digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at online.wsj.com

The Democrats Have a Nominee: It's Obama!

online.wsj.com — Other than ensuring the Greatest Show on Earth will continue, does it matter that Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama Tuesday in Pennsylvania by nine-plus points? Barack Obama is the nominee.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • x0rcist, on 04/25/2008, -22/+80This is nothing new.
    • voxlisa999, on 04/25/2008, -9/+20And your point is??? It's certainly new to the Clintons and the MSM!
      • dan.stryker, on 04/25/2008, -20/+2will you vote for clinton if the superdelegates give her the nomination? This is far from over...
        • Lyk4n, on 04/25/2008, -4/+13I'll vote Gravel..
        • MillionsLivio, on 04/25/2008, -10/+15If she get's the nomination, I'm voting Paul.
          • Lyk4n, on 04/25/2008, -17/+9Idiot..
          • AirRaven, on 04/25/2008, -18/+8If she "get's" the nomination?
            A classic indication of the level at which your average Paulite sheep works.
          • noahhoward, on 04/25/2008, -8/+6Lyk4n, as if Gravel is somewhat better?
          • GeneralFault, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4yes... yes he is.
        • chaosium, on 04/25/2008, -5/+7"will you vote for clinton if the superdelegates give her the nomination? This is far from over..."

          She's not as loathsome as "Bush 2.0" McCain, as frustrating and depressing as this contest has been.
          • GeneralFault, on 04/25/2008, -2/+18No, she is not. But I still will never endorse her with a vote. Besides voting for the war and voting to give Bush more power (repeatedly), In 2005, she co-sponsored an Anti-Flag Burning Amendment. Although I would NEVER burn a flag, and I would have strong words with anyone that I saw do such; It is NOT the role of the Federal Government to tell us what and what we cannot use for non-violent protest. I truly stand behind the idea of "Although I fiercely disagree with what you are saying, I will defend to the death your right to say it". More recently, she has proved her ability to take Rovian dirty tactics to get what she wants (like proclaiming "Obama is not a Muslim to the best of my knowledge" when she knew very well he was not).
            No, Hillary will never get my vote.
          • GeneralFault, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8Thought I should back that up:
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

            I thought that I should also clarify. The thing about the flag burning amendment that angers me the most is that she is willing to risk our core freedoms for just a little political gain. Perhaps she knew that the bill would never pass. But would you risk something that you truly cherrish like that?
          • compdude32, on 04/25/2008, -9/+0Hey general, that is the reason it was proposed as an amendment, The Constitution doesn't give them the ability to regulate flag burning, but if they amend it with in the law they can give them selves that right. Read the Constitution and maybe you will understand how it works.
          • GeneralFault, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5CompDude,
            I understand well how the constitution works, or at least as well as a non lawyer or historian that has read it in full a few dozen times. Do you claim any better? You don't seem to understand the issue (would it help if I put it in all caps?). I detest the idea of a constitutional amendment that would restrict any form whatsoever of non-violent speech. Let me say that again so that you get it... I will never support any federal regulation or any politician that proposes federal regulation of any form, constitutional amendment or not, that restricts any form of non-violent speech. I detest it so much that I will completely shun any politician that risks, despite how small the chances that it passes, and despite that I would never perform the action in question, the right I have to express myself in a non-violent fashion. Risking something that dear to me is like risking my child. Gambling with our core rights for any form of political gain is detestable. I become a foe of anyone who does such.
          • Lyk4n, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3When they start telling us how we can non-violently protest, and we listen, then we are truly lost..
        • kipmartin, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4no, Mr. 'Wishes he was a Pundit", it IS over. the math says Obama already has it Unless he explodes or is assassinated, he just has to stay above the 37% mark to win.

          far from over--arent YOU the authority. it IS over except the formalities.
          • compdude32, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Actually the math says it is up in the air, the polling (which is very subjective and tends to be wrong lately) says it is over, but the superdelegates will decide this one, and you will not know for sure until the convention who they are going to vote for.
          • Fordi, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1If the remaining contests go the way they have been (near ties), Obama would only need 97 superdelegates on his side in addition to those he's already got. Clinton, on the other hand, would need 227. Since there are presently only 304 uncommitted superdelegates, Clinton's got a much harder road to hoe than Obama. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen that Clinton gets the nom. I'm just saying that it's barely likely.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 04/25/2008, -10/+3Here we go again... more attempts by Democrats to subvert the democratic process.
        • amoirae, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6Here we go again... Charlotte Web being a partisan bitch troll.
    • tcbishop12, on 04/25/2008, -15/+5Woo hoo is right. The MSM will get the message if we keep pushing it. They're usually about 36 hours behind Diggers.
      • rudy23, on 04/25/2008, -3/+7What is MSM? Feel free to attack me now.
        • twitchr, on 04/25/2008, -0/+15MainStream Media
        • Adys, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6Mainstream Media
        • rationalist, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4A better term is "Traditional Media". MSM marginalizes online news, which more (particularly younger) people rely on as a primary source of news than traditional media such as newspapers radio and TV.
      • speakerfordead, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Mutant Smurf Mauraders. Nasty SOBs.
    • SACubeMonkey, on 04/25/2008, -16/+8Agreed. Buried as spam.
      • smithchr, on 04/25/2008, -1/+16While I don't disagree with your bury, it's not truly spam. It's an opinion piece from the wall street journal.
    • HMTKSteve, on 04/25/2008, -12/+10It's not over until everyone votes or someone hits the magic delegate number. Neither Hillar OR Obama has hit that magic number. He is ahead but he has not won.
      • green67, on 04/25/2008, -4/+2@HMTKSteve.You obviously have never played chess and understood it.Check Mate or End Game.Look them up.
        • somedumb, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2What a silly comment. Because you're ahead doesn't mean you're the winner. It is likely that Obama will win, as with anyone who is ahead in any game, but to give up because of such is ludicrous. Check Mate means you HAVE won. Obama has not. This is the End Game, but that doesn't dictate the final winner. It just means that at some point soon, there will be one. Honestly, did you even think about which words you put down or are those just the only words relating to chess that you know?

          Mannn, and you had to wipe your dirty ego all over a great strategy game. A game that can turn around despite a terrible disadvantage if you find a way to outsmart your opponent.
        • Spudster, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1If you're a competent chess player and pulling a big lead, as long as you don't blunder you WILL win the game. The only way Clinton, in this hypothetical chess game, could win, is if Obama makes a big blunder. So far, I would say Obama is playing a perfect end game.
    • EricBarnes, on 04/25/2008, -21/+3Hillary Clinton now leads the popular vote when all americans who voted in a primary or caucus are counted. Another electoral SNAFU may cause another President with almost no experience. Of course, Obama wants you to believe that Michigan and Florida don't count. They will in the general election, and they are likely not to go to Obama then either.
      • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -1/+16Actually, even if you generously give Obama the 'undecided' votes from Michigan since he wasn't on the ballot (And most likely more people would have voted for him rather than undecided got if we was on the ballot) and you still count Florida, Obama is still ahead. The only way Hillary is ahead is if you give her all the 'if's. 'if' we count florida, 'if' we cound michigan, 'if' we ignore the undecided vote that would have probably gone to Obama, and the biggest 'if', 'if' we suddenly change the rules and decide that it's the popular vote that wins the primary, which everyone (yes, even Hillary) agreed wouldn't be the case. I will concede that Hillary is winning in a false reality, but we all have to deal with this one, why shouldn't she?
        • drachemorder, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4The thing about the popular vote is, for a party that makes such a huge deal out of making sure every single vote is counted, it would be the height of irony for their primary to turn out that way. If Obama wins the primary but loses the popular vote, will the Democrats finally shut up about Republicans "stealing" the election the past two cycles? I won't hold my breath for that one...
      • Rendonsmug, on 04/25/2008, -0/+12You misspoke, she leads the popular vote when all Americans who voted in a primary are counted, but the ontes who voted in a caucus aren't.
      • lgm1213, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3Are you claiming to know what the whole State of MI would have voted, even the undecide voters. Its complete UNFAIR to disregard Florida. Florida has 4.2 million registered democrats. Thats more Democrats then the whole population of 27 states. And Florida is the 4th most populated state.
        • MacEnvy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Fine, include Florida then. Obama is still ahead in the popular vote, delegates, and states won even if you include Florida.
        • Taciturn, on 04/25/2008, -2/+5Everyone in Florida believed their vote would count for nothing. It's completely unfair to those who decided not to vote in the fake primary if you suddenly decide to count the votes of those who did.
          • lgm1213, on 04/26/2008, -4/+3Florida democrats had no say in that decision. I bet if your state was stripped of all its delegates you would be pretty angry. But because FL isn't a democrat haven, the DNC said F them. Thats really fair. If that were to happen to California or New York we would not be having this conversation
          • Mejari, on 04/26/2008, -1/+4Florida's delegates weren't stripped because of the DNC, their delegates were stripped because they broke the rules THEY THEMSELVES agreed to. If anyone in florida's angry, they should be angry at their own state's party, not the DNC as a whole.
          • chaosium, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1"But because FL isn't a democrat haven, the DNC said F them"

