digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at economist.com —

'The Economist' Scores the Debate for Obama!

economist.com — IT HARDLY seems possible, but there have been no fewer than 20 televised debates in the long struggle to settle the Democratic nomination. The latest was in Cleveland, Ohio, on Tuesday February 26th. For Hillary Clinton it represented a final chance to unsettle Barack Obama ahead of the next round of primaries, and she failed.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • gbarberi, on 02/28/2008, -9/+26"And there are reports of unprecedented levels of early voting (Texas allows voters two weeks to cast their ballots) in strongly Republican areas but for the Democratic primary. Is this because these voters, who can choose which primary they vote in, are choosing to ventilate their dislike of Mrs Clinton? It's possible." -- This practice needs to stop. I've heard of a few instances in which this has been to sabotage the Democratic party's chances of winning elections.
    • canewediggit, on 02/28/2008, -2/+18funny thing is that strategy may bite them in the ass. saw a couple of talking heads yesterday discussing how the tx gop was urging people to vote obama b/c they thought he would be a better match-up for them in the general. but they put that word out well before the latest poll results came out showing barack would give mccain a beat down while hillary would probably lose.

      i don't think you should ever stop anyone from voting or disallow a R or I from taking part in a D primary ( as an I that would mean i couldn't vote for obama) but the practice should be shunned.
      • ianam, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6Obama has polled better than Clinton against McCain since forever. Before Edwards dropped out, he did the best against McCain.
    • jforjools, on 02/28/2008, -0/+31I wouldn't get too worked up over the voting that crosses party lines. I live in a township that is heavily republican--and have only one neighbor who is liberal. We both consider ourselves liberal independents, which means we tend to the blue side of the ballot more than the red.

      The funny thing is that when McCain was first starting to pull out into the front, all my neighbors were up in arms cuz Rush L and others were saying that McCain was only winning cuz of all the Dems crossing party lines to vote for him. They truly believed that Democrats were opting out of the very contested Hillary/Obama/Edwards race in order to mess with the Republican nominee. Although this may have happened here and there, this is definitely not the reason McCain was taking the lead.

      Cross-party-voting is just part of the process. --And it is always feared by someone who thinks it won't benefit them. And it often isn't as big of a deal as some would think.

      And if cross-party-voting is a big deal at this point, it just hints at the Republican turnout we'll see if HRC gets the nomination. They'll turn out in droves to vote against her, even if they don't like McCain.


      In the meantime, I'm happy that, as an independent, I can engage when ever I like, depending on the issues and on the candidates. How democratic is that, after all?
      • macweirdo42, on 02/28/2008, -7/+3OMG, that's too funny, considering the fact that of all the candidates, McCain has the best chance at pulling non-Republican votes. Granted, things are looking pretty grim, even for him, but still, the thought that of all the candidates, McCain is the one that Dems WANT to run against is hilarious!
        • akatsuki, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Well, if people were reasonable and the Democratic contest was already decided, you might vote for McCain as a Dem because he would be infinitely better as president than a theocratic Huckabee. But of course, not a single Dem would waste a vote on the Republican nom when the Dem race is so tight.
          • Tiak, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2The point is that Huckabee is unelectable and always has been... Obama was polling as having 23 points at him in the general election... And this was when Obama was less popular.
    • gbarberi, on 02/28/2008, -2/+10@both
      I'm not going to entirely dismiss the practice, but I'll still be cautious about the intentions of "crossover voters." Williams' campaign in Georgia had been sabotaged by Republicans not too long ago (she has since gotten her seat back through election), not because they wanted her seat, but because they simply wanted her out. There was evidence they had encouraged Republicans to vote for her opponent (significant increase in number of "crossover voters" that year including literature and possible phone calls encouraging votes). and that the opponent was tied to the GOP (Republican funding to the campaign). I'd love to provide some background literature on this, but I can't seem to find any online.

      For the record, I have nothing against and Independent voting in either or both primaries. Or, a Republican/Democrat voting in the other parties primary provided the voter's intentions are well. If a voter wants to vote for a candidate in another party's primary because they believe that candidate is a good choice, then I have no problem. If they're doing it with the intention of sabotage and/or to force a win for a candidate that they believe will lose, then I find this unethical.
    • ProfessorSYM, on 02/28/2008, -1/+18If they wanted to sabotage the chances of the Democrats in the general, they would be voting for Hillary Clinton.
    • Schul983, on 02/28/2008, -3/+4I honestly don't believe that hundreds of thousands of people are even that intelligent to do that.
      • scm21st, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I doubt it as well; but the person in line in front of me yesterday here in Austin was doing just that.
    • carletonknight, on 02/28/2008, -4/+5I live in Houston, Texas, and I know more Republicans voting for Hillary than John McCain - all of whom have told me that they hope Hillary gets the nomination so McCain can win the general election.
      • Gerz1219, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3If people are actually doing this, then it should be reflected in the polls, which still show Hillary losing. Unless there are a lot of very childish voters who are lying to pollsters and then secretly voting for a candidate they hate, so that a candidate they regard with ambivalence will win the general election. I'm not going to deny that there are people in this country who would behave like this, but I doubt they are numerous enough to affect the election.
        • Tiak, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1....It should show in the polls of "Likely Democratic voters"?... Really?...

