digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at reuters.com

Reuters: Hillary really will do ANYTHING to win.

reuters.com — Sen. Hillary Clinton, in an about-face, said on Friday she wants the Democratic Party delegates in two states that were barred by the national party to be reinstated and counted in the race to determine the party's U.S. presidential nominee.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • theuniversal, on 01/27/2008, -6/+164"I think it's important we send a message to the people of Michigan and Florida that Democrats care about their lives and their futures, and I will certainly do everything I can to be a good president for them," Clinton said.

    Do the Clinton's think people are stupid enough to buy this excuse?
    • proseandpromise, on 01/27/2008, -2/+71Yes
    • brainboy77, on 01/27/2008, -32/+2this from the guy who spelled "Do the CLINTON'S.. "

      on a side note, digg should add bold and/or italic features. i hate making stuff all caps to emphasize a point, it usually gets dugg down. as will this comment.
      • rarson, on 01/27/2008, -2/+19Your comments get dugg down because they're stupid. It's because of the content, not the capitalization.
    • ssn697, on 01/27/2008, -1/+15They are hoping, yes.
      • LeeSoong, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1What does that image have to do with Hillary ?!?
    • 7Mystery, on 01/27/2008, -9/+13Unfortunately people are stupid enough to buy this crap. Look at the number of buffoons that are voting her.
      IQ tests should determine who votes!
      • SpoBo, on 01/27/2008, -1/+7damn straight .. you should be quizzed on a bunch of things concerning politics when you give your vote. And only people who have been found even remotely intelligent will have their vote counted.
        • Iconoclast25, on 01/27/2008, -6/+4Works for me; going forward, no lefty would see the inside of the Oval Office or Congress for an indefinite period except as a tourist.
      • drband36, on 01/27/2008, -1/+3I wouldn't even say "stupid"...I would say "poorly informed". Over and over, her voters have been characterized as "low-information voters".

        I would call them "citizens who need to work a hell of a lot harder in order to legitimately earn that title"
    • acroyear2, on 01/27/2008, -1/+7We've had several years of an administration treating as like fourth graders. I couldn't stand having another four years.
    • digggggggggg, on 01/27/2008, -4/+4She sounds like a mom. I mean, just replace the word "president" with "mother" in that statement. It makes even more sense.
    • prisoner24601, on 01/27/2008, -3/+15The primary system has become a joke. Every four years we see Iowa hold the nation hostage to the idiotic "Ethanol Pledge" where unless candidates spout off that they too think that BURNING FOOD is a good way to solve our energy problems they get obliterated.

      So other states are finally sick of having their issues ignored EVERY campaign cycle and staged a revolt this year. Good for them. Iowa and New Hampshire don't represent us all and should have first dibs every single cycle. Unless both parties agree to shift the schedule in an reasonable way (one year Nevada and Maine go first, four years later Oregon and Arkansas go first, etc. you will just see more and more of this. Four years from now you might see 10 states all move their primary to the same day as Iowa.

      Both parties need to agree to fix this in a fair way that doesn't give "divine right" to the same small group every time. Both because it's fair, and also because the only way they can stop it is to punish rogue states they way they have this year. (Which really is a "who cares" situation anyway. If you take away half our delegates, but our primary would have been so late that we miss the chance to have a real impact anyway then these states may well think it's worth the loss.) And then you get someone like Clinton pandering to the ones who got punished.

      Rotate the early states fairly! End Iowa and New Hampshire's monopoly on picking our next President!
      • HalBSure, on 01/27/2008, -1/+7--- "Rotate the early states fairly!"

