digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Wyoming: Clinton draws 2000, Obama draws 15,000

huffingtonpost.com — The powers-that-be in the Democratic Party will not ignore th wisdom of the crowds.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • romistrub, on 03/08/2008, -39/+217Funny how it's "wisdom of the crowds" when it's something you agree with, and "mob mentality" when it's something you don't. Just sayin'...
    • badqat, on 03/08/2008, -33/+12Sort of like the mob that's digging you down because you speak the truth.
    • 1longtime, on 03/08/2008, -32/+11shh this is digg, they're all on obama's side here. after all, he does have a nice speaking style.
      • RepubOperative, on 03/09/2008, -21/+3Just Words you say? Just not Obama's words. Obama caught plagiarizing! He is a fake a fraud!
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6x1H08aFc

        -------------------------------------------------
        Then there is his tax plan. The Marxist Barack Obama wants to implement a recurring tax on Americans to the tune of $800 BILLION US Dollars to provide for poor countries.

        Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote
        www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/

        A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

        Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
      • numlok, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/19 ...
        Beyond that, if you seriously think all of Hillary's or McCain's "words" are their own, you're unbelievably naive.
        Plus... $800 Billion ??? !!! Whoa! That's like almost a third the cost of the Iraq war spent in over 4 times the time-frame!!! Someone better stop this guy before he drives us into a recession!!! ... Oh wait...
    • tpaine, on 03/08/2008, -14/+47except that people decided to go to the rally as individuals, not as a mob. If the crowd then bum rushed the stage to start a fight/orgy then it's mob mentality. How the crowd got there is through popular support. So why don't you go put up some more Ron Paul signs and let us enjoy the popularity of our favorite candidate.
      • hardwickj, on 03/08/2008, -9/+4lol.....glad someone else was thinking the same as I and about the same time even....
      • d3mag0gu3, on 03/09/2008, -27/+9Right like they say "Yes we can" "OBAMA", "O" "H" "I" "O. "SIEG HEIL". I mean yes, you are right they are individuals. Nothing collective about these obamabots.
        • 4040, on 03/09/2008, -1/+12Obamabot is not going to catch on. Really. You can stop saying it every ***** time you comment.

          It's not even catchy. It's not... it doesn't even make sense. You just attached "obama" to a word and called it a day. If you're going to try to make up a meme at least make it... y'know... likable.
        • rz8472, on 03/09/2008, -1/+5Godwin's Law much?

          Hitler appealed to people's fears to get votes.
      • Myonosken, on 03/09/2008, -4/+9For ***** sakes, cut the aggression- he raised a valid point and didn't bring ***** Ron Paul in to it.

        "let us enjoy the popularity of our favorite candidate." I think Hillary supporters may call a certain amount of hypocrisy there, given your digg record.

        But, hey!, what do I know - I'm just a neutral foreigner.
      • romistrub, on 03/09/2008, -2/+2lmao. You think I'm a Ron Paul fan? Look at my history... I'm pretty much as neutral as they come.
      • RetlawST, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5And, I would like to point a an orgy at an Obama rally would likely have younger individuals participating. Just saying.
    • hardwickj, on 03/08/2008, -7/+8I think you are confusing "mob mentality" with "group think". Both are usually viewed as negative means of thinking, but mob mentality is usually associated with violence, anger, hostility, etc. Crowds brewing to root for Obama generally do not reflect that.
    • mrsteveman1, on 03/09/2008, -8/+3Makes sense to me, when 2000 people are wrong, they're a mob of morons.

      When 15,000 people are right, they are wise :D
    • cwcentral, on 03/09/2008, -5/+9"let US enjoy the popularity of OUR favorite candidate."

      Obviously you're representing the voice of digg? Sounds like a mob to me.

      Let me enjoy the popularity of my candidate of choice.
      • sephers83, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3Maybe he's using OUR to represent Obama supporters, not to represent people in general. Don't get so angry and defensive.
    • JerodSlay, on 03/09/2008, -1/+9The title is kind of misleading. CNN says that 4,459 caucused for Obama, and 3,081 caucused for Clinton (96% reporting). I'm sure the title was talking about speeches and stuff like that, but just because a bunch of people show up to hear you speak doesn't mean that they all like you. It could be that, or that they don't know much about you, so they're getting to know more.

      Either way, Obama won, just not by the margin that the title suggests.
    • RepubOperative, on 03/09/2008, -17/+3Obama is a dumbass with regard to trade, NAFTA and all importantly, OIL.

      http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/02/28/canada_n ...

      Cut and paste if the link truncates
      www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/02/28/
      canada_nafta_and_obama/index.html

      Canada exports more crude oil to the United States than any other nation, including Saudi Arabia. All of that oil, along with a gusher of natural gas, comes free of any kind of export controls or tariffs, courtesy of NAFTA. In fact, the United States consumes almost 100 percent of Canada's energy exports.

      Which undoubtedly puts Canada in the driver's seat should a new president of the United States decide he or she wanted to "renegotiate" NAFTA.

      David Emerson, Canada's trade minister, took some pains to remind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama of U.S. dependence on foreign (Canadian) oil on Thursday, according to a Globe and Mail story a reader kindly forwarded to me.

      Americans' privileged access to Canada's massive oil and gas reserves could be disrupted if Washington cancels the NAFTA accord as Democratic presidential candidates threaten, Canadian Trade Minister David Emerson warned yesterday.

      "There's no doubt if NAFTA were to be reopened we would want to have our list of priorities," he said.

      In other words, if you Yankees think you can wave a magic wand and "renegotiate NAFTA" so as to be more beneficial to Americans at the expense of Canada's interests, think again, because we'd be happy to close off the oil spigot and sell our crude, to, oh, I don't know, China.

