digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at cnn.com

JOHN EDWARDS ENDORSES OBAMA!!

cnn.com — In doing so he can now turn over all the pledged delegates he's won to Obama.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Ricoknowsbest, on 05/15/2008, -21/+576Final Nail in the Coffin for Hillary.
    • lpxxfaintxx2, on 05/15/2008, -10/+95Probably true, but knowing Clinton, she'll continue to bitch and bring the whole party down.
      • counterplex, on 05/15/2008, -4/+15Hehe I mistakenly read "she'll continue to twitch". Makes sense, come to think of it - these should be the death throes of her campaign. Obama '08
        • hittnrun, on 05/15/2008, -11/+1Edwards=VP??? That is very hilarious. The phoniest black democrat running with the phoniest white democrat. Oh yeah! That's the ticket!!! LOL
        • housewarmer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Phony how, exactly? Of all the things that could be said about Obama, that isn't one of them. I think he's quite possibly the most open politician in some time.
        • hittnrun, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1like an empty house is open.
      • margaretschild, on 05/15/2008, -1/+8I was at first all for Hillary - but lately I have changed my mind - just the thought of her and her stubborn, it's got to be my way or no way attitude has now turned me off . . . This is NOT the type of person I want as a president - she is another individual with a 'monarch' attitude . . . I will vote for Obama now, just because I believe in his attitude . . . it was a stubborn autocratic attitude (my way or no way) that got us into Iraq and look at what that has cost us, both in lives of our soldiers, lives of the innocent Iraqi's and the thousands of buildings destroyed and $$$ spent by the American government . . . No thanks, I've had enough - Sorry Hillary - you blew it . . . forget Florida and Michigan AND my vote . . .
    • peterjmag, on 05/15/2008, -3/+64Final? Wasn't that like two months ago?
    • bethlagarrison, on 05/15/2008, -4/+186Final nail #4732 in the coffin for Hillary.
      • B1663r, on 05/15/2008, -46/+5Think they will need a few more considering she is now winning the election. LOL!
        • bruce86, on 05/15/2008, -4/+30^Disregard that, he sucks *****.
        • rdoger6424, on 05/15/2008, -0/+11Is verizon teaching you math?
        • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Yeah. And in base 4, you're fine.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_democratic_prima ...

          Essentially, you're wrong on both delegates and superdelegates. I'm not sure about popular vote, but I'll bet you're wrong there too.
        • Nescirian, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0She's losing on pledged delegates, super delegates, states and the popular vote.
          But none of this will matter when she wins! The surge is working!
      • Enasni1212, on 05/15/2008, -0/+20Gotta make sure it stays closed. Damn vampires...
      • iobserver, on 05/15/2008, -4/+0Nails, nails and more nails. It's acupuncture !
    • Steven8890, on 05/15/2008, -10/+24What's with all the capitalizations?
      • KnifeOrSpoon, on 05/15/2008, -0/+55LOUD NOISES!!!!!
      • Surefly, on 05/15/2008, -18/+3It's called proper grammar, I heard it's making a comeback.
        • wellyuk, on 05/15/2008, -2/+14Proper grammar? Is that why "nail" and "coffin" were capitalised? Is that proper grammar from the "Book of Proper Grammar by Surefly"? Remind me to avoid that one.
      • ligyron, on 05/15/2008, -1/+21It appears more official that way. 2 months ago we never used capitalization and look what happened
      • iJump, on 05/15/2008, -2/+22Because CAPS LOCK IS CRUSE CONTROL FOR AWESOME!!!!!!!!
      • charlestoN1, on 05/15/2008, -5/+3Because When You capitalize All Ur Words It Actually Makes You Look Pretty Grammatically Correct
        • Nescirian, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0I am on your internet, writing sentences in a grammatically acceptable manner.
    • martalli, on 05/15/2008, -5/+18Hillary's only chance for the presidency now is to sink Obama for 2008 so that she can run in 2012. If she runs in 2016, She will be ~70 y/o and facing all the questions of age McCain is facing now, and the name recognition from her husband will be really stale. Her only honest strategy now is to sink Obama for 2008 and run for 2012. She might as well change the bumper stickers she is selling now.
      • tidu, on 05/15/2008, -6/+1If she's lucky she'll get off scot-free like McCain too.
      • DaHuuuuuudge, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Her only honest strategy? How is sinking the candidate that she knows would be better than McCain honest?
        • TheGuruStud, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3You're interpreting it wrong. It means her only strategy.
      • LordSnooze, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I don't think people should call her honest. Wait, I misspoke!
    • whatthefu, on 05/15/2008, -4/+27This is like the thousandth time someone has said this, but it is Hillary we are talking about here. The whole country could fall into anarchy as a meteor is spiralling toward earth and she would not stop campaigning and badmouthing Obama.
      • nirav72, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7You do have a point. Just like how she continued to campaign in two states where she herself pledged that she would not do so after the DNC decided to exclude them from the primaries. (Michigan & Florida).
      • kevinwiz, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5To her credit though, she HAS stopped badmouthing Obama. I think she knows that as long as she's not badmouthing Obama, people won't have a major problem with her.
    • sjl127, on 05/15/2008, -31/+4That's all we need, is that *****-tard in the veep seeat.
    • kazimir22, on 05/15/2008, -12/+5nine inch nails
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 05/15/2008, -42/+8What a piece of *****. The only reason this scumbag opportunist has held out so long is so he can throw his support behind the front runner and become the VP.

      What else can you expect from some one who got rich of off dead children?
    • timbro1, on 05/15/2008, -27/+6dont give up hillary you can still win it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      • martalli, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5She'll be like the loser in the last Mexican presidential election, running around after the fact claiming she is the president ("The white people love me!")
    • pahool, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4yet another...
    • ph1sh55, on 05/15/2008, -1/+39"Yeah, but what good are nails in a coffin when you're dealing with a vampire?"
      • CC440, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Final stake through the heart?
      • RudeTurnip, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2"I don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die." - Mr. Garrison
      • BooObama, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I was thinking she was the anti-Christ and not a vampire.
    • taradisiac, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ma_hx0AZGk
    • TheAtomicMoose, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2There have been so many final nails in Hillary's coffin... Maybe someone is just trying to make sure she can't escape.
    • Asheis, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10I entirely believe that this woman is a robot. She has no moral concepts... she doesn't seem to realize she's tearing this party apart at a time when we need every gun we can get.
      • tyywebb, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Oh man I actually had this fantasy of what I would say to Hillary if I met her in person and I would definitely ask her, "Are you a robot?"
        • im2emo4myshrt, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2You fantasize about Hilary Clinton? Jesus Christ you need to get laid.
    • FelixdaaHack, on 05/15/2008, -9/+2OMG I TOTALLY BLEW A LOAD IN MY PANTS!!!!!!!!

      - lame -
    • ireland88, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Pledged delegates are not "automatic" like you hear on the news and are not legally bound to vote for any one person (even the person they ran to be a delegate for) at the convention. Edwards can urge his delegates to support Obama at the convention, but Edwards' delegates are free to cast their ballots for whoever they want (including Edwards if both Obama and Hillary disgust them). In actuality, all Obama pledged delegates could legally vote for Hillary at the convention and vice-versa, but this kind of thing doesn't usually happen because pledged delegates must go through an intense election process, are usually very loyal to the candidate, and each presidential candidate has a delegate selection department to make sure no unstable people are nominated as delegates, and actually have the ability to refuse a person pledged delegate status.
    • mh732, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4This is more like throwing the last pile of dirt on the nailed coffin...
    • alnh, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Thank you John Edwards. Thank you!
    • jellygraph, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1FNCH FTW!
    • BooObama, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I hate rain on this parade but she can still can run as an Independent. This would give her 2 more shots at the Presidency. Shot 1 is she could win outright over Obama and McCain. Shot 2 is she prevents all candidates from reaching the 270 electoral votes and thus forces the House of Representative to vote for the next President.
      • stalefries, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3...thus extending this out to be the longest Presidential campaign ever. Eventually everyone will be sick of these and vote in Colbert/Paul or something like that.
    • lives4him06, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0"libral: a person so open minded thier brains have fallen out"
      Never truer words spoke:)

      Yeah, i know its a popular saying, so ya cant butcher me for that... go ahead and get me for being anti-libral tho.
    • Breticus07, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1you want to hear something funny? John Edwards is from my home town and I know his parents personally. They go to the same church I do, a baptist church. :D
  • NameTry2468, on 05/15/2008, -14/+4241 Day after West Virginia? Nice timing, Johnny...
    • hmunkey, on 05/15/2008, -5/+130Well of course. Any smart man would know that after a loss is the best time, since it diverts attention and nulls Hillary's victory (even though she barely picked up any delegates).
    • winampman2, on 05/15/2008, -8/+157Yup - what an awesome move! - they totally timed this. Obama knew he would lose WV so he (or one of his guys) told Edwards to wait until the day after the primary, just when people (esp white working class people) are starting to doubt Obama. Then they hear about the endorsement, which will totally cancel out whatever momentum Hillary gained from WV. Its perfect.