          Pollsters are currently mostly uninterested in Republican opinions, as their nominee is already set, while they're very interested in Democratic opinions... They aren't calling everyone.
          • Gerz1219, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1That's not how the polls work. Pollsters try to find likely voters. So if they call a Republican, they ask them party affiliation, then they determine the likelihood of them voting, then they ask them who they plan to vote for. If the Republican says they are likely to vote for Hillary Clinton, that gets recorded. Pollsters are well aware that Texas has an open primary, and they don't hang up the phone when they get a Republican on the line.

            To suggest that this Republicans-for-Hillary subversion will lead to an unexpected Hillary win is to suggest that tens of thousands of people, en masse, have decided to lie to pollsters, and then vote for Hillary. Again, *some* people might well be doing this, but most people have something better to do with their time.
      • JSVH, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I have heard of people doing this too. They want to vote for Hilliary so the Republican nominee will be more likely to win.
    • RSyb, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11I live in IL and am a lifelong Republican. I "crossed over" and voted for Obama for three reasons.

      1. A vote against Clinton.
      2. To register my discontent with my party's choices.
      3. Honestly, I find Obama's positiveness to be what the US needs now.
    • davidm89, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I doubt this cross-party sabotage is really happening. John McCain (or anyone in the GOP for that matter) doesn't want to run against Obama in the general.
  • Deodrus, on 02/28/2008, -5/+36She lost that debate bad. The only part where she looked good was at the end, and even then it was obvious that it was a well-practiced delivery.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/28/2008, -15/+3No matter how much I'm enjoying Obama, a fellow black man, trouncing Hillary like no one else could have hoped to do, and despite the great big smirk that grows on my face as I do my daily research of African news of the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT OF THE U.S., I will NOT convert from Ron Paul. But damnit, what a complete badass. Good Luck Obama. I wish you actually knew what Ron Paul knows.

      DIGG ME DOWN, YA BASTIDS!
      • pintomp3, on 02/28/2008, -2/+15you want obama to think evolution is "just a theory"?
        • nirav72, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6Zing!
        • barnett25, on 02/28/2008, -3/+2Isn't it?
          (It is a theory I believe to be true, but I thought it was still technically a theory)
          • rumorsofdemise, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4a law states that something happens, a theory states why. it doesn't mean "guess".
          • Tiak, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2In the same way that atomic theory is just a theory, yes.
          • MacEnvy, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1It's a "theory", but it's not "just a theory". It's a connotative difference.
  • pedo, on 02/28/2008, -3/+48i was a little confused when she complained about being asked the first question. even if she had a problem with it, why would she complain about it? it was tactically stupid.

    and what was up with russert badgering obama over the farrakhan endorsement? he denounced it. wasn't that enough??? geez..
    • ProfessorSYM, on 02/28/2008, -2/+41She is trying to perpetuate the idea that the reason she has lost the last 11 contests to Barack is because the media is unfair to her. She apparently never considered that perhaps she is giving them more to hold her accountable for, in terms of mudslinging, vague accusations, and questionable behavior on the campaign trail.

      For someone who claims to be a "fighter", she sure sends a mixed message in trying to paint herself as a "victim" of the media.
      • dagamer34, on 02/28/2008, -5/+1Uhh... she was the front-runner back then. And now... she's not.
    • RRJackson, on 02/28/2008, -7/+3Her response lacked poise, but her point was valid. The format allowed Obama to review her answer and modify his own response to the form of a rebuttal.
      • pedo, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2i agree that her point was valid. but even if it was valid, she shouldn't have said it. it made her look bad.
        • RRJackson, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2Sure. Tactically it was a blunder. She has been getting hosed from time to time by the format, though. The debates are never on a completely level playing field. Her husband had the benefit of a slow zoom that his opponents didn't get in one of the '92 debates. I remember thinking at the time that it helped give his words a sense of urgency, but it was kind of a subtle way to hose the other candidates. Of course, if Perot had stopped the debate and said, "Now just a gall-danged minute here!" he'd have seemed like a twit. These just aren't the kind of things anyone can address on-stage during a debate without looking like a Niedermayer.
      • MacEnvy, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2Her point was NOT valid. She's been asked the first question at 6 of the last 10 debates - hardly a bias. Furthermore, as someone who has prepared candidates for debates back when I was running campaigns, you WANT to get the first question. It allows you to frame the debate and set the tone of the argument in your favor. Is also allows you to put your opponent on the defensive which is a place you rarely want to be.

        So in other words, it was a failed attempt at trying to garner sympathy from voters over an issue that actually gave her an *advantage*. Stupid, stupid move, Senator Clinton.
        • RRJackson, on 02/28/2008, -1/+2You're 25. So "back when I was running campaigns" was what, when you were 18? Were these campaigns in high school, by any chance? Heh...more Obama smear campaigning.

