digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at nytimes.com —

How Obama Became Acting President

nytimes.com — He never would have been treated as a president-in-waiting by heads of state or network talking heads if all he offered were charisma, slick rhetoric and stunning visuals. What drew them instead was the raw power Mr. Obama has amassed: the power to start shaping events and the power to move markets

show profanity settings
expand all
  • bornahokie, on 07/27/2008, -109/+22more like emperor. ridiculous.
    • sanman, on 07/27/2008, -61/+14lol, I will laugh my ass off when he doesn't win

      he'll be like-- uhhm, errr, ahem, ulp, there must be some mistake here...

      and of course his supporters will be rioting in the streets, demanding that an inquiry be held as to why the vote was rigged, and why jeb bush's secret police were turning blacks away from polling booths, etc
      • notoneofus, on 07/27/2008, -4/+25Enjoy your fantasy while it lasts.
      • heliox, on 07/27/2008, -9/+7I have a secret masturbatory fantasy that Bob Barr wins.
        We desperately need another party. I hope in my lifetime.
      • sanman, on 07/27/2008, -2/+4Bob Bar - pfeh. The "official" libertarian candidate? Which "official" body gave him that title?
      • drakenlot, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2His body obviously.
      • mike4444r, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1so true....the liberals will be out whining in full force when they lose...key word WHEN
      • mechnoch, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2FACT: Obama has a sizeable lead *outside the margin of error* in national polls.
        FACT: Obama at this point must only hold on to states that he is currently leading to win the election, and all signs point to him winning more 'tossup' states than McCain.
        FACT: If Obama maintains this sizable lead in the polls all the way to November, and through Diebold, fraud, disenfranchisement, and incompetence, the Presidency is handed to McCain, I will be doing a lot more than 'whining'.

        What will *you* be doing when Obama wins? KEY WORD *WHEN*
    • HappyScrappy, on 07/27/2008, -12/+32Seriously. Taking anyone captive that he wishes, even citizens. Refusing to answer to the Senate.

      Oh wait, who were we talking about again?
    • JettaMan, on 07/27/2008, -7/+1The forefathers warned us about vain politicians. Obama is proof of what they talked about.
    • withears, on 07/28/2008, -1/+6Obama = emperor?
      Obama = vain?

      Have you guys even taken a look at the person currently sitting in the White House?

      LOL
    • mike4444r, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2exactly...obama is an idiot, and only idiots follow him around blindly.
      • notoneofus, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Obama is certainly not an idiot. But only idiots follow *anyone* around blindly.
  • motivatedmama, on 07/27/2008, -19/+207FTA:
    What was most striking about the Obama speech in Berlin was not anything he said so much as the alternative reality it fostered: many American children have never before seen huge crowds turn out abroad to wave American flags instead of burn them.

    What a powerful statement.
    A great read, an excellent breakdown of the past week, and a glimmer of the fulfillment of Hope.
    • JimmySpaza, on 07/27/2008, -46/+12Someone get Motivatedmama a latte so she'll wake up.

      Sounds like you have been suckered in big time by Obama's marketing and sales campaign.

      Let me guess...you drive a minivan with a soccer ball emblem on the back.
      • soot, on 07/27/2008, -4/+21I thought the Republican party had the soccer mom vote locked up.
      • PHiZ187, on 07/27/2008, -3/+15So, it seems that your criticism is that Obama doesn't offer anything new, or of substance. And you make that point by rehashing tired old Rush Limbaugh smears. I'm not surprised that the irony is lost on you, irony requiring a modicum of intelligence as it does...
      • boombye, on 07/27/2008, -2/+7Jimmy Spaza is a nut case. I can't believe he still comes on Digg. Everytime there's a political story on digg, he's there to smear, and always gets dugg down. I don't know how the guy lives with himself, but it always seemed like he's paid to say things that get him dugg down.
    • leakus, on 07/27/2008, -3/+67Coming from Germany, I couldn't picture anybody waving an American flag here for the past eight years. Although without eight years of Bush, Obama would never had drawn a crowed of 200,000. I don't want to speak for everyone in Germany, but I have the impression that people are really hoping to have a rational partner across the Atlantic. The past years have been insane.
      • rogue780, on 07/27/2008, -21/+9Um let's not forget the concerts that were there before Obama...Don't you think they drew the crowd?
      • boombye, on 07/27/2008, -3/+15Yes. People of all ages, from the young and the old, went for the musical styling of some dude that provided entertainment for them as they waited for Obama... Even the big events where all the good metal or rock bands show up don't even get more than 125,000 people.. Hell even Comic-Con didn't even get more than that in San Diego and it was sold out. So you're going to tell me 200,000 something people went there for the musical stylings of a band that people aren't very familiar with in Germany and out of Germany. Ok rogue, if you say so.
      • leakus, on 07/28/2008, -2/+4I think Obama will be a stronger President than Bush, at least when it comes to foreign policy. If Bush comes to Germany and asks for more troops in Afghanistan, nobody cares what he has to say. But pretty much every commentator I heard pointed out that when Obama becomes President, Germany will have to send more troops to Afghanistan.
      • MiddleOfNowhere, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1@ 26thUSMC:
        "Yea they were there for free concerts"
        Hello, McCain Drone. Nice try. :)
        I was there, 50 meters from both stages, and yes: There were (as a friend told me later; I'm not into mainstream pop these days) two acts that are considered quite popular over here: Patrice and Reamon (although they were not announced).
        And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but 98% of the crowd didn't even bother to *look* at the band stage. They were all waiting for Obama, because they were interested in what he had to say. The concerts were an add-on no-one really cared about.
        Now as you may write from a rotten basement in YokelVille, Texas, you are forgiven for not knowing about what Berlin has to offer in terms of nightlife, concerts, bars and free events. So let me give you a subtle hint:
        Over here; *NO-ONE* waits for two hours in front of a ***** metal detector just to see a few middle-aged pop-stars. You wouldn't believe what we can get for free on a good Summer night.
        No. People came here to hear the only relevant American politician alive.
        And that's all.
        #
        "200,000 germans dont equal 1 American when it comes to voting"
        Well, *thank you* for that tidbit.
        But ... Did you know that 13,000 Americans live in the city of Berlin alone?
        Are you aware that Americans and Europeans from all over the continent flew in for this one speech?
        Do you realize they *registered voters* right there?
        And are you aware that even though the embassy of your current fascist regime prohibited their employees from showing up, I was literally SURROUNDED by hopeful, happy, cheering Americans on that day?
        No. Probably not.
        And now go ***** yourself, drone.
    • Tssst, on 07/27/2008, -2/+56From 'The Daily Show':
      "I think your American flags are broken.. they're not on fire!"
    • DiggRational, on 07/27/2008, -4/+21Absolutely. A lot of people make fun of the reception and adulation Obama gets, but what they don't get is that it's not only because he's a rational, intelligent and inspirational figure....it's because for the past 8 years we've been at the *****-end of one of the biggest douche bags in US history.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/27/2008, -14/+6The only reason he drew such a huge crowd for a second rate speech is because of the free concert which took place immediately before it by two popular German bands. Have you heard that reported when "his" huge crowd has been mentioned? Of course not, especially not by the NYT.

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07 ...
      • Nonplussed, on 07/27/2008, -5/+2You hit the nail on the head. People never leave early.
      • boombye, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4I already posted this, but I'll do it again for you to see.

        Yes. People of all ages, from the young and the old, went for the musical styling of some dude that provided entertainment for them as they waited for Obama... Even the big events where all the good metal or rock bands show up don't even get more than 125,000 people.. Hell even Comic-Con didn't even get more than that in San Diego and it was sold out. So you're going to tell me 200,000 something people went there for the musical stylings of a band that people aren't very familiar with in Germany and out of Germany. Ok rogue, if you say so.

