Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
TIME Magazine - 14 reasons Hillary Clinton should quit
thepage.time.com — Mark Halperin of TIME lists the 14 reasons why Hillary Clinton should quit. It is impossible for Hillary to beat Obama in the number of delegates or the popular vote, and her "kitchen sink" strategy is angering top Democrats and superdelegates like Nancy Pelosi.
gpot9883- 4202 diggs
- digg it
- RansomHoldiay, on 03/22/2008, -31/+48615. Black people and young people would desert the democratic party and politics as a whole in mass numbers. The democratic party would, in one fell swoop, set itself back an entire generation.
16. If it came to just an out and out fist fight with the other country's leader, Obama could kick some ass.
17. The cackle.- PATSCRU, on 03/22/2008, -11/+29I don't really buy your "black people would leave" argument, but she is going directly against a huge wave of Obama support.
- caferrell, on 03/22/2008, -5/+56@PATSCRU, I disagree. The only way that she can win now is by employing dirty tricks. American blacks would NEVER forgive her for stopping Obama through shady backroom shenanigans. She would definitely lose black voters, and unless Obama struggled to keep them loyal, the Democratic party would lose them too.
- cygnus2112, on 03/22/2008, -14/+8Lose them to what?
- caferrell, on 03/22/2008, -2/+39To apathy and nonparticipation.
- compulsive1, on 03/22/2008, -5/+7@ caferrell: Isn't that exactly what the elites want?
- caferrell, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4@compulsive1: I can't imagine that is what the Democratic elite wants. They count on the African American vote and have since 1960
- compulsive1, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3@ caferrell: It's not necessarily the Democratic elites. It's the ruling elites in general- rich and influential people. The fewer people participate in politics the easier it is for them to influence the outcomes of elections. If the majority of a particular group of voters doesn't vote, you only need to run a candidate that appeals to fewer people. Throughout history many bad leaders were elected by a small part of the population because the rest didn't bother to vote.
- JavanSClark, on 03/22/2008, -6/+98Black Person here. She would lose us to the, "Not going to vote" category.
- cygnus2112, on 03/22/2008, -20/+8And what will that accomplish, exactly? She's not getting your vote now and she won't get your vote if she wins the nomination. Your not voting only hurts you and the Democratic Party's chances.
"Not voting" is likely what McCain and Clinton both want you and the rest of the black community to do. Good luck with that, I guess. Yay to us who fight daily for civil rights for others for you to shun your duty to your country that so many brave others fought for you to have the ability to do so. - akatsuki, on 03/22/2008, -2/+35Not Black Person here... No, the point is to punish the party for betraying them and force them to listen to black concerns instead of taking them for granted. Good for them. Something like that could cause the collapse of the party to be replaced by some other party (it has happened in the past and could still happen again regardless of the fact that most diggers think that stuff stays the same no matter what).
- qwerter, on 03/22/2008, -2/+32I don't think I'm speaking only for myself when I say that for a lot of us, Obama is our one and only choice for president. I really can't see myself voting for someone who ran a dirty fear and smear campaign against my guy. Maybe the right thing to do would be to turn the other cheek and say, "please ma'am, may I have another?" while I pull the lever for her in November . . . but she made this personal when she started attacking us, Obama's supporters. If she thinks we're going to be okay with voting for her after wresting the nomination away in spite of the popular vote, she's got another thing coming.
I doubt it will come to this, but it's important that the superdelegates know how we feel. Going against the will of the people will be suicide for the party. - spiltmilkblog, on 03/22/2008, -2/+22cygnus2112 (Cool name, RUSH fan?) ... Anyway, I'm a non-black Obama supporter and if Clinton is the democratic nominee there is NO WAY I will vote for her. She miscalculated when she figured she could offend and insult all the Obama supporters because she won't need them. She needs us badly and we don't want her after all the dirty tricks and insults.
I will write in Obama - and I hope all Obama supporters would do the same. He could still win that way. - shortysmyname, on 03/22/2008, -2/+21Another non-black Obama supporter here, Hillary will no way get my vote either. I will write in Obama. I figure Hillary doesn't have a chance against McCain, and then he'll screw things up after he's elected. So it will be Obama - 2012.
- speakerfordead, on 03/22/2008, -2/+11The issue becomes that after two elections where the Dems yelled and screamed disenfranchisement, Hillary is attempting to disenfranchise all of the Obama voters.
- Monkeywithacold, on 03/22/2008, -3/+2@shortsmyname
If there is a large group that tries to write in Obama, it pretty much guarantees McCain a win. Regardless of what diggers think, there are a lot of Clinton supports, at least enough to negate any chance of an obama write in. - goomba323, on 03/22/2008, -1/+9I actually like the idea of an Obama write in campaign if Clinton steals the party. It will not only cause her to lose the election, it would also be an embarrassment of historical standards. McCain would undoubtedly get elected, probably screw up, and Obama could run in 2012 and have an overwhelming victory.
Imagine the pundits on election day...
Wolf Blitzer - "The results are in for New York....Clinton got 40%, McCain 50%, and surprisingly 10% of the population wrote in for Obama." - shortysmyname, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7@monkey - The point of writing in Obama would not to make him win, but to show that we are sick of dirty politics. If the Clinton's think that we are going to forgive them and vote for her just because she's a Democrat, then they are sadly mistaken.
- imgstacke, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2If the superdelegates subvert the will of the people, I will write in Obama, there is no way I would vote for McCain, Clinton, or Nader...
- cygnus2112, on 03/22/2008, -20/+8And what will that accomplish, exactly? She's not getting your vote now and she won't get your vote if she wins the nomination. Your not voting only hurts you and the Democratic Party's chances.
- caketank, on 03/22/2008, -2/+26... and a Democrat can't win without a big chunk of the black electorate voting for her. They don't even have to vote for somebody else-- just sitting the election out dooms the Democratic candidate.
- goomba323, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5Except Hillary supporters tend to be old people, and if they have a history of voting, they will suck it up and vote for Obama anyway (after a huge campaign of damage control after Obama gets the nomination)...
Obama supporters are younger, strongly into politics and their convictions, and many are first time voters. They will have no problem staying home on election day, which would sway the electorate.
Don't forget that those polls tend to not account for first time voters/people with cell phones. With this high-stimulus, "critical election" in political science terms, the polls are hardly accurate and can't predict general election turnout (since it will probably be the highest turnout for a presidential election in history).
- goomba323, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5Except Hillary supporters tend to be old people, and if they have a history of voting, they will suck it up and vote for Obama anyway (after a huge campaign of damage control after Obama gets the nomination)...
- cygnus2112, on 03/22/2008, -14/+8Lose them to what?
- don1one, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2I still think Dean's crucifixion with the Dean scream is why the Democrats lost. When young people saw this stunt by the media they just decided not to show up. It would be a lot more than black people that wouldn't show up, nor do i think people are all that homogeneous just because they share skin color. But a lot of people hopeful for a new kind of politics other than the current bickering would stay home.
- RGWX, on 03/23/2008, -1/+3No, the Democrats lost because their nominee was seen (quite correctly) as an out-of-touch elitist Boston liberal who flip-flopped on what to have for breakfast, must less national policy. Dean was a side show.
- ljohnblaze, on 03/22/2008, -0/+15As a black person deeply involved with politics, I can tell you that myself, my immediate family and alot of my other african american co-workers side with the very same sentiment... if she steals the nominations somehow through the superdelegates - the "system" will officially be deemed full of *****, and I doubt any of us will ever be inspired to "get political" ever again. These last 7 or 8 years have been like a very intense roller coaster with absolutely NO rewards at each turn. First Bush in florida, then the war (which so many youth in my area were against), then the asshole gets re-elected somehow, and now Obama?!? Nah, #15 is dead on. If something goes sour by '09, it's over.
- unmarked, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7Hillary has done a lot to alienate Obama supporters. She plays dirty (like publicly calling Obama un-American for not giving her the revote she wants), like having one of her advisors refer to Richardson as a traitor. Yeah, that's how you're going to unite the country -- NOT!
- caferrell, on 03/22/2008, -5/+56@PATSCRU, I disagree. The only way that she can win now is by employing dirty tricks. American blacks would NEVER forgive her for stopping Obama through shady backroom shenanigans. She would definitely lose black voters, and unless Obama struggled to keep them loyal, the Democratic party would lose them too.
- Vigilo, on 03/22/2008, -53/+2Number 1 reason she should quit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
- DeadFox1, on 03/22/2008, -1/+18come on- you didn't think we would fall for the uuiU now, did ya rick?
- Yesplease, on 03/22/2008, -0/+14a seriously poor attempt. 2/10.
- digginghacker, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5...goddamnit, I wasn't paying attention.
- l3itchplease, on 03/22/2008, -3/+2newfag... theres a method to a good rick rolling. you just saw it once and thought it would be funny to try to rick roll any place you can post a link
fail- Yesplease, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2I hate you 4chan. I hate you.
- wild, on 03/22/2008, -6/+28Honestly, after Hagel's comments this week, I almost (*almost*) want the DNC to rip itself apart. Yes, the ensuing 4 years would be rough. But if Obama is the man I think he is, he and Hagel could come back on 2012 with a new party. One that is bipartisan and carries two of the heaviest hitters on either side of the aisle at the top of a ticket. Both have made refernece to it, Hagel the most clear cut. And since Obama says he highly respects Hagel and would choose him to be his Sec of Defense its a very possible reality.
If I can't have Obama 08, I would go nuts for Obama/Hagel 2012.- olenick, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6We CAN have Obama/Hagel in 2008: there's no rule that I've heard of that prevents a Democratic Presidential candidate from having a Republican VP. During their term they can think about making a new party, if their old one's insist on their current paths of self-destructiveness. If all goes well that new party would win the general election in 2012 making itself instantly viable onward.
