digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at nytimes.com

Seeds of Destruction: The Clintons Should Be Ashamed

nytimes.com — The Clinton's have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully. Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class. So there was Hillary cold-bloodedly asserting to USA Today that she was the candidate favored by “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” “There’s a pattern emerging here,” said Mrs. Clinton. There is, indeed...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cashman57, on 05/11/2008, -70/+27Given what Obama has said and written about white people he can't expect them to support his candidacy.
    Given the fact he has spent his entire political career trying to take guns away from Americans it is no wonder he will not get the support of anyone who believes in the right to be secure and the right to keep and bear arms.
    Part of Obama's global poverty act is to take away "small arms" from Americans.
    I find it a bit ironic he wants to take away our guns while he is surrounded 24/7 by people with guns.
    Is that elitist or just being a typical hypocrite?
    • gsxrjason, on 05/11/2008, -6/+60LOL. I'm a white guy who owns a gun and is voting for Obama. Stop generalizing white people.
      • sanman, on 05/11/2008, -14/+5I'm a non-white guy who likewise can't help but notice how every AfAm is running to vote for one of their own.
        Also, I can't help but remember how all liberals used to treat the Clintons like gods, even vigorously defending Slick Willy's ridiculous indiscretions while castigating Republican critics as vultures. Now the same liberal zealots are raking up the Clintons' past and using it against them far more aggressively than the Republicans ever did. At this rate, Kenneth Starr will be guest of honor at the Democratic National Convention. :P

        Liberals - what a morally bankrupt crowd of scammers. At least Conservatives don't make a pretense of liberalism, while Liberals do everything under the pretense of their high-minded propaganda. What a lie.
        • gsxrjason, on 05/11/2008, -1/+16I've never voted for or donated to a Clinton. This is not about the past, but about the future. You're throwing around liberals like it's an insult, which leads any objective reader to realize your actual opinion. Barack is the only candidate left with any sense of morals. McCain has changed his bearings 180 degrees by embracing the Bush republicans. He used to stand up against that, and now he's the next neocon puppet in line.
          • sanman, on 05/11/2008, -7/+3"I've never voted for or donated to a Clinton."
            (TRANSLATION: you weren't old enough to vote back then)

            "You're throwing around liberals like it's an insult, which leads any objective reader to realize your actual opinion."
            I'm pointing out that cynically fabricating moral pretexts is something that the Left do, and not just Neo-cons seeking to invade Iraq. Wake up and smell the coffee, junior.

            McCain has a longstanding track-record, and you can see that's why Rush Limbaugh spends more time attacking him than anyone else. McCain is a candidate for the mainstream, which is why he's mainly attacked by the far-left and the far-right. McCain actually put his life on the line for his country, and nothing that the Obamabots say will ever top that.
            Obama's answers on tax policy were horrendously ridiculous, and they were a glimpse of how horribly ignorant he is on how to manage the economy. Whenever economic policy debates come up, the equally ignorant Obamabots are reducing to saying, "just read it off his website"
            In other words, they're about as knowledgeable/articulate on their candidate's policies as the Ron Paul supporters are about their guy's.

            It's no point for me to keep arguing with dumb teenagers. A stupid person will ***** up his life -- and yours as well, if you let him get near it.
          • gsxrjason, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Call me dumb all you want, that doesn't change facts.

            Sanman: "fabricating moral pretexts is something that ... Neo-cons [did] seeking to invade Iraq."

            As far as tax issues go, you have no idea. No more corporate tax what? Read and learn: http://www.sharedeconomicgrowth.org/

            His website does have much info as well. I'll leave you with a McCain quote: "[t]he issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should"
          • JDove6, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5Sanman is probably a 22 yr-old calling all the digg users "dumb teenagers."
        • JDove6, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Most liberals on Digg were not eligible to vote for Clinton. Nor did we praise him, but he was 10x better than Bush nonetheless.
      • snapcase, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7I have to admit that the stance on the 2nd Amendment is one reason I'd want to not vote for Obama. I firmly believe in that right. However given the choices of McCain, Clinton, or Obama, then Obama is the only real choice. Clinton will be just as bad with gun laws, and McCain will just make us engage in more pointless war and probably further ***** our economy among other things.
        • Kindjal, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Why the ***** do you need a gun? In Europe we don't need them, makes you think?
          • Misogyny, on 05/11/2008, -4/+1You mean like in England, where roving packs of teens beat the ***** out of (or kill) innocent passerby's?
    • johnnykahalawai, on 05/11/2008, -2/+51"Given what Obama has said and written about white people he can't expect them to support his candidacy."

      What has he written about white people? Do you have an example? Or are you just pulling that out of you know where?
    • RockeN5, on 05/11/2008, -8/+36You seemed to be concerned about guns. I'd rather somebody like you not own a gun (or vote).
      • apophenic, on 05/11/2008, -6/+12If people who are concerned about guns aren't allowed to own them, then who /is/ allowed to own them?
        • chaosium, on 05/11/2008, -2/+10People who don't support survivalists and fetishize the apocalypse, preferably.
        • PabloMac, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1People who aren't concerned about people who can't legally own guns. Criminals will always be able to get guns.
        • RockeN5, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I mean - to have such a bigot opinion about a candidate for a stance on guns is the issue here.
      • happyseamonster, on 05/11/2008, -3/+1The Constitution is concerned about guns, too. If you don't like the 2nd amendment, too bad.
    • TrevorPace, on 05/11/2008, -6/+26Just because he has secret service protection doesn't mean he should support guns.