      More info from Yahoo/AP news
      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_el_pr/ob ...
      • RussellDovey, on 05/15/2008, -29/+12Yes, a perfect piece of political strategy - and if Hillary had done it, many people on Digg would have cried foul, using it as another excuse to call her a Machiavellian political hack. Ironic, yes?
        • rdoger6424, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7If Hillary could pick up an endorsement in attempt to erode Barack's base, I'd be surprised.
          • skinny01, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2She can have Al Sharpton and Jesse's endorsement. I know they're pissed that this new guy has done what they couldn't after years of clowning.
          • LavosPhoenix, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Yeah, especially since Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are all for the black man, hence why they never got anywhere. No white person is going to want to vote for somebody who makes it seem that the black man is more important than the white man.
        • winampman2, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4If Hillary had done it, I would think it was a well-executed strategic move. I wouldn't be cheering, and I don't know what Digg would think of it, but thats what I would think.
        • Enasni1212, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3There's a difference between solid political maneuvering and dirty politics. It can be a fine line, but it's there.
        • SargedeathXmode, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Kinda more on dirty politics, I mean, using your endorsement to cancel out the momentum given by the people of a state. Lets just say we're not counting on West Virginia to swing the election, even if Edwards campaigned in that state. Eh, this nomination process has to end by now. Maybe next time they can plan their darn primaries/caucuses closer to one another. I'm up for pretty much anything, short of outright anti-democratic practices, as long as a Democrat, Obama most likely, is president.
    • dougdiggerton, on 05/15/2008, -12/+2actually same day as primaries
      • TheThirdLevel, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Not really, primaries were yesterday, and the endorsement is only as old as when it was made public, so technically it is the day after.
    • minorthreat, on 05/15/2008, -3/+44I wouldn't mind seeing Edwards as vice.
      • sKiLLa182, on 05/15/2008, -9/+5He lost against Bush/Cheney. He no longer deserves that spot.
      • sheebz, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Wouldn't be strategic... Besides, he couldn't even carry his own state in 2004 against Bush/Cheney.
        • Blueshrike, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2How about what's good for the country?
          • sheebz, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2There's better choices out there, for example Strickland, the gov. of Ohio is very popular and would also probably help him take a key battleground swing state... would be much better to go w/ a choice like that. And as far as good for the country, the VP position doesn't doesn't do a whole heck of a lot, well unless you're name is dick cheney.
      • darthjure, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I like the idea of VP. I think together, the two would have broad appeal. The biggest advantage is that after 8 years of Obama he would be in a great position to take the presidency. That would be potentially 16 years of White House control.
    • colonelbuckshot, on 05/15/2008, -1/+10Edwards simply waited to see who would be the winner and then backed the winner. He has had months to figure out which candidate he backs on principle.
    • theDrizzle, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Odd that he chose now, since not 5 days ago on NPR he said that he 1) thought his campaign against poverty needed more attention, 2) he liked both candidates and thought it was still too close, and 3) he thought endorsements were unimportant. Way to save face johnny-boy.
    • tunafizzle, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1How observant of you... Always appreciate it when someone states the obvious as something amazing.
  • lordenlil, on 05/15/2008, -55/+43Hillary's campaign is effectively over. Let's hope Obama helps her repay some of her debt so that he can win some of her voters. Things are looking good!
    • Hillsfar, on 05/15/2008, -2/+45By law, he can't. He can only send out a donation plea to his donors asking them to help.
      I'm glad that, by law, he can't.
    • MosaicM, on 05/15/2008, -3/+44The clintons are rich as hell. He shouldn't bail them out, let them fit the bill!
      • biotch, on 05/15/2008, -0/+12agreed.... she loaned to her campaign when it was already waaaaaay over... the money she loses is self serving. Make a bad investment, pay the price. Thats how it works for everyone else.

        edit: errmm ... unless you're a massive banking system or mortgage loaning company with millions or billions of dollars... then they figure you need the financial help

    • kreneskyp, on 05/15/2008, -2/+15i would agree with you had she agreed to drop out a month or two ago. now that shes done all the negative attacks, repeatedly dragged this on and racked up a massive debt doing so, no way in hell.
    • bbear, on 05/15/2008, -2/+20As someone else pointed out the Clintons are worth $35 million. Hillary doesn't have any "debt" at all. Her campaign has debt but the debt is owed to Hillary because she "loaned" her campaign money from her personal fortune. Money that you loan to yourself is not money that needs to be repaid.
    • bjstiktrix, on 05/15/2008, -1/+24whoa now! I certainly wouldn't want my donations to his campaign being used to pay dues on all of those ***** flyers and tv ads she used to smear him.
      • jp12380, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2They won't, he can only try to plead with people that support him to donate to her.
    • MalDON, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5No, it's her fault, not ours.
  • livegreenordie, on 05/15/2008, -16/+42 Great news for supporters! Baaad news to all the nay sayers! I'm Diggin' it!
    • rentmitchum, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Did you hum "Baba ba ba baaaaa" before typing I'm diggin' it? God, let digg never have a slogan.
  • chrisc2683, on 05/15/2008, -15/+133hooray for beer!
  • jlee2081, on 05/15/2008, -9/+317Gore where you at?
    • Simonft, on 05/15/2008, -4/+137Saving the polar bears.
      • bjstiktrix, on 05/15/2008, -7/+3i laughed

      • mrinsanity, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4If we don't save the environment, Polar Bears will have to adapt to living in tropical climates... like on an island.
      • Dustmuffins, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1With his private jet.
    • tim710, on 05/15/2008, -10/+114Protecting us from a certain half man half bear half pig.
    • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -5/+21I hope he stays 100% out of it and keeps his vote private. The second he endorses someone, the anti-Gore crowd will use it as ammunition to attack whatever candidate he endorses.

      /the Gore Derangement Syndrome is at least as strong as the Bush Derangement Syndrome.
      • bicyclethief, on 05/15/2008, -2/+12I disagree: Bush Derangement Syndrome >> Gore Derangement Syndrome.

        You can't ***** nearly as badly as someone who's been at the helm.
        • bphicke, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2I agree with you, but it is a very small gap.
        • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -2/+6That's because Bush Derangement Syndrome is justified by his actions and performance.
    • andrew522, on 05/15/2008, -12/+5If he endorsed Obama, he would effectively be saying that "No, I don't support Bill Clinton (who I served under as VP)'s wife".
      that would be a really odd move.
      • briankoenig03, on 05/15/2008, -1/+18Why? Bill and Hillary didn't do very much to help Gore get the presidency in 2000.
        • vision777, on 05/15/2008, -8/+6Because Bill was not a popular guy after the impeachment because he lied to a grand jury. The whole Monica Lewinsky scandal.
          • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10Yeah, that was $72 million well spent.
          • Simonft, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Hey, what do you have against spending $72 million to see if a guy had sex?
          • B1663r, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10Yeah, he left office with a 65% approval rating... he was absolutely hated when he left office. LOL
          • isaactwito, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Let's all get to the point we're dancing around and bring up how Bush has lied far more and wasted FAAAAR more money, but nothing has happened to him or his cronies.
    • canUdi9it, on 05/15/2008, -12/+7He's been very busy trying to explain how 8 years of stable temperatures (since 2000) while CO2 was rising is consistent with his bogus theory of anthrocentric Global Warming. That ought to keep him occupied for awhile. Meanwhile he can continue jetting around the world helping to deplete the ozone layer.
      • zwaldowski, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Yeah!!! Stop traveling! Next time, he'll walk to China!
      • ragamufin, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Next time you post something on a public site, see if you can be a little LESS informed.