- NewSc2, on 03/22/2008, -2/+3I don't think any Democrat would feel safe knowing a white Republican is directly behind a black President.
- cephelo, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6Hagel is not your typical white Republican.
- RobotCitizen, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1I personally dream of the day we have a Constitutionalist Party.
- littlequeenie, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I've been thnking the last few weeks an Obama/Hagel in 2008 could be the real dream team
- olenick, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6We CAN have Obama/Hagel in 2008: there's no rule that I've heard of that prevents a Democratic Presidential candidate from having a Republican VP. During their term they can think about making a new party, if their old one's insist on their current paths of self-destructiveness. If all goes well that new party would win the general election in 2012 making itself instantly viable onward.
- airiox, on 03/22/2008, -42/+5Obama would reach for another cigarette as he caresses his sickly visage. He couldn't take my grandma with MS, let alone someone like Putin. Putin could just look at him and Obama would curl up into the fetal position with 4-5 cigarettes in hand.
Hilary and McCain are both slightly insane and have anger issues. They would both win in a fight against any current leader. They would probably try some Smeagol tactics and just start biting. Does McCain have false teeth? Maybe he could get those sharpened?- MrZaiko, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Obama Was in the Movie Black Belt Jones
- l3itchplease, on 03/22/2008, -5/+1McCain also sucks ***** for food
- JavanSClark, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4/agree That kind of talk has no place here. Not only did he spend time in the Hanoi Hilton, but he passed up release to allow other soldiers to go home first. That's honorable service to country that you corn, and thus, paint yourself to be a self serving child with no grasp of the facts.
- novaculus, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Unfortunately Javan there is all too much talk like that here. I think you are too generous in your assessment of his (lack of) character.
l3, your comment is despicable. Buried and reported. I will refrain from speculation regarding your ancestry and personal habits. If you can't add something rational to the discussion, please just shut up.
- rabidg00se, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Didn't Obama quit smoking?
- smacksaw, on 03/22/2008, -1/+18Perhaps it's a natural effect for a democracy to eventually have a third party. I'm always surprised at how effective a 3-party system is here in Canada. You have the (not-so) Conservatives on the right, the NDP on the socialist left and the Liberals somewhere in the middle.
The Christians can start their own Christian Democratic Party in the US. The Southerners still don't like voting Republican - they just have to because the Democrats are too anti-Christian nowadays. Then you would have your centre-left party of socialists and liberals and your centre-right party of libertarians and non-Christian conservatives.
Of course if we didn't have a Republic, but a parliamentary democracy it would work far better, but that's wishing for a lot at this point. Still, if Obama wins, the Democrats are re-defined and the Republicans will have to purge the religious right to come back. If Obama loses, I think a lot of people are right in that there might be a fracture of the party to create a viable 3rd option. I know a lot of Republicans would jump ship as well.- brownr21, on 03/22/2008, -5/+8We have too many puritan religious ***** running around this country for a good system like that.
- mwmccullough, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4I don't think that Democrats have become "anti-Christian", I just think that they are taking up for non-Christians in ways that a Republican would NEVER do. It really is a complicated mess we're in, with so many branches of each political party, it feels more like political denominations then anything else. First Methodist Democrat vs. Agno-atheist Democrats, Southern Baptist Republicans vs. California Republicans, a fight like that has no real winner.
- thedingman, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3They're not anti-christian, they simply observe the seperation of church and state.
I don't understand how they're anti-christian simply because they don't make all their decisions on christian principals. - Phisolo, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Democrats are not "Anti-Christian". They just are not "Neo-Christians". Neo-christians preach hate as a christian value.
Old school christians believe in being inclusive, the golden rule, and loving thy neighbor, in spite of their race, gender, sexual preference, or choice of faith. - RobotCitizen, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Dems are not anti-Christian, just anti-theocracy.
- thedingman, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3They're not anti-christian, they simply observe the seperation of church and state.
- ArchiTech, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Makes sense to me. Why have 2 parties that are divided internally when you can have 3-5 parties where some parties share similar views (like economy, religion, morals, social security) and can root together or not together?
I would guess that just because an American likes a strong economy, doesn't necessarily mean that person is a Republican, just because an American is a Homosexual, doesn't mean that person is a Democrat.
Why have the issues been divided into two? The world is clearly more complex then black and white, or Red and Blue, or Left and Right. - Nillerus, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Sounds good to me. In Denmark we have 10 parties in parliament at the moment, which has been a fairly stable number for the past 15 or so years, with some loosing their seats, and others rising to power. Yet the "central" parties are a staple, the social democrats, liberals, conservatives and so on. The Socialist People's Party is one of the big up-and-coming parties, mainly, or so I think, because people are getting damned tired of the "liberals", and the social democrats being too centrist. (Quick note: Being liberal is in this context not to be taken literally, remember, Denmark participated in the same stupid wars, and our prime minister went to Bush's ranch for some tomfoolery no more than a month past. Different systems and all that.)
Of course it's not perfect, this IS politics after all, a good deal of ***** is to be expected. - scubaman5000, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1I've never really understood the need for political parties. Why can't we have a system where we recognize that everyone has their own unique ideas and we vote for individuals rather than parties?
I think the best sort of election we could have would be something where we have all the candidates in one large pool, anyone who wants to run for president can be there if he/she's got the minimal support needed to be considered as a candidate. Then have a series of elections where you vote for the person you want to get rid of the most. Kind of like survivor or some reality show. Between these elections there would be debates and the typical campaigning we see currently but the election would be an elimination of candidates till 2 remained and then we'd have our general election.
Would this be any worse than our current political system?
- aboutlogin, on 03/22/2008, -3/+9one reason she won't:
she's still making money, raised $35m in february and online donations are up. it's the money folks. if the money stopped she'd get out.- mothermaggie, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1you forget shehad to borrow 5 million from herself.
- poxonyou, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2What? Her campaign now, when factoring in her $8 million debt, has an estimated worth of about $3 million right now compared to Obama's $39 million. Keep dreaming.
- sakuraz, on 03/22/2008, -11/+3518. If we elect Hillary, We're not really putting a woman in charge.
- don1one, on 03/22/2008, -12/+2I've always stayed away from the rumors about Hillary. But I had a friend that carried the 'football' for Bill in his Air Force days that swore he saw Hillary regularly provided with a female escort.
This race may bring more minorities than we realize.- unmarked, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Are you in the 6th grade or something? I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but those claims are clearly pure nonsense.
- Neiby, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2What claims? That Hillary is bisexual? Those rumors have been floating around for many, many years. I wouldn't say they're pure nonsense.
- hellotyler, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Wouldn't surprise me. Hillary would probably ***** anything that would want to have sex with her. She ain't getting it from Bill.
- don1one, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2All I'm saying is what an eye witness told me. I'm not saying that's bad. But it's certainly an issue that seems to be buried while all kinds of dirt is being invented about Barack by Hillary's team. Well, as far as I know he's not Muslim.
Huma Abedin rumors are still floating. Don't tell me this couldn't be an important issue in the general if more came out. And my friend hated the Clintons. He wouldn't hesitate for a moment to go public if he thought it would get headlines.
I know Digg is a liberal bastion but there are some issues that must at least be examined.
- unmarked, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Are you in the 6th grade or something? I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but those claims are clearly pure nonsense.
- don1one, on 03/22/2008, -12/+2I've always stayed away from the rumors about Hillary. But I had a friend that carried the 'football' for Bill in his Air Force days that swore he saw Hillary regularly provided with a female escort.
- mzx639, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1Desert to where??
- qwerter, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5apathy
- vertinox, on 03/22/2008, -9/+6I don't get this.
Clinton or Obama are still better than Mccain (Bush lite) Simply letting the Republicans have more of the same for the next four years just because your candidate lost the primaries is a bad idea.
Still at this point Clinton should just negotiate to be VP (they maybe already doing this behind closed doors) so that they don't split the ticket.- qwerter, on 03/22/2008, -1/+7It's all about the message we're trying to send to the Clinton campaign and the superdelegates. It's like when Clinton suggested she would have Obama as her VP--as though that would make it okay if she stole the nomination. Obama nipped that idea in the bud and made it clear that he wasn't going to be used that way.
We, the voters, don't want to be used that way, either. If she steals the nomination, she's going to have a LOT of making up to do before a lot of us will go near her. After all she's done, it's going to be a tough job. The superdelegates need to keep this in mind when they make their decision. - adrenaline33, on 03/22/2008, -1/+7I think a lot of people disagree with you that she is better than McCain. I know I do. He may remind you of Bush, but in reality he is a lot better. He has always gone with what he believes and not what his party believes. He may change his tune for the campaign process, but I have a feeling that he will be himself if he ever gets in office. And I don't think he would be too worried about reelection considering his age.
- poxonyou, on 03/23/2008, -0/+3It's about rewarding bad behavior. It'd be incredibly undemocratic and a slap in the face to small states(ie, most states in America), young voters, african Americans, new voters, etc. The only ones who would be happy would be Rush Limbaugh Republicans, old people, pseudo feminists (vote for her unless you're a sexist pig! bitch is the new black!!!), and Democratic bigots who think Obama is both a secret Muslim and an angry, America hating, Christian black man who will steal their jobs and stay at home collecting welfare.
- littlequeenie, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I agree. I had believed that if she stole the nomination, I would have to still vote for her because at least she would end the war. But now after seeing how she could so outrageously lie about Bosnia, I can't trust that she would end the war either. This woman appears to lie as easily as she breathes. Bosnia was not about embellishing her resume - it was outright LYING, as well as denigrating those members of the military who do live in danger.
