digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Obama Didn't Want My Money

dailykos.com — An amazing story! The Obama campaign returned a $100.00 donation check to a donor with a letter explaining why. The letter left the individual even more committed to Obama.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • subtlesquire, on 04/08/2008, -14/+455From the end of the article, "p.s.: As a side note, last year my spouse had set up automatic monthly payments to Hillary (nothing big $10/month) but after switching to Obama, had to battle with the Clinton campaign to cancel the automatic payment. I find it ironic that one campaign won't take my money, the other won't give it back!"
    Hilarious!
    • smacksaw, on 04/08/2008, -19/+4Hillary Clinton / Extenze "makes that certain part bigger"
      PO BOX 666
      Pueblo, CO 81001

      (Google "extenze" if you have no idea why that is funny or a scam)
    • Doitdifferently, on 04/08/2008, -0/+44I'd call my credit card company and tell them to stop accepting the charges. Of course my income as dropped a lot more than I expected over the 6 months so now $30-$40 can mean the difference between getting a bill paid or not. But hey at she's all for the working poor right?
    • cutething, on 04/08/2008, -1/+66That's ***** ridiculous. The title of this should be Obama Didn't Want my Money and Hillary Keeps Stealing my Wife's.
      • ronaldinho, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5almost read it as Hillary keeps stealing my wife......woah I can see why Bill went for Monica
    • KraftDinner101, on 04/08/2008, -0/+26FTA "Updated to add: I though we had finally stopped the payments to the Clinton Campaign, but after checking with my spouse, it turns out they are still taking the payments 3-4 months after we asked them to stop."
    • FutureGuy, on 04/08/2008, -2/+7"Hilliar"ious indeed.
      • tgrk35, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3"Hillar"ious would have been a better way to write that. < / fascism >
    • Sneezyx, on 04/08/2008, -0/+14If nothing else, an excellent example of why automatic payments, monthly or otherwise, are _never_ a good idea. What you save in convenience you more than lose in control over your finances.
    • evan2024, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6What a bitch.
    • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -9/+3He may not want your money right now, but just wait and see what happens if he gets elected.
      • mahdaeng, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Oh, I see. I'm dugg down because the Digg community is drunk with the delusion that Obama will not accept their tax money - much less raise taxes.
    • captnkurt, on 04/08/2008, -1/+24--The Obama campaign returned a $100.00 donation check to a donor with a letter explaining why.--
      I got that letter, too! Let me see... Ah! Here it is!
      "Unable to process transaction due to insufficient funds."
      • watcht, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Hey that's what command & conquer tells me too when my ore trucks stop coming back.
  • nolawi, on 04/08/2008, -24/+31wow great
    • uhohpancho, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3i love your enthusiasm
      • Enderplayer1, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2I'm enthusiastic about your love
    • jabberwolf, on 04/08/2008, -9/+5BURRED FOR INACCURATE!

      An individual is not allowed to give over a certain amount, over a certain time, from a group or family. Obama campaign was simply following rules. Coming from Dailykos can you expect anything but but poor BS?!
      • 3HackBug77, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3It was only $100 idiot. individuals are allowed to make much larger donations to individual canidates than that.
      • JakobVirgil, on 04/11/2008, -0/+0Obama was just following his rule. Clinton does not have such scruples.
        -Jake
    • suzywang3000, on 04/08/2008, -9/+2"There's a big mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams For My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. What was Barack Obama doing seeking out Marxist professors in college? Why did Obama choose a Communist Party USA member as his socio- political counselor in high school? Why was he spending his time studying neocolonialism and the writings of Frantz Fanon, the pro-violence author of "the Communist Manifesto of neocolonialsm", in college? Why did he take time out from his studies at Columbia to attend socialist conferences at Cooper Union?

      And there is more mystery in the book. Why does Obama consider working in a consulting house for international business like being "a spy behind enemy lines?" Why does he repeatedly find it so hard to explain his political views to others? Why was he driven to become a left-aligned political organizer? It's a question Obama again and again can't seem to answer to the satisfaction of the interlocutors in his own memoir."

      more at:

      http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-g ...

  • pwssl, on 04/08/2008, -38/+292Just when I start fearing that Obama might just be too good to be true, I come across something like this... He is the REAL DEAL, people!!
    • delmar14, on 04/08/2008, -8/+48The cynic in me thinks this might not have happened if this guy didn't have a fairly prominent blog. Obama seems genuine but I still just don't trust politicians for *****.
      • iainc, on 04/08/2008, -5/+24And who can blame you for being cynical after the crap we've had to put up with these last decades. But please give *this* man a chance to win back our trust. Thanks.
        • cygnus2112, on 04/08/2008, -8/+5I'm skeptical of all. I rarely get disappointed nor am I hardly ever surprised.
          • thedingman, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6Does it feel good to always be right?
          • Issius, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2@ thedingman:

            No, that's the problem, it doesn't. It would feel a lot better to be wrong.
          • aliengoods, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2I've voted for Feingold twice, and have yet to be disappointed.
        • Fxer, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6Not decades, millennia.
        • jabberwolf, on 04/08/2008, -8/+3BURRED FOR INACCURATE!

          An individual is not allowed to give over a certain amount, over a certain time, from a group or family. Obama campaign was simply following rules. Coming from Dailykos can you expect anything but but poor BS?!
          • tannerpetry, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3"BURRED" FOR STUPIDITY!

            RTFA
          • arenas46, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2"BURRED FOR DUPLICATE COMMENT!"

            RTFT (read the ***** thread)
      • radix2, on 04/08/2008, -1/+18Actually, that was just a diarist on the Daily Kos - there are hundreds of 'em.

        Kos is actually the one that owns and runs the blog (with help of course), but this story is just one of the little guys.
      • cygnus2112, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3True. Especially when it's coming from the mouth of a lobbyist.
      • gummih, on 04/08/2008, -0/+13"Obama seems genuine but I still just don't trust politicians for *****." - I agree with you that you should never put your full trust in a politician, they must be under constant scrutiny. But so far Obama has earned at least the benefit of a doubt, I think he is by far the best candidate.
      • imgstacke, on 04/08/2008, -0/+10You shouldn't trust politicians, agreed. And in that sense you should hold them accountable for what they SAY and DO. And the only way to keep them honest is to watch them like hawks.

        Any politician who encourages the people to hold them accountable and facilitates that by passing legislation to improve Transparency and Ethics is probably less likely to be one of the corrupt/lying politicians and more likely to be a commited public servent. There is a difference.
        • ICSU, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Most people can't even watch their kids nor control themselves (obesity and all) so...
          • tannerpetry, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Those of us with no kids will keep an eye on the politicians
      • leonhyral, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Nothing wrong with being cautious.
      • elint6, on 04/08/2008, -1/+10I think they have a computer database with all the lobbyists on them. I think this letter was a cookie-cutter automated letter, not calculated because someone somehow knew about his blog.
    • SillyRabbits, on 04/08/2008, -17/+12I don't know why the author is so amazed at this. The campaign just took a list of registered lobbyist and ran it against their donor list. It spit out any matches and returned any of those contributions. I'm not sure why it makes the author feel so special. After Obama claimed he wasn't going to accept those contributions, I'm sure ever other campaign is comparing the same list to his donor roles to find any evidence that he's not holding to it.
      • zeabu, on 04/08/2008, -0/+22He doesn't feel special.. he states the difference between Obama and Hillary (and to most politicians in a greater extend).
        • SpartanErik, on 04/08/2008, -4/+1Rabbit still has a point, as there is no doubt these letters are mass mailed after running these names through a computer with a list of registered lobbyists
        • sheki, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7 SpartanErik, that's not the main point though. Who cares if they are handwritten personalized letters. The point is that the guy is doing something that has integrity and is actually following through with it. It also shows a contrast between Obama and the other candidates/politicians.
      • bbatsell, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2For the record, candidates are only required to break out individual donations if they total $200 or more. This donation was for $100; it would not have been reported, and no one would have known or be able to check. It was returned regardless.
    • DumboEars, on 04/08/2008, -47/+2Take off your Rose colored glasses. He is full of crap like the rest. You just don't know him. Go look at my picture. It's more than a 1000 words. It's more than one picture. How can you put that much faith in 1 human? He's not Jesus. Maybe the other guy? Hope not, but you people act like he is. I thought he had a 50-50 chance, but that 20 years at Trinity and his wife? I don't think so. I will tell you something. Old folks never Blog, but they always vote. A different Church, Maybe? Where are they hiding Michelle My Bell? Come on, that's no First Lady. Tiger's wife, maybe?
      • Coven, on 04/08/2008, -0/+20"Go look at my picture"

