digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Obama landslides could break deadlock

politico.com — Candidate hopes big wins in mid-sized states will give him momentum to beat Clinton in big battlegrounds.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SheilaNoya, on 02/10/2008, -7/+243If the Democrats want to win in November, Obama is clearly the candidate who can do it. Hillary isn't nearly as bad as the "Hillary-Haters" make her out to be, but she is far too polarizing and would keep America divided. A lot of unhappy Republicans would accept Obama over McCain, but they'll come out in great numbers to vote against Hillary. Let's hope the Super Delegates are smart enough to make the right decision and that Hillary is smart enough to accept her fate gracefully (unlikely, but it would be the smart thing to do if she really cares about America).
    • lamprey187, on 02/10/2008, -0/+91"she is far too polarizing"
      absolutely true. The bottom line is that Republicans and Independents would travel 50 miles uphill both ways to vote against her in the General election.
      • elkram, on 02/10/2008, -2/+77I'm a Democrat and I would climb Mt. Everest to vote against her.
      • LeeSoong, on 02/10/2008, -14/+2What is nice about Obama is his support for REAL-ID and National Identification Cards.

        Once everyone is registered in the USA, the real changes can begin . . .
        • CC440, on 02/10/2008, -2/+6I support the REAL ID, it replaces the need for having a Social Security Card, Passport, and Driver's Lisence in your possesion. You are already marked by the government by these 3 items, so its just a simplification of current government papers. You tinfoil hat types need to actually research REAL ID and its proposed uses before you go insane over it. Yes it may be possible for REAL ID to be abused, but I don't think it will happen.
          • LeeSoong, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1Until someone steals your card - then they have full access to all the above.

            And scam artists will soon be able to counterfeit REAL ID cards just like they can copy credit cards, drivers licenses, passports, and social security cards - so what is the benefit?

            None, the more centralized and consolidated all the information becomes,
            the GREATER risk to you if that one, single ID is compromised.

            Imagine a bank having only 1 password for the whole financial network (SECRET - on a yellow post-it stuck to the PC monitor).
            Sure, it is so much easier to have 1 easy password for the entire financial network - but it will not increase security. Quite the opposite, security is lessened by having simplified the ease of cracking the system.

            REAL-ID lowers security, puts citizens at risk, and wont 'stop the terrorists'.
            According to the 9/11 report - all terrorists involved in the 9/11 attack had full documentation, completely legal. So what if you added yet another card for them to apply for? The results would still have been the same...

            REAL-ID puts the USA at greater risk, by making it easier for the 'pros'
            to fake their way into the country, all with 1 single card.

            The only group pushing in favor of REAL-ID is the vendors who will make huge profits by selling millions of cards, the data base system, network software, etc. More a product of lobbyists pushing special interests, money motivated no matter how badly they trample on civil rights, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights...

        • OldJesser, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3@CC440
          Neither of those 3 items carry an RFID chip, however. This is something being seriously discussed as a feature of REAL ID. I'd rather do what I can to stop it than trust your guess that it would never be abused.
      • devophl, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3Well, in a recent poll, that was revealed. McCain has a huge lead over Clinton among independents. This is that type of lead she is unlikely to reverse and without independent voters, she doesn't stand a chance in the general election. McCain does have a lead over Obama but its small and Obama can overcome it... as long as Hillary doesn't beat him to a pulp before the convention.
    • iainc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+8True. What the Democrats and Americans at large require this fall is an end to Bush and his malign influence over policy. BHO knows this. HRC knows this. We know this. Word has it -- and, admittedly, it's only polls -- that Obama is the only one of the two remaining candidates who can assure victory against the Republicans. Team Clinton also know this, yet they keep on pushing. Seriously, if winning the election in November mattered, or the bigger picture mattered, or even the vox populi mattered to Clinton then she would step aside. She will not and this says more about her than anything else she can say or do.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 02/10/2008, -1/+46Here is why Obama WILL beat McCain. He attracts disgruntled republicans with some of his plans.

      For example his plan that he mentioned last night to make college affordable. He said he would give scholarships to students worth thousands of dollars. But he wouldn't do it for free. He would require community service in return.