      Don't mess with Canada!


      http://www.energybulletin.net/18828.html

      There will be no quick fixes for natural gas shortages in North America. None. Eventually, natural gas from Alaska and the MacKenzie Delta in the Northwest Territories will arrive by pipeline. But that could easily be 10 years from now. Imports in the form of liquid natural gas (LNG) could offer some relief, but the timelines for building the necessary special purpose ports and ships could be equally long.

      So, what happens in the meantime should Reynolds' prediction turn out to be true? The answer will be puzzling to many Canadians. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) obliges Canada to share its oil and gas in the same proportion as it has in the previous 36 months prior to any restrictions placed on output. The specific reference is Article 605. In other words, the United States is supposed to get its share no matter what. In 2005 the U. S. imported almost 3.7 tcf of natural gas from Canada which produced about 6.5 tcf in the same year. That's more than half Canada's production.

      (Perhaps even more galling to the Canadian public will be the fact that the other party to NAFTA, Mexico, retained control over its own hydrocarbon resources in the very same chapter of the agreement in which Canadian negotiators gave away Canada's energy sovereignty.)

      But what if the Canadian government faced a situation in which its own citizens were freezing in their homes for lack of heat? Would it simply let natural gas flow south because of a trade agreement? And, what if it became apparent that the situation wasn't temporary, but rather a long-term problem?

      Any party to NAFTA can withdraw from the agreement with six months' written notice.
    • deanlowe, on 03/09/2008, -2/+4Funny also that 15,000 went to see/hear him but less than 5,000 voted for him.
      • EtherGnat, on 03/09/2008, -2/+4A huge number of people were turned away from caucusing.
        • deanlowe, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2And that's supposed to be "Democratic"?
          What a joke.
    • rebrad, on 03/09/2008, -3/+1The fact are that the Media and the real powers that control this country have decided that the election will be between Clinton and McCain. The Republicans have complied and our Rulers are getting very impatient with the Democrats. Who do these little people think they are to defy what they are instructed to do? Might as well face it and realize that resistance is futile. Obama can be the Vice just like Gore. Right now Obama is a cover-up waiting to happen.
    • scaaven2, on 03/09/2008, -5/+2buried for being a douche
  • uhohzombies, on 03/08/2008, -9/+112It just goes to show who the American people are passionate about. Hillary might win primaries in 'big' states because of name recognition (I won't even get into the fact that uneducated people are more likely to vote for her; I wonder why?) among other things, as well as the simplicity of a process we're all used to... go down the street, pull a lever, and go home. It works for the lazy, disaffected masses. However, when you look at the caucus process, it requires you to be motivated to get out and vote in an unusual and oft misunderstood manner. Most people don't bother to go, as evidenced by the numbers who vote in caucuses versus the number of votes in a primary contest; therefore it proves that Obama's message of inspiration is more than just empty words and hollow promises. People REALLY DO WANT CHANGE, no matter how much Clinton's camp tries to say otherwise (and if you think she offers change, you're nuts), and they're willing to get out there and prove it by getting behind Barack's candidacy.
    • IareKEVLAR, on 03/08/2008, -15/+7That comment was long, so i dugg it simply for the effort.
    • mal1964, on 03/08/2008, -10/+4Tell me how nice Wyoming is when McCain takes the state in November.
      • uhohzombies, on 03/09/2008, -2/+8There's no argument there. It is a red state after all, and votes heavily in favor of Republicans in the general election.

        However, this isn't the general election. This is the primary, and right now it *does* matter.
        • g0k50, on 03/09/2008, -5/+1it matters to the extent of 3 delegates, still won't help in Denver
      • norman619, on 03/09/2008, -2/+1Can I borrow your crystal ball? I have a lottery I need to win.
      • elipabst, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2Like Hillary would win Texas, Oklahoma, and Arizona?
        • theblt, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1No, but Hillary would win California, Ohio, New York, etc. etc. where Obama is winning many Red states.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 03/08/2008, -8/+1So how does people willing to get of their arses prove that "Obama's message of inspiration is more than just empty words and hollow promises?" It only proves that some people are passionate about him.
      • uhohzombies, on 03/09/2008, -2/+10Because it actually fulfills its purpose and engages people in the process. People who, until this election, had little interest or reason to consider getting involved and participating. That alone is a great accomplishment, but I see what you're getting at and I dismiss all of these baseless accusations about Obama being an empty suit.

        Two simple facts: Obama has served 11 years in public office, Hillary has served 7. In his 3 years since election to the Senate, Obama has written more legislation, has had more co-sponsors, more bi-partisan support, and actually *passed* more bills than Hillary Clinton has.

        Clinton's measure of experience is a backstage role as First Lady, which I submit as being next to meaningless when it comes to executive experience. That is, unless she wants to count the time spent on the board of Wal-Mart where she neglected to stand up for worker's rights which she considers herself a champion of, for some reason. If we're not going to count Obama's time as a community organizer, then by that measure we shouldn't count Clinton's time spent as a volunteer and organizer either.