        You mean the badly photoshopped one that Taylor Marsh posted to her website a few weeks ago hoping that it wasn't so she could parallel Obama with Bush? Yeah, that shows some real integrity on your part.
      • Lyk4n, on 04/08/2008, -1/+9DE: People that are stupid like you are the reason why people like Bush get elected.. Obama is a great man and will help repair our tarnished nation. He was a ***** Constitutional Law professor! Come on and get over your stone age rhetoric!
      • Kas70, on 04/08/2008, -1/+9Tiger's wife is white.
    • Berkana, on 04/08/2008, -2/+5Now I feel safe to actually support him. I just lament that he doesn't seem to get how important monetary policy is.
      Our system is about to collapse (For real: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWyygiyPbdA ); it would be a shame if he simply inherited a collapsed system. Then, all the integrity in the world won't do us any good.

      If anyone who cares about monetary policy sees this, please, take time to write to his campaign and inform him. I sure will; I don't want to be alone.

      • sheki, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Well let's hope that the integrity spills over into other areas. Such as taking a hard honest look at the situation, giving an honest evaluation and attempt to remedy it.
      • pwssl, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2Monetary policy, though usually the realm of the Fed, is certainly very important. But much more important, IMO, is the broader regulatory framework under which the markets operate -- and Barack has shown he is abundantly aware of the problem, and willing to take it on forcefully.
        When you have a moment, check his address on the economy, delivered a couple of weeks ago:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSuT5zN2SPI
        Note he is calling for a real overhaul of the system. It is a politically courageous move, and one that shows real leadership, IMO.
        Incidentally, before he delivered this speech he was introduced by Bloomberg - no economic dummy. Also, he was endorsed by both Paul Volcker and Warren Buffet. So I think he has good advice, and we will be in good hands!
    • ykinc, on 04/08/2008, -9/+0He is not only for you US-people good, he is also good for the rest of the world your ***** government destroys more and more, together with some other ***** governments like, first of all, french, england, etc. ***** borders also.
    • dlb03, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Trying to raise $1 Million in a Minute for Obama on Apr 21 1PM Est.
      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_1_Million_ ...
    • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3And what exactly is the "real deal"? Can you explain to me, specifically, what Obama will do for this country. Go on, try and convert me.
      • RJGONZO, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3He's going to take more money from you in taxes and in return you get FREE national healthcare!
        Oh...wait. That doesn't seem right.
        • mahdaeng, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1That's a real deal, alright. I am just not convinced that it's a real good deal.

          :^)
      • pwssl, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Well, I could spend all day talking about all the reasons why I support Obama. But trying to address your question in a narrower and more succinct way, I would focus on two key aspects: leadership and governance.
        See, it doesn't really help to have good policy proposals, no matter how detailed and sensible they are. A President cannot get anything done without significant support in Congress. A working majority is absolutely key. And Obama's approach is infinitely more productive in that sense.
        First, Obama subscribes to the 50-state strategy, as opposed to the conventional 50% + 1 strategy. Instead of focusing the usually limited resources available for the Democratic candidate on traditional Blue states and then trying to get the edge in 2-3 Swing states, he has built a huge organization that penetrates ALL states. By significantly increasing the amount of funds available for the campaign, and getting enough regular people mobilized on the ground (via internet activism, volunteer training and, yes, inspiring rallies), he is changing the electoral map. Not only does that increase his chances of getting elected President (we don't have to rely so much on FL and OH when we can get CO, MO, VA etc), he is also helping the party pick up a number of seats in Congress (see how he helped Bill Foster beat the Republican incumbent in IL, for example, or how he was said to have done more in 10 days trying to expand the democratic base in TX than the TX democratic party did in 10 years).
        Second, he has a genuinely trans-partisan appeal. That is what he is doing when he invokes the tropes of unity which a lot of people think is just fluff in his speeches. The Republicans, and DLC types, have exploited and furthered the divisions among regular people (religion, race, ideology etc.) in a way that has really hindered the cause of a people-powered democracy. Obama's "soaring rhetoric" is nothing but a pragmatic way of bridging these divides, bringing people together on grounds they can agree on. We all want affordable health-care, good public education, peace and security; we all want a strong economic base and a balanced budget. We are all appalled by the widespread corruption in Washington; by the excesses in Wall Street, big oil, big pharma... We desperately need a renewed sense of confidence in our government.
        Obama has taken transparency in politics to a whole new level. There are many attempts to cast doubt on his record, but the fact is that he has disclosed virtually all documentation accounting for both his public and personal lives (earmark requests, tax returns, house purchase documents etc, in addition to two very candid memoirs); no skeletons to speak of. He has undertaken serious ethics reform as a legislator (e.g. “Google for Government”). More importantly, he does not take money from Washington lobbyists or PACs. That is critical because there really are no strings attached – except to the American people. And people are responding. I have heard numerous anecdotes of conservatives switching their support to Obama, and the statistics (voting in recent primaries, party registration numbers in pro-Obama districts etc) bear it out. Also notice that he has been endorsed by conservatives like Douglas Kmiec and Sen. Lincoln Chafee; Sens. Hagel and Lugar, along with columnists like Peggy Noonan have also indicated their support. This is the kind of environment where we will actually get things done.
        • iainc, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1Excellent response!!! Dugg.
        • mahdaeng, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1I sincerely appreciate your willingness to take the time to respond as you did. Unfortunately, you did not answer my question. You outlined the strategy of a politician to obtain and wield power - to create an "the kind of environment where we will actually get things done". Any charismatic leader can "get things done". The part that seems to elude you, however, is the "we". How do you know that once Obama gains the power he and his followers seek, he will then wield it in a way that reflects the will of the "we" and truly benefits the "we"?

          My questions were two-fold: 1) what is meant by the "real deal", and 2) what will Obama do for this country? If your answers to those questions are that he will get elected and have the backing of Congress, I am left woefully unsatisfied. Everyone's current favorite, G. W. Bush, had a huge popular backing and at one point had Congress in the palm of his hand. Did that produce the results that the American people ultimately wanted? I'll leave you to answer that for yourself.

          Again I ask: apart from rallying the support of the populace and politicians, what will Obama do for America?
    • Tayls, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1I'm just glad I won't get dugg down anymore for supporting him. It became pretty cool for a while there to not be excited about this.
    • thanakar, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2If something is too good to be true than it IS too good to be true.
      • pwssl, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0Well, that depends on what the definition of "is" is... :)
  • surfing, on 04/08/2008, -90/+30Obama doesn't take money from lobbyist. This guy is a lobbyist. What's the big deal?

    When I read "told me would not accept it because of what I do for a living" I thought the author was a prostitute.
    • DeadFox1, on 04/08/2008, -3/+10guilty for thinking the same.
    • HellDonut, on 04/08/2008, -6/+63The big deal is that instead of turning their back on it and blindly accepting any money that comes they do check every donation (including small ones) to see if it's according to their policy of not accepting money from lobbyists. He was expecting to have the donation go through unchecked.

