DiggJoin DiggAbout
See the original image at eandppub.com —

12 Newspapers Endorse Obama Today, None for McCain

eandppub.com — So far this year Obama leads McCain 22-9 and has already picked up at least three papers that endorsed Bush in 2004.

made popular 85 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community.Take the Tour to learn more.

Remove

Discover breaking news from Macworld 2009
Digg your favorite stories in Upcoming or check out the most popular ones in the Apple topic.

Related by Keyword BETA!

Las Vegas Review Journal To Endorse Barack Obama

  • 606 diggs
  • Made popular 356 days ago
  • 64
  • www.boston.com

The Boston Globe endorses Obama

  • 2013 diggs
  • Made popular 84 days ago
  • 152
  • www.boston.com

Another Endorsement in Senator Obama's bid for November...

  • 1070 diggs
  • Made popular 301 days ago
  • 103
  • www.blueoregon.com

How are these related stories? Tell us!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jackieblu, on 10/12/2008, -29/+124Yeah Baby! The Seattle PI endorsed Obama this week too...
    • winnestow, on 10/13/2008, -28/+11when obama loses, how many government buildings will bill ayers blow up?
      • mikbunn, on 10/13/2008, -6/+19None, because the connection between them is tenuous and exaggerated.

        You move into a new neighborhood. Your neighbors welcome you, a few come over for dinner from time to time, and invite you over in return. On the news one day, you see one of those dinner guests being arrested for being a child molester. Does that make you one, too?

      • kent1146, on 10/13/2008, -15/+8………………….._,,-~’’’¯¯¯’’~-,,
        ………………..,-‘’ ; ; ;_,,---,,_ ; ;’’-,…………………………….._,,,---,,_
        ……………….,’ ; ; ;,-‘ , , , , , ‘-, ; ;’-,,,,---~~’’’’’’~--,,,_…..,,-~’’ ; ; ; ;__;’-,
        ……………….| ; ; ;,’ , , , _,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’~’-,,_ ,,-~’’ , , ‘, ;’,
        ……………….’, ; ; ‘-, ,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-, , , , , ,’ ; |
        …………………’, ; ;,’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-, , ,-‘ ;,-‘
        ………………….,’-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-‘ ;,,-‘
        ………………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;__ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,’
        ………………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’¯: : ’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _ ; ; ; ; ;’,
        ……………..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;| : : : : : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’¯: ¯’’-, ; ; ;’,
        …………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,_: : _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | : : : : : ; ; ; |
        ……………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ : :,-‘ ; ; ; ;|
        …………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-~’’ , , , , ,,,-~~-, , , , _ ; ; ;¯¯ ; ; ; ; ;|
        ..…………,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ , , , , , , ,( : : : : , , , ,’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
        ……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’, , , , , , , , ,’~---~’’ , , , , , ,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
        …….,-‘’ ; _, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’~-,,,,--~~’’’¯’’’~-,,_ , ,_,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
        ….,-‘’-~’’,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; | . . . . . . ,’; ,’’¯ ; Won't you be; ‘-,
        ……….,’ ; ;,-, ; ;, ; ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ;’, . . . . .,’ ;,’ ; ; ; my neighbor?--‘’’
        ………,’-~’ ,-‘-~’’ ‘, ,-‘ ‘, ,,- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ‘~-,,,-‘’ ; ,’ ; ; ; ; ‘, ;,-‘’ ; ‘, ,-‘,
        ……….,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ‘’ ; ; ;’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,_ ; ; ; _,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘’ ; ; ; ‘’ ; ;’-,
        ……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯¯’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,
        ……,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,
        …..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|..’-,_ ; ; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
        ….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; | ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’’,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ,’
        …,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’~-,,,,,--~~’’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…..,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-
        …| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
        …’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’….’, ; ; ; ; _,,-‘’
        ….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…….’’~~’’¯
        …..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;_,,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
        ………’’~-,,_ ; ; ; ; _,,,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
        ………..| ; ; ;¯¯’’’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘
        ………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘
        …………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|
        …………’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ~-,,___ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
        ………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘….’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
        ………..,’ ‘- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’……….’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,
        ……….,’ ; ;’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘…………….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,
        ………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’…………………’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
        ……..,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-‘………………………’’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |
        ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’…………………………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,’
        ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’………………………..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,’’
        ……..| ; ; ; ; ; ;,’……………………….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
        ……..’,_ , ; , ;,’……………………….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘
        ………’,,’,¯,’,’’|……………………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘--,,
        ………….¯…’’………………………..’-, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,,
        ……………………………………………’’-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,
        ………………………………………………..’’-, ; ; ; ; ; ,,_ ; ;’-,’’-,
        …………………………………………………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,__,\--\.
        ……………………………………………………’-, ; ; ;,,-~’’’ \ , ,|, |
        ………………………………………………………’’~-‘’_ , , ,,’,_/--‘
      • bjs3171, on 10/13/2008, -3/+14When I go to lunch today, how many Porcelain tea cups will be produced in a Chinese Factory?

        Sorry, I thought we were asking completely non-sequitur questions.
      • oscenester, on 10/13/2008, -5/+9Funny thing is that the Obama-Ayers issue was vetted in Illinois...didnt stick, tried by Hillary, didnt stick.

        You republicans are a lost cause.
      • OffPiste, on 10/13/2008, -20/+5"funny thing is that the Obama-Ayers issue was vetted in Illinois...didnt stick, tried by Hillary, didnt stick."

        Of course it's not meant to persuade Dems. They already cheer when America is attacked and Americans are killed. Equating Ayers with Hussein Obama is simply meant to charge up the base and to convince the undecided who aren't anti-American.

      • IllBeBack, on 10/13/2008, -3/+13@OffPiste:
        "Of course it's not meant to persuade Dems. They already cheer when America is attacked and Americans are killed."

        You need to shut the ***** up. Democrats CHEER when America is attacked or when Americans are killed?! That is completely ludicrous. Give one example.

        To think that republicans love America more than democrats is something only an idiot would come up with. So, congratulations.

        Nice job being a troll.
      • mikbunn, on 10/13/2008, -3/+12"You need to shut the ***** up."

        Well put.



      • mrASSMAN, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2He's a ***** college professor. The 60s were full of young people looking to change the direction of the country, they took it into their own hands. Sure they might have gone too far, but it's the sort of thing Ron Paul would advocate. Revolution for corrupt government.

        Not that Obama has any real connection to him, because he doesn't.
      • biotch, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1These accusations are off topic and riling up a concentrated minority of people like yourself and Offpiste who are so flagrantly apocryphal, their rhetoric actually does more to harm their political affiliation. Even McCain had to silence accusations of Obama being a terrorist or secretly an Arab at his own rallies. The more people like you deter voters, the more McCain loses ground in the polls and the more desperately flagrant you get. Yet you keep on digging. I think its telling that this relatively recent trivial acquaintance of someone with shady tactics during a period of social injustice and uprising 40 years ago is all republicans have to grasp on to. Lets also not forget that our government sent about 50,000 of its own people to their violent deaths in that time period for nothing in what is now generally regarded as the US's biggest foreign policy blunder. The government was regarded as a direct threat to people's lives for many citizens and many who protested about it were tear gassed and beaten.
        This Ayers thing isnt relevant to citizen's concerns today. But they keep harping on it as if it is. Meanwhile the majority if people, Obama and McCain are busy trying to figure out what the hell we need to do to fix this mess we're in. Unfortunately for McCain, its a losing battle because his relationship with Bush is proving to be a far more relevant concern for people who are worried about this economy.
      • pr0carbine, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2blocked
    • nick1971, on 10/13/2008, -1/+8Sorry for asking outside the USA but how important are the newspapers mentioned. My parents have a newspaper called the claverdon times its a village of less than 800 people NW of Stratford upon Avon (UK town where William Shakespeare lived).
      • mrASSMAN, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2They're major publications.
      • Prototek, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2That number to the right of the name is the circulation/subscriber number. These aren't any of the big 3: The New York Times, Washington Post, or Los Angeles Times, but some of them are sizable.
      • nick1971, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Thank you I now understand a lot better.
    • digitalvik, on 10/13/2008, -6/+2Its actually 15 newspapers as of now and yeah McCain didnt get even 1 which is actually 0. So take a hint!
    • RecoDesign, on 10/13/2008, -16/+8obama is fooling all of you.
    • spankaccount, on 10/13/2008, -2/+10Wow, the media is liberal after all.
      • tman84, on 10/13/2008, -4/+8wait a second, wasn't digg just crying 5 minutes ago how the MSM was right wing propaganda, now they are celebrating them?
    • reaperhatch, on 10/13/2008, -7/+1obama.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaABV1CWXug

      obama and mccain are the same. @1:20
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOhk0JeoZtE

      RON PAUL is the only acceptable person to run for president.
    • Monkeywithacold, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3Seattle PI just now endorsed Obama?
      Seems like they would have been one of the first to do it.
    • KevinHatesObama, on 10/13/2008, -1/+0Another top story on Digg: Dogs Like to Piss on Fire Hydrants
    • chosenone1, on 10/13/2008, -5/+1This Obama guy sure is popular hear. I wonder who does his hair.

