digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com

Shameless

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com — The Clintons know no respect for rules or propriety or restraint in the pursuit of power. But Clinton's latest speech in Florida should cause even veteran Clinton-hating jaws to drop some more:

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • serenity67, on 05/22/2008, -15/+137Amen Andrew Sullivan... you nailed it!
    • Duggan360, on 05/22/2008, -4/+26No one want's to nail that
      • papipablo, on 05/22/2008, -9/+9I would--to a cross.
        • bashar129, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4No, getting nailed to a cross would be something shocking and attention grabbing now a days...she probably craves the type of attention getting nailed to a cross yields. I'd just keep her locked in a cellar until everyone forgets about her and she withers away to nothing.
    • ErikHarrison, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3This was nailed months ago.?.
    • rawg, on 05/22/2008, -2/+13FTA: "I think she has now made it very important that Obama not ask her to be the veep. The way she is losing is so ugly, so feckless, so riddled with narcissism and pathology that this kind of person should never be a heartbeat away from the presidency"

      I think that paragraph does a good job of summarizing how a lot of people, who used to respect Hillary, feel after watching her desperate antics during the primaries. Truly a shame.
      • michaelb1, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5I would not put it past a VP Clinton to undermine Obama every step of the way in order to assume power. Just saying, she has the potential for such devilry.
        • lostarchitect, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2she's a balrog?!
        • ParticleMan420, on 05/22/2008, -0/+9SHE SHALL NOT PASS!
        • swicken, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Jeez, where is Gandalf when you need him?
        • michaelb1, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1That's awesome! One word is recognized from a single utterance in a single movie. Digg!
      • tyywebb, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Title nailed it pretty well too.
    • MrObjectional, on 05/22/2008, -9/+1Look, I think Hillary deserves all the hit pieces written about her, but that's what they are- hit pieces. Despite its categorization, there's no new info in this article.

      I keep hoping that one day diggers will digg based on the content of the submission and not just the viewpoint of the author.
      • michaelb1, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Wow, You're like MLK.
      • IJstickI, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2ditto, too bad that will never happen since the majority have no clue what they are talking about
    • IJstickI, on 05/22/2008, -5/+3...or she has a point, and i am a R saying this. she is consistently getting votes from those who matter.

      anyways even if 10-15% of hillary supporters (of the 40% who say now they will not vote for obama in the pres. election ) go to mccain, mccain wins
      • orientis, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Any Hillary supporters? Take note of this Republican's stance.
    • BlueStarr, on 05/22/2008, -2/+4Did anyone else read the header and think shemale? Must be the Hillary pic that accompanied it.
      • freeth1nker, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3That's sexist! Why isn't the media talking about your comment?!
        • BlueStarr, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Dude, stop sucking ***** long enough to post your comment...OK?
    • LeonidasStokely, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2Bah! Buried for incorrect categorising.
    • aaronhoffmeyer, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1You know, many of you think that about Hillary in very black and white terms. Andrew Sullivan represents many of us when he voices his opinion about whether Obama should consider Hillary as his veep. However, despite having to deal with her attacks as his opponent for almost a year, Obama does not share your opinion. In fact, with just a few clicks, you could have found that "latest" update from Andrew's site.

      And I quote ...

      I can tell you this. My goal is to have the best possible government. And that means me winning. So, I'm very practical in my thinking. I'm a practical guy. One of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln. Awhile back, there was a wonderful book written by Doris Kearns Goodwin called 'Team of Rivals,' in which she talked about how Lincoln basically pulled all the people he'd been running against into his Cabinet. Because whatever personal feelings there were, the issue was, 'How can we get the country through this time of crisis?' I think that has to be the approach one takes to the vice president and the Cabinet. - Barack Obama, today in Boca Raton

      So, all of you Hillary haters, I think Obama just told you ... today ... to get over yourselves.

      Any objective person would realize that the important issue for turning around the country is for the Democrats to actually get elected. First and foremost.

      The best chance of that happening, despite all the rhetoric that abounds, and as has been demonstrated by the Democrat's primary process, is a ticket with both Obama and Clinton.

      Can the US stand four more years of Republican leadership digging us deeper and deeper into a chasm? Do you really want to make sure that does not happen? Then put forth your strongest ticket. Anything else is just pissing into the wind.

  • BishkekBuddy, on 05/22/2008, -15/+97It's time for the media to put an end to her campaign and to stop covering everything she says. She's over. She's done. Let her go home in silence and ignominy.
    • InetRoadkill, on 05/22/2008, -9/+7It is not the media's place to decide which candidates get to run for president. Period. You listening Murdoch?
      • mbraynard, on 05/22/2008, -6/+1No, see, for liberal fascists, it is ok to do ANYTHING to your political enemies.
    • sonicomega, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5ignominy?! wow thats a new one. 10 points
    • whaleyboy69, on 05/22/2008, -5/+0The "media" is doing it's best to ignore all of the votes that Clinton got. Shameful. Let the people vote.
      • jsmith39, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3So you'd prefer the media trumpet her losses then?
    • krets, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5I too enjoy eating my grits in silence.
    • countthevotes, on 05/22/2008, -6/+0Are you suggesting that the media disenfranchise even more voters? The fact is that the Michigan and Florida voters have been disenfranchised already. Everyone should have a vote!

      Please visit http://www.countthevotes.com for more information.
      • jsmith39, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Had it occured to you that if the landscape were reversed and Clinton had the nominal lead that she would be moving heaven and earth to make sure the MI and FL voters would not be heard from?

        Do you truly find it fair that Obama played by the rules in MI and removed his name from the ballot while Clinton did not and now she wants those votes to count.
        • countthevotes, on 05/22/2008, -5/+0Hello, she most certainly would! She believes ALL votes should count, no matter which candidate they are for. You should too.

          Also please note:
          - She won the vote in both Florida AND Michigan so it would be in her interest to count the votes even if the landscape was changed. This is a very cynical view however. ALL votes should count, not matter which candidate is perceived to be winning.
          - There was no rule that suggested, or required, that candidate names be removed from the ballot in Michigan. In fact, no candidate removed their name from the ballot in Florida. You will need to ask the Obama campaign why they decided not take his name off the Michigan ballot. It certainly was not required, or even suggested, by the agreement.
        • jsmith39, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1So that concept of a reversed landscape completely went over your head I see. That aside, she won MI by and large because... get this... Obamas name was NOT on the ballot. See how that works?
        • countthevotes, on 05/22/2008, -2/+0Well I cannot comment what she would do if she lost Michigan and Florida, because she obviously didn't. Again, I do not know why the Obama campaign removed his name from the ballot. You will need to ask them that. It certainly was not required, or even suggested, by the agreement.

          However, the real point is that thousands of voters in those states have been disenfranchised and their votes were not counted.
        • im2emo4myshrt, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3You do realize there votes were not counted for a primary election in which there party made the decision. A political party can do what ever they want in terms of deciding there nominee. They decided that Fl and MI did not count and that is completely allowable. The voting that took place in those states was in no way equal for both candidates. If you want their votes to count the only logical way to do so would be to have another vote, one in which both candidates had time to campaign equally and have their name on the ballot.
        • SupaDawg, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2agreed completely im2emo. That said, even a revote is wrong. What message does that send to the parties in those states? They broke the rules and thus need to be punished accordingly. And lets not forget that these rules and punishments were something Billary was once completely on board with.

