digg

Join DiggAbout

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

The Clinton campaign has offically lost it. No, really.

thepage.time.com — Having already fallen off the deep end, the Clinton campaign has now completely fallen off the planet. Today's PR now claims that Obama is in a downward spiral after having blown them out of Mississippi by 21 points, and the only way to salvage his failing campaign is with a huge win in PA. I recommend drinking heavily before reading this PR.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • NameTry2468, on 03/13/2008, -7/+400Hahaha! Maybe he's getting less republican votes because 25% of Clinton voters were gifts from Rush Limbaugh. And she has GOT to stop peddling this myth that she won texas! Seriously, Obama suffered a crushing defeat in Texas by...gaining more delegates than her? I can't wait for Olbermann's "special comment"...
    • MadKennyP, on 03/13/2008, -3/+105I'm waiting for a letter in the mail from Publisher's Clearinghouse: "We're sorry, you have suffered a CRUSHING DEFEAT in our latest sweepstakes. You are to receive $10,000,000."
      • bigturns, on 03/13/2008, -0/+12perfect
      • rebrad, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6Well you can wait for magic or you can stop Hillary's from stealing the nomination from the peoples choice. All Americans who want and believe in justice need to prepare for a trip to Denver, Colorado, August 25-28, 2008 for the 45th Democratic National Convention. We need to go to prevent the racist and the corporates that hide in the shadows of the the Democratic Party who want to ordain Hillary as their puppet and chief. It doesn't matter what your race, creed or gender is we need you. Millions of progressive people have spoken and Obama is our candidate. Come to Denver and let's make it a real party.
      • poxonyou, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2re rebrad: Jesus. Let's hope that it doesn't go that far. Put pressure on her NOW, as well as the media and super-delagates, to get the ***** out. The media and super-delegates are enabling this madness.
        • rebrad, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2I hope it never gets that far either but if nothing else Clinton has shown she has no morals and a little thing like democracy won't stand in her way. Be prepared, to the media this is money; the more division the bigger ratings.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 03/13/2008, -1/+45Clinton's grasping at straws that will sadly cause serious damage within the Democratic party. I worry that if she continues her spin campaign we'll have another 1968 on our hands, which would be a ***** travesty.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 03/13/2008, -36/+2Obama fanatics' belittling of Hillary and her supporters will sadly cause serious damage within the Democratic party. I worry that if they continue alienating Clinton's base of support we'll have another 1968 on our hands, which would be a ***** travesty.
        Hillary's supporters are the ones you gotta worry about defecting for McCain. Stop trying to preach from an ivory tower just cause you think you are enlightened Obama supporters. I am supporting whoever the Dem nominee is, and I prefer it be Obama, but please, don't let your arrogance ruin this.
        • Gerz1219, on 03/13/2008, -0/+10Well, obviously, it's bad for the party to have a gigantic split along racial, gender, and class lines, and this primary race is weakening the Democrats every day it continues. The problem is that Hillary really lost this election a long time ago. Obama has several legitimate paths to the nomination -- if he experiences a surge, he can decisively beat Hillary in Pennsylania; or he could split the remaining contests; or he could lose every remaining contest as long as he wins about 40% of the vote. In all three scenarios, Obama would be the nominee, but with decreasing momentum and strength as a general election candidate.

          Hillary can't win. Even with a 15 point spike in popularity, she'd need to steal Florida and Michigan, and convince the superdelegates to override a pledged delegate deficit. No matter what happens, even if Obama gets struck by lightning tomorrow, Hillary's nomination will be tainted. And she can't win in the general. The better Hillary does from here on out, the worse it is for the party.