      Your post just wreaks of ignorance.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/11/2008, -10/+7Your logic isn't much (if any) better. Are you saying it's okay for his opinion to be that only people protecting him should keep and bear arms? Or are you saying only the government should keep and bear arms? And is it your candidate's intent to modify the constitution to this end?
      • 5urr3al5am, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, and it has been around as long as our country has.
        • PabloMac, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8Longer than that. Much longer. And many gun owners will continue to be gun owners despite whatever "law" might get passed to the contrary.
          • gsxrjason, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7Exactly my point. I own a gun and it's all legitimate. No law change is going to take that away. The gun policy is to crack down on unregistered guns and increase the ability to trace them back to their source. Any legit gun owner should be for this, because getting illegal guns under control will ensure the legit individual's right to own one is preserved.
          • PabloMac, on 05/11/2008, -3/+1"...getting illegal guns under control will ensure the legit individual's right to own one is preserved."
            And then there are those who believe there is no such thing as an "illegal gun" except for the government labeling them as such. The thinking goes that legal and illegal aspects of gun ownership should be attached to gun owners, and not firearms themselves.
          • 5urr3al5am, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1there are a lot of nuts out there who believe all kinds of crap.. doesn't mean they are representative of the group as a whole
      • HappyProgrammer, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4From what I understand, Obama is against people owning certain types of guns and not all guns.

        If you have evidence to the contrary, please let us know.
    • MagikPoo, on 05/11/2008, -2/+18Obamas book was his account of what happened to him in the south during Jim Crow. During those times Whites where writing about angry whites.
      About his gun issue dude you have a serious gun problem. No one will take away your gun kissing obsession. The powerful NRA is doing that for you.
      They just tell you your rights might be taken away just to keep you on edge.
      What the hell does Poverty have to do with little guns?
      Barrack Obama needs the secret service about him to keep gun nuts who want to kill him away. HELLO!! I call that positive.
      He came from poverty if you call that elitist then you sadly mistaken.
    • 5urr3al5am, on 05/11/2008, -10/+4... And in closing the New York Times basically sucks ass
    • Crisender111, on 05/11/2008, -3/+11Obama = good for Whites, Blacks, Browns, Yellows.....

      Clintons = Mentally unstable, good for nothing...
      • sanman, on 05/11/2008, -6/+4Ah, if only we could link every liberal comment made today with the ones being made back in the 1990s. Hah, what a joke!
    • kreneskyp, on 05/11/2008, -0/+9of course the last major gun ban occurred during... the clintons presidency. I like my guns. I also like obama.

      btw did you take outrage at obamas statement about clinging to guns? you might want to loosen your grip.
      • chaosium, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2"btw did you take outrage at obamas statement about clinging to guns? you might want to loosen your grip."

        The people who get angered by that are the ultimate example of the futility of talking to people like adults, that and the soundbite-based politics we've been spoon-fed for the last god knows how long.
    • tharju, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5"I find it a bit ironic he wants to take away our guns while he is surrounded 24/7 by people with guns."
      what what what? Did Obama is pushing the law for professional like cops/soldiers/federal agents not to own a gun? what m i missing here?...... Stupid cashman *sigh*
    • proliance, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3His point is that politicians and celebrities surround themselves with guns so they can defend themselves, but want to deny that right to the average citizen. Not that hard to figure out.
    • itstodd, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2damn good point
  • Serenikill, on 05/11/2008, -6/+48Continuing to make the argument that Obama cannot win because he is black won't help anyone
    • B1663r, on 05/11/2008, -26/+10Obama can't win because he has proposed a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR tax increase.
      • chicofaraby, on 05/11/2008, -9/+29yeah, sure Rush. And he's a Muslim and he has WMD.
        • B1663r, on 05/11/2008, -17/+9Go look at his tax plan on his website;)

          Just because the MSM hasn't covered it until now doesn't mean its not true.
          • chicofaraby, on 05/11/2008, -5/+10Yeah, it's the fact that it's total ***** that makes it not true.
          • sanman, on 05/11/2008, -4/+2Riiiight -- and "just 'cause it's a theme song, don't mean it ain't true" ;P
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/11/2008, -11/+8True, and in fact it appears as though the only way he CAN win is if he IS black considering the black community is voting for him in lock-step (>85% in NC). Which is unbelievable considering the fact that him and Hillary are political twins. I guess it could be that blacks don't like ugly white women.
      • Eezyville, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7No HRC just cannot be trusted. You've seen the way she runs her campaign.
      • chicofaraby, on 05/11/2008, -5/+11In 2000, 90% of black people voted for Al Gore. In 2004 88% for Kerry. Are you actually surprised that 85% voted for a candidate who is black?