            There are a number of Dem movers and shakers in Florida. I absentee balloted there, and was surprised when they went through with their threats.
          • lgm1213, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Hey, the Delegates, Didn't agree on *****. What happened was the state legislature which consist of 160 members total (both houses) 103 of them are republican. It wasn't put to a state vote, it was decided on day in Tallahassee and now we Floridans don't count because of a republican controlled state
      • noahhoward, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Who do you seemrito think doesn't have experience? Last I checked non of the candidates have experience as president, being married to the president isn't politcal experience, and lying about your forgein policy experience isn't experience we should care about.

        Tell me something which candidate was forced to run a campaign of negativity when it was clear they didn't have the merit to beat their opponent. I'll give you a hint HER mind goes fuzzy after 10pm.
    • EricBarnes, on 04/25/2008, -15/+3"If Michigan and Florida are counted, Clinton is ahead by 100,000 votes -- 15.1 million to Obama's 15 million."

      http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/24/campaign.wr ...
      • smithchr, on 04/25/2008, -2/+14If we count the Martians, Marvin is coming out on top in this contest.
      • onetimeuse, on 04/25/2008, -2/+20well that doesn't mean anything considering Clinton was the only person on the Michigan ballot...
      • azbmr, on 04/25/2008, -0/+13Actually, if they get to count then Obama would most likely get the "undecided" voters where he wasn't on the ballot. That would put him 100,000 ahead still. She is "winning" by almost no metric at all (besides the "crazy" metric).
      • speakerfordead, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3Yeah because in a republic we only place one candidate on the ballot and call it a choice.
    • lgm1213, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Do you want an election or an appointment.
      • highligher, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1the first debate happened over a year ago...i think an election has taken place(yes and still is) She doesn't have to drop out, she just has to stop fighting like a crazy person. Stay civil. Keep touting her strong points but all the while build the Democratic case against MCsame. Then lose. The do the difficult work (as it will be now) of wooing her supporters to vote for Obama.
    • Shuukyoku, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Also, let us not forget the spectacular ability that Democrats have of snatching defeat from the jaws of inevitable victory. Let us remember Gore vs The Monkey Who Think's He's Not A Monkey, then Kerry, and all the tiny little congressional slots in between. The reason Obama is doing well is all encapsulated in that Jay-Z imitation, he's one of the last guy's who can really brush the ***** off his shoulder. Hell, they try to peg him for being a Muslim, an atheist, an agnostic, and just plain the wrong kind of Christian all in one campaign.

      But there is still time, and no Democratic campaign will every be foolproof.
  • barackoblogger, on 04/25/2008, -26/+51Finally, some sanity.
    • clickmyface, on 04/25/2008, -12/+6Some sanity? The general population does not know nor care about David Boren and Sam Nunn. The nail in the coffin? Is this a joke?
    • jabberwolf, on 04/25/2008, -10/+3Sanity? Yes we know that Florida and Michigan broke the rules, we know we know we know !!!

      But throwing out Florida and Michigan for the primaries is stupid. WHY?
      Because Florida and Michigan will be voting in the FINAL ELECTION.

      Michigan will probably vote Democrat as they did in the last election.
      But, you throw out Florida's decision, who wants Hillary, you lose that state, you LOSE the election!

      So that's not sanity, that's STUPID!
      • buddhistMonkey, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7You may think it stupid not to count Florida and Michigan, but realistically, there IS no way to count them. In Michigan, Obama wasn't on the ballot. In Florida, he didn't campaign there at all, at a time when Hillary had vastly higher name recognition. She essentially won both contests by default, contests that both Hillary and Obama agreed beforehand would not count.

        The state Democratic party leaders who moved up their primary dates in defiance of DNC rules are the ones at fault, but it's the voters of both states who ultimately suffer. It's truly unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Other than splitting the states' delegates 50/50, there simply isn't an equitable solution.
      • jabberwolf, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1I agree with splitting Michigan but not Florida. You are blaming her win on having name recognition.
        She didn't campaign there as Obama did not either. If you simply add Florida, you will see the race is much much closer and ultimately She will at least win the popular vote.

        Ignoring Florida's vote will simply be handing Florida over to the Republicans as well as the presidency!
  • jforjools, on 04/25/2008, -16/+131An actual sane MSM headline in the WSJ. It's over--but the general public hasn't been hearing this message. They listen to the MSM headlines and go about their daily lives. To them, the media buzz is true: there really is a 'race' here.

    Thanks to WSJ...(now, next time it'd be great if you can get this printed in the first one or two or three pages...This was on page 11.)
    • sandburn, on 04/25/2008, -9/+1what was that? did i read your "headline" correctly? "race" is now an issue again? but we were having so much fun with religion...
    • scottc, on 04/25/2008, -7/+4The headline was nice, but the article itself was full of fallacies. The major reason the author gives for Obama's success was his fund raising ability. That's putting the cart before the horse. Money follows good candidates and good ideas, not the other way around (with the exception of the corporate donors who are just trying to bribe the winner.) He also thinks the problem with the Democrat's nominating process is that the winners are too liberal - and then gives Kerry and Gore as examples! Give me a break. They were just as conservative as Bill Clinton. In fact, Gore lost because he wasn't liberal enough and that allowed Nader to take away too many votes. This year, just like every other primary in the last few decades, the liberal candidates were the first to fall because they didn't have enough support.
      • nirav72, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3I do agree with one point of yours - that gore lost a lot of votes to Nader because he didn't lean left enough.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 04/25/2008, -4/+5Gore won the general election by 550,000 votes.

        http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
        • flip2trip, on 04/25/2008, -8/+5Gore lost--the proof is Bush is the president. Get over it that was 8 years ago.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5Nice, ignore the evidence presented to you and claim gore lost because bush became president, yea i don't see any problems with that logic.
          • potofgravy, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Time doesn't change facts.

            Just like time wont make the Iraq war a good idea.
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2if she bypasses democracy and gets elected by superdelegates, there is still a chance that hillary could get the nomination.
      • Ishiguro, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Why do you assume democracy has anything to do with party rules. Superdelegates are there so that the party CAN supersede a popular candidate. Thats the whole point. That is your Democrat Party.
      • mbraynard, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1The Super Delegates *were* democratically elected. The rules for deciding the nomination *were* decided democratically as well. The outcome can in no way by-pass democracy.

