What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Amazon.com
Kindle(TM) - Amazon's #1 most gifted product view!
amazon.com - Order Kindle now and receive it in time for Christmas. Free Expedited shipping. Click to learn more.
140 Comments
- Frostman3D, on 01/20/2008, -6/+65***** the Clinton's nobody wants them back in the office but the Clintons.
- DeepFriedFetus, on 01/20/2008, -3/+53Bill Clinton cheats on her, how does she respond? She cheats on voters.
- 3tcp, on 01/20/2008, -4/+50If you're going to caucus bring a camera. All this is unfortunate but it won't get attention unless there's more proof than an Obama supporter giving their word. Video of finding the registration list in the garbage can would have ended up on CNN.
- zerosOnes, on 01/20/2008, -6/+50Pretty amazing that a majority of Democrats sit idle while the candidate most likely to lose to McCain in the general election is allowed to cheat her way to the nomination.
- CaymanCarpediem, on 01/20/2008, -2/+41"Why should I feel sorry?"
Because for a democracy to function, the peoples voice must be heard (in this case votes counted). If you only allow those to vote who agree with you, then you no longer have a democracy. These stories (if true), should be deeply troubling regardless of your political leanings. - dwalker20, on 01/20/2008, -8/+37The only republican that hillary could beat would be giuliani. Obama would be a much tougher opponent for the republicans.
- TsetseFly, on 01/20/2008, -10/+37I'm not really all that surprised. I've heard similar things about her campaign operatives from other people in other states, and basically nothing of the same regarding their counterparts for other Democratic candidates. Sure, it could be that people are bitter that she's doing so well. It seems more likely that she's a liar and a cheat, or that someone high up in her campaign's strategy team is.
Don't worry, Hillary folks, people will keep forgetting about these occurrences until well after she's elected. - notque, on 01/20/2008, -0/+25http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30220
"Start with the hiring of chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn. He's CEO of a PR firm, Burson-Marsteller, that prepped the Blackwater CEO for his recent congressional testimony, is advising the giant industrial laundry corporation Cintas in fighting unionization, and whose website proudly heralded their union-busting expertise until it became a potential Clinton liability and they removed that section. B-M has historically represented everyone from the Argentine military junta and Philip Morris to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster.
Then there are Clinton's campaign donors. Any major candidate has some dubious supporters, but Clinton's gotten money from particularly noxious sources. Start with her donation from Rupert Murdoch, who's given to no other Democrat. Add in massive amounts of money from Washington lobbyists and from industries like defense, banking, health care, and oil and energy providers (though Obama's also gotten a lot from some of these industries). Then there's Norman Hsu, who brought in over $850,000 to Hillary's campaign after returning to the US following his flight to evade a fraud conviction (Hsu was subsequently rearrested, sentenced to three years, and is facing further federal charges). There's the Nebraska data processing company InfoUSA, whose CEO, Vin Gupta, used private corporate jets to fly the Clintons on business, personal, and campaign trips, gave Bill Clinton a $3.3 million consulting contract, and is now being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly diverting company money to his own personal uses. Mississippi attorney Dickie Scruggs recently canceled a major December 15 Hillary fundraiser (with Bill Clinton headlining) after being indicted for trying to bribe a judge. Major international sweatshop owners, the Saipan-based Tan family, have given Clinton $26,000, complementing their previous massive support for Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay. That doesn't even count dubious supporters from the past, like Peter Paul, the convicted con-artist turned event producer who coordinated a massive Hollywood Clinton fundraiser during the 2,000 election. Taken together, it's a pretty tainted constellation of backers." - omnithought, on 01/20/2008, -1/+25Man, she's like mix between Tipper Gore and Karl Rove
- notque, on 01/20/2008, -2/+25Hillary is another right wing candidate that intends on following a basic bush doctrine while saying she isn't. She is the establishment's answer to discontent concerning Bush.
You can frame this statement.
In no way will she remove us from Iraq, but will continue Bush's policy while saying it's radically different, and her own. - inactive, on 01/20/2008, -1/+23Well, Obama still got more delegates. Which is far more important than the popular vote.
- inactive, on 01/20/2008, -4/+22Cheating is the only way to guarantee a win, anyone surprised by this?
- inactive, on 01/20/2008, -4/+19Actually hillary vs any of the republicans (cept paul) would be a good reason to leave this country.
- jellygraph, on 01/20/2008, -3/+15I will do everything in my power to make sure Hillary doesn't pull this ***** off... She's shown herself to be criminally minded like Bush
- lucutus, on 01/20/2008, -1/+12Anybody know how the NH recount is going?