      For a campaign with record donations, that's quite a feat, don't you think?
      • DumboEars, on 04/08/2008, -41/+0Look at this little thing and how it makes you feel. If I heard of a big one, well I still would think it was a ploy. It's a trick you dumb-ass. With a Pastor like his who in the Hell is he going to appoint to positions? I don't trust any 100% Lib and this guy is 101% Lib. Not Dem-Lib, big difference. My Granny is a Dem, but not a Lib. She doesn't even have to tell me. She won't vote for him. It's not the Black crap either. I'm sick of hearing that. It's HIM. P.S. His wife doesn't help, she hurts his chances.
        • sagien, on 04/08/2008, -0/+24I don't think you have any idea about what you're talking about.
        • saxreturns, on 04/08/2008, -0/+14Obama has already indicated he would be willing to take on Republicans as advisors in his administration. Also, I second sagien's statement.
        • droplet, on 04/08/2008, -0/+15i agree with saigen 100%, you are just parroting divisive rhetoric, try again with less fail.
        • Eiknujrac, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5You know, normally I don't result to ad hominem attacks, and I hate grammar nazis. However, that post is so bad I can't even begin to understand what you are trying to say. If you're trying to sway opinions, it helps to have an intelligent argument.
        • heypetray, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1It's hard writing short sentences like you. I'm trying. I'm trying hard to sound as dumb. But I can't seem to do, that is as easily as you. I must break 7 word barrier. Long sentences hurt my Short attention span. Daddy said Libs are bad. I don't know what a Lib is. Daddy says they're bad though. We watch Fox News during dinner. Barack is bad because Fox says. Daddy says so too. P.S. I'm not writing a letter, P.S. just sounds cool. We learned it in school today.
    • Pinhedd, on 04/08/2008, -6/+2I thought he was an assassin
      • redxxx, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1He's not an assassin, he's an errand-boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.
    • lgm1213, on 04/08/2008, -6/+1He won't take money from you, but he will take money from your wife. Along with her phone number.
    • surfing, on 04/08/2008, -7/+2Wow, the way I'm getting dug down you would have thought I said something negative about Steve Jobs or something.
      • purelithium, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3No, you're getting dugg down because you're an idiot and missed the point of the story...
    • gnarizard, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1If it turned out that Obama did accept the donation, there would be controversy too, just less of it.
  • JoJoMoMo, on 04/08/2008, -8/+103Direct link to rejection letter from Obama's campaign.
    http://s297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/borell12/ ...
    • MickJT, on 04/08/2008, -5/+2That is not a direct link. Very close though. 2 points for trying.
  • itbescott, on 04/08/2008, -9/+50Hillary needs that $30 he talks about at the end to pay small businesses in Iowa. It's her idea of an economic stimulus package.
  • richmessenger, on 04/08/2008, -22/+152I hope the rest of this country is as ready for integrity in politics as I am. We will see in November. If Obama doesn't win, I will lose a lot of faith in the American people.
    • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -32/+2Let's just hope that integrity doesn't stem from black supremacy.
      • maybach, on 04/08/2008, -4/+15Oh dear, oh dear. You obviously don't know much about the man do you.
      • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -21/+3I know that he went to a hate church for twenty years. I'm not sure what I don't know that could possibly nullify that.
        • zeabu, on 04/08/2008, -3/+9I'm sure you have a favorite baseball-team (baseball or another sport), and i'm even more sure that you don't agree with everything they do or say.
          I'm sure you have friends with some ideas you don't like.
          If you go to church, are you aware of everything your preacher thinks and says?
        • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -17/+4It's hard to believe that I could go to a KKK church for twenty years and not realize it. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but I don't want him running my country on that fact alone. And a friend/spiritual mentor of 20 years is much different than a baseball team. A wife would be a valid comparison.
        • proderix, on 04/08/2008, -3/+9hate church? please explain what qualifies his pastor as a black supremacist? If you are referring to this god damn america bs please see the whole video for context
        • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -9/+6I don't know that he "technically" qualifies as a black supremacist. I'm not sure how that makes him any less hateful or me anymore comfortable with his "student" running my country.
        • proderix, on 04/08/2008, -3/+8hateful of what? hateful of violence maybe
        • droplet, on 04/08/2008, -4/+5more divisive rhetoric from someone who gave the situation only a cursory glance. it has been said that what you see in yourself you project onto the world. try to see past "hate" and "race".
        • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -2/+5You do realize that your own retarded logic would make you a racist, right? That is the most pathetic argument I have ever heard.
      • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -23/+3So.... you guys do hope his integrity stems from black supremacy?
        • Jubalo, on 04/08/2008, -3/+14Ignorance is bliss. Fox news spun this story into him attending a hate church. Tragic that you actually fell victim to the trap. Fox intended to instill racial fear in Caucasions, they call it "mobilizing the base", but it is nothing more than fear mongering. Stick to the issue, leave the fear mongering where it belongs, in the sewer. Also, do your own research and quit listening to others and you will see the truth behind all the candidates. It really boils down to a lesser or two evils, pick your poison wisely and live with it.
        • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -12/+2Yup, fox is the one spinning it. How can you dismiss as fearmongering. I heard what the guy said. If you're claiming wright's not hateful than say it directly. If Clinton or McCain went to a KKK church, I would not be dismissing your (scratch that OUR) concern as fearmongering. In fact, they would both be done for. The very fact that Obama is not done, is INEQUALITY in and of itself.
          • Vermifax, on 04/08/2008, -3/+7Rev. Wright is not hateful. You, on the other hand...
          • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Lol, so you guys resort to calling me the racist. Wow.
      • takamalak, on 04/08/2008, -4/+4Ah masterm1nd. You reveal yourself as the extreme racist I suspected you were.
        • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1And you the extreme retard I suspected you were. I have over 4 thousand comments. I make it a habit of calling people out on ethnic slurs. I've talked about racism more than a dozen times. I have said zero things that a sane person could interpret as racist. In fact I just received death threats this weekend for sticking up for my black friend at a party. I can quote wright, the question is, can you quote me?
      • makeitloud, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2Why do you people keep talking to masterm1nd like he's an adult? He's a write-off. A waste of oxygen. Ignore him.
        • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1I'll interpret that as me having a point you cannot refute.
        • bensorensen, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0Doesn't seem like anyone is taking your advice :)
      • greenm1981, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Well, I know that integrity doesn't stem from ignorance.
    • DumboEars, on 04/08/2008, -24/+2Don't do that to yourself. He's chance isn't even 40% yet. Right now it's 25% maybe 35%. Your letting yourself open for a big let down. Just Vote and do what you think is right. You can't control who wins. The Clinton's are still kicking. I hate the Clinton's and they are still my biggest fear. They way the Dem's vote with their BS Supers and Super Dupers. Did you know some supers are 5 and 6 votes? I didn't. They pick close elections. You have to go back and look at states he won. Montana, Idaho, Utah. Think about the big states. I know BMO won some but Hillary Rotten won the states Dem's have to win. I just wouldn't put all My eggs in that one basket. Just because people don't say words doesn't mean they don't think them. You know what I mean. I have a lot of Black friends who are just voting because he is Black. That's stupid. Anyway just don't set yourself up for a giant letdown. It's not worth it. No matter who wins Gas is still going to be $5 and so on. We need our corn to eat, not run cars on. We need to drill owe own oil. It's right under our feet. That's the Dumbest thing we have ever done. No matter who wins not much will change. it never does and so on.
      • MalenfantX, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1You come across as one of the top five dumbest/craziest people on Digg. Congrats!
      • WasabiBomb, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2I like to Capitalize random Words in my Posts!
      • mkling176, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1never post again
    • mobbo, on 04/08/2008, -3/+28Shocking you still have faith in the American people as a whole... especially after the RE-ELECTION of Bush. That's when I lost mine.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 04/08/2008, -5/+6Do you drown in your tears every night? :(
        • sheki, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3MissTatum, you are obviously a drone of your party. I'm not for socialism per se, but I'm not so blind to realize that the Bush admin is and was bad news for the US. Not to say that the Dems would have led this nation to it's former glory, but WTF. Please stfu and stop being such a blind fool already.
      • makeitloud, on 04/08/2008, -2/+4Nitpick: you can't be re-elected if you weren't elected in the first place.
    • MalachiConstant, on 04/08/2008, -3/+4I'd just continue to lose faith in Diebold (soon to be United Technologies), not the American people. Kerry won. Gore won. America may have stupid people in it, but the majority know their rights and how to vote. Slim majority, but a winnable won. America was robbed. The only way to prevent another robbery is to landslide like you've you've never landslid before.... see 2006.
      • Bamont, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1I really wish some of you would take a civics class, and observe just how little the popular vote has on the Presidential Election. Quite pathetic that 8 years later some of you are still arguing the same point, but still refuse to go and educated.