- qwerter, on 03/22/2008, -1/+7It's all about the message we're trying to send to the Clinton campaign and the superdelegates. It's like when Clinton suggested she would have Obama as her VP--as though that would make it okay if she stole the nomination. Obama nipped that idea in the bud and made it clear that he wasn't going to be used that way.
- BadAndy80, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5My favorite Hillary cackles: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-clinton-cack ...
- burnin8r28, on 03/22/2008, -6/+1you cant sell donuts in at a hot dog stand...
- Eucolastic, on 03/22/2008, -14/+318/ RON PAUL 08
- Issius, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6Oh give it up already.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/22/2008, -9/+2If that's what it takes to get black people to realize they have been used by the democratic party for years, so be it.
PS Putin would beat any of our candidates ass. - diggingaround, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1420. After all this years she erased "Rodham" from her full name, just to be more electable..
- krahzee, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5amazing how nobody in the media mentions that, or calls her by her hyphonated name anymore.
- spiffwalker, on 03/22/2008, -1/+0Your number 15 is similar to his number 2.
- khurley2000, on 03/22/2008, -0/+621. The cankles.
- mardraum, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2where does the calf fat end and the ankle fat begin? who knows, that's the fun!
- neocognitism, on 03/22/2008, -1/+8Obama's support is not just among the black and the young, whatsoever. That is a lie. He couldn't poll anywhere near where he was is that was the case. He beats Hillary in almost every demographic except old people.
- unmarked, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5old people are trying to hang on to their political power, while the happy spend away the earnings of future generations. All this NATIONAL DEBT will have to be paid by those that are not currently in power.
- MsGo, on 03/23/2008, -0/+3"15. Black people and young people would desert the democratic party."
Some of us are black AND women and there's this:
http://pics.livejournal.com/little_ph0enix/pic/000 ... - justcallmejim, on 03/23/2008, -0/+121. Given the choice, most republicans wouldn't vote for her over Obama either.
- PATSCRU, on 03/22/2008, -11/+29I don't really buy your "black people would leave" argument, but she is going directly against a huge wave of Obama support.
- rzxc, on 03/22/2008, -7/+51I wonder if she's taking the weekend off to consider quiting the race. Perhaps the super delegates are trying to get her to quit. There have been several articles in the past few days suggesting that she has no hope of winning the nomination. This is true. However, not much has changed during that time period. Obama did get Richardson's endorsement, however that's only 1 delegate. That's not exactly a knockout blow. I wonder if the whole race issue has the Democrats wanting to end the infighting. It's hard to tackle the race issue while all this infighting is going on. Ironically, by pressing the race issue, the conservatives are pushing the Democrats toward unifying behind Obama.
- dn11, on 03/22/2008, -1/+25It's not a knock out blow, but Hillary staying in this until summer - continuing to make Obama fight a two front war, continuing to damage him even though he is sure to become the nominee anyway, could be a knock out blow for the Democrats. Unless Billary is even more arrogant and self serving than I even thought they were - they've got to be asking themselves some hard questions at this point. The only possible way she can win is through manipulating the super delegates - and that will pretty much seal her defeat in November.
- adrianmonk, on 03/22/2008, -3/+7It could be bad for this to continue. But then there's also the point of view that there's no such thing as bad publicity. I keep learning things about Obama and Hillary, because they're constantly in the news. McCain gets much less attention from the press. In a world where name recognition and familiarity alone can give you a boost, it could be good for both candidates to remain in the spotlight for so long.
- ArchiTech, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Well put, also keep in mind, most of the issues that do get brought up from now until November will likely be brushed aside by PR agents who are good at their job in time to give any nominee a chance at winning.
- unmarked, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4This would be true if it was a clean fight, but Hillary is fighting dirty. She talks about how McCain and herself and how both are better than Obama. Those are Republican ads in the making for the fall. The latest tactic is questioning the patriotism of Obama by calling him un-American or (in Mr. Clinton's case), talking about the two candidates that really love their country: Hillary and McCain.
These are character attacks that are essentially a scorched earth policy, an attempt to damage Obama to point of failing against McCain. It is a me or nothing approach.
Meanwhile, McCain gets nothing but positive news because the Democrats are arguing amongst themselves.
- adrianmonk, on 03/22/2008, -3/+7It could be bad for this to continue. But then there's also the point of view that there's no such thing as bad publicity. I keep learning things about Obama and Hillary, because they're constantly in the news. McCain gets much less attention from the press. In a world where name recognition and familiarity alone can give you a boost, it could be good for both candidates to remain in the spotlight for so long.
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -15/+5Bill Richardson February 2008:
"in February that a superdelegate's vote "should reflect the vote of my state, it should represent the vote of my constituency. It shouldn’t be because you’re a fund-raiser or a big-shot delegate. Superdelegates should reflect their state or constituency. If superdelegates decide this nomination, it’s going to look like big-shot politicians and fat-cats decided who should be president."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/ri ...
Bill Richardson March 2008 (paraphrased from his endorsement speech)
" Even though my state chose Hillary, I'm a pandering power grabbing jack ass so I'm going to ***** on the will of the people of my state and completely contradict myself in the slim hopes The Messiah chooses me for VP."- offspring06, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2Your State voted for Hillary? Why?
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -6/+4Bill Richardson's state of New Mexico. Maybe because they don't hate Whitey.
- cbuddha42, on 03/22/2008, -5/+4Why are you digging p0s3r down? He isn't explicitly responsive to rzxc, but his post certainly points out credibility problems with one of Obama's supporters. The dude said super delegates should go with the voters in their state then ignored the vote in his own state! Obama's support being so weak in quality seems a good reason for Hillary to stay in the race.
- imgstacke, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1He was a former candidate for the nomination, he is in a different league. A former candidate endorsing a remaining candidate is a big deal, and is not bound by the same political metric as a DNC appointed delegate.
- offspring06, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2Your State voted for Hillary? Why?
- cbuddha42, on 03/22/2008, -4/+3TLDR People/Intro: Obama is the better candidate but Hillary didn't lose ground for two months to drop out when the momentum swings her way.
Why would Hillary drop out now? Look @ this link I grabbed from another thread: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?art ... Hillary is gaining ground for the first time in months, so I highly doubt she drops this weekend. Maybe in a month or so after a couple more primaries and if Obama gets the momentum back, but the ball is in her court right now. Obama's speech was very well written and well delivered, but it was defense. Sure, he spins it to look like offense, he acts like these are issues he can make progress on, but he's only trying to counter.
How can you be sure he was trying to play defense and shut down an uncomfortable issue? He didn't talk about it till he had to. If Obama was really about breaking down the color barrier then we would have been hearing about racism all along, but it wasn't him who brought his crazy pastor in the limelight. Besides, how desperate does a man have to be to throw his grandmother under the bus?
If Hillary means to stay in the race, she will be capitalizing on these things in the next few weeks. Talking about how she can get minority votes (Hispanic) without alienating older white voters who make up the core of the electorate. Obama has a valid point that both his black pastor and white grandmother are both part of him, but voters aren't scared of the cookie baking side of him, they're scared he might have a bit of crazy black revolutionary in him. All Hillary has to do is ask what if he turns economic stimulus into reparations.
If she doesn't push these issues then start ignoring the whole democratic primary race because she's obviously just staying in to keep Obama in the press.
PS. I might vote for Obama but there is no way in hell I'm voting for Hillary.- unmarked, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5I think if Edwards and Biden both sided with Obama, calling for Hillary to stop this. It would look really bad for her that every other Presidential candidate sides with Obama.
If her last name wasn't Clinton, she'd already be out of the race because there is no way to win the elected delegates. But the Clintons are happy to try and steal the election away. She keeps moving the goal posts and changing the rules. It is a truly selfish move on her part. She would rather destroy the Democratic party than give up.
- unmarked, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5I think if Edwards and Biden both sided with Obama, calling for Hillary to stop this. It would look really bad for her that every other Presidential candidate sides with Obama.
- dn11, on 03/22/2008, -1/+25It's not a knock out blow, but Hillary staying in this until summer - continuing to make Obama fight a two front war, continuing to damage him even though he is sure to become the nominee anyway, could be a knock out blow for the Democrats. Unless Billary is even more arrogant and self serving than I even thought they were - they've got to be asking themselves some hard questions at this point. The only possible way she can win is through manipulating the super delegates - and that will pretty much seal her defeat in November.
- PaulLev, on 03/22/2008, -11/+26@rzxc: I think you're completely right that the conservatives are helping Obama by pushing the race issue - this brings out Obama's strengths in the medium and long run. The CBS poll shows most Americans liked his speech. This will continue. It's better to hit and left standing and then not to be hit at all.
- Treason, on 03/22/2008, -0/+8Is it really that hard to use the reply button?
- shtonkalot, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Hey, It isn't difficult at all!
- Treason, on 03/22/2008, -0/+8Is it really that hard to use the reply button?
- Harboggles, on 03/22/2008, -31/+142Reason #1. She's hillary.
- gypsi, on 03/22/2008, -6/+17reason #2. see reason #1
- teriyakisause, on 03/22/2008, -15/+2She probly had a period after reading that article....If she is indeed a woman.
- cbuddha42, on 03/22/2008, -1/+12You failed English 101 and Biology 101?
- mgri, on 03/22/2008, -3/+11 ^ ... three of the lamest comments I've ever read on digg.
- Neepsauce, on 03/22/2008, -4/+2She wears disgusting pant-suits everyday...Did I miss that one?
- volacide, on 03/22/2008, -3/+2When you put it that way it makes me realize how crazy of a name that is. It just doesn't sound right at all... for anyone.
- Rekzai, on 03/22/2008, -6/+4What is she doing out of the kitchen?