      Contrary to the belief of many Democrats, Republicans do want to see college and healthcare more affordable. They just don't like handouts to people who didn't earn it. This college plan and many other plans like it take the best of both worlds. They give to the people who need it the most but they also make those people give back to our country in some way.

      This is why he wins the red states. This is why he wins independents. He is able to compromise and come up with plans everyone can agree with.

      His speeches uplift people and that alone will be enough to get people working again and make them proud to be an american. I have all but abandoned the democratic philosophy because of their many failures during their time in majority rule of congress. But I will vote for Obama over McCain. If Hillary wins however I will almost certainly vote third party.
    • ZenMojo, on 02/10/2008, -0/+25Hillary isn't as bad as the Republicans think, but she's exactly as bad as the Liberals think she is. And that's pretty ***** bad.
      • poxonyou, on 02/11/2008, -0/+7Exactly. I never understood the Republican hatred for the Clinton's as they've been extremely favorable to Republican foreign policy, and even some domestic policies dealing with security (ie, more intrusive government).and poverty (welfare reform). Of course, these are exactly the reasons progressives should be more worried about a Clinton presidency. Obama is no Kucinich, but he's more progressive than Clinton, especially in foreign policy.
        • ZenMojo, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3To quote Obama from his Virginia speech, "Why are we bringing Republicans and Independents? Because, as a strong Progressive, they may not agree with all of my policy, but at least I'm not demonizing them!"
      • wooFmeoWoinK, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2totally true, i can never understand the support liberals were so generous in giving to the clintons.
    • rficwizard, on 02/10/2008, -0/+13Obama will get the votes of many of the Republicans who want us out of Iraq. Hillary would not get those votes, and McCain will not get those votes. The Republican Party has alienated its core by supporting US imperialism.
    • LeeSoong, on 02/10/2008, -13/+3Properly reinforced retaining walls of propaganda should be used to prevent Obama landslides.

      ' Yuck, you got Obama all over my roadways! '
    • nksoccer13, on 02/10/2008, -8/+4Your insane if you think conservative republicans (the ones who are angry with McCain) are going to vote for Obama.
      • venom8599, on 02/10/2008, -0/+12Conservative politicians might not, but there's a large group of moderate and left-leaning Republicans who Obama seems to attract over McCain. Hillary has a twofold effect of causing the Conservative base who are angry with McCain to vote for him anyway, as well as driving off those moderate Republicans and a good chunk of Independents.

        Anyone but Hillary could probably wipe the floor with McCain this year. His best shot was in 2000 I think--he seems to have had his maverick spirit broken in the last few years.
        • nksoccer13, on 02/11/2008, -2/+1I totally agree with you that Obama would attract many Republicans and I think he will win the election if he wins the primary. I just think it is crazy to say conservatives will vote for Obama.
          • PleaseJustDie, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4I'm conservative and if the general election is Obama/McCain I'm voting Obama. If its McCain/Hillary I'm voting McCain and hoping he dies in office and picked a good VP.
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/11/2008, -0/+13As far as Hillary being not as bad as people make her out to be, I beg to differ.

      She isn't a leader, she is a follower, and her votes show that she always tows the party line.

      She panders shamelessly. Here is Hillary faking a southern drawl to win over southern voters: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI

      She is a war-monger. This is Hillary towing the party line again, threatening Iran with the implication of nuclear war:
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7tiEt_iguY

      Oh yeah, and here she is conspiring with Edwards to cut the lower tier candidates out of the debates.
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-WsvQhVmhc