        Do you realize that 200,000+ is a lot of people to show up for only two acts when their larger events don't even get crowds like that sometimes. Not to mention the two acts that performed were there to play music for the people waiting, it wasn't their concert or anything since nobody knew they were going to be there, they were there to play music for anxious people who wanted to see Obama and not some musical acts that weren't even announced on television, nor were they on any fliers. Would you rather sit there or stand there for a while looking bored, or would you like a little entertainment as you wait?
    • jshooter1377, on 07/28/2008, -0/+5Well, foreigners burning American flags is the only thing the media is allowed to show the American people to prevent everyone from leaving the country because they see things are so much better somewhere else.

      Just watch the travel channel...there are many countries in the world that are doing better than us (Germany is one of them).
      • jcfisher3rd, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0Unfortunately as of June 16th or so the wonderful congress passed a law taxing all your assets over $2 million as if sold at fair market value upon the renunciation of your citizenship.
      • jshooter1377, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3OK, 26thUSMC, give me the money. I shall wash my hands of this weirdness and move to Germany, go to my family's castle in the south, and live a great life.

        I'll be ecstatic to begin my life in a country where I will be welcomed because of my last name and I won't have to worry about the ground falling out from under me as I go through my upcoming years.
    • aadyss, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1@26thUSMC
      Now you know that these people here are experts at talking the talk but a little out of shape when it comes to walking the walk. If it were Civil War times, they would be on the side of secession and slavery, though they may be against them personally, in order to avoid some unpleasantness. Few have never been outside the U.S. and are woefully uneducated and uncaring about history. If they were to journey outside their elements and a fork in the road pointed to woe to the left and weal to the right, they would by inclination turn left. That is their nature as sure as the world turns.
      Laus Deo
  • Spawn2105, on 07/27/2008, -49/+191Vote Obama in November!
    OBAMA '08

    Now watch the Republican Digg Squad jump to action and digg me down
    • EatingPie, on 07/27/2008, -12/+64Which Digg do you read? Certainly not the one at digg.com!

      :p

      -Pie
    • guestaccount, on 07/27/2008, -10/+16Ill digg ya up.
    • Vocifer, on 07/27/2008, -48/+18Why would you vote for someone who wants to double the capital gains tax and give free health care to illlegal immigrants, as well as not drill for oil? What gives?

      Barr '08
      • Tangaroa, on 07/27/2008, -7/+34How about you look up what Obama actually stands for on those issues (hint: not what you said) and why, and give him another consideration?
      • stagmire, on 07/27/2008, -9/+11"as well as not drill for oil?"

        lol, Bob Barr wants to do this as well? I thought he was supposed to be good at economics or something. I didn't realize he was actually that dumb
      • dcmjzero, on 07/27/2008, -9/+8you ALREADY pay for illegal immigrants health care. you don't think they turn you down when you show up at the hospital? why do you think hospitals are so expensive?
      • Hockey13, on 07/27/2008, -5/+15@stagmire

        "I thought he was supposed to be good at economics or something."

        Is this really the best defense you have against that comment? Have you ever studied economics? There are multiple potential arguments for and against drilling for more oil. To give a brief idea, here are several sides of the debate:

        Libertarian: Allow oil drilling because ultimately the best solution to the energy crisis will be chosen in a free market, despite potential short-term negative externalities (like pollution or endangering arctic wildlife). Drilling for oil is probably not the best solution, but allowing people to act freely is generally the fastest way of getting what we want, which is cheap, efficient, and clean energy. The idea essentially is that if you let people use the wealth they created through oil, they will more quickly create alternative energy solutions.

        Environmentalist: It is the duty of the government to protect our natural treasures from the free market. Drilling for more oil in Alaska would probably have some adverse effect on the non-human life there. Using more oil would probably have some adverse effect on the climate, and therefore on all life. The true libertarian would counter this argument with the field of economic research known as the environmental economics which discusses negative externalities and ways a governmental body can effectively mitigate them without imposing harsh regulatory measures. This is done via subsidies or better-defined property rights.

        Neo-con: Drill for oil because I have friends who are in the oil business.
      • smacksaw, on 07/27/2008, -4/+11@Hockey13

        I dugg you because the comment was pretty good, but there is one huge GLARING mistake. What you described IS NOT a libertarian. It's free-market economics.

        The libertarian also encompasses your environmentalist, because a libertarian follows the mantra of "I am free to do whatever I choose as long as it does not infringe upon someone else's freedom to do whatever they choose", or the old "my right to punch ends at your nose" thing.

        It absolutely IS NOT libertarian to drill in ANWR. No libertarian would harm another person's environment to benefit themselves. The entire point of libertarianism is taking care of each other so we don't need gov't to do it for us. A true libertarian is a conservationist and thinks about the impact of what they do. A libertarian in Colorado who wants petroleum from a polluted coastline in California would be closer to your neo-con: fill my tank because I hate Californians and ***** 'em.
      • stagmire, on 07/27/2008, -6/+3"Libertarian:...Drilling for oil is probably not the best solution, "

        So being a libertarian means doing supid ***** out of pure principle? Sorry, I'd rather have a government that makes rational decisions than one that just throws up its hands and says "hey, gotta just let the free market do whatever."

        Also, it's one thing for a candidate to say he would let the market do whatever. It's another thing for a candidate to substitute HIS judgement for the market's and say that HE thinks drilling is a good idea. Bob Barr isn't the "free market," so what business does he had taking a position on a subject that you yourself say should be left to the market?

        Finally, tell me how the "free market" prices out externalities in this case, and how unregulated free markets can/will avoid tragedies of the commons. I might take libertarians more seriously if they didn't sound like they learned economics off the back of a milk carton.
      • Scheissen, on 07/27/2008, -3/+4"I'd rather have a government that makes rational decisions"

        I stopped reading after this.
      • str1fe, on 07/27/2008, -2/+2Stop digging jcmzero down. He's right. I don't think the govt pays those health care bills, but they can't turn a hurt person down from the ER because they can't pay for it or because they're from another country.
    • Hockey13, on 07/27/2008, -31/+5Douche. Nice job appending that comment to your campaign spam. Some Obama fans really know how to piss off everyone who is not a hard line Republican or Democrat, don't they? Your logic is essentially that anyone who buries your comment (i.e. those who disagree with you) is a member of this artifact-of-your-paranoid-delusions "Republican Digg Squad."

      Now watch the legions of morons and simple-minded cretins digg me down.

      See how easy it is to sound like you're defending yourself while really attacking someone else?
      • ichbeineinrcg, on 07/27/2008, -2/+8I dugg you down because being a cretin sounded totally awesome.
    • DarkReign16, on 07/27/2008, -19/+11Right, since only republicans hate mindless political spam. Your comment is as empty as the "RON PAUL REVOLUTION" stuff that you all railed against so hard, but now use often yourselves. It's the same spam, the same advertising, with new names and jingles.

      Spam elsewhere please.
    • eth3l, on 07/27/2008, -16/+13The fact you have 68 Diggs proves that the Republican Digg squad is a myth. Ill digg you down for stupidity though.
      • theaceoffire, on 07/27/2008, -2/+8I don't think its a myth, I think they are outnumbered.

        There is a Republican, Democratic, Green party, Ron Paul, Hillary, and almost every other type of Digg Squad.

        They tend to hang out in their respective threads, and all their comments get massive digs until they reach front page, at which point their views get replaced by the general publics opinion.

