digg

Join DiggAbout

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

The Nation: Obama For President

cbsnews.com — Editors say Barack Obama's ability to forge a progressive majority makes him the best choice.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 7Mystery, on 02/11/2008, -36/+215Slowly, but maturely, Americans are starting to wake up.
    • cyrix, on 02/11/2008, -3/+40This is true. And I actually wanted to state that I honestly thought in my life time, I would NEVER see a female or african american male have a serious contention for the presidency. It's not that I'm sexist or racist, but so much of what I saw in the media growing up just gave me so little hope for this to ever happen while I was still alive, hell or even while my children were alive.

      It's refreshing to see the collective bigotry that has existed in this country die down so much.
      • DrivinWest, on 02/11/2008, -4/+27Believe it or not, but the U.S. is ahead of the curve in this respect. Here in Europe, overt racism is the norm and still widely accepted.
        • rpgmaker, on 02/11/2008, -3/+8Specially British people...
          • nospinhere, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4umm, pretty much every country I have been to in Europe.
        • coollettuce, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5It's funny that you're from Germany.
        • poxonyou, on 02/11/2008, -4/+3"Here in Europe, overt racism is the norm and still widely accepted."
          Every European country? I find that hard to believe.
          • nospinhere, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5Well believe it.
          • Kyan, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5Yeah, believe it. It is pretty much the case everywhere.
        • iainc, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1British and, yes, have to agree that we're not so shiney over here. Racism is generational. Scratch beneath the surface and it's there (even in America).
        • mupplewell, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0I traveled by inter-rail in 2005 and traveled a lot since, about 50% of Europe covered so far with plenty of time spent on foot, not in hotels/resorts, and I have dozens of people I would call close friends from all over the continent.

          One thing thing that has stuck me most is how much further down the line we are in England concerning racism, xenophobia and equality than other countries in Europe. I know this sounds a bit backward saying other countries are intolerant, but that's not what I mean. I genuinely think that for its definite presence in the UK intolerance is heading out of our society at a faster rate than I ever thought it would.

          And in all seriousness we had a female Prime Minister quite some time ago now.
      • altgeeky1, on 02/11/2008, -2/+12Well, one thing that works in Obama and Hillary's favor is the absolute DISASTER we got with George Bush.. the "compassionate conservative" who would "preside in the middle" and who supposedly "we wanted to have a beer with". Instead we got the drunken con man who sneaks out the bathroom window after ordering drinks on your tab.

        The only beneficiary of George Bush's rule has been energy hedge funds, and mainland China. What a legacy. I'd take Nixon over this backstabber, so it's really NO surprise that Americans are mostly willing to forget color or gender. Times are very rough
        • gotigertom, on 02/11/2008, -1/+0great analogy! Sums up his whole persona.
      • TxSharpie, on 02/11/2008, -11/+2It's amazing to me that Americans are so HUNG UP on the sex and/or race of a candidate. It shows that we haven't matured much at all. As a matter of fact, we're really going backwards, sideways, or upside down. We're certainly not moving forward.

        Since when did we choose our candidate based on skin color or genitalia? HowINSANE and desperate. I think WHITE Americans are SO DESPERATE to shut up the Black Folk about "racism this" "racism that". We're TIRED of hearing that we're a bunch of racists. We let go of that INSANITY a long time ago. Jesse and Al kept perpetuating the hate for their own personal gain and pleasure. It is THOSE CLOWNS who want to keep the Black Man down. It keeps them in business.

        God sees no difference....neither do the majority of us.

        Sure...I'd like to see a qualified black man become President, but Colin Powell isn't running. America is indeed going to be an Obamanation if that Lefty Pacifist is elected......and I don't dislike him because he's black. I dislike him because he's NOT qualified. The only reason he's in the race in the first place is because too many OPRAH WORSHIPPERS helped her push him on us. The power of that woman never ceases to amaze me.
        • drachasor, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3If you think his popularity is because of Oprah, then you really don't understand what is going on in this country or why people like him. I'd guess (and this is only a guess) that the lack of understanding probably stems from your belief that most people share your conservative/pro-war(?) viewpoint and if they don't then they can't think. If that is the case, it is time to wake up and start realizing other people as smart or smarter than you can hold wildly different viewpoints that they've thought through.
        • netant, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2So you think that a guy who failed to stop the Iraq invasion, embarrassed himself spewing that incompetent drivel in the UN, and failed to get intelligent policies put into place during the occupation, would be a better President than Obama???

          Why on earth would I want someone more "experienced", if I am merely putting in a more "experienced" thief, working for the rich, special interests?

          Look, the choice right now is between Obama, Mr Right Wing and Mrs Right Wing. It makes no difference to me that they are more experienced than Obama. I supported Edwards; to me, Obama is merely the choice of the lesser devil.

          YOU, on the other hand, choose to imply white people would readily choose a black candidate, just to pretend they aren't racist, and that if a popular woman supports a black candidate, she and her audience must be a bunch of morons. You, on the other hand, would prefer an experienced warmonger. Where were you, right-wing idiot, when you had Romney still running around?!?!?
        • chocolatetacos, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Opposing the Iraq war doesn't make someone a pacifist, buddy.
        • smoothdogg00, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Right on. Especially about Oprah. (And no, this is not sarcasm.)
      • thebrawl, on 02/11/2008, -0/+6I thought the same thing. In fact, I thought the Obama/Hillary thing was engineered to wedge another neo-con republican in. But he's jumping through all hoops in style and it looks like he a real solid chance. He's no Ron Paul, but who doesn't want Change™?
        • byronm, on 02/11/2008, -4/+2And Being NO Ron Paul is a Goog Thing ™
    • Bodieslikesheep, on 02/11/2008, -28/+6Our (read: people's) American election is nothing but an elaborate illusion to make us feel as if we could make the government serve the people. This ***** isn't new. Why is it all the good people in this world die; Ghandi, MLK, Kennedy,...Reagen, who was wounded...*****!

      Check out Obamas foreign policy advisor...Zbigniew Brzezinski. On record he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. This isn't a Ron Paul plug, this isn't any politically slanted statement. Truth does not depend on where you are on the political spectrum.
      It's nothing but the same, a couple words are pounded and ingrained into our heads until we begin to question not whether it is opinion or fact - then we believe it.

      And Clintion? Her cabinet is filled with 90's Clinton era people. Expect the same. Two ex Clinton cabinet members, Madeleine Albright and General Wesley Clark, are back in if Clinton wins. Madeleine Albright was the main force behind the Iraq sanctions that killed more than 400,000 Iraqi civilians. General Wesley Clark, he was the one who ran the bombing of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia, came out and publicly said that he was going after civilian targets, like electrical plants, like the TV station there.

      Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.

      Change just sounds good, it's not our fault - The elite of this world have been at practice for a while.
      • Bodieslikesheep, on 02/11/2008, -9/+2You guys can silence truth and history on Digg all you want, but not in reality.
        Voting is not about picking a winner, its about voting for record of policy.
        • obipwnobi, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2You are feeling the effects of groupthink

    • xlar54, on 02/11/2008, -38/+8To democrats? HA. You Obomites are worse than the Paulbots.
    • Infowarmachine, on 02/11/2008, -25/+9are you joking?
      obama is a NWO shill, democrat.. waking up my ass your not even close, a vote for obama is a vote for the status quo, no change will occur cause for one thing he has no intention of actually winning, he knows hilary is the one his bosses chose and when the time comes he will lay down for her, just like McCain will

      just like edwards did
      just like romney did
      just like giuliani did

      they are all on the same team.. vs the american people
      • tenjin1, on 02/11/2008, -11/+3You couldn't have said it truer!!!
      • goomba323, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2proof that connects Obama/Edwards to NWO?
        • nycmac247, on 02/11/2008, -3/+4Obama's wife is CFR?
          • br0ck, on 02/11/2008, -4/+3You can't prove one allegation by stating another allegation! Can you produce even the slimmest tiniest shred of proof that either of them are members of the CFR?
          • Bodieslikesheep, on 02/11/2008, -2/+3Try going to the CFR website....
          • br0ck, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1"Try going to the CFR website...." Ok, I checked every possible search string I could starting with http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=site ... and could find even a tenuous strand of evidence that either of the Obamas are members. Try it yourself! I bet you can't find a thing.
        • vbullinger, on 02/11/2008, -1/+5Easy:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UsNwzumrmc
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMhHBKKY6Uw
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0DoxrNCImI
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FBlspQOgTE
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz2Rmeqe-7c
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaxJc7nT-TY

          I could go on all day.
          • goomba323, on 02/11/2008, -2/+3Buried for wasting my time. I watched all those videos, and the ONLY video to come close to linking Obama/Edwards to the NWO was the one made by the kid who also tried linking David Rockefeller to the rapper Jay-Z and Rockafella Records...please. Edwards saying "the war on terror is a bumper sticker" makes him part of the New World Order? Obama voting to fund troops makes him part of the NWO? Talking about terrorism with scary music in the background can make anyone seem like they are bad and corrupt. There were no substance in those videos. So please, if you have to, go on all day and show me something more convincing.