        So, all told, Obama has more practical experience than Hillary Clinton. All she has is a giant political machination of the status quo. In fact, if we're going to bring experience into it, the most applicable experience for the office of President is some kind of executive experience. This is experience that neither Clinton nor Obama (or McCain for that matter) has. If we were truly so worried about experience for the job, we'd be seeing a contest between Bill Richardson and Mitt Romney or Governor Huckabee right now.
        • mal1964, on 03/09/2008, -11/+1Obama or Bush?
        • mal1964, on 03/09/2008, -9/+1All that typing and because of my post you will get many up diggs, But here's a secrets it doesn't matter most people that up digg you cant vote yet and this is just a real exciting game for them..
    • d3mag0gu3, on 03/08/2008, -13/+3Dumbass, there is no difference between obama and hillary. They want the same thing for america. They have the same ***** positions. Get you head out of obama's ass you filthy drone. You think a life long lawyer/politician ( describes BOTH obama and hillary ) wants change? Worthless obamabot.
      • uhohzombies, on 03/09/2008, -4/+6You are exactly what is wrong with America. Well, at least one of an unfortunate many things.
      • stretch611, on 03/09/2008, -3/+6I'm fed up whith there is no difference comments. Maybe you are just too much of an idiot to see the difference.
        To get you started, Obama voted against the war in Iraq, is looking for lobbyist reform, is willing to disclose his financial history, and is trying to run a clean decent campaign based on issues. Hillary has been fear mongering with 3am ads, and lies about secret NAFTA meetings.
        • d3mag0gu3, on 03/09/2008, -10/+2If you can prove that Obama was able to travel in time to vote against the Iraq war when OBAMA wasn't even in the Senate, then I will vote for Obama. If you can't, I hope you won't vote for Obama cause you don't know ***** about Obama. Worthless piece of ***** obamabot.
        • mal1964, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2"To get you started, Obama voted against the war in Iraq"
          Without a doubt one of the biggest anchors of his campaign platform and you don't have a clue. All the tools the Internets has to help you, hummm
          http://www.gregnog.com/OG11.gif
      • d3mag0gu3, on 03/09/2008, -11/+1To Stretch611:
        YOu worthless piece of obamabot. Obama gets more donations from corporations than anyone else. Hillary has disclosed the past 15 years worth of tax returns ( excluding 2007 which she said she will disclose in April). Obama just 2. Obama hasn't run a clean decent campaign you piece of garbage. It just seems that way to you because you agree with Obama.
        • uhohzombies, on 03/09/2008, -1/+6What exactly do you hope to prove or gain by calling people "robot", "worthless", and "garbage"? I'm just writing you off as a pathetically bad attempt at trolling, but if you're honestly trying to debate in favor of one candidate over the other, you would probably find a better reception if you cut back on the personal attacks. We're all human beings here, regardless of political affiliation and ideology. This kind of senseless anger is the reason the world is so messed up right now.
      • lajaw, on 03/09/2008, -2/+3Democrats at each others throats. I'm diggin' it!
        • RepubOperative, on 03/09/2008, -3/+2I love it too. I hope they keep it up as long as they can. Watching assholes spout ***** about obama is hilarious. Digg is owned by obama fans and the hillary supporters can't get a word in. I hope they don't vote for the man.
          • lajaw, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1It's a shame that the Republican primaries ended so soon. Seeing the fake conservative contenders was also a good show. It's shame there's not one good candidate going to win the nomination of either party. Now we'll have to look to third party or write-in.
          • br0ck, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4"Watching assholes spout ***** about obama is hilarious." Yes, yes, it is: http://bleu.west.spy.net/diggwatch/comments/RepubO ...
    • g0k50, on 03/09/2008, -4/+0Changing Washington DC is not possible, money is always going to run the place. In order to get things done you have to work the system, from the inside, Hillary knows how to do that and she knows how to win Presidential Campaigns. Obama doesn't even know how the Senate works yet, and he's a member. His talk about "change" is more talk like "changing" NAFTA, it means one thing when talking to his voters and another when he's talking to Canada.
      • diggnatious, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4"Argue for your limitations and sure enough their yours..."
        • g0k50, on 03/09/2008, -1/+0I'm not going to argue with you, I'll just point out that their is not they are.
      • elipabst, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3"Changing Washington DC is not possible, money is always going to run the place."

        Isn't Hillary running on a platform of "change" as well? Or is that "change" as in "here is $5 change from that $1000 you slipped in my pocket"? Clinton has only been a US Senator marginally longer than Obama and that is completely ignoring his time as a state senator.

        So tell me more about Hillary's "experience". What, she knows what's good on the Whitehouse menu or what number to dial to get your clothes picked up for dry cleaning? I've played tennis on the Whitehouse tennis courts too, does that make me somehow more qualified to be President? Also, you may want to read up on the NAFTA thing, because it came out after her smear job in Ohio that *she* was actually the one giving back-channel assurances to the Canadians.
        • g0k50, on 03/09/2008, -1/+0The change that people want is from incompetent republicans to competent experienced Democrats
          getting elected to the Illinois state senate from the Chicago Democratc Machine is no big whoop!
    • Arbinshire, on 03/09/2008, -5/+1"I won't even get into the fact that uneducated people are more likely to vote for her; I wonder why?" Care to cite your sources? I highly doubt that you'll be able to and are instead, "making things up."
    • yellowsnowcone, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Your argument about caucuses is a bit convulted. How are they better than primaries? With primaries, you have more people participating, which more accurately expresses popular sentiment.

      But you seem to think that democracy shouldn't be about popular sentiment, that one person's vote is more equal to another person's vote. For example, you say Obama's supporters are "better educated". So what? Should we discount votes for Hillary because some of them may not have collegee degrees?

      Also, you say caucus participants have more passion, while primary voters are lazy and only have to pull a lever. So would you rather this whole election be decided by caucus? How is that democracy?

      Caucuses award those with better organisation. But look at Wyoming: Just under 9,000 votes cast for the whole entire state. That's right: 9,000 people. It's not a misprint, deciding for everyone else in Wyoming.

      Obama had 61 percent, or 5,378 votes, to Clinton's 38 percent, or 3,312 votes.

