digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at politico.com

Story behind the story: The Clinton myth

politico.com — One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JlmAWP, on 03/21/2008, -17/+94"But even some of Clinton’s own advisers now concede that she cannot win unless Obama is hit by a political meteor. Something that merely undermines him won't be enough. It would have to be some development that essentially disqualifies him."

    Oh, you mean like, passport information?
    • noahhoward, on 03/21/2008, -19/+8How is that a political meteor again? I wish you nutjobs would post sources.
      • Pyehole, on 03/21/2008, -2/+12There were two employees at the State department who were fired this week for accessing his passport info illegally. The inference here is that they were directed to do so in an effort to find dirt on Obama. I cannot fathom what information in a passport application could possibly be used as fodder for a dirty campaign trick.
        • stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -8/+3not only that, news broke about the employees peeking at clinton and mccain's passports a long time ago. interesting how at first it was only obama's info being snooped and rice had to apologize. has she apologized to clinton and mccain yet?
        • saska, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7stonr2, if you read anything besides Digg you'd know that yes, Rice has apologized to Obama and Clinton and planned to speak to McCain.

          The fact that they looked at Clinton and McCain's passports was only uncovered when they found out about the Obama breach, which forced the department to do a review of similar firings, disciplinary action, and incidents that hadn't been reported up to management.
          • stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1I haven't been on digg for a long time and i normally only visit the odd news ( not a great tech news site anymore ). I haven't really followed this story but watching MSNBC keith olberman made this sound like a hit job on obama like JimAWP suggested. Now that you say as it is ( the investigation ) we know it wasn't. that was really all i wanted to point out.
          • sraman80, on 03/21/2008, -1/+0Yes, I agree.
        • SupaFurry, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Ok - so, how is people illegally looking into Obama's passport info a political meteor that will take out Obama????
      • b0geyman, on 03/22/2008, -4/+1No, a meteor like smoking crack with some flamer in a limo and then getting a beej from him:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

        Or maybe one like having the official endorsement of a hate group on a par with the KKK officially endorsing him, and not disavowing it until the neocon media calls him on it:
        http://sweetness-light.com/archive/new-black-panth ...
        • bcclist, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2Idiot - As if anyone believe him, Larry Sinclair failed his lie detector test.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 03/21/2008, -23/+4GO, HILLARY GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Don't let THE MAN try to put you down!
      • junkwheel, on 03/21/2008, -1/+13Yes Hillary GO, GO, GO tell your military lobbyists it's all over.
      • mummbleswers, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7you got to be kidding me right? I was wondering if anybody caught that story on NPR this morning talking about how the democrats are so divided, most say they will vote for McCain b/c they hate the other one so much now... so yeah, GO Hillary! ***** up the entire election for the dems and hand it to McCain, or even better, have the super delegates go against the will of the people and get her the nomination! Yay! That saves me all the trouble of actually thinking. All hail king hillary! worked for bush! You don't even need to get people to vote, just have your political friends do the work for you! Awesome!
      • jabberwolf, on 03/21/2008, -14/+2Actually the republicans want Obama to win because he pissed off the rest of the nation that is NOT BLACK by having double standards.
        So those that sided with Hilary as well wont want to see Obama win either.

        No one wants a newbie with only 2 terms experience and almost NOTHING ELSE!
        • mummbleswers, on 03/22/2008, -0/+8I do.
        • starkruzr, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7"No one wants a newbie with only 2 terms experience and almost NOTHING ELSE!"

          I agree. No one wants Clinton, that's for damn sure.
          • rezist, on 03/22/2008, -2/+3about half of the Democrats in the US do actually, unfortunately the 20 year old democrats on this site fail to see that Hillary will do anything to get into the white house if elected... Obama will be (sadly) torn to pieces by McCain if he gets the nomination. I'll see all you guys back here in a few when we lose the white house yet AGAIN.
        • Unriggable, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Tell that to his pledged delegates.
        • ...---..., on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Bush had 0 terms of experience... but his VP and cabinet were all well seasoned,,, - look what THAT got us
    • colincornaby, on 03/21/2008, -9/+6There is almost nothing in passport information that would be dirty enough to make Obama look bad. Besides, the same people looked at both Hillary's and McCain's info too.
      • smurfsahoy, on 03/22/2008, -2/+5That absolutely doesn't prove that it was not hillary or mccain that did it. If they left a big sticker on the applications that said "hey guys! these people didn't do it!" would you believe that, too?

        Obama right now is the only one that doesn't have anything to gain from that.
        • Kzoo, on 03/22/2008, -0/+0I guess I'm too nice, wouldn't and (until proven otherwise) don't think that, but that would be a smart way to help cover tracks, eh?
      • neocognitism, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2actually different people looked at H&M's
    • jabberwolf, on 03/21/2008, -16/+4Um delegates from both Florida and Michigan.
      Gallup pole that says shes liked more... and then super delegates decide based on that.
      Not impossible seeing as she's favored both in Michigan and Florida heavily and also in large lead in Gallup poll.
      Oops Obama camp forgot little things called facts and reality, but they didn't forget their propaganda !
      • noahhoward, on 03/22/2008, -2/+8You seem to be forgetting something... there are 50 states.
      • smurfsahoy, on 03/22/2008, -1/+7But what about Poland? How does Poland feel? I think you forgot them.
        • Jambi, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1I assume you've gotten Poland mixed up with Chicago, which I suppose is understandable, since a lot of Poles live there. However, Chicago is in Illinois, which had its primary in February; Obama won. As for the actual Poland, I'm fairly sure I can safely say that they don't much care.
      • skubiszm, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7If Al Sharpton can win Michigan, I think Obama has it in the bag. Plus Obama didn't even campaign in FL. I doubt they will be able to organize any type of vote in such a short amount of time in either state. FL can't even get the Presidential vote correct, let alone a last second primary.
      • snotrokit, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3highly doubtful at this point that FL and MI can seat anyting more than a few delegates. It's over for those two states. And if I lived in either of those, I would be pissed. I would find out who the asshats that voted to move the primary, even after they were warned, and do everything to publicize that fact, and kill their re-election.
    • sporg, on 03/22/2008, -12/+5It doesn't matter who wins very little will change.

      http://snipurl.com/22bxc
      • starkruzr, on 03/22/2008, -9/+2Dugg for that insightful link.
      • RetypePassword, on 03/22/2008, -1/+9I guess I don't have a sense of humor, but that link was ***** annoying.
      • Deodrus, on 03/22/2008, -0/+8DO NOT CLICK. The most annoying RickRoll ever.
      • flossdaily, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3I can't believe a modern web browser allows crap like that to happen. I need to go reset my viewing options.

        I tip my hat to the most clever rickroll yet, but that's only because this is the first time I've seen it. If this keeps popping up on the internet, I hope it gets folks banned from forums.
      • bluezinc, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3OMFG!! That was horrible. I've been rickrolled many, many times. So many that I've memorized the URL for rickroll in order to avoid it. HOWEVER, none have FORCED me to click through the entire lyrics from that song in alert box format.

        MOST ANNOYING RICKROLL EVER!!!
    • starkruzr, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Which turned out to amount to nothing. lol@attempts at smears.
    • ZHEStorm, on 03/22/2008, -8/+1At this point, it’s no secret that the Obama campaign is in political hot water given the news stories of the last few weeks and is desperate to change the subject.

      The ground is shifting away from them and their response?

      First, disenfranchise voters - Prevent new votes in Florida and Michigan. Stop voting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana.

      Second, peddle photos of President Clinton shaking hands with Reverend Wright less than 48 hours after calling for a high-minded conversation on race. Well, President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his eight years as president. Stop the presses.