        For the Article: Way to go Obama!
  • camino262, on 04/08/2008, -4/+32Last I heard Hillary couldn't even afford to pay her staff her portion of health insurance. She sure is struggling -that shows by stalling on canceling automatic payments. Even if she does refund the money at a later date, she is getting an interest free loan from probably thousands of people. I wish I could talk my credit card company into an interest free loan!
    • Zain123, on 04/08/2008, -8/+1Lot's of people get 0% promotional rates from their credit cards.
      • exronin, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6for millions of dollars? which credit card company do you use?
        • Zain123, on 04/08/2008, -4/+1American Express. Don't leave home without it.
      • mxmj, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Not on cash advances. afaik its like 20%+
  • Scheissen, on 04/08/2008, -128/+8So Obama has a stupid rule of not accepting money from lobbyists and that is getting Diggs? Show some real integrity and there would be no lobbyists.
    • Omnianimosity, on 04/08/2008, -5/+60I was going to make a huge ass reply as to how you are a ***** jackass....but wait I've already accomplished everything i want to say here.
      • retzed, on 04/08/2008, -3/+27Lobbyists play a function in a democracy instigating public debate, mostly for honorable causes. The problem occurs when lobbies donate/bribe politicians to influence their policies, such as going to war. The point is that Obama could easily become rich off corruption like the Bush government but has the morality not to.
        • laserblazer, on 04/08/2008, -2/+17In modern America, lobbyists carry suitcases full of money and little more.
        • babbitblob, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1In Soviet Russia, suitcase carries YOU.
    • diggafrica, on 04/08/2008, -2/+8U N00b
    • iainc, on 04/08/2008, -1/+9What a dick!
    • smacksaw, on 04/08/2008, -1/+19I don't even know where to start with that comment.
    • mobbo, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5Did you debate in high school?
      • TheLastFreeMan, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4No, that would imply making it past the 8th grade.
    • KraftDinner101, on 04/08/2008, -1/+14Not accepting money from lobbyists is NOT showing integrity? You must be the hardest person to please. I hope you're not a HIllary support because she IS accepting money from lobbyists, in fact, the very same lobbyist that Obama refused to accept a donation from.
    • crichton101, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4Yes, because he can single handedly magically make lobbyists just disappear. Everyone in Washington DC would vote yes to get rid of them because they don't like lobbyists giving them money.
      /Sarcasm
  • scheibs14, on 04/08/2008, -20/+8This guy got some of Obama's Internet Money
  • diggafrica, on 04/08/2008, -9/+74Hillary would have just pocketed the cash & stay quite. Obama is honest.
    • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -7/+2Or is it that 100 dollars couldn't buy being perceived as honest.
    • crichton101, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Hillary would stay quiet right up until someone discovered it and brought it up and then she'd reply with "We get donations from hundreds of thousands of people, it's impossible to run a check on every single individual who donates to our cause". But ofcourse now with Obama doing just that, we know that that would just be another line of BS from good ol' Billary
      • thanakar, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Something stinks, hundreds of thousands of donations DO come in regularly. To be able to pull the needle out of the haystack just seems too good to be true. Sounds more like a setup for a PR coup.
        • pgm_01, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1No there is a federal database of registered lobbyists so it would be pretty simple to have an automated database scan whenever a donation arrives.
  • Eddible, on 04/08/2008, -79/+13I'm so bored of all the 'We Love Obama' and 'Hilary is a whore' posts on Digg, do any of you actually know that there are countries outside of America?
    • Drogoganor, on 04/08/2008, -3/+27You can filter the categories shown on the main page. It's in the options somewhere.
      • Eddible, on 04/08/2008, -12/+1Still comes up in my feed reader though, woe is me.
        • jdpalite, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Let me stop everything and work on your problem.
    • karolisonline, on 04/08/2008, -1/+11Atlantis?
    • parisian327, on 04/08/2008, -0/+20This is a crucial time in American history and I think most Americans know that. Therefore, if we want to talk our butts off to be sure we make the right choice for this country, then so be it. Better to talk (even if it's negative) and make our own decisions than accept whatever political crap some politicians try to shove at us.
    • Aitese, on 04/08/2008, -1/+34I'm not American, I don't live in America but I'm not stupid enough to think that what happens to the biggest world powers don't affect us all. Here in the UK we are losing troops fighting a war for someone else, so I'm sure if you spoke to a British soldiers parents they'd tell you they'd like honest men/women as allies sending their kids to war for just causes.
      • gummih, on 04/08/2008, -0/+11I'm not American either but you can NOT blame the US for your own elected government's decision to take part in an illegal war. Your government is responsible for what it does - those who elected that government are responsible for their government's impact on the world.
        • Aitese, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5Our government was working in good faith with the country with the most sophisticated intelligence industry in the world...If your good friend with more resources than you tells you something do you then use your own meager resources to prove your good friend is not a liar? Most people don't.

          Plus it goes deeper than the war...global oil prices, the American economies effect on ours...our industries are linked in a way that makes your problems our problem.
          • gummih, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1You can not even blame the way you got screwed over with bogus intelligence. It has been clear since 2003 that there were no WMD in Iraq and there wasn't any link between Saddam and Al-Qaida. But British troops are still fighting - four years later! Why? Because of ulterior motives of the government. You are responsible, you can not shift the blame in this manner.
          • Aitese, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Read a little about UK politics my friend...we are not shifting the blame...we know who to blame. And AGAIN i said it goes deeper than the war...which you chose to ignore.

            Right now our country is being led by a man not democratically chosen to be it's leader...we have no choice in the matter baring armed rebellion.
          • Lleu, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1The American people made moves in 2006 to end the war. Our leaders that we put in power to do just that have ignored our calls. In November we will again attempt to end the war by removing warmongers from office, including Bush. With Obama or Clinton we will be able to end this war.

            I for one wish that our allies would stand up to Bush explain that this is HIS war and that they are leaving Iraq. Get on the phone and call your representatives. WE are responsible for getting you in under false pretenses, but since 2003, after all the lies were unearthed, what have YOU done to get out?
    • OfficialJoe, on 04/08/2008, -1/+17As a South African, I am acutely aware of the impact and potentially disastrous consequences A new Clinton administration would have on the health of my country's economy. Also, whether American or not, it is a great privilege to live in a time where a leader with true integrity rises to lead a nation that remains key to the balance of global social, political and economic stability (or as it currently stands, instability).
    • csw1342, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Welll it is an article on Obama, a current candidate for the Presidency of the United States. . . . .
    • al11588, on 04/08/2008, -6/+0Durr where in America. If your mad watch the movie coming to America.
    • exronin, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2We don't care about Canada! get over it
    • provost, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2I am not saying that their arent other countries outside the US... I am just saying they dont matter.
    • Sharky35, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Yes: Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea. There may be one or two more but I named the big ones.
    • ronaldinho, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Political news are not the only type of news on Digg. Besides, what does the latter part of you rant have to do with the former?
    • kinseyincanada, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Im Canadian and i care, the only thing i hate is how ***** long your elections last in the States, up here its just over a month then its over.
      • paintpro, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Well said, Mr. Canadian. I would share a Labatts with you any day.
    • PathDaemon, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4I know that there are other countries, but guess the ***** what: I live in the United States.
    • babbitblob, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Onoz, people digging stories that they enjoy. You're right! This must be stopped!
  • banmaster, on 04/08/2008, -56/+7From the letter is would appear that the SOLE reason for declining the donation was potential legal issues regarding the donating party.
    Its NOT about Obama being a 'nice guy' or anything like that, its ALL about him and his campaign not wanting to get in trouble, thats it!