        Just search upcoming political threads and you will see the same few people (depending on subject).
    • ziffel, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3I offset at least one of those bastards.
    • arvvvs, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3possibly Ron Paulites, but there moderate.
    • d1gp1g, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3no, if you want to be dug down, post something critical of Israel
    • rebotfc, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2There is a republican Digg squad, except they don't start work until 9am Monday morning.
  • AxmxZ, on 07/27/2008, -10/+108Even Bush seems to have accepted this. He and McCain have both been following Obama's lead lately: troop withdrawal "time horizons," negotiations with Iranians - next they'll start talking about the need to invest in alternative energy research.
    • freakygeeky, on 07/27/2008, -1/+9In Ohio, I've already seen a McCain TV ad about alternative energy. Granted, it's mentioned just after offshore drilling, but it's there.
    • cheesehound, on 07/27/2008, -1/+12I hope this doesn't turn into another "compassionate Republican" campaign with McCain just going, "Hey, me too," to Obama's policy points when that's obviously not the case. I don't need a rerun of 2000.
      • AxmxZ, on 07/27/2008, -0/+7Hey, McCain got his ass handed to him in 2000. So I wouldn't mind a rerun in that respect at least.
    • SiL3ncer, on 07/27/2008, -1/+10You are absolutely right. Next McCain will be calling for change.
      • theaceoffire, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3He already did, during that speech on the night Barack became presumptive nominee.
    • ogbar, on 07/28/2008, -3/+2ow you people have no concept of what history has already recorded happening. McCain was calling for alt energy research before Obama was even a senator. McCain Also said that we would be in Iraq for as long as it takes. that could mean 2 days if that was All it takes. I dont get how people can be so small minded to think that if you are a republican, you Automatically fit into this right wing mold. McCain is Definately Not right wing and has fought bush on a Number of things in the past.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 07/27/2008, -34/+2Who? What? Where? Why am I commenting on this?
  • Fuxsit, on 07/27/2008, -11/+48and he's doing a pretty good job so far :)
    • ordig, on 07/27/2008, -10/+17no he's not. He's already ***** up with the FISA vote.
      • Tangaroa, on 07/27/2008, -7/+26Well, one *****-up is preferable to one a day.
      • edwartica, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1@tangaroa
        That's a pretty big ***** up!
  • HappyScrappy, on 07/27/2008, -5/+21My God this man loves Obama. I thought I liked Obama. Yow.
    • edwartica, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2I can not understand people who love a candidate so much. I mean, seriously! Sure, I think Obaama will do a decent job, but I don't love him.
  • rebelbruin, on 07/27/2008, -14/+75The world will laugh at us if we fail to elect Obama. I also think McCain lost his (best) shot at the presidency when he was defeated by Bush in the 2000 Republican primary. McCain is now too old and fragile to be commander in chief. As an American citizen, I fear for McCain's health during the rigorous election season ahead.

    • kaykfrink, on 07/27/2008, -5/+29Yea, McCain already has the look of a man who has served two terms as president. The presidency is an incredibly physically taxing position and I would certainly be concerned for McCain's health if he became president.
      • netant, on 07/27/2008, -2/+2I'd be more concerned about his VP. No point worrying about the inevitable.
    • organik, on 07/27/2008, -8/+12Oh, we'll elect Obama alright. Whether or not he'll officially "win" is another story. It's called election fraud and it's nothing new, at least not in the last 8 years or so.
      • ir1337, on 07/27/2008, -13/+2stfu. get over it. your candidates lost. it's 2008 - support your current candidate and cut the ***** sour grapes. i have tired of the endless "stolen elections" rhetoric. the best part of everyone's "outrage" is that 2004 was quite a bit more decisive for our President George W. Bush (that's right, make a pentagram(Satanist)/crescent (Islam)/blankstare(atheist)/wigglinghand(agnostic)/etc to restore solemnity, I've spoken the name that bears not repeating!), yet the outcry continues unabated. take a deep breath, wipe the saliva out of the corner of your mouth, and head back to your {9/11 conspiracy sites,MMORPG,pagan ritual,bdsm blog,soccer game}.
      • whahaa, on 07/27/2008, -0/+7urnot1337
      • ir1337, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0u != Original
    • Jauladeoro, on 08/27/2008, -4/+23The world will not laugh at us if we fail to elect Obama - they will cry... and I will cry with them.
    • Jaryd2006, on 07/27/2008, -11/+3If you dont vote Obama, Youre racist! Lol j/k OR am I?
    • cadmiumpaint, on 07/27/2008, -2/+20McCain was the Maverick back then. Now he's just a sellout who's pandering to the GOP base.
      • Guncrazy, on 07/27/2008, -9/+3Why the hell would McCain pander to the GOP base? They're presumably a lock. McCain is pandering to the same people he's been pandering to for years: the Democrats.

        I ***** HATE John McCain. But as much as I hate him, I love my country too much to vote for Obama.
      • kingcam, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2@Guncrazy

        Do you not know the new politics of Karl Rove? Now that voter turnout is so low all a candidate needs to do is get enough of the people on their side of the political spectrum to turn out at a polling station to win. Even if any democrat could convince every single 'independent' voter to vote from him if any Republican can get everyone who considers themselves a republican out to the polls he will win.

        Of course, the door swings both ways; this may be what we see this November when Obama energizes the left to such an extend that they all go and vote...
    • mafiaitalia22, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3true that.
      though it would have been nice to have al gore for the past 8 years, mccain would have probably done much better than bush.
    • str1fe, on 07/27/2008, -1/+4Not only is he in poor physical health, but I also truly believe he's entering the early stages of Alzheimer's or some similar disease.
    • wbrummet, on 07/28/2008, -3/+0Too old and fragile? What does age have to do with it? Reagan was thirty days short of his 74th birthday when he was elected to his second term and he lived until he was 93.

      Back in 2000 McCain came under the same type of fire and as the 1500 pages of medical and psychiatric records showed, he was in good physical and mental health.

      Kennedy was the second youngest President ever elected and as released back in 2002 he was man not in the best of health when he was elected and who had to take a steady flow of pain killers to beat back the symptoms of his illness.

      All of the candidates look a bit haggled these days, but who wouldn't with the schedules that they keep and the pressure that we the public exert.

      Again, what does age have to do with it?
      • str1fe, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1Age has nothing to do with anything, the fact that he's in poor health on top of that has plenty to do with it.

        Look at Ron Paul. He's just as old as McCain (+/- a year or two?) but is in heaps better health. If Paul was sicked than he is I bet half of Digg would be mentioning that as his major flaw. The fact that McCain is old -and- in poor health is one of his major flaws among many.
      • Telephuse, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3Dude, Reagan had Alzheimer's IN OFFICE. Bad argument.
  • duddy, on 07/27/2008, -7/+81All I see is Acting-President Obama speaking nearly everyday on TV about all these issues we have.

    I haven't seen Bush speaking in years. He must be getting the senioritis.
    • lukemann, on 07/27/2008, -13/+2Maybe when you are in the actually reality of the situation, you can't just go around speaking grand platitudes and making crap up.
      • notoneofus, on 07/27/2008, -1/+8Ah, but Bush's words and actions point to the opposite. Then again, maybe he's never faced reality.
      • ichbeineinrcg, on 07/27/2008, -1/+6notoneofus has it right. Bush and Reality took divergent paths long, long ago.
    • tastypaste, on 07/27/2008, -5/+9More than just that, Obama actually DOES something about the issues we have. He says we need to do something and then he comes up with a solution. While John McCain and Bush said they were praying for people affected by the recent floods, Obama went there and helped in the sandbagging effort. I don't think the president needs to be personally involved like that at the ground level (I doubt John McCain would even survive 30 minutes of that kind of work) but it shows that Obama sees the needs of the people and he acts decisively and effectively to do what needs to be done. McCain and Bush sit back and pray that it gets better. We all saw how well that policy worked in New Orleans.
      • smittie, on 07/27/2008, -5/+1A US Senator and the best help he has to offer is to go down and shovel sand?
      • trafficlight, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2That's the best thing he or anyone could have done. The floodwaters are rising by the minute and the only thing you can do at that point is shovel sand.