        Well, that's just crazy talk. It's logical and sounds reasonable. Logic and reason have nothing to do with electing the president.
      • wattersm, on 01/27/2008, -4/+1How about just getting rid of the electoral college?
    • ejustian, on 01/27/2008, -10/+4Yes. We are that stupid. Obama had my vote until he opted to exclude the people of Michigan from voting for him. We told him when the "job interview" would be and he didn't show up. Must be he doesn't much want the job. Yes...Michigan broke the rules, but the Democratic Party and Obama forgot that the people tell THEM what to do. Not the other way around. Every state should be concerned that Iowa and NH select the candidate election year after election year...we should have rotating primaries. Michigan and Florida had the stones to tell the parties what had to be done. Oddly...the Republican party didn't seem to care, and held the Michigan Primaries anyway. Why would the dems choose to disenfranchise voters in swing states with a combined total of 44 electoral votes?
      • Lyph5, on 01/27/2008, -8/+1Obama had your vote? So you're pro-expanding the war, including invading countries that are currently considered Allies of the US?
        If that's how you treat your friends...
        • ejustian, on 01/27/2008, -3/+1Hold on...reading Obama's remarks...reading...reading...geeze...I don't see a quote "I will expsand the war and invade other countries! Let's take Canada! WOOOOOO! USA! USA! USA!" I missed that one. But don't worry. I'm pretty pissed with him now for turning his back on Michigan.
      • saintdesy, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2The Republican Party did care, and in fact, the delegations from all the states who have votes except IA and NH will be halved at the Republican convention. The Democratic Party was stupid and just cut the delegations entirely. Don't blame Obama for this. He probably wouldn't have minded campaigning there if the party hadn't have said that anyone who does won't have ANY of their delegates allowed to vote for them at the convention. The Democratic party is just run by idiots.
    • AzMegladon, on 01/27/2008, -1/+5Actualy most people rely on mainstream media, so yes, they stand a good chance of winning this.
    • ajadoniz, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3yes
  • cg4et, on 01/27/2008, -4/+189We already knew the Clintons were willing to disenfranchise college students in Iowa and union workers in Nevada, lie about Obama's position on choice in New Hampshire, and exploit racial divisions in South Carolina. Now we know they are willing to go back on a promise made to their own party. Nobody can say they are inconsistent.
    • ajskhan, on 01/27/2008, -1/+5Yeah, they lost in SC... in your face(s).
    • Ireland, on 01/27/2008, -8/+3Nobody can say they are "consistent" I think you mean.
  • mrmatt57, on 01/27/2008, -3/+35She still won't give Bill what he wants...
  • wampeter, on 01/27/2008, -1/+156She is disgusting... Period.
    • epicstruggle, on 01/27/2008, -30/+2Counting votes from michigan and florida is disgusting? Wow.... You wouldnt be related to bush?
      • gldfshnpcklejar, on 01/27/2008, -0/+16She doesn't care about the people's votes. You forgot that she was the only "big" candidate in michigan because the other people took their names off the ballot. And she still only got 55% (35% or so (i can't remember) voted "none of the above). She doesn't care about the people, she cares about getting her ass in the oval office.
        • Iconoclast25, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2"She doesn't care about the people, she cares about getting her ***FAT*** ass in the oval office."

          . . . fixed it for ya, mac.
    • virtualball, on 01/27/2008, -4/+12Nuh-Uh, I'd hit it!


      (With a shovel)
      • adoggz, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Bill already hit it ... with an ugly stick.
    • cpbrown, on 01/27/2008, -4/+1period? you don't need to bring her being a woman into it at every opportunity. :p
    • pizzas, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1She is disgusting... Period [blood].
  • whatthefu, on 01/27/2008, -1/+124It would be completely undemocratic to give her the delegates of Michigan. That's the nicest way I can put it.
    • epicstruggle, on 01/27/2008, -26/+2Better not to count their votes right? Excellent. /sarcasm
      • G001, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3See, that's exactly what she's counting on. If you have little to no understanding of the issues behind it, her position seems like common sense. You have to look deeper to see how underhanded it is.

        Thank you for so perfectly demonstrating how stupid people will react. It's what she's banking on.
        • mnocket, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2You're so right! There are many people like epicstruggle who form their opinions from the headlines without really understanding the issue.
      • mnocket, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2What a dolt! Read jamesalfaro comment below if you want to actually understand a little bit about the issue.
    • jamesalfaro, on 01/27/2008, -0/+30I agree, she would essentially be stealing this election if she gets those delegates. After the DNC stripped Michigan of their delegates, all of the Democratic candidates were forced to remove their names from the ballot. Clinton kept her name on, and she ran against nobody in the primary. As a result, she recieved 55% of the votes, while 40% voted for Uncommitted, because there was no one else to vote for.
      http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080116/cm_then ...
      • Xenufield, on 01/28/2008, -1/+0Kucinich was on the ballot!

        And still was insignificant.
  • brainboy77, on 01/27/2008, -3/+37i can't believe she's still considered to be a liberal.
    • martalli, on 01/27/2008, -0/+22Welcome to third world politics. This is not about getting the right person for the job, but about crowning the intended with all the pomp and circumstance of an election. Why else would a nation of 300 million people be electing a former President's wife to succeed a former President's son?
      • digindrivefast, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2Hillbill and then Jebthewalker and the World is OK....
      • drband36, on 01/27/2008, -2/+0And then, after Jeb...