      Third, accuse our campaign of having something to do with Senator Obama’s passport file being breached, a reckless charge that has zero merit.

      Fourth, continue attacks on Senator Clinton’s character in an effort to implement what the Chicago Tribune called a full assault on her ethics.

      Fifth, stonewall the press: no tax returns, no state records, no answers about the inconsistencies in the Rezko story.

      So it’s not a pretty sight - it’s all part of a pattern of just words.

      Senator Obama talks about voter participation while actively disenfranchising millions.

      He calls for high minded debates while practicing lowdown politics.

      He promises a different kind of campaign while attacking Hillary’s character.

      He promises transparency while hiding basic info and stonewalling the press.

      It’s no wonder that Americans are coming to see that for all of his lofty rhetoric, Senator Obama’s candidacy is really just words.

      It’s no surprise that Americans are expressing serious doubts about his ability to answer the 3am call.

      It’s no wonder that top journalists are calling the Obama campaign desperate, saying that it’s amateur hour in Chicago.
      • snotrokit, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3"accuse our campaign" um yeah. OK.
        Her first problem IS her character. She is a lie and a cheat. Nafta, Taxes, Hsu donations, etc. etc. The list goes on. Yes she had 8 years in the White House. So did the pastry chef. What's your point? There is a slim chance she would get the nomination, and if she does, the GOP will raid her skeleton filled closet and have a field day. Not a chance. She is not electable any more to anything higher than the senate seat she already holds. Sorry, the best thing she can do for her country right now is to lose gracefully, and unite the party to face the very difficult road ahead so that we can take this country back.
        One for all, ALL for one.
    • chillypacman, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1I think they're going to try and give this dude some credibility: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
      • snotrokit, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1yeah. the guy can't even read the script.
  • ZandorMonkeyBoy, on 03/21/2008, -3/+45But let’s assume a best-case scenario for Clinton, one where she wins every remaining contest with 60 percent of the vote (an unlikely outcome since she has hit that level in only three states so far — her home state of New York, Rhode Island and Arkansas).

    Even then, she would still be behind Obama in delegates.

    There are 566 pledged delegates up for grabs in upcoming contests. Those delegates come from Pennsylvania (158), Guam (4) North Carolina (115), Indiana (72), West Virginia (28), Kentucky (51), Oregon (52), Puerto Rico (55), Montana (16) and South Dakota (15).

    If Clinton won 60 percent of those delegates, she would get 340 delegates to Obama's 226. Under that scenario — and without revotes in Michigan and Florida — Obama would still lead in delegates by 1,632 to 1,589.

    The only remote possibility of a win in delegates would come if revotes were held in Florida and Michigan — which, again, would take a political miracle. If Clinton won 60 percent of the delegates in both states, she would win 188 delegates and Obama would win 125. Clinton would then lead among pledged delegates, 1,777 to 1,757.

    The other elephant in the room for Clinton is that Obama is almost certain to win North Carolina, with its high percentage of African-American voters, and also is seen as extremely strong in Oregon.
    • cathpah, on 03/21/2008, -2/+22and she's only won 60% or more in 4 states....two of which she's lived in.
      • jongos, on 03/21/2008, -2/+7Time to move, bitch.
      • norcalscan, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1The other two states are her home states. :)
        • Unriggable, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2You read what you replied to, right? Just making sure.
    • dshey, on 03/21/2008, -0/+9Guam has delegates?? I never knew.
      • stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4and puerto riico
      • smurfsahoy, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1How dare they vote in real american elections!
        • mgnesium, on 03/22/2008, -0/+0The parties may allow them to vote to determine candidates, but they have no votes allocated by the Electoral College and therefore don't really have a say in who wins the actual election.
    • Cattywampus, on 03/22/2008, -6/+1You didn't mention anything about superdelegates... there are a few hundred of them left who haven't committed, right? And they can change their allegiance when and if they wish. If they get the feeling that Clinton will be stronger in the fall than Obama (if the Rev. Wright dustup keeps costing Obama support), Obama superdelegates may switch to Clinton.
      • Unriggable, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5Highly unlikely, if Obama is winning very few will side with Clinton.
        • Cattywampus, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1Like I said, what if Obama *isn't" winning, in the sense that if Obama's support among the public keeps slipping because of the Wright situation or whatever. Aren't the superdelegates supposed to support the candidate their constituents support? If voters went for Obama in their primaries but then change their minds for whatever reason, the superdelegates may be in a bind, even if they were originally for Obama.
          I'm not saying this is going to happen, just that it's a possibility.
          Clinton made the mistake months ago of thinking she had the nomination in the bag, and it tripped her up. Many Obama supporters now seem to be doing the same thing.
      • Cattywampus, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1I thought my comments were a realistic view of what might actually happen, but apparently saying anything that questions Obama's presumptive nomination will get you Dugg down, LOL!
    • BradHAWK, on 03/22/2008, -3/+0comment deleted.
    • mgnesium, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1This is a nice summary, thank you. I agree that Hillary's chances are unlikely, but you never know how those wacky superdelegates will go, and I believe both candidates are nice. I think there's a little more substance behind Hillary, but have no problem voting Obama should he win.
      • starkruzr, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4I wish someone could explain to me why superdelegates are even necessary in the supposedly DEMOCRATIC Party. They sound about as undemocratic a measure as you can get.
        • masterofshadows, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Its to prevent the republican party from registering as democrats in an effort to have an easily defeated democratic nominee, its a safeguard to make sure it stays true to what the democratic party is.
          • starkruzr, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3If that's true, it would seem the superdelegates are bound to vote for Obama since Republicans are voting for Clinton.
      • Unriggable, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1I could never figure it out either, most like implemented to stop John Doe from winning the nomination should he have the support of the people for whatever reason. Just my guess.
    • Schmapdi, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1You only think he has a good chance of winning Oregon and North Carolina? I think he's liable to win Montana, South Dakota and Indiana too. I couldn't really predict Guam though. And I'm surprised Puerto Rico has so many delegates.
    • rz8472, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1A poll last month had Obama up by 15 points in indiana. I don't really see him losing that state unless Evan Bayh pulls off something very smarmy.
  • meltlight, on 03/21/2008, -5/+59Article is spot-on. Finally someone in the press is rejecting the belligerent spin coming from the Clinton campaign. Can we imagine anyone other than the Clintons (or the Bush's) staying in a primary race against all odds and logic insisting over and over again that she will win?
    • locamama, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3Number one, Hillary Clinton is the nominee not the "clintons". Number two the voters get to decide not you.
      • vinyl18, on 03/21/2008, -1/+9Last I checked I was one and last I checked I'm going Obama.
  • cg4et, on 03/21/2008, -6/+56The longer Hillary stays in the race, the more divided the party will be going into the convention. She knows this, and yet she has made the calculation that she should stay in the race "just in case" she can find a way to steal the nomination. Today, Bill Richardson called on Democrats to unite behind Barack Obama. How many of our leaders will make the same call?
    • aboutlogin, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3that and all the money the race is making for people, on track to $1bn raised. no way the clintons are walking away from that.
    • runCMD, on 03/22/2008, -7/+1Whoohoo. You guys are a hoot. Speculating about Hillary's chances of getting enough delegates to win - without mentioning that Obama shares the same fate. : ) They MUST come together if they are going to show the country that this party is about UNITY. If they can't do that - then their 'unity' themes have been nothing more than lip service. Hillary extended the hand of unity several weeks back which Obama decided to ignore. Strike 2. : C'mon folks. You've got to work together on this.
      • yacks, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Hillary extended what? The chance to be her vice president? Sorry, but people losing the race aren't in a position to really offer that.
        • runCMD, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Hillary extended the opening for a dual ticket. And as a viable contender, she is most certainly in a position make that offer. Obama's reaction showed an unwillingness to compromise - (something that has prevented him from being that effective as a senator) - as well as exposing his indifference to party Unity when it comes to joining the divide of support split between Hillary and Clinton. It was a great moment where Hillary stepped up to the plate and Obama just walked around it to further his own personal goals. Is this nomination about Obama ? No - he's running as a democrat. THAT party needs him to see the big picture. Hillary already has.
    • runCMD, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1The problem with your theory cg4et, is that - it's PEOPLE that are voting for Hillary Clinton. About half the people voting choose Hillary Clinton for the nomination. The longer she stays in the race - the longer the hope of a qualified candidate stays alive ( IMHO ) - For those of us that do not fall in line with Senator Obama - our choice is clear. And we have made it clear to Hillary in our donations and in our letters of support that she is on the right track. I'm very proud of her ability to weather the withering attacks against her by those that drink the kool-aid. I'm very proud of her candidacy - and to have cast my vote for her when it was my turn to vote.
      Bill Richardson's swooning over Obama on stage was a little silly - calling him a 'once in a lifetime candidate' is a little insulting, don't you think ? to all the other great politically active men and women who also care very much about this country - but don't have Obama's baggage ?
  • abburdlen, on 03/21/2008, -3/+51Even if she continues to throw the kitchen sink at Obama it's nearly impossible for her to get the nomination though it does hurt Obama's chances against McCain. So the question remains, is Hillary dragging this out to sabotage Obama chances in the general election so she can make another run in 2012 or is she being duped by her Chief strategist Mark Penn who's PR firm just happens to be working for McCain?
    • mCanada, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Doesn't more publicity between Obama / Hillary from now till election mean better chances for the Dem's? I mean even McCain said it, it's free advertising on the networks for the DNC if Obama and Hillary duke it out from now until the end of the year. How much do you hear the word "McCain" on CNN / MSNBC? How many times do you hear "Obama + Clinton" ? Even if it's in a somewhat bad light I think the democrats getting their name in the news up until the election is going to be a good thing.
      • smurfsahoy, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3"Even McCain said it..." Think about that for a minute.
      • steeeeve, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Until now the polls suggest, it hurts them. They were both ahead of McCain, and now they are within margin of error.
    • jsebrech, on 03/22/2008, -1/+0Hillary is too smart to be duped like that. She has essentially taken sides with McCain with her remark that "...McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, and Obama has a speech from 2002.". It is becoming plain to see that she'd rather see McCain win than Obama. If Obama wins, it's an effective end to her presidential aspirations, forever. Only if McCain wins can she hope to ever run again. I don't know any other way to explain the positions she's taken and the things she's said.

