digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at cbsnews.com

Obama Takes Delegate Lead, Even Counting Uncommitted Supers.

cbsnews.com — In the delegate chase, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton, even when the support of uncommitted super delegates is figured in. According to CBS News estimates, Obama holds a razor-thin lead with 1,134 delegates overall to 1,131 for Clinton.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DaedalusvX, on 02/11/2008, -7/+239This is HUGE. The Clinton camp was not prepared to lose Maine, but to now lose the lead including the super delegates is a crushing blow. Obama's lead will only continue to increase with the upcoming primaries this month. This has been a very, very good weekend for Obama.
    • Gabberwok, on 02/11/2008, -3/+25They were prepared to lose Maine (they just didn't want to), but I'll digg you up anyway. :-)
      • cecinestpasvrai, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5Prepared to lose as of yesterday sure, but the last polling (I think was over over a month ago) had her up by over 30 points. It's relatively the same demographics as New Hampshire, suggesting he's picking up in populations that weren't quite behind him in January.
        • Gabberwok, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2Almost every poll in every state from over a month ago had Hillary up by 20-30 points. Obama has really only been seen as a serious contender since Iowa.
          • cecinestpasvrai, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Right. I know. New Hampshire was after Iowa, he still lost. Now, those very similar folks are voting for him in Maine. That is all.
    • CC440, on 02/11/2008, -0/+36This is Glorious news, but the question is can Hillary lose with grace? Many have speculated that she will burn the DNC to the ground for her nomination. I believe that we will see her slide into a defeat in the next month, and she will concede it on her own without destroying her credibility. If Edwards can give his delegates to Obama this will happen even sonner, and the sonner the better for everyone involved.
      • iofthestorm, on 02/11/2008, -0/+15Edwards has to release his delegates, and in any case I don't think 26 will make much difference one way or another.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/11/2008, -0/+25The gesture would compound the gain.
        • aywwts4, on 02/11/2008, -0/+22Ummm, all forecasting shows that this race probably will come down to an incredibly narrow margin, 26 could win this thing. We are talking about Maine right now, which gave Obama 15 delegates to Hillary's 11.
      • wild, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3Did anyone else think "You're my boy Blue!" when you read the capitalized "Glorious!"
      • wendelgee2, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3sonner??
      • kenedamick, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3Billary is a glorified neo con anyways. I'm sure she'll try and burn the whole thing down if she loses somehow.
        • streak, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1Clinton's universal healthcare is a conservative position? Obama's "sorta-kinda-healthcare" is neocon. That's all Obama is afraid he can achieve.
      • streak, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I believe the poster means "but only if you don't count the supers," which could go either way at the convention.
    • Ireland, on 02/11/2008, -2/+26Here's a Kleenex Hilary

      Ireland for Obama!!!
    • gute123, on 02/11/2008, -8/+12according to CNN, Clinton is still in the lead. see for yourself:

      http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/
      • Gemfinder, on 02/11/2008, -2/+18Yeah...according to CNN :/
      • elhaf, on 02/11/2008, -1/+11Clinton News Network
      • Eiknujrac, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Obama has more pledged delegates, period. That is an indisputable fact at this point. The counts that show Clinton in the lead are the ones that include the Superdelegates. These are loosely based estimates, and considering that Supers can change their mind all the way up until the convention, I think its stupid. It's like polling the electoral college members today and asking them who they're gonna vote for in November.
        • diggimator, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1If CNN is the one that's counting more than CBS (counting superdelegates), then how come CBS's obama count (1,139) is higher than CNN's (1,121)?
    • themanmachine, on 02/11/2008, -26/+2Great, now we just have to sit back and wait until Obama is assassinated.
      • Lazydriver, on 02/11/2008, -2/+3Ugh, you conspiracy theorists were wrong about everything except the NSA spying. Give it a rest.

        I know this cause my dad was one himself.
        • Marshalrusty, on 02/11/2008, -3/+3The official group calling themselves "conspiracy theorists" was wrong?

          Or was that, perhaps, just an extremely vague statement on your part?
        • andburn1, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2Oh yeah, you think your NSA dad knows every cover-up and assassination plot ever formulated by rich Americans? Please.
        • thefandango, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4andburn1, i think he was referring to the fact that his father was a conspiracy theorist, not an NSA spy.
      • rpgmaker, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4Time's changed but Obama reminds me of the inspirational Kennedy. He needs to watch his back if he gets becomes president...
      • JavanSClark, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2He's not a conspiracy nut, he's a wackjob.
    • PhilLesh69, on 02/11/2008, -2/+13Just wait for the Potomac primaries.

      Maryland is a very democratic state, especially in Montgomery County, and Bethesda in particular.

      I'm pretty sure that my former neighbors in Bethesda are very anti-Hillary, or even more anti-Clinton. Even though they are very liberal.

      That's the rub. They are liberals. They are very religiously liberal. They will never stand for Hillary's or even Bill's brand of triangulated liberalism.
    • ahvi, on 02/11/2008, -0/+12The associated press is the most accurate out of all the counts. They continue to call the superdelegates to monitor how they're going to vote.
      Clinton:1136
      Obama:1108
      http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MAINE_CAUCU ...
      • wild, on 02/11/2008, -0/+9So he is now within 30 with the supers? And he is expected to do well in the Potomac's? Future so bright, Obamas wearing shades...
    • asauterChicago, on 02/11/2008, -1/+21This is crazy, do you realize if Obama wins we will have witnessed one of the most spectacular victories of the past 30 years? He's an honest guy, young, not anywhere as well connected as any of the other candidates (not backed by any major corporation). He came from nowhere, some unknown guy that had a good speech at the Democratic convention in 2004. When he entered the race it was laughable, he was the bottom rung, he had like 7 people in front him for the nomination, people laughed and said he no chance of making it anywhere and how stupid it was for him to enter the race. However, we sit here today with him in the lead... (with the people at least), it's awesome :-).
      • LovelyNeko, on 02/11/2008, -3/+2Hellooo, I'm Pimpo from India. I got question for you. Will George Bush jr. Father George Bush will enter the race for presidents? Thank you sir good day.
      • dOOBiEx213, on 02/11/2008, -2/+1Honest guy? He's a politician ~_~, and unelectable by redneck...err middle America.
        • ahvi, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1He's proven to be quite electable by just about every sector of the US. Republicans for Obama is a great example. As is him winning Alabama.
    • maj0rm0j0, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3What Obama needs right now is a John Edwards endorsement!!
  • PhogHawk, on 02/11/2008, -18/+115Here's my recount of the caucus I attended in Kansas (an overwhelmingly red state). I'm 17 years old, but I'll be 18 by November. After the main part of the caucus, I volunteered to be a delegate to the congressional district Democratic Convention. I won. Obama has accelerated and encouraged my interest in fixing the country and pursuing politics in a legitimate fashion. Anyway- Here's what I wrote:

    A Recap
    Watch out Hillary. Watch your back John. You can't throw money at this problem, Mitt. And Mike.... we won't even go there.

    A real American is here now. You've got competition, and he's got support- from the bottom up. His supporters outnumbered those of the next most-represented candidate by 4-to-1 at the Topeka West Caucus last night. His supporters were the most diverse, both by gender and race, and it was evident that the young people of America felt motivated to show up and steer their country- their future- in the right direction.