        No wonder you're a Republican.
        • dt3k, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2dude that was in the general though not the primaries.
      • Kas70, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Blacks started out supporting Hillary. She blew it.

        And the black community has great impact on elections, but they still only comprise about 13% of the population - not quite the tidal wave you are making their vote out to be.
        • dt3k, on 05/12/2008, -0/+113% decided probably all of the democratic primaries but 1 or 2.
  • johnnykahalawai, on 05/11/2008, -4/+86This is the first time I've seen a major news outlet talk about Hillary's brothers. It has amazed me that no one has been talking about this, further proof something was afoot.

    How could we have spent so much time on Obama's pastor and never hear about Hillary's brothers. I mean they lobbied to get a major cocaine trafficker out of jail!!

    How did Democrats not thnk this was going to be a major issue come the general election?

    If Hillary continues in the race (against all odds) the heat is really going to ratchet up on her.

    Kudos to Obama for never sinking this level. He beat her on merit PERIOD
    • B1663r, on 05/11/2008, -25/+4Hillary will soldier on, and in the next couple of weeks when the MSM starts covering Obama's outrageous tax plans and he is plummeting like a rock among independents, she will be the Nominee. By the way, since the MSM just starting talking about Obama's tax plans he has already started to sink in polls. He has never been more desperate (as well as the Daily Kos'ers and Huffington Posters) to get Hillary out of the race.

      All she has to do is keep it going until the convention and the nomination is hers.
      • johnnykahalawai, on 05/11/2008, -1/+9Your missing it. This is a shot across the bow. If HRC continues the real heavy ammo is going to start coming out from the media.

        Ask yourself a simple question. Can you name Hillary's brothers first names? Do you know Rev. Wright's first name? If you start hearing about the Rodham boys 24/7 (like you did Wright) it is bad news for Hillary.
      • pineutrino, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Holy crap, there are people still claiming that Hillary can win.
    • headzoo, on 05/11/2008, -1/+30Obama employed an excellent tactic throughout his campaign: Just stand back, and let Hillary hang herself. It's worked like a charm.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 05/11/2008, -13/+3LOL, his strategy was to read stump speeches and otherwise keep his mouth shut. Which has been a smart move up to this point considering his minimal record for opponents to pick at. It's worked so far but I'm not sure that strategy will work in the General. Fluff and polish usually work during the Primary but usually the voters want actually details and answers during the General.
        • headzoo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

          It would be foolish to see Obama's silence as a sign of weakness. A great leader knows when to shake his or her fist, and when to show restraint. If Clinton had kept her big mouth shut all this time, she'd probably be in a much better position.
        • scottc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Obama was only silent in regards to negative personal attacks. He spoke in more detail about his policies than Clinton did, and he had a longer track record which showed that it wasn't just talk. The standard Republican line about no track record and no details didn't work for Clinton's campaign and it won't work for McCain's either - people can see right through it.

          McCain will have the advantage on experience, but Obama will talk circles around him on policy. McCain can't argue his own positions without help from his staffers, and now that he has flopped on some of his most notable positions (immigration and taxes, for example) he may even have a hard time remembering what they are.
    • tcbishop12, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6We've been saying it all along under wraps, but now that it is apparent she will not be the nominee, it is time to bring these facts into broad daylight. Hillary has claimed that she has been fully vetted in the primary? Not even.

      For anyone who is in any way unclear: this column only barely scratches the surface of the baggage that is Hillary Clinton's legacy (which Sen. Obama, out of principle, never touched in the primaries), and what would have been rightly unloaded on Hillary by the Republican party had she in fact succeeded in kneecapping Sen. Obama to obtain the Democratic nomination. Is there any wonder why the radical right was cozying up to Hillary in a now failed attempt to derail Sen. Obama's candidacy? They would have had Hillary for lunch in the general election.

      And - in case anyone is wondering - these issues are yet one more reason why Hillary is unfit to run in the # 2 spot.
    • klui, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I would guess if Hillary were to be nominated to be the democrat's presidential candidate, McCain would use her brothers against her in the general election. The mass media is probably behind McCain anyway so they pipe up for now and then play this ace-in-the-hole after she gets nominated.

      Or if the mass media is behind Hillary, they bury this little tidbit.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1"I mean they lobbied to get a major cocaine trafficker out of jail!!" Oh so he did actually do one good thing while in office?
  • bokep, on 05/11/2008, -8/+44I think people sometimes forget that Obama is half white.
    • blackula01, on 05/11/2008, -4/+23I think more of the problem is that the simple minded people will remember he's half black. I'd really like to think this isn't the case....
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/11/2008, -18/+6You're not supposed to talk about race. You Obama-bots are getting off the talking points. Please go to Huffington comPost and review your talking points.
    • pedo, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5people sometimes forget he's half black too. thats probably because it doesnt matter to them.
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/11/2008, -11/+5Honest Question... Before you scream bigot racist etc... Do you think he would have the same success being white? People in this country are voting based off of color. Racism is alive and well anyone who denies it lives in wonderland. And when I say this, I mean it is a two way street, not just one side. If you can't come up with better reasons to vote then i suggest you don't.
      • scottc, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5There is racism on both sides, but I think Obama would coast to victory if he were white. Just look at the difference between the how the media portrayed Rev. Wright vs. Rev. Hagee, for example. And how the Clinton's pitted blacks vs. whites as soon as they realized they would lose the black vote (which wasn't obvious until the 3rd primary.) Without those two factors Hillary would have lost very quickly.