        Chelsea!

        STOP THE INSANITY, people! We need to aerate the Oval Office in the worst way!

        Barack '08
    • wildone71, on 01/27/2008, -3/+9Doesn't sound like she falls too much from the liberal tree to me...
    • userperson, on 01/27/2008, -2/+7not Conservative either ... so let's call her Communist-Fascist.
    • KMye, on 01/27/2008, -1/+8Liberal/Conservative has nothing to do with political ethics.
      • userperson, on 01/27/2008, -3/+1He says as a gun is put to his head to take money for _______
    • drband36, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2She has liberal leanings on some issues, but her tactics are purely Karl Rovian...and I think her presidential style, should she be elected, would be straight out of the Book of Cheney.
    • Xenufield, on 01/28/2008, -1/+0Stalinists like Clinton are still in the Liberal spectrum of politics.

      Socialism/Communism + extreme authoritarianism = Stalinism, rhaps one day renamed to Clintonism
  • ZeRux, on 01/27/2008, -44/+3That's what makes her such a good candidate...Hillary FTW!
    Stop the sexism - elect the first female president!
    • martalli, on 01/27/2008, -0/+15Why shouldn't people be upset when she goes against her word? Would you say that this is presidential, or that lying is a typical female characteristic, or that if was, that it would be one of the better qualities to recommend someone to the presidency? I think the nation has already had eight years of lies, and that was many more than needed.
    • ClockworksNine, on 01/27/2008, -0/+17you forgot the "/sarcasm" tag at the end there, chief.
    • digindrivefast, on 01/27/2008, -0/+15She has no moral compass, no back-bone. She waffles and wavers and she will do or say anything to gain greater power for her self ordained purposes.
      • ZeRux, on 01/27/2008, -3/+1That's indeed true. But at least she listens to people, and will says whatever she thinks majority will want to hear.
        Lack of ideals can be a good thing if you think of the current president who wanted to invade Iraq before he even got into the white house.
    • MacEnvy, on 01/27/2008, -0/+14The only sexism is on the part of Hillary Clinton supporters, who only support her on the grounds that she is a woman.
    • ryan83189, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2It would only be considered sexist if she was indeed a woman.
  • digindrivefast, on 01/27/2008, -0/+26Unable to stand by her word, she leans on her husbands coat-tails and those are stinky at best.
    • ikrit2006, on 01/27/2008, -2/+7and those are cum-stained at best.*
      • WernerCD, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2at the best? I would consider that the worst... but maybe your 'tastes' differ from mine.
        ...
        Monica? is that you?
  • dagnabbit, on 01/27/2008, -0/+71She'll say anything and change nothing. But she'll get the nomination if we don't get off our asses and vote for somebody else in the primary. Vote people!
  • Stevanoski, on 01/27/2008, -20/+8Hmmm, seems the Conservatives have been saying this for 16 years, reckon it takes a while to sink in to the Progressives.
  • Schul983, on 01/27/2008, -0/+75I'm a life-long democrat and if she gets the nomination I am not voting for her.
    • rumplestiltz, on 01/27/2008, -2/+16I don't trust the woman, I want to but I just cant
      • Ireland, on 01/27/2008, -0/+8You want to? I can't believe I dugg you by accident, sorry for that.
      • Xenufield, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0Why do you want to trust her? She and her 'husband' have a long history of deceit and corruption.
    • bcamp1973, on 01/27/2008, -2/+7amen. i will vote for a democratic nominee...or anyone that runs against hillary. i'm sorry, but even McCain is better. at least he's up front about wanting to continue the war... God I hope Obama gets the nod.
    • CC440, on 01/27/2008, -0/+11I cna't believe that there is ANY chance that she could win the general election. People literally turn out to vote AGAINST her. People couldnt even do that against Bush in '04. Whoever opposes her wouldn't even have to try to defeat her, as the right wing pundits would decimate her so badly that no negative ads owuld need to be run.
  • steppen79, on 01/27/2008, -2/+58She's like a super villain, this is ridiculous
    • jon30041, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4Brainstorm for a good name for her character!