        First reason your an idiot: The primary cause of ozone depletion is the presence of CFCs (freons) and BFCs (halons) in the upper atmosphere which catalyze and destroy ozone. Planes don't release CFCs or BFCs.

        Second reason your an idiot: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ 2005 was the warmest year since we have had reliable instruments for measuring global temperature. Global temperatures have been more stable in the last ten years, but this certainly isnt an argument against anthrocentric global warming. This brings me to...

        Third reason your an idiot: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/clch-3 ... CO2 is certainly a gas that, in large quantities in the atmosphere has the potential to increase global temperature. Interesting how the estimated quantity of CO2 produced by humans is SO CLOSE to the change in atmospheric CO2 levels.

        l2 not be an idiot
        • jecruzs, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1Whenever you correct someone, PLEASE proofread what you write. Mistakes like writing "your" instead of "you're" steal from your argument's ability to convince.
        • canUdi9it, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4The most significant greenhouse gas is water vapor. It contributes 95% of the total greenhouse gases. CO2 from all sources contributes just 3.8% of the total GH gases when water vapor is included. Human CO2 contributions are just 3% of the total CO2. So CO2, human or natural is not a significant GH gas when water vapor is included. The climate change alarmists usually ignore water vapor in their scare propaganda.

          Solar activity is a much better predictor of temperature changes on Earth than CO2 levels.
          • msbeckman, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2This goes to show just how uneducated you are on the topic of global warming. First off, water vapor does not make up 95% of greenhouse gases, more along the lines of 60-70%. The water vapor gases exist primarily as clouds. As we all know already, greenhouse gases are needed for the warming of the earth, so not all greenhouse gases are bad. This is the case for water vapor. As humans, we really don't have much of a impact on the water vapor gases emitted.
            Secondly CO2 makes up 10-20% of greenhouse gases. Human CO2 contributions greatly exceed the 3% you claim makes up the CO2 greenhouse gases. As humans, we contribute somewhere around 20% of all CO2 that makes up greenhouse gases. While that number may seem low to you, it is actually quite high when we begin talking about the amount of greenhouse gases. Not only does does the amount of CO2 emitted matter, but how concentrated it is also plays a HUGE role. CO2 has managed to go up from ~100 parts per million to ~400 parts per million since the beginning of the industrial period. It could be argued that the concentration of the CO2 is more of a factor then the actual amount emitted by us as humans. Now stop using Wikipedia as a reliable source for your information, and look around a bit for sources that have reliable data.
            I'm not sure how this thread got so into global warming though, it's about Obama getting Edwards endorsement. Just one more big blow to the already dead Clinton campaign. Now why doesn't she stop trying to destroy the democratic party and just drop out?
          • fabthegerm, on 05/15/2008, -1/+0just two short side notes:
            1. without the natural (!) greenhouse effect the global average temperature would be -0,4° F, instead it is 59° F.
            2. if the global average temperature cools off around 5° C, the earth would be almost a complete snowball. 5°C warmer - you do the math.
          • canUdi9it, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I don't know where msbeckman is getting those numbers but they're wrong. Water vapor is not mostly clouds, it's mostly an invisible gas called humidity. It is 95% of the total GH gases. CO2 makes up only 3.6 % of the total GH gases. Look it up before you start giving lectures.
            http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. ...
        • msbeckman, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1canUdi9it,

          Those numbers aren't wrong. The only thing I can see I misspoke on was water vapor. Water vapor that is CONDENSED is primarily made up of clouds. It is fairly common knowledge that water vapor is mainly found as our atmospheres humidity. As for the CO2 percentages you gave, that is wrong. CO2 is the second most abundant gas in the atmosphere. I believe your source may be a bit off. Then again, I wouldn't expect a website called "Plant Fossils of West Virginia" to be completely accurate. Go down to the bottom of your article you cited as your source, and you will see he has cited his sources also... but when you click on them, most of them have different figures for the percentages of greenhouse gases (among other things). Try using more trusted sources like official .gov & .edu sources... (www.epa.gov is a good start). Remember that not everything on the internet you read is true, always need to check those sources.
    • sexyfridge, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3He's dropping giant ice cubes into the ocean.
    • rheaume, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Hes walking to the next town because of you pussies
    • likwidfuzion, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Busy inventing the Internet 2.0
    • Breticus07, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1eating cereal
  • Shadic, on 05/15/2008, -8/+26Shouldn't this mean it's over? I guess we'll have to wait until Obama wins Oregon, then even Hillary can't try and fight her way out of the overwhelming logic against her.
    • MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -4/+20Oh yes she can. Some women just don't know when to give up.
      • RussellDovey, on 05/15/2008, -6/+5Hell, would you want a president who gives up easily? No way, which is why I admire both Clinton and Obama for their determination.
        • Memnochxx, on 05/15/2008, -0/+14I'd like a President who listens to reason.
        • CC440, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9Or who isn't ***** insane...
        • dasdef, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1and doesnt cackle like that like COME ON.
        • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2We have a President with exactly the same hopeless tenacity as Hillary. Ultimately, we need someone who knows when it's time to gracefully leave the stage - that is, not quit before the chips have fallen, but not wait for the chips to magically get up and start dancing.
      • tyywebb, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3A woman listen to logic? Ahhhhhhhahahahahahahahah!
      • stevenb486, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Wheres sean connery when you need him!
    • TheWorm, on 05/15/2008, -1/+14Speaking as an Oregon resident I think Obama is a sure win here. Polls are already projecting him winning, and while I see Obama stickers on just about every fourth vehicle, I can't remember seeing more than a couple Hilary stickers.
      • Puppetfunk, on 05/15/2008, -6/+3I saw a Paul sticker last week.....
        • elnerdo, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5I see more Paul supporters than supporters for any other candidate, actually, but that's mostly because Ron Paul supporters tend to be LOUD AND OVERT!
          • laserblazer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+17... and willing to overlook fatal errors in Paul's vision for America.
          • Lazydriver, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7Very true! Abolishing taxes is incredibly stupid, we need taxes, and as for, really, the Gold Standard, it's far too late in time to revert back to the Gold Standard unless it's fixed @ 1oz = $1000. Which, by the way, would raise prices of electronics all around the world....
    • canUdi9it, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1She's probably waiting for the right time to drop the Oh-Bomb-a, some kind of secret scandal involving Obama that she hopes will derail his candidacy. Or possibly she and Bill are simply delusional. Still, I doubt she'd be so willing to go into debt without an ace up her sleeve.
    • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/15/2008, -7/+10Oregon has a LOT of white trash (her kind of voters).
      Bury me for that, I don't care. It's proven she gets all the stupid white people. Only people with some kind of college education should be able to vote, all others' votes should just count for half. The Framers intended for educated, or 'enlightened' people to lead the country -- that's why the President is elected indirectly, and senators used to be.
      • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6By college educated I mean ANY college. Including community. I have a lot or respect for those who take the initiative to get even the smallest bit of higher education.
      • AceyS, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5At first I was insulted because I'm an Oregonian. But really, you think only the educated should be able to vote and so I realized, you yourself probably shouldn't get a full vote. Not based on whether or not you are college educated or not, but because you don't understand the basic principles of democracy or how our political process operates. That's why buried you.
        • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Oh I understand what democracy is, and I know our political process. I am advocating a change of that political process. Democracy is a government by the people, but which people? For a long time it was just land-owning white men, then just white men, then just men, finally it was 'everybody'. I feel that it should be primarily a government by educated people of all types (but still by everybody to an extent, hence the 1/2 vote given to uneducated people). This would not only encourage more people to get an education, but would also protect the government from the type of idiots that vote without consideration, without knowledge behind their decision. Why do you think the Framers created the Electoral College? Or the Senate? To protect the government from the masses, the uneducated masses.
      • adrenaline33, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3You're an idiot. Oregon tends to lean democratic, but I would say it is also fairly fiscally conservative. Any "white trash" here are small in numbers and would surely vote republican.
    • tyywebb, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1nvmd
  • Hillsfar, on 05/15/2008, -14/+33Edwards is on the train!!
    C'mon, Jimmy! C'mon, Al!
    • RuffRidr, on 05/15/2008, -17/+4Its more like a bandwagon.
    • Gemfinder, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1C'mon, Lance!
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 05/15/2008, -13/+2What is the difference between a truckload of bowling balls and a truckload of dead babies?

