digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Obama is the change that America has tried to hide

guardian.co.uk — If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 140Suffolk, on 04/01/2008, -70/+46Blah, blah, blah. He's done...what? Nothing. Here's the new scandal that will come out soon: since Obama has so little experience to show, they've come up with a list of legislation that he "sponsored" when he was an Illinois legislator. Well, it's coming out that the "list" were bills that he had nothing to do with. They were bills that OTHER Illinois Democrats sponsored for years. And the head of the Illinois Democrat party forced the true sponsors to take their names off and put Barack's name on them. To create a resume for him.
    Why? Cause he's really just an empty suit.
    • DrDragun, on 04/01/2008, -8/+15The President has 4 prime functions:

      1) Figurehead for purposes of international or domestic relations
      2) Commander-In-Chief (really a symbolic role, everything is delegated to the Joint Chiefs)
      3) Veto Power
      4) Appointing Supreme Court Justices

      In my opinion #2 has been irrelevant since GW crossed the Potomack, #3 he will be a liberal on, #4 same, and #1 he is great because of his inspiring and eloquent speeches.

      What I'm basically saying is that the president's job is MOSTLY sizzle not steak, and Obama is good at the sizzle. When it comes to steak, yes he will probably be a rank-and-file liberal with his vetoes and supreme court appointments.
      • lgm1213, on 04/01/2008, -8/+5WTF. You undermine the hardship it is to be president and compare it to a sizzle. Get some education
      • Cattywampus, on 04/01/2008, -5/+7Being U.S. President is mostly 'sizzle'? Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Granted, the president is part of only one of three branches of govt, but he/she still has a big impact on the country.

        The four 'prime functions' listed above are a gross oversimplification of the president's job. They're not even correct ... the commander in chief does not delegate 'everything' to the joint chiefs.
        • Diderotten, on 04/01/2008, -1/+4While I disagree with him equating the president to osimply a figurehead(reminds me of the queen of england), one of his most important functions, besides the authority to send troops into combat, is who he appoints. He is only as good as who he surrounds himself with.
          • Cattywampus, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Sure, but there have been many presidents who have appointed bad people under them: friends and cronies who aren't qualified or competent; people who talk a good game but aren't effective; etc.
            I'm sure a lot of presidents honestly feel they are choosing good people, but that president may just not have good judgement.
          • Diderotten, on 04/01/2008, -3/+1that's sorta my point. Bush's patronage ultamitely led us all into Iraq, not to mention bringing us Gonzolas and many other terrible people. He is truly destroying this country.
          • senatorpjt, on 04/01/2008, -2/+1Actually, the president isn't supposed to have the authority to send troops into combat.
          • lgm1213, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2He does for 90 days without the approval of Congress.
      • seomike, on 04/01/2008, -3/+6If the presidency is only sizzle then why the hell does Bush get blamed for everything.... Economy, Natural Disasters, Oil prices you name it you libs blame him for everything... Only sizzle my ass... Obama is a socialist and an apostate to the ideas of small, limited government our fore fathers created.
        • KicktheDonkey, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2Point of order. Nobody blamed Bush for Katrina. Only for his lack-luster response. (and that's not to say that others should not share that blame, as well).
        • alwshiloh, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3Actually he was repeatedly blamed for the actual occurance of Katrina, by the global-warming evangilists.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 04/01/2008, -2/+4Because liberals want it both ways.
        • fedupamerica, on 04/01/2008, -1/+4Lackluster response? Try responding when you have militant thugs shooting at you. FEMA is not a first responder anyway. Its the state and local Governments responsibility to be first responders. Period. BTW The governor and the mayor are DEMS.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/01/2008, -11/+5"What I'm basically saying is that the president's job is MOSTLY sizzle not steak"

      So, what you're saying is wrong. The President has to have both sizzle AND steak. Obama's got the former, it remains to be seen if he has the latter...
    • eth3l, on 04/01/2008, -16/+9Well said.

      With respect to Obama, the only change he could bring about is a more socialist state - taking away power from the individuals and the states and giving it to the Fed - ***** THAT. If the libertarians think that the GOP runs a police state, wait for the far let to get ahold of power.

      I feel, however, that Obama's severly limited expereince will prevent him from accomplishing anything of merit in the unlikely event he is elected.
      • Diderotten, on 04/01/2008, -6/+4He has the experience and electibility, I just disagree he should be president.
        • lgm1213, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2he has lil experience and electibility.
    • scamper22, on 04/01/2008, -12/+4I agree blah blah blah.
      As someone who actually lived in South Africa and was liberated by Mandela; Obama cannot compare.
      Mandela actually faced oppression. He was arrested; sent to jail for 25 years; and when he came out...only wanted freedom for himself and his people. He made the change...and then left power.

      What the hell has Obama done? He's a wanna be revolutionary so to speak. he grew up in wealth people...in hawaii...and then moved to Chicago for the 'authentic' ghetto black experience. This is a sickness. At best...someone trying to discover their roots. He's no Nelson Mandela...he's a jacob zuma. Wildy popular with the 'masses' but not someone with good substance. His policies are no different than any other regular lefiist democrat.

      Contrast this with Mandela...if you know your history of Africa leaders...things could have been much different.
      • revisrev, on 04/01/2008, -2/+3Who was a Nelson Mandela before Nelson Mandela? Think about it, Mandela was unique, so was Gandhi, so was King. They aren't reincarnations of one another. Each of them had their own experiences that made them who they are. Obama has had his experiences that make him who he is. I don't need or want Obama to be another Mandela. I want him to be the only Barack Obama, and I think most that vote for him feel the same.
        • lgm1213, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2King was not as unique as you think. If it were not for Ghandi and Tolstoy he would not have been the man he was. it was their writings that shaped his life.
          • lgm1213, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Why am I getting dug down. This is fact. WIthout Ghandi there would be no King, Without Tolstoy there would be no Ghandi
      • d0nkeyBOB, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3wait . . .did i miss something??? Mandela is running for president too?
    • smoothdogg00, on 04/01/2008, -2/+7Why do we make everything about race? Why is he only being compared to Mandela and King? Is he some sort of liberator and human rights activist? For the love of God, this is the same thing blacks are always complaining about, just from a different approach. Of course, though, they support this approach.

      The division between blacks and whites needs to stop with this garbage, or we'll always be hearing about how blacks are "oppressed" and "mistreated", and I, for one, am tired of hearing about it.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/01/2008, -0/+5I don't get it. What does he have in common with Mandela and King? Give me a break! He can read speeches. Both Mandela and King were much more than speech readers. Maybe some day he'll demonstrate something greater. But it hasn't happened yet.
      • fedupamerica, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3MLK was a Republican and in my opinion, Obama pales in comparison.
        • lgm1213, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2MLK was a socialist, and in a good way not the way you republicans are scared of
    • lumbergh, on 04/01/2008, -6/+6He's dealt with being not-white his entire life, and succeeded in spite of it. An achievement that most of you will never have to make.
      • Recluse84, on 04/01/2008, -2/+5An achievement that most want you to think is difficult, when in fact, it really isnt.
        • 140Suffolk, on 04/01/2008, -2/+5So every non-white that graduates college is a viable candidate? Good grief.
        • archiesteel, on 04/01/2008, -2/+3How would you know? Are you saying that being black in the US today carries *no* disadvantages? The way some people circle the wagons as soon as any mention of past oppression is made makes me think the old bigoted reflexes aren't that far behind. Read some of the comments on the Guardian story for some shining examples of right-wing racism, alive and well in the 21st century.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/01/2008, -2/+3Racist much? There have been multitudes of successful "not-white" people in the world.
      • lgm1213, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2So his achievement was being born????
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2You obviously haven't heard him read a speech. He's GOLD I tell ya.
      • lgm1213, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Not everything that glitters is gold
    • Rich711, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2He was put up as a token that they thought Hillary could beat and then underestimated how much people hate her. Now they need to run as many puff pieces about Obama as they can to try to sell this mediocre candidate. Fact: If he was white the question, What have you ACTUALLY accomplished? would have been addressed instead of avoided like the plague. So instead of addressing what he means by "CHANGE" lets just "HOPE" every falls for the trick of comparing him to Mandela, King, etc... The only thing Obama has in common with those men is his father was black and he can give a good speech. In actuality Obama has more in common with The Rock.
  • mattowan, on 04/01/2008, -59/+9She's doesn't actually say factually why Hezbamas is her candidate.
    • DrDragun, on 04/01/2008, -3/+22Hezbamas? Are you ***** serious?
    • eth3l, on 04/01/2008, -13/+3Hezbamas - I love seeing this, esp. on Digg!!
  • Ell3, on 04/01/2008, -64/+30Obama is covertly un-American in so many ways.
    • MacEnvy, on 04/01/2008, -14/+21Interesting, I've always thought the same about you after reading your comments.
    • Klainmeister, on 04/01/2008, -14/+44Ah yes, immigrant family searching for a better life, a son that works hard against the odds of racism and inner-city trouble to become the president of the harvard law review and a senator. *****, what an un-american bastard. It's almost like the whole "melting-pot" that everyone touts around the world, but when it actually happens everyone cries un-american. What is AMERICAN?! He's done more for our country than you ever will you dumbass.
      • MattB123, on 04/01/2008, -3/+9He's not rich from old money, given a political job by his CIA director/president daddy and his cronies, or even a recovering alcoholic and coke head.
        Isn't that what they are all taking about?
        • Midtowner, on 04/01/2008, -9/+4Obama's an admitted former coke-head actually. Go read his book.