            Being a member of the CFR DOES NOT make you part of the NWO. That one video tried to say since Obama is Bush's 9th cousin (which he isn't) then he is part of the NWO. I support conspiracy theories, trust me, I know the NWO, I know many of the people involved, Obama is NOT one of them...You just seem ignorant and/or retarded for giving me those links as your support.
          • Bodieslikesheep, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3Our (read: people's) American election is nothing but an elaborate illusion to make us feel as if we could make the government serve the people. This ***** isn't new. Why is it all the good people in this world die; Ghandi, MLK, Kennedy,...Reagen, who was wounded...*****!

            Check out Obamas foreign policy advisor...Zbigniew Brzezinski. On record he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. This isn't a Ron Paul plug, this isn't any politically slanted statement. Truth does not depend on where you are on the political spectrum.
            It's nothing but the same, a couple words are pounded and ingrained into our heads until we begin to question not whether it is opinion or fact - then we believe it.

            And Clintion? Her cabinet is filled with 90's Clinton era people. Expect the same. Two ex Clinton cabinet members, Madeleine Albright and General Wesley Clark, are back in if Clinton wins. Madeleine Albright was the main force behind the Iraq sanctions that killed more than 400,000 Iraqi civilians. General Wesley Clark, he was the one who ran the bombing of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia, came out and publicly said that he was going after civilian targets, like electrical plants, like the TV station there.

            Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.

            Change just sounds good, it's not our fault - The elite of this world have been at practice for a while.
    • jakdracula, on 02/11/2008, -19/+6NObama has only 4 years of experience as a senator, he's very 'thin' on policy experience, legislation experience, foreign policy experience, and, well, pretty much everything else.

      Should he be elected, he will be over whelmed.

      • D4r7h3v1l, on 02/11/2008, -1/+14Yea, and Hillary was.. erm... the president's wife.
      • yosempai, on 02/11/2008, -4/+5The fact that Obama has only 4 years of experience in Washington is a very, very good thing. He hasn't been corrupted like everyone else.
    • insecuregirl, on 02/11/2008, -15/+3Obama will be wiped out in texas..poor guy...20% of registered voters are hispanics that will vote Clinton ...Hillary 2008!
      • anthony0895, on 02/11/2008, -0/+9There's a reason why your name is "insecuregirl".
      • chocolatetacos, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Won't matter if you don't win until then.
    • HerrEisenheim, on 02/11/2008, -8/+19Wake up to what? There will be no revolution. The people of this country do not actually want change, they just want to hear the words.

      REALITY CHECK: Majority of America doesn't give a flying ***** about politics.

      If people actually wanted change, they'd support someone like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. That's change. But change carries a cost, because change means uncertainty, and uncertainty means risk. People are risk averse by nature, and so the majority doesn't even want to HEAR about the practical applications of real change in American policy.

      This country is growing older and older by the minute. I mean that literally. The demographics of this country are slowly being skewed by a moving age distribution. Old people don't want change. The generation of this country which makes up the voting majority has the real political power. They believe they are entitled to all sorts of benefits, which will ultimately bankrupt this country.

      Look, I love Obama. I want to see some real change. But you know what? I'm 22, and I realize that it's just not going to happen. We are vastly outnumbered. Let's not pretend like America is "waking up." That's what everyone said the last two times, and Bush won both times. Yes, the younger generation of this country might be waking up, but [we] don't have the votes to make a damn bit of difference.

      You know what our best hope of getting this man into the White House is? The fact that the evangelicals hate McCain, and they might say home on voting day. But even if that does happen, don't expect to see any real change. We won't be able to see that for another 20 years, once all the old people are dead and the country is bankrupt. It's the sad truth.
      • netant, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1If we get a commitment to get out of Iraq within four years, and a disinclination to invade countries over oil and resources, that's enough change for me to select a candidate.
      • jdotter, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1At 22 years old you should be a little more optimistic. I'm 27... well for a few more days anyway, and I see a real opportunity here. In 2000 I was so dejected and disgusted I decided I was not going to be a part of the apathetic youth. I got involved in 2004 and then I really threw up my hands and said the hell with it. I would be so far from this election if not for one candidate, Barack Obama. My 60+ year old parents are on board as well, my mom is less committed but she remembers Kennedy and sees a second chance for a really transformational leader, as bad as she wants Hillary to be the first woman, she accepts the fact that you only get this kind of candidate once in a blue moon. The generation you are a part of, and myself to a lesser extent, will see a shift from the baby boomers ruling all, to a youth movement that will change the face of America. Gen-X, which I'm kinda in that group as well, is less than half the size of the baby boom generation, that's why our political will has been largely ignored, Gen-Xers also know the fall out of Vietnam, and Iran-Contra, and the fear mongering of the cold war. I remember learning in school about mutually assured annihilation and that it was the only thing keeping the Soviets from attacking. I vividly remember watching the Berlin wall fall and feeling relieved I wasn't going to be blown up by a nuke strike by the USSR. Trust in the government is low with people my age and a bit older. There is no faith in the system for many of these reasons (Florida 2000 might have a small part in that as well) but also because Gen-X didn't have the votes. That tide is shifting and you're seeing it in these primaries and caucuses, it's not that the youth vote is finally participating, it's that the youth vote finally has the numbers to have a say. Gen-X and the following generation, Millennials as some have called them, will outnumber baby boomers soon, as this generation reaches voting age. Don't loose faith, at least not yet.
        • netant, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1You'd be looked upon as an intelligent 22 year old, rather than a KID, if you got your facts right. Your demographics are all wrong.

          The baby boomers are called that for a reason. There was a MAJOR drop in child production after 1965. Even if millennials could outnumber baby boomers, they're called millennials for a reason (born after 2000). Its going to be another ten years before the 1st year will be able to vote.

          The youth always had a say in politics. The reason why the youth doesn't get its way is because they are incredibly stupid. For whatever reason, young adults, as a population, doesn't become responsible voters until they hit forty. (I don't understand it. I was marginally involved in politics before I was eighteen, and voted in almost every election.) Youth? You're nobodies now, and by the time you have a say, you'll be old men. Stop making yourself look stupid with the grandiose speechifying based on a factually incorrect presumption.
    • Pwelborn1, on 02/11/2008, -12/+7Obama is a flaming liberal who will tax the fool out of the USA and do what all democrats do. Try to steal money from the people who actually work hard and earn it, to give it to those in the welfare system and illegals to buy more votes for the future! And move use ever closer to socialism. To liberals, Conservatives, and moderates: can't we find someone who will actually decrease the size of government instead of telling us how they are going to spend all our money. Give free market at chance. It's worked terribly well in the past stop putting everything in the government's hands.
      • chocolatetacos, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1And McCain is a fascist and hates poor people and will ensure that rich people become richer and everybody else starves to death! A vote for Democrats is a vote for Terrorism!

        /sarcasm
    • active1x0, on 02/11/2008, -4/+5Slowly...but maturely?

      What the ***** does that even mean?
    • Armitage, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Waking up? Seems more like they're going to sleep to me. Obama supporters don't know the issues. They bury people for telling the facts like Obama is a member of the CFR and one of his top advisors is a huge globalist, or the fact that he is one of the top 10 most corrupt Politicians. Sure tho, keep speading lies and burying the truth. Keep letting yourselves be brainwashed into voting for another Bush. Sooner or later, you're going to have to face the truth.
  • harrythebastard, on 02/11/2008, -65/+13Yes, but what will they do once they are sitting up, blinking in the morning light? Roll over and go back to sleep, no doubt. Silly 'Mericans. We get the government we deserve.
    • dagnome1984, on 02/11/2008, -6/+3Just your normal Obama Spam
    • topgigmedia, on 02/11/2008, -2/+3...only because people like you speak.
    • jgzman, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3The reply button, it does nothing!
    • digimer, on 02/11/2008, -1/+0I'm as cynical as anyone else about American's ability to get politics right, but the way things are going, I am starting to loosen my grip on sarcasm and daring to hope. I wish I was able to vote... but my mom can!
  • Adam420, on 02/11/2008, -117/+28Wow, everyone is falling for it, just great. So hes a good motivational speaker, so what? Hes not presidential material. Hes giving america false hope.
    • SupaFurry, on 02/11/2008, -13/+32Ha! That "false hope" line uttered by Clinton was what inspired the "Yes, we can" theme that has framed Obama's entire campaign. I reject your negativity, and dare to support the candidate who will change the national conversation from the militaristic right-wing-dominated ideology to one of peace and social justice. YES, WE CAN.
      • Shadotek, on 02/11/2008, -24/+5So you're for Ron Paul too?
        • SupaFurry, on 02/11/2008, -4/+16**Laughs at the idea of "libertarian social justice"**
        • dagnome1984, on 02/11/2008, -7/+5Social justice is just a catchy way to sell socialism to the oppressed.
      • RRJackson, on 02/11/2008, -20/+3Yes We Can lose the election! Just remember to thank Obama for eight more years of a Republican administration when he's on the lecture circuit next year...
        • SupaFurry, on 02/11/2008, -3/+22The latest polls show Obama easily winning in a matchup against McCain. Not so for Clinton.
          • RRJackson, on 02/11/2008, -13/+3The polls will show whatever keeps you sheep complacent until the next Republican Coronation.
          • SupaFurry, on 02/11/2008, -2/+4RRJ: So, conspiracy theories now, huh? Thank you for letting me know I can treat whatever you say with laughable contempt.
          • RRJackson, on 02/11/2008, -9/+2Yeah, but you'll be ***** a hot brown stream of conspiracy theories when he loses the nomination and even more when the Republicans win in November.

