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 nytimes.com

One Historic Night, Two Americas

nytimes.com — Barack Obama ’s resolutely cheerful embrace of the future is a wildly different vision of America than John McCain’s promise of vigilant conservation of the past.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dennisrhidalgo, on 06/08/2008, -11/+86Rich comes across as a sharp writer as he analyzes the language of all three major campaigns. I think he is balance and fair despite the fact that, as myself, he is hopeful of Obama's message.
    • pensel, on 06/08/2008, -4/+10Yeah this was an exceptionally prescient piece.
    • Barackalypse, on 06/08/2008, -23/+17Language is irrelevant, votes matter, spending proposals matter. Obama wants to spend an additional $343.6 billion, McCain wants to spend an additional 68.5 billion.
      http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141
      • vat0r, on 06/08/2008, -5/+22Consider two things. The extra money needed will be reaped off the rich bastards who got massive tax breaks under your GOP. Secondly even if the money needs to come from the fed they print the ***** out while we sleep and deflate the value of our hard earned savings. So don't try to act like McCain is superior because we all know better.
        • Dragular, on 06/08/2008, -17/+4Ok, your first point is *****. As for your second point, OK, so do we want the fed printing $343.6 billion worth of inflation, or $68.5 billion?
        • smittyme, on 06/08/2008, -16/+2Get a real job, and you too can BECOME ONE OF THE SO-CALLED RICH!
        • chicofaraby, on 06/08/2008, -2/+7"Get a real job, and you too can BECOME ONE OF THE SO-CALLED RICH!"

          Just curious... do you really think that's true?
        • Muyoso, on 06/08/2008, -11/+4And where the ***** do you think the "rich bastards" as you put it, will get the money? Do you think that rich people are rich because they just give their ***** money away? They will cut employees of their companies, not give raises to those they keep. They will raise prices. They are not just going to take a financial hit because some ***** democrat thinks its unfair of them to keep the money they earned. So your tax increases on the rich, is really a tax increase on the POOREST of Americans, who will get ***** royally.
        • chicofaraby, on 06/08/2008, -0/+11"So your tax increases on the rich, is really a tax increase on the POOREST of Americans"

          Nice pretzel you twisted there, dude.
        • prahareturns, on 06/09/2008, -8/+6Those "rich bastards" are the ones who are really paying the majority of all federal income taxes. Let's consider the fact that the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%). Since you obviously don't reference facts when posting your opinions you should re-read the section that the bottom 50% of all federal income tax returns only contribute 3.3% of all federal income tax revenue. Oh, and before you digg me down for posting BS the source is wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_Unite ...
        • chicofaraby, on 06/09/2008, -1/+8"Those "rich bastards" are the ones who are really paying the majority of all federal income taxes.... blah blah blah"

          So what?
        • rolf, on 06/09/2008, -2/+3This thinking is ancient. When the income tax was first instituted, it was passed under the promises that the richest of the rich would only pay it, since they deserved to be paying their fair share. However, only several years after it got passed, everyone had to pay it. The rates were not only for the super rich. It keeps happening like that. And the "rich" (or what the government classifies as such) already pay the lion's share of taxes.

          Its nice that you want to punish the "rich bastards", but it just seems spiteful class warfare.
        • prahareturns, on 06/09/2008, -6/+1Nice retort.

          To answer your question, "So what?", you need to examine the myth that the "rich bastards" don't pay their fair share. We have 5% of federal income filers paying 57% of all federal income taxes. Those at the bottom of the 5% bracket are only making 137K a year ("only" being a relative term based on filing status and geographic location).

          I'm fine with repealing the Bush tax cuts and with closing loop holes for the top 1% (those making over 328K per year) but perpetuating a myth that the rich are not paying their fair share or a substantially disproportionate amount of taxes is ridiculous.

          Note: I don't even fall into the top 5% when I file jointly with my wife.

      • pintomp3, on 06/08/2008, -3/+11A Bloomberg News analysis of McCain’s budget, which was released in April, shows it would increase the national debt by $1.8 trillion over eight years.
        http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si ...
        • prahareturns, on 06/09/2008, -5/+1Interesting selection from the actual article...the national debt increase was estimated based on his proposed tax cuts which were net estimated to be fully off-set by his proposed spending cuts.

          You also failed to note this segment of the article:
          "Douglas Holtz-Eakin said the only similarity between McCain's economic plan and Bush's is a commitment to keep taxes low.

          ``It is Barack Obama's budget plan, not Senator McCain's, that resembles Bush's policies, he said.

          ``It's dedicated to the recent Bush tradition of spending money on everything,'' Holtz-Eakin said."

          Until we cut spending and and adequately fund our current programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid all future spending increases will increase the national debt.

          Unless Obama or McCain step up and prevent these programs from slipping into insolvency we are all going to suffer.
      • WasabiBomb, on 06/08/2008, -3/+22Believe it or not, fixing problems requires, above all else, money. We've already seen that the Republican strategy of "taxes for the middle, tax breaks for the rich, and spend all you get on war" isn't working and CAN'T work.

        Republicans have had seven years of near-total political domination, and all they've shown is that they know how to do is blame the other side. It's time for them to step aside and let someone else try to fix their problems for them.
        • Muyoso, on 06/08/2008, -8/+2Do you forget about the democrat controlled congress? What the ***** have they done? They did jack ***** of what they promised you democrats. Too bad you idiots dont realize that.
        • WasabiBomb, on 06/09/2008, -1/+7Oh, you mean the marginally-controlled Congress? The one the Republicans keep blocking? The one with the Republican President that they have to constantly fight? That one?

          And, seriously- is the whole of your argument that the Dems haven't done ENOUGH to keep Republicans under control? Why the hell aren't you holding the Republicans responsible for screwing everything up in the first place?
        • Muyoso, on 06/09/2008, -5/+1Nice excuse making. The democrats have a sizable majority in both the senate and the house, and they have done jack ***** with it. Where is the end to the war, as they promised? Where were the balls to cut funding for it? Like typical liberals, they had none. They have done NOTHING for you, yet you will still vote them in. You are an idiot.
      • apothekari, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Hmmmmm...Barakalypse that's clever I think I'll change my "nethandle" to something equally as clever yet supporting my candidate .....hrnmmmmm has to reflect what I think Mcain will do to the country *snap* I got it MCainolapse you know Mc-cain from his name and Olapse from pro-lapse which is happens to the ***** of the country after 4 more BUSH-policy years!
        Mcainolapse!
        Or how about ***** !
        Or CorporateShill!
        ....
        naah ***** it I'll just vote for Barak in November and hope for the best, and keep my diggname as it is because my identity as a human being is not DEFINED by my party affiliation.
    • amightywind, on 06/08/2008, -16/+5A mindless liberal mouthpiece and peddler of yellow journalism.
    • Muyoso, on 06/08/2008, -12/+3http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n320/techno_bar ...
    • jabberwolf, on 06/09/2008, -8/+2Wow seeing as Mccain is the one that actually tries for change.