      John Edwards can't make 13 million from a truckload of bowling balls.

      Obama is in great company.
    • tyywebb, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2On Cupid on Dasher, on Donner and Blitzen!
  • kem411ocd, on 05/15/2008, -7/+63Put a fork in her.
    • KMartSheriff, on 05/15/2008, -19/+6Cuz she's done!

      I love this game. I always win!
    • MrThirsty, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1And a spoon.
    • RcHer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Because she is a pig. And as we all know, pigs produce delicious meat.
    • Andyschism, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Buuuh . . . I wouldn't put anything in her.
    • tyywebb, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Have any of you guys had... >.> the long pig?
    • ramunenke, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1did anyone else read "pork her"
  • Smilex, on 05/15/2008, -7/+77... and Hillary pushes on.
    would you want such a stubborn person running your country?
    • MJDub, on 05/15/2008, -2/+62We do right now.
    • MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -6/+22As primary results have shown, many people do. That is why I have lost faith in the majority of this nation.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2Pssst! The majority of this nation thinks you're a whining douche.
        • Rendonsmug, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Actually this is true. The other day I did a census on the whole country and they do, in fact, thin you're a whining douche.
      • joot2112, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Really? I lost faith in the majority based on how popular things like "American Idol", "Deal or No Deal", and Regis Philbin are. And my lack of faith was vindicated when Bush won a second term.
    • SwiftKick34, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8Look around, friend.
    • lazyfisherman, on 05/15/2008, -1/+27If she were stubborn in a good way, yes. I'd love to see a president who would never, ever cave to special interest groups or give up on making the country a better place to live. But Hillary is stubborn in all the wrong ways...
    • shinelikeitdoes, on 05/15/2008, -1/+11you mean like someone that insists we are in a war on terror and we're winning it?
    • isgk, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4Probably because as much as the people here on digg want to ignore/deny/etc it. The real difference between the two for months has been less than 10%; do you really consider continuing to run with such a small difference being stubborn? Heck, do it for yourself take todays delegate count (May 14) divide Clinton's count of 1714 by Obama's 1882; and you'll see that Obama has only 9.1% more votes. As much as people have been implying a massively huge difference when in reality the race has been single digit differences.
      • Rendonsmug, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Yes. When the leader is one step from the finish line it doesn't matter if the 2nd is 10 or 100 steps back.
    • AvidPreatorian, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2you could call her determined*. she's got the right to still be in this race. we now know however who the democratic nominee will be
    • ramroot, on 05/15/2008, -1/+0Yes, in a good way. If Hillary were male, would he be called strong and determined????
  • TrashDispatch, on 05/15/2008, -44/+7I wonder if this means an Obama / Edwards ticket? Logically, -which is to say, as a "man",- it would be (look) better for Edwards as second to another "male" Presidential candidate. I mean, rather than second to a Female candidate. But wait a minute! That would make Edwards a sexist. Surely not! ...Maybe Obama just had more Money to offer?
    • hmunkey, on 05/15/2008, -5/+18Edward's policies and ideas are much more in line with Obama's. Not to mention that Hillary has played a dirty campaign unlike Obama.
    • alk509, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Lay off the pipe, Jack...
    • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -1/+10Edwards has already stated he doesn't want the VP slot.
    • kreneskyp, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Edwards stated he didnt want the VP slot but he would probably still take it if offered. I don't believe he is a strong enough candidate to get elected without being a the vp first. He didnt do very well in the debates vs cheney. He just comes off as boring and lacking confidence. It might just be his style of speaking but i just wasn't very impressed. I know that doesn't matter as much as policies and character but most people will be distracted by it
    • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Straw man argument is made of straw
  • enronias, on 05/15/2008, -6/+307Thank you for not using BREAKING in your title
    • DharmaTurtle, on 05/15/2008, -0/+21All caps isn't that much better though... oh well very exciting.
    • ahoyhoy, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8BREAKING: This is my second comment on this story.
    • SohailKhanifar, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9BREAKING: The mug that just fell off my table.
    • MyDiggIsBig, on 05/15/2008, -5/+6BREAK: my fall! I found what is missing inside you! Break my fall, Na na na na na na na. (BT, Tiesto)
      • AbsurdParadox, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Dugg both for BT/Tiesto and your username. Loolz abound.
      • mrtiddles, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0haha, nice work.

        Not a bad song at all.

    • MyDiggIsBig, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3BREAKING: the chain
    • Codee, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6BREAKING: HILLARY IS BROKE AND BELCHES "BARACK" AFTER A BEER! BANANAS!
    • Andyschism, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5BREAKING: C-C-C-COMBO!!!
    • etsolow, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8Quick! Someone post a "Why I love Digg" article!
    • nonstop87, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2One step closer to the edge, and I'm about to BREAK.
  • Bigzz, on 05/15/2008, -7/+56That puts Obama only 100 delegates away from the nomination.
    • DanMcGuinness, on 05/15/2008, -6/+13Edwards's won delegates don't have to go Obama necessarily. They can go to Clinton if they choose, so you're wrong.
    • Gemfinder, on 05/15/2008, -1/+8113.5, by the blog's estimate.
      Oregon has at least 30 of them. Call Montana! Call South Dakota! Call Puerto Rico — c'mon Barack, push to give 'em statehood if you have to!
      • ahoyhoy, on 05/15/2008, -1/+19And then call the White House!

        BYAAA!
      • taradisiac, on 05/15/2008, -4/+0What blog?
      • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -4/+3PR explicitly doesn't want statehood; they're quite happy with their tax-exempt status.
      • PabloIV, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3To Gemfinder and Fordi:
        As a native born and raised (and still resident) Puerto Rican
        Don't run your mouth about ***** you don't understand.
  • MJDub, on 05/15/2008, -10/+30To Hillary: The definition of insanity is doing the same things and expecting a different result. You are more of the same like McCain is, so your capacity to bring about change is not there. It's time to step aside.
    • lilmiglet, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1dugg for Hives.
      • heyblue, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6Though "doing the same things and expecting a different result" could be a symptom of insanity, it is not the definition of insanity. That false statement annoys me in the same way that incorrect use of the word "literally" annoys me. Also, I agree that Hillary should concede the primary.
        • tyywebb, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Insanity: n. The state of being mentally ill; madness.
        • EtherGnat, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Yes, anybody who quotes Einstein is clearly a fool.

          "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." ~Albert Einstein
  • SheilaNoya, on 05/15/2008, -12/+224I love how Fox News just cut off the Edwards speech and went to a commercial. They came back with Brit Hume talking about all kinds of nonsense and they refused to cover the entire speech. No big surprise there. CNN and MSNBC covered Edward's speech in it's entirety.

    I suppose Faux News didn't want their Republican base to see the huge crowd, or the excitement and passion going on at the Obama rally. That's something you'll never see at a McCain rally.

    I can only wonder what Hillary was doing while she was watching this... Sobbing hysterically, or throwing things at Bill?
    • OffPiste, on 05/15/2008, -39/+5The good thing is that when Obama is elected he'll shut down these right wind megaphones for good. When Hume, Limpbag, Oreally, et al are on the street because Obama makes their speech illegal will be one of the best days in America.

      Gobama!!!!!!!
      • Swarms, on 05/15/2008, -0/+16Hooray censorship!
        • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2~s/censorship/journalistic integrity/

          Fixed that for you.

          Meanwhile, OffPiste is a troll; his post here was really *bad* parody of how most people feel about Faux News.