      Hmmm... I really can't think of anything that doesn't include evil, lying, or bitch in the name... How about just Bitch?
  • NeMoD, on 01/27/2008, -21/+15If this dyke wins office, god help us
  • jamesalfaro, on 01/27/2008, -1/+31"I think it's important we send a message to the people of Michigan and Florida that Democrats care about their lives and their futures" What a load of BS. She is basically stealing this election. Now I see why she kept her name on the ballot, after the other candidates removed theirs. She planned to protest the DNC's decision all along.
  • ShemDaimwood, on 01/27/2008, -16/+12154 diggs and no promotion yet; meanwhile, a Microsoft story made the frontpage with only 24 diggs this morning.
    • Avanost, on 01/27/2008, -4/+11I'M sick of people pointing this out like its some sort of huge oversight that only they have figured out. Have you ever thought that maybe there isn't a magic # of diggs threshold anymore? its likely based on a variety of factors now.. such as the rate in which an article receives diggs relative to other stories in the 10 minute segment of time that seems to go by in between story promotions. All your argument really says is "Gee the new digg system is not entirely based on getting a number of diggs to be promoted", which I'm sure most of us have figured out.
  • keeling0ver, on 01/27/2008, -0/+24This is actually kind of funny and I think it makes her look really desparate. Who could possibly say that reinstating the votes for Michigan would be fair?
  • ShemDaimwood, on 01/27/2008, -9/+8I can't believe the trashy, all-caps version of this story made it to the frontpage with only 40 diggs.
    • microbreak, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2Can you please quit your whining already?
  • DestroyFascism, on 01/27/2008, -2/+3SOMEONE MUST HAVE PUT IT THERE......omg that screaming hurts....
  • Observant1, on 01/27/2008, -7/+28Hillary is a TRAITOR and should be in prison, not running for president!! 6+ years board of directors to WalMart importing slave made consumer goods from China, funneling money out of the US and undercutting what little is left of American manufacturers so badly they go bankrupt, and smaller retail businesses about forced to close their doors too. this has created so much unemployment it's sick, and no one can really live on what little WalMart pays.
    then we have her business partner Rudy Giuliani who's lawfirm is representing Cintra from Spain in building a (nonexistent) NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY to connect a superport WalMart is building in Mexico, up through to Canada. this will unemploy US longshoremen and truckers, bring in even MORE slave made goods funneling MORE money out of the US economy.
    then we have GWB who tried and failed 3 times for total amnesty to illegal immigrants who are here competing for what few jobs we have left, GWB handed US highways over to Mexican trucking companies out of spite.
    oh but lets cheer because GWB wants to give us a tax rebate.. if were even lucky enough to HAVE a friggin job, and lets cheer Hillary for wanting to give all us "poor people" (who she helped MAKE unemployed) "free healthcare".
    I hope people throw rotten vegetables and eggs at the bitch, at the very least!
    • fhornplayer, on 01/27/2008, -1/+5Can I have some sources? Not because I don't believe you, because I have a friend who loves her and needs to be told the truth.
      • Observant1, on 01/27/2008, -4/+3mainstream media keeps all these things hushed, online is where to find out more. I'd reccommend googling "the clinton chronicles" for even older real dirt on their hands. general noriega was PUT into power to handle drugs for weapons trading in the reagan years, CIA bush's freinds son john hinckley shot reagan with a .22, leaving bush senior in charge like dick cheney is now and we had the iran/contra scandal with "I cant recall" ollie north teaching people like alberto gonzales "new politics". bill clinton was govornor of arkansas taking drug shipments into the little airport at mena, hillary's 'rose law firm' setting up tyson chicken to launder the drug money, nancy reagan (out of fear) is put up on the podium with her "just say no!" campaign to reverse psychology advertize drugs that someone(s) had a lot of for sale... and shortly after is when the 'privatization' of prisons began in texas. corporations making big money from the business of locking people up. "victimless criminals" made to work for 2.00 a day under the pretense of "victim restitution programs" as the violent are released for the jails being full of relatively harmless people, to keep the pressure on the people. the people want real criminals locked up as the jails give the excuse 'the jails are full we need more money to build more jails'.. the public complies, the jails are built, then the keys are handed over to the corporations. they seize peoples homes and vehicles for even suspicion of anything drug related in this scam of "the war on drugs" (when they are the largest importer, even september last year a guantanamo flight went down with 4 tons of cocaine) and this "war on terrorism" is every bit as much a war upon the populace. rudy giuliani ran NYC like a little nazi, stealing street vendors artwork, swat raids on small businesses (google giuliani time) and mayor bloomberg (financial news) follows suit mking it illegal for citizens to use camera's while at the same time puts millions of surveillance camera's for 'the police'. not a word is said by the state's congressional rep for the people, hillary. rupert murdoch who supports her just bought up the wall street journal financial news.. do you begin to see the patterns yet? now have a look to who the BUSH's really are: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/es ...
        pre WW2 germany, the nazi's controlled the area they have named Isreal in 1948. right after WW2 the US had 'operation paperclip' to bring nazi war criminals to the US with full pardon: rocket scientists to give us NASA, propaganda artists to steer government and public opinion of it, security specialists (SS) to form the CIA that bush sr. has been part of since its inception. this is why the (totally infiltrated) US government jumps anytime Isreal says "frog", they are the same nazi's! in Isreal it is nazi's posing as JEWS, ready to scream "you're anti-semitic" (a race card!) about anyone opposed to what they are doing.
        THIS is what is really going on. the globalist banker elite who funded hitler to do their bidding only lost a battle we call WW2, and have moved their base of operations here to the US. germany was one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, torn apart by starting war for no real reason (911 is the same as germany's reischstag fire). these global "elite" bankers didnt care one bit about germany, they care about the US the same way.
        I understand it all sounds like "tin foil hattery", a conspiracy so large, and so old, no one can imagine something so complicated, but it is all there.
    • whoucares, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4You had me at traitor...
    • tekkie001, on 01/27/2008, -2/+3Google Hillary Clinton + Wal Mart and take your pick of sources. I agree completely with everything observant stated even though overall I like what President Bush has done. I can't stand Hillary for the obvious reasons and our current President has done nothing to stop illegal immigration and the other causes of job erosion in America.