          If you count the votes, you disenfranchise all the voters who would have otherwise voted for Obama. If you allow them to re-vote, you run the risk of setting a dangerous president. The only logical path is to leave them out of it and let them decide in November.
        • Bemuzed, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1If the roles were reversed, I would support Obama's decision to make sure all people vote. The voters of Florida and Michigan are being penalized because of a few people in their states decided to break the rules. That is not fair and not very democratic.

          Did it ever occur to you that Obama possibly took his name off the ballot because he knew he would have been beaten horrible? That would have looked bad and he knew that he couldn't have won those states. Remember Diggers, this is politics. The point is to win. We never know what is going on behind the scenes so lets not assume that we do. He could have planned this from the start and so could have she. -- cheers
        • jsmith39, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1@bemuzed
          Honestly, I don't know what the deal with FL was, but in MI they decided to host the delegate vote before an agreed upon time. Both Hillary and Obama were on board with the MI vote not counting (so don't ask me why MI voted anyways), but after both agreeing to pull their names from the ballot, only Obama actually did pull his name from the ballot. So no, I'm going to go with the line of thought that Obama followed the rules (which he did) and hillary decided to do whatever the Hell hillary wanted to do (which she did) instead of presuming without any proof what so over that Obama would have lost MI.
      • Exbzurq, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1The website you linked isn't even a real website. Fail troll Fails.
    • Pitstopper, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Define: ignominy - a state of dishonor
    • fangor, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5"Now, I’ve heard some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules. I say that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country"

      This is a fallacious argument because the Democratic Party does not govern ***** other than the rules of membership and participation of being a democrat. Anyone who wants to vote for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming general election is free to do so by write in. Furthermore, if people feel that their political party is somehow limiting their choices of government, that would be a good reason to stop giving them their support. Beginning an election with the rules set and then bitching and moaning when the rules mean you do not get an unfair advantage is no way to participate in democracy.
    • junkwheel, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4The media will be the last people to put an end to her campaign.

      Literally.
  • arbouler, on 05/22/2008, -37/+10dear clinton supporters, if obama has a white female VP candidate who is not clinton to run with him, will you still vote for him?
    • insomniacal, on 05/22/2008, -3/+23It's all about labels for you, isn't it? Race, gender, religion ...
      • papipablo, on 05/22/2008, -3/+1I'd vote Obama/Pelosi.
        • h3lx, on 05/22/2008, -2/+3Just the same as I'd vote for McCain/ Cheney.

          I think I just threw up a little.
          I can't believe I just wrote that.
      • gandhii, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1It is also all about the labels for all of the Clinton supporters I've talked to. Who all happen to be women, and the first thing out of their mouths when asked why they support Clinton is how nice it would be to finally have a woman in office. Of course when asked, this has no bearing whatsoever on their choice... yet it is the first thing said when asked why they choose her. How ironic.

        I think it would be great to see a female and/or a black person as president too. But it isn't a popularity contest (at least, it isn't suppose to be). It is the most important job in the world. It is all about the issues and integrity of the individual. All else is irrelevant.
    • kakti, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Depending on who that person is, yes I would.
    • sleepwalkers, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Completely and wholly depends on the person.
      Has nothing to do with gender.
    • netant, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Why are people burying this guy for asking a question?

      Clinton supporters, if you're the one burying him, you could merely respond "no", and that would give people a good idea whether Obama should consider putting Clinton on the VP slot.

      (Why would Obama supporters bury the question?)
    • franklymister, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Actually, yes. I'd like him to select Senator Blanche Lincoln as his VP. She'd be a great woman to have in the White House: http://boxinasuitcase.com/index.php?title=blanche_ ...
  • rjc5056, on 05/22/2008, -31/+15Picture a horse race with only two horses. We'll call them BarbarObama and RHCbisuit. It's a "qualifying" race with just 1 lap around the track. Their owners and jockey agree to the established rules for the race and get in position for the starting gun. They're off and RHCbiscuit pulls ahead by a few lengths. A few people in the stands have money riding on her and decide to secure their investment by dumping oil or marbles or something equally loony tunes ridiculous onto the track, hindering BarbarObama's pace and giving RHCbiscuit a greater lead as she rounds the first bend. The judges immediately stop the race to deal with such a blatant breach of conduct and to clean the track. The offending betters are ousted from the stadium with no refund of their bets but told they'll be able to come back and bet in the "finals" race later in the year after their suspension is over. The race resumes with both horses starting off at the spots on the track they were in before the track was sullied. They're off again. BarbarObama bolts ahead literally leaving RHCbiscuit in his dust. He's rounded the second bend and is closing in on the finish line now with RHCbiscuit just about to start her second term. Meanwhile, her owner is frantically trying to collect bets and assure the crowd that she's just about to kick in the juice. After collecting no new bets she starts screaming at the officials that "those oil/marble throwers should never have been kicked out! They deserve the right to win their bet and RHCbiscuit should have her finish line moved backwards equal to the gain she made from the track tampering, thus giving her a fair chance to win before BarbarObama crosses the line just a few yards in the distance.

    Does this sound ridiculous and is it an exaggeration? Of course. Is the real life situation any less ridiculous at this point?
    • xTRUMANx, on 05/22/2008, -6/+42Analogies are supposed to simplify concepts.
      • vikktor, on 05/22/2008, -6/+5this was actually this is a great analogy... i wasn't paying much attention back when Michigan voted and never actually knew why it was such a big deal... but this analogy really helped

        @rjc5056: good job, thanx

        @xTRUMANx : oh and analogies used to clarify concepts. They do not; however, simplify them. Their complexity is solely based on the understanding and experience of the interpreter.