          Anyway, there ARE laws against what Faux does - slander - but they have enough lawyers to fend off enforcement.
      • phrenzy, on 05/15/2008, -1/+10Is this some pathetic attempt to get Obama supporters to agree with your asinine statement and show how clever you are for "proving your point"?
    • sovereign3, on 05/15/2008, -4/+22So after hearing that, I have to ask: Why were you watching Fox News in the first place? I hope you were just channel surfing.
      • SheilaNoya, on 05/15/2008, -0/+19I started watching it on CNN. Out of curiosity, I switched channels to see if Fox News was even covering it. As I suspected, they only covered the beginning of the speech, but then cut to a commercial and went on to cover something else when they returned. I was at least expecting them to talk over Edward's speech like they usually do when they don't want you to hear something, but they didn't even do that.
        • lolmax, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5I actually watch Fox constantly. I'm curious to know what kind of ***** they are filling people's heads with. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" or something like that. Not that I consider conservatives my enemies, but whatever
        • tyywebb, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3I do the same thing. I switched over around 7:30 and they had a story about ufo's.
    • kreneskyp, on 05/15/2008, -10/+2but but but you promised me a presidency when you got caught with your dick in that ho's mouth!! =(
    • Aerandir, on 05/15/2008, -8/+7Probably beating the crap out of Chelsea while Bill masturbates furiously.
    • wright3279, on 05/15/2008, -25/+2Oh how cute! Faux news! Very original. You've fallen in line with the rest of the non-thinking Obamanites. Don't you just looooooooove Barak!
      • OralCavity, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1wait... you insult someone for not being original in how he insults fox news and then use "Obamanites" to describe him? ...which is basically doing the same thing that you made fun of him for.

        grow a brain
    • Gemfinder, on 05/15/2008, -0/+11CNN cut in and talked over Barack, so I switched over to C-SPAN and listened to him talk. And he was making some GREAT points about unemployment and ending poverty.
      Just remember, 1 minute of the Iraq war would buy a house Stateside; one second over there would buy a family of four groceries for a year; and everyone in Iraq has free health care but we don't.
      • RussellDovey, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Yeah, they technically have free health care, but I bet that it isn't exactly GOOD healthcare outside the major cities. There's also the whole "Americans need healthcare for car crashes, Iraqis need it for car bombs" thing.
      • SheilaNoya, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2CNN played Edward's 20 minute speech in it's entirety. But you're right... they did cut in and talk over Barrack when he gave his follow-up speech. So did MSNBC. But hey - at least they both let us hear everything Edwards had to say, unlike Fox News.
      • Hypermarkalan, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9Not only did they cut into Barack's speech, they did so with Lou Dobbs and his pro-Hillary rant about seating the Floridian delegates. Dobbs's bias in favor of Hillary is embarrassing. He should work at Fox.
    • Infidelcastr0, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Or any republican rally for that matter, they're too "Socially Conservative" to show that sort of elation.
    • celkin, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Why were you watching Fox News to begin with?
  • RuffRidr, on 05/15/2008, -11/+81Wow, Edwards really went out on a limb there. Waiting until Obama had practically sealed the deal and then endorse him. Methinks, Edwards would be endorsing Clinton right now if she was leading.
    • MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -5/+11Or he just waited to kick that woman while she was already down. I know I would.
    • rolf, on 05/15/2008, -1/+21I disagree.

      I think he made his move early on, by dropping out of the primaries after the first few contests. I think he and Obama split the same crowd (rather than he and Hillary) and if he were not gone, Hillary probably would have had a much better chance at winning.
    • TheHeat, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3I agree. There's incentives to everything. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if he got something out of this. For instance "Barack, I scratch your back ... you let me be Vice, you let me pick a Sec. of State, you refund my loss of money for campaigning, etc:"

      I wonder what the incentives were ... time might tell.
      • tyywebb, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I was wondering what deal he cut behind the scenes to wait for so long.
      • Nescirian, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I believe he is getting a jetski.
    • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2He timed it good though, even for it being late. With his endorsement dominating the news, there's no room for Hillary's 'victory' in West Virginia.
    • biotch, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Of course.. he even stated that part of his reason for endorsing Obama was that democrats had spoken.
      If Hillary had the support and delegate count Obama had right now and Obama was stubborn enough to press on, you bet he'd endorse Hillary to help put an end to this ridiculous primary race.
  • PolishLogic, on 05/15/2008, -16/+189JOHN EDWARDS IS JOCKEYING FOR A VP NOMINATION!!

    (fixed the title for you)
    • Optimus, on 05/15/2008, -2/+10A. General.
    • vw2005, on 05/15/2008, -2/+36Edwards over Clinton ...... anyday.
    • CrimsonBlur, on 05/15/2008, -2/+8God I hope so!
    • darkstar949, on 05/15/2008, -3/+23Obama-Edwards does have a nice ring to it though.
      • pagalchu, on 05/15/2008, -14/+2remember edward is a looser. Carry last time against Bush because of edwards. So I think Obama-Edward won't be good couple. Obama better off with Hillary
        • twiztidsinz, on 05/15/2008, -1/+8Obama/Hilary: DO NOT WANT!
        • bphicke, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4The most hated woman in American history will be sure to win him more votes.
      • IconoclastStill, on 05/15/2008, -7/+6"Obama-Edwards does have a nice ring to it though."

        Indeed . . . very similar to the flush of an airliner's toilet, but then there *IS* so much in common with the key elements.
        • Andyschism, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2That your comment was ***** *FLUSH*
          • IconoclastStill, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1I see we share a mutual regard. HANDDA
    • DharmaTurtle, on 05/15/2008, -12/+8He's said REPEATEDLY he would not want to run as a VP again. Over and over.
      Think. Know. Then speak, please.
      /*****
      • twiztidsinz, on 05/15/2008, -3/+12So you're turning off '*****' at the end? makes sense.
        Edwards was clearly waiting for a definitive winner to back so he could go for the VP seat.
        Everyone else knows it but you it seems.
        • sticko13, on 05/15/2008, -6/+3Everyone but dharmaturtle and me, I guess....I've heard him say multiple times he's not interested in the position.
          • twiztidsinz, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5You'll soon learn that there are some people who say one thing but do another.
      • PolishLogic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Edwards: No, no, no, I absolutely do not want the job.
        (later that day)
        Obama: Would you run on the ticket with me.
        Edwards: Just let me pack a change of clothes.

        G.H.W. Bush didn't want it either, considering he did nothing but trash Reagan during the primaries and we know how that turned out. Voodoo economics ring a bell?
      • Foot56, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2to be honest I think he wants Attorney General but thats my opinion.
        • PolishLogic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Either way, a deal was made. I'd bet on that.
        • chesstwin, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Obama... just another politician yawn... tell me who wins
    • LordSnooze, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Part of fixing it would be to remove the caps.
  • mynameisjonas, on 05/15/2008, -23/+142Obama/Edwards '08!!!!
    • andrew522, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2that would ( or WILL) be interesting.
    • DanMcGuinness, on 05/15/2008, -5/+5Hell no.
    • pagalchu, on 05/15/2008, -16/+3remember edward is a looser. Carry last time against Bush because of edwards. So I think Obama-Edward won't be good couple. Obama better off with Hillary
      • str1fe, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Quit copy+pasting that comment multiple times in these threads. It's an inaccurate and poorly-informed comment in the first place. Posting it twice doesn't make it any smarter.
      • twiztidsinz, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9Especially with all the spelling errors:
        edward = Edwards
        looser = loser
        Carry = Kerry
        last time = lost
        Edward = Edwards (again)
        with = withOUT
      • slimjim85, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Kerry lost because of Edwards?


        All this time I've been blaming that whole "swift-boat" campaign... and the fact the Kerry just isn't a very likable politician (whether or not I agree with his policies - which I do - I think he comes off as a bit of a wanker)
        • yacks, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Kerry a bit of a wanker? I think he was a full-blown wanker. Kerry lost mainly because of Kerry.
        • pagalchu, on 05/15/2008, -1/+0so you think Bush is likable person?
    • citizen782, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7This would potentially bolster Obama's blue collar support.
    • papipablo, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3God no! No Hillary. No Edwards. That's the recipe for Obama in the White House.
      • DanMcGuinness, on 05/15/2008, -4/+1Are you an idiot? Having Hillary as VP would make it more likely that her MANY supporters would vote for the Obama/Clinton ticket. You'd be an absolute moron to not want her on the ticket, regardless of whether you hate her unreasonably or not.
        • jp12380, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8It would make Obama a literal target of Hillary.