          The questions being asked were pointed and in some cases obviously meant to put Senator Clinton on the defensive. For instance, the first question was about the photo of Obama in "native garb" and whether Clinton knew about it or was responsible for it. So it's not like she was complaining that someone tossed out a NAFTA question and she had to answer it first.

          Heh..."back when I was running campaigns..."
          • MacEnvy, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2No, it was 2 years ago in the 2004 cycle, when I was the campaign manager for a federal campaign and assisted on several state capaigns. But sure, go ahead and act like you know me.
          • MacEnvy, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2And by "2004", I mean "2006". 2004 I only worked in state and county campaigns, 2006 was federal and state. Dammit. You get the point.
          • RRJackson, on 02/28/2008, -2/+2Yes, I get the point. People often stumble when caught in lies. Most "campaign managers" know better than to bolster their point with an argumentum ad verecundiam in the first place.
    • pintomp3, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5she was trying to infer that the media is biased against her, and cited SNL to prove her point. the farrakhan stuff was pointless, but i guess obama had to profess his love for israel or risk being torpedoes by AIPAC.
    • dinot, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3about the Farrakhan endorsement: did anyone notice how she cut in and was like "ME TOO! I LOVE JOOS MORE THAN OBAMA!!!!!" Way to be presidential there, Hillary.
  • chiefbttlwshr, on 02/28/2008, -11/+28Dug just because it is the economist.
    That is the best, most news packed, no opinion place to go.
    It's expensive but I recommend a subscription for everyone.
    (No, don't own stock).
    • pedo, on 02/28/2008, -2/+25i wouldn't call it "no opinion"

      this link, in case you didn't notice, is an opinion.
      • chiefbttlwshr, on 02/28/2008, -6/+2fair enough.
        let me say it this way.
        much less opinion than most US publications and news broadcasts.
        (and yes am American)
        By the way are you pedo, like the spanish word for fart?
        • unearth, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3I'm guessing more like the bear.
        • jmpeagle, on 02/28/2008, -1/+4they quote themselves a lot as being drawn to the American Western style of conservatism (as opposed to the moralistic southern style)...although they are typically more pro-environment and pro-gun control.

          It is very comprehensive and given most media's limited coverage of anything outside of N. America, Western Europe, Iraq, and China, it's a breath of fresh air. They have had excellent coverage of the Kenyan election disaster, the Northern Rock bank run in Britain (first in over 140 years), Ukraine's soap opera like political elections since the Orange revolution etc....

          They also publish all their mistakes in previous issues in following issues and also allow countries, world leaders, businesses, etc... to write a rebuttal letter and have it published.
    • gypsi, on 02/28/2008, -3/+24the economist is the greatest news publication
      • ZenMojo, on 02/28/2008, -4/+1Except for that lie they have in this article about Obama saying he would perform air strikes on Pakistan -- never happened -- and the noticeable lack of a single actual quote. Consider me skeptical.
    • JCapital, on 02/28/2008, -4/+1it is the best newspaper!
      • trotskyist, on 02/28/2008, -3/+2It's a magazine...
        • gypsi, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5a lot of people call it a newspaper, including the economist themselves. i'll be damned if i can tell it from a magazine *visually*, but there you go
    • newyawker, on 02/28/2008, -3/+9The Economist is the best news magazine in the world. Hands down.
    • jcm267, on 02/28/2008, -4/+9The Economist is a very opinionated paper, and they don't hide it. I'm assuming that the people who are digging you up have never read The Economist.
      • turdblossom1, on 02/28/2008, -6/+1and an incredibly conservative biased one to boot
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6incredibly conservative? Most of it is academic economics (aka not warped to manipulate the masses) with some social liberalism.... but I'm cool with that, because they say those positions up front, they don't try to pretend their are 100% neutral like most other news source.

          Some quick examples that come to mind with recent reading are: pro gun control, pro global warming (as in it's proven man-made).

          If you think it's super conservative you should read it more often and replace your definition of moderate with theirs.
      • crocodilexp, on 02/28/2008, -0/+9Dugg you up, since The Economist does indeed, present strong, well-reasoned opinions and are not afraid to make judgment calls on sensitive matters (which do turn out to be wrong sometimes -- they do revise their opinion and publish corrections of wrong assessments). However, the quality of articles is very high, and they always try to:
        * Consider all relevant facts in depth
        * Never downplay the items that don't agree with their general opinion, but discuss them and list them as possible caveats.
        * Not construct strawman arguments or seek balance for the sake of balance. some publications consider the arguments countering their opinion just for political correctness sake, and do a shoddy job covering it.
        * They provide fairly balanced global coverage, and don't just parrot the popular stories (think irrelevant sex/crime scandals).
        In conclusion, I still think The Economist is the best mainstream new publication out there, partially because they are opinionated. It is informative, even (or perhaps especially so) when I disagree with their opinons.
    • sonnybobiche, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2You know, The Economist supported the invasion of Iraq. Just goes to show you... even the representatives of the extreme center can be wrong sometimes.
  • haroonm, on 02/28/2008, -12/+2Jes we can!
    http://digg.com/comedy/Hilarious_Jes_We_Can
  • formerteenager, on 02/28/2008, -4/+20game over for hillary.
  • wilhoitm, on 02/28/2008, -20/+6Obamabots Unite!
  • maximize, on 02/28/2008, -4/+26She keeps making mistake after mistake. And I don't feel bad for her.
    • nirav72, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5Its called "Hubris". From day one, Hillary projected the idea that the Oval office was hers.
    • ronaldinho, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1It should be that way. Whoever makes the best decisions and the fewest mistakes should be the one at the White House. No need to feel bad for anyone. Hillary simply messed up, that's all (and I'm not even anti-Hillary). Obama simply proved to me that he's calmer and more poised, not to mention that his policies are sounder than Hillary's.
  • jimfin25, on 02/28/2008, -5/+11Hillary can hope for change, right?
  • cr4ft, on 02/28/2008, -11/+2OK, we get it! You think you're better than the other person. Same debates, same questions, same boring *****.