        Stop whining. First your candidate, now you.
  • tcbishop12, on 04/25/2008, -23/+73Woo hoo is right. The MSM will get the message if we keep pushing it. They're usually about 36 hours behind Diggers.
    • ileftfark, on 04/25/2008, -1/+42...says the Digger, commenting on an MSM story published yesterday morning, written the night before, or earlier.
    • badqat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6Which explains the hours/days old MSM crap regurgitated on digg every single day.
    • michael43, on 04/25/2008, -6/+8The only thing "behind" most diggers would be along the lines of a seriously retarded monkey. It would still be a toss up as far as IQ goes. I said "most" because there are a few of us who don't have our lips sealed around a very unlikely presidential hopeful's *****.
      • badqat, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1Funniest line I've read today! And truest as well!
  • FeedtheTroll, on 04/25/2008, -7/+66I'm waiting for the news that the Clinton campaign is really being run by Tonya Harding
    • Aadain, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Wait, are you from the Portland, OR area? Because that was in an episode of George W. Bush, Boy Present done by Cort & Fatboy on 101.1FM.
    • RepubOperative, on 04/25/2008, -6/+2"I'm waiting for the news that the Clinton campaign is really being run by Tonya Harding." sure why not, Jeremiah Wright is running Barack Osama's campaign.
    • FeedtheTroll, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Repuboperative: at least if we followed Rev Wright we wouldn't be entangled in foreign wars we have no business fighting. Also stop being a troll, that's my job. :p
    • joot2112, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2We'll know for sure if some guy smacks Obama's kneecap.
  • Navicerts, on 04/25/2008, -16/+191This article has a "it's true because i say it's true" feel to it.
    • clickmyface, on 04/25/2008, -3/+11Endorsements from "David Boren and Sam Nunn" are are the final "nail in the coffin" didnt cut it for you either?
    • lolinyerface, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4We are not in a recession.
    • ePuck, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1Its what everyone knows in the back of their head, and they just went ahead and published it.
      Hopefully instead of 2 major candidates dogging on obama, there will be only one.
    • glasnostic, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4this line "Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania prove it won't be easy." bugs me a bit..

      Obama won Texas.. what gives?
      • mbraynard, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1But he lost the popular vote in TX, which is how the general will be decided.

        Why are people who are complaining about arcane rules allowing for Hillary to still have a chance referencing arcane rules that gave Obama more delegates in TX despite being voted against by the Democrats who showed up that day?

        The out of work college students and barren feminist with no spouse or children to deal with in the afternoon/evening will not be able to save Hussein in the general.
    • Manchowder, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Fact free assertions are now the WSJ standard post Murdoch. Murdoch is a Post Fact kinda guy who encourages such thinking.
    • lhbaker, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2It feels that way because it's an Opinion piece. It's a column, not a news article.
    • bjos144, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I think it's time for spell checkers to include the proper noun 'Obama'.
  • noseeme, on 04/25/2008, -6/+12What? They won't be announcing this for another few weeks.
    • aurispector, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0Then it will be another few months before the election of President McCain makes all this a harsh lesson in reality. The fatal flaw in Obama's camp is it's heavy reliance on unrealistic dreamers and the republicans are all laughing at the slo-mo train wreck. This election is sure is turning out to be FUN!
  • postalblowfish7, on 04/25/2008, -29/+8Obama is like 'the mule' from the Foundation series by Isaac Asimov. Psycohistory could successfully predict the future events of mankind thousands of years into the future - but out of nowhere comes a mind-controlling mutant who is able to bring order to the galaxy in 1/1,000 of the time (for better or for worse).

    It just goes to show you never know...


    • postalblowfish7, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3heh, i didn't mean it as a bad thing - just that obama has successfully shaken up what was thought of as a no-contest primary.

      ***** clinton.
    • sonofblacula, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5Huh?
    • JustinHopewell, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1I have one of those Foundation books. You've convinced me that I will have no idea what's going on if I try to read it.
  • MasterThief117, on 04/25/2008, -20/+98Personally, I am not pro Obama (although I don't hate or have much if anything against him). However, I am so anti-Hilary and there is a snowballs chance in hell I would ever vote republican, which is why I will vote Obama.
    • AshamedAmerican, on 04/25/2008, -11/+25Well your process of elimination is logical so I don't see anything wrong.
    • RebeL5K, on 04/25/2008, -12/+5I AM pro-Obama and so I can't see why you would not be, which I realize is a personal shortcoming, but I should remind you that a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. You would be perfectly within your civic duty to abstain from voting if you did not feel positively about any candidate, though I would hope you could come around to seeing what is so great about Obama.
      • ghostfaceDX, on 04/25/2008, -4/+3I didn't vote last election; everyone thought I was stupid. Yeah, well what now, assholes.
    • ePuck, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2Yeah it will be good to have a democrat in office after we just had 8 years repub
    • BCRazgriz, on 04/25/2008, -6/+5You don't HAVE to vote. If you don't care for any of the candidates why settle?
      • deskimo, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6Because the risk of not voting is that the person he hates the most will win.

        Please. Use your noodle.
        • TsuruchiBrian, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Depending on what state he lives in there is a probably a very low likelihood his vote will even come close to mattering. He may as well just vote for who he thinks is the best regardless of "viability".
      • N0vember, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5If you read his comment again, maybe you'll notice he does actually care.
    • Dystisis, on 04/25/2008, -5/+0People really don't want a woman leading the White House I guess. Now of course, you will object it. But at some level it is true.
      • Aorawn, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4Not THAT woman.
      • awills, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Your comment plays into the image of Hillary fighting sexism that she continuously banks on to pull in lots of older women voters (and some other feminists). Please stop perpetuating that train of thought. I think a lot of us are just opposed to her, not a woman president. I know that is true for me.
    • Melabruha, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2If only more people had used the "snowball's chance in hell" process of elimination re: Bush in 2000 and 2004...
    • stormado, on 04/26/2008, -1/+5Tell me again, why do we have a two party system? This election in particular makes me wish we didn't.
      • tnoy, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2We have a two-party system because 90% of the people that do vote think that there is no point in voting for the third party because 90% of the people that vote will likely vote for a democrat or republican.

        If people want to change the two-party system, then they need to START VOTING FOR A THIRD PARTY. Once people start voting for who they like and not based on ***** reasons like "electability" and 'just not a republican' we'll get away from the two-party system.

        MSM will wake up to a third party if they get a big chunk of the popular vote. Ideally enough to qualify for public funds in the following election.

        That, and getting voter turnout above 50% would help.
        • JustinHopewell, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Additionally, I think there's many people who don't even know more than two parties exist.
  • mechman, on 04/25/2008, -70/+18If you support the policies and character of John McCain, please drive with your headlights on during the day. If you support Obama or Hillary, please drive with your headlights off at night.
    • NaziHatinChimp, on 04/25/2008, -14/+30alright I will. I hope I kill your family in doing so funny man.
      • Jackson0909, on 04/25/2008, -7/+1So says the caring and umderstanding Obama supporter.
    • carrera594, on 04/25/2008, -8/+27I am going to have to agree with NaziHatinChimp.
      • Jackson0909, on 04/25/2008, -4/+0and you are a walking contradiction. I can really see now that Obama Campaign is really about unity.
    • MillionsLivio, on 04/25/2008, -7/+5Ugh, no.
    • StupidAmericans, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3we've been driving around with our headlight off for eight years, so now you want use to turn the headlight on so we can see better in how to ruin this country more effectively huh?
    • selmer, on 04/25/2008, -3/+9If you support Mechman's comment, please hit yourself in the head repeatedly with a fish mallet
    • Spartyon, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1the guy is a douche bag but come on at least give him some credit for a decently funny comment.
    • JustinHopewell, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1My headlights are automatic. I refuse to let my car vote for me!
  • TypicalAfrican, on 04/25/2008, -35/+6We must retun to the Constitution like that our Founding Fathers wrote for us... They laid the guidelines, yet we ignore them and obey the Hiltlery and the CFR-Nazis....
    • Lyk4n, on 04/25/2008, -10/+28Obama was a Constitutional lawyer, he'll bring us back to where we need to be!
      • badqat, on 04/25/2008, -23/+7Hardly...only candidate who was interested in that was Ron Paul. Obama will continue the expansion of the powers of the federal government and bureaucracy as has been done for generations.
        • homah, on 04/25/2008, -14/+7It's hilarious that you're being dugg down. That seems to happen a lot when people are dead on correct.
          • badqat, on 04/25/2008, -12/+7It's digg...where speaking the truth rather than the "party line" gets you dugg down...disagree with anything in an Obama thread, you're dead!
          • onetimer, on 04/25/2008, -7/+11I hate to interrupt the circle jerk you two paulians got going on here, but maybe you were dugg down because you claimed that paul respected the constitution, despite authoring atrocious legislation like the "We the People" act that completely ignores the 14th amendment.
          • homah, on 04/25/2008, -7/+2You're basing that on your interpretation of the fourteenth amendment.