          Nothing against the guy, I think former drug use is irrelevant whether it's a Bush or an Obama you're using it against.

          I know.. I know.. Digg hates facts.
        • revisrev, on 04/01/2008, -1/+10Using cocaine and being a coke-head are two different things. One is having fun and the other is an obsession. I can have sex without being a sex addict, so I feel that one can do coke a few times without being a cokehead.
        • a6n28f, on 04/01/2008, -1/+7Mid, there's a pretty big difference between trying cocaine and being a addict for years resulting in professional treatment. I saw Hillary drink wine at a fund raising dinner before a speech on TV - is she an alcoholic by your logic?

          You were speaking about facts?

        • senatorpjt, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2Yeah, coke in the 70's didn't have the same stigma as it does now, mostly due to crack. 70's cocaine was pretty mild.
    • eth3l, on 04/01/2008, -20/+8Am i seriously reading anti-obama stuff on Digg? I love it!
    • temjrpgh, on 04/01/2008, -19/+3Read about Obama's foreign policy adviser:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
      http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_quotes.ht ...
      • Acewrap, on 04/01/2008, -1/+15Except that, you know, Brzezinski isn't Obama's foreign policy advisor...
        • RonBurgundy76, on 04/01/2008, -0/+5Stop muddying the issues with the truth :P
    • orangefly, on 04/01/2008, -10/+3obama is not a republican....how dare you....
    • suzywang3000, on 04/01/2008, -16/+6he's also overtly socialist.
    • Y2JCrisis, on 04/01/2008, -2/+18Un-American? What the hell does that even mean? He doesn't like Baseball? Apple Pie?
      • m0tbaillie, on 04/01/2008, -2/+6He realizes full-well that the US is quickly losing ground to other world powers and that we need to get our ***** together to pull out of this rut.
      • logandurand, on 04/01/2008, -2/+1No, as in he is willing to violate the Constitution to appeal to voters.
    • Diderotten, on 04/01/2008, -8/+8Why can't people here be rationally opposed to Obama and debate intelligently? It's absurd that he's connected with any terrorist organization, that he is infantly experienced, or that he's a racist(fact is, he is mostly white, but that doesn't change anything). He's a great public speaker, and I was on his side during the wright controversy. I disagree with him fundamentally on health care, and many other issues. He shouldn't be president in my opinion.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 04/01/2008, -1/+6I may not agree with you, but thank you for at least being intelligent and taking the time to post something legible!
      • Apophis574, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Sad thing is your probably going to get dugg down simply because you don't think Obama should be president. The unintelligent people are mostly on the side rooting for Obama....
    • Cayfox, on 04/01/2008, -3/+5Senator McCarthy? Is that you?
    • papipablo, on 04/01/2008, -3/+4You are overtly a moron in every way.
    • Iconoclast25, on 04/02/2008, -2/+2Nothing particularly covert about his anti-American, anti-Semite, black supremacist, terrorist-embracing connections. He simply is trying to cover them up the time-honored clintonista manner of "lie, deny and spin." Hopefully after extended exposure to the slick and shrill show, the electorate has become a bit more sophisticated.
  • Ganja420, on 04/01/2008, -17/+7Alice Walker? The chick that does 21 accents....
  • SwedishNinja, on 04/01/2008, -32/+13ITT: We let a British newspaper tell us how to vote
    • peagle, on 04/01/2008, -7/+20Right, because the foreign press couldn't possibly provide a worthwhile outsider perspective to the USA. Best stick to Fox to guide your thinking.
      • pyronik, on 04/01/2008, -7/+3ha cause the guardian isn't left biased at all and you want to slam fox
        • RonBurgundy76, on 04/01/2008, -0/+4Do we really need any incentive to slam Fox other than the crap they spew under the guise of "Fair and Balanced"?
    • MattB123, on 04/01/2008, -1/+7Sometimes the best insight comes from outside.
    • Midtowner, on 04/01/2008, -6/+1If I want to know what's up with Amy Winehouse, I'll read the Guardian. If I want to know about American politics, I'll stick to a highly skeptical approach to U.S. media outlets.
    • JCizle, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2Because Alice Walker *isn't* a Pulitzer Prize winning AMERICAN author with a refreshing perspective of the American landscape through the years that most people will never begin to create... just imitate (or did you skip over the part where she said her parents were sharecroppers and she was a MS civil rights activist?) You look to other people's opinions to help guide your own, whether you agree or oppose them. I'm sorry if you are naive enough to let articles tell you how to vote ever...

      You have the right to not agree with her... but to cast it off because its in a foreign publication, come on?
    • pintomp3, on 04/01/2008, -1/+4considering our economic influence and our interventionist foreign policy, everyone in the world has a stake in our elections.
    • Iconoclast25, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1I have progression of two + four + eight words for internationalists trying to tell us how to run this country: "Clark Gable" . . . "Gone with the Wind" . . . "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
  • Ribbed4U, on 04/01/2008, -17/+63Obama might not be a bad candidate, but let's not bow and worship him for god sake.
    • tektalk, on 04/01/2008, -8/+9He is the kwisatz haderach! What are you talking about?
      [yes, go ahead and digg me down]
      • pyronik, on 04/01/2008, -1/+9muad'dib
        • tektalk, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1***** you, sir, Obama isn't Paul, I'm refferring to Obama as the 'shortening of the way', not in the genetic sense that the Bene Gesserit refer to Paul as, but the shortening for the way for change in the US of A.
      • Iconoclast25, on 04/02/2008, -0/+3Actually, rather than the desert savior of Dune, I see him more as "The Mouse That Roared" . . . .
    • DiggLive, on 04/01/2008, -6/+4It's better than the people who worship Steve Jobs.
      • KMartSheriff, on 04/01/2008, -3/+3An OS flamewar? Really? You anti-fanboys are worse than actual fanboys.
    • monsterCable, on 04/01/2008, -8/+2If you do not bow and worship Obama then go back to your cave where Hillary and McCain lives.
      Hey it is April the 1st and we can say anything! Even the truth :)
    • Rich711, on 04/01/2008, -3/+4Obama's candidacy is based in dogma. Whether its all the hope/change speeches or comparisons to JFK or Mandela or MLK. The entire gimmick in getting him this far has been getting people to believe something rather than address the facts of what he has accomplished or how he actually plans on accomplishing change or what experience or allies he has gained that puts him in a position to be President of the U.S. Getting people to worship him is the only thing he has going for him.
    • Timetheos, on 04/02/2008, -2/+1Hell of a lot better than McCain.
      • Timetheos, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1What? Diggers want to vote for John W. McSame?
  • markgl, on 04/01/2008, -29/+14no thanks.
  • ummagummas08, on 04/01/2008, -43/+31It's like Ron Paul spam, but worse because it's not ***** true.
    • Diderotten, on 04/01/2008, -4/+3So Ron Paul support WAS correct! I knew it!
    • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2Yup, this is the opposite.
  • slvrbullet87, on 04/01/2008, -29/+19I want to know what this change is, what changes is he making, why are they good and why should i vote for him if these questions arent answered
    • nblsavage, on 04/01/2008, -7/+20I'm not going to do your ***** research for you, quit trolling and go research his positions, otherwise ***** off.
      • slvrbullet87, on 04/01/2008, -18/+4You cant answer my question thats why, he has no policies and no past to judge him on, all he says is the man for change, change isnt always good
        • shortysmyname, on 04/01/2008, -0/+4"Change isn't always good" You mean you actually want things to stay the same? How old are you? Do you even pay attention to what's going on in this world?
          • slvrbullet87, on 04/01/2008, -6/+3How old are you? I might be young but we are doing a hell of a lot better now than in the late 70's under carter, we are doing better than the 30's under FDR, and we are doing better than 90% of the rest of the world, so in the end i would say we are doing just fine.
          • LukasSmith, on 04/01/2008, -5/+3Amen slverbullet87
          • archiesteel, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2slvrbullet87, in case you haven't noticed, the US in is a recession that could turn into a depression, it is embroiled in a costly quagmire in Iraq, it has lost the respect of the rest of the world (and I'm not talking about third world dictatorships here, but other western democracies), the people are highly dissatisfied with their elected representative, etc., etc.

