digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Why I Switched from Clinton to Obama ?

ie.youtube.com — Former President of Chicago NOW, Lorna Brett Howard, tells the story of why she switched from supporting Hillary Clinton to Obama.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • wampeter, on 01/31/2008, -31/+289Let's get this on the front page... It is important that people see that a vote for Barack Obama is NOT a vote against women as many (including the Clintons) are trying to portray.
    • jm4847, on 01/31/2008, -3/+50Only a moron would think that way.
      • uptown, on 01/31/2008, -1/+62There's no shortage of those in this country.....
        • ICSU, on 01/31/2008, -3/+9..or elsewhere.
          • chromerium, on 02/01/2008, -3/+1... though the US does seem to have an excess of morons compared to elsewhere ...
      • PabloMac, on 01/31/2008, -0/+12That's who they appeal to.
      • Tilon, on 01/31/2008, -2/+7Morons don't read.
        • danielsan1701, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1In the words of Ronald Jenkees: Hello YouTubes!
      • element247, on 01/31/2008, -1/+9Too bad, I think Mitt's got most of the mor(m)on vote.
      • sadilak, on 01/31/2008, -17/+1A vote to obama means a "Yes" to allow people like Oprah control you. With Obama, the country is going to be worse than GWBs tenure..
        • sleepwalkers, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4I didn't know Obama chose Winfrey as his running mate.
          Guess you learn something new every day, eh?
          • sadilak, on 02/01/2008, -2/+0She does not need to be his running mate to control him. She is the king maker man. It all boils down to race politics in the end.
        • chromerium, on 02/01/2008, -0/+4... because Oprah is is black and so is Obama! So therefore they MUST be in league with each other. And of course we can't have blacks in positions of power, they might, oh, I don't know ... doe something about racist ***** like you?

          Wouldn't that be a crying ***** shame.
          • sadilak, on 02/01/2008, -0/+0This election is all about race . As an FYI, I am not a racist. Oprah winfrey is the "Anti Male". She has already poisoned millions of women. This election infact is all about Race and gender.
    • pictureDIGGER, on 01/31/2008, -1/+26It is sad that politics has resorted to that mentality. Basing a vote on Race/Sex/Religion/Hair/Age/Husband are the most ignorant reasons to base a vote on. Look at the candidates integrity and honesty. Do they follow their instruction manual? What is their instruction manual?
      • cdahlkvist, on 01/31/2008, -1/+9It has been that way for a long time.

        I consider myself a Republican (in the old sense - what we have now are not Republicans) but I refuse to vote party line just because I believe in the original intent of the Republican party.

        These groups (and voters in general) need to wake up and learn about the candidates from every party and start voting for the person they trust and believe can get the job done properly.

        I think a better question, regarding this article, is not why she switched from Hillary to Obama but, rather, why anyone would consider Hillary in the first place (just my opinion of She-Bill).
      • jdotter, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7I don't think this is about that at all. It's about the Clinton's say anything, do anything, pit bull politics - burn bridges, step on toes and lie straight to your face. This kind of stuff gets the country nowhere. That's what this woman’s statement is about. It is time for a change in the way politics are approached, not just change from Republicans to Democrats but fundamental change across the board.
      • Vektuz, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2Well, Obama's not just talking it, he's walking the walk too. Look at his votes on the issue. They're pretty straightforward
      • 10001110101, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1I will only be voting for 70s hairstyles.
    • ispellkonfusion, on 01/31/2008, -5/+62As a feminist, voting for Clinton just because she's a woman is just as bad as people who DON'T vote for Clinton because she's a woman. Obama is just a better candidate overall. He gets my vote.
      • uptown, on 01/31/2008, -1/+6Hillary has long characterized Bill's role as one of her key advisors and confidant. It's generally accepted that her Presidency would be somewhat of a co-Presidency ... and based on the "experience" she says she gained as First Lady while in the White House, I'll take her on her word that this will be the case. My problem with this is that the 22nd ammendment to the Constitution clearly states that a President may only serve two terms ... the rationalle being that the nation was best served by forced turn-over of new leadership in order to prevent the leader of this nation from becoming somewhat of a benevolent dictator. My question to Hillary is this ... if her role in the White House was truly one where she gained experience by contributing to the Presidency of her husband, and the same type of co-Presidency will be true if she is elected to office ... wouldn't the nation best be served by upholding the spirit of the 22nd ammendment?
        • nkassi, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3You could say that about vice-presidents.
        • Vektuz, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4Thats another reason I don't like the idea of the clintons in the whitehouse again. Its like its become a monarchy. First bush and then little bush... and now clintons for possibly another eight years? Do we really want the same one or two families to control the whitehouse for a total of 16 years?
        • Nobi-Wan, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4Bush Sr. held office for 4 years, Bush Jr. held office for 8 years... as did Clinton. Right now that's a total of TWENTY years. If Hillary gets elected and possibly re-elected, then you're looking at just two families holding office for 28 years, not 16.
        • babar77, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Spirit of the 22nd amendment? That's a good one. The Spirit of the 22nd amendment was so that Republicans wouldn't suffer 4 defeats in a row to the same man, FDR. They despised his social programs and couldn't get him out of office - and felt snubbed because he refused to bow out after two terms as every other president before him in the tradition of GW. To protect themselves, they passed this as soon as they convinced IKE to run as a Republican and gained control of congress. They later realized they shot themselves in the foot because IKE was extremely popular after his 2nd term and could've gotten re-elected a third time.
    • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -2/+10I guess a vote FOR Clinton is a vote AGAINST Blacks?
      • silveravnt, on 01/31/2008, -2/+22Not blacks, AMERICA.
        • edwartica, on 01/31/2008, -0/+5No, that would be a vote for Romney or Mcain - whoever gets the Republican nomination.
        • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Lord please let McCain drop out and people realize romney is a religious freak with no clue..... Ron Paul would be the nominee.
          RP vs. Obama..... no contest.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 01/31/2008, -17/+3who the hell hasn't realized that it's a little bit suspicious that this woman is from Chicago (an Obama stronghold...hes a damn illinois senator).
      I will vote for Obama over Hillary, but I am burying this on principle because its *****.
      • jdotter, on 01/31/2008, -1/+13Did you even listen to her entire statement? She changed her mind because she knows Obama's actual record from being in Chicago, not the distorted one the Clinton's trotted out while she was campaigning for them. Misinform, misrepresent, and mischaracterize so the public misses the point, it's the Clinton way.
    • rentmitchum, on 01/31/2008, -7/+3Why I'm Ron Burgundy ?
    • Malevolant, on 01/31/2008, -19/+4One has to ask how much Obama's campaign is paying people to spam all this pro-Obama, anti-Clinton stuff here on digg in the last week or so. I think it's much worse than any previous week on pro-Ron Paul spam. I hope all of this misinformation, disinformation, twisting of quotes, and demonization of every candidate other than Obama doesn't change anyone's vote, because it's a very underhanded tactic. Vote your conscience, no matter who it is and what party you're in. No one knows what you're looking for in a candidate more than yourself. Don't be a mindless drone, a member of the flock, someone who jumps on any bandwagon.

      Vote for who you believe is best suited for the job. Period.

      Digg needs to seriously look at filtering out the massive spam from the Obama campaign, and any other campaign, when it starts to look like an Obama site(or Ron Paul previously) and not digg. I don't think I've seen a site lose it's identity so frequently like digg. Reign in the spam and let there be equal articles for all subjects. If anything limit popular items pertaining to one subject to maybe five, tops, per day, so the site isn't overwhelmed by one subject. It goes against what this place was built on.
      • Deodrus, on 01/31/2008, -6/+9Actually it is you who sounds like a shill.