        When it comes to the general election, McCain's only shot at winning is to scare people into voting for him, and since terrorism is no longer a big concern for most people he too will have to turn to racism. He just can't win on the issues because he won't be able to separate himself from Bush and the neocons, which is too bad because he really isn't one of them.
      • oldgal, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6In all honesty, I think he would have greater success being white. I know people who would never vote for a black man. I don't know anyone who would always vote for a black man (although there probably are some). Hillary led the polls in all demographics when this thing started. It was his superior campaign strategy and demeanor that put him ahead.
    • DestroyFascism, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Obama is black?
    • BradBrown, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6There's a little black in all of us.
      • willywong, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3'specially yo' momma
        • BradBrown, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2I was thinking more along the lines of Gary Coleman or Webster.
    • Kas70, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2I doubt he's ever been treated as a white person, even though he's as much that as the other. Most American blacks are mixed with something to varying degrees, but if you are any darker than say, Jennifer Beals (Flashdance - yeah, she's black), you're experience has been as a black person. A little better experience if light skinned, a little worse if dark skinned.
    • lhughey, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Kas is right, 1/2 black is black. Let him try to catch a cab, and you'll see what color he really is.
  • Khyber00, on 05/11/2008, -40/+952 diggs and its on front page????

    It should be the President Bush daughter's wedding on front page. Shame on you Digg.
    Anyway my congratulation to Bush's daughter. God Bless you and may god make your family our leaders forever.
    bye bye
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 05/11/2008, -5/+16I wasn't sure if this was sarcastic, but based on your comments in your profile, I'd digg your loser neo-con ass down a million times if I had those bots to do it. Shame on you, you filthy, worthless cretin!
    • xtinamo, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7I doubt if anyone who cares about some irrelevant wedding visits Digg (besides yourself) or will actually read your comment, but way to go on the empty gesture.
    • lhbaker, on 05/11/2008, -3/+5So she's no longer open for public drilling? Bummer.
    • wilhoitm, on 05/11/2008, -6/+2Jenna's wedding, dude your gay!
    • ghostoftomjoad, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2shotgun wedding?
      Oh and what has Bush done for you that would have you wish him to stay in office? Name one thing (because if you'll notice, all that social ***** u ppl care about, gays marraige, abortion, etc, haven't been touched by the people who use your idiocy to get in office and help themselves)
      • Khyber00, on 05/11/2008, -3/+0who the phoke cares about *****. This is modern time, stop being the time of prophet LOT. ***** were taken care back than. You are from stone age idoit. Grow up
  • msk275, on 05/11/2008, -14/+10IMO I think that if the Clinton machine exits after this WV primary and fully supports Barack Obama and (like it or not) Hillary is the VP candidate, I think it'll turn out alright.

    This guy's opinion seems a little extreme to me. That's all.
    • quarby, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3yeah. a little overstated, but mostly on the mark.
    • Naieve, on 05/11/2008, -0/+10Lol, Hillary VP?
      Good luck with that.
      She might have considered not playing the racist white stereotype card first.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5Is that you Hillary?!??! LOL, if he picks her as VP, there will be a LOT of crow for all the Obama-bots on Digg to eat. Not going to happen.
    • scottc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2There is not a chance in the world that Obama will offer her the VP slot. He's already going to lose a lot of votes because of his race. Why push the sexists over to McCain too? And he definitely doesn't need Hillary's high negatives added into the mix. The only advantage to adding Hillary to the ticket would be to quickly unify the party, and frankly he doesn't need that. When it comes down to the wire 90% of Hillary's supporters will vote for him.
    • ghostoftomjoad, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Offer her VP? What is this, Preschool?
    • Kas70, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2He is not going to have Hillary in the seat next to him and Bill in the backseat breathing over his shoulder. Not going to happen.
    • iainc, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Yeah. Didn't Kennedy and Johnson hat each others' guts too? And having Johnson as veep worked out so well for Kennedy.

      I hope that Obama is not planning to make Hillary his VP. She'll have him killed and become president anyway.
  • D14BL0, on 05/11/2008, -2/+15Seed of Destruction? Isn't that a warlock spell?
    • jasmus, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5I think it was a Steven Seagal movie.
      Or a bad metal band.
    • Tryptomine, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Seed of Corruption, to be precise.
    • magus_melchior, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1It is now: "Attempts to gain supremacy over the party by weakening the influence of fellow party members. You gain a +20 advantage in all decisions affecting the party if the spell succeeds. Regardless of outcome, the chances that the other members uniting against you greatly increase, you insolent buffoon."
  • designflaw, on 05/11/2008, -1/+39She is making a fool out of herself now.
    • scottc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Yep. If we're lucky she'll do just enough damage to be shunned by the party but not enough damage to throw the election to McCain. I would be pleased to see her behave so badly that she loses her Senate seat. Or at least that doesn't have a shot at running again in 2012.
    • paigeinphilly, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0and you think she cares?...hahah...she is so beyond that.

      lawd.

