What is Digg?Sponsored by Nokia
Finally a Smartphone That Lives Up To Its Hype view!
nokiausa.com - Amazing-looking Nokia N900 has PC-like performance, cinematic interface... and a heck of a lot more.
317 Comments
- JlmAWP, on 03/21/2008, -17/+94"But even some of Clinton’s own advisers now concede that she cannot win unless Obama is hit by a political meteor. Something that merely undermines him won't be enough. It would have to be some development that essentially disqualifies him."
Oh, you mean like, passport information? - coffeebaby, on 03/21/2008, -3/+71Edwards needs to make his decision.
- Tex, on 07/28/2008, -4/+62So Hillary's campaign claims it only has a "1 in 10 chance" of winning the nomination, and even then only by overturning the popular will of the people. Drop out already, Hillary.
- meltlight, on 03/21/2008, -5/+58Article is spot-on. Finally someone in the press is rejecting the belligerent spin coming from the Clinton campaign. Can we imagine anyone other than the Clintons (or the Bush's) staying in a primary race against all odds and logic insisting over and over again that she will win?
- gwinerreniwg, on 03/21/2008, -3/+53After Obama's speech on race relations this week, its going to take an act of God to get Hillary the nomination. I was thoroughly surprised this week when Republican friends of mine openly declared they'd vote for Obama after hearing this speech.
Whether or not he is the "real deal", at a minimum he projects the sense that he is a historical figure. With the vacuum of leadership in recent years, people are looking for something to believe in. Unfortunately, Hillary's "realist" message is not striking a chord with the American public. Add to this Obama's uncanny talent for political judo (using a controversy to your advantage) he is impossible for her to beat. I predict that Obama will be the presidential nominee for a political party - whether that be the Democatic (likely), or a new third party (assuming Clinton somehow cinches the nomination), my sense is his supporters will accept no less. Unless he gets hit by a political "meteor" as the article says. - cg4et, on 03/21/2008, -6/+55The longer Hillary stays in the race, the more divided the party will be going into the convention. She knows this, and yet she has made the calculation that she should stay in the race "just in case" she can find a way to steal the nomination. Today, Bill Richardson called on Democrats to unite behind Barack Obama. How many of our leaders will make the same call?
- abburdlen, on 03/21/2008, -3/+51Even if she continues to throw the kitchen sink at Obama it's nearly impossible for her to get the nomination though it does hurt Obama's chances against McCain. So the question remains, is Hillary dragging this out to sabotage Obama chances in the general election so she can make another run in 2012 or is she being duped by her Chief strategist Mark Penn who's PR firm just happens to be working for McCain?
- ZandorMonkeyBoy, on 03/21/2008, -3/+45But let’s assume a best-case scenario for Clinton, one where she wins every remaining contest with 60 percent of the vote (an unlikely outcome since she has hit that level in only three states so far — her home state of New York, Rhode Island and Arkansas).
Even then, she would still be behind Obama in delegates.
There are 566 pledged delegates up for grabs in upcoming contests. Those delegates come from Pennsylvania (158), Guam (4) North Carolina (115), Indiana (72), West Virginia (28), Kentucky (51), Oregon (52), Puerto Rico (55), Montana (16) and South Dakota (15).
If Clinton won 60 percent of those delegates, she would get 340 delegates to Obama's 226. Under that scenario — and without revotes in Michigan and Florida — Obama would still lead in delegates by 1,632 to 1,589.
The only remote possibility of a win in delegates would come if revotes were held in Florida and Michigan — which, again, would take a political miracle. If Clinton won 60 percent of the delegates in both states, she would win 188 delegates and Obama would win 125. Clinton would then lead among pledged delegates, 1,777 to 1,757.
The other elephant in the room for Clinton is that Obama is almost certain to win North Carolina, with its high percentage of African-American voters, and also is seen as extremely strong in Oregon. - mateo60, on 03/21/2008, -3/+39In my opinion, the most important line of the story. FTA: "One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business."
- inactive, on 03/21/2008, -3/+28She seems to believe that she can destroy Obama so badly that superdelegates will have to give her the nomination at the convention, or that she can hurt him enough to keep him from winning, then come back in 4 years and say 'I told you so. I said he wouldn't win, c'mon, I'll forgive you if you nominate me this time around'.
