digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Barack Obama recruits team to tackle web smears

guardian.co.uk — Barack Obama is recruiting senior staff to a new unit which will combat virulent rumour campaigns on the internet that threaten to cost him votes in the presidential election against John McCain. The unit is part of a huge expansion of Obama's campaign team as he shifts from the Democratic nomination race to the campaign for November's election.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • alapoet, on 06/10/2008, -26/+62A good idea for a team and a service that will, sadly, be needed.
    • dafunkmonster, on 06/10/2008, -16/+13So you support silencing dissenters?
      • dsmx, on 06/10/2008, -4/+10I support silencing the mud slinging that the GOP will get up to.
        • dafunkmonster, on 06/10/2008, -8/+8In other words, yes.

          So what about Olbermann?
        • Witchboy, on 06/10/2008, -4/+12People should defend against anything untrue. That's not "silencing dissent."
        • EtherGnat, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1The best solution to bad speech is more speech. Nobody is suggesting silencing anybody, just counteracting lies with the truth.
        • dafunkmonster, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2"a new unit which will combat virulent rumour campaigns on the internet that threaten to cost him votes in the presidential election"

          Sounds to me like anything, truthful or not, that spreads via the internet and threatens to cost him votes will be removed or eliminated.
      • Fordi, on 06/10/2008, -3/+9There is a fundamental difference between 'dissenting' and 'lying'.

        Arguing that Obama's Healthcare plan is potentially ruinous, and backing it up with evidence, for example, if dissent. Arguing, however, that Obama is a drug-addled muslim jihadist (not too different from some comments I've seen) is lying, flat out.

        A smear is not dissent; it's dirty pool. If the GOP would realize that, a task force to address their known dishonest political tactics wouldn't be needed.
        • floorman56, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Arguing, however, that Obama is a drug-addled muslim jihadist

          Then why wont Obama release his birth certificate ?

          http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/814125/ba ...
        • dafunkmonster, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2I find it humorous that you believe the Obama campaign is merely going to "refute" wild accusations on the internet, seeing as how they rarely produce any hard evidence to support anything at all. I'm pretty sure this "task force" is going to end up being a tool of silencing, and of spamming Obama's message everywhere. I don't trust a campaign that doesn't allow any form of comment except glowing words of praise on its youtube channel. The Obama campaign doesn't want to engage in debate, because they either don't know anything, or they know that their side will be the losing side on important issues, at least when real facts and arguments come into play.
      • WasabiBomb, on 06/11/2008, -4/+8Correcting false information is NOT the same thing as "silencing dissenters".
      • Deanblackoak, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3I support silencing liars.
      • petrodollar, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1Who's being silenced?
      • Gerz1219, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissenter

        "The term dissenter (from the Latin dissentire, “to disagree”), labels one who dissents or disagrees in matters of opinion, belief, etc."

        It's not a matter of belief or opinion to state that Obama is a Muslim. It is an objective untruth, contradicted by all available evidence. A dissenter can only disagree about the interpretation of established facts; they can't spread deliberate falsehoods without being called libelers. And libelers, by definition, should be silenced, because it's been established that they don't have a right to state lies as facts.
    • Paul101590, on 06/10/2008, -20/+9Trying to shut out my freedom of speech. ***** you Obummer.
      • Coven, on 06/10/2008, -5/+15You can still say anything you want. Nobody is denying you that right. Only now you'll have people on the campaign proving you wrong, as opposed to his individual supporters.
      • Fordi, on 06/11/2008, -3/+21Generally speaking, on the interwebs, you do not attack freedom of speech when addressing smears; you correct them.

        Like I'm doing now. Your voice is still there, nicely displayed, so that the world can see exactly how stupid that comment was.
    • Shendelzare, on 06/11/2008, -10/+6"I intend to nuke Wyoming, and I intend to nuke it repeatedly. I am BARACK OBAMA!" - Barack Obama responded when asked what the first thing he will do once he takes office. 5/14/2008
      - Associated Press

      *Remember - you can now get paid to refute this!*
      • WasabiBomb, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3It's certainly about time someone did. Stupid Wyomingites, thinking they're so high and mighty. We'll show them, by god!
    • jabberwolf, on 06/11/2008, -12/+7"web smears" ??
      They post facts and record? Or are we just supposed to listen to propaganda from Obamatards?

      Heaven forbid people have all the facts, they have no need for those silly things, especially on DIGG!
      • Deanblackoak, on 06/11/2008, -4/+5This is about people who make ***** up, not expressing opinions, conservative troll.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2When was the last time you posted a FACT jabberwolf?
        Just because you type PROVEN or FACT in capitals after one of your ridiculous right-wing rants doesn't make it so.
        eg.
        jabberwolf is a moron - PROVEN!
        jabberwolf is unable to present his position without lying or misleading - FACT!

        But looking at that, it DOES seem right doesn't it.
    • winnestow, on 06/11/2008, -6/+4obama is a socialist and will take away your liberties:

      http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/09/obama-among-su ...
      • winampman2, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3You (and jabberwolf too) are part of the reason why Obama has to recruit a web team. You spread ***** without evening doing a bit of research. Instead of wasting my time, I'll just copy and paste one of the comments on that page, which you probably didn't read:

        David, Georgia writes:

        Folks in the securities industry have had to be finger printed for decades. Nobody seems to have any issue with that. And have not many scoundrels migrated from securities to mortgages, to find their victims? In fact, there seems to be a sort of melding or mixing between some parts of these two industries. To be sure, I am no fan of either Obama or Feinstein, but the concept of registering finger prints for anyone involved in any aspect of the banking industry is not out of line. In all three industries in which I have worked — securities, insurance, and alcoholic beverage manufacturing — I have had to supply finger prints.
      • pitlord, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3The dems are creating a NATIONAL FINGERPRINT database to track mortgage originators? Since when did mortgage brokers become a threat to national security?
        >.>
        This is pathetic, there is no excuse for adding costly regulations like this to the mortgage industry. Are terrorists secretly taking over mortgage companies with some nefarious plan to take over America by signing people up for risky home loans?
        -_-
        The whole reason the housing market is in such a decline is because of the regulations the libtards passed when Clinton was in charge that compelled federal housing programs to make sure that more low-income and "minority" families would qualify for home loans. So, the banks did exactly what the Feds asked and started loosening requirements on home loans, until those low-income and "minority" families stopped paying the mortgages that the libtards in government had forced the banks to approve.
        (X^P
        Of course, any replies that disagree will not have any factual arguments to oppose my arguments because my arguments are true.
        • winnestow, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1liberty is only gnawed at, he's not going to take away your freedom with only one stroke
        • winampman2, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1You can't blame the entire housing crisis on low-income minority families that stopped paying mortgages. They certainly contributed to it but the underlying cause was because of the loose requirements from banks, and mortgage dealers setting up payment deals (like low interest for x years) with families that clearly couldn't afford it (approving them when they shouldn't have been approved). They just wanted to make their commission. The banks accepted the ***** mortgages and thought they could make money from them by packaging them into a type of security (CDOs).