          It's not a matter of one side causing damage to the party. It's a matter of the continued primary battle causing damage to the party. Hillary has lost, and she needs to step aside, for the good of the party and the country. She's only making it worse by endlessly spinning the situation to match her delusions, because it makes the public think she still has a shot at winning this legitimately.
          • Ryosen, on 03/13/2008, -0/+15If the Democratic Party has any intention of winning the election, they need to wake up to one simple fact: If Obama wins the nomination, more Clinton supporters will vote for him than would Obama supporters vote for Clinton. Nominating Clinton will all but guarantee a win for McCain.
          • stonewaljacksn, on 03/13/2008, -15/+1so you are telling me the rabid obama supporters will defect for mccain?
            it doesnt matter, obama is going to win. the question is, are obamafags gonna stop being such ***** and chasing clinton supporters to mccain?
          • Gerz1219, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4@stonewall -- Yeah, everyone should tone down their anti-Hillary rhetoric on Digg, because there are so many Hillary votes here that might switch to McCain [rolls eyes]. It's not like I'm walking into NOW meetings talking ***** about her through a megaphone.
          • stonewaljacksn, on 03/13/2008, -6/+1Gerz,
            Yeah because candidate exposure in a long primary battle is REALLY gonna hurt Obama. What are you kidding me? McCain is taking a backseat to Hillary vs. Obama. Its the best thing that coulda happened for the Dems. You are just whining like babies because you want your damn bottles already. You should be jumping for joy that Obama has a near political doppelganger opponent right now in Hillary, cuz when McCain gets to focus on Obama, the ***** is really gonna start to fly. You think Hillary is bad? HA! IDiots. She is basically protecting BHO from some harsh *****.
          • Fafnir43, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Yeah. Obama having to focus on Clinton rather than McCain is the best of all possible worlds, right? While McCain gets a podium all to himself?

            No ***** way.
        • DrMonkeyLove, on 03/13/2008, -0/+12Why support whoever the Democratic nominee is? What the hell is the difference between Clinton and McCain?
          • bigturns, on 03/13/2008, -1/+8Don't punch me in the face just yet, hear me out. I am not a Repugnican, however if Hillary wins the nomination and ultimately the Presidency, Rove and his inbred theocon nutjobs will have a field day for four years. Four years of scandal. Four years of the Democratic Party being dragged through 'The Clintons' mud.

            The Democratic Party, and I'm just throwing this out there, would be in a worse position, come 2012 under a Hillary Presidency than say a McCain Presidency. Since, under a Republican Presidency Democrats would, if the trend continues, continue to gain seats in the House and Senate.

            I don't know, I could be totally wrong. I'm not necessarily advocating a vote for the war hero, turned religious wacko, John McCain just yet...
    • offspring06, on 03/13/2008, -3/+30Yeah, Obama won the Texas caucus.
      • Ndiggnation, on 03/13/2008, -1/+31He came away with more delegates too as far as I've read.
      • bigturns, on 03/13/2008, -1/+16Obama earned 10 more delegates in Texas and, after review of the California primaries earned an additional 10 in the count as it had been, erroneously reported/adopted, by the press.
      • dinot, on 03/13/2008, -1/+36Didn't you get the memo? Texas doesn't count because it has caucuses and primaries. The other 10+ states don't count either because they're small. Mississippi didn't count since they're black.