            FWIW, the exit polls the last couple of election cycles haven't been a very accurate tracking of actual voting.
          • SupaFurry, on 02/11/2008, -2/+6If you have so little trust in the electoral system why do you even retain an interest in it? If an individual is supposedly chosen outside of the democratic process then why are you even trying to engage in the discussion of the democratic process? I don't think you believe a man will simply be "coronated" in January - otherwise you would not be reading and posting on political online discussions.
          • RRJackson, on 02/11/2008, -9/+1My party lost the election when we decided to field a woman and a black man as our candidates. At this point I'm just hoping that Clinton can edge out Obama so he won't get the party nod to run again in 2012. I don't think she'll go through another bid, so hopefully him losing the nomination in the next few weeks will at least keep this tragedy from playing out again.
          • tenjin1, on 02/11/2008, -5/+2I'm not for Clinton or Obama. i kkinda like Ron Paul's policies but SupaFurry you sound way off and sheepish. And you can tell you are one of these people who think truth are conspiracies.

            And RRJ you really don't sound any better because you have to be crazy if you think Ron Paul or any Republican is going to win.
          • SupaFurry, on 02/11/2008, -3/+3"Way off and sheepish" - That... doesn't... mean anything. Care to be specific? You can "tell I am one of these people who think truth are conspiracies"? Is a magic diving rod involved in this mystical process? If you cannot contribute anything to a conversation it's best just to keep out of it.

            RRJ: People are showing they don't mind a black person or a woman - look at the turnouts for the Dems vs GOP. Edwards didn't have a shot against the two frontrunners. Clinton is one of the most hated figures on the right - strategically Obama is the best choice
          • RRJackson, on 02/11/2008, -3/+2I don't think Ron Paul has a chance in hell. I don't know where that came from. The primaries aren't really going to tell you much. Our elections have been fear-driven for at least 30 years. When the attack ads start it will "energize" the Republican base (which is code for 'scare the crap out of') and they'll turn out in droves to keep America from falling into the hands of the threat to all that's holy that they'll be told is coming. The Democrats haven't successfully fielded a candidate who wasn't a southerner since Kennedy. And a southern man shot Kennedy in the head. A "yankee" female or minority Democrat will be POTUS shortly after there's a black King of England.
        • Swift2, on 02/11/2008, -2/+3And the polls have been SO accurate. Six months out, they'd show McCain trouncing the Man in the Moon. What matters is what happens in November, and I don't want a Rotary speaker as president, particularly when he's trimming his policies to pick up right-wingers and "Independents" to beat the Democratic Party. Obama + Ben Nelson the Bushbot Democrat = No change.
    • Mise777, on 02/11/2008, -9/+32Let me guess, Adam. George W. Bush is "presidential material." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one!
      • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 02/11/2008, -8/+6Idiot. Stop assuming anyone who doesn't like this #1 most liberal senator is a Bush fan. Just ***** stop it. Obama is a radical anti-gun, anti-freedom socialist who has lived a life insulated from his legislation, just like most congress critters. He even voted to continue funding the war.
        • Duffeh, on 02/11/2008, -3/+12Obama is on record stating he would prefer it if his wife had a hand gun. He is anti-assault rifle.
          • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 02/12/2008, -1/+2Every rifle is an "assault" rifle if it's used to assault someone. Maybe if they termed a handgun an "assault" handgun, folks like you would be "oh see he's not against guns, he says we can own slingshots, just not ASSAULT handguns, and ASSAULT rifles. Remember, the 2nd amendment was PRIMARILY to function as a protection against a tyrannical govt. Self defense is SECONDARY.
    • echolyean, on 02/11/2008, -7/+37Yeah, what a hope monger.
    • withincontext, on 02/11/2008, -8/+23So you don't want an inspirational leader who motivates and gives hope because it's "false"? What the ***** do you want, then? Another 100 years of war?
      • RRJackson, on 02/11/2008, -20/+5We're in Iraq for good. What Obama wants to do is distract you from that long enough to get his snout in the trough. Then he'll whine about how Washington insiders have prevented him from doing the job he set out to do.
        • SupaFurry, on 02/11/2008, -5/+15Obama takes no money from lobbyists and wants to severely check their power when he gets in office - a major distinction between him and Clinton.
          • RRJackson, on 02/11/2008, -12/+6Obama takes the money, but he takes it through shell organizations so it won't be as easy to pin down. That's just the tip of the iceberg with this huckster, but the sheep keep falling for it because they want to be in love.

            "Obama said he'd send me flowers..."
          • SupaFurry, on 02/11/2008, -3/+7I would be very interested to see evidence of this claim (seriously).
          • tenjin1, on 02/11/2008, -7/+3"Obama takes no money from lobbyists and wants to severely check their power when he gets in office - a major distinction between him and Clinton."

            You obviously believe what you hear on the news.
          • SupaFurry, on 02/11/2008, -3/+7Ok tenjin, show me the evidence. Any evidence of illegal donations. The records of donations are public. It is a fact. If there is any sign of anything underhanded going on I would sincerely like to know about it. Again, where is the evidence of this claim? Is there any?
          • RRJackson, on 02/11/2008, -4/+4It doesn't take a lot of looking around if you want to find it. I haven't saved the articles that I read, but a quick search turns up these:

            http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681 ...

            http://internetcommunications.tmcnet.com/news/2008 ...
          • Swift2, on 02/11/2008, -4/+3Read the NY Times about Exelon nuclear industries, a very prominent fundraiser for the Obama campaign.
            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03ex ...
            Oh, no, no dirty politics here. Right, Mr. Rezko under federal indictment?
          • br0ck, on 02/11/2008, -3/+5@Swift: Obama posted a complete and thorough debunking of that article at http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02 ...
    • pimpofpixels, on 02/11/2008, -4/+7At least he hasn't supported the war. I think htat makes him a lot more qualified than Clinton to be president.
      • Swift2, on 02/11/2008, -3/+5Oh, yeah, when nothing was depending on it, when he was running against a right-wing nutbar with zero chance, he talked brave. Then in the Senate his votes are the same as Hillary's.
        • RRJackson, on 02/11/2008, -5/+2He's slick, though. He's able to sugar-coat things in a way that appeals to the desperate and disenfranchised. Which is really the way demagogues have always worked. He's just coming along at a moment in history when we have a lot of young people who are particularly susceptible to this kind of thing. The older generation in Cambodia were probably just as surprised when the kids all started following Pol Pot.
      • pimpofpixels, on 02/11/2008, -2/+1Their voting records are very similar, and one could suggest that had Obama been in the Senate they would have voted alike on that issue as well. Still, Obama has been more critical of the war than Hillary, and although it's POSSIBLE that his not voting for the war could be a technicality on account of him not being in the senate at the time, Hillary actually DID for for the war. Hence i can't vote for her.
    • topgigmedia, on 02/11/2008, -5/+4Just what is in that bowl you are smoking adam420? Who do you suggest as the candidate(s) of choice... Cypress Hill?
    • 1longtime, on 02/11/2008, -10/+5Shhh... can't you tell Obama pwns Digg? Diggers run nothing but Hillary-bashing and Obama-will-cure-cancer hype articles. So ***** one-sided it's pathetic.
      • Glenn711A, on 02/11/2008, -3/+7You realize this is because more people support Obama than Hillary, right? It's called popular vote. It's not like there's some magical digg genie running around seeing HIllary and clicking the red thumb's down button. There are people, who support Obama and don't support Hillary. More people like what Obama is saying and stands for. That's why Hillary is getting dugg down and Obama is getting dugg up. Amazing how voter appeal works, isn't it?
    • expatcatalyst, on 02/11/2008, -2/+3and who else, pray tell, is giving us hope?
    • iainc, on 02/11/2008, -4/+3Wow, guess we'll see the Paulbots and Hillbots out in force over the next week, pouring their collective vitriol on any news of success they can find.

      Stay positive people. Just dig the trolls down on sight (don't engage) and keep the positives visible.
    • LLamaStar, on 02/11/2008, -3/+4I'd rather vote for a "hopemonger" than a warmonger
  • jon30041, on 02/11/2008, -8/+48Dugg for Super-Mega-Duper Tuesday.
  • edward9145, on 02/11/2008, -19/+48Yes it won't be long now, America is ready for the Obama Nation!
    • minox, on 02/11/2008, -22/+12The Obamanation that desolates.
    • Emnsta, on 02/11/2008, -8/+20Obamination haha
    • dagnome1984, on 02/11/2008, -7/+4America is not ready for communism, sorry.
    • mrASSMAN, on 02/11/2008, -5/+7Unfortunately, that sounds a lot like 'abomination'..