      But on a more serious note.....

      ~He was part of the effort to force banks to loan to people that couldn't pay it back

      (Now America can pay for his mistakes, this includes you. Except for those of you who are

      worthless to society that expect everything to be given to you for free.

      So you sycophants can go swoon in ignorance of your lusted candidate.)
      • Kerrigore, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2"He was part of the effort to force banks to loan to people"

        No. No, he wasn't. Even if you want to claim the democrats were, or ACORN was, by no stretch of the imagination (that is, only by outright self-deception and lies) could you consider Obama in any way a "part" of that "effort".
  • freedomjoe, on 10/12/2008, -38/+262President Obama. I like the sound of that. Thank god for a smart, informed country who are soundly rejecting the overtures of hate and division spewing forth from the Hate Talk Express as it derails itself into KKK rallies.

    Obama/Biden 08 !!!! Unity, positive energy, and thoughtful policies -- Let the Adults take over for a while:-)
    • thcobbs, on 10/13/2008, -43/+18I knew it.... any time anyone disagrees with Obama's policies they are labeled racist.... so much for unity.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/13/2008, -8/+39Translation: WAAAAH!

        Take responsibility. Your party is responsible for the situation you're in. Those rallies are an abomination and real conservatives reject everything that those displays stand for. Take ownership of it like an adult and stop blaming others for your failures.
      • bentman78, on 10/13/2008, -23/+12Unity to the liberal is the elimination of dissent.
      • thcobbs, on 10/13/2008, -39/+8Party? What party... I'm a ***** independent voter and proud of it, *****.

        Also, its funny you didn't contradict me Warty.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/13/2008, -7/+34Sure you're an independent voter, cobbs. I'll believe ya, thousands wouldn't. Oh, wait, I *don't* believe you, because I've read your blitheringly partisan ***** on here before. You're a butthurt right wing numbskull looking for any excuse to excoriate Obama's campaign, and failing.

        freedomjoe's post clearly is in reference to the McCain/Palin rallies at which loonies chant racist slogans and bay for blood, not a condemnation of anyone who disagrees with the Obama/Biden platform. That's obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension, and so is your jaundiced attempt to criticize by playing the race card. You fail.
      • thcobbs, on 10/13/2008, -24/+9Yep... the party of unity. Here's your representative. Oh, and apparently you haven't read enough of what I write. Its funny that people on digg assume that if you don't toe their party's line that you are a shill and hyper-partisan for the other.

        This is what is wrong with American politics and why we can NEVER get a good leader.
      • MWeather, on 10/13/2008, -3/+8"I knew it.... any time anyone disagrees with Obama's policies they are labeled racist.... so much for unity."

        Who's been disagreeing with Obama's policies? I haven't heard any criticism of his policies from McCain or his supporters. Maybe I just missed it in between the calls to kill Obama and the stuffed monkeys.

        Perhaps you can list one of his policies you disagree with, with specifics.
      • thcobbs, on 10/13/2008, -7/+6Nationally subsidized health care. It going to cost too much, will be run poorly, and will just be bad for anyone who actually goes out to work for a living.
      • rowjimmy, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6because, you know, the current form of health-care we have works so well, right?

        i thought it quite telling that, in the past debate, neither candidate straightforwardly answered the question - "is healthcare a commodity like any other?" they disagree on whether it is a right or responsibility, but neither would dare challenge the pharmaceutical/insurance industry on it being a for-profit enterprise. sorry, milton friedman, but history has clearly rendered its verdict - capitalism is not always the best answer: pursuing the profit motive does not always trickle down to better X for the general population
      • MWeather, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4"Nationally subsidized health care. It going to cost too much, will be run poorly, and will just be bad for anyone who actually goes out to work for a living."

        Can you name something specific about his health care plan you don't like? Perhaps even how it compares to McCain's plan?
      • thcobbs, on 10/13/2008, -3/+2"Barack Obama will pay for his $50 - $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level."

        So basically, he's promoting income distribution. Charging the highest-taxed people even more tax "because they can afford it" and giving that money to people who don't make as much.

        That's wrong. Its bad enough that the top 1% of the earners in the USA pay 50% of the taxes... and I think its somewhere around the top 10% that pay 75%+ of the taxes in the country. And now Obama wants to get even MORE money from the people who already pay far more in taxes(relatively and directly) than anyone else in the USA.

        Then on top of everything else... when you die, your estate(that you have already paid taxes on) will be taxed AGAIN before your inheritors get anything... and sometimes it actually creates a huge burden on the inheritors if they can't afford the taxes on what's passed on to them.


        Oh, and that's just the initial cost. What about 10 years from now with the USA's booming population?
      • MWeather, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2"So basically, he's promoting income distribution. Charging the highest-taxed people even more tax "because they can afford it" and giving that money to people who don't make as much."

        How exactly is this different from McCain taxing employer health plans to pay for others' heath care, as far as income redistribution goes?
      • scottc, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1The question is not IF we'll have income redistribution, the question is whether it will be redistributed by the Republicans or by the Democrats. The Republicans have been far more effective at it lately, and in my opinion they are doing it in a way that's harmful to our country.

        Also, we already have nationally subsidized health care: hospital emergency rooms, Medicaid, etc. It's a patchwork system that is very expensive to maintain because there is no preventative care. The expense gets hidden in the form of higher costs that doctors and hospitals charge to those who are insured or can otherwise pay.
      • Kerrigore, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2@bentman78:
        "Unity to the liberal is the elimination of dissent."

        That's just plain false. Look at one of the biggest name in liberal political theory in recent times, who almost single-handedly revitalized modern liberal political theory: John Rawls. He states throughout his works that his theories are premised on existence in a reasonable plurality. I suggest reading his "Justice as Fairness: A Restatement" and "The Law of Peoples" to get an sense of what sets the stage for modern liberal political theory.
    • jabberwolff, on 10/13/2008, -32/+10Yes because energy, slogans, and (thoughtful?) policies are best.

      Never mind:
      Double capital gains tax on the stock markets ( like it really needs that now !)
      Raising taxes that will show up hitting lower income families (greed trickles down , they lose, everyone else will)
      Oil tax that oil companies will make back in raising gas tax ( BTW now its lower... and oil companies are losing money - is Obama still lying his ass off about implementing that - hell yes)
      Not endorsing voucher system for schools but instead giving the money to union and bureaucracy to manage.
      Giving government management in healthcare - the same government that prevents drugs from Canada and is heavily lobbied by pharmaceutical companies.

      But a slogan and smile will help ... won't it?!!

      "Let the Adults take over for a while" - Yeah well adults actually use their brains and not swallow BS.
      OBAMATARDS 08 !!

      PS- Ironically Obama will actually ruin it for the next actually qualified and good black president by screwing this country.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/13/2008, -5/+14"Ironically Obama will actually ruin it for the next actually qualified and good black president by screwing this country."

        Thanks for that, Nostradamus. Wasn't your last prediction that Palin would cream Biden in the debates? Maybe you can give me next weeks lotto numbers.
    • seanc6610, on 10/13/2008, -11/+3i'm sorry to say it, but i was waiting for the "/sarcasm" after your first paragraph.
    • Taiyoryu, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5In other news, 12 states endorse Obama with 10 others likely to do so as well.

      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Pollster_com_Pre ...

      Whichever candidate you support, don't forget to actually cast your vote.
    • DaniCaliforniaS, on 10/13/2008, -15/+3The media is full of **** and so is Obama
      • xaos11, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1And isn't that what people were saying during the Bush elections?
        Only difference is that now the driving cause is HOPE, not FEAR.