      • Observant1, on 01/27/2008, -1/+3"they" "them" etc... first they hit us with EPA standards, environmental protection is not a bad idea at all really, but the corporations refused to claen up their act and took corporate welfare grants (courtesy of the working taxpayers!) to relocate the pollution to other countries, leaving the US and its workers unemployed. that is economic sabotage and treason by these companies and by the people handing out the corporate welfare grants both. then we have the WalMart type businesses, illegal immigration -- the FORD FOUNDATION has spent millions in south ameica educating school kids in "La Raza" (the race), Aztlan (the idea the US belongs to them), and "reconquista" (the idea they should retake it by force). FORD and CHRYSLER both had factories in germany making tanks and planes that were forbidden targets to US bomber pilots. germany also had a LOT of power and influence over south america back then.
        I KNOW it all sounds like "crazy conspiracy theory", but all the elements are here just the same as what happened to germany. it is ALL propaganda, manipulation, pushing a nazi agenda forward to break this nation, literally, NAZI's, funded by the global "elite" bankers same as they did hitler. the british royal family and the rest of europes "old money" are wealthy beyond imagining or ever spending, their REAL thrill is total control through manipulation, slavery, and genocide.. worse than an insane inbred bloodthirsty pitbull. it isnt "new world order", it is the same 'old world order' trying to stay in power and gain total power over the whole planet.
        it's Montgomery Burns trying to block out the sun as Homer Simpson prays he can sleep at work when he aint eating donuts.. that bad. people really DO need to read here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/es ... and begin to understand that we WOULD have free power if rockefeller (and edison) and buddies didnt stop it because they couldnt put a meter on it to charge people, how it relates to nikolas tesla, the bush's, cheney and big energy, BP (owned by the queen of england) buying all domestic production of oil, refineries, distributorships... archer daniels midland (also the queen) with the special interests lobby/monopoly on 'corn biofuel'.. indiana govornor mitch daniels giving BP the okay to dump BP's toxic waste from refineries into the great lakes that is water supply to the whole mideast.. mississippi running all the way to texas. economic and environmental treason in abundance... as homer simpson looks at his empty box of friggin donuts.
      • soulkitchen, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Overall you like what President Bush has done?!?
        You must've missed this one::: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/0 ...
        Please Tekkie, tell me what specifically you like.
    • Observant1, on 01/27/2008, -3/+4please allow me to apologize for some long winded RANTS, but this nation is under attack from more directions than a diamond has facets.. including the facets that are the optical illusions. it is near impossible to cite the sources, for all the information I have come to understand for myself, that enables these kinds of rants. I also understand people have been conditioned to add the word "theory" to the word "conspiracy", and also conditioned to immediatly disregard "crazy conspiracy theorists", all by design. the 'dots' really ARE there to be connected, history does and will repeat itself, when the majority are unaware of the REAL history that isnt written into the history books because these same wealthy people who have raped the people for centuries, are the same people who own the publishing companies.
      I KNOW it really does sound crazy, it is also the nature of an attack coming from so many different directions with so many inter-related details, when someone DOES begin to see the bigger picture, they DO come across as some kind of "raving lunatic" because of the complexity of all the 'laws' and all of the 'players', how everything actually IS manipulated. once someone really begins to really look into these things, this is inevitable, but it is also the right thing to do, become educated to it, and try to help others begin to educate themselves.
      our schools that THEY have created are not about getting people educated to these or any other realities, these schools are turning loose 'graduates' who are incapable of making change unless the cash register tells them what to give back. can the student repeat back the propaganda as told? is the student programmed to follow orders without that evil 'thinking' that might cause them to question authority? will this student be a good little worker bee that we can place somewhere to be taxed for existing (slavery) to support our non-productive parasitic existence (is now police, judges, lawyers, politicans, doctors, pharmaceutical and insurance corporations.. the list goes on and on) corporatism is just another name for fascism, and in its extreme we get another nazi germany, the people there didnt realize what was happening around THEM either, just as people now think "that cant happen HERE", when it already has, and is also a very well oiled machine. these "elite" with their think tanks are as sick as they are brilliant, and have been running this sick show for a very long time. I am honestly only apologizing for not knowing even more about all of it, only being ONE human being trying to stimulate others to look into it in hopes 'we the people' can collectively begin to stop this evil machine in its tracks and return to being free human induviduals. there is no legitemate reason for anything FUN to be either illegal or expensive or both, as things are NOW. theyre giving speeding tickets to skiiers even!
      • soulkitchen, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Whoa there, listen I know you've got some things to say. I even tend to agree with most of what you're saying. But slow it down man, focus your points. The all out assault that covers a wide range of topics doesn't enforce belief, it dilutes it. The most important thing isn't about getting the news out there, the news is ALREADY out on the interwebs available for anyone to see. The issue at hand is whether or not your audience believes it; and in order to do that you need to handle each topic individually. And when you do handle each topic individually, put yourself in the position of your audience (a skeptical audience). Oh and one more thing, Cite your sources.
  • Laiden, on 01/27/2008, -7/+2508ama.
  • ponyfreak, on 01/27/2008, -2/+23She is just trying to distract the media from the Obama Landslide in SC
  • rodted2, on 01/27/2008, -10/+3still betterr the bush.
    • lead2thehead, on 01/27/2008, -0/+10So is leaving the office vacant for 4 years. But I think our criteria should be a little more strict than "better than bush".
    • soot, on 01/27/2008, -0/+8We can do a LOT better than just "better than Bush."
    • katorga, on 01/27/2008, -0/+0I'm not sure she would even be "better than Bush". Clinton blew a 40 year Dem stranglehold on the House, and control of congress (and all the patronage that goes with it) is much more important. Clinton failed to implement ANY of the policies for which I voted for him. Clinton was too busy playing the first time around to do his job effectively. I do not have any confidence they will do any better the second time around.
    • whoucares, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1Bush may have tarnished the executive branch, but Clinton stained it.
  • digdug2008, on 01/27/2008, -1/+9uh?? the top #1 and #2 news on digg is just about the same news about hillary?
    • s1mph0ny, on 01/27/2008, -0/+5The other one is a dupe of this. It was submitted later, but got to the front page with fewer diggs. Should have been removed, but hasn't yet.
    • ShemDaimwood, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4This one actually came first, but the other all-caps version was somehow promoted with 160 less diggs.
  • weitek, on 01/27/2008, -6/+17what a *****
  • mrpoll, on 01/27/2008, -4/+2yes, hillary will do anything to win: http://www.couchmob.com/read/funny/5 lol

