Digg - Palin's Speech Raises $1M for Republicans; $8M for Democrats

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

931 Comments
Who Dugg It?

OrangeSoda31, on 09/04/2008, -20/+488Palin should speak more often!
- B1663r, on 09/05/2008, -5/+47And you guys dug me down when I said it was a good speech;)
  - Charlotte_Web, on 09/05/2008, -29/+9The article doesn't tell the whole story, though.
    
    Because Sarah was introduced so close to the convention, a lot of people who would have been moved by her had already donated during the week before she spoke.
    
    The last figure I heard was that McCain had raised an extra $10 since August 29th, so with the post-speech amount, $11 million.
  - FairDinkumMate, on 09/05/2008, -5/+25Your comment doesn't make any sense!
    
    By your logic, Obama should have been in a worse position because people have been donating to him not just in the previous week but for the past 2 years.
    
    Try again.....
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -22/+7To top it all of, the RNC has more than the DNC and the Obama Campaign's combined. The $10 million went towards McCain's campaign - donations which stopped on Sept 1st because he cannot accept personal donations anymore. The Palin speech raised $1 million in the few HOURS after the speech before the deadline.
    
    Obama would have to raise $100 million in September to keep up with McCain and the RNC. If it's a money contest, Obama loses. If it's an issues contest, Obama loses. If it's a popularity contest, Obama has a chance. Palin is eating into that chance significantly. The enthusiasm gap has gone from 40% to 20%. Republicans are energized now with such a vibrant member on the ticket who shares McCain's ideals for a reformed government and the conservative bases' ideals on almost all issues.
    
    Pure independents still favor McCain. A higher percentage of conservative republicans favor McCain than liberals favoring Obama.
    
    It's a tight race in all aspects, but I think the democrats only hope is if Palin screws up somehow. She has energized the conservative base in a way that McCain never could, and she adds her experience to the ticket. And, she can speak as well as the Obamacan!!
  - BurnTees, on 09/05/2008, -6/+14"If it's an issues contest, Obama loses. "
    i'd love for you to expalin that one tkstock
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -16/+6Issues:
    
    1) Economy - Obama will lower personal taxes for some, raise them for the rich. He will increase payroll and corporate taxes. He will increase the death and capital gains taxes. Increased corporate and payroll taxes will cause an increase in prices as companies struggle to maintain profitability. People who will get tax decreases will actually pay more for goods and services resulting in no net gain for them, but the government sure makes out OK. The increase in capital gains taxes will cause a massive corporate divestiture, which will reduce operating capital and wring out the already-squeezed capital market. McCain will decrease taxes across the board, which will stimulate the economy and result in EVERYONE paying less. If he couples that with decreased spending (as he promises), this will be a GREAT thing for everyone.
    
    2) National Security - Obama is behind by over 20% on this issue. No explanation needed.
    
    3) Energy - Obama's plan is for future energy. Solar, Wind, Natural Gas. McCain's plan is Obama's plan PLUS nuclear, clean coal, and domestic oil. McCain wins. More people favor drilling now than don't by a fairly large margin. It appears that the democrats are finally getting it too: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13152.ht ...
  - GeneralFault, on 09/05/2008, -5/+8You do realize that Nuclear energy is the most expensive form of energy right now (by quite a bit), followed by "clean coal" and "shale oil" (most domestic oil) right? You do realize that by supplementing oil with nuclear power and shale oil, your energy costs would go UP. Right? You do realize that none of that would happen for 10-15 years anyway right?
    
    Oh, and McCain voted for the "war" in Iraq and has been making threatening speeches against Iran and Russia. So, yes you do need to explain how McCain is better for National Security.
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -8/+6GF, Do you realize that Nuclear energy is one of the CHEAPEST forms of energy?
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0303.html
    
    It's only $0.43 per million BTU, Coal is $1.62, and current petroleum sources are well over 10 times that amount. Where are you getting YOUR figures from? Coal is currently cheaper than solar energy!!! Technology is just now coming out that might change that, though: http://www.celsias.com/article/nanosolars-breakthr ...
    
    Obama is behind by 20% in national security. He will lose on that issue if the vote is on the issue. I don't have to explain why - it's the American people that are voting. You figure it out.
  - GeneralFault, on 09/05/2008, -4/+7Oh really? Funny your figures are opposite of my figures (mine come from FERC, part of the DOA).
    Unfortunately I can't post a link. I only have the original documents. You see, I work in the industry. I'm sure they are online. I will try to find them. In the mean time.
    
    According the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Nuclear currently costs $5,000 - $8,000/kW (you British? Although the conversion is easy, we usually don't measure electrical energy in BTU's).
    Conventional Coal runs between $1500 - $4500 / kW.
    IGCC Coal is at $3000 - $6000 / kW.
    Petroleum is around $1000 - $1750 / kW (currently the cheapest, but rising gas prices may soon challenge that)
    Wind is only $1200 - $2500 / kW
    Solar is currently at $3000 - $5000 / kW but is expected to be drastically reduced over the next 5-10 years.
  - GeneralFault, on 09/05/2008, -3/+7I found a link to the document that I referenced:
    http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/06-19-08-c ...
    
    The error in your numbers is that you only cite the cost of fuel to generate the energy. That does not take into account the cost of construction of the plant. Those are numbers for an already operating plant. Nuclear plants will be expensive to build for many reasons, not the least being that we don't have any civil nuclear engineers anymore. We have not built a nuclear plant in over 30 years. The rest of the cost would come from legal and regulatory concerns relating the the dangerous nature of the fuel.
  - Speed, on 09/05/2008, -4/+5"I think the democrats only hope is if Palin screws up somehow"
    So Obama has won about 6 or 7 times over then?
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -5/+6Why would you quote figures from the Department of Agriculture? Mine were from the Department of Energy. It's always best to go to the right source. The EIA is the arm of the DOE that tracks these things.
    
    Also, if you do work in the industry, you'd realize that BTU is a unit of energy, while kW is a unit of power. You can't attribute a cost to a unit of power because there's no temporal limitations.
  - theonlybradever, on 09/05/2008, -3/+7tkstock:
    
    i suppose you believe the cost of disposing of and/or storing nuclear waste is free too right?
  - GeneralFault, on 09/05/2008, -2/+5tkstock.
    FERC = Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It is part of the DOE. (my typo on the "DOA". Freudian slip I suppose. I was thinking your argument was DOA I guess.)
    
    By the way, you should read or at least skim the document that I posted. It is very educational and interesting.
    
    kW is the standard unit used for electrical cost analysis. Simply because electrical energy cannot be efficiently stored. Thus when you build a power plant, you must build it to the load requirements.
    Your arguing with someone who spends his entire day writing electric and gas forecasting software for most energy companies in the country (and a growing number internationally). I've spend countless hours staring at the raw load data. Have you?
    The equivalent unit for electricity to BTU would be kWh. Funny you mention that, because you can get a power plant total lifetime power by multiplying load (kW) and plant lifetime (hours) and get kWh. Nuclear plants as it turns out tends to have short lifespans due to the safety issues among other things.
    
    BTU's are more often used for measuring gas and coal simply because gas can be stored. Either way, the numbers can be switched out with a simple conversion.
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -4/+3You posted what I guess is an excerpt from an article, but you didn't post the link to the source. I read what you wrote, and it sounds like the cost associated with building a facility with that output as described. So, a nuclear plant would require $5K - 8K per kW to build, etc. That doesn't relate to the cost of the electricity in the long run since it's a capital cost and doesn't consider the cost of the fuel. The EIA report measures the price the consumer pays for energies by source - this is the exact measurement we're talking about. And nuclear is by far the cheapest.
  - GeneralFault, on 09/05/2008, -2/+5I'm not sure what you are talking about. I did not copy an article into my post. Everything in my there but the link that I posted to the FERC report is direct industry knowledge... Fresh from my head.
    
    The $5K-$8K cost is total plant lifetime estimated cost divided by capacity. So yes, it does include the capital cost AND the running expenses over the lifetime of the plant. These costs are based on current day construction and projected fuel costs over the life of the plant. Read the report. It is very thorough. It explains exactly why each fuel type costs what it does and what it will cost in the near future. But it is an "executive" level report, so you don't have to be a nuclear engineer to understand it.
    
    What you are paying for nuclear power today has very little bearing on what you would pay for new energy from new plants. Like I said, we have not built a nuclear plant in over 30 years. The power you are getting today is based on the cost of building a plant 30 years ago... At a time when we as a country were actually investing heavily in our Nuclear Engineer education programs. Today we would have to import our engineers, or import our power plants. Either way, it's expensive. Additionally, the storage for the nuclear waste of todays plants is barely under control. Most nuclear waste gets stored at the plant. The new storage facility in Yucca Mtn. (under construction for over a decade) is already full even before it has been completed. If we build more plants, we would have to start doing more to recycle nuclear material. A very expensive process as far as fuel price goes.
    