        Only thing I'm worried about is Bush declaring martial law... all we need is another government orchestrated 9/11 http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
      • funkyp56, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1you're just mad cuz you're losing
      • DaniCaliforniaS, on 10/13/2008, -0/+0Getting negative diggs these days is a compliment....
        Digg is full of yellow journalistic freaks....
        Lets see how many negatives I get now
    • JPOOPOO, on 10/13/2008, -4/+6Theres very little smart and informed about the US as a country compared to the massive ignorance and apathy that plagues us. If we as a country truely were intelligent then we would have Ron Paul running against Obama, as Dr. Paul is the only candidate running on a platform of sound monetary policy, limited constitutional government, a noninterventionist foreign policy, libertarianism, etc, etc.
      • iainc, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Well, it was a poor result. I like Paul, but think that the choice of McCain can be blamed on the Republican party (whoever they are). Look warmly on defeat as an opportunity to reinstate true conservatism and destroy the sham that has for the last eight years stood in its stead. Ron Paul still has a role to play in shaping the Republican party and I think the least you could do is see that he gets the chance to do so.
    • ChristmasPoo, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7To all the conservatives out there... Help the economy, run to your local Wal-Mart buy as many guns and ammunition as you can, quit your jobs, take your kids out of school.



      • aadyss, on 10/13/2008, -5/+1You are a true bigot, ChristmasPoo.

        Bigot-a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
      • ChristmasPoo, on 10/13/2008, -0/+4Damn skippy I'm a bigot.

        I don't agree with Bush/Cheney
        I don't agree with the Iraq war and the lies that got us into it.
        I don't agree with the incompetence of the war on terrorism.
        I don't agree with Bush's Middle East policy
        I don't agree with Bush's disastrous foreign policy
        I don't agree with Bush's energy policy.
        I don't agree with Bush's "No child left behind"
        I don't agree with Bush's failure to make social security solvent.
        I don't agree with an Eleven Trillion dollar deficit

        If being disagreeable with Bush and you makes me a bigot then I am happy with my title you've given me and I'll wear it proudly. Thank you.
    • aadyss, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5You mean like Obama comparing McCain to George Wallace. That kind of "overtures of hate and division spewing forth from the Hate Talk Express as it derails itself into KKK rallies."

      You are one sick fellow...if one disagrees with you they are 'racist', 'bigoted', 'stupid'.

      A real sick puppy, you are.
    • busket, on 10/13/2008, -3/+4It wasn't Obama who made the comparison.

      Your lack of coherence is a microcosm of the McCain campaign, and a shining example of why more and more people are having a difficult time taking them seriously.
    • postermmxvicom, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2Dictionary:
      informed
      (ĭn-fôrmd') pronunciation

      adj.

      1. Possessing, displaying, or based on reliable information: informed sources; an informed opinion.
      2. Knowledgeable; educated: the informed consumer.

      Examples:

      The informed media praised McCain and lavished him with attention when he was running against Bush.

      The informed media hates McCain now that he is running against Obama.

    • eagle200363, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2Obama/Biden 08 !!!! Unity, positive energy, and thoughtful policies ...

      I think you meant thought police.
    • Pedestrian101, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2You need to find yourself a brain kid..
    • KDX200rider, on 10/13/2008, -3/+1Does this apply to all the "typical white people"?
    • varunbhatbm, on 10/13/2008, -0/+0well said :)
    • faskippy, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Ha! Funny.

      Listen to this...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PgV3_1_qlc&eurl

  • lpxxfaintxx2, on 10/12/2008, -39/+297If McCain wins, I'm moving to Canada.
    • ChloeMS, on 10/12/2008, -8/+86This veteran will be right behind you.
      • deem1890, on 10/13/2008, -22/+8ME TOO...CANADA HERE I COME!

        MCCAIN BETTER LOOSE!
      • madeingermany, on 10/13/2008, -3/+2@deem:
        Now you made Canadians root for McCain, so they keep the screaming digg commenters out
      • aadyss, on 10/13/2008, -5/+0@CholeMS

        Vet of what??
      • mozert, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1not too close, though
    • brad3378, on 10/12/2008, -48/+12Why? Because you think Obama will balance the budget?
      This country is financially doomed either way.
      • accbymaldemer, on 10/13/2008, -3/+32No...because we can't continue down the road of dimwitted republican presidents..
      • malakite33, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6I feel similar to brad on this however I can say that I will not move if Obama wins, at least right away. I live literally 10 miles from teh Canadian border right now so it wouldn't be tough to move if Mcain/Palin wins. I will give Obama a chance to show if there will be a change in foreign policy and see if he is that just talk. I hope with all my heart that he will "change" things because I've grown to dislike my nationality being American since Bush has been in office. I literally have just the smallest bit of national pride left that will not only all go away, but be replaced with disdane if Americans are stupid enough to vote someone like Palin into office. Our country will get what it deserves at the cost of everything previous great leaders sought to create in America. It's disheartening that we, as americans, face the choice of leaving OUR country, forced out by loud mouth conservative fundamentalist racicts who want to keep America in the dark ages.
      • thcobbs, on 10/13/2008, -4/+2Amazing that people you don't agree with are funamentalist racists who want to keep america in the dark ages. Are you really that full of moral superiority that you can't see that you're just as bigoted as the people you are denigrating?
    • Nephersir7, on 10/13/2008, -16/+6Just to tell you, we're about to re-elect Stephen Harper, even if 70% of the people will not vote for him....
      • MWeather, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2That's a higher percentage than most US elections.
      • Brad324, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2In Canada, if they do not have the majority of the seats, then they will be a minority government, which has a lot less power than a majority. The fact is, if Harper is prime minister this election, it's because more people voted for conservatives than any other party... don't try to pretend they're going against the will of the people.

        I'd vote Obama in the states any day, but I support the conservative party of Canada. People who bash the conservatives are usually channeling their hate of the republicans to a party unworthy of that hatred.
    • kerosion, on 10/13/2008, -5/+19Jumping ship has already been considered.

      100ish days ago: "Don't Want To Be A US Citizen? Be Prepared to Owe Big Bucks!"
      http://digg.com/politics/Don_t_Want_To_Be_A_US_Cit ...

      Just try and escape your families portion of the national debt!
      http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/12/national.debt.clo ...

      Hahahaha... I just threw up a little.
      • facespaz, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Yea why fix the debt problem if we can just get a clock with more zero's?

        I'm also in the act of vomiting...
    • kerosion, on 10/13/2008, -5/+4If things get bad enough maybe we can nationalize the top 10 billionaires of the world to cover some national debt. It could be like Joe vs. the Volcano -- we'll sacrifice the few for the many!

      Oh wait derivatives. Okay.. We'll have to include some hedge funds.
    • bluevillage, on 10/13/2008, -3/+3I've come up with a better solution. Just get your state to secede from the union. The only other choice is to turn off TV for 4 years. Which wouldn't be such a bad idea anyway.
      • oblique63, on 10/13/2008, -4/+3I wish California would secede... that would be Awesome...
      • thcobbs, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4Oblique I agree. I'd love to see California secede too; however, I think we have different reasons.

        Unfortunately, that is now impossible thanks to Texas v. White.
      • PGPirate, on 10/13/2008, -2/+8Alaska is trying, just ask Palin


        ZING
      • TrueBlueJP90, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Impossible to secede from the Union by some ruling after the Civil War...
    • Berkana, on 10/13/2008, -6/+7If McCain steals the election ('cause he's not going to win) I'm moving to Guernsey. Debt free permanently circulating money not controlled by a central bank, baby! Woo hoo!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey#Economy
      • ffttoteof, on 10/13/2008, -0/+8Except the value fo the Guernsey Pound is pegged 1:1 with the British Pound, issued by the central Bank of England. So if that the British pound goes down in value, so does the Guernsey Pound.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey_pound
      • Berkana, on 10/15/2008, -0/+1It's not the value that's the problem that Guernsey's pound solves; it's the fact that it is not money that has to be paid back to the issuing back with interest. Guernsey's debt-free pound is why they're tax rates are so low, because the government is not in debt via bonds for every pound put into circulation. Guernsey's money got spent into the economy, and circulates with trade without an appointment to be paid back to the issuer, but every last American dollar was either borrowed into existence via fractional reserve banking, or if in the form of cash, borrowed into existence when the Federal Reserve bought a treasury bond with money it just printed up with nothing backing the dollars. Each treasury bill is a promise to pay, which accrues interest. The government gets a dollar for each dollar's worth of bond it sells to the Fed, but it must pay back that dollar with interest; the amount owed to bond holders on just the money we have in the form of cash far exceeds the amount of cash we have in circulation. All of that debt burden is then passed onto the tax paying population. Guernsey avoided this ridiculous arrangement by not indebting the government to private banks simply to have currency circulating in their economy.