  • lead2thehead, on 01/27/2008, -1/+21This is not surprising. Hillary takes both sides of EVERY issue.
    • foreignwarren, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4"Yeah.. I uh...voted for it, but I hoped it wouldn't pass" - HRC
    • aboutlogin, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Double-mindedness, it's the guiding principle of the bush-clinton crime family
  • elliotys, on 01/27/2008, -8/+4Better do what she says or she will detonate her "snook"
  • ZincSaucier, on 01/27/2008, -1/+8way to go hildog. keep showing us what a sneaky manipulative person you are
  • 919kwjc, on 01/27/2008, -8/+1Hillary - wow
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdKQKovdP3E
  • dogslayeggs, on 01/27/2008, -3/+8what a lame bitch... how stupid can people be to buy into her *****... oh wait, I forgot this is America, nm.... blind tools... FEED THE MACHINE!

    I would have sex with her just to say I did though..
  • uptown, on 01/27/2008, -1/+22If time in the Oval Office was all it took to be a viable candidate Monica would be running....
  • cambob76, on 01/27/2008, -0/+17She gives me the creeps. Please USA, don`t let her be president.
    • DestroyFascism, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1The thing that makes people all around the world laugh is that America actually believes it gets a choice....
  • gotamd, on 01/27/2008, -0/+7Clinton the union buster...
  • mcelreb, on 01/27/2008, -11/+1This stinks of anti-Hillary operatives gaming Digg.
    • SzaszMan, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3If by "anti Hillary operatives" you mean "huge swaths of the Digg-using American electorate and worldwide Digging audience" then I agree with you...
  • S7aind, on 01/27/2008, -0/+8"I know other campaigns have tried to downplay the significance of these two states,"