      Obama won seven delegates and Clinton won five.
    • mal1964, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1You're a dork, All you're ***** in all your comments has nothing to with qualifications to be President. And not even one issue. You're a waste of time,Quit pretending that you know what you're talking about. its very obvious you don't.
      I had to vent, or else i was going to puke
  • GhostWithToast, on 03/08/2008, -5/+24I hope the votes match! He drew large crowds in RI too but lost there somehow.
  • Stevanoski, on 03/08/2008, -49/+2This is so silly, Obama will never defeat the white power structure that controls the Democratic party.
    • g0k50, on 03/09/2008, -13/+1Amen to that! and for good reason, he can't win a Presidential Campaign, the best way for Obama to get to the WH is thru the Naval Observatory
    • hmunkey, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1He's already winning. So don't throw out the word never.
  • rsek, on 03/08/2008, -14/+9obama for prez!
  • Dumbledorito, on 03/08/2008, -8/+131This is innacurate. There are only, like, six people living in Wyoming. Everyone knows that.
    • tegabater, on 03/08/2008, -41/+4Wow me and my family make up half the population.
      *****.
      • hardwickj, on 03/08/2008, -3/+26Take a joke.
        *****.
      • Jovensdesciple, on 03/08/2008, -8/+3They encourage his stupidity and mock your sanity. Why are they so retarded?
      • Myonosken, on 03/09/2008, -1/+10Given that makes 3 of you, why not just say "me and my parents"?
    • dsmx, on 03/09/2008, -5/+15I heard the police stop you because there lonely.
      • pcghost, on 03/09/2008, -2/+13No, just to correct your use of they're.
  • MutatedNantuko, on 03/08/2008, -4/+9Good news: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23534864/
  • duddy, on 03/08/2008, -4/+33Wisdom and crowds aren't good bed buddies.

    That "wise" crowd will try and kill each other to escape a burning building.
    • MutatedNantuko, on 03/08/2008, -5/+3Since when gas democracy about wisdom?
    • d3mag0gu3, on 03/08/2008, -11/+4Don't forget the naive youth formed the heart of the Nazi movement, the hippie movement and America's next top model movement. Dumb ass biatches.
    • petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Tell that to the S&P 500.
    • highwebl, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Sounds like a fair assessment of American democracy to me.
  • freakon, on 03/08/2008, -34/+12Why do you guys like Obama so much? Don;t you realize politicians make a living lying to people? Anyone can promise something, and offer up hope.
    • kweli, on 03/08/2008, -6/+4i'd like to see you try
    • S7aind, on 03/08/2008, -3/+3Yeah, but Hilary is like Governor Tracy from Black Sheep. Obama is like Al Donnelly. Obama is the much better choice.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 03/08/2008, -4/+6Funny how the so called antiwar candidate wants to increase the military personel by 80,000. I guess he just wants to move them out of Iraq and into some other country, any country that isn't the US.
    • shoopdawoop, on 03/08/2008, -8/+1you cant reason with them, they is hi on crack and gay fornications
    • d3mag0gu3, on 03/08/2008, -8/+7The MSM decided to make supporting Obama the "hip" thing to do. So these mindless filth follow as told. That's why viral campaigning works so well. Tons of dumb sheeple fall for it.
    • Emceay, on 03/08/2008, -3/+2If that's true, then given the choices, this is who I'd prefer telling me the lies.
  • regicide, on 03/08/2008, -5/+4Hell Yeah
  • LordoftheFly, on 03/08/2008, -24/+3Obamarama is cumming on the front page.
  • IareKEVLAR, on 03/08/2008, -8/+3Hope
  • Trav3133, on 03/08/2008, -1/+28I bet their hands hurt after all that drawing.
  • 2timer, on 03/08/2008, -19/+1Ron Paul
  • Kral, on 03/08/2008, -8/+14I'm for Obama, yet you guys with your Ron Paul style digg spamming are going to wind up screwing it up for him. Stop. Appearing to have a crazy fan club isn't going to help him.