    Don't let this ***** story convince you that he isn't just another run of the mill politician wanting as much money as possible!
    • elvenseven, on 04/08/2008, -0/+11If he accepted the money, it could be used against him as the campaign wouldn't accept money/donations from lobbyists.
    • schroeder, on 04/08/2008, -0/+10He said he wouldn't take lobbist money and he didn't. His campaign didn't tell this guy to report what happened, that was his choice. It would appear that the SOLE reason for declining the donation was that he SAID he wouldn't accept such donations. Legal issues aside, he kept his word. Why is that hard to understand? Yeah, he would have gotten heat if he had accepted it, but he said from the beginning that he wouldn't and he didn't. Why are you trying to spin this 360? You come out proving the point you're trying to challange. A run of the mill politician would accept lobbist donations, he doesn't.
    • Eiknujrac, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2I'm glad you, banmaster, are able to read the mind of the letter's author.
  • munjalm, on 04/08/2008, -45/+5Fake. Photoshopped.
    • Zeigy, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1LOL
    • theHM, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Why are you digging munjalm down? Can't you see all those pixels? They're all over that web page!
  • alanr19, on 04/08/2008, -74/+5*cough* ***** *cough*

    He's a politician. And Digg readers are gullible. The End.
    • ziptnf, on 04/08/2008, -1/+9It's obvious that you haven't paid attention to the way Obama runs his campaign. Just because he's running for president doesn't mean that he's just like every other washington politician out there. I suggest you, oh I dunno, read the news and get educated?
      • michael43, on 04/08/2008, -10/+1That's exactly what it means and I suggest you "get educated"
        • Drax0n, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6Wow it must suck to be such a pesimistic shill.
          • michael43, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Actually you're wrong. What really sucks is wasting my time reading posts from you ( a homosexual sheep with Obama's dick stuck up your ass) By the way, throw your thesaurus away, you're not impressing anybody.
        • greenm1981, on 04/08/2008, -4/+2I know you are but what am I?
    • michael43, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Your negative number of diggs just means you don't want to suck Obama off. You should be proud.
  • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -7/+216Maybe articles like this go further than 100 dollars could have...
    • Drogoganor, on 04/08/2008, -4/+31For once you actually said something that was insightful instead of complete gibberish. So I dugg you up.
      • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -41/+2If everything I've said looks like complete gibberish, the problem is on your end. And since we're making comments to tell people how we dugg, I buried you.
        • kent1146, on 04/08/2008, -1/+27Oh, there you go again.

          We all knew it wouldn't last.
          • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -34/+1Again, if it looks like gibberish, the problem is on your end. Again, buried.
          • agentbob, on 04/08/2008, -1/+16I don't think I've ever logged in to digg someone down twice before, congrats.
          • AMD64MM, on 04/08/2008, -2/+4@kent1146: Win.
          • MalenfantX, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3Arrogant as well as clueless, eh?
          • str1fe, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5I think the diggs you two are getting prove which end the problem is on.
      • takamalak, on 04/08/2008, -5/+1I still dugg him down.
    • FutureGuy, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Yes but I don't think it was the campaigns intend, not too many lobbyist are going to the straightforward like this guy and to odds of someone posting an article like this is pretty slim.
    • FecalHurler, on 04/08/2008, -9/+4Yeah I think people are slightly over-reacting to this. It wasn't $100,000... It's cool, but lets not don him our Messiah because of it.
  • brownrecluse888, on 04/08/2008, -52/+4I hope everyone(DiggIdiots) remembers all of these non stop Obama posts when McCain is president.....remember....Obama HAS to rally the majority of Clinton supporters to even have a prayer to beat McCain. If you can spend five seconds and push aside your Ron Paul bumper stickers and actually read something, anything about the last few elections you'll see that the Dem's have lost it by a fraction...and that fraction this time will be the alienated Clinton crowd who voted in swing states like Michigan and Florida but don't bother to show up in the general election.....so instead finding new ways to insert Obama's ***** in your mouth you should try to find ways to bring Clinton voters to Obama's side once the primary is over....because without those voters its another 8 years of Bush....
    • Drogoganor, on 04/08/2008, -2/+11"I hope everyone remembers all of these non stop Obama posts when McCain is president"

      Here's another one of those republicans with a crystal ball again.
    • kamizu, on 04/08/2008, -1/+12We're kinda hoping Clinton will shoot herself in the foot enough times to get her supporters to rally behind Obama, what with the taxes and sniper story and turned down pregnant teen stories and all.
      • Sharky35, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Clinton worship is a cult.... if you want Obama, you need to drink the kool-aid.
    • smacksaw, on 04/08/2008, -2/+20I hope you remember this, because I am going to repeat it until you and everyone else like you gets it:

      Hillary's supporters are against Obama because of the lies they know about him instead of the truth they don't yet know about him.

      Obama's supporters are against Hillary because of the truth they know about her.

      You can't convince me or anyone else to support Hillary. We know everything there is know about her and she's ***** insane. But the people who don't support Obama? We can correct a lot of the stupid *****, like he's a Muslim, supports al Qaida, NAFTA/Canada etc. And if the people still don't accept the truth once they've had to face it then ***** 'em.
      • sheki, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Everything else aside, I wouldn't vote for Hillary solely based on the fact that Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton is just ***** wrong. It just goes to show how ***** the political system is. One president/presidential candidate per family please. How annoying.
    • exronin, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2Who cares about Ron Paul seriously? I doubt very many Ron Paul supporters switched over to Obama, get over it. There are a lot of supporters of Obama on digg, stop whining.
      • sheki, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Umm, he didn't accept donations from lobbyists either. So you stop whining please.
    • takamalak, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2brownrecluse = covered in ***** in your mom's basement?
      99% probability.
    • MsArtGeek, on 04/08/2008, -0/+21) A year ago Hillary was the presumptive Dem nominee.
      2) Election's not for another six plus months.
      3) McCain is dodging on releasing his medical history. Hmmm, I wonder what could possibly be wrong with the body of a man in in 70s.
      4) March fundraising totals: Obama $40 Mill, Hillary $20 Mill, McCain $15 Mill. Obama has the donations pouring in from small donors, those are real people who will cast real vote.

      The fat lady, she has not yet sung.
  • krystofr, on 04/08/2008, -3/+114I'll take your money if he doesn't want it.
  • Jovensdesciple, on 04/08/2008, -46/+6What total *****! The daily coz (of assholes) is worse than the huffington post (for bitches).
    • maybach, on 04/08/2008, -1/+14There's an intelligent rebuttal for you.
    • aaaleman, on 04/08/2008, -2/+14Well spoken. You bring pride to your political camp.
    • briansalo, on 04/08/2008, -2/+7cite some reasons for your retort and we'll discuss... otherwise... wtf?
      • Jovensdesciple, on 04/08/2008, -12/+1No.
        • oetyman, on 04/08/2008, -2/+7and 'wtf' wins! - In an epic manner, of course.
          • Jovensdesciple, on 04/08/2008, -10/+1I didn't respond to you because you're a dumbass. Not because you won.
          • FujiwaraTofu, on 04/08/2008, -2/+6Jovensdesciple, you do understand that you're responding to two different people, and not one, right?
          • takamalak, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Shhhhh! It's funny watching ***** make an ass of himself and not understand the intarwebs.
    • Drax0n, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Another fox news viewer... you have my pitty sir.
  • OneLoveStubert, on 04/08/2008, -28/+6John McCain is a golden god
    • aaaleman, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1You mean like the guy from Stillwater?
    • HHP2K, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Actually, that's bronze painted in cheap gold. See how it peels?
    • SquidProQuo, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Actually he's more like "On Golden Pond".
  • DesertDude, on 04/08/2008, -33/+4I guess AIPAC is suppling their bitch Obama with enough money.
    • smacksaw, on 04/08/2008, -1/+18Only on the internet can you have a discussion thread where one moron swears Obama is linked to Islamic terrorism/al Qaida and another says he's in the pocket of AIPAC/Israel.

      None of you people know dick about anything aside from poorly made YouTube videos by people with voices in their heads.
      • doyoulikeworms, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1The "they are crazy" defense only works on the Internet as well.

        Actually, jerkoffs use it all the time offline as well.
  • sneezachoo, on 04/08/2008, -14/+7annoying type-o's are annoying.
    • blueliquid, on 04/08/2008, -0/+14So are misused apostrophes.

      (it's typos)
    • bubba9999, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8your logic is irrefutable.
    • cruzlee, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Funny typos are funny.
    • Hraes, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6*****, I thought you were talking about blood types until I read the comments.
  • RevJonathan, on 04/08/2008, -15/+9I know Edwards, Dean and Kerry did the same thing in 2004. It's common practice for candidates of both parties to reject payments from lobbyists.
    • emmeron, on 04/08/2008, -3/+5shh, no one wants to hear that on Digg. If the election weren't until 2009, he's be the second coming of Jesus by then according to these people.
      Not saying he's bad, but c'mon guys, this is called being ethical. It should be the NORM, not a cause to celebrate.
      • sagien, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6It's been way too long since words like 'ethical' meant anything to the people who ran Washington, D.C.