    "Hillary was the only candidate on the Democratic ballot in Michigan"

    wtf?
    • ejustian, on 01/27/2008, -1/+0That's not exactly right. I live here and it's like this...Obama and Edwards were the only candidates NOT on the ballot. They chose not to be on the ballot. WTF?
  • pierreb, on 01/27/2008, -1/+12Tactically, this is a very bad move by the Clinton campaign. This smacks of being very self serving. I believe that in the end that this type of behaviour will hurt her campaign by having both hard core and soft democrats questioning whether this is the type of candidate that they want to put forward.
  • coolkatz321, on 01/27/2008, -6/+1I was actually wondering why they even bothered taking away the delegates in the first place-- it was an asinine and stupid decision by the DNC to do so. You should not take away delegates from two EXTREMELY important swing states, especially in such an important election year. I think at this point there's nothing you can do, although I'd say to leave Michigan out of it and reinstate the Florida delegates-- if the Democrats win FL in November it's a huge portion of the electoral college.
    • phillymozart, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3The rule of law means nothing unless they are actually enforced. Those states knew exactly what they were doing and what the consequences would be when they decided to move up the primary dates. The primary process is already way to short and compressed already; we do not need to decide nominees in such a short manner of time.
  • nik0n, on 01/27/2008, -1/+8this women doesn't deserve to be president of the united states.
  • btrfly02, on 01/27/2008, -7/+2if this were the actual presidential election, we would want all votes counted. I guess you all must have voted for bush four years ago...since you have no regard for actual votes...
    • axle, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4If you're going to count the votes, the whole process needs to be done in a "fair" way. The democratic national party instructed the candidates to remove their name from the ballot. Everyone did, except Hillary. Now Hillary is wanting the Dem. Nat. Party to retroactively count those votes. How in the world is it fair to count those votes? There was no campaigning there, their names weren't even on the ballot! If she wanted those votes to count, she should have raised her voice BEFORE the votes took place.
      • mnocket, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3You're wasting your breath. btrfly02 probably doesn't want to understand the issue, otherwise a little research would have been done before making such an uninformed comment.
  • mypetridish, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1guys, I dont understand what's going on. please enlighten me. why is reinstating the delegates from the two states be of any significance to her campaign to be the president?
    • jaytek13, on 01/27/2008, -10/+0Because she won Michigan, and she is predicted to win Florida by a significant margin. Apparently the anti-Hillary crowd thinks votes should only count if they go towards their particular candidate.
      • saintdesy, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2I think votes should only count if there is more than one real candidate on the ballot. Anyone can win if the only people they are against are a leprechaun, a senile old man and nobody. I'm sure that if Hillary wasn't on the ballot in California, for example, you might have a little problem with that.
    • jhuckabee, on 01/27/2008, -0/+10More importantly, all candidates (including HRC) pledged not to campaign there. So, unlike some people, Obama kept his word and didn't campaign these states where the people haven't had a chance to hear the truth about what's going on.

      Dirty dirty dirty. HRC should be ashamed of herself!