      Mccain and his famous 5 second snippet of hot water bottles for dehydrated babies = the entire speech talking about giving clean water to 3rd world children dying of Cholera and dehydration.
      Obama = silent on this issue.

      Mccain wanting to hold telecom companies respnosible for UNWARRANTED wiretaps = Mccain has NEVER said anything to the contrary.
      Obama silent on this issue and voted for same patriot act. But Mccain going after its misuse.

      Mccain being the largest thorn in the side of the Bush Campaign - criticizing him on mishandling of IRAQ war, and misuse of funds and positioning of Bush's friends in office positions rather than qualified people.
      Obama during all of this = quiet as a mouse.

      Sorry there are 2 different America's = the stupid/gullible and the smart/substance oriented.

      If you want a good speech = Go get Obama and a telepromter

      If you want a good president = Go get Mccain and challenge Obama to have a debate with him on FACTS.
      • dacrazydude, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1surprised you haven't been dugg down more since this is Digg.

        Incidentally, I saw that 5 second snippet about the water bottles on Digg a couple days back. Didn't know what the topic was or the context in which he was speaking. Now I know. Thanks.
    • SlimFastForYou, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2"On TV, [McCain's] audience came across as a country-club membership riled by a change in the Sunday brunch menu."
      Add clever to the list.. this is pure gold! I watched that clip and compared to Obama's wild crowd around the same time - it's laughable.
  • newstart, on 06/08/2008, -9/+36A Tail of Two Americas - A Classic
    • K3ITHK, on 06/08/2008, -0/+30Tail?
    • trackerbishop, on 06/08/2008, -7/+2what about the two americas is being created by our current administration - forcing the middle class into the poor class? what about the criminal actions of our govt? why isnt obama talking about that? youre all getting duped
    • Elranzer, on 06/08/2008, -1/+132americas1cup
  • l2scoo, on 06/08/2008, -14/+7Great article!
  • mwaleed86, on 06/08/2008, -22/+17DOWN WITH MCCAIN!!
    • thirteenthcor, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1DOWN WITH GDI! I FIGHT FOR NOD!
  • sorrytheusernam, on 06/08/2008, -20/+7No HTML please. Comments are editable for 5 min.
    • quaxon, on 06/08/2008, -5/+9Please allow up to 60 sec for your comment to be saved.
    • mwaleed86, on 06/08/2008, -6/+2www.digg.com
    • Sneakernets, on 06/08/2008, -1/+4ya just gotta love the bouncing comment box!
    • nemo001, on 06/08/2008, -1/+4We will lag your comments at our discretion. Consult table 'laglist'.
  • nirosive, on 06/08/2008, -43/+9You are being lied to.
    http://digg.com/politics/U_S_Corporate_Media_Black ...
    http://digg.com/politics/Hillary_Obama_In_Secret_B ...
    http://digg.com/politics/Bilderberg_boys_will_deci ...
    • nubnub, on 06/08/2008, -3/+19Fail @ linking
      • nirosive, on 06/08/2008, -19/+2Fail @ thinking (or lack therof )
        • 471776, on 06/08/2008, -1/+11Fail at lack of thinking? Yeah, I guess I do.
    • joker10687, on 06/09/2008, -2/+1spam... I'm waiting for you to say something about 9/11
  • flipz4, on 06/08/2008, -34/+6Two historical dbags, one american hero.
    • LegalizeGanja, on 06/08/2008, -7/+8Before I hadn't really thought of Obama as a hero... hmm. Interesting!
  • nullcodes, on 06/08/2008, -14/+6Can Obama win the swing states? Sure he may be polling higher overall .. but does he have a strategy to win the required states to get him enough electoral votes?
    • sylvok, on 06/08/2008, -3/+6Yes he could actually, my state being a swing state seems to be going hugely for Obama.

      And I am in a southern swing state to, Virginia. To this date I only know around 10 McCain supporters, and 3 Hillary supporters. Age ranges between 13-upper 70s, best guess on sample is around 130.
      • nullcodes, on 06/08/2008, -1/+5You probably live in a city, correct?
      • Ocelot13, on 06/08/2008, -3/+6well you need to worry about 18+.... you know the ones that are able to actually cast a vote.
        there maybe be 1 million 13 year olds who would vote for obama and 5 20 year olds for mccain, and the only votes that matter are the 20 for mccain.....
      • Muyoso, on 06/08/2008, -3/+5I am in virginia, and believe me, once Virginians get to hear about what Obama wants to do with their guns, BYE BYE. Virginia holds the NRA headquarters, and an EXTREMELY powerful state gun lobby, the VCDL. Obama will get a ton of votes from southeast Virginia, because that is where a ton of black people are, who are solely voting by skin color, as is obvious through every one of the primaries, but the rest of the state will NOT be going for him.
        • thirteenthcor, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Don't worry about it, vote for him anyways. The NRA has LOTS of old people with LOTS of money and LOTS of Lobbyists, and most likely we aren't going to see anything like the Assault Weapons Ban, again, for a while. IT barely Squeaked through under Clinton anyways, and he tried to get it pushed through for a whole entire term if I remember...

          Don't worry so much about gun control; worry more about Bill of Rights infringement, which bush has ***** up at least half of it.

          YES if we make it harder for normal, god fearing citizens to get assault rifles, that opens a gap vs. criminal armament... but, remember, your average street hoodlum (from which you are in the most danger) all carry Saturday night specials, not extended-mag G36C's. So if your that concerned, just start carrying at Para1911A1.

          Career criminals don't spend their hard stolen money on expensive, nice guns... Remember EVEN the RAP GUYS only kill each other with Glocks, if that tells you anything, and they have ***** of money. They don't kill each other with Kriss SMG's or MP5K's

          Worry when they try to take guns away, period, like England. and remember, the AWB hit assault capacity mags the hardest, and not much else, so if your worried about it, pick up a crap load of AK and Stanag mags, or whatever you might need, and just grandfather them in.

          Do you REALLY need that Ma Deuce you have been saving for? Really?

          Vote for Obama, or McCain will make inflation so bad, you wont be able to afford that new pistol you've been wanting so badly anyways.

    • paigeinphilly, on 06/08/2008, -3/+6The man has run a very organized campaign...and coupled with the pitfalls from the primaries, I feel he will be even more prepared...so does he have a strategy?...yup..just watch.