        Don't be an *****.
      • ogbar, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1oh please. if there werent cameras (just like in iraq) he wouldntve been there. he is a photo-op.
      • winampman2, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2@ogbar:
        You have it reversed.
        If Obama wasn't there, the cameras wouldn't have been there.
        Even he was just one man shoveling sand, his presence drew a lot of attention to the cause.
    • str1fe, on 07/27/2008, -0/+6I've seen Bush talk at the State of the Nation address but that's it. The news networks generally won't televise Bush speeches because of how much he's disliked. They'd rather report on the war or some catastrophe or something else that will up their ratings.
    • smittie, on 07/27/2008, -6/+2Maybe there's more to BEING President than just talking to the cameras and crowds.
  • LKnight, on 07/27/2008, -6/+38This is one of the nuances of leadership, knowing when to lead and how to balance your own vision with the opinions of others. One can see the candor in Obama, and contrast it to the "talking points" style of response that the sitting President was coached in as a communications tool during his campaign and his time in office - and while some may mistake Obama actually taking time to think about his answers for uncertainty, his actions speak louder than his words.

    And his words speak very loudly, indeed.
  • xman8, on 07/27/2008, -30/+15Obama walks on water!
    • tomarocco, on 07/27/2008, -4/+13Bush pisses in the water we drink and McCain will ***** in it.
      • xman8, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Obama pissed and ***** on the water that he walks on (and you obviously bathe in) when he voted for FISA, when he flip-flopped about Iraq, etc.

        You must believed that his piss and ***** doesn't stink, hugh!
  • waggdogg, on 07/27/2008, -37/+9He never would have been treated as a president-in-waiting by heads of state or network talking heads if all he offered were charisma, slick rhetoric and stunning visuals. What drew them instead was the raw power Mr. Obama has amassed: the power to start shaping events and the power to move markets, including TV ratings.

    A president in waiting would have visited our troops. But because the press was not allowed Obama didn't go.But Obama went to the Wailing Wall with his bean cap because the press was allowed. Obama has time for others, but not our troops.
    • CeeAyy, on 07/27/2008, -3/+23Nice lie. There is video to the contrary. Know what you are talking about so that you won't seem like an idiot next time you comment.
      • rjc309, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah check your facts, I seem to recall watching a video of him swishing a jumper at one of the bases overseas.

        Can't wait to see McCain attempt that...
    • allengeer, on 07/27/2008, -2/+8god i hope our troops are a little tougher and above bitching about how the big mr. almost presidential candidate didnt come and visit us.
      • smittie, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2Not a problem. We're pretty used to being ignored at this point. We've been fighting two wars for the last 6+ years but the only time anyone notices is when there's political hay to be made. The only people that show up at our funerals are family, friends and protesters.

        It isn't the wounded soldiers that missed out when Mr. Obama cancelled his visit. It is Mr. Obama who missed an opportunity to meet some of the greatest, most selfless people in the world. It was his loss, not ours.
    • Endemoniada, on 07/27/2008, -3/+5Remind me again, which party sent those soldiers there to begin with?
      • smittie, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3Both did. The vote authorizing the action had plenty of support from both sides of the aisle.
    • JoeVet, on 07/27/2008, -5/+7If you're looking for a conspiracy theory, I have a better one:
      1. The military told him he was not welcome.
      2. Obama cancels his visit.
      3. The military tells the world that they are surprised he canceled.
      4. The military is controlled by the president and his minions.
      5. This president is famous for allowing inappropriate partisan politics to corrupt our government.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/27/2008, -4/+4"Obama has time for others, but not our troops."

      Wrong. Obama only has time for himself and whatever will garner him the most attention.
    • waggdogg, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2The whole trip was one big photo op. If you don't believe me just look at the photo of Obama at the Western Wall Lighting perfect, head tilted perfect, angle and back ground perfect. Instead of praying Obama was posing.

  • reddikilowatt, on 07/27/2008, -10/+30Dewey defeats Truman!
    • RedHerringHack, on 07/27/2008, -22/+5indeed. That was funny. Al the same pro-left idiots existed then as now, and the looks on their faces was priceless. History repeats, and history will be very kind to bush in 40 years.
      • cadmiumpaint, on 07/27/2008, -2/+20History will view Bush fairly and honestly...as a giant disaster and embarrassment.
      • disparue, on 07/27/2008, -0/+18Too bad Dewey was the republican and Truman the democrat.
      • ichbeineinrcg, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3In 40 years I expect history to be pondering who was worst of Bush, Grant, and Hoover.
      • reddikilowatt, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3@disparue:

        I was referring to the media circus' anointing of Obama, much like they did with Thomas Dewey in 1948. Really doesn't have much to do with the candidates themselves, just the media's reaction to them.

        Personally, I'm voting for Mickey Mouse this time, if I vote at all...
      • kingcam, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1@icheineinrcg

        Don't forget Harding!

        @ Disparue

        You win the internet.
      • DontThinkSo, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0Historic FAIL.
    • irishjays, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Obama is the Manchurian candidate.
  • EatingPie, on 07/27/2008, -31/+41I've read they NYT for 12 years. I've read Rich's other articles, and several other NYT Editorials.

    It's VERY important to understand that the editorial board is actively using the NYT to campaign for Obama. They're exceptionally biased, and in their eyes Obama can do no wrong. It's important to understand this because the information they provide is clouded by their bias.

    Case in point, "It was laughable to watch journalists stamp their feet last week to try to push Mr. Obama into saying he was “wrong” about the surge." Obvious reference to Katie Couric. Obama never resolved a set of contradictory remarks, and she pressed him on it -- it was good journalism. And the NYT does this too -- seeing a politician dodging a question, they willl continue to press them on it. Were it not Obama, the NYT would have supported Couric.

    Understand me here. I'm not saying Rich is wrong on all counts. I'm saying he's biased for Obama, and supports him at almost all costs. Take what he says with a grain of salt, and explore his statements, do some NECESSARY cross-checking, and decide for yourself.

    -Pie
    • CeeAyy, on 07/27/2008, -6/+7Pie,
      The media has been overly biased one way or another for many years now, even when it comes to tech news. Only a fool believes everything that is shown. I think the old phrase is, " believe none of what you hear and half of what you see." The USA would be a better place if more people practiced this. Too many people rely on someone else for information and let prejudices color their perception of the world. BTW, bias in media is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it is not disguised as fair and balanced.
    • royceguy, on 07/27/2008, -6/+28If the media is so incredibly biased against John McCain why haven't they pressed him more on the dozens of conflicting statements he's given in the last ten years about a myriad of policies and opinions?

      Nobody challenges anything McCain says half as hard as they do Obama.

      McCain was the bomb in 2000...I voted for him then...since then he's become a stuttering sycophant so desperate to eventually be president he'll say or do anything. Just ask "W"
      • charm803, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3I agree that McCain was sharper and such a different person he is know. He definitely had a different and stronger persona that was more respectable as a future President.

        Bush started off as an eloquent speaker back in 2000, as well! He never even stumbled, and it's a stark contrast to what he is now.

        Age was not good to them. It is hard to ignore the many gaffes. Certainly, one or two, even three can be justified, but one almost daily?
      • JoeVet, on 07/27/2008, -1/+8"Bush started off as an eloquent speaker back in 2000" ????????? LOL

        "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" -Jan. 2000
        "We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile.'' -Aug. 2000
        "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." -Sept. 2000
        "They misunderestimated me." -Nov. 6, 2000
      • arvvvs, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION!!!!!!!!
      • str1fe, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2@arvvvs:

        nukular
    • swrostmore, on 07/27/2008, -3/+18You've read the NYT's other editorials? Really? Because the last NYT editorial I read savaged Obama for shifting his positions post-primary, painting him as a typical pol who will say anything to get elected (New and Not Improved, NYT 7/4/08).

      Is that attack piece an example of pro-Obama bias? Or does it put the lie to your statement that the NYT editorial page is campaigning for Obama?

      If you're going to make false and misleading statements, it might be a good idea not to suggest that people do some NECESSARY cross-checking next time.