      That's not even the tip of the iceberg. Those videos are just a few things that come to mind off the top of my head. This isn't people exaggerating to make her seem bad. They have legitimate reason. She seriously sucks. I'm not trying to be mean here, but she is a terrible candidate and to me that just seems obvious.
    • poxonyou, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3"Let's hope the Super Delegates are smart enough to make the right decision"
      I wouldn't count on it. They're mostly party insiders who have been close to the Clinton's for many years. They may feel they even owe the Clinton's a favor since they were in power for 8 years prior to Bush. If these victories keep being landslides or near landslides for Obama, I think people are going to be understandably pissed at these "super delegates" if they go against popular will and nominate Clinton.If people don't protest, I can imagine it at least further damaging Democrat turn out for the election and turn out for the next primaries. What's the point of voting if party insiders are just going to pick whoever they want anyway? See this Yahoo News article from today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080211/ap_on_el_pr/su ...
  • xOKxWhy, on 02/10/2008, -11/+11108ama
    • LeeSoong, on 02/10/2008, -30/+1Hussein !
    • justintsmith, on 02/10/2008, -1/+33Obama makes me proud to be an american. And Im not even american, Im canadian.
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 02/11/2008, -0/+27You can be proud to be America's hat.
      • ligyron, on 02/11/2008, -7/+0You're a disgrace to Canadians! I'll just assume you were trying to be funny
    • jesuswuzanalien, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Barack on! Gobama!
  • zathlazip, on 02/10/2008, -1/+58I am worried. If it does actually get to the superdelegates, and the superdelegates do not go with the vote of the people, what happens then?

    We think people will act, but what did they do when the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election for us?

    All I can do is show my open support, rally, and hope.
    • dbw53022, on 02/10/2008, -3/+9Perhaps Obama could run as an independent?
      • sulthernao, on 02/10/2008, -2/+31And guarantee a McCain win?
        • Pake, on 02/10/2008, -9/+3Would it honestly be any worse than a Hillary win? She's just as freaking screwed up in the head.
        • echolyean, on 02/10/2008, -1/+5Obama ≠ Nader ... and if it's truly the will of the people that he be the Democratic nominee and the Super Delegates choose Clinton... there will be even more record turn out in voting than there already has been during the primaries.
          • sleepwalkers, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2The democratic vote would be split between Obama and Clinton and McCain would win.
    • haterrade, on 02/10/2008, -2/+15If Obama (or Clinton for that matter) has a delegate lead more than a pittance they'll have no choice but to nominate him/her, anything otherwise would just be suicide for the general election
    • ncnavguy, on 02/10/2008, -4/+3I think Obama would run as an independent if he wins the popular vote but loses due to superdelegates. I could see him beating both Hillary and McCain if he ran as an independent
      • iainc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+9I can see why it would be nice to think so. But I think he'd struggle to get anything done in Congress. He's a loyal Democrat. Clinton wins; the Democrats lose the election. Obama will become stronger and, provided McCain doesn't piss off the Medvedev/Putin tag team too much or squander to many of Obama's younger support base in an Iran draft, there might be enough people left to vote Obama in for 2012.

        Hey, and just to throw an crazy, off-the-wall, esoteric spanner in the works: if McCain should win in 2008 then maybe the Mayans were right about 2012 after all -- who knew?
    • mawginty, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3No matter what happens they can argue that their vote is the vote of the people. There are three measures: states, delegates, and total number of votes. Obama will win more states, Clinton has a good chance of winning the total number of votes (there are a lot of people in California, New York, and New Jersey). Clearly the delegate count is up in the air. But whoever the winner is expect the superdelegates to declare that America has spoken for the candidate they pick.
      • rdoger6424, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Base it on nonsuperdelegate delegates?
    • senatorpjt, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6That's exactly what happened with Mondale vs. Hart in 1984. And of course, it was the biggest embarrassment in a general election ever.
    • venom8599, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3If the Superdelegates don't go with the will of the people, then the candidate the people didn't want gets the nomination. There's no recourse. This is how the party set up the rules, and it's up to the parties to pick who they nominate. Don't like it? Vote for a 3rd Party Candidate. If enough people did the same then the 3rd party would win. Despite how it seems, the US form of Government isn't hard-wired for only 2 parties.
      • poxonyou, on 02/11/2008, -1/+2No, it pretty much is hard-wired for 2 parties. It's a step-up from the original one-party rule that the founders wanted.
      • mknoll1, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2GO ahead,vote for a third party. Throw your vote away.