    What they need is a debate hosted by a pissed-off citizen representing the American people, and asking tough questions that will piss the candidates off, THEN we'll see how they handle being in the line of fire.
    • Thumper13, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3I think Obama could handle it.
      Hillary would complain about having to talk to a real person, and about the format, and not having a pillow......
  • UltramegaOK, on 02/28/2008, -1/+49The saddest part of last nights "debate" was when she mentioned the SNL skit. Maybe she was hoping for a misty-eyed New Hampshire reaction? It bombed...badly. One of the most awkward things I've seen her say yet.

    Obama is always poised and collected. He's ready to lead our country.
  • DjViral, on 02/28/2008, -27/+6http://www.knowbeforeyouvote.com/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVKSfwfy0h8

    hey Obamabots. wake the ***** up
    • maximize, on 02/28/2008, -2/+10Give it up. I dugg you down.
    • jmpeagle, on 02/28/2008, -2/+16hey dumbass, it is statistically impossible for Ron Paul to get the GOP nomination
      • gypsi, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4it's statistically impossible for ron paul to trail mccain by less than 1000 delegates
        • jmpeagle, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5there are 903 uncommitted delegates, McCain has 954, Paul has 17.

          17+ 903 < 954.

          That is the best case scenarion to. Most likely McCain will win quite a few in not the vast majority of the remaining delegates.
      • dagamer34, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6ONly reason ROn Paul probably ever ran is because he got more attention for his policies and views running for President than he ever did while he was in Congress. Sad, but true.

        Then again, I don't think you should really use the race for such a cause. Starts cluttering up the field with people who shouldn't even think of running (Looking at you Guiliani).
    • arijfroo, on 02/28/2008, -3/+6Whoa!!! Ok, everybody vote for Ron Paul!!!

      Sorry bro, but it's over. Obama's the best we got. Also, his personal positions may not always be the same as his actual beliefs. He says what it takes to get elected. And yes, the ends justify the means.
    • cr4ft, on 02/28/2008, -1/+8Looks like a completely unbiased representation of all the candidates...
      oh wait!
    • buhbyebot, on 02/28/2008, -2/+6There, there little Dj, ((pats head)) it's going to be ok. We can hold our own little election and if you want Ron Paul to win, we'll let him win ok? Now finish your vege's like a good little conservative. You want to grow up big and strong right? You know, you can't have your pudding unless you eat your BEANS!!! ... lead into the WALL - Pink Floyd.... ))))....))))....))))
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_bvT-DGcWw

      Later punk
      • DjViral, on 02/28/2008, -4/+1lol what a bad song. haha conservative, as if.
        didn't it make sense to get ron elected, i mean his views do only make sense for the freedom of all of us. i dont want no ***** NAU. (not in america). maybe the right thing to do would of been to grow up and vote right, so people could be lookign at someone with some real policies to back up the "song and dance". so sad. baaah?
    • cadmiumpaint, on 02/28/2008, -2/+8buried as Ron Paul spam.
    • orca94, on 02/28/2008, -2/+13I swear to god if I see that godman "knowbeforeyouvote" spam site again I'm going to find some way to fling feces at people over the internet.
      • Anzat, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4I wish I could digg that comment up to the top of the front page permanently.
    • dustinhansen, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Drop your cynicism for just a moment and take a step back. You'll see this is the best legitimate candidate we've had in ages.
  • HotDogBun, on 02/28/2008, -9/+24Buahahahaha Hillary is going to lose!!! I wish i could meet her in person and laugh in her pompous, plastic face as she concedes. I WILL FEAST ON THE SWEET MILK OF YOUR TEARS HILLARY!!!
    • justintsmith, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7That's one of the most awkward lines Ive read on a digg comment
    • Filipp0, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1When I read "I WILL FEAST ON THE SWEET MILK OF YOUR T" my eyes popped out and now i'm blind. Thanks, *****.

