digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at nysun.com

Obama Could WIn New York City!

nysun.com — A WNBC/Marist poll released last week found that although Mrs. Clinton had a 47% to 31% lead over Mr. Obama among likely New York State voters, he was far closer in New York City, drawing 39% of likely voters versus 43% for Senator Clinton. In recent weeks, Mr. Obama's support has been surging among black voters, a demographic he won 4 to 1 in SC.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jphicks, on 01/29/2008, -11/+69The Clinton's created this themselves and have no one else to blame. I don't see them recovering from the "The Bill Show" that was so detrimental to the last two primary's.
    • SwordofKahless, on 01/29/2008, -24/+6I do not like Clinton or Obama, but clearly the media has manufacturered this whole Bill - Obama drama. It really makes no difference since considering the high cost of living in and around NYC, the middle class fall into the Obama-Hillary wealthy category that are going to be ass raped if either one of these Communists takes the presidency.
      • johnhummel, on 01/29/2008, -1/+17I know what you mean - it's all the media's fault! They *made* Bob Kerry tell people "It's great the people are willing to vote for a guy who's middle name is Hussein".

        Or when they *forced* the Clinton campaign to sent ouf fliers in NH that said he *really wasn't* pro-choice because he voted "present" - totally ignoring that under Illinois senate rules, "present" means "No", and that he did this under the idea of Planned Parenthood to help support other pro-choice senators in risky districts.

        Or how the media made Bill Clinton compare Obama's campaign to Jesse Jacksons, thereby explaining that, well, South Carolina just voted for the black guy because that's what they do, so SC doesn't matter.

        The media must have also forced the Clinton campaign to take Obama's comment in 2004, that he "agreed with Bush on Iraq", and ignore the rest of the statement of "That we can't pull out right this second - but I wouldn't have authorized them to go into Iraq in the first place."

        Dang the media for making the Clintons say these things! Damn them! Damn them to heeeeeelllllllll!
        • deanlowe, on 01/29/2008, -4/+1I didn't see Obama dispute the argument about Iraq when Clinton repeated it to him.
          You can't really say that SC is representative of the whole country. The US is not 50% black. And why would you take offense to being compared to Jesse Jackson? He did win the state, twice?
          Stop whining about the present votes. He's the one that made them and he's the one that has to tell people what he meant by them before other people did. He ignored it and is now whining about how other people are misunderstanding him. Get your side of the story out earlier and that wouldn't have happened.
          His name IS Hussein, if he has a problem with people repeating it then change it. If he's so f'ing inclusive why is he afraid of people saying that his name is Hussein?
          I have yet to see in the media who used "the race card" first. Obama kept comparing himself to MLK. Clinton then came back with LBJ was the one that sign the Civil Rights Act into law. Then somebody said she was putting down MLK and what he did. Then other people said "fairytale" was a racist word. Then supporters on both sides went nuts. All the while the media just kept on poking at both sides with stupid questions just to see if they can keep the fight going.
          • johnhummel, on 01/29/2008, -3/+2I don't see you actually reading and understanding, instead of making the exact same arguments and ignoring the informaiton.

            "Stop whining about the present votes. He's the one that made them and he's the one that has to tell people what he meant by them before other people did. He ignored it and is now whining about how other people are misunderstanding him. Get your side of the story out earlier and that wouldn't have happened."

            What a crock of *****. Here, let me do this.

            You're mom's a whore. What, you say she's not? Stop whining - get your side of the story out earlier and people wouldn't assume you're mom's a whore.

            See how that works?
          • deanlowe, on 01/29/2008, -3/+1If my mom looked or acted like a whore than people would tend to believe you but anyone who's seen her knows that can't be the case because she doesn't look or act like a whore. Obama can't say that about his present votes.

            Idiot.

            p.s. Digg's comment system sucks.
      • nirav72, on 01/29/2008, -4/+8Right. as if the middle class hasn't been "ass raped" already by the current administration and republicans in general.
        • SwordofKahless, on 01/29/2008, -10/+3It will get much worse under the Democrats since they insist on raising taxes on the middle class.
          • nirav72, on 01/29/2008, -4/+9"It will get much worse under the Democrats since they insist on raising taxes on the middle class."

            Versus spending almost a $700 billion on a worthless war. Passing a stimulus package with money we don't have. Lowering interest rates with a knee jerk reaction instead of cut spending, forgetting that we're facing the biggest inflationary period in the past 26 years. Did I mention blowing a budget surplus and putting us in the red every fiscal year since 2001? Does the term "You broke it, you bought it" make sense to you?
        • dshPls, on 01/29/2008, -4/+1At least the republicans don't usually act like they care about the middle class, I only say "usually" because it's an election year. The middle class is a *****-hole anyway, and I plan on ascending out of it. If you don't want the same future, you may want to vote for democrats.
          • nirav72, on 01/30/2008, -1/+3Good luck with that. Every american wants out of the middle class
          • dshPls, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1And that's what the American dream is. With some luck, hard work and innovative ideas anyone can change their destiny, most just choose to accept the government support and are too lazy or scared to change. I'm not trying to be elitist, but elitism is required for capitalism.
      • warriorscot, on 01/30/2008, -3/+3In the rest of the western world we call Obama and Clinton pretty firm conservatives, even border line unelectable so many modern European nations, so to call them communist a very extreme form of socialist is laughable at best and makes you look like and utter idiot. The republican extremism would not even get close to the government in most countries I can think of they would be a laughing stock chucked in with the nationalists and hard core socialists.

        America is behind the times the rest of the west has shown a consensus that the best way to govern is with a moderate hand and to show that you are capable of compromise in order to best give what the people want/need not what you think they do.
    • OwdenBowden, on 01/29/2008, -19/+4Obama = Politics as usual.