      And I wouldn't put it past her to be McCain's VP. It would assure a win for McCain even against Obama, and she would be in the white house.

      The only thing Obama can do, and his race speech was very clever in this regard, is to attack Clinton AND McCain with everything he does as the democratic nomination unwinds. Instead of attacking Clinton, he is attacking all his critics at once.
  • coffeebaby, on 03/21/2008, -3/+72Edwards needs to make his decision.
    • speakerfordead, on 03/21/2008, -2/+24He is too nervous of making the wrong one and ruining his future.
      • Pillage, on 03/22/2008, -4/+4or he is afraid of "committing suicide" in the middle of a park.....
      • Berek, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1***** this guy. It was ridiculous for sheep to even follow him. He has not charisma and is too southern boyish. Who cares who he endorses. The big enchilada is Gore.
      • ackermannc, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1At least Edwards has a cleaner explanation for his wealth than the other two, and credibility on his views on "free trade".
    • ackermannc, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1What's wrong with saying "neither" and keeping some integrity? He may have some wealth, he may be a lawyer, but when he speaks against "free trade", he means it.

      Better not to endorse the ones that only pander to the Rust Belt but don't seem to mean it.
    • Tweets, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1He will probably do it just before the North Carolina primary.
    • Schmapdi, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Honestly - at this point in the game I don't think anyones endorsement will have much effect on voters. But the more superdelegates that shift to one or the other the more likely I think you'll see others follow.
  • Tex, on 07/28/2008, -4/+62So Hillary's campaign claims it only has a "1 in 10 chance" of winning the nomination, and even then only by overturning the popular will of the people. Drop out already, Hillary.
    • locamama, on 03/21/2008, -7/+5One unnamed campaign worker supposedly said the one in ten chance. I don't think her chance is that small anyway. There is less than 200,000 between them in the popular vote and she will win Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Puerto Rico. Stay Hillary. It's not over. The voters get to decide not diggers.
      • Schmapdi, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3The difference between them in the popular vote is well over 600,000 atm
        • runCMD, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1popular vote is a measure of popularity. Delegates elect the nominee and the eventually the candidate. It's how the system is setup.
    • pingveno, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Even if she has a 1 in 10 chance, that's still a reasonable chance when it comes to the possibility of winning. For someone who has spent so many years getting ready for this campaign, holding onto even just that one sliver of hope is worth a few extra months of campaigning.
    • runCMD, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2Don't quit Hillary - the 'other half' of the electorate has got your back!
    • dBass, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3She hasn't been running to win '08 for a while now. She has been running to destroy Senator Obama and help McCain. That way she can run again in 2012 with the US troops only 4 years into the McCain 100 year occupation, and the rest of us on food stamps and in soup lines. Witch!
  • gwinerreniwg, on 03/21/2008, -3/+53After Obama's speech on race relations this week, its going to take an act of God to get Hillary the nomination. I was thoroughly surprised this week when Republican friends of mine openly declared they'd vote for Obama after hearing this speech.

    Whether or not he is the "real deal", at a minimum he projects the sense that he is a historical figure. With the vacuum of leadership in recent years, people are looking for something to believe in. Unfortunately, Hillary's "realist" message is not striking a chord with the American public. Add to this Obama's uncanny talent for political judo (using a controversy to your advantage) he is impossible for her to beat. I predict that Obama will be the presidential nominee for a political party - whether that be the Democatic (likely), or a new third party (assuming Clinton somehow cinches the nomination), my sense is his supporters will accept no less. Unless he gets hit by a political "meteor" as the article says.
    • RRJackson, on 03/21/2008, -22/+2You mean Obama's, "Holy *****, I've been caught!" speech? Yeah, that's actually what's helping to drive down his numbers right now.
      • stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -13/+2for the people digging this guy down.. you do realize a percentage of americans now feel a real doubt because of what happened? just because digg is in the tank for obama doesn't mean you can't ignore the feeling of the people he will need to persuade in the general election.

        bah, what am i saying. you diggers are all illogical ***** anyways.
        • EtherGnat, on 03/21/2008, -2/+6I was considering digging you up until you called me an illogical *****.
          • stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -7/+2haha, obviously that was an illogical blanket statement, i don't know why most people react as such.. specially on the internet.
      • sqwirl, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4I guess you missed the videos that show how far out of context Reverend Wright's comments were taken?

        Google "Wright in context", and then tell me how your foot tastes.
        • stonr2, on 03/22/2008, -4/+2LOL context? you have got to be kidding me, google "wright church" and tell me if you agree with their views.

          They are a church that is butthurt about slavery and thrive on the idea, Bill Cosby would ***** facepalm AND headshake.
    • mythicflux, on 03/21/2008, -4/+2In my personal dream election I would love to see Clinton tear apart the Democratic party by stealing the nomination. This would be followed by Barack Obama pulling more moderate elements of the Democratic and Republican into a new 3rd party capable of tempering the two.