- JigoroKano, on 01/20/2008, -2/+13Neocon vs. Neocon: a competition to see who will spend more money on corporate welfare, invade more countries, and kill more "terrorists".
- oceanrain, on 01/20/2008, -11/+22Of course this would happen, do you really think Hillary could win without having to cheat? She is just following Bill's playbook form 1992.
- Tomyris, on 01/20/2008, -15/+25And where is the evidence? Actual cold hard evidence. Cut the crap with the conspiracy theories and crawl out of the imagination cave.
- notque, on 01/20/2008, -3/+13And the establishment.
- nopantsdx, on 01/20/2008, -1/+11I'm not surprised at all. The Clinton's are a corrupt family that has no problem with cheating to win. If they are willing to defraud the American voting process, how can anyone trust them to run our country? I suggest that all Clinton supporters do a google search and look into the shady practices of this family's past. You will be scared to vote for them after about 30 minutes of digging through all their dirt.
I'm not an Obama or Edwards supporter, I will most likely vote republican, but I would NEVER vote for "Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife" to be in any elected office. I might let her run my Home Owners Association, but even that may be too much power for her to abuse. - thesparrowband, on 01/20/2008, -1/+10hmm. i don't think i'm comfortable with our relationship..
- notque, on 01/20/2008, -4/+13It would be A Republican vs. a Republican.
- Brook07, on 01/20/2008, -1/+10I have voted Democrat for every presidential election since I've been 18 (4 times). I will not vote for HRC. Never. I'm fed up with the same old crap. I'm only one vote, but I'll never trust a Clinton again.
- LilBoyLuver, on 01/20/2008, -0/+8http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_new_hampshire_re ...
So far it looks like the mistakes that were made were honest and none of the candidates really had much of an edge. - notque, on 01/20/2008, -1/+9What is it about Hillary that you think will make a good president? Remove the TRL style support, and explain the content of your decision.
- Outdoor83, on 01/20/2008, -1/+9... and the majority of democratic voters? Despite the allegations of cheating, people are voting for her. *lots* of them. I don't like her, but I won't say that no one does.
As the writer of the article notes, these tactics probably didn't sway the final winner. Saying that no one wants her in office is pretty naive. - Nanobe, on 01/20/2008, -1/+8See for yourself: http://www.sos.nh.gov/recountresults.htm
All of the major Democratic candidates (including Kucinich) had their vote count decrease. Meanwhile, although the Republican recount is still early on, it seems all of the major Republican candidates (including Paul) are having their vote count increase. I'm not sure what happened there. It looks like a lot of the Republican votes for major candidates were originally miscounted as "other". On each party, the increases/decreases seem to be fairly consistent in proportion to the candidate's original votes, which means the final percentages are unlikely to have changed much, if at all. - JigoroKano, on 01/20/2008, -0/+7Only McCain is getting his ass handed to him by Romney.
So it's happening both ways, the most detestable liar that can't do well in the general election might take the primary. - bsmeteronhigh, on 01/20/2008, -1/+8I was an Obama precinct captain in Clark County. We had a few minor issues that were cleared up with a quick call to the Democratic Headquarters. Some of the stuff was minor and no big deal. Hey, we were all new to the caucus thing and a few minor speed bumps were expected...when the doors closed and the like. Everyone in my precinct pulled together to figure out the calculations. When the envelopes were sealed with the results, I was satisfied that it was fair and honest. One thing was apparent, more voters turned out and people really do care about where our country is headed. That alone is a good thing.
- Outdoor83, on 01/20/2008, -1/+8wtf? Tomyris is asking for hard evidence of these allegations, and he's getting dug down? There's allegations daily of cheating / scandals / bad moral constitution / etc. The only way we're going to get ANYWHERE and make sure we don't have Bush v2 in the White House is to demand evidence from everyone, and not judge before we see it. That way, we judge candidates on what can't be made up, rather than what can. I sincerely hope all of you agree, or else America is far worse off than I thought.
- VotingFraud, on 01/20/2008, -3/+10***** THE ESTABLISHMENT!
- Shiftgood, on 01/20/2008, -3/+9you mean... "out-cheating" the competition.
we're screwed. - growler1, on 01/20/2008, -1/+7"Well, Obama still got more delegates. Which is far more important than the popular vote."
--True, but she has more "super-delegates" right now which started her off in the race with an advantage. (Crooked, yet again, if you ask me.)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ... - Outdoor83, on 01/20/2008, -1/+7What? What does this have to do with anything?