            Sure, the US is better than it was when FDR got into office - one of the reasons it's better now is precisely because of FDR's visionary policies - but I'm afraid you're too drunk on right-wing ideologies to understand this.

            As for Obama, he *does* have policies. A 5-minute Google search will provide you with dozens of links, however I don't really think you're interested. Jesus could appear right before your eyes and tell you to vote Obama, and still you wouldn't be convinced. Your mind is as closed as an oyster.
          • Iconoclast25, on 04/02/2008, -2/+2Hey, archie, the biggest reason we are having social and financial problems is because of the culture of entitlements which was initiated under that utter maggot scum sucker Emperor franklin dumbass roosevelt and exacerbated by lyndon blow job. If I had a time machine, the first thing I would do would be to waste that PoS around 1920 to ensure he would never, ever, have come to power. And the second would be to prevent JFK's murder so we wouldn't have that ***** for brains take over in 1963.
          • archiesteel, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1The "culture of entitlement" is a myth fostered by the conservatives. In reality, it pales with such wastes as corporate welfare, bureaucratic waste, and costly needless overseas war.

            If FDR hadn't come around, you would have had a full-fledged class war in the states. The so-called "welfare state" is not there to help the lower classes, it's there to protect the elite by making sure the proles have just enough food not to revolt.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3Change may not always be good... that much is true. But, have you been paying attention for the last 20 years?
      • Iconoclast25, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1You mean you don't want to publicly acknowledge his lies and shallow character . . . . This clown is a slick-talking empty suit; we don't need a loony leftist snake oil salesman in the Oval Office, sorry.
    • zephyear, on 04/01/2008, -3/+26http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

      you could also watch his speeches

      god forbid you do some research yourself
      • Iconoclast25, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1The only thing he has in his speeches is the same "change" mantra, much fluff, little substance.
    • eth3l, on 04/01/2008, -18/+9from a capitalist state to a socialist state. from a power to a wilted flower.
    • Cattywampus, on 04/01/2008, -12/+6Making rousing speeches doesn't translate into action. Look back through history at presidents and other politicians who made nice speeches and had grand ideas but couldn't translate them into action, either because they didn't have a clear idea of what to do, or their ideas were unrealistic, etc.
      • Acewrap, on 04/01/2008, -1/+8You mean like Kennedy setting the goal to put a man on the moon by then end of the 1960s? Oh, wait...
        • Cattywampus, on 04/01/2008, -4/+1You just proved my point. A person who has big ideas needs the skills and knowledge to translate them into action. In the case of the moon landing, Kennedy had the skills and political know-how to see the idea through and make it happen.

          Yes, Kennedy achieved the man-on-the-moon goal... but that was just ONE politician out of hundreds over the decades who have talked big about change, transformation, etc.

          It's easy to pick one success story out of dozens, hundreds of instances of politicians who talked big about chance, a new direction, etc. but couldn't follow through.

          • archiesteel, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2Actually, if you look at history, the Presidents who are remembered for their speeches also did lots of great things. The burden of proof is on you: can you provide us with a few examples of politicians who did great speeches and were *not* effective? I mean, you must have a pretty good list in order to make that assertion, right?
        • Iconoclast25, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Yep, which he enunciated AFTER becoming President, doofus.

          The only goals barry has provided are to: (1) waste . . . er,donate . . . additional billions on / to the Useless ***** Nations; (2) create even more hugely wasteful government agencies to provide universal health care and (3) run away from the terrorists and allow them free reign. Excuse me if I do not swoon at the prospect of these ideas.
      • JCizle, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Yea... that Abe Lincoln... what was that speech again... I guess it's not that well known... Or that FDR, he had visions of change, some for the good, some for the bad, but it was action to help the people. But are we really going to sit here and compare a presidential candidate, whom ALL basically promise change as you obviously need to vote for someone new, to Presidents who were in office with the power at the time to change things?

        Would we rather see a candidate that has a platform of continuing everything Bush did for another 8 years? A candidate that talks about the past ***** ups a lot? Is that what you're trying to say?

        What was this stunning political resume that got GW elected to 2 terms pre-prez, other than being a mediocre governor/human being?
        • Cattywampus, on 04/01/2008, -4/+1Right, you named two of the most successful presidents of all time. (You forgot to throw in George Washington.) Like I said, such success is the exception rather than the rule.
          • archiesteel, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2Prove to us that such successes story are the exception to the rule, because so far all you have made are unsubstantiated allegations.
        • JCizle, on 04/01/2008, -0/+4You fail to see the point... You are claiming that rousing speeches don't make a good president, yet on the same token agree that the ones that DID are some of our successful presidents. Of course they are *exceptions* as you say, because every president isn't a GREAT president, no?

          Again, to compare the actions of someone vying for the presidency to someone who already was president, is a little foolish. What do you feel that Obama *says* is so unrealistic that it would never happen?
      • papipablo, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3You mean like FDR who led our country out of the Great Depression and guided us through WW2?
    • tomboy501, on 04/01/2008, -2/+16Wait until you see Obama and McCain side-by-side on a stage during a presidential debate. A big picture of strength and weakness in this country will never be so starkly illustrated. Obama will run circles around McCain.
      • ftx437, on 04/01/2008, -8/+2and yet obama is only 1 point ahead of mccain
        • zephyear, on 04/01/2008, -0/+13polling now doesn't matter, he's too busy finishing off hillary

          mccain will be a cakewalk

          he's an old man with borderline alzheimers, flipflops his policies constantly, wants to bomb iran, ect ect ect

          and of course most americans hate the war now, and this recent news in basra isn't helping old john "100 years in iraq" mccain
        • revisrev, on 04/01/2008, -0/+5There are two things that are going to matter at the debates: thinking on your feet, and looking good. McCain has shown that he cannot do either of these. You don't get to tell the debate moderator that you have to check with your staff about your position on things. Even if we assume that Obama is going to do badly thinking on his feet, the worst he could do is tie McCain in this, and he's definitely got him beat on looks. Once Hillary is wiped it's all over.
    • orangefly, on 04/01/2008, -1/+11not being a republican war monger is change enough for me....
  • peanut1972, on 04/01/2008, -34/+26Not all change is good. I could take all your money and throw you in jail. That would be a change. Would it be good? Of course not. I disagree with Obama because he does not give me the choice to what I want to do with my own money. Party of choice *spits* not when it comes to my retirement, school choice, religious freedom, and own money.
    • cvelusc, on 04/01/2008, -10/+18It's a matter of using tax money appropriately. We can have McCain drive our tax dollars into a war or we can choose Barack or Hillary to invest that same money into our economy and social wellbeing. What do you think?
      • SauceSpot, on 04/01/2008, -6/+12i'd rather keep my federal tax dollars then give it to the government to spread around their friends
        • Acewrap, on 04/01/2008, -5/+6Fine, then don't drive on our roads that us taxpayers pay for, nor use our police, EMS, fire services, courts or anything else that uses my tax dollars.
          • SauceSpot, on 04/01/2008, -1/+5note i said federal tax dollar, not state. im fine with paying state taxes for schools, parks, roads and services here in my state. not so much for unjust wars, corporate bail outs, social security which i may not have by the time i can retire
        • tamckissick, on 04/01/2008, -3/+7Nice try, *****. Those are state functions. New to the concept of getting caught making up your own BS?
          • archiesteel, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2So richer states have more money to spend on roads, education, and such? That doesn't seem very fair. Why even have a union, then?

            If Federal taxes can be used for good, then all the better.
          • peanut1972, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3Problem is the government has a lengthy history of wasting our money. And it is our money. It is not their money. State rights versus federalism has been debated since our nation was founded. I like having the choice of moving to a different state, an oppressive federalism would deny me that right.
      • pyronik, on 04/01/2008, -5/+8cvelusc, you mean wealth redistribution... lets not kid ourselves... you want to take money from one group of people and give it to another. Before they coined the term socialism I believe it used to be called stealing.
        • JCizle, on 04/01/2008, -4/+0so... you are against all forms of social efforts like the Police roaming the streets or public schools? Don't kid yourself into thinking that the gov't is some sort of Robin Hood fairy tale, having those who cannot provide for themselves living it up at your expense. I can assure you, it is not.
          • peanut1972, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2What about choice in public schools huh? What about choice in social security? Why oppress me with no choice? Why can't I be given the choice? If your system is so much better then you should be able to express it on a free market place of ideas and get the majority to go along. I live in harmony with nature in the country. I was given the choice to have the fire department cover our home. Now they would still come out if we did not pay them, but they would send us a bill up to 5K for the "service." 50 bucks a year versus 5K for a fire is a no brainer. But I was given the choice. I am asking for the choice.
        • senatorpjt, on 04/01/2008, -3/+3Unless it's republicans taking money from the poor and handing it to rich bankers, then it's not wealth redistribution, it's "saving the economy."
        • archiesteel, on 04/01/2008, -1/+1pyronik, do you think it's fair that some people are born with more money than others? What about people who are less skilled at birth? Should they be further disadvantaged?