        Even aliens on the Simpsons know a third party can't win.
    • DangerCollie, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5I can tell you what would happen: Millions of Democrats would feel betrayed and the party would fracture. We'd perpetuate the strife and political division that started in the early 90's. I think another four years and we might very well be beyond the point we can recover. We're close to that point now but it's like a recession. You can only see it from the perspective of the future looking back. So I'm guessing. We're badly wounded right now.
  • erkokite, on 02/10/2008, -0/+91From what I hear, Obama is highly likely to win Maine (Caucus is today). A friend in Maine attended his speech and told me that he had never seen worse traffic in his life. Apparently the line to get in was over a mile long (people, not cars). Hillary's speech was the same day, and there was no line. There was, however, some chick in a bikini and playboy bunny ears, who shook hands with Hillary and told her, "If people believe half the ***** you say, then they probably also believe in the Easter Bunny." Nice.
    MAINE AND OBAMA FTW!
    • formerteenager, on 02/10/2008, -3/+5Highly likely is an overstatement. I'm pretty sure he is the underdog in Maine, however I will say that nothing would make me happier today than to see him pull it off. I watched his victory speech last night and it gave me chills. We need Obama in the White House.
      • wild, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3Wish granted.

        What else would you like to see?
    • bitspace, on 02/10/2008, -0/+20The last I saw, Clinton was favored in Maine. Obama winning it would be a nice little psychological coup.
      • ZenMojo, on 02/10/2008, -2/+2As if him taking Connecticut, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, and Alabama weren't bad enough.
        • EtherGnat, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2New Mexico still hasn't been decided. Clinton is likely to win with an extremely small margin of victory but all the provisional votes still haven't been counted so who knows.
      • plosfas, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3Obama is in the lead right now. By quite a large margin.
      • poxonyou, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3Well, he won, by quite a bit.
    • iainc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Priceless quote, LOL!
    • rstarr, on 02/10/2008, -0/+7Obama had a rally in Bangor, 10,000 people, 7,500 were inside the Bangor Auditorium where has 2,500 stood outside during. I have a lot of friends who went, some inside some out, but to make 2500 people wait outside in Maine weather for that long is just short of a miracle. Hillary's rally at the Lewiston Armory was much smaller as the venue holds only a few thousand. Prior the the event (she came out at 3ish) is was impossible for anyone else to fit in around 1:30pm so her rally was much smaller because of her choice of having it in the Armory. Hillary's rally was much more intimate (my mother got to speak with her one on one for about 5 minutes), but Obama's was much longer and massive. His was also in northern Maine as opposed to southern where the majority of the population lies so his numbers are much more impressive. My mother went to vote a few hours ago it seemed Hillary had a slim lead in her precinct (Lisbon) but he is garner a lot of support from the baby boomers, but the seniors still seem to be Hill's loyalists.
      • LantechNE, on 02/10/2008, -0/+12The family and I went to Bangor yesterday. Two hour drive for us. We got there and made it in around the traffic by taking a back road, then walking a little ways. The line of people was very long, and we were toward the end. Then the line got longer. In short, there were a hell of a lot of people there.
        We stood outside for an hour, then they announced that the auditorium was full and Obama would speak to the people outside first. He did a short speech outside before going in to speak so we could get out of the cold. People were sitting in trees and even getting on top of a Uhaul van before a cop made them get off the van.
        I just got back from our town's caucus, and Obama won by a good margin. It was a mix of people on both sides. Some women seemed to be there just to vote for Clinton just because she is a woman.
        • HellDonut, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6Very nice, thanks for posting your views.
        • jon30041, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3@Helldonut: Not really views, more like reporting maybe?
    • Spoomeister, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6"There was, however, some chick in a bikini and playboy bunny ears, who shook hands with Hillary and told her, "If people believe half the ***** you say, then they probably also believe in the Easter Bunny.""