        Guernsey figured out that the government need not borrow money from private banks; the right to issue money for the public good is inherently a governmental responsibility, so they issued their own money in proper proportion to what the needs of commerce required (any more than the economy requires results in inflation), and as a result, don't have to tax the people just to service debt from having money in circulation.
    • nzhamstar, on 10/13/2008, -7/+19Nowhere will be safe if McCain wins. I'm seeing nukes. It'll be Grumpy Geriatric Attack or Palin PMS Christo-Rage attack!
    • tbredofsin, on 10/13/2008, -1/+14I love it when people say this. I've known a few who said that in '04--guess what. Still living the exact same place.

      And anyway, how is that supposed to motivate people to change their vote? Won't Republicans just be like "***** yeah, we can drive all the Dems out of the country"?
    • flip2trip, on 10/13/2008, -16/+19That's a load of BS, you guys said that about Bush and you're still here.
    • byranwilson, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7We won't have to leave. We should stay and fight for our country. Everyone here should be prepared to vote. There will not be any need to leave because Obama will win this election. I do understand the tendency to want to leave, however. But stay positive, tell your friends and family to vote for Obama. If he doesn't win this election, we have to demand that there be a recount, because McCain and company will try anything to steal this election.

      Stay positive,

      • antiLIBERAL1, on 10/13/2008, -3/+2I must agree there will be a need for a recount because ACORN is doing its best to steal this election.

        Rules to an election??? I guess to hell with the rules.
    • ObamAmerican48, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3I will be joining this caravan. I hear Australia will take us in too if we can scrounge up the money or a good boat to get there.
    • Ganpachi, on 10/13/2008, -4/+26If Obama wins, I might move back to the US from Canada :)
    • rossnyc, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4I've been checking out Vancouver.
      • bjs3171, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4I'll take anywhere in Canada with good skiing, and legal weed.
      • Afrochu, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Vancouver kicks ass. Best city in Canada for sure. You're gonna love it. It's not as dense as manhattan, but it's got all of the cultural diversity of NYC as well as great public transport and beaches.
      • digidevil, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2I live in Vancouver-- be warned-- there's a very serious housing crisis that shows no signs of ending. The vacancy rate for rentals is something like 0.1% and the housing market is extremely inflated. When I moved to Vancouver from Victoria last year, it took me four months just to find a place to live.
      • rossnyc, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Thanks guys...hopefully it won't come down to this but it's nice to have decent options.
    • scitz0frenic, on 10/13/2008, -4/+6That is what some said they would do if Bush won, and we are still putting up with them in this country. This time I hope everyone means it and follows through.
    • evilgourmet, on 10/13/2008, -0/+5must be nice, having enough money to move to Canada.
    • RRJackson, on 10/13/2008, -12/+5Why wait? Head on out now. America doesn't need you.
      • bacchante, on 10/13/2008, -3/+1Yep, American needs only racist war mongers right now, no room for anyone else!

        USA #1 til death!
    • stillpissed, on 10/13/2008, -0/+11http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/24/75-thre ...
      • pr0carbine, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1#1076 Reading stuffwhitepeoplelike.com
    • peburrows, on 10/13/2008, -11/+5and if Obama wins, you won't have to move to canada because you'll have all the pains of universal healthcare and socialism right here in the US.
    • playingbass, on 10/13/2008, -12/+5YOU WONT BE MISSED
      • Fordi, on 10/13/2008, -3/+3Well, yeah. It's terribly unlikely he'll have to move.
    • FlairSomewhere, on 10/13/2008, -5/+1My parents said we're going to start a civil war =D
    • dienaked, on 10/13/2008, -1/+6We heard a lot of people say that in 2004.
      They are still here saying that in 2008.
    • FreakyT, on 10/13/2008, -0/+10Don't you get it? If you die in Canada, you die in real life!
    • whataSAMF, on 11/28/2008, -2/+2Australia, i from there.
    • michigander, on 10/13/2008, -10/+7I'll be sick to my stomach if Obama wins, which looks like what will happen.

      Well, I guess I better get in touch with my socialistic, government loving side.

      Oh, how I will miss you Democracy, for you have been so good to me.
      • bdfariello, on 10/13/2008, -3/+7You realize socialism is an economic theory and there's no reason a democratic nation can't be socialist as well? Not that we're democratic anyway. We're a democratic republic, and our elected representatives make all of the decisions. Just look at the 2000 Presidential election. Overall, the People elected Al Gore. For a more recent event, look at the bailout. Public opinion was vastly against the bills, yet they're still laws now.
      • xaos11, on 10/13/2008, -5/+2So you would rather have McSame/Failin running our country singing bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran, and winking at other countries as diplomacy? Or how about a ***** with Bush if he declares martial law? What is with you people, do you hate freedom or something? Remember how Bush took our rights away?
    • DaniCaliforniaS, on 10/13/2008, -10/+4Good, one less communist in the country
    • superdupergome, on 10/13/2008, -6/+0A friend of mine once had his facebook status as "_____ is moving to Canada if Obama wins". Interesting, considering Canada is probably a good example of what Obama wants for America. But then again, said friend has an odd sense of humor and might have been being ironic.
    • aadyss, on 10/13/2008, -3/+2You fools keep saying you will move and never go anywhere...you remember Streisand and Baldwin? The last time I looked, they're still here.
    • DustyMagnum, on 10/13/2008, -6/+2I'd rather go to Mexico, more fun. Or maybe France, also more fun.
    • gonefishin300, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4ALL of you are full of *****. No way you are going to move ever just because of this election.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Just leave now. You obviously don't want to deal with this country if things don't go your way. Love it or leave it. Why and stay and fight? Go spread your lazy armchair politics in Canada.
    • voilaamour, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1http://xkcd.com/180/
    • eagle200363, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1Everyone says this every election, but they never do, because deep down no matter how much you dislike the current president, or how much they a ***** things up you still realize that it is the greatest, most privleged, free country in the world. If you really want to leave the United States go right ahead, but America will only be all the better without you America-hating extremists.
      • innocentsinner, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1The routine was nice, but you failed the landing.
      • Blind0825, on 10/13/2008, -2/+0Yes because expressing an opinion = America-hating extremists.

        ***** you.
    • sdhar23, on 10/13/2008, -0/+0haha yeah my family's planning the same thing!
  • Shiftgood, on 10/12/2008, -22/+401no country for old men.
    • jrndigg, on 10/12/2008, -13/+3lol ... very funny!
    • Versh, on 10/13/2008, -0/+21This election...
      "Well look, I need to know what I stand to win."
      "Everything."
      "How's that?"
      "You stand to win everything. Call it."
    • waggdogg, on 10/13/2008, -22/+2This is why they are losing readers. The country is conservative, not liberal this is why you will see an upset and McCain win on Nov 4th.
      Remember conservative Media is growing. Liberal media dying.
      • kent1146, on 10/13/2008, -2/+11Yes, I'm sure that print media losing readers has nothing to do with the anytime-anywhere availability of information thanks to the internet, and has everything to do with not supporting McCain.

        Fool.
      • why3th, on 10/13/2008, -3/+4The MSM is more center than liberal.
      • ChristmasPoo, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Since McCain is going to win stay home on November 4th, no need to vote if he's going to win right?
      • rondeth, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Wait a minute, I thought the 'liberal media' (i.e. everything except Fox) was the outcry from the GOP?
    • aadyss, on 10/13/2008, -6/+0@Shiftgood

      The Logan Run movie policy should be enforced...at 30 years of age you are eliminated, extinguished...killed. What a wonderful world it would be.../s
    • mishaco, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1what's that my friendo ?
      • aadyss, on 10/13/2008, -0/+0to quote shiftgood..."no country for old men..."
    • wrathoftheafe, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1great expectations.
      • aadyss, on 10/14/2008, -0/+0and childish, foolish desires and actions
  • lepster10101, on 10/12/2008, -29/+54Roll on November 4th. The time for change is now.