          I have a successful career, and though not "rich" I live comfortably. Yet I am not that selfish that I don't want my wealth redistributed. In fact, I'm happy to contribute to a more human, more just society. You should, too.
          • peanut1972, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2So I should be punished for being talented? I should be punished when I am successful? What is my incentive to try then? If people are rewarded for being lazy, and punished for being hard working, then why not be lazy?
          • logandurand, on 04/01/2008, -1/+1Okay, so you don't have a problem with that. In that case, you are free to give your money to whoever you choose. You may not, however, tell me how to use mine, and I say it stays with me.
          • archiesteel, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1peanut: you're not being punished for being talented, but you shouldn't be rewarded either. Your talent is already an advantage. Your incentive is to be a productive member of the community, and as such improve the community itself. There's also the satisfaction of a job well done. In any case, a real meritocracy cannot exist as long as we have inheritance: many well-to-do individuals were born into money - there's no moral justification for that in a meritocracy, and it destroys the "level playing field" on which much of Capitalism is founded (at least in the mind of its proponents).

            The point is not to reward people for being lazy, but to reward hard work. Right now, there's no justification for a CEO to earn 300x what the entry-level clerk does. The CEO certainly doesn't work 300x as hard!

            Logandurand: good luck living in a tax-free society. It'll never happen. Nor should it. That's the definition of civilization, like it or not.
        • peanut1972, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Awesome point. It is stealing. The truth is they think they know better than everyone else, and that arrogance is why they believe in oppressing others. Lets be honest they want to oppress people for being successful.
      • davidlow, on 04/01/2008, -1/+6Uh, there's no candidate for that. Sorry, you'll have to choose war or the economy. Or stay home and let me choose.
        • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2We all had the choice to vote for Ron Paul and most of us didn't. Americans chose 2 different cancers and I can't say I'm glad with their decision or yours.
      • logandurand, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2OR we could spend the money on the things authorized by the constitution. I don't see healthcare in there.
        • peanut1972, on 04/01/2008, -1/+1Very true. The only thing in the Constitution that we can be taxed for is the military.
  • ummagummas08, on 04/01/2008, -37/+17This is like Ron Paul spam, but worse because none of it is true.
    And also, all of the candidates are 'mediocre' - and the only reason they're not forgotten is because the Media wants their candidate to win.
    • ummagummas08, on 04/01/2008, -11/+5Oops, sorry about the double post.
  • popstop785, on 04/01/2008, -15/+44This pres. race has been based on two things.
    Race and Sex.

    Sure, digg me down for stating a fact. People always fear and hate the obvious truth that they don't like.
    • peanut1972, on 04/01/2008, -5/+3Well said. You have an excellent point.
    • munter1942, on 04/01/2008, -3/+12Wow. You sure told us!
    • aquireworth, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Your comment is true, and this election is a historical one because of it. Hopefully the fact that a woman and a black man ran for president will inspire more capable people that also don't fit in the normal presidential candidate box to run in future races. But, as far as I'm concerned, if Obama was a white man named Jim Smith I'd still vote for him. Heck, if he was an alien I'd still vote for him. Anything is better than Hillary...I pretty much think she's the devil.
    • seomike, on 04/01/2008, -1/+4Don't forget religion... Romney would have had the nomination on the republican side if he wasn't a Mormon...
      • papipablo, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2More like if he wasn't a flip-flopper. That guy only believed what was convenient to get him elected.
      • reaper527, on 04/01/2008, -1/+1i think an unintelligent voting base hurt him too. you have no idea how many people said "I voted for mccain because of the economy" at the exit polls. it was sickening.
    • WasabiBomb, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3I'm going to digg you down simply because you asked us to. I'm getting really tired of the "If you digg me down, it's because you know I'm right!" meme. No, sometimes you get dugg down simply because you're wrong.

      I'm not voting for Obama because he's black. I'm not refusing to vote for Clinton because she's female. I'm voting for Obama over Clinton and McCain because Obama's policies best match my own political leanings. Nothing more, nothing less.
    • xenxes, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2And foreign policy... after decades of the dichotomy of us and them - first against international communism, then against international terrorism, Obama, unlike the other candidates, seeks to change to the status quo and promote multilateral open dialogue with Cold War fallout nations (many of which we helped to create) while the majority of policymakers and other other candidates still refuse to recognize countries like Cuba, North Korea, and Iran and the only means of diplomacy is through subterfuge and invasion, creating perpetual blowback that affects not only us, but the entire globe.
    • Diderotten, on 04/01/2008, -1/+5Which is funny because Obama's technically not black and I have this sneaking suspician Hillary's not technically a woman.
    • monsterCable, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Dude, you nailed it!
      Lets have Obama as president and Mary Carey as vice president. It would be both then: sex and race.
    • foofightrs777, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3Or we could simply support the constitutionally eligible individual we think would be the best suited for the presidency whether they be a black man, a white woman, or a white man.

      The way the media has defined this race as black supports vs. woman supports vs. latinos vs. white rural voters disturbs me though. In an economic sense many of these groups should be co-operating rather than feuding over petty issues. The media narrative does nothing but further balkanize the American public into little manageable groups each vying for their own foolish vanity. And I thought we were all Americans with the best interests of our nation as a whole in mind.
    • sodade, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2I am voting for Obama because he is the only candidate that supports the idea of a transparent government. It is anyone's guess if he will follow through on that, but at least my vote sends the right message about the most important issue of our government.
  • Hincapie, on 04/01/2008, -27/+53Obama is the best person for this job right now.
    • suzywang3000, on 04/01/2008, -12/+4he's better than Osama...
    • monsterCable, on 04/01/2008, -3/+3I guess that bar is pretty low now.
      • foofightrs777, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2let's look at the competition:

        Mr McCain who doesn't know the difference between Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, etc or the fact that he's woefully ignorant on public health issues such as the fact that condoms help stop spread the transmission of HIV. Not to mention the fact that he admits that he knows very little about economics.

        Mrs Clinton the pathological liar who supported NAFTA before she didn't but really did without putting in "a lot" effort. Or her ability to pacify and take down all the snipers in Bosnia with the help of Sinbad and Sheryl Crowe.

        I'd sure say the bar is pretty low.
      • sjmorton, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2Anyone who is not senile or delusional can get over that bar.

        That doesn't change the fact that Obama is the best candidate for president in a generation.
    • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2I like freedom more than I do socialism so I think Ron Paul is the best for the job. Unfortunately, freedom hasn't been massively appealing for a long time in America, or most of the world for that matter.
    • logandurand, on 04/01/2008, -1/+1The best candidate is one who will "defend the Constitution of the United States of America". Obama has clearly shown his willingness to ignore the constitution to appeal to voters.
  • MikeFallopian, on 04/01/2008, -3/+12"...and I want the soldiers to be encouraged to destroy their weapons and drive themselves out of Iraq." umm, what?
    • Hincapie, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1yeah, i wasn't sure what that was about?
  • egoherodotus, on 04/01/2008, -23/+16OBAMA '08
  • omgsideburns, on 04/01/2008, -6/+40April Fools?
    • westhepirate, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3One of the Nashville radio station's April Fool's jokes was saying Obama dropped out.
    • metric7, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2I sure hope it is an april fools joke
      • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Knowing the irrationality of obamaniacs I'd say not.
  • ryrysofly, on 04/01/2008, -12/+5Obama's speech on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KANI2dpXLw
    • supertom2, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3was i just Rickroll'd by the muppets?
    • Diderotten, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3Insightful!
    • Philbert, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2That is the funniest thing I've seen in a month, maybe 2!
  • SuperVepr308, on 04/01/2008, -23/+7What are all these Obama disciples going to do when Hil rips the nomination from his hands? Has there ever been a riot at the DNC?
    • Ender008, on 04/01/2008, -3/+12That won't happen.
      And if it does, then I'll lose the last of my small faith in this society.
    • rhabd0mancer, on 04/01/2008, -0/+6Hopefully there won't be any sniper fire!
    • hartwelr, on 04/01/2008, -1/+31968...
    • writerwriter, on 04/01/2008, -1/+9There's not a shred of reality in your statement. She is a LIAR; she is a CLINTON; she's a Bush pawn.
      IF US citizens allows this regime of rape and pillage of their country to continue they are doomed. What idiocy.
      Obama is, even now, the defacto President. He's doing a better job on foreign policy and international relations while simply campaigning than the Bush/Clinton monkey show can even conceptualise.
    • a6n28f, on 04/01/2008, -0/+6Only the biggest one ever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_Natio ...
    • papipablo, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1I'll write in Obama. Hillary will never be president.
    • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -1/+1Watch what you say, the cultists might getcha!
  • lnxfi, on 04/01/2008, -7/+31Obama is the less of the three evils. I just pray I don't have to pick between a giant douche and a terd sandwich.
    • ninepointfive, on 04/01/2008, -2/+6you forget one other man who IS noble and still in the race!
      • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -1/+6It's too bad that freedom isn't popular right now. Probably all the liberal teachers.
    • Rich711, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3Is Obama the giant douche or the terd sandwich? Neither one gives really good speeches and the douche actually accomplishes something. Maybe he is the strayman that only stayed up because the terd sandwich is hated by most of the country for being a corrupt lying bitch. If only the Democrats were able to run a white male imagine all the experienced competent candidates they would have.
    • Iconoclast25, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2Three months ago, among the three remaining, I would have agreed with you even though I have considered him an empty suit from the get-go. Today, having seen / read / heard a good deal more, he would be a *very* distant 529th place (but shrillary would be 514th and McAmnesty barely makes it into the top 200).
  • MadMonk67, on 04/01/2008, -26/+14Alice, that was a very fawning piece. Tell us, how does Obama's ***** taste?
    • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2ROFL! I make the same case all the time. Silly obamaniacs!
  • salsero96, on 04/01/2008, -31/+26Are you kidding me?? America has been promoting this guy with NO EXPERIENCE at all!