    • quiksliver, on 03/08/2008, -5/+14Digg isn't a mainstream site like msnbc or yahoo or google, non internet "savy" (i hate the word but cant think of a better one) people won't come here and say "OMFG Obamania, he must be a cult leader lulz"
      And stop blaming Digg for Ron Paul's epic fail, he failed to use the millions of dollars we gave him and was not a good campaigner and he himself came off as a nut in alot of debates and interviews
    • Emceay, on 03/08/2008, -5/+2People like you are just encouraging them. ;)
    • uhohzombies, on 03/08/2008, -4/+11Crazy fan club? Since when was it wrong to have support? I thought support was a good thing until this election. Now Hillary wants us all to believe that supporting your candidate means you're a brainwashed lemming.
      • Myonosken, on 03/09/2008, -2/+1The fact you've made Hillary the anti-thesis of everything good in this world is a perfect example. He's pointing out the repeated stories that throw dirt back at Hillary- you hate her tactics, then try your own *****. Thank god Obama isn't like you folks.
        • uhohzombies, on 03/09/2008, -3/+1I disliked Hillary before this presidential race even began, so that has nothing to do with it. However, I am getting tired of the Clinton line-of-the-month trying to portray anyone who supports Obama as some kind of Stepford-ized zombie.
    • Gabberwok, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1As important as we like to think we are, I don't think there are many undecided voters on Digg.
    • Dumbledorito, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1I don't think this is so much an "Obama yay" article as it is a "Hillary boo" article.
  • rzxc, on 03/08/2008, -4/+10If Tom Brokaw was right and Obama has 50 superdelegates who will go public with their support, now would be a good time for them to do it. Please. Please.
    • petrodollar, on 03/09/2008, -2/+8And subject themselves of 3 months of unending harassment by hitlery and her stooges?
  • brwright, on 03/08/2008, -3/+14So, like the whole state showed up?
  • cadmiumpaint, on 03/08/2008, -2/+55if Obama wins the popular vote, but Hillary wins the nom due to superdelegates (i.e. the backroom deal) then the Democratic party will be so divided that McCain will become president.
    • hardwickj, on 03/08/2008, -0/+15In the event this actually happens (and it might), I think you are dead on accurate.
    • lotsa1s, on 03/09/2008, -4/+1If Hilary wins the nomination I'm going to vote for McCain just to spite the feminists.
    • runCMD, on 03/09/2008, -2/+3If you haven't noticed - the party is already divided. Hillary isn't voting for herself in all these states - her supporters are. Superdelegates may be the deciding factor - and that is just wrong.
      • cadmiumpaint, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1i've met lots of Hillary supporters who will vote Obama if he gets the nod and vice versa. Liberals are going to support the Dem candidate, however....if you as a party tell them that their choice doesn't matter and put the candidate in who didn't win the popular vote, then you will be pissing A LOT of people including myself off.
    • aboutlogin, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4if obama wins the popular vote and also wins the nomination even after hillary (whose allegiance is to a cause other than the democratic party) drags the democratic party through litigation then the democratic party will be so divided and destroyed that mccain will become president. this is ok to her campaign, because it still serves hillary's purpose. there is no downside to this strategy for her, she doesn't get another chance after this.
      • runCMD, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2You are hereby baptized in obamanism. The party is divided already. There are people that agree with Obama ( fine people like yourself ) and those that prefer Clinton ( like me ) and we collectively haven't budged much. It's going to take unity to fight mccain and win.
    • hmunkey, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3I think Republicans are just gonna vote Hillary to make McCain win.
      • hardwickj, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2This could have part to do with why Hillary won the primary in Texas, but lost the caucus. Any republican voting for her in the primary (as Limbaugh recommended) likely isn't so excited about it to stick around the typical 3 hours it apparently took to vote in the caucus again for her.
  • Klydethegreater, on 03/08/2008, -3/+3Yes they will.
  • shoopdawoop, on 03/08/2008, -17/+3wait till obama gets cought usin a cigar on larry sinclair in the oval office
    • badqat, on 03/08/2008, -8/+3Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...except for when it's a penis.
  • winnch, on 03/08/2008, -8/+12Counterpoint:
    His crowds are 7.5:1 but his votes (as they're being tallied now with 85% in) are only 3:2.
    I'm an Obama supporter, but let's not drink too much kool-aid. He's a politician and she's just awful. I miss John Edwards.
    • Emceay, on 03/08/2008, -6/+7Yeah, i miss watching him constantly lick his lips and play with his hair.
    • stretch611, on 03/09/2008, -3/+5I also preferred John Edwards. Obama was my second choice until Edwards left the race. One of the stories that came out reported the possibility of Edwards maybe talking to Obama about being VP or possibly Attorney General in a Obama cabinet.
      I thought about that and while the VP sounds good, think of how well suited Edwards would be as AG... With Obama as president and Edwards fighting corporations as AG think of how much real change we could have. I hope to see this situation on Jan 20th...
      • RepubOperative, on 03/09/2008, -10/+3I'm calling for your assassination given how unAmerican you are.
  • d3mag0gu3, on 03/08/2008, -24/+3You lousy ***** obamabots with your ***** obamaspam. ***** off with your dailykos and huffingtonpost garbage. Miserable bastards. Front page of digg is flooded with 5 obamaspam. Keep this up and I will be donating to Hillary. ***** mindless spineless filth.
    • santaliqueur, on 03/08/2008, -5/+4Obamabot, Obamabot, Obamabot. Learn a new word.

      http://www.neaveru.com/digg/stats/d3mag0gu3/max_co ...
      • RepubOperative, on 03/09/2008, -7/+2All that that proves is that the Digg site is owned and operated by Obama followers. Nothing else. He was rated negative on every post. Who gives a *****.
    • uhohzombies, on 03/08/2008, -3/+3Go back to Canada.
    • hardwickj, on 03/08/2008, -5/+2Why weren't you around complaining when the Ronbots were spewing their ***** everywhere? Oh wait, YOU WERE PROBABLY ONE OF THEM!
      Paybacks a bitch, eh?
    • hardwickj, on 03/09/2008, -2/+13Wowsers.....look at d3mag0gu3's profile. Talk about a bitter person. He is from New York and appears to be trolling his way through digg postings to scream at, harass, and otherwise verbally attack every person who says anything even remotely Obama'esque.