      /obama supporter
      • Aidje, on 02/11/2008, -6/+5You were kind of beat to the punch. Don't worry though; you'll likely be dugg up, because you reveal that you support Obama.
    • tchynerd, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1Hmm.... someone needs to do a remix of Zombie Nation and put Obama in there. Supporters would love it I think
    • minox, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3My feelings are hurt since so many of you didn't enjoy my rhetorical turn. I just couldn't resist.
      • Aidje, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2That's why I posted a (lame) reply; so you would know that there was at least one person who enjoyed it.
    • Teanuh, on 02/11/2008, -3/+1It's just so amazing how he has inspired so many people to care, me being one of them. I can't vote tomorrow because I am not a citizen yet, but I will be knocking on some doors for sure today.

      GO8AMA!
  • brocklese, on 02/11/2008, -70/+19I am prolly going to get buried for this but I am going to post it anyway. I am pretty sick with all the campaign spam here on Digg and this is coming from someone that likes Paul and Obama (the top spam stories I see) I mean come on can we cut down on this a little or what I know I can turn off politics in my settings but I like seeing something different but they are all the same I guess what I am trying to say is that it is getting pretty excessive and this is from someone that is not disagreeing with the policies of the candidate.
    • megahan, on 02/11/2008, -4/+11I agree, to an extent. Here's the thing: many of the comments posted are born out of genuine enthusiasm for the democratic process, and I don't think they're spam. On the other hand, there has been alot of annoying posts as well -- rude, immature, flatly irresponsible. That has to go, but, at the same time, try not to dump on the enthusiam. It's the only chance we have as a democracy.
      • BoltonWanderers, on 02/11/2008, -0/+12It's true. After 8 years of Bush, I think Americans, at least the younger generations, have started showing more interest in politics.
      • brocklese, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Yeah I was not trying to dampen the enthusiasm cause I agree people are excited just as I am. I knew I was going to get buried but I thought that I would throw it out there.
      • Swift2, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Doesn't make the young any smarter than they usually are, of course.
    • Dohko_Xar, on 02/11/2008, -8/+3You now how people spam to make publicity? Well, this could be consider spam, but we are trying to save our nation over here... I'm not going down without a fight!
    • wphj, on 02/11/2008, -5/+7I actually agree with you. The Ron Paul stories annoyed the hell out of me, and these Obama ones are probably doing the same to other people. I've had an Obama bumber sticker on my car for almost a year now, but really, unless it's something new, I'm not going to digg it anymore.
    • ShemDaimwood, on 02/11/2008, -3/+12It's called "social news" for a reason.
      • K4Lic0, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2Dammit, I was JUST about to post that but I had to log in.. X-]
      • PurpleSfinx, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2"Obama for president" News? I see no news. Nothing but SPAM.
        • SzaszMan, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3The news is that The Nation magazine, the oldest and most influential liberal publication in the United States, is endorsing Barack Obama for president.

          I wish people would stop throwing around the word "spam" so carelessly. I remember when "spam" used to mean unsolicited email. Now it means anything some shmuck chooses to whine about.
    • bitspace, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1You could use a period or five.
    • pimpofpixels, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2I think some people just digg when they see the headline. I think you should have to read/watch the whole article prior to digging.
  • reepax, on 02/11/2008, -53/+25http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_o ...

    "During his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama stated that he had not ruled out military action against Iran."
    "on 2 March 2007, Obama stated that he regards Iran's government as "a threat to all of us," stating that the US "should take no option, including military action, off the table."
    "Obama voted in favor of the 2006 version of the Patriot Act.["
    "He has advocated closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but has not supported two specific bills that would have done so."
    "Obama supports a guest worker program"

    http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/051216-the_patriot ...

    Why do we like this guy? Does no one here care about civil liberties?
    • llamabread, on 02/11/2008, -13/+8Unfortunately, to the vast majority of Americans, civil liberties are an irrelevant and unnecessary burden. Thankfully, our wonderful government is here to take all of our civil liberties away from us so that we don't have to have any of the tiresome responsibilities that come with them.
      • tablelegs, on 02/11/2008, -7/+5Don't ***** even. You're trying to make the States sound like North Korea. I bet you chose what you ate for dinner tonight.
        • vibrokatana, on 02/11/2008, -5/+4No, the FDA choose what I could eat last night.
        • tenjin1, on 02/11/2008, -3/+2"No, the FDA choose what I could eat last night."
          LMAO so true!

          P.S. Do you know in Europe the government insists on manufacturers put a label on the food if it is GE (genetic engineered) and in U.S. they don't!
    • Shadotek, on 02/11/2008, -3/+3I do, but then again I don't like this guy (at least not in government.)
    • iofthestorm, on 02/11/2008, -5/+18Well, he was a civil rights activist and lawyer, and if you actually bothered to do your research you would know that the version of the Patriot Act that finally passed was the best compromise he could come up with to fix as many problems with it as he could. It was going to pass anyway, and if he hadn't voted for it the right-wing would be having a field day over it right now.
      • BigBallistix, on 02/11/2008, -0/+8Oh really? Awesome, I was afraid it was just gonna be another case of a lesser evil. Thanks for pointing that out.
      • Swift2, on 02/11/2008, -0/+6Same one that Hillary voted for, right?
    • decay, on 02/11/2008, -7/+10So does anyone actually have an argument against reepax's comment or are you just going to digg him down?
      • jdotter, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2check my comments below-
        FYI - I didn't digg him down either. These questions need answers, I've done my research, and found the answers to these and many other questions. I did the same for several other candidates and all my research helped me make up my mind.
      • orca94, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Several people have already responded to his comments which have been brought up over and over again by other Ron Paul fans who seem to have some sort of specific form of Alzheimer's.
    • BigBallistix, on 02/11/2008, -8/+1I agree that those are all horrible aspects of his history, but remember that no one else will be any better. It's a matter of two steps forward, one step Barack. We haven't seen any good from Bush, and it's unlikely we'll see any from the other candidates, but he brings some hope to the table. Oh and the war has actually had corporate "sponsors" so there might be some tension or contracts involved.
    • bizkit00, on 02/11/2008, -5/+3nothing like some guest workers to take away my civil liberties. oh wait, that doesn't make any sense and you tipped your hand to show a full house of racism! Obama'08!
    • MadOgre, on 02/11/2008, -5/+7You knew you would be dugg down for posting actual voting records and not just blindly supporting the Democrat hype, right?
      • thebellmaster1x, on 02/11/2008, -6/+2Actually, he's being dugg down for posting voting records we a) have already seen when we decided to vote for Obama and b) understand, unlike both you and the parent poster.
      • jdotter, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1Please see my comments below. If you don't believe my responses, give Google a try.
    • orca94, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5I'm not for a war with Iran, and I wasn't for a war with Iraq. But, war should never be off the table as an option when dealing with a country that's perceived as hostile. I'm not saying we should exercise the option, it just should be there. That's why we need someone in the oval office who has the judgment to know when to exercise that option, and that realizes it is an alternative of last resort when an actual, verifiable threat arises.

      The Patriot Act he voted for was revised to make it far less heinous. It's better than not voting for the revision and keeping the worse, older version that impeded upon even more rights.