    People baked cookies to show their backing.
    They brought water for their new-found companions.
    They made signs.
    They cheered- boy did they cheer.
    They laughed.
    They Smiled.

    For the first time in too long,
    The citizenry was hopeful for the future of America-
    of their friends,
    their family.

    One thousand Kansans braved the glistening white of a snow-filled night
    to show support for the America they believe in.
    One thousand Americans journeyed through the harsh cold
    and were warmed by the sounds of inspiration.
    One thousand visionaries cheered for hope
    as they themselves took part in the cultivation of change.

    One thousand people listened as a startling minority called back to them
    with all the fire of an aging whimper,
    with all the thought of a witless snap,
    with all the courage of a cornered giant:
    "No You Can't"
    "No
    You
    Can't"
    ...

    But all was well.
    Because the prophets knew the facts.
    They knew that their time had come.
    They know what can happen in November,
    and they are ready to be a part of it.
    They know what America needs,
    and are proud to stand up for their peers.
    They know a lot of things,
    and they knew that what they heard
    simply
    wasn't
    true.

    And they knew just how to respond.
    So they did.

    In a chord of new optimism,
    with a confidence that only comes with righteousness,
    They sang.

    In a gospel of great ideas,
    with a psalm of freedom and prosperity,
    They preached.

    In a fit of realization,
    with no semblance of uncertainty,
    They dictated:

    "Yes We Can"
    • Gabberwok, on 02/11/2008, -1/+13The chords are G, B7, Em, C. I've been mucking around with it all day. :-D
      • lazlonger, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2best comment evertodayrightnow. great chords, i'm using a D7 turn around of course.
    • haiduz, on 02/11/2008, -9/+2I'll give you a playstation 3 if you cast your vote for Stephen Colbert!

      (disclaimer: in case bribing delates is illegal, i k33d i k33d)
    • Chainheart, on 02/11/2008, -3/+21That may be the epitome of overwrought writing
    • GawtMilk, on 02/11/2008, -2/+15I envy you. I'm also 17 right now, I'll be 18 in November, but I miss the ability to vote by one day.

      I hope my birthday present when I wake up is hearing that Obama wins the presidency. Judging by the way things are heading right now, it's not that much of a stretch.
    • Gemfinder, on 02/11/2008, -3/+7[Standing up and applauding with great vigour]
      Congratulations to you! Keep writing like that, I'll be watching for your book next year.
    • Michael9636, on 08/04/2008, -1/+1That was amazing. You are amazing. Keep writing.
    • wild, on 02/11/2008, -0/+8I remember when I was 17. I didn't give a ***** about politics. Every time it came on TV I turned the channel. Nobody cared about conventions or primaries. We didn't have a chance to make a difference anyhow. Political discussions were for debate team nerds.

      I wish, oh how I wish, a candidate had come along back then to make me pay attention. I envy you. For the love of our country, don't lose hope if it doesn't work out like you planned. Just use that disappointment and anger to get involved and keep pushing for change.
    • kylejn, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Kansans?

      Good read, though.
    • realjames, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Hey, thanks for going out in Kansas. I'm away at college, but if I could have made it back to the caucuses, I would have. No wonder we were almost 3/4 Obama.
    • cjnkns, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Very nice writing!
  • life38, on 02/11/2008, -22/+2Generation O is waking op to voice their opinion. Tuesday needs to be a blow out for Obama to begin to lock up the normination. He can split Ohio and Texas base on the congressional allocation of delegates.
    Here is Generation O's cartoon depiction of the issues.
    http://mynonprofitwebsite.com/blog/category/emo-ca ...


  • Gabberwok, on 02/11/2008, -3/+57RealClearPolitics agrees with CBS's count pretty much (1137-1134). Intrade.com's prediction markets have Obama at ~70% to win. CNN and NYTimes are still holding back on their counts (NYTimes isn't counting any of the caucuses apparently since they don't officially assign their delegates until much later). MSNBC doesn't count superdelegates at all, so they've had Obama ahead for awhile now.
  • LemonDefragger, on 02/11/2008, -23/+2Um, hooray?
  • DeePsix501, on 02/11/2008, -4/+86Take the time to remember that the Clinton camps will try and do some dirty politics in the up coming weeks. If you hear some rumor about a candidate, make sure you research the facts first. Don't let hyped ideas that are false come out like ones that say Obama is a Muslim or a Pot head.
    • iofthestorm, on 02/11/2008, -0/+12Not that there's anything wrong with being a Muslim, or much wrong with having smoked pot in the past. It's not responsible behavior, sure, but it doesn't mean all that much, especially if you admit that it's not a healthy idea.
      • Elliuotatar, on 02/11/2008, -1/+5I saw some polls on the web which asked questions like "Would you ever vote for a muslim for president" and Muslim (55%) came in at the back of the pack for Catholic (95% - On par with Baptist), Jewish (90%), and Mormon (65%), which is not unexpected. But way behind those, with only 45% of the nation ever willing to vote the person in as president, was Athiest! And Homosexual, btw was at 55%.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/11/2008, -0/+17Yes Hillary will do everything in her power to win. I don't trust her.
    • barfooz, on 02/11/2008, -0/+9You don't have to worry about anyone reading this believing the Clinton's mudslinging, it's the no-high-school-diploma and senior citizen crowd I'm concerned about. I still hear people calling in to conservative talk radio expressing concern that Obama's middle name is Hussein. A lot of people are bigoted and not too clever.
      • Pinhedd, on 02/11/2008, -2/+5A high school diploma should be a requirement to vote
        • pcghost, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4I would agree with you, except our high schools are a colossal failure in the states. Your point is still valid in general. Many in this country are really just too uneducated to make a decent informed vote.
        • vectorprime, on 02/11/2008, -1/+6No. No no no. Requrements for voting are Bad. Even though I agree with the sentiment that we should demand our voters to be informed and thoughtful citizens, this is not the way to go about it. Any process used to qualify citizens for the franchise will be abused, especially if it is administered by those in power. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test
        • cptaintylor, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2There's a reason that our founders pushed education as a responsibility of the government. They realized the importance of an informed, educated electorate.

          This is why I'm glad we don't have compulsory voting.
    • gwhardyiv, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1It's going to get ugly. In case you aren't familiar with Hillary's new campaign manager, check it out:

