What is Digg?117 Comments
- okayokayokay, on 04/13/2008, -4/+35I can't believe how angry this whole thing makes me. To see so many talking heads orgasming at the prospect of finally having an excuse to escalate another ratings-boosting controversy.
- allnone, on 04/13/2008, -7/+36Barack is running against two Republicans at this point. I don't any true Democrat that would destroy their party like this woman has. Barack beating this Republican in the primary's is only a glimpse of what he'll do to McCain.
- peticsu, on 04/13/2008, -5/+29I find it interesting that the people who think of themselves as warriors against political correctness are the most hypersensitive about his comments...ie: Lou Dobbs
Obama epitomizes people like Lou Dobbs, I think he is 100% accurate on his analysis of what happened in the past 25 years under the Clintons and Bushes...what really disgusts me though is how Hillary is presenting herself to uneducated voters as if she is looking out for them. - samacohen, on 04/13/2008, -2/+22While Hillary's true believers will probably justify her distorting what Obama said, I can only hope the more rational one's will finally realize who it is they are supporting. This may be a blessing in disguise, the gaffe not being Obama's for speaking honestly, but Clinton's for stooping so low as to lose a good part of her support ... we can only hope ...
If I were running the Obama campaign, I would use Clinton's exploitation of this issue in ads, speeches, and debates to expose her for what she is. - unearth, on 04/13/2008, -2/+16And every issue that comes up against Obama "just lost him the election". I heard that said about the Wright controversy, and now about Bittergate, but these issues don't even harm him. Anyone who says that they won't vote for him because of these "scandals" already wouldn't vote for him.
Informed voters care about substance, not tabloid journalism and empty attacks. - sKiLLa182, on 04/13/2008, -0/+13But he was absolutely correct on everything he said. He's only taking a beating from the spin. You're right though, he will recover.
- X0Eclipse, on 04/13/2008, -2/+14Hillary is just a Neo-Republican flip floppy bitch who's staying in the race to better mccains campaign. It makes me sick to hear her bash obama for caring about regular Americans. Obama '08!
- Elbryan233, on 04/13/2008, -0/+10That somehow makes it better?!
- jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -1/+10All he said is that when the chips are down, people cling to things. He didn't say that none of those things were worth clinging to on their own. Clearly, he's pretty big on religion himself. (and if you don't believe that, you better keep your lip zipped about Wright.)
- sKiLLa182, on 04/13/2008, -1/+10Well, go vote for another Republican or Clinton again, because they've been doing such a good job at running your country, right?
- sKiLLa182, on 04/13/2008, -1/+9So you don't think they're bitter about losing their good paying jobs 20 years ago and never having them replaced? I'd be ***** bitter. I'd lose faith in Washington too. I'd cling and strengthen my values and my community because Washington has done ***** all for me.
It's Obama's ability to see what's REALLY going on that will help him kick McCain's ass in the general election. - oblique63, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7@ Hillary:
here, have some wine... - sKiLLa182, on 04/13/2008, -0/+7The Emo video comments thread is 2 stories down.
- wtguy, on 04/13/2008, -7/+14Jane Smiley has somehow mashed together the good sense from being an Iowa girl to the good sense of being a Pulitzer Prize winner. Gee, what a talent!
- BloodWenis, on 04/13/2008, -1/+7Sweet baby Jesus, we get it: Obama is the left-wing messiah and Hillary is a lying whore. Seriously we've known that about both Clinton's since like what, 92?
...What I wouldn't give for some Ron Paul spam right about now. - StarlessKnight, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6Yeah, he messed up because he didn't say what was safe. You want candidates with no substance? Look for the ones that spout off how they'll do this, or do that, or look at their photo shoots at volunteer events, say they'll fix this and fix that, but they don't really talk about what caused "this" or "that." Why talk about what caused it? They'll fix it. Just give them four years. Then four years more. These things take time, but they promised.
If a candidate doesn't have a clue what caused a problem in the first place that they've said they'll fix, chances are they won't be able, or won't have the motivation, to fix it. - CicurateGroup, on 04/13/2008, -0/+6Hillary is a sociopath that represents the Clinton party and no other. At this point, anyone who has been brainwashed by her incendiary campaign is in dire need of help. It is beyond me how she has one follower left, but then again history has proved that some are more malleable than others (1937-45). She and her husband are corrupt to the core and have dodged criminal prosecution for far to long.