            In any case, we were dugg down either for being Paul supporters or Obama haters. I doubt even 1 in 1000 diggers are familiar with the act you are referencing.
          • ssn697, on 04/25/2008, -6/+9Or Mr. Constitution, Ron Paul, trying to further his religious agenda by claiming the Constitution is "replete with references to God" when a "creator" is mentioned once.

            Or maybe when Ron Paul went on a Christian radio show, and sid "God's Law" trumps "man's law", and the Constitution is second to "God's Law".

            Nah, that can't be why you are getting Dugg down. It has to be because all these other people aren't as will to buy his ***** as you...
          • onetimer, on 04/25/2008, -4/+8Yes, the interpretation that I, most legal scholars, and the supreme court agree with. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's Paul's interpretation that is in the minority here.
          • homah, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2Yep, that's Ron Paul, always with the religion.
          • Lyk4n, on 04/25/2008, -5/+7I'm digging you down because of Paul's staunch anti-atheist bigotry and Fundie Christian agenda. The man doesn't accept the theory of evolution, how the hell can I respect him long enough to stop laughing?
          • flip2trip, on 04/25/2008, -7/+3".....authoring atrocious legislation like the "We the People" act that completely ignores the 14th amendment."
            You obviously don't understand the legislation. I would be willing to hear your arguments supporting this claim.
          • homah, on 04/25/2008, -6/+3Well, onetimer, I won't argue with you and say that Ron Paul is perfect. I believe he attempts to follow the Constitution at all times. There is certainly a chance he has misinterpreted something. Could be that I am being deceived, but I don't believe so. In any event, I see him as the candidate (or whatever you'd like to refer to him as now) most interested in upholding the intent of the Constitution.
          • onetimer, on 04/25/2008, -4/+6I do. He is trying to usurp the authority of the supreme court to hear cases regarding abortion and gay marriage. The justification he uses is that those are "states rights" (there choice to infringe or not), despite the 14th amendment saying that it is unconstitutional for states to infringe upon the rights of individuals.

            I'll be waiting for any of you to explain a scenario where the We The People actually gives rights to individuals, instead of letting states trump them.
          • homah, on 04/25/2008, -7/+4"Paul's staunch anti-atheist bigotry and Fundie Christian agenda"

            This is blatantly false.
          • homah, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3I'm more than willing to discuss and possibly even be enlightened about instances in which Paul has been mistaken. But when certain individuals post obvious falsehoods such as that he is "anti-atheist" and gets dugg way up I wonder if it's worth wasting my breath. Oh well, I may be naive about some issues, but in the end I believe he has our best interests in mind more than anyone else.
          • Lyk4n, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4@homah: Ever heard him rant about the "War On Christmas"? I have..
          • homah, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2Feel free to link me and I will gladly listen. I have an open mind and my opinion can be changed.
          • onetimer, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4@homah

            He may not have said it outright, but statements like this from his "The War on Religion" letter do lend credence to that accusation:

            "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity."

            I guess you can interpret "elitist, secular left" as you wish.
          • homah, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3Well, I will admit I am not a fan of the style in which the article was written. However, regarding Lyk4n's comment, I don't see how it makes him anti-atheist. Nothing in the article indicates that he is opposed to someone deciding to not be a Christian.
          • homah, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4Okay guys, that's enough for me for one day. You can give me more fodder to consider in the next RP thread.

            Incidentally, digg is funny. How can one possibly be voted down for saying "Feel free to link me and I will gladly listen. I have an open mind and my opinion can be changed."? :-)
          • dbs1221, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2With regard to the We the People Act, the court isn't legally bound in the constitution to only rule against a case based on its constitutionality and never has been in any manner limited in this manner WRT any case (whether or not it should is another point altogether), rather the process of judicial review is merely a precedent established by the court's interpretation of the constitution in Marbury v. Madison, if you were really a constitution you would demand a We the People Amendment not act.
          • CLARIFINATOR, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1 Lyk4n said: "I laugh all day long at those stupid Americans and their country for not believing what I believe about evolution. There is no more important issue than this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/ ..."
          • homah, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1digg me down
          • homah, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1digg me up
          • homah, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1digg me sideways
          • homah, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3abortions for some, miniature american flags for others
        • homah, on 04/25/2008, -2/+142
        • pintomp3, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4i like some things about ron paul, but he is hardly an expert on the constitution. he doesn't even believe in the separation of church and state.
        • sonofblacula, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2If we adhered strictly to the Constitution and were unwilling to make alterations, blacks and women wouldn't be voting and I wouldn't be going to college partially by Federal grant. Like the Bible, the Constitution is a document that was written long ago and eventually must lose relevance. Unlike the Bible, the writers of the Constitution had the foresight to leave the Constitution open to alteration and interpretation so that this would not happen.
          • ShadowMerchant, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2I'm okay with alteration, in the form of amendments, but allowing loose interpretation is a prescription for tyranny. A "living" Constitution is no Constitution at all.

      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4I'm confused. Do I digg you up for the humor or digg you down for the naiveté.
    • TheSabre, on 04/25/2008, -3/+6Sounds good. From this day forward, women shall have absolutely no power, they won't be able to own land, and blacks will be counted as 3/5ths of a person.... just as our Founding Fathers planned.
      • Nidy1, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Meant to digg you up, dugg you down by accident.
        Sorry >.<
  • svtspeed, on 04/25/2008, -13/+25Hilldog still wont go down without a bloody battle royal. Its a sad time to be a Democrat - instead of being pitted against the Republican machine, they have us pitted against each other. It almost seams intentional by the MSM to, if at all else, kneecap Obama's campaign. I say ***** Hilldog, ***** the MSM, and lets do this thing right...for ONCE!
    • friday04, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8"They" are not pitting Democrats against themselves. "Democrats" are pitting Democrats against themselves. Republicans are watching in wonderment as the Democrats do everything they can to lose an election they were all but guaranteed to win. This Democrat nomination process has been foolish.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Wonderment? I don't think so. Screwing themselves out of the presidency has become a tradition of Democrats. Any party beaten twice by GW needs to hang up their party hats.
    • tomasII, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Exactly, this is not another "right wing conspiracy. This is Democrats showing their true colors. Win at all cost. Even if it means throwing away your party and your loyalties.
      • highligher, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1'candidates'? It seems clear to me that Hillary is the one dragging the process into the gutter.
    • ArachnidDude, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2This whole thing was never about the Democratic party or the election. It's always just been about Hillary. I'm not a spiteful person, except in this case. I'm loving watching her lose.
    • BigW, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4The democrats, not the republicans, are the ones who hinged their entire nomination process on the votes of the party elite.
    • deidre77, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1If she is undoubtedly the loser then why did Pennsylvania vote for her in astounding numbers?Why is it so wrong for her to fight for the position? Obama has a lot of weaknesses that have come out in the last few weeks that have really scared off some voters. If there weren't some doubts in the Democratic party this would have ended on Super Tuesday, but it didn't.

      Your opinion of Sen. Clinton sounds like the propaganda that the Republicans hav been spewing about her for years.
    • Witchbaby, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1I can't get past you calling her "Hilldog".
      (yikes)
  • cheezeme, on 04/25/2008, -38/+14Of course it matters. Do you want a democrat president? McCain will win in a Landslide if the DNC runs a loose canon like Barry Obama.
    • rudy23, on 04/25/2008, -12/+6IMO his campaign will be buried in a landslide.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Grammar is a wonderful thing when used correctly. Are you saying "Barry" Obama's campaign will be buried or McCain's campaign will be buried?
      • rudy23, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Well I was saying Mcains campaign will be buried. too bad it didnt come out right. Now I am a stinky *****. :(
    • TheZorch, on 04/25/2008, -4/+13If McCain is voted into office I'm writing off this country as a lost cause. He's another Bush and he'll lead us down the same ***** hole we're in right now. If McCain becomes President say goodbye to the USA as you know it and say hello to Imperial America.
      • friday04, on 04/25/2008, -8/+4You are incorrect. Bush is a liar. McCain is an honest man who doesn't vote down the party line. These statements of Bush Jr. and unfounded and I think Senator McCain has done much to disprove what people like you keep saying.