      =0)

      Obama/Webb 08
    • Gerz1219, on 06/08/2008, -1/+8http://www.electoral-vote.com/

      A lot of the polls on there are out of date, but they provide a pretty good indication that Obama has many paths to the presidency; they just don't rely on the 2000/2004 formula of only campaigning in Ohio-Florida-Pennsylvania.

      Obama can cede Florida, Ohio and Michigan to McCain and still win as long as he flips Colorado and Indiana. He can carpet bomb southern states like Virginia and South Carolina, which the Republicans have taken for granted but where there's also certain to be historic black turnout.

      Also, notice that the only large states that McCain has in the bag are Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. Obama is within 10 points in every other state with more than 10 electoral votes. That means those states are competitive, even Texas, and McCain will have to pour precious resources into what should be solid ground for him. Every dollar McCain spends in Texas is a dollar he can't spend in the close swing states, and McCain doesn't have that many dollars.
    • NWTerriD, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6He's had a strategy for everything else, as he has run one of the best-conceived and best-organized campaigns in history. No reason to think he won't have a strategy for this too.

      Which states are "swing states" depends on current circumstances, not on past history.
  • 55mph, on 06/08/2008, -28/+22Don't kid yourself. We have a one party system due to the special interest groups that fund both parties. Believe it, Obama is history if he even suggests he's going to tip the scales in favor of a government for the people once he gets into office. That's why the Bilderbergs are carefully selecting his running mate..
    • DavidtheDuke, on 06/08/2008, -4/+3What? Any politician would agree with that IN PUBLIC.
      • gghost, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Admittedly I just got out of bed, but I don't understand what you mean?
    • DocGlass, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6I thought Obama wasn't taking money from PACs or lobbyist?
      • Muyoso, on 06/08/2008, -8/+5He has a ***** ton of them on his team, so its yet another LIE that he has peddled. He SAID he wasnt going to allow them to influence his campaign, he lied. He also said his campaign was going to be financed publicly, he lied there too.
        • KJSatz, on 06/08/2008, -0/+10He said if the Republican nominee wanted to, he would sit down and make an agreement to both do public financing. But McCain may have violated public finance law when he entered the program and possibly used the promise of public finance money as collateral for a loan (it's disputed between the DNC and McCain as you can imagine).

          http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/409/mccain-funds.html
        • DocGlass, on 06/08/2008, -0/+7Am I wrong to trust the below link? Do you have any further reading about Obama's money and where he is getting it. He does seem too good to be true, but I'm not seeing any proof of lies. I only ask because you (Muyoso) don't seem like a reliable source of information.

          Link: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid= ...
    • nemo001, on 06/08/2008, -3/+5What is this Bilderberg crap popping up all over the Internet? Is this troofer-type crap or what? This nonsense is about as good as using HuffPo as a "news" source.
  • HeroicLife, on 06/08/2008, -33/+17Yay for collectivism! Socialist regimes only killed 94+ million people in the 20th century. What could go wrong?
    • Deadpixel1221, on 06/08/2008, -5/+1It's better than this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DqR7zis99I
      • CPMan, on 06/08/2008, -5/+2Better than what? Socialism is "better" than Fascism?

        What kind of choice is that?

        Sucks to be an American voter.
    • 3szoom, on 06/09/2008, -6/+5Yup, that describes Canada exactly! Don't confuse "Socialism" for Fascism you ***** idiot.
      • kuantan97, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1So Maoist China and Stalinist Russia were fascist?
        • 140Suffolk, on 06/09/2008, -4/+2Do you dummies know the real name of Nazism?
          The word "Nazi" is short for.....

          National SOCIALIST

          It ain't that different.
  • nastronomical, on 06/08/2008, -33/+9Wait......The liberal rag is praising Obama? Schockin!!
    • mlrigsby, on 06/08/2008, -1/+9Wait...... conservatives view the most respected newspaper in the world as a "liberal rag"? Schockin!!
    • malex, on 06/09/2008, -0/+8So, are you saying that you don't find any compelling arguments or analysis made by this article, or that you refuse to read anything you don't already agree with?
  • cmp1968, on 06/08/2008, -15/+12Excellent article. I read that earlier and added Mr. Rich to my RSS.
  • RomanThommassen, on 06/08/2008, -32/+16Ron Paul 08
  • mecharabbit, on 06/08/2008, -11/+40As much as the Republicans paid homage to Ronald Reagan in this campaign, it is really Obama who has done a better job of replicating Reagan's "morning in America"-type vision for the future. After the Carter years, people weren't feeling very confident about the direction the country was headed, but Reagan (love him or hate him), made people feel optimistic again. The same kind of message is needed right now after the disastrous Bush years.
    Regardless of how well Obama can deliver on his promises if he should be elected, I think that his message of hope is absolutely essential for us right now. McCain seems pessimistic and fatalistic by comparison.
    • Barackalypse, on 06/08/2008, -20/+9Besides the rhetoric all Obama has to offer is plans for even more federal spending, $343.6 billion worth. Only a big government liberal could make McCain seem like a fiscal conservative by only proposing $68.5 billion in additional spending. Ron Reagan would not approve of either of them. Aaron Burr would probably have challenged them both to a duel and won.
      http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141
      • pintomp3, on 06/08/2008, -3/+12A Bloomberg News analysis of McCain's budget, which was released in April, shows it would increase the national debt by $1.8 trillion over eight years.
        http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si ...
        • Barackalypse, on 06/08/2008, -7/+5You fail for not posting both sides of the issue by linking what they say about Obama's budget. Just for fun though, Obama proposed $278 billion a year more spending than McCain, over 8 years that is $2.2 TRILLION in spending more than McCain.
        • pensel, on 06/08/2008, -1/+4You didn't read the article :(

          I'm pretty sure *you* fail for thinking the other side's proposal can be assessed with a solar powered calculator.
      • chicofaraby, on 06/08/2008, -3/+6Yes, the richest Americans will have to pay more taxes. They can afford it. They made out like bandits for two decades. It's time to pay the piper.

        It won't affect you. Stop whining, it's the right wing's policy of zero sum economics that put us in the hole.

        • DreadPirate, on 06/08/2008, -8/+3*rolls eyes* And the entitlement nation built by liberals has *nothing* to do with it whatsoever, I'm sure.
        • chicofaraby, on 06/08/2008, -2/+7"the entitlement nation"

          Don't blame your right wing talking points ***** on liberals. We're dealing with reality since you right wing nuts won't.
        • DreadPirate, on 06/08/2008, -5/+3And reality is handing out money hand over fist to everyone? Your pathetic leaders came to power promising to cut down on on earmarks, and the problem has only gotten *worse* in the past two years. You have a very strange definition of reality....
        • DocGlass, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5@dreadPirate

          Some one who sits on there ass and "steals" $300 a month in "hand outs".
          Vs.
          A corporation that doesn't pay millions in taxes because of tax havens.