        Obama inspires, and we love him. That's all there is to it. End of story.
        • Malevolant, on 01/31/2008, -12/+1Oh really I sound like a shill? Tell me then, who am I shilling for? Nowhere in my post did I say I was for anyone and you will find the same in the post and the rest of my posts for that matter. By saying what you said it just shows how's ignorant your argument is then you back it up with more mindless Obama spam, shillboy. You love him, fine, but I don't love any candidate and I'm shilling for no one. They are all the same, you're just to blind to see it.
          • Feanor, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Shut the Shill Up you Mother Shiller.
      • Vektuz, on 01/31/2008, -3/+12Its not misinformation. Most of the stuff you see is clarity. For example, its not a lie that Clinton started spreading pamphlets attacking Obama's stance on women's reproductive rights, and its not a lie that Obama has been clearly, openly 100% pro-choice, not only in his speeches but also in every vote he's made. These are not propoganda, these are facts, based on real evidence. The pamphlet exists. Obama's voting record exists. They're both senators. Its all out in the open.
        If there's misinformation here, its coming from the Clinton campaign.
        • Malevolant, on 01/31/2008, -9/+1So you repeat the same crap after I make the point. You're just part of the massive pro-Obama, he is the second coming, he is our savior, spammers. I love how all of you keep saying Clinton is divisive, and uses dirty tactics yet you're all using the same tactics here on digg. If you believe so deeply in positive campaigning then why don't you practice what you preach in terms of speaking on issues instead of a massive campaign of mud-slinging? I don't like Clinton, but Obama's supporters are being severely hypocritical. Obama isn't doing it yet his supporters are? I'm sorry but that's no excuse.
      • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Like his 100% voting record, which is misinformation.
        Read further down, there are PLENTY of reasons and links with sources showing he is NOT 100% honest either.
        I am not bad mouthing your candidate, but I am clearing up his "misinformation".
      • rationalist, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3The difference between the two is that Ron Paul has the support of less than 5% of Republican primary voters, while Obama now has the support of about half of Democratic primary voters, and a significant percentage of Independents.
        Since Obama has received considerably more than ten times the votes Paul has to date, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the Paul supporters were a loud minority spamming, while Obama supporters are merely representative of his broad appeal.
        Final point: Obama leads all candidates by large margins among young voters, as well as among college educated voters, and Digg skews young and college educated.
        Simple.
    • Vigilo, on 01/31/2008, -11/+3WTF? They are the exact same on every issue it has nothing to do with gender. Some major fools on this site. Ok people Zbigniew Brzezinski is Obama's ad visor and he is super evil look him up here is video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caeP33025UY
      Hillary is scum nwo too so anyway this topic is stupid.
    • Ireland, on 01/31/2008, -9/+2KEVIN - would you ever fix this Safari *****!?? I have to use FFb3 to make comments and add diggs now, arrgh!!

      And as it's a beta it takes about 6 weeks to do anything.. including launch. ***** this is annoying, and it's going on for 2 months now, wtf?

      Oh, O8ama!
    • lgm1213, on 01/31/2008, -8/+3but this video is kinda false, Obama doesn't have a 100 percent voting record, IN the state of Illinois they are allowed to vote present which is like saying Im here but Im not going to take a stance because I think it may hurt or help my career.
      • scottc, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Voting present when NOW recommended a present vote is why they gave him a 100% voting record.
      • dn11, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4he voted present on some 100 votes out of 4000
      • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2Which makes him a 4% deviant from a perfect record. He also voted for the patriot act and the preemptive war doctorate. So, maybe 6%.
      • Tenareth, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1He votes present when he supports the original intent of a bill, but there are several provisions that were added which he does not agree with.
    • wicketr, on 01/31/2008, -6/+3Baby Killers for Obama '08
    • tomservo51, on 01/31/2008, -5/+2I don't like Hillary, but I would NEVER vote for Osama Bin Laden!
    • LeeSoong, on 01/31/2008, -4/+2"Why I Switched from Clinton to Obama ?"

      - Because you don't realize both are with the warmongers party,
      and you haven't learned enough about Ron Paul:

      http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about
  • Michael9636, on 08/04/2008, -20/+170Powerful statement. This needs to be widely circulated. The Clintons (yes, plural, they are both running), obviously think they can run against Obama by deliberately lying and distorting his record. This is so sad, to see them both degrade themselves to such a degree. I have lost all respect for Bill and Hillary.
    • JQP123, on 01/31/2008, -2/+13"I have lost all respect for Bill and Hillary."

      Why only now? Nothing has changed, they've *always* done this --- this is their profession, they're about as good at it as "good" ever gets.

      The fact that you and so many others were able to overlook and forgive the blatantly obvious for so long says more about your judgment (or lack thereof) and political bias than it does about them.
      • jdotter, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7It was different in the 90's, the republicans hated them and dirty politics was the norm. It was the way things had to be done and all parties where guilty of it. I think a lot of people have been turned off of the Clinton's now because of there willingness to eat their own, as in a fellow Democrat, especially one who has stayed above these nasty ways of campaigning. I do agree nobody does it better. But this is just different when it's coming from within the party.
        • JQP123, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2"But this is just different when it's coming from within the party."

          Exactly! Lying, cheating and distorting is just good politics ... until it is used against one of your own.
        • lgm1213, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1BUT This video is not really accurate. I want you to apply this same skeptical eye to obama and still try to feel the same way about the Clintons, after all it was Obama who started with the slinging
      • jj2me, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I'm also like michael532111, an overlooker and forgiver, just now coming to the "lost all respect" party. I think it's done because we are always comparing them to the alternatives (e.g., Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) and finding their faults relatively acceptable. Though the Clinton late-term pardons really troubled me.
    • doniguan, on 01/31/2008, -7/+7if you think the distortions are bad now- just wait till obama wins. The republicans are the real dirty ones, during the actual race- they'll pull out all the stops to make obama look bad
      • sponeil, on 01/31/2008, -8/+5I wouldn't be surprised if they actively reached out to the KKK. Although I imagine most KKK members voted for Bush anyway.
      • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -10/+1The only real way to make Obama look bad, is to point out that the him being against the war is the only political stance he has.
        Everything else on the board, his response is "Yeah that mmrjhghjdj *cough* murphle"
        • Vektuz, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3Good thing that being clearly against the war is enough for me.
        • rationalist, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2You are just parroting talk radio, without bothering to do minimal research on your own.
          Here is a link to extensive, detailed policy positions laid out by Obama on every major issue, all written in plain English:
          http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
      • jdotter, on 01/31/2008, -0/+5That's why the Republicans are so scarred, if they do just that they will alienated the independents and rile up the Democratic base. An Obama nomination ensures a general election about the issues rather than dirty tricks. The Clinton's will get down in the muck and fight just as dirty as the Republicans but the base that Obama is building wants none of it, and it's a base that includes Dems, Independents and middle of the road Republicans.
        • nkassi, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1Don't worry, they will find plenty of dirt on him too.
      • Gerz1219, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3The Republicans will run a slightly dirtier race, but that ignores the fact that this is an especially ugly primary battle. It's not supposed to get this uncivil. In a Democratic primary, Hillary hopes that every Obama voter will eventually vote for her in a general election. And vice versa. They're supposed to be fighting with kid gloves so as to ease the building of a coalition before November. With the party split down the middle -- Obama is actually ahead in delegates -- these scorched earth tactics are going to alienate substantial blocks of Democratic voters and reduce turnout in the fall. Clearly, if the Clintons hadn't laid into Obama with all their wrath, he'd be the frontrunner by a large margin at this point. The national momentum is in his favor. The Clintons' race-baiting, lying, and voter suppresion may unfortunately get them the nomination, but they're just dooming us to four more years of Republican rule.
        • Nitesmoke, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3I don't understand why you keep saying how dirty the Republicans will get, when so far, the Democratic primaries have been much dirtier and that's to their own kind, when everyone knows the guy/gal who was putting you down last week will be kissing your ass next week when you're the nominee. The Republicans have, for the most part, debated the issues, and avoided personal attacks. Hillary has a list of major problems going for her. She keeps sliming Obama, but if you look at we she is actually saying, she is totally exaggerating and even lying. Obama actually has a chance at winning over a lot of conservatives, I am possibly one. Hillary is absolutely despised by the right, not because she's a woman, but her policies are way too left. America is not 50% right and 50% left, we are about 50% independent and then left and right. Most people just want things to stay pretty much the same, but better. Everyone says they want change, but for the most part they just mean a change of leaders, not so much a change of their personal way of life.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/31/2008, -1/+6That and she has a snuke. Which makes her even more dangerous.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Snuke
    • cordellray, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1I'm not a Clinton supporter, and I am pro-choice, but was it really that powerful of a statement? She changed her mind because Clinton called out Obama on something which may have been untrue? I was hoping she would have some concrete, thought-provoking points.
      • Vektuz, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5Lets explain this more clearly.
        Both candidates are extremely pro-choice. So if you're pro choice, they are both a good fit. Your other preferences should choose between them.
        The only difference is, Hillary is trying to distort Obama's record, even though its clear and clean and out in the open (its not like senator's votes are kept secret). So instead of trying to be better than the other candidate, on things that they do differ on, Hillary would rather run a dirty campaign that distorts the record of the opponent and tries to pull pro-choice people away on disinformation.
        That's why this person, who is a very influential person in the women's reproductive rights movement, switched to obama. Because when you have two people who both say they support you, but one of them is a known liar, its best to choose the other guy.
        • boester, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2This is politics, distortion of the truth is how all politicians present themselves.