        He said "If it takes another 100 years to get Iraq stable" not "I want to be in a war for 100 years." America should never have gone to war, it was unwarranted. But now we've left a ***** in our wake and we have a responsibility to help them clean up the mess. No one is "for the war."
        • Nidy1, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4"Make it a hundred. We've been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That's fine with me. I hope it will be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping, and motivating people every single day."

          No he didn't.
          • friday04, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1I was paraphrasing because he is talking about a vacuum in the world. If we walk away, there's another Afghanistan. He doesn't want to be at war for 100 years, he wants to have have a presence there until the threat is over.

            But thanks for posting the entire quote. You prove my point. And it's clear that he's an honest person.
    • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -3/+12Is that why Obama is winning in all the polls of potential matchups?
      • smoothdogg00, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3Who offers these polls and who are they advertised to? I know that, as a McCain supporter, I haven't participated in any "potential match-up" polls, because I don't waste my time with nonsense. Could that be why Obama is winning them all? Probably.
    • NikoKun, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Thanks for proving to everyone, that you have no business discussing politics.
    • meesle110, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0yes, yes I do.
  • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -31/+12Obama will see to it that everything is fixed. People will like us again. I can't wait for the change. I couldn't live with myself for the longest time thinking that People didn't like Americans. They all are so....well....better than we are and it's hard to be like them when they are better than us. How can I be like them when I'm stuck being an American? We should have politicians like theirs. Being all alike is better than being different.
    • MillionsLivio, on 04/25/2008, -5/+9You care far too much about what other people think about you.
    • ileftfark, on 04/25/2008, -4/+86/10. Slightly better than average troll.

      You've caught one already!
      • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -14/+3Anyone who says bad things against Barry is a troll!
        • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -14/+2I mean....Hussein.
        • CosmicJustice, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2Hey! You can't say his name. That's racist.
          • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -5/+1I'm so confused!! What is his name...a name that can't be said aloud! Like a God or something!
          • MillionsLivio, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2*Whoosh*
    • michael43, on 04/25/2008, -6/+7You're not "stuck" being an American. Get your whiney ass out if you don't like it. Move to Iran, that way they'll have at least one queer.
      • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -8/+1But we must change from being selfish and racist into something that is acceptable to people outside America! People outside of America don't have these problems! We are a horrible people! Obama will change this!
        • flip2trip, on 04/25/2008, -1/+7Just because you're selfish and racist don't include everybody else in your little pity party.
          • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -5/+1But H. Obama is love! He loves you and me....even if you don't like him!
      • sonofblacula, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1You missed it too.
    • Pssdoff, on 04/25/2008, -6/+7"Obama will see to it that everything is fixed."
      You people keep telling yourselves that. Tell me, what is Obama's plan to fix everything?
      He's not going to cut trillions of dollars from the budget, in fact, his plan is to spend more money even faster.
      He's not going to bring troops home from the 130 countries the US has troops stationed.
      He's not going to end the Iraq war, he's going to keep 60,000 troops there until the term ends in 2013. In fact, he wants to expand the war into Pakistan.
      He's not going to stop deficit spending. He is not going to stop the looting of Social Security.
      He has no plans to stop the Federal Reserve from creating money from nothing, no plans to stop the devaluation of the US dollar.
      He will not decriminalize marijuana, will not stop the drug war, and has no plans to get rid of the Federal Medical marijuana laws.

      What is it that you people think he's going to change?
      • gnimsh, on 04/25/2008, -4/+2Wait, isn't there a candidate who WILL do all the things Obama isn't going to do? Could it be Ron Paul?
    • ePuck, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1America can feel good about voting in a 'black' president! We are blowing away the walls of racism!

      But about your comment that Obama will fix everything feels a little naive. He will get quite a bit done imo but won't be able to fix much. You mean he will fix the world's view of us? Certainly. Any democrat would help that situation. The system has been broken for a while but MUCH better here in America than in most other countries. Mainly I am talking about corruption and fairness.
      I am republican (zing!) but I believe it is good to have democrat and republican presidents alternate each 4/8 years. All democrat would screw up this country as much as all republican would.
  • rudy23, on 04/25/2008, -22/+47am I the only one sick of these articles?
    • Pirate45, on 04/25/2008, -8/+16Nope. So am I
      • smoothdogg00, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2And I.
        • highligher, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1and yet here all three of you are on yet ANOTHER message board dedicated to one...awesome
    • hagfish70, on 04/25/2008, -10/+15No, but you're part of a minute percentage. Otherwise they wouldn't be on the front page of Digg.
      • hagfish70, on 04/25/2008, -6/+4That's minuit.
        • JavertHolmes, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Unless you're going for some kind of joke that I've missed, it's not "minuit."

          minute /maɪˈnut, -ˈnyut, mɪ-/ [mahy-noot, -nyoot, mi-]

          –adjective -nut·er, -nut·est.
          1. extremely small, as in size, amount, extent, or degree: minute differences.
          2. of minor importance; insignificant; trifling.
          3. attentive to or concerned with even the smallest details: a minute examination.

          The grandparent poster is going for definition 1. "Minuit" is "midnight" in French.

          • hagfish70, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1As as in a small percentage of digg users are sick of these articles.
        • chaosium, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4No, it's minute. Minuit is French for midnight.
    • michael43, on 04/25/2008, -6/+8You sure as hell are not. When did "digg" become a Obama fan club anyway? There's lot of important news to report everyday, but we're stuck in a never ending Obama suckathon. I'm sick of it too.
      • kh99, on 04/26/2008, -4/+1Anyone with any brains would just ignore the stories they aren't interested in. Of course it's obvious that you're a Republican and don't want to admit that's the only reason it bothers you.
        • Pirate45, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1you are so ignorant.
          • kh99, on 04/26/2008, -1/+0That's the best you could come up with? That's quite lame. I actually feel sorry for you.
          • Pirate45, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1You actually thought I was a Republican? That's quite lame. I actually feel sorry for you.
          • kh99, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0No, I wasn't talking about you. See how the comment is indented? Stop embarrassing yourself - seriously, it's just sad.
      • gh0st3000, on 04/26/2008, -2/+2well, at least it's not a bunch of "ron paul is the second coming" articles anymore, right?
    • TheInformer, on 04/25/2008, -4/+9Typical Digg front page articles every day now...

      Obama love article, misc, evil Hillary, Obama love, old McCain, misc metrosexual, Obama love, hate Hillary, stupid Bill Clinton, misc, image, Obama the healer, hate Republicans, evil Hillary, etc etc.
    • emerrill, on 04/25/2008, -3/+4No kidding. I've stopped coming to digg as often cause is just more and more of this Obama love fest. People can't seem to realize what is propaganda if it's for who they want anyways.
    • wright3279, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1I was sick of the Ron Paul stuff first. Now it Obama all the time. I wish the teenager editors allowing this stuff on the front page would go out and get a real job.
    • brad3378, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Maybe we should start talking about something other than Obama / Hillary polls..........Such as REAL ISSUES
    • Pirate45, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2Or maybe we should return to a tech website? Just a thought.
  • chanop, on 04/25/2008, -15/+59OK! Enough of the the "Hillary can't win" articles on the front page! She can't win, we ***** get it
    • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -4/+14Once Hillary gets it, it'll probably stop.
      • JavertHolmes, on 04/25/2008, -2/+7Yes, because Hillary reads Digg to learn of her general political vibe.

        That's like saying Bill Gates dines from a dumpster to see what young people are eating these days.
        • Mejari, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3Didnt say she'd get it from here, dumbass. In fact, I doubt she'll get it at all, but we can dare to dream.
        • LameTacomeat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0What you say is madness...women can't read.
    • Gamer2k4, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2It's strange...blacks make up on 13% of the US population, while women make up 50%. And yet, we'll probably have a black President before we have a female President.
      • Taciturn, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6What's strange? That people vote on issues rather than which candidate looks the most like them?
      • Fixthemedia, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Get a better female candidate. Please look at them as humans and not their color or sex.
      • gh0st3000, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1I actually think it's refreshing that the country has finally gotten over itself and can finally get over racism and sexism to vote in someone who is qualified. Race and sex shouldn't matter, and it seems that opinion has spread.
      • Gamer2k4, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1All three of you are missing the point. Based on the demographics, it's more statistically probable that there will be a woman with proper qualifications before there will be a black person with proper qualifications. Apparently no women like that have run for President yet.
    • chanop, on 04/25/2008, -5/+1Thanks you ***** sheep. Now we have 3 articles on the top 10 about the same ***** thing. If this happened with an LOLcat picture, you people would be going nuts
    • tito184, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6Iphone, Ron Paul, and 'Hillary can't win'. What we need is a vid of Ron Paul talking smack to Hillary on an Iphone. 20 seconds into this video it will cut to a Rickroll. Guaranteed to get at least 10,000 diggs.
      • theapplegod, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0I'm just sick of the whole ***** Obama Spank Party. Everyone on Digg jumped ship from Ron Paul to Obama overnight. Gotta love that magical Kool-Aid.