        A man in a drought will celebrate a drop of water, even though its abundance should be the normalcy.
      • WasabiBomb, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1You're absolutely right, emmeron. It should be the norm.
        Unfortunately, it isn't.
    • subtlesquire, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6Well Hillary sure isn't doing, it is she? The same guy can't get her to cancel his monthly donations.
  • jjive, on 04/08/2008, -25/+7Oh, this made the front page of digg, it must be true.
    I'm not disagreeing with your political affiliation, but do you have to spam digg the same way as Ron Paul supporters?
    • DesertDude, on 04/08/2008, -14/+1At least Ron Paul was worth "spamming" the front page with. Not so for Obama.
      • mimigins, on 04/08/2008, -1/+8Your sentence seems a little backwards to me.
    • exronin, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1OGM since you raised doubts on it, it must be false!
      • jjive, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Double OMG, since you raised doubts about my doubts I'm not sure whether I really doubt my doubts about this story.
  • Gnasche, on 04/08/2008, -4/+26"But that what I am doing. Obama actions are living up to his words"

    Unfrozen Caveman Lobbyist?
    • DiggasWAttitude, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1would that make Mark Penn "Lothar of the Hillary People"? Sorry, I am a sucker for Phil Hartman...
    • pillcounterd, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Their dictation is good. And at least they didn't say.....
  • ww917352, on 04/08/2008, -25/+7Many try really hard to paint Obama as an angel. He is no angel. He is a politician. We also don't need angels to run a government. All these hypes remind me of what happened and is happening in communist states. Get focus, instead of fooling or stupidly following people.
    • Drogoganor, on 04/08/2008, -4/+15Ooh, the dreaded Communists! God you guys are full of *****.
      • masterm1nd, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2Are you implying he is an angel or he isn't a politician?
      • alanr19, on 04/08/2008, -6/+4@ Drogoganor, why not cut straight to the final step of your argument can call everyone who doesn't agree with you a Nazi.
    • Nougat, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5It's a sad time when a lot of people getting excited about a politician is cause for concern.
    • runCMD, on 04/08/2008, -5/+2I am constantly amazed at how voracious Obama supporters on Digg are for any scrap of news about the man. And bloodthirsty for negative news about Senator Clinton. You made a valid point - and get dugg down because of it ( the atmosphere here on Digg ) ... Obama would not approve.
    • gummih, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Name three communist states
      • imgstacke, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3China, Cuba, N. Korea... (I think that's all of them)
      • gummih, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Well my question was actually directed at ww##### but this is fine too. ww said: "All these hypes remind me of what happened and is happening in communist states" and I started thinking... what communist states is he talking about? And what IS happening there? China? With the fastest growing economy in the world? Vietnam (Socialist republic of Vietnam, yes, they won) which is the second fastest growing economy in Asia. Laos maybe, with a GDP growth rate of about 7%. Or is he referring to Cuba - rather bogged down but their economy is still growing at least! So what's his point? N.Korea is going down the crapper of course but N Korea is more despotism than communism I would think. So all these communist states are showing significant growth - what's the US' excuse? Terrorists?
  • liamfly, on 04/08/2008, -28/+5Crap. I should have looked where I was clicking first... the link goes to Daily Kos. Burying.
  • alanr19, on 04/08/2008, -35/+6It's the constant flow of absolute ***** pro Obama propaganda here that makes me wanna vote for McCain.


    A politician who turns down donations? Don't insult my ***** intelligence. I can't wait until either Hillary or MCain beats him then maybe you ***** will learn that Diggspam is just that, spam.

    .
    • solesoul, on 04/08/2008, -2/+4Wow, isn't somebody particularly douchey today?
  • coffee200am, on 04/08/2008, -23/+9Obama is just like Jesus! I bet he doesn't lie either!
    • 7stitches, on 04/08/2008, -3/+5Imaginary?
      • aaaleman, on 04/08/2008, -3/+8Regardless of atheism, Jesus was in fact a historical figure.
        • imgstacke, on 04/08/2008, -9/+4Ahh no he wasn't...
        • 533n, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2Jesus was a liar
          • michael43, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1I was going to respond with a really smart ass comment but after thinking about it, I'm just sad for you.
      • Yoshi39, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2Well yes and no, there where in fact several mesiases around the meditaranian at around 0 ad and jesus is a mix between thiere (I can't remember how to spell that word) traits so he was real in the sense that there where several people with some of the traits said to belong to jesus but there where no one person who had them all so to speak (If I'm wrong I would be delighted if you could give me a link to a paper that proves your claims)
        • michael43, on 04/08/2008, -3/+1First you need a link to a good grammar school.
    • michael43, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1I really, really hope you are being sarcastic, but with the way most of the digg community licks Obama's ass, it's hard to be sure.
    • okcomputer1982, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1You have to Jesus not to lie? Why are people so intimidated by those that public attempt to be good, honest and full of integrity? Probably just afraid I guess.
  • aaaleman, on 04/08/2008, -11/+91That's it. If you Americans don't vote for that man, there will be a thunderous cacophony around the world that will forever deafen your nation:
    The collective slap to the shaking head of civilized society.
    • alanr19, on 04/08/2008, -15/+4So which foreign nation are we taking our orders from now?
      • bubba9999, on 04/08/2008, -4/+6Saudi Arabia? Keep the ball rolling!
      • gummih, on 04/08/2008, -1/+10It's called the great nation of the United States - foreign to many these days.
    • Arancaytar, on 04/08/2008, -2/+10They're beyond shaking heads now. I think they gave up on us around 2004.
      • CarStan, on 04/08/2008, -5/+1Wait, you mean you americans really still have internet? I thought it was all some huge conspiracy from the Bush dictatorship to let the rest of the world think everythings ok with you guys. That or massive trolls
        • solesoul, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5Bush is the troll. He's in our base, killing our nation's respectability
        • str1fe, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3All their oil are belong to U.S.
      • ShinRaTDR, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Canada's still here. Only because we have to be.
        • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -5/+1You're free to leave at any time.

          The sooner the better.
    • emmeron, on 04/08/2008, -6/+9Bah, we're already down between lesser of evils. I remain anti-socialism in the USA (and anti-Fascist, so no John McCain). Funny how Europe always cheers for the socialists. Go figure.
      • Platina, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2Doesn´t it work in Europe?? So why can´t it work in the United States??
        • grunion, on 04/08/2008, -4/+5Because it doesn't work in Europe. Socialism is an amoral affront to the natural laws of people. To confiscate by force a citizen to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care for neighbors at the point of a gun is nothing short of tyrany. Please do try to keep the Keynesians on the eastern side of the Atlantic if you would.
        • stretch611, on 04/08/2008, -2/+4grunion, it looks to me like it works in Europe. After all, their economy is currently in much better shape than the US despite the evil socialist ways of universal health care and taxing the rich.
        • corneliusJones, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2@ stretch, The EU currently has an unemployment rate around 8% and it is doing "well." The American economy is tanking and we still have an unemployment rate of about 4.9%. So who's economy is really in better shape?

          GAH for *****'s sake!!! There was a problem completing your request. Please reload the page and try again.
        • Hetman, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Its called economies of scale. We have almost 200 million more people than you. ***** we have over 20 million illegal aliens running around this county. The UK only has an estimated 60,587,000. We have almost 1/3 of their population running around unchecked and undocumented. Their is a huge difference between us and Europe.
        • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5What you are seeing is the economic result of flirting with socialism. The closer the U.S. gets to socialism, and the farther away from true capitalism, the worse the economy gets.
        • mizike, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1@corneliusJones

          the U.S. measures unemployment as "all the people on welfare"....people who used to be on welfare but had their benefits expire are now "employed" as they're no longer drawing a social assistance cheque, as well, people who decided to take a minimum wage job after being downsized from their decent job are not accounted for.....these two factors alone grossly misrepresent unemployment statistics....