        Ah ***** it. People who vote for Obama don't count because they hate vaginas. Yeah, all 13 million of them.
    • LThermidor, on 03/13/2008, -0/+20Like you predicted, NameTry... Olberman went off on her last night almost as harshly as he does on Bush
    • LukasSmith, on 03/13/2008, -37/+4Ahaha. Democrats lauding the Delegate system. OMG Bush didn't need the popular Vote in 2000? guess not. Democrat party Hypocricy is thy name.
      • m0shen, on 03/13/2008, -2/+201. No one is 'lauding'.
        2. Obama is winning the popular vote / has been winning the popular vote. The real problem in this situation is that the Clinton campaign may try to go against the popular vote.
      • Jwoey, on 03/13/2008, -1/+16obama is winning popular vote nationwide, just like Gore did.
      • LukasSmith, on 03/13/2008, -11/+2Are you people blind? Hillary won the popular vote in Texas. Oddly you all seem quite pleased that Obama has only the delegate win in Texas. You have ranted day and night on how Obama won Texas. If you think Obama won Texas and are proud of it you are hypocrites that mock your own outrage in 2000. And actually I was responding to Offspring who seems to think the popular vote means nothing just like the situationally outraged Democrats who whined in 2000 but remain oddly silent now.
        • Fafnir43, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Problem: Hillary Clinton is claiming a full-on, massive victory in Texas. She didn't get one, and by one important metric she didn't even get a victory. /Regardless/ of the importance of the popular vote as a metric (I would consider it more important than delegates myself), this is still dishonesty and should not be tolerated.
        • amirman, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1caucuses are democratic.
      • LukasSmith, on 03/13/2008, -7/+2How often have I heard Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000 on Digg.com?
      • ic3man, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2LukasSmith - your typical baptist from Texas
    • mrjohnnycake, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Amen.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 03/13/2008, -16/+6I got an idea. How bout you pussies stop being crybabies, be content with the fact that Obama is killing her in reality, and ***** realize that the Clinton campaign isn't going to come out and say they are getting whipped. WTF do you expect.
      Where's the baby who's gonna respond with "she should just bow out waaaahhhhhhh"? Yeah, that would be easy if everyone you didn't agree with just stepped down for you wouldnt it? He's killing her. Stop crying about the fact that shes not giving you what you want.
      • PintOfGuinness, on 03/13/2008, -5/+6Sounds like your the only one crying!
      • piper999, on 03/13/2008, -8/+3They aren't being crybabies so much as bandwagon jumpers. They're just kids and this is probably the only election campaign they have followed. Its a lesson they have to learn in life: their opposition won't roll over and play dead just because they really, really, really want Obama to win.
        • stonewaljacksn, on 03/13/2008, -5/+3damn i wish i had like 50 fake screennames so i could digg u up multiple times.
    • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -25/+1Maybe hes getting 25% less votes because everyone's starting to realize hes full of hot air and Hillary is obviously the more experienced candidate?
      • ooby, on 03/13/2008, -1/+9 It’s true! Hillary has, like, two more years experience in elected office than Obama.
        • nicc, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4you mean that Obama has 4 more years than Hillary in elected office
          • ooby, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6I was only counting Congressional experience, my mistake. Looks like Obama has more experience.
      • Gerz1219, on 03/13/2008, -0/+11The Mississippi exit polls actually confirm that this isn't the case. A surprising number of Republican-identified Hillary voters say they will be unhappy if she becomes president. Obama has no corresponding disapproval rating among his Republican voters, essentially confirming that a substantial number of Republicans are voting for Hillary because they think McCain can beat her more easily.
      • piper999, on 03/13/2008, -2/+17If Hillary Clinton is a more 'experienced' candidate then Yoko Ono was an 'experienced' Beatle.
        • theatreguy36, on 03/13/2008, -3/+5You sir have a career in political commentary... dugg
          • EllimistX, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Why does that sound remarkably like a comment I saw a few days ago on a story linked to from digg that said "Hillary saying she has is experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle?" Ah! wrong reply link...meant it for piper999.
          • Keon, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2@ EllimistX

            Yeah...you're right. I remember reading that exact same comment. Is someone here pulling a Menstealia? Hmmm?
      • Wildog27, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2And what precisely is that experience?
      • diggduggDOOM, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1Experienced at what, exactly?
        • Mattja, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1Apart from sexual experience... oh wait
      • pixelate, on 03/13/2008, -2/+5Come on guys, Hillary already knows where all the light switches in the White House are! That's what usually eats up like half of a President's first year anyway.
      • Claude1971, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1ok Geraldine Ferraro
    • 11b1p, on 03/13/2008, -18/+1Clinton is going to win the democratic nomination by super delegates, the sooner you realize that the better.
      • cephelo, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2And lose the general vote and disenfranchise an entire generation from the Democratic party, thus sealing another two decades of Republican control of the Senate and House. Brilliant!
    • diggingaround, on 03/13/2008, -0/+16Only DIEBOLD can save her now!
    • sotopheavy, on 03/13/2008, -5/+1Obama's Finished! Wake up Sheeple! ROFL
    • almosttape, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3honestly, i don't think it matters that she is pretending like she won texas. the numbers don't lie (unless they do!?), so it really won't matter how much she plugs her ears and goes LALALALALALA I AM WINNING LALALA OBAMA SUX LLALALALA I HEART NAFTA LALALA
    • msipes, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1I find it funny you make that statement with the statistics showing Republicans that crossed over voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
    • slashbot, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1She won the primary. That counts for more symbolically.
  • MadKennyP, on 03/13/2008, -4/+271Wow. Hillary claims Obama suffered a "setback" in Texas? He won more delegates in Texas than Clinton.
    And how about this: "Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan" -- Hillary can't resist trying to convince Florida and Michigan to break the rules which they've already agreed to.
    • hipnerd, on 03/13/2008, -0/+28Florida and Michigan already broke the rules -- that's why they were penalized by having their delegates stripped. She wants to get them angry and petitioning to have their delegates count because she is so far behind that she needs them.