        a·nal·o·gy
        –noun
        5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects
        (source: "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy")
        • xTRUMANx, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Thanks for the dictionary definition, but I'm pretty sure you know what I meant. Don't be a grammar nazi.
        • vikktor, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1i said nothing about grammer....
      • h3lx, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2I'm going to go with ridiculous. Not so much the scenario you're describing, but the round-a-bout ***** you're trying to pass off as intellect.
        • rjc5056, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Wow. When did digg turn into a non-stop flame fest instead of a place to civily discuss news we all find relevant? Where did my post offend you, other than forcing you to scroll down a bit longer? I was just trying to break it down into a characature that could give clarity to people who weren't so familiar with what happened like the ones that thanked me. I don't get how you see that as me asserting intellect or superiority. You obviously felt the urge to point out how awful my analogy was while bringing nothing meaningful to the table yourself, in essence trying to prove your own intellectual superiority. Grow up, man.
        • h3lx, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1I'm just saying don't go prancing around like a ***** literary major if all you're going to do is burp up 1,000 words of *****.
        • vikktor, on 05/22/2008, -1/+0just cuz you didn't understand it.... doesn't make it *****.... you know... like math, evolution and jello...
        • rjc5056, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1@h31x:
          For someone trying to make fun of a person he claims to be a "literary major" (I don't know of any universities offering such a degree) you sure found a way to put imagery, hyperbole, idiom, onomatopoeia, and a bit of creative license into only one sentence... I guess that would add irony to the roster, too!
        • h3lx, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1rjc5056-
          Literary Arts, Literary theory, you can get a ***** degree for ***** poetry. All that said, I see no reason for your excessive obsession with continuing to beat this dead horse when the entire exchange can be neatly codified as bovine feces. I recommend adding an additional word to your library, Therapy.
    • dlown77, on 05/22/2008, -6/+5"RHC": Rodham Hillary Clinton?
      • sonicomega, on 05/22/2008, -4/+2Shut up and enjoy the poster has written. Yes RHC you dumbass its to go along with Barbar. Sheesh the people in this world. Hey, try walking on the right side of the side walk all the time. This will stop pedestrian traffic for good. But you would know anything about that. Your too busy asking why cant it be on the left. I should smack the ***** outta my monitor with a randon dlown77 sticker on it you got me so pissed.
      • funkyloki, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Yes. He was alluding to two of the greatest racehorses to grace our existence: Seabiscuit (RH"C"biscuit) and Barbaro (BarabrObama). Get it? I thought it was a pretty cool analogy, a little long winded, but descriptive.
      • rjc5056, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2sorry. It was early morning, I was damn tired, and RHC are my dad's initials so I guess that just came more naturally. Silly mistake, really.
    • zimzallabim, on 05/22/2008, -6/+1very well said.
    • Bemuzed, on 05/22/2008, -5/+2You don't get it do you? That is not what is happening.
      Don't accuse one person of lying or doing whatever it takes and then turn around and write something so immature and naive.
    • LamentMoon, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6How long have you been waiting to use that?
    • iheartboobs, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3Nobody would care if Hillary started running a Huckabeesque campaign and finished out the primaries. People are getting pissed because she acting like Robert Mugabe.
  • foxhaze, on 05/22/2008, -26/+121Hillary Clinton is everythin wrong with this country.
    • fribhey, on 05/22/2008, -6/+61actually, George W Bush and his cronies are everything that's wrong with this country.
      • papipablo, on 05/22/2008, -3/+14I didn't realize there was a difference.
        • Bemuzed, on 05/22/2008, -6/+3Then you don't know the facts of either side. Sad. Give people the privilege to vote and they make up their minds without knowing the process or the facts so that they can make informed decisions. SAD. -- cheers
        • rezonq3, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4um, Bemuzed...ever heard of sarcasm?
      • noahhoward, on 05/22/2008, -4/+1And you don't think, given the opportunity, Hillary would be worse?
        • MattB123, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4I doubt anyone could ever top Bush, but let's error on the safe side and not give her the chance.
        • ozydingo, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Than bush? Not a chance. I'm no Clinton fan, but there is far worse than her.
    • every2ndcounts, on 05/22/2008, -1/+9Politicians in general are everything that is wrong with this country.

      I support Obama but don't expect much diversion from the status quo.
      • flashback99, on 05/22/2008, -4/+4Republicans / Conservatives are the reason that the whole world sucks today. People who claim authority over others through wealth, influence and irrational beliefs, via appeals through out-dated, traditionalist and media savvy emotional arguments.

        To fix the world, you have to first have an accurate reflection of how it stands factually. Since conservatives already have a skewed idea of the world based on prejudice and irrationality, they manage to continue to ***** things up for the rest of us.
        • worminater, on 05/22/2008, -3/+2@flashbcak99
          And how are republicans different by that rational than democrats? "change, change change change change", isn't that a media savy emotional argument? And this is coming from someone who will most likely vote for Obama.
        • dyoungdigger, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2I find it hard to believe that you consider the conservative movement to be something that is wrong with this country. Do you maintain that State's rights over Government is bad? Do you want the government in your business 24/7? That is NOT conservatism. To be a conservative means that you support less federal influence and more power delegated to the states. Less taxes is also a hallmark of a conservative politician. That may mean less federally funded social programs, but shouldn't social programs be delegated to a state, rather than federal? Each state has different social problems, so only they know how to truly fix it.

          I suggest that you look up the definition of conservatism. Because as it stands today, Rupublicans and Conservatives are two very different things.
    • Bemuzed, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Hillary is not perfect and neither is Obama, neither am I and I am pretty sure that includes everyone on this thread. Do any of you know the good things that this person has done. Give me three without looking them up. Know the facts for yourself not what others tell you. I am not telling you to vote for her or to like her, but know your facts; know the truth.
      • feebie, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4She could've cured cancer for all I care. It doesn't really change the fact that she's acting like a psychopath.
        • Bemuzed, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1How is she acting like a psychopath? (You know that makes very little sense.)

          Definition of psychopath: somebody affected with a personality disorder marked by aggressive, violent, antisocial thought and behavior and a lack of remorse or empathy. I don't know anyone who meets this criteria. If you say she does, then you prove one of my points; that you are being swayed by sound bites and emotion, instead of knowing the facts for yourself. -- cheers
      • NSResponder, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1"Do any of you know the good things that this person has done"

        Name one.

        -jcr
        • Bemuzed, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1That was my assignment to anyone responding, not for you to give to me. You could have a the least given one, even if you cheated. Do the facts really scare you that much? -- cheers
    • FutureGuy, on 05/22/2008, -2/+10She is McCain's best chance.
      • dyoungdigger, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Either way both will loose. McCain, as much as I dislike his politics, will win.
      • jjmelch, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1I know you are joking. Obama can't get elected. McCain doesn't care which of these bags of air get nominated. Neither can win!
    • jjmelch, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Every liberal in the country is what is wrong with this country.
  • trailboss49, on 05/22/2008, -84/+5You Obama supporters live with your head in the sand like an ostrich. When the facts don't tell you what you want to hear then you make something up. What are you going to say in November when he loses to McCain? What, the US Supreme Court gave it to him? The jerk is a loser!
    • dinot, on 05/22/2008, -1/+18Ok. I'll bite. What did we make up?
      • nicc, on 05/22/2008, -0/+11apparently the FACTS/TRUTH that dont agree with HRCs view is "made up"
    • jsmith39, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4I'll say well damn I wish Obama was the president but thank God Hillary isn't.
    • peteosw, on 05/22/2008, -12/+1"deeep breaths.. we'll see who's the loser come November."

      If Obama is the nominee, he will lose. Look at the numbers, stupid.

      http://www.electoral-vote.com

      You all can make fun of Hillary supporters all you want, but in reality we are just win a freaking election. Obama has zero chance in pretty much all of the swing states.

      "But wahhh peteosw, it shouldn't be this way! Ron Paul 08!"

      Obama's support is from young voters who tend to NOT VOTE. Just keep your heads in the sand and get ready for another 4 years of Republican *****.
      • dinot, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5If Obama's support is from young voters who don't vote, where's he getting is votes from? And do you honestly believe that after all this effort and record-breaking turnout, they'll all just stay home for the general?
        • sleepwalkers, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I know this may not seem like a big deal, but voting during the summer is a *lot* easier for students who live on campuses. During the presidential election, I'm either going to have to fill out and submit an absentee ballot or drive 2 1/2 hours home to vote.
          The system for students who don't live at a permanent address for nine months out of the year is ***** up.
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Well, now, that depends... will the US Supreme Court be overruling the decision of a State Supreme Court regarding a recount happening within that State?
  • redmannine, on 05/22/2008, -13/+53Someone needs to give Hillary a pint of ice cream, a spoon,a box of tissues, and a comfy chair to sit in while someone breaks the news that she needs to give up and drop out, because it's all over except for the crying.
    • svtspeed, on 05/22/2008, -2/+4"...because it's all over except for the crying."

      I see what you did there...
    • mephyt, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1"Hi, my name is Hillary Clinton. I'd like to thank everyone here today for... for... BAAAAAAAAAW!!!"