          Breaking News: Obama assassinated, Hillary to be president.
    • DharmaTurtle, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3He's said /repeatedly/ that he didn't want to run as VP again.
    • ramsrule94, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Obama/edwards huh. That would be interesting we could have our first black president and our first closet homosexual vice president. Not to mention two of the most leftist socilaist pieces of crap. I guess the one good thing would be the republican party might give us conservatives a decent person to vote for in four years after obama does a worse job of running our country then bush. I know it will be hard to do but I have faith in obama he can really screw our country up.
      • Stanly22, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Yea, my family pays for our own medical insurance. Hopefully Obama will let me pay for other peoples as well because I just don't know what to do with my money anymore. And if I am real lucky, he might take money out of my check as well to pay to send kids that aren't my own to college. That would be great!
    • theboozer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Werd.
  • gldfshnpcklejar, on 05/15/2008, -8/+17Finally, it is really over.
    • citizen782, on 05/15/2008, -2/+8uh. No it's not. It will be pushed to the convention.
  • killbert24, on 05/15/2008, -18/+4Yeee-HAWW! Giddy up cowboy!
    • l0k0, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2You must be consfused. He was endorsed by Edwards, not Howard Dean.
  • notsurewhen, on 05/15/2008, -22/+8so?
  • x0rcist, on 05/15/2008, -4/+8I think I can finally see the finish line.
  • pedo, on 05/15/2008, -8/+84i like edwards and i like obama, but the primary elections are practically over. if he had any balls he would have endorsed him sooner. that would have actually had more meaning. i guess its better late than never but it still would have been a hell of a lot more helpful if he had done this sooner...
    • synaesthesia, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2No *****, there were a lot of times when this would've really helped Obama out. Now, who the hell cares?
    • solonGFX, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4....pedo?
    • draftingtableX, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Knowing who Edwards might potentially be "crossing" by endorsing Obama, can you really blame him for holding out?
    • SheilaNoya, on 05/15/2008, -0/+9I don't like the fact that Edwards held out for so long either. However, he turned out to be a nice Ace-in-the-Hole that Obama could use to blow Hillary out of the news cycle while she was bragging about last night's West Virginia win. According to CNN, Hillary was also just starting a meeting with supporters at her house when Edwards started his speech. I'm curious if she let them watch it, or if she put her foot through the T.V.
      • skoubydoo, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4And being the only other high profile candidate in the race, his endorsement really drives home the "it's ***** over" point.
    • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2You just said "If he had any balls" about a *politician*. You should know by now that although females are rare in high-powered politics, so are testicles.
    • fxu1989, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Because he's aiming for a spot as VP.

      If he endorsed Clinton back then, and Obama would win, he messed up. Now that he sees Obama is winning and it's practically over, it's obvious that he'll endorse Obama.
  • senorcool, on 05/15/2008, -11/+25I have a really really big smile on my face right now.
    • sovereign3, on 05/15/2008, -3/+10OGC?
    • MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -2/+9Japanese vomit porn?
    • p0s3r, on 05/15/2008, -7/+5Because a 1 term Senator, 2 time failed Presidential candidate endorsed your candidate? Edwards has won exactly 2 elections in the past 10 years. Whoopdy *****.
      • DanMcGuinness, on 05/15/2008, -6/+4Yeah, Edwards and Kerry are pretty much the same. They're both failures that everyone dislikes and wishes would go away... not even people in their own party like them, for the most part.
    • demodawid, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I, for one, do not care.
    • Rekoil, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Bitches love smiley faces.
  • gelato822, on 05/15/2008, -21/+13praise jebus!
  • easy4lif, on 05/15/2008, -13/+6big surprise, the big problem will be if Clinton endorses Obama when she loses. If she doesn't, Obama won't get the poor white vote, and to dems in general, thats gonna hurt come election day.
    • supersheep7, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10She already did endorse Obama in the general. A direct quote: "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."

      http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/clinton/?ir ...
      • DanMcGuinness, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1That's her endorsing whoever the party's nominee is, not necessarily Obama. Although it seems quite likely he will be the nominee, he's not yet. She will, however, if he is.
        • jp12380, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Well that would be nice if she held to her word, we will see.
      • catfarm, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2"... not necessarily Obama."

        So, saying Obama isn't necessarily meaning Obama??? I'm pretty sure that she meant Obama... she did say his name and all.
  • chemic34, on 05/15/2008, -9/+53The last nail was in the coffin a long time ago. Hillary is done.

    I cannot WAIT to see Obama DOUCHE McCain in a debate. It will be amazing. Lets just hope America doesn't mess this election up too.
    • drunkninja, on 05/15/2008, -0/+20Personally, I'd rather not see Obama douche McCain....but then again, I don't swing that way.
    • MrMetal, on 05/15/2008, -0/+12Were you around when American elected Bush Jr.? Were you around when they did it again 4 years later? Seriously, I don't put anything past the undereducated majority.
      • laserblazer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6A corrupt Supreme Court stole the first election and Diebold, Inc. helped steal the second one, with copious amounts of voter fraud and intimidation during both; Bush was selected, not elected.
        • RussellDovey, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Yes; so what's stopping McCain from stealing the election this time around? He's good friends with Diebold, you know.
      • wright3279, on 05/15/2008, -8/+2Seriously, only intelligent people that can in fact see that Obama is the next messiah should be allowed to vote.
      • citizen782, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3I hear the Supreme Court and Diebold arguments all the time. But the fact is I know more people who openly admit voting for Bush than Kerry or Gore.
        • bphicke, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Admitting to any of those would be embarrassing. 2 party system for the win!
    • PhantomPhoenix, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2You mean lets just hope that the conservative Supreme Court doesn't mess this up.
    • chillin411, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Obama's actually not that brilliant in the debates - Hillary held her own for the most part (excluding her opening whines). Obama's strength is in speaking to the masses, which is probably a better skill for the president to have, anyhow.

      Given that - McCain isn't of the same caliber as either Hillary or Obama at debating - should be interesting to watch.
    • enakra, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I don't know if I'd want to see that...
    • filmbandit, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1read somewhere that mccain and obama are talking about sharing open town forums together -- that would be a breath of fresh air but i'll believe it when i see it
  • proliance, on 05/15/2008, -3/+104Did any of you actually read the article?

    FTA: "Edwards, meanwhile, has 19 total pledged delegates who may or may not pledge their support for Obama at the Democratic National Committee's August convention in Denver, Colorado."

    Delegates belonging to a candidate who has dropped out of the race are a lot like Superdelegates. Edwards can ask, recommend, or beg, but his former delegates get to choose on their own who they will support.
    • Schmapdi, on 05/15/2008, -2/+25Yes, but remember that pledged delegates are hand-chosen by the candidates themselves - so presumably Edwards was smart enough to pick people who are loyal enough to him to listen to his reccomendation. All 19 delegates might not go to Obama, but I'd easily expect more than 12 (i.e. enough to wipe out WV).
    • kreneskyp, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4its also only 19 delegates. I expect most to go for obama anyways but it is not really a race changing event.
    • briankoenig03, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Your statement is true for *any* of the delegates, whether they are pledged to an active candidate or not. Defections rarely happen, which is why people say Barack "has" 1887 delegates even though all of them could throw their support to Kucinich/Edwards/any-democratic-contender at the convention. (Also, the rarity of this is why it made such news earlier when a Hillary pledged delegate announced he would vote Obama in Denver)
      • JigoroKano, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2It depends on the state. In some states the delegates are legally bound by oath.
    • SheilaNoya, on 05/15/2008, -2/+15It's not just about the delegates, even though most of them will probably go to Obama. It's also about cutting Hillary off at the knees while she was busy gloating about her win in West Virginia. This blew her right out of the news cycle and undermined any boost she thought she was going to get after her "big win".