          More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_debt_o ...
          especially the "Subprime mortgage crisis" section

          So I would think mortgage dealers should be held accountable for being greedy and setting up bad mortgages.
        • dafunkmonster, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1@winnestow

          You're right, he's going to take away our freedoms with a bunch of strokes.
    • markgl, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4yeah he never went to that church. this is ludicrous.
    • pitlord, on 06/11/2008, -2/+5Right. So if Obama suggests policing the internet it's all good with you libtards?!?
      >.>
      How pathetic can you be? You would seriously abandon your free speech principles because your candidate doesn't like the mean things people are saying about him on the interwebs?
      -_-
      Truly sad, you aren't even worthy opponents.
      • petrodollar, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1How does this infringe on anyone's speech?
    • linagee, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1This is more evil than the videos themselves!
  • Cubedude04, on 06/10/2008, -6/+192I thought digg did that for free.
    • nblsavage, on 06/10/2008, -9/+42Yes but Obama's team might get the truth out to people that matter.
      • aliengoods, on 06/10/2008, -12/+5Digg Matters!
        • nblsavage, on 06/10/2008, -3/+29only to Digg.
        • sockpuppets, on 06/10/2008, -1/+9Digg anti-matters. If it were to collide with matters the universe would implode, only to be reborn as universe 3.0, which is startlingly similar to our own universe except for the abundance snozzberries.
        • Simonft, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5"A snozzberry is a mystery fruit/flavor that knows no origin. Generally has an unpleasent flavor."
          Blech... lets try to stop that from happening.
        • idavidtang, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Legend has it that when a person consumes a snozzberry, the person will instantaneously become a snot.
        • Fordi, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2"Digg anti-matters. If it were to collide with matters the universe would implode, only to be reborn as universe 3.0, which is startlingly similar to our own universe except for the abundance snozzberries."

          And, of course, half the time when you attempt to speak, you glitch out and can't find the words, even though they sounded *awesome* in your head.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 06/10/2008, -15/+10I think the plan is to squash the truth not "get the truth out".
      • davidrools, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4the swing sites?
      • jabberwolf, on 06/11/2008, -8/+3Obama's team and truth?

        Those are things that so far apart..... in galaxies far far away!
        • nblsavage, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Really? Show the falsehoods then. You idiots talk smack and then run and hide when the truth is presented.
    • wizzroom, on 06/10/2008, -5/+4well consider that the Digg user base probably only makes up a small percentage of total internet users and also consider the far right, christian conservatives, die-hard republicans, racists, etc etc tend to only view content that is in line with their views.
      • 3tcp, on 06/11/2008, -2/+5"etc etc tend to only view content that is in line with their views."

        Why pick out those groups when it happens a lot on digg all the time. There's plenty of 9/11 truther, new world order, ron paul, right-wing extremists depicted as representative of anything conservative, etc... stories that make the front page here.
      • Drewnami, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Like the Digg system tends to only approve content that's in line with its community's views?
    • slaver, on 06/11/2008, -7/+2You mean reddit.
    • SolsPolaris, on 06/11/2008, -6/+3When did Obama join the COS? It sounds like he's going to be running his campaign a lot like they run their church. Censorship...another reason why I've never been proud of my country.
      • petrodollar, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Who's being censored? If anything, it sounds like it's you rightwingers who want to see OBAMA censored.
    • brad3378, on 06/11/2008, -4/+2Let's find out if it works...
      Obama is a socialist.

      Testing Testing 1.....2......3
    • Mightbiteyou, on 06/11/2008, -3/+0Really, come on, at least half of the Obama diggers must be paid by McCain's camp. After seeing thousands of "Vote Obama or ur a dumb $#!t faced retard" type comments makes me not want to vote for him the way a bad mudslinging campaign makes me not want to vote for the side putting out the ads.
    • jabela, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1I don't think they have to worry about Digg too much, but the Fox Website needs an enforcement team of its own....
  • Turambar, on 06/10/2008, -13/+47sad that he needs a team to go around the internet telling people he isn't a socialist muslim terrorist appeaser that feeds on the blood of christian children and throws the rest into the furnace that powers his car.
    • sugarazor, on 06/10/2008, -5/+26Car? You know he rides a camel, you commie.
    • Fordi, on 06/11/2008, -5/+9Sad that the republicans and the Hillary machine was able to imprint such a lie on much of the American consciousness.
      • JoeVet, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't blame that on the GOP as much as the American people for being easily led idiots. If the people wanted truth they would demand it from their leaders and media and that ain't happening.
    • jamesLankford, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4" throws the rest into the furnace that powers his car."

      that's his plan to cut down on gasoline usage
    • slaver, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5That's called politics. Obama is pretty adept in playing the game, otherwise he wouldn't be where he is right now.
    • HMMcKamikaze, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3He me be able to attract some of the Green Party votes because of his eco-friendly vehicle.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4You forgot nuking some of our 57 states!
      • zacharytelschow, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Actually, he said he had visited 57 states with one left to go (so 58 total states in the union).
    • zacharytelschow, on 06/11/2008, -4/+2What's actually sad is that 3 of those 5 charges are true.
    • sconnor, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0AMEN!!
  • Doomshot, on 06/10/2008, -13/+28The web smears would be much, much worse if John McCain knew how to use this newfangled Internet thing, let alone a computer.
    • dsmx, on 06/10/2008, -2/+9McCain refers to it as the mystery box.
    • Pillage, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4I'm sure you can give them some tips on how to properly smear.
    • FutureGuy, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1McCain got lost in the intertubes.
  • Felixthecat71, on 06/10/2008, -4/+16Welcome to the Majors!
  • OffPiste, on 06/10/2008, -48/+20Hussein Obama spams the internets, sweet. Time to buy grubs, lots of grubs.
  • oldhick, on 06/10/2008, -20/+68How will this be fundamentally different than McCaim's comment troll team? http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_Campaign_ ...

    In all seriousness, McCain caught living hell on Digg for essentially the same thing. I know you guys are going to dive in and try to say its different but please be thorough in explaining how they differ. Both campaigns are now paying people to submit blogs, and worse to comment on blogs comment systems. This should be condemned by everyone unless these paid supporters disclose that they are paid supporters.
    • sugarazor, on 06/10/2008, -15/+55Because no one is spreading lies about McCain. No one is bringing up his "illegitimate black baby" like Karl Rove did in 2000. McCain's YouTube problem (c) is all based on his own contradictions, lies, temper flaring, or facts about him.

      Whereas Obama's smears are things like his a Muslim, Communist, Socialist, Terrorist, Militant Black Panther, Anti-Semite, Appeaser, etc. None of those are even remotely true.
      • oldhick, on 06/10/2008, -5/+33So you don't have a problem with paid supporters, not disclosing they are paid, commenting on sites like Digg as if they were regular users?

        I'm not arguing that Obama doesn't get smeared, I'm not arguing the McCain hasn't? My problem is with the lack of transparency and disclosure.
        • OffPiste, on 06/10/2008, -16/+10Idiots like sugarazor have a clear agenda. Trying to convince them with facts will have no impact on their message.

          McCain eats babies
          Obama is the messiah
        • sugarazor, on 06/10/2008, -11/+8I understand the point you're making hick, but I don't see a particular issue with having a group of people who are out there cleaning up the lies and deceit. Paid or unpaid, they're telling the truth. When you pay someone to lie, that's called a campaign ad, but paying someone to tell the truth is wrong?

          Do I want people going on Digg just pretending to be your average Joe and doing this? No, I will concede the point there, that is a bit shady. I don't have a problem with people, on behalf of the campaign, writing letters to the editor, sending out e-mails, countering claims of false e-mails or trying to set up websites to dispel any incorrect rumors.