      Pics, or it didn't happen.
  • SuspicionVandit, on 02/10/2008, -9/+49Kucinich has a way hotter wife.
    • dball48, on 02/10/2008, -5/+24he also happens to be the better candidate...
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 02/10/2008, -1/+9The Republicans would have annihilated Kucinich. He's much too socialist for most Americans taste. The democrats might be more favorable this election but people are still very cautious of the socialist ideas that come out of a lot of democrats. Particularly Hillary Clinton.
      • fantasticFlan, on 02/10/2008, -1/+8I think he'd make a better president, but no, Kucinich has not been a better candidate.
      • SuspicionVandit, on 02/10/2008, -1/+7i'm talking about her *****. not his policies.
    • jeexbit, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6It is a shame that Kucinich dropped out, despite his "electability" or whatnot - he is an incredible visionary and a true man of the people.
    • Jo9100, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1as much as Kucinich is in an absolute/unrelative way better candidate, I don't think the US are ready for him. not everyone is as progressive-minded as us.
  • tucsonsun13, on 02/10/2008, -1/+42I seriously believe Obama could turn this country around. In the nick of time, and with the support of a majority of Americans. He's the only serious candidate left, and in my estimation, the obvious choice.
    • d3mag0gu3, on 02/10/2008, -14/+2True. After all, he's only been a senator about 2 years and has no national base to speak of. But his speeches are great. The next Washington, Lincoln and FDR combined some say. Obamabots FTW!
      • Pake, on 02/10/2008, -0/+7This coming from someone who's only arguments against Obama are about his name, especially his middle name. May I ask, which dick are you hanging off of most, Hillary's or Paul's? ***** experience. Experience is why we're at where we are right now, because in politics, experience just means a large pool of lobbyist funding and learning how to ***** better.
        • d3mag0gu3, on 02/10/2008, -9/+0Not hanging off any dicks. Wished the obamabot would take Obama's dick out of their collective mouth. I'm just here to be the anit-obamabot. I'm not a Hillary supporter. I hate sheeple. And that's what you obamabots are. Mindless drones. You've ruined digg for me. So I'm here to exact some revenge by pointing out some of Obama's defiencies. Obamabots FTW!
          • Pake, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2You can turn off political news if you hate seeing it. Yes, politics have ruined digg and it's a shame the technology and science news has been dying off, but if you hate a certain news genre so much, just turn it off.
          • Pake, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Then again, I sympathize with you if you don't want to turn it all off. Lots of times I wish I could just filter all the RP and Scientology spam, that way I wouldn't have to scroll past 10+ articles a day.
          • senatorpjt, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5It's an election season. This happens everywhere. We'll stop hearing about all this ***** when the election is over, but until then, isn't it worth being informed?
          • iainc, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5And I can't vote but I'll help the Obama crowd digg you the ***** down for being a classless prick.
    • freeport7, on 02/10/2008, -5/+1spoken like a true 20-something-year-old
    • vader101, on 02/11/2008, -1/+0Just like the ones dying in Iraq? There is a reason 18+ year olds are allowed to vote. Don't confuse "experience" with wisdom.
    • brad3378, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1How will he turn this country around? I hate to say it, but I don't think ANY candidate can save this country from an inevitable bankruptcy. Our National Debt is now over $30,000 per citizen and our baby boomer tax base is starting to retire and leave the burden to the rest of us. I sure hope that you're right!
  • life38, on 02/10/2008, -9/+1As a McCain supporter his vision of the war in Iraq is awful but Clinton still today does not say it is wrong to be there. Obama does. It is the rual and poor whom have been most adversely effectly by the deaths of this war. As Senators they should at least pass laws that take care of those who have served, the wounded and killed with respect.