      She just gets a little choked up now and then...
  • dagnabbit, on 05/22/2008, -8/+164When Obama won the nomination back in February by winning every contest, I was happy. When he announces his VP pick and it's not Clinton, I will dance in the streets.
    • DanBoodro, on 05/22/2008, -1/+8Well, he did say that he was definitely going to have Al Gore in his cabinet somewhere. So there could be a chance that it's him.
      • getbusyliving, on 05/22/2008, -0/+17I doubt he would have Gore as VP, Obama still needs to secure the retard vote and many Americans believe climate change is a conspiracy.
        • ozydingo, on 05/22/2008, -2/+9Next time I see someone say that Gore claimed to have "invented" the internet I'm going to punch them in the [nuts | ovaries]
        • MrMetal, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4Dude, it's head-butt to the ovaries... read The Alphabet of Manliness ;)
        • slaizer, on 05/22/2008, -0/+7I think Falcon Punches work better.
        • tyywebb, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Hah. So sad yet so true.
      • jumico, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4It's obviously going to be an Obama/Oprah ticket.
    • hivoltage815, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3If he chooses Clinton I will lose respect because it would be for obvious political reasons since they clearly dislike each other.
      • Recluse84, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3I'd be afraid for him if he chose Hillary. She's obviously power hungry enough to arrange some sort of "accident" so she would step up.
      • majglow, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3Clinton will never want to go down in history as the first female VP. She will do her best to ruin Obama's shot at the white house so that she can run in 2012.
    • paigeinphilly, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Obama is a smart man...HRC isnt going to be anywhere near that ticket..(well maybe in her dreams)

      and yes i will be dancing in the street too!..and when he and Jim Webb win...yes I like Webb..i will shed tears.

      of joy.


      Obama/Webb 08
    • jjmelch, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1What are you going to do when he gets sent home by a bigger margin than McGovern?
  • DanBoodro, on 05/22/2008, -6/+26Sorry, I haven't been paying too much attention. I live in Michigan, am I not able to vote for Obama now?
    • alilhappything, on 05/22/2008, -0/+21You still can. The Michigan Democratic Party set their primary or caucus too early, which violated DNC rules. Florida did the same. The DNC rules say that the delegates from the states won't be seated at the convention. All of the candidates agreed to it. Hildog didn't care then, she was the frontrunner. Now she is trying to get these delegates seated because it will improve her chances.

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/22/0226/35614 ... proof that she wanted them not seated

      Its ridiculous how desperate she is.
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/22/2008, -11/+4What's ridiculous is the lies spread by Obamacans.

        "The DNC rules say that the delegates from the states won't be seated at the convention."

        WRONG!

        From the DNC Rules: Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state's delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state's delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.

        See 50%?


        Read http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/15/17261/4418 and see how the DNC screwed Florida...
        • br0ken1128, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4Ehm, I thought one of these articles stated that in this particular instance when Michigan and Florida both planned to move their caucus ahead of schedule, they agreed to exceed this particule rule and remove ALL delegates..

          I can'te cite the source, but I know I read this in one of the articles up there, and Hillary's camp had a direct role in this rule being set.
        • absentmindedjwc, on 05/22/2008, -0/+7ok, so lets say that that is the case. This was all because they were told that "these states are not going to count in the total." Obama and Clinton both were just fine with this, and Obama ignored these two states and continued his campaign to go on and win other states. Clinton, on the other hand, put her name on the ballot on both of these states, and campaigned. Obviously she won, it would be hard not to since there was only one name on the ballot.

          How the hell can you justify this as a fair election? Obama was just following the rules, Clinton did all of this just in case she needed these states down the line, and now she is trying to pull this card out of her hat. You think Clinton would care about these two states if she was winning right now. She didn't start bitching about these states until she was losing the popular vote.

          BTW: I am not so sure about your source, please provide the rules from a much more... known... website (the DNC website would work nicely)
        • sagien, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6It's all well and good what you cut and pasted from the DNC rulebook. However, it is incredibly apparent that you just like to acknowledge some facts. i.e. only the facts that support your argument yet you disregard the other facts that refute it. Let me prove my point.

          This is from the Daily Kos article that DanBoodro linked in his comment:

          On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)

          -----

          I implore you to read that paragraph. It looks to me that Dan's argument was that Clinton and her supports voted to disenfranchise the Florida/Michigan votes before they realized that they were losing. Yes, you have your DNC rulebook straight, but clearly it has been voted on and decided that in this case, they do not apply.

        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/22/2008, -5/+3LOL!

          I love how you people just dismiss the rule regarding how many delegates should be lost as meaningless, but then insist that Florida and Michigan deserve it because they "broke" the rules.

          Keep this in mind: the DNC (and you) are disenfranchising Democrats in Florida (basically telling them F-U) because of the actions of a Republican controlled legislature and a Republican controlled governor's mansion. Don't be surprised if Florida Democrats return the favor in November...
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3"BTW: I am not so sure about your source, please provide the rules from a much more... known... website (the DNC website would work nicely)"

          Btw, you should encourage the DNC to put their rules on the web site. Until then, Google is your friend...
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/22/2008, -3/+2"I implore you to read that paragraph. It looks to me that Dan's argument was that Clinton and her supports voted to disenfranchise the Florida/Michigan votes before they realized that they were losing."

          And I implore you to consider that this isn't about either candidate, this is about disenfranchising Democrats in two states.
        • Truegod, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3True, but a few paragraphs done in the rules:

          6. Nothing in these rules shall prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from
          imposing sanctions the Committee deems appropriate with respect to a state
          which the Committee determines has failed or refused to comply with these rules,
          where the failure or refusal of the state party is not subject to subsections (1), (2)
          or (3) of this section C. Possible sanctions include, but are not limited to:
          reduction of the state’s delegation; pursuant to Rule 21.C., recommending the
          establishment of a committee to propose and implement a process which will
          result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be
          broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential preference
          and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable
          under the circumstances; reducing, in part or in whole, the number of the state’s
          temporary and permanent members to the Standing Committees; reducing, in part
          or in whole, the number of guests, VIP and other passes/tickets to the National
          Convention and related functions; assignment of location of the state’s delegates
          and alternates in the Convention hall; and assignment of the state’s housing and
          other convention related facilities.

          These sanctions were known before the race began.

          Link to the rules: http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/DelegateSelect ...
        • chantron, on 05/22/2008, -1/+4@TheSwashbuckler

          Stop throwing disenfranchisement around. It's a loaded word with all sorts of heavy implications, none of which apply to this situation.
        • bloomanchoo, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2Florida voted Republicans in, no? (Repeatedly)
          Florida Democrats knew this was going to happen early on, no?
          Why didn't they do anything earlier?
          Why is it always so hard with Florida?

          I say give them the 50% to stop everyone's whining... it is a compromise.
          (but Hillary still loses... right?)

          Michigan? I don't even know what to do... Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

          .... and
          If people are going to vote out of spite... they should really just stay home.
          Its childish.