      Don't believe the hype. Don't believe the Race Card. Stop getting smoke blown up your ass.
      • nirav72, on 01/29/2008, -3/+2Yes..I rather blow smoke up my ass then out of my ass.
      • chaosium, on 01/29/2008, -3/+7Paul is a failure. Deal with it now, or deal with it later when your wallet is that much lighter.
      • sponeil, on 01/29/2008, -1/+7Your post is misguided. We don't believe the hype. We don't believe the race card. We simply feel he'd be a few orders of magnitude better than Hillary. So unless we want to vote Republican (which we don't), or unless we want her to win, we vote Obama.
        • kfed2, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1I voted Ron Paul even though I always figured he would lose. I wanted as many people as possible to use this primary to make a statement to the GOP that goes something like "we want less war, more freedom, and stop ignoring your oaths to support the Constitution." Win or lose, we have already been heard. That is a success to me. I will likely vote Obama or 3rd party in the general.
    • novakane, on 01/29/2008, -1/+12I would suggest it's more than that. I think people are truely inspired to move beyond the negative history of US politics. Her attempts to slander Barak have driven undecided voters to Barak because he is trying to run a generally clean campaign, aside from the wal-mart zinger. ;)
    • EditorResponse, on 01/29/2008, -5/+1Cut and paste the two sections if you want the story:

      rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/
      daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

      It is not even close: In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it’s now Hillary Clinton 41%, Barack Obama 32% and John Edwards 18%
      • scottc, on 01/29/2008, -2/+3The article is about New York City, not a nationwide poll. Besides, in the poll you linked to it IS close: 41% to 32% with a 4% margin of error, and none of those polls were taken after the SC election. Plus the no one knows what the Edwards delegates will do. This race is a long, long way from being decided.
        • EditorResponse, on 01/29/2008, -4/+1It has a long way to go but it is over for Obama: New York Democratic Presidential Primary New York: Clinton 51% Obama 30%

          Hillary Clinton has a twenty-one point lead over Barack Obama in New York State. It’s Clinton 51% Obama 30%. John Edwards picks up 10% of the vote.

          Clinton leads Obama by twenty-eight points among women and by nine points among men likely to vote in New York’s Democratic Presidential Primary. The former First Lady leads among virtually all demographic groups except the highly divisive(ed.) African-American voters.

          The page truncates...so cut and paste if you want story:
          www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/
          2008_presidential_election/new_york/
          election_2008_new_york_democratic_presidential_primary
    • kipmartin, on 01/29/2008, -3/+2thats the second time this week ive seen the term 'communist'. are the republicans so desparate that they have to go back and dig up that old skeleton? i thought the great and mighty republican demigod ronald reagan purged the world of marxism!

      next you repubs will revisit the mccarthy hearings and create a new house unamerican activities commity and start calling hollywood pinkos and queers.

      im a moderate independent but im getting tired of you Angry White Guys. you have resentments that border on the pathological. deal with the fact that like communism, neoconservatism failed miserably and and made you Angry White Guys obsolete. even your candidates are embarrassed to be associated with you.

      what ever happened to republicans like dole, goldwater, and that liberal lincoln? even nixon would be ashamed of you losers.
  • RansomHoldiay, on 01/29/2008, -11/+78Feb 5th can't come fast enough for Hillary. The O-Train is coming.
    • swrostmore, on 01/29/2008, -5/+38"I'm gonna show her my O-Train. Oh! Oh! Oh!"
      • aliengoods, on 01/29/2008, -1/+20My O-Train is a model train /weeps into hands
        • macbookpromat, on 01/29/2008, -1/+7It's ok, at least yours isn't a Lego replica of the thing....
        • spidoman, on 01/29/2008, -1/+9Generally we don't call it weeping.
    • hater2win, on 01/29/2008, -2/+7http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/pigface/Huh/o-fac ...
    • rz8472, on 01/29/2008, -2/+11Obama won't win New York since it is Clinton home turf. BUT it's surprising that he's only behind by 16%, since he's AHEAD of Clinton by 25-30% in his own home state of Illinois.
      • SuperCow1127, on 01/29/2008, -2/+14Every time someone refers to New York as "Hilliary's home turf," my stomach turns. She moved into a house in Chappaqua (that federal tax dollars are paying for) so she could run for president as a senator from New York. Everyone was screaming it when she moved here, but she kept insisting that she just wants to do what's best for the people of New York. Go back to Arkansas, you lying bitch. You were never, and will never be, a New Yorker.
        • deanlowe, on 01/29/2008, -2/+1With the trouble Democrats have of getting southern voters wouldn't it be easier to run as an Arkansas senator?
        • kipmartin, on 01/29/2008, -2/+1like being a New Yorker is a good thng?
    • virtualme7, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Haha, dream on w/ Obama winning New York. Won't get California either. Definitely won't win a general election. I know how you diggers like to root for the underdog, but everyone knows he won't win. Want more proof. It's coming on Feb. 5th
  • jhuckabee, on 01/29/2008, -11/+78Obama FTW on Feb 5th!
    • tman84, on 01/29/2008, -18/+5Ron Paul story got 15 buries and was removed with 400 diggs. Obama story had 23 buries after 322 diggs.
      Censorship FTL
      • macbookpromat, on 01/29/2008, -6/+13Go cry for Ron Paul elsewhere please, as far as I know he wasn't mentioned in this story...
      • reed311, on 01/29/2008, -3/+5It's because the same few people are digging all the Ron Paul stories. Mostly through spamming via the ronpaulforums.com
  • victorsanval, on 01/29/2008, -21/+4wow, very interesting.

    I fell Obama wins: Georgia, Illinois, Alabama, Tenessee, Missouri and Massachusetts.

    And Compite to California and NY
    • GrammarNazi3000, on 01/29/2008, -5/+11Wow! Very* feel* will win:*

      (I will not bother with the last line.)
    • kipmartin, on 01/29/2008, -0/+0ESL. Look into it.
    • solidus636, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1You fell? Get back up...
  • thegonzogrift, on 01/29/2008, -6/+77I hope this ends up being the case. I'd like to see what Clinton's reaction would be if she lost in Democratic caucus in her own damn state.
    • CTK14A, on 01/29/2008, -1/+15Probably the same as Edwards'.
      • Pake, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Edwards losing in NC wouldn't be that big of a deal. He's pretty well hated in this state.
    • TiMMY8765, on 01/29/2008, -2/+31well obviously she'd cry
      • cfdude, on 01/29/2008, -4/+7Snakes don't have tear ducts..
        • nirav72, on 01/29/2008, -1/+9Yes, but they have venom. Hillary probably still has some tricks in her bag.
    • Humptydank, on 01/29/2008, -2/+20As a NYC resident, I can say that this isn't too much of a surprise.

      NYC is far more liberal than the rest of the state, and Clinton has pretty much ignored us during her term as senator. As does Schumer and as have all NY senators that preceded them. They all know that NYC doesn't drive results in the state, and Clinton has pursued the smart strategy of being "Senator Pothole" for upstate. If you sneeze upstate Clinton is standing in front of you with a Kleenex before you open your eyes. She's well appropriately well-respected for the work she's done.

      If she loses in NY, it won't be because of New York City.
      • mcduckov, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1Yeah, NYC gets shafted by the Feds {eyeroll}.
      • phrstbrn, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2As an upstate New Yorker, I would go as far as to say she hasn't done anything for the entire state. All I've seen is grandstanding and attacking Bush these past 7 years, while New York's has been sinking like a rock the entire time.