          This includes this video you guys are all digging.
        • cordellray, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Again, I don't think the video conveyed a "powerful" message. Rather, it seemed to be based on emotional and weak logic. Hardly the kind of logic that I would use to choose the next president.
    • jjustice, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1The headline *is* a statement, but note the inappropriate use of a question mark ;-)
    • Managua8Green, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Lost respect for BIll? How? Bill Clinton is a PIMP, and I think we all know this. I'm pretty sure the whole world knows.
      I would go so far as to say he is the PIMP of da year in whatever late 90's year it happened.
  • ADVIZR, on 01/31/2008, -16/+99A lot of women (and men) are getting completely played by the Clintons. This definitely needs to get seen. It's just one example out of countless instances where Hillary's campaign has been completely unfair and unethical.
    • treylane, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4Get this first - Hillary will say ANYTHING if she thinks it'll get her elected. Basically none of the random bs that she spews in her campaign speeches, advertising, debates, etc is genuine. She's playing to WIN, so she can usher in another 8 years of essentially the same stuff as the previous Clinton years. You'll have your own opinions on that, but don't make the mistake of taking her too literally in the meantime.
      • phinn, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3It's amazing how everyone suddenly realizes the Clintons are playing you. When it was pretty obvious all along.
    • altinnovation, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2So what. The Clintons are a piece of ***** anyway
      Obama 2008
  • katie212, on 01/31/2008, -15/+220Why do Americans decide to vote just because someone is a "Woman" or just because someone is ethnically a "Black" candidate? As a Black Woman and an American 1st, I find this to be very offensive to the literacy of ALL Americans. Stop the special interests trashonomics and be an American citizen who stands up for our constitution and for ALL Americans no matter what gender or race that you happen to be. Stop Already for this is not change!
    • jinxplayer, on 01/31/2008, -22/+6Because we have the FREEDOM to vote for whomever we choose, on whatever basis we choose. Im not saying voting for someone because of race is the right thing to do, but who are YOU to tell me otherwise?
      • pictureDIGGER, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2I don't think he mentioned to forbidden name. We all know who that is.
      • mxmj, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5What you wrote just looks like you want to start an argument, nothing in katie212's post said that you couldn't base your vote on race or gender. She just said that she finds is offensive and ignorant to do so. (Which it is) You do have the freedom to be racist/sexist behind closed doors. No one is -forcing- you to base your vote on anything; but they can encourage you to not be a bigoted fool and realize that you are being played.
      • RoroCo, on 01/31/2008, -0/+10Jink... Yes we have the FREEDOM to vote for whomever we want, but we also have a RESPONSIBILITY to make make a that choice based on an educated opinion on that person. This country has given us these freedoms under the premise that the opinions of the majority will create a better country for all. By choosing to vote for a person based on irrelevant information like skin color or gender, you are undermining the principles that our forefathers had when creating the government of this country.

        When you throw around terms like FREEDOM... make sure you know why those terms are in our constitution in the first place.
        • turkoftheplains, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3The founding fathers considered a black person to be 3/5 of a white person.
          I agree with the spirit of your argument-- and yes, I do believe it is both legally permissible and morally reprehensible to vote on the basis of race or sex--but the founding fathers aren't exactly a sterling argument for non-discrimination.
          • RoroCo, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1To have the power of foresight is greater than having knowledge of the current. The beliefs of the forefathers in respect to black people are inconsequentially to my statement.
    • BigBallistix, on 01/31/2008, -7/+2Yes, yes, you've finally heard there's something you should be pissed off at, good for you. We'll just wait and see how many people are annoyed at either a woman or a black being deprived of presidency, shall we? Sure it doesn't matter now, but people will start speculating about the alternate outcome once it's over.
      • BigDawgTE, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2No, actually we might see how many white, wealthy/suburban and southern republican voters (especially men) will be apoplectic if a mixed-raced man or Hillary Clinton gains the white house. I actually think you will see heads explode if Hillary wins. Blacks and women are used to this kind of disappointment - its hardly the first time.
    • nfkiller, on 01/31/2008, -3/+19Why do Americans decide to vote just because someone is a "Woman" or just because someone is ethnically a "Black" candidate?

      - because most are too stupid or lazy to understand the issues, and will vote for someone they'd like to have a beer with? It's hard to form an opinion on the candidates by watching American Idol. Just because you have the right to vote, doesn't mean that you should.
      • mxmj, on 01/31/2008, -5/+4Why do Europeans/Canadians decide to generalize all Americans?
        -because most are too stupid or lazy to understand the issues, and will continue to call all Americans Fat, Stupid, Lazy, Drunks?
        That said; when I ignore the first two sentences of your post you do have a point, but when you engage in America-Bashing you basically lose all credibility and just look like an ignorant troll.
        • nfkiller, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5Read the first two sentences again. I was responding to her post, and should have clarified. By all means substitute Canadian/European for the intent of my post, because we are all the same.
          That said, the American process of selecting a Presidential candidate is mess. Every State has their own rules for determining delegates, and the electoral college for electing a President is beyond ***** up. I love to see Dubya in a Question Period. That would be some great entertainment, if he actually had to answer the questions of other legislators. Nope, all the power, none of the accountability.
          • mxmj, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4My fault, your reply is so far down from her post that I didn't realize it was a reply. I actually agree with pretty much everything you said (except maybe 'most' should have been 'many') I'm just so used to seeing comments by Non-Americans that basically say that we are all ignorant, stupid and lazy, that I get a little ticked off when I see them.
      • Whippets, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3Yeah I mean just look at Bill Clinton. Now he's someone to have a beer........................................................... then go and pick up some girls with.
    • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -1/+9I think the main idea of the OP here is to vote on someones stances on important issues, not who they are.
      I don't give a flying ***** if the person won Dancing with the Stars or American Idol or whos husband got a blowjob and I, like a dumb *****, stuck with him. I care if I will lose my house due to THEIR bad decisions. If I will lose my son or daughter becuase of THEIR mistakes. If I will lose my job, pension, health care, education, and freedoms by THEIR actions. And THAT, is what you should care about as well.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7Most educated people are not voting that way. I won't be voting for either because I am a conservative (and frankly I've got my own problems on MY SIDE of the aisle - lol) but were I a Democrat and truly believed the Democratic Party's vision I would be voting Obama for the simple reason that I see him as a straightforward Democrat who is most;y sincere. I wouldn't vote for Hillary if I was a Democrat - not because she is a woman - but because she isn't sincere, lusts for and pursues power in the same disturbing way that Al Gore and Bill Clinton do.

      It is the parties and the media who play these "identities" up for the most part.
      • mxmj, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5I was with you up until Al Gore...
      • ZenMojo, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4Seriously? Al Gore? Way to destroy a good point.
      • iPee, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1'I won't be voting for either because I am a conservative' .......oh? Im glad you really brought it back to the main point Katie212 was talking about, because technically YOU are one of the people she is referring too. So because your a conservative you have automatically eliminated good candidates, just as saying I wont vote for her because she is a woman, or because he is black.....You sir are ridiculous to be fed by right wing/left wing ***** and cant think on a scale where a country isnt divided into TWO categories. Oh and im moderate, so dont pull some "oh your a democrat huh?" *****. Wake up and see how the way you push things to side so easily is the main downfall of the UNITED States.
        • Treoinmypocket, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Hold on a sec. That is NOT accurate. "Woman", "Black", "White"...these are just labels of an observable PHYSICAL characteristic with some speculative presumptions attached to them. There are no specific actions or defined vision of how things should be done - methodologies or ideologies - when running the country associated with these labels.

          Being a conservative or a liberal or a Democrat or a Republican on the other hand, carries a VERY clear set of beliefs and perspectives and methodologies on the right and wrong ways to do the many things that need doing when your are President.

          You say "So because your a conservative you have automatically eliminated good candidates". YES! Because they are diametrically opposed to my belief system. They are Democrats and quite liberal ones at that. That means - and they have been clear, just in case there was any doubt - that they support Universal Health Care, Higher Taxes, Government as problem solver, greater restrictions on gun ownership, etc. etc. etc. These are integral parts of their Party platform. Of COURSE I automatically discount these two. To MY way of thinking...to a Conservative mindset...they ARE NOT GOOD CANDIDATES.

          You seem to think that Hillary and Obama reached into a hat and pulled out a piece of paper at random that gave them their party affiliation ....as if The parties themselves don't stand for anything.

          If Romney were a "Black" "Woman" I'd be supporting him every bit as I do now. Why? Because I feel that of the candidates out there - from either party - he thinks the most like me on the issues I - as a conservative - care most about. That is my choice and belief based upon my principles. My principles happen to make me a conservative by definition...not the other way around.

          You have a lot to learn about the different parties and their constituents.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1TO ZenMojo & nxmj:

        Don't take this as being argumentative...Do the two of you really distinguish between Gore and the Clintons? I - and I'm being completely serious - think Gore is just as power hungry and insincere as Bill & Hillary. When he ran for President, I always felt that he was being dishonest and that he was always making sure to slice and dice his words, stances on policy, etc. Now with the Global Warming thing I can't take him seriously for 3 reasons - and seriously, these things really make me look at this guy like "Are you f'n serious?" 1) He had no solar ANYTHING in his house and he has stated time & time again that the environment is "a life long passion". No solar? No geothermal...NOTHING? That just sounds like so much ***** to me. Add to that when he finally got whacked in the head so many times over it he came out and said he was NOW going to put some solar panel..or super insulated windows or something...in. It was such a pandering move. 2) He said it was okay to exaggerate the truth to make a point. This was about the polar bears & such in his :'Inconvenient' movie. NOW I know there was a lot made of how he said it and what he meant and blah blah blah but you know what he DIDN'T say? He didn't come out and say "*****! Everything in my movie is FACT" You know why he didn't say that? Because it ISN'T fact. I have a real problem with that because he didn't say "I'm dramatizing some of this stuff for effect" up front. The guy equivocates all over the place. and 3) Carbon Credits. I find the concept ridiculous but even if I were to accept it at face value Gore is the founder...the FOUNDER mind you of a company that sells carbon credits. He is making money off this.