        • sleepwalkers, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Seeing as I live in Michigan, maybe I'll clear this up a little bit.
          The Michigan democratic party were being idiots, moved the primary up to make the state "more important" and then as a result had all of their delegates stripped of their seats at the convention. Most of the democratic candidates withdrew from the Michigan ballot. Hillary decided to stay on it, probably thinking she could tout Michigan as a win regardless of delegate counts. Kucinich was still on the ballot because he filed the wrong paperwork.
          Yes, the rule says half, however the DNC decided to take all of them away. The republican party in Michigan decided to do the same thing, and had half of their delegates stripped. Michigan, instead of being a more important state as they had hoped, is now pointless.
          You can think it's excessive, but do not call it disenfranchisement. Both parties knew the punishment before deciding to do what they did, and they were both punished severely for their transgressions.
      • DanBoodro, on 05/22/2008, -0/+11Thanks for clearing tings up for me guys. Appreciate it.
      • iLemon, on 05/23/2008, -3/+2"This is America, Count Every Vote." Way to punish the voters, DNC.
    • countthevotes, on 05/22/2008, -9/+1No, you are not allowed to vote for either candidate! You should be outraged. Everyone should be able to vote and have their vote counted!
    • paigeinphilly, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Yes you can vote for him in the GE...because HRC is tryin to nabb all the votes for herself...and disenfranchise the 40 or so % of "uncommitted".

      Obama/Webb 08
  • wiredmessiah, on 05/22/2008, -5/+31Her focus on making the primaries in these two states count is completely rediculous! Why even try to sound like you are doing it to stand up for the voters in those states? Just be honest and tell everyone "I'm trying to get these states counted because I can never accept the fact that I lost!"
  • roflganker, on 05/22/2008, -17/+5Why is it that so many blogs can drone on and on about how Clinton needs to throw in the towel, but refuse to move onto a new topic themselves?
    • ozydingo, on 05/22/2008, -1/+10Probably because while she's still going, they've got reason to keep saying it. Not sure why that's such a difficult question.
    • sleepwalkers, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2That's a ridiculous statement. It's akin to saying "Why is it that so many people keep saying the Iraq war needs to stop, but they can't stop talking about it themselves?"
  • futimazar, on 05/22/2008, -2/+134I just find it amusing to watch Obama and McCain start going at it general election style while Hillary is still at ever smaller campaign rallies saying "it's not over yet! right!? right?"
    • delau, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2you know who else is still at ever smaller campaign rallies saying 'it's not over yet! right!? right?'
  • ksc23, on 05/22/2008, -3/+39I know folks in Florida who didn't vote because they were told the vote wouldn't count. Clearly, the vote count would not be an accurate representation of the will of Floridians one way or the other.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/22/2008, -10/+1And yet Obama's people OPPOSED a re-vote in Florida.

      Imagine that - a Democrat who didn't want to count votes in Florida...
      • aladrin, on 05/22/2008, -0/+9Yes, they opposed breaking the rules they'd all agreed upon. Image that! A politician with respect for the rules AND the people!
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/22/2008, -3/+1This isn't about Obama or Hillary - this is about Democrats in Florida or Michigan that have been disenfranchised.

          You Obamacans don't want to count those votes now, but if it's a tight race in November you'll damn sure want to count them then...
        • sleepwalkers, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2No, the state parties broke the rules and they should be punished as such! They were punished moreso than the rules state, which will ensure that they will never do it again.
          You're right, it has nothing to do with which candidate won or would win, it has everything to do with states being punished for doing something they should not have.
          And this is coming from a Michigander. My state's parties were abso-*****-lutely retarded in doing what they did, and I want to make sure they never do it again. If it means my vote in the primary/caucus doesn't count this time, so be it.
    • Bravesguy18, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3I'm one of those people you are talking about. Well, I don't really know you but...
    • h3lx, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2They had a shot and botched the hell out of it and need to have another go... unfortunately, the season is almost over.
    • veijeri, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4I'm also one of those people. Not wasting my time if it doesn't mean anything.
    • Bemuzed, on 05/22/2008, -2/+4I've always thought that there should have been a new vote in Michigan and Florida, but everyone is too cheap to pay for it.
      • papipablo, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3And what would Hillary do in the national election. There's no super-electors she can appeal to. She won't be able to change the rules when she loses.
        • Bemuzed, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1That is another matter and doesn't fit this one. I truly understand what you are trying to say, but your logic/thinking is flawed.
  • nestafett, on 05/22/2008, -16/+6sociopath? ok, it's hypocritical what she is doing. But c'mon, that kind of talk is as damaging as people accuse her of being. She's already lost and to keep attacking her is just silly, focus on McCain/Obama the more press you give her the more she feels justified in staying in the race.

    Besides, I don't even think she has been damaging, I think all of this has immensely helped the dems.
    • danfive555, on 05/22/2008, -1/+0I agree. That's politics. Besides she isn't really running against Obama anymore, she's running to stay in the spotlight. She's useful in the media for jabbing against McBush, because she's better at that than Biden/Pelosi etc.
  • chrissku, on 05/22/2008, -5/+111Hopefully Hillary takes a day off from campaigning to attend Obama's inauguration. I'm sure he'll hook her up with tickets.
    • jonnyboy1544, on 05/22/2008, -3/+8I just hope you Dems and Independents remember this. Bill is corrupt... Hillary is corrupt... and they don't give a rats ass about this country, they just care about their own legacy (which isn't worth the horse ***** at Bush's ranch). So when she runs again in 2012 (or 2016), you don't automatically vote for her.

      I just hope Obama and McCain keep it honest and above the belt so our next president doesn't have a stigma (or the last name of a previous president).
    • paigeinphilly, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5She will still be trying to battle for the Presidency during his first 100 days.

      Obama/Webb 08
  • rhabd0mancer, on 05/22/2008, -7/+9Yikes! Bad lighting!
    • Majupra, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Actually, that's how she looks in good lighting.
  • DublinJoel, on 05/22/2008, -5/+10I've been saying we practically had to make Obama run but she's wanted the Presidency for herself since she was a little girl.
  • sandiegodude, on 05/22/2008, -10/+5That photo of her is freakish... Although I'd LOVE to photoshop a penis in there and send it off to Perez Hilton or something...

    ***** give up already! The longer shebitch stays in the race taking bites out of Obama, the more its going to hurt Obama in the general election. Seriously, he's having to waste time and resources fighting off her attacks from the deathbed while McCain sits back and grins.

    You know, I'm starting to get an idea of her real agenda. She knows she's lost. So at this point, she WANTS McCain to win - why? So she can come back in 2012 and campaign against him!
    • jsmith39, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3inarticulate ranting aside, do you really buy into the 'she's burning him in the general election' bit? Do you think she is going to say something McCain won't? Dig up something the Republicans don't already have?

      What I've come to really appreciate about Obama is his lack of personal mudslinging and the way he addresses the garbage she has thrown at him. Heck, let her keep slinging. Everytime she blows out the road in front of him he ends up looking better for the bridge he builds over it.
  • soot, on 05/22/2008, -4/+20She went back on her word. Last year she signed the agreement with the other candidates and the DNC to ignore the unseated delegations from Michigan and Florida. She only started to care when she realized she urgently needed them after all, and took on a populist, blue-collar fighter persona to disguise the fact that it was her last-ditch effort to clinch the nomination.

    I seriously hope Obama doesn't end up tapping her for the VP slot, there are so many better choices than her, tactically and practically speaking. But who knows, Bill is pushing for her now, so...
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/22/2008, -6/+1Really? Or did she just agree not to campaign in Michigan in Florida?
      • soot, on 05/22/2008, -0/+7So where was she when the Rules and Bylaws Committee ruled to strip Florida of its delegates?
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/22/2008, -8/+1The same place Obama was - nowhere to be found.