      Plus, the very fact that she is campaigning so heavily to "make their votes count" (after initially agreeing they should NOT count) makes her look like a people's champion in those states. I'm praying to God that Obama puts her down so far that neither these states nor the superdelegates become a factor. If she keeps this up she will fracture the party.
      • brstilson, on 03/13/2008, -0/+43She wants Michigan's delegates because she ran unopposed. Michigan's delegates shouldn't count because it just wasn't a fair election. Obama wasn't even on the ballot.
        • richlizard24, on 03/13/2008, -0/+25I live in Michigan and I completely agree. Hillary is trying to steal the election because she knows that she cannot win it fairly.
          • brstilson, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6I wouldn't be suprised if she hatched this plot with Granholm from the beginning.
    • theaceoffire, on 03/13/2008, -3/+16*sigh* Wish she would either wake up and quit or be pulled by her husband. She is destroying what was left of the Clinton name.
      • subliminalurge, on 03/13/2008, -10/+3It wasn't much of a name in the first place.
        • nickerbocker, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1Because he lied about a blow job, right?
          • subliminalurge, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Nope. Never thought that was a big deal at all. I think he's a dirtbag for quite a few reasons, none of which have the slightest thing to do with sex.
    • OpenIntro, on 03/13/2008, -25/+1You, as a citizen of the US, should want Florida and Michigan to count in some way as well....

      You, as an Obama supporter, want to leave FL and MI the way they are because you are worried that might not help your cause.
      • Stennie, on 03/13/2008, -1/+17We most definitely want Michigan and Florida to have a say in this process as much as any other state. The problem is that only the Hillary supporters had a say in those states. By asking for those votes to be counted, she's actually campaigning against the will of the people. Its throwing a knockout punch before the bell rang and then claiming you won the match. Its not a representation of a true match.
      • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -3/+16Solid logic. I can't imagine why Obama would object to including the results of primaries where he wasn't on the ballot. Clearly he hates democracy.
      • ronaldinho, on 03/13/2008, -2/+5No, Obama was not on the ballot, so it would defintely not be fair. Now if they did their primaries counts again (this time including Obama), I'm all for it though.
        • subliminalurge, on 03/13/2008, -1/+7I'm not for it at all. Both states rescheduled their primaries in violation of the established rules, and had full knowledge of the consequences when they did so. I don't believe that those consequences should go unenforced.

          I do think that it's a shame for the citizens of those states who won't have their voices heard during the primary process, but the solution they need to pursue is replacing their party leadership with people who will follow the rules, not trying to find a way to break the rules with impunity.

      • eviltandem, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5I live in FL. I didn't vote in the democratic primaries because I knew it didn't matter. I would prefer we not get our delegates back. It simply is not fair any way you look at it. I know lots of people who didn't vote because it wouldn't count, and it doesn't seem fair to me to change it AFTER you told us it wouldn't count.

        If they want to have a revote, and everybody gets to openly campaign here, I have less issue with it. I don't think that it will happen, so I say we just move one and learn our lesson for next time.
    • one70bpm, on 03/13/2008, -2/+16Can someone please explain/link to me how Obama won in Texas? (I believe yall, i just keep seeing Clinton won 51% to 47%, or 65 delegates to 61).

      I assume it has to do with the caucus, which I see Obama took -- but i'm unclear how delegates work with that..

      Thanks.