      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/1 ...
    • smrekar, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1let us not forget "I did not inhale" "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
  • mooseontheloose, on 02/11/2008, -70/+8YES WE CAN (spam digg with a million of the same articles). YES WE CAN (bury anyone not kissing Obama's butt). YES WE CAN (be ignorant and vote based on rhetoric and race)
    • popltree2, on 02/11/2008, -7/+37YES WE CAN (bury people who make unfounded allegations).
      • AndrewDB, on 02/11/2008, -4/+3No, popltree, that one falls under "DAMN STRAIGHT WE CAN."
    • haiduz, on 02/11/2008, -4/+16i think youre the very ignorant one if you think the primary reason that people support obama is race.
    • CC440, on 02/11/2008, -8/+12This is not like PAULSPAM, this is a surge in news because most of Digg supports Obama. There is no loud minority of users here, only a vast majority of Digg. STFU, deal with it, and prepare for the Obama/McCain spam deluge that will be upon os until November.
    • JavanSClark, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1moose is an idiot. He trolls the Obama posts to attempt to paint Obama as a racist. (Didn't you know anyone who doesn't agree with him does it because they aren't white)
  • lazyfisherman, on 02/11/2008, -4/+17Hope he can hold this lead and keep the momentum going. Maybe people realize that they don't want another Clinton in the White House.
  • AdamaObama, on 02/11/2008, -5/+41This is a great step for the Obama campaign. I attended my first caucus (though I'm 28 and came from the Primary state of Missouri) and in my precinct, Obama had twice as many votes as Hillary. It was overwhelming to see how much support he got. I also got to see him speak at the University of Denver a week before the caucus, and I'll tell you this, I was about a 95% Obama supporter before that. After hearing him speak, I'm 110% behind him.
    • Exbzurg, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Clinton is a Cylon! (referencing your user name)
      • mahoneyxp, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1The Cylon women models are hot though...
  • 25mL, on 02/11/2008, -7/+5OUCH!
    • smrekar, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1you burn yourself with a cigar? you're not supposed to light it.
  • elkram, on 02/11/2008, -2/+17Yeah if he wins DC, Maryland & Virginia on Tuesday by large margins, there will be some Arkansas mud coming his way. Thr reality is even Clinton supporters admit how dirty they can be.
    • elhaf, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2I don't know. If he wins all those, and we come down to March 4th and he's still ahead, Clinton may actually concede. I think the Clintons think long-term about getting her in power (note the Senate run, and the not-running-against-Bush run). Maybe she'll settle for VP and try next time. Can't alienate the base and do that.
      • lhughey, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2I doubt he'd pick her for a VP. However, i could see her picking him.
        • elkram, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1No way he'd want Bill anywhere near the White House. He' probably take the VP spot though as he'd have good shot in 2012 or 2016.
    • JavanSClark, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3not only do the condone it.. they revel in it.
  • haski, on 02/11/2008, -7/+37Superdelegates are overrated. Their only purpose is to support candidate with more regular delegates, so the party can have clear winner. If Obama wins more regular delegates, even Bill Clinton is obligated to vote for Obama, because the main purpose of superdelegates is to unify the party, not divide it apart.
    • barfooz, on 02/11/2008, -0/+29That's the way it is SUPPOSED to work. If that was the way that every superdelegate viewed their responsibility, then we wouldn't have any of these superdelegates pledging their support to a candidate NINE months before the election. So there really isn't a binding obligation, although I think there should be. Superdelegates are BS.
      • rickylake, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0Pledges are not done with blood. Super duper delegates are mainly elected politicians, like a state governor. If the Super Duper Delegate were to vote for Obama but his state said "we want clinton", it would be political suicide if he stuck with his Obama vote. So they might have pledged their vote, but they are not idiots and can still change it if the political wind changes direction.

        But yes... they are BS but I'm pressed to think of a better way.. kind of like I can't think of a better way to nominate a president within a party :-)
    • elhaf, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3Yeah, I think there would be a Democratic revolt if they picked Clinton when Obama led the "popular vote". I hope they know what they are doing.
  • kingmanic, on 02/11/2008, -8/+20I'm not American, but your friendly neighbors to the north are glad you're attempting voting in sane leadership! Obama, Clinton or McCain are all better then Bush/Cheney.
    • topgigmedia, on 02/11/2008, -4/+15McCain is not sane and I would also question whether Billary is as well.
      • merper, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4Sanity is all relative in Republican circles.
    • Gemfinder, on 02/11/2008, -1/+16Noticed how you left Huckabee out! [laughing]
      He would indeed be worse than Bush II.
      • KyleGoetz, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4I dunno. Bush has all of Huckabee's negative traits and then some.
      • kingmanic, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Huckabee is bush with "true" religious Zeal. He would be the most dangerous man in the world as president. Bush just pays lip service to his backers.
        • elhaf, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4Yes, but Bush is really an oil man, not an evangelical. The lip service he pays to Exxon is applied to the *****.
    • jadiggit, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4"attempting" we didnt vote for bush/cheney either
    • Deodrus, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4Don't speak for all of us Canadians. I hate McCain and I don't like Hillary much either.
    • s1mph0ny, on 02/11/2008, -5/+2They're all Bush Wannabe's. Try again iceback.
  • ericdano, on 02/11/2008, -14/+9Somewhere, Chuck Norris is mad and going to kick someone's ass.
    • fyre2012, on 02/11/2008, -2/+3Chuck likes Huckabee, so it's McCain's ass he's after!
      • BojanglesUdon, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Chuck Norris will journey to Hell with Jesus and take on McCain and the DEVIL! SPIN KICK
      • smrekar, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2atleast people now realize that Chuck norris is after ass.
  • katorga, on 02/11/2008, -2/+63I'm cautiously daring to believe Obama can do it, but the Clintons are so corrupt, so self-serving, and so willing to destroy anything to get power. Deep down I know I will get crushed when the Clintons finally destroy Obama. They are already working to get the 365 delegates from Florida and Michigan re-instated for HRC.
    • soot, on 02/11/2008, -1/+42I'd ***** fly to Denver and riot if they pulled that *****.
      • AdamaObama, on 02/11/2008, -0/+12I already live here, so if you want to riot, you have a place to sleep. I don't think the Democratic Party will back down, because if they do, that will show that the Party has no real power, which they really don't want.

        But yes, I agree...if they do, let's ***** riot!
        • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2If you mean "riot" as in going into local stores senselessly looting and pillaging, then expect a lead salad from me. If on the other hand you mean offing politicians en masse, I might be inclined to overlook that.
          • Breepee, on 02/11/2008, -0/+10riot != pillage
          • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Breepee,

            Yet someone said he wanted to burn the city down. Rhetoric, of course, but obviously not everyone is thinking the same thing you are.
        • wild, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4I hope you have a lot of couches, because I am coming too.
      • gwhardyiv, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2I'll hold you to it and meet you there.
      • msk275, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0I'll be living in Denver at that time also, so if worse comes to worst and the Clinton's pull off some shady *****, I'll be there also.
        Always have a Plan B.
    • CC440, on 02/11/2008, -1/+23I would flip a ***** if that happened, and so would the MSM and the active public. It would be 1968 all over again and I would be sure the let that city burn.
      • andy3109, on 02/11/2008, -1/+12Yes, because it is the cities fault. It has nothing to do with politics.
        /Sar...
    • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/11/2008, -9/+4Denver would kick anyone's ass. Save your riots for pussy California. We'll have none of that ***** out here.
      • JPMaximilian, on 02/11/2008, -3/+3I like how you digg this guy down for saying that Denver will defend itself, but digg-up people threatening to riot and destroy property.
    • barfooz, on 02/11/2008, -0/+7It would be completely ridiculous for the results from Michigan to be counted. Obama wasn't even on the ballot. That would be a sham and a travesty, and the party won't let that happen.