      Not a happy person, are you d3mag0gu3? I was a Hillary supporter myself until about 2 months ago when it became apparent she was taking the low road. Now I see what kind of people are still supporting her...everyone wallowing in misery, themselves living the low road...
      • jm4847, on 03/09/2008, -4/+3"harass"
        omg internet serious business!!!1
      • d3mag0gu3, on 03/09/2008, -7/+2I don't like Obama or Hillary because they are one and the same. I just got sick of the obamaspam on digg and decided to take action. Never posted on digg prior to the obamabot infestation. I hate cult members. If I saw 1000000 L Ron Hubbard articles on digg every day, I'd be just as upset. Now ***** off obamabot.
    • fuzzybeard, on 03/09/2008, -0/+3Please Do Not Feed The Trolls!
      (they're rude, obnoxious, & upsetting. also known for leaving the toilet seat up!)
    • Gabberwok, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2He's just upset that Ron Paul ended up being as much of a joke as everyone had said from the beginning. Leave him alone and he'll eventually find something more productive to do with his time.
    • RhodesSkolar, on 03/09/2008, -0/+0OK, I'll switch my favored candidate from Obama to Hillary. I knew I'd buckle under! But wait! I really dislike her......
  • schmitey, on 03/08/2008, -2/+6Umm...no-where does it say that Clinton's venue could hold more than 2,000 people. Not saying she couldn't draw in that crowd, but this is a case of finding something pro-Obama and running with it.
    • duggedup, on 03/08/2008, -5/+3Her venues are always half full. Obama venues have overflow crowds
      • schmitey, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2that may be, but the article didn't explicitly say that. Thus the "running with it" part.
      • NoStoppingUs, on 03/09/2008, -3/+1he had an event at the university of cincinnati and couldnt even fill it up while hillarys was completely full. i went since it was on campus and ended up leaving halfway along with a good amount of others. i think the killer was when he called us the "bobcats", not "bearcats". baaahahaha
  • emerrill, on 03/08/2008, -1/+18Well this is just deceptive overall. It was Bill Clinton that drew 2000. Obama's event is being held in a 15,000 seat venue, but it hasen't happened yet, so you can't know how many people showed up...
    • echoblaster, on 03/09/2008, -4/+2In true fashion and without any forethought, the Clinton camp only reserved a space in Laramie big enough for roughly 1500, so there were many people either shuffled into an overflow room for a video feed or turned away at the door. Obama on the other hand wanted to resreve the biggest space available and got the arena. The top section was cordoned off, and the audience was spilling into that section by the time we arrived. I'd estimate about 8-10K at that event.
  • mooseontheloose, on 03/08/2008, -17/+3Ah the great state of Wyoming, where homosexuals are brutally murdered. No wonder they support Obama, who is anti-gay rights.

    I wonder why Obama has yet to win a state that actually matters worth a damn, like NY or California.
    • uhohzombies, on 03/08/2008, -2/+6Oh, I didn't realize that a person's vote is less significant because he doesn't live in a major metropolitan city. I guess they're worthless trash that provide nothing to the country, economy, or political discourse.

      I've found that a lot of people are hung up on Clinton because of how poorly our country is doing right now, economically, socially, and diplomatically. They remember her husband's terms where he rode the dot-com wave and passed off our economic success as his own doing, while he spent most of his years mired in scandal and criminal investigations. People have selective memories. We could re-elect Bill Clinton and we'd still have the same problems and with no new bubble in the economy to skate by with, he'd be in big trouble.
    • badqat, on 03/08/2008, -2/+1Is Obama anti-gay rights? I mean, if he does the whole down low thing, that doesn't seem to match up with being against them...unless he's another Craig.
    • d3mag0gu3, on 03/09/2008, -11/+1Obama wins all the worthless hick states. Where people are more savvy, his rhetoric doesn't get him far. And we know that in the general election, McCain is going to take those states and California/NY. Obama is going to get killed. No caucuses to help him cheat in the general election unfortunately.
      • hardwickj, on 03/09/2008, -2/+4d3mag0gu3 its you again buddy! Man, you are just a TROLL hard at work, aren't ya?! Good to see you buddy! Toodles!
    • hardwickj, on 03/09/2008, -2/+6"A state that actually matters worth a damn"
      Because the other 48 states apparently don't. And this is hopefully why you Hillary supporters will lose.

      P.S. I guess since it's public now that Hillary in fact LOST Texas after the caucus results came in, Texas isn't a state that matters now? Man you guys are BRUTAL!
    • echoblaster, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Suck an exhaust pipe for your overgeneralized stereotype. Last I checked, drawing an inference upon the whole population based on the activity of two individuals isn't exactly a qualified statement.
    • stretch611, on 03/09/2008, -0/+4Obama is not a an anti-gay homophobe.
      Here is an article of him telling a crowd that Homophobia should not be a Christian value: http://www.towleroad.com/2008/02/barack-obama-te.h ...
  • mal1964, on 03/08/2008, -4/+2"If you tear it down,They will come"
  • ipitydafool, on 03/08/2008, -7/+2So I'm guessing all 17,000 people that live in Wyoming decided to show. **shrug**
    • hippieslaugh, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Cause, New Jersey... THERE'S a state that matters...
  • barthook, on 03/08/2008, -3/+43Obama's 15,000 people crowd garnered him 4,459 votes.
    Clinton's 2,000 people crowd garnered her 3,081 votes.
    • cwcentral, on 03/09/2008, -2/+5that hurts. I hope that's accurate?

      Funny that it appears caucuses are in states that traditionally vote republican in the general election (more repubs in the state?)--And if I were a democrat in Wyoming, I'd be so furious frm the last 8 years and yearn for a candidate that is a complete anti-Bush/Cheney. And the closest is Obama. Great for those local states and voters, but will surely lose out in the general election if independents in the bigger blue states swing since Obama's message is more left that HRC's.
      • Pherdnut, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Hillary got the boost from all the Limbaugh fans.
  • semrocks, on 03/08/2008, -6/+10Buried for being from the echo chamber, errrr, Huffington Post.

  • AManWithNoName, on 03/08/2008, -8/+5Clinton needs to be stopped. The only thing that truly worries me, though, is that if Obama wins the nomination, she'll probably create her own party to run on her own, a la Teddy Roosevelt running against Taft. This would split the democrats straight down the center, and McCain would win because his party didn't fight. If Hillary won the nomination, I could not see Obama doing that. Which basically puts any Obama supporters into a catch twenty-two, lose to Hillary, or lose to McCain. I only hope Clinton isn't that stupid.
    • jm4847, on 03/09/2008, -5/+3"she'll probably create her own party to run on her own,"
      You are silly. You silly little man.
    • stretch611, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2That would be a huge scorched earth policy and I would hope that even she is not that evil to realize it and not do it.
      If she cannot even win the nomination among relatively friendly democrats, she knows that she can not pick up republican votes and win a general election.
    • fuzzybeard, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Reminds me of that scene in "The Phantom Menace" where Palpatine and Darth Maul are talking:
      Darth Maul: At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi; at last we shell have our revenge.
  • skinturtle, on 03/08/2008, -9/+3Obama reminds of the wrestler "The Rock" when he speaks. He kind of sounds like him. I'm half expecting him to start calling the Clinton's a bunch of jabroni's and that's he's gonna lay the smack down of their candy arses!