      /s
      • MacEnvy, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Good thing you put that /s in there, or I would have been worried about whether or not you would regain your vision.
  • nardo510, on 02/28/2008, -2/+28I hope Obama wins..
  • icemanxp, on 02/28/2008, -13/+3Pull out of NAFTA? Suggestion: don't piss off the Canadians, they could hurt the US more than you think in a trade war.
    • buhbyebot, on 02/28/2008, -4/+0:middle finger: < I hate when it does that.

      my captcha was: ReferR
    • JCapital, on 02/28/2008, -4/+2Agreed. It is foolish to cancel a trade agreement. The Economist was surprised at this.
    • MutatedNantuko, on 02/28/2008, -1/+1I think the threat of the US canceling the agreement would have both Canada and Mexico crapping their pants. But more realistically, congress would never in their right mind pass a bill that jeopardizes NAFTA.
    • belleaux, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1***** Canada
    • senatorpjt, on 02/28/2008, -3/+2Why not? Pulling out of NAFTA doesn't mean we'd stop trading with Canada. Obviously, it has more to do with Mexico.
  • papaslurp, on 02/28/2008, -2/+16I'm pleased as hell to see praise in one of my favorite magazines.

    Magazines about free-market economics and also the entire world FTW
    • turdblossom1, on 02/28/2008, -6/+0***** off economist-bot
    • SovereignGFC, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3I'm not a free-market fanatic, but I definitely think the Economist is a solid publication.
  • merlinxlr, on 02/28/2008, -10/+4Digg this.
  • bizkit00, on 02/28/2008, -5/+1is the video online?
  • simulastral, on 02/28/2008, -4/+9GObama!
  • cadmiumpaint, on 02/28/2008, -3/+22Hillary is starting to really look desperate. I want a strong leader for President...not a little girl who whines "boys don't play fair!!!! boooooohooooooo"
    • buhbyebot, on 02/28/2008, -8/+3At first I thought you were going to call Hillary a BITCH, because some people in these forums hate it when people call her a BITCH. I've stopped posting that I think she's a BITCH. You won't ever see me posting that I think she's a BITCH, so I'm glad you avoided stooping so low as to calling her a BITCH, instead you took the high road and I commend you for not calling her a BITCH.
  • BlazinEurasian, on 02/28/2008, -6/+12The world needs more economists in politics.
    • ZenMojo, on 02/28/2008, -2/+12The world needs less economists, period. Have you listened to one of those douchebags actually try to get through an ethics class? It's like watching a cat learn how to dance.
      • elasticsoul, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Seconded. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and for economists, everything and everyone has a price - and there is a financial calculus to every decision. Economists have drunk their own Kool-aid. The majority will tell you that a growth economy is the only economy, despite the rather obvious limits imposed by a planet that is fixed in size. Few have the vision to think about how a sustainable economy might look. (I recommend Paul Hawken's books for that, including Natural Capitalism and The Ecology of Commerce.)
    • jmpeagle, on 02/28/2008, -2/+5i'd settle for a fiscal conservative...kind of hard to find one these days though
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1Nice, I knew someone else was out there!
    • thehappyhobo, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Like when Argentina followed the IMF's recommendations to the letter and collapsed? Economists don't have a monopoly on wisdom.
  • KillerStone, on 02/28/2008, -1/+16Good article! Its nice to see something that isn't super Obama supportive, moderation and balance make for a far better argument than blatant candidate whoring.
  • FaithclubDotNet, on 02/28/2008, -9/+2My friend is always so pissed off at the government for giving grant money to corporations that build industries overseas and that NAFTA pissed him off. Now that Obama said that he is going to stop this practice and Obama criticizes NAFTA. So my friend told me now he's willing to vote for Obama.

    The way I look at it is,"If we're going to win the war on terror, we need to be in it for the long haul." It was once said,"Gold wins wars." In Iraq, it is debatable that we're accomplishing anything, but we did stay the full term when Bush was in office. That proves we won't pull a Somolia and leave every battlefield the instant that terrorists show us blood. So I think we got the point across that our democracy isn't weak for a sustained war. So we're losing money by being in Iraq. If we pull out and conserve some money, we may be better off economically down the road if we need military action. That is how I see it.

    Of course the idea that gold wins wars was around before WMD, so I'm not sure how well it holds up when confronted with the need to do a preemptive strike. And is it even possible to stop nuclear terrorism, or is it inevitable?
    • ZenMojo, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3Nuclear terrorism is a possibility, but the "football nuke" and "dirty bomb" myths has been debunked so many times this year that we really need to think of a new meme to represent it.
    • StrykeBlade, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0agreed
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3"...with the need to do a preemptive strike."
      No, there never was and never will be a need for a "preemptive strike." "Preemptive strike" is a politically correct and otherwise nice way of saying "aggressive military action." Any leader who would continue to propagate such miserable foreign policy needn't apply. They won't win, and they shouldn't. Bush Co. and the mess they've made for us are so massive that we are probably only now beginning to understand how greatly they've damaged this country globally, and it's a state of affairs that will only truly come into focus in hindsight through the eyes of a new and honest leader.