          Which one do you think costs more in the end? If you people would quit all this left wing right wing sissy ***** and think like rational adults for a moment maybe we wouldn't be hemorrhaging jobs and money right now.
        • chicofaraby, on 06/09/2008, -1/+5"Your pathetic leaders came to power"

          Stupid assumption. I'm not a Democrat and socialists aren't in power.

          And the Democrats didn't run the country into the dirt over the last decade of GOP control. Stop dodging responsibility for your own failures.
        • thirteenthcor, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Well I for one am glad we spent all this dough on the Middle East, instead of using it to invest in our public school systems, mass transportation, improving welfare, and other government institutions.

          Dread Pirate, look up how much money it has cost us to wage this "war" on an idea, and compare that to how much it would cost to feed and clothe every child in our country, how much it would cost to rebuild neighborhoods that have fallen into poverty, social reconstruction programs, education, mass transit..... You will find that you will have money left over. Without that nasty recession problem and gas prices.

          Bush. Us.
          (>^_(>O_O)>
      • DocGlass, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6I don't see a problem with $343.6 billion, because I trust that Obama isn't going to funnel it into corporate coffers. I get the feeling that the money he plans to spend will be re-invested into our country. For things like roads, public transit, etc. etc. etc.
        If you don't want to pay to live in a civilized world go out into the woods and live amongst the trees.
      • rhodydog, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2You accuse the democrats of being big government, what do you think we've had for the last 7/8 years!

        As much as I like small government, if McCain gets elected is he is more likely to slash domestic spending on essentials such as R&D, education, health etc, while leaving the huge Military complex and Iraq spending intact (15 f**ing billion a month!). If there have to be cuts I would rather they fall on worthless military spending.
    • twomeyw23334, on 06/08/2008, -11/+3Reagan united and inspired with his policies and leadership, not just by constantly repeating he wanted to be a uniter.
      I can say I want to be rich until I'm blue in the face but that won't make me rich. A message alone simply won't cut it.
    • JPOOPOO, on 06/09/2008, -6/+4I think the country needs more than a feeling
      • dacrazydude, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3Are you sure it doesn't need more cowbell?
      • tyywebb, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1I looked out this morning and the sun was gone
        Turned on some music to start my day
        I lost myself in a familiar song
        I closed my eyes and I slipped awayyyyy!
    • jabberwolf, on 06/09/2008, -4/+2Regan inherited an economy coming out of recession, and cut TAXES!!!!

      Obama wants to make a social system out of a country in an economic crisis !!!!

      Hope is for suckers. America needs substance and Obama is just a speech with a teleprompter.
      • SaintStryfe, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4Actually, Reagan raised taxes. Significantly. And he ballooned the deficit with unbridled spending that might have hastened the fall of the USSR by a few years, but not likely (it was well on the way to collapse by itself without Reagan's help).

        Hope may be for suckers, but you're just shoveling shyte.
  • Barackalypse, on 06/08/2008, -35/+10You don't have two Americas, you have one America that is getting an even bigger federal government, your choice is if you want Obama's additional $343.6 billion government or McCain's additional $65.5 billion government.
    http://www.ntu.org/images/2008pres_0806_total.png
    • sylvok, on 06/08/2008, -5/+7Yes but one gets rid of your health costs basically and the other doesn't.
      • Barackalypse, on 06/08/2008, -8/+5If it wasn't for the Medicare taxes I pay every month, I wouldn't have to spend any additional money on health care. There is no way the government can deliver me better health care for my money than the private insurance I have now. I paid $876 for an ENTIRE year of health insurance last year, thats less than I pay in federal income tax each month.
        • WasabiBomb, on 06/08/2008, -3/+4Congratulations on being the wealthier part of society. I'm sure your continued good health is a comfort to all the people who can't get insurance at all.
        • Barackalypse, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2I got there by working, not by waiting for a government handout, the poorer part of society should try it sometime, its the reason this country is still an economic power.
    • kd420, on 06/08/2008, -2/+16I noticed that graph doesn't incorporate spending on the Iraq war, since that MIGHT just put McCain's spending a bit higher than Obama's.
      • publiclurker, on 06/08/2008, -3/+5Or Iran
      • Barackalypse, on 06/08/2008, -6/+5The Iraq war costs $720 million a day or $263 billion a year. Obama's spending increases of $343.6 minus the Iraq War costs of $263 billion is $80.6 billion, which is still nearly a quarter MORE than McCain's $65.5 billion. So, assuming Obama ends the war immediately and brings every soldier home, he is still proposing more government spending than McCain. Put that into perspective, McCain can fight a war with hundreds of thousands of people halfway around the world and still spend billions of dollars less than Obama's demoestic big government spending.
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

        Also, since Senator Obama keeps voting to fund the war, I don't see why president Obama would be any different.
        • NWTerriD, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5Then you clearly have not paid attention to what he has said. He has clearly explained the difference between continuing to fund the war since the President is going to keep the troops there anyway (and Obama DOES support US troops and doesn't want to leave them in Iraq with insufficient support) vs. voting to authorize war in the first place.

          As a Senator, he can't bring the troops home, so he votes for funding to allow them to be fed and armed while they're over there. As President, he would bring them home.

          The distinction really isn't that difficult to grasp.
    • pintomp3, on 06/08/2008, -1/+10A Bloomberg News analysis of McCain's budget, which was released in April, shows it would increase the national debt by $1.8 trillion over eight years.
      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si ...
      • Barackalypse, on 06/08/2008, -7/+3How is Obama's budget looking, considering his spending proposals are $278 BILLION dollars more a year than McCains (that is 2.2 TRILLION over 8 years).
    • SuperSunny, on 06/08/2008, -2/+8Do you people specifically join Digg with political names just to do political bashing?

      Do you like arguing on the internet with pathetic sources of information pretending you're cool because hey, big words and large numbers = intelligence!!!
  • DirtPile, on 06/08/2008, -16/+9We need another Irish president. Barack O'Bama seems a good choice.
  • paigeinphilly, on 06/08/2008, -16/+35Good article. I can't say it enough. I am sooo glad that Obama is running. After the big rally here in Philadelphia, which drew at least 35,000 folks..i remember stopping and looking around at all the faces..I saw young, older,different skin colors, different religions, cultures, classes, orientation, genders...all together..all on the same page...the energy was amazing.

    Thank you Mr. Obama for reminding us of what we are and can aspire to.