- TypeEE, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1Reason #2, she is Clinton
- Perk, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Maybe it's just my fear of sixty year old white women... but I really get the feeling that Hillary just wants to be Nurse Ratched to the largest asylum possible.
- callinthelaw69, on 03/22/2008, -20/+175There's only two really important ones:
Her nomination (gag, I know) would put McCain in the White House
and
She's not qualified.
Plain and simple.- gypsi, on 03/22/2008, -3/+14robin givens should be the heavyweight champion of the world
- sonnybobiche, on 03/22/2008, -13/+12I can't really see how you would consider Hillary less _qualified_ than Obama, though you are right about her nomination being a win for McCain.
- beakerwimp, on 03/22/2008, -3/+30Well, what happens when you research both of their political records? If you spend 30 minutes on it you quickly realize that Obama's record is more robust than Clinton's in many ways. I'm not even talking about the fact that she polarizes people more. I'm just talking about the fact that Obama's legislative record is more productive when you look at them both impartially. This is surprising to many people since they have never done the research themselves and have just been subjected to a lot of speculative media stories. They've been fed the line that Obama has little experience. Do some comparisons on their real records though. You can easily find the info you need online. Here are some decent comparisons. I'm not saying they are all completely unbiased, but they all contain real facts that point to the robustness of Obama's record getting things done and working on important issues:
Thorough Comparison Between Obama and Clinton's Records:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807 ...
Well-Compiled Lists of Legislative Records:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/16/1398/33448
Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton Records on Transparency, Lobbyists, and Ethics
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/11/05 ...
Good Summary of Obama's Legislative Record (at both the state and nation levels):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/11354/7731
A List of Other Informative Comparisons:
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/compare-cl ...
If you're going to vote, it is important to look into this stuff.- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -8/+3Dude, DailyKos is not impartial...
- Fafnir43, on 03/22/2008, -6/+8Ad hominem. If you have an issue with the actual content of the articles, then give more information.
- beakerwimp, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2First of all, I specifically mention that. This is not meant to insult you. I just mean to let you know that you should really read the entire post before commenting. I also specifically mention the fact that all the sources listed contain real facts that point to the robustness of Obama's record getting things done and working on important issues. If you have a valid argument against that point that you can back up with facts (such as records from the library of congress as referenced in many of the articles I listed) please let me know. I'm always interested to hear any new information (good or bad) about the candidates. And for the record... I personally find most DailyKos "articles" to be pretty silly and not reliable as news. It is not a site I have ever visited directly. The articles listed in my original post are well sourced though. They are a good starting point for research.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -8/+3Dude, DailyKos is not impartial...
- gregnyogi, on 03/22/2008, -2/+3Amen... I'm wondering why it has become anti-feminist to point out Hillary's lack of experience. I am a man, have a Ph.D., and was married to an attorney. I have learned a great deal in all three roles. None of them qualify me to practice law, however.
- beakerwimp, on 03/22/2008, -3/+30Well, what happens when you research both of their political records? If you spend 30 minutes on it you quickly realize that Obama's record is more robust than Clinton's in many ways. I'm not even talking about the fact that she polarizes people more. I'm just talking about the fact that Obama's legislative record is more productive when you look at them both impartially. This is surprising to many people since they have never done the research themselves and have just been subjected to a lot of speculative media stories. They've been fed the line that Obama has little experience. Do some comparisons on their real records though. You can easily find the info you need online. Here are some decent comparisons. I'm not saying they are all completely unbiased, but they all contain real facts that point to the robustness of Obama's record getting things done and working on important issues:
- airiox, on 03/22/2008, -17/+8Wrong Obama lost his sway with Independents and cross over Republicans over the Rev Wright issue. McCain now leads both of them in theoretical general elections. Remember, the majority of voters are closer to McCains age. Just because Obama is hugely popular with the young crowd doesn't get you elected.
- facelesscoward, on 03/22/2008, -0/+12Hillary's voter problem is much greater than Obama's. If he wins in pledged delegates and popular vote and Hillary still ends up the nominee, a lot of the people who Obama brought into the voting process for the primaries are going to stay home come general election.
- exomni, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2I would, for one.
Come November, I'm voting for Obama or nobody, plain and simple. - Akronos, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1I'd hope if any of Obama's converts are serious about change, they'd be voting third party. Or else, it just shows change is just a buzzword to them.
I'll be voting Obama or third party, depending on how the election goes. - mustache, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Maybe they don't agree with a third party's view of change? What if the change they want is only reachable by electing a guy like Barack Obama. Someone that embodies America in every sense of the word. He is an amalgamation of this country and he is best fit to lead and understand the plights of almost every american race. Something few candidates can cop to.
- exomni, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2I would, for one.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -4/+17"McCain now leads both of them in theoretical general elections."
You're drunk.- Smiff2, on 03/22/2008, -2/+0nah he's just talking about the "Wrong Obama", hehe hee hee hoho.
(just repeating a lie until it becomes "truth" isn't going to work this time.)
- Smiff2, on 03/22/2008, -2/+0nah he's just talking about the "Wrong Obama", hehe hee hee hoho.
- airiox, on 03/22/2008, -3/+2LOL morons, that don't pay attention to the news. You are in denial.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?art ...- exomni, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4Wow, you mean polls drop temporarily a couple hours after the right-wing media attacks a candidate with a 20-year-old "controversy"? Who would have guessed!
Ups and downs, my friend, ups and downs.
- exomni, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4Wow, you mean polls drop temporarily a couple hours after the right-wing media attacks a candidate with a 20-year-old "controversy"? Who would have guessed!
- apollomurga, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2This person obviously watches Fox News cause i watched them spew that same garbage the other day.
- airiox, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1Nah actually never see fox news except the drivel that is pushed on digg. But okay. Me being unbiased, must mean I watch fox.. Your blind man love for Obama betrays you.
- facelesscoward, on 03/22/2008, -0/+12Hillary's voter problem is much greater than Obama's. If he wins in pledged delegates and popular vote and Hillary still ends up the nominee, a lot of the people who Obama brought into the voting process for the primaries are going to stay home come general election.
- swoopdog, on 03/22/2008, -6/+5I dont like Hillary but how is Obama more qualified than her?
no matter who you vote for the government is getting in.- callinthelaw69, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Look at beakerwimps reply to my first comment.
Perhaps you should do your research before you open your mouth :)
- callinthelaw69, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Look at beakerwimps reply to my first comment.
- Bilabrin, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5The funny thing is that Hillary has been planning this for 8 years. She's not about to give up on an 8 year plan because of an upstart.
I hope she loses badly and quickly so the dems can start focusing on how much McInsain sucks.
I think the key to attacing McInsain is going to be his legendary short temper. He can probably be made to lose his cool and show the world what a raving maniac he truly is. - Xander512, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1i don't understand why diggers are always acting like obama is perfect... neither candidate is really that qualified based on past experience, but that definately doesnt make McCain a better choice either
ultimately i would rather vote for Obama at least 8 years from now but theres just not a better choice right now
- wrongonce, on 03/22/2008, -10/+39The beautiful thing about Obama (there are many) is that this doesn't affect him. As a strong leader, a challenge like this can only make you stronger.
Step down, Hillary, or don't. It really doesn't matter.
The next 8 years will be quite a ride for the US and the world.- sonnybobiche, on 03/22/2008, -2/+8It's kind of hard to lead if you don't get nominated...
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -26/+5Thats the problem with you faggots, you got a man-crush on Obama and it's blinding you to the reality.
- swicken, on 03/22/2008, -3/+8WOW, now that's intelligent.
- don1one, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5As much as I hate to say it, I think these controversies now strengthen Obama. He doesn't like conflict, but with each one he successfully handles the better he gets at it and the more confidence he gains.
- cephelo, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6i've said it before -- Nothing will prepare you for the Republican Attack Machine than the Clinton Attack Machine. They are one and the same.
- keraneuology, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1You misunderstand. Hillary's first plan is to win the nomination (which I think she will). Plan B is to get McCain elected and then out in four instead of waiting for two terms of Obama, after which time the economy will be so far in debt with the alzheimer's generation that general collapse is pretty much inevitable.
- sonnybobiche, on 03/22/2008, -24/+32I know we all like Obama now, but didn't this "article" come off a little childish? Kind of loaded with non-sequiteurs...
- airiox, on 03/22/2008, -15/+5No we all don't like Obama. Some of us see him for who he is. I refuse to lower my standards for my President. They should raise their standards for me. I can still vote for Mickey Mouse. I hear he is an awesome dude and has a solid platform.
- zspade, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Who is he?
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1You don't know who Mickey Mouse is?
- bassmangracey, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1M-I-C-K-E-Y-M_O-U-S-E mickey mouse
- Rodman930, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4Not that any of us care, but What are your "standards"?
- JulyZerg, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Oh, they have to be white, I bet...
- zspade, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Who is he?
- stackolee, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5Yeah, Halperin named names. To my knowledge Donna Brazille hasn't publicly endorsed either candidate, putting her name in print as an Obama backer is sorta low.
- goomba323, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2In fact, I've never seen video of her saying that Clinton should back down. I found that very suspicious and discredited the article for me. I've heard her say "I'll stand by my girl til the end", so I don't see her deserting anytime soon.
- vade79, on 03/22/2008, -2/+7I know "non-sequiteurs" is one of the great arbitrary words to throw at any topic, but it seemed like a logical list to me. Also, if you use it, at least spell it right: "non-sequitur".
- TypeEE, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2I am an Obama supporters and still think this article is childish and do not have facts to backup his points. In a lot of points, you can search and replace Obama word with Clinton words and it would still make sense.
- JulyZerg, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Sadly, it's not the same with you. My guess is... french? spanish?