      Don't fool yourself that Iraq proved anything other than that America is easy to bait. Osama Bin Laden said it himself. He sought out to pull the US to the middle east and destroy our international credibility, and it worked thanks to a hot headed president and a rubber stamp congress. Osama struck the US on 9/11, but where he really succeeded was in triggering the events of the 7 years that followed.
  • buhbyebot, on 02/28/2008, -12/+0I'm very happy that nobody has yet to call her a BITCH.

    At first I thought when I came in this thread that someone was going to call Hillary a BITCH, because some people in these forums hate it when people call her a BITCH. I've stopped posting that I think she's a BITCH. You won't ever see me posting that I think she's a BITCH, so I'm glad it's been avoided, you know, stooping so low as to calling her a BITCH, instead everyone took the high road and I commend you all for not calling her a BITCH.

    Thank You.
    Obama 2008!
    • StrykeBlade, on 02/28/2008, -1/+0She's a Bitchity Bitch Bitch full of Bitchery!
  • smellytim, on 02/28/2008, -8/+3when i first read the title to this story i thought it was about that kickass lost from a few weeks back when sayid was kick ***** ass. lost and obama in 08!
  • JCapital, on 02/28/2008, -8/+1Also dugg since the Economist is the greatest news publication ever.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    JUST LOOK at this: http://ads.economist.com/the-economist/testimonial ...
  • mess4u, on 02/28/2008, -7/+1Both have different quality. and America does not effect by any name.
  • whatthefu, on 02/28/2008, -12/+4The media is giving a ton of favor to Barack Obama, and Hillary no longer stands a chance. There's no way she can fight it.
    • nirav72, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6Boo-*****-hoo. Hillary had a free ride in the media since she became a senator. How she was the sure bet for the whitehouse in 2008. ***** her and the horse she rode in on. Good riddance!! Let her go down in flames.
    • DavidtheDuke, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1I don't think Obama's gonna have it easy after the nomination. I can just SEE them showing every chance how black he is (he's actually half-white).
    • ronaldinho, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Don't even give me that *****. If you should complain about the media ***** up this election, talk about the likes of Kucinich, Gravel, and Ron Paul. Hillary? She's got a ton of coverage, and if her press is negative, it's probably because SHE ***** things up, not the media. I know the media is a ***** bitch, but don't always blame them just because they are such handy targets. And there is reason Obama has all the momentum and positive press: he's GOOD
  • Scrutinize, on 02/28/2008, -7/+5"On substance, the two candidates fought each other pretty much to a draw" - from article
    This was not *called* for Obama...
    The Economist writes that a DRAW suited him...
    (misleading digg story title)
    • LBobRife, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1Imagine my surprise.
      • Ridonkulus, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2"Overall, however, Mr Obama came out of it better. He seemed calm, reasonable and at ease while Mrs Clinton seemed tense and combative, at one point complaining at being asked to reply to too many questions first. He seemed, in fact, more presidential. And besides, given his commanding position, a draw is all that Mr Obama needed."

        RTFA before you post, please. They say numerous times that Obama came out on top, but all he needed was a draw to maintain his lead in the polls going into mini-super tuesday.

        Edit: meant to reply to Scrutinize.
  • TaintedTux, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3I'm a little confused as to why she brought her begin asked more questions first. It was stupid. Number one if you don't mind and are happy to answer first as you say, why are you bringing it up? Do you think that makes you better? Your idiocy continues to amaze me. It was completely stupid to bring that up...period.

    As far as the cross party voting, it doesn't worry me too much. I think Hillary will either lose or narrowly win Texas. She's not going to take by a large enough margin to really make the difference here.

    There are a few questions I would like Hillary Clinton to be the first (and really the only) candidate to answer?
    Have you no shame?
    Do you realize you are going to destroy your career if you don't change something fast?
    Why don't you quit?
    and...
    Do you enjoy earning the hatred of millions of Americans?
  • MikeFallopian, on 02/28/2008, -10/+1Pull out of NAFTA? *facepalm*
    • turdblossom1, on 02/28/2008, -1/+8obviously you can't comprehend english. obama clearly stated he was pro-free trade, but will renegotiate nafta with workers and environmental protections.

      facepalm.jpg
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/28/2008, -5/+1obviously you can recognize oxymoronic statements form politicians.
    • ronaldinho, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1No, both favored re-structuring, which I agree with. Read up on their policies, you will actually realize Hillary is not the villain that everyone made her to be on Digg, and that Obama's policies and experience are actually enough for him to be our president
  • turdblossom1, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1it would help Clinton a whole lot if she wasnt such an awful liar and hypocrite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEOjttmqIrc
  • turdblossom1, on 02/28/2008, -9/+0all you Economist bots stop spamming digg with your cheerleader comments.
  • montereymedia, on 02/28/2008, -12/+2Both nominees are CFR trash who have horrible voting records [actually READ the bills that passed] and who surround themselves with some of the most corrupt advisors alive. Just because they pad their records with nice things before the election doesn't make all the horrible ***** they voted for dissapear. Also, Obama is a new face in politics. OF COURSE he wount have as many earmakrs as Hilary. They are trying to keep him as clean as they can right now so that people, Obamanauts, will vote for a prop-up candidate. So guess what, money comes form alot of places; just because the major media doesn't tell you where the funds are coming from, doesn't mean Obama isn't lying when he says he accepts no special interest money. I use research, real research...I don't look at one aspect of a huge campaign. Don't you know how many loopholes there are? I am tryng to infom and teach you something not because i hate Obama or because i hate Hilary....I teach because they have successfully distracted and divied the population by mentally throwing us into irrelevant arguements about two completely corrupted candidates in sheeps clothing. Well here is something relevant...