    These five cartoons depict some of the awful directions of the policies of our government to date
    http://mynonprofitwebsite.com/blog/category/emo-ca ...
    • ZenMojo, on 02/10/2008, -0/+7The rural Democrats support Obama more than Clinton. I think Clinton's getting the soccer mom vote.
  • MaximusD, on 02/10/2008, -1/+25Some Clinton superdelegates will switch if Obama has the pledged delegate lead and is strong in their consituency -- many of these superdelegates hold elected office, and when in a corner will put their own interest above Hilary Clinton's. Plus, they'd have a more powerful new friend in Obama.
  • wc3452, on 02/10/2008, -5/+23With all the talk about people coming out in droves to vote against Hillary, what about the people that will vote against Barack? I'm a huge Barack supporter, but I was caucusing yesterday and a guy in my precinct assured us that if Barack was nominated he would vote for McCain. A lot of Clinton supporters argue for her based on experience in both the Senate and as a First Lady. I think that while experience should be a factor, it shouldn't be your deciding factor. That same guy's case for Clinton was that she had experience, to which I responded with the current Bush administration. Bush's dad was president, Cheney and Rumsfeld were huge players in the Regan administration and I could go on. I think that character should be valued over experience. Obama became a civil rights attorney right out of Harvard instead of getting the big bucks at a prestigious law firm. Obama grew up fighting adversity. Obama has the character to become a great president.
    • ZenMojo, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6They polled in Louisiana. 23% of Hillary supporters would be dissatisfied with Obama. 44% of Barack supporters would be dissatisfied with Hillary.
    • d3mag0gu3, on 02/10/2008, -14/+1And Hillary didn't have to face any adversity? Do you know Obama personally to know what his personality is? Stop drinking the kool aid and start looking at the facts. Lousy mindless obamabot.
      • wc3452, on 02/10/2008, -1/+8I've personally heard his wife speak about him and I've read all about Obama. I've listened intently to what he says and what he has to offer. I've looked at the facts, look at his voting record, look at what he's done in both the Illinois and US Senate. It's time to look beyond policies, because frankly Hillary and Barack's are so similar it doesn't really matter.
  • samdu, on 02/10/2008, -9/+37The fact that people vote based on "momentum" is sickening.
    • buddapalm, on 02/10/2008, -1/+7yeah, momentum is supposed to indicate how the electorate will behave based on their own perceptions of who's the most likely, successful leader. When you tell people to vote based on momentum, it basically forces that perception on them. lame.
    • ziptnf, on 02/10/2008, -4/+6I completely disagree. If you're a voter on the fence with respect to which candidate you should vote for, and more people seem to be choosing one, one may be inclined to trust the American people with their decisions.
      • Balath, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1That doesn't always lead to good situations, but I agree with your analysis.
        • ziptnf, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Yup. Those voters who went with the American people have ***** up the past 8 years.
    • Pake, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4True, but if momentum was the only thing, Clinton would of won before the primaries even started. I think what we're seeing is a case of momentum that causes people to evaluate what each candidate is truly about.
    • d3mag0gu3, on 02/10/2008, -5/+0And who builds momentum? The MSM creates momentum. For the MSM, when Obama wins, it's momentum and when Hillary wins it's more momentum for Obama. Then again it's not worse than voting for someone cause they speak well.
    • senatorpjt, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2A lot of people don't like to waste their vote on someone with no chance of winning.
      • geoboy, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2So they go and waste their vote on someone who's absolutely guaranteed to win?
        • senatorpjt, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1No, they probably just stay home.
    • underdugg, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5It's better than voting on the "inertia" of Clinton's machine.

      ("She started this campaign at least 8 years ago -- and by golly, no one has the right to take it away from her!")
    • rawheadrex, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Winning primaries creates buzz. Word gets out. People pay attention to what he's saying. They are persuaded. They vote for him. He wins more primaries, hence creating more buzz.

      That's what momentum is, and that's why people are voting for him. Momentum isn't something that you can buy at the corner grocery store, you have to earn it.
    • donttaseme, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Momentum voting is a term I use to classify my own disregard from looking up real policies and issues that the candidates support and relying on last minute choosing based on how bad a candidate is messing up his or her campaign coupled with unverified rumors off the street. When it comes time to vote, someone is already falling apart while the other is gathering momentum. Then I choose the person who will mess the country up less and hope they win while I sit at home not voting.
  • SwedishNinja, on 02/10/2008, -2/+20Oh man, Obama won Nebraska. Hillary just better surrender right now.
    • wc3452, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that he actually campaigned in Nebraska. Barack went to Omaha and Michelle Obama went to Lincoln. Meanwhile, the Clintons sent Chelsea and only Chelsea.
  • shyboy2008, on 02/10/2008, -30/+0if Obama becomes president, were going to have daily attacks in America by the terrorists. this is not good, as an American I am very worried if he becomes president for my safety. thats why I will be voting either Clinton or McCain.
    • TheClone, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6Why do you think that Obama as presidnt would be cause for daily attacks on American Soil?
      • shyboy2008, on 02/10/2008, -10/+0his position on global politics is very weak. We know little about what he would do when we encounter another problem. Just cause he voted no in going to war in Iraq, doesnt really tell us anything. I dont want a war mongerer in the white house, but i want someone who will fight the enemy when we need it the most. I think McCain and Clinton would do that and Obama would sit on the sidelines till everything clears out.
        • malman4, on 02/10/2008, -7/+1By the way, he wasn't around to vote no on going to Iraq. He won't fight because it isn't politically correct. (better to roll over)
        • iainc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6> his position on global politics is very weak.