- Digg413, on 01/20/2008, -1/+7Hilary has been in the public eye for about 20 years. And with that 20 years of experience, no one likes her. She doesn't inspire. Her tactics are underhanded at best. She reminds me of an inpersonal corporation. And she WILL NOT get my vote. So many people have been sick of 8 years of Bush - I for one have only been sick of the last 2 or 3. But I cannot for the life of me see how Bush Haters would be Pro-Hilary. They're different sides of the same coin. And what this country really needs is fresh blood, a new attitude, and more accountability to the public. Bush-Cheney Inc will be out. And I for one have no interest in putting Clinton Inc. in their place.
- jaytek13, on 01/20/2008, -2/+7Who needs evidence when there is a candidate you don't care for?
- notque, on 01/20/2008, -2/+7She's a republican, so what does it really matter to you?
- johnnick, on 01/20/2008, -0/+4Not necessarily. A lot of conspiracy denial is based on the belief that the more people who know about something, the less likely it is that the secret will stay a secret. Many modern conspiracy theories, like those espoused by the Truthers, require a level of participation and complexity that border on the fantastic, and since there is a simpler explanation, rational analysis says that, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary (as opposed to the type of fringe evidence provided to support most conspiracy theories), the simpler explanation is more likely to be the correct explanation.
This is not to say that conspiracy to commit crimes doesn't happen. The reason why the law punishes conspirators so harshly is because a conspiracy to commit a crime is believed to increase the likelihood that the crime will be committed. - Spuy767, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4My first thought was, "Why am I not the least bit surprised by this?"
- h4rdcor3, on 01/20/2008, -2/+6Obama can win, but the way things are looking I'm afraid that hillary will get the Dem nomination. That gives us 4 more years of a Republican administraton. I won't vote for hillary because she is ***** crazy, not because she is a woman.
- Goodanswer, on 01/20/2008, -0/+4I just love how people throw around the word conspiracy. Have you ever heard the phrase:
he conspired to commit murder. No one there is yelling for a tin foil hat. If it were true he is still innocent till proven guilty. Same with the "conspiracy theories" they are right till they are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be wrong. Does that make sense? Im just sayin. - rebrad, on 01/20/2008, -1/+5In her book "My Plan", Hillary states that whatever it takes works for her and might makes right.
- mwolfzorn, on 01/20/2008, -0/+4Why is Bruce Springsteen's ass the picture associated with this article?
- fatdog789, on 01/20/2008, -2/+6This is Digg. Evidence is not necessary to trash someone unless you're talking about God Paul and God K.
- JigoroKano, on 01/20/2008, -0/+4Irrelevant. Look at the delegates. Where Romney doesn't take 1st he takes 2nd. Huckabee and McCain are juggling the remainder of votes while Romney is far out in the lead as far as delegates are concerned.
The only hope is that this is purely an effect of money spent and as the primaries go on, this trend will cease. I wouldn't bet on that though. - oceanrain, on 01/21/2008, -0/+3Sorry dude, you are wrong. As a former volunteer for another Democrat in 1992, I saw the same tricks used by the Clintons. I am speaking from experience. It is the Clintons that talk *****.
- ZenMojo, on 01/20/2008, -0/+3Democrats have grown desperate to win and partisanship has forced them to ignore the flaws in their party. True, the Republican Party is extremely corrupt at all levels, but there ARE bad Democrats. Granted, those Democrats are in much smaller numbers than Republicans, but there are also GOOD Republicans. Likewise, those Republicans are in much smaller numbers than Democrats.
Unfortunately, what happens is that Democrats defend, defend, defend while Republicans attack, attack, attack. Then it flips. What few bother to do is say, "This is wrong regardless of what party you are in, and what we need to do is fix it."
I wonder if it's a coincidence that the most corrupt member of our party on the front stage, Hillary Clinton, is also by and far the most conservative. Is conservatism an element of corrupt or merely reflective of it? - Breepee, on 01/20/2008, -3/+6Because some people care? I mightily hope that the American electorate won't let us down this time, because Bush has shown once again that the US government matters to 6 billion people, not just the Americans.
- starkruzr, on 01/20/2008, -2/+5If the problem was a chain-of-custody issue, no discrepancies will be found. Since the people who are charge of this are highly entrenched, overwhelming evidence is necessary to indict them. This means they can get away with almost anything and people will simply say "OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING WRONG."
- prophet5, on 01/20/2008, -1/+4How could Hillary win in Clark County with the endorsement of the Casinos' Unions going to Obama?
Remember what Stalin said - it's not who gets to vote, it's who gets to count the votes.
Something is beginning to stink. I hope they can get to the bottom of it before November 2008.
Of course, George Soros is backing Hillary, so expect him to spend some more of his $7 billion to get her elected. He knows she'll do his bidding for cash.
Of course, where I come from, a woman who takes cash to please her master is called a whore. Not that I'm saying Hillary is a whore. I'm just saying.... -
Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