          All Dems should be ashamed of what was done to Michigan in Florida.
        • bloomanchoo, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6Especially the Florida Dems who keep giving their State government to the Repubs... (the ones who you should be mad at)
      • MacEnvy, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6The pledge she signed said she would not "campaign or participate". By merely keeping her name on the ballot (when most of the rest took it off) she was breaking the agreement.
        • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/22/2008, -4/+1Well ***** then, Obama broke the agreement too as his name was on the ballot in Florida...
    • defwheezer, on 05/22/2008, -1/+5Please don't use "tapping" and 'Hillary' in the same sentence!! //(still dry heaving)
  • FearFactory, on 05/22/2008, -4/+13Holy ***** she looks about 90 years old in that picture.
  • hamobu, on 05/22/2008, -4/+12Is there any way RHC could loose her senate seat in addition to this nomination?
  • hhlinguistics, on 05/22/2008, -4/+40It actually makes me kinda sad. There was a point in this race where, though supporting Obama, I still liked Clinton - and would've voted for her had she won the nomination. Now if she were to somehow manage to weasel her way into the nomination by changing the rules she agreed to, my conscious wouldn't let me vote for her in November. I'd rather thow my vote away on the Green Party candidate then support just another devious politician.
    • emalen, on 05/22/2008, -6/+2when (where)
      conscience (conscious)
      than (then)

      I realize you may not care, but you have good ideas which could be more clearly expressed by using proper spelling.
      • geraldwhite, on 05/22/2008, -2/+2I don't think anyone cares... most of us post this in our spare, bored, "quick before the boss sees" time. Why should we have to be lectured every time we spell something wrong? It's like my 5th grade English teacher is following me everywhere I go.

        Get over it!
    • MrNeom, on 05/22/2008, -2/+0Vote Nader. Seriously.
    • jerbaker, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2Although Nader is a good guy, I'd really hate to have to vote for him for the third election in a row. The DLC needs to be disbanded, its members excommunicated from the Democratic Party, and these unprincipled ***** like Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton need to be barred from public office.
    • Endemoniada, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Your vote is YOUR vote, it is never thrown away. If you can't stand behind the vote you cast, you don't really deserve it in the first place. Voting for "the next best guy" is what will ruin democracy quicker than anything else.
    • arpie, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Apart from rhetoric or ill-advised campaign tactics, if you look at (real) issues they are very similar. Despite being an Obama supporter and also really despising her strategy, I'd still definitely vote for Hilary. Heck, I'd vote for Peewee Herman over John Flipflopper McBush.
  • plhearn, on 05/22/2008, -24/+5Not as shameless as the Obama propaganda on Digg.
    • jsmith39, on 05/22/2008, -1/+6and if we all loved Hillary and showered her with verbal affection at Obama's expense you would be bitching about the Hillary propoganda.

      Like minded people tend to congrigate in similar locations, this is normal, not a conspiracy. No one is keeping you on Digg and I highly doubt anyone would even notice if you went away.
      • plhearn, on 05/22/2008, -4/+1Wow you sound pretty upset. Don't feel bad I would be upset too if someone called me out on being a brainwashed Obamabot.
        • ScottyQuest, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3Wow you sound pretty childish. Don't feel bad, I would act childish too if someone rationally explained something I had been complaining about when I just wanted to point fingers and call names.
        • plhearn, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1my reply was better
  • scm21st, on 05/22/2008, -2/+63Clinton backers, how can you continue to support this woman?
    • danfive555, on 05/22/2008, -8/+0She's a policy wonk.
    • aboyd, on 05/22/2008, -1/+36I was listening on NPR yesterday during a call-in show, and lots of Clinton fans called in. I can tell you very clearly what I heard -- multiple female callers alleging sexism in the media. That's it. According to them, this is all just YET ANOTHER attack on women, Clinton is still a wonderful candidate, and anything you heard or saw otherwise was simply media bias. Yes. All her mistakes, all the things she has said that people find objectionable... well, she didn't really say them, or the media portrayed them unfairly.

      Think about that. They're saying that all the people here on Digg who object to Hilary's attempt to get the one-sided primaries in Florida & Michigan counted would really LOVE such a thing if the media would portray it differently. You guys all love Hilary's ideas. You just don't know it. You've had the wool pulled over your eyes by a sexist media.

      Ugh.
      • paigeinphilly, on 05/22/2008, -1/+9Now...I'm a WOMAN.

        and I dont buy that load of crap.


        Obama/Webb 08
      • jerbaker, on 05/23/2008, -1/+5I've been telling you for a long time that it's a "girl power" thing. There are a lot of women, even in my family, whose allegiance to their sex is stronger than their allegiance to doing what is right, or to ending a deadly and costly war. I do not want any candidate who is elected on such an irrational platform. That's how we get Hitlers - when the population is willing to suspend reason in order to elect a "feel good" leader.
      • 808ethan, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Yeah! Im too sexy!

        What did you say now?
      • PunkRampant, on 05/23/2008, -0/+4Funny you should mention sexism, because here is my ex-girlfriend's status message on IM right now:

        "Fece it guys. A female President is inevitable."

        Spelling mistake is hers.
        • KLBP, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3A female President will be elected, it just won't be Hillary.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/22/2008, -24/+3What's shameless are the Obamacans that are constantly spamming Digg with anti-Clinton propaganda...
    • jsmith39, on 05/22/2008, -0/+8See this is how Digg works, you submit a story you find interesting, and if other people find it interesting it gets dugg up and more people see it. If you don't like it, than you digg it down and less people see it. Simple right?

      So... if there are a lot of pro Obama/anti-Clinton articles making it to the front of Digg than logically this must mean that lots of Digg users like Obama/don't like Clinton. How is that shameless? Are you telling me that I don't have the right to express my opinion because it runs counter to yours? Are you a closet fascist, or are you simply just so much smarter than the rest of us combined that we should abandon free will and blindly follow your inspired leadership?
    • SupaDawg, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Says the little douchebag who's made at least half of the comments pertaining to the entire argument. You're everywhere. Hell, with the desperation you're showing i'm semi-convinced that you're actually Hillary Clinton dressed up like a woman (although anyone could see through THAT disguise), sitting in a starbucks, trying to convince digg that you're the real deal.
  • reuscel, on 05/22/2008, -4/+13Normally, I think Andrew Sullivan is kind of a douche, but he hit the nail on the head with this one.
    • Schmapdi, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5No way - even back when he was a republican he was pretty cool, now that he's switched sides (to dems I mean, he's still gay so far as I know) he's even cooler.
      • reuscel, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2He was a bit too much of a Bush apologist for my tastes, but he has definitely gotten better.
      • larthallor, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1What? Still gay? That's so 70s of him. Doesn't he realize that all the cool people went straight decades ago?