        If he does get elected, I'll be the first to note when people start complaining that they were on the wagon with him before.
    • psychobabble, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I agree.

      Tired of these Obama spams.

      And the 4chan spams. And some how on a 'news' site pictures always get the top place.
    • frontalpha, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0Oh you just watch! Bill Clinton sleeping with the president of the U.S... And we'll all be sorry when we counted her out.
  • Pirate45, on 04/25/2008, -13/+101Obama is made out of candy.
    • Snuff99, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4and it's some damn delicious candy too.
      • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1He's everything that's good! He's perfect!
        • RepubOperative, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4He can suck a dick like nobodys business!
    • lolinyerface, on 04/25/2008, -7/+5And he farts rainbows!
      • Snuff99, on 04/25/2008, -1/+9beautiful rainbows! with colors previously undiscovered in our current spectrum!
      • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Rainbow farts full of love!
      • flip2trip, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3I thought it was fairy dust and unicorns.
      • Hraes, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1...milk chocolate?
    • wright3279, on 04/25/2008, -9/+1Oh I could just PEE every time I hear Obama speak!
      • Bologner, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Thats a problem, I think you should have that checked out.
    • kenedamick, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4Wrong - Obama is made of NGUYEN
    • brad3378, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3How many licks does it take to get to his tootsie roll center?
    • Pirate45, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1His dick is a piece of redvine licorice
    • Puffles, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2He's changilicious.
  • spamcrusher, on 04/25/2008, -17/+21I don't like McCain because he wants to continue our failed mess in Iraq. However, I don't like Obama because he is a raging liberal on economic issues, and some social issues where it's not good to be a liberal (a liberal's gun control stance is disturbing to me, and Obama supports a federal ban on handguns. However I believe homosexuals should be able to get married and I detest the legislation of morals most social conservatives want). I have to think long and hard about who I'll vote for in November, because as I see it right now all I see are a lot of reasons to not vote for Obama or McCain. Both suck, as far as I'm concerned.
    • homah, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5Yup, both have major faults. I lean towards Obama if forced to make a decision, but am not really happen either way. I guess I'll settle for promoting the right candidates at a local/state level for now.
    • Lazydriver, on 04/25/2008, -6/+7Obama is a supporter of the second amendment and I haven't heard of anything he's said or done about repealing handguns.
      • spamcrusher, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_G ...

        Banning the sale or use of semi-automatic guns is disturbing, considering I own two and I need to buy another one for my girlfriend's brother (birthday gift). Semi-automatics are not machine guns, they are in fact very common.

        http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun ...

        "Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel."
        • netdance, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Concealing a handgun and owning it are two different things, yes?
      • RepubOperative, on 04/25/2008, -5/+4The dark man was writing on a questionnaire and wrote at length about taking away the Second Amendment specifically with regard to banning semi automatic handguns.
    • Jtheletter, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5If I may play devil's advocate for a moment regarding your comment about Obama being "a raging liberal on economic issues" - how have those conservatives in office been handling the economy? I mean, it's pretty clear that the current policies and spending are crushing this country, and I haven't heard anything suggested from McCain that sounds different.
      We know if we keep things as they are, it's unsustainable. I'm not saying that Obama's policies are the right ones either, but at this point almost anything would be better than how things are currently being (mis)handled.
      Thoughts?
      • spamcrusher, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3You may play devil's advocate, but you have to remember in 2008 this isn't Bush vs. Obama. You speak of current failed policies, and that's fine I agree. Hell, if it were Bush vs. Obama, I'd vote for Obama without hesitation or regret. However it's not, it'll be McCain vs. Obama, and McCain is not Bush. Since Bush is not McCain, and McCain will not just continue where Bush left off (except perhaps Iraq), then that's an unfair statement.
        • kettlehead, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1The war in Iraq IS an economic issue, it's a enormous money sink. And when it comes to fixing the economy, it's probably not a good idea to place your trust in a man who's said he doesn't know much about it.
      • netdance, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2And how will McCain's no-regulation instincts be different than Bush's? Remember, lack of regulation enforcement in banking is how we got to where we are, along with blowing a couple trillion on a useless war that's made us less safe.
      • MagMarCat, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0If you want to know how liberal Obama is on economic issues, take a look at what he has done to the state of Illinois. As of July we will have the highest sales tax in the nation. 11.5%. Ask yourself what that does to the economy of Chicago! For all of you geography majors, Chicago is right next to Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan. Guess where people will be going to shop come July. I work in the hospitality and travel industry and we are losing A LOT of convention and tourism business due to this tax increase. Also, as if the increase in sales tax wasn't enough, there is a luxury tax on hotel rooms that is currently at 15.4%, soon to be 16.4%.
        I hope "Change" comes to all of your states too, courtesy of the glorious Barack Obama. At least then we won't look so bad to convention business when compared nationally.
    • ooby, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3But in the last 4 years, his positions have slid toward those of the Bush administration, with which few of them I agree.
      I can’t vote for Hilary because she has no moral standing. There seems to be nothing that her campaign will not do to with the nomination. I don’t think the problem rests with her campaign, however. She seems to have the same amount of integrity as she did when she was First Lady.
      If it comes down to McCain vs Obama, I can choose between them based on their proposed policies and their positions as opposed to who had the worst scandal.
      With Hilary, I don’t even get to the issues. I’m stuck at, she’s dishonest.
      • morninglorii, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3As much as I love Obama, the fact of the matter is, all politicians are somewhat dishonest. I love Obama because he seems much less so than most, but if the dishonesty issue is binary for you, you'd better not vote at all.
    • kettlehead, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5"Obama supports a federal ban on handguns."

      No he doesn't.
      • mbraynard, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Yes, he does. Or he did. He was for it before he was against it. In his own handwriting.
        • kettlehead, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Not federal, that was when he was part of the Illinois legislature. Being for a state ban on handguns and being for a federal ban are two vastly different things.
    • LukasSmith, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3I believe economically speaking Republicans have done a fine job. We have low taxes. Our unemployment is low. Our economy is still growing. I mean think about it. We have a 14 trillion dollar economy. We are only 5% of the world population. The only place place that rivals us is an entire continent with twice as many people otherwise known as Europe. We are still doing pretty well for 5%. Half the world population lives on 1 or 2 dollars a day. If people really looked around the world at the true hunger and desperation there by the majority of people we might not be so angry about things that we have no control over. Like whether a car company chooses to make cars in China rather then the USA. Or a housing market crash that has been in the making for decades. IF this country was so bad we wouldn't have millions streaming here legally or otherwise every year. There is a slowdown occurring but it is a global slowdown. When the economy picks up again we will be stronger then ever with a weaker dollar. So what if you cant go to Europe and pay little to stay? You can still go to Mexico. These currency and economic fluctuations are happening all the time all around the world. Japan is just emerging from a particularly long recession. We can't just be like well this is America. that kind of stuff should never happen here. That is an all too American way of thinking.
    • jenshik, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1People should be able to vote on policies, not personalities.
    • mbraynard, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1Lucky for you the choice won't be Obama/McCain. It will be Clinton/McCain.