      Obama/ Webb 08
  • quarby, on 05/11/2008, -7/+11very well written
    • emehrkay, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5You think so? After reading about her brothers I had to remember what the article was about because I felt like it went off on a tanget. I agree with what the author is saying, but I dont feel that he made the "exiting gracefully" connection to sum everything up very well.
      • magus_melchior, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3He probably could've condensed that little story, but the long and the short of it is: Even after the brouhaha that was the Lewinsky scandal and his impeachment trial, the Clintons demonstrated appallingly low class and contempt for the law by pardoning convicted felons at the request of Hillary Clinton's relatives.
  • gorbachev22, on 05/11/2008, -10/+3I don't get it. What do Americans have against letting everyone vote in an election? The primary system is ridiculous enough as it is; the people in the later states should be allowed to vote with more than a single candidate in the race, even if only marginally so.
    • lhbaker, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7They knew the rules, they were warned of the consequences, and broke the rules. The voters in Florida and Michigan have only their party leaders to blame, not Obama. Hillary supported the penalties until she realized Obama was going to kick her ass and she'd need the delagates.
      • georgeglass, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1I think he's referring to the calls for Clinton to drop out, not the Florida/Michigan thing.
        I think the best thing to do is to have every state vote and/or caucus on the same day. But if we had done it that way, Obama would not be in the stronger position that he currently enjoys.
        • gorbachev22, on 05/11/2008, -1/+0Right on George, that is what I intended to say. As an NDP supporter in the great white north, I'm certainly no fan of Hillary, but one person, one vote, with equal weight, seems as if it should be a fundamental right.
      • Zarchon, on 05/11/2008, -3/+0What happened to every vote should count, count every vote?
      • DanMcGuinness, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1The people of Florida and Michigan shouldn't be punished for something their representatives did. Of course you Obamabots won't want to count them because it threatens your favored candidate's ability to win slightly. Quite undemocratic of you assholes.
        • iainc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2"Quite undemocratic of you assholes."

          Oh, really? Tell me, sunshine, who was on the Michigan ballot? Yes, that's right, Obama wasn't on it. So, you were saying?
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3It's an illusion. Unless it's a no-brainer, the Super-delegates get to pick the Democratic nominee. So it's mostly one big farce but it lets the people feel like they're really contributing.
      • scottc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Though it's theoretically possible, it hasn't happened yet, and after watching this election it looks like it would take a very significant event for the supers to overrule the voters. Even though Hillary made some pretty strong arguments for ignoring the vote the supers ignored her and waited for the outcome.
  • treejohn, on 05/11/2008, -3/+11hillary, by now, knows that she is done. at this point she's likely staying in the race to ensure she doesn't look like any more of a jackass than she already is, ironically- by pretending to bow out at a time where all the odds are ENTIRELY against her
    • magus_melchior, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5She's still trying to take a page out of Cheney and Rove's political playbook: If reality doesn't line up with your lies, force reality to see things your way. What she doesn't yet realize is that they put that plan into action AFTER they got into the White House.
      • mizlane, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1SO TRUE!!! She is probably drinking & dialing superdeleagates.... those poor delegates!
  • cxwq, on 05/11/2008, -2/+10"But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now."

    I think he's overestimating the amount of progress this country has made. There were an awful lot of people voting along demographic lines the last few months. Both race and age seem to have provided quite a lot of traction to those who would divide the party.
    • Naieve, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4I'm a white republican voting for Hilary.
      Do you know how many white suburban kids listened to rap music growing up?
      There will always be racism, in fact alot of it goes the other way. Doesn't change the fact, things have changed.
      People my age don't vote in many primaries sure, but they will vote in the real race.
      I think it's Hillary who doesn't realize how much she just pissed off her entire african american constituency.
      Then again, she never was very bright anyways.
      • magus_melchior, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3I'm curious, are you voting for Clinton because you seriously like her platform the best, or are you voting for her so that McCain has a better shot?
    • georgeglass, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Sure, the demographics were split, but which demographics? It's been shown that white, educated, financially well-off people go for Obama, while white, less educated, poorer people went for Clinton and Edwards.
  • 0Zeitgeist0, on 05/11/2008, -7/+4Come on, I know the Clintons are not racist... They're not right???
    • Zarchon, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5I don't know how the "first black President" could now be considered racist by the very people who gave him that title.
      • scottc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4You don't know? Weren't you watching? As soon as the Clinton's realized they were going to lose most of the black vote (I think they were genuinely surprised at that) they turned on blacks and tried to use racism to solidify their position amongst whites.
        • sanman, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5So you're acknowledging that the Clintons have been using minorities all along?

          That means that there's hope for you to recognize that all kinds of liberals play that same shallow race-baiting/race-courting game, in the hopes of using it to attack their opponents and seize political power. It's just a cold-blooded calculation to them.