    By the way, I sould mention that I was a huge proponent of nuclear power until I saw the numbers and heard from some industry leaders.
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -2/+3"I'm not sure what you are talking about. I did not copy an article into my post."
    
    I was referring to this statement:
    
    "By the way, you should read or at least skim the document that I posted. It is very educational and interesting."
    
    I just now saw that you posted a link to another article - that post must've come through while I was typing my response. I'll go read it when I have a chance.
    
    So what your saying is that the DOE is full of *****? Can't say that I believe you. Their numbers seem conclusive.
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -2/+3FTA: "It’s also important to remember that these cost estimates cover only capital costs. They do not include fuel costs..."
    
    As I stated earlier.
  - GeneralFault, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3No. I'm saying that the DOE numbers that I posted are more relevant to this argument than the DOE numbers that you posted. That's all. The FERC is a commission within the DOE. It is tasked with dealing with specifically this type of argument.
  - GeneralFault, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2tkstock, I just realized that I posted the wrong numbers. You are correct that the 5k-8k is for capital costs, not total cost of operation/capacity (tco/kW). I'm a bit embarrassed that I missed it. I'm looking now for the other pdf that I have that projects the tco/kW for nuclear v.s. other power plants. I may not even have an electronic version of that document. In the mean time, this summary, although 8yrs old hints a bit at what I'm talking about.
    http://www.ferc.gov/about/com-mem/kelly/domestic.p ...
    
    Also, to try to put the measurement in perspective, the other measurement that I think that you are alluding to is tco/kWh (or tco/BTU). That is that you are saying that nuclear with it's low current fuel prices, will provide more energy per dollar (accounting for other operating costs, I'm not sure that's right either). The folly of this measurement is that the best tco/kWh would be a pinwheel with a dc motor stuck to it. Clearly that type of plant could never supply the load required. As a result, you would need to create billions of them - at a very high cost - just to avoid brownouts. That is why tco/kW is a better measurement for this argument.
  - GeneralFault, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2Ah here it is. It had been a while since I read it. Then I had to go find the online version.
    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/presentations/oia ...
    It's a bit old too and the capital prices that are listed are a bit low.
    
    Also, I should mention that if your electric provider started building a new plant today, your rates would immediately go up. That is one of the problems with building plants with a high capital cost. They have to pay for the construction before they can make any money from the power.
    
    Is it just me or did Digg jumble the order of our responses a bit?
  - tkstock, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Digg may be scrambling our responses a bit. Again, I didn't see your posted link until after I posted the response where I said I didn't see it. :)
    
    "In 1999, the production costs (expenditures for fuel and operations and maintenance) at nuclear power plants averaged 1.9 cents per kilowatthour (kwh), roughly the same as the operating costs of coal-fired power plants, and about two-thirds the operating costs of oil and natural gas-fired steam plants."
    
    And this is in 1999 before the price of oil spiked. I see the cost of coal has also spiked, so that makes coal a more-expensive alternative than nuclear. At intial blush, it appears that in 1999, nuclear power is a cheaper alternative. There are considerations for increased capital costs, but you also have to consider the price of oil has also risen. Too much of our power generation occurs from petroleum-fired generation plants.
    
    There is also the consideration that a increased demand for nuclear facilities will decrease the cost for building them because of market forces. There's a lack of skills available because of the lack of demand.
    
    Keep in mind that the goal here is not only to reduce prices on energy, but also to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
    
    More food for thought.
  - GeneralFault, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Well, it's good to see that at least we are now on the same page. Also, kudos for actually reading and fact checking my sources. An effort that is all to often not employed on Digg.
    Something to note about that last report is that it shows that most of our nuclear fuel comes from out of the country. So, nuclear may simply remove our dependence on some countries and give it to others.
    The thing that I think that is missing from your cost analysis is that the initial cost of building something like a power plant is so large that it nearly overshadows the operating cost. That is the initial construction costs may be more than over 30 years of operating expenditures. See figure 3 in the report. Not only that, but you probably read the part that talked about the growing cost of keeping a plant going for more than 30 years. You may have also skimed the part that mentioned that most of the nuclear plants in the U.S. are very near their end of lifetime. So any new nuclear plants will mostly be replacing old plants that are going out of commission.
    
    You are correct that the initial cost will decrease as we start to build plants. For one thing, there are only a few blueprints for the majority of U.S. plants. That saves on design and on regulatory costs. However, it will take many years before we start to see a benefit there. I suggest we spend the very same money on a combination of solar and wind farms using existing technology.
  - tkstock, on 09/07/2008, -0/+2I can't say that I have a ton of time to spend on researching the subject. I did scan the articles you presented, and from what I read, capital costs of nuclear are high, operating costs are low, which very roughly equivalates it to other sources. Here's an article for more information:
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
    
    According to wikipedia: "Nuclear plants generally have very high capital costs with operating costs just under those of coal-fired generation, but very low fuel costs. In 2008 World Nuclear Association gave a 2005 comparison table and said "Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding."
    
    Keep in mind the goal is not necessarily to reduce the cost of energy, but to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
    
    Don't get me wrong, I think SOLAR is the technology of the future. The only problem is solar cells are less than 20% efficient. They will eventually replace all forms of energy we currently use, I personally believe, but the technology will have to advance significantly before that will happen. Both candidates are pushing solar, which is great.
    
    I'm with McCain in that I believe everything should be on the table. We can't wait for future technology, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't push for it.
- suckanucka, on 09/05/2008, -9/+38She should open her mouth more often, but not speak.
  - crgnetworks, on 09/05/2008, -7/+9Win.
  - Narcism, on 09/05/2008, -5/+33Her daughter should have to, and she wouldn't be in the mess she's in.
  - plimpton777, on 09/05/2008, -7/+20Her father is a lot like W: they both should've pulled out.
  - jamesdew, on 09/05/2008, -5/+20Close the legs and open the mouth, an abstinence compromise that lets everyone win!!
  - B1663r, on 09/05/2008, -31/+2OMG!!! the sex video has surfaced!!!
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
- biogears, on 09/05/2008, -28/+8Don't work, if Obama gets in office, you'll get to pay even more.
  Or are you hoping to be on the receiving end?
  - TheXuu, on 09/05/2008, -2/+29well.. given i don't make more than 5 million a year.. yes.
  - wtc895, on 09/05/2008, -4/+25Actually biogears, if you would have checked both McCain's and Obama's tax plan (which have been clearly laid out) you would find that Obama will increase taxes for Households making MORE THAN $600,000.
    
    McCain will cut taxes for corporations hoping that it trickles down to the middle class BUT IT NEVER HAPPENS!!! IS EVERYONE IN AMERICA IGNORANT!!
    
    I have two words for you:
    COME ON!
  - ngmcs8203, on 09/05/2008, -8/+5I'm as much of a fan of Obama as the next Digger, but on Tuesday I heard Obama mention the line was drawn at "more than $250,000". Does anybody have any references? What is this elusive top 1% of income earners?
    
    I definitely know that my wife and I are under the 250k mark, but my mother-in-law isn't. I don't consider 250k very wealthy, but maybe that's because 250k doesn't go very far in the SFBay Area.
  - IndigoMoss, on 09/05/2008, -2/+7Since when have I been a millionaire?
  - evildemonic, on 09/05/2008, -8/+4and McCain wants to double the per-child tax exemption which will directly translate to much more money for normal low and middle income Americans.
  - nikdahl, on 09/05/2008, -2/+1ngmcs8203: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hQFy9C-miC4/SJ748zAiMaI/ ...
  - ngmcs8203, on 09/05/2008, -2/+3Thanks nikdahl. Not sure how reputable it is, but I know I've seen it before.
    
    I knew I read $250k somewhere before (Chicago Sun Times, June 30 - http://snipurl.com/3nd6u )
    
    "Obama says he would hike several taxes on people making more than $250,000, including the amount they pay on capital gains. Currently, the top income tax rate is 35 percent. Under Obama, that would go back up to 39 percent. Obama's staff told the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center he would raise the rates for people in the top two brackets -- about 2.5 million filers out of 100 million-plus. People in those high tax brackets would see the tax rate on their capital gains hiked from the current 15 percent to 20-28 percent.
    
    Obama started his campaign saying his plans would not increase taxes for people earning less than $250,000. But he found himself in an apparent contradiction by saying he would tax all income to fund Social Security, not just income up to $102,000, as is now the case. So now, Obama's plan calls for no Social Security tax on income between $102,000 and $250,000, but all income above $250,000 would be taxed for Social Security.
    