          But what do I know, I'm just an idiot with an agenda.
        • oldhick, on 06/10/2008, -2/+21@sugarazor, how do you know what they're doing? If they're not disclosing who they are than you have zero idea what they might be saying or doing.
        • sugarazor, on 06/10/2008, -7/+5And I'm not arguing that point. As I said, if they're going out on behalf of the campaign and writing letters, making websites, etc. then I don't have a problem with that.

          If they're a troll brigade, I concede the point. No, we don't know who the people are, but such is politics. I would favor full disclosure for both parties on an issue like this.
        • Fordi, on 06/11/2008, -9/+7My name is Bryan Elliott, and I've been correcting lies about Obama since around January. I am not paid to do this; I do this because I think Obama is an awesome candidate and by far the most qualified in the running for the job.

          My name is not on any government or campaign payroll nor is it on any volunteer list. I do this because I want to do this. It actually interferes with my real job on rare occasions (due to the Duty Calls* bug of Human Internet interface), but that's part and parcel of the burden and joy of being a political junkie.

          You can imply shillship all you want - but you're not really in a position to detect dem shills, just pub shills - and vice versa. That is, I don't think sugarrazor is a shill, primarily because he hasn't said anything that seems ... out there ... to me. Meanwhile, you strike me as a shill - but only because I don't understand how one could logically arrive at your position, and it strikes me as paranoid. But I don't know; that could be normal for republicans.

          You really are like a different species sometimes. Convinced of the wildest notions.

          * http://xkcd.com/386/
        • 3tcp, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3@sugarazor

          The issue is still that they're paid employees with an obvious agenda, going around disguised as regular people giving their honest opinion in an attempt to alter the tone of the public dialog and change popular opinion.

          It's no more honest than the pentagon paying generals on CNN to say that everything is going great. The only difference is that it's easier to hide your identity on the internet and it requires reaching people on a larger scale. Someone who is being paid to make their employer look good cannot be trusted to be objective. Their voice should influence someone who is trying to make up their mind only when it is disclosed who they work for.
        • Mejari, on 06/11/2008, -5/+7Where is it said that they would be 'disguised as regular people'? You're pulling that out of your ass.
        • FairDinkumMate, on 06/11/2008, -1/+6I agree with Mejari.
          You ALL seem to be commenting based on the ASSUMPTION that these people will disguise their identities, To tell you the truth I'd laugh my arse off if one of the replies to jabberwolf, offpiste or their ilks comments was something like:

          "I am an Obama campaign staff member & can tell you categorically that your comments are inaccurate. The truth is...... The sources PROVING this are A, B, C & D."
          Signed,
          John Edwards - Internet Truth Team Obama 2008
        • oldhick, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2I'm not assuming anything... I commented that McCain caught hell on Digg for the same story. Both stories lack any disclosure of how these operations will work.
          IF, and that is an IF, they do not disclose their identities than the practice should be condemned.
          The reality is that there is probably no real way to identify them anyways. These are essentially anonymous comment systems we're talking about and I can pretend to be an Obama paid commenter in the same way they can claim not to be.
          The reality is, here they come and we all will have to learn to live with them together. I think most of knew these types were here already...
        • 3tcp, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1I'd have no problem with it if they posted in their profile that they worked for the campaign. The official campaign website could list the U/N's of the real people they have working digg to prevent fakers from trying to make them look bad.

          Given their unfamiliarity with the internet, I assumed that it would be unlikely for the campaigns to understand the internet culture well enough to know that they should make it clear just who they are. They would probably overestimate the benefit of using undercover people and underestimate the backlash if they were exposed.
      • poopdigger, on 06/11/2008, -1/+17The following comment got +109 diggs.

        From: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_faces_dou ...

        "McCain will falter...He does not represent the American Conservative. "War hero" image is a media creation not supported by the facts:

        McCain graduated 894th of the 899 cadets in his class at the Naval Academy. Google it. Why would we want someone who was a failure and took his responsibilities so flippantly as our commander-in-chief?

        * McCain was an irresponsible pilot who crashed 6 planes, and started a major fire on an aircraft carrier through negligent action. Why would we want someone this reckless in the most-important office on the planet?

        * McCain collaborated with the enemy, was given "soft" treatment because his father was an admiral, and is known as "Songbird McCain" by those who were imprisoned with him. (Vietnam Veterans Against McCain) He is the MIA/POW family's worst enemy for his constant attempts to belittle their concerns and stifle their inquiries while serving in the Senate.

        McCain ditched his ill wife to marry an heiress when he returned from Vietnam "

        --Critics of McCain do wield many valid points, but it's ridiculous to say nobody is spreading lies. I don't think McCain is fit to be President, he is certainly not the most faithful husband, but the aircraft carrier fire was pretty clearly not his fault, and while he may have been given different POW treatment, he himself chose to suffer among his fellow soldiers. Obama faces much more racist brand of flamers than McCain; but as we saw with Kerry, assaulting a candidate's patriotism with ***** can be also be quite potent as well.
      • Ryan166, on 06/11/2008, -5/+14Claiming Obama is a socialist is not even remotely true??

        "The truth is, most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie. ... The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and revamped education system then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so someone else can have more."
        -- Michelle Obama
        • 3tcp, on 06/11/2008, -0/+5The truth is, most Americans think that many of the problems with government are best solved by solutions that do not enlarge the role of the government. Universal health care and revamped education are generally considered more socialist when the solutions proposed revolve around increasing and centralizing control under a higher level of government.

          There are proposals that would standardize health care plans, make individuals choose thier plan instead of employers and pay for everyone to have a certain level of coverage. There are proposals that would allow parents & teachers to have the biggest role in addressing problems in their schools instead of depending on federal level funding, regulation and testing.
          These ideas would achieve the same objectives yet aren't considered 'socialist'.
        • oldhick, on 06/11/2008, -0/+23tcp, wow... Seeing the light bulb go off in your head is pretty cool.
          "There are proposals that would allow parents & teachers to have the biggest role in addressing problems in their schools instead of depending on federal level funding, regulation and testing.
          These ideas would achieve the same objectives yet aren't considered 'socialist'."

          They aren't considered socialist because they are not. Socialism is the removal of choice and freedom, the void is then replaced with programs that the populace feel will benefit society the most.

          However, we can benefit society the most by providing freedom, liberty, and support for the constitution. The constitution makes it clear that education should be handled locally. The fact we're even talking about returning to such a model is sad. The federal government had NO right to get involved in education ever.
          But people ignore the constitution when the cause seems important enough.
        • Lenoxus, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0"The constitution makes it clear that education should be handled locally." That probably would be for the best, but I don't think the Constitution mentions education anywhere. Are you inferring this from the 9th amendment, or a general sense that the founders would support this view?
        • Lenoxus, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0And Ryan166… not only is that not an advocation of socialism, but Michelle is the name of his wife. It's easy to get confused.
      • Pillage, on 06/11/2008, -1/+10"Because no one is spreading lies about McCain."