      It's already over for Hillary. Edward's endorsement, and the way he encouraged everyone to get behind Obama, just underlined that fact and put it in big, bold letters.
  • oceanrain, on 05/15/2008, -6/+6Good...Hopefully this will send Hillary packing...finally!
  • plimpton777, on 05/15/2008, -25/+13Yah, I'm glad Obama beat Hillary, but I'd rather vote for Ron Paul.
    • t0x2c, on 05/15/2008, -11/+1Yah, I'm glad Rod Paul beat Obama, but I'd rather vote for Hillary.
    • vw2005, on 05/15/2008, -5/+4Yah, I'm glad Rod Paul beat Hilary, but I'd rather vote for Rod Flanders
    • taradisiac, on 05/15/2008, -4/+5A paulbot? I thought you guys were extint!
      • Akronos, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2We are. We used to be very tinted before, but apparently government regulation allows us to be only tinted to a certain percentage (Similar to car windows), so we removed our tints and now were are ex-tinted.
      • matador3, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Rumors of our demise have been greatly exaggerated.
      • chromerium, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Nah, they've just been pining for the fjords.
    • theapplegod, on 05/15/2008, -1/+0Giving mine to McCain as the media so says all Dems will defect.
    • OralCavity, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1so vote for him in the GE, as a write in candidate. no one is stopping that.
  • metamorfoza, on 05/15/2008, -4/+41As a 'independent' observer (i.e.living in Australia) It looks to me that Edward's move to endorse Obama is nothing more than "I'll sit and wait who will win nomination and than I'll endorse". Now, don't get me wrong sensitive ones, I hate Hillary as much as the next guy, but Edwards endorsement would make a huge differecne if it came earlier in a race. In other words we wouldn't have this situation, where Hillary still can race, if Edwards endorsed Obama two months ago.
    • Kurando, on 05/15/2008, -2/+8To be fair to Edwards, he probably wanted to see how North Carolina played out.
    • Gemfinder, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Did you watch the debates?
      Edwards was attacking Hillary like a cloud of wasps. He got his claws into her every chance he got. I knew he'd never endorse her — and he said as much — so this didn't really come as a surprise to me.
      John Edwards for Attorney General.
      Obama/Richardson '08!
    • Lazydriver, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4I remember watching a Meet the Press episode a few months ago when Edwards was still running, and the commentator brought up the corporations and, ya know, anti-trusts or something.

      He vehemantly disagreed with Hilary's idea, but when pressed on how his plan was different from Obama's, he said that his was 'tougher' or something.

      Obama & Edwards are ideologically the same candidate. I'm glad Edwards put his support behind Obama, cause that man SHOULD get the nomination for 2012 or 2016, or hell, should've had it in 2004 instead of Kerry (though I was supporting Dean at the time).

      Why'd he wait? He didn't. He probably told his delegates a few months back to go for Obama, and we saw that they did. Well, a majority of his. He waited this long, either for the offset-factor (in late game), or just, you know, to not look like a Hillary-hater (because the Clintons /had/ clout in the Democratic party, key word is HAD now).
    • taradisiac, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2I think you overestimate his influence.
    • ramroot, on 05/15/2008, -4/+1So you hate Hillary as much as the next guy? Can't handle a strong woman?? I think it's pretty low of Edwards to do this right after Hillary won a record primary, 2 to one. Hillary deserves some credit and support
      • OralCavity, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2honestly, i see this time after time where hillary wants to equate herself with all women and i can't help but think that if i were a woman, that would insult me. you are not hillary, you are you. if i don't like hillary (because of many reasons including her running a nasty, race-baiting campaign), it has nothing to do with you or any other "strong willed" woman (who did not run a nasty, race-baiting campaign).
  • SuminderJi, on 05/15/2008, -7/+11Yaaaaaaaay... wait this made a difference?
    • Gemfinder, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Actually, I think it will. Hillary claims the blue collar white vote, Edwards has it. And he's bringing it with him.
      • ironpirate, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2like he did in the primaries, lol
    • dexter411, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Yes, just like all the Mormons like McCain just because Romney endorsed him.
    • Tyrghast, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Amen, first thought was "Who the ***** cares?". 'Superdelegate' ***** and the teenage girl drama of the primaries (which takes priority coverage, bleh) as well as the excessive number of bought politicians are destroying our ability to take the 'democratic process' seriously. Enough is enough, get down and dirty and talk about real issues that relevant to the time and the country, not ***** like 'ZOMG do you know what his middle name is?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!'

      Sorry. Drunk and people are watching reality TV here in the house. Oh how I hate reality TV.
      • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1A post-candidate's endorsement is, essentially, a gift of many of their accumulated delegates. Granted, Edwards is only worth 19, but delegates are hand picked. Obama should get at least 50% of Edward's delegates now, probably more.
  • OffPiste, on 05/15/2008, -40/+9I've lost respect for Obama when he can stand next to this sleazoid and smile.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/15/2008, -10/+6I actually enjoy watching the Obama-bots lovingly embracing Edwards. He's probably not quite as bad as Hillary but he's real close on the sleaze scale.
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/15/2008, -3/+10You didn't have respect for Obama to begin with Mister "He'll strip the freedom of speech from right wing talk show hosts" (paraphrased).
      • OffPiste, on 05/15/2008, -13/+3I respect all Muslims.
      • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Actually, if he were to enforce slander laws as he should, that would wipe Faux News off the map rather quickly.
    • phrenzy, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Damn!! And to think, you were going to actually VOTE for Obama!

      /src
  • lunarcanary, on 05/15/2008, -35/+13Ah Obama. Digg does sure do a good job proving that the younger kids fall for pizaz propaganda easier than adults.

    "Hope" isn't going to get Digg users off their pedestal dreams of being millionaire do-nothings trying to follow the manufactured path of Kevin Rose, which is impossible as Hillary winning.

    Guess your brains haven't developed yet. I'm independent btw, I hate all the candidates.
    • boxybrzown, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4I hate everything, not just the candidates.
      n00b.
    • l0k0, on 05/15/2008, -1/+13Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion.
      • lunarcanary, on 05/15/2008, -10/+3And by presenting a point about the discussions normal, biased tone, and not submitting to popular opinion, I've contributed nothing. So yeah, you're right, I didn't fanboy Obama. Boo hoo go ask mommy for some mac n' cheese.

        And by mentioning this, you've added to it.

        I respect the abundance of intelligence and neutrality on "corpo-democratic-demography" like digg.

        You're mother bought you that computer son.
        • lunarcanary, on 05/15/2008, -9/+0Your*

          You son of a bitch.
        • l0k0, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7I have no problem with you expressing your opinions, but at least try to make a valid point.
          How does Digg prove that younger people fall for propaganda? What/Whose propaganda?

          Why bother to follow this up by insulting Diggers and making a sweeping generalization that we are all "do-nothings" and why even bother bring Kevin Rose into the conversation?

          Resorting to insults such as "your brains haven't developed yet", "boo hoo go ask mommy for some mac n' cheese" etc. won't get us anywhere. Do you not see why this is a poor way to construct a meaningful conversation?
        • lunarcanary, on 05/15/2008, -5/+0TL;DR

          ALSO THE OP IS LIKE THIS OMFG!
        • mhale85, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1If you're dissatisfied with the content and perspectives of this community... why are you here?
    • SheilaNoya, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7Newsflash !!! Everyone on Digg isn't a pimple-faced teenager. I'm a 57 year old grandmother who also supports Obama. I'm not sure why you "hate all the candidates", but maybe that's a good thing. If it keeps someone with such a negative attitude as you from voting, then we're probably all better off in the end.
    • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1"Ah Obama. Digg does sure do a good job proving that the younger kids fall for pizaz propaganda easier than adults."

      I fail to see where you got that particular distinction from; adults are the ones that voted Bush in twice - there was record low turnout from the younger ones during those two elections.

      "'Hope' isn't going to get Digg users off their pedestal dreams of being millionaire do-nothings trying to follow the manufactured path of Kevin Rose, which is impossible as Hillary winning."

      Dude, I don't know about a lot of the people here on Digg, but I'm pretty sure that web developers like myself make up a narrow segment of the user base. As such, following Kevin Rose' example would be difficult at best. Myself, my goal is to live comfortably, rattling out quality code into my old age - which means a combined salary between myself and my fianceé of a mere $80k, about 1.5x what we make now.