    =0)

    Obama/Webb 08
    • amightywind, on 06/08/2008, -15/+5The Nazi movement has energy too. What about ideas?
      http://www.rense.com/general81/obsav.htm
      A curse on you and all of your followers, Barack Hussein Obama!
      • Icerazer, on 06/08/2008, -1/+6Considering your name, I'm going to assume this is a strange comedy bit.
      • jerkfaceirl, on 06/09/2008, -2/+6Your comments are always stupid amightywind.
        You're the typical flag waving idiot republican and you remind me of a child having a tantrum.

        Nazi movement......?
        Godwin's Law.
    • runCMD, on 06/08/2008, -5/+5paige - comments like yours are so scary to me. Don't you realize that all that wonderful hope and energy came from you ? Did you really need Obama to be come a hopeful person ? When people pin all their hopes and dreams on an individual - they are bound for disappointment. Look to yourself for inspiration. Not a politician with a feel-good agenda.
      • obelisky, on 06/09/2008, -2/+2what was the point of this
        • runCMD, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1An attempt to demonstrate the emperor has no clothes. Some got it. Some didn't. Just like in the primaries.
      • paigeinphilly, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1runCMD-

        I inspire myself and hopefully others everyday (that isn't the issue whatsoever my dear)...but do I need feel good about my President and his/her administration...because it affects me personally. I feel good about Obama...and is that such a bad thing?...I could flip it...when I read comments like yours it leaves me with the perception of that you are a person who sees the glass half empty...I want to feel good about my country again...and if a candidate comes along who can inspire me to give a rats tail again...and to be active within the goings on with my country...then yes, so I fully support Mr Obama...and I'm sorry if that "scares" you.

        and collectively that hope & energy that i felt was not only from myself but also from the thousands that surrounded me...


        Obama/Webb 08
    • tyywebb, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1You saw different orientations? Was somebody wearing assless chaps or something?
      • paigeinphilly, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1no...they were coupled up.

        assless chaps.

        igit.


  • Lanage, on 06/08/2008, -13/+2If this is like 2 girls 1 cup, so help me god...
  • str3ama, on 06/08/2008, -15/+22McCain is the only candidate who actually makes Bush Jr look like an eloquent speaker in comparison. If that's not reason enough for you not vote for him - you need your head checked.
    • twomeyw23334, on 06/08/2008, -10/+5And Obama is such a great speaker? Sure, the guy can read a script pretty well but take away his teleprompter and he immediately losses all speaking ability. The guy stutters for like 15 seconds every time he's asked a question and then answers it the exact same as every other question anyways.
      "What I think.... is.. well....you see.... we.... what.........we need to come together. We need to come together as one and unite. By working together I have faith the American people can solve this issue.

      Thanks Obama, what a beautiful answer.
  • sylvok, on 06/08/2008, -13/+7Obama/Paul ticket would be my dream ticket. They are on opposite ends of the spectrum but if they could talk to each other, real meaningful change would happen.
    • KJSatz, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2Paul detests Obama.
      • muckemuck, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1actually.... there's a video around on youtube where Paul says a few good things about Obama.. I kind of doubt he "detests" him but he probably disagrees totally with some of the ideas Obama has for our country.
      • tehstone, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1pics or it didn't happen
    • Ne007, on 06/09/2008, -2/+1How about just Ron Paul.....
  • swordphish, on 06/08/2008, -15/+10Ron Jeremy 08
  • Mookeh, on 06/08/2008, -15/+4I once saw Mr. Obama give a speech in real life. It was stirring and eloquent. He was talking about the violence that plagued our city of Philadelphia, where I was born and raised. He referred to an incident outside of my school, where a couple of guys, who were up to no good, started making trouble in my neighourhood. I got in one little fight and my mom got scared, she said 'You're moving with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air'.
  • dafragsta, on 06/08/2008, -14/+8So where were you on Thursday night, Barack? Northern Virginia perhaps? Did you wait to tell the press corps that until the doors were locked an the plane was taxiing?

    Any Bilderberg connection is a condemnation in my book. I was for Obama about 3 days ago. A funny thing happened on the way to Chicago.
    • SuperSunny, on 06/08/2008, -4/+2Are you a conspiracy hippie or something?
    • Tenlow, on 06/08/2008, -2/+2So you'd never vote for a clinton then either.
      • Tenlow, on 06/08/2008, -0/+2I don't see why I'm getting dugg down, Bill Clinton went to the meeting when he was the governor of Arkansas in 1991. If a connection to the bilderberg group is a condemnation, the Clintons are just as guilty as Obama is in your eyes.
      • dafragsta, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1No sir, I wouldn't. Not after seeing his true colors. Not again.
    • Deanblackoak, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2What we have here sir is people chasing at shadows.
    • paigeinphilly, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2Bilderberg...interesting, i want to research this.
    • nemo001, on 06/08/2008, -0/+3What the hell is a "Bilderberg connection"?
      • dafragsta, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1On Thursday the Bilderberg group met in Chantilly, VA. There was a press release, so this isn't a "hippie conspiracy theory." They did meet. Also on Thursday in DC, a press corps plane following the campaign was told Obama was headed back to Chicago, but in fact, his motorcade left for, in the words of his press handler Robert Gibbs, "secret meetings" which would not be disclosed when the press grilled him about why that information wasn't made available to the press before the plane locked the doors and started taxiing. The video of that interview is on CNN (search for "Angry Press," it's the only search result.

        He may or may not have met with Bilderbergers, but these circumstances are very suspicious for a meeting with Hillary that everyone knew would happen.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 06/08/2008, -28/+9There are, indeed, two America's, one populated by hard-working, industrious, patriotic, freedom-loving people like John McCain, and the other - by racist, anti-American sleazebags like Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, and Barack Hussein Obama.
    • pintomp3, on 06/08/2008, -4/+10mccain is hard working? life must be hard when you only have $100 million in beer money. freedom-loving? like the freedom to spy on americans without a warrant?
    • SuperSunny, on 06/08/2008, -4/+14You mean freedom-loving, fry-eating, soda-drinking, fat-gobbling obesely patriotic people? I think I prefer progression and cultural unity...and politics suck. Just live as a human. Who told you Obama's racist? No, seriously, this isn't even political, you're just a *****. Grow up. He's black for christ sake, trying to win white voters, how the hell is he racist?
    • zacharytelschow, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1Don't forget Tony Rezko. He has called all of those people you listed (except himself of course) very close personal friends, almost family. If you can judge a politician by the company he keeps, his voting record, or his own words, Obama has no business being president of these United States.