        I don't dislike Gore because he's a Democrat. I dislike him because I think he is dishonest and is very much like the Clinton's.

        I know I just got hot about it there - sorry, lol - but do you two disagree about those things? Do you see him differently?
    • canyoodiggit, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2People decide to vote on the basis of race or sex in this country because we have a long history of bigotry. So when an opportunity comes along that allows people to overcome a certain bigotry or act on it they don't pay attention to the real issues. A lot of people in this country are too ignorant to make wise decisions. Im not saying everyone is but a lot are. I've spoken with many friends of mine who are women and they initially say they are voting for hilary and when I ask them why they cant give me a better answer than we havent had a women president before. I've done my best to turn people on to more information about these candidates so they have a better understanding of how theyre choices will affect this country in the long run. We can only hope that people are finding the right facts.
    • BigDawgTE, on 01/31/2008, -4/+7Madam. Ruckus:

      You're kidding right? Or do you work for a Republican candidate? There have been 43 American presidents in our ~200+ year history - how many of them have been black or female? On the other hand, how many have been elected by a large plurality on the basis that they were likely to be hostile to the interests of minorities? Have you ever read the Dred Scott decision? Heard about Jim Crow? Plessy v. Ferguson? What status would blacks and women have in our society today, had our government kept the promises made in the 13th-15th and 19th Amendments - if we had made and kept a commitment to a color-blind/gender neutral society then? Would any woman or minority need to complain about the innumerable injustices of the past which led to our current inequitable society?

      I, personally, would not vote for an inferior woman or black candidate against a white male who I felt better represented my interests (for example I have a great deal of respect for John Edwards, and I have on more than one occasion defended John McCain from attack on republicans, until he became a pathetic pawn of the Bush administration, even after they swift-boated him with a racial attack in S.C. several years ago), but you are either naive, disingenuous or stupid to suggest that it is "illiterate" for an "American" to vote for candidates who are like them, or that it is only blacks and women who do.

      POLITICS IS SELF-INTEREST - always has been, always will be. People use race and gender as a proxy for their self-interest. Who was surprised that GW Bush was slavish to the interests of the Oil Industry, and a denier of scientific evidence on global warming, until like, last week, when he discovered the gospel of alternative fuels, energy independence - and because of his lame duck irrelevance and the lateness of the hour, nothing will be actually done about it?

      By the way, have you cautioned any wealthy businessmen that they should not vote for a wealthy white Republican candidate who will favor pro-corporate economic policies at the expense of the working poor and the middle class? Why? Because when the little people can't find work and don't buy products - the economy goes towards DEPRESSION - and corporations die a slow death at their own greedy sociopathic hands - until a Democrat takes the reigns of power and rescues us. (Live it up while you can, bigwigs.)

      Blacks and women who vote for like candidates are following the proud American tradition established by generation after generation of white male voters - who not only voted that way, but originally enshrined in our laws and constitution that ONLY they would ever be leaders in this country. What could be more American than for a "Black American" to vote for a Black American or a Woman to vote for a Woman? OR ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WHITE MALE CANDIDATES ARE MORE "AMERICAN" THAN BLACK OR WOMEN CANDIDATES? Why do people like you think that only minorities should re-think their voting strategies? No one here (women, blacks) needs your help making their choice so why not turn your attention to the ruling class that has always made their choices on that basis. It is wonderful that you are an American 1st; were your mother and father? How about your grandparents? You should be a better American follow the examples of generations before you and vote your OWN self-interest; those who you protect can take care of themselves - or is that, in fact, your own narrow, hidden self-interest?

      - An Enlightened Man, who happens to be African American
      • ZenMojo, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1Or we can vote for those who can't protect themselves. Just saying. Anyway, to a Republican, a vote for America is a vote for the rich.
        -An Enlightened Man, who happens to be African American
      • iPee, on 01/31/2008, -2/+0"I, personally, would not vote for an inferior woman or black candidate against a white male who I felt better represented my interests"

        Hey Mr.RacistPig, go ***** yourself. I'm glad to see you think blacks and woman are inferior to white males. Im guessing you like to hang nooses in trees and sit out back drinking moonshine shooting at coons huh? Its douche bags with such a narrow mindset like you that represent half of this ***** nation. YOU disgust me. Seriously, I hope one day you get curb checked and someone ***** in your mouth. But I imagine you already spout enough ***** for 10 people, but its alright you can hide behind your computer screen and act like your intelligent. GDIAF.
        • Nobi-Wan, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2He meant an inferior candidate (like their political position), not an inferior person.
          • iPee, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0oh yea, because thats clearly stated in his comment.....Im sorry i must have misread the paragraphs of *****.

            /sarcasm
          • gh0st3000, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0That's funny, because i understood it pretty well. He means that he wouldn't vote for a black person just because they're black or a woman just because they're a woman. Regardless of their gender or ethnicity, he wants to (and should be able to) vote for whoever represents him best.
        • RedReplicant, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Whoa there cowboy. Way to take one word completely out of context. Try reading it through next time and thinking before you spew.
      • maxpower2911, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1Too long, did not read.
      • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Well "BigDawgTE" of 55 years of age, with that much experience behind you, you should know that racism and sexism are alive and well, and it still to this days holds more sway over peoples hearts than common sense.
        "I know hes wrong, but I don't wanna see a brother go down!"
        This mentality is what has kept both Obama (and the OPRAH influence go figure, black) and Clinton (girl powah!) in the race at all. It would have been an interesting election with kunich and gravel leading the democrats ;P

        I wish that more of your "brothers and sisters" comported themselves in the same proud and respectful light that you do, but unfortunatly, they are just like the rest of us. They only care about the here and right now.
    • JQP123, on 01/31/2008, -0/+5@BigDawgTE
      "Blacks and women who vote for like candidates are following the proud American tradition established by generation after generation of white male voters..."

      So in other words, you really don't care about changing the way things were done in the past? You don't really want to do away with gender and racial bias, what you really want is for gender and racial bias to work in your favor? They did it before, now you're doing it. As they say, every BigDawgTE has his day?

      In other words, you're no different than "the generations of white male voters" that came before you.
  • corevette, on 01/31/2008, -71/+14http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/200 ...
    http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141
    • HCviolence, on 01/31/2008, -9/+38Yes we understand that you like Ron Paul but we're talking about somebody else and you have to wait your turn.
    • CosmicJustice, on 01/31/2008, -12/+21Ron Paul has lost. It's over. Stop it.
      • pictureDIGGER, on 01/31/2008, -6/+2Ha, brokered convention baby. Look it up.
    • snotrokit, on 01/31/2008, -2/+10Why is Ron Paul attending Pro-Life Rallies?
  • mickeyknoxxx, on 01/31/2008, -67/+5It's not the Clintons I'd be worried about.

    Obama will win the democratic primary.

    The scary thought, is that Kerry may be his VP.

    John Kerry is a skull & bone student from yale university and he's married to the Heinz heiress. Heinz has been involved with the Bushs since the 1930's when they were making money off of Hitler and laundering it through the Harriman & Brown banking firm on wall street. I like Kerry but I don't trust him. Can't we just have nobody in office who has relationships with Yale, the Clintons & the Bushs?

    I'm not saying this will happen, but we'll see.
    • carterbaldwin, on 01/31/2008, -2/+42I was getting worried - I thought I might go a full day without seeing a conspiracy theorist on Digg. Thank you for ensuring that I get my daily dose of crazy, poorly thought-out *****.
      • jm4847, on 01/31/2008, -7/+0He WAS S&B, you can try asking him about it but he'll probably send his goons to taze you.
      • plhearn, on 01/31/2008, -1/+6My tinfoil hat can negate tazers.
        • mickeyknoxxx, on 01/31/2008, -4/+3
          UNDERSTAND AMERICAN POLITICS


          Below are not conspiracy theories. They are facts. With sources to back it up. Follow the order, read it all, check all the links on each page, and then tell me I'm crazy.



          1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obadiah_Newcomb_Bush

          2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Smith_Bush


          3. Learn how the the Bush family had a relationship with the Rockefellers as far back as the 1800's

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Bush

          "Bush graduated from the Stevens Institute of Technology at Hoboken in 1884, where he played in one of the earliest regular college football teams. He took an apprenticeship with the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad at the Logansport, Indiana shops, later transferring to Dennison, Ohio and Columbus, Ohio, where in 1891 he became Master Mechanic, then in 1894 Superintendent of Motive Power. In 1899 he moved to Milwaukee, Wisconsin to take the position of Superintendent of Motive Power with the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad.
          Just two years later, in 1901 he returned to Columbus to be General Manager of Buckeye Steel Castings Company, which manufactured railway parts. The company was run by Frank Rockefeller, the brother of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, and among its clients were the railroads controlled by E. H. Harriman. The Bush and Harriman families would be closely associated at least until the end of World War II. In 1908 Rockefeller retired and Bush became President of Buckeye, a position he would hold until 1927, becoming one of the top industrialists of his generation."