      New, and expanded guest worker programs make absolute sense. It's absolutely ridiculous that so many companies in this country would love to hire talented people TRAINED, and EDUCATED in the U.S. but can't because of limited visas available for these workers in fields where talent is starting to come in short supply (like engineering). Instead, we have a system where the federal government subsidizes universities to provide world class educations to people that end up having to leave the U.S. and use their U.S. subsidized talents elsewhere. This is despite the fact that they want to stay here, live here, pay taxes here, contribute to our economy and who know maybe even naturalize. The U.S. should be more open to immigrants than it is now, this 9/11 inspired xenophobia needs to stop. Granted, visa programs of the type I just discussed probably aren't the type you were specifically referring to, but it was probably a part of your issue.
    • jdotter, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2OK, Let's start at the top reepax:
      "During his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama stated that he had not ruled out military action against Iran."
      "on 2 March 2007, Obama stated that he regards Iran's government as "a threat to all of us," stating that the US "should take no option, including military action, off the table."
      Iran is a threat to peace in the region. End of story. BUT this was prior to the Bush Administration having to eat their own words with the fact that Iran had stopped pursuing nuclear weapons. Note that Obama did NOT vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps terrorists in or around Sept 2007. He was campaigning when the vote was taken but he spoke out openly against it at the time. Kinda goes to the whole changing the mindset that got us in this war, no?
      "Obama voted in favor of the 2006 version of the Patriot Act."
      This version actually reinstated some civil liberties that where ignored in the first. He has openly said it should still be improved but that this version needed passage because of what it did do to restore our civil liberties.
      "He has advocated closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but has not supported two specific bills that would have done so."
      Again, his stance on this is well known, he wants Guantanamo Bay closed but not without making arrangements for the detainees currently being held there. We must determine if any of these people are terrorists and what to do with them AND determine who is innocent of these claims. We also must decide how to deal with the people we release from there, we can't just drop them off in Cuba somewhere and we don't want them entering this situation innocent civilians and leaving fundamentalist terrorists. This has to be addressed. So he has voted against out right closing Guantanamo Bay no questions or strings attached, we made the mess, we should clean it up.
      "Obama supports a guest worker program"
      Yes illegal immigrants are here and working! WOW! What exactly should be done? These people are here and apart of our society right now! Like it or not there is nothing you can say to argue otherwise. They have kids, homes and people relying on them. Should we round them up and ship them back to Mexico? What is this Germany circa 1940?
      I'm not going to do the research for you, Google is your friend. The answers are easy to find, I did it when I was making up my mind who to support.
  • vagrantwade, on 02/11/2008, -12/+137It's an election year. This is a social news site. Politics = news. Deal with it.
    • Aidje, on 02/11/2008, -20/+7Excessive: more than is necessary.
      • pintomp3, on 02/11/2008, -3/+11who decides what's too much? the users.
        • d03boy, on 02/11/2008, -6/+3But.. only if it's an Obama story and not any other political candidate. Please note that none of the "paulbots" have yet made a bury-brigade against Obama.
      • goomba323, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3The fact of the matter is that it's going to be dugg whether you like it or not. You really think saying "stop it with the Obama spam" is going to stop it?? If anything it's just going to get you buried and be another redundant, boring "why are there so many of these Obama stories" thread. If only you added something new/interesting to the conversation, perhaps you'll be dugg, but alas, you post to get purposely get buried.
        • Aidje, on 02/11/2008, -4/+1The fact of the matter is that unnecessary stories about Obama are going to continue to flood our front page. Anyone who doesn't support Obama, and anyone who still likes Ron Paul, will be buried. Anyone who supports Obama will be dugg up. That's what I gather from simple obversation, anyway.
    • Scagli3tti, on 02/11/2008, -0/+14Not to mention these are all under "US Elections 2008". It honestly takes less than 30 seconds to remove that listing from your custom view. The bitching is just ridiculous.
      • PurpleSfinx, on 02/11/2008, -3/+1Wow, it was an election year here last year and we didn't get this kind of rubbish on Digg... funny how the US is 10x more important than everywhere else automatically.
        • iainc, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Remove the topic from your news preferences, or stop whining.
  • AndrewDB, on 02/11/2008, -12/+5So, CBS is reporting on the obvious now?
    • Aidje, on 02/11/2008, -8/+2Obvious bias, sure.
    • bitspace, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4Well no, they're reporting the news that The Nation has endorsed Obama.
      • Swift2, on 02/11/2008, -3/+1In 2000, they hemmed and hawed and didn't endorse anybody, because half of their staff was for Nader and half wanted the Revolution to happen. How they've convinced themselves that Obama is a progressive, I don't know. Oh. He is black, so they feel noble voting for Oprah's friend?
  • turbopro, on 02/11/2008, -5/+59Im kinda glad I bought that stock in kleenex cause it's gonna take a whole lot of crying from Hillary to earn Delegates and not just be given super delegates.
    • Swift2, on 02/11/2008, -3/+1Way to go, progressives. Rules made by the party 40 years ago to guard against another McGovern debacle -- he made the new rules and then made himself nominee -- can be changed to suit Obama, because he's special.
    • RexyRex, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2Oh *****! Nice burn. Mad props.
  • Churbs, on 02/11/2008, -12/+42Yes We Can!
  • mark076h, on 02/11/2008, -59/+12i don't want that clown for president
    • pimpofpixels, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3Who would you perfer?
      • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2I'd prefer no one.
        • Sic133, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2No one as president? yeah, why not try that 50 years and see if it works ;)
          • jjacksonRIAB, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3I've had no President telling me what to do for 30 years now and it works fine. If Bush came up to my door and had a face-to-face discussion with me about the ***** he's planned on doing with my money I'd slap him down :-D
        • iainc, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1Keeping it real, I see.

          /s
        • funkywood, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Anarchy rulez! It shouldn't be dismissed ignorantly but I think it wouldn't work.
    • gdehms, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2In what way does he resemble one who is, according to google, a rude or vulgar fool? He speaks intelligently, has experience, and wants to bring change to the country.
  • RegalGSX, on 02/11/2008, -38/+3luaP noR
  • minox, on 02/11/2008, -30/+8What a great speaker he is! Who should be next for president? Joel Osteen or Zig Ziglar?
  • jugo23, on 02/11/2008, -18/+7Who are these editors and why should we agree with them?
  • decay, on 02/11/2008, -35/+15It is truly hilarious. I never imagined the internet to be so dynamic. Before voting started, I remembered seeing nothing but Ron Paul articles. These seem articles converted becoming Ron Paul supporter because I learned about the candidate through the comments and questions.

    So Digg, could you kindly explain to me why you are "supporting" Obama? He has infringed on our civil rightsby voting for the Patriot Act . He wants to expand the government with universal healthcare. He voted for some 300 Billion in war funding for the Iraq War.

    What gives?
    • decay, on 02/11/2008, -9/+7These same articles made me a Ron Paul supporter because I learned about the candidate through the comments and questions.

      Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to edit as my comment didn't show up for awhile.
    • dagnabbit, on 02/11/2008, -7/+21Some people like the idea of everyone having healthcare. Some people understand that his vote for the patriot act reauthorization (he didn't vote for the original) actually curbed much of the gov't's surveillance powers, a good thing. Some people know that he was against going to war, but voted to provide troops with body armor, etc. and has always supported a withdrawal.

      That's what gives.
      • Swift2, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2He was in the little boy legislature when the first one passed.
      • rolf, on 02/11/2008, -1/+7The original Patriot Act was due to expire. He voted to let it continue another 5 or so years instead of letting it sunset. From the ACLU itself:
        "In early 2006, Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act without fixing the law’s most fundamental flaws. On March 9, 2006, President Bush signed the flawed reauthorization bill into law."

        http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/
    • dagamer34, on 02/11/2008, -5/+6Voting for a reauthorization to reduce the powers of the Patriot Act. Look, you can vote no on every bill that comes across your way if you don't like it and guess what happens, NOTHING GETS DONE.
      • unclerichard, on 02/11/2008, -5/+1So to make visibility of things being done, you support legislation that destroys the country?
    • ncurses, on 02/11/2008, -5/+10arrrghhhhh damn univesal healthcare infringing on my civil liberties
      • Lazydriver, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2How? His methods are, uhm, optional! If you like your insurance more, fine, go with your damn insurance. But poor people such as myself don't enjoy paying $5,000 FOR A GOD DAMN FINGER BEING BROKEN.
        • goomba323, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3he was being sarcastic
        • ncurses, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2well it's your decision if you wanted to be poor. If you don't want to pay $5 grand you can always just pull it and tape a stick to it jesus wanting the government to provide for social progress you should be ashamed
      • Swift2, on 02/11/2008, -3/+4Oh, that's okay. By not making insurance mandatory, Obama's going to make it more expensive!
    • BoltonWanderers, on 02/11/2008, -3/+4A first world country caring for ALL of its people? Oh no!
      • DanOnTheMoon, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Fill in the blank: The road to ________ is paved with good intentions.
        1) Hell
        2) Cincinatti
        3) Never Never Land
        4) Moscow
      • kdemetter, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0Did you ever think about that road being usable in both directions .
        We are already at 1) , so i guess we can use the road to go back .
    • unclerichard, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0For some reason serving the country and being electable are mutually exclusive things these days. If you don't fund the war, then you don't "support our troops" = unelectable, etc.
    • Dillon81, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0Voting for war funding should be a non issue. Even though the man opposed the war and continues to oppose it he wont leave our troops high and dry. Would you have voted against money for the troops? Would you have been the one to leave them with even less of the life saving armor that they desperately need? I certainly hope that you wouldn't.
      • unclerichard, on 02/11/2008, -3/+1Yeah, but you can make provision that the money can only be spent on troop withdrawal.
      • Swift2, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1It should be a non-issue because it interferes with Dillon81's love affair to think about this.
    • pimpofpixels, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4because Hillary clinton is much much worse.
    • goomba323, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3All the things you wrote were either spun to sound as a bad thing, or inaccurate. Some people see Universal Healthcare as a good thing, and I certainly don't see how that "infringes on civil liberties", unless you think taxes are an infringement on civil liberties, and in that case you'd be wrong.

      He didn't vote for the Patriot Act, he actually weakened the Patriot Act. Again, how is weakening a bill that infringes on our liberties infringing on our liberties? Shouldn't that be a good thing?

      And he was vehemently against the war in the beginning, and still is. He also realizes that we are in a war, whether he likes it or not, and the least he could do is make sure our troops get the funding that they need so we can "win" and have less casualties. I see that as a morally correct decision to make.