- mal1964, on 04/13/2008, -5/+10You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them.And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/356191.aspx - jellygraph, on 04/13/2008, -1/+6Have you even heard Democracy Now's interview with Lou Dobbs? He's nothing like Obama. Obama want's to bring people together to solve problems. Lou Dobb's is a media shill who is over-focusing on particular subject for a targetting audience. No comparison, what so ever.
But, yeah, Clinton is lying in the sense that she pretends to have any sympathy for the average folks. $100 milllion dollars... how could she possibly understand the average folk who is losing his/her home? - jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Yes, I was speechless watching how CNN even took a turn at calling Hillary out on this one.
- Rossphile, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Use the analogy of dodging bullets:
"You know, recently there's been some talk from Senator Clinton that I'm elitist, or I am out of touch because I misspoke in describing the frustration I've heard from voters in America's heartland. So now I'm supposed to be dodging bullets for saying what we all know is true. That's okay though, I can do that. Heck, if Senator Clinton can make up stories about dodging bullets in Bosnia, I can sure dodge her bullets for speaking the truth." - StarlessKnight, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4There are five options, right now, and it'll be down to four come November: 1. Obama, 2. Clinton, 3. McCain, 4. Independent/Other, 5. Don't vote. Now, seeing as how America needs a leader and is getting one, one way or the other, would it not make sense to vote for the person least likely to screw things up and/or most likely to make things better?
- Hetman, on 04/13/2008, -3/+7To me his speech does not matter I just have 4 questions on my mind.
1) Are we leaving Iraq within 6 months of you entering office?
2) Are you going to stop illegal immigration with tougher border security and also punishing companies that hire illegals?
3) Are you going to repel the patriot act?
4) Are you going to cut government spending?
If you said yes to all of the above I will vote for you. If not you are not getting my vote. - aussiejan, on 04/13/2008, -0/+4Idealism is defined as "The belief that ideals can be achieved, even if this does not seem likely to others.". All visionaries in history were idealistic. Vote for the ridiculed candidate if you want but the idealist is the one that could change the world.
- glibpaxman, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3It seems like the people who complain about Obamabots and accuse anyone with any sense of optimism of being brainless fanatics are also the ones who complain about government every chance they get. Are you all so cynical and (dare i say it?) bitter that you cant believe in anything anymore? Get a grip guys. McCain will take this country deeper into war debt and destroy any international goodwill left out there. Hillary is a corporate democrat, that is where her allegiance lies. Obama is funded by people like you and me, and has worked his whole life to help people like you and me. In any case, out of the three candidates that have any chance to win, Obama has the greatest potential to save America from itself. If ya'll think corporate capitalism has been good for this country, then by all means vote McCain or Clinton. Obama aint perfect, but at least his worse will be about par for the other two. His best would change the world.
- glialisback, on 04/13/2008, -1/+4Wow, two great truths in one post. Amazing. You got it so right!
- peticsu, on 04/13/2008, -1/+4Hellary can lie to your face and vote against your interests and the CNN squad will find a way to put positive spin on it. Their minds are made up. Clinton is going to coup the Democratic party.
- ZenMojo, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3Speaking of Iowa, I heard Chuck Todd make a dumbass/smartass comment about arugula again. Can someone please explain to him that it's an Iowa cash crop, not an "elitist" veggie and that mentioning it in Iowa doesn't make you a latte-liberal?
- loquax, on 04/13/2008, -1/+4I studied at Iowa State in the English Department at the same time she was there, and I read _A Thousand Acres_ also while I was there. Then I read _Moo_ and a few of her novellas. I was (and am) singularly unimpressed by her writing. In _A Thousand Acres_ she completely misrepresented the small farming communities in Iowa, basically implying that they condone incest and rape (all the time poorly cribbing Shakespeare in a heavy-handed way). I always got a sense that she was a bit of a blow-hard who loved her little hobby-horse of presenting the fly-over states to the New York crowd in clichéd ways that said New York crowd expected.