She doesn't seem to realize that everyone will blame her for whatever happens and if Obama wins, everyone will say it was in spite of her selfish, destructive, campaign that she continued after losing 11 races after super tuesday. She will never have a national political career ever again and all that she's doing now is helping the republicans. - speakerfordead, on 03/21/2008, -2/+24He is too nervous of making the wrong one and ruining his future.
- cathpah, on 03/21/2008, -2/+22and she's only won 60% or more in 4 states....two of which she's lived in.
- captspaulding, on 03/21/2008, -1/+19the states did it to them selfs by trying to jump in front of all the other states against the wishes of the dnc. they knew what would happen, and did it anyway.
- valimar77, on 03/21/2008, -3/+20"The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe. The real question is why so many people are playing." = Hillary - plans - to - steal - the - election.
- Pyehole, on 03/21/2008, -1/+17Those states disenfranchised themselves! The Democratic party told them ahead of time what would happen if they moved up their primaries. They moved 'em anyhow and thus they should suffer the consequences.
- DaviDTC, on 03/21/2008, -2/+16If the superdelegates screw over obama I wouldnt be surprised if mccain won with 75% or more of the vote. If that was to happen, to me, the superdelegates are telling me that my vote means absolutely nothing. If they want to tell me that, they better not expect me to vote in November.
- NelsonR, on 03/21/2008, -1/+14Just today, Bill Clinton emphasized that Hillary and McCain were the two candidates who loved America. Obama's name was not entertained. The Clinton Duo are despicable power hungry humans who would destroy the Democratic Party if Hillary is not nominated. Like Richardson all the Democratic super delegates should stop this Clinton Charade before the party is destroyed with Clinton's favorite person, Iraqi John elected. How can any citizen not accept the facts that conclude they are part of the old elitist guard that have assisted in destroying what America once stood for.
- valimar77, on 03/21/2008, -1/+14The Media corroborates Hillary's "close race" facade.
Real truth. - spaceman77, on 03/21/2008, -4/+17She will rig the voting boxes if she can.
- junkwheel, on 03/21/2008, -1/+13Yes Hillary GO, GO, GO tell your military lobbyists it's all over.
- Pyehole, on 03/21/2008, -1/+11Yeah. That's exactly what she should do.
- Pyehole, on 03/21/2008, -2/+12There were two employees at the State department who were fired this week for accessing his passport info illegally. The inference here is that they were directed to do so in an effort to find dirt on Obama. I cannot fathom what information in a passport application could possibly be used as fodder for a dirty campaign trick.
- sephiroth965, on 03/21/2008, -1/+11You don't even know the guy's name. His name is Barack Hussein Obama, retard.
- stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -1/+10i'm going to cry because people think that the color of your skin matters more than being the best person for the job...
- dshey, on 03/21/2008, -0/+9Guam has delegates?? I never knew.
- harmonik, on 03/21/2008, -4/+13You, sir, are an idiot.
- solidcube, on 03/22/2008, -1/+10I do not like Clinton in the least, but much of the political coverage on Digg smacks of an agenda. I'm for Obama, but whoever wins the democratic nomination will automatically get my vote regardless of any other factor.
- stonr2, on 03/22/2008, -1/+10you think that matters? affairs are like jaywalking, people frown and give you a ticket but no one ***** cares anymore. this is the american attitude of many.
- Moetownslick, on 03/21/2008, -1/+9why is the fact that they brought it upon themselves so hard for people to understand?
- inactive, on 03/22/2008, -0/+8I do.
- RetypePassword, on 03/22/2008, -1/+9I guess I don't have a sense of humor, but that link was ***** annoying.
- inactive, on 03/22/2008, -1/+9I just have to say that I've been posting a lot of replies to people's comments that I just plain think haven't been thought through or researched. And I don't try to make people sound stupid but sometimes I can't help it... For that I apologize, but I truly get the feeling that most people on this site are liberals, so let's get to the facts: Doing the math, it truly is impossible for Clinton to win the nomination without the super delegates turning the decision over. This to me would be another mockery of the American political system, and would really set the tone for some kind of dictatorship Bush wishes he had. Now to all the people on here, can we PLEASE put the ***** and childish comments aside and ban together as a Democratic party. Without this the republicans are going to win another election. Now I get it, statistically, liberals tend to be smarter, we're individualists, and like to form our own ideas, but the republicans are robots. They ban together very tightly, no matter what, and that's how they beat us. I never had a problem with Clinton up until her "kitchen sink" theory started to take action, now I hate her with every ounce of my blood. But regardless, I will be voting Democrat in November, PLEASE, can other people do the same, think of what's at stake. A war with Iran, and a president who seems to have no concern over economy, education, human rights, the environment, etc... Or a nominee that is very smart and cares about the interests of the people first. Like I said, I hate Clinton, but there is no doubt in my mind she would be leaps and bounds better than McCain. Thank You.