    Obama used campaign donations generated by PACs and lobbyists to bankroll the birth of his White House bid -- though he's banning that money for his presidential 2008 race, [Lynn Sweet, February 9, 2007, Chicago Sun-Times]. Obama's conversion to a laudable higher standard does not negate that money from sources he now disdains helped paved the way for his kickoff in Springfield [Illinois] on Saturday [February 10, 2007]. Obama has been raising campaign cash for two political pots -- Obama 2010 Inc., his Senate re-election committee, and the Hopefund, another war chest. Obama, until his recent conversion on the eve of his presidential run, took more than $1 million from political action committees. An examination of disbursements from the two funds reveals how Obama was able to use legal loopholes commonly used by other presidential contenders to pay for White House "testing-of-the-water" expenses. He also appointed Zbigniew Brzezinski as his foreign Policies Advisor. For those who don't actually research, he helped engineer the trilateral commission and created the Pakistan Carter administration fiasco that banded together a little group called...um.... AL QAEDA!!
    I can't fit all his scheming into one comment so please, do some research! This links to what i like to call "real research" and has alot of words in it so you might have to read. Sorry, but thats how research works!
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_ ...
    • OgonGuitarist, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2Actually, Zbigniew's son Mark was appointed as Obama's foreign policy adviser:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Brzezinski
    • olbap, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1And Obama is also a corporatist, said we should leave Iraq only to go ***** up the country of Afghanistan more, bomb Pakistan, re-invade Iraq if the "phantom menace" that is al-Qaeda resurfaces...

      Most likely, he'll be like Bill Clinton. Everyone will be in love with him but ignore all of the bad ***** he did like the don't ask, don't tell policy, the three-strikes law, the constant bombing of Iraq, and spending more on the war on drugs than both Bush/Reagan combined.

      Still, your post is arrogant. You sound like an *****. Barack will be our next president as long as he isn't assassinated. What are you going to do about it? Nothing. Good night.
    • 471776, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2When will you people actually go out and learn what CFR stands for? The Council on Foreign Relations. You guys repeatedly bandy about the letters "CFR" as if it actual means anything negative. It's about diplomacy, and educating people on US foreign policy.
  • Anzat, on 02/28/2008, -0/+13Everyone suggesting they tied because they fought to a "draw" on policy is missing the point. Those of us who care about policy differences already know them and are probably already decided. People just tuning in aren't policy wonks. Obama was calm, collected, positive, and presidential. Hillary was stunningly petty and petulant. Obama won dramatically.

    The arcane differences in similar policy plans that will change drastically as they go through Congress anyway are irrelevant, but the contrast in character was extremely clear and extremely favorable to Obama. He exuded level-headedness, common sense, and trustworthiness. That's what will win the people who are waiting until now to decide.
  • huszar02, on 02/28/2008, -3/+1The title is purposely misleading. Obama needed a draw, and that's what he got. He did not win the debate, as the submission implies.

    • akatsuki, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2It was a draw on policy, but Obama looked more presidential than Hillary, and that was a win for him.
      • Ridonkulus, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1"Overall, however, Mr Obama came out of it better. He seemed calm, reasonable and at ease while Mrs Clinton seemed tense and combative, at one point complaining at being asked to reply to too many questions first. He seemed, in fact, more presidential. And besides, given his commanding position, a draw is all that Mr Obama needed."
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/28/2008, -3/+4Digg could use way more economist articles to counter all the blog-o-spam.
  • Kugo, on 02/28/2008, -10/+1Inaccurate. Skewed by a bloody Obama maniac. Buried. HRS is still the leader in both polls. Thank goodness. I don't want an islamic president.
    • churrodoll, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5What the hell is that supposed to mean? When did religion have ANYTHING to do with how credible a nominee is? Yet, I think if we had a president who knew the islamic faith and professed to actually practicing it, the middle east—and the rest of the world—would look at us a little more respectfully, because we wouldn't have a good-ole gun-totin', hillbilly christian as a leader: we'd be proving that we're still open-minded, and that we picked him because he is the best candidate.

      Too bad you already seem to be lead astray by Bush's closed-minded regime and Clinton's fear mongering.
    • enderschaos, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Wow. Not only a blatant statement about religious intolerance, but completely unrelated. Obama has stated many times he's a Christian, and if your point is based of the "slander" image of him in a shawl, I hope you realize that was a ceremonious dress when he visited Kenya, the country his father is from.
  • Ne007, on 02/28/2008, -12/+3BURRIED! Obamatard spam.
    • ronaldinho, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3If you are going to type "buried", type it right. e.g. I BURIED you for your retardness
  • cgoodwin, on 02/28/2008, -0/+10"Mr Obama [was vulnerable] for his unwise threat to launch air attacks against al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan."