      -Lie

      • trafficlight, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1That's the great thing about opinions: you can change them at any time based on new information. That's called intelligence.
    • recalcitrantid, on 07/27/2008, -3/+8It's in the opinion section, get over it.
    • Nonplussed, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3If you're going to supposedly take a writer -- of an op-ed, by the way, the first half of which stands for OPINION -- to task for a statement, you should consider the whole statement. His point was the double standard of calling out Obama on the surge but not McCain on the much larger indictment of judgment, the war.

      And seriously: If you want to rant about bias, look on the news pages, where it's not supposed to be, not the columns. It betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of journalism.
    • kingcam, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3lol, I doubt that anyone who doesn't know about the NYT's bias will be interested enough to vote in this election. I mean come on, I consider myself to be on the 'Radical Left', and I agree with the NYT's slant' but the New York Times liberal stance is perhaps the most well known in the world. Ironically the next most well known bias is Fox News... the agency that is seemingly obsessed with the 'liberal media'
    • fluffyturtle, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2"Obama never resolved a set of contradictory remarks"

      Uh, they weren't contradictory at all. She was attempting to make it look like she was pressing him on an issue when in reality the issue didn't exist.

      I am not slamming your post here, just that you didn't use facts to support your argument.
  • grungegbunny, on 07/27/2008, -15/+103Obama is more presidential in his left pinky than Bush has been in 8 years.
    • JimmySpaza, on 07/27/2008, -35/+3Wonder how long it took you to think up that pithy proclamation.
      • wafla, on 07/27/2008, -1/+12Yeah, people are being tortured, american soldiers are dying, housing market tanking due to de-regulation. And THAT is what you're wondering about.
    • LiberalKid, on 07/27/2008, -2/+17Wonder if you've realized that you're a tool yet Spaza.
    • redchina, on 07/27/2008, -10/+3Obama is not the president, stop acting like he's already been elected.
      • jesusmurphy, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3George Bush might be the president, but he certainly isn't a leader. Power requires legitimacy, which can only be given through support of the people. Georgie doesn't have that right now, and thus is pretty much the lamest of ducks.

        Obama's recent trip did more for US-foreign relations than anything the White House has done in about a year.

        Yeah we're stuck with Bush as president, but it seems like people have picked their real leader.
    • smittie, on 07/27/2008, -5/+3Being President takes a lot more than just being able to talk pretty. Mr. Obama has proven that he makes a great celebrity. I hope we aren't too disappointed when faced with the realization that being a celebrity isn't the same as being president.
      • netant, on 07/27/2008, -2/+4The bloom is already off the rose with his FISA vote.

        The problem is the alternative is a doddering old man that wants to invade Iran and stay in Iraq for a hundred years. Oh, and the economy doesn't have any problem that a tax cut and offshore drilling won't cure. Sure.

        I'm looking forward to 8 years of a Presidency that looks competent. At least I will have that, after 8 years of neocons destroying America.
      • mr138, on 07/27/2008, -2/+0"Mr. Obama has proven that he makes a great celebrity."
        We've had celebrity presidents before and it turned out ok.
        Oh wait, no it didn't.
        Well I'm still voting for him.
  • Garmonbozzia, on 07/27/2008, -7/+28Dugg for calling Bush Mr. Cellophane. I propose this be his new name.
    • Stavrosian, on 07/27/2008, -3/+22I suppose it is classier than referring to him as "that stupid *****."
      • tomarocco, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1Why even bother to consider classiness with this subject?
    • charm803, on 07/27/2008, -0/+5I second that, Almighty Ruler of New Names.
    • 2Bnor2B, on 07/27/2008, -0/+7There no need to change his name.
      Bush will go down in history as the worst president ever.
      His name itself will be eventually adapted by all to represent failure, corruption, and stupidity.

      Expect the following future uses...
      1. "I really Bushed that up."
      2. "Your brother was a real Bushtard."
      3. "Call the plumber, the toilets backed up and we have GWB all over the floor."
    • Daniel591992, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2Urban Dictionary!
  • Shrubber, on 07/27/2008, -5/+31This demonstrates a truism of presidential elections: the more you act like the president, the more likely you are to get elected president. Obama has appeared very presidential during this trip. The more presidential he appears, the more confident the American people will become in Obama's ability to actually perform the duties of President of the United States.
    • lukemann, on 07/27/2008, -12/+3Actually most people will just see it as the pure arrogance that it is.
      • notoneofus, on 07/27/2008, -0/+8You have a strange definition of "most," I bet.
    • Lewie, on 07/27/2008, -6/+4Presidents are usually arrogant. Just to run for office, you have to think you're the most important American (if not person) in the world.
      • Lewie, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3Really? You people don't think there's a elitist air to many presidents? Maybe Nixon or Clinton, for example? Bush Sr.'s first experience with laser upc scanners (Short Version: He didn't know they existed because he never had to shop for himself)?

        I'm not making a judgment on any of the candidates, I'm just presenting what I find to be true.
      • kashk5, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3As an arrogant bastard myself, I totally agree with your statement
    • letherial, on 07/27/2008, -3/+13Like obama or not, wouldnt be nice to see that happen when the preisdent arrives, instead of a bunch of protest and flag burning.


      mcain may not get the flags burning, but he can put a entire country to sleep in a 10 min speech, the man is so boring i cant listen to him to enough to disagree with him.
  • Jovensenforcer, on 07/27/2008, -54/+6Are you kidding me? That ***** couldn't act as president in a movie starring dmx. He's such a dumb ass he thinks there are 57 states. He went to a racist ass church for years because he is a racist ass. obama is a fool and his wife hates America, what the ***** is wrong with you liberal hippie bastards? Are you blind or are you just too busy hating whitey to realize what a turd this guy is.
    • dxgg, on 07/27/2008, -4/+20Educate yourself and try again.
    • whoomp123, on 07/27/2008, -7/+0only because any decent director would cast will smith to play the role of obama
    • peticsu, on 07/27/2008, -2/+9thats like 25 McCain points right there...John McCain beer holder time!!
    • JoeVet, on 07/27/2008, -1/+7The best you have is this guy is a 'turd'? Really? Did your mother have any kids that lived?
  • FishHammer, on 07/27/2008, -27/+13Obama is running around acting like he's already the president. I really think it'd be hilarious of McCain won, not because of his politics but just because it'd bring Obama down a few dozen pegs.
    • krnldmp, on 07/27/2008, -3/+7Yuh. Funny like a rubber crutch.
    • WSPanic201, on 07/27/2008, -4/+12Yeah that would just be so funny. So funny that I just want it to happen to bring obama down a few pegs. Screw all of the horrible outcomes that a John McCain presidency would bring, just as long as obama is a few pegs lower.
  • JimmySpaza, on 07/27/2008, -27/+11Buried for being biased New York Slimes propaganda. They don't even try to hide their bias any more.

    It used to be that newspapers could be counted upon for objectivity and fairness. The bias was left to the editorial boards and pages. But, no longer...
    • dxgg, on 07/27/2008, -1/+7"It used to be that newspapers could be counted upon for objectivity and fairness."

      Haha! Since when? Newspapers have always had biases -- it's up to the public to get a balanced approach by reading more than one.
      • Skywise, on 07/27/2008, -3/+2Ah well I see you're okay with Fox News then.
      • ichbeineinrcg, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3dxgg has it right. That's why so many newspapers still have the name "Republican" or "Democrat" in their title. Think, too, of William Randolph Hearst and his war with Spain, like they riffed on in Citizen Kane. Newspapers make political endorsements based on the feelings of their editorial boards, which is inherantly a bias.

        I expect the AP to be neutral, because they report the news. Once they hand the information off to the papers, though, it's clear that anyone should turn on their ***** detector and be aware.
      • dxgg, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2@Skywise: Fox News can broadcast whatever they want to. I really don't care. What I'm not okay with is that they misrepresent themselves as "fair and unbiased" when they're clearly not. I'm also not okay with people who are so naive that they believe it.