          4. Discover how Samuels son Prescott not only got into american politics by becoming a senator, but how he was affiliated with Brown Brothers Harriman. A banking firm on Wall Street. Also, how he too, was a Skull & Bones student at Yale university.


          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

          "Prescott Sheldon Bush (May 15, 1895 – October 8, 1972) was a United States Senator from Connecticut and a Wall Street executive banker with Brown Brothers Harriman. He was the father of former President of the United States George H. W. Bush and the grandfather of current President George W. Bush."

          "Bush attended the Douglas School in Columbus and then St. George's School in Newport, Rhode Island from 1908 to 1913. In 1913, he enrolled at Yale University, continuing a family legacy; four subsequent generations of Bushes have been Yale alumni. Prescott Bush was admitted to the ΖΨ fraternity while at Yale and Skull and Bones secret society."



          5. Read about Brown Brothers & Harriman and how they were profiting from the Nazi's. Also read about how the Brown Brothers & Harriman is also affiliated with skull & Bones.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Brothers_Harrim ...

          "Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. was the main Wall Street connection for German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen, who had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party until 1938, but by 1939 had fled Germany and was bitterly denouncing Hitler. Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, steel, fuel, coal, and U.S. treasury bonds to Germany. These were used to build Hitler's war machine.[citation needed]
          All the bank's dealing were fully approved by the U.S. Treasury department, which insisted that trusted Americans handle all the German business in the United States.[citation needed] Once war was declared in December 1941 President Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of all German banking interests."


          "Since 1978, business of the Russell Trust Association was handled by its single trustee, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. partner John B. Madden, Jr. Madden started with Brown Brothers & Harriman in 1946, under senior partner Prescott Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush's father.
          The Russell Trust Association is the business name for the New Haven, Connecticut based Skull and Bones society, incorporated in 1856.
          In 1943, by special act of the Connecticut state legislature, its trustees were granted an exemption from filing corporate reports with the Secretary of State, which is normally a requirement.
          On its 2004 Form 990, the Russell Trust Association reported $3,205,143 in net assets.
          The business and political network of the Skull and Bones is well detailed by Hoover Institution scholar Antony Sutton in the expose America's Secret Establishment."

          W. Averell Harriman
          E. Roland Harriman
          Moreau Delano
          Thatcher Brown
          Prescott Bush
          Granger Kent Costikyan
          Louis Curtis
          Robert A. Lovett
          Ray Morris
          Knight Woolley


          6. Read about the Skull & Bones and all about their political ifiltration

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones

          "The Order of Skull and Bones, once known as The Brotherhood of Death,[1] is a senior or secret society based at Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut. The society's alumni organization, which owns its properties and oversees all the organization's activity, is known as the Russell Trust Association (R.T.A.), and is named after one of Bones' founding members.[2] In conversation, the group is known as "Bones", and members have been known as "Bonesmen".
          Skull and Bones is known for its secrecy. Mid-nineteenth century Yale enjoyed the presence of freshmen, sophomore and junior societies. Undergraduates then, with their fickled allegiances, would share the rites and practices of their class society upon elevation within the undergraduate ranks. When seniors departed campus, little verifiable information was left about the rites and practices of the senior or secret societies, particularly Bones, then Scroll and Key, and then Wolf's Head.[3] George W. Bush described his experience as "so secret we can't talk about it". When asked what it meant that he and Bush were both Bonesmen, former presidential candidate, and current U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry said, "Not much because it's a secret".[4]"

          7. Read the list of names that were in the Skull & Bones and check out their professions. Also, click the links and read up on how their relationships are all connected with the Harrimans, Tafts, Rockefellers, & the Bush family.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skull_and_Bon ...

          Here are just some of the names.


          Founders:

          William Huntington Russell (1832), Connecticut State Legislator[2]
          Alphonso Taft (1832), U.S. Attorney General (1876–1877); Secretary of War (1876); Ambassador to Austria-Hungary (1882) and Russia (1884–1885); father of William Howard Taft[3]

          List:

          Pierre Jay (1892), first chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York[20]
          William Howard Taft (1878), 27th President of the United States; Chief Justice of the United States; Secretary of War;
          Robert A. Taft (1910), U.S. Senator (R-Ohio 1939.1953)
          Averell Harriman (1913), U.S. Ambassador and Secretary of Commerce; Governor of New York; Chairman and CEO of the Union Pacific Railroad, Brown Brothers & Harriman, and the Southern Pacific Railroad
          Prescott Bush (1916), U.S. Senator (R-Connecticut 1952.1963), Father of George H.W. Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush
          Robert A. Lovett (1918), US Secretary of Defense
          John Rockefeller Prentice (1928), Grandson of John D. Rockefeller; pioneer of artificial insemination
          George Herbert Walker, Jr. (1927), financier and co-founder of the New York Mets; uncle to President George Herbert Walker Bush
          George H. W. Bush (1948), 41st President of the United States; 11th Director of Central Intelligence; son of Prescott Bush; father of George W. Bush[54]
          George W. Bush (1968), 43rd President of the United States; 46th Governor of Texas
          John Kerry (1966), U.S. Senator (D-Massachusetts 1985.present); Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts 1983.1985; 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee; married into H. J. Heinz family (see "H" above)
          Paul Giamatti (1989), actor; son of former Yale University President and Major League Baseball Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti.
          Artemus Gates (1918), president of New York Trust Company, Union Pacific Railroad, TIME-Life, and Boeing Company



          Brown Brothers & Harriman were affilated with a lot of things.

          Prescott Bush sat on the board of directors of CBS.
          Percy Rockefeller was a Bonesman Yale 1900, Director of Brown Brothers Harriman, Standard Oil and Remington Arms.
          Brown Brothers & Harriman later teamed up with the Kellogg family and created Kellogg Brown & Root. Which is the same company that owns Hailburton & Lockheed Martin. KBR made a $380 million dollar deal building naval bases when America went into Vietnam.


          (The following is more of a conspiracy theory then a fact)
          side note: When Kennedy was assassinated William Averell Harriman was the Ambassador of Britian and Robert Lovett was secretary of Defense. Both were Bonesmen. The CIA who is believed to have been behind the Kenndy assassination were all Yale students.

          There is more. Thats all I have for now.
          • carterbaldwin, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Try taking a couple deep breaths and reading information that is backed up by more than tenuous coincidence.
    • ziptnf, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7Hold on, lemme get my tin foil hat.
    • plizard, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1looks like those anti-crazy pills aren't working for you. tisk tisk... want an apple little boy?
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/31/2008, -1/+10John Kerry > Dick Cheney.
    • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2Since when is documented financial history conspiracy? I dislike conspiracy theories just as much as the next guy, but people, this is not a conspiracy theory. This is publicly available financial documentation that quite clearly shows the who/what/where the money flows in and out from. If you cannot handle simple truths, like a business actually selling/buying from ANYONE to make a buck and whos loyalties go to the highest bidder, then you need to stop and give yourself a reality check. Last I checked they were in it to make money, not to be patriotic or heros, and if you think they would care who the money is coming from, well then you know very little of economics or history.
    • BigLLamasHouse, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2holy *****, someone with the last name Heinz profited by outsourcing to Germany in the '30s. call the press. you're talking about his wife's grandfather. Kerry != Nazi
    • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2I think his point is if he was willing to work with "bad" people in the past to make a buck, being a VP in the future will not change that.
    • Synova, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1You may have a few, even if not very many valid points in all that rambling. The problem is that you based all of that off the false assumption that Barack Obama has already chosen a running mate, and that it will be John Kerry.
  • brokenspatula, on 01/31/2008, -71/+6All these posts make me NOT want to be associated with the obama group!
    • Gabberwok, on 01/31/2008, -0/+25Looking through your history, it seems like you do nothing but make fun of other people's opinions. That would be alright if you actually had something to say, but it seems like you're just commenting on Digg to put other people down and feel better about yourself. There are definitely people here who deserve to be made fun of, but don't you think that's a rather sad reflection on yourself? Seriously. If you're going to keep being a contrary dick, at least try to do it with a bit more thought and eloquence...
    • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -12/+3yay! Go look up Ron Paul and his stances on the actual issues then.... easy switch.
    • fhornplayer, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2What's it like being braindead?
  • brokenspatula, on 01/31/2008, -70/+8Does obama support spam? If so, you will digg this post! (as well as this article)
  • brokenspatula, on 01/31/2008, -74/+7Does obama support spam? If so, you will digg this post! (as well as this article)
  • dball48, on 01/31/2008, -26/+11I'd hit that, and from the sound of it, I wouldn't have to worry about her getting pregnant, if you know what I mean.
    • teh_techie, on 01/31/2008, -3/+4What if she "CHOSE" to keep it? She's not pro life, but pro-choice doesn't mean a definite abortion...