          Furthermore, I don't know why americans have been brainwashed to believe all socialism is inherently bad.....state paid healthcare and higher education (both of which are much cheaper for it's citizens, per capita, than the privatized U.S. model) combined with a higher overall quality of life seem like pretty compelling arguments to me.....
          • grunion, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2There is NO such thing as "state paid healthcare and higher education". Every bit of the coinage spent to those ends by the state must be forcibly taken from an individual. If you doubt the force, try NOT paying taxes for a while and witness the results.

            The cost per capita is useless since it's backed by the tyrany of the state taking money from individuals to supply it to others. The cost is more than monetary, it's freedom. A citizen should not be a subject of a state, rather a state should seek to least interfere with the freedoms of its citizenry. Without freedom, there really is no quality of life. It's possible that those in socialist contries live longer lives, but they live them in shackles, be they economic or real.
          • mizike, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1@grunion
            let me guess....you're a libertarian, right? that kind of insane thinking could only come from one.....

            in response: of course the money comes from the people via taxes, did you think I was implying that socialist states all have a money tree that they can just shake whenever they need funds? if that's the impression I gave I apologize.....

            anyway I can tell we're not going to see eye to eye on this one.....I come from a country where the state levies taxes on the public and reinvests it into programs which benefit society at large....I find it's worth it to know that if i get into a car accident I won't have to make a choice between surrendering all of my assets (when my private insurer decides to deny me coverage -- public insurer can't do that) and, well, death.....

            don't get me wrong, I can understand your position, your government levies very low taxes on it's people and uses the funds to murder arabs...I would be distrustful of them too....but deciding to have no government at all is just frightening....unless you want Enron type situations to happen over and over and over again....with no regulating factors every essential service would be provided by a corporate monopoly (for example, there's only even a semblance of competition in the telecom industry because the government won't allow a monopoly to form, if the government stepped out there'd be no competition at all)....it amazes me that people suffering under a broken system will defend it with their last breath....
          • grunion, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2@mizike
            The US party most similar to my beliefs happens to be the Libertarian party, but that's not exactly where I was introduced to the ideals you seem to be calling insanity.

            Where medical coverage is concerned, I suggest your fear if private industry is mostly theoretical as my unfortunate, frequent, and admittedly not always positive interaction with private insurance has never presented a "liquidate or die" scenario (and I've been involved with far too many "death is a strong possibility" scenarios from far too close a range). I'll concede we simply won't agree on this, and I can accept that.

            I never said I trusted my government, though your random inclusion of "murdering Arabs" is irrelevant. I'm also not an anarchist (I leave those where they belong - 1914 or so will do). Regulation is a necessary evil, but over-regulation and under-regulation are simply evils. The US teclco market didn't have competition because of government, it had a MONOPOLY because of the government. That monopoly was broken only after private firms managed to make inroads allowing for a court ruling to ALLOW competition. Enron didn't occur because there wasn't enough state involvement, it happened because criminal bastards stole on an unprecedented scale. Theft has taken place for so long, Moses addressed it. It's not a new thing that can be eradicated with just more regulations. Without government, there tends to be MORE competition - more competition breeds more failures though. I point to the auto industry of the early 20th century and, because it's easy, the Internet from say 1990 to present. Skype didn't come to be by government mandate, nor did google. For that matter, information is an essential service, should the state regulate Digg because we get information here?

            I certainly hope I'm not on my last breath, but I do hold that without capitalism there is no true freedom.
          • mahdaeng, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1@mizike:

            Please define "higher overall quality of life". From where I stand, that is a very subjective term and therefore cannot be used in a rational argument without definition.
    • derekge, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I thought that was supposed to happen when Bush got re-elected!
    • bensorensen, on 04/09/2008, -1/+0If you think you can force the American people to vote for the candidate of your choosing by issuing threats of "deafening our nation", then maybe you've already had a hard collective slap to your shaking head. You might want to get your bearings first before you post something else on digg.com, otherwise you might say something even more stupid.
  • Nurven, on 04/08/2008, -18/+14Please do not forget that Obama is still a human being and he WILL make mistakes
    • gummih, on 04/08/2008, -2/+7True - but more importantly - how would he handle that, as compared to your run of the mill politician. Will he handle them openly and honestly or be secretive?
      • Nurven, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1I don't doubt the man, IF he does take office, time will tell.
      • stretch611, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Obama has already shown us how he will handle it. When the Reverend Wright controers started, he admitted his relationship with the Reverend instead of distancing himself like any other politician. He then openly and honestly opened a dialogue on race relations instead of running and hiding. I believe this (among other things) has shown that Obama truly is open and sincere about change.
    • Yousei, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3Ones that I believe he will admit to... unlike the puppet in the White House now.
      • emmeron, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Not really. He still thinks we should be at war. Is that not a mistake? He is still a political figure and answers to more than his conscience.
    • HHP2K, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1And HRC won't make way more, way worse? And who says they'll be "mistakes"? I think we're all counting on her wonderful foreign policy experience.
    • FutureGuy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1So you are saying we need an Alien, HRC might fit the bill, she seems to be from Jupiter.
    • NeilVickers, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1As my old driving instructor used to say: "It's not about never making mistakes; it's about avoiding the really dangerous ones, and recovering well enough from the little ones that nobody really notices them."
    • WasabiBomb, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Clearly, we need to change the laws so that we can re-elect Bush. He's never made any mistakes- just ask him, he'll tell ya.
  • undeadbydawn, on 04/08/2008, -5/+42I was deeply cynical about the reported Obama 'wow' factor, figuring that Clinton should surely be the next President, as I have hoped for many years.

    I was completely wrong. They have both shown their true positions with exceptional clarity. Barack Obama should be the next President.
  • TheInformer, on 04/08/2008, -17/+12Gee, another article extolling the virtues of the 2008 election's only perfect candidate. Perfect? Well, according to the articles on Digg, he must be.

    • CypressQ, on 04/08/2008, -4/+2Far from it. In fact, he's the worst of the lot.
    • exronin, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Thanks for noticing, good job!
    • dockb0y, on 04/08/2008, -3/+1Plus, wtf is up with those ears? He could go sailing in a rowboat.
    • MalenfantX, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2How about only candidate that doesn't suck completely?
    • thanakar, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1If something is too good to be true than it IS too good to be true.
  • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 04/08/2008, -26/+13Oh great. More Barack Ospama "news"
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/08/2008, -14/+48In next week's episode, Obama walks on water and cures cancer...
    • jerbaker, on 04/08/2008, -3/+14It must seem that way when your candidate is Hillary.
    • blarch, on 04/08/2008, -7/+2....while simultaneously handing Bush a blank check and voting for CAFA
    • had3l, on 04/08/2008, -1/+9That ridiculous, he can't walk on water...
      • Hraes, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8He can only run on water. If he slows down, he sinks.
    • familynight, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3funny because that's pretty much what clinton would have to do to get my vote at this point
  • sindex, on 04/08/2008, -7/+26Obama is a decent human being, and Clinton is a filthy liar... must be Tuesday on digg.
    • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Whatever happened to that Ron Paul character? He used to get all the headlines on Digg.
      • RJGONZO, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2He made the majority of the people who read anything on Digg realize that all three current candidates pretty much suck? Good enough contribution methinks.
        • mahdaeng, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1I figured that one out without Ronnie's help.
    • csyers, on 04/08/2008, -0/+0Yep, except the day of the week and the site doesn't matter.
  • nodeuces, on 04/08/2008, -5/+8Someone needs to run a spell checker on this article. Gross.
  • Unearthly, on 04/08/2008, -15/+6Trust me, if that check were for 1 million dollars ... it would have been cashed.
  • CypressQ, on 04/08/2008, -19/+8Just another lame praise Obama, diss Hillary article. Ironically, neither will win come November.
    • michael43, on 04/08/2008, -3/+1You're on the wrong site. This one isn't for realistic sane people.
  • nirosive, on 04/08/2008, -15/+4Cindy Sheehan exposes Obama.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptu81SGQfLw
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Cindy_Sheehan_Sa ...
    • Kronk42583, on 04/08/2008, -4/+4when is someone finally going to punch that bitch to shut her up? seriously.
      • Xanadude, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6When we repeal the laws guaranteeing free speech and prohibiting assault. Until then, you're out of luck, *****.
        • Kronk42583, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3wow, way to not get my point. *****
    • laserdog, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2She was stumping for Ron Paul, 3 months ago. She even started off saying "There is only one true conservative, Ron Paul".