      Say, why the heck was Hillary the only one on that ballot anyway?
      • KyleGoetz, on 02/11/2008, -0/+13Because the other candidates took their names off since Michigan violated DNC rules. When asked why she didn't do the same, Hillary said, "lol cuz whether my name is on the ballot or not doesn't matter amirite."
        Now, she's taking that back.
      • wild, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4The DNC barred candidates from campaigning there. Because of that, Obama and Edwards supported the party wishes. Hillary broke with the party to leave her name on the ballot. (Anything to win.)
      • gwhardyiv, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2I think it would be more likely that the DNC would require a last minute caucus for FL and MI. Setting up a second primary would place an undue burden on the state, and seating the delegates according to the earlier results would be unconscionable.
    • Gemfinder, on 02/11/2008, -0/+14It won't happen. Hillary was the only candidate on those state ballots, the DNC would throw it out on that alone. If anything, they'll nullify the attempted primaries and re-do them after the last states have their say.
    • insomniac8400, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5The only way those states will count is if they revote or hold a caucus.
      • wild, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2And we all know how well Hillary does in a caucus...
    • southdemocrat, on 02/11/2008, -13/+0Clinton`s corrupt ? Let`s see some real facts instead of B.S. rumors and cheap talk. the republicans and their hit man Kenneth Starr spent years and millions of dollars trying to find anything they could against the clintons and couldn`t find one damn thing. So what makes you idiots think you know something they didn`t ? the only facts ya`ll have are the ones that prove that you are so gullible that you believe anything you hear from anyboby rrunning against Clinton because they were the only people capable of giving us 8 of the most prosporous years we have had in the since the 50`s or 60`s. "I have a Dream" in which you idiots will cost the democratic party our only chance of getting back in the white house and getting america back on it`s feet because ya`ll are blindly following someone who only has hopes and dreams ,without a clue, or the experience to win and get us back on track. I hear a lot of talk from Obama about his hopes and dreams ,but nothing realistic , and no real plan on how to actually do it. They called Bill "Slick Willy" because of his smooth talking but he has nothing on Obama and his cult of blind followers. I guess ya`ll also believe that he can get the jews and the nazis to sit down together and sort out there differences and work together to make the world a better place. thats no more ridicules that what he has ya`ll believing now. Wait, I almost forgot that he is the reform politician that is going to preform miracles . we have a half dozen of those every single election, and it never has worked , unless you count the time that Bill Clinton pulled us out of that Bush recession and put America back on its feet - at least untill a bunch of gullible people like you decided that we needed another moral and ethical Bush back in the white house and put us right back in the same pisition his daddy put us in. So who has the experience to pull us back out of that mess all over again ? A man with hopes and dreams but no experience ? ha ha ha . get real, wake up and face reality.
      • RansomHoldiay, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5haha you're ***** retarded... just take 2 seconds and look into the clintons history of business deals.
        • southdemocrat, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0retarded ? no that is reserved for uneducated idiots that believe everything they hear and pass it on without any fact or evidence to prove it. That is why you spout all this trash about the Clintons but nobody can produce one shred of evidence, just a lot of talk from a lot of idiots. I have personally known the Clintons since the mid 70`s and personally witnessed Bush and Kenneth Starr do everything they could to find something the Clintons did wrong. All they could find was that Bill got a Blow job from Monica and a few other women. That major crime is what idiots like you used to put Bush jr. in the White House and our country back in the same position Bush sr. put us in . And now you are doing the same thing to try to nominate someone without any experience or realistic and viable plans to straighten out this mess . All Obama has is a Dream, and a lot of gullible followers who believe that hopes and dreams are all we need to straighten everything out. The only thing Obama can do is cost us our chance at the White House because most of us that supported Clinton will jump ship in november and vote for Mccain before we will put somebody like Obama in charge of our country. Even though we don`t want another republican running things, Mccain will do a hell of a lot better than Obama could even dream about. Retarded? No , thats the Idiots who are voting for somebody who only has a dream ,and hopes, for fixing our country , but lacks the experience and knowledge to do it.
      • Pixelpaws, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5Go back to English class. I can't even read what you've written since it's composed so badly.
        • southdemocrat, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0If you can`t read plain , simple english then you need to go back to kindergarden and try again. I tried to write it as simple as I could so idiots like you could understand it without having to ask your mommy to explain it to you . You have to be one of those uneducated idiots that voted for the man with a dream. Just in case you don`t know who that is ,it`s Obama.
      • Misanthrope, on 02/11/2008, -0/+6That was good rant that actually didn't SAY anything. You should run. You just say "check the facts LOL"...but you don't provide any.

        Just calling people blind and stupid for not agreeing with you doesn't make you right...it just makes you look like an ass.
        • southdemocrat, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0The people I am calling blind and stupid are the ones that say I didn`t provide any facts that the Clintons were crooked when my comment stated that there are plenty of idiots out there claiming that the Clintons are crooked but can`t pruduce any evidence, just rumors passed on by other idiots just like them. Since you couldn`t read and understand that from the first comment then you must fall into that catagory with them. So who looks like the ass now ? The whole point was that if you can`t produce any evidence that the Clinton`s did anything Crooked , then keep your mouth shut and stop spreading baseless rumors and lies without anything to back it up . Bush and Kenneth Starr spent millions of our tax dollars and only proved that the Clintons were innocent of anything more than a blow job from Monica. If ya`ll have any real evidence that they did anything else wrong, then I`m sure that the republicans would love to get their hands on that info so they use it against Clinton right now. Since nobody is rushing up to them with any proof then that means that there is nothing but a lot of rumors from a lot of idiots out there who don`t have enough common sense to know the difference between rumor and fact. Do you have any proof or evidence that they did anything wrong ? Didn`t think so. If you do then it is time to put up or shut and quit making yourself look like an ass.
      • pg17, on 02/11/2008, -2/+0I agree. The attitudes on display are going to cost the Dems the WH. But I'm still trying to figure out if these folks are new Dems or just spoilers. I guess it's probably a bit of both. The hatefulness is so unnecessary, it really gives one pause. Who knows though. There's still a ways to go in the primaries and if Obama pulls ahead now it may give the Dem core incentive to get out and vote. The Florida Dems went out in force for Clinton even though they've been told their votes won't count so maybe that's a good sign.
        • southdemocrat, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0By the time the real democrats decide to come out in force and vote it will be too late. The primaries will be over and we will have elected someone who won`t beat Mccain. Most of the Obama followers are young kids who don`t know anything about politics or have a clue what is going on in the world ,but love a good speech and the idea that someone has a dream and hopes for making everything better for them. They don`t care if he doesn`t have a clue about anything other than how to inspire a bunch of kids to follow him. Can you say David Koresh, Jim Guy Jones, Rev. Moon, Martin Luther King ... etc. He gives a good speech and inspires a lot of young gullible followers , but that is the limit of his capabilities. The time for the real democrats to come out in force was last month when the primaries started , not now as they are ending and the person who is winning is someone that most of us educated voters will not follow or put in the White House. All of the democrats that I know personally will jump ship in november and vote for Mccain before we will put Obama in the White House , even though we are not republican and don`t really want to see another one in the White House, Mccain will do a hell of a lot better than Obama could ever dream of. Thats why I say that Obama and his followers will cost us the White house and the chance to put democrats back in control. We won`t put an idiot in there that can`t do any better than what is in there now. The only thing Obama will do is advance everything for African Americans and push us further back down the hill , making us the true minorities in America. Sad to have to say it but that will be his only real accomplishment if we put him in office .
      • tannerpetry, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2You lost me at "y'all"
        • southdemocrat, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0Its real simple, try to keep up here ; " ya`ll "is the same as " yous " if you are a yankee . if you are not a yankee and still can`t figure it out ,then I don`t know what to tell you . Us hillbilly hicks always talk like that . Its inbred. lol
  • DeepSkyDiver, on 02/11/2008, -14/+5Obama is (and Ron Paul was) clear examples of the leanings of the average digger.
    Unless Clinton truly is the anti-christ, just flip back through the stories here - because from an international digger this is not balanced.
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections
    • alphaterminus, on 02/11/2008, -2/+12She is.
    • Chainheart, on 02/11/2008, -0/+15What did you expect? The correlation between computer-oriented folks and liberalism is quite strong. Don't want bias = don't come to a site where the crowd decides what they like
    • offput, on 02/11/2008, -0/+9Like what other more reasonable people have said, Clinton wouldn't destroy the nation, and she'd probably end up being liberal enough for most. But Obama seems to represent a changing of the guard and after many years of the same kind of backroom politics people want that change. So while politically, Clinton and Obama aren't that far apart, their personalities are contributing to their public persona enough to shift diggers towards Obama.