    I'm sorry, what was unwise? The tactic that killed the 3rd in command of al-Qaeda who was holed up in the mountains of Pakistan? The tactic that had been avoided for so long to appease pro-America puppet General Musharraf? I thought the economist was a credible publication with justified opinions, not unresearched ones.
    • dinot, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Also, notice how this tactic avoids a full scale invasion into a soveriegn country, and yet we still got who we were after? You can't use a canon to kill a mosquito, otherwise you end up wrecking everything along the way while still missing your target.

      Iraq on the other hand....
  • ChevyIIMan, on 02/28/2008, -8/+1And in the end it really doesnt matter, either one of them will drive this country into the ground and drive us further into debt.
    • Nanite, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5You are wrong, sir. If anything, they would both save us BILLIONS of dollars a year by ending this useless war. The old repub tactic of 'Them dems'll put you in the poorhouse!' are crusty old remnants of when they actually were the party of fiscal responsibility. Now they've blown all that. A vote for a republican is a vote for MORE government spending. There's no denying it, the proof is in what the repub leaders have been doing the last 8 years: bankrupting America in favor of the corporate elite.
      • ChevyIIMan, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1A vote for Dems is a vote for MORE government spending is what you should be saying. Open your eyes, if they are not spending money on the war it will still be leaving the country.

        Have you actually looked at Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) ? If passed The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. Really? $845 Billion on Foreign Aid? Well there goes your "stop the war surplus".

        “Eliminating global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges we face, with billions of people around the world forced to live on just dollars a day,” said Senator Obama. WHAT! What about American poverty? Please I know bush has done bad things, but hes a liberal. What we need is a true consertive running this country, and sadly thats not McCain either.
  • truebeautymag, on 02/28/2008, -9/+1Obama is not authentic. He is a politician just like the rest of them. He is no different. Why? He uses other people's words for his own. It does not matter if he was asked, advised, or coached to use it. He is just not like Martin Luther King, Jr. where all his words were very authentic and his own. No comparison at all. None. Sorry but it is the truth.
    • Nanite, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6Actually,that would still be your opinion, son. Don't push it as fact lest you look like a fool.
      • truebeautymag, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1There is something you still don't know that this 'son' knows. When you find out we'll see who the fool really is.
    • daveheinzel, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Obama is authentic. That's why so many people are supporting him. He has been honest about his voting record, he has not made "pie in the sky" promises, he has run a respectable campaign, and most of all, it has never been about "him" - it has been about America. Nothing he has said or done to date would suggest otherwise.
  • amightywind, on 02/28/2008, -13/+2What debate? They asked no questions about Iraq, terror, or the economy. You win by saying nothing? Hussein Obama is a sleaze. The Economist has declined greatly in the past few years, enthusiastically embracing that most tempting liberal tar baby, global warming.
    • TTURabble, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4wow
    • elint6, on 02/28/2008, -2/+7Global warming is a liberal tar-baby? Wow. So, let's see, just recently, the stupidest man on Earth (and probably your hero) admitted that climate change is a problem. All three presidential hopefuls believe in the problem of climate change, and somehow, it's a liberal tar baby?

      Oh, and btw, his name is Barrack Obama, but if you prefer to call him by his middle name, then please say B. Hussein Obama. Your attempt at using words as weapons is pathetic. If it's any consolation, at least you're smart enough to list Iraq and terror[ism] separately.
    • JavanSClark, on 02/28/2008, -2/+3"tar baby" was his attempt at racist witticism. Of course the epicness of his failure is staggering.
  • Falc, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5i'm a pretty staunch liberal who never had a problem with Hillary but now i'm starting to feel how conservatives feel towards Hillary. she just seems soooo desperate to get ahead, she seems too phony, calculating and insincere it's really hurting her chances. the whole deal the Michigan and Florida delegates just goes to show you how she cares only about her political campaign and not the Democratic party. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and she wants the delegates to count for her! i hope Obama mops the floor with her come March 4th.
    • gypsi, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1this is why she can't beat any republican in november. america has a big beef with hillary from the 90s.
  • Mutton, on 02/28/2008, -0/+2I thought that the Economist works for DHARMA and Sayid is trying to kill him.
  • StrykeBlade, on 02/28/2008, -1/+3Good morning President Obama, you look refreshed and ready to rebuild the US!
  • davidgolding, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm? ...
  • diggAddict, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Follow the entire OHIO debate from here, the show is in many parts - just look for the xxxx.part.x titles to view in order:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgSj5Wt1Ap4&feature ...
  • Rapter09, on 02/28/2008, -0/+1Anybody have a video of the debate?
  • florin, on 02/28/2008, -0/+3Hillary + failure = doubleplusgood
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.