Replacing obama word with clinton words would probably get you into a lot of trouble. I recommend keeping away from any other "obama supporters" if you're saying they are the same people... *insert hillary cackle here*
- JulyZerg, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Sadly, it's not the same with you. My guess is... french? spanish?
- airiox, on 03/22/2008, -15/+5No we all don't like Obama. Some of us see him for who he is. I refuse to lower my standards for my President. They should raise their standards for me. I can still vote for Mickey Mouse. I hear he is an awesome dude and has a solid platform.
- Bobaliki, on 03/22/2008, -17/+31315. You dont see anyone making lists about 14 reasons why Obama should quit
- Unriggable, on 03/22/2008, -3/+28Probably because he's winning, but that's just my guess.
- JavanSClark, on 03/22/2008, -1/+34IF the roles were reversed, we would, and we would have seen them much much sooner.
- adrianmonk, on 03/22/2008, -1/+23But, a highly-relevant fact is that the roles are not reversed.
- JavanSClark, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2Thus the truth behind the article comes out
- moxanot, on 03/22/2008, -3/+0If Hilary had a goiter, she wouldn't even be running right now
- adrianmonk, on 03/22/2008, -1/+23But, a highly-relevant fact is that the roles are not reversed.
- chodges4, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2I wouldn't be surprised if she came out with a list of reasons why HE should quit, even though he's winning in the electoral and popular vote. I mean, the Clinton camp already started talking about offering Obama who is in 1st the #2 position. I wouldn't but it past her.
- GDOG5, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1u suck geoff
- FeelThePain, on 03/22/2008, -133/+13Someone tell me why I shouldn't bury this story?
If you're a tool incapable of using any intelligence, click the red thumbs down button. If you're a person with a brain, digg me up.- ReidFleming, on 03/22/2008, -8/+81Here's how digg works, if you like something, 'digg' it. If you don't, 'bury' it. I'm surprised you're having trouble with the concept as it's relatively simple. Perhaps your schooling should have better dealt with your special needs as a child.
- saxreturns, on 03/22/2008, -3/+48I find it pretty ironic that you're using a 'vote for me or you're all idiots' tactic.
- zspade, on 03/22/2008, -3/+25This sort of schoolyard 'I am rubber and you are glue' mentality doesn't really say a whole lot about your own intellect, sorry.
- Burrito, on 03/22/2008, -4/+31I have chosen to not click either icon and instead leave a comment calling you a retard.
Kobayashi maru, retard. - rand0mm0nkey, on 03/22/2008, -4/+7I'm not going to tell you whether you should bury it or digg it. I also expect for you to not tell me my opinion in return. Think for yourself, if you can. State your opinion if it makes you feel better, but don't presume to think for me. I do fine on my own, thanks.
- Digger7217319, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0I spose its safe to say digg is full of "tools after seeing the comment was buried 116 times
- NinjaPirateDude, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1urge to spam "FeelThePain" rising....................
- damnitkitty, on 03/22/2008, -24/+135This guy writes for Time magazine? It came off as very amateurish, almost like something someone commenting on Digg might write. For example:
"11. If she somehow found a way to win the nomination, she would have to offer Obama the veep slot, and she doesn’t want to do that."
...uh....what?- dagamer34, on 03/22/2008, -0/+13It's true, though the article needs to explain why. Clinton would be forced to offer him the VP slot in order to retain his critical voting block. Too bad she already tried to preempt that to the point where he said no already
- imorgan82, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5What a stupid criticism. Journalists don't need to write like they're applying for a spot in the New Yorker to post on a blog page that doesn't even have formatting.
- ligyron, on 03/22/2008, -0/+8He even stopped at 14 which was clearly to allow Diggers to fill in the missing numbers
- RevJonathan, on 03/22/2008, -10/+2Yeah, this article is missing a very important point. She has a very real chance of getting the nomination. I'd say her odds are over 40%. Most politicians would kill for that kind of chance- including Sen. Obama.
- TypeEE, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Double digg for dising digg commenter and the amateurish article.
- SeaweedWater, on 03/22/2008, -9/+10715. That horrible yelling she does during her speeches. Just talk.
- lolmax, on 03/22/2008, -1/+9It's the audial equivalent of nails on a chalkboard - whenever she yells into the mic at her speeches it honestly gives me a very unsettling and disturbing feeling
- exomni, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4Whenever she talks or appears in my field of vision or is mentioned in print it gives me a very unsettling and disturbing feeling.
- motivatedmama, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2"The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing! ..." All in that smart assy, sneering, overly dramatic voice my Mother used at her most patronizing. I wanted to reach through the screen and choke her.
- nevinl, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2actually NPR was discussing her voice quite a bit...somewhat interesting background and considered Margaret Thatcher's efforts to "calm" her voice, too...
I can't find the link right now...http://pervegalit.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/vocal-i ... sounds like its in the same vein...- motivatedmama, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Actually caught that program on NPR. I thought Bush 1 was a woman!
I have been wondering lately if someone has been coaching Hillary. It seems her tone has come down a bit. Wont help her now. It was as much the content as it was the delivery.
All that aside, she's blatantly phony. Look at her when she interacts with crowds. The horsey bug eyed grimace, that passes for a smile. The exaggerated nodding, to make you believe she's really listening. Gaaaah! Then, look at Obama. Open smile that reaches the eyes, waits patiently while others speak etc. You can read a LOT just from body language!
- motivatedmama, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Actually caught that program on NPR. I thought Bush 1 was a woman!
- exomni, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4Whenever she talks or appears in my field of vision or is mentioned in print it gives me a very unsettling and disturbing feeling.
- n0sferatu, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2I thought I was the only one that couldn't stand her yelling. When Obama speaks, he is honest and inspiring. When Hillary speaks, she yells as loud as she can in a monotone.
- lolmax, on 03/22/2008, -1/+9It's the audial equivalent of nails on a chalkboard - whenever she yells into the mic at her speeches it honestly gives me a very unsettling and disturbing feeling
- 22pages, on 03/22/2008, -12/+68If she cares about this country, she will quit. But that's not going to happen. She's going to pull a Lieberman and put herself before her party and the country. Both the Clintons sicken me at this point. After Bill's latest comment about patriotism I'm all for impeaching them from the party.
- ZHEStorm, on 03/22/2008, -5/+1I take it you also fail to realize that there is less than 1% separating the two candidates in total number of votes. Your assessment that she doesn't care about this country are completely false and based off nothing but pure opinion. Get over yourself already. She is a viable candidate who will hopefully be our next President.
- DangerCollie, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4The Clinton "do anything to win" philosophy has really changed my opinion of her. It's the kind of behavior you'd expect from a Republican. Maybe that's my issue with her. She's too close to the Republicans both in style and tone.
We need another Bush or Clinton in the White House like the world needs another stripper named Candy.- ZHEStorm, on 03/23/2008, -3/+1Do anything to win? Care to give examples outside of media spin? Facts work best, so please present some and convince me. The thing is, you don't have any. It's all opinionated jibberish. That's all that ever comes out of the Obama camp. Down play the bad, mask the truth, and then convince people that we can "change". Change what? A change from Bush? That's easy, anyone will be a change from Bush.
- clayasaurus, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1For example, she says that she would rather have voters vote for McCain then Obama.
- ZHEStorm, on 03/23/2008, -3/+1Do anything to win? Care to give examples outside of media spin? Facts work best, so please present some and convince me. The thing is, you don't have any. It's all opinionated jibberish. That's all that ever comes out of the Obama camp. Down play the bad, mask the truth, and then convince people that we can "change". Change what? A change from Bush? That's easy, anyone will be a change from Bush.
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -77/+8Now that America knows Obama is a racist things are quite a bit different. The DNC will undoubtedly instruct the supers to give Sen. Clinton their votes in Denver.
- JavanSClark, on 03/22/2008, -4/+23Once again, RRJackson, you are an idiot. As far as you're concerned the only racists in the world are those who stand in the way of White Entitlement. His grandmothers reaction are typical, especially if you factor in her age. As you indicated, in an earlier post, your last concern is the facts, your main concern is twisting the truth to try and paint Obama as a racist, with lies and deception. Check this guys post history, and you'll find it.
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -16/+3Obama, Wright and the rest of his flock don't want to "stand in the way of 'White Entitlement'", they want to actively destroy white people for the sole sin of not being born black.
- revisrev, on 03/22/2008, -1/+8source?
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -14/+2Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]
In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors ... Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone].
1. See William R Jones, "Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology", in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press). - JavanSClark, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Link please.
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -4/+2http://books.google.com/books?id=MIhPoZ2NHSMC&pg=P ...
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -14/+2Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -12/+3I get it. Easier to digg down and hide the truth then defend the indefensible.
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -11/+1Exactly.
- harmonik, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1No, I bet there are just as many conservative idiots like you who digg your comments up, but many more who realize you're just rambling about retarded *****.
- burnblue, on 03/22/2008, -1/+7That's the stupidest comment I've ever seen on Digg, and that's saying a lot.
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -6/+2Please see my sources.
- JavanSClark, on 03/23/2008, -1/+3RRJackson and p0s3r really need to come out of the closet. You're both white nationalists, admit it. You're hiding your political affiliation to minimize the damage that would be done, because the moment you do admit to it, there is a plethora of information to rebuke each and every argument you make.
- revisrev, on 03/22/2008, -1/+8source?
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -15/+1You won't "find" any such thing, but you Obama supporters aren't overly concerned with the truth. You just want your candidate to win. Which is fine, I suppose. Not going to happen, though. Whitey got wise to him.
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -16/+3Obama, Wright and the rest of his flock don't want to "stand in the way of 'White Entitlement'", they want to actively destroy white people for the sole sin of not being born black.