      That said, every delegate count is different. MSNBC has had Obama head since super tuesday, CNN still has him behind, they're all estimates so let's not get cocky. Or really, you guys shouldn't get cocky; I'm Canadian so all I can do is watch and hope my southern neighbours make a good choice come November.
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/11/2008, -3/+1*****, I wish the elections were actually on digg. The digg democracy is more reliable than the Diebold machines, and Kucinich and Paul get frontrunner status.

      • rickylake, on 02/11/2008, -1/+0That would the the most scary thing on earth. If digg ran elections, I think I'd move to the moon.
  • alphaterminus, on 02/11/2008, -4/+19Time for more tears.
  • Bodieslikesheep, on 02/11/2008, -22/+6Our (read: people's) American election is nothing but an elaborate illusion to make us feel as if we could make the government serve the people. This ***** isn't new. Why is it all the good people in this world die; Ghandi, MLK, Kennedy,...Reagen, who was wounded...*****!

    Check out Obamas foreign policy advisor...Zbigniew Brzezinski. On record he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. This isn't a Ron Paul plug, this isn't any politically slanted statement. Truth does not depend on where you are on the political spectrum.
    It's nothing but the same, a couple words are pounded and ingrained into our heads until we begin to question not whether it is opinion or fact - then we believe it.

    And Clintin? Her cabinet is filled with 90's Clinton era people. Expect the same. Two ex Clinton cabinet members, Madeleine Albright and General Wesley Clark, are back in if Clinton wins. Madeleine Albright was the main force behind the Iraq sanctions that killed more than 400,000 Iraqi civilians. General Wesley Clark, he was the one who ran the bombing of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia, came out and publicly said that he was going after civilian targets, like electrical plants, like the TV station there.

    Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.

    Change just sounds good, it's not our fault - The elite of this world have been at practice for a while.
    • dannyboy3020, on 02/11/2008, -1/+9Dugg down for copypasta.
      • Bodieslikesheep, on 02/11/2008, -4/+2Because supporting a candidate whose cabinet consists of shady illegitimate "leaders" doesn't deserved to be challenged by facts more than once?
        Thought so.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3wah wah. Good statesmen get in a lot of ***** trouble once in a while and they aren't likely to leave the political arena. Ask Henry Clay.
    • vat0r, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Zbigniew Brzezinski is a genius, if you take an hour and listen to what he says you will see what I mean. He did not claim to invent the movement as you say. He did however predict the terrorist related issues we would have to deal with due to our foreign policy.
  • mozert, on 02/11/2008, -21/+4This OBAMA doctrine on digg is becoming insane LOL.
    • SteveIsTheDude, on 02/11/2008, -4/+2It shows that Digg users probably make for than 50k a year. Hillary skews 50/50.... under 50k a year dem or over 50 year old women.

      Anybody here a 50 year old woman? I am looking for some Gilf action....
  • aaroh, on 02/11/2008, -2/+45if obama can win clinton's safe-states ohio, texas, pennsylvania it will definitely be signed sealed delivered.
    • iofthestorm, on 02/11/2008, -0/+14That's far easier said than done though.
      • cameronio, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Yeah, but at least Obama got some good endorsements in newspapers this weekend in Texas. (And possibly in Ohio ... I forgot)
    • derekivey, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately, I doubt he'll win here in PA. Our governor is endorsing Hillary and many people seem to like her as well :(.
      • afpunk, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Not to mention the fact that independents like myself don't get a vote in primaries here.
      • ZebZ, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0It all depends on how many first time voters they can rally from Philadelphia and the surounding areas. The last big polls I'm aware of here had Clinton up by 20%, but those were all about a month old.

        The thing she has going is the Pennsyltucky region and the retiree vote.
      • pcghost, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Take heart, both of our senators came out for Clinton and still we (Washington) handed the nomination to Senator Obama. GObama08
      • emehrkay, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Hopefully they'll come campaign in State College!!!!
      • tyzent, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1anyone else go to the protest when the democratic debates were at drexel in philly? it ended being an anti-hilary rally with a rather sedated-looking group of hilary supporters off to the side. i for one am going to re-register as a democrat and rally for obama over the next two months until we finally get our say in pa.
    • cyberdork, on 02/11/2008, -0/+7Ohio is definitely not a Clinton 'safe-state'.
    • pg17, on 02/11/2008, -3/+1The WH won't be signed, sealed and delivered. The nastiness being thrown, in the media and on these boards, at Clinton is going come back to bite the Democrats. They're going to lose a lot of their core base. And in the long run, if one factors in that many Obama supporters are not tried and true Democrats, it's really going to hurt the party.
      • elhaf, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1????
      • vade79, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Don't blame the media for the way the Clintons have behaved. I liked them until i saw how they played the game. The media is supposed to hold people accountable for their actions, You expect the Clintons to behave like slime and get praised? insane. I will never vote for Hillary based on how she played this earlier on, if she gets the nomination or not.
      • southdemocrat, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0You hit the nail on the head and I could not have said it better. His followers are mostly new voters and kids without a clue just like him. There won`t be enough of them there in November to beat Mccain. The only thing that got them to vote in the primaries was his " I have a dream " speeches . In 8 months when it is time for the real voting , they will have moved on to something more interesting to them, like partying, and x-box...etc. The only ones to show up in november will be the regular voters, and they won`t vote for Obama and his Dream.
    • JavanSClark, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Actually, if Obama is somehow able to pull out a victory in Ohio and Texas accomonied with an (improbable) sweep of the Potomac primaries... then Hillary will have to look hard at leaving the race. To endure that many losses with no victories makes it VERY hard to get the free publicity that comes with a win. She's strapped for cash, and the less money she has the harder it is to win.
    • DeePsix501, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4As a Texas resident, I think that Texas would go with Obama. Hillary isn't very popular around here.
      • s0ny, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Well go ask the mexicans and see what they have to say about that...
  • minox, on 02/11/2008, -16/+5How long until they have a sinner's bench at his speeches for people who have not as yet testified to their personal relationship with Obama?
  • Richandler, on 02/11/2008, -3/+36How can you count uncommitted super delegates if they are uncommitted?
    • wc3452, on 02/11/2008, -1/+10they're not "bound" is what it really means. They are free to switch their vote whenever up until the DNC.
    • AndrewDB, on 02/11/2008, -2/+11Ask Hillary's five million dollar check book.
    • cyberdork, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3I don't mind if they count in super delegates in the total numbers. But why do they also count them when talking about election results? Super delegates have nothing to do with the actual primary elections.
      • southdemocrat, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0 the deal is that they do not have to vote for a certain candidate , they can vote for anybody and usually vote for the one that they actually think will beat the republicans. Obama and his followers don`t like that because they know that if the super delegates don`t think he can beat Mccain then they will vote for Clinton and knock him out of the race. Their votes count, but cannot be counted untill the convention , so untill then they are up for grabs and do not count in the actual numbers leading up to the convention.
    • FenrisUlf, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3The text is misleading, it should read "committed (but not bound) superdelegates" or something.
    • anogenic, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1ask CNN
  • an10ae, on 02/11/2008, -5/+20What I want to know is why he's still not listed as the leader at CNN. He's been in the lead at MSNBC since "super tuesday" and now CBS. What gives? How is it that 5 different news sources have five different sets of numbers for something as finite as a freaking tally?