          Demonstrate the nature of this apparent weakness to back up your statement.

          > We know little about what he would do when we encounter another problem.

          ... and ... what?

          > Just cause he voted no in going to war in Iraq, doesnt really tell us anything.

          He wasn't a senator at the time, but was running for office, so he didn't have a vote. He opposed the war.

          > I dont want a war mongerer in the white house, but i want someone who will fight the enemy when we need it the most.

          He has stated that he is not against war, he is against "dumb war". He has also stated that he will finish the fight against Al-Queda.

          > I think McCain and Clinton would do that and Obama would sit on the sidelines till everything clears out.

          Based on what exactly ... tarot readings, intuition, what?
      • MalDON, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Same goes with Hillary or McCain. We don't know how well they will do until they actually take office.
    • iainc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+7*head* *desk* I'm lost for words!
    • senatorpjt, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6Aren't you the same type of person who calls him Osama Hussein? If anything, why would they attack one of their own?
    • pineutrino, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4You're a Romney supporter, I take it? "If you vote Democrat, then the terrorists win"? Grow up.
    • moonlessrat, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2that has to be some sort of joke.....right...??
    • weaponR, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2LOGICAL FALLACIES FTL.

      Please use empirical data to back up your arguments or do not pass go.
  • Lane5slacker, on 02/10/2008, -4/+7Am I the only one who went 'Um, duh" to this title?

    Yes, if a candidate wins, they are no longer tied...
    • genovais, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3The title refers to the more or less tied delegate count and the need for an Obama landslide to come out with enough delegates by convention time.
    • thafooz, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1The pundits have predicted Hillary to take Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania and Obama to take the remaining states - which are more-or-less equal in # of delegates. However, if Obama continues to win landslides (which wasn't anticipated) it breaks the current and perceived future tie. Watch Virginia, Maryland, and DC on Tuesday...
  • nadadingsda, on 02/10/2008, -1/+39Man, I hope Obama becomes the next President. A lot of my friends and family back home in Europe are really excited about the prospect of having Obama as US President. I know, not many Americans care much about what everyone else in the world thinks about them, but I think Obama could do a great job leading the US and also boost the image of the US in the rest of the world.

    ..too bad that I'm a foreigner and not allowed to vote, damn.
    • d3mag0gu3, on 02/10/2008, -22/+0Then STFU. Lousy foreign obamabot.
    • mypetridish, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5yeah i understand your feeling. i go to RIT in Rochester NY and wished I could have voted. I even went to his donations page to donate to his campaign only to find that only American citizens could donate. But I root for him among my American friends :)
    • SkinnerBox, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4Some of us care what you think.
    • waldo686, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0voting fraud in the us isn't that hard look at the last couple elections, i bet you could get by
  • insomniac8400, on 02/10/2008, -2/+11It's a shame that Obama is now in the lead, but technically is behind when counting the super delegates.
    • thafooz, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Not that I'd expect many to change their mind, but I don't believe a super-delegate 'pledge' is binding. They vote on convention day. Besides, Clinton is only up by 40 with the super-delegate advantage... just wait until Tuesday.
  • RhodesSkolar, on 02/10/2008, -5/+6I read the title as Obama landslides could break DREADLOCK.
  • NumNutz, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4i think the super delegates should go to the winner of the national popular votes from all the primaries and caucuses
    • atezun, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3If that's the case, then what's the point of superdelegates? They were instituted for the exact opposite reasons you state, so the party candidate isn't voted in through a 'tyranny of the majority'.
  • macjaeh, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3Welcome to the new era of American politics.
  • DR0NUS, on 02/10/2008, -9/+0buried.....this isn't news...come on....
  • underdugg, on 02/10/2008, -1/+13Even if, Heaven forbid, Hillary won the nomination:

    She would *still* attract fewer Democratic voters to the polls in November -- possibly costing *many* seats in Congress and the Senate.

    And, then, after that, we will just see more gridlock and failure. ...Even the most strident Clinton supporter can admit that.