- dn11, on 03/22/2008, -3/+15Explain to me in simple words that you can understand, how Obama is a racist. Try to work it out logically for me one step at a time so your brain doesn't damage itself. Thank you.
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -23/+3You know as well as I do. He's spent 20 years as a disciple of a man whose message is one of black nationalism and whose church supports not only Farrakhan, but Hamas. Bammie's all done. It was funny watching him try, though.
- Unriggable, on 03/22/2008, -2/+8Sources, friendo.
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -14/+2Well, you can start with every major media outlet in North America. But here's a good one for you:
http://digg.com/politics/Obama_s_Church_Reprints_H ... - p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -15/+3Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]
In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors ... Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone].
1. See William R Jones, "Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology", in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press). - RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -10/+2A little more wordy than, "Kill Whitey," but it gets the point across.
- JavanSClark, on 03/22/2008, -2/+4To Pos3r- The article you site, is from one individual in a movement of millions. But as your previous postings, your racist ideology allows you o generalize us, while condeming those who may to do the same to you. Why is it ok or you and not for others?
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -4/+3@Javan
It was never a "movement of millions". And Cone is not some no-name in Black Theology. He is pretty much the father of Black Theology. If you think I'm generalizing, you clearly are ignorant of your own history.
"James Cone and Dwight Hopkins are considered the leading theologians of this system of belief, although now there are many scholars who have contributed a great deal to the field. It was Cone who in 1969 published the seminal work that systemized black liberation theology, Black Theology and Black Power (1969)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology - JavanSClark, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2 Actually I'm not ignorant of my own history, and yes, you do generalize. If, as you say, Black Theology is not a movement of millions, then why do you use it as a "litmus test" regarding the feelings of Black America? I for one do not subscribe to all of the tenants of Back Liberation. I do however agree with a fair share. Do I believe we should eradicate all oppression, Yes!. You and I have gone back and forth, numerous times, and I can't help but wonder, why don't just come out and admit your political philosophy, admit your biggest problem with BHO is his skin color, just be HONEST? We would alltake you much more seriously if you did.
- RRJackson, on 03/23/2008, -2/+1Well, now that you've admitted that you share Obama's racist beliefs, I think it's a little easier to understand why you don't mind electing a racist. Thankfully you're in the minority.
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -14/+2Well, you can start with every major media outlet in North America. But here's a good one for you:
- dn11, on 03/22/2008, -4/+22Nope. I happen to agree with 95% of everything I've seen Rev Wright say. I've seen anger from Wright, but not hatred. Black Nationalism /= Black separatism. Rev Wright strikes me as a rare thing - a true Christian. A man who was born into oppression but has learned compassion, and teaches his congregation to be empowered - to recognize racism as it still exists and to rise above it to succeed. I think you're just afraid of that message. I think you have to look at your own biases. I have yet to see him say that the white man must be brought down in order for blacks to succeed - I have yet to hear him utter a racial slur against whites. Certainly he hasn't spoken in a way that is compatible with "white" political correctness - his words when played in 30 seconds sound bites are inflammatory - but that completely distorts the meaning
- JavanSClark, on 03/22/2008, -1/+13RRJackson isn't concerned with the facts.
He says so Here: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Fox_News_LIED_ab ... - RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -15/+2Why don't you go ahead and find a quote where I said I wasn't interested in facts. I said I didn't need to know details. And I don't. Once I knew that he was affiliated with black nationalism and that Wright's church supported radical Islam I knew all I needed to know. And do did America.
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -9/+3http://au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/ ...
- burnblue, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1What i'm trying to figure out is how your point will ever come out in the MSMedia. The comments are inflammatory but CNN et al will never give them context. Though Obama's speech was cool, it did the damage of totally condemning the sermons and making them all about anger.
- JavanSClark, on 03/22/2008, -1/+13RRJackson isn't concerned with the facts.
- Unriggable, on 03/22/2008, -2/+8Sources, friendo.
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -23/+3You know as well as I do. He's spent 20 years as a disciple of a man whose message is one of black nationalism and whose church supports not only Farrakhan, but Hamas. Bammie's all done. It was funny watching him try, though.
- facelesscoward, on 03/22/2008, -1/+10Yeah, Obama hates himself. FFS, he's just as much white as he is black.
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -9/+2Yes, because people of mixed race *never* choose to identify with one and lash out at the other.
- akwash79, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Racist white people *never* catagorize someone who is part black as being all black
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1Which would help explain why Obama has decided to identify closely with black nationalism/theology. He probably always felt like he was being excluded by white culture. Sad, really, but it doesn't make me want to see him running the country.
- JavanSClark, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2I'm of Mixed Race, My mother is white and my father is black. My daughter is Mixed Race, and she will be tauthg to appreciate both cultures that make up her heritage. So no, for the most part we don't.
- JavanSClark, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Also, You White Nationalists invented the one drop rule, therefore, it was you and yours who make that distinction. I myself consider My Daughter and I, equal parts of both.
- akwash79, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Racist white people *never* catagorize someone who is part black as being all black
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -9/+2Yes, because people of mixed race *never* choose to identify with one and lash out at the other.
- cambob76, on 03/22/2008, -2/+20Dude it's time to get off the Fox news. They are brainwashing you into being a stupid retard. Oh. Maybe you just are a stupid retard. Either way, STFU.
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -12/+1Very mature. Get back to me when Sen. Clinton is given the nomination.
- JavanSClark, on 03/22/2008, -2/+6For you to chide someone on Maturity, smacks of the typical Clinton back biting you people are famous for. Oops I said, "you people." Typical.
- CALM56, on 03/22/2008, -3/+2Methinks the "gentleman" doth protest too much!
- shortysmyname, on 03/22/2008, -2/+15Troll....a laughable one too.
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -13/+2Laugh it up. All the way to Clinton's acceptance speech in Denver.
- iainc, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Ok, I'll paste that comment back into one of your trollish rants when she *doesn't* just so that people know how full of ***** you are.
- RRJackson, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1You won't understand how this works until you see how it works.
- iainc, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2Ok, I'll paste that comment back into one of your trollish rants when she *doesn't* just so that people know how full of ***** you are.
- RRJackson, on 03/22/2008, -13/+2Laugh it up. All the way to Clinton's acceptance speech in Denver.
- GoneGreen, on 03/23/2008, -1/+4RR-Retard at it again, thank you for bringing humor into everyone's lives.
- JavanSClark, on 03/22/2008, -4/+23Once again, RRJackson, you are an idiot. As far as you're concerned the only racists in the world are those who stand in the way of White Entitlement. His grandmothers reaction are typical, especially if you factor in her age. As you indicated, in an earlier post, your last concern is the facts, your main concern is twisting the truth to try and paint Obama as a racist, with lies and deception. Check this guys post history, and you'll find it.
- fedupamerica, on 03/22/2008, -19/+5I have one! She posted the Wright Videos! http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll163/mcouncil_ ...
- Pinkertinkle, on 03/22/2008, -6/+122But there's one reason Hillary Clinton won't quit: she believes she is 100% entitled to the nomination and the presidency just for being Hillary.
- adrianmonk, on 03/22/2008, -2/+21She has been planning this for a long time, and she doesn't want to let a little fact like that there is a better candidate out there stop her.
- draftingtableX, on 03/22/2008, -2/+4Very astute. In some sense, she is...but her campaign thus far hasn't done a good job at showing her skill as an administrator. And in no sense is she any more entitled to the nomination / election than any other candidate.
- ZHEStorm, on 03/22/2008, -4/+2Show proof of that statement please, Pinkertinkle. I guarantee you will not find it.
- Pinkertinkle, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4This isn't a peer reviewed publication, I don't have to show proof of anything. And i can bury your comment. Take that.
- ZHEStorm, on 03/22/2008, -4/+1LOL. Exactly. You have no proof. You just spew baseless accusations that are completely false. I guess I can understand, you are, after all, supporting a candidate who's entire campaign is based around empty rhetoric.
http://facts.hillaryhub.com- Pinkertinkle, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that Hillary proves you right by dropping out with grace for the good of her party and her country.
- ZHEStorm, on 03/23/2008, -3/+1That is your opinion. My opinion is that Obama needs to drop out for the good of the party and our country. Obama is only ahead by less than 1% in total votes. The mere fact that he is so adamant to block voters voices in FL and MI only goes to show he doesn't practice what he preaches. Or the fact that his supporters keep calling for Hillary to drop out when there are 10 (I think) more states that get to vote. Are you all that afraid that his lead will slip that much? If you are so confident that he is the best candidate and that Hillary is so bad, then what are you afraid of to have everyone get a voice in this election?
Take FL and MI for example. Just because a couple suits decided that the PEOPLE shouldn't count, doesn't mean you should buy into it. Obama preaches voters rights. I find this far from standing up for that by trying to block them. A 50-50 split is not letting the voices be heard. Obama broke the rules in FL and advertised there. He still lost. So my question to you, what are you - as an Obama supporter - afraid of? If he is so great, he will have no problem winning those states, so let's allow those people to be heard. Why should a couple suits deny that American right?
- ZHEStorm, on 03/22/2008, -4/+1LOL. Exactly. You have no proof. You just spew baseless accusations that are completely false. I guess I can understand, you are, after all, supporting a candidate who's entire campaign is based around empty rhetoric.
- Pinkertinkle, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4This isn't a peer reviewed publication, I don't have to show proof of anything. And i can bury your comment. Take that.
- hpymondays, on 03/22/2008, -49/+7Obama is in freefall due to reverend Wright. If Hillary drops now, Democrats are left with a candidate with negative momentum. If Republicans made Kerry (a decorated war hero) look French, you can imagine what they will do to Obama, who probably has more shoes to drop.
