbu, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2newsweek still says she won
      http://www.newsweek.com/id/68123
      • exomni, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Newsweek is run by a bitchy, liberal, HRC-loving woman.
    • imgstacke, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1The Tanya Harding Strategy
  • Seldon2639, on 03/30/2008, -2/+2Guys, I know we like to rag on Hillary, but this isn't as simple as we're making it out to be. Hillary won by a pretty good margin in the primary (which determined 2/3rds of the delegates). Primaries are indicative of broad-based support. Obama kicked her ass in the caucuses (which determined 1/3rd of the delegates). Caucuses are indicative of strong, devoted, supporters. Hillary picked up more votes, Obama picked up more delegates. Hillary won in the primary, but Obama won enough in the caucus to close the gap. The issue is the proportional representation in the primaries. If Hillary won all of the delegates from the states she won, and Obama won all of the delegates from the states he won (in terms of the popular vote) exactly how it's set up with the electoral college, she'd be winning by quite a bit.
    • jbetancourt, on 03/30/2008, -0/+0So, bottom line, there still is plenty of time for Obama to stumble. Like HRC or henchmen may find he may have once jaywalked, spit in public, said a few dirty jokes, once went to a 'radical' group meeting, has a kid on the side, or something? And, then, HRC could really win the remaining contests? Its possible, after all, even HRC is not sure if he is really not a Muslim. And if someone as smart as her is not sure, imagine what us average people are tricked into thinking.
    • ShemDaimwood, on 03/31/2008, -0/+351-48 isn't "a pretty good margin." "Pretty good margins" are Obama's 20-point victories in other states, not Hillary's squeaker in the Texas primary (where she received significant help from Rush Limbaugh Republicans).
    • imgstacke, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1The democratic primaries are not "Winner-Take-All"... I understand the need to see things in different ways inorder to remain open minded, but apples are not oranges. If you count states with "R" in them Hillary would be ahead too...
  • whodat51773, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala., a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his “very existence” to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

    The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which “history replays itself” and by how “two generations of two families — separated by distance, culture and wealth — can intersect in strange and wonderful ways.”

    It is a touching story — but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.

    Contrary to Obama’s claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama’s father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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