          (I'm non-white myself, btw)
          • scottc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Of course they were. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative - both types use the same tools to win the game. (Bill was never a liberal anyway, though Hillary does lean that way.)
          • JDove6, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Its better than the Republicans using shallow religion games. The "republican issues" that dominate the media are abortion, gay rights, etc. that wedge the christians. We all know those issues are quite insignificant in the scope of our situation, but your beloved republicans certainly seem to harp on them...
        • Kas70, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2It seemed to me that it was Bill's comments in SC that started the African American defection to Obama. I was for Hillary at first, but she and Bill totally "obliterated" my fondness for them from SC on.
    • tcbishop12, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6She is trying to take Obama down in a new way, but also within a new context. In the past he was just the competitor. She could say, "All's fair." But now he's the competitor who is going to be the nominee of his party. And she is still trying to do him in. And the party is watching.

      To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument as brute and cynical as "the black guy can't win but the white girl can" is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, so racist -- that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.

      It's not math anymore, it's psychodrama. If she can't have it, no one can have it. If she has to tear the party apart, she will.

  • nullcodes, on 05/11/2008, -19/+3The Ron Paul digg army now swears allegiance to Obama.

    If we can go by the digg boy-Army's previous campaign success record, poor Obama.

    Or maybe with all the superdelegates that reload digg constantly the strategery of flooding digg is sure to get Obama the win.

    NOT.
  • HubbertWins, on 05/11/2008, -2/+21Bill Clinton is a lying, weaselly crook...and his wife is even worse. Good riddance to the both of them.
  • NinjaPirateDude, on 05/11/2008, -4/+3What The Hell?
  • reddikilowatt, on 05/11/2008, -2/+10Can anyone explain to me why the Clintons are a political force? These people STOLE US property.

    Of course, maybe I just answered my own question.
  • acdcfanbill, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Seeds of Destruction? I'm appalled that The Clintons are associated with Hellboy.
  • opencity, on 05/11/2008, -0/+9It may soon be time to find a candidate to defeat HRC in NY State in 2 years. Either she campaigns flat out for Obama until November or she has to walk the plank.
    • tcbishop12, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Amen to that. The sooner the Clintons are off the national political stage, the better
  • palindrome12, on 05/11/2008, -7/+2Quick poll here... Who is wearing footie pajamas right now?
    • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1I'm not, but i am taking a dump. Does that count?
    • DanMcGuinness, on 05/11/2008, -2/+0A good predictor of footie pajama wearers would be making allegations of Clinton being racist for simply stating observable facts in an unoffensive manner.

      LOL LEIK OMG I HATE CLINTON AND I LIKE CHANGE AND SINCE DATZ WUT OBAMA WANTZ 2 IM GUNNA CALL HILLARY A RACIST EVERY TIEM SHE EVEN REMOTELY MENSHUNZ RACE LOL.

      If only these childish Obama loving morons realized how stupid they were by constantly ragging on Clinton. If she's not a threat then why not just move on to ragging McCain instead of alienating a little under half of your own party's voters? Oh, but let me guess... Obama doesn't need the "obviously racist, white-trash hicks" who favor Clinton? Woop, looks like McCain is the next president. Sad day. Do your candidate a favor, Obamabots, and shut the ***** up already.
  • Ocelot13, on 05/11/2008, -6/+2http://digg.com/politics/Wtf_Digg_5