      That's why he has our support. geez. You don't sound like a troll but you certainly reek like one.
  • gannondork, on 02/11/2008, -8/+80Thank god he's going to kick Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriends wife's ass.
    • dBass, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2I almost forgot about Monica; she put the 'O' in Oval Office. Famous last words: "I'm not a crook", and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4"I was elected to lead, not to read."
        President Schwarzenegger
  • brwright, on 02/11/2008, -24/+21No doubt that Obama is the best choice for the Democrats, but I think Paul is the best for the nation. Obama is a solid fellow though.
  • nirvanix, on 02/11/2008, -30/+6If Obama wins, he will likely be forced to name Hillary as VP. Thats means that the Bush-Clinton crime family will remain in control of the country.
    • Schul983, on 02/11/2008, -1/+11You honestly think Obama would name hillary VP? Dont you think that would hurt his campaign?
    • BoltonWanderers, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4Obama-Edwards
      • ZenMojo, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4***** that *****, Edwards had his chance to endorse.
    • wilhoitm, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3Hillary's EGO is too big to be a VP!
    • donaho, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2There is talk of Obama-Clark.
    • iainc, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1Obama-Sebellius
  • hurtmetomysoul, on 02/11/2008, -8/+29Barack is the only remaining candidate espousing a foreign policy that will stand a chance at redeeming America's confidence in itself (not to mention making inroads @ mitigating the rest of the world's animosity toward us!)
    gObama!
    • ZenMojo, on 02/11/2008, -2/+5Community organizer, civil rights lawyer, law professor, 8 years in the Illinois Senate, 3 years in the US Senate, President of the Harvard Law Review, graduated Magna Cum Laude. All of this is on his wiki, of course.
      • Swift2, on 02/11/2008, -3/+4And didn't he get his basketball letter? And Miss Krabapple liked him in third grade!
    • Armitage, on 02/11/2008, -2/+1Obamas not against more pointless wars. He will not end the preemptive war doctrine or costly American imperialism. I don't think that will help America or the rest of the world like us.
      http://knowbeforeyouvote.com/
      • kdemetter, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1you are wrong : he is not against war that has an acceptable reason ( i.e not for peace at all costs ) , but he is against pointless wars .
        He was against the war in Iraq , from the very beginning .
  • co78flyer, on 02/11/2008, -28/+6Can someone point to something in this guys background that makes him qualified to run a country? I'm not republican or democrat but this guy never excelled to the top of any professional organization. I'm wondering why his opponents arent questioning his lack of any significant experience...

    I'm a shareholder in Apple. I wouldnt want a guy with no experience in the computer business to come and run Apple... Look what happened when they brought in an experienced executive who sold sugary water! So why is everyone excited about the possibility of the least experienced candidate winning? I dont get it... Other than he gives a good speech and appears to be very energetic.
    • aelfwyne, on 02/11/2008, -2/+15Listen to him speak, and recognize that this man is very intelligent. Yes, someone with more experience, all else being equal, would be better. All else is not equal in this case - Hillary's experience is a liability for many reasons, and McCain / Huckabee both have beliefs and policies that are abhorrent to many in the U.S.

      I personally feel like Obama is this century's Kennedy. Kennedy did make mistakes, but he also inspired the nation in ways it needed to be inspired. I am voting for the person, not the resume, and many agree with me here. Experience can be bought in the form of staffers - Character cannot.
      • co78flyer, on 02/11/2008, -9/+2Yeah but intelligence isnt leadership... Hes never held any position that required him to exercise his judgement... Thats really scary.

        Kennedy was in the house for 8 years and the senate for 7, came from a political family and was a war hero. I'm not sure you can compare the two. Not even close, and I like JFK.
        • Lazydriver, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1And why not? Look, honestly, would you want some clown who's experienced with leading Apple but has no good ideas, ala status quo, meaning your profits go down and eventually end up in debt, or, someone new who has good ideas?! You're valuing experience over good ideas, and that's not right! That's like saying a king should still be a king because he knows how to lead, even though nothing that needs to be done is being done.

          On that note, I do like Hillary's stance on healthcare slightly more but it's also got a chance in hell passing. Obama can sway die-hard Reagan republicans - and not to mention he's a warliberal, like myself - though he's not too loud about it yet, we should be able to win both desert wars! This is a time for LIBERALS, not die-hard backward idiot populist so-called conservatives who put Jesus and big spending against the needs of the nation and how to spend as little as possible doing so!
      • Swift2, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1I'm surrounded by stupid young people.
    • LStone, on 02/11/2008, -8/+7dugg down for being an Apple shareholder
      • co78flyer, on 02/11/2008, -3/+2whats wrong with that?
        • Lazydriver, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Apple's a company that doesn't do ***** to help you fix your broken flat-screens, and they won't let you port your own 3rd party software onto an iPhone without them breaking it - WHICH SHOULD BE ILLEGAL AND THAT CONTRACT BETWEEN AT&T AND THEM BROKEN! -, and general lying to their customers about how good their computers are even though they crash, and they're overpriced for the parts that are in them. Decent OS, crappy computers though they look nice, and horrible, horrible, horrible customer support on forums.
        • Aensland, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2PLAY WALL STREET LIKE A PONZI SCH- ...oh, wait.
    • Cloned, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4You know he's a senator, right? I count that as political experience.
    • CaymanCarpediem, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4Obama was the first african american head of the Harvard law review. It doesn't take much imagination to guess he was getting some pretty lucrative offers upon leaving Harvard. Instead he went to work for a small firm in his home town (Chicago) to practice constitutional law and be a civil rights lawyer (not exactly the highest paying field for someone with his educational background). Next he gave that up to become a community organizer in the inner-city of Chicago. Then he began running for public office.

      So I guess it depends on what private sector experience/choices you think will make a better president. 1) Trying to get yourself ahead by amassing wealth and power or 2) making personal sacrifices to help others get ahead. Personally #2 is exactly the type of person we need in my opinion. Others are free to disagree, but for decades we have had those who followed path #1 above and the country has just become more divided and less empathetic to each others struggling. I think it is time to try a person who has shown that they put others needs before thier own.
      • CaymanCarpediem, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0In the interest of full disclosure, my life has more followed path #1 above. I'm 32 and making nearly 1/4 million per year. I don't think I'm a bad person or anyone else who follows path #1 is a bad person. I just want someone "better" or more self sacraficing then someone like myself in the Whitehouse. I want someone who can inspire others like me and all people to look at ourselves and ask "can I do better?, can I donate more?, can I volunteer more?", etc. Someone who not just has solid policy (and as more of a libertarian at heart there are certainly areas I disagree with Obama), but also makes us look at ourselves as a nation and as individuals and ask if we can be more. If we can do better. Someone (and I know this is now almost cliche but also if possible would be amazing) who can help us to look past our differences be it race, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliations, religion, etc. Someone who can make us look at ourselves as americans and human beings instead of multiple competing groups to be divided and pited against one another to win elections and further personal asperations.

        I realize these may be longshots and this won't be done by electing any one person to be president. It will be up to us, the people to stop seeing ourselves that way and to come together. However, I do belive there is hope that Obama could be a catalyst to begin that healing. I realize this all probably sounds a bit naive, but nothing great has ever been accomplished by saying its to hard or it cannot be done. I see this as a rare opportunity to try. Nobody can know for sure if it can succeed if we try, but we all know for certain we will fail if we don't make the effort.
  • aelfwyne, on 02/11/2008, -7/+47These are the stories we digg, because digg users are being enthusiastic about the democratic process. Any apparent bias toward Obama is simply representative of how THIS community (and apparently others) believe he is the best choice to rebuild our nation in the coming years. If the republicans had as much enthusiasm for their candidates, there would be "digg-spam" for them as well - that's the idea of a democracy.

    I'm glad to see such political enthusiasm.
    • rolf, on 02/11/2008, -7/+3It is not truly democratic as long as there are editors on digg that can kill or make a story:

      http://forevergeek.com/news/digg_corrupted_editors ...
      http://valleywag.com/346263/diggs-secret-editors
    • Aidje, on 02/11/2008, -2/+4But when there was "digg-spam" for Ron Paul, it was seen the other way. As a result, people built a bury brigade to circumvent the democratic process.
    • Armitage, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." -Benjamin Franklin

      The founding fathers HATED democracy, they called it "Tyranny of the majority."

      How do you think we got stuck with Bush? There are more stupid people then smart ones, this time around they're voting for Obama.
  • pleiadianagenda, on 02/11/2008, -37/+7You Obama supporters are the biggest hypocrites out there. You claim you want change, you claim you are sick and tired of Bush and Cheney, so what do you do? You get behind Obama, who belongs to the Council on Foreign Relations, and you honestly think he's going to do something for America. You people are total idiots. You pay attention to his lip service, but not to his history, or actions.

    Anyone belonging to the CFR has only one agenda, and that is the global elite's agenda. So go ahead, get Obama in, and when he sells you out , just don't act surprised, and remember, we tried to warn you.