      "Guess your brains haven't developed yet. I'm independent btw, I hate all the candidates."

      First, never underestimate the ability of teens and early twenties to parse out useful information; teens are generally confused, but rich with insight, while early twenties, generally, are quite good at both rational thought, if a bit rough at it. Overall, I'd say either raw insight or raw combative thought is considerably better than the dogma and tautology that appears to come at around age 40.

      Second, that you're independent only means that having a political alliance in your district holds no advantages for you. It doesn't bear at all on your political views, nor does it make your assessment objective.
    • theapplegod, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0I just hate the hypocrisy on Digg where now Ron Paul is getting to the front page in a "possible" revolt of the Republicans where everyone else jumped on the Obama wagon. Who do you really want as our C-in-C people?
  • elliottjgriffin, on 05/15/2008, -23/+21This is typical of Edwards. He's a completely opportunistic slimebag politician. He waits until the winds blown so hard in one direction that its impossible to not know who is going to win, then he throws in with the victor. He's a hack, a liar, a abuser of the plight of the poor. I hate John Edwards.
    • rtphokie, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5So does this North Carolinian. The only reason he waited this long is that he likes the attention.
    • GreenPlastik, on 05/15/2008, -6/+3Did he tell you this? Have you met the man? Read through his casework? Also if we're going to throw politicians under the bus for lying, we're going to need a bigger bus. Given his past and current work for the poor I would like to see you back up the fact that he is an abuser of the plight of the poor with examples. He is one of the only politicians who has not only talked about the poor in a very public way, but has actually tried to do something about poverty. If he's only doing it for political expediency, I don't really care. If problems are solved for the greater common good and the politician only does it for his own vanity, that's fine by me. Oh and for NC street cred., I went to UNC and lived in NC for a total of 7 years.
      • elliottjgriffin, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Examples of abusing the plight of the poor: representing injured poor people in strictly civil litigation to extract millions of dollars, most of which he keeps for himself, charging 40k a speech to talk about the plight of the poor, getting hair cuts that cost the average of a minimum wage earner's weekly check, buying a mansion off the said millions collected from the injuries suffered by the poor far, far away from anywhere they live.

        You are such a sheep. He road Kerry's coat tails for political expediency and is now currying favor with the next likely candidate. He wants his name in the spotlight when he himself has no business there.

        And what greater good is being accomplished by his phony endorsement? Obama can't change the world, irregardless of how much I want him to. Edwards is a hollow and transparent man. I don't need to speak with him, his actions speak loud enough.
    • Lahonda, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1C'mon, don't hold back... please be more open about your sentiments.
    • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1~s/completely/typical/

      Seriously, they're mostly like that, republican or democrat. And I agree that Edwards as Veep would be damaging to Obama's campaign, or at the very least, non-helpful. Still his endorsement carries the promise of 19 delegates, so not a complete loss.
    • bobcaygeon, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0your right on the money. the man doesnt give a ***** 1..... 2 poverty is not a big issue. ya it may be for some people, but there are much bigger problems facing our species.

      you can tell edwards is a scumbag by when u watch him on tv. He always keeps his distance between the poor he is meeting. he doest want to get his fancy suit all dirty. all edwards is doing is disenfranchising the poor b/c as long as he's the one backing them up.. theyre gonna lose
    • gimmeslack12, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I agree with Elliot. Edwards is no saint and I'm no fan of his. Though this doesn't change my opinion on Obama at all.
  • RespectableGuy, on 05/15/2008, -11/+54ALL CAPS! ALL CAPS! ALL CAPS!!!!!!!!
  • dh122, on 05/15/2008, -2/+16Unfortunately, Edwards does not have control over those delegates. They are free to choose whoever. He does, however, have a big influence among them.
  • Xihix, on 05/15/2008, -21/+9You guys are idiots. Learn delegate rules, *****. You can't simply give away delegates you've won. Once you drop out, your delegates because unbound to vote for who they want. Thats not to say that they probably won't go for Obama, but saying that he gave them away makes you sound like the biggest idiot.
    • str1fe, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3We aren't dumbasses, we know how delegates work. In theory, all of Edwards' delegates could go to Clinton, but in practice, most, if not all, of them will go to Obama.
    • MutatedNantuko, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1You can give away his 18 pledged delegates, which brings him that much closer to the nominee. Those delegates will definitely follow what Edwards says if he asks them to vote obama.
  • a1cd, on 05/15/2008, -7/+17I hear a Fat lady signing...
    • sfcaptainrob, on 05/15/2008, -6/+4You do?? Because I'm pretty sure Hillary doesn't.
      • martalli, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Don't worry about the spelling, uneducated white racists don't read 200 comments down on digg.com
    • muslax27, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1singing***
    • vw2005, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6The fat lady singing ... is Ms. Lewinsky.
    • Gemfinder, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3How? Hand gestures are, by definition, silent.
    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Silly kid... That's just your mom calling down to the basement that your Hot Pockets are ready!
  • rexrep, on 05/15/2008, -1/+50Wait! So what is CNN going to spend their evenings talking about now? Myanmar? China? Relevance?
    • rdoger6424, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Myanmar's relevance to China
      • martalli, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1They can get back to lost white girls for a few weeks now before the general election gears up, but I imagine they will keep up the "controversy" for as long as its still gets ratings.
  • rodgerse, on 05/15/2008, -11/+2I'm sure whatever delegates he still has is worth alot more than his endorsement at this pont, not that it would ever mean much...

    Oh, and thanks edwards for endorsing now that they'res is a clear winner, you know, not like kerry who endorsed months ago..but I'm sure it was only because you really believed in him, bet your expecting vp spot from your meaningless endorsement, huh?.
  • gimmeslack12, on 05/15/2008, -5/+21Seriously guys, I think I just peed my pants. No, I'm serious I have a condition that I cannot control. Stop laughing at me!!!!
  • yosserhughes, on 05/15/2008, -9/+5Republican National Committee Chairman Robert Duncan ...., "Edwards' endorsement of a candidate he previously blasted as inexperienced, hypocritical and lacking substance "

    Hypocritical? hypocritical? Lacking substance??? Stop it, stop it your killing me, this guy definitely needs his own show.

    • wright3279, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3So did Edwards lie before when he described Obama in such words? and now he thinks Obama walks on water!
      • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Edwards is a slippery opportunist, and most democrats are quite aware of it. Still, there's nothing wrong with accepting the endorsement of an opportunist; if there were, Obama would have to deny most of his endorsements to date.
    • NetProphet1, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0Right on! There are too many endorsements from old-time Senators. This doesn't spell "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN" to me!
  • BillJenkins01, on 05/15/2008, -15/+3Look...Bill here and I gotta say an endorsement from Edwards is the same as one from a Busch can...Wake up Ya'll these people want to enslave you and take your rights to defend ya'll self!!!
  • Freedom4Tibet, on 05/15/2008, -16/+9This is the greatest news!!!!! All I can say is

    IT'S ABOUT FU*KIN' TIME JOHNNY!!!!! WHO'S WITH ME!!!

    LET'S TAKE THIS COUNTRY BACK

    OBAMA - EDWARDS '08
    • martalli, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I would rather Obama/Richardson or Obama/Hagel
      • Fordi, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I would rather Obama - Jeb Bush to Obama - Edwards. Edwards would have null effect on the campaign *at best*.
  • Light0, on 05/15/2008, -6/+34I'm glad Edwards noted the pluses of Hilary's character rather than only saying why he wouldn't endorse her. Edwards was a damn good candidate.
    • tommyslax, on 05/15/2008, -1/+11I wish he'd stuck around a little longer, maybe the tone of the campaign wouldn't have gotten so ugly then.
      • str1fe, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8You underestimate American politics.
        • tommyslax, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Maybe. This election cycle certainly has been uglier than any primary battle I've voted in (since 96).
    • martalli, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I can hear it now - Hillary will twist this into an endorsement for her. "He had kind words for me last night and I hope that all of his delegates realize that he appreciates my qualities and that they have their own choice to make now. A vote for me a a vote for poor uneducated whites, so a vote for me is a vote for whites everywhere.

      /any spell