    The 95 percent-plus of the American population that earns less than $250,000 would see the following tax breaks: A $500-per-worker tax credit for people who earn less than $150,000 and do not itemize, and a $4,000 credit per child in college. Seniors who earn less than $50,000 would pay no income tax."
  - QuadZeroRoute, on 09/05/2008, -7/+4ngmcs8203 what you are looking at is the alleged "TAX cut." But there are going to be many tax increases too....an increase in the death tax, the capital gains tax, and real estate taxes, and many, many more. Obama the ***** is going to have to raise taxes to pay for the $500,000 billion dollar health care program he plans to implement. And that TAX will be recurring....yearly. Everyone will have to pay.
  - jgzman, on 09/05/2008, -2/+5Ohm here's an option: how about instead of raising taxes to pay for a $500,000,000,000,000 health care plan to benefit everyone in America, he borrow money, or invent money, or simply wish for money to fund a $500,000,000,000 war that benefits a group of rich people?
    
    I know my preference.
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -3/+3I don't know why people can't see the writing on the wall. He wants to raise corporate taxes. He wants to raise payroll taxes. This DIRECTLY affects the bottom line of American businesses. What will they have to do to maintain profitability? You guessed it - raise prices. Price increases will result in people paying more of their tax cut back into the system because of corporate taxes - so Obama is merely changing the pocket in which he's stealing your money from. Not to mention the corporate divestiture which will happen after the doubled capital gains tax and the increased tax on wealth.
    
    I don't understand how anyone can see his tax plan as a plan for success. I see it as a plan for disaster!
  - sinrtb, on 09/05/2008, -3/+3http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
    I save 450 under Obama and only 350 under McCain
    
    If its tax cuts are the government handouts you republicans want then Obama is the clear winner for 95% of us.
    
    And Quad, if we leave Iraq that is more then 3 trillion a year we save. Under McCain we could be there for 100 years.
  - evildemonic, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Surely tax increases for the wealthy and large companies couldn't effect my wages (or job opportunities for that matter) as a lower middle class working stiff, right? ...right?
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -2/+2sinrtb,
    
    It's funny how you see a tax cut as a government handout. The government can't hand out something it never had.
    
    And you will be paying more for the goods and services you buy because of Obama's increases in corporate and capital gains taxes.
    
    And where does $10 billion a month suddenly become $3 trillion per year? Oh, that's the democratic calculator, the same one their going to use to balance the budget, no doubt.
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2*they're
  - lazerflesh, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3It's simple, the only way your going to pay *more* money into taxes with Obamas tax plan is if you make over in the area of 240K a year. And if you make that much, than you will be just fine giving the government an extra couple thousand a year.
    
    Everyone else will have to pay less in taxes. That's about 98% of all Americans. The answer is clear.
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -3/+1You didn't actually read anything I wrote, did you lazerlflesh? You just spouted out the democratic talking point without actually looking at the conversation.
    
    So, you pay $100 less in taxes under Obama's plan, but you'll pay $200 more in goods and services. Who's coming out ahead?
  - rearlgrant, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3@tkstock:
    "It's funny how you see a tax cut as a government handout. The government can't hand out something it never had."
    
    That's why generations after us will be paying a "birth tax" amounting to the size of the national debt + interest.
    
    Save the unborn, we don't want to pay taxes now, so let's rally around "No New Taxes" Nixon, Regan, Bush and Bush II, spend ourselves into debt and let our grandchildren's progeny pay it off. While we're at it, we need to drill everywhere now so our grandchildren have no oil.
    
    /Republican Conservatives
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1rearlgrant, is Obama proposing to pay down all the national debt with these new taxes? No. He's proposing to grow government! There's no problem that bigger government can't creat!
    
    To get rid of the debt, you have to reduce spending - there's only one candidate that's talked about this (other than Ron Paul).
- plimpton777, on 09/05/2008, -3/+33Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!
  - molson66, on 09/05/2008, -5/+4dugg for donnie darko reference......
    
    but why?!
  - clsslc, on 09/05/2008, -1/+11Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
  - toddc612, on 09/05/2008, -4/+1OMG. You, sir, rock the freaken' house for that reference.
  - plimpton777, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3Because Palin is that nutbag lady.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouFnQTq6gNQ
- homercles337, on 09/05/2008, -8/+11Yes, she should. Even if its just for the laughs. That bitch is a loon!
- DangerCollie, on 09/05/2008, -6/+12I donated to Obama's campaign again today. Going to get pretty close to the individual limit by November.
  - PabloMac, on 09/05/2008, -15/+5Sucker.
  - QuadZeroRoute, on 09/05/2008, -16/+4I just gave $5,000 to the McCain campaign and I also support 527s against the affirmative action candidate Obama.
  - jgzman, on 09/05/2008, -1/+6This whole 'affirmative action' point is getting old. I doubt you understand the phrase.
  - MxM111, on 09/05/2008, -1/+12QuadZeroRoute :"I just gave $5,000 to the McCain campaign"
    
    Liar. Individual contributions are capped well before 5000. At least make an educated lie.
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -6/+1DangerCollie,
    
    What will you have to show for it when your candidate loses?
  - GeneralFault, on 09/05/2008, -1/+6QZR, another rich republican saying ***** you to the rest of the country.
- jjesusfreak01, on 09/05/2008, -14/+7So, looking at this objectively...whose party looks more scared when Palin speaks? The one that feels the need to throw money at their candidate, or the one who doesnt.
  - revjustin2, on 09/05/2008, -4/+14When I read the headline of this article, I knew that I'd see a comment like this. I was actually hoping I would so I could write...FAIL!
  - makeminemanda, on 09/05/2008, -4/+8Hmm, except for the fact that the money could have also come from a bunch of Republicans who were ashamed and/or disappointed to see Palin was McCain's pick. I've seen many commentors have been stating such sentiments across Digg... so while your conclusion is valid, it's not the only explanation nor is it an objective one. Think outside the box once in a while.
  - Gerz1219, on 09/05/2008, -4/+10Money wins elections. Palin's introduction established that this will no longer be a race for the middle, which means that any pretense of a civil debate on the issues has vanished and we're back in 2004. It's another campaign to rally the base, but that's a problem for McCain and the Republicans this year, because Obama has built a superior fundraising apparatus and ground game, and brought millions of new voters into the system. Palin is good for energizing the 26%ers. But they are obviously not the majority. The more Bush speeches Palin reads, the more moderates will tack towards Obama.
    
    The $8 million tally tells me that when McCain energizes the hard-right base, he energizes Obama's larger base even more.
  - lowtolerance, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1Yeah, you're absolutely right. The republicans do seem to be more scared. I mean, who is going to throw away their money to what they believe could be a lost cause?
  - level1computer, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2Gerz1219: you should be a political pundit. That was more insightful than most of the crap on tv
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2The RNC has more money than the DNC and Obama's campaign combined. Obama would have to raise $100million in September to keep up with the RNC and McCain.
- deenoop, on 09/05/2008, -6/+15i can't watch her speak for more than 5 minutes. get this queezy feeling in my stomach. just makes me wanna hurl. anyone else get this? maybe it's her voice or something.
  - a2fan, on 09/05/2008, -7/+6Maybe it's your meds dosage?
  - QuadZeroRoute, on 09/05/2008, -11/+4As a liberal Democrat it is possible that you have become a queer or homosexual and now reject good looking, intellectual women. Get to a psychologist and see if you can't undergo some deprogramming and get back to being a heterosexual Repuiblican.
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -8/+5It's just the fear of losing. Get used to it.
  - HonestAbe, on 09/05/2008, -3/+3Yeah it make me want to hurl
    
    things at her.
    
    If McCain wins, this will be the end of American civilization.
  - a2fan, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2@HonestAbe I think you're being way too melodramatic, even by Democrat standards.
  - bishop, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1May be your brain power can only absorb very little new information at a time...
  - deenoop, on 09/10/2008, -0/+1no. i watched all of obama's speech :)
    
    by that reasoning. it must be sarah palin's voice. mccain's voice isn't a problem. i just choose not to listen to him.
    
    palin's voice is just unbearable.
- KungFooJesus, on 09/05/2008, -11/+5JFC. I suppose I should stop being surprised by now but you people will believe ANYTHING that is put in a headline on Digg that fits your own personal biased views. Period.
  