      Granted it's only a dream.
      • stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -1/+3but barack is anything but moderate. his rheroric is moderate but his voting record is very liberal and so is his platform.
        • Smiff2, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2good. Bush managed to sneak in an extreme right wing agenda after talking about bipartisan co-operation etc. it's just.. poetic that Obama should be next.
          • RRJackson, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1But instead Obama won't get the nomination and won't even be able to win re-election to the Senate. Funny how that works.
          • stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4two wrongs don't make a right, partisanship ruins and wastes. Obama talks about coming together and for the love of god don't we all need to do so; however, if he is elected president and "sneaks" in far left agendas he would be no better than bush. We all hope he doesn't but speculation is useless.
          • apetrie, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Seriously, far left agendas? What is so far to the left about his agendas? Your sense of the political scale is so incredibly wrong its giving me a headache to read your posts.
        • apetrie, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4Very liberal? VERY LIBERAL? What planet are you from? Do you understand what "liberal" means? Only Americans could claim a person so moderate and even slightly right-leaning was a liberal. Crazy! Just.. crazy.
          • stonr2, on 03/22/2008, -4/+2your canadian, you don't count. take your healthcare and be quiet as America's hat.
    • runCMD, on 03/22/2008, -5/+2"people are looking for something to believe in" ---- and THIS is the crux of the problem. Believe in yourself. Don't look to a politican to rock your world. Hearing the latest governor supporter speak of Obama reeked of cherry kool-aid. 'Obama represents a once in a lifetime chance " ... what a crock. The man is still wet behind the ears - would he really be done-for if he did not win this nomination ? The melodrama surrounding Obama is scary.
      • gwinerreniwg, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1I don't disagree that you're right. But the fact is that people ARE looking for something to believe in. Knowing that reality may help to shape your understanding of why you're hearing quotes like the ones you provided.
  • mateo60, on 03/21/2008, -3/+39In my opinion, the most important line of the story. FTA: "One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business."
    • valimar77, on 03/21/2008, -1/+14The Media corroborates Hillary's "close race" facade.
      Real truth.
    • Smiff2, on 03/21/2008, -0/+0bingo. the news is now just a business.
      • smurfsahoy, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Uh, "now?" I can't say I remember a time when the US government ran the news. Or was it a charitable organization back in the day? You'll have to remind me; my history's a little fuzzy.
        • Unriggable, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Well the news used to be honestly biased, meaning there was "the working people's news", "the wealthy man's news", etc, so the reader knew what he/she was getting into. Now its just "everybody's news", and they have to attract viewers from all walks of life which demands strange tactics.
    • snotrokit, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1bingo, spot on. "Good for business" It sells papers/ads/webhits/etc That is the driving force of the MSM, money.
  • valimar77, on 03/21/2008, -3/+20"The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe. The real question is why so many people are playing." = Hillary - plans - to - steal - the - election.
    • steeeeve, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1This is a grave accusation. I do not see any evidence for it.
      • hippieslaugh, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Well, she can not mathematically win. So, one might assume that she has a plan (to steal the election).
  • n8f8, on 03/21/2008, -25/+4...so she should do the Democrat thing and just quit, right?
    • Pyehole, on 03/21/2008, -1/+11Yeah. That's exactly what she should do.
    • Fragalishus, on 03/21/2008, -2/+6You mean the Republican thing and quit? Like Romney and Huckabee did when it was clear they couldn't win? Otherwise known as the "right" thing.
      • stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -1/+2"winner take all" would like to have a word with you.
    • mummbleswers, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5Actually yes, the democratic thing would be to quit. Politicians are around to serve the will of the people, not pursue their own ambitions. It seems pretty clear to me that a majority of people have spoken. Now would you suggest she does the REAL democratic thing and let the super delegates give her the nomination? I think I've seen this scenario before, just that the film was in black and white, and they were speaking german!
  • MikeFallopian, on 03/21/2008, -14/+5One big reason that she doesn't have much of a chance is the very recent development of FL and MI axing the idea of make-up primaries. Whichever side you're on, you have to admit that disenfranchising 2 entire states in the democratic primary is not a good thing.
    • captspaulding, on 03/21/2008, -1/+19the states did it to them selfs by trying to jump in front of all the other states against the wishes of the dnc. they knew what would happen, and did it anyway.
      • MikeFallopian, on 03/21/2008, -6/+0So it's acceptable to disenfranchise millions of voters because the political leadership of a state is functionally retarded? I'm talking about the decision to not have make-up primaries right now, not the decision to move up the original primaries.
        • LeggoMyEgo, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6Honestly I can see both sides, but it's totally disingenuous for them to be complaining about it now that it "matters." If the voters cared about being disenfranchised, they should have voiced that last year.
        • scottc, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Far better to piss off a few voters this year than to let the states wreak havoc with the process again in 2012. People are understandably upset, but the likelihood that it will change more than a few votes in November is very low. And re-voting now would not change the outcome of national primary. It's over. Hillary just doesn't know it yet.
          • MikeFallopian, on 03/22/2008, -0/+0Especially if the primary is already "over" they should do a re-vote in those states. Otherwise there will likely be a perception that the outcome was affected by a large number of voters being silenced. This should be especially important for the party that tries to be more populist... dems have been hurt enough by all the focus on superdelegates and backroom deals. Disenfranchising 2 states only adds to the problem.
    • Pyehole, on 03/21/2008, -1/+17Those states disenfranchised themselves! The Democratic party told them ahead of time what would happen if they moved up their primaries. They moved 'em anyhow and thus they should suffer the consequences.
      • mummbleswers, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Amen to that! It's called a "rule." I know these are hard to come by with the Bush administration being around for so long, but it's true, the rules were set a long time ago. And for the record, I would be calling ***** on it if Obama was pushing to get votes counted for a state that Hillary wasn't even on the ballot for.
    • scottc, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5That's true, but remember that it was done by the states' own Democratic leaders, not by either candidate nor by the national party. Hillary herself agreed to the rules, back when she thought they were written in her favor. There is no fair way to resolve it other than to abide by the original rules.
    • Moetownslick, on 03/21/2008, -1/+9why is the fact that they brought it upon themselves so hard for people to understand?
      • MikeFallopian, on 03/21/2008, -2/+0The democratic leadership of the states is to blame. The people of the states should be able to voice their opinion regardless, especially now that it's 3/4 of the way through primary season. They're not at the front of the line anymore, so let them have their say. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
        • EtherGnat, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2I agree with you, but those people need to be contacting the Democratic party leadership in those states. The states decided to move their primary up knowing the consequences. They decided to forgo new elections. What can be done at a national level?
        • podwich, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Sure, let them have their say. However, it won't involve voting in a primary. Maybe the say should involve removing some too-big-for-their-britches politicians.
    • acruxksa, on 03/21/2008, -1/+8Both states knew what they were doing when they decided to hold their primaries outside the guidelines set long before the primaries took place. As usual someone wants to change the rules after the fact.
    • jongos, on 03/21/2008, -1/+8Yes, the legislature of those states is to blame. They knew the potential consequences and they knew the stakes but didn't have the luxury of being able to predict the future. The only innocents there are the millions of people who live in those states who had no choice and probably weren't even aware of penalties to move the primaries up. If I lived in either of those states I would be asking for many people to step down.
      • pcghost, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2The innocents you speak of elected the fools that moved their primary and broke the rules. Florida and Michigan deserve to be left out. They broke the rules of the contest. Why is this so unclear to so many people?
    • lamprey187, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3just a side note: Hillary won the fake primary here (Michigan) by only about 10% over "uncommitted". Hillary was the only one on the freaking ballot and she could not pull off a landslide. Governor Granholm is a big Hillary supporter, looks like she jumped on the wrong set of coat tails. Granholm is seriously disliked in Michigan. Her gig is up next election. Our state is operating in the red, and has the highest unemployment rate of all 50 states.
  • locamama, on 03/21/2008, -16/+3This is not over yet. It wasn't that long ago that no one believed John McCain would get the Republican nomination but he has gotten it. The Democrat party needs to show some leadership and look to November and coordinate a way for Michigan and Florida to seat delegates.
    • Aadain, on 03/21/2008, -3/+8If FL or MI are seated, I'm leaving the Democratic party. How can we ask our government to follow the rules the Constitution have layed out if we can't even follow our own party rules?????? The voters in FL and MI will get their chance to vote in November just like everyone else.
      • locamama, on 03/21/2008, -8/+2So you're saying that no voter in Michigan or Florida should have any weight in chosing their party's nominee? If Barack gets the nom., I'll vote for McCain.
        • plumcarrot, on 03/21/2008, -3/+1Exactly what I`m thinking...
        • EtherGnat, on 03/21/2008, -0/+6The voters should have had a say, but seating delegates from the existing votes would be no less of a tragedy. You can't validate a vote in which only one candidate--in direct violation of party agreements--campaigned, and in the case of Michigan Obama wasn't even on the ballot. I was for new elections in those states, but we can't force them to do it.