        And then go back to the 2006 senate re-election. There was speculation that she might bid on the 2008 presidential election. She, of course, claimed she had no intentions of running for president and would fulfill the remainder of her term. That didn't last long.

        I can't but help think that running for New York senator was a well thought out plan from the Clintons that may have gone back all the way to 2000. The only connection Clinton had to New York was a vacation home in upstate New York that was acquired during Bill Clinton's presidency (which they visited once a year).

        I could go on about senate campaign promises that she went back on once she got elected, but I need not go there. Hillary just sickens me.
        • poxonyou, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2"I can't but help think that running for New York senator was a well thought out plan from the Clintons that may have gone back all the way to 2000."

          Of course it was a plan. Do you think she just loved New York so much, a state she never really lived in? People suspected it was part of a plan for her to run for president when she first ran in NY. But, people fall for this ***** all the time.
      • Humptydank, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Sure, it was clearly a plan, but part of that plan was to have an excellent record as a Senator from New York to run on.

        I'm no expert on the issues she focused on; I'm a typical NYC resident who thinks that the only thing north of NYC is Connecticut, but what I have seen are the grudging reviews from the papers, and even more cynical sources like "Inside Albany," that are always along the lines of "in yet another blatant attempt to toady to her constituency, Hillary Clinton has handled something well..."

        Again, I oppose her for President, but I just don't think it's necessary to misrepresent her record as part of the process, and I don't think it's fair that when somebody does something right she can't catch a break.
    • dood, on 01/29/2008, -2/+1This is about New York City. Winning it doesn't matter, if you lose New York State. The comment says that she's polled to win the state.
      • scottc, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2It matters for the delegates that represent NYC.
    • zachgc, on 01/29/2008, -2/+8Do you get the feeling that the whole reason why Hillary became a New York Senator was so she could "lock up" the NYC voters with relatively little effort?
    • kreneskyp, on 01/29/2008, -0/+13NY is not Hillary's state. Hillary only moved to NY so she could run for senate. remember those "35 years of experience"? None of them were spent in NY. The only thing of hillary's that spent time there was her mailing address.
      • unitedskates, on 01/29/2008, -4/+2Actually, 8 of those have been... maybe your should read more
      • SuperCow1127, on 01/29/2008, -1/+10...and the only reason she ran for senate was to run for president. I just don't understand how everyone is falling for her little game.
        • DephexTwin, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1I know! It's like a car accident that is happening in EXTREMELY slow motion.....
      • mcduckov, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Chuck Schumer has the look and feel of a New Yawka. Hillary never had that and never will. She won because Rick Lazio was an absolute tool.
      • Laminarcissus, on 01/29/2008, -1/+0look i don't support Hillary or even like her, but even I have to agree with very nearly everyone else in one of the most politically snarky states in the country: she's been a very effective Senator for New York, especially as a freshman.

        I don't want her to be President, and i don't think her success in New York woudl translate to president, but that's no reason to make things up.
  • zheisey, on 01/29/2008, -21/+45Anyone but Hillary '08
    • noahsawyer, on 01/29/2008, -3/+22Anyone?!
    • omnithought, on 01/29/2008, -5/+33I don't like her either, but Huckabee over her? I'm more like anyone but Huckabee.
      • macbookpromat, on 01/29/2008, -2/+4The guy is just as ***** insane as Tom Cruise...
      • RoroCo, on 01/29/2008, -2/+12If it is Huckabee and Clinton, I just might have to go out and buy some Nader 08 bumper stickers....
        • carpespasm, on 01/29/2008, -1/+5if that's the choices, I'll be seeing what kind of jobs the Canucks need filled and apply for citizenship.
    • RRJackson, on 01/29/2008, -8/+1Don't worry. It will end up being a Republican. Ma and Pa Kettle aren't going to vote for either a woman, but they also aren't going to vote for a black man with an Islamic last name. Welcome to Mitt Romney's America.
      • powerfullogic, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2I'm most worried about California. I don't want Hillary to be Prez.
        • RRJackson, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1She won't. Neither Clinton or Obama have a chance.
      • siszam, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2Not everyone is as ignorant as you RRJackson.
        • poxonyou, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1*****. meant to digg you up. sorry.
  • 7Mystery, on 01/29/2008, -8/+51YES, WE CAN!
    • blackjack75, on 01/29/2008, -2/+7Compare this to Bush's slogan for his campaign in New Orleans: "Yeah, we could".
  • wonderchemist, on 01/29/2008, -14/+2a
  • Beson669, on 01/29/2008, -26/+6No wai Obama is winning among the blacks?! GTFO
  • HenvY, on 01/29/2008, -24/+107Hillary Clinton must be kept out of the white house at all costs, even if it means McCain. She is an egocentric megalomaniac who cares not for the American people but only for her own empowerment. This is a woman who will let crocodile tears rain from her eyes to gain a female sympathy vote in a state where she was about to lose on the issues, and then accuse her opponent of campaigning on race. This is a woman who will tell blatent lies to the media and voting public about what her opponent has said, and then lie some more to cover it up. This is a woman who has convinced the public she is the candidate of experience when she has no more than her opponents. John Milton once said 'Necessity, the tyrants plea' and there is no candidate in this race who thinks themselves more necessary than Hillary. I realise i'm probably preaching to the choir here, but everybody who agrees with what I say needs to spread the message - Hillary will be a disaster for America. End the Bush-Clinton era NOW.
    • MrFlesh, on 01/29/2008, -8/+17No Mcain is not a choice his, "There will be more wars." And his Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran" jingle needs to be avoided at all costs.
      • petrodollar, on 01/29/2008, -1/+3You think America will never go to war again EVER?
        • carpespasm, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Yeah, we probably will, but it'd be nice to have a president who's trying to prepare and implement the alternative rather than hedging our nation's bets on spreadin' freedom like peanut butter.
        • MrFlesh, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1War is a racket.....the people of countries have no reason to go to war....the corporations, politicians and uncontroled governments do.
    • TheDreadDiggerD, on 01/29/2008, -5/+6So she really is a woman and not a reptilian overlord like Condi.
    • shartman, on 01/29/2008, -4/+5And this is how much different than our current President??????
      "egocentric megalomaniac who cares not for the American people but only for her own empowerment."
      "who will tell blatent lies to the media"
      • smokeymcdank, on 01/29/2008, -2/+5That is not the correct distinction. Compare with Obama
      • DephexTwin, on 01/29/2008, -1/+4Yes... that is the ***** point.
    • nirav72, on 01/29/2008, -3/+13What troubles me about Hillary, is that she has gone about life thinking with the arrogant assumption that the white house is hers and its her destiny. Those type of individuals will do anything to get there. I rather have a leader that grew up while never once thinking that he would be president one day, yet decided to step up to the plate when he thought that he could somehow help the country with his ideas.
      • thedragon4453, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I completely agree. Someone so power hungry should be kept the ***** away from it.
    • Marvelboy, on 01/29/2008, -2/+7While I think you go a bit overboard with your argument, I agree vehemently with the last statement. As a 22 year old I've never been conscious of a leader that wasn't a Bush or a Clinton.
    • wmtyrance, on 01/29/2008, -3/+3Totally agree with you The Billary Clinton show must be stopped or we're really screwed.
    • bjs3171, on 01/29/2008, -5/+7hmm...i think you're coming off a bit strong. I'm for Obama, but I'd much rather have Hillary than any republican. She's not THAT different from Obama, policy-wise.
    • LtJimDangle2, on 01/29/2008, -3/+8I don't particularly like Hillary, however, if she is the democratic nominee I will support her. Any of the rethuglicans are far, far, far worse than any of the democrats.
    • youasmedia, on 01/30/2008, -4/+4dugg for not mentioning ron paul, even once.
    • warriorscot, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2Have to say I don't like the woman, I liked bill back in the day because he was at least a real person he had a sense of humour and flaws and wasn't ashamed of them, its why he came over so well to other nations and really did a great job in promoting the US to the world. His wife seems to have none of those qualities she seems to have enough brains but she has no charisma like her husband he was a natural leader like Blair was they were both imperfect and made some mistakes but they had a quality to them you could respect.
    • Malevolant, on 01/30/2008, -3/+1Oh yes and Obama has an entire 3 years of experience in the senate plus a few more in local level gov't.
      He's so much more experienced.
      He gives good speeches and wrote some books, but now he is the second coming, our only savior.
      Mark my words on this. Hilary will get the nomination. I'm not voting for her, or anyone else for that matter, but that is what will happen.
      I also love all of the Florida spin. No one campaigned yet Obama was owned by Clinton. That is a BIG DEAL no matter how you all chose to spin it.
      I realize most of you are teens and early twenties so one must take that into account when reading all of the politically ignorant comments. You people are the worst cheerleaders I've ever seen and you know it all too. The only people you can convince are your weak-minded friends.
      Ron Paul used to be big here and as soon as you all saw he had no chance you moved on to Obama.
      Obama will meet the same fate as Ron Paul so when that happens who will you vote for?