    Obama08!
    • jwolcott, on 10/13/2008, -2/+9It's easy to endorse the obvious winner.

      Kudos to those who had the balls to endorse Obama when he was a "long shot".
    • michigander, on 10/13/2008, -10/+2I'll be sick to my stomach if Obama wins, which looks like what will happen.

      Well, I guess I better get in touch with my socialistic, government loving side.

      Oh, how I will miss you Democracy, for you have been so good to me.
      • puncturevine, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3The complete " hands off " approach to business obviously hasn't worked. The Government needs to ensure that big business isn't taking advantage of the population, or selling America's economy down the river to other nations. That's what " free" trade / Bush policies have done so far. There needs to be a balance between a: government control, and b: freedom for businesses to do business however they want. Neither extreme works. Canada is a fine example of this. NONE of the Canadian banks failed or had to be bailed out due to this crisis, but by the same token, Canada's government didn't enforce overly heavy-handed approaches to business and banking. It's BALANCED, that's why they aren't in near the trouble America is.
      • michigander, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1I understand your concerns, but you need to understand that the economic crisis was not due to Bush or free trade. If fact, free trade would have saved us from this economic crisis.

        To understand where im coming from, you need to understand the root of the economic crisis, which originated in the Clinton administration. During his administration, Bill Clinton used the Federal Reserve put pressure on mortgage lenders (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to extend credit to everyone. (Honorable, but not smart) Consequently, mortgages were issued to people who couldn't afford the risk Clinton put on them. When home prices went down, those who wanted to refinance their homes couldn't, which caused the foreclosure crisis. To make it simple, the foreclosure crisis has hindered the banks ability to extend credit to those applying for loans, which ultimately causes the whole economy to freeze, much like my heart has when people have the guts to blindly blame Bush and the free-market economy.

        Your right, we need a balance between government, and more oversight of businesses through regulation, but what needs more regulation is the government, itself, because they are to blame for this mess. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could had operated as the market allowed, we wouldn't be in this crisis. That is why we need someone as president who will not medal in our markets.
      • Triskozko, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1The root of the economic crisis was the housing bubble, reckless banking practices, and lack of oversight (from both parties). The legislation that Clinton modified (Community Reinvestment Act) sounds suspicious at first, but a simple analysis shows that it actually encouraged responsible lending:

        http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hin ...
        "Summary Conclusions:
        Our study concludes that CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders
        to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis."

        http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/ http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_li ...
        "CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. ...Half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from banks which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves."
  • brad3378, on 10/12/2008, -55/+15The fix is in.
    • 5celery, on 10/13/2008, -8/+14Is that really all you have left? Being you can't be a lot of fun.
    • avidmag, on 10/13/2008, -8/+4He's a lot of fun at parties, we use him as the pinata.
    • flashback99, on 10/13/2008, -5/+4tin foil must be on sale in your area.
  • Garofoli, on 10/13/2008, -23/+45For once, the media has some sense.
    • winnestow, on 10/13/2008, -14/+16the media has always supported liberalism/socialism
      • rowjimmy, on 10/13/2008, -2/+1great job american educational system!

        (hint, liberalism is an economic ideology in favor of free market, globalized capitalism)
      • UTPinky, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2I know! Especially Fox News!! Those liberal bastards!!
    • EntropyFan, on 10/13/2008, -9/+16So just because they agree with you they 'make sense'?
      Is that the only criteria?

      Oops, sorry, forgot for a second I was on Digg.

      Newspapers are a fading media, and their support is rather meaningless. It has been meaningless for a while.
  • deem1890, on 10/13/2008, -28/+19Meet the Press with Russert June 08 2008

    Bobby Kennedy Predicts African American President in 40 yrs

    Incredible and prediction!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_5kNqeTLIs

    Please share and forward! Digg
    • col381, on 10/13/2008, -3/+6Bobby Kennedy would have made a truly great President, even better than his brother. His loss was the saddest chapter in US political history. How different the world would have been today if he had not died.

      Barack Obama will make a great president, let us hope he does not suffer the same fate as RFK or JFK did.
      • CarlsDigg, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Ouch, don't talk that up.
      • TheHayze, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4Ugh, don't even mention the idea of that. Would be one of the saddest days since 9/11.
      • flip2trip, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Nah, won't happen. Why do you think he chose Biden as his running mate? Think about it. ***shivers***
    • Berkana, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5There was another video that made it to the front page a while ago where political commentators including Russert remarked after Barack Obama's very eloquent speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 (or 2000? I can't remember) that he may be the first black president. I can't find the link; if anyone can, please post it.
      • col381, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1http://youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

        I think this is the one you mean, Obama speaking in Philadelphia, PA at Constitution Center, on racism and the fundamental path by which America can work together to pursue a better future for us all. If this doesn't move you, nothing will. What is doubly awesome about this *very* eloquent speech is that he wrote it himself.

        This man is a true President.
    • nedzeve, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2While Obama's victory looks more likely at this point based on polling data, 3 weeks is still a long time, and polls haven't always been particularly accurate -- particularly when African American candidates are involved. I wouldn't say this thing is wrapped up. That said, I hope Bobby Kennedy was right. I just think we still have more work to do.
    • johnquincysmith, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2It's incredible.... AND it's prediction.
  • Taun, on 10/13/2008, -10/+15because he stayed in holiday inn last express last night
    • DonKarnage25, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2..and saved money on car insurance by switching to geico?
  • poprocksandsoda, on 10/13/2008, -77/+20You people do know why most media is Left right? It's called advertising. Democrats tend to use the print and TV media exponentially more than Republicans during campaigns. Republicans spend more money on events. It's all about the money. If you are naive to believe otherwise, then you really haven't a clue.
    • hierophantus, on 10/13/2008, -6/+42That is the stupidest attempted explanation of supposed media bias that I've ever read.

      First of all, I rarely see ads for candidates in newspapers, which are the subject of this thread. Second of all, you are naive to believe that adopting a reflexively cynical pose is a substitute for understanding beyond what the average TV-watching dupe, as you imagine him, can muster.
      • poprocksandsoda, on 10/13/2008, -31/+3The truth ... right in front of you ... and you debate it? Are you this blind? Do you really think the good hearted Newspapers and TV station support the Left because they like them? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ idiot. Why else did CBS run the "Monkey" propoganda after Obama dropped 900k for a TV-time buy? You do understand this is all about cash.
      • flashback99, on 10/13/2008, -1/+15@ popsrocksandsoda

        This clown is quite funny. Definitely at the "very retarded" end of the narrow spectrum of mccain supporters.
    • Rotzooi, on 10/13/2008, -7/+23I see, it's the massive left-wing media conspiracy!
    • CarlsDigg, on 10/13/2008, -7/+3We'll see Nov 4
    • Mujokan, on 10/13/2008, -2/+10They're biased to the extent that people who go to college tend slightly more liberal, and also to the extent that reality is biased in favor of liberals.

      You don't have editors confessing to their priests, "Father, I'm so ashamed. I love John McCain and all his policies, but my newspaper needs the advertising money that only Democrats can provide. So I must do my part to ensure the they win. Have I sinned?"
    • fishbeef33, on 10/13/2008, -2/+15Jesus Christ you're persistent. You have ridiculous claims for EVERY link about Obama here on Digg! Even if your claim about Democrats is true (which I doubt it is), do you honestly think that every newspaper's opinion can be bought and sold through advertising?

      Wait, don't answer that, 'cause I know you do.

      And just go ahead and ignore the fact that three of these papers endorsed Bush in the last election, including one in Crawford, Texas, because it doesn't mesh with your premise.

    • cmootoo, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7The same republicans that were complaining about how much was spend on the Democratic National Convention? Those republicans?
    • flashback99, on 10/13/2008, -4/+7It's interesting how liberally the word "liberal" is being used. Why not just say what you mean and use the real definitions?

      Liberals - people who give a ***** about other people.

      Neocon (or current Republicans) - retarded, often fundamentalist religious intolerant selfish hate mongers who couldn't give a crap about you even if you repeatedly beat them about the head with the constitution.
      • dagnome1984, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1You have it all wrong.

        Political Liberals - Who pretend to help others in order to gain power. Once in power they reward their friends and punish their enemies.

        Political Republicans - Who pretend to help the economy to gain power, but really support corporatism. Once in power they reward their friends and punish their enemies.