  "The money followed an e-mail solicitation campaign manager David Plouffe sent out right after Palin's speech. "
  
  This was not a spontaneous donation based on her speech. This was a fund-raising effort that just happened to take place directly after Palin's speech so that Democrats could claim to raise money because of her speech. It's pure politics. Seriously. You people cannot be this dumb or I will start to wonder how you are able to use a computer.
  - BurnTees, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3actually, if you look on reddit, there's a whole thread filled with people saying that they were republican supporters and then donated to obama after hearing Palin's speech. i'll look for it.
- mikbor, on 09/05/2008, -3/+7correlation does equal causation
- snareguy17, on 09/05/2008, -8/+3Am I the only one who keeps reading Palin as Stalin? You know, Stalin was a good public speaker too.
  - groovygraham, on 09/05/2008, -3/+3Do you also read Obama/Biden as Osama bin Laden?
- spankaccount, on 09/05/2008, -7/+6This title of this Digg is wrong. Palin has brought in over $10M since she joined the ticket.
  http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si ...
  - lowtolerance, on 09/05/2008, -3/+6"Palin's Speech Raises $1M for Republicans; $8M for Democrats"
    
    Show me where it refers to how much Sarah Palin has brought in since she was picked.
- GhandicapXRS, on 09/05/2008, -6/+3This just in: Palin's speech raises $1m for republicans; wood in my pants
- QuadZeroRoute, on 09/05/2008, -4/+7$10 Million Woman: Palin a Hit with GOP Donors
  http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5700022
  
  The McCain campaign raised more than $10 million in the two and a half days after Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was named as the vice presidential running mate
  - MxM111, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2Could it possibly related with ...oh! REPUBLICAN CONVENTION?
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2That doesn't include the amount the RNC has raised since September 1st (after McCain can't accept personal donations).
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1MxM111, the time period in the article was after she was announced and before the Republican Convention. Just a minor little detail.
  - SDeluxe, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Dugg for accuracy, but man people are ignorant and stupid, two and a half days NOT KNOWING A FREAKING THING ABOUT THIS WOMAN
    
    "OH MY GOD MCSANE GOT A VAGINA VP!! Girls! Its time to rally up the purses"
  - tkstock, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1A lot was known about her to the people that mattered - the donors. She was mentioned months ago as a possible VP pick.
- tsf5000, on 09/05/2008, -2/+4I can't help but find it absolutely hilarious that the neocons, who've been going on for months about how important experience is, are now lining up behind this woman who has less experience that most people involved in government. It baffles me that people would support a right-wing nutjob who is a complete hypocrite on the subjects she claims to find so important. I'm glad McCain chose Palin because it's only going to help Obama and Biden, but honestly, wtf was he thinking? I can't wait to see the VP debate this fall. Watching Palin try to take on biden about actual issues will likely be one of the funniest things I'll see all year.
  - alothrop, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1dont underestimate her. that only makes her look a lot better if she does well. best thing to do would be to put them on even ground and then let her bury herself if she sucks.
- bossalaus, on 09/05/2008, -4/+2yes, more speeches indeed. If you like battle rap, Obama got pwnd!
  Quick, organize the community for round 2!
  
  By the by, broadcast on fewer networks, Palin achieved just short of Obama's audience.
  
  -Bevon_the_Muse
  - revjustin2, on 09/05/2008, -2/+3Could you please repost in English, please. You've apparently written your comment in some strange nerd dialect unknown to people who don't have a headset connected to their Xbox.
  - bossalaus, on 09/06/2008, -1/+1Pardon me,
    Senator Obama received a noteworthy gift resembling his backside, handed to him by the quite impressive Governor Palin of Alaska. One may draw the comparison or correlation to the hip-hop cultural tradition of of matching wits with words in an activity commonly referred to as a "battle rap", where-in-which opponents are figuratively matched up, exchanging verbal blows to the credibility or character of the opposing commentator.
    
    Interestingly, Palin achieved a relative viewer count to Obama's acceptance speech, even though her speech was broadcast on fewer networks.
    
    Readers [more specifically xbox playing, nerd-types] familiar with the popular substitution of "owned" by the term "pwnd" can convincingly declare that "Obama got pwnd".
    
    We apologize for assuming that nerd-speak is as widely accepted and decipherable as liberal bias in national news media and Hollywood communication outlets.
    
    If you are unable to organize the points and make sense of this comment, please request a new post in your preferential dialect.
    
    Posted by: Bevon_the_Muse
- rz8472, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Maybe she should speak about the Fear-Love spectrum...
- Shuukyoku, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Stay tuned folks, next month we get to see Joe Biden, the Democratic Delaware attack dog, rip her a new *****.
  Wonder what fund-raising will do then...
- miralize, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3sounds like mccain's gang is on the prowl at digg
  - tkstock, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3As opposed to what? The Obama gang who is ALWAYS on digg?
  - miralize, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1its not thier fault if theyre not retards
Diggobamanation, on 09/04/2008, -99/+19Do people know there are other candidates that need money way more then Obama!
- muckemuck, on 09/05/2008, -8/+20Can you imagine how many votes Bob Barr would take away from McCain if he had 8 Million to spend on advertising? .. way more votes than if the same 8 mill was spent on Obama ads.
  
  Ah well..
  - chicofaraby, on 09/05/2008, -7/+25The problem with that is very few people want to follow Barr further right than even the ***** insane Republicans.
    
    More Americans want actual solutions, not more ideologically based nonsense from nuts trying to go back to the Articles of Confederation.
  - pintomp3, on 09/05/2008, -2/+10he probably would have wasted it investigating blowjobs.
  - suckanucka, on 09/05/2008, -4/+8"***** insane Republicans" made my boss ask, "whats so funny?".
  - FryerJF, on 09/05/2008, -2/+5I remember reading an article about newly registered Libertarians (Bob Barr's party) regarding what party, if any, they left to join the Libertarian party and it was actually about 55 percent Democrats, 40 percent Republicans, and 5 percent from other "3rd parties". I will try and find the link.
    
    Either way, I think it would make a much more informative, and educational presidential race if those "3rd party" candidates got the same coverage as the "big two". At the very least there would be a lot more in depth discussion of issues and alternative solutions for problems, even if some people do dismiss the ideas as "*****"
  - ThugThrasher, on 09/05/2008, -2/+1At FryerJF:
    
    The thing about it is that it if those who are in the Libertarian party do any research on their candidate, than MOST of those who came from the Democrats will probably NOT vote Libertarian this election. There are definitely some big similarities between Democrats and us (Libertarians) (although, probably not as many as there are between the Republicans and us), but Bob Barr has typically voted the 'more Republican' way on those issues.
    
    I actually know that a large percentage of the Libertarians I know are NOT voting for Barr (including every one that I am aware came from the Democrats). However, I do know some Republicans (not near the same percentage, of course) that ARE voting for Barr because they don't like McCain.
  - FryerJF, on 09/05/2008, -1/+0ThugThrasher,
    
    I'm with you on that account. I'm most likely going to write in Dr. Paul.
  - kristojohansen, on 09/06/2008, -0/+0"***** insane Republicans" Love it.
- shupy, on 09/05/2008, -6/+34It doesn't matter who NEEDS money, it's about who people want to win. The thought of a pit bull with lipstick in the whitehouse is enough to open the money floodgates for Obama.
- cadmiumpaint, on 09/05/2008, -3/+5there aren't any other candidates running who have a realistic chance of winning, therefore any money you'd give these "other guys" is a complete waste.
- 5urr3al5am, on 09/05/2008, -3/+3Do you think Obama will give back is campaign money after the election is over? What's he going to do with it all?
  - momofsteel, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2What do any of them do with it all?
  - 5urr3al5am, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1not sure that's why I asked what he'd do.. any idea?
  - solistus, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Spend it. National ads are expensive. Post-convention and VP picks, and along with the debates, we will see a lot more advertising from both campaigns for these last couple months of the campaign. It's never hard to find ways to spend money on a political campaign; many campaigns end up with massive debts.
  - 5urr3al5am, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Obama is going to do that AFTER the election? wow seems kinda dumb?
nixfu, on 09/05/2008, -124/+511) Could that maybe be because, they already got 15 Million over the weekend from her announcement on friday.

2) Could that maybe be because McCain can no longer legeally get campain donations after 08/31/2008 (SUNDAY)?

Because he KEPT HIS WORD to use the pubic campaign system and OBAMA BROKE HIS WORD.

Nah, those could not be the reasons at all.
- TheRhinoceros, on 09/05/2008, -12/+69So despite the fact he can't get donations, nixfu, they still got $1,000,000???
  
  Your logic circuits are overloaded, young McCainbot. Take a break.
  
  And no, they actually aren't the reasons. Nice try though.
  - B1663r, on 09/05/2008, -5/+35Ixnay on the McCainbot, the code word is Palindrone.
  - Argantes, on 09/05/2008, -1/+15Palindrone, I LOVE that. I'm gonna start using it.
  - ozekii, on 09/05/2008, -6/+1Personally I like Obamaholic. I know it takes getting used to but once you go thru the 12 step program you realize that world looks different. And you wonder what has Obama done for the last 10 years of his life, what impact has been made to the communities he has lived in or pseudo participated in. I am sure no one will give an example, because Obama can't:)
  - ozekii, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1If you vote me down at least prove your point by giving an example
- tehsars, on 09/05/2008, -9/+35Nixfu, could you BE any more misinformed?
  
  /Chandler
- jodimcmullen, on 09/05/2008, -14/+35Nixfu, just keep watching Fox News. You can really tell which folks are addicted to their kool-aid.
  - KenSPT, on 09/05/2008, -4/+4Yeah, you really can ...
  - vind, on 09/05/2008, -3/+7All you have to do is look for certain commonly used phrases!
  - Elranzer, on 09/05/2008, -5/+1Like "fiscal conservative"
- RealHyperX, on 09/05/2008, -50/+16Obama supporters, rejoice! Hamas supprts him too. You're in good company with terrorists. What does that tell you?
  