McCain at this point seems to be the sure winner. If anything, Obama should drop if Democrats want to have a better chance of winning the general elections.- CALM56, on 03/22/2008, -1/+13The Republicans have pushed the only think that they have against Obama...and having looked at the full sermon, they don't even have that now really. They just have the lie they made up of it and they have the short attention span of some Americans who have gotten used to news in soundbites only.
With Hillary, they have a ton load of unfinished business which they have been compiling for the past 8 years and more, expecting her to be a candidate.
People have gotten to be so terrified of the Republicans that Dems appear to be suffering from battered wife syndrome where the Repubs are concerned. They can be beaten. They can be conquered.- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -10/+2You people act as if Wright was just solemnly reading some quote. 5 days after 3000 Americans were murdered, Wright was dancing around and celebrating it and so was his congregation. That's what people see in those videos.
- elint6, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Right. Can you point me to a portion of the video(s) where he or anyone in his congregation was celebrating? Please watch the whole sermon before making idiotic comments like that. You, sir, are indeed the p0s3r.
- p0s3r, on 03/22/2008, -10/+2You people act as if Wright was just solemnly reading some quote. 5 days after 3000 Americans were murdered, Wright was dancing around and celebrating it and so was his congregation. That's what people see in those videos.
- CALM56, on 03/22/2008, -1/+13The Republicans have pushed the only think that they have against Obama...and having looked at the full sermon, they don't even have that now really. They just have the lie they made up of it and they have the short attention span of some Americans who have gotten used to news in soundbites only.
- Yesplease, on 03/22/2008, -6/+32Description: "It is impossible for Hillary to beat Obama in the number of delegates or the popular vote"
FTFA: "3. Catching up in the popular vote is not out of the question"
I want Obama to have this all wrapped up too, but remember to get out there and vote for the guy, she still has avenues to the nomination, even if they are becoming more and more far fetched.- snafflepaffle, on 03/22/2008, -2/+3Nice. Way to remove context in order to make a point that isn't supported by TFA. You could teach the republicans a thing or two.
What it really says:
3. Catching up in the popular vote is not out of the question — but without re-votes in Florida and Michigan it will be almost as impossible as catching up in elected delegates.- burnblue, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Just take the good advice which is make sure to go vote.
- Yesplease, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry I guess...except the whole quote says that it's not impossible, too. I don't understand what your point is? Are you trying to tell me that the article does indeed say it is impossible as the description implies?
- motivatedmama, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1He's got my vote if the race lasts till KY. How would you suggest campaigning for him in a backwater, southern town though? I have spoken to three people here, outside of my family. One just said, well I always vote Republican, I will look into it more when it's time. Another said, I could never vote for him, he has that weird middle name, and you know "those people" (Muslims) have caused a lot of trouble here. Another said she'd vote for Hillary because of what Michelle Obama said about Hillary not being able to run the White House, if she can't run her own. See what kind of idiocy I'm up against?
- Yesplease, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Here's what I've found from Canvassing for Obama: 1. Even when people's ideas seem idiotic, converse with them. Don't plead and don't beg, but have a discussion using all the knowledge about a topic that you've learned. 2. Some (many) people simply will not change their minds, no matter how well you construct your argument. Say "thank you for your time, have a good day" to these people. It's easy to think people are stupid, so don't fall into that trap. Often they are simply uninformed and that is something you CAN change! Good luck! you're really doing a great thing for the country, Obama and yourself. Getting involved with something (anything) you believe in is the first step towards real personal and social fulfillment. So thanks!
- imgstacke, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Remind them, he's half white...
- snafflepaffle, on 03/22/2008, -2/+3Nice. Way to remove context in order to make a point that isn't supported by TFA. You could teach the republicans a thing or two.
- kirkfarl, on 03/22/2008, -3/+20Mark Penn ruined a sure thing with horrible management skills.
- zspade, on 03/22/2008, -0/+10That's funny, I was fairly certain it was the corruption and un-likability of Hillary that lost it? Oh wait I must be wrong.
-'You're likable enough, Hillary' - Obama
Because she needs the verification. - Schmapdi, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3While I agree that Mark Penn seems like a slimey douchebag - you have to remember that the ultimate responsibility lies with Hillarly. She could fire Penn any time she wants to.
- Rodman930, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3I agree with zspade. Obama is just an all around better candidate and better person than she is.
- zspade, on 03/22/2008, -0/+10That's funny, I was fairly certain it was the corruption and un-likability of Hillary that lost it? Oh wait I must be wrong.
- Eivo, on 03/22/2008, -5/+28Ok, I can't stand Hillary, but barely half of those are *reasons* to quit. Hell, barely half of those make any ***** sense. I just home you dems can get me an Obama ticket that doesn't have Clinton as the v.p. I really don't want to look into the 3rd party arena this season.
- DephexTwin, on 03/22/2008, -0/+10If Obama gets the presidential nomination, you can be damn sure that he's not going to pick Hillary for VP. It is just not even within the realm of possibility.
- ReDoEr, on 03/22/2008, -0/+11no doubt. I'm not an Obama supporter, but the man is clearly not stupid. I sure wouldn't want MY heartbeat to be the only thing between Hillary and the presidency.
- unmarked, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2I'd love to see him pick someone like Senator Claire McCaskill, so he would pick a woman VP, but it wouldn't be Hillary. That's just my anger speaking.
- DephexTwin, on 03/22/2008, -0/+10If Obama gets the presidential nomination, you can be damn sure that he's not going to pick Hillary for VP. It is just not even within the realm of possibility.
- dn11, on 03/22/2008, -7/+2515) Your continued campaign can lead to nothing but a permanent rift and ultimate total obliteration of the Democratic party.
- chall2001, on 03/22/2008, -0/+9I thought that was already the case--- Hell, its practically their mission statement.
- MrNibs, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1Why is TIME putting out this childish drivel and why did this make it to the front of digg? dn11 your comment is much more valid than half the crap that list spewed but I have a feeling there are too many party regulars that want to see Clinton in the general election. Too many favors and too much back scratching going on within the party. This latest news with the Rev and Obama is damaging. If Florida makes it back into this thing, it could get a little too close for comfort. I'm sure Richardson is looking for a VP nod but I'd like to think he was trying to help put an end to this fight. Unfortunately, he is endorsing against his constituents. I have a serious problem with that as I am asking that all other supers to do what is right and not vote against the will of the people. I'm tired of the wine-n-dine super tactics and offerings of positions to steal the election.
Yes, lists like this can make Obama supporters feel a little better about not having to vote for a third party in the general, but this is far from over. In many ways, this thing just got started. Both have now had their character questioned. Both are going to have to fight hard to gain the remaining pledge delegates.- Tracon, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3There is no way Clinton could win at this point. Its not possible. Michigan and Florida are already confirmed dead. Unless all the super delegates vote Clinton it might be possible but that is very unlikely.
- esbern1, on 03/22/2008, -6/+21that really fell apart at the end.
these are just forcing it:
11. If she somehow found a way to win the nomination, she would have to offer Obama the veep slot, and she doesn’t want to do that.
12. This is a change election, and Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton can never truly be change.
13. Obama is having fun most days, and she isn’t.
14. Even though her campaign staff is having more fun than it has for a long time, there’s hardly anyone there who, given half a chance, wouldn’t slit Mark Penn’s throat — and such internal dissension won’t help her in the home stretch. - jzuska, on 03/22/2008, -8/+10written by an Obama supporter?
- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Well DUH!
Halperin's a part of the media, and as he wrote "the media still wants Obama to be the nominee."
- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Well DUH!
- hpymondays, on 03/22/2008, -31/+8Apparently, there are still some hard core Obamaniacs here on Digg for whom Obama's aura has not diminished, even after realizing that if he were a white candidate he would have to drop from the race due to controversy. What if it was discovered that a white candidate attended a church for 20 years where the pastor (who baptized his kids) blamed black people for all their problems? Would his political career be still intact?
- DeviateSeptum, on 03/22/2008, -5/+18The situation is not symmetric and that is why Obama's straight-talk is well-received. Only an ignorant white person would think otherwise.
- peticsu, on 03/22/2008, -1/+9you'll never understand...
you'll be stuck on the wright story forever and worry if his political career is still "intact" - facelesscoward, on 03/22/2008, -3/+32Yeah, if a white person came out and blamed the black elite for mistreating white Americans for the past 250 years, he would have to drop out.
Because he'd be ***** delusional. Rev. Wright may be a bit over the top, but a lot of what he is saying is rooted in reality, not blind racism.- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -12/+2It was rooted in the reality of the 60s of the 20th century, not in the 21st century...
- exegesisClique, on 03/22/2008, -2/+12You sir, apparently, live in a shiny happy world filled with hugs and chocolate castles. I'm white, I live in a Detroit suburb, I witness racism against blacks every day. Racism is a reality, whether it be a hundred years ago or yesterday. The degree may have changed, but just because the law holds some of these racist assholes back from committing atrocities doesn't mean they practice their irrational hate in more subtle ways.
- burnblue, on 03/22/2008, -3/+2You are blind, sir. Please go outside and pay attention
- Danktolker, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Ok, so that would make those who participated and witnessed lynchings or separate but equal towns all of 70 years old? And I am sure they didn't pass down any racist beliefs to their children right? And their children's children?
I can understand where you are coming from as I too once believed that racism didn't exist as I was fortunate enough to live in a place where race was not an issue until I moved to Atlanta. Then everything became a lot clearer and I began to understand that our country still has generations left to go before racism will go away.
- hpymondays, on 03/22/2008, -2/+4So you believe that the CIA puts Aids and drugs in inner cities to destroy the black community? I actually agree with most of what rev Wright said about America's foreign policy, but blaming white people for it is just racist and cheap demagoguery. No white candidate would get away with being a member of a church whose pastor was a kkk member.