          You're an idiot if you don't vote for Obama because he actually followed the rules all the candidates agreed to. Blame the people responsible.
        • vinyl18, on 03/21/2008, -0/+3Enjoy your vote for John W. McCain. Meanwhile if it's Hillary vs. McCain then I'll go third party and not go democrat in any of my local elections. Sorry but if they overrule the delegate count/popular vote, I as an independent will make them pay.
        • Aadain, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Yes, no voter in MI or FL should have any say in the Democratic primary. I thought I was being pretty obvious when I wrote my post above. They (the Democratic parties in those states) violated very explicit rules with clearly defined consequences for violating those rules. What, should we treat voters like a cranky 3 year old that will keep screaming and crying until they get there way?
      • mummbleswers, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4People like you are the exact reason Clinton needs to leave this thing. Did you feel that way about Obama two months ago? I mean that strong that you would cross party lines? And for the record, it is over. Do the math. What you would be suggesting is for the super delegates to overturn this election, and that my friend, is just ***** up.
        • locamama, on 03/21/2008, -1/+1Super delegates ARE delegates. Hillary is only trailing Obama by less than 200,000 in the popular vote. It's not over. Why shouldn't she stay in the race? The voters will decide.
        • vinyl18, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1Funny how you list the few states Hillary will win remaining but toss aside those that Obama will win. Such as North Carolina, look at this rate he's going to hold onto the popular vote.
    • CC440, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Yeah but McCain won by winning more delegates, and the other republicand dropped out before their odds were as bad as Hillary's
    • kreneskyp, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Mccain was almost out of the race, but that was before most of the states voted. Its alot different when most of the states have voted and its statistically impossibly for her to win.
  • spaceman77, on 03/21/2008, -4/+18She will rig the voting boxes if she can.
    • TremorX, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7She would have people - children, even - killed if she benefited from it. She's the icon of spite.
    • mgnesium, on 03/22/2008, -6/+1I think the fanatical Obama fans would rig the voting boxes and kill children if he benefited from it.
      I take solace in the fact that the horrible arguments made by Obama's club on Digg and other sites don't influence the masses, as we learned with Ron Paulspam and his abysmal voting turnouts. America believes what they want to believe, not what a bunch of loud-mouths on the Internet or the media want them to.. despite what you may claim. Give it some credit.
      • Unriggable, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4I love how some people think that while in office, Obama will pass bill 343A6, requiring one baby to be eaten per week by all the citizens of the US.

        Seriously, if you can't find footing in this political reality faced by Hillary Clinton maybe voting is a bit too complicated for you.
  • uziko, on 03/21/2008, -34/+6If this were even close to being true, there wouldn't be an article every hour about how clinton "can't win and should just quit right now".

    You idiots know she is going to win and you are pathetically trying to digg up every anti clinton article you can. When I can go on digg and not find one anti clinton article on the front page at any given time, that's when obama is probably in the lead.

    It didn't work for ron paul, and it's not gonna work for obama, but keep trying your probably just helping clinton anyways.
    • mach68, on 03/21/2008, -4/+4oh SHUT UP!!
    • saska, on 03/21/2008, -3/+9I would agree with you that only idiots "know she is going to win."
    • mummbleswers, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3Did you eat paint chips as a kid?
    • starkruzr, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5lawl. The reason people digg up Obama articles and anti-Clinton articles is because they are Democrats who want this primary process to be FINISHED WITH already. The longer this primary goes, the worse it is for ALL Democrats.
  • martalli, on 03/21/2008, -4/+7But a campaign that is over doesn't fill news time or pay pundits' fees. Diggers would also be left to argue about linux and palestine over a few months of boredom.
    • ackermannc, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately the latter category of argument (Palestine) has been largely sent to the bottom of the pile due to LGF spammers.
  • sactoeric, on 03/21/2008, -3/+11If Clinton wins the nomination and then the Presidential election, it will be 20-24 yrs of Clinton/Bush, but since McCain is acting like Bush III, then either way it will be 20-24 yrs of Clinton/Bush. Is there any doubt that there is some fixin' goin' on??
    • monkeyrun, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5We need to vote an Asian into the White House, otherwise we'll have like 230 years of typical western people ruling over America.
      • plumcarrot, on 03/21/2008, -3/+2Or, you know, a woman.
      • stonr2, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5i wouldn't vote for an asian. they would make me take off my shoes before walking into the white house!
    • locamama, on 03/21/2008, -5/+8Who cares if her last name is Clinton? She's her own person and a smart, qualified candidate. If you don't like her, don't vote for her but the Clinton/Bush argument is BS.
      • mummbleswers, on 03/21/2008, -1/+7You are ***** loco! It's not an argument, it's a fact. The white house has not been absent of a clinton or bush for the last 20+ years. She is not her own person, she wouldn't be in this position if it wasn't for her stay in the white house for 8 years! Isn't that what clinton supporters have been arguing? her great deal of experience doing.... well I saw her schedule, I think she did a mean easter egg hunt one year.
        • locamama, on 03/22/2008, -5/+3Oh she has no qualifications (that's sarcasm). She's has more experience than Obama. She has been a Senator longer and actually shows up to vote unlike Obama who even when he does show up to vote, votes present instead of representing his constituents.
          • mummbleswers, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4Yeah, but it's still a fact. The white house is saturated with a Clinton / Bush agenda. She has qualifications, but they're being played up a bit much don't you think? I mean a representative for the Irish government said she was acting a bit "silly." Even Sinbad made fun of her for making her actions seem like more than they are. We can bash the candidates all day, (which are for our party, let's not forget that) but let's get to my original point, which is that it's not an argument, it's a fact. Look at one of those posters they have up in kindergarten class, it's been Bush / Clinton for a long time, and for most of us that's just not working any more.
        • mgnesium, on 03/22/2008, -2/+0Failing to see your point here. It's a dynasty, so? They're different people, if the same family.
          For you to say that W. Bush turning out the way he did is because of his father, and Hillary the way she did is because of her husband, is to give weight to the argument that Obama will turn out like his pastor. Don't be an idiot and don't go down that road.
    • whahaa, on 03/21/2008, -1/+428-32 if you add the reagan years.
    • Pillage, on 03/22/2008, -3/+2McCain != Bush. but thanks for trying.
      • ackermannc, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Well, unless you can find a Republican candidate not of the Reagan cloth, that's going to mean the same thing no matter who you put in that slot.
  • EffYoo, on 03/21/2008, -3/+29She seems to believe that she can destroy Obama so badly that superdelegates will have to give her the nomination at the convention, or that she can hurt him enough to keep him from winning, then come back in 4 years and say 'I told you so. I said he wouldn't win, c'mon, I'll forgive you if you nominate me this time around'.
    She doesn't seem to realize that everyone will blame her for whatever happens and if Obama wins, everyone will say it was in spite of her selfish, destructive, campaign that she continued after losing 11 races after super tuesday. She will never have a national political career ever again and all that she's doing now is helping the republicans.
    • Moetownslick, on 03/21/2008, -1/+7Spot on.
    • locamama, on 03/21/2008, -16/+3You seem to forget that she WON New York, California, Texas and Ohio. She will carry Pennsylvania too. Why doesn't Obama drop out of the race? He's the one causing controversy and hurting the Democrats today.
      • vinyl18, on 03/21/2008, -1/+5You seem to forget that Obama has a nearly 150 pledged delegate lead, the popular vote lead, won more states than Hillary, and lets see New York will go democrat as will California. If there's a Richardson/Obama ticket I doubt but there's an outside chance of the Latino vote pushing Texas to democrat. Ohio is the only state Obama may not win but the states that he will win in the Midwest and states such as Virginia that he can win will make up for it at the very least. Also Obama draws more of the independent vote than Hillary which is crucial versus McCain. Sorry, but Hillary really can't mathematically catch up to Obama and should drop out instead of forcing him to make it so that they both drag each other through the mud into the convention.
      • dagamer34, on 03/21/2008, -1/+6She won Texas? Really? Because delegates are what are important here and she didn't get more than he did. And Ohio? The *now proven* lying about NAFTA? You think McCain is going to ignore that HUGE gaff? Honestly, this kind of double talk is exactly why we hate our current President in the first place. He completely swore off nation-building and now we are doing in in Iraq.