    • mrlivingston, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Agreed. (With Schmapdi, that is.) Even when Sullivan disagreed with someone, his arguments generally seemed fair, and certainly not as shrill as many pundits.
  • lewhich, on 05/22/2008, -0/+9Maybe she is trying to raise money to pay off her debts.
    • Nickel3rd, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4So her debt is more important than America? CMON! National division and personal selfishness no matter how you slice it.
    • 666dorado, on 05/23/2008, -0/+4she's actually racking up more debt by continuing...
  • BoogieNight, on 05/22/2008, -9/+2Why always the Clinton bashing on Digg?
    • BinaryDelt, on 05/22/2008, -1/+12Because she's an evil lying bitch and Digg users are smart enough to see that.
    • soundchaser123, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1why do you think? they are the worst...
    • Evolutuon, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2What should anyone do when a potential leader Clearly gives reasons for Not being that leader? Shrug it off and complain why people are putting their thinking minds to work?
    • jsmith39, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1because I don't like her
  • cambob76, on 05/22/2008, -2/+10I think someone better sit her ass down and tell her she has to quit. She's nuts.
    • Sneezyx, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1Be my guest, and good luck with that black eye (I hear steak does wonders).
  • soundchaser123, on 05/22/2008, -10/+5Where's all the sociopathic killers when you need them? I am surprised the Clintons and the Bushes are still walking around...
  • spazoidspam, on 05/22/2008, -2/+6Clinton scares me so much I would even consider voting for mcCain if she got the slot as VP, even though I think BO is the best candidate in my lifetime. A person who lies so regularly scares me much much more then someone who has a different viewpoint then me.
    • sillymeganlee, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1I don't understand why people keep saying they'll vote for McCain if she gets elected. McCain is flippin' insane. I hate Hillary, but I wouldn't go to the republican side just because she'd be VP. Too much good would come from Obama.

      I don't like her, but their views are pretty much identical. I'd rather have my freedoms.
      • spazoidspam, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2How do you know those are her views? She lies so much I have no idea. She routinely tried to suppress the truth about anything controversial in her past.

        Plus, I would worry about Bill putting a hit out on Obama if Hillary was VP, just so she could be the prez. I would worry much more about losing my freedoms in that case then if McCain was prez. Hillary has the potential to be worse then Bush.

        I have been ranking the candidates in the order I would vote for them routinely throughout this race. From the moment I saw Hillary announce her intention to be in the race she has been near the bottom of it. I had more respect for McCain at the beginning of the race then I do now, but he still hasn't fallen below her.
        • sillymeganlee, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1High-five for being able to provide a reason that makes sense. Usually when I ask people, they just say something ridiculous. Thank you.
      • Risingashes, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2She seriously considers nuking a country for the actions of it's government to be a reasonable response.

        Anyone like that should not be given the remote chance of becoming President.
  • BinaryDelt, on 05/22/2008, -2/+19Anyone who falls for anything this woman says needs to be Ninja kicked in the face.
  • msce2, on 05/22/2008, -1/+30There was a time when I thought I would vote for HRC. Now, I will be voting Obama whether I have to write in his name or he's the Democratic Nominee. I just can't see why people don't see through her lies. She is only toting Michigan and FL because she wants to win at any cost. Even if it means sabotaging the other nominee. She wrote them off at the beginning of this whole process without a 2nd thought. She never imagined she might actually need those votes. It has nothing to do with fairness or letting everyone "have their say". Open your eyes people. She is a 1st class liar, manipulator and all around cheater.
  • BlacklabelSAR, on 05/22/2008, -2/+8Clinton's impression of John Lovitz's lier character from SNL is dead on. "I was in Siam, no wait, I was the KING of Siam, that's the ticket!"
  • ri59, on 05/22/2008, -7/+7In other words, Democrats are finally seeing the Hillary and Bill that the Republicans have seen all along.
    • sandiegodude, on 05/22/2008, -2/+11Hillary? Yep.

      Bill - ***** off, he was one of the best Presidents we've ever had, period. The best the GOP can come up with is that he got some poonanny from an intern in the Oval Office.

      ... and taking a look at the photo above, can you blame him?
  • yossarin, on 05/22/2008, -3/+10People were worried about Obama's safety - like racists might try to kill him which, sadly, is entirely possible.
    Anyone having Hill here as vice president is asking for poison in their coffee/ an unfortunate "accident". There's a difference between motivation and all out mania.
    • danfive555, on 05/22/2008, -3/+0Secret service will do a fine job protecting him. Whackos don't have a chance in hell!
      • Orderless, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4They did a bang-up job of protecting Kennedy.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1The thing that scares me most is the amount of racism in the right wing parts of the government that run the security systems. The Secret Service was just busted for sending out racist email to their fellow agents.
    • shieldss, on 05/22/2008, -5/+2Tell that to Ted Kennedy. He supports Obama, then mysteriously develops a brain tumor. Hmm...
      ...oops, gotta run. The black helicopters are outside again.
  • mrdeathgod, on 05/22/2008, -0/+23The real question is, would she be fighting so hard for Michigan and Florida votes to be counted if she were in the lead right now?
    • msce2, on 05/22/2008, -0/+13Absolutely not. She wouldn't even give it a milisecond of a thought.
    • mal1964, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3 Politics 101
    • countthevotes, on 05/22/2008, -17/+0Yes she would! All candidates should support the rights of the voters to be heard. You should too! Visit http://www.countthevotes.com to support counting all the votes.
      • MalenfantX, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3You seem like you might be a bit biased.

        We'd have to actually have people vote in a real primary to be able count the votes. It would be insane to count votes in states that knew upfront that they'd excluded themselves from this primary. We don't have valid ballots to count.
      • shmatt, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Political spam is most irritating kind of spam there is.
      • life036, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Shut up, douchebag.
    • outkaster, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5If the situation was reversed she would be talking about how they broke the rules and we need to keep integrity by sticking by the rules they all agreed to.
      • freeth1nker, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Pretty much. And her supporters would probably be saying something like "The only reason the media is making a big deal out of this is because they're in love with Obama and don't want Hillary to win!"
        Either way, they'd still be complaining and/or playing the victim card.
    • paigeinphilly, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2um..i can answer that.

      hell no


      Obama/Webb 08
  • chesscat, on 05/22/2008, -0/+11Just when Obama is about to kick the winning field goal she decides she wants to call time out and move the goal posts another 20 yards back.
  • rameshpreddy, on 05/22/2008, -2/+12HRC has proven that she has no charecter, ethics or morals. Yes - that is all we need - one more self centered ego manic to be the president. I though HRC would be a good president given her fighting sprit - but her lack of firness and principles made me change my mind. She is the kind that would not hesitate to kick you below the belt if that is what it takes to win. If everyone was like her - then no one would be following rules or even laws (just like Bush).
  • mal1964, on 05/22/2008, -3/+5Florida and Michigan Re-Vote, That's fair yes or no? If it were your vote you would want it to count right?
    • caferrell, on 05/22/2008, -2/+3They already talked about it. Unfortunately there is no budget for another vote, nor is there time to organize it
      • mal1964, on 05/22/2008, -3/+2No offense but the budget excuse is a bunch of *****. Maybe they could figure something out for the tax payer who wants their vote to count and pays their salary.
        • caferrell, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2I'm with you brother, a real election would be great. Obama would win Michigan and that would be the end of the story, but like I said the DNC and the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties decided that there is no budget and no time to prepare about a month and a half ago.
        • mal1964, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1"but like I said the DNC and the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties decided that there is no budget and no time to prepare about a month and a half ago."
          You're a Politician's dream!
        • wharrislv, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1Neither of you have facts on this. You don't know how long it could possibly take, or how much it could possibly cost. You also don't know enough about state budgets and availability of resources for such a thing. You're both pulling your opinions out of thin air, and neither has any authority over the other. Pointless.
        • caferrell, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4@wharrislv - I absolutely have the facts about this. Both the Florida and the Michigan Democratic Parties met about two months ago and they determined that neither state government would finance another election. They also determined that the end of March was the absolute last moment when a decision had to be made. Those decisions were not made, therefore there cannot be elections.
          Why are there so many self righteous jerks on digg that are always ready to discredit others without reading their comments?
        • mal1964, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1@wharr
          This is my opinion and i stand by it,
          "No offense but the budget excuse is a bunch of *****. Maybe they could figure something out for the tax payer who wants their vote to count and pays their salary."
          This is my opinion and i stand by it.
          "Florida and Michigan Re-Vote"
          This is my opinion and i stand by it.
          "You're a Politician's dream!"
          This is my opinion and i stand by it.
          You're a Politician's dream also!