      Your statement is misleading, it should be "Cindy Sheehan was on the Ron Paul bandwagon 3 months ago, and in a speech to less than a dozen people, mentioned that Ron Paul is less likely to start a new war than Obama is."

      Also, man her voice is nasally and whiny.
      • nirosive, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Misleading?...a little bit, but if I would have included Ron Paul in my comment, would you have bothered clicking the link? Probably not. Sorry for exposing you to some truth.
  • Lieutenant, on 04/08/2008, -4/+25A question from a European: It's been something like the 1000th post on digg on the integrity of Obama, and all I can hear about him is praise and admiration. The question is this: How many of you are going to actually vote for him, people? How many of you are going to say "yes, I'll do it, I will get my car and drive to the election "station" (or whatever you guys call it), and I will actually spend a good hour and a half voting of the guy".
    So are you actually going to vote for the guy, or are we going to witness another fascinating result the day of your elections?
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 04/08/2008, -1/+10Keep in mind that Diggers are just a SMALL portion of American voters. The majority of Americans are not enraptured by Obama the way some Diggers are. Also, some of the Obamaspam is really more anti-Hillary than pro-Obama...
      • bsurette, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Agreed. In face, I reckon that all bloggers and political commentators on the 'net are not largely representative of American voters.
      • Lieutenant, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Well, I understand that diggers are neither a big sample nor a representative one. But with all the hype out there, I'm puzzled. Since the choice for the democratic party is either Obama or Hillary, and anti-Hillary posts are the majority with numerous concomitant posts on Obama, the question is perfectly legitimate. If all the Americans I know off either voted for the Democrats or they didn't vote at all, then how did the Republicans get a second mandate from the people?
        • jazmatician, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Because there are Americans and Murricans. You've never met a Murrican, but there are tons of them. We don't elect our president based on popular vote, but on Electoral votes. Murrican states get a disproporationate number of electoral votes, and so tend to sway the election.
        • papipablo, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2Republicans never got a first mandate from the people. Remember more Americans didn't vote for Bush than did vote for him.
    • dockb0y, on 04/08/2008, -8/+2You can count on me to not vote for Obama. We've had one messiah in history, and I don't believe Obama to be the Second Coming.
      • RockeN5, on 04/08/2008, -2/+8He's running to become President of the US, not your messiah. Don't vote.
        • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2Don't vote? What about the right of the governed to cast their ballot? You, sir, are a hypocrite.
        • RJGONZO, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Have you heard his speaches? Certainly sounds like he is running for Messiah half the time.
    • RockeN5, on 04/08/2008, -1/+7Yes - I drove out to vote for Barack in my state's primary election (Barack lost here though). I plan on driving out in the fall and voting for him again.
    • asskicker32, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4I walked to the polling station to vote.
    • jenniecaute, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2I drove 40 minutes home from my dorm to vote in my primary. But I do know a bunch of "Obama supporters" at school who didn't bother to vote.
    • Hincapie, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2definitely.
    • compson, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2i live in michigan. i drove to the fire house to vote for "uncommitted" (obama wasn't on the ballot) in an election that i knew wasn't going to count, because it was the closest thing i could do to voting for him.
    • Hraes, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7You make a good point. If I'd been trying to determine the outcome of the first primaries by reading Digg, Ron Paul would've taken several states.
      • bensorensen, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0If you'd determined the outcome of the Republican nomination by reading Digg, then Ron Paul would have been the Republican nominee.
    • keviniskool, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6I walked uphill, both ways, in the snow, for 14 miles to vote for Obama. Even though I could have driven there.
    • serif69, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2I don't doubt Obama's good nature, but as an economic and political conservative and social liberal (read: libertarian), I disagree with his stances on just about everything. So no, I will not vote for Obama on election day. It's difficult to judge from Digg, because if you go back in time to when Ron Paul was the meme of choice, it would have appeared that nobody would vote for Obama because he is for expanding government programs and increased spending.
    • str1fe, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3I'm 17 still (turning 18 two months after election day, sadly), but you bet your ass I'd be voting for Obama if I were old enough. I'm still doing my part to promote his campaign (talking about his values whenever I can, riding around with his bumper sticker, donating, etc.), so I hope I'm at least making a difference.
    • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2I neither like him, nor trust him, nor believe that he will take our country in the right direction - so, no, I will not be voting for him.
    • computerguydk, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I voted for Obama in my state's primary, and will also vote for Obama in the general election.
    • Kyrra, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I voted for Obama in my states primary and have donated money to his campaign. And I will vote for him in the general election.
    • Qritz, on 04/08/2008, -0/+0It took me like 5 minutes to vote in the primary because I live next to an elementary school so yeah, I'm voting.
    • OaklandMatt, on 04/08/2008, -0/+0I am actually voting for Obama. I will campaign for him as well because for the first time, I am inspired by a politician.
    • Jonascord, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0I'm ignorant of how long it takes to vote in the EU, if Brussels allows you to vote at all, but here in "flyover country," voting takes, on average, about 10 minutes.
      By the way, Hussein Obama is a Chicago pol, and, as such, is as dirty as they come. You should remember that within the last 8 years, 27 Chicago government officials, as well as 3 of the last 7 governors, and a Congressman, have wound up in prison for theft, bribery, extortion, and other felonies under cover of law. That these Obama idiots can so blithely ignore these facts says a lot for the collapse of this country.
  • Xanadude, on 04/08/2008, -14/+10But Obama did want Tony Rezko's money. Sure, he returned some of it, but then he "restated" how much he'd received from Rezko - it was a lot more than he'd initially disclosed. And he hasn't returned it all, not by a long shot.
    • notaflyerfan, on 04/08/2008, -4/+5Obama Returned ALL of the $$ that Rezko donated to the presidential primary campaign. The monies you are talking about that he didn't return were to his state campaign which was years ago. You can see all monies donated for yourself at the FEC website.
  • xobarbarian, on 04/08/2008, -10/+2i would digg this article a 100 times if I could. Obama FTW!
  • HippieGal, on 04/08/2008, -11/+6I would be impressed if the check had been for fifty thousand or more. I'm not impressed that he sent back a hundred bucks, geesh, he pays that much for lunch.
    • Mykal73, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3But it proves they're paying close enough attention to catch the little stuff.
  • junkwheel, on 04/08/2008, -6/+18The Obama campaign has turned down a lot more money than this.

    Several corporations wanted to give substantial amounts, some did, and they sent the checks back. Obama said they meant well too, but it's just not where he wanted the money to come from to fund his campaign.

    Obama is truly a once in a lifetime candidate.
    • thanakar, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3He'll wait until he's in office before he starts accepting checks from big business.
  • fishrjv, on 04/08/2008, -8/+42I will be deeply saddened if we (Americans) miss out on the chance of being led by this man.
    • baylat, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2Current Hobby: Print screening and saving all the enthusiastic comments about obama just in case he screws up big time if he does become president.
      • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -3/+1Just in case?

        Now that I think of it, do you need some venture capital?
      • kss42, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Perhaps you should try model airplanes?
    • itstodd, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1I will be deeply saddened if we (Americans) miss out on the chance of being led by this supreme racist
  • jzuska, on 04/08/2008, -12/+3He could always send cash.
    • str1fe, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3I believe they call your comment "missing the point"
  • Roobix, on 04/08/2008, -13/+6Inaccurate. Read the letter FFS.
  • TheGrandMufti, on 04/08/2008, -14/+6The Dems offer quite a choice: A liar or a sociopath.
  • TinternAbbot, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1Lobbying is a constitutional right.
    • uhohpancho, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Doesn't mean it's ethical or in the best interests of the country.
      • TinternAbbot, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Doesn't matter. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right to petition the government for change. One could argue that certain literature and ideas aren't in the "best interests" of the country. But they are still protected.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 120 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.