    yeah. a bit ridiculous of you ask me.
  • lhbaker, on 05/11/2008, -11/+3The sad thing is, an Obama / Clinton ticket is the only acceptable option. If they can't make peace with each other, who CAN they make peace with. Hillary as VP would appease many, and would almost certainly set her up as heir apparent in eight years. They just need to make sure that Cheney is prosecuted so that she doesn't inherit his ability to abuse power.
    • sleepycoder, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6I'd rather see an Obama/Edwards ticket. I really can't see Obama taking her on as VP after the rhetoric she's been using against him.
    • OdinEye, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4There are other acceptable options - Edwards being one, as mentioned by Sleepycoder. VP selection usually has to do with trying to balance the ticket in terms of draw in different parts of the country. It's clear that there are states where Clinton did better than Obama, but usually not in big numbers. In some cases - like New York - once Clinton is out of the race they can still be expected to follow along with the democratic candidate. I suspect you'll see them looking to a VP candidate who has the potential to pull in part of one or more of the bigger states that Obama lost - say Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, California, etc.
    • jamesLankford, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi
      get the white women vote
  • katorga, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3The Clintons were inept when in Office, but most of that was covered up, glossed over or ignored because the Democrats had to claim success (after the failures of Johnson and Carter). If they were as good as claimed, there is no way Obama would be where he is now. HRC ran a pathetic campaign. I am convinced HRC will torpedo Obama and McCain will luck into Office. McCain doesn't even appear as if he will contest the election.
    • georgeglass, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5I think any democrat would basically have to eat a baby on live TV in order to lose the election against McCain.
      Also, Hillary would not dare torpedo Obama's candidacy. The Clinton's have way too much party loyalty.
  • runCMD, on 05/11/2008, -10/+3hatchet job from another closet bigot. next.
  • paradexes, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1Gah, I think she will find a way to abuse power. She has a snuke in her sniz. She can use that.
  • Furkle, on 05/11/2008, -7/+2anyone else think this article read like one of Olbermann's rants?
    • tcbishop12, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3And just what is wrong with Keith Olbermann's rants? Are they non-factual? No. Are they truthful, if a bit passionate? Yes.
      • Furkle, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I didn't say there was anything wrong with them I was just stating I thought this article was worded similarly.
  • Bunnybutt, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8"The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully" Enough said!
  • fowleryo, on 05/11/2008, -8/+3..written by frankenstein
    • lhbaker, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I didn't want to say so, but yeah, I got that too.
  • wilhoitm, on 05/11/2008, -10/+3Obamabots Unite!
  • DesignFan, on 05/11/2008, -6/+0This is going back and forth on dirt between Obama and Hillary. Should get more interesting.
  • sroberson, on 05/11/2008, -2/+10Hillary has jumped the shark.
  • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/11/2008, -8/+595% of black voters in NC voted for Obama... Shocking!!!
    • azpat, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7I suppose you're trying to say that it's ok for white people to vote against someone simply because he's black because clearly there are black people who are voting for someone simply because he's black.
      At the beginning of the year there were lots of interviews with blacks, especially black women, about whether or not they would vote for Obama or Clinton. There were lots of people, black people, who were not sold on Obama. Each time Clinton played the race card the decision became more clear for them. First with Bill and Jesse Jackson comments, then Geraldine Ferraro, then "as far as I know", then Rev Wright, then "but he's black! he can't be president" sentiment, if not in explicit words.
      At this point, yeah, 95% of Black Voters know that Clinton basically told them to ***** off.
      It wasn't always that clear cut for them, but she made it easy.

      On the other hand, the other identity politics is women. Women are voting for Hillary because she's the first (and maybe the last in their lifetime) viable female candidate. For the older women it's clear, this may be their last chance to vote for a female candidate. No one is calling them sexist. Everyone seems to understand how important it is to them. But black people voting for the first viable black candidate, oh they're racist. I think that's *****.
      Finally, consider that Obama hasn't played the man card. He could raise all the questions that people in the past have raised about having a female president. He could play that angle. He hasn't. That's why some women are able to "vote against their gender" as they've been told by their fellow females and vote for Obama. If he had played the sexist card like Clinton has played the race card women voting against him would be as solid as blacks voting against Clinton and her racist ass strategy.
      • HotSaucePanCake, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4I agree with a lot of what you said, I think it is respectable that Obama has not not reduced him self to these sort of politics. However I almost wonder if he even has to. Sex and Race are two fairly obvious things people identify with. I am just perplexed at the sheer magnitude of the difference.
        • DDRSkata, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4As a black voter in NC, I can say with complete confidence that my choice to vote for Obama had nothing to do with race (and this also goes for all the other black voters I know personally or met in line for the Obama rally the week before the primary). It had to do with the fact that he has better policies (e.g. opposing the gas tax holiday *****), he's a fresh face and not a beltway insider, he offers a sense of hope (which, while not a proper selling point, is still something people need these days; an appeal to pathos, sure, but not something that can be discounted entirely), and, most importantly to me and my family, he is not a member of the CFR.
    • Kas70, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Blacks have been voting for white people for decades and Obama is not the first black person to run for president. Hillary HAD the black vote, but she and Bill lost it by belittling their importance. Now blacks are voting for the other Democrat, who happens to be black.
  • DearDearDarla, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4A petition asking Hillary (too damn politely if you ask me) to quit her campaign. http://www.petitiononline.com/janes/petition.html
    • magus_melchior, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2It's short and to-the-point enough that it will get the message through to any moron's brain. It won't stop her campaign from tossing the petition into the proverbial trash can, though.
  • danieldelmain, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8Hillary is further polarizing the Democratic party and weakening the chance of taking back the White House.
  • TinternAbbot, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Always lovely to see the Democrats turn on their beloved Bill.
    • sanman, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2poetic justice, for sure!

      Haha, whatever happened to "The Man from Hope"
      "The First Black President"
      "The next JFK"
      "Protected his mother from an abusive step-father"
      "Did everything possible to prevent 9/11"


      etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum
      • gsxrjason, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1"Protected his mother from an abusive step-father"
        lol
    • Swift2, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1The most negative primary in my memory has left a mark in the mind of some idiots. The establishment press was on your side all along, you crazy rebels.
  • SquidLips, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Yikes, I never heard about her brothers. How was this story buried up so well?

    I did hear about Clinton's slimy pardon of Mark Rich in exchange for a huge "donation".
  • tcbishop12, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5We've been saying it all along under wraps, but now that it is apparent she will not be the nominee, it is time to bring these facts into broad daylight. Hillary has claimed that she has been fully vetted in the primary? Not even.