    Ron Paul is the change that America has tried to hide!
    • Hypersapien, on 04/01/2008, -2/+9We don't WANT a candidate who has the kind of experience you get in DC. That kind of experience would make for the same old kind of president who doesn't give a damn about the American people.
      • ryenski, on 04/01/2008, -5/+3So wait, where did Obama get is experience again?
        • revisrev, on 04/01/2008, -2/+6As a community organizer in Chicago, as a civil rights attorney, at the state legislature, talking to and teaching students, and a few years in DC.
        • Hypersapien, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3Well, I guess you can't have everything. It looks like everything else he's done is enough to offset his couple years in DC, cementing his morals in place.
      • sigg14, on 04/01/2008, -1/+5I don't agree with all of pauls views but he has a solid record of following the constitution 100%, he wants to eliminate the IRS, abolish the FED, he is not controlled by special interests other than the peoples freedoms, and he is probably the only candidate that would actually stop all of america's warmongering and imperialism
    • geekwithsoul, on 04/01/2008, -3/+8Yeah, and Lincoln had so much experience before being elected? Care to define your terms as to "experience?" Hillary has got "experience" being the wife of a president and a very unimpressive senator. McCain has experience with war, but almost no experience with anything affecting the domestic agenda, with the exception of McCain-Feingold, which most in his own party hate. Ron Paul- ? Well, I guess he's got experience being an elected gadfly on the hill and losing presidential bids.
      • vertinox, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2To be fair, Lincoln presided over the only civil war America has ever had and some of the worst military disasters of all time (the wholesale slaughter of Union soldiers at Fredricksburg due to bad battle plans) but to be fair no one realized that modern day civil war rifles had a longer range than the old muskets did and that simply sending in more troops was a bad idea. And to be fair to Lincoln he did sack the Generals who presided over that battle... But over all some experience might have been better for the first few years of the war.
        • papipablo, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Second guessing Lincoln? Give me a break.
        • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -2/+1Give me a break, papipablo. You haven't? I'm sorry if you haven't. Do some research and you'll find out that Lincoln was one of our worst presidents, contrary to what you were taught in school.
          • papipablo, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2I guess holding the Union together through the Civil War is not enough for some people. I suggest you do some reading of your own.
    • Midtowner, on 04/01/2008, -7/+7Really?

      I used to support Ron Paul because I have some pretty strong libertarian tendencies. I think he's ***** crazy in some respects, but his heart and his mind are definitely in the right place. That said, Ron Paul is not in the presidential race anymore. Time to choose another horse.
      • ryenski, on 04/01/2008, -3/+8Actually, yes he is.
      • 47f0, on 04/01/2008, -5/+8If you've been lapped 23 time in the Daytona 500 - you're not in the race - you're just cluttering up the track.
      • Diderotten, on 04/01/2008, -3/+4Stop buying into the *****. He's a great candidate. His supporters, however, seem very collectivist, and spammy. People judge him based on his supporters, and it just shouldn't go down that way. Sad fact is, he is not electable this year. The entire party needs to regroup, and try another plan of attack. Next year, maybe.
        • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3Great comment but I don't know if freedom will be anymore popular in 4 years. I mean mass scale anyway.
    • zorrotm, on 04/01/2008, -2/+4Thumbs up! If the media hadn't ignored him he would be the GOP nominee because he is the only guy with true experience, who knows what to do and has the honesty and integrity to get it done. He is the only one of the candidates(ignoring the drop-outs) which has consistently voted for the same thing over the past 20+ years and that is the American way through and through.
      The rest contradict themselves in their voting habits and speeches.

      But don't take my word for it... research it out. The data is there.
    • WasabiBomb, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2You know, over the past seven years I've come to believe that "experience" isn't all it's cracked up to be. Bush had plenty of experience (or, at least, the kind of experience you seem to find wanting in Obama), and look how well that's turned out.

      Besides, as others have pointed out, Obama's not as completely inexperienced as you would like to think. He's certainly got a lot more on-the-job experience than, say, Hillary. And McCain? He doesn't even know that condoms can help prevent HIV. He's just Bush-lite.
  • lobrien006, on 04/01/2008, -5/+35Political experience is extremely important, don't get me wrong. However it seems recent administrations have altered the term 'Political experience' into a fancy way of saying 'years of political favors required to repay.' Perhaps in this case while the American economy is at it's weakest point in decades, the military is stretched to a scary thin, and world opinion of American is at an all time low, 'political experience' isn't as important as having a intelligent, uniting, MORAL, politically un-corrupted President in the oval office.

    • lobrien006, on 04/01/2008, -1/+5Paraphrasing: When we make decisions in the now, we need to borrow from the past, and not fear the future. I hope the last eight years is enough time to recognize what not to borrow, and that maybe a drastic change for America isn't anything to fear.
    • Cattywampus, on 04/01/2008, -1/+7We had that in Jimmy Carter, who was a breath of fresh air after the corruption of the Watergate scandal. Unfortunately, Carter was not a good president, even though he had a Democratic Congress, because he wasn't effective at getting things done.
      Having high ideals and morals, intelligence, and a clean record are good, but if the person doesn't have the skill or experience in the political system to make change happen, then all those ideas and intelligence won't translate into anything that has an impact on the average American.
      • revisrev, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2Jimmy Carter couldn't address the American people about the change he wanted without sounding like he was accusing them of wrong doing. Obama has that special quality in which he can tell it like it is and not be booed off the stage. Jimmy Carter failed in properly communicating his vision.
      • DrDragun, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3Carter is a good example for your case, and I will Digg you up, but in my opinion he is not a stastically significant sample to make such a generalization.

        It depends not only on the person but also on the climate that they try to operate in. Carter's climate was extremely difficult balancing the energy crisis and the Cold War. Today's situation, while perhaps superficially similar in some ways, is not an exact replica of the political climate the Carter was operating in.
    • sw33tsarin, on 04/01/2008, -4/+2Yeah let's talk about the economy. How much more spending is Obama going to approve? I believe it was a few hundred billion, someting like that?
      • marmanukem, on 04/01/2008, -2/+3Better than the ***** trillions we are spending under the Bush administration.
        • sw33tsarin, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2He's actually going to approve MORE spending genius. Thanks for playing.
      • LukasSmith, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3Bush isn't wasting trillions every year. Now according to your vision of things a few hundred billion wasted every year is true. But trillions are not. Obama plans to increase spending pursuing socialist agendas. Obama will probably not end Iraq War and thus in fact he, Obama, will then be the one responsible for trillion(s) of waste. If Obama ended Iraq War the instant he came into office this war in Iraq might not even cost 1 trillion. But he wont so the cost will continue for 5 or more years placing the blame for wasting trillions in Obamas lap. When this happens will you hippies scream so loud or just crawl into a corner and whimper? Let us not forget there was already over 5 trillion in debt when Bush entered office. The budget that your congress makes every year even minus the wars is is never met and always more is spent then the budget allows meaning debt is created just as real as war spending. Lets not forget basic and undeniable facts before making more opinion pieces.
  • Kaitsu, on 04/01/2008, -14/+20This isn't biased propaganda nonsense at all!

    Could have at least been a bit more subtle with it.
  • mal1964, on 04/01/2008, -16/+9"Obama is so Great!"
  • GalacticXenu, on 04/01/2008, -25/+19Holy Christ. Let me guess, Obama is also the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.