      BTW, pro-choice makes sense. I don't want to argue about it... it just does.
      • Gryffydd, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1It just doesn't make sense for the baby who doesn't have any choice in rather it's killed or not.
    • PabloMac, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2"Son! Come on upstairs - your oatmeal is ready!"
  • morningmatters, on 01/31/2008, -10/+33I would think that most liberals are against Hillary because she acts like a Neocon when it comes to foreign policy. Anyhow, from the looks of it Obama and McCain will likely to get the nod. This will be an interesting election.
    • Portwineboy, on 01/31/2008, -5/+3True, and I wonder if I'm the only person who would undecided in an Obama/McCain election. I like them both...
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/31/2008, -1/+12If It's McCain vs. Obama...
      I certainly hope Obama wins. McCain is talking about having an army in Iraq for 100 years if need be.
      He's also talking about additional wars being necessary.
      • drachasor, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3McCain will lose a national election to Obama because of McCain's foreign policy stance, particularly the Iraq war. He's too hawkish and while that works with hard-core conservatives that still support Bush it won't work with the mass electorate. The main reason this hasn't hurt him so far, imho, is that all the republicans are like this (except Ron Paul, but he's far too libertarian to be in step with most of the electorate).

        That said, McCain didn't say we'd be at war in Iraq for 100 years, just have troops there (like we now have Troops in Germany and Korea, for instance). Though he has said that there will be other wars and it isn't clear what he means by that (AFAIK).
      • dopke, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4I'm not too sure Obama would have an easy win. As much as we all like to think we've gotten past racial differences and that America is "ready for change," I'm sure there are a few people across the U.S. that will not vote for Obama simply because of his color.
      • obamarama, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1......I certainly hope Obama wins. McCain is talking about having an army in Iraq for 100 years if need be.........
        YEAH, WHAT A WARMONGER! Everyone and their mother knows that the proper amount of time to keep the US military around is 60+ years (and counting) exactly as we are doing in Europe and Asia/Pacific. Anything longer than that is just neocon posturing that only makes the brown people hate us even more!
    • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -5/+2The current war is hardly the most important issue on the board right now. Obama is the only other candidate that understand blowback and voted against the war besides RP, but at the same time he also voted FOR the Patriot Act and the preemptive war doctrine... which is quite the contradiction.
      What about immigration, our economy (You think a $120 billion stimulus plan will fix it? Who pays for that) going to *****, our debt, our failing education system, our right to bear arms.... the list goes on and on.
      This election should not be based totally on the war, and while it is important, OUR COUNTRY IS FALLING APART AT THE SEAMS AND NO OTHER CANDIDATE BUT ONE SEEMS TO GIVE A *****.
      http://knowbeforeyouvote.com/
      • dagamer34, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Uhh, how do you vote for the Patriot Act when you haven't been elected to the Senate yet? The vote you are trying to slander about is a reauthorization which reduced powers.
      • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2So you vote twice to allow patriot act, I guess that makes you a patriot?
        I am confused, how I read it the patriot act, and its EXTENSION, were both bad, a violation of ours and many others rights, and has served no positive results.
      • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Oh wait.. I think I was supposed to correct you.....
        OK:
        U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

        as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

        Vote Summary

        Question: On the Conference Report (H.R. 3199 Conference Report )
        Vote Number: 29 Vote Date: March 2, 2006, 03:01 PM
        Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
        Measure Number: H.R. 3199
        Measure Title: A bill to extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes.

        Alphabetical by Senator Name: Obama (D-IL), Yea
        http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
        Happy to keep the facts correct.
    • rheaume, on 01/31/2008, -4/+2If by interesting you mean the whites vs the blacks, then yes
  • chrisc3, on 01/31/2008, -45/+13Why bother with those 2 candidates in the first place? Ron Paul is all you need.
    • clearzen, on 01/31/2008, -4/+10Because I would rather not throw my vote away on a very important election thanks
      • slapded, on 01/31/2008, -5/+5your vote doesnt count because i will cancel it out.
      • Nougat, on 01/31/2008, -4/+6The concept of "throwing your vote away" is ridiculous. If people didn't make "voting for who won" the goal, as though they were trying to win a wager, there would be a wider set of electoral results. And that's the best way to effect change.
      • DefendThyself, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Voting for anyone other than Paul is throwing their vote away and voting for higher taxes, more government, bombing Packistan, Patriot Act III, gun control, more taxes, more welfare for the parasites. Anyone that votes for these Socialists is a stupid moron and gets what they deserve. Just don't come back here later bitching that your taxes when up!
    • CosmicJustice, on 01/31/2008, -6/+25Ron Paul has already lost. Do you even watch the election results?
      • cyrax04, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Yes, and I realize a reality which you don't. It's safe to say he won't win the nomination but to say he's already lost is both ignorant and untruthful. Seven out of 50 states have voted. The primary process is hardly over. Out of 11 candidates Paul is one of the last 4. Disagree with him all you want but the facts are there.
    • freshyill, on 01/31/2008, -1/+10You mean Dr. Wire Hanger? No thanks.
      • PabloMac, on 01/31/2008, -6/+2Ron Paul would force women to have illegal abortions?
    • uptown, on 01/31/2008, -1/+8You mean the guy that planned to abolish federal income tax, but when asked .... had no idea how much money that would impact the government by. I'm all for new approaches to problems ... but if your plan is to completely get rid of a major source of funding for the government's operation, you should at least know what the impact will be and plan for that too.
      • BobOki, on 02/01/2008, -1/+1I am sure, when getting rid of over 200 billion dollars a year worth of useless, worthless, bloated government agencies, you worry a LOT less about how much money is coming in, becuase you have half as much going out.
    • drachasor, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5The vast majority of people in the USA do not want to dismantle as much of the government as Ron Paul does. So, in fact, he isn't what most people want or need. To say nothing of the fact he rather mindlessly support the free market on everything, even places where it doesn't work all that well. Healthcare is a pretty great example of an externality (an economic term) and hence a national healthcare would be more efficient than a private one. Looking at other 1st world countries and how their public healthcare gets more bang for the buck compared to the USA's private system bears this out.
  • trghpy, on 01/31/2008, -8/+29Well, after hearing all the debates, I had to agree with Clinton, "I agree with Obama".
    • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -18/+5Which part do you agree with?
      He votes for tax increases. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=363871 ...
      He wants to keep federal reserve. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/revo ...
      He supports the Patriot Act. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...
      Hes supports Internet Taxation. http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html
      He has a weak stance on immigration and support welfare for current illegals. http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?Dist ... and http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060403-floor_statem ...
      He supports current IRS/Income taxes. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/20 ...
      He support the preemptive war doctrine. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

      So which part of these, and theres more, do you exactly agree with?
      • Altoidsxcore1, on 01/31/2008, -4/+11Tax -- If you don't make more than 97k then you don't have to worry, if you do then stop crying cuz it damn well wont hurt you.
        FR -- Clearly you cannot read, "We need to end the privitization of the Federal Reserve and the income tax that pays the outrageous interest to the bankers who own our country." Basically wants to do away with it.
        PA -- As Wild states, just because he supports the troops does not mean that he supports this war, he's been against it since day 1
        IT -- You are an idiot, what you say is exactly the opposite of what he supports, he wants to get rid companies charging more just so you can get a faster or better service, he wants Internet Neutrality. No where in that news article that you provided did it say anything about tax or taxation.
        Immigration -- You want to see what Obama has planned for immigration? Look here, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/, I'm sure that will appease you.
        IRS -- He wants to rid tax for SS that are making less than 50k a year, and he wants to make tax returns simple, what he has planned will save us money.
        PWD -- He believes that a leader should not be afraid to use force, that if the situation calls for it, let it have it. If we elected a president that stood on the defensive about everything and tried to talk the enemy down with words, the world would walk right over us. He believes in using force, and following through by completely rebuilding a broken nations society, not just get a group of people together and tell them to pick a leader, that wont do anything but bring chaos.

        Lets face it, Barack Obama has some amazing ideas for this country, and you are just to pea-brained to know what hes talking about, let alone what you are talking about yourself.
      • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -7/+1Tax - There should BE no taxes, a flat/fair tax only.
        FR- That was the author writing that, not a statement from obama. YOU need to read, idiot.
        PA- Patriot Act = Illegal spying act that violates our rights, our troops rights, really ANYONES rights that does not help our troops in any definable way.
        IT - Interesting. I have used that article since last nov, but now it is a TOTALLY different article. very.. interesting. The original article was saying that Obama was against the banning of taxing the net due to the amount of lost income,. but the article now is all about net neutrality.
        Immigration - "Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens." That is not what I call stopping immigration, that sounds like incentive to me. "Stronger borders" is everyone answers, and that is only enough to stop the influx of immigration. Obama gives everyone else here, pretty much a free ride.
        IRS - Should not exist. Fair/flat tax or no vote. IRS is legal mob.
        PWD - The preemptive war doctrine allows us to attack anyone that we deem COULD be a enemy, at our own discression. That kinda contradicts his listed stance on war.