        AHAHAHAHA...hold on, hold on...AHAHAHAHAH!
      • joel8x, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Hold on, No one is spreading lies about McCain? Maybe you should read Digg a little more often. The guy has a lot of smearing to deal with. Personally, I can't wait to see the debates that will take place because I frankly don't think McCain stands a chance in that forum, but as far as smear tactics on the internet, they are both receiving equal amounts of false or exaggerated rumors.
    • Hekate666, on 06/10/2008, -12/+3I have a feeling that oldhick is getting paid by mcain....
    • SethEllis, on 06/10/2008, -3/+6I couldn't agree more. Both political parties have already taken over various TV networks. The last thing we need is for that same bias to take over social networking (not that Obama doesn't already own Digg). Such organized efforts seek to undermine everything social networking stands for.
    • slaver, on 06/11/2008, -8/+10I great point, it will fall on deaf ears of Obamamaniacs though. Their boy can do no wrong.
      • willdiggforfood, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2He, just like happy cat, poops in color.
        • AxmxZ, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Ok, I'm an Obama supporter, but that made me laugh a lot.
      • DocOctavius, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Completely different initiative from the McCain blog patrol- Obama needs to do this, unfortunately, because people are influenced by email propaganda no matter how badly put together- no matter how obviously inaccurate. I get crap from people at work all day that's just filled with horrible lies, and these people believe it and forward it like it's coming from a reputable news outlet. Insane.

        Plus, this whole "Obamamaniac" thing is *****. Most Obama supporters are looking at the so-called bad stuff too- so far there's only been some slight changes to a few policy stances, possibly to benefit an energy company who contributed to his campaign (no real proof that he didn't just change his mind, and it was a very slight change at that), and some people he knows are controversial for various reasons- so what? Tony Rezko is a criminal - that doesn't mean anything about Obama unless you have real evidence of something illegal, done BY Obama, right? Jeremiah Wright loves to hear himself talk- that doesn't mean Obama thinks the US created AIDS! Show some PROOF that Barack Obama ever did anything really wrong outside of smoking pot and doing a bit of cocaine in college (which impresses me simply because he's honest enough to say it like it is instead of ***** like Clinton did), then maybe the "cult" will listen to your inane anti-Obama *****. You all just can't stand the idea of a biracial president, admit it. He's the most dynamic person in a position to do the job that requires a dynamic person.
    • oldgal, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3I tend to agree with you. On the other hand how would you combat things like he's a Muslim, Communist, Socialist, Terrorist, Militant Black Panther, Anti-Semite, Appeaser, etc.?
    • HellDonut, on 06/12/2008, -0/+2Creating a fact-checking website to combat smears is pretty different from asking people to troll other people's websites.
  • bicyclethief, on 06/10/2008, -19/+14The elite team Obama's assembled: http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/december2005/15 ...
    • papastout, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2Improper use of Lone Gunmen! Bad bicyclethief!
  • whiterice0, on 06/10/2008, -26/+21C'mon. This is a joke. Right? What is he? Paranoid?

    You'd need an army of hypersensitive geeks patroling the Web to find all the "smears." And, what's he going to do when they find one, retort with snarky quips? Oh, wait. I know: "Did not!"

    • yojiffyskippy, on 06/10/2008, -5/+7They won't know what to do without a digg down button. They'll be forced to use their predictable back up plan -- "But... but.. but GW is evil".
    • winnestow, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1this is very similar to the "team" that adolf hitler had

      see this 1931 article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,7 ...
    • Lenoxus, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0"Did not!" comes close enough if charges are made without evidence. Of course, on the Interweb, the burden of proof is often on the accused. "Oh really? What's your proof that we *don't* have a secret Michelle Whitey video? I thought as much."
  • Thayer75, on 06/10/2008, -13/+29Glad they're taking this seriously and not just sitting back like Kerry's campaign did in 2004.
    • 3tcp, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4Kerry lost because he was a bad candidate. He was uncharismatic, uninterested and uninspiring and that's why he lost. Bush was too and I don't know how he won, but people were pissed because they still had Bush as president, they weren't all that concerned that Kerry wasn't going to be president.
      • AxmxZ, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1He had the incumbent advantage, and that was about it, really...
  • mark076h, on 06/10/2008, -28/+23A group of people is already doing this on digg, did you ever think about why digg has nothing but pro-Obama and Anti-McCain articles? no it's not because Obama is the most popular on digg its because a group of Obamatards is gaming digg.

    • Sfenton, on 06/10/2008, -6/+2As much as I want to agree with you, its just that these people have no clue on the nominees policies. They argue like idiots on 10 second youtube clips of each candidate forgetting a name, where they could take that time to comment on to learn what each candidate stands for. They need to be educated with out biased opinions such as Fox news or Huffingtonpost.

    • Deanblackoak, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2I don't think so. We have all the clues, you just can't see the forest for the trees.
  • cuptocanada, on 06/10/2008, -7/+18its about time a democratic candidate did something about it rather than just hoping it will not play a factor come election time in november
  • ZeroOrDie, on 06/10/2008, -9/+12If any of you are on digg, I am currently unemployed. Do the right thing.
    • bustachops, on 06/10/2008, -2/+1me too!
    • jabberwolf, on 06/11/2008, -6/+2Don't worry, you'll be deported where you belong. ;-)

      And if you're a citizen? You are unemployed? Are we supposed to subsidize your lazy ass while the rest of us work?

      How about selling you're computer, getting a job (you might not get one to your uppity standatds but its a job), and taking some responsibility ? Or is responsibility an ugly word now in the USA?
  • StreakyBacon19, on 06/10/2008, -13/+8Would have loved to have heard responses from his campaign for all the filth Hillary spewed. Thankfully the nomination process is essentially over and Barack has moved on to bigger fish. GOBAMA '08
  • Rabbittt, on 06/10/2008, -21/+1There are two ways to effectively counter a smear.. One is with reason, and the other is with counter-smearing.. Since most McCain supporters are irrational, reasoning will not be an effective remedy.. Therefore, the only effective counter to a smear on Obama is a counter-smear on McCain; er, McBush..
    • R0am3r, on 06/10/2008, -2/+7Put down the crack pipe. The only articles you ever see on the front page of Digg are in support of Barack Obama-Carter part II. Where is this smear stuff I have been missing?
    • 3tcp, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1McCain supporters would love that since it would ruin that whole apathy-killing 'Obama isn't just another scumbag politician' thing that won him the democratic nomination.
  • chanop, on 06/10/2008, -8/+24I heard John McCain is putting together a team to combat untrue rumors being spread by carrier pigeons
    • greenlight2001, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7Next they are moving on to the nasty false smoke signals before tackling the pony express.
    • Mightbiteyou, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0That is funny, but you know, if I actually got a message by carrier pigeon, I would take it allot more seriously than some blog posts.
  • sockpuppets, on 06/10/2008, -14/+2Obama's team revealed!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muP9eH2p2PI

    (Not a rick roll.)
  • p0s3r, on 06/10/2008, -19/+33They aren't smears if they're true. Just an FYI.
    • Sfenton, on 06/11/2008, -7/+9Just because you believe its the truth, doesn't make it the actual truth.
    • WasabiBomb, on 06/11/2008, -3/+9You're right, they're not. However, they ARE smears if they aren't true, and there's been a lot of that sort of thing already. FYI.

      McCain is certainly free to do the same thing... but I'm betting he won't even know where to start.
      • slaver, on 06/11/2008, -2/+5http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_Campaign_ ...