        Here's a good snippet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfv4nC3xyr0
      • EtherGnat, on 03/21/2008, -0/+7Clinton actually lost Texas, but I'll digg you up anyway. After all, those are the only states that matter. Who cares about delegates and the popular vote? /sarcasm
      • EffYoo, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2You seem to forget that these big states matter the LEAST as representative of success in the general election. Democrats will win California and New York and lose Texas without a doubt. Obama has won more swing states (Midwest & Southwest) and is more likely to win some states that typically go to republicans. The fact that Hillary won in states that are very unlikely to switch which party they support is meaningless.
      • wrongonce, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Because Obama is running for president of the United States?
    • kreneskyp, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4I won't ever vote for hillary. i swore that as soon as she announced she was running for president (by 'moving' to ny and running for senate)
    • Schmapdi, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5I have to say, at the start of the primaries I was ambivalent to Hillarly Clinton (was rooting for Biden - who is sadly un-electable) but after seeing the lengths she'll go to to win, and her willingness to screw over her fellow democrats. I'm now pretty anti- Clinton.
    • Taciturn, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3If Hillary had won the nomination on Super Tuesday she would have had my vote, but thanks to this drawn-out fight I know how much she values her own ambition over what's best for the nation. I'm not voting for her if she's nominated this year, or if she's nominated four years from now, or eight. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.
  • RRJackson, on 03/21/2008, -42/+5And Obama officially has NO chance of winning. I'll take 'virtually no chance' over "Damn, shoulda hidden my links to black nationalism and radical Islam more carefully."
    • harmonik, on 03/21/2008, -4/+13You, sir, are an idiot.
      • WasabiBomb, on 03/21/2008, -3/+6I'll go one step further- RRJackson is a *racist* idiot.
        • RRJackson, on 03/21/2008, -7/+1Yes, because only racists notice that Obama keeps company with racists. Convenient how that works.

          White Guilt does strange things to people's minds.
          • stonr2, on 03/22/2008, -4/+2but he is racist. he hates whitey, or at least pretends to hate them for money. no maybe he aint racist..
      • stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -3/+2doesn't mean idiots don't vote.
    • Unriggable, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3You say he's ahead in delegates by about 150 and has no chance of winning...same people who favored the Iraq war.
  • pandikukka, on 03/21/2008, -16/+10Man!! Digg is so anti-Hillary
  • Nysul, on 03/21/2008, -15/+11I'm by no means a fan of clinton, but we have way more pro-obama/anti-clinton articles daily on digg than we ever had ron paul articles.
    • mach68, on 03/21/2008, -5/+5too ***** bad!
    • stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -9/+1DUH, didn't you see SNL? people want to have consensual sex in the missionary position with Barrack Hussein Obama because... well i don't really know why
    • EtherGnat, on 03/22/2008, -1/+8Maybe because about 10x as many people support Obama as supported Ron Paul?
      • Nysul, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Yah, but it's pretty much the only politics we get here at digg. I know I can turn off politics in the preferences, but I'd rather not have to.
  • mach68, on 03/21/2008, -5/+3The Empress Project.
  • Brendan2026, on 03/21/2008, -4/+6I think the best thing for the Democratic party would be for these unpledged superdelegates to rally behind a candidate (Obama, please). We can't keep this thing dragging on and on. Of course, what the hell do I know.
    • locamama, on 03/21/2008, -3/+3Bill Clinton didn't clinch the nomination until June. I'm still for Hillary. She just won Ohio and Texas. She will win Pennsylvania. It's not over.
      • vinyl18, on 03/21/2008, -2/+2She probably should drop out pretty when there's a 10% chance of winning according to those in her camp. Pennsylvania will go democrat anyway in the general. There's no realistic mathematical way for Hillary to catch up to Obama.
  • plhearn, on 03/21/2008, -15/+10This article is probably 100% accurate because its on Digg and got to the front page.
  • mal1964, on 03/21/2008, -3/+2"If You Tear It Down, They Will Come"
  • monkeyrun, on 03/21/2008, -15/+3Plus the fact that she's just a typical white person :(
    • sqwirl, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Been watching Fox News, eh?

      Yeah, he definitely clarified what he meant by 'typical white person', but you'd only know that if you watched any station besides Fox News.
      • stonr2, on 03/22/2008, -4/+2watching Fox News is better than MSNBC aka in the tank for Obama, and CNN is all flash and no substance. PBS is where its at. btw, I watch all the stations to help in the understanding of the other side so that, you know, you can create a decent argument other than FAUX NEWS, LOL
  • al11588, on 03/21/2008, -12/+7I'm about to cry where going to have a black president.YAY
    • stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -1/+10i'm going to cry because people think that the color of your skin matters more than being the best person for the job...
      • jo21, on 03/21/2008, -0/+2texas don't know yet obama is black!
      • runCMD, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Not that it u ltimately matters in context - but what exactly does it take to be considered black ? As a bi-racial candidate, how does he get to be 'black' ?
        • Memitim, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Because that's what people really care about in the Democratic primary; do you want to pick the woman or the black dude? Yeah, it's stupid, but it's just another variation on how Americans, and I'd imagine most other democratic nations, have always voted.
    • snotrokit, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4I don't care if he is green. He is an outstanding man, and will bring this country together.
  • smacksaw, on 03/21/2008, -2/+10Good article. The salient point they made is hanging on in case something happens to Obama. That said, she would be the presumptive nominee anyway. There's really no justification for trying to battle it out other than blackmail, or to sabotage Obama so she can try again in 4 years.