      P.S. Please don't give me ***** about voting for none of the above because, regardless of what b.s. you're fed, your vote doesn't count.
      If that was the case then Al Gore would have been president due to him having more votes than Bush. The electoral college votes in the president not us.
  • suzywang3000, on 01/29/2008, -39/+1nothing surprising here... we all know NY is chock-a-block full of socialists.

    we're all gonna die, but at least old people and lazy, fat people will be cared for.
    • Shiftgood, on 01/29/2008, -1/+25I really dont get it.... we've had a republican in the house for 8 years now (which apparently is what you want) and look at our economy.

      what... what are your standards? I mean... are you even paying attention at all? i really just dont get it.... how do you exist outside of reality. who are you people?!
      • soot, on 01/29/2008, -1/+14The 19 percent that still thinks the country is on the right track, apparently.
      • suzywang3000, on 01/29/2008, -12/+0uh... those aren't republicans, homeboy. and the economy's woes are the result of 50+ years of credit expansion. notwithstanding that fact, you can't expect me to believe that a socialist will do any better. how did the Soviet state ever come to grief?
        • Shiftgood, on 01/29/2008, -1/+10what? george bush isnt a republican?

          i give up.
        • petrodollar, on 01/29/2008, -1/+9"how did the Soviet state ever come to grief?"

          They blew their money on wasteful and pointless military buildup. Kinda like Republicans have been doing lately.
    • petrodollar, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2New Yorkers are a lot of things for fat and lazy aren't two of them.
    • MrTito, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Why do you hate America?
    • pineutrino, on 01/30/2008, -0/+4Ah yes, "socialism", the generic, one-size-fits-all political insult, usually from the right wing. Come on, you can do better than that. Be more specific.
  • rossnyc, on 01/29/2008, -9/+27NYC is much different than upstate NY. Many more immigrants/minorites here. Obama will do more for the immigrants and minorities than any other president.
    • eryximachus, on 01/29/2008, -8/+18I'm curious, what do you expect Obama will do for these immigrants and minorities? Also, I'm a bit adverse to the word "minority". We should keep such terms in a global context; white people are the only minorities on this planet, being a mere 6% of the world's population.
      • nirav72, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2So true.
      • petebot, on 01/29/2008, -2/+8Yes, we all know Obama's running for president of the world!
      • rossnyc, on 01/29/2008, -3/+4You may be a bit "adverse" to the term minority but it's the term that has been used for a very long time to describe people who aren't white here in the U.S.. I think we all know we're talking about the minorities of the U.S. so in the context of the main comment, it was used accurately. No need to be "adversely" politically correct here.

        Also, I'm not saying Obama is going to do all this magical stuff for the minorities/immigrants. But he is a minority and all I'm saying is he'll get the majority of the minority vote. That's why he will prob win NYC.
      • aliengoods, on 01/29/2008, -3/+1That's a great point. So why in the hell do so many non-white immigrate to countries that are predominately white? Seriously, I'm curious as to the motivations (all I can figure is more jobs).
        • clockdist, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2simple... Money money money!
        • carpespasm, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2the same people all the white people moved here, to get the hell away from all the nutjobs who were getting packed to tight together in their old country and started inquizitions, witch hunts, jihads, etc... to thin out the population some. Only problem is now we have run out of planet to move to.
          That and the money. At least until we tank and everyone starts moving wherever else is has the following criteria: Easy to get to, High standard of living, stable, good civil liberties. Watch out scandanavia!
      • blackjack75, on 01/29/2008, -2/+7Huh.. not to sound picky but white people are about 6% of the population of which world exactly?

        According to wikipedia : (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe)
        The population of Europe, not including Russia is about 0.7 billion people of which my own eyes assure me the vast majority is as white as can be. Factor in Russia, Northern america and a few other niches I am pretty sure we get about a billion which is one sixth of the world population, not 6%.