        Notice the difference in the titles. Hypocrisy much digg?
        • Mejari, on 06/11/2008, -4/+2McCain is getting people to go out and spread his crap, Obama is getting people to go out and find where incorrect statements are being made and inform people that they are incorrect. If no one said anything incorrect about Obama they wouldn't be doing anything, if no one said anything incorrect about McCain, his minions would still be copy-pasting whatever his website says all over the place.
        • 3tcp, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Yeah but what people consider to be crap and what people consider simply incorrect statements depends on which candidate they're supporting. I'm sure the opinion that the McCain people have of themselves is exactly the same as how the Obama people think of themselves. It's sleazy because they assume that the other one is full of crap and deceitful while they view themselves as being all righteous and performing a necessary evil while doing pretty much the same thing.
        • Mejari, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1The falsity of the statement that Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist, or that he does not put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance is not dependent on which candidate you support, things like that are proven facts. It is my opinion that McCain is too senile to be the president, but that is an opinion. If I stated that McCains medical records say that he is too senile to be president then that would be wrong and can be factually disproven.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/11/2008, -7/+9Actually most of the "SMEARS" against Mccain have been untrue and OPINION.

      Most of the "SMEARS" against OBAMA had been FACTS. They just leave the users to have their own opinion when left with all the facts.

      Facts seem to horrify the obama lobby, so they have to combat things like facts... it might lead to TRUTH!!!
      • Mejari, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3Like how it's a "fact" that he doesn't put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance? You do know that's been proven false right? There are plenty of smears against both candidates, but the ones that can be proven false should be.
      • winampman2, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2Your "facts" are always heavily biased and missing crucial information. Hey, I can act you too.

        jabberwolf-style smearing:
        OBAMA supports a national fingerprint registry and we're all going to LOSE our PRIVACY and FREEDOM!!!

        Truth: Its only for mortgage dealers, and its something that has already been done for years in the banking industry. This would hold mortgage dealers accountable and hopefully prevent what happened this year and last.


        Do you see how most of your "facts" might actually be misleading?

        You should also check this out:
        http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
        • p0s3r, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3As much as I used to trust Snopes, he's quoting Obama's own campaign advisors to "debunk" some of the claims. No other sources except the Obama campaign.
  • gypsi, on 06/10/2008, -6/+16mccain called a team together to get all those frickin AOL discs out of his vcr, but when they showed up, he just told them to get the hell off his lawn
  • dafunkmonster, on 06/10/2008, -8/+15So they're like the secret police of the intarwebs, right?
  • Sluglas, on 06/10/2008, -21/+21Internet smears? Oh, you mean critical thoughts and speech about the messiah.
    • TotalHalibut, on 06/11/2008, -6/+6If McCain supporters were capable of critical thought, they wouldn't be McCain supporters.
      • 3tcp, on 06/11/2008, -2/+6Is that supposed to be funny or is that just some kind of circular logic you use to justify supporting a candidate without doing the necessary legwork to investigate positions well enough to defend your opinion with logic, rationality, and redundancy?
      • Mothrog, on 06/11/2008, -2/+6...As opposed to clowns that support Obama who wants to solve high gas prices by punishing the oil companies for profiting? Both candidates leave a lot to be desired.
      • TotalHalibut, on 06/11/2008, -5/+2I'm sorry, but since when was joe public ever required to defend his positions before anybody? I'll bite, just because it's amusing. There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that McCain is clearly a worse choice than Obama. Since those are your choices, it is logical to suggest that anybody who votes for the worse candidate, is foolish, and incapable of considering the evidence available to them.

        Is that logical enough for you or do I need to draw you a ***** diagram?
        • Mothrog, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4"There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that McCain is clearly a worse choice than Obama"

          That's a matter of opinion. I don't see a populist prick who thinks it's the federal government's proper role to intervene in the manner CEOs' salaries are determined as a viable candidate for office. I especially don't see someone who wants to ban all semiautomatic firearms in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution to be a viable candidate. Granted, McCain and the modern GOP aren't exactly stellar when it comes to abiding by the Constitution, but at least the Supreme Court has the stones to defend things like the Fourth Amendment and will fix whatever damage the Republicans cause. In contrast, the Supreme Court hasn't taken up another 2nd Amendment case up until DC v. Heller for 69 years.
        • 3tcp, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2You implied that one who supports McCain is incompetent regardless of their reasons. Most positions have sound reasoning behind them. One's preferred position on an issue and the importance they assign to it determine who they'll vote for, it's isn't a summation of all positions given equal weight. If McCain has the advantage on 2 of 3 of an individual's most important issues, it won't matter much if they think Obama's right on everything else.

          You have contributing nothing except to say "I think I'm soooo right that everyone who disagrees with me is soooo wrong that they must be STUPID!" You'd be more useful if you ran around typing FIRST in as many threads as possible. You're just being an attention whore who's more arrogant because you mention politics.
      • Sluglas, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Not a McCain supporter. Just can't stand all of the constant Obama ass kissing and dick sucking that goes on here at Digg and the rest of the internet and news and the radio and the tv and the .. . ... .
    • ozydingo, on 06/11/2008, -3/+6No, I'm pretty sure they mean smears.
    • Deanblackoak, on 06/11/2008, -5/+3Just... silly... stupid... lies about Obama being a Muslim is not critical thought. Maybe it passes for it in the crowd you roll with.
    • AxmxZ, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Is that a cute new synonym for libel?
  • nastronomical, on 06/10/2008, -18/+11Supress free speech, Huh?
    • Chainheart, on 06/10/2008, -5/+5No, its USING free speech
    • WasabiBomb, on 06/11/2008, -2/+7Telling someone they're wrong is NOT suppressing free speech, and you know it.

      Or are you going to say that I'm suppressing your right to free speech by pointing this out?
      • sparsely, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4Spamming legitimate discourse with agenda-based ***** is unethical. ***** Obama and his party. First all these people accuse an actual grassroots movement of being spam (see:Ron Paul) then some hip little campaigner picks up the idea and uses it for Obama. It's been scripted spam for months now. Astroturfing another Corporate candidate. ***** off, spammers.
        • Chainheart, on 06/11/2008, -1/+1What do ethics have to do with this?
    • funkyloki, on 06/11/2008, -1/+6Except that when the speech is false, it is considered slander/libel and not covered by the Bill of Rights, much like running into a crowded theater and screaming "FIRE" when there isn't one is not considered free speech either.
      It's one thing if these rumors turned out to be true, but they are not true, and therefore it should not be considered censorship if they are suppressed. IANAL, but that is how I see it. For example, if a reporter submits something that turns out to be factually incorrect, then they have to make a correction, because even though we have free speech, we do not have the right to spread lies about anyone.
    • Deanblackoak, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2Yeah... keep using the copy and paste function, frat boy.
  • jerryparker, on 06/10/2008, -20/+13Funny, it seems to me that most of the smears, lies and ugly rumors are coming from Obama supporters.
    • WasabiBomb, on 06/11/2008, -2/+8Then you're not paying attention.
    • TotalHalibut, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5It 'seems' to me that if people are going to simply make things up, rather than stick with the facts, then this kind of team is absolutely needed.
  • sleepyjjk, on 06/10/2008, -7/+25A few weeks ago, I received an email that made up rumors about Obama and criticized him for not wearing a lapel pin. In this email (which was obviously a chain email), McCain was shown as a military hero and that Obama was not "patriotic."

    At the end of the email, it had the one picture where Obama isn't wearing a lapel pin and it said "
    Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem.
    Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name)......the article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE.....how in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief"

    After seeing this, I immediately emailed them back (and everyone else, by clicking reply all) saying that the name of someone should not matter. And in this time, it is horrible that we judge someone on such a basis. And I showed them that he was actually singing the national anthem at that time.