However, I’ll hand this one to her (with the exception of her undercurrent of gun-hating). Clinton and her husband have courted the very same companies and countries she is now bashing in order to become president. She courts union support while she buries her past as a Wal-Mart board member. She rails against a Columbia free-trade deal while her chief adviser and her husband both have lobbied (directly and indirectly) for the very same legislation that would open up a free-trade deal with Columbia. How many more times do we need to see her agree to one set of rules (think the Democrat’s agreements on Florida and Michigan) only to see her switch and advocate a new set of rules when the tide turned against her?
Small town America is doomed no matter who becomes President. We all know this. These small towns will become bedroom communities of larger cities, become rural slums, or become new ghost towns. I hate it, but it is going to happen. I just hope that one of the three people running will have the guts to say that the American dream as we know it is over and that it is time to create a new one. - zephyear, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3even worse, at least hillary is agreeable with on policies
- sKiLLa182, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3I will make jokes about it and digg you down because you're being ludicrous. You're taking a "***** everything" stance because you're a rebel and don't conform to society and it's views. You're too smart to believe anything those politicians say and apparently every president makes it seem like the world is ending in the eyes of someone or whatever it was you said that made absolutely no sense.
- mecharabbit, on 04/13/2008, -1/+4The attacks against Obama just show how little the truth is respected by the political establishment. The Clintonistas and the ***** would rather just blow political inertia up your ass and call it sunshine.
- micosaudad, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3Thanks for the comment. I don't take the politics part of politics seriously (especially here where most comments seem to be something like "Gobama!" or "Stupid obamatrons!" ), but I *am* interested in issues and ideas. I think if you look up what Barack said and his clarafications you'll find that he was trying to say exactly what I was writing. I didn't just make it up.
Thanks again.
Here's - bigj480, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3"Those damm Clinton backers are digging me down."
That, or people who believe in the 2nd amendment and freedom of religion. Putting down these people by making ignorant generalizations does not help Obama's cause. I'm an atheist but Obama would be terrible for the 2A, I will not vote for him. Oh yeah, I'm not "clinging" to anything, I'm standing up for what I think is right. - kavery, on 04/13/2008, -0/+3If I were on the Titanic and knew it was sinking, I'd probably be looking for a life raft rather than watching the band play on the deck.
- qwerter, on 04/13/2008, -1/+4No one knows what he stands for...except people who can read.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
(sorry, was that "elitist?") - sKiLLa182, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3So I guess you just aren't voting in this election. Might as well stay home and let the gown-ups go vote. Point being here is that you're never going to find a presidential candidate, or any candidate really, who is going to agree with everything you want. The idea is to pick whom you think is the better of the two. Only voting for a candidate who meets every single one of your questions is going to leave you with no one to vote for.
- mal1964, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Are you kidding like i was?
- Macam, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Well, to Meekus' credit, he gave you exactly what you asked for, BloodWenis.
- nutniqs, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Nothing can be worse than it is right now, i.e. running the country into the ground.
- micosaudad, on 04/13/2008, -3/+5So let's have a chat. I come from the South and I confess that I never understand why rural people constantly vote Republican when it is clear to me that they should be more liberal than I am. So in that, Barack and people like me are trying to understand our fellow Americans.
And like racial tensions where several hazily defined groups lack a perceived 'common understanding', there is bitterness to go around (like when our president has sex in the oval office flagrantly debasing the position, or when Bush gets elected even though it's clear to people like me that he's going to be a horrible president). Sometimes that bitterness comes out. It sometimes comes out as elitist or snobbish (I've been accused of that with some validity, I hate to admit), and sometimes it comes out as intolerance and bullying ("why do you hate America?","Love it or Leave It")
So with that said, can we just accept right now that people like Barack and me are just trying to understand things. So let's get to the issue at hand:
"So now, Barack Obama tells the truth about conditions as we know them--that the countryside and the small towns are dying in many places in our country, and that the corporatocracy doesn't care enough to do a thing about it. He points out that immigrant-baiting, gay-baiting, gun-baiting, and religious pandering have helped to destroy those towns and that countryside, that those being destroyed have been cynically enlisted by their very own destroyers to provide the votes that help accomplish the destruction."
This is what Barack meant to say, can we just agree on that and forget the condescending overtones. All politicians have at least a little bit of that.
1.) Hillary insulted everyone in Mississippi (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/10/hillar ... and
2.) McCain joked about bombing Iran, singing "bomb bomb Iran"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg)
All three of these events portray a candidate having a momentary lack of empathy.