    • wild, on 01/31/2008, -2/+11Bob, its people like you that drive me nuts. You can't just look at issues in black and white. It makes what you're trying to do look childish and uninformed.

      For instance, you're saying he supports the Patriot Act. And by extension, trying to say he supports the war. But he has been against from the beginning. In fact, he was the one, not Hillary, who voted against it. But he also understands we are there. He can't change the past, and so he votes to support the TROOPS that are fighting and dying over there.

      Issues aren't black and white. We could use a President that understands that.
      • larsone86, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Most of your response is spot on, except that he didn't vote against the war because he wasn't in the Senate yet. He spoke out against the war at that time. He has voted for funding the troops since he's been in the Senate while working to establish timetables for withdrawal. He wants to pull out without it being a complete disaster for us AND the Iraqis and that's what his policy is.
      • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1He also wishes to keep a base in Iraq.
        Hopefully Iran will sign that treaty with Iraq, so a full ASAP pullout will be 100% viable with no downsides.
        • zioxide, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1No, he doesn't want permanent bases in Iraq. Stop spreading false information.

          "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq."
          http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home
      • moocow1452, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1First we need a people who realize that...
    • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -9/+1Actually, yes, it really does. And you should be ASHAMED for saying anything other than this.
      When a person does not support the war, turning around and voting for MULTIPLE things to continue the war, but not help the troops is hardly non-contradictory.
      So you say voting for the patriot act has helped out troops? How. I cannot find a single article, a single interview, a single ANYTHING that shows any single instance how how the patriot act has done anything for our troops.
      Voting for the preemptive war doctrine allows Bush & co to PROACTIVLY engage in war, before we are attacked or even put in harms way. Explain how sending out troops to fight MORE people is protecting them or being against war.
      He does not wish to bring troops home right away, thus allowing them to continue an OCCUPATION of a forgien country DIRECTLY in violation with our own constitution, the geniva conventions, against UNs wishes, etcetc which is directly causing more casualties. This supports troops how again?
      We may not have a choice if Iran signs that treaty with Iraq, then we will quite literally have no other excuse to be there other than the money and oil.
      People like YOU drive me nuts, not understanding ANYTHING about how all of these pieces effect each other, and how something that your limited knowledge deems as deeper than "black and white" when you yourself can only see in black and white.
      • Altoidsxcore1, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2You are an idiot, clearly not suited for political debates.
        GET THE ***** OUT.
      • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Nice debating there buddy.
        At least the first guy had the balls to even remotely try to explain his position.
        But my bad... I forgot, more than half of digg is 12 yrs old. For them, "omg fuk u, I no wat I am taking bout, so u shuld listen 2 me!"
    • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1I just got another great site to share to help you guys actually make KNOWLEDGEABLE political decisions.
      Site was posted below by rarson.
      http://www.factcheck.org
      It is a site that challenges statements etcetc from candidates and other political powers, and shows where they really stand on the issues.
      Example off front page:
      Is the Congressional Black Caucus racially exclusive?New
      Yes. It has never had a white member in its 36-year history. However, its stated mission is to work for "America's neglected citizens," whatever their color.
  • steppen79, on 01/31/2008, -7/+110Good video, I actually know a lot of women who are pulling for hillary solely based on her being a woman; they don't look at really anything else she's doing. I'd love to see a woman president, I'd just prefer that woman not to be the female equivalent of a sith
    • relentless1914, on 01/31/2008, -1/+9Good video, I actually know a lot of Black people who are pulling for Obama solely based on him being Black; they don't look at really anything else he's doing.....

      I'm a Black man, and I actually fall on the conservative side, but I will most likely vote for Obama. Not because he's Black, and not because I've deluded myself into thinking he's the most experienced, but because of all the candidates on both sides, Obama is the only one who seems to have real and genuine INTEGRITY. to me this is so important to have in a leader that I'm willing to pass up on the "elder statesmen" to go with someone who's relatively green.

      I really don't like either party, but I believe in small government and think the non-profits & churches, not the Federal Government should provide social services. Since they have the weight of law behind them, governments can simply pass laws to increase our taxes to fund programs that we don't agree with, or are grossly inefficient. I'd prefer to give money where I chose, to organizations that I like that help people. either way, the people who need help get it, but I'm not forced to give where I don't want to.

      Despite this, integrity to me is the issue of the day. I'm a native New Yorker and I've never seen integrity form HRC. She accused Obama of "running for president the minute he arrived in the Senate.... She moved to New York and ran for the senate only to do the very same thing;To run for the White House.
      • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Church/religion should not be in any way, shape, or form in charge of anything but your relationship to your god.
        • PabloMac, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2...and your service to others.
        • relentless1914, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I'm not saying churches should be in "charge" of handling tax dollars for social welfare programs, I'm saying that instead of the government collecting tax dollars then distributing them to private organizations for social welfare, why not reduce taxes and allow people to give what they want to give to whom they want to give. In other words, cut out the bloated fat middle man.
          Ever since September 11 and the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004. I have been encouraged at how freely Americans gave towards charity. It seems a no brainer to cut the government out of the "collecting" process, although there does need to be some regulations on organizations that take charitable donations for such programs.
        • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1They have a better solution for taxes, its called a flat/fair tax.
          Essentially you are taxed for what you buy. Yes, the egg might cost $3 instead of $1, but that still saves you the consumer a total of $5 overall. Hmm that was confusing.
          Taxes now: $10
          Eggs now: $1
          Eggs with fair tax: $3
          Total savings over old way: $7 or so.
          Now while the RICH people that pay little taxes go off and buy anything they want en masse, now they too will be paying REAL fair taxes on their purchases.
          They will finally pay equally to the rest of us. The more they consume, the more they pay as it should be.
          • steppen79, on 02/14/2008, -0/+1this isn't equality, its regressive. If you think that this will make things fairer it only makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. A person barely making ends meet gets ***** because everything costs more and has even less left over, while a person who is rich avoids being taxed for their ridiculously high income and spends a far lesser portion of their income on goods. Unless you're making over 100,000 a year you're an idiot to want this system, and if you do you should take a look at how poor people actually live and come up with a new perspective
        • BryanTheCrow, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1The problem with that is it discourages consumption, especially for the poor who make so little that they don't pay ANY taxes. This in turn hurts businesses, which hurts the economy.

          I'm not for our current system, but whenever you oversimplify, you end up with just that... an over simplification that doesn't address the needs that lead to the overly complicated system we have today.
    • jhuckabee, on 01/31/2008, -0/+7I know a lot of gay men pulling for Hillary just because she's a woman. Nothing I say or do, none of the HRC lies I expose, nothing can make me change their minds.

      Too bad they will all be crying when Hillary is sent packing back to New York and told to shut up at the DNC

      gOBAMA 08!!!
    • ADVIZR, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Make sure you pass this video around to them. If anything, Obama is much more women-friendly. He also has a loving wife and two daughters, for goodness' sake. More people need to see these examples of Hillary's lies.
  • Gabberwok, on 01/31/2008, -6/+20This is a powerful message and should seriously speak to a lot of Hillary Clinton's strongest supporters. What Obama needs to do to win is not to drop to Hillary's level and sling more mud, but just to put this video on the air as a commercial in NY, CA, NJ and MA. Hillary's tactics are shameful and frankly the American people are sick of dirty politics. Yes, we can almost guarantee the Republicans will use every dirty rotten trick in the book, but you know what? The American people have finally started to see through that, and it looks like even the Republicans are starting to value in honesty in the straight-talking John McCain. How awful would it be for the Democratic candidate to have worse credibility than the Republican? Does anyone seriously think that is the best way to win an election?
    • amy31415, on 01/31/2008, -4/+3Straight-talking John McCain? I used to like McCain, but then he got a smackdown from Bush and has since toed the line. He's friends with Hillary and the Republicans (at least the neocons) don't care if it's Hillary or McCain in the White House, it's all the same thing--there's really no difference between the two except that one will crush the economy attempting to implement universal health care while running a war in Iraq, which we can't afford.

      Look at who will outspend everyone though: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141

      I can't stand Hillary, personally I like Barack much better-but how is he going to spend all this money we don't have?

      In case you're unaware, we're 9 trillion dollars in debt, NAFTA and CAFTA are sending our jobs overseas, being weak on illegal immigration is hurting us financially.

      I wish we had someone, anyone, who was reasonable economically and would absolutely bring this war to an end.
      • zeromous, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3How is NAFTA and CAFTA responsible for sending jobs overseas....you know since neither have anything to do with freetrade overseas.