        Not that anyone cares really, though.
        • kashk5, on 01/29/2008, -3/+51/6, 6%, what's the difference when it comes to manipulating statistics, right?
        • petrodollar, on 01/29/2008, -2/+3Still not a majority, or even a plurality.
    • kreneskyp, on 01/29/2008, -1/+3he isnt the first to campaign on a platform like this though. This is eerily similar to bobby Kennedy and we all know how that turned out.
  • solid12345, on 01/29/2008, -5/+39Will this be the first time that the nice guy doesn't finish last?
    • entername, on 01/29/2008, -3/+1John Edwards is, unfortunately, in last among the major contenders.
  • snafuhalitosis, on 01/29/2008, -4/+20He's got this NYC resident's vote! Plus my parents, my brother, most of my friends...
  • MrFlesh, on 01/29/2008, -14/+19"Obahma could win New York City!!!" Not if Diebold has anything to do with it.
    • nirav72, on 01/29/2008, -5/+3Right - its not who votes that counts , its who counts the votes! /sarcasm.
      • MrFlesh, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Your right clearly after illegals wars, illegal torture, illegal spying....our government would never stoop to manipulating the election.....despite the fact several people have already gone to jail over it.
    • schlij, on 01/29/2008, -1/+8NYC is all old school lever machines, no Diebold here. Count another family for Obama.
  • icantbecool, on 01/29/2008, -23/+8Sorry to say thats not going to happen Clinton has a 15% lead over Obama. Looks like Ron Bots transformed into Obama Bots. Digg me down =)
    • nblsavage, on 01/29/2008, -5/+18Trust me, the Ronbots are still in full force, they're the ones trying to smear all the other candidates.
    • soot, on 01/29/2008, -3/+14That was a week before the South Carolina rout and the Kennedy endorsements, and we've still got a week left.
    • icantbecool, on 01/29/2008, -6/+3To bad the day before Super Tuesday Al Gore is going to endorse Hillary, which has a lot more political pull then the Kennedy endorsement. =)
      • aliengoods, on 01/29/2008, -3/+3You really think so? Kennedy can deliver more super delegates than Gore.
        • icantbecool, on 01/30/2008, -3/+2Al Gore was the former vice president of the United States and Kennedy is a murderer. Here in Philadelphia everyone is backing Hillary even the African American communities.
      • soot, on 01/29/2008, -2/+5I think you're wrong there.
        • michael532111, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1@icantbecool: "Al Gore is going to endorse Hillary" Are you out of your mind? You have no sense of history. If Al Gore endorses anyone, very unlikely at this time by the way, it will be Obama.
    • jopjop, on 01/29/2008, -2/+4Where do you get your 'information'?
    • mcduckov, on 01/29/2008, -1/+1lulz warp spacetime and create a field into which {your] fall. The interaction calculation of lulz fields is complex--don't try it at home. Further, you can try to figure out the direction or speed of [mom] but never both at the same time.
  • nonpareil, on 01/29/2008, -7/+26From (and still in) NYC and fully supporting Obama, and have been encouraging as many friends as I can to do the same. The last thing this country needs is Hillary Clinton.
    • aliengoods, on 01/29/2008, -1/+15Hillary Clinton is the one person who can get a Republican elected.
  • tmslak, on 01/29/2008, -27/+2Buried for lack of relevance to ANYONE'S interests.
  • gharding, on 01/29/2008, -6/+19NYCer for Obama here, too!
  • Shawn4168, on 01/29/2008, -8/+33Interesting. Too bad New York City isn't a state.
    • rberger909, on 01/29/2008, -3/+20Who said it was? Did you read the article? The delegates in NYC alone are bigger then most states.
    • Gabberwok, on 01/29/2008, -4/+18It has about half of the population of NY, so half of the delegates will be coming from there. Every vote counts.
    • bxblox, on 01/29/2008, -2/+10Apparently you dont know how many people are in NYC...
    • orca94, on 01/29/2008, -2/+7It should be. New York City is about as different compared to the rest of New York State as Massachussets is compared to Texas.
  • bethlagarrison, on 01/29/2008, -6/+18But, see, all of this is based on polls that are a week old.

    I think that once more recent polls from those areas start coming in, Obama's going to look even stronger. The momentum that the SC landslide gives him will be a huge deal.
  • jm4847, on 01/29/2008, -21/+13"Obama goes to the bathroom" 3,254 Diggs, 541 comments.
  • kolinkoolface2, on 01/29/2008, -34/+11i am so sick of hearing about Obama.

    He has done nothing. Period.
    • veggieryan, on 01/29/2008, -13/+6aw, give him credit. he voted FOR the patriot act and real ID.... yippeee! what a scum bag!
      • siszam, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Yes he did. Here is a question about it and his answer. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm so disappointed. Now that Kucinich dropped out and Clinton and Obama support the Real ID and war, there is no one worth voting for.

        The Department of Homeland Security has proposed extensive Real ID requirements restricting which state ID cards can be accepted at federal buildings and airports. Do you support those regulations as written, would you want to repeal Real ID, or would you prefer something in between?
        Obama: I do not support the Real ID program because it is an unfunded mandate, and not enough work has been done with the states to help them implement the program.
    • nirav72, on 01/29/2008, -4/+5and what have you done lately?
    • ziptnf, on 01/29/2008, -3/+7Don't give us any arguments to support your point or anything. That would be logical. Logic is for retards.
  • ThinkFr33ly, on 01/29/2008, -9/+5I live in Massachusetts, and Clinton has a substantial lead here. If Obama can't win in the most liberal state in the nation (aside from perhaps VT), it's gonna be tough for him.
    • Gabberwok, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2For some strange reason I don't understand, Obama has been taking the more moderate voters even though he is clearly more liberal than Hillary. I think it's just that liberal voters in general are nostalgic for the Clinton era, and the fact that Obama isn't looking to pick a fight with the Republicans is a strike against him for many people. It's the fact that he has such a good shot at winning in many relatively conservative states despite having very liberal policies that makes him a strong candidate.
    • nirav72, on 01/29/2008, -1/+10Because Obama is not as liberal as you think. He's willing to work across the political spectrum.
    • MacEnvy, on 01/29/2008, -2/+6The Kennedy endorsement should give a boost in MA, one would think.