      “I will not run on a National Ticket in 2008 because I won’t have enough experience by then.” -- Barack Obama
  • Skurj, on 06/08/2008, -8/+26america needs a complete image makeover if it wants to have a chance at fixing any of the economic and/or political issues facing the nation these days.
    that's the biggest issue of all.
    as it stands, obama represents that change, mccain doesnt.
    • bobh1234, on 06/08/2008, -6/+4What change would that be? Higher taxes, a worse economy? He's more left than Carter, who left the country in shambles.
      • BrendanSheehan, on 06/09/2008, -4/+2Yes a worse economy, that's Obama's goal. pft..
      • desertDenizen, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3Symbolic moves like closing Guantanamo Bay cost nothing, yet they raise the country's moral capital, reflected ultimately in the value of the dollar abroad. The American brand has suffered. It's going to take a true leader -- a true statesman -- to fix this.
        • ralphthemagi, on 06/09/2008, -0/+0Are you serious? Moral capital won't do anything for the value of the dollar. Financial markets don't care about morals.
        • desertDenizen, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1You misunderstand the term "moral capital." If you think a country's future looks bad, you're far less likely to invest in its currency. More capital is goodwill that helps you do whatever you want to do, at lower cost, because other people will support you.
  • jbenson2, on 06/08/2008, -16/+9The O-man is going to let people start healing themselves and he is going to lower the ocean levels.
    What an egotistical inexperienced political hack.
  • nastronomical, on 06/08/2008, -23/+14Hypocrisy on the left knows no end...



    If you disagree with Obama = You are divisive


    If you disagree with President Bush = You are excercising your constitutional right to free speech.
    • swordphish, on 06/08/2008, -11/+9If you disagree with President Bush = All expenses paid trip to Gitmo.
      • badqat, on 06/08/2008, -3/+7Then why isn't most of the country there? Because you're full of it, that's why.
    • Zanzabar33, on 06/08/2008, -10/+10If you agree with Obama = your cant think for yourself and your a person who just goes with the flow
    • sassip, on 06/08/2008, -3/+7Disagree with Bush, um, errr. let me see war, gas, torture, language mangling speeches, wmd, messianic bat-phone to god ... I'm tired. But you get the point, no?
    • sassip, on 06/08/2008, -3/+4All you have to do to disagree with Bush is look back. Um... wmd, war, gas, food, messianic bat-phone to god... phew! I'm tired but you get the point, no? The repubs had it all for about 6 years. All that "experience," sure paid off in spades, no?
    • chicofaraby, on 06/08/2008, -3/+8There is nothing funnier than the American right complaining about the deplorable state of political discourse in the USA.

  • Tenlow, on 06/08/2008, -1/+11One thing, the article (at least the way I read it) lists the "ich bin ein berliner" statement as a faux pas, but in reality that was just a joke in the united states. In berlin (and germany as a whole) it was seen as a milestone (and properly understood).
  • goon5000, on 06/08/2008, -15/+8McCain 08!
    • BrendanSheehan, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Obama '09 through 2016 :P
      You are a 'goon'
  • Jamihabs, on 06/08/2008, -19/+7take a look at LGF and we can see how Obama's website is a not so cheerful embrace of the Jews

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
    • nemo001, on 06/08/2008, -8/+1I read the stuff at LGF. I suppose Rich hasn't noticed the anti-semitic hate speech on Obama's official site or the number of luny Jihadists blogging there supporting Obama's election. For that matter, I doubt a lot of Obama supporters here have noticed it either.

      Rich wirties "You could learn a ton about the Clinton campaign’s cultural tone-deafness from its stodgy generic Web site."

      He could probably learn a lot if he'd have bothered to look at Obama supporters non-stodgy, clearly anti-semitic rants.
      • NWTerriD, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1I've read his website lots of times. Never saw any hate speech directed toward Jews or anyone else. Maybe you could give a link to an example? Probably not, because your statement is a lie.
        • nemo001, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1Why should I bother and I won't bother for two reasons: you misrepresent what I said; I did not say Obama is openly antisemitic; I am saying his campaign permits openly anti-semitic people posting blogs entries on his official website (blogs that seem to now be disappearing) and two, Jamihabs posted the link in the parent of this thread.
    • Yuska, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2Christopher Bollyn is a hack.
    • runCMD, on 06/08/2008, -1/+2The graphics on Obamas website makes him look like a faith healer. All glow-ey - and halo-ey. and sweet.
      • nemo001, on 06/08/2008, -2/+2He is the messiah. He will can make change.
      • NWTerriD, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Wow -- I guess I can't vote for him now!! A sweet, glow-ey president?? We certainly can't have that.
        • runCMD, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1So silly NWTerriD. I'm digging you up for the chuckle.
  • UpperUpsilon, on 06/08/2008, -8/+3Ew.
  • shiv68, on 06/08/2008, -11/+23
    A tale of two douche bags.
  • joker10687, on 06/08/2008, -3/+11Thanks for not making the headline "2 Americas, 1 Historic Night"
  • Hangly, on 06/08/2008, -9/+12I'll reserve judgment until I see what Obama actually does in office. Having an optimistic outlook isn't quite enough, I'm afraid.
    • nemo001, on 06/08/2008, -0/+11He's been in office. Consult his voting record.
  • Hangly, on 06/08/2008, -6/+262 Candidates 1 Cup
    • tyywebb, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2I have a feeling Hillary's into herself enough to gladly eat her own *****.
  • JointVenture, on 06/08/2008, -15/+3Obama, the first BLITE or WHACK (whichever you prefer) presidential nominee.
    • androo002345, on 06/08/2008, -0/+6You should look up the world "multiracial" sometime.
      • JointVenture, on 06/08/2008, -9/+1You dumb *****, he's bi-racial.

        Blite or Whack fits, he is NOT BLACK.
        • malex, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4Your distemper is starting to show.
        • JointVenture, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1Trust me, I laugh more on digg than I do the Daily Show.

          Whats more fun is that when presented with the truth diggers run.
    • utahnkid, on 06/09/2008, -2/+3Aren't you supposed to ask for permission before speaking? We've gone over this a million times.