Can we not focus on red vs. blue or Obama vs. Clinton. Let's talk about how and why Americans vote the way that they do. I don't understand why anyone would vote for anyone based on 'values' issues (on either side) right now when there are issues that are so much more important (from my perspective anyway) that a majority of Americans agree on and can do something about (education, infrastructure, balancing the budget, financial responsibility, health care reform, fixing our breaking military, etc.).
So help me understand and maybe we can work out some sort of priority list for things we the people want to get done in the next 8 years.
Let's forget this Obama vs Hillary, red-blue, distract vs evade *****. Excuse my french. - starkruzr, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2Obama said something that was true but politically incorrect and is paying for it. It's okay, he'll bounce back.
- jforjools, on 04/13/2008, -2/+4I actually thought that Obama's response was much better than Jane Smiley's. I don't know that her tone is very helpful in this case.
- Macam, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2I think peticsu just made a typo and meant to say that "Obama's comments [the ones in question] epitomizes people like Lou Dobbs...", not that Obama is like Dobbs any shape, way, or form.
- bigj480, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2 Hillary is just a typical white person. So, since she is racist, I wouldn't vote for her. What a uniter!
- mal1964, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2"This is what Barack meant to say"
It never was a big deal to me, This is digg and i don't take politics seriously on digg it doest matter here.Don't get me wrong i love digg since 2005 but mostly for fun and to learn a few things.
Your quote is what you think, You cant speak for Obama you don't know what he meant only he does - mecharabbit, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2 Just today, I read an article about his intention to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. Would Clinton or McCain dare to take that position? And this is only one of many examples.
- koenkai, on 04/13/2008, -1/+3JointVenture: Did you actually read the transcript of what he said--in the context of his entire statement? I'm tired of the media and individuals misrepresenting statements for a political agenda...if you want to read ALL of what Obama said, you can: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama ... (scroll to the bottom). You'll see what he actually said is that individuals in small town America are being oppressed and beaten down by a system that has forgotten them and is neglecting them. I know of a lot of people in small towns across this nation that would simply nod and agree with that sentiment.
Obama isn't faultless. Far from it. But at least he does speak his mind and doesn't pander to the latest political winds (ala Hillary's stance on illegal immigration/driver's license in NY, McCain's stance on religious zealotry in the form of the fundamentalist right--come on John--embracing Mr. Falwell, when you accused him of being an agent of Intolerance in the previous election?)...and for being honest about what we face in this country. So for being honest, he's an "elitist" and "out of touch?" Which candidates are really the ones who are out of touch here?
I'm not saying cut Obama any slack, but at least hold everyone else to the same standards. I have no idea why McCain can get away with what he does (Shia and Sunni *are* different, Mr. McCain...or his famous "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" witicism), nor why it is that Hillary can blatantly tell a lie and it die down in a week. Obama, however, is held liable for what his former pastor has said in the past. I don't know about you, but I've been to church on more than one occasion and had the pastor say something I disagreed with. Does the fact that he said it mean that I *must* agree with him, and thus be held accountable for it? Hardly. Add to that the fact that the "controversy" *still* is given air time...well, at least Bill is helpfully reminding the public of his wife's mis-spoken comments...and the fact that she's 60, and tends to forget details...someone from the Hillary camp really needs to get him to pipe down.
And, yes, I am an independent. But that means I also have been listening to each side and actually have been taking the time to track down what they've been saying -- in context -- as well as looking up their voting records via the Congressional Record. It's surprising--and somewhat sad. McCain has missed more votes (313--or 57.5% of all votes) than everyone in the Senate -- including the Senator from South Dakota...who was out for half the year due to a stroke (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/se ... On an aside: Hill actually does better than Obama here, missing 28.9% of the votes compared with Obama's 39.2%. The part where Hillary doesn't win: the substance of the bills she's introduced. Look it up. Then compare it to Obama's. You might be somewhat surprised that a Senator who's been in the Senate for a shorter duration has a record that actually seems more comprehensive, more inclusive, and more impactful than those introduced by the Senator from New York. - bigj480, on 04/13/2008, -0/+2No? ;)
- bcclist, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2So, what did he say that was inaccurate? Take a field trip to Manchester, Michigan if you want to see some genuinely bitter people frustrated about plants moving out of their previously self sustaining village.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is