      Oh wait, apparently she has no shame
      • mypetridish, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Oooo... so while everyone was busy campaigning at other states, she campaigned in the 2 states and after establishing a good presence there she made an about-turn (hence the digg title) and said the 2 states should be allowed to vote in the primary? If this were ever to happen, when will the 2 states get to vote? Also in February 5th?
        • saintdesy, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3None of the candidates campaigned in the two states. Most of the candidates took their names off the ballot after the National Democratic party demanded it. Hillary didn't. One of these states already voted and another is voting on Tuesday. Won the first one because she was the only real candidate on the ballot and she is about to win the other. She now wants these uncontested votes to count for her, giving her a significant boost in the primary and perhaps locking up the nomination for her.
      • ejustian, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1Yes. Obama basically showed his dogged loyalty to the Democratic Party...he'll do what they tell him. No matter what state gets screwed in the process.
        • foreignwarren, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3no, the problem is that if every state were to pull the same stunt (and quite a few were lining up to) then it would throw the party into disarray. I think there should be three or four "Super Tuesdays" where every state feels as though their primary is important and their opinions and delegates count for something, and it would avoid all this jockeying for position. Alternatively, I don't agree with one Super Primary day as it allows no room for debate and correction and momentum and no "process".
        • DephexTwin, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Or he happens to think it was the right thing to do for a state doing something so self-serving like Michigan did at the expense of other voters. This earlier primary ***** is like a nuclear arms race and it needs to stop. What if he just agrees that was the right way to go?
    • foreignwarren, on 01/27/2008, -0/+7All candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan since they were sanctioned by the DNC for voting to move their primaries up to gain more significance. The time to argue for or against the sanctions was at the time the DNC made it's decision and pulled all the delegates (and thus any importance) from the two states. Billary though, kept her name on the ballots and so can claim she "Won" Michigan, when all the Democratic candidates had decided that for the good of the party they would not campaign (therefore not spend any time or money) there.

      To attempt to get the delegates re-instated now, just a couple days before the sanctioned Florida primary and long after the Michigan primary, smacks of desperate desperate whoredom.
  • MindTrigger, on 01/27/2008, -0/+10If people don't see that the Clinton's are already hard at work keeping the status quo of oldschool political ***** going, I don't know what else could drive it home. I personally believe that these people will do *anything* to win, and we may have only seen the beginning. I suggest everyone gets real in their support for their candidate and starts motivating others to vote. If not, you can look forward to another 8 years of the Clinton legacy in office.
    Just look how creepy Bill Clinton has been acting lately. He's so filled with greed to get himself back into the White House that he can barely control his outbursts in public. It's disgusting and embarrassing to watch him. I used to respect him, but that day has long passed.
    • DephexTwin, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Yeah, it's really sad to me as well seeing Bill Clinton these days. He is tarnishing his legacy.
  • jaytek13, on 01/27/2008, -10/+0Seriously, Hillary will do ANYTHING! Counting all votes from all States... how PREPOSTEROUS! What has "democracy" come to when people's votes actually matter? BUSH 08!
    • msqualia, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3The other candidates, following their party rules, had to withdraw from the Michigan race. The Michigan election was not at all a fair race.

      Hilary didn't follow the rules, she can't whine about not winning a trophy she cheated to obtain.
    • mnocket, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3jaytek13, Why don't you even try to understand the issue before making such an ignorant comment?
  • aaroh, on 01/27/2008, -3/+3There's a nice documentary on the Clintons Lies scandals and corruption, here's the first part of the documentary on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1WHdViGycY
  • woodtw, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1Just another example of the lying, dirty tricks the BITCH and BUBBABILL have pulled over the years. Obama had better watch for Arkansas snipers next. The frigid, heartless BITCH will stop at nothing to get what she wants.
  • pitlord, on 01/27/2008, -6/+2I said it before I'll say it again, who cares?
    X^P
    Who did she murder?
    -_-
  • SomeHobo, on 01/27/2008, -0/+12What's with the pic?
    • variable, on 01/27/2008, -0/+5It's a depiction of Hillary doing anything to win.
      • SomeHobo, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Do I ever ask silly questions sometimes!
  • yllabianbitpipe, on 01/27/2008, -0/+9The negative campaigning by Bill in SC was a big turn off.
  • PirateBooty, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4Does she really think that she is going to be president? I mean come on there are better candidates. She goes to the extreme to get your vote, which makes it seem like she's desperate and has nothing else to offer. And she more than likely will not fulfill all the things that she is promising.
  • marffa, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1
    way to go hildog. keep showing us what a sneaky manipulative person you are
  • DivisibleByZero, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2So, how many of you guys also got offended when Kucinich was banned from the Democratic primary in Texas because he didn't want to follow the party's rules here? Make sure your opinions don't contradict each other...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 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.