      Until a couple of weeks ago, no one thought Hillary was beatable. Now that that's been proven wrong, things are changing fast.
    • scottc, on 01/29/2008, -1/+8I'm not sure why people think Obama is more liberal - maybe they just assume that because he is black he must be more liberal. While his positions are close to Clinton's, in the places they differ he is usually more conservative. In any case, none of the Democrats left in the race are really liberal - they're just slightly to the left of the Republicans.
  • joerod, on 01/29/2008, -7/+36im from nyc and im voting for Obama.
  • jhails, on 01/29/2008, -7/+38Bush / Clinton. What's the difference? End the Bush / Clinton dynasty now. Vote Obama 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • Xanadude, on 01/29/2008, -3/+4How would Obama be different from Hillary?
      • floatingpoints, on 01/29/2008, -2/+6How is an apple different from an orange?
        • wc3452, on 01/30/2008, -0/+1I dunno, they're both healthy and delicious...
    • NoData, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3What's the difference?! Wow. You're really betraying your youth. Just because you're too young to remember a president before Clinton (or Bush pere) hardly makes the current era a joint Clinton-Bush dynasty. The two could not be more different.
  • bingobongony, on 01/29/2008, -20/+6And how many delegates does NY City get?
    Oh yeah....
    • Gabberwok, on 01/29/2008, -2/+9About half of them - all Democratic primaries are proportional. Every vote counts in the Democratic primaries (although not in all of the Republican ones or sadly in the general election).
      • bingobongony, on 01/29/2008, -3/+1How is making the "winner take all" parts smaller mean that every vote counts? If someone wins NY City 51%-49%, then that is millions of votes that don't count.
        • Gabberwok, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2No, it's completely proportional (or at worst district by district). NYC will send delegates to both Hillary and Obama.
    • rberger909, on 01/29/2008, -2/+8Look another person who didn't read the article and has no idea how delegates are awarded.
    • squalorous, on 01/29/2008, -2/+5you can't imagine the pleasure it brought me to hit that 5th negative digg for you
  • rudy23, on 01/29/2008, -4/+17I am not eligible to vote yet but I am sure as hell gonna spend time promoting his election in anyway possible.
  • bpapa, on 01/29/2008, -15/+5lol, who cares? you have to win a state to win a state. this would be interesting if he was thinking of running for NYC mayor, otherwise it's a big pile of nothing.
    • Gabberwok, on 01/29/2008, -1/+15Not at all. The Democratic primaries are all proportional - no winner-take-all contests. Every vote in NY matters, and there are a whole lot of them in NYC. Obama will not win the state (unless Hillary starts eating babies on national television), but if he wins NYC he will have a strong enough showing in the overall state to come away with enough delegates to keep the contest open. If Obama can stay within 5-10% of Hillary in CA, NJ, and NY he's still got a great shot at locking up the overall nomination.
    • bjs3171, on 01/29/2008, -2/+1there's probably more people in NYC than in all of the rest of the state.
      • Laminarcissus, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2two clicks dummy. that's all it would take to find out real numbers and inform people instead of just yammering.

        Population NYS: 19,306,183
        Population NYC: 8,213,839

        When you're on digg, the biggest information resource in human history is right in front of you and your still too lazy to look it up for chrissake.
  • uziko, on 01/29/2008, -31/+7Obama is a piece of *****.

    Ron Paul 08'
    • soot, on 01/29/2008, -5/+10There's an attractive message...
    • nblsavage, on 01/29/2008, -3/+12Ah, another well-mannered Paul supporter. Just here for some civilized discussion?
    • AnimZero, on 01/29/2008, -3/+1Good point, uziko, but does bluntly saying his name send any message?
      Tard.
  • bigtallmofo, on 01/29/2008, -12/+51As a white person, I can not believe that black people aren't voting 100% for Obama. He is their first real chance at winning the highest office in the world. He's probably also their last chance for some time to come.

    As someone who has been fairly indifferent toward the Clintons and never understood the raw hatred of them, I can say now that their actions sicken me. (Race baiting, comparing him to Jesse Jackson to lessen his stature, trying to change the rules in Nevada, trying to change the rules in Michigan, trying to change the rules in Florida, lying about his record, etc, etc).

    As a Republican, if you nominate Obama I will probably vote for him over the Republican idiots that have a chance of winning this time around. I actually feel like he could in fact bring the country together. If you nominate Hillary, with her recent actions, I'll campaign night and day to make sure she doesn't get elected.
    • uziko, on 01/29/2008, -24/+2i hope you die
    • Toloran, on 01/29/2008, -3/+17You shouldn't vote for him just because he is non-white. Nor should someone vote for Clinton mk2 just because she is female. Vote for POLICIES not RACE.

      Now, would him becoming president be a monumental occasion? Of course, but we shouldn't vote him in to office just because of that.
    • morgino, on 01/29/2008, -15/+3Cant believe if you are black you arent voting for him? That may be the dumbest thing I have heard in a while. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are black too, they ran for president!
      Republican idiots huh? My guess is that you no nothing about politics, do your research then vote for Ron Paul....who happens to be white
    • wjackson, on 01/29/2008, -3/+28The assumption that black people ought to be voting for their own, just for the sake of having a black person in the White House is asinine.

      Last time I checked, 1) the black community was not unified in its stand on ANYTHING 2) we do more damage to our own communities than any other ethnic group, and 3) we're not so foolish that a hotshot senator with an impressive vocabulary will become the de facto candidate among blacks.

      Maybe I'm taking your comment the wrong way, but I think it's silly. FYI, there ARE black republicans.

      /black man
      /Obama Supporter
      /Ron Paul fan
    • Xanadude, on 01/29/2008, -6/+4Black people would be a lot better off with Edwards than either Obama or Hillary. Identity politics is stupid and destructive.
    • republicker, on 01/29/2008, -15/+1Black don't care about politics. They didn't even care enough to form a resistance against slavery.
    • rheaume, on 01/29/2008, -3/+2I just cant see how he will win when it comes down to it, the right wing will tell its ministers to hit the services screaming "A BLACK MAN WILL BE PRESIDENT!!!"

      The result will be, as usual, minorities will sit around the house and not ***** vote while the KKK shuttles people back and forth to the polls.
      I hope I'm wrong.
  • Armitage, on 01/29/2008, -25/+7This just in.. Obama wipes his own ass!
    Enough of the Obama posts.
    Buried.
    • fadeout, on 01/29/2008, -1/+3You're just bitter because the algorithm was fixed and it's become obvious that even digg doesn't give a ***** about Ron Paul.
  • Ninjao, on 01/29/2008, -6/+28I really hope Obama wins and im not even a US citizen.
  • Zlorp, on 01/29/2008, -13/+7"NEW YORK CITY?!"
  • TwoLOUD, on 01/29/2008, -23/+3Go figure race would come into play...***** the 'theres more blacks in ny' blah blah blah, people complain about racism but yet thats purely what this campaign is all about and compaired to...OMG HE WON THE BLACKS! w00t w00t.