  Here are the actual illegal donations from RAFAH GAZA in Palestine,
  that Obama has received. The Obama Campaign got busted by trying to
  hide it under "Rafah, GA." as in Rafah, Georgia, like the state! They
  even put down 972 for the zip code, but 972 is the area code to
  Rafah, internationally! But in reality, it was from members of HAMAS
  in Rafah, GAZA! It is against the law to take donations from foreign
  countries. Talk about integrity or lack there of. And all they can
  come up with on McCain is that he has 7 houses! None of which were
  given to him by a felon, like Rezko.
  
  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=7 ...
  
  http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/MapAppRefreshT ...
  - jeffsb, on 09/05/2008, -11/+3Nice find. Definitely something the liberal media wouldn't report.
  - lovemybush, on 09/05/2008, -9/+4You're worse than the original poster.
    Read my comment about them below or let me sum it up.
    
    Shut up and spell out the REAL REASONS why we should vote for McCain. We got enough smears out there for a lifetime and the Dem-wits are doin the same to our girl Sarah.
    
    Rise above, we're right. The arguments for a smaller govt. are real winners.
  - mgraham80, on 09/05/2008, -2/+5Rezko donated to members of both political parties, toolbot.
- plimpton777, on 09/05/2008, -12/+26I'm an Obama supporter but this guy is half-right. Since Palin was announced, McCain/RNC whatever, raised about $10 million, in 4-5 days.
  
  Yet Obama raised that much in one night, thanks to Palin's shrill Nazi-orgy rally.
  
  As much of a fire Palin lit under the ass of her base, she REALLY pissed off the left (I myself was going to write-in Ron Paul, but now I'm opting to vote for Obama due to her *****).
  - yojiffyskippy, on 09/05/2008, -20/+6Anyone that could go from voting for Ron Paul to voting for Obama. Is either ignorant or lying. It's that simple. Ron Paul and Obama are from two absolute extremes. Which one are you - lying or ignorant?
  - richbleak, on 09/05/2008, -2/+18yojiffyskippy: Wrong. Both are against pointless foreign entanglements, which is the most important issue of our times. If someone strongly supports Ron Paul's economic policies but understands that those policies don't mean a damn thing if we are still running around policing the world, they would be foolish to do anything that would allow McCain into office. If you look at who is more likely to continue foreign aggression between Obama, Paul, and McCain it becomes obvious that Paul and Obama are much more closely aligned than Paul and McCain on this extremely important issue.
  - plimpton777, on 09/05/2008, -6/+12@yojiffyskippy:
    
    I'm just as sick of knee-jerk liberals as I am of unthinking fascist neocons. Stop listening to the NPR/Nation gatekeepers who tried to stop the flood of disaffected Democrats (of which I was one) over to Ron Paul's side during the primaries.
    
    Maybe the biggest issue to me is a moral one, that ending the wars of aggression so my tax dollars don't support murder, is more important than ***** welfare. Ever think of that? Maybe Ron Paul's ideas of not prosecuting our citizens for victimless drug crimes make a lot of sense to me. Maybe I'm scared ***** of Homeland Security and don't think the Dems are doing enough to stop our downward slide into a totalitarian police state.
    
    Ron Paul has more balls than the entire Democratic Party combined (excepting Kucinich). So ***** off with your simplistic thinking, and your Palin-esque slandering me as a liar or an idiotic. Go suck Biden's balls.
  - vexingmodstwo, on 09/05/2008, -15/+4Ah, that explains it. One issue voters.
  - FairDinkumMate, on 09/05/2008, -2/+10@vex - If it wasn't for one issue voters(anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc) the RNC would never get elected!
    
    Be careful what you wish for....
  - Brad324, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3@yoj, you do realize that voting for Obama would be much more effective to keep Palin from getting into office than writing in Ron Paul, right? The reason why plimpton said he's opting to vote for Obama instead of Ron Paul is because of the disgusting speech by Palin. I dont see how this is ignorant in any way whatsoever.
  - kinseyincanada, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2what digg fails to realize is that the Republicans are NOT trying to appeal to the far-left, they are not looking for your vote, they are looking for middle-America.
- jdenzer, on 09/05/2008, -8/+24And McCain broke his promise to run a clean campaign.
  So go cry to somewhere else.
  - yojiffyskippy, on 09/05/2008, -12/+2My candidate sucks less than yours!
- lovemybush, on 09/05/2008, -14/+4Dang, I love my country and vote red every time but you, my friend, are a disservice to the cause.
  
  Stay quiet and just vote.
  - bman1984, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Do you have a red card too?
  - solistus, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2If you "vote red every time," you clearly don't love your country enough to make an educated decision about its future.
- SenorBudd, on 09/05/2008, -5/+3You said "legeally"
  
  ha! True McCain supporter in need of a better education.
  
  Obama/Biden 08!
- myelinate, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5hey nixfu! How does that "PUBIC campaign system" work? We wanna know! LOL!
- phamuraix, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2LMAO, "pubic campaign system"....
jtucker65, on 09/05/2008, -14/+248It's up to over 10 million now!
- Dgen_X, on 09/05/2008, -3/+25Make that over $10,000,035...wish I had a bit more extra income right at this very moment...
- Spiderbrigade, on 09/05/2008, -17/+2what 10 million!?
  - Dundasbro, on 09/05/2008, -5/+2OVER 10 MILLIOOOOOON!!!
- richirwin, on 09/05/2008, -2/+11You're welcome, Obama.
- FreddieD, on 09/05/2008, -1/+21If you live in a state where one candidate is going to landslide win, please consider donating. I live in Kansas, and I want my vote to count. But unfortunately, my vote for Obama on Nov 5 is not going to mean anything, as McCain is going to win 65-35 without setting foot in my state. So, I gave $100 to his campaign while McCain flapped his gums, where it can be spent in a way infinitely more useful than my measly Kansas throwaway vote ever will.
  
  If you are in a state such as mine that goes red every election, donating (even if just a little) is one thing you can do that will truly make a difference.
  - fiatjustitia, on 09/05/2008, -0/+10Like they always say: vote with your dollars.
  - guitarchitect, on 09/05/2008, -1/+10I hope you're going to vote anyway... don't ever think your vote doesn't count or doesn't make a difference
  - bitbytebit, on 09/05/2008, -0/+5and that right there is why our voting system sucks. I don't have a better solution though :( so yeah guess ill send obama $50 ..I was going to write in RP for the principle but have been convinced of the futility.
  - GRich1224, on 09/05/2008, -0/+6I was going to be a jerk and tell you that any vote on Nov 5th won't count, because election day is on the 4th but....
    
    Kudos on donating though...
  - level1computer, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1isn't democracy great?
  - solistus, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Our voting system is thoroughly broken. If we had a national election rather than the slave era throwback Electoral College, every vote would count. If we had a preferential voting ballot (i.e., one where you rank the candidates in order rather than just picking one), people could support third parties without 'throwing their vote away' and still indicate their preference between the two 'major' candidates. If we used proportional representation instead of single-member districts to elect Congress, those shows of support for third parties would translate to a direct influence on government.
  - level1computer, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1@solistus: dugg for being awesome
- Schug, on 09/05/2008, -5/+1010 million!? That's OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAND!!!
  - liljerk, on 09/06/2008, -2/+1i logged in just to bury you
- Atario, on 09/05/2008, -1/+0I so wish Digg had tagging, so I could tag this "HA HA!".
- bsmang, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Cha-ching!
sheasie, on 09/05/2008, -75/+33So, you want smaller government? Lower taxes? And fiscal responsibly? Me too!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Words are cheap. The record is clear:

*** SMALLER GOVERNMENT: ***

http://perotcharts.com/images/challenges/challenge ...

FACT: Government spending has increased under both Democrats AND Republicans since 1968. Both parties are to blame for the astronomical growth of the Federal Government. So what's the difference?

MCCAIN: Preaches smaller Government, but McCain voted in favor of EVERY spending INCREASE proposed and executed by Bush Administration.

OBAMA: Voted against several spending increases - a more modest approach.

*** LOWER TAXES: ***

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story ...

MCCAIN: Yes, McCain will lower your taxes!! If you earn $66,000 a year or less, McCain will lower your taxes by 0.7% !!! (About $462.00)

OBAMA: Yes, Obama will lower your taxes, too!! If you earn $66,000 a year or less, McCain will lower your taxes by 2.4% !!! (About $1,584.00)

*** FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ***

http://seekingalpha.com/article/92929-republicans- ...

FACT: The national debt has INCREASED under EVERY Republican administration (without exception!) over the past 25 years.

MCCAIN: Voted in favor of Bush's economic agenda 90% of the time. As a result, America's dollar is weak, and the economy is facing deeply concerning issues due to historic national debt.