    Americans are so desperate for a hero that they'll canonize someone and forgo the vital skepticism of politicians--all politicians--to do so. It's one thing to think Obama is the best, it's quite another to basically put him on an altar and worship him like is being done here. I thought the Ron Paul spam was bad but digg is basically Obama central now...
    • writerwriter, on 04/01/2008, -4/+5Yes. Digg represents the voice of the majority in your country. HELLO!? This is exactly the result excellent, honest, smart campaigning is designed to elicit.
      Jesus, people in the US are so dumb sometimes.
      • monsterCable, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2Yeah, right. I still remember all that Ron Paul spam on digg.
      • GalacticXenu, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2Bet you were bitching and moaning about Ron Paul spam, back when it was popular, too.
        Anyway, yes, Obama has a very successful campaign, but don't non sequitur out of the fact that he's being worshipped and that that's dangerous.
    • a6n28f, on 04/01/2008, -2/+8RTFA, or even the description - that's exactly what the author makes a point of NOT saying.

      "He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect...."
      • GalacticXenu, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3I didn't say they said he was perfect, but you are worshipping him as some sort of a hero. He's not a hero.
    • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -2/+1Hear, hear!
  • eth3l, on 04/01/2008, -26/+21This is the most awesome post on Digg because of the awesome anti-Obama comments. I am glad to see there are some people on Digg that can tell the Emperor Candidate wears no clothes.
    • writerwriter, on 04/01/2008, -3/+11You're referring of course to the convicted criminal call McCain, whose wife was also convicted? That guy? The one who likes the idea of helping various corporations continue to make loads and loads of money by supporting a false and illegal war in a country they have no business being in?
      Or, perhaps you're referring to Ms Clinton, whose record of fraud, scandal and lies knows no equal?
      You certainly aren't referring to the man who has run an excellent, admirable campaign based on integrity, honesty and truth....
      The emperor you're referring to is going to be your next President and he will make history as being the best President you've had since forever.
      Wake up.
      • ninepointfive, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3actually, I bet he ISN'T referring to any of the above. How about you stop putting words in other people's mouth, lest you've been following eth3l's previous comments.
  • junkwheel, on 04/01/2008, -13/+20Obama talks about change so much it's easy to let the message water itself down with you. But I truly believe he is going to kick some ass when he gets in. Special interests are *****, as they should be.

    Everybody started talking about change after the public picked up on it and connected with it from Obama. One of Hillary's sayings with it was "Change is inevitable, but are we ready for it?" How far off the mark from understanding the scenario do you want to be?

    Change is not being funded by military lobbyists Hillary. Change is not fear mongering Hillary. Change is not lying to the people continually and saying / making up any story, no matter how hideous, Hillary. Change is not presenting one facet of yourself to the public and hiding everything else until somebody sues to get it out of you. That is the past and your campaign.

    Change is breaking away from all of that ***** and pseudo democracy.
    • sodade, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1If he really pushes for change, he will get capped.
      • junkwheel, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2He has his balls on the line for sure. And it takes a lot to put them there.

        He also has serious security with him at all times. Really noticeable after Iowa.
    • Pstall, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2"Special interests are *****" Yeah... because the unions that support obama are not special interests at alll....
    • peanut1972, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Unions, environmental lobbyists, sexual deviants, Hollywood, etc. will then start getting their way again. Obama is beholden to special interest groups, just different ones.
  • Norma156, on 04/01/2008, -21/+16Be careful what you wish for. Obama's vision for this country is pure socialism. Punish corporations for "mere" profits. Tax the "wealthy," that is, anyone who cobbles together more than $50K. It ain't about race. It's about policy.
    • OralCavity, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2when the corporations are like exxon or countrywide, they deserve to be "punished" for their felonious ways
      • ninepointfive, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2corporate socialism is alive and well. lets not falsely believe human socialism is any better
      • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3If they are committing a crime they will be charged. The best thing is to get the govt totally out of economics. The market can and will regulate itself.
      • logandurand, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2Being rich doesn't make someone a criminal. Don't compare the two.
        • MadMonk67, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2For the fawning idiots who swallow Obama's rhetoric like a $2 whore swallows Clinton's load, it certainly does. I almost hope he wins out so I can see the blank disbelieving look on the faces of his supporters when he turns out to be another Carter.
  • jzuska, on 04/01/2008, -23/+10What the hell are you people talking about! What change? Change is nothing. Obama has no goddamn platform. What are his ideas? I swear to god i'll pistol whip the next ***** that says change!
    • mattmedwards, on 04/01/2008, -2/+6Please, do you think Obama would get to where he is now without having a platform? You may not agree with it, but he has one.
    • revisrev, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2change! Come and get me.
    • enigmaneo, on 04/01/2008, -1/+3I see someone can repeat what they heard on TV.
    • Endemoniada, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1Aah, America... Where "freedom of speech" means "Say what I want you to say, or you'll get hurt!"
      For a people celebrating all their "freedoms", you sure hate it when other people realize they have rights too :)
  • futureisours, on 04/01/2008, -24/+10Obama is a liberal media-generated fraud... nothing more. At least if he makes it, he will be soundly defeated by a teal candidate with lots of experience serving and even being tortured for this company? What does Obama have? Oprah and Dr. Phil?
    • rhabd0mancer, on 04/01/2008, -0/+6McCain can barely read his teleprompter. Obama is going to destroy him.
    • writerwriter, on 04/01/2008, -1/+5Wow. Teal? What's a teal candidate?
      Are you referring to McCain? That would be YELLOW, there mate. Check up his record, not the military record; his record in business. THIS is the guy you want running your country? Why don't you sign over your house and bank accounts to him and give his wife all your drugs now - save yourself the wait.
  • Hetman, on 04/01/2008, -16/+13I hear about change constantly. Obama is not change. He is still a slave to his party and will always be. That is how you get elected is by whoreing yourself out to the rest of your party. Real Change would be someone that is not part of the Democratic or republican party. The only real difference between Barak and Hillary is ones a women and one is black. Thats not change that is a different sex and race.
    • LukasSmith, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2I agree. Screaming you're change while sleeping in bed with Ted Kennedy will not make America happy.
  • plizard, on 04/01/2008, -17/+3the only reason democrats are pushing osamabama is because their own alternative is hillary
  • eryximachus, on 04/01/2008, -6/+9Obama is our Mandela? While I sympathize with the arguments against Apartheid, the truth of the matter is living standards for blacks have declined significantly since Mandela became president. Lifespan has declined, unemployment is way up, and virtually no new housing has been built. Crime is out of control. People can go wherever they like without fear of being arrested for breaking apartheid laws, but now they are afraid of being raped, robbed, or killed.

    Have we become so beholden to ideology that we are suggesting Obama will right some wrongs, but turn this country into an anarchic mess as has happened in South Africa? That is hardly the kind of "change" we should be idealizing right now.

    I have no problems with Obama being president because he is black, but I also hardly think ANYTHING in Africa is a model for us.
    • JCizle, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2She used Mandela as a device to evoke the feelings of hope via radical change in South Africa. The results were... not so great... but we know South African has loads of growing pains to go through as it went from one group of power to the next almost over night, something the US can never do.
    • scamper22, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1eryximachus,

      I agree. I'm from South Africa. Mandela was the instrument of change, or political freedom. I actually like that he left office soon after transitioning.

      The sad thing is Americans are looking for a revolution...when none is needed.
      It's a similar thing in South Africa. Some people still want a revolution and so they vote for guys like Jacob Zuma.
      Here's a hint...the revolution happened...what's needed now is slow boring hard work and hard decisions...thats the hard part of making a country work.

      That's the problem with America. There is not great slavery or apartheid happening. There is no great oppression.
      There is no need for a great leader to lead the people.
      What is needed is slow, boring, hard work to rebuild the country.

      • scamper22, on 04/01/2008, -0/+0I would just add, when this is the case, you often end up with the worst leadership.

        Much like in South Africa, the problems are 'evolutionary'...they're boring. Power, crime, professionals leaving... These are problems are just going to take time to solve. I hate to use a Hitler reference, because there is no comparison to the evil, but look at Germany post WW1. It was a country broken...it didn't need a revolution as Hitler gave it. it need slow boring work to rebuild a nation after a failed war.

        America might be broken now, but it certainly does not need a revolution. Just toss in some transparency, cut back of foreign policy, cut some spending ... blah blah blah and you'll be okay.

        VOTE FOR THE BORING POLITICIAN

        Trust me, it works in Canada. How do you think we got rid of our great debts and are now running surpluses and have totally revamped our pension system?

        There was nothing inspiring about Jean Chertian/Paul Martin. I don't think either of them ever inspired anyone. But they got the damn job done. That's what matters.
      • JCizle, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3I Digg'd you up, but I have to disagree slightly. There is a boiling pot of issues in America that few are truly touching on. I feel each of the candidates do their best at sensationalizing what American's can connect with instantly because we all don't like to see the hard work that we truly need to get ourselves out of this hole we've made, domestically and internationally.

        Are we in need of a revolution? Nah, but are we on the edge of disaster? Very much so. I think we in the US are discovering we have more problems than we realized and some people think 'change' is the enemy when the 'same old same old' got us here in the first place.
        • scamper22, on 04/01/2008, -2/+1I agree, we're on the edge of disaster, but the solution is not the same old same old, nor is it putting your faith in obama the massiah.