    ***** Ohomo. and Rev Jackoff Jackson...


    Buried for being gibberish!
    • petebot, on 01/29/2008, -2/+5"Buried for being gibberish!" Yes, you have been...
      • icantbecool, on 01/30/2008, -3/+2Obama wont even come close to the large states. Al Gore is the only endorsement of Clinton will win the election for her.
  • wwwdot1jesdotus, on 01/29/2008, -20/+7RON PAUL 2008!
    If you disagree, give me one good reason. I bet you can't!

    Suppress the truth. Digg me down!
    • bigtallmofo, on 01/29/2008, -4/+20Here's one good reason: Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution.
    • nblsavage, on 01/29/2008, -3/+12Here's another, his followers are rude children.
    • bethlagarrison, on 01/29/2008, -2/+15Here's another - Because the people who support him say that anyone who disagrees is "suppressing the truth."
    • AnimZero, on 01/29/2008, -1/+8He wants to repeal affirmative action.
      He doesn't believe in evolution.
      He's going to repeal Roe Vs. Wade.
      He wants to remove the minimum wage.
      He's against funding stem cell research.

      I can go on. I don't know why I still support him sometimes.
    • bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -1/+7Here's another: he's got absolutely no chance of becoming president.
  • veggieryan, on 01/29/2008, -35/+7OBAMA VOTED FOR THE PATRIOT ACT AND REAL ID. HE IS A NEOCON. DO YOUR RESEARCH PEOPLE.
    • marksism, on 01/29/2008, -1/+8it's all or nothing in your world, isn't it?
      • veggieryan, on 01/30/2008, -2/+2no, but it is about the facts. Obama did vote for the patriot act II. Thats a fact. He is a neocon.
    • soot, on 01/29/2008, -2/+18First, Obama was not a member of the Senate in 2001, and did not vote on the original Patriot Act. Hillary and Edwards both voted in favor of it, however. Secondly, he joined a filibuster that blocked a reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which would have made permanent fourteen of its sixteen original provisions. THIRDLY, he cosponsored his own bill, the SAFE Act, to remove provisions which would conflict with civil liberties while still giving law enforcement the tools they needed. He's also stated that he does not support REAL ID, as it is basically an unfunded mandate.
    • asspants, on 01/29/2008, -12/+2why is this being buried? Is it not true?
    • veggieryan, on 01/29/2008, -11/+2@soot: look at the voting record for patriot act II: obama voted YES. look at his reason for turning down real ID... he wants MORE MONEY FOR IT. that means he not only supports it but wants to fund it with even more big government money. he is a neocon. and you are sadly misinformed.
      • scottc, on 01/29/2008, -3/+3Two issues does not make one a neocon.
        • veggieryan, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2yes, but being a member of the council on foreign relations and supporting the military occupation of the middle east DOES make Obama a neocon. FACTS.
  • bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -4/+33Ok everybody, really, we've got to get it together for Obama, unless you want Hillary, McCain or (egad!) Huckabee to make the next 4 years just as miserable as the last.

    There shouldn't even be any talk of other candidates from here on out; it is a waste of breath. I'm sorry your pet political projects didn't turn out the way you wanted them (weed and/or UFO enthusiasts, I apologize), but the bickering on the election issue has got to stop, so we can concentrate on this single goal, for a change.

    Really, I'm open to hearing out any last-minute pro-Hillary arguments, but its gonna be mighty hard to convince me that the person best representative of a dynamic nation of 300 million just happens to be the spouse of an ex-president, who is best friends with another ex-president, who happens to be the dad of the current president... can anyone say "political incest"?
  • tocleoraSUCKS, on 01/29/2008, -19/+3Gee, wonder why he has so many black votes... black people are racist.
    Just look at Oprah
    • lhughey, on 01/29/2008, -3/+12I wonder why he has so many "college aged" voters, or wealthy white votes. They must be racist also!
  • morgino, on 01/29/2008, -17/+3Obama lost me with his "Si se puede" *****. Total pandering to illegals. Strangely enough though with the choices right now he would be second on my list. Ron Paul would be first of course.
    • soot, on 01/29/2008, -1/+14Wow, are you really that fickle over a little Spanish? I seem to recall there are plenty of Hispanic American citizens in this country.
      • republicker, on 01/29/2008, -4/+2Yea, and a few million illegals.
    • Nougat, on 01/29/2008, -1/+9Good thing he didn't say anything in German, or you'd be calling him a Nazi.
    • blackjack75, on 01/29/2008, -1/+6As a spanish citizen I feel sad to learn that my life is illegal.
  • darrenjohnson, on 01/29/2008, -2/+12Come on NYC! Get out there and make it happen. The time is now!
  • Brownds, on 01/29/2008, -6/+18 First off I am a conservative NOT a Neo-con, yes there is a huge difference. I am for small government NO lobbyist in DC and religion were it belongs in a church or my hotel room. And a flat 15% tax for everyone, tax brackets are criminal as any educated person would know. And since my party has been an EPIC fail for the past 4+ years, and I know that my man Ron Paul only has a poops chance in a cup with 2 girls. I am rooting for Obama if I have learned anything from Ron Paul it is that We The People want change and honestly the presidency needs to stop being passed between the Bushes & the Clintons like a stanky dooby and honestly if Hillary can’t keep her man satisfied how can she keep me/America satisfied? (Yes I went there) So if it came down to McCain or Obama I will be voting for Obama.
    • mtjohnson, on 01/29/2008, -1/+4Flat tax is criminal.
      • Brownds, on 01/29/2008, -2/+1@ mtjohnson
        No you should have tried harder when you were a school boy/girl. Why should the successful be taxed more? I gave $43,000 to non profit charities last year but because of my tax bracket I have to also pay allot more in taxes then most because I had the drive to make something of myself. I grew up dirt poor and I am of Latin American decent so don't give me that crap about I was privileged. My first boss told me “work hard because millions on welfare are depending on you”. I used to laugh at that. No I have no problems with welfare for the needy but that system is so abused it is ridiculous. My idea to fix our welfare system I say if you want a check you give me a cup of piss Drug test before you get your money I bet we'll see a noticeable reduction in welfare recipients. Hell I bet allots of you out there work for an employer that requires drug screening
        • ByteGuerilla, on 01/29/2008, -1/+3Tax should be according to ability to pay.
        • wc3452, on 01/30/2008, -0/+3When you're wealthy, you have extra money that you don't necessarily NEED to continue living reasonably well. When you're making $10,000 a year, it isn't fair for you to give up $1500, that you desperately need, while a guy who makes 200,000 gives up $30,000 he doesn't necessarily need.