      And I almost forgot.. Your mom says hi.
  • gromit1025, on 06/08/2008, -12/+6Has Obama ever listed what he wants to change? What is his track record? Does he even have one? Why vote for the unknown, when it could be so much worse than what's come before? Stop voting with your damn emotions and vote with your mind.
    • Spektr4, on 06/08/2008, -4/+13The answers to your questions are easy to find. Do yourself a favor and search for them before making a fool of yourself.
      • nemo001, on 06/08/2008, -5/+1That was kind of an ***** response.
        • jamesLankford, on 06/08/2008, -0/+5no it was a great response
          gromit1025 is an idiot
          he could read Obama's book, he could look up Obama's congressional voting record, he could have watched the debates

          to call Obama an unknown is just stupid, it just shows that gromit1025 doens't really want to know Obaam's positions
          anybody that want's to know Obama's positions can
        • soulonice, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2Or maybe an indication that Obama needs to do a better job of getting his message out.
      • zacharytelschow, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Its great to say there will be 4 chickens in every pot and 8 cars in every driveway (and gold roads to drive them on, too), but only a fool would sell that and only an idiot would buy it.
    • NWTerriD, on 06/08/2008, -2/+13Yes, he has listed what he wants to change. His track record is a matter of public record. Yes, he has one. I am not voting for the unknown. In the internet age, the only reason that anyone would consider Obama "unknown" is that they are too lazy to bother exercising the basic responsibilities of citizenship. In other words, they prefer "voting with their damn emotions" rather than using their mind to actually learn the facts about the candidate.
      • bobh1234, on 06/08/2008, -5/+2I know exactly what his voting record is - the most leftist of any Senator in history. Obama is a moron.
        • NWTerriD, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Please give us the factual support for your statement that this man who ran the best political campaign in recent history, graduated from the top law school in the country, and wrote what many have hailed as one of the most important political speeches in modern America is a "moron."

          Also -- since you are apparently such a genius -- did you reach that conclusion about his voting record by independently examining his votes, or are you just quoting from the National Journal rating that put him as "most liberal" for 2007 only?

          If you analyzed it yourself, please do share your analysis with us. If it's based on the National Journal rating, please read this article, which explains why that rating is very limited in how informative it is -- and actually quotes a National Journal editor as saying that the "shorthand" that they use ("Most Liberal") can be misleading or even wrong: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/ ...

      • gromit1025, on 06/09/2008, -2/+1So, did you want to answer what he's focused on changing? What is his track record? What has he done? how can you say he's ready for the presidency? Why should we vote for him? Don't negate me by ignoring my questions.
        • NWTerriD, on 06/09/2008, -0/+0I didn't ignore your questions. I told you to find the answers yourself. I'm quite sure that any answer I give would be inadequate, because you want to criticize him, not find the truth. Also, it would take many, many, many times more information than can be contained in one comment to answer your question. A VERY general answer is that he wants to change how government operates in this country, and his track record is that he has introduced legislation in numerous areas, including transparency and ethics in government, supporting veterans, and various issues in foreign relations. In the Illionois legislature, some of the areas in which he successfully introduced legislation were judicial system reform, ethics in government, and children's health coverage. Hundreds more pages could be written, but you can start acting like a citizen and do your own research.
      • zacharytelschow, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1129 present votes in the Illinois senate (more than anyone else in that same time span), and the only bill he sponsored was to require video taping of interrogations (already required in 30 some other states). You're right, by golly! That is bold leadership!
    • Muyoso, on 06/08/2008, -7/+3He has his 1 year in the Senate before he started to campaign for president. That is something. Oh, and take a look how he came to power too, by FORCING out all of his rivals. Some shady ***** there.
      • NWTerriD, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3Actually, what was shady was the fact that his opponents were trying to get on the ballot by using petitions that did not have enough valid signatures. What Obama did was file a legal challenge against them. He won. The law was on his side. Yep, that's really shady, isn't it?

        The man was a law professor. He believes in the Constitution and the rule of law. "Shady" would be the crooks who have been in office for the past 7 years. The ones that McCain agrees with on Constitutional matters.
    • rhodydog, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3Do yourself a favor and check out his web site - idiot.
  • noaanjali, on 06/08/2008, -3/+6rich is right.
  • mattlohkamp, on 06/08/2008, -8/+3FTA:
    All presidential candidates, Mr. Obama certainly included, are egomaniacs. But Washington’s faith in hierarchical status adds a thick layer of pomposity to politicians who linger there too long. Mrs. Clinton referred to herself by the first-person pronoun 64 times in her speech, and Mr. McCain did so 60 times in his. Mr. Obama settled for 30.

    ... I don't get it, first person pronouns don't correlate to egomania, and what point his he trying to make?
    • NWTerriD, on 06/08/2008, -0/+4There is a thing called "context" in the written word. If you're trying to determine the meaning of what someone wrote, it helps to look at what comes right before or right after it. In this case, the sentence immediately preceding what you quoted was:

      "But Washington’s faith in hierarchical status adds a thick layer of pomposity to politicians who linger there too long."

      Based on that, I would say the point he is trying to make is that McCain and Clinton are pompous.
  • amightywind, on 06/08/2008, -24/+5Two America's. One responsible, generous, hard working, traditional, clear thinking - Red State America. The other, grasping, dysfunctional, violent, narcissistic - Blue State America. God save the Republic from Obama, who will deliver us to the islamists.
    • Stevanoski, on 06/08/2008, -11/+4You pegged it.
    • SuperSunny, on 06/08/2008, -4/+7Go away political spambot piece of *****
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/08/2008, -5/+1The justification for war and aggression has not been grasping? It's execution not dysfunctional? Are the terms of immunity against the wrongs caused by US and its agents not violent in nature against the Iraqi state?

      This isn't about red state/blue state any more. I draw the line at preserving liberty, and so far no 'front runner' has proven to value this so much as they wish to govern over the people and receive praise for spending other people's money, all to the ruin of prosperity and freedom.
    • JosefK88, on 06/09/2008, -5/+2A mighty blowhard
    • Renostyle, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2"Thirty of the U.S. states reap more in federal spending than their citizens
      contribute to the federal government in taxes. The other 20 states provide more in taxes than they receive in spending. In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Al Gore won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending. A state’s ratio of federal spending to tax dollars, particularly non-defense spending, is a statistically and substantively significant predictor of Bush’s margin of victory across the states. A state’s per capita federal tax burden is also associated with the election result: states with higher tax burdens gave higher vote margins to Gore. Compared to Clinton’s state-by-state vote shares in 1996, Gore did worse in states that gained in federal spending per tax dollar from 1998 to 2000."

      Here's the PDF if you would like:
      http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/ ...

      And here's a picture if you'd like:
      http://www.giveupblog.com/maps/map9.jpg

  • designer, on 06/08/2008, -6/+12Obama is a progressive in the vein of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. There is NOTHING new about Obama's ideas.
    • SuperSunny, on 06/08/2008, -2/+9It's new in the way he's presenting them and applying them to the modern world.
      • wildone71, on 06/09/2008, -8/+2Weird, I've yet to hear anything concrete from Obama. Yeah, change and Hope.. that's great, but let's see, National Healthcare - going to further bankrupt the nation, get out of Iraq - if you think that's going to happen I've got a bridge in Arizona to sell you... um, oh yeah, Hope and Change... LOL.
        • NWTerriD, on 06/09/2008, -1/+6Then I guess you haven't been listening.
      • kuantan97, on 06/09/2008, -7/+2Exactly. Saber rattling and government seizure of private property are so warm to the ears. Throw in a little eloquence, and you can raise an army of suckers.
      • designer, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2I'm not sure how redistribution of wealth and growing government can be any better than it was 90+ years ago just because it is applied to the "modern" world. Socialism is socialism no matter where or when applied.
  • Ne007, on 06/08/2008, -5/+17If McCain wins we are doomed to go into mind boggling debt.