        Nobody should get their information and form opinions based on a single source. I don't care how "unbiased" that source may be.
    • VicHislop, on 07/27/2008, -2/+17Uh, this IS an editorial.
      • wal9000, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4Stop posting facts of we'll downvote you!

        from me, but not from someone else apparently...
    • reester, on 07/27/2008, -2/+9Isn't this an editorial? Meaning... they CAN be biased? OH MY GOD!

      Regardless, OBAMA 08!
    • JoeVet, on 07/27/2008, -1/+6The entire media has become biased thanks to the absolute devotion of the ignorant to the propaganda of FoxNews. These Idiots have shown the media that truth does not matter when it comes to retaining viewer loyalty and slander and lies are profitable.
    • buddhistMonkey, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3((( "The bias was left to the editorial boards and pages. But, no longer..." )))

      Mark Rich is an op-ed columnist, and it says so directly above the headline.

      And, come on... New York Slimes? Please leave the childish name-calling to Mark Levin. At least he gets paid to be a moron.
    • kingcam, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2You know after reading so many of his stupid comments on a variety of topics I have become convinced that Jimmyspaza is actually a comedic genus whose power of sarcasm is tragically lost over the internet.

      Lets all mourn the heroic failure of JimmySpaza, he is to internet comedy what William McGonagall was to English poetry.
  • Hockey13, on 07/27/2008, -2/+15"How Obama Became Acting President"

    As a Mets fan, I feel it is necessary to warn people when they're tempting fate...
  • jotux, on 07/27/2008, -11/+31How did he become acting president? By voting yes on FISA, granting telecom immunity, and continuing with the same standards and traditions of our current presidency.
    • OliveStreet, on 07/27/2008, -1/+8Agreed. Mr. Obama, how could you have voted yes on FISA? You broke my heart.
      • undeadbydawn, on 07/27/2008, -1/+0while he most certainly should have voted against, the FISA bill leaves all the Teleco's and BushCo open to criminal prosecution.


        you consider that for a second.

        they are now immune ONLY from *civil* lawsuits. That's nowhere near as harsh as criminal.
        Had the Bill gone back for another round of re-writing, someone may have filled in that gap.
    • letherial, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3though i tend to agree with you, i can see how this was a political manuvear...democrates have this unfair 'soft on terror' BS that he has to get passed on this election. Now i dont like our constitution being used in a political way, but at the same time, i dont want mcain in office. its hard to say it is a choice between 2 evils, because, i dont see it that way. Im just disapointed that this country has gotten such a ugly politcal enviorment that a canditate has to make that choice, i blame the media, the democrates, the republicans, and the voters for that kind of *****

      also, nobody is perfect, if your looking to elect a perfect president...write in GOD and hope he gets elected.
      • netant, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2I hope not. He never shows up lately. Look at what he does with his "Chosen" people.
    • arunforce, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1I agree, Obama may not be our political freedom hero, but there are some other grave issues that need prior attention which Obama can help fix, whether him voting is just a ploy to get republican votes.
    • Nonplussed, on 07/27/2008, -3/+5*****. I agree that his vote on FISA was wrong, but one vote does not a tradition make. Obama is worlds away from Bush on every level. This was a grudging move-to-the-center vote that we can be disappointed in, but make no mistake: Obama has changed and will continue to change everything we know about politics. Don't get bogged down; he big picture is much too important.
      • zomgtruth, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0hey rere, Obama isn't running against Bush.
    • winampman2, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Come on, guys. Stop it with the "Obama voted for FISA. Therefore, logically, OBAMA = BUSH EVIL DICTATOR" comments.

      Do some research on FISA. I bet half of you don't even know what the letters stand for. Also, he did it to move his policies toward the center. He's trying to win as many states as he can. He's not trying to be a hardcore Democrat and piss off the other half of the country.
  • chrispaul50, on 07/27/2008, -11/+13Acting president?? Wow, NYT is really staying neutral on this one.
    • tomarocco, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5Free Press, brotha...the voice of the People. Tune to FOX...you sleep easier hearing the propaganda that is so dear to you as your mother's teat.
    • JoeVet, on 07/27/2008, -0/+9Editorial.
    • zwaldowski, on 07/27/2008, -0/+7OP-ED.
  • lgfaphile, on 07/27/2008, -11/+20this is just so much jibberish...the usual state of a Frank Rich editorial. If Obama is the "acting president" it is only because the media and many Americans are too easily swayed by rhetoric. People (including those in Rich's profession) should be questioning the often meaningless sops that pour from Obama like so much syrup. This isn't a pitch for McCain, its a plea to stop treating Obama like the messiah. the man has done very little in his career and says just about anything depending on his audience. Its really quite a joke...on all of us. And just for the record, the huge crowd in Berlin came for a rock concert and the band there drew just as large a crowd without the "post reality candidate" making his appearance. Please.
    • krnldmp, on 07/27/2008, -2/+4I think the only reason we have this problem is calling the stuff that comes out of Bush's mouth "rhetoric" would be a gross glorification. Otherwise I really don't think anyone could get away with it.
    • krnldmp, on 07/27/2008, -3/+4Seruiously folks. The country and the world just doesn't have any more time for a president that would tell us "The economy got drunk."
    • netant, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3You losers don't get it. McCain is a loser. He's too old, has said the wrong things, taken the wrong positions, and wants to perpetuate GWB's administration.

      Constantly "trying" to nitpick Obama is not going to put you guys over the top. I am more terrified by anything McCain would probably do, than you can possibly claim for Obama. Put in communist health care, make things easier for illegals, play nice with the Palestinians. Oooooh, I"m QUAKING in my boots. Damn, you losers are so freaking stupid.

      If you want to give Obama a race, get behind Romney in the convention. Or campaign hard for racism and photoshop him hugging terrorists. Be the neocon scum that you are.
      • libertarian418, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2being against Obama doesn't automatically mean someone is a Neocon. The world isn't so 1-dimentional between left and right like you seem to think. Obama sucks, but I'm not voting for McCain either.
      • lgfaphile, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2@netant: this is one of the more empty headed postings I have seen on Digg, and that is a pretty low bar.
  • battleangel7, on 07/27/2008, -15/+7Obama is better that Jesus.
    He makes me tingle.
    • tomarocco, on 07/27/2008, -4/+2Hell, even I'm better than Jesus. You can come up with a better reference than that.
      • AzzidReign, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Could Obama pull of sandles? No he couldn't, hence Jesus is better.
      • tomarocco, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Where's the "Pool of Sandals"? I never read about that in the bible (of course, I've never read the bible, but that's beside the point).
  • StripeyMagee, on 07/27/2008, -10/+4The neocons may polish my boots with their toungue
  • charm803, on 07/27/2008, -6/+47You know the sad part?

    That Obama can go abroad and people will actually WANT TO HEAR HIM SPEAK, where as our current President had been greeted with protesters from many countries and YET, people are trying really hard to paint this as a bad thing. A bad thing for CITIZENS of other countries to want to hear him speak and actually have some respect for the US once again.

    I'm not saying he can single handedly fix our torn international relations, but dammit, he sure is doing a good job of trying!

    McCain should have stopped tempting Obama with the "you haven't visiting Iraq" because obviously, he'll take that and raise it up a notch.

    http://www.panoramas.dk/2008/flash/Barack-Obama-be ...



    • zacharytelschow, on 07/27/2008, -11/+2If French citizens (or citizens of other bass ackwards countries) support a candidate, I count that as a mark against that particular candidate, not a plus. In addition, people didn't come to hear Obama speak in Berlin, they came to a concert that he piggybacked onto and spoke after.
      • novenator, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4your an idiot for thinking that we are not part of a world community
      • charm803, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Wow. What a bigot. France is not backwards. The US is.
      • kashk5, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Right, a thriving secular democracy in Western Europe is ass-backwards....
    • pyronik, on 07/27/2008, -7/+4Yeah, cause we want to elect a president that is better for the rest of the world than it is for ourselves

      If I wanted to get my marching orders from Europe, well, I'd go become a european.