    It's a shame about her. Clearly the only thing she cares about is power. Not Americans, her constituents, her party - just power. And power for power's sake is so very dangerous in the hands of those who lust for it without regard for consequence.
    • plumcarrot, on 03/21/2008, -2/+1Why power? What about women's rights? No woman has ever been elected Vice President, let a lone President, and that would send a shockwave of hope to women all over the world.
      • apetrie, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Why would it send anything to women all over the world? Women have led free and democratic nations for some time now. Great Britain and Canada are just two examples where a woman has been leader (Prime Minister in both those cases). It might be significant but I'm sorry, its nothing new and not specifically important that a woman lead the U.S. I'd love to see a woman in power in America BUT I would never choose to vote for, endorse, or even hope for a woman just because she is a woman. If the best candidate is a woman, GREAT, but its just as sexist to vote for someone based on gender as to vote against them.

        Again though, the rest of the world really doesn't need the U.S. to elect a woman leader to make it acceptable.
    • ttucp, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1"The salient point they made is hanging on in case something happens to Obama."

      That's exactly what I was thinking.....like what happened with Vince Foster.
    • mgnesium, on 03/22/2008, -1/+0All this crap about Hillary being power-hungry or pure evil is just that: crap. There must be some hidden messages (I can see what kind of reply I'm setting myself up to here) in the Obama commercials that only those who have drunk the Kool-Aid can see, because the views expressed by her detractors are all remarkably similar in both message and lack of substance. It's like people hate her "just because".
      At this point I'd kind of prefer the Paultards return. At least they just trumped up their own candidate with nonsense, instead of trying to tear down others with the same crazy.
  • erjho, on 03/21/2008, -10/+2"I'm by no means a fan of clinton, but we have way more pro-obama/anti-clinton articles daily on digg than we ever had ron paul articles."

    That's because Hillary's a monster!
    • caponumen, on 03/21/2008, -3/+2RP is an honorable man and doesn't deserve any such association with these two frauds.
      • stonr2, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1the RON PAUL revolution has dissolved and drained into the OBAMADIGGNATION
  • empirefalling, on 03/21/2008, -16/+4Hilary is a non candidate. She should resign immediately. Obama Hussein Barack has been chosen by the vast majority of the American electorate as your Leader. Obama Hussein Barack has also been chosen as your Leader by a vast majority of non Americans. The crippled Republican party can longer be called a viable group. They are insignificant and are considered by all to be illicit. Obama as Leader will start the therapeutic healing to the damage done by the US to the World Body. It would be wise not to allow the malevolent forces which now control your government to disrupt Barack Obamas ascension to his rightful place as your Director.
    • sephiroth965, on 03/21/2008, -1/+11You don't even know the guy's name. His name is Barack Hussein Obama, retard.
    • sqwirl, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5Troll harder.
      • stonr2, on 03/22/2008, -7/+2Whats the matter? too Barack HUSSEIN Obama for you?!
  • stonr2, on 03/21/2008, -9/+1RACE WARS AT THE DNC!!!!! who's with me?!
  • DaviDTC, on 03/21/2008, -2/+16If the superdelegates screw over obama I wouldnt be surprised if mccain won with 75% or more of the vote. If that was to happen, to me, the superdelegates are telling me that my vote means absolutely nothing. If they want to tell me that, they better not expect me to vote in November.
    • stonr2, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3what are superdelegates? why do they exist? how do you become a superdelegate? which events lead to their creation?

      no one asks these questions but they are mad when ***** doesn't go their way.
  • guillebravo, on 03/21/2008, -21/+2I personally switched from Hillary to Obama, because she is such an angry women, and Obama is such a strong intelligent guy, and is well qualified to be president. Also, he is a much strong speaker! Digg this story if you like. Feel feel to send me some shouts!
    http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Sexual_favors_for_a_Gree ...
  • junkwheel, on 03/21/2008, -7/+6We make up stories - you get brainwashed.

    Sexism VS Racism

    Would you vote for a clitoris? Would you vote for a BLACK MAN?

    Stay right here on Fox.

    Oops, wrong article.
  • caponumen, on 03/21/2008, -5/+5If she is nominated, I will write in Nader.
    • pdxvanyel, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4I'm looking forward to finally being able to vote *for* someone, instead against the worse of two evils. If not Obama, then voting for McCain will be easy; if, as seems likely, it's Obama vs McCain, then Obama is clearly the superior statesmen and bridge builder, and there's a lot of repair work to be done in that area after the last 7 years. I think McCain would be good, but Obama would be great... Clinton may have good intentions, but she's clearly a "politician as usual", willing to "win at any cost" and highly divisive. Exactly what we *don't* need more of.
    • locamama, on 03/21/2008, -7/+1If she is nominated, I will vote for her.
    • plumcarrot, on 03/21/2008, -0/+5I think I'd probably write in Chomsky before Nader.
  • Picrate, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4This article is a must read for French political journalists. You have no idea how how underestimated was, here in France, Obama's speech A more perfect union and the myth debunked by Politico is far from being even guessed by our columnists. I can tell you they see Clinton has having still a chance to win.

    I do remember the opening words of his first speech in Iowa : "You know, they said this day would never come. They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose."

    He will make it again against Mc Cain who is a less fierced competitor than Hilary is. Just think of his Columbus, March 10th speech.
  • Freegrout, on 03/21/2008, -2/+4I wonder if there'll be an echo chamber effect with this article. I usually find Politico to be pretty Pro-Clinton, so this is a strange turn coming from them. It's pretty damaging though.
    • OrionC, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1How about the "strange turn" of the NYT? Krugman is still Krugman (Who cares?) but everything else has changed after Obama's speech.
  • laserblazer, on 03/21/2008, -9/+3Hillary is working for McCain. Obama doesn't stand a chance against this collusion.
  • digitalagent, on 03/21/2008, -14/+3Mark my words: Obama has had an extramarital affair. It will probably come out by May. Clinton has got to know something that most people counting the delegates do not. I would hate to see this race turn out this way (even as a Clinton supporter), but that's got to be the ace in the hole. I really, really, hope I'm wrong on this, but you may remember that there were rumors early in the campaign that there was dirt on Obama that was not being shared.
    • Picrate, on 03/22/2008, -1/+6Ok, marked. Let me remember you by May that I burried your comment.
    • stonr2, on 03/22/2008, -1/+10you think that matters? affairs are like jaywalking, people frown and give you a ticket but no one ***** cares anymore. this is the american attitude of many.
    • mgnesium, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Yes, there's probably dirt, and yes, if there is you can bet it's not making it around, since everyone wants to handle Obama with kid gloves (the worst we can do is talk about something said by an acquaintance?) but if it were something as mundane as an affair, why would I care? Sure, he lied, but whatever. You can cheat on your wife and still lead a nation just fine (provided everyone under you doesn't completely lose respect for you). Would put a hole in the whole HOPE AND CHANGE sloganeering, but it wouldn't really impact my opinion of him.
      I loved what Bill Clinton did for America, and he had one affair (that we've confirmed). Everyone puts JFK on a shining pedestal, and you know something was going on there.
  • pdxvanyel, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4Oh nonsense. The media follows the race because the participants are still participating and there are a lot of people interested. Maybe they consider ABC to be fringe or something, but the nightly news regularly points out exactly the situation Clinton is in.
  • Sicarius, on 03/21/2008, -0/+4The futures markets beg to differ. Obama is running 3:1 ahead so if you *really* believe that Hillary has "virtually no chance of winning" you should be snapping up his contracts in anticipation of a tidy profit. Or is it a case of talk being cheap?
    • hodowany, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Prediction Markets of Futures Markets are likely more accurate, true enough. Clearly, the superdelegates are the big wildcard. If it was only about delegate math, then it would be very close to 1:1. Just out of curiosity, did you happen to catch the odds before the Pastor Wright controversy?
      • barkus, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1The odds didn't budge during the controversy. Obama was 5 to 1 favorite before Ohio/Texas, then he dropped to a around a 3.5 to 1 favorite right after and the lines have hardly moved since.
  • NelsonR, on 03/21/2008, -1/+14Just today, Bill Clinton emphasized that Hillary and McCain were the two candidates who loved America. Obama's name was not entertained. The Clinton Duo are despicable power hungry humans who would destroy the Democratic Party if Hillary is not nominated. Like Richardson all the Democratic super delegates should stop this Clinton Charade before the party is destroyed with Clinton's favorite person, Iraqi John elected. How can any citizen not accept the facts that conclude they are part of the old elitist guard that have assisted in destroying what America once stood for.
  • gunslinger2, on 03/21/2008, -13/+3By the way .... Where are Ron Paul supporters now a days ..... have they become job less or found the lost hero in Obama ......