- smacksaw, on 03/21/2008, -2/+10Good article. The salient point they made is hanging on in case something happens to Obama. That said, she would be the presumptive nominee anyway. There's really no justification for trying to battle it out other than blackmail, or to sabotage Obama so she can try again in 4 years.
It's a shame about her. Clearly the only thing she cares about is power. Not Americans, her constituents, her party - just power. And power for power's sake is so very dangerous in the hands of those who lust for it without regard for consequence. - vinyl18, on 03/21/2008, -1/+9Last I checked I was one and last I checked I'm going Obama.
- Deodrus, on 03/22/2008, -0/+8DO NOT CLICK. The most annoying RickRoll ever.
- EtherGnat, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7Clinton actually lost Texas, but I'll digg you up anyway. After all, those are the only states that matter. Who cares about delegates and the popular vote? /sarcasm
- EtherGnat, on 03/22/2008, -1/+8Maybe because about 10x as many people support Obama as supported Ron Paul?
- acruxksa, on 03/21/2008, -1/+8Both states knew what they were doing when they decided to hold their primaries outside the guidelines set long before the primaries took place. As usual someone wants to change the rules after the fact.
- inactive, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7you got to be kidding me right? I was wondering if anybody caught that story on NPR this morning talking about how the democrats are so divided, most say they will vote for McCain b/c they hate the other one so much now... so yeah, GO Hillary! ***** up the entire election for the dems and hand it to McCain, or even better, have the super delegates go against the will of the people and get her the nomination! Yay! That saves me all the trouble of actually thinking. All hail king hillary! worked for bush! You don't even need to get people to vote, just have your political friends do the work for you! Awesome!
- saska, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7stonr2, if you read anything besides Digg you'd know that yes, Rice has apologized to Obama and Clinton and planned to speak to McCain.
The fact that they looked at Clinton and McCain's passports was only uncovered when they found out about the Obama breach, which forced the department to do a review of similar firings, disciplinary action, and incidents that hadn't been reported up to management. - noloveIII, on 03/21/2008, -2/+9So is reality
- jongos, on 03/21/2008, -1/+8Yes, the legislature of those states is to blame. They knew the potential consequences and they knew the stakes but didn't have the luxury of being able to predict the future. The only innocents there are the millions of people who live in those states who had no choice and probably weren't even aware of penalties to move the primaries up. If I lived in either of those states I would be asking for many people to step down.
- sactoeric, on 03/21/2008, -3/+10If Clinton wins the nomination and then the Presidential election, it will be 20-24 yrs of Clinton/Bush, but since McCain is acting like Bush III, then either way it will be 20-24 yrs of Clinton/Bush. Is there any doubt that there is some fixin' goin' on??
- inactive, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7She would have people - children, even - killed if she benefited from it. She's the icon of spite.
- starkruzr, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7"No one wants a newbie with only 2 terms experience and almost NOTHING ELSE!"
I agree. No one wants Clinton, that's for damn sure. - skubiszm, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7If Al Sharpton can win Michigan, I think Obama has it in the bag. Plus Obama didn't even campaign in FL. I doubt they will be able to organize any type of vote in such a short amount of time in either state. FL can't even get the Presidential vote correct, let alone a last second primary.
- EtherGnat, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6The voters should have had a say, but seating delegates from the existing votes would be no less of a tragedy. You can't validate a vote in which only one candidate--in direct violation of party agreements--campaigned, and in the case of Michigan Obama wasn't even on the ballot. I was for new elections in those states, but we can't force them to do it.
You're an idiot if you don't vote for Obama because he actually followed the rules all the candidates agreed to. Blame the people responsible. - LeggoMyEgo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6Honestly I can see both sides, but it's totally disingenuous for them to be complaining about it now that it "matters." If the voters cared about being disenfranchised, they should have voiced that last year.
- Moetownslick, on 03/21/2008, -1/+7Spot on.
- smurfsahoy, on 03/22/2008, -1/+7But what about Poland? How does Poland feel? I think you forgot them.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 319 discussions