          It means thinking hard about social security.
          It means thinking hard about the military.
          It means thinking hard about what is a 'reasonable standard of living'
          It means thinking hard about what is 'reasonable healthcare'

          Obama isn't thinking hard on any issues. He is the SAME OLD...SAME OLD democrat. His positions are almost identical to Clinton's. Obama is change we had 30 years ago that got us in half the trouble we have today. The other half cause by war mongerors and corporate elites.

  • sagat, on 04/01/2008, -5/+11Go Ron Paul, um wait..
  • melonhedd, on 04/01/2008, -13/+2hahahahahahahaha what
  • DigiRaven, on 04/01/2008, -4/+8Ok we have all these chats about Obama but the question that I need answered is he the best candidate for science and research? Is he for new energies other than ethanol? Is he big on space exploration? Is he big for NASA? Does he support incentives for the rich to keep engineering jobs here in the US? Does he support companies like Virgin to excel in space development? I'm for any candidate that will pursue pure science.
    • zephyear, on 04/01/2008, -1/+7Yes, he supports funding and looking into alternative energy sources like solar, nuclear, hydrogen, and electric.
      He's big on robotic exploration.
      NASA sucks now, it's not what it was 40 years ago. So he's not really that big on their manned exploration thing (i'm not too, that space station is 156 billion dollars gone to waste) but he's big on robotic exploration like the mars rovers, cassinni, he also supports the development of the orion spacecraft regardless.
      Haven't looked into that myself.
      I would guess so.

      answered in order, he's very for tech, look at his site under issues, the tech part.
      • DigiRaven, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2NASA does not suck. Congress made it suck with all the cutbacks. A lot of science comes in and leaves Titusville everyday. NASA is suppose to be the symbol of the future and its to bad many people in the country thinks its a big waste of time. whoo hooo lets watch wwe on TLC. Anything that is for science does not suck in my book. I think it is important to revamp NASA into being as a focal point of the world for the new age comes before us.
    • writerwriter, on 04/01/2008, -1/+7UM, he has a really exellent web presence and they answer ALL questions submitted... why don't you ask him?
    • 47f0, on 04/01/2008, -2/+4Obama didn't consult with the telecoms on net neutrality - he consulted with the EFF - big difference. He is very pro-science in education, which is where it all begins. And, if you watch his google interview, he even knows that bubble-sorts suck.
    • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Yes, he's all for spending my money how I don't want it to be spent.
  • TheWriteGuy, on 04/01/2008, -4/+17"Experience" doesn't mean jack if the candidate's experience was crap.

    And did GW Bush have much experience prior to being elected President, while being governor of Texas for 6 years? (Obama has been in the Senate for 6.) Frankly, the Republicans helped to greatly lower the bar on the "requirements" for a person to be President.
    • droo31, on 04/01/2008, -7/+1Obama has been in the Senate not even 4 years, actually...but yeah, experience does matter if you are touting yourself as an accomplished "agent of change"...What has he changed? What will he change? Obama's entitlements and programs will cost taxpayers $271 Billion....a year.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1And the war costs how much again?
        • droo31, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Wasn't defending the war or the current spending, was I? Obama's magical change plans will actually cost a buttload of money to come to fruition. Higher taxes. Believe it.
      • Endemoniada, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1For someone seemingly backing the republicans, I don't really think you get to talk about what anything will cost your taxpayers...
    • writerwriter, on 04/01/2008, -0/+7If George Bush is the personification of experience, the US is essentially screwed. The Bush presidencies - both of them - are as crooked as corkscrews. Yes, they have lots and lots of experience, as does Ms. Clinton; just enough to continue screwing you over, Mr. and Mrs USA. Is that really what you want? ANOTHER president that thinks the population is stupid and wants to keep it that way?
      YeeHAW!
    • d3mag0gu3, on 04/01/2008, -1/+0Experience is important if you want to get things done. Bush was able to accomplished what he wanted ( be it good or bad ). Obama doesn't have experience nor the political base ( even within the Democratic party ) to effect change. What he is going to do? He was a relative unknown a few months ago. And were it not for his "race", he wouldn't be garnering such ridiculous accolades.
      • writerwriter, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2that is such unbelieveable *****. That man is so much more than the sum of the colour of a body organ. Good grief. Have you listened to ANYthing the man's said?? Obviously not.
    • eavesdrop, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1george bush doesnt count he stole the presidential office twice
  • kylere, on 04/01/2008, -1/+7While I would vote for Obama over Hillary any day of the week, because I prefer humans to whatever she is, let's face it, he is human, and comparisons to MLK are rather premature. I am not saying that in 20 years such things will not be said, but saying them now is kind of like printing up "Dewey Beats Truman" headlines the night before.
    • sigg14, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3interesting fact: Martin Luther King was a Republican
    • enigmaneo, on 04/01/2008, -2/+1Most African Americans were until the parties changed. I forget when, do some research.
      • sigg14, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3why should I do some research? you're the one who forgot :)
      • Mosthorrorshow, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1It's more complex than that, but if you want to oversimplify the turning point was probably when FDR took office (actually before MLK Jr.)
    • Mosthorrorshow, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1not very relevant though
  • MrTulip, on 04/01/2008, -2/+6mandela and king? april fools indeed.
    obama might be promising, but he has his acid test, or whatever the english word for feuerprobe is, still ahead of him.
    i'm thinking of the mayor in 'the wire'. realpolitik is not for sissies..
  • rhabd0mancer, on 04/01/2008, -17/+9Looks like all the RonBots have turned into antiObamaBots. But it doesn't matter. You dolts have no influence over this election.
    • ninepointfive, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3We are just trying to point out he's voted to reauthorize the patriot act, supports real ID and votes to fund the war while pretending to oppose it. who's the dolt now?
      • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1Not to mention all the more he's going to grow govt if elected.
  • IslandDog, on 04/01/2008, -13/+11This is pure Obama spam now.
    • d3mag0gu3, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Now? It's been like this for a while. Obamabots have drunk the kool aid and are bent on ruining digg.
  • saturnx8, on 04/01/2008, -14/+6obama = turd sandwich
    clinton = giant douche
    Southpark creaters are visionaries, how did they foresee this event???

    Hmm who to vote for, I hate showboat personality types. All you obamaites crack me up, he really shouldn't be classified with mandella or king he hasn't done an iota of what they have done
    • papipablo, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2Turn off the tv. Read a book.
    • monsterCable, on 04/01/2008, -1/+2Let's compare Obama with Einstein for a change.
      Obama is like Einstein to me.
  • zorrotm, on 04/01/2008, -9/+7"If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now."
    Ohh yeah? Since when does the media promote truth, honesty, integrity? They don't, so how can you take popularity and claim it has anything to do with anything but that he is popular. He is infact a liar(a good one but nonetheless one the same), he is unfitted for commanding a country which he has proven before in his inaccurate and misguided responses to questions.

    Given the choice between the two I would pick Obama because he does got a brain while Hillary has never had that convenience... however the day I vote Democrat is the day I am admitted for mental treatment. Our country doesn't need the kind of losers running, Obama, Hillary and Mccain will destroy us, we need a man like Ron Paul who knows what he is talking about and knows what changes to make... even if Hillary and Obama wanted to make the right changes they don't know where to start... this is proven in the fact that both of them ignorantly are fighting for universal health care systems... if we only followed countries like Japan and Canada this would not be an issue... instead one of these two idiots will try to do this and in the end it won't work BUT the working class will pay for it, believe me we will!

    BTW for those of you who think Obama's popularity will win him the race... study the previous elections to see how that turned out.
    • lumbergh, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2Yes, because all future history is determined by past trends and nothing ever changes. Nothing says "old white man" (either mentally or physically or both) like that sort of remark.
      I think the first priority in having a leader is someone smart and well-spoken, with very little (if any) scandal in the past. Obama is leaps and bounds beyond the competition there.
      • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1You basically just included, imo, 20% of Americans.
    • foofightrs777, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1"BTW for those of you who think Obama's popularity will win him the race... study the previous elections to see how that turned out."