      Suck it hard, Diggers!
  • isiz, on 04/25/2008, -4/+11Yay, maybe Hillary will get the message and shut up now.


    maybe...
    • smoothdogg00, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Get the message from an opinion article? Wow, that's a great source to go by.
    • gh0st3000, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Does Hillary read digg? Probably not.
      • DrDreyfus, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0Is that an irrelevant comment? Probably.
        Are you an idiot? Yes.
  • jippie, on 04/25/2008, -3/+17Did someone forget to tell Hillary??
    • al11588, on 04/26/2008, -0/+0My name is Bill Clinton and I will tell that ugly bitch promptly. Thx Vote Obama 08.
  • kalvinb, on 04/25/2008, -3/+31Until the super delegates can't make Hillary the winner, she could win.

    The popular vote decides the race when support for one candidate is overwhelming. When there's a tight race (up to about 24% difference) then the super delegates decide.

    If you wanted super delegates to always side with the popular vote then you shouldn't have super delegates to begin with. There are 793 supers out of the total 3253 delegates.
    • kalvinb, on 04/25/2008, -0/+10sorry there are 4047 total delegates giving the supers a 19.6% vote.

      So Obama has to be up by 20% of the delegates before Hillary cannot win. Which means that the democrats have a system where the popular vote must be split 60-40 or the supers decide.
    • TheInformer, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3The superdelegates were put into place by the Democrats so that the national convention powers would have the potential ability to keep someone they didn't like from being nominated.
      • mbraynard, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1That's not the real reason and it's also false. The can only decide the nomination if it's really close.

        They put that into position so that they wouldn't have to run against the commoners for delegate slots for which they set up a strict quota system. It was a way to have half the delegates be women, and half of them be lesbian public school teaches, while still allowing the almost entirely white-male elected leadership of the party to get into the delegate-only parties at the convention.

        Unfortunately, in the Republican Party, it's impossible for the Common Man to become a delegate.
    • colomboj, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1The popular vote NEVER decides the race, it never has, and I don't see it deciding the race any time soon. What decides the race is the number of pledged delegates, and the number of super delegates. When you read about the popular vote that number doesn't include caucus states, so you can't use "popular vote" as a benchmark to deciding who wins.
    • csonger, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Of course that's right. The question, however is what the party does to the support of black democrats and new democrats if the super delegates sway a decision away from a candidate who has a winning pledged delegate total. When it's June and the super's are looking at an Obama who has more pledged delegates and more votes in the states to which the candidates committed to limit their campaigns. At that time, it's Obama 08.

      As a side note, I think it's real reflection on the Hillary campaign that after committing to the rules of the election, including the omission of Florida and Michigan, the campaign both wanted to change the rules and is counting votes in places they committed not to campaign.
    • kipmartin, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1all of those points are essentially true. it sounds like an arcane system, but this country likes to enforce deliberation on its changing. it takes a while for a federal law to change, for example, so that one incendiary moment cant upend years of stability. same with the electoral college and delegate systems. we dont want people crossing party lines quickly to vote for someone the majority of dems dont want just to have the republicans vote and tip things in a bad way and then run back to their original party. things need to be slowed down.

      its a GREAT system, this deliberative republic. its safer. we saw what happened in Texas, well it could happen in any state tat alows delegates to influence one candidate and then hurredly go back another.

      make sense? its the end of a friday and im pretty cranky.
  • MetaMars, on 04/25/2008, -4/+32http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/9899/barackmk2. ...
    • pettdog78, on 04/25/2008, -10/+2He just blew up that chopper!!! OO He must be a terrorist!!! oO
    • indiancompanion, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1badass
  • nickcozy, on 04/25/2008, -30/+9Please take your time and think Mr.Obama,you will earn everyone's respect if you withdraw.
    • SketchaMPM, on 04/25/2008, -1/+13You accidently typed Obama instead of Hillary.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 04/25/2008, -6/+3Here's an idea. He should withdraw and run as an Independent then all you Obama fans get to vote for him, all the Hillary fans can vote for Hillary and McCain wins. Looks like a win-win-win.
      • EtherGnat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+7Many people will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who they are, and the official nominee is bestowed with a tremendous amount of resources. Why would Obama, almost a shoe in for the nomination at this point, give a huge advantage to his opponent AND split the liberal vote to ensure a Republican win?

        You're an idiot, but then again I'm sure you know that.
    • JustinHopewell, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1I like how you personally addressed him, like he's here daily, checking to see what you think.
  • vladin, on 04/25/2008, -8/+23As much as I want this to be true..Buried as inaccurate
  • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -15/+5Obama is the new JFK! I remember the pictures of him fighting for civil rights in the 60's as a child along with his future wife. What a pair! He's done so much...he should be given the Nobel Prize...or something!
    • ePuck, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1I completely agree with you, although, Obama actually has better values and didn't count on the family name to get him into office. Kennedy was kind of a player I've heard. But that didn't distract him from making a lot of good decisions. And the fact that he was killed and a huge cover-up ensued shows that he was trying to make a difference for the better. Lets just hope Obama doesn't suffer the same fate
  • mrsteveman1, on 04/25/2008, -8/+20Hillary is a pandering moron:

    ""the primary reason that teenage girls abstain [from sex] is because of their religious and moral values."

    Teenagers abstain from sex because you ***** scare teh ***** out of them with your morality talk. This is nothing new, threaten people with hellfire for ***** before being married and a certain number of them won't do it. Of course, most of them don't listen, but yes, lets keep pandering to backward hicks to get elected.
    • mlrigsby, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6Teenager abstain from sex?
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Some number of them, those which are ***** scared to death of burning in hell. That doesn't last long most of the time.
      • ishotthedoor, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4By abstain I think they mean no one will go out with them
      • Griberal, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Yes, they're called Diggers.
      • EtherGnat, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8"Teenager abstain from sex?"

        It depends on what your definition of sex is, and what your definition of "is" is for that matter.
    • Griberal, on 04/25/2008, -5/+0.
    • flip2trip, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2Oh yes, let's not try to teach teenagers morality or the difference between right and wrong. I got it, let's just stop instructing our kids right out of the womb and just let the state handle raising our kids. Why is it "backward" to teach teens it's better to wait till you love someone and get married before having sex? Are you saying it's not? If you are, show some proof to back up your obtuse claim. Better yet, reserve your comments to those areas where you have some basic knowledge. By the way--just to be sure you know--you are a bigot.
      • colomboj, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1o please like anyone really loves the first person they sleep with...
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5You don't seem to understand what morality means.

        Teaching kids not to have sex until they are married isn't a moral value, it's advice, and its advice most of them don't follow anyway.

        Perhaps we should drop this whole "sex is only for those who are married" crap and simply teach kids how to not get a ***** STD....because thats what the discussion turns into most of the time, and it's more important.
        • flip2trip, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1"Teaching kids not to have sex until they are married isn't a moral value, it's advice, and its advice most of them don't follow anyway."

          mo·ral·i·ties 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality. 3. Virtuous conduct. 4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
          It's called TEACHING moral values. And just because you say teens are going to do it anyway is a very weak argument not to teach them what is right.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I should have been more specific, right and wrong in this case is defined by no one but you. You think sex before marriage is wrong, thats a RELIGIOUS BELIEF, and nothing more.

        So lets not pretend your religious beliefs should apply to everyone.
        • flip2trip, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Ahh the relative morality concept--so, is anything wrong according to you--or is it, if it feels good do it?
      • lilsis, on 04/26/2008, -0/+3sex is a good, natural thing, and it's just as fun with no emotion involved. it's not some sacred act. it's something people do, like eating delicious food, or having a good *****. there's nothing mystical about it.