      Doesn't anyone see a problem with this "world citizen" thing? There are nation states for a reason, because different groups of people have different ideologies that don't necessarily correlate together. Thats when breaks need to occur and interaction be less unified.

      I think our country is at that impass, with half of the country being very blue, and half of it being red makes me wonder if we need a split. I'd gladly move to a red state and enjoy things like economic freedom and domestic security.
    • smacd75, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1I couldn't agree with you more! It's great to see someone step up and at least make an attempt to lead.
    • Enzo33, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0Our current president was greeted by protests because people don't like to hear or see the truth. I see it everywhere you look today: why do homosexual activists always take to the streets in protest of same-same marriage bans - because they too don't want to hear or see the truth. That is why people don't like Bush - and you know what, no matter how many people tried attacking him, President Bush has done what is necessary to protect his people no matter how unpopular the decisions have been - that is old school, because the current generation of American's sell out on themselves the second something isn't cool. We have become a bunch of non-thinking do what's cool crowd that needs a leader with principles - not a leader that wants to change all the time to what is popular.
      • xaeon, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Yeah, because you were SO under threat from Saddam Hussein. Good thing you got him out the way before he had a chance to attack America with all those weapons of mass destruction that your truth-spouting president told us about. The only weapons he had were the ones America armed him with years ago.

        And you're right, needlessly killing hundreds of thousands of people isn't cool. He was greeted with protests because he is a sneaky, lying cheating scumbag who's done more to advance world terrorism than anyone before him, and is spending the rest of his presidency covering his own ass from future torture and war crime charges, and slowly stripping away at liberties that Americans USED to have.
  • DarkReign16, on 07/27/2008, -11/+10Which master are YOU voting for this November? Exercise your rights to pick the man who will govern your own life! Because THAT'S freedom!

    /s
    • AchaIemoipas, on 07/27/2008, -2/+9Best description of a republic I've ever heard.

    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/27/2008, -4/+3Oh cute, a couple of marxists.
      • DarkReign16, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2I'm not a Marxist. Far from it, actually.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/27/2008, -0/+5I apologize if you're not.
    • Nonplussed, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1Yeah bush stop telling me when I can go to the store, or how to get to work, or whether to pick my nose.

      Jeez people, I understand things are bad but HYPERBOLE HYPERBOLE HYPERBOLE.

      Grow up.
      • DarkReign16, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3Nonplussed, this has nothing to do with Bush specifically.

        If all freedom is to you is the ability to walk around the streets and buy soda on a whim, then hey, you're totally free! But then so are the Chinese, by your definition.

        It's not about who the ruler is, it's about having rulers. As long as some group of people govern our entire lives, we're just not free.
  • Janizzary, on 07/27/2008, -1/+32I just hope Obama lives up to expectations. There's so much riding on his success.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/27/2008, -6/+6Notreally.Untill you have the hormones to elect a Third Party you
      willget thesame old ***** with different containers, time and time
      again.
    • desertDenizen, on 07/27/2008, -1/+11If Obama wins, he will certainly be put to the test. But before that happens, the American people will be put to the test. After simply watching each candidate speak for ten minutes, I'm frankly amazed that Obama isn't leading in the polls by 20+ points. I seriously wonder what the ***** is wrong with this country. It's not just Bush, it's the people who voted for him... twice. Half of this country is ***** retarded and/or rotten to the core. It makes me want to puke when I see what we've become. I get this sinking feeling that this election is one big application of the Three Strikes Rule applied to America.

    • arvvvs, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Or its teh GOP playing old subconscious tactics. + Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity lovers. + Racists. + Guys who vote GOP no matter wat. + Former people who voted for Mccain. +I
  • badfish0116, on 07/27/2008, -21/+19It amazes just how moronic the average American voter is. The average Obama supporter as well as the average Mccain supporter are both totally encompassed by the left/right paradigm. Republicans=BAD Democrats=GOOD or visa versa. I will admit that Obama seems to be the lesser of the two evils but he still isn't a good choice. He is already a proven liar. He lied about taking public campaign financing, he lied about fillabustering the warrant-less wire tapping immunity bill. The whole Tony Rezko fraud situation. Not to mention the issue with his preacher. Rev. Wright actually made some valid points, but Obama claims that he didn't hear anything like the comments we al heard for 20 years?!! If you believe that then I'm sorry you're an idiot. He voted for the Patriot Act and voted to fund the war in Iraq as well. He is just another slick politician. I know this will not sway any already committed voters away from him because they are caught up in the cult of personality that surrounds him but you Obamanauts just remember what the Non-Obama supporters told you after he breaks all of his promises and drives are country further into ruin. Mark my words. Obama will take this country into another war. Laugh about it now but it will happen. The truth is both Mccain and Obama are owned. They are both nothing but puppets. Get over the whole left/right paradigm. Look at how the democratic congress got elected to end the Iraq war and how it did not happen.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5You have an equation error my friend. It should be
      RepublicansandDemocrats=BAD
      . The Entrenched Two Party System here isdestroyingcommon sense. We
      have to elect a third party president tojolt everyoneout of their
      stupor.
      • badfish0116, on 07/27/2008, -1/+7Yeah that was the whole point of my post. We are caught up in the left/right paradigm. And it really is frightening when you see just how delusional the Obama supporters are. As well as the Mccain supporters. We are basically *****.
    • thailand1972, on 07/27/2008, -1/+8I'm glad some people are looking through the rhetoric and see there's little substance in Obama's speeches.

      Tony Blair made great speeches. We found out that making great speeches doesn't make you a great leader. Actions do.
    • Anator, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3Listen to me ....Apocalypse now .....we are doomed.
      [offers no solution]
    • dixandbub, on 07/27/2008, -1/+7Badfish is right. If either of these candidates cared about this county, they would stop giving out "free" money and start talking about hard decisions to improve our political system (i.e. stop letting the corporations and banks decide what bills should be passed), shore up our borders (so that we don't get the 10 to 20 million poorest mexicans or "God's children" from an already poor country) and start supporting a strong dollar so that we have some control over our economy and stop letting our enemies buy up huge percentages of our corporations (see point 1). I know that is a run-on sentence, but you get the point.
    • desertDenizen, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3Is it totally inconsistent that I can agree with most of badfish's points but still feel that Obama is the obvious choice between the constrained choice of Obama or McCain? (As someone who voted for Perot, I'm willing to "waste" a vote to send a message, but we don't really have that option this time in any meaningful way.) I look at Obama and see flaws that are overshadowed by hope and possibility (call me naive, but any change in the status quo is probably good at this stage, so being hopeful is a reasonable bet, IMO). Whereas I look at McCain and see a mean temper overshadowed by an extension of the most miserable failure of policy and politics in the history of the country. I'll take the Porsche with the ding in the fender over a smoke-billowing rusty Pinto dragging its sparking muffler any day.
    • SatoriSeeker, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4A-*****-men. Preach on brother. I'm so sick of these rabid supporters who spend more time supporting than they do researching and understanding the realities of the United States and our government and its effect on the world. Before you cheer for someone who voted to warantlessly wiretap your phone (FISA) maybe you should do a little researching past the fact that he's not on the Red Team.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/27/2008, -14/+9Rich must have a really big Lenin-style Obama posters in his bedroom. Buried.
    • kingcam, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1I do, actually I have a big Lenin-style Lenin poster in my room. What of it?