    It's no wonder you people are so easily controlled. None of you do any research.
    • onetimer, on 02/11/2008, -7/+14I think the tin from your hat is starting to seep into your brain...
      • DanOnTheMoon, on 02/11/2008, -2/+1My, how substantive. You'd think that after 3000 years of tyrrany, you'd get the idea tat big government is bad.
    • macjaeh, on 02/11/2008, -4/+20Oh my God! You're right!



      Is "right" the correct word?

      Sorry, "an *****" is really what I was searching for.

      Stop drinking your damn Ron Paul Kool-Aid. Get off your elitist libertarian high-horse. I've done thorough research on all of the 2008 candidates. Obviously, you've only done research on one, then read the lopsided drivel you wanted to hear about the others. You're hardly an informed citizen, rather a narrow-minded bandwagon rider. Do us all a favor, before you call somebody an idiot, let alone an entire group of people, make sure you're well-informed. Otherwise you sound like a dim-witted blow-hard.
    • Pake, on 02/11/2008, -2/+15If you're saying he belongs to the CFR because of this: http://www.cfr.org/bios/11603/ than how about I show you this: http://www.cfr.org/bios/13303/ron_paul.html
    • gdehms, on 02/11/2008, -2/+9You really didn't prove anything by saying that. How will he sell us out? How will him being on the "Council on Foreign Relations" be BAD for us? Our foreign relations could use some help right now. I don't think the world is very fond of us, and by us I mean Bush.

      How is saying we want change being hypocritical? When he steps into office I'm sure as hell he will change things. He will try to put a stop to the Iraq war. He'll try to establish a health care system that leaves no one without health insurance. He'll try to improve the illegal immigration problem by giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship and secure the border. If he doesn't do the stuff he says he will.. even then we won't be hypocrites. We believed that he was going to change things.

      You obviously have done no research. You are just talking out of your ass.
    • BoltonWanderers, on 02/11/2008, -5/+3I just "did some research" and I fail to see how membership in the CFR is a bad thing. In order to stand any chance in the American political ring you need to have some ties to what some would consider "elitist" organizations. Ron Paul, whether you like him or not, is a perfect example of someone who wants to bring his ideas to the table but, because he is lacking the support of these kinds of organizations, has no chance of getting anywhere. Just tellin it how it is.
      • LLamaStar, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3also, RP hates black people...that usually is a bad thing when you're running for president.
        • DanOnTheMoon, on 02/11/2008, -4/+1*****, the Austin NAACP backs him. Somehow, I doubt that Uncle Ruckus runs the show there.
          • chaosium, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3No he doesn't BACK him, he issued a retraction for his support of Ron.
    • SupaFurry, on 02/11/2008, -2/+9"research" == read some random websites and believe everything.

      Retard.
      • chaosium, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4uh there's a little authority called YOUTUBE!!! maybe you should study it sometime
    • bitspace, on 02/11/2008, -2/+7We do lots of research (well, some of us do anyway). The drama queens that need to find a conspiracy in everything and rant about CFR, the Illuminati, and Bohemian Grove and get all their information from Alex Jones are the ones that need to do more research instead of sucking up all the steaming vomit from the mouths of the conspiracy nuts.
    • pimpofpixels, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5I've done a LOT of research. Kucinich was my candidate but he dropped out. Ron Paul was fine with me but he's not likely to win the republican nomination. Of the remaining candidates, Obama's voting record is most similar to how I would have voted, and he's also one of the best speakers I've ever seen. I'll take Obama over McCain in a heart beat, and since McCain would likely beat Clinton in a general election that's my only choice. Plus, Clinton voted for the war. I can never under any circumstances vote for her.
      • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 02/11/2008, -7/+2I don't get it. How can you go from Ron Paul to Obama. Ron Paul supports the constitution. Obama expressly does not. He has the #1 most liberal voting record. He supports discrimination against white males (pro affirmative action), he supports destroying the 2nd amendment and opening the border. Obama and Paul are POLAR OPPOSITES on nearly every issue other than a few relating to the war. As a straight, white male I will not vote for him.
        • Pake, on 02/11/2008, -3/+6Ron Paul supports to constitution? I mean yeah, if by picking and choosing which parts he wants, like his voting of no to keep a separation of church and state. Also, if you want to talk about discrimination, don't forget Paul's columns he used to have published in a white supremacist journal.
        • pimpofpixels, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3I care primarily about the war. I disagree with Paul on Gay adoption. I disagree with Obama on gun control. I agree with both of them though that the Iraq war is something that never should have happened.
  • BannedTwice, on 02/11/2008, -33/+6***** that terrorist. he needs gitmo not a vote.
  • Soyea, on 02/11/2008, -5/+25I didn't vote for him the MA primary, I voted for Ron Paul. however I would vote for him in the general run off. I don't care for who the GOP has right now. Clinton plays dirty pool, something we don't need. also I'm not voting for a co- presidency . But mostly after 4 years of Bush 8 years of clinton, 8 years of bush. I don't want to see another 4-4 years of another clinton. thats 30+years of bush/clinton rule. we need someone fresh with fresh ideas who isn't going to play dirty ball.with underhanded tricks. the time is come for me to vote Dem for the first time. but if Clinton gets the dem nod I can't vote for her.
    • co78flyer, on 02/11/2008, -8/+3How can you vote for a libertarian on one hand and then say you want to support a socialist? Do you vote for the person or for the positions?
      • omgwhat, on 02/11/2008, -2/+5Obama is not a socialist
      • SouthsideIrish, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2How can you vote for a Libertarian then vote for a socialist who is more left than Hilary. I would vote for her, before I would vote for Obama, and I won't for her either. For me it will be Libertarian, or Green, when Illinois won't let the Libertarian on the ballot.

        And Obama is left of Hilary, and he certainly is not fiscally conservative. And Hilary is right. His health plan sucks and he is a liar.
        • Soyea, on 02/11/2008, -1/+6Simple really, I think RP is the best of the lot. but he can't win it now. who the GOP is tossing out there, i disagree with. I'm more for what RP stands for than any of the lot. without RP in there which he will not because he will not start a 3rd party run. and I do vote. so my vote would be cast for Obama. as for clinton. no i can not vote for her.
        • drachasor, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1You won't vote for Obama or Hillary because they are too "socialist" but you will vote for Greens? How does that make sense?
    • rolf, on 02/11/2008, -1/+7Thanks for voting for Ron Paul and sticking with him at least until the primaries are over.
  • ralph12c41, on 02/11/2008, -30/+4Not yet ready for the Obamunist
    • SupaFurry, on 02/11/2008, -1/+9I am really encouraged at how Obama seems to piss of extreme right-wing weirdos. I'm going to donate some more money to his campaign - he must be doing something right.
    • pimpofpixels, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4Right... communism. It's funny. From this comment I can tell that you're about 60 years old, have few friends, and are a complete and utter waste of space.
      • ralph12c41, on 02/12/2008, -1/+1And you are probably in your mid-twenties..easily impressed, naive, and no human is a waste of space. Have a nice day...
  • Number23, on 02/11/2008, -15/+35Wow, a liberal magazine endorses the most liberal candidate. That is unexpected!
    • Pake, on 02/11/2008, -0/+8Considering the health care plans, Hillary is more liberal and Obama.
      • Pake, on 02/11/2008, -0/+6*than Obama.
      • poxonyou, on 02/11/2008, -1/+5No, don't listen to the BS. They're about equal, just slight differences. It's not exactly progressive to force people (mandates, wage deductions if person doesn't pay) to buy PRIVATE health insurance. When people say they want universal health care, they mean a government run health care system, not one run by profit hungry private corporations. Obama said he seeks to have actual universal health care by the end of his FIRST term. His plan at the moment is a stepping stone. Clinton has not come out to say anything like that. I live in a country with UHC now. You know how nice it is to not have to worry about $2000 deductibles on top of $200 monthly bills? Not have to worry if a special treatment or check you need will be covered or not? To not have to worry if the doctor is accepted by your insurance?
        • Pake, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Obama wants a hybrid system with a UHC that you can opt in or your can use a private system. Clinton wants a full fledged UHC system where everyone is forced to pay into it. You and whoever dugg you up show do research first.
        • slapout, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1What do you pay for gas in your country?
      • kdemetter, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0I disagree :
        Hilary wants to force people to buy healthcare , wich is a socialist argument .
        Obama wants universal healthcare to be available for everybody , wich is a more liberal point of view .
  • Jay123, on 02/11/2008, -4/+30Hillary was Bill's second choice... She should be our second choice too.
    • Lazydriver, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2Yes, but America too will cheat on Hilary. And I don't hate Hilary, I like her, but she doesn't stand a chance in hell against McKain - yes, that's a pun, but one that's probably true.
  • SuspicionVandit, on 02/11/2008, -3/+49I heard he has no experience killing terrorists first-hand.
    • Aensland, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3I doubt he has the time to waste playing Counter Strike.
  • tommy68, on 02/11/2008, -14/+3 with these candidates we have to chose from this country will be a thrid world nation in 10 years. open the borders let em all in
    • pimpofpixels, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3You know, if we cracked down on companies hiring them, and forced them to treat immigrant workers according to our countries current labor laws then the price of immigrant labor would increase and the demand for immigrant labor would dry up. It's the same group complaining, prolonging, and profiting off the situation.
  • gmillerd, on 02/11/2008, -13/+2Buried, it wasn't from the Nation
    • aelfwyne, on 02/11/2008, -1/+9Actually, the headline is directly from CBS' site, and if you read the subtitle it says right there: "(The Nation) This column was written by the editors of The Nation.".