    For anyone who is in any way unclear: this column only barely scratches the surface of the baggage that is Hillary Clinton's legacy (which Sen. Obama, out of principle, never touched in the primaries), and what would have been rightly unloaded on Hillary by the Republican party had she in fact succeeded in kneecapping Sen. Obama to obtain the Democratic nomination. Is there any wonder why the radical right was cozying up to Hillary in a now failed attempt to derail Sen. Obama's candidacy? They would have had Hillary for lunch in the general election.

    And - in case anyone is wondering - these issues are yet one more reason why Hillary is unfit to run in the # 2 spot.
    • magus_melchior, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Although your comment is a good one, try to avoid posting it multiple times. Many diggers call that "spam".
  • username484767, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5She is such a smelly *****.
  • Swift2, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6What Hillary said was fact. She stated it clumsily in one instance, and all of a sudden the Outrage Police compare her to George Wallace. Look, she was making a highly dubious -- at this point -- pitch about her 'electability.' That's kind of sad, but the fact is, the demographic is her last stronghold. And Obama followers have to come to grips with one thing: just because you're white, older and not in the educational elite doesn't mean you're racist, and Obama has to get this vote too in the general election. Being so quick to yell "racist" may have been an effective, if underhanded, method of beating Clinton, but there's a demographic that Obama must win in the general. So cut it out, okay? You've won. Act gracious, like Barack is doing. If Hillary wins in this demographic, still, then take lessons from that. And realize that yelling "racist" at the woman who's been on the liberal side of race relations for 30 years, with her husband, is no way to court the people who are her last stronghold. Continuing with these Limbaugh-like smears will lose your guy these votes in the fall. Don't you guys know how to play?
    • Krisgi, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Another misstatement, pray tell? No excuses. For voters whose creedence volubility is swayed by the passing of a house fly, we all know that Obama's biggest drawback is the color of his skin, which links him to Black Liberation Theology and Islam for so many mentally-fragile, low intellectual recourse Americans, regardless of their income and educational level. His supposed überliberalism is just a pretext for not voting for a black guy... at least the one that runs rampant in the GOP faccion of my family. My mother said... I hope you people are not voting for Obama just BECAUSE he is black...

      Either or, Clinton has demonstrated her lack of finesse and her general deficit in integrity too many times for most Americans, except the ones who just see things in terms of Black or White, Male or Female, to consider her as a serious candidate to the White House. Maybe even to hold any public office in the future. By default, she pushed the one button that remained to be pushed for her, except to call him ***** to his face.

      We'll leave that slur for McCain to utter.

    • ghostoftomjoad, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Well said. We should not try and copy the nuts from across the isle. And we should not being fighting each other. Does anyone actually think Hillary hates black people? Come on
  • allisonaxe, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I believe that the reason she's not dropping out is because she's gunning for the VP slot. she's trying to be so annoying to Obama's campaign that he'll offer her VP as a means of getting her to go away.

    ...I kind of doubt he'll do it, though.
    • ghostoftomjoad, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I kind of think you're wrong.

      She's staying in because on some level she ll do anything to get the presidency and I think she understands that this primary is the real election anyway. sort of like that AFC championship (tho i realize this sorta dumb considering)
  • ivan14, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1The Democrats have just handed JOHN MCCAIN the victory if they nominate Obama. Obama can never win those people who voted for Bill Clinton twice like the seniors, Hispanics, and white blue collar workers.

    McCain couldn't thank you enough Obama freaks!
  • Hooner, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1At this point, the reason for Hillary to remain in the campaign, and to remind voters that Obama is "black", is to set the table for a McCain victory. As the oldest president in history, McCain is unlikely to serve two terms. Hillary will push her tenacious image at the expense of a Democrat victory in 2008 in order to ensure a Clinton victory 2012.
  • queenbee93, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0If Hillary has cost Obama and the Dems the election by running such a negative and ugly campaign that her supporters can't support any Dem but her--then America and the Dems should indeed embrace McCain and 4 more years of Bush--because given the Clinton mindset...even that would be better than Hillary in office--imagine the anger, rage, disillusionment and money mismanagment/corruption--if Hillary ran the country like she is running her campaign. We've had enough of Hillary and her brand of winning--thank you.
  • NVMojo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I am tired of the Clintons. I was tired of them at the end of the 90s and I am still tired of them. Some one tell them to STFU!
  • OriginalLucid1, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2The people who should be ashamed are the people who supported the Clintons in the past, but have suddenly "discovered" how slimey they are. It wasn't a secret then, and it's not a secret now. Democrats ALWAYS put the party first, thats what is a shame.
  • itstodd, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2theres just a tad bit of irony in the fact that the clintons were democratic heros to the liberals for years. now they are the scum of the earth. Werent the republicans pointing this out for a long time?
  • Ridgeliner7, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1All of you!! I want each of you to get up right now, go to your windows, open them, stick your head outside, and scream at the top of your lungs:

    "I AM MAD AS HELL, AND I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!"

    You may now return to your regularly scheduled rants. Ten points to anyone who remembers/knows what the above means.....:P
  • dando242, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0This sums it: http://www.clintonfatigues.org/
  •  

    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.