    If you smelllll la la la laaaa what Ba Rock..is..cooking!
    • badqat, on 03/09/2008, -3/+1Wait...shouldn't you be a Clinton supporter? I mean, you meet the demographic.
      • skinturtle, on 03/09/2008, -3/+0Wait..aren't you an idiot? I mean, you meet the requirements.
    • RepubOperative, on 03/09/2008, -5/+3Why what is Ba Rocka..cooking? Crack cocaine? I suppose he could have given up on smoking maryjane and snorting coke.
  • TheWriteGuy, on 03/08/2008, -2/+12Now when will the rest of the MSM finally announce (admit) that Obama probably has won/will win Texas in terms of most number of delegates?
    • Devaney, on 03/09/2008, -0/+5yeah really, I don't understand how the caucus results have been stalled at 41% for the past 3 days.
    • worldinmyeyes, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1It's pathetic how obvious the MSM keeps the truth far away from the dumbed down masses. They keep talking about the "win" in Texas and are now downplaying Wyoming and Mississippi, and saying only PA matters. The masters of the media have given their script, and Hillary propaganda is being shoved down our throats. They will stop at nothing to get her the nomination. Many will say it is to boost ratings - I see something far more sinister.
  • TripleAStacked, on 03/08/2008, -3/+8lol @ all the anti-Hilary posts from huffingtonpost..

    Back on topic.. Obama ftw!!
  • smackhard, on 03/08/2008, -11/+6Screw Hillary! don't vote for her anyone.
    Digg itself reported 63,000 Americans lost their jobs last year because of outsourcing, She likes Asians i.e Indians and Pakistanis a lot. if she wins she will support more outsourcing.
    • cheese06, on 03/09/2008, -1/+2wow, you seem more fit for the hardcore right wing Republican party, not the democratic party.
    • fuzzybeard, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1If you don't cast a vote, you DO NOT (imo) have a right to complain about the resulting government.
      • Jaydo, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1And if we can't vote for who we want to cast a vote for?
  • jm4847, on 03/09/2008, -11/+6Nobody cares about Wyoming and you know it.
  • AndrewDB, on 03/09/2008, -5/+13GO OBAMA!

    OBAMA 08!
  • PhilThePhenom, on 03/09/2008, -3/+7If you guys digg this to the top it will be a very sad day for legit journalism. All other news outlets are reporting Obama with about 60%, Clinton with 40%.
    • RepubOperative, on 03/09/2008, -3/+5Don't confuse legit journalism with anything related to Huffington post.
    • Gemfinder, on 03/09/2008, -1/+3Final standing: Obama 61%, Clinton 38%.
  • metalkills, on 03/09/2008, -8/+0HAH wyoming..... wyoming? whens the last time wyoming helped win anything? can we just get obama in office already so these ***** zombies will shut the hell up already? i could care less who wins, just as long as the idiots of the world will be silenced
  • summitr, on 03/09/2008, -1/+11I'm not going to comment on the politics here. I live in Laramie, WY and would like to mention that the venue where Obama spoke will hold around 15,000. The venue where Clinton spoke will only hold around 2000.
  • Idiggapony, on 03/09/2008, -2/+8I'm not sure if anyone else feels this way, but I think that this incessant jamming of digg's front page with Obama campaigning is extremely counterproductive. In the past few days, I have found myself developing a more and more intense dislike of Obama, and I have to remind myself that I haven't listened to him speak, read his positions on any issues, or even seen his picture in that time. It's not necessarily his fault. It's just that all the Obama stories all over the front page, and the accompanying cult-like mantras of devotion from his followers, are starting to remind me of the hot stock tips and generic Viagara ads that we're all trying to filter into our junk mail folders. It's annoying. I have no great love for Hillary Clinton or John McCain, but I'm really, really sick of Barack Obama.
    • Kyan, on 03/09/2008, -3/+5Dude, hey man, it's just Digg, ya know, chill a bit. Digg is representative of about 0.0000000001% of the United States.

      Think about it - top stories are Dugg by how many people? As I type this - this story only has 680 or so diggs. Are you really going to let a mere 680 people color your vision of Obama? That would be like letting Fox news paint the pictures for you.

      Keep things in perspective, get outside, read some RSS feeds from various news sources. Relax. Peace. Respect.
      • Idiggapony, on 03/09/2008, -2/+3Dude, you're right. This completely incorrect link is up to almost 3000 mindless diggs now, but (A) it's probably the same 100 people digging it over and over again, and (B) as you say, it's only digg. Candidates can't be held responsible for everything their followers do everywhere. I do wish Obama would lay off the whole self-messiafication approach a bit, as it probably encourages this sort of misbehavior. But Obama deserves serious consideration on his own merits, not on the basis of what his diggers are doing to our website.