    The point is, we all have to do our part in showing the truth, or rather, making sure the facts are not distorted.
    • soot, on 06/10/2008, -2/+7"After seeing this, I immediately emailed them back (and everyone else, by clicking reply all) saying that the name of someone should not matter. And in this time, it is horrible that we judge someone on such a basis. And I showed them that he was actually singing the national anthem at that time."

      Good!
    • plimpton777, on 06/11/2008, -7/+1I got the same thing, so I emailed them back "goatse" pics and "www.lemonparty.org".
    • rdoger6424, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4reply to them that John McCain's middle name is SIDNEY!
      • john2kx, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1O RLY?
        • rdoger6424, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2IF IT WAS UP TO HIM WASHINGTON DC WOULD BE CALLED NEW CANBERRA!
    • TotalHalibut, on 06/11/2008, -7/+2Yeah, you're a real ***** hero...
    • sparsely, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2You should get off dumbass mailing lists, or delete your spammer friends.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2FACT -
      You are right he DID say the ANTHEM and it was not the pledge of Alligence
      FACT -
      He did not place hand over heart. But also did not see people behind him
      FACT - He did not have lapel pin with many around him that had lapel pins
      FACT - He had many Sundays with a church that had preachers giving extremely bigoted sermons.

      Now does that mean he is Unpatriotic? - NO
      Does that mean he is a bigot? - NO

      But adding all the facts up together, he seems to be oblivious to alot around him. I'm not too impressed with his unawareness of those around him. Kinda a basic thing for a diplomat to do.
      • john2kx, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2So he should do those things because other people are doing them? Sounds a bit sheep-ish to me.

        Also, even though I think he shouldn't have, he left his church after the Wright controversy.
  • Sfenton, on 06/10/2008, -12/+14As you can tell, this team has already taken hold of Digg. If you look closely at the front page articles about Obama or anti-McCain, you will notice that they only attack his character and not his policies. Once people actually look at the positions that their candidate stands for they will see the true person running for office.

    If America is to survive, we need less TAXES NOW.
    • SuperSunny, on 06/10/2008, -4/+5...What? We continue to attack his policies because they are an exact replica of Bush.
      • Sfenton, on 06/10/2008, -3/+4Ok, explain the similarity between his economic plan, climate change, education, second amendment?

        As you can see they are very different. Democrats are trying to paint McCain with the same brush as Bush. They are doing the exact same thing as Fox News.
      • pyronik, on 06/11/2008, -3/+4-McCain advocated the SUCCESSFUL surge before Bush did... which was a good thing
        -Any who has taken economics or has a clue about how financial systems work outside of what you read here knows that the bush tax policy has been wonderful
        -McCain is for huge incentives for R&D
        -His plan for health care makes much more sense on a logistical and economic sense
        -He's not for something as asinine as taking a corporations FAIRLY EARNED PROFITS like that of the big oil companies. Instead of smearing ME on this I dare you to debate me cause I know this issue inside and out and its a sin what the democrats try and do

        The only thing bush and mccain have in common is they both know that pulling out of iraq now is insane. Obama is like the school kid who won't shut up and thinks hes always right and the teachers just roll their eyes and the kids who don't know better egg him on.
        • Alexandru25, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1Nobody will debate you because you make sense!
          Well Obama will.. uhmmm "HOPE AND CHANGE!! WHY DO YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE?!"
      • keymanjim2, on 06/11/2008, -5/+3And obama will replicate carter.
        I'll take Bush over carter any day.
        • Hungryhaney, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1And I'll take a weak president over one that is incompetent and stupid enough to believe his own lies.
    • soot, on 06/10/2008, -1/+7Yes, what better way to pay off the absurd federal budget deficit we've borrowed and begin to repair our crumbling infrastructure and pay for necessary education and health initiatives than to cut more taxes.

      How about an end to limitless unnecessary military commitments in the middle east first.
      • plimpton777, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3How about cut the budget in HALF and cancel the income tax, and pay for it by bringing home ALL the damn troops, just like Ron Paul said.
        • sparsely, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2You won't get a response from the Obama people on this, they're gonna help us out with all the "change" he's gonna pull out of his ass.
      • Sfenton, on 06/11/2008, -5/+1Believe me the federal budget deficit is not a big deal for this election. It is roughly half the size of our Real GDP, look at Greece where its deficit is about 3 times its GDP. America is sopposed to encourage commercial and industrial development but with taxes it is shunning these business from coming to our land. If we encourage growth rather than shunning it, we could generate much more tax revenue than tax increases.

        LOWER TAXES
        • john2kx, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1First things first, why don't we end our bloated overseas presence and eliminate inflation by abolishing the Fed and backing our currency with gold?
          After that, eliminate the waste and bureaucracy in government, and then we'll gladly talk about lowering taxes.
          Until then, we can't afford it.. not with the way our Congress spends.
      • keymanjim2, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4If congress allowed oil companies to drill on federal lands the dividends would pay for all those things.
        There would be no reason to tax everybody to death.
    • Duskraven, on 06/10/2008, -3/+7im sorry what? you need less taxes? No offense but your taxes are the least of your worries, with the war in Iraq, ***** poor health care, poor public schooling ect. What you really need is to stop acting like the world police force, spend less on your military and more on your social welfare.

      BTW this is coming from an economist.
      • Sfenton, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3How are taxes the least of our non worries. Here I will give you an example of how they have affected our economy. Virgin Mobile servers are based in Walnut Creek, Ca. They have recently found a cheaper alternative by moving their infrastructure to India. This has produced 150 unemployed workers, if it had been cheaper for them to stay in California, they would have done so. But with the HIGH TAXES involved, it was cheaper to outsource to India.

        BTW this is coming from an economist.
        • Hungryhaney, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1You mean it wasn't the fact that wages are way lower in India than in Walnut Creek, CA? And taxes are a small part of what makes up the cost of employing somebody.

          And I am not even an economist and can see that. Now, i don't like jobs moving overseas, but that's capitalism. If you don't like capitalism and free markets, then why don't you move to some communist state where the state forces companies that want to do business there to manufacture there (hint: learning Chinese would be beneficial).
    • artofficial, on 06/11/2008, -2/+6I agree, the presidency should be based on policy. Not mindless personal attacks, on both sides. Obama has very weak policy and in some cases a lack there of. Creating a catch phrase and making people believe that they stand for some sort of change is, without actual policy, a propaganda technique.
      • amirahfusion, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Here's 64 pages of policy presented by Obama. If you read it, it's not particularly weak. Although I don't totally agree with his approach to fixing certain problems, you can't really say he doesn't present enough policy. Check it out:

        http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

        You can also compare with McCain's policy ideas:

        http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

        I highly suggest everyone educate themselves on both of the nominee's policies, and make a more educated decision. Don't just take the media's word for everything, do some investigation of your own! There are tons of well referenced sites out there (as well as not so credible sites) that you can use to learn about them both, but please be careful and check your sources! All I ask is that we all take responsibility to educate ourselves on both sides of the argument.
  • papastout, on 06/10/2008, -9/+3well, now there's something 'legitimate' for script kiddies to do.
  • SaladCactusKing, on 06/10/2008, -16/+25You guys got SOOOOO Mad when it was revealed that McCaine had an online defense force. And now the top dugg comments are like "I'm glad they're taking the threat of internet smears seriously" and "Good, he needs as much help as he can gets. OBAMA 08"

    :D It's so hilarious watching the mob fumble all over itself. And this is from an Obama supporter.
    • soot, on 06/10/2008, -9/+4That's because the Obama web team is being assembled to counter-act false rumors, whereas the McCain camp is just hiring people to spam blogs with negative comments about Obama and favorable ones of McCain.
      • SaladCactusKing, on 06/11/2008, -2/+8Oh please. They serve the same damn purpose! Can we get please get back to reality? Politics is politics.
      • rdoger6424, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4The McCain camp is probably saying the exact same thing.
      • slaver, on 06/11/2008, -1/+6Oh, look. A blind Obama nuthugger. How exotic.
        • CrazyZ, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3HAHAHA.. Thanks that made me laugh pretty good. Thanks again... nuthugger.... HAHAHA....
      • jabberwolf, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3Rumors like what?
        His real name?
        yes its propaganda but its a fact.