          You don't need to drive around a Lexus, its just nice to have. Also, don't give me that BS that you work harder for your money.
          • Brownds, on 01/30/2008, -0/+0@wc3452
            You make a good point. I am not a Tax pro but as the current system stands a honest person making 10k per anum is giving 1/3 (roughly) of that pay to taxes while yes there is a difference between 1/3 of 10k and 1/3 of 500k. I just feel that if we can keep more of the money we earn EVERYONE would benefit (Depending on each individuals honesty) I mean if my personal income & my businesses income was only 15%ish taxed I could raise all my employees pay to reflect my profit. And those corporate pigs that don't show the same commonsense will see a decline in their own work force. Everyone’s standard of living would improve. With all the money people would end up bringing in, in the long run would allow us to invest in what ever cause or technology they wanted. I don’t think our government has a right to invest our money into other countries/causes that we as a people don't agree with. The government’s only roll should be to keep our infrastructure going not give ungodly amounts of money to countries that want to live in the dark ages. I take risks with investments all the time. I win some I loose some but I never bet more than I can afford to lose.
  • KingBunny, on 01/29/2008, -2/+13Hillary still has supporters???
    Next you're going to tell me Rudy hasn't been laughed out of the race yet!
  • mavrick24, on 01/29/2008, -3/+7I'm just curious on how many Americans plan on voting for race and gender in this election?
    It seems to me that many aren't even bothering to educate themselves on the political agendas of these candidates. It's quite sad I tell you, quite sad.
    • bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -1/+5well, as sad as it is, many Americans just vote on the way the candidate's names sound to them, having no freaking clue about any of their actual policies, it makes voting for somebody based on their race or sex seem quite reasonable in comparison.
    • Armitage, on 01/29/2008, -7/+2Yes, it's quite sad people don't care that Obama is a member of the CFR who is pushing for a North American Union. He's not strong on Illegal Immigration. He's not going to bring our troops home anytime soon, even tho he apparently understands blowback and knows it'll bring more attacks here. He's not for an honest currency, not for limited government, and he often votes to increase taxes.

      Uninformed voters is how we got stuck with Bush, lets all try to think this time. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.

      This will probably get dugg down by Obamabots but that will olny prove me right.
      • wc3452, on 01/30/2008, -0/+2Bringing back troops immediately is probably going to cause more problems than solutions. An honest currency? I assume you're talking about the gold standard, any credible economist will tell you that the gold standard is a terrible idea. We held our currency to a gold standard once, it didn't work. We're the only industrialized nation without a system of national health care/insurance, our education system continually lags, and the wealth gap is ridiculous. The government has to step in and try to maintain both equality and equity within our nation, no way the free market can do that. If the free market had its way, we'd still have slaves. Again, voting to increase taxes isn't bad given the deficit and debt. The United States already has one of the lowest, both personal and corporate, tax rates of any industrialized nation. The US can take a hit on income, when higher taxes will probably ensure a better quality of life.

        I find it funny that you're attacking the "Obamabots" when you clearly are a Ron Paul supporter. Sucks when the tables have turned doesn't it?
    • floatingpoints, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Well, then the results will be the same as all the morons who actually voted for Bush.

      If you have stupid people, then they will elect equivalently stupid leaders.

      If you get people to wake the ***** up and get educated, then their election results will follow suit.

      Just hope people still aren't ***** brain dead.
  • lanson, on 01/29/2008, -3/+14You're kidding yourselves if you think that Bill won't be taking an active part in the Presidency if Hilary gets in. How's that for getting around term limits. Go Obama.
    • unitedskates, on 01/29/2008, -8/+3I think we need to find some more ***** reasons to slander Hillary Clinton...

      I heard that she used to cut in line at the water fountains in high school.
    • bullcutter, on 01/29/2008, -2/+3Not just Bill, everybody who helped Bill get elected gets in on the action, too. Incredibly efficient way to keep our national interests stale.
  • tdskate, on 01/29/2008, -3/+14I'm liking Obama more and more...
  • unitedskates, on 01/29/2008, -10/+4Irony Detection:
    "Unifier" Obama rising on the tides of racialist rhetoric and solidarity
    "Divider" Hillary to win state based on broad support
    • justice7, on 01/29/2008, -2/+9"broad" support , you mean women, right?

      hahahahahha i'm going to hell.
      • sndream, on 01/29/2008, -1/+2Well, female do indeed make up roughly 50% of the population. Plus Latino favor Hillary over Obama by 2 to 1 while black favor Obama over Hillary by 4 to 1. So Hillary do indeed have a boarder support.


        • rdoger6424, on 01/29/2008, -2/+2you type almost as bad as you text
      • youasmedia, on 01/30/2008, -1/+2if you hadn't said it, i would have.
    • HellDonut, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1If you have listened to his speeches, you'd see he is an unifier through and through. His talk is one of unification and equality. He doesn't mention specific races will win specific perks. I'm even surprised he didn't yet win a few enemies amongst the most activist african-american community simply because he doesn't give them any special privilege.

      Clinton, on the other hand, tried to make it sound like he did, like he is "The Black Candidate" that won just because of the Black support. And failed. In SC, he did have roughly the same amount of votes among white people that she had.

      I'm white, and I'm for Obama.
  • Evazan21, on 01/29/2008, -16/+2http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announ ...
    Top 10 most corrupt politicians of 2007

    "In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law."
    • petrodollar, on 01/29/2008, -3/+4An organization that calls itself Judicial Watch should have better lawyers working for it. This is one hell of a poorly drafted complaint: http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/2007/SPITZER_SU ...
    • ZebZ, on 01/29/2008, -3/+5Judicial Watch has been exposed as a right-wing smear factory time and time again. Find a new gimmick.
    • bignerd, on 01/30/2008, -2/+1Hillary, is that you? Get off of the computer and get back on the campaign trail!
    • HellDonut, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Wrong. Do your research and don't post false sensationalist crap.
  • aaroh, on 01/29/2008, -1/+5Hillary could have chosen any state in America to run as senator in 2002, she chose NY because of its the most populous state and a sure way to garner a chunk of votes to become President, its all part of Clintons' devious plans.

    And how about all those earmarks she has given to projects in NY, maybe she saw this as a nice way for NY voters to pay her back later on?
    • tyrione, on 01/30/2008, -1/+1Then she should have chosen California. Oh wait! They've got 2 females in the Senate? Next you'll tell me it's a Female Conspiracy.
  • bxblox, on 01/29/2008, -3/+14I will be performing the exit poll, followed by a complementary nyc mugging for anyone who voted for Hillary.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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