      Yeah I mean that whole election in 2000 wasn't about that likable Texan that you'd love to have a beer with (even though he supposedly doesn't drink) versus that uptight, staid, eco-nazi Al Gore. Or that time in 1960 when Tricky Dick lost the presidency for looking like a creep compared to the dapper JFK on that new-fangled television. No, popularity and appearance never matters in elections ; the American people ALWAYS vote on merit....:/
  • droo31, on 04/01/2008, -7/+15"Humanly stunning"? King and Mandela? WTF? Who wrote this bullcrap. What has Obama done to change the world landscape like King or Mandela? What makes him so 'stunning'. This article is retarded, deifying a one-term senator who really hasn't done ANYTHING yet. But I suppose to the Bush=Hitler crowd, the Obama=God comparisons don't smack of hyperbole.
  • samdu, on 04/01/2008, -8/+11I'm so sick of this "change" *****. He's a politician. Just like most other politicians. And he's hiding behind some amorphous "change" mantra that doesn't mean squat.
  • PovRayMan, on 04/01/2008, -15/+12He hates guns therefore hates freedom. Not my President.
    • zephyear, on 04/01/2008, -7/+7"BUT THE BIG BAD GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TAKE AWAY MY GUNS"

      shut up, no he isn't.

      he just wants stricter restrictions on stuff like assault rifles and certain types of ammo, like hollow point. you don't need hollow point for hunting, or defending yourself. it's a cop killer, plain and simple.
      • Carter313, on 04/01/2008, -1/+5No, It is not plain and simple. Hollow point ammunition would be less effective against a police officer because of their body armor. Hollow point ammunition has lots of trouble penetrating armored targets. If you want to ban so called "cop killer" ammo, hollow points should be the least of your worries.
      • sigg14, on 04/01/2008, -0/+6you know nothing about guns, hollow point ammo will not penetrate a vest regardless of what rumors you may have heard. an arrow will pass through a vest easier than a hollow tip round.
        • PovRayMan, on 04/01/2008, -0/+5Don't forget that knives being swung by hand (far slower than a speeding arrow) will penetrate a vest as well. Clearly we should ban knives as well. Only chefs should have knives as only they are qualified to use them! Sure Joe Citizen can own knives as well but only after they take 40 hours of classes and pay yearly fees for the "privilege"
      • PovRayMan, on 04/01/2008, -1/+5How ***** stupid can you be?
      • sigg14, on 04/01/2008, -0/+5ever heard the term "shall not be infringed" ? a restriction is an infringement therefore unconstitutional. privileges can be restricted but not inalienable RIGHTS.
      • logandurand, on 04/01/2008, -0/+4Question: Does the government have assault rifles with which it might oppress the people? Than the people need them too.
      • Iconoclast25, on 04/02/2008, -0/+2Look at his 1996 questionaire - in which he agrees he wishes to outlaw all semi-auto firearms and handguns of all types. Then, as others have noted, HP projectiles do not penetrate body armor. Just about everything which comes out of a rifle . . . which includes single shots . . . will do the trick. Ironically, this is the sort of thing barry and his buddies are not ready to prohibit (yet). Sure it's about protecting the police . . . go learn something topic, OK? Really, you made yourself look absolutely clueless.
    • zorrotm, on 04/01/2008, -0/+8Only idiots vote to ban guns because only idiots don't know that it don't work. It is like outlawing cars because a terrorist uses one to blow up a building... I don't own a gun and probably never will but it is a right that every American should have...
      • PovRayMan, on 04/01/2008, -0/+6***** yeah, you got it right! Just because you don't wish to own one you understand and respect others right to do so. Only if Obama and company would respect that as well rather than pandering to idiots who don't even know what hollowpoints are.
  • oldhick, on 04/01/2008, -4/+11This is getting ridiculous... He gets a pass on everything and now we're blowing so much smoke up his ass its not even funny. Vote for the guy if you like him, if you don't, then don't. But don't pretend he's some amazing genius of a messiah back to save us all.
    • WasabiBomb, on 04/01/2008, -4/+1He gets "a pass on everything"? Jeez, have you been paying attention at ALL?
      He was accused of being a closet Muslim. His wife was accused of being anti-American. His pastor, for cryin' out loud, was accused of being a racist. He's been accused of having too little experience. He's been accused of having no "plan". He's been fighting an uphill battle this entire nomination, and has still managed to not get down into the mud with his opponents- and has come out looking better than anyone else.
      Say what you want about him, but you can't say he hasn't been repeatedly attacked for everything and anything.
      • oldhick, on 04/01/2008, -2/+3He hasn't been impacted by any of that and you know. The muslim ***** is irrelevant because only a dumbass that wouldn't vote for Obama anyway would say that crap. As for his wife and pastor, he's gotten a total pass on Digg.
        How is his pastor not a racist again?
        • WasabiBomb, on 04/01/2008, -2/+2That's my point- he hasn't been impacted by it. His opponents keep trying to find something, anything to pin on him- but instead of ducking the issues, as most politicians do, he confronts them head on and exposes them for the cheap tactics that they are.
          No, he hasn't gotten a "total pass" on his wife and pastor here on Digg. A simple search over the past few weeks will easily show that. Hell, there are people who still think it's a big deal. There are just those of us who saw it for what it was- a total sandbag.
          As for how his pastor's not racist- I refer you to the dozens of other threads on that subject, ones in which, actually, you and I have argued about that very subject. I'm tired of explaining it over and over- if you don't understand it by now, you never will. And the thing is, IT DOESN'T MATTER. We're not nominating Wright, we're nominating Obama.
          • oldhick, on 04/01/2008, -0/+3True dat. I guess I'm just getting a little worn out on the Obama is god train! I know we've discussed Wright before, I'll go back and see if I can find some of your explanations then. I must have missed them, apologies good sir.
  • JointVenture, on 04/01/2008, -10/+9I cant wait for South Park to do an Obamabot episode.
    • raoulduke87, on 04/01/2008, -4/+4Yes, I can't wait for South Park to take my political ideals and make them into some kind of snarky, *****, lazy "satire". I ***** hate South Park
      • jm4847, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Care to provide a real argument? Otherwise your post is nothing but a non sequitur ad hominem.
    • DrunkChimp, on 04/01/2008, -4/+0Grow up punk. Shouldn't you be banging your sister or down loading porn like a good white boy?
    • monsterCable, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2Actually there was a South Park episode about "change" couple of years back.
  • Dudeee, on 04/01/2008, -4/+8if theres any time to believe those religious nutsos about the anti Christ nows the time, you guys are unbelievable i thought a lot of ron paul supporters were bad with spam and over hype, but nothing can match obama spam, no negative stuff about him, only positive fluffing 24/7 about things that don't matter, the things he got negative said about him are stupid nonsense Hilarys making up. wheres the real issues and the truth about how obama is just another politician like Hilary and mccain.

    come on people obama is a good person(in your opinion) but you make him up to be a god, have you see the things hes voted for real id, war funding now i don't want a president that believes in that.

    this is a real sad time for history, i would really love to see a woman and African American president but not these two goons, you people make me sick i'm done with my "anti obama spam"(like there cant be anything bad said about him! oh no!) there no getting through to you zombies i hope you can admit your wrong when things are screwed over by the wealthy.

    and ***** and grammar and spelling nerds i know i suck stop sidetracking and talk about what matters.
    • aquireworth, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1hmmm...sounds like you're tired of hearing about Obama. That happens to me every time another presidential vote is up. Our country gets bombarded by the candidates in every aspect of our lives. I have to hide in the bathroom to get a moment of peace from it! But I'm sure some candidate will soon have the idea of advertising on toilet paper.
      Obama is a politician, he is not god, and he will fail somewhere along the line - he's human it's inevitable. But he is one of the best presidential candidates we have had in a long time. I am much happier with the choices I have this year compared to 4 years ago.
      I think people like Obama because they can identify with him more than other candidates. He is a mutt (multiple ethnicity's), younger, and does not come from a rich political family. I for one identify with all 3 of those points.
      Just out of interest, do you mind sharing who you will vote for?
      • d3mag0gu3, on 04/01/2008, -1/+0No, it just sounds like he's tired of ***** Obamaspam on digg.
      • cyrax04, on 04/01/2008, -0/+2I don't mind sharing that I already voted for Ron Paul. I voted for him because, though he's not perfect on liberty, he would maximize my liberty the most v. other candidates.
        • aquireworth, on 04/02/2008, -1/+0Yep, I like Ron Paul too. Oh, well.
      • calvinstiger, on 04/05/2008, -0/+0"But he is one of the best presidential candidates we have had in a long time..." How do you know? He has not done anything.

        He is good at Neuro-linguistic programming (a way to manipulate people minds associate an object with another object) for sure as he constantly use those words so that people's mind associate his image with CHANGE, FRESH, anti-establishment, etc. and he make sure his audience associate Clinton with Bush, i.e. "...enough of those Bush-Clinton-Bush cycle", Clinton with Old Washington corrupted system, etc.

        I did not realise his mastery of NLP until he attacked the attempts of Hillary to associate herself with Rocky. Of all the important topics that he can comment on Hillary, he just marginalised her attempt on Rocky-Clinton association.

        From someone who understand NLP, it is really interesting.
        "It is all about association (to feel good factors), not economy, Stupid!" This summed up Obama strategies.

        Again, why you think he is the best candidates for a long time? Real facts? No...that's the power of association.
  • RedReplicant, on 04/01/2008, -2/+5"How dishonest it is, to try to make her innocent of her racial inheritance."

    Excuse me, what? I'm sorry, ma'am, you appear to be babbling.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 86 of 86 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.