      • cmschmidt, on 03/13/2008, -0/+36Ok. This info is from cnn.com: Hillary won the primary 51% to 47%. This gives hillary 65 delegates and obama 61 as you said.

        However Obama won the caucuses 56% to 44% giving Obama 38 delegates and hillary 29 delegates.

        Hillary: 65 (primary) + 29 (caucuses) = 94 Total Delegates
        Obama: 61 (primary) + 38 (caucuses) = 99 Total Delegates

        So yes, Obama won texas.
      • darundal, on 03/13/2008, -0/+7Okay, 2/3 of the delegates from Texas are assigned by the primary, and 1/3 is from the caucuses.
      • venson, on 03/13/2008, -0/+7It is kind of odd that Texas has both Primaries and Caucuses.
        • jayzer, on 03/13/2008, -0/+9...and given the huge ***** that it was, I would bet this is the last we'll see of the "Texas Two-Step".
        • allengeer, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Texas chose this from the classic idiom "vote early, and vote often". So texan's are allowed to vote often.
        • xaxxon, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Other states have both, but often times only one counts for delegates. Washington (state) has a caucus where all the delgates are determined and a primary that counts for no delegates.
    • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -26/+2Obama's peak has come and gone. Hillary will win this election no matter how much the Obamabots kick and scream. Deny it all you want, but deep down you know its true. Obama will go the way of Ron Paul.
      • SmartfulDodger, on 03/13/2008, -1/+14check your scoreboard....
      • Edrick, on 03/13/2008, -0/+8Come and gone? He still has the most delegates and it's almost impossible for Clinton to surpass him unless the superdelegates hand it to her, which would null the democratic process entirely.
      • ehalasey, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6This just in: Hillary to defeat maths!
      • Fafnir43, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Yeah, after the last two contests I see a pretty clear trend. *rolls eyes*
    • protogenxl, on 03/13/2008, -6/+8Well the campaign felt they need some new blood so they hired Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.
      • ryptide, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6I don't know why people are digging you down. Probably because they think you're making a weird Obama=Muslim comment.

        +1 from me for the reference to that nutjob information minister. I can just picture a Clinton advisor announcing "Obama supporters are committing suicide by the hundreds at the gates!"
        • Dantetheinferno, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2In case anyone can still not get it, It was that information bob dude back in 2003 who told lots of lies to the Iraqis. I.E: They're all retreating, glory to muhammed, etc..
      • netant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5Hillary Clinton Campaign Spokesman Muhammad Saeed Al-Sahhaf:

        "Its not racist to say Clinton doesn't get the black votes because black people are racist".

        "Behold our glorious victories over the Obama in Ohio and Texas! The tide is turning! On to Pennsylvania!"
    • rblancarte, on 03/13/2008, -0/+8What I really find interesting is how they tout these stats about winning Pennsylvania (and overall). The campaign people seem to confuse winning the general election w/ winning the primary. And it isn't just in this case:
      When Hillary won Ohio and Texas, she stated how it is important to be able to win the big states (since she just had) to win the presidency. But that is apples to oranges (or in this case, republicans to democrats). Sure Hillary can win Ohio and Texas is a "democrat" only election, but what happens in a heads up, everyone votes, election against McCain? Can she sway republicans and independents to her message?
      This isn't to say that she can't (though I will say I don't believe she can). But when talking the race against Obama, you have to be fair when you make the comparisons they are making. They seem to think that performance now equates to performance later. Plus some of their information is disturbing (losing ground w/ Republicans?!?!? What does that have to do with anything in DEMOCRAT primaries?!!?)
      IMHO, this is more fear mongering that the campaign is putting out to say "Vote for us, because Obama can't win in November, and we don't want another republican president."
    • Narrator, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1The thing I always found revolting about Hillary is the way she communicates, in press releases, interviews and in speeches it gives the impression that she thinks the electorate is really really stupid. It seems like she never gets into facts or details and always sticks to very general dull themes that appear to be just trying to stroke the ego of the crowd she's speaking to -- whatever political ideas they might have. This press release is just more confirmation of that it seems.
  • Krisgi, on 03/13/2008, -3/+261Way to hallucinate. And the most absurd thing is that she claims she won "fair" in Michigan. LOL. Obama wasn´t even on the ballot there! I wonder what Clinton and her camp are smoking. (But not inhaling, of course)
    • RustyJ, on 03/13/2008, -0/+7"pure columbian hash" if anyone follows the reference....
    • Zuggy, on 03/13/2008, -0/+9What are ya'all talking about the memo is error free
      Now where did I put that damned crack pipe
    • 1gunners4, on 03/13/2008, -0/+43The funniest part about the Michigan debacle is that 40% of the Democratic voters went out of their way to tell Hillary Clinton "We are voting, but we are voting to tell you that we won't vote for you." Hilarity.
      • Mattja, on 03/13/2008, -0/+12No... Hillarity!