        Both parties routinely take a ***** on the U.S Constitution.

      • flashback99, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1I'm talking about supporters, not candidates. I wrote this because im sick of reading comments from mccain supporters starting with:

        "You liberals"

        "Far-left wing"

        "Leftist radicals"

        These are all ***** terms that try to make out that "liberalism" is akin to "communism".

        Now politicians who claim to be liberal, that's another story altogether.
    • Gutterpunk, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5Did you figure that out in your Luxury Skybox?
    • wacked, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4Yes, well, this idiot has been making stupid comments all over digg. No need to read them given he's yet to say something important or factual. Best just to block these ignorant wretches.
    • nedzeve, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4You're saying that liberals READ MORE than Republicans like it's a bad thing.
    • gammamike, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2Poprocks, I'd love to see your tinfoil hat collection sometime.
  • Kangalanatolian, on 10/13/2008, -40/+7Here is an endorsement:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiNMnbhnDEU
  • kw7777777, on 10/13/2008, -15/+17Great news....lets keep up the work WE have to do. Volunteer time or money.
    • winnestow, on 10/13/2008, -4/+3what handout will you be getting?
      • kent1146, on 10/13/2008, -3/+4Personally, I'm waiting for my free highly educated and intelligent President kit to show up in the mail.

        It's been about 8 years since I've had one of those, and I'm hoping I won't have to wait another 4 to get one.
      • ajames01, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4Is this the highly educated and intelligent president you're speaking of: http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/2938/downloadcz ...

        Silly Obama, phones don't work that way!
    • bdfariello, on 10/13/2008, -3/+2I donated two days ago. I should be getting my Obama Biden car magnet any day now :D
  • plaidlemur, on 10/13/2008, -13/+52Even a newspaper in Crawford Texas endorsed Obama. Bush's hometown, and they go against a sitting, hometown President's endorsement. That says a lot.
    • TherealObadiah, on 10/13/2008, -23/+6The Crawford Texas newspaper, huh? The editorial board there consists of one crotchety old guy in a t-shirt, jeans, and suspenders. Probably a former professor at the local community college. Big deal.
  • bluevillage, on 10/13/2008, -32/+5Huffington Post says 15 newspapers!
    • Turambar, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Yes, but even as a super independent socialist-leaning would-be-happy-if-the-USA-ran-like-Finland liberal, i recognize that Huffington is pretty biased, and I don't dig any of their stories as a result.

      I mean, sure it's nice that we have our own little version of Fox News presenting our version of the facts, but it's a rare left-of-truth viewpoint.
      • bluevillage, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1I agree. But this is factual information, not an opinion.
  • TheFoshizzler, on 10/13/2008, -6/+10The Blade of Toledo?
    • winnestow, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2journalism is dead
    • PunkRockRalph, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1toledo, ohio i am assuming. a relatively large city that is in more economic turmoil than most in the country, which is probably why they were quick to endorse a candidate with different policies. there are people literally staking out restaurants so that they can fight over who gets to eat the scraps thrown in the garbage. it's a sad scene.

      if things don't start to at least improve, toledo is one of those cities demonstrating traits of potential anarchy. things are just too bad over there.
  • p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/13/2008, -21/+98FTA
    "I am a 65 year old white woman and have voted in every election since I was of age to do so. I have seen some rotten campaigns in my time but McCain's campaign has taken on a whole new meaning of hatefulness.

    People in this country are known to be a people that come together during bad times. We have this economic crisis, the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan to worry about. We have nuclear weapons being harvested and the price of gas out of sight. We have hundreds of people being thrown out of their homes, vehicles repossessed, business shutting down or moving oversea's.

    And now we have the McCain/Palin ticket running the nastiest, fear-mongoring, lying and working their crowds into pitbull frenzies. This is totally disgraceful and I will never look at John McCain the same again. I feel only distain for him."
    • avidbuff, on 10/13/2008, -22/+4as opposed to the McCain...old,senile, gonna die, Palin... separatist, not her son, killer love fest Obama's campaign ran?
      • aigulf, on 10/13/2008, -2/+17Say what you will about Obama's attacks back at McCain/Palin, but I don't think there's a single recording of people at Obama rallies shouting "terrorist," "kill him," "hang him," "off with his head," or any of the other incendiary remarks that the McCain campaign has incited in its followers.
      • flashback99, on 10/13/2008, -6/+5Purely judging from the crowd he hangs around with, McCain = Hitler.
      • nimbleprune, on 10/13/2008, -8/+3Hitler was a socialist...McCain is a conservative...
      • magus_melchior, on 10/13/2008, -3/+2@nimbleprune: Oh yeah, locking up and killing socialists made Hitler the penultimate socialist < /sarcasm>. The only possible reason he may be regarded as a "socialist" is because the Nazis nationalized practically everything; but that was more because of its authoritarian policies for everything, not because they were "socialist". In other words, he was saying, "better me than the Communists".
      • pwdrskier, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4how does comparing mccain to hitler make any sense at all. thats hateful and the same thing that people are complaining about with fear-mongering and cruel remarks
      • bdfariello, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4Obama's campaign didn't contribute to those stories about Palin. Do you have it in your head that Obama's campaign owns the Huffington Post? Because if so, you're sorely mistaken.

        As for the oldness and senility, that's pretty much just anyone in the media (and Digg, mostly Digg) pointing out that he is, in fact, the oldest person to ever run for President, and he's a man that's had skin cancer multiple times. His actuary tables predicted what, a 1 in 3 chance of dying during the next four years?
      • flashback99, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1I said PURELY JUDGING FROM THE CROWD he hangs around. Ie people shouting "terrorist" and "kill him".

        Obviously I hit a nerve as comparisons with hitler are a taboo...
      • nimbleprune, on 10/27/2008, -0/+1@magus_melchior.....hitlers party was named the socialist workers party so yes he was a socialist
    • gangsda, on 10/13/2008, -1/+0"ditto"
    • portiers, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1I agree! if only the rest of the people would see it that way.
    • kenjacks3329, on 10/13/2008, -1/+0Thank you for your comments. I certainly agree with you. I am 64 years old and was raised to respect a person regardless of whether I agree with their opinion or not. You can disagree passionately but never do you allow it to become personal and never do you attempt to win by tearing your opponent down. You strive to become better, not make your opponent look worse. As a pretty conservative person, I resent the filth, nastiness and hate-mongering that is being passed off as conservatism. Thank you again for your comment.
  • theoraclesam, on 10/13/2008, -26/+0http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Racism_15
  • BlaqReaper, on 10/13/2008, -12/+130I wonder if Palin/McCain knows this.

    Oh wait! Of course they do, how could I forget? Sarah Palin reads all of them.
    • winnestow, on 10/13/2008, -10/+2franklin raines
      • magus_melchior, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4What's that? Your trolling's getting fainter. Speak up!
    • darkciti2, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6Sarah Palin can read?
    • enumber1, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1Although I am admittedly still on "the fence", this absolutely cracked me up! I find Palin has a hard time answering the simplest of questions, but yet does a better job on the hardest questions.
      • Whaines, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5If you could point out where she does better on harder questions I'd be most appreciative. I mean this in all seriousness, I'm genuinely curious.
      • DJPhoenix, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1I really can't fathom how people are still "on the fence" at this point unless they simply haven't been paying attention at all or just don't care.
    • sweethead9, on 10/13/2008, -1/+0SP will be throwing those newspapers out to mob at her next rally to rip apart in their bare teeth. Remember how they booed The New York Times a few clan meetings back? What silly people.
    • trafficlight, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Didn't you know Sarah reads infinity papers? Keith Olbermann said so.
  • clichecow, on 10/13/2008, -53/+23liberal media...

    McCain/Palin 08

    Go ahead and digg me down...I'm used to it
    • aussieNickuss, on 10/13/2008, -6/+28It baffles me how anybody could support those two nutjobs...but hey, people are free to their opinions.
    • ProfessorRamrod, on 10/13/2008, -6/+9I dugg you up because Im a rebel, but if I could get another digg I'd bury you for not punctuating your sentences correctly.
    • clichecow, on 10/13/2008, -24/+7@aussienickuss
      You wouldn't think that they are nutjobs if you didn't read the BS on digg. (Huffpo, dailyKOS, etc). They are very level headed candidates who have been vilified by the media. The only reason that McCain won't win this election is because the republican party is being unjustly blamed for the economic crisis.