        • mal1964, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2I'm with you caferrell!
        • wharrislv, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3"Maybe they could figure something out" isn't a solution, its silly. The amount of time necessary to move on something of this magnitude is measured in months, and is not subject to the whims of the constituency.

          The rest of your opinions are valid as opinions, I just think they're wrong.
        • wharrislv, on 05/22/2008, -2/+1Caferrell

          No disrespect intended, I looked for evidence of the meeting and couldn't find it (and still can't!)

          I'll take your word for it, but if there are any links you have beyond Dean denying them funding, I'd be interested.
    • wharrislv, on 05/22/2008, -0/+6Actually, not fair. The states broke the rules and now they pay the price. No mulligans in the real world man. Rules are rules, and shouldn't be broken. If you don't like it, and you live there, you might want to let the leaders who made that ridiculous decision for you that you're not happy about it.
      • mal1964, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Politicians broke the rules, Don't blame it on the States.
        • wharrislv, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4The politicians that were voted in to make decisions for the residents of the states?
        • mal1964, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Did you vote for Bush,Cheney?
        • wharrislv, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2What does that have to do with anything? Logical fallacies, seriously.
  • kiley481, on 05/22/2008, -5/+10Hillary Clinton is a Republican ... that is, constantly whining about following the rules until it becomes politically convenient to toss them entirely out.
    • jonnyboy1544, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Hmm.. that's a stretch but you get an A for effort. Both parties toss out the rule book every now and then, it's just how it works. Every party in power gets carried away and then get destroyed in Congressional elections. See 2006 and 1994.
    • jerbaker, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1I don't think that's fair to Republicans. They don't toss out the rules when it's politically convenient, they toss them out whenever they or their friends are expected to follow them.
  • tizle, on 05/22/2008, -2/+6all i have to say is that until she officially withdraws her name, it's open game. I DO NOT trust the Clintons. It looks good for Obama but it's not over.
    • mal1964, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1How old were you when Bill was the President?
  • purzzzell, on 05/22/2008, -2/+3I'm in 100% agreement that this is shameless, but this doesn't seem to be news...I've thought this same exact thing was shameless for the last 6 months that she's been saying it.

    Can someone explain how this article shows anything new or different? And I don't mean "new and different from her routine of trying to cheat", I mean we've known she's been doing this - it's like announcing that she's trying to woo superdelegates and expecting me to be surprised.
    • rharrie, on 05/22/2008, -0/+2Well, her campaign is now suing the DNC. It's like that coke commercial where one coke product tries to solicit a lawyer to sue another coke product. This is how desperate and pathetic the Clintons have gotten.
  • caferrell, on 05/22/2008, -2/+26If I were Obama I would not sleep peacefully with Hillary as my VP.
    Her yearning for the Presidency knows no bounds, she would stoop to anything to become the Commander in Chief.
    • kemp34, on 05/22/2008, -0/+7Can you say LBJ?
    • havokdu, on 05/22/2008, -1/+3***** true. It would make a terrific movie.
      • freeth1nker, on 05/22/2008, -1/+2Directed by Oliver Stone of course.
    • junkwheel, on 05/22/2008, -0/+4There's less than zero chance of Hillary being Obama's VP.

      Mrs Oakley will have to stick to shooting cans.
      • paigeinphilly, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3Hmm...Kennedy...Reagan...Lincoln...

        all extended the VP position to their nemisis..

        all...well you know the rest.


        Obama/Webb 08
    • whatsupimphil, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3Remember Vince Foster?
  • thephuckphase, on 05/22/2008, -1/+15obama already won this democratic nomination, everyone knows this. lets get passed this already. the real obstacle for obama's step into the white house will be sen. john mccain. now many feel that the democrat will win the presidency this year, but this is simply not true. as many as there are committed democrats out there, there are even more committed republicans. the thing about democrats is they love to whine about whats wrong with policies and ultimately our country, but they are not patriotic (if you will) enough to go out there and vote. republicans generally are an older crowd, meaning they feel they have more of an obligation to vote then we do. and the older they are, the less likely that they keep up with news from the internet the flaws of candidates are revealed like the blemishes on our skin under florescent lighting. they only have televisions, and television is a source where the media is controlled by big businesses, unlike the free-speaking internet. meaning television will not show the flaws in McCain revealed to our computers. This McCain-Obama duel will be closer than many of you diggers think (remember the shock about ron paul's voting results?). McCain can still very well win this thing, start focusing on supporting obama, instead of trying to destroy an already destroyed candidate in Hilary.
    • bsmang, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5You are scary. Or rather, what you say is scary, but I guess that makes you scary by association.
    • jakefloyd, on 05/22/2008, -0/+5Shift.
  • ScoobyG, on 05/22/2008, -0/+9Interesting... there must be some push from the Clinton website or something to answer the poll in that post.

    "Do you agree with Clinton's push to count the Florida and Michigan ballots?"
    Currently: 53% yes, 44% no, 3% don't know.
    • Merendino, on 05/22/2008, -0/+3I was coming to the comments to ask that very question. Doesn't seem to make sense really.
    • Icouldbe, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1I think their votes, like yours and mine, should be counted in the democratic society that we are. That makes more sense than some "party" decided your vote or my vote shouldn't count. However, I think if they were to allow it, there should be a re-vote. That's what she should call for, a fair contest. Not because she can use it to push her closer to the White House.
      • jerbaker, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2What you're advocating is that states can ignore the rules of their party, and instead of getting penalized they get to decide the outcome of the Presidential election. I don't think so. I think a better solution is for someone to stand up and say, "Boy, I bet you guys feel like idiots now that your states could have made a real difference had you not screwed it up for your constituents."
  • jackieokennedy, on 05/22/2008, -8/+3Can someone explain the article, it's quite complicated for an amateur .... thx
  • oceanrain, on 05/22/2008, -5/+17She's a bitch!
  • jawagas, on 05/22/2008, -1/+1Seriously did anyone catch the submitters name? This ***** is BIAS!?!
  • rsh28630, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Bill & Hillary are who they are and in so being, they're revealing ugly truths about America. "Win at all costs" with lying and cheating simply another way to play the game. Here's a clue: if Obama can still beat her, he's proven his mettle to take on John McCain. The Republicans are not going to respect the rules either. They'll also do everything they can to rig the election by disenfranchising potential Obama voters and tampering with the tallies as they have in the last two national contests. Now the insight: this level of sleaze is how the world works. Foreign countries and their people could care less about our definitions of right and wrong. So the Clintons and John McCain are the warm up for the real challenges in the 21st century. Let's hope Obama is up to the task. I believe he is and as unfair as all this preliminary trash talking may be, it's just practice for standing in good stead on the planet with people like Putin.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 127 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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