      /sarcasm
  • cubicrystal, on 07/27/2008, -2/+23Maybe there'd be less focus on Barak if he had some competition.
  • ducksauce001, on 07/27/2008, -5/+11Too bad some Americans still thinks Obama is Muslim or just plain hate his name because it is anything other than traditional American names like "John" or "George".
    • badfish0116, on 07/27/2008, -3/+6Yes that's the main focus of Obama's detractors..... His name isn't John or George. I know I would vote for a Marxist if his name was John or George.
    • pyronik, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3yeah i dont care that hes black or his name sounds middle eastern... trust me there are plenty of things to hate on obama for.
  • VinnieDaMac, on 07/27/2008, -5/+17Even if Obama isn't everything he claims to be, it would still be nice to vote for someone with a brain.
    • SatoriSeeker, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Ok, I am still very pissed at Obama on the FISA matter but I'll give you that point. Tis true.... I just hope this really is a ***** tacking to the center and he DOES believe in the constitution...
      • winampman2, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3He absolutely is moving towards the center. We are only 3 months and a week away from Nov 4.
  • follish, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had already called for more American troops to battle the resurgent Taliban, echoing the policy proposed by Mr. Obama a year ago.

    This sentence reminded me of 1984, I'm an Obama supporter. Is it possible that we want to give Obama more credit? I'm sure the policy Mr. Obama proposed was based on several existing strategies. I'm just saying, Big Brother is the face we trust. And we trust Obama in part because he wouldn't let himself become Big Brother.
  • DownIsTheNewUp, on 07/27/2008, -4/+18If Obama fails, consider hope in this country permabanned.
  • anubis2night, on 07/27/2008, -0/+5Look I think that with what we've seen this year so far that this article is way over optimistic, but I think that it makes valid points as well. Obama has the potential. Of course he has made decisions that I do not stand for and I for one hope that those decisions were bargaining chips to help him get into power. We live in a adult world and sometimes you have to take the lesser of 2 evils in order to succeed. Obama seems to have done that at times with the presidency as his goal in the end. We as a nation have to make the same choice in Nov., While no candidate is perfect I feel more comfortable with Obama. I used to feel that way with McCain 10 years ago, but alas the republican party has shown that it does not hold the ideals that it was once founded on, and while the Democratic party is not known for their decisive victories in the past I have to hope that they offer the best solution for the future. We need to move forward and the only real solution will come from their party and their would be leader Obama. While I would love to see a third party system in place that has a chance to win, at this point it's not possible so we need to make the adult decision. Let's just look beyond the rhetoric and see how Obama reacts in the next few months before election day and by all means while we may respect him and hold him out as our hope we must also hold him accountable for what our desires in a president are to be for the future. We need to show our support and demand the change that we outline for the future, not what in Washington's best interests...
  • crackberri, on 07/27/2008, -11/+6Oh my Messiah, I worship thee. Stick to shootin' hoops...
  • connieLingus, on 07/27/2008, -9/+13all hail the mighty cult of personality...jfk would be proud.
    • TitoJackson, on 07/27/2008, -2/+1Attacks on personality against presidential candidates always seem kind of weak to me. Our president is not a king, he is a figurehead that represents our country abroad and puts a single point of reference on our country's entire will, from the people to the congress. While having a warm, listening and thoughtful personality, international praise and great rhetorical skills aren't the only things to want in a president, they also are far from unimportant. As is the point of this article, look how quickly large groups of people in many nations are beginning to respect, admire and "listen" to the U.S. again, partly through Obama's "personality". Personality is a powerful tool.
  • JoeVet, on 07/27/2008, -5/+15Bush can't even talk to a crowd of Americans without heavy security and a teleprompter. McCain won't either, he prefers small, hand picked audiences in his 'town hall meetings'. It will be nice having a president who isn't so ashamed of their stance on the issues that they have to hide it from the electorate.
  • rlh1, on 07/27/2008, -4/+3The power to move markets !!!! ................. have you see the Dow over the last few months....
    • pyronik, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3I can see it now, obama supporters returning from a campaign victory party to wake up all hung over to see their portfolio value dropping, not to mention the fact they realized, oh ***** my taxes are going up too.
  • whytheam, on 07/27/2008, -9/+5How Obama Became Acting President

    Wait, isn't that a dictatorship?
  • Kiloboba, on 07/27/2008, -10/+8Obama is just another Freemason cfr member who stands firmly on globalist ideals and the destruction of our national sovereignty, Yeah just like McCain and Giuliani and Romney and yes also Hilary Clinton. So stop bathing in your brain wash and you'll know he's sponsored by the New World Order.
  • Chip53, on 07/27/2008, -11/+9The man is a phoney and you can all kiss my ass. Smooth talk isn't enough and you know it.
    • TitoJackson, on 07/27/2008, -0/+0Why do people that insist Obama is a sham politician who is part of a giant conspiracy to turn us all into Matrix style human batteries do so with such vitriol? More people would consider your position of you enumerated your supporting facts for this stance rather than telling all those who disagree with you to kiss your ass.
    • gadgetlust, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1@Chip53. No, smooth talk isn't enough. But it is helpful when attempting to persuade people.
      /diggs Chip53 down.
  • MacLiberal, on 07/27/2008, -3/+6The race is not over yet, if the world had it's say, Obama would already be President, but let's not forget just how racist the americans are.
    • pyronik, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2ha yea, lets ignore the over 90 percent rate that blacks are going for obama, yea, hes going to lose because hes black .. right.
    • redchina, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3There are many reasons why I am not voting for Obama. Him being Black is not one of them.
      • mentalhead, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1oh since he's black I have to agree with his policies. I guess it doesn't matter that he supports abortion, gay marriage and raising taxes, all of which I disagree with, because he's black.
    • XxDeathxxStarxX, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1If you modified that comment to read "..let's not forget how racist some Americans are," it would be a lot more accurate but a little less incendiary.
  • thegrantman, on 07/27/2008, -3/+0 The best criticism that Mr. Rich can offer is that he's receiving special treatment. He must be getting desperate for attention as well.
  • nastronomical, on 07/27/2008, -5/+5I've read they NYT for 12 years. I've read Rich's other articles, and several other NYT Editorials.

    It's VERY important to understand that the editorial board is actively using the NYT to campaign for Obama. They're exceptionally biased, and in their eyes Obama can do no wrong. It's important to understand this because the information they provide is clouded by their bias.

    Case in point, "It was laughable to watch journalists stamp their feet last week to try to push Mr. Obama into saying he was “wrong” about the surge." Obvious reference to Katie Couric. Obama never resolved a set of contradictory remarks, and she pressed him on it -- it was good journalism. And the NYT does this too -- seeing a politician dodging a question, they willl continue to press them on it. Were it not Obama, the NYT would have supported Couric.

    Understand me here. I'm not saying Rich is wrong on all counts. I'm saying he's biased for Obama, and supports him at almost all costs. Take what he says with a grain of salt, and explore his statements, do some NECESSARY cross-checking, and decide for yourself.

    -Pie
    • SemiSarcastic, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2The people who digg you down are ignorant idealists who haven't lived long enough.
      • kashk5, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Some of us are digging him down because he's posted this twice
    • truthmatterz, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0FYI ... The New York Times editorial board officially endorsed Hillary Clinton (Democratic party) and John McCain (Rebuplicon Party)
  • SatoriSeeker, on 07/27/2008, -6/+10Obama voted for FISA.
    • arvvvs, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2I dugg you up. And Mccain loves throwing the constitution in the shreadder.
      Obama=-1 Mccain=Don't ask too negative
    • Vermifax, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2McCain voted for Iraq.
    • jesusmurphy, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Oh my god really!? Its not like this gets brought up in every thread where Obama's name is mentioned!!!

      I'm sure Obama will lose all the single issue voters who decided to make FISA (*****, but not the worst thing that has ever passed through congress). Boo hoo.
  • coreyb, on 07/27/2008, -0/+8Why do we have to give our email address just to read an article? I should not need to log in, just to read something.


    • mentalhead, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2I agree. I don't think articles like that should be posted here.
  • JEH6421, on 07/27/2008, -6/+1digg users suck *****!!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 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.