    Oh by the way Obama is the "anti-christ" according to nostradamus and some morons. I'm still voting for him though. I'm pretty anti-christ myself.
    • dagamer34, on 02/11/2008, -1/+6Because they'd rather save it for a big news story posted on Monday when people are awake and drive more traffic to their site. Don't you know how the internet advertising works?
      • AdamaObama, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4Honestly, it's because CNN has a tendency to back the Clintons.
    • LBobRife, on 02/11/2008, -0/+9They're estimates. The actual delegates aren't awarded in many states until they go to a variety of conventions and eventually filter down to the amount the state is allowed.
    • soapsuds, on 02/11/2008, -0/+6CNN has been including super delegates in their totals, MSNBC has only been counting pledged delegates. Neither is completely correct--it would be better if they always included both. It is annoying that CNN's method seems to be favoring HRC.

      If you are truly an Obama supporter, you might want to check out this speech he made regarding the role of religion in politics. He has some good points about the need for both religious and non-religious to use "fair minded words".

      http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid35 ...
    • hmccurdy, on 02/11/2008, -1/+0that's "mormons" actually
    • Gemfinder, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3Obama, the Anti-Christ? [snickering] I was just watching the YouTube movie of Charlie Chaplin's last speech in "The Great Dictator" earlier tonight. I saw many, many parallels between that speech and the Obama campaign philosophy.
      Watch, that's gonna bring the "Obama is a Socialist!" curmudgeons out to Digg me down in droves...
      As for the delegate counts...I go to the Obama national website for those. The campaign has paid, dedicated staffers whose job descrip *is* to keep track of how many delegates he has. They're the gold standard.
    • MrKrinkleDude, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3Actually, John Hogue said Obama might become the victim of the anti-christ. It was the haters that skewed it to say he was the anti-christ. Kinda like the Muslim BS that was going around.
    • cyberdork, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5What I want to know is why Colorado still has not assigned all pledged delegates since Super Tuesday. Of their 55 pledged delegates only 28 (19 + 9) have been 'awarded'. Since Obama won with 67% to 32% they COULD end up with 37 to 18. Meaning Obama can extend his lead by another 9 delegates.
    • slothlovechunk, on 02/11/2008, -1/+5Hey morons, there is no antichrist, because there was never any christ, as there was never any original sin to ever need any christ.

      It's so sad that some people live their life by the inane ramblings of someone loosly associated with early Christianity, at a time when this 'apocalyptic' literature is popular.
      • GoneGreen, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Amen, Brother ^^
      • southdemocrat, on 02/13/2008, -1/+0another intelligent person on this site, gotta love it.
    • elhaf, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Uh, yeah, but Bush and Clinton and Bush and Regan were also the anti-Christ. Probably all the way back.
  • BenLinus, on 02/11/2008, -1/+11CNN has it differently. I think they have Obama down 27. But who knows at this point, different people/stations have different figures. We all know CNN is biased towards Clinton, but CBS could be biased towards Obama (not saying thats fact, just saying it's possible).

    One thing we do know, this whole primary system is seriously f*cked up, and it need to be fixed.
    • aelfwyne, on 02/11/2008, -0/+6I noticed this as well - I'm seriously wondering why two otherwise reputable news sources are reporting different numbers. Does anyone know of a RELIABLE source for this count?
      • AndrewDB, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5MSNBC has Obama winning.
      • KyleGoetz, on 02/11/2008, -0/+6There technically is no reliable count until the DNC. Until then, all you can have are estimates. If you go to the link I provide, you'll note that 128 delegate districts nationwide still haven't finished counting the votes that have been cast (through the 9th, so that doesn't include Maine).
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(Uni ...
        So, another reason there isn't certainty yet is by virtue of the fact that the votes haven't all been counted yet.
        • footbag01, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Superdelegates don't vote until the convention. So until the convention any superdelegate numbers are just polls.
        • rickylake, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0Bingo. All the media can do is provide estimates. Consider them an educated guess and listen and understand what method they use to count them. The guy on MSNBC likes to use only pledged delegates (and even those aren't bound in blood to vote the way they pledged), others do it different. Personally I dont count the super delegates at all for now...
    • rickylake, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0All the major news outlets count the delegates different because what a delegate means is a fuzzy thing in itself.

      Even still, at the end of the primary season, a 50 delegate win by obama or clinton will still probably be considered a tie by the democratic party. This year is really close and I bet we go brokered.
  • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/11/2008, -27/+3Obama is the lesser of all evils, but he's still a scumbag. Congratulations on electing yet another POTUS who will drive this country into the *****, albeit at a slightly slower pace, and even that is debatable.
    • haski, on 02/11/2008, -2/+6you know what? your comment is such a waste of space and time. if you are such a hero, why don't you run for president? if you want to oppose every single candidate, then offer alternative. if you don't have any, then shut up.
      • mozert, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1he will be better as an hero, though
      • moxierain, on 02/11/2008, -5/+2No, you shutup. The lesser of two evils is still an evil.
    • aelfwyne, on 02/11/2008, -1/+7There's a lot of criticism of Obama that might stick, but I hardly see how you could paint him as a scumbag... Since they're all scumbags, why don't you run? I'd enjoy voting against you.
      • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1A vote against me is a vote FOR interference in your life. Good luck with that.
        • moxierain, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2What do you expect from a society that wants interference from their government? I guess these people like living in a post 9-11 Orwellian society.
    • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/11/2008, -7/+4OK then.

      I hereby announce my candidacy for President of the United States. My goals are simple:

      1. Give you your money back
      2. Leave you the ***** alone
      3. Dismantle the bureaucracy and give you full control of your own life

      You gonna vote for me or what?
      • moxierain, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3with those terms, yes.
      • Pixelpaws, on 02/11/2008, -2/+4Or what. I can't say I'd vote for anarchy; the average American is not nearly smart enough to govern themselves, unfortunately.
        • s1mph0ny, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3Ignorance tends to settle in when someone does everything for you
        • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Yet every single one of them, yourself included, will say they are. I can't say I find anything admirable about your character at all if your only reason for participating in this farce is to cause grievous injury to everyone else who you think isn't uniquely qualified to govern themselves.

          In that case I think you're arguing AGAINST democracy, because you're willing to give your own power to people whom you plainly admit are idiots. Your argument contradicts your premise.
      • EtherGnat, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2And you'd accomplish that how, exactly? That's what I thought.
        • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1I offer you the same argument your own comrades offered. If you think you can do better, come up with something.
      • Eiknujrac, on 02/11/2008, -2/+1Anarchy? Please. Have you taken a single government or history class in your entire life?
        Get educated first.
        Then spout ideas on how you think government works/will work.
        • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/12/2008, -0/+2I am educated. Your own education seems to be limited to just spouting one-liners and pointing to vague texts that you haven't even read. Why don't you offer up something concrete for me to read? Could that possibly be because you probably don't know what you're talking about?