        He was born Muslim?
        yes its propaganda but its a fact.

        He attended a church for 20 years that had bigoted sermons by preachers?
        yes its propaganda but its a fact.

        AND THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT MCCAINS CAMPAIGN DOESNT EVEN BRING UP!!!!

        Mccain brings in statistics of voting records.
        He brings up the economic policy that cannot work.
        He brings up his healthcare plan ( Hillary's was better) that cannot work.
        He brings up that Obama has not even 2 terms under his belt as a Senator.
        He brings up that Obama has not served in the Armed Forces but wants to be Commander in chief in a time of war.
        He brings up facts that Iraq is improving (HEAVEN ***** FORBID!!) (hell even Angelina Jolie thinks we should stay)

        How are they going to combat facts?! Spin?
        • winampman2, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1His real name isn't propaganda, its just his name. Why do you care about it? Are you in high school or something? Adults don't make fun of people who have unusual names.

          Born muslim? What if I my dad was christian (so I was "born christian"), and then my mom divorces him when I'm 5 years old and we never go to church ever again? Am I not allowed to say "I'm not a Christian"?

          Bigoted sermons by preachers? Do you think every week the preachers were shouting "***** white people"? Get real. Wright said plenty of things that Obama did NOT agree with. Obama stayed because of the community, not because of Wright. Obama was already trying to distance himself from Wright before his campaign started, and Wright was pissed off at being ignored by Obama.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_contr ...
          March 2007 - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06ob ...

          "He brings up the economic policy that cannot work." - It does. (You don't give facts, neither do I)

          "He brings up his healthcare plan ( Hillary's was better) that cannot work." - It does. (You don't give facts, neither do I)

          "He brings up that Obama has not even 2 terms under his belt as a Senator." - Obama has been in the Illinois Senate since 1996. Hillary has only been a Senator since 2000.

          "He brings up that Obama has not served in the Armed Forces but wants to be Commander in chief in a time of war." - Neither has Hillary Clinton. Neither has Bill Clinton (he was president for 8 years, plenty of war during his time).

          "He brings up facts that Iraq is improving (HEAVEN ***** FORBID!!) (hell even Angelina Jolie thinks we should stay)" - Obama voted to send more money to the troops. So did Hillary.
    • pyronik, on 06/11/2008, -1/+5cognitive bias
    • TotalHalibut, on 06/11/2008, -2/+3Isn't McCain's team an online offense force?
    • Fordi, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2"Online Defense Force", on McCain's side is a bit intellectually dishonest. It's a call to spam, pure and simple.

      Also, a quick check of your comments history indicates that you're not an Obama supporter. So much for any intellectual honesty at all.
  • monkeyrun, on 06/10/2008, -6/+7Didn't he already form team Digg sabotage?
  • deathfix, on 06/10/2008, -10/+5First stop: Ann Coulter's ***** blog.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 06/10/2008, -18/+7Tackle this: Why does Barack Hussein Obama refuse to release his birth certificate to the public? What is he hiding? Is it true that he was born in Kenya and, therefore, not eligible to become President of the U.S?



    • mimigins, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4You really think someone wouldn't have checked this before he ran?
      • AsylumAleikum, on 06/11/2008, -2/+1I am not aware of any proof that Barack Hussein Obama was born in the U.S.
  • yojiffyskippy, on 06/11/2008, -4/+4It's called spin people. This is neither a new concept nor news. Move along.
  • SSCrow, on 06/11/2008, -6/+5They could start with Convservapedia.com
  • CrazyZ, on 06/11/2008, -12/+14So he's basically going to oppress freedom of speech. Way to bring "change" Barack ol' boy, way to bring "change".

    I'm telling you, more and more his true colors are coming out, showing that he's made of the same political stuff as all the others....
    • cl2yp71c, on 06/11/2008, -4/+4Agreed.

      Also that he so secretely attended the bilderberg meeting.
    • tehsilentcircus, on 06/11/2008, -4/+6How is combating rumors in any way an oppression of freedom of speech?

      Stop digging this moron ...
      • CrazyZ, on 06/11/2008, -2/+6How does one combat rumors? By trying to suppress them maybe? When I try to get you to shut up because I don't like what you are saying, what am I doing? Which right of yours am I trampling on? Not so hard eh?
        • Mejari, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4Rumors are combated by responding with the truth. Anyone on the internet knows how hard it is to suppress anything. If there were truths behind these rumors they'd be a lot more accepted.
        • CrazyZ, on 06/11/2008, -4/+2Who says that these rumors are not based in fact? If I say "Mejari ***** cats" of course you are going to say something else, call it a rumor, try to debunk me, try to cover it up.... Doesn't mean it's not true... It's your word against mine until definitive proof is offered.
        • jessehadden, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4CrazyZ, by your logic, Mejari would be suppressing your free speech by responding to your allegation. That just plain doesn't make any sense. Now, if Mejari sat on your head, instead of responding to your allegations, that could be a form of suppression. I see nothing to suggest that Obama's team will be sitting on the heads of racists.
        • tehsilentcircus, on 06/11/2008, -1/+3If someone was spreading lies about me I would try to defend my self, who wouldn't?. I can see how if he had these people running around the internet censoring these people without any form of argument or explanation against the rumor, then yes your right.

          By the way, a more legitimate way to combat rumors is to debunk them by telling and proving the truth on the issue, not to tell someone to shut up and not repeat it. In which case it sounds to me like your are putting words in other peoples' mouths.

          Freedom of speech is a gift and a curse, people can say anything they want now a days (especially with the internet) whether its true or something unbelievably ridiculous, and if enough people believe it it becomes some facet of the "truth".

          The internet is a medium just like television and radio, they have every right to defend themselves here as well. It's not suppression or oppression.
        • Mejari, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Yes, I agree, everything is a rumor until proven true/false. So why is it a bad thing that people actually take the time to disprove ridiculous rumors like that Obama is a terrorist or the like? Why is it that denying a rumor or proving it false is 'covering it up'?
    • slaver, on 06/11/2008, -3/+5Watch that 'boy' word when referring to Barak around Obamamaniacs.
    • Mejari, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4How does your twisted mind turn "We're going to inform people about the false rumors being spread about Barack Obama" into "ALL HAIL THE OBAMA, YOUR THOUGHTS ARE OURS"?
      • CrazyZ, on 06/11/2008, -3/+2Who's to say what they'll do and if the "rumors" are actually false. It's really a case of x words againsts y's. If I try to change or cover what you are saying, I'm suppressing your freedom of speech, plain and simple. Obama is authorizing this, so he's not quite the "good guy" is he? I thought he didn't play these games. I thought he was bring the masses a "new kind of politics".