      @professorramrod
      It's too early for punctuation
      • kidathinnes, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6Yeah, McCain/Palin would win if the Republicans hadn't controlled Congress and The White House 6 of the 8 previous years, if their Presidential candidate wasn't completely out of touch with the everyday Americans, if their VP candidate wasn't a complete moron not fit for any level of public office, and if they weren't continuously trying to polarize America with scare mongering and hate speech. If all these things were not true, then yeah the republicans would win. But sorry, its not going to happen, because unfortunately its all true.
    • ChristmasPoo, on 10/13/2008, -2/+4@clichecow - go to freerepublic.com, you'll find that 100% of the users on that site will agree with you. At least you'll be amongst friends.

      The conservative mantra is to surround themselves with people that think as they do. If no one argues your point you must be right.

      Another bonus of the site freerepublic.com, is that if posters are not conservative enough their message will be filtered. Unlike digg, anyone can say pretty much anything. Damn free thinkers makes me sick
      • Nidy1, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1"The conservative mantra is to surround themselves with people that think as they do. If no one argues your point you must be right."

        How are digg members any different when they bury all other opinions?
  • djasshat, on 10/13/2008, -14/+59Shouldn't media not be indorsing the candidates? Seems to me like that would kinda remove any possibility of unbiased reporting.
    • flip2trip, on 10/13/2008, -2/+15I've always wondered about the practice of newspapers endorsing candidates.
      • nedzeve, on 10/13/2008, -1/+4Read more about editorial boards here:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_board

        When you open a newspaper next time (should you find yourself actually holding one), notice that the news section and the op-ed section are not the same.
      • flip2trip, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3I worked at newspapers for almost ten years--none of the editors I worked with ever endorsed candidates specifically as they considered the practice antiquated and biased.

        Oh, and by the way, I took your comment to be condescending, and if that's the way you meant it--you're an a$$.
    • epadafunk, on 10/13/2008, -2/+8The columnists and the people who write the editorials are the ones doing the endorsing, not the reporters.
      • aigulf, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2If that's the case, are there any papers with columnists/editors on both sides of the aisle? I mean, are there any papers with some columnists supporting Obama and some supporting McCain? I'm not trying to refute you, just think it would be interesting to see/read.
      • TypeEE, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3Every paper has reporters and columnists. In most case, the newspaper has a standpoint and would choose columnists that reflects the paper's standpoint.
      • nedzeve, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1@aigulf , yes, almost all newspapers have editorials expressing different opinions.
      • aigulf, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1If most papers have people on both sides, than how are we saying that these papers are supporting a candidate? Is it just that these papers don't have a dissenting view? It seems to me they could have a handful of editors support one candidate and a handful support another.
    • bradleyland, on 10/13/2008, -2/+2"unbiased reporting"

      I laughed out loud.
    • julesbond007, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2The board of editorials make the endorsement, so it's their opinions. Usually they give their reasons for doing so. You have to be stupid yourself to blindly follow the media, which in fact happens a lot in many places in America.
    • MavRevMatt, on 10/13/2008, -3/+1*cough*fox news*cough*
    • selfobsessed, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1I understand your point, nor am I disagreeing with you. But Mr. Edward R. Murrow would like a word with you.
    • Omniiscience, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1As an independent voter I honestly am sickened by any and all media resources. Nobody lists the facts without a bias and for that reason, why would I pay to hear somebody's opinion?
      America, I'm only 27 but for 7 years I've been predicting this depression. Sad to say but it's been a long time coming. Get educated and form your own opinions and buy your news from real reporting agencies. I find the best reporting is done by the bbc even though I don't like a lot of what I hear/read, they still provide the facts. It's as if here in America, the only "right" people are those that join the majority because they think they're fighting AGAINST the majority. Ignorance in my generation is fueled by poor upbringings. I blame my parents generation for the mess we're in, anybody else want to point fingers, lol. J/K Get off your high horse and realize that the only reason McCain isn't winning is because people here are hard up for money they didn't earn yet feel entitled too. Blame R.R. for that mess in the 80's and blame the rest of the political machine for not righting the ship! Buckle up, we're in for a bumpy ride BUT take this; vote for the issues, not for the popularity, you might be surprised if you did a blind issues only voting!!!
    • kenjacks3329, on 10/13/2008, -0/+0Endorsement come from the Editorial (Opinion) side of the media and reporting comes from the News department. Editorial is not supposed to influence the News side of the organization. Newspapers still honor this code to a great degree although they all take on the slants of their owners is assessing which news story or editorial to print. The big problem is primarily in editorial organizations like CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, YahooNews and AOL News passing themselves off as news organizations when they are really political mouthpieces for one side or the other. True news organizations report the story but don't reveal their opinion in any way; editorial organizations, even if they call themselves news organizations, thrive on opinion and controversy. There are few true new organizations in this country because hard news does not bring in the readers nor revenue. You are probably right that they should not take sides, but they always have and always will.
  • ElSantos, on 10/13/2008, -10/+19Kaspersky detected a Trojan on this site. Anybody else?
    • BlaqReaper, on 10/13/2008, -0/+8Yeah, for some reason I'm getting a Trojan warning too (also using Kaspersky).
      • Theisos, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1That's two sites for me this morning. What's up with that?
      • MavRevMatt, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1No warning from Avast. What details did it give you at all?
    • playingbass, on 10/13/2008, -6/+0PWND
    • j1ggy, on 10/13/2008, -0/+9That would be McCain and his hidden agenda you're detecting.
    • geminus, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Ubuntu doesn't show any viruses on this site?
    • KDX200rider, on 10/13/2008, -6/+1The virus is called BHussienO.LeftwingEmptySuit, its main attack vector is to remove all truth from the website you are viewing and replace it with flowery rhetoric about change, while it empties your online accounts and transfers the funds to ACORN.
  • repins, on 10/13/2008, -14/+34anyone else think it is wrong for news outlets to endorese any candidate? What ever happened to being a non-bias source of news?
    • epadafunk, on 10/13/2008, -2/+11The columnists and the people who write the editorials are the ones doing the endorsing, not the reporters.
    • macster89, on 10/13/2008, -2/+6um ME! I think it's completely wrong.
    • repins, on 10/13/2008, -1/+10epadafunk, so the entire paper "endorses" a given candidate because the editorial staff says so? And I am supposed to believe that these same editors are not "editing" the news to match what they believe and that all the columnists agree on a single candidate?
    • Meekus, on 10/13/2008, -3/+10I was HOPING to find someone who made a comment like you. For a newspaper to endorse a candidate that we read actual news from is crazy. At the very least, they should let everyone know ahead of time with a disclaimer "We are a Left Liberal news outlet" or "We are a Neo-Conservative news outlet" somewhere.

      The days of unbiased reporting are over. We must now pick and choose which one-sided outlet to frequent. I just hope people who think they are reading/watching something "fair and balanced" realize they are reading it from an angle.
    • nedzeve, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1There's nothing wrong with the editorial board (the opinion page) presenting opinions. The front page, on the other hand, is not endorsing any candidates. When you see "XYZ Paper Endorses ABC Candidate", what it means is "XYZ Editorial Board Endorses ABC Candidate." Most of us born before the WWW know this.
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/13/2008, -3/+1The word is 'biased,' retard.
      • repins, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1thank you captain grammar....

        "Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective. The term biased is used to describe an action, judgment, or other outcome influenced by a prejudged perspective. It is also used to refer to a person or body of people whose actions or judgments exhibit bias."