    Each party will be bending over the other to get money. Both sides will win every time just like today.

    Democrats bend over Republicans and then give them their war money.
    Republicans bend over the Democrats and then give them their welfare money.

    If Obama wins and he continues war spending then we will KNOW that both sides are one in the same now.
    • PeppermintPig, on 06/08/2008, -2/+3Why do you need to wait to figure this out?? Look at their current records.
      • Ne007, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1Yes I know Obama voted for continued war spending.

        Yes I know he will continue to do so if he wins.

        What ever happened to the democrat's fight against war spending? Well...the answer is is that they don't fight as long as they get what they want.

        Well....I guess we need to vote against all incumbents again.
  • AnarchoGoth, on 06/08/2008, -2/+14How can you call McCain "a wise warrior’s vigilant conservation of the past" when he has supported GWB's War on Freedom?

    Eternal Vigilance is supposed to be used in the defense of Liberty, not in destroying it.

    GWB is not a conservative. Anyone who supports GWB is not a true conservative.
    I might have had respect for John McCain but that was a long time ago.
    Now I consider him a traitor to this country, as well as Hillary Clinton who has also supported the agenda of the current administration.

    And I must say I am starting to have doubts about Obama.
    I might vote for him, I might not. A lot can happen between now and November.

    I will never vote for him if he chooses Clinton as his running mate.
    I would be highly likely to vote for him if he had Ron Paul at his side.
    • rolf, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2Obama and Ron Paul have wildly different outlooks. I could not bring myself to vote for Obama no matter who is on his side unless Obama changes his politics.

      But I agree with you about GWB not being conservative. McCains direction since 2000 is just sad, political opportunism at its finest display.
  • TheGrandMufti, on 06/08/2008, -11/+9Obama stands for change. He will be the deity of America's new state religion.
  • crackberri, on 06/08/2008, -9/+2Obama / Wright, a ticket made in hellven.....
    • nemo001, on 06/08/2008, -2/+1That is silly. Although Wright was Obama's 20 year spiritual adviser, selecting Wright would certainly mean he would lose the election ... oh, wait ... OK. Obama attended Wright's church and the Obama campaign (and we the people) are so OK with it that not only will we drag the church out from under the bus, we will put Wright on the ticket. Hm, no, won't work.
  • spamcrusher, on 06/08/2008, -12/+10Obama, McCain, it doesn't matter. Both represent the same failed system that has ruled our government for decades. The difference between them, once you dig beyond all the hot air, is insignificant. Both will keep our country down our path destined for failure.
    • miketh01, on 06/08/2008, -4/+0werd
    • nemo001, on 06/08/2008, -3/+3Are you trying to be goth or something?
    • damonic, on 06/09/2008, -1/+5I disagree. The president does not run this country - he is just a figurehead. McCain is as much of a puppet as Bush. He does exactly as he is told. Obama acts in the best interest of the people - not corporations.. Look at his voting record.
      • zacharytelschow, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1His voting record is as left as it gets, bordering on socialist. Not to mention that he had 129 present votes in the Illinois senate (more than anyone else in that same time span), and the only bill he sponsored was to require video taping of interrogations (already required in 30 some other states). The guy essentially doesn't have a voting record of note, and what is there I really don't like.
    • desertDenizen, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Interesting position, vacuous argument. You write like a cynical nihilist who either doesn't have any actual ideas, or is too bummed out to share them. Either way, it's of no value to the reader. I'd welcome a reasoned argument however, should you choose to provide one. Seriously.
  • miketh01, on 06/08/2008, -6/+2i have a feeling that my entire front page is going to get buried once the election gets in full swing...
  • rbk303, on 06/09/2008, -1/+11vigilant conservation? i assume you mean bush-style neo-conservation. tell me... how is it conservative to put the entire country on welfare? economic stimulus my a**.
    • zacharytelschow, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1A stimulus check would have been fine with me since it essentially equates to lower taxes, however, I would have to agree with you that this particular implementation blows since those who pay the most in federal taxes got nothing back.
  • dantenhickville, on 06/09/2008, -10/+3How could anyone vote for a man who believes there are 57 states? When he's not reading a prepared speech, he sounds every bit as dumb as McCain or Bush. I'm voting for Ron Paul, but I'd love Michael Jordan to run for President. Ever since I heard Charles Barkley tell the story of how MJ told him not to give a bum a dollar because if he can ask for a dollar he can ask would you like fries with that Michael Jordan's been my hero. Plus, he single handedly revolutionized the sports marketing business, so he's not a Marxist tool like Obama. If you vote for Obama, you're not getting anything new just old bad ideas in a new package. My dream ticket would have Ron Paul and Michael Jordan on it.
    • Goldbricker, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Are you basing this 57 states thing on anything or just making it up as you go along?
      • sinnerou, on 06/09/2008, -1/+0Obama said he'd been to 57 states in one of his appearances a simple slip of the tongue from one of the most eloquent speakers of our time, and thusly, the haters must beat it to death like they never misspoke and anyone who does must be a moron. Ironically most of these people voted for George W. Bush.
        • dantenhickville, on 06/09/2008, -3/+1yes i'm a republican. yes i voted for bush out of fear the other two were bigger idiots. i'm positive they are at least equal. when a republican says something stupid i make fun of them too. i'm sure you think bush is an idiot for what he's said, but when obama does it then he just had a slip of the tongue. i live in pa. the santorum vs. casey race broke me off fear voting. they were both raging idiots. i didn't vote for either. i will never vote for the lesser of evils again that's why are country has gone downhill. both parties are playing the people's fears. Not knowing how many states we have is a huge deal. My kids know that. i despise the direction both parties are going in. i like the democrats less because of their socialist and marxists views. he's not an eloquent speaker. he's an eloquent reader. his speeches are rip offs of cuomo's almost word for word.
        • Goldbricker, on 06/09/2008, -0/+0Yeah I read an article about it after I posted this. I can't believe people would actually turn a simple slip of the tongue into a claim that the guy doesn't know how many states there are. I guess desperate times and all that.
  • muckemuck, on 06/09/2008, -2/+2It would be historic if it gave equal time to candidates who aren't in the two party duopoly. If they included Bob Barr http://www.bobbarr2008.com/ then more Republicans would realize they have a choice to vote for a true conservative instead of the liberal John McCain.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 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.