- imgstacke, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1For years people were saying that the government was infecting blacks with syphilis, crazy conspiracy theory talk.
The CDC admitted it was true...
- imgstacke, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1For years people were saying that the government was infecting blacks with syphilis, crazy conspiracy theory talk.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -12/+2It was rooted in the reality of the 60s of the 20th century, not in the 21st century...
- CALM56, on 03/22/2008, -1/+12Have you looked at the full sermon or have you just watched the FOX/McCain campaign edit?
- adrianmonk, on 03/22/2008, -1/+6If that all happened, then no, his career wouldn't still be intact. But this is a situation where a double standard makes a certain amount of sense: after all, white people have not historically been discriminated against like black people have. White people weren't put into slavery by black people, and a white minister aged 66 (Rev. Wright's age) would not have personally lived through a time when discrimination against his race was not only socially acceptable but also supported by the legal system. Heck, prior to Brown vs. the Board of Education (which court case occurred when Wright would've been 13), racial segregation in schools was legally MANDATED in 17 states. Have people forgotten what the experience of growing up black in America was like for someone of that generation? Sure, Wright's ideas are outmoded, but people don't get all that upset if WWII vets are not all that fond of Germans, and for the same reason, I'm not all that upset if Wright makes some comments about white people.
- stackolee, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Uhm... How many candidates accept endorsements from Pat Robertson? How many were buddy buddy with Jerry Falwell? Both of whom said America deserved the attacks of 9/11 due to the liberal leanings of our society...
- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -2/+36"the media still wants Obama to be the nominee — and that has an impact every day."
Probably the most honest thing Halperin's ever written... - jzuska, on 03/22/2008, -37/+2"the media still wants Obama to be the nominee — and that has an impact every day."
oh like the author.......
Obama is such a racist. The people will see, and we will have McCain in the end muahahahaha- dn11, on 03/22/2008, -1/+18He's a racist against himself and his upbringing? Even though his black father left him at the age of two and his white family sacrificed to raise him right, he is a racist? You've got some explaining to do.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1"He's a racist against himself and his upbringing?"
While I don't believe that in Obama's case, don't dismiss the idea out of hand. There are many self-hating people in this world. Think about all the gay Republicans, e.g. Senator Craig, who voted for anti-gay legislation yet are themselves gay...- dn11, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5Yeah, but those gay Republicans go around uttering homophobic remarks all the time and invoking the wrath of god. If you knew anything about Obama's life you would know how ludicrous the whole notion is. Growing up, going to college, going to Harvard - most of his closest friends and colleagues were white. Many of those people are now part of his campaign and are his advisers. There is 0 evidence that Obama is a racist.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1"He's a racist against himself and his upbringing?"
- peticsu, on 03/22/2008, -0/+11I hope your in shape to go to war then...
the ground forces are stretched thin and Iran is next on the hawks agenda...- PlayRadioPlay, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3I think everyone that votes for McCain should have to go to war. They think the war is right, they should fight it.
- imgstacke, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1I don't think most will have a choice, if McCain wins we will almost CERTAINLY go to war with Iran. And then the entire region will erupt into a regional theater. In that instance McCain would call for the reinstatement of the draft.
- PlayRadioPlay, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3I think everyone that votes for McCain should have to go to war. They think the war is right, they should fight it.
- tomvale13, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1holy crap, you're retarded.
- dn11, on 03/22/2008, -1/+18He's a racist against himself and his upbringing? Even though his black father left him at the age of two and his white family sacrificed to raise him right, he is a racist? You've got some explaining to do.
- NelsonR, on 03/22/2008, -3/+14If this charade continues it will not be Hillary's fault for losing to a Republican and a continuation of our war tactics. It will be the super delegates fault.for not ending this now and pledging for Obama who has already won the popular and delegate vote. Hillary and Bill could care less about America or the Democratic party the egotistical giants. Bill's comment yesterday saying Hillary and McCain loved America and would be great candidates and then omitting Obama prove that point emphatically. Get rid of the duo, Hillary and Bill.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -3/+4"Bill's comment yesterday saying Hillary and McCain loved America and would be great candidates and then omitting Obama prove that point emphatically."
Didn't prove that at all. They build up McCain to make him seem more formidable, someone that Obama cannot beat.
"for not ending this now and pledging for Obama who has already won the popular and delegate vote."
Well *****, with that logic the Patriots would have won the SuperBowl. There's a reason you play the game (or hold the vote), sometimes things don't turn out the way people expect.- rsh28630, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5The math is compelling however and Hillary can't win without alienating a very large group of voters. That later fact assures the Republicans another four years in power. I prefer to believe the media is spinning a story to generate revenue rather than because they actually believe she has a chance.
But what do I know since voter preference has been thwarted in the last two Presidential elections. One has to be extremely naive not to understand there were too many odd circumstances in the Florida and Ohio ballot counts to accept the 2000 and 2004 results as legitimate. Lest we forget, factions of the Democratic Party are also adept at manipulating vote tally as JFK's Cook County Illinois victory proved... along with every race LBJ ever ran. - Fafnir43, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7"They build (sic) up McCain to make him seem more formidable, someone that Obama cannot beat."
Um... Exactly. This is the sort of behaviour that ***** your party over. She is directly and intentionally sabotaging Obama's electability. This is not the behaviour of someone who wants their party to win at all costs - it's the behaviour of someone who wants power at all costs.- unmarked, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1two words: scorched earth
- rsh28630, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5The math is compelling however and Hillary can't win without alienating a very large group of voters. That later fact assures the Republicans another four years in power. I prefer to believe the media is spinning a story to generate revenue rather than because they actually believe she has a chance.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 03/22/2008, -3/+4"Bill's comment yesterday saying Hillary and McCain loved America and would be great candidates and then omitting Obama prove that point emphatically."
- zer0ized, on 03/22/2008, -3/+12It really is enough. She can't win in terms of elected delegates, and I think she is really hurting the party's chances of winning in the general election. While it's hard to believe that there could still be people out there who think the republicans have got it right, it's scary to hear how polls that weeks ago were predicting wins for Clinton or Obama over McCain have changed to McCain getting closer or winning. I think this whole thing is incredibly divisive. It's time for Senator Clinton to see how unlikely her chances of winning are and to do what is best for the party.
- bond1963, on 03/22/2008, -1/+0Can Obama win them if she doesn't step down?
- theviceroy, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2yes.
- bond1963, on 03/22/2008, -1/+0Can Obama win them if she doesn't step down?
- dxgg, on 03/22/2008, -5/+31She's an arrogant, controlling, abusive woman.
- imgstacke, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Bill, is that you?
- dxgg, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1That depends on how you define the word "you".
- imgstacke, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Bill, is that you?
- JR__, on 03/22/2008, -2/+20I watched the speech reverend Wright gave and never understood the controversy. Something about the "chickens coming home to rest" is what offended some people. Basically, reverend Wright was just using that as a metaphor for karma. I saw nothing racist about it.
- hpymondays, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6What he says about America's foreign policy actually makes sense and Ron Paul said the same thing in different words. The problem starts where he starts blaming white people for it, including those crazy conspiracy theories about the CIA putting drugs and Aids in inner cities to destroy black communities.
- retr0grade, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1it's well documented that the CIA was importing and selling crack in US cities in the 80s. Thanks to George HW Bush, who never saw a scam he didn't want to take a cut of.
- dn11, on 03/22/2008, -0/+10he was quoting a white Ambassador with that "chickens coming home to roost" remark
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/meet-the- ...- easy4lif, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6now all you have to do is get the mainstream media to pick that up. Hufington post articles on Obama are like Appleinsider rumors, they speak to the target audenice (less then 3%) but no one really gives a ***** till it ends up coming coming out in the mainstream media.
Everyone has a TV, not everyone has a computer- dn11, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Hey believe me, I know. I've spammed CNN and MSNBC about it, but they seem to have decided on the "storyline" they want to tell and I have yet to see any hint that they might want reexamine their incompetent reporting on Rev. Wright.
- unmarked, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3sadly, the distorted clips make for better "TV" than the actual facts. To really show it in context takes 8 minutes or so, and TV segments are 6-minutes segments and most people's attention span are gone after 1 minute or so. It is why I started watching PBS news again.
- easy4lif, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6now all you have to do is get the mainstream media to pick that up. Hufington post articles on Obama are like Appleinsider rumors, they speak to the target audenice (less then 3%) but no one really gives a ***** till it ends up coming coming out in the mainstream media.
- retr0grade, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Yeah, wouldn't that have to be "fried chicken and watermelons coming home to roost" or something? I mean seriously- what's so offensive about speaking truth to power, unless you happen to be one of the powerful and in the business of telling lies?
- wetnap, on 04/12/2008, -0/+0you don't understand the controversy because its been whitewashed by the liberal media. i know only conservatives use that term normally, but the more fawning and apologist the press becomes with obama the more it seems appropriate these days. reverend wright is known to have given an award in his name to the antisemitic bigot lewis farrakhan, and described the man as a honest man of integrity. thats who we are dealing with. the equivalent would be if Hilary had a paster who gave the grand dragon of the kkk an award and called him a great and honest man. you wouldn't blink an eye before calling her judgment fatally flawed for staying with such a hideous monster for 20 years let alone call him a spiritual adviser. obama seems to have no judgment or is amoral or in secret agreement. he stayed with him until it was politically inconvenient. he denie
- hpymondays, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6What he says about America's foreign policy actually makes sense and Ron Paul said the same thing in different words. The problem starts where he starts blaming white people for it, including those crazy conspiracy theories about the CIA putting drugs and Aids in inner cities to destroy black communities.