          I suggest you start first with an essay by Robert Paul Wolff called "The myth of legitimate authority (On anarchy)"
    • verifex, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3I realize democracy was built on a healthy amount of dissent, but you are so lazy that you aren't even going to give a reason why he is a scumbag, just that he is? Give me a break. This political figure is a scumbag because he's a political figure.

      Oh please enlighten me with more of your wisdom </sarcasm>
      • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/11/2008, -4/+2He's a scumbag because he believes theft is right. He couches it in common idioms that any socialist uses, like "social justice" but what he is really doing is attempting to legitimize theft from people who want no part of his ideas.

        If 1 person says stealing from you is OK, is it? No
        if 10 people say stealing from you is right, is it? No
        If a million people say stealing fro you is right, is it?

        In the socialist mindset, sooner or later the democratic process would justify theft. I, on the other hand, will say it's wrong no matter how many people approve. That's why he's a scumbag.
        • verifex, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1I'm so tired of arguing the pro's and con's of socialism based solely on a politician having some ideas for social programs to help people. You sound like someone who would rather scrap all the social programs and just let everyone get by on their wits (or markets), right? I'm sure your libertarian values are firmly grounded in a complete distrust of the government (and after this last administration, I can't blame you), but as long as we have a government that runs using most all the facets of capitalism to keep things going, we need social programs.

          Why do we need social programs? Because we are not in a communist state, and there will always be people who get run over in the course of capitalism running along smoothly. Corporations and the 'markets' aren't going to take care of people on the bottom rung of society. That's just not a sustainable business model for a company.

          If the side effect of some of these social programs is that people are encouraged/forced to live one way or another, it is a small price to pay for having all the benefits of capitalism without too much of the problems it creates.
      • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2*Sigh* I gave you a reason and you didn't even respond other than digging me down.

        You weren't honestly interested in any discussion. You were just here to troll.
        • verifex, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1Watch who are you calling a troll mister, I haven't even been here to see your responses, let alone dig them down.

          After reading a number of your responses, it doesn't seem like you are really interested in a two-way discussion either. You just want a forum with which to push your libertarian values down someone else's throat under the name of "democracy". Not everyone believes the concept of a government of elected officials governed by legislated laws is such a bad thing.

          Just because they take some of your money and do something you don't agree with doesn't mean you should dismantle the whole thing. Government does a lot of things that you probably take for granted and wouldn't miss until they were gone.

          If you hate what government is doing with your money, get involved in it and have it changed. In theory anyways, thats the strongest part of our government.
    • JavanSClark, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3Allow me to shed a tear for you. Ron Paul is a joke.

      QQ
      • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1I don't even agree with Paul anymore.

        Paul's mistake was that he believed that the system could be fixed. Cancer cannot be turned into healthy tissue. It must be cut out. Allow me to shed a tear for you, because you have cancer.
  • Joshuarr, on 02/11/2008, -8/+3WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

    (maybe)
  • munjalm, on 02/11/2008, -22/+2If Barack Obama by some chance is our president and re-works the system... I will streak my hometown in Barack Obama boxers for his re-election campaign in 2012. Just cuz he's black doesn't mean he'll be the first president to deliver what he says he will. I know it. You know it. He'll get in the white house, make one or two tweaks in his first 100 days and then do nothing. He's the executive branch, he can't write laws... he can only lobby... but that's a bad word... SSSHHH! After that, he'll re-campaign asking for four more years to let him try again to achieve his goals.

    So why Hillary? Simple. She's a bitch. Let her burn a few republicans in effigy. Let her do the dirty work to get healthcare. Let her take a dump on anyone who gets in her way. No pussy politics. If George Bush has shown us anything, it's that pussy politics don't work. Take what you want. Only, I expect that Billary will make better decisions than the resident dumb-ass.

    - M [http://www.stocktiptrader.com]
    • Bulk70, on 02/11/2008, -1/+6That is quite possibly the most backward, misinformed and downright stupid argument I have ever heard.
      • Lazydriver, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4I agree.

        And presidents CAN push new laws into congress, or their vice presidents.

        If he disappoints us, I'll make a new party for 2012.
        • mozert, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Thats is why Mr. Obama is open to the other side. Mr. Obama doesn't want his efforts to be blocked because of pure ideology.
    • verifex, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4You make some valid points about politics, but I never saw a politician get elected on the merits of being a scumbag.
      • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Yet I've seen *PLENTY* elected on the prevarication of *NOT* being aforementioned scumbag.
    • mozert, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4Dude, how do you know all that?
    • JavanSClark, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1He's not very bright is he?
  • florin, on 02/11/2008, -2/+21Hey, Hillary! No, you can't! :-P
  • ZeaLitY, on 02/11/2008, -3/+39Obamanation. The Clinton spin machine can't deny it now. As Matthew Yglesias sarcastically wrote:

    "My understanding, though, is that this doesn't really count because it's a small state, much as Utah doesn't count because there aren't many Democrats there, DC doesn't count because there are too many black people, Washington doesn't count because it's a caucus, Illinois doesn't count because Obama represents it in the Senate even though Hillary was born there, Hawaii won't count because Obama was born there. I'm not sure why Delaware and Connecticut don't count, but they definitely don't. I forgot about Missouri. Obama's win in Missouri, of course, doesn't count because the state was called too late.
  • ZeaLitY, on 02/11/2008, -12/+6Obamanation. The Clinton spin can't deny it now. As Matthew Yglesias joked:

    "My understanding, though, is that this doesn't really count because it's a small state, much as Utah doesn't count because there aren't many Democrats there, DC doesn't count because there are too many black people, Washington doesn't count because it's a caucus, Illinois doesn't count because Obama represents it in the Senate even though Hillary was born there, Hawaii won't count because Obama was born there. I'm not sure why Delaware and Connecticut don't count, but they definitely don't. I forgot about Missouri. Obama's win in Missouri, of course, doesn't count because the state was called too late."
  • coneheart, on 02/11/2008, -3/+10SI, SE PUEDE!
    • eryximachus, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1Que puede usted hacer?
      • coneheart, on 02/12/2008, -0/+0Hacemos un cambio!
        according to obama at least :P
  • barkus, on 02/11/2008, -2/+10Obama's now a 2 to 1 favorite to win the nomination (according to online gambling odds).
  • MJDub, on 02/11/2008, -3/+1That's an epic pic, btw.
  • wonderworm, on 02/11/2008, -8/+4This is because the Ron Paul Republicans are now becoming "Obama Republicans". The Ron Paul Army Lives On!
    • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/11/2008, -0/+7Not really. Anyone who would vote for RP and then vote for his complete antithesis is only a member of the Ron Paul Army of the Dead.
      • Amadeus2490, on 02/11/2008, -2/+3Army of Darkness?
      • 1timeuser, on 02/11/2008, -2/+1the RP Zombie army! BRAINS! ARGUHHHHHHHHH! I KNOW HOW TO FIX THE ECONOMY! MOOOOOOOOAN!
    • cyberdork, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5If RP supporters now switch to Obama then it just confirms how borderline retarded RP supporters are (something we always suspected). Fortunately Obama's political positions have NOTHING in common with Ron Paul's.
      • rickylake, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0I bet the numer of switchers is high, too... scary isn't it :-)
  • powerfullogic, on 02/11/2008, -1/+33I hope Obama doesn't chose Hillary for VP. I never want to see that bitch again.
    • Amadeus2490, on 02/11/2008, -6/+2I'm 99% certain he will. That one percent of me is being held down and raped by the rest of my negative self.
      • ZebZ, on 02/11/2008, -0/+8No way in hell he picks Hillary after all the ***** she's thrown and will be throwing at him.