      Buried your comment.
  • life38, on 02/11/2008, -7/+0The degree to which the USA is dependent upon outside financial support, the more likely that its independence is influenced by other countries. Two of the largest influences come from China imports and the purchase of foreign oil. The USA has the ability today to change its dependence upon oil and China imports. Former president Clinton has made millions on these type of foreign oil deals. The same investors game his foundation millions. During the Clinton administration the Democates lost the House and Senate. For those of you stating the negatives about Obama, it is tough to support someone called Clinton when in reality their more conservative than McCain.
    The more outside financial support for a campaign receives from specific groups the more that a campaign is influence by outside influences.
    Here are five points of view by Generation O to provide Humor and help you to remember the issues when you vote.
    http://mynonprofitwebsite.com/blog/category/emo-ca ...
  • 11b1p, on 02/11/2008, -11/+4I don't believe that he can beat McCain. I feel like he is peaking too early and all the excited young people are just not gonna be excited enough to vote at the finish, in November.
    • ZenMojo, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4Democrats have twice the voter turnout for the primary than the Republicans do. If Huckabee creates a third Christian Conservative party we're home free.
  • mecenday, on 02/11/2008, -13/+27The last candidate I saw get this much coverage on Digg was Ron Paul.... Obama is doomed.

    =)
    • SheilaNoya, on 02/11/2008, -7/+21Funny, but there's a BIG difference. People actually show up to vote for Obama.
      • Armitage, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2People who apparently don't know the issues.

        "...This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of "one world government.'...National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept..."
        -Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama Advisor and vocal supporter
    • Lazydriver, on 02/11/2008, -10/+4Yeah, but, I don't like Ron Paul. I like Obama. I have from the start, except for a little while when I switched to Edwards for being saying he'd be tough on wrongdoing corporations.
    • DavidGX, on 02/11/2008, -14/+8Ron paul was a lunatic, Obama is actually sane.
      • dzazter, on 02/11/2008, -2/+2A sane leftist socialist nut-job...now theres an idea. :-/
        • DavidGX, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1If you think Obama is a socialist, or even a LEFTIST you sir are the moron.
  • arbouler, on 02/11/2008, -8/+13i like this comment on that cbs page:

    "What is the supposedly Black presidential candidates middle name? Sources here say it is, Hussien! So, it goes like this - Barack Hussien Obama.
    Now does anyone have any information backing this up or shooting it down? I would really like to know. I live in Ohio and although I would love to support him ... I want to support a candidate that can win the presidency. If, this is really his complete name then I don''t think the American voters will elect him if this gets out, not even Black voters will continue to support him the way they have. Just my opinion.

    Just like when President Bush tried to give the Customs Handling to an Arab named authority, Americans totally refused the idea and made their voices known. I am afraid that if this middle name is truly Mr. Obamas'' he would lose the presidential election hands down just because of how Americans feel about the Iraq War and 9/11.

    No, not that he had anything to do with it, of course not! But his full name would not induce me to give him my vote and a lot of other people have said so since this middle name information has been circulating in night clubs, large employment firms, etc.
    What do you think?

    Posted by ground2zero at 04:24 PM : Feb 10, 2008"
    ****
    im surprised at ignorant voters like him/ her. arabic name doesnt mean he's an arab/ muslim/ terrorist. my name is arabic but im not an arab.
    • ZenMojo, on 02/11/2008, -0/+15Call him by his Jewish/Irish name: Baruch O'bamahan.
    • lhughey, on 02/11/2008, -1/+8i agree 100%. I know a guy named John, and he's not a Christain. Ignorant people are the majority sadly.
    • aelfwyne, on 02/11/2008, -2/+8I know his middle name, so do a lot of people. It is irrelevant. It is a very common name in Islamic countries.
    • olschool82, on 02/11/2008, -3/+2I guess if a president's middle name Joeseph during the 50's or 60's they wouldn't vote for him b/c of Joseph Stalin and they would assume he was communist. Man, you are truly ignorant. But the sad fact is many americans are as ignorant as you. They are the same americans that hold there breath when they the terrorist alert colors change, or when from the middle east sits next to them on a plane. What about home grown terrorist, like the timothy mcvays, after the tragedy of the oklahoma city bombing people didn't few White anglo saxon protestant males any different. And lastly what does Hussein have to do with 9/11, did you get the memo IRAQ AND SADAAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. You are the products of fear and ignorants. This is truely a sad commentary on america.
      • 11b1p, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I don't see where he said saddam was responsible for 9/11 dude
      • Digger1218, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Barack Hussein Obama's name is as irrelevent as the color of his skin.
    • 11b1p, on 02/11/2008, -2/+4You won't see that until the General Election. then that is all the will say.

      Think about it they made John Kerry a decorated veteran look like a traitor. What do you think they will do to someone who is black, can be made to look involved with Islam, and whose name sounds like the people we are currently fighting. We live in a racist world where logic doesn't alway guide the voter. Sucks but it's true. If you don't believe it then you don't know the America that you have been living in.
      • iainc, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3Ya know. If all of America falls for the conservative swift-boating again then they truly deserve McCain. Really. But I think the Ignorant Few are just that, a sad and insignificant minority.
    • wilhoitm, on 02/11/2008, -1/+7I think his middle name is Byron or Chip! It is safe to vote for him now!
    • cheshireluna, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2I, too, have an Arabic name, and I'm not Arab. Back in my days of customer service, I was working and a customer asked the origin of my name. I told him it was Arabic, and his reply was, "So, what? Are you some kind or towel head or something?" It's truly remarkable how absolutely ignorant and prejudiced people can be.
    • alyceclover, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1WTF does his middle name have to do with the time of the day? Hey, how about Bill Clinton and his Dubai Sheik friends, you know those cats from the United Arab Empire? (I have nothing against Arabians, but if someone is worried about a Kenyan middle name due to Saddam....) Should Hillary denounce Bill's business partner because they have anti-Hebrew sentiments? I quote: gimmie a break.
  • sunnydiesel, on 02/11/2008, -8/+13I think Obama has good chance of winning!
  • wrappedcherry, on 02/11/2008, -18/+5Go Hussein!!!
  • n0t0kayipr0mis3, on 02/11/2008, -1/+16I worked at a polling station in Chicago for Super Tuesday and the things i heard, Clinton won at my precinct by around 15% and people were saying that they voted for her because they wanted to know how her daughter was doing or because she was a woman and the voter i spoke to was a woman, i mean come on ignorance is one of the things that keeps us back. If you want to vote, learn the facts about your candidate no matter who he or she is.
    • d03boy, on 02/11/2008, -2/+4I heard they didn't have Ron Paul on the ballot. So much for the "not showing up" argument. System is slightly flawed.
    • runCMD, on 02/11/2008, -4/+0You could look at this two ways. the fact that Obama is ahead in some states proves a great deal of ignorance on the part of people easily distracted by shiny objects. The best don't always win because of ignorance. This may be one time.
    • SouthsideIrish, on 02/11/2008, -4/+1So? I am an Election Judge to and people were voting for Obama because of how he talked. People vote on feelings.
      All of it is stupid.
      • n0t0kayipr0mis3, on 02/11/2008, -1/+5Exactly what i'm saying, I said no matter who the candidate was, people needed to look deeply into their choice; Though i don't agree on the fact that all of it is stupid.
  • MaximusD, on 02/11/2008, -3/+23"While his rhetoric about "unity" can be troubling..." -- Sometimes my fellow progressives can be such douchebags.
    • drachasor, on 02/11/2008, -1/+4*sigh* agreed.
    • FuZi0nDET, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3I read that comment and was thinking wtf? I assume that these are the kinds of liberals that think republicans are the devil?
    • catalysis, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1That surprised me to. Do Americans really hate each other that much?
  • semrocks, on 02/11/2008, -19/+10Buried for continuous Obamabot spam.
    • cwcentral, on 02/11/2008, -4/+1Obama's great, but all this [free] promotion is too much overload:

      You're college bills (most folks here are likely college/grads/affluent Obama supporters) will still be high and over taxed--Also, note, middle class folks are likely busy at work now or on dial up, i.e. aren't digging.

      Gas will still be 2.75. Likely higher. And hybrids will get more expensive, like the 45K range (but you guys don't have to worry with that good education and 60K/yr entry job).

      Health care will still be a problem unless whole-foods lowers prices or people demand less meat and more veggies (I wish, but I do