OBAMA: Plans to increase taxes ONLY on people earning MORE than $600,000 annually to help insure "fiscal responsibility" !!!

*** CONCLUSION: ***

Words are cheap. We need to "face facts". The record is clear: OBAMA/BIDEN '08

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(This is an unusually critical election year. Act responsibly. Please Digg-up & forward.)
- msk275, on 09/05/2008, -8/+9I'm digging you down because your 'spam' is getting in the way. I don't want to have to scroll down so far. ha. But good points I suppose.
- Flushnasty, on 09/05/2008, -6/+6"OBAMA: Voted against several spending increases - a more modest approach."
  
  I think Obama would make a wonderful president, but claiming he would have anything to do with smaller government is such a load of bull. He has plenty of great qualities, small government is not one of them.
  
  Although he has appeared more moderate in the recent months (pandering to the ignorant majority is a must around this time unfortunately) in reality he is quite left.
  
  If he wins taxes are going up (not for me, and probably not for you) for the richest of the rich. HOPEFULLY he will bring back many of the great social programs that bush cut.
  - chicofaraby, on 09/05/2008, -2/+8" in reality he is quite left"
    
    No he isn't. I'm on the left and he's not here. He doesn't support universal health care, he doesn't support an end to the war crimes in the Middle East, he does support the extreme right wing FISA bill... the list is long.
    
    I have no idea why people claim Obama is on the left, but being to the left of the insane right extremists doesn't make him "left."
  - bman1984, on 09/05/2008, -2/+2Small government no, but smaller than the McCain administration would have.
  - level1computer, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Right, he doesn't support universal health care, except in every speech he's ever made.
    
    Where do you come up with this stuff? His whole campaign is about universal health care!
- oldhick, on 09/05/2008, -7/+7I make way more than $66,000 a year and I want to pay fewer taxes. I guarantee you that I use far fewer public goods or services than most of you. Why do I get screwed?
  - mesasone, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4Because chances are that your success is built upon those who DO use those services. At some point us relatively poor folks both buy and create your products or you client's products. It doesn't matter if you work in financial, manufacturing (just to name two opposites), etc the vast majority of prosperity in this economy is generated by the middle class (after all, 70% of the economy IS consumer spending alone), and as their buying power and prosperity decreases, so will yours.
  - oldhick, on 09/05/2008, -3/+4Why is my success built on those who do use public services?
    
    But either way, that doesn't answer my question. I pay peoples wages already. I send their kids to college. I pay for their houses and food.
    
    I'm also required to pay more in taxes? That's ridiculous and its far from logical.
    
    My prosperity and the prosperity of those I support will increase more rapidly if you keep the government out of my pocket book.
  - tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2So, tell me mesasone, how will raising corporate and payroll tax rates solve our economic woes?
    
    Let's assume for a moment that someone who starts a landscape business makes $250,000 per year. Why should they be punished? Why should they have to fire more workers because they can't pay for them all under the increased tax burden? The landscape company makes money from the "richer" people (how many poor people use a landscape company), so why punish them?
  - level1computer, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1If you are gonna complain about the US govt taking your money, think about how much money you would make if we didn't have the stability that it provided. Would you rather work in a ***** hole for 25 cents an hour and pay no taxes or work in a clean office for $100/hr and pay half of it in taxes?
    
    Besides, regardless of whether or not it is "fair", the world is better off when the poor of this nation can share your wealth. I believe that justifies taxation. You don't have to like it.
  - oldhick, on 09/05/2008, -1/+2@level1computer, i'm not complaining at all about the US taking my money. I'm complaining about how much they take from me versus you. Second, we can provide stability with far less government spending so that argument is ridiculous.
    I don't have to work in a ***** hole 'cause I was blessed with a brain and a phenomenal drive to succeed.
    As for your last statement, your belief is held by many. Luckily our founding fathers didn't hold it and luckily the majority of people in capitalist countries don't hold. Wealth redistribution fails everywhere it has been tried. Countries that allow their citizens to reap the rewards of their hard work excel. But I like your reasoning! You make some great points.
  - rowjimmy, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1"Wealth redistribution fails everywhere it has been tried"
    
    wrong. it works great in scandinavia.
    
    personally, i say let people acquire whatever they can in their lifetimes, but force each generation to start off afresh. if you actually earned that money through genetic lottery or sweat of your brow, good for you. but most capital comes from old capital comes from older capital comes from very direct exploitation of fellow human beings. ***** a lot of that.
  - biotch, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1You might not be getting screwed
    http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/
    
    If you make more than 250k you will probably pay a bit more ... suck it up.. you'll be fine
- swordedge, on 09/05/2008, -3/+2Dude, neither Democrats or Republicans are capable of lower taxes or shrinking government. Lets throw both parties out.
- arestme, on 09/05/2008, -0/+6OBAMA: Yes, Obama will lower your taxes, too!! If you earn $66,000 a year or less, McCain will lower your taxes by 2.4% !!! (About $1,584.00)
  
  That don't look right......
  - biotch, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1I think he accidentally typed McCain where he shoulda typed Obama
SetOverSet, on 09/05/2008, -70/+14That's because the Democrats are scared to death of Palin. The Republicans are like "damn, we got this thing sewed up, no need to give more money".
- 5toedsloth, on 09/05/2008, -1/+15I sure hope thats what they are thinking. Means it will take them years to figure out where they ***** up.
  
  Confusion to the enemy, as it were
- imnojezus, on 09/05/2008, -2/+11Yeah, that must be it. The Republicans would be foolish to keep funding the campaign. Three months from the election. And behind in the polls.
  
  ***** brilliant.
  - Valkoon, on 09/05/2008, -5/+1The polls are tied now...
    
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/opinion/ ...
  - absurdist, on 09/05/2008, -0/+7Wrong again, skippy.
    
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/lates ...
  - SetOverSet, on 09/05/2008, -10/+2Again, national polls don't mean ANYTHING. The only thing that matters are the state results in states that could go either way. For example, I don't think McCain is going to spend any money in California. Wouldn't you agree? I mean, why spend any money in a state full of losers where everyone expects the government to pay for everything? The responsible people have already left California. Just walk down a mall in Sacramento and it's pretty obvious.
  - hivoltage815, on 09/05/2008, -2/+4Oh shut the hell up about the polls...seriously. Everything stays pretty much within the margin of error.
- stagmire, on 09/05/2008, -1/+11lol at you pretending not to understand that there are a million things wrong with this candidate
  - SetOverSet, on 09/05/2008, -11/+2Really? Like what? Oh, are you going to point me to that rag that is the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos. Yeah, that's reliable. Sure, McCain and Palin aren't perfect, and neither is Obama. The only thing that matters to me is my taxes and McCains plan saves me more money, so guess where I'm voting? If Obama would change his tax plan, I'd vote for him. My vote doesn't count though because I live in a state full of idiots.
  - archiesteel, on 09/05/2008, -1/+8"Really? Like what?"
    
    - Running a small down into debt despite winning a record number of earmarks
    - Being in favor of the bridge to nowhere before being against it when she found out it might be politically damaging
    - Troopergate
    - Wanting to ban books from the public library, attempting to fire the librarian after she refused
    - Claiming to have balanced the budget as some sort of accomplishment when Alaska is awashed with Oil money
    - Sharing confidential Governor correspondance with her husband, who is not an elected official or government employee; letting same husband sit in on important government meetings
    
    I'm sure I'm forgetting some...it's hard to keep up with the number of potential scandals gravitating around Palin.
- vind, on 09/05/2008, -15/+4You should have ended your post with your first sentence, because I agree with that one. :]
  One just has to scroll down the front page of digg to see how deeply liberals are digging to uncover anything against Palin, completely ignoring the problems within the Obama/Biden campaign (it must be because they don't have anything on their records that could be in the least damning!)
  
  It would be nice to see a statistical breakdown of the donations, as in how many different individuals donated how much.
  - oscenester, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1dude, use teh g00gle. theres a website that breaks it all down. Can't quite remember the name, but I've been there. Breaks it down to the persons/corporation/lobbies name.
- euw144, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Love that failing logic!
- MisteryMeat, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2It's because Republicans are the party of the selfish.
paulishuku, on 09/05/2008, -60/+4Yeah.. look at post #3 for the truth.
- TheRhinoceros, on 09/05/2008, -0/+12Ummmm...Post 3 is wrong.... But thanks anyway.
  - jayzDigga, on 09/05/2008, -11/+1Ummmm... your an idiot. It is correct and there was a $10 million take in one day after her speech.
    
    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5700022 ...
    
    File this one under "Just because it's on the internet, doesn't make it true"
  - Calinthalus, on 09/05/2008, -0/+7Ummmm...if you can't use a contraction correctly, don't call someone else an idiot.
DeskFlyer, on 09/05/2008, -26/+373McCain/Palin = scariest presidential ticket ever
- thinkart, on 09/05/2008, -3/+72Huckabee/Palin = god am i thankful that isnt possible.
  - Suzilla, on 09/05/2008, -11/+25Correction:
    
    GOD: Am *I* thankful that isn't possible.
  - wedges, on 09/05/2008, -11/+11that IS scary....
    