        You might have a shred of credibility left, if you think Mexico or Canada is overseas.
      • geekee, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2Yes, 10 billion to bail out gamblers who bet on the housing bubble. Some of these people borrowed 11% the price of the house they were buying, BTW. Obama's an idiot.
    • Malevolant, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Yes, Obama need not drop down to Hilary's level and join in on the mud slinging as his supporters are doing it for him at every opportunity. Need proof? Read every Obama spam thread and you'll find many examples.
    • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3I would like to point out that I have not seen a single commercial for Ron Paul that included lies, mud, the slinging of that mud, misrepresenting facts, or dropping names. Perhaps yet again Ron Paul is the only candidate still in the race with class as well as an actual strong campaign.
  • GoKings, on 01/31/2008, -16/+9It's kind of hard to listen to someone that wanted to vote for Clinton in the first place.
  • davidkeithjones, on 01/31/2008, -13/+7Ah yes, Diggers like to "switch."
  • ManJamimah, on 01/31/2008, -13/+21Once you go black...
  • virtualme7, on 01/31/2008, -21/+5Because she was paid...oops the truth slipped out
  • JohnnyHotballs, on 01/31/2008, -10/+2i'd rather fight than switch
  • spyd3rweb, on 01/31/2008, -20/+11Now switch to someone who actually believes in the Constitution and freedom....
    • koick, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2If that's what you want, seriously I think you'd be happier with Ron Paul's ideas, but Barak is a better middle ground since Ron's ideas seem to scare away quite a bit of folks (and therefore doesn't look like he'll make it).
  • ScottyQuest, on 01/31/2008, -11/+98Ok Digg, you've disappointed me. I came to the comments looking for one thing, that we're all thinking. And since it's not here, I'll have to do it myself: I'd hit it.

    There. It's been said.

    EDIT: Lorna, not Hillary. Though I'd hit that too, it'd just be with a truck.
    • joel8x, on 01/31/2008, -2/+27She looks like a hotter Julia Roberts.
      • uptown, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1That's not difficult to achive these days.....
    • ScottyQuest, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3Exactly!
    • wild, on 01/31/2008, -2/+11I too was waiting for the "I'd objectify her NOW..." comment.
    • wastedfluid, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2LOL
    • Arcadian, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1I lol'd. Thanks for that.
    • ZenMojo, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1My mom was telling me Obama needs to put Charlize Theron on the campaign trail since she loves him so much, then I realized...Obama has the hot chicks vote. That should be a political action committee, too bad Obama doesn't like using those.
    • mugicha, on 01/31/2008, -0/+5I can't believe we let you down like this. I know I speak for all of Digg when I say that we'll try and do better. I know how disappointing it can be when you read the comments section looking for one obvious comment in particular and its not there. If its something obscure, well then I can understand how we might miss it. But this was so obvious.

      And hell yeah, I'd hit it.
    • Dkan84, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0hahhahahahahahahhah so true
  • chris9902, on 01/31/2008, -4/+29I thought it was Julia Roberts at first.
    • nirav72, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3This chick ain't bad lookin though
    • Zaggynl, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I thought she looked familiar, couldn't put my finger on it..
      • breadfred, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I'd like to put more than my finger on it
    • exomni, on 01/31/2008, -7/+2You're REALLY stretching it there...
      • MasterGrief, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I dunno, she really seemed like Julia Roberts to me at first, as well.

        I think it's the mouth.
    • MetalliTooL, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1MUCH better looking than Julia Roberts though.
  • pictureDIGGER, on 01/31/2008, -25/+10This is ***** ridiculous. You Obamatics are ruining digg!
    • ayeroxor, on 01/31/2008, -2/+9You people who whine about others expressing their opinion are the ones ruining digg, you stupid *****(s).
      • pictureDIGGER, on 01/31/2008, -4/+5I was being humorous. I agree with you 100%, vote Ron Paul! Since Obama gets on the FP every time he farts. Great insult by the way.
        • MacEnvy, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4Obama's farts are the winds of change.
  • ayeroxor, on 01/31/2008, -1/+30"Why I Switched from Clinton to Obama ?"

    Dear subby: the above is not a question. Why the question mark?
  • augenblick2007, on 01/31/2008, -10/+23Hey folks Obama is some $20 million dollars short of Hillary's remaining cash so keep that in mind and keep the donations coming.
  • jm4847, on 01/31/2008, -29/+11"IMMA DIGGER USER AND I LOVE OBAMA BECAUSE HE TALKS ABOUT CHANGE AND STUFF"
    • pictureDIGGER, on 01/31/2008, -12/+4LMAO. He wants to spend more money. That is about the only change I can see. For real though, what change will he bring to the White House? Oh, wait, let me guess. "A change of the status quo." Now ask yourself, what the ***** does that even mean? Obama has got you all excited because he has a good speech writer.
      • pictureDIGGER, on 01/31/2008, -4/+2digg me down, but I was serious. What change will he bring?
        • ayeroxor, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1This is the internet. Asking what changes he'll bring is like asking what 2+2 is. Look it up your own ***** lazy-ass self.
  • DesignerDave, on 01/31/2008, -4/+29Why would you vote for Clinton in the first place?
  • joel8x, on 01/31/2008, -16/+8Please Digg, do not support Obama - the collective Digg community has a history of propping up someone or something to Digg-celebrity status only to very quickly tear them down once the majority is on board. Then the backlash sets in and any mention of the Digg-celebrity gets buried into oblivion. I would hate to see Obama torn apart with the way you have turned on the likes of a Ron Paul or Steve Jobs in the last month. Leave him alone please!
    • Portwineboy, on 01/31/2008, -1/+10Also, please leave Britney alone!!!!!!
    • InSectWar, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1as soon as I read the first sentence of your comment I was like "oh boy... here comes the Ron Paul plug". You tried a bit to hide it(poorly) by throwing Steve Jobs in there... Why don't you just give it up?
  • freshyill, on 01/31/2008, -14/+6I love how the desperate Paultards know that stories about Ron Paul will get buried, so they've taken to trying to hijack threads about other candidates.
    • pictureDIGGER, on 01/31/2008, -4/+7Calling us Paultards is kinda like me calling you an Obamatard. Lame huh?
    • KSUdesigner, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5They've been doing that pretty much since day one, where the hell have you been?
    • EVogel, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2I would at least go for a humorous name.. like Paulsy, or something of that caliber.
    • cyrax04, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1It's hard to avoid all this Obama-lovy-dovy crap when it's all over digg. Although I want to see the spam decrease, my main beef is with the supporters and their hypocrisy. They were doing the same thing when Paul spam was cool.
  • weside, on 01/31/2008, -17/+5Wow, that video just made me side with the eventual Republican nominee. It's sad to see two potential nominees (Obama and Clinton) argue about who more widely wants to allow legalized murder.
    • nfkiller, on 01/31/2008, -3/+3Good, throw your vote for an issue that will only be paid lip service in the campaign by both sides.
      • cyrax04, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3The only way to throw away your vote is to not vote.
        Tool.
        • nfkiller, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2It's just as well to vote for the Pro-Unicorn candidate. .. you're not going to get to ride one.
          / realist
  • MWeather, on 01/31/2008, -3/+28What kind of moron changes their vote based on what politicians SAY? They're both senators. They have public voting records databases. For the country's sake USE THEM!
    • Draxius, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4Thank you! Seriously, is it any wonder why this country is where it is?
    • ZenMojo, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2You may have gotten up during the speech to make a ham sandwich, boyo, but she specifically said it was RECORD + HONESTY. Hillary Clinton has the same voting record as Obama on women's rights but she LIED about OBAMA, so why keep supporting her?
    • BobOki, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3Well, this IS the country that thinks the only honest candidate whos voting history has not once wavered is using a spam network to do nothing more than make posts and e-mails all over the world that just say his name..... with none of the typical endorsements... no just his name..... which si hurting his campaign. Makes sense to me.
  • radink360, on 01/31/2008, -5/+18She's hot!
    • nirav72, on 01/31/2008, -1/+9Yeah, I'd hit it, while putting on my O face. Obama'08!
    • momsshizzle, on 01/31/2008, -5/+3Once you go black, you're on crack!
    • mypreciousss, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3Dugg for Youtube Ireland.
  • moontime, on 01/31/2008, -17/+13The outcome will be the same no matter who the next president is. Wake up and smell the false left-right paradigm. Whether its McCain or Obama, Hillary or Romney, they do not give a ***** about you.
    • kermit4karate, on 01/31/2008, -4/+7So... all blacks aren't alike, but all politicians are? You're trying to have it both ways.

      Throughout our history we've had good leaders, and we've had bad leaders. They are NOT all the same.
    • DefendThyself, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Tell me Kermit how someone who voted for the Patriot Act II, to grab out guns, to raise out taxes to pay for his welfare program for parasites will be a great leader?
  • johnhummel, on 01/31/2008, -4/+49This article was rather similar:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-mulhauser/a-wo ...

    Long story short: Clinton purposefully misrepresents