What is Digg?10 Comments
- tcbishop12, on 05/22/2008, -0/+13Averaging the percentage that each candidate received from women voters in the states, the two Democratic candidates were only three points apart (46.6% for Obama, 49.6% for Clinton). Sen. Obama won the women's vote in 13 states, compared to 16 for Clinton -- and that's not counting the caucuses where he won decisively, including among women.
So -- intelligent women can now indeed come together in support of the Democratic nominee and set an example of unity to build a stronger party that draws on the unprecedented turnout in the primaries among African-Americans, women of all races, young people and others who have too long been left out of political decision-making. Such a coming together will not only power an election victory for Obama in the fall, but lay the groundwork for significant social change in the coming years.
Sen. Obama stands on issues important to women, from fair pay to reproductive justice to support for paid sick days and paid family leave. These are strikingly similar to Sen. Clinton's positions. He'll be not just on the right side but a champion for gender justice. Above all, he has shown his commitment and ability to galvanize grassroots movements -- the key to moving women's social agenda forward. - jimchap, on 05/22/2008, -2/+7so the huffpo is no longer valid? Must be a Hillite. Isn't there a self validating site for Hillary? No? Oh yeah, because she's crazy.
- sandbun, on 05/23/2008, -1/+4I'm hardly a Hilite. I'm just sick of people who support a certain candidate only reading stories that support that candidate. People have a chance to really be educated about the candidates and not be just stuck with what the news organizations tell us to believe, and what do people do? Only go to sites/read articles that show support for their own candidate. People are purposely blinding themselves because it's easier that way. And if you cry out against it you're buried so that people don't have to read comments that don't support what they already believe (it's one thing to bury comments that are worthless or inaccurate or insulting, it's another to bury them because you don't want to hear that view point)
- geneikillua, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3This is a viewpoint most diggers and most Americans would be behooved to adopt.
- sandbun, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1Arianna Huffington certainly has a right to support whom she chooses, but if she wants to pretend that her site is a news site she should at least instruct her writers to present both sides of the story, not just the one that supports her own view. And if she's unwilling to do that much then I do believe that articles from that site should be largely ignored/buried in favor of site that do at least attempt to bring some balance. I'm not saying they have to promote Clinton's case, but just present it.
- EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -0/+1There is no doubt that Huffington Post is pro-Obama; Arianna Huffington her self has publicly stated that she supports Obama. So yes when reading Huffington Post articles one needs to keep this in mind. It does not, however, invalidate the value of some of the articles nor should there be any apologies for their being biased towards Obama. Unlike some mainstream media outlets, Huffington Post doesn't pretend to be fair and balanced.
An nomination and election process is a public debate about who should lead our country. Huffington Post and Arianna Huffington should not have to apologize for stating their case as to why they think Obama should get the nomination. Nor should they have to apologize for debunking or countering Clinton campaign positions, claims or attacks.
It is not up to Obama supporters or the Huffington Post to state or promote Clinton's case. It is the responsibility of Clinton and her supporters to press their case. The problem is rather than focusing on issues, Clinton and her supporters have preferred to play the victim by claiming sexism is the reason for Obama's success, while at the same time pandering to racial fears with phrases like "hard working, white Americans." I personally find Clinton's conduct in this campaign highly insulting and disingenuous. - sandbun, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Let's not kid ourselves, every Huffington Post article is pro-Obama, either directly or through tearing down the other candidates, and thus will be dugg by many Obama fans. The problem I have is even if an article is written about the same subject as the Huffington article but by a less biased, or at least less openly biased journalist, it's the Huffington Post one that ends up on the front page. Clearly even if you don't digg every Huffington article a lot of people are for the exact reason I'm denouncing it - it's just a validation of what they already believe so they like it.
Let's just look at this particular article, one which you dugg so you must believe that it contributes to the greater discussion. In this article, the author rails against women who state such things as "Try winning in November without them (women)!" but also acknowledges that Obama supporters are saying such things as "We don't need you...leave the party and shut the hell up!". Shouldn't the article then reflect more of a feeling that people on both sides have to grow up, rather than just 4 sentences (e of them quotes from other people) acknowledging that Obama supporters can act the same way, and then the rest of the article claiming that women who refuse to vote for Obama are "prattling like menopausal nutcases"?
Or how about this line "I'm an Obama supporter"? Usually when a journalist says something openly biased like that it's followed by a "but" and then something negative about their side. This writer follows it with a period and then continues the attack on the other side. Rather than give both sides to the story and allow for the fact that many women do feel the the Obama campaign has been sexists or racist and that there is reason for that or do feel that Obama isn't qualified, she declares women who feel like that are just throwing a "temper tantrum" like a toddler.
Don't get me wrong, you are free to digg whatever stories you like. I don't have any desire to tell you what stories you should or should not digg. You can make up your own mind. But just as you are free to digg what you like, I am allowed to decide that all articles from a new group so openly and proudly biased are crap and to complain about the type of people who would digg those articles up. - NoDrama, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1Well, I thought it was a Huffeminism story myself, but I guess when you expect to see it as about Obama it will be.
- EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -3/+1You should not assume that we digg every story we read. Nor should you assume that just because it is a Huffington Post article that it will automatically get dugg by Obama supporters. There are many Huff Posts articles that I don't digg (even pro-Obama articles) because I don't think they contribute to the greater discussion. Likewise, here are many pro-Obama stories from other sources that I read but don't digg and there pro-other candidate stories that I read but don't digg. There are even 2008 election articles that I digg that have absolutely nothing to do with Obama.
One reason we are seeing so many Huffington Post articles is because they are so prolific on the subject of the Democratic nomination process and there are a lot of people who are interested in this subject. - sandbun, on 05/22/2008, -8/+2Oh good, another HuffingObama story, because I cry out against the biased media, unless it's biased in a way that I like. I also can't handle views that conflict with mine, so I stick to articles written by people who agree with me and then like to think I'm well read on the candidates.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is