    28th ammendment: The Christian God created the Earth with all the creatures on it just as they are now a mere 600 years ago.
  - treehugger87, on 09/05/2008, -7/+4Voldemort/Aunt Marge
    Palpatine/Hutt
    Sauron/Denathor
  - monoa, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Dude, I just puked in my mouth a little from reading that.
  - bemenaker, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4Like Huckabee would have ever had a female running mate. Remember, this man signed a pledge saying women shouldn't be in high power jobs, they should be home supporting their husbands.
  - JaseFace, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Actually, I wish that would have been the Republican ticket. Obama would have gotten like 80% of the popular vote. Neither Huckabee or Palin know ***** about any issues other than evangelism.
  - ChokingVictims, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1I agree with JaseFace, even if somehow they were elected maybe it would make Americans wake up.
- didiman, on 09/05/2008, -41/+12I think you need get off digg, Obama himself is the scariest politician ever. He is openly associated with known, unrepentant terrorists, racists, and american-haters. He is a socialist and a European elitist.
  - DeskFlyer, on 09/05/2008, -3/+25And then your alarm clock went off.
  - treehugger87, on 09/05/2008, -2/+7I rode in a car yesterday with a guy I don't know who is a small business owner. Our conversation:
    
    Me: "So what are taxes like owning a restaurant? You pay about 1/3 of your profit?"
    
    Him: "Yeah, after payroll taxes & everything else. You know Obama's going to triple my taxes. He's a socialist and wants my tax money to give to the poor."
    
    Me: "You've got to pick that propaganda out of your teeth. You really think you'll be paying 100% of your profits to tax? You really think that in America, without a full-blown socialist movement the government could actually be changed from capitalism to socialism because the President wants it that way?"
    
    That kind of ended our conversation, but it sure was fun to get to say to someone face to face. I now wish I had argued that Obama is NOT a socialist, but I reckon' that point is lost on people who have McCain signs on their front lawn (he did).
  - Dymphna, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Wait, Obama is affiliated with the Republican party didiman?
  - manoftheisland, on 09/05/2008, -2/+1as a response to treehugger... his taxes could increase by that percentage and not take up his entire profit... if he is paying 15% and it gots to 45% thats not all of his profit. he was exaggerating by saying he pays 1/3 to all those taxes. but then again im here in PA clinging to my guns and religion so what do i know
  - FrenchAnarchy, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Any talking points you left out there sport? I think a couple "Muslim"'s and "Negro" might make you sound a little more crazy and non-sensible.
- jcaino, on 09/05/2008, -2/+29McPain.
- twiztidsinz, on 09/05/2008, -10/+36Hitler / Stalin
  - AuriniDMJ, on 09/05/2008, -3/+8That was reasonable.
  - revjustin2, on 09/05/2008, -13/+3Dude - I wasn't even funny or appropriate.
  - xxpor, on 09/05/2008, -0/+9That's actually quite ridiculous. They had economic policies on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. It would be like a PaulKusinich ticket.
  - NonServium, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2The comment wasn't scariest pretend presidential ticket ever.
  - ChokingVictims, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1You realize they were on opposite sides of WWII right?
- oldhick, on 09/05/2008, -16/+2That's just silly. There are far scary options.
  - treehugger87, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2errr....
- xrisnothing, on 09/05/2008, -3/+24Palin/Rove in 2012!
- DEEZEE, on 09/05/2008, -22/+2You're wrong jerk-o*f. Do you believe in borderless nations? Are you a socialist? Great, now you can cut back your lifestyle and pay more taxes because the "have nots" will require some of your earnings and the democratic party will be happy to distribute it.
  - toetagger, on 09/05/2008, -1/+9And who started this North American Union stuff? Bush. Wake Up.
  - MindTrigger, on 09/05/2008, -4/+2@toetagger,
    
    Good comment, but the NAU goes beyond party lines. You won't see Obama doing *anything* to slow that down, once he is in office.
  - RipleyIsDead, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4Funny how whenever someone mentions tax dollars going to waste, it's always a veiled jab at healthcare, and almost never about the $2 trillion wasted on an illegal war in Iraq. I wonder how many of your tax dollars would have been saved if Bush had never lied about his reasons for going to war?
- Chode2235, on 09/05/2008, -2/+16Its fascinating that not only did McCain give up the experience argument in his selection of Palin, but he made Obama/Biden the defacto "Safe Option."
  - ender7074, on 09/05/2008, -13/+2Safe option? What the ***** are you talking about. Oh I forgot where I'm at. Diggtards seem to think that anything that isn't socialist/communist is evil. Nothing like closed minded idiocy to keep some sort of insane fantasy going.
  - bemenaker, on 09/05/2008, -1/+4wow ender, that's rich. Have you ever done one bit of fact checking on the Republican talking points? Seriously? You are publicly making yourself out to be an idiot. Here I'll even help you:
    
    http://www.factcheck.org
  - cowguin, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Ender, if you're voting for mccain i hate you. reasons:
    
    either ur a racist, prejudice, make 5 million a year & benefit from his elitist tax cuts, or dont care about the world we live on. yes sir, i hate you
  - NonServium, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1@cowguin You failed to mention the most likely reason someone is voting for McCain. That being because the election machines changed the vote.
    
    www.blackboxvoting.com
    
    It's been at least 10 years since our last real election. Can we stop pretending that we vote in this country yet?
  - manoftheisland, on 09/05/2008, -2/+1are you serious? like really? palin has more executive experience then Both 0bama and Biden combined.
- dcollins, on 09/05/2008, -3/+33I know something that would be scarier.
  
  Bush / Cheney 2008
  - MxM111, on 09/05/2008, -2/+9I honestly do not see much difference, except that Cheney have more experience, including shooting people into face.
  - sitryd, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Difference: if bush/cheney were running for a third term, it would mean they were unilaterally overturning and violating the 22nd Amendment.
    
    i.e. a dictatorship.
  - failedpimp, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1Thank GOD for term limits.
  - saikyan, on 09/06/2008, -0/+3Same ***** different day.
- Moohaman, on 09/05/2008, -14/+1No no no even worse than everything mentioned.. Scariest ever would be Obama/Biden
- birge, on 09/05/2008, -9/+1While I tend to agree with you, how in the HELL does that qualify as an intelligent comment that should've been digged up? It's neither insightful nor witty, but it is proof that Digg is liberal, and perhaps mindlessly so.
- ender7074, on 09/05/2008, -8/+3Isnt that what you idiots said about Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, Nixon, Eshenhower.... ect. You guys should really get a different line of *****.
  - PhilliesBlunt, on 09/05/2008, -1/+5With the exception of Eisenhower, none of those ended well.
- DCMacHead, on 09/05/2008, -1/+6#3. The Ninja
  
  Who Are They? This commenter is in and out in a flash, they will usually only post one comment, no more no less, just enough to get the job done. The ninja will lay in wait while some comment section argument rages. Then, just as everyone has stopped caring whether or not the new Harry Potter trailer looks stupid, the ninja will strike with such grace and precision that it will devastate everyone who stumbles across his comment, forever changing their lives.
  
  Why We Hate Them: Their style of drive-by insult is the sort of thing you can't get away with in real life, where *****-stirrers can get called out and often beaten. We can only imagine that he is sitting at home rubbing his hands, glowing in his accomplishment as he watches replies pile up for hours under a cheap insult it took him four seconds to type.
  
  He sees himself as the internet equivalent of the Joker, spreading chaos for chaos' sake. He laughs maniacally towards the heavens, before breaking into a coughing fit and reaching for his asthma inhaler.
- tkstock, on 09/05/2008, -9/+4Scary for democrats, I agree.
- StandupShowcase, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4nope..bush/cheney is
- nytel, on 09/05/2008, -1/+3That's why I'm a first time voter electing Obama/Biden. Biden sealed the deal for me!
  - NonServium, on 09/05/2008, -2/+2You only think you'll be voting. The evidence suggests otherwise.
    
    www.blackboxvoting.com
- palagrim, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3Not just for you American's either... Us Brits want a lot of the same things to happen as Obama/Biden... As well as a lot of the rest of the world... Do the right thing - get the right people in the job and come back to the world as the world super power you can be...
  
  ... And on that - I need another beer.... :)
msk275, on 09/05/2008, -10/+206I know I gave money. I was so disturbed by the speeches Wednesday night that I coughed up $100 this morning.

I think Republicans should stop saying 'Oh You're Scared!' and start paying attention to wtf their party is doing, and that's making an ass of themselves. I've talked to two lifelong Republican party members in the past couple of days that say they are embarrassed and they aren't going to vote this election. But they won't vote 'Blue' because they don't want to listen or are too stubborn to.
- utdrew182, on 09/05/2008, -2/+11"But they won't vote 'Blue' because they don't want to listen or are too stubborn to."
  