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias
    • UltraDavid, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1the ewoks are endorese
  • turbodan1, on 10/13/2008, -13/+45I guess I'm an old school type of guy that doesn't want my news source backing a candidate they intend to report objectively on.
    • epadafunk, on 10/13/2008, -6/+7The columnists and the people who write the editorials are the ones doing the endorsing, not the reporters.
    • DubSnipe, on 10/13/2008, -3/+2Editorials are permitted to have a mission and a direction, so there's nothing wrong with that. The bad thing is to do propaganda, lie or just be biased within their journalistic work.
    • renanrcarvalho, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Tell that to Fox News!
  • gospe1337, on 10/13/2008, -16/+6Because this swings votes.
  • rexical, on 10/13/2008, -15/+8man i starting to pity the old man... its his fault that he treated the media that was initially only mildly critical of him with contempt and it all went against him... any of you guys want to run for presidency heres a simple advise, be sweet to the media and stop telling blatant lies...
    • nonchalantmoon, on 10/13/2008, -2/+1ME HULK! ME SPEAK ENGLISH GOOD! HULK SMASH!
  • grgt1994, on 10/13/2008, -16/+35Media bias?
  • imagefrozen, on 10/13/2008, -4/+10"As some you know, E&P is famous for charting every editorial endorsement for president,"

    It would help if they got the first 5 words grammatically correct.
  • sks46, on 10/13/2008, -9/+18How loooonnnggg have we progressives, those of us with any brains at all, waited to awaken from the Bush/Repub nightmare? Could it really be that on November 4th, 2008 our country once again comes to its senses?
    Bitchin.
    • Baldar, on 10/13/2008, -15/+9You mean we'll get a 3rd party president? Oh wait, you mean we'll get that younger, darker skinned McCain.. bleh.
    • KDX200rider, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Oh yes, I can't wait to have all you brainy progressives save the rest of us "ignorant" rubes from ourselves. While you are at it, you might as well amend the constitution preventing all of us ignorant rubes from voting at all, that way we would need you "brainy" progressives to save us.

      You are the epitome of liberal left wing elitism.
      • Blind0825, on 10/13/2008, -1/+0Wait, so you think that we as a country have been better off with Bush?
    • faskippy, on 10/14/2008, -0/+1Well, you're not really that progressive, if you are taking one of the "two" they "give" you to choose from, are you? Tell me just what it is that the democratic candidate is promising, that hasn't been promised before. Well?

      That's what I thought. Same old song and dance. Geez. Sheep.
  • EnderMB, on 10/13/2008, -12/+21It's sad to see the press endorsing candidates when we rely on them for news and facts. The very fact that these newspapers are endorsing candidates means that people shouldn't read them if they want REAL news.
    • mashw, on 10/13/2008, -3/+2And it demonstrates a profound ignorance of the history of the press to think biased media is anything new. As long as there isn't censorship and people have an ability to think critically it's all good.
      • epadafunk, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2I think you're giving people too much credit.
      • EnderMB, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1Bias is one thing, a complete endorsement from the entire newspaper is a completely different matter. It should be wrong for a newspaper to endorse someone as the newspaper represents everyone that works for it, and in doing so may infringe on their political stances.
    • nedzeve, on 10/13/2008, -2/+1The editorial boards of newspapers have always endorsed candidates. That's the section of the newspaper called "opinions". Take them with a grain of salt.

      The section called "News" is written by impartial news reporters.

      Learn the difference.
      • postermmxvicom, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1Please, show me these impartial reporters. HAHAHA.

        But seriously, I'd rather get my news from people who admit they are biased and tell me their biases then from those masquerading as some robot of unbiased truth.
  • benotago, on 10/13/2008, -20/+11Just a bunch of provincial papers. Big ***** deal.
    • acroyear2, on 10/13/2008, -1/+3You'd think the provincial papers would prefer McCain above the elitist ones, no?
  • ddissent, on 10/13/2008, -15/+12WAIT! ....... Let me put on my SHOCKED look!
  • ChronicColonic, on 10/13/2008, -18/+23This just in...newspaper subscriptions down 80%.

    If I voted for every candidate my local paper has endorsed and the candidate has won, the political landscape would look very communistic. I am talking about all political positions, not just POTUS.
    • FredFredrickson, on 10/13/2008, -1/+2So you live in an area where you don't agree with the people who write the paper. BFD.
  • tbredofsin, on 10/13/2008, -14/+28How is this even remotely surprising? Studies have shown over 80% of journalists identify themselves as liberal.
    • ozborn, on 10/13/2008, -3/+11And the owners who hire the *editors* tend to be Republican.,
    • nedzeve, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7Please cite "studies".
      • spritom, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3I haven't seen any since the mid-90's, nor have I really been looking. Though I think some go back to the 80's.

        Study-wise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Robert_Lichter

        Survey-wise, Kenneth Walsh of US News & World Report did a few surveys of his fellow White-House reporters.

        Elaine Povich of Chicago Tribue in mid-90's

        CSU-LA's was more of a study

        Several "media watching" groups

        There's quite a few more. In contrast, I haven't seen any studies, surveys, etc. that cite anything to the contrary. A few people have said "that's not a study" and so forth, but no data to the contrary of the basic findings that journalists in their personal lives vote on the left side of the aisle.

        They've all shown that journalists at the time voted overwhelmingly blue instead of red. By itself, that's fine. They're free to do as they please, whether they like strawberry ice cream, the designated hitter rule, or who they want for president. The mark of professionalism is how their personal tastes are removed from their work.

    • gdog05, on 10/13/2008, -1/+682% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
    • jeexbit, on 10/13/2008, -2/+3I would also bet that 80% of journalists are better informed on the issues than your average person on the street...
    • UltraDavid, on 10/13/2008, -0/+3I don't think I've heard 80%, but I've definitely read that journalists knew liberal.

      I mean, weird, right? People who cover and understand topics in depth skew liberal. Totally coincidentally, academics who study things in depth also tend to skew liberal. How very curious!
  • narupo, on 10/13/2008, -24/+15It doesn't matter,McCain will emerge victorious.
    • ObamAmerican48, on 10/13/2008, -5/+9Ah...what's it like in your little bubble?
      • Theisos, on 10/13/2008, -3/+1I agree with narupo only because it's hard for me to believe that the people behind Bush's snagging of two elections won't be able to snag another. They're cold, calculating and evil. Their next choice of puppets is McCain and they'll do anything to put him there.
    • nedzeve, on 10/13/2008, -1/+5Cheating isn't really winning. It's more like stealing.
      • Sfenton, on 10/13/2008, -4/+3So why do you support ACORN?
      • nedzeve, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1@sfenton

        The polls suggest public opinion amongst likely voters favor Obama significantly. If McCain somehow where to win despite the will of the voters, that would imply his campaign cheated somehow. Considering widespread reports of disenfranchisement in 2000 and 2004, this would not be far fetched.
      • postermmxvicom, on 10/13/2008, -1/+1@nedzeve: Part of me dreads an Obama loss even though I am not a supporter, because of the inevitable cries of racism etc.

        But, if he does win, I hope that people are not labeled as being racist for merely opposing his agenda.
    • ChristmasPoo, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2Since he's going to win stay home on the 4th
  • StevenBullen, on 10/13/2008, -11/+18How's that for a kick in the teeth! Thankfully the US press has woken up.
    • KDX200rider, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1No, they are still sick from the left wing Koolaid disease. Just ask Dan Rather and Mary Mapes.
  • butch456, on 10/13/2008, -31/+9my dream world...mccain wins, all these whiny liberals move to canada and out of my life, starbucks goes bankrupt, apple follows all their loser customers up north, and i rest in peace in the greatest country in the world
    • TherealObadiah, on 10/13/2008, -11/+7Oh man, we can dream can't we!
    • ChayD, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7By which time it'll be great in size only. You might as well lube up back there and get ready for a good asspounding for another four years. Enjoy your fail.
    • acroyear2, on 10/13/2008, -2/+7And Digg will leave the land of sodomy (san fransisco), silicon valley will leave, the gaming industry will leave, tons of musicians will leave... lots of those "crazy" liberals will leave you behind with what?

      Some hopefully decent mom and pop diners, beer, and a banjo? Good luck with that. Us liberals make the world go 'round.
      • kidathinnes, on 10/13/2008, -0/+2considering conservatives in America are some of the most conservative people in the world, I would have to agree.
      • ChristmasPoo, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1You forgot Wal-Mart
    • kidathinnes, on 10/13/2008, -2/+10Typical republican. As Stewart put it, "Loves America, just hates half of the people in it". Truly un-American.
    • Sayterra, on 10/13/2008, -2/+5If McCain wins, your lil dreamworld will include massive economic collapse because of an erratic old man who will probably keel over in the first couple months in office and leave a beauty pageant contestant with her finger on the trigger.

      Your dreamworld sucks man, where are the unicorns and rainbows? Oh wait, all the cool *****'s on our side.
  • gtluke, on 10/13/2008, -23/+14liberal media, duh
    • ObamAmerican48, on 10/13/2008, -5/+5Short sighted ignorance, duh.

      Newspapers always do this.

      You are buried for being an idiot.