        He's just doing the same age old thing like everyone else...... I'm not impressed with his message of change.
        • Mejari, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2And again, how does your twisted mind convert combating rumors with truth into "THEY'RE COVERING IT UP!"? He's not trying to change or cover anything up. Even if he wanted to he couldn't, since this is the ***** internet.
        • sconnor, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0Respectfully-it wasn't a flying saucer...it was a weather balloon.Uh, we meant flares.The official report states that swamp gas was observed and has been previously noted to have occurred in this area.And I'm an Independent for neither gov't sponsored candidate.
      • slaver, on 06/11/2008, -2/+2Same as your mind converts everything Obama says to gold.
        • Mejari, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Lol, good one. It's genius! All you have to do is ignore everything anyone else says and any arguments they put forth and just insult them. Wait till the rest of the world hears about this!
    • jessehadden, on 06/11/2008, -1/+4Wait... organizing people to help spread public awareness, to combat someone else's false speech with louder & more accurate speech... isn't that, well, the very definition of free speech?

      Now, requiring members of the GOP to sign loyalty pledges before they are allowed to attend a convention... that does sound like suppression of free speech.
      • CrazyZ, on 06/11/2008, -4/+1More accurate? Who says? Where's the proof either way? No, he's combating speech by spreading his own version and suppressing others.... that is not the very definition of free speech.
        • jessehadden, on 06/11/2008, -0/+4Can you explain to me precisely how he is suppressing others? It seems to me that he's exercising his free speech, in response to the hateful & racist speech that's smearing him. I saw nothing in the article about breaking the kneecaps of those who espouse the hate; I only saw that he intends to respond, publicly. Did I misread?
        • tehsilentcircus, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2@jessehadden

          No, you didn't misread, these people are just morons who only see things from their side of the fence.
  • bigmauler, on 06/11/2008, -8/+4First thing that comes to mind.....Scientology.
    The second thing is how quick this will get burried
  • RRJackson, on 06/11/2008, -9/+11"Barack Obama recruits spin team."
    • jabberwolf, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Thats a laugh coming from Obama supporters.
  • Baldar, on 06/11/2008, -8/+8Didn't he already hire them? I could have sworn I've been burying them all for awhile around here.
  • Pillage, on 06/11/2008, -9/+4They fail to explain why Obama is hiring new web security. It is because he is getting trouble with people on his website writing blogs that are anti-Israel and part of the 9/11 "truth" movement. Odd that he is alienating his base like that.
  • JohnnyHotballs, on 06/11/2008, -16/+12No wonder there are so many obamatons on digg ... lol ... jesus.

    ………………………………..__…………………………………………
    ………………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,……………………………………
    …………………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,………………………………
    ………………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,…………………………….
    ……………,-*lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllll.……………………………
    ………….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll…………………………..
    …………..lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,………………………
    …………...lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,……………………..
    …………….llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-..*`*;..)…………………….
    ……………..,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../……………………..
    ……………...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.……………………..
    ……………../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...……………………
    …………….|.../…/…/.*`......……………………)….)¯`~,……………...
    …………….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,………….
    ……………/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...…./…../..|……...¯```*~-,,,,
    …………...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/………………..
    …………….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…………..……..
    ……………….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,……………….
    ……................f`-,………`-,/…*-,___,,-~*….,-*……|…`-,……….…….
    • BrendanSheehan, on 06/11/2008, -1/+2♖♘♗♔♕♗♘♖
      ♙♙♙♙◻♙♙♙
      ◼◻◼◻◼◻◼◻
      ◻◼◻◼♟◼◻◼
      ◼◻◼◻◼◻◼◻
      ◻◼◻◼◻◼◻◼
      ♟♟♟♟♟◻♟♟
      ♜♞♝♚♛♝♞♜

      you got pwned!
    • JohnnyHotballs, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Thank you for helping me prove my point! lol.
  • BannedTwice, on 06/11/2008, -10/+16Obama recruits team to spread propaganda. There fixed it for you.
  • spamcrusher, on 06/11/2008, -11/+16McCain does it: BAD BAD BAD
    Obama does it one week later: Well, uh, it's good!

    Watching the Obama supporters flip-flop on this subject is almost as funny as Obama's hard line speech against Iran. The supporters are just coming up with excuses.
  • starmanfalls, on 06/11/2008, -7/+1I don't really like Obama. But the thought of voting for Mc Cain makes me sick. And soooo glad Hillary is gone. But digg used to be much more fun. Yep were ***** big time. Global warming is the new entertainment.
  • myshl0ng, on 06/11/2008, -4/+11So he hired Digg?
  • blacktriangle, on 06/11/2008, -4/+5I wonder if his friends inside Bilderberg will pay a legion of anti truth bloggers to saturate Digg?
  • nullcodes, on 06/11/2008, -4/+5Seriously hiring diggers would be good. People who scour the forums, participate, and understand how different segments of the public thinks and will react. It's all about playing a good chess game and anticipating and preparing for stuff 2 and 3 moves ahead. I hope he didn't get a bunch of theorists only (he should have a good mix of people who are willing to listen and test out each other's ideas).
  • chapoec, on 06/11/2008, -3/+11what rumors. Everyone knows for a fact that Barrak Hussien Osama oh I mean Obama is a muslim. It is a fact. He is all trying to hide it. You saw him and his wife do a terrorist fist jab.
  • mrogi, on 06/11/2008, -4/+5Obama will have to quadruple his staff just to deal with the smears generated by Fox Cable News. Sean Hannity is determined to tar & feather Obama for every inflammatory remark ever uttered in Trinity Baptist Church. Some broad employed by Fox News claims Obama and his wife engaged in a "terrorist fist jab".
  • marphtwo, on 06/11/2008, -5/+1Obama is being sued in court for Hate Crimes:

    http://digg.com/politics/McCain_Obama_Being_Sued_i ...

    How about that smear?
  • siszam, on 06/11/2008, -3/+8I wouldn't like it if a Republican did it and I don't like it now that a Democrat is doing it.

    Even if he has the best of intentions, this smacks of propaganda. I'm probably going to vote for Obama as the lessor of two evils but this does not sit well. Where do you draw the line? Hillary blocked all negative comments on her youtube channel. The Clinton's use to have free speech zones. Bush has his own propaganda channel on Fox. I hope Obamas intention is to spread the truth but I have a bad feeling. His recent secret meetings and virtually kidnapping the press on a plane ......sigh....it worries me. Not much of a change.
  • carcinogen, on 06/11/2008, -2/+7What a pile of idiots, having people combat rumors is different from "stopping free speech." If he wants to put up radio ads, it's ok. He wants to put up television ads, it's okay. He wants someone to speak on his behalf, instead of allowing poison and half-truths to spread through the internet unabated, that should be okay too.

    Jesus, he is exercising his right to free speech by combating such ***** rumors. I've heard a lot myself from the most unlikely places, and there are thousands idiots posting on message boards that need a good debate.

    It's not like he's DDOSing servers of conservative message boards or something.
    • Drewnami, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Diggers do enough of that, it seems, looking at the comments on some Fox News stories...
  • SuperMoses, on 06/11/2008, -2/+4Does this mean they'll also go on digg to digg down legitimate criticisms of Obama, like his talk at AIPAC?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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