        However, as a simple practical point for the Obama backers, I wish to reiterate that what you're doing here is not helping your candidate -- it's harming him.
        • Gemfinder, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1You can't Digg a particular story more than once.
          • Idiggapony, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2You can if you're the sort of person who creates multiple accounts for himself or herself. You may not do that, and I don't, but people do. I feel it's unethical, and besides, it would be a hassle to keep logging out and logging in again under different accounts. Only a minimal hassle if you consider digging your favorite candidate an opportunity to contribute to a righteous, almost holy quest to save the world, but way too much time to spend if you're just here to throw a few diggs around and read something interesting.
        • Kyan, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1Actually, I'm trying to point out that it's only hurting him if people are willing to let their opinion of him be swayed by diggs. I mean, i guess it might harm him somewhat among diggers like yourself. But in the overall picture, I think it's pretty negligible.
          • Idiggapony, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2Well, I think that, if one does hang around digg.com, one can't help but have one's opinion of a candidate swayed by how his supporters are behaving, to some extent. That is certainly what the Obama diggers hope to achieve by doing what they're doing. And, in a normative sense, it's probably reasonable to handle complex opinion-forming tasks by relying on the heuristic that one is apt to come to the same conclusions as others who think the same way, have similar values, and approach issues in a similar way.

            I guess the key point to remember in this case is that Obama's diggers are, as you say, only a fraction of Obama's supporters, and it's best not to assume that only people who resemble the Obama diggers should like Obama. But what would worry me, if I were an Obama strategist hoping to attract voters like myself, is the way in which the diggers' behavior recapitulates some aspects of Obama's official campaign strategy that may strike some as off-putting. Obama's approach so far seems to be to paint himself as something between JFK and Jesus. He has these ads in which people chant his name in a sort of beatific state of bliss, swooning with nearly syncopal waves of joy. At his rallies, he tugs at the hearts of his supporters with impassioned feats of demagogy that leave listeners teary-eyed and lightheaded, oblivious to the fact that he hasn't actually been talking about any substantive for the past few minutes.

            I suppose this approach has been so successful because it specifically targets what is perceived to be the greatest weakness in Hillary Clinton's public personality, i.e. the perception among some that she is a cold, calculating, Machiavellian politician whose positions are based on her hunger for power rather than any particular personal values. But I think at some point, maybe in the general election, Obama's quasi-religious "cult of personality" strategy may start to turn off enough voters that it's ineffective. To the extent that the Obama diggers continue to amplify that strategy by maintaining levels of faith-based influence-pushing normally reserved for religious proselytizing, they'll reinforce the negative aspects of Obama's public image, increasingly turning off those who are not (yet) believers in the cause. That's what's happening in my case.
  • FATEorFORTUNE, on 03/09/2008, -7/+5all you obama supporters, stop acting like you care about wyoming. pretty sure hillary didn't lose sleep over that one
    • uhohzombies, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4And that's why she's losing.
      • motivatedmama, on 03/09/2008, -2/+0Actually, Hillary tried pretty hard for this one (the momentum thing) Obama had to take time out to deal with running an effective and winning campaign (the Monster crap). She wanted it. And just like Varuka Salt sang, "DON'T CARE HOOOWW, I WANT IT NOW!!!!"
    • dddavid, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately though, she can't afford that attitude. After winning Ohio, and R.I. and losing Texas and Vermont, she needed to win 60% of the delegates in EVERY remaining race. Which was already unlikely enough. If she LOSES any state, or even wins it with less that 60% of the vote, then that means she just has to win by that much more in the remaining states, to pull ahead in the pledged delegates. Of course, we know she already knows she can't do that, and is she's working hard to try to steal the nomination by way of the superdelegates, or I've even heard she is trying to get PLEDGED delegates to BETRAY their districts, and switch to her. She will stop at nothing to win. Kind of reminds me of Bush in that way. Which is why we cannot let her win.
    • RhodesSkolar, on 03/09/2008, -0/+0I doubt that she or her wonky man Billdo have lost any sleep over the number of dead bodies that followed in their wake.
  • BraveQuail, on 03/09/2008, -9/+2Obama's Victory Speech
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
    • Kyan, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1His victory speech ends in "uuiU"? Could be but I DON'T THINK SO.
  • BraveQuail, on 03/09/2008, -7/+2Obama's Victory Speech!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
    As usual extremely inspirational
    • g0k50, on 03/09/2008, -7/+0all talk, no win. John Kerry got 12 delegates in 2004.
      Can't have that in Noverber, we need a fighter, and her name is Hillary Clinton!
  • alkimista, on 03/09/2008, -9/+2This win was brought to you by Rezko. Because nothing screams politics like good ole fashioned kickbacks.
    • RepubOperative, on 03/09/2008, -2/+2I wish I had "tight" mafia friends like Obama/Rezko. Then I could get my hands on about $500,000 worth of property for about $150,000. Thats some slick mafia ***** which I doubt stays in the closet after the primaries.
  • kd1s, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2In the past month we've had both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama stop in RI to speak. Clinton drew a crowd of 2,000 people, Obama drew over 10,000 people. But he lost the primary to Clinton. He did capture the capitol city though.
  • someone173406, on 03/09/2008, -1/+4IT'S OVER 9000!!!!
    • fuzzybeard, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1His Super Zaiyan power level? *confused*
  • jahayiti, on 03/09/2008, -2/+2Vox Populi !!!
  • onlinetreason, on 03/09/2008, -4/+3FALSE HOPE AND EMPTY PROMISES
    • munjalm, on 03/09/2008, -0/+2New Obama campain slogan? :)
      • Jaydo, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1Not just his, the rest of the candidates are picking it up as well.
  • pizzas, on 03/09/2008, -2/+1the clouds have wisdom!!
  • ironpirate, on 03/09/2008, -4/+3I hope Obama wins so the Republicans will win the General election. He CANT win Ohio or Florida.......Democrats better hope that Clinton can win or have a Clinton/Obama ticket to have a chance.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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