  Maybe they don't agree with blue or red.
  - muckemuck, on 09/05/2008, -13/+4They should go purple.. http://www.bobbarr2008.com
    
    and Democrats... at some point you'll figure out that having Barr go large in the race would crush McCain. That $8M you gave to Obama would have put Barr onto the map. Oh well.
  - KyleGoetz, on 09/05/2008, -2/+1Or maybe they're Pro- or Anti-Skub.
  - gallagherFTW, on 09/05/2008, -0/+2Ditto.
    
    Don't let anyone ever tell them "you're throwing your vote away with a 3rd party."
- didiman, on 09/05/2008, -30/+6how does it feel to have wasted $100?
  - danmarek, on 09/05/2008, -2/+2Actually, in Oregon, if you're married you can donate up to 100 dollars to any politician and write it off, dollar for dollar, on your taxes that year.
  - biotch, on 09/05/2008, -0/+1hah dan...
    pwnt
- frolet, on 09/05/2008, -28/+5You spent 100 dollars on this joke election... lol
- geodebug, on 09/05/2008, -11/+5A republican not voting is as just as good so what's the problem?
- muckemuck, on 09/05/2008, -2/+12send your two friends here http://bobbarr2008.com
  
  They can join the rest of us who aren't happy with the neo-conservatives that have taken over the Republican party.
- treehugger87, on 09/05/2008, -2/+4"I coughed up $100 this morning."
  
  Could you come to my house & sneeze on me? I could really use a cough like that!
  - msk275, on 09/05/2008, -0/+4I work in the oil industry. I make more money than I can spend right now. That's called 'coughing up' cash. btw: i don't plan on staying in this industry. they work the dog ***** out of us. but we earn it.
  - jperson, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2I coughed up something green but I don't think it's money :(
- ozekii, on 09/05/2008, -9/+2I have talked to a few life long Dems and they will be voting for McCain. They are embarrassed about it and said that their parents would roll over in the grave if they knew but they couldn't handle voting for Obama. It goes both ways, nothing is 1 sided.....unless it comes from the mainstream media. How many layoffs have the big news agency had in the last year....
- locke2002, on 09/05/2008, -1/+9Part of the problem with the two-party system is that it artificially dichotomizes choice. If you've voted Republican all your life, and suddenly you find yourself unable to vote for the Republican because it's such a horrible choice, it's cognitive dissonance to vote for the "opposite" party because that party logically represents the opposite of everything you've ever believed in politics, even though it doesn't always.
  
  If we had an electoral system that didn't necessitate two big parties, but an ecosystem of parties where your vote can be spread among them while still not being wasted because you didn't vote for the one candidate most likely to beat the only other candidate likely to win whom you despise, then we'd see more fluidity in voting as people can freely explore their political interests, deviating from their party while not revoking their support for it entirely and without having the only other viable option be the opposite of what they want.
- NonServium, on 09/05/2008, -2/+1Because I'm so scared of the "taste great" side, I gave my hard earned money to the "less filling" guys! Pay no attention to everyone who has been trying to tell you that there is the same monied interest behind both sides.
- Superthug, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3I felt the same way. I donated to Obama today. I'm 17 so i wont be able to vote in the general election, so i figured all i could do was donate.
  
  Makes me feel really happy that half of America is willing to hand me and my children a huge debt.
  - msk275, on 09/07/2008, -1/+1You have children already?
- lmhazardous, on 09/05/2008, -0/+3i donated 100 bucks this morning too! palin motivated me straight to my computer to make a donation to Obama.
- bnordo, on 09/05/2008, -0/+0If the topics in Wednesdays speeches were so disturbing that you felt compelled to donate $100 of my hard earned money to Obama then all I can say is you are welcome. If talk of personal accountability, less government interference, less taxes (I don't care how much you make), stronger national defense and strong family values is disturbing then there is a good chance that you are in the system and that $100 you donated was "transferred" from hard working middle class people like me to welfare recipients such as you. Again, you are welcome.
  - biotch, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1Welp..
    80% of taxpayers will pay more taxes under McCain than under Obama
    http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/details.html
    
    The real problem here is that since 1982 on (with the exception of a couple years), the richest 20% has gained in their percentage of the total income pie year after year at the cost of every other income bracket. The Clinton tax plan only slowed this process down. When people make more money it becomes easier to make more without contributing as much production. That lowers competition and lowers the standard of living for the vast majority of citizens. So to offset it we have a variable tax rate. But currently taxes are too low for the rich. The richest 20% just broke the 50% mark in total income in this country. The richest 5% are gaining at an even faster rate. We can lower taxes for everyone but it would have to be a starkly larger cut for low income earners to keep income levels stable. Our record deficits and debt however suggest that taxes are too low in general. So the obvious answer here is to raise rates for the richest in this country. If people are worried about taxes stifling production, remember that the rich would be paying exactly the same as they did under Clinton. Everyone else would be paying less. Under the Clinton tax plan we witnessed the largest and longest period of economic growth in US history.
    
    source:
    Income percentages
    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h02a ...
  - bnordo, on 09/06/2008, -0/+0Couple things....this is not a zero sum economy so as the rich get richer it does not mean the poor get poorer. To that same point money begets money meaning that wealthy people tend to reinvest their earnings putting that money to work for them. Middle class and the poor to often spend their money frivolously on plasma televisions. That is exactly why we have the highest personal debt in the history of the country. You don't think that people with $30,000 in credit card debt are just putting food and gas on those cards? These are adult people that make adult decisions not to increase wealth. We have a term for buying what you cannot afford but I will refrain from using it in this forum. By raising taxes on the rich the people that attempt to employ, innovate and produce you force them to pull their money out of the economy to protect it. Believe me, if they earned honestly and ethically then I feel they have a right to protect every penny. Right now the top 5% of earners pay half of the taxes and you can check that on your census page as well. Being a guy that is middle class and working hard to save there is no real incentive to become to successful. That seems a bit odd in the US. By the way also look up the fact that every time in we have raised taxes on the riches revenues for the government have gone down. If you can't find it let me know I will send you some links as well. The ultra wealthy can hide their money overseas and not invest in America if the tax burden becomes to great and you know that to be true as well.
  - IHKumicho, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1actually, I donated as well, since Pork-barrel Palin offered NOTHING in her speech. With a snarky smile, biting sarcasm and a good ability to read someone else's speech, she embodied exactly what I DIDN"T want in a politician.
  - bnordo, on 09/06/2008, -0/+1true no other politician has ever had a speech written for him or her....good point. come back with some substance from Biden's speech to offset! Don't forget unlike the media this Obama vs McCain and Biden vs. Palin....But you know every report you see compares her record to Obama. Great if he wants to run for VP!
- meatmaker, on 09/06/2008, -0/+2me 2 that makes a total of 150 for me
LoveableNerd, on 09/05/2008, -53/+5I'd be more likely to vote Republican if the ticket were switched around. Palin I like, in spite of her shortcomings. McCain on the other hand, is in serious need of medical help... catch the dementia in its early stages, while they can still save some brain cells!

Obama on the other hand lost all credibility with me when he sold us out on the FISA bill. And criticizing Palin's lack of experience when he has even less makes him look like a total douche.

As it stands I won't be voting for either of the two... I will decide among Nader, Barr, Baldwin, and McKinney... because any one of them would pwn those two losers.
- paulishuku, on 09/05/2008, -0/+9Yeah, because Nader, Barr, Baldwin or McKinney has a really good chance to win.
  - chicofaraby, on 09/05/2008, -4/+4So, you only vote for people who are going to win?
    
    Are you 7?
  - rinpoche, on 09/05/2008, -5/+3It's the "I only vote for my party or who I think can win" mindset that is quite literally destroying America.
    
    Vote for who has the best ideas and screw party politics.
  - Mattwdj, on 09/05/2008, -1/+6Voting independent is a total waste of a vote.
  - complexmind51, on 09/05/2008, -1/+8When it comes to presidential politics, voting for a fringe candidate can do more harm than good. My first election was the 2000 race. I did not like Gore, I really hated Bush. I was still probably going to vote for Gore anyway, until a friend of mine dropped a Jerry Garcia quote on me, "choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." I was 20 and idealistic, and I thought it made a lot of sense. So I voted for Ralph Nader. In FLORIDA. If one person every fifth precinct had voted for Gore instead of Nader, we wouldn't be in this mess. Be careful before you w

Palin's Speech Raises $1M for Republicans; $8M for Democrats

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

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

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Palin's Speech Raises $1M for Republicans; $8M for Democrats

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in US Elections 2008

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

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Related by Keyword

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

Michelle Obama's Democratic Convention Speech

Republicans Scared: "Obama is the Democrats' Reagan"