        My money is on Richardson as veep.
        • skycriesx, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I'm with you on richardson.
        • EtherGnat, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I'm from New Mexico and I'd love to see the VP go to Richardson, but I'm afraid to hope. I suspect they may try and pull a VP from a bigger state--whatever helps most with the electoral college calculus. Then again, Obama seems more likely to base decisions based on his own principles rather than what's politically expedient (at least more so than any other politician in memory) so maybe it's not such a long shot.
          • ZebZ, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0It's a good choice based on principles, but it could also be politically wise to bring the southwestern states that went red previously into the Democratic side.
          • EtherGnat, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure it would accomplish that. It would probably guarantee New Mexico, but we only have 3 electoral college votes. Arizona is a different beast altogether from New Mexico and will probably go for McCain. It might help with Texas but that would be a tough (although very large) nut to crack. It might help with California too, although that's not the Southwest.
      • lemination, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0My money would be for Kennedy.
      • lewhich, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1My money is Jim Webb (or Tim Kaine)
      • elhaf, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I agree with you 99%.
    • southdemocrat, on 02/11/2008, -7/+0It doesn`t matter who he choses, some redneck white boy will off his ass not long after taking office. Too many redneck aryan nation losers out there with republicans non-gun-controlled guns for him to last very long. are they taking odds on that too ?
    • Elranzer, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4We still gotta put up with her in New York though :-(
    • gwhardyiv, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1Lady Macbeth as VP? He would have to be suicidal.
    • DeePsix501, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0I think she already said she doesn't want to be the VP, she'd do more in the senate. The VP really honestly doesn't do anything...unless your Dick Cheney and you start erasing the constitution because you're bored and want something to do
    • rickylake, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0Dude, if those guys ran together against the republicans, they'd mop the floor against the (R)'s during the general election. It might not be optimal, but it would get people to vote for (D) instead of McCain when their favorite (Clinton or Obama) doesn't make the presidental nomination. Consider it a comprimise.
  • Light0, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1so many different sites project close, b ut different numbers in the delegate race for democrats. many say clinton is ahead and others say obama. i don't really know which one to trust because they are all different... and i assume that a website can't really lie about the numbers for a given candidate. hopefully this article is pin-point accurate though :)
  • CadillacAndy, on 02/11/2008, -3/+0I read that that as 'Uncommitted Spears'... thought subby was making a Britney Spears joke - far too early in the morning for news readin'
  • mikepictor, on 02/11/2008, -1/+10As a Canadian, I wish we had anyone half as compelling as Obama to vote for. We are likely facing another election this summer (maybe, we'll find out over the next month), and I can't get excited about any of our party leaders. Obama on the other hand has me considering mailing in a campaign contribution, and wishing I could participate in the american election. I have never felt that away about a US election.
    • vanguardanon, on 02/11/2008, -0/+7FWIW, normally we don't have anybody half as compelling as Obama either. I live in a state that votes so late the race is always over by the time it gets to me. This year I'm kind of excited to actually have a vote that matters.
  • hasslinthehoff, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3Hillary has been pwned.
  • TheGreatBelow, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2OBAMA 08, YES WE CAN
    • 1timeuser, on 02/11/2008, -2/+7That is like... the worst campaign slogan I have ever heard. It needs more *bam* you know?.

      OBAMA 08, He's bitch'n
      OBAMA 08, Lets chew bubble gum and kick some ass!
      OBAMA 08, He kills great white sharks with his bare hands!
      OBAMA 08, better then OBAMA 07, but that wasnt an election year. I guess what I'm trying to say is that its a bigger number then 07 so it is in fact better.
      OBAMA 08, He will turn into a giant robot and destroy Americas enemies.
      • Intrepion, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2ROBAMA 08! He will destroy Americas enemies with his giant lazers! pew pew pew!
      • JavanSClark, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Dug for sheer awesomeness
    • spoid_, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1"YES WE CAN"

      Hey! You stole that from Bob the Builder!
  • mkocher, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2YES WE CAN...
  • HanSolo69, on 02/11/2008, -1/+7After taking Virginia tomorrow Obama will be going strong. I'm proud to live in the state where students weren't afraid to shout "Obama!" at a Clinton rally at their school when asked who the next president would be.
    • JavanSClark, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1That political moment was so FULL OF WIN!!!!
  • JPMaximilian, on 02/11/2008, -3/+4Yes you can what?
    • Dazer, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Make the rest of the world happier for one thing :).
    • s1mph0ny, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1Continue the status quo in the name of change.
  • skycriesx, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2Yeah wtf is up with cnn.com cause they still show washington as having not finished their count yet which makes it look like obama is behind on delegate still...
    • FenrisUlf, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Technically a caucus only elects state delegates who meet and decide the number of actual delegates. This process hasn't happened yet, but you can still make reasonably accurate predictions about what the final numbers will be.

      So I'm guessing that CNN hasn't counted the caucus dels yet.
      • rickylake, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0Actually... in washington we caucus folk elect county delegates who them meet and elect state delegates who meet and elect national delegates :-) So yeah... we don't actually have solid national delegates yet... CNN & MSNBC are only providing educated guesses.
  • copyland, on 02/11/2008, -1/+6Hillaryous
  • republicker, on 02/11/2008, -6/+1I'd have to put my money where my mouth is and say that unfortunately Obama will be going out much the same way as Vince Foster or JFK did.
  • CaptPwnage, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2Go Barack Obama! YES WE CAN!
  • democrats, on 02/11/2008, -2/+4I donated $25 to Obama
  • taintedzodiac, on 02/11/2008, -2/+4Remember, anyone who has ever stated "I never win anything."

    Now's the time to place your bets for Clinton to win the nomination. Since Obama is a 2-1 favorite at the betting houses, you can use your bad luck to make sure that Clinton doesn't win!
    • s1mph0ny, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I have a feeling that money could be better used elsewhere. Given 2-1 odds, you might want to take it though. Clinton has a way of illegally winning elections.
  • phyl0x, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4Dont get all high and mighty, Obama might be winning now, but Ohio, Texas, and PA are must wins for Obama. If Hillary gets all three it is likely she will be the nominee. Obama has a huge uphill battle in those states, but we can do it. You need to donate money (im a poor college student and i donated $25, every dollar helps, now matter how little). If you have free time make some calls, if you live in those states talk to your friends, make sure they vote. He doesnt have this wrapped up, and itd be foolish to think otherwise. This is the Clintons we're talking about, they will stop at nothing to win. Even with Obama up in the polls in VA, MD, and DC we need every vote, the larger the lead the more delegates. Dont concern yourself with the super's they will vote as a bloc for whoever has the most normal delegates. Repeat, Senator Clinton is still on the path for the nomination, Obama is still the underdog. We have to derail her path by winning the rest of the contests this month and Ohio, Texas, and/or PA.
    • DeePsix501, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3She wont get Texas. Neither Clinton is very popular here.
    • tyzent, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1we have a long way to wait for PA... over two months. i think it may be all but over at that point
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 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.