        on a side note, i loved the first person i slept with, and i really, really wish i hadn't
      • gh0st3000, on 04/26/2008, -1/+2The problem isn't as much with teaching teenagers abstinence, it's when they're taught abstinence and nothing else, except maybe a description of all the terrible, life-ending STD's you could get from sex. I took a year of health in a catholic high school, and the sex ed portion could be summed up as "don't have sex cuz you'll get aids/gonorrhea/chlamydia and die, condoms fail often, and sex before marriage is a sin." Right. I feel sorry for those people if/when they do have sex and ***** up because they don't know wtf they're doing.
    • kreneskyp, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3they are scared, but not just of god. pregnancy and diseases were a much bigger concern for my highschool friends. now the big fear is going to jail and being permanently labeled as a sex offender.
    • mbraynard, on 04/26/2008, -1/+1So cruising around the middle school parking lot in your 88 Camero and tank top didn't get you any today, did it?
  • ralx, on 04/25/2008, -6/+7fanaticism is sick
  • ApolloXLII, on 04/25/2008, -8/+5yeah! beat that dead horse!!!
  • z3r0c0O1, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8Isn't the "Greatest Show on Earth" the Shield?
    • tendonut, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5I thought it was the Barnum & Bailey Circus.
    • ishotthedoor, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I hope they kill that ***** Shane soon. I miss you Lem
    • MikeFallopian, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1No, that would be The Wire
    • redfred18t, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Vic Mackey for president
  • Hetman, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8They are called superdelegates and they are going to decide who gets the nomination. That is it. Their totatal delegate count pretty much gurantee's that it will be decided by superdelegates. I agree it is flawed system but their is nothing you can do about it at this point. And hillary has until the democratic convention to sway superdelegates to vote for her.
    • netdance, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2And if the supers vote for the person with less delegates, as elected by actual voters, it's all going to end very badly for the democrats. It'll be tough to get elected as a democratic dogcatcher if that happens... and the supers know it.
  • lukeduke, on 04/25/2008, -22/+7Great, the white man is doomed, Rev. Wright as secretary of state....go ahead, digg me down.
    • Hetman, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1lol. Where do you live? I came from a small town in indiana. I am not races and 90% of the people in my small town were not racist. "10% is a big number but hey it seemed to be true in my home town. I now live downtown Chicago. And even in Chicago their is still lots of rascism towards black people. A president cannot really do anything about that. The society has the change. And that is not something that can be legislated.
      • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Black people aren't racist?
      • Hetman, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I never said they were no racist black people. And I have seen many a racist asian people also. But racism is the problem regardless of what race is being racist at the time.
        • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3But it's worse if White people are racist...because we know better.
    • uberchaoslord, on 04/25/2008, -2/+9Oh get over yourself. I'm white, and I'm happy to let whoever can compete on the basis of their skills and qualifications compete for whatever they want. I have asian, indian, african, south american and european co-workers, and they're all here because they're good at their jobs. shut your stupid racist pie-hole.
    • SketchaMPM, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1...sarcasm??
      • Moetownslick, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2if you're referring to the OP.....no, you're giving him too much credit.
    • Locnar, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Sure thing crackerman!! ;)
  • Nubli, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3I like how the picture shows her pointing.
  • CosmicJustice, on 04/25/2008, -3/+9No he isn't. Not yet.
  • urgeigh, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8Anyone else find it painful that the guy in the video makes it out to be Obama vs. "The Clintons" as if Bill is running for President ag... oh wait, never mind.
  • briankoenig03, on 04/25/2008, -2/+21I think that most anti-Obama people should read this article, just because it is VERY DIFFERENT from the previous 25 Obama articles that made the front page this week. The author obviously doesn't agree with Obama on a myriad of issues, and accuses him of being what many anti-liberal Diggers feel: that he is farther left than what a "Democratic candidate that could actually get 50%" would be.
    This particular article is not pro-Obama, but more pro-Math and anti-Spectacle. The author slams Obama on some portions, and slams the Clinton Machine as well. His point is not that Obama is a better candidate, just that he is THE candidate.
    • coffee200am, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1The Clintons should be put in prison!
      • JointVenture, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1The Republicans have been saying that for 16 years, nice of you to finally notice.
    • Hetman, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1The problem is he is assuming he knows who the superdelegates will vote for. But regardless if they have pledged to Obama they still can switch to Clinton.
    • GeekyLotus, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Heh. You are absolutely correct. I am an Obama supporter. I started out liking the article, and was bristling by the end. :-)
    • emerrill, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I don't know what article you were reading, but what I read is not what you describe. It is clearly a pro-Obama speculation. There is nothing in that article to show 'why it is over', it's just taking the current setting and trying to make a case for why Obama will win. The case could also be made (maybe a little less easily) as to why Clinton could win.
  • kneelB4zod, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4God I wish she would give up, I get the feeling the media want her to win the nomination just so they can have their comeback story and eat it. Obama just wining slowly is going to be to boring for them, just check oot CNN their now claiming she and Obama are neck and neck in Indiana.
    • ArachnidDude, on 04/25/2008, -1/+0Not me, I hope she spends every last dime learning that people just don't like her.
    • kreneskyp, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1come back story? it would be a repeat of the 2000 elections. but nonetheless they would love the juicy drama.
  • jayscot, on 04/25/2008, -11/+6Lol Obama is such a noob.
  • amaso, on 04/25/2008, -6/+1The Greatest Show on Earth? get over yourselves. you don't even know the rest of world exists. if you did you'd realize the rest of world think your a bunch of backward idiot cowboys, and one puppet leaves the whitehouse to be replaced by another puppet (-:
    • nobelief, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2where do you live? I'm not American, but you're acting like an idiot. You're no better than the people you're insulting.
  • bjs3171, on 04/25/2008, -1/+10Tomorrow's News: Hillary announces that she's actually already won.
  • jpittawa, on 04/25/2008, -7/+1Unfortunately, this is still a very much a horse race. After the Reverand Mr. Wrong is done with his publicity tour this next week, Obama will loose all but East Chicago, South Bend, and downtown Indianapolis. Darn shame, too.
    As s California Republican, I reeeealy want Obama in November. With Motor-Voter fraud running rampant here since B-1 Bob was ousted Senior Sanchez (funny her name was Irish...), McCain could have cleaned the O's clock. Too bad.
    • colomboj, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0Are you talking? I mean really I can't understand a damn word you said... All I got out of that was "very much a horse race", and to that I can say if this is a horse race clinton is riding on a horse with a broken leg, and no chance in hell of crossing the finish line alive!

      As for the Rev. I don't think you understand that NO ONE CARES anymore! It's old news! Find something new to chew on...
    • rarr, on 04/25/2008, -0/+0East Chicago? Theres a big ***** lake there
  • ncc74656m, on 04/25/2008, -0/+6Well, at least we can see who the WSJ writes to. I'm an Obama man, and it's pretty clear they're basically less-than-directly repeating the "fairy tale" claim. Not the way that the MSM interpreted it, mind you, because it wasn't quite the slap that everyone made it out to be in context. Just in that they call him some "magician" and suggest that the only reason he is where he is is because he can fundraise, as opposed to being black.

    By the by, in response to the old Hill statement of "he's where he is because he's black," she's actually right. If he were white, he'd be the nominee already.

    But this article is a little too, dare I say it, bitter (?), and too presumptive on the motives and reasoning. Now, what party elders (note lack of phrase "leaders") see, that's beyond me. What we commoners see, the voters, the blood of the party, we see hope. We see a man who is good for his word. Someone who won't be swayed by money, because we gave him his money, not AT&T, not Big Oil, not any of these major corporations.

    I also think they're being too harsh on the Clintons (not so much Hill, she's earned it), specifically the reign of King Clinton (yes, I do actually want to just crown him King and get it over with). It's also kind of funny how the writer is weeping over the fundraising tactics of the Clintons, with in-digg-nation over the price of fundraising tickets and such. Only the WSJ could cry about robbing the rich.
    • flip2trip, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1"By the by, in response to the old Hill statement of "he's where he is because he's black," she's actually right. If he were white, he'd be the nominee already"
      I'm assuming that by saying this you are reversing everything about this man? Rev. Wright becomes a white-racist pastor, Ayers becomes some white-terrorist associated with him and his cousin would be an opposition party leader connected to ethnic cleansing and to whom the 'white' Obama has openly supported in the past.
      Yes I'm sure your right. If he were white he'd be nominated by now. Really?
      • netdance, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3I still haven't seen a racist quote from Wright, you know. Angry statements decrying institutional racism, but no racists quotes. Got one?
        • ncc74656m, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Thanks for saving me all the trouble of even replying to that.
  • liquidmetalband, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Not official. Superdelegates and all kinds of fancy modifications of the patheticly complicated election system could still give Hitlery the win.
  • JointVenture, on 04/25/2008, -6/+7When the MSM says what the Obamabots want to hear they praise it, when they dont they are the MSM owned by the evil corporations.

    You guys are so *****, I hope every day for Obamas success. Its going to be a slaughter come fall.