    I find Obama same as any other politician ,,,,, if not bad ......
  • 55mph, on 03/21/2008, -3/+7i hate this power crazy narcissistic bitch and her operatives.
    • gunslinger2, on 03/21/2008, -3/+1And do you think Obama is a Saint ?
      • Picrate, on 03/22/2008, -2/+0Hey, that's not Vatican 2008
      • stonr2, on 03/22/2008, -3/+2yea, Barrack Hussein Obama is a coke sniffing muslim black liberationist whitety hating slumlord Saint.

        he doesn't tip very well though, for shame!
  • trademork, on 03/22/2008, -2/+6I think Bill Richardson is only the beginning. In the next two weeks, I bet we'll see a string of major endorsements for Obama, and a string of superdeligates step up to support him. And that will strongly effect the races in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and beyond.
    • mgnesium, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1As long as it's not a string of 'major' endorsements by local newspapers in cities I've never heard of, like what happened 2-3 weeks ago. Like I care who Joe Schmoe, editor of Podunk Weekly, endorses.
      The fact is that if Hillary wins the nom, every major (politicians and celebrities, because that's what matters, right?) Obama supporter worth their salt will instantly shift. This isn't "who's most capable" or "who can beat McCain easiest," it's "which of these two equally good people do I like better?"

      Anyone who votes for McCain or Nader because Hillary wins the nom, simply out of spite and not an honest disagreement with her policies (which are nearly identical to Obama's on every major issue) is a complete and total twab, and they will be responsible if McCain wins -- not Hillary or her early supporters because they "dragged this on" or whatever.
      • NelsonR, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Bill Clinton emphasized today that Hillary and Iraq John McCain love their country. He ignored Obama, now that is despicable and this is one independent who never will help elect the corrupt duo, Clinton's.
  • mummbleswers, on 03/22/2008, -1/+9I just have to say that I've been posting a lot of replies to people's comments that I just plain think haven't been thought through or researched. And I don't try to make people sound stupid but sometimes I can't help it... For that I apologize, but I truly get the feeling that most people on this site are liberals, so let's get to the facts: Doing the math, it truly is impossible for Clinton to win the nomination without the super delegates turning the decision over. This to me would be another mockery of the American political system, and would really set the tone for some kind of dictatorship Bush wishes he had. Now to all the people on here, can we PLEASE put the ***** and childish comments aside and ban together as a Democratic party. Without this the republicans are going to win another election. Now I get it, statistically, liberals tend to be smarter, we're individualists, and like to form our own ideas, but the republicans are robots. They ban together very tightly, no matter what, and that's how they beat us. I never had a problem with Clinton up until her "kitchen sink" theory started to take action, now I hate her with every ounce of my blood. But regardless, I will be voting Democrat in November, PLEASE, can other people do the same, think of what's at stake. A war with Iran, and a president who seems to have no concern over economy, education, human rights, the environment, etc... Or a nominee that is very smart and cares about the interests of the people first. Like I said, I hate Clinton, but there is no doubt in my mind she would be leaps and bounds better than McCain. Thank You.
    • mgnesium, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1Doing the math, anything /is/ possible. That's why the contest is still running. It's over as soon as one of them has 50.1% of the available delegates.
      And you can't tell me that all the Obama supporters wouldn't be screaming for this to go all the way to the end if the positions were reversed. "Obama speaks for the people, let the people speak for Obama! Let our voices be heard!" and so forth. I say let it go to the end. After all, the chances of McCain beating either Obama or Hillary is most definitely slimmer than Hillary's supposed chances of beating Obama.
    • stonr2, on 03/22/2008, -4/+1OH LAWD! is that some epic trolling or are you just a goddamn idiot?
      >statistically, liberals tend to be smarter
      >dictatorship Bush wishes
      >For that I apologize

      HAHAHA. preach to ***** choir why don't you. good thing independents don't have stereotypes like liberals and conservatives
      • mummbleswers, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1I know I'm such a goddamn idiot for asking people to stick together and not talk to each other like assholes (which I admitted to doing myself). God. What kind of crack baby ***** stick responds to a positive posting by calling the person an idiot? Is your penis that small, or is it that your sister wants to stop having sex with you?
        First of all, check this:
        http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/democrats_may_n.h ...
        Second, Bush was quoted as saying "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." And his refusal to compromise with anyone over anything is why I made that remark. Besides, you ever know the guy to listen to the people? (Insert Cheney's "so" comment here)
        Third, I apologize because I too tend to talk to people like assholes on here, when in fact they are part of my party, or are not that far from my beliefs on other issues, so for that I apologize. I do not apologize for implying that someone, like stonr2, is probably a hillbilly redneck who's mom just worked enough at the eager beaver to get him that fancy typing machine he's been asking for, and now discovers a site like digg. If you want to continue this path of ***** you are obviously on, then by all means, it's a free country. But don't think for a second I need to read your ***** lame brain insults when your talking about some ***** you obviously didn't look up yourself. Now go to ***** bed, in a barn, or by yourself, or whatever else you do with your time like play with action figures, but get the ***** out of my *****. There's adults talking here, please.
    • mummbleswers, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1and add the "html" to the end of that address to continue getting schooled.
  • Pillage, on 03/22/2008, -6/+1Yes..Yes..Alienate Hillary and her supporters..yess..yess...
    • lamprey187, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Hillary supporters alienate themselves. If Senator Obama walked on water to deliver them the winning lottery numbers they still would vote Clinton because her last name is Clinton. They are brand name voters that think they are getting Bill back in the Oval office and somehow magically our economy, and our world will leap back in time to the happy pre-9/11 days.
  • skinny01, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4She thinks she can still win because she already gave the hitman a deposit. Just 3 more payments and she'll be ready to accept the nomination..
  • solidcube, on 03/22/2008, -1/+10I do not like Clinton in the least, but much of the political coverage on Digg smacks of an agenda. I'm for Obama, but whoever wins the democratic nomination will automatically get my vote regardless of any other factor.
    • TomPhoolery, on 03/22/2008, -2/+3Thanks for ruining this country with your voting attitude. This is why Bush was elected.
      • teddtech, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Your attitude is the very one that is ripping the Democratic party apart. Do us all a favor and call your self a republican...
    • lamprey187, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1I think it is dangerous to always vote along party lines. In a Hillary vs. McCain election I would either not vote or I'd scribble in a name on my ballot. If Hillary had ran a different campaign instead of her attack style campaign, I might have been swayed at some point to hear her case. Her entire campaign is and was flawed. This proves to me she would be a very poor leader. She is all ego and bravado, no substance.
      • DarkYang, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2And that is the problem with Hillary staying in the election. I'm sure a lot of Hillary supporters are thinking the same thing right now. I'm an Obama fan, but in either case, if people do what you are suggesting, McCain is guaranteed to win.
  • SKbSuJ, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1why were 2 employees fired but others were not? their access to Obama's files must have been different in some way?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 79 of 79 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.