    • Balath, on 02/11/2008, -0/+3Dugg because you used the word strident without even trying.
  • diggafrica, on 02/10/2008, -3/+4Very true. Obama!, Africa is behind you. hopefully you can help clear some of our debts. thank you
  • chutney, on 02/10/2008, -0/+25It said Hillary didn't congratulate Barack for his wins. I don't think she ever has. Not very classy.
    • Tanishh, on 02/11/2008, -0/+8 She has in the past, but her congratulations have often seemed half hearted and cursory, being done at the end and done quickly. Obama has, to my knowledge, always congratulated her, done so relatively early in his speeches, and seemed a lot more truthful about it, at least to me.
  • semrocks, on 02/10/2008, -16/+1Buried for the constant Obamabot spam.
  • 1billco, on 02/10/2008, -8/+6Just yesterday, I became a believer that Obama actually has a shot at becoming President. I didn't think it could happen and not just because of his color. He would be the first president since Garfield to be elected from the House.
    • winstonc, on 02/11/2008, -0/+10Um, he's in the Senate, not the House.
  • dagnabbit, on 02/10/2008, -0/+18Obama is up by 15 points in Maine, with 58% reporting. Another huge victory!
    • knouri, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I'm making a note here... HUGE SUCCESS!
  • GratefulGroover, on 02/10/2008, -1/+10What I find interesting is the not only did obama win all three, one of those three is the home of the KKK, Louisiana. Obviously this guy knows how to bring people together.
    • kinerry, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4sorry, but they all voted republican
  • gettempapa, on 02/10/2008, -1/+9Obama is only 33 delegates behind Clinton even if you count superdelegates.
  • Yage2006, on 02/11/2008, -1/+3I hope the dems realize there is allot of dislike for hilllary and understand obama is there only choice.
    I know way to many people that just wont vote if its her thats running :/
  • vjdigg, on 02/11/2008, -0/+5
    Everyone loves Obama - He can make every one love America. He can make America Win.


  • Slappyfrog, on 02/11/2008, -6/+0Maybe America NEEDS to remain divided? The past 7 years have shown us that the American people will stand by while a small subsegment reaps all the benefits, why not do the same thing to them?
  • RedShirtNumber2, on 02/11/2008, -0/+7Texas and Ohio. Obama is looking at you. Please put him over the top so we can avoid a brokered convetion and get to work on making a better future for the country.
  • skeeto, on 02/11/2008, -0/+4Clearly they want to set it up as Hilary vs McCain in November. Bleh. And just like Clinton vs. Dole in 96, she'd probably win by a landslide against that fool and if not, they have the Diebold machines to make sure of it. Nice to see Obama tossing a few wrenches in the established plan. I find it strange that lots of neocons are supporting Hillary. Everyone from Ann Coulter to people at Fox News. The Bush admin apparently see her as the best person to keep his legacy of bombing anyone and ***** things up going. Hope Obama's got good security around him at all times and his people challenge any fishy results.
    • tchynerd, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I dunno about Clinton v McCain meaning Clinton would win. Some democrats (me) would vote for McCain over Clinton because of her policies. Then again when i voted during super tuesday i dind't vote for Obama so much as I voted against Clinton
  • wrappedcherry, on 02/11/2008, -10/+2Go Hussein!!!
  • JustPants, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2The fact is, America wants a change of scenery, and Hillary is just depressing in her desperation and sameness. And her campaign manager just offed. justpants.blogspot.com
  • mCanada, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2When Mann Coulter is in your camp..... SOMETHING STINKS!
  • HencheMann, on 02/11/2008, -2/+1BUSH CHENEY '08- Yup. Get ready. All this talk of change and hope is nice and quaint. False flag event staged by King George and Lord Cheney will cancel election. Net will go into lockdown with control being given BACK to The Pentagram...uh, I mean PENTAGON. Get ready for pure evil.
  • MACpistolDOTcom, on 02/11/2008, -2/+1Obama is anti second amendment and pro abortion and probably pro amnesty for illegal invaders, but that being said, I still hope he wins. McCain is just bush version 2.0, and bush has been the worst and most dangerous and most dishonest president this country has seen since F.D.R. overthrew the constitution in 1933.
    • NeoRicen, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1Second Amendment is *****, the sooner you dumbass Americans realize it the better. And being pro-choice doesn't mean you're 'pro-abortion'.
  •  

    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.