        I am so sorry.
        • 1gunners4, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I was tempted to make the pun, but my good conscience got in the way. You should be ashamed. :P
    • ElectroOverlord, on 03/13/2008, -0/+13Aside from the 40% uncommitted, many of us democrats who could not vote for our desired candidate and were told that the democratic primary votes would not count voted where we could be counted...on the republican side of the election. Since I could not vote for Obama I voted for Ron Paul just to send a statement. Expect of 40% of the democratic party in Michigan to shove the word "fair" down her privileged riding on hubbies coattail ass
    • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -25/+1Hillary played by the rules and won. You can cry about it some more but its not going to change anything. LOL @ Obamabots "Waaa its not fair". Cry more please!
      • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -0/+9What rules did she play by? The rules of not campaigning in florida or michigan?
      • barnett25, on 03/13/2008, -0/+12I could win in Michigan too if I was the only one on the ballet like Hillary.
      • Fafnir43, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Um... She played by the rules, she won (mostly because she was the only one playing), and now she's trying to change the rules so that the win actually means something. There's a difference. I swear, every time I read the word "obamabot" my IQ goes down a point...
        • Mejari, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1FYI, the fact that she was 'playing' was against the rules and against what she specifically agreed to.
        • Krisgi, on 03/15/2008, -0/+0Incredible. Do you even understand what the Party specifically prohibited? I think you are one misinformed person.
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 03/13/2008, -1/+21"Of course I inhaled. That was the point!"

      - Barack Obama
    • DangerCollie, on 03/13/2008, -4/+2Must be some good *****, whatever it is. Probably the same stuff Laura Bush is smoking. Able to bend reality like a flashback from a 70's acid trip. I'm glad none of them have to drive.
  • duggedup, on 03/13/2008, -1/+357Can you imagine the propaganda Presidency we would witness under Hillary as Commander-In-Chief?
    • martalli, on 03/13/2008, -1/+67Her style of campaigning and administration is cut from the same cloth as Rove, Bush, and Cheney. This divisiveness is not how you run a country. This is how children settle disputes on the playground.
      • badqat, on 03/13/2008, -1/+20I may be biased, but I think Hillary would not only surpass Rove, but probably Nixon as well.
      • theaceoffire, on 03/13/2008, -1/+13You sell her too low...
        She would introduce new levels of sleaze, the likes of which the world has never known.
      • Ryosen, on 03/13/2008, -0/+7At least Bush and Rove were coy about their intentions during the campaign. Clinton has been so brazen with her disregard for reality, civility, and respect for the truth that it's absolutely frightening to contemplate what she might do if elected. It's almost as if she's been using Bush's presidency as a litmus test for what the American population is willing to tolerate from its government.
      • ldailey06, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1If Hillary's campaign is any guide, her presidency would be 4 more years of the same ***** we've been putting up with over the last 7. I've gone from having an indifferent opinion of Hillary when the campaign started to straight-up hating her because of her ***** tactics.
    • romistrub, on 03/13/2008, -0/+28That's what's worrying me. I'm not American... but by the judge of this campaign, her presidency could have the most BS of any I've ever seen or heard of.
      • Zombi, on 03/13/2008, -1/+16I think the current administration has set some pretty hard to beat records as far as this type of stuff goes. Hillary does strike me as the big brother type though.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/13/2008, -3/+3John Kerry's was super bad. "I was for it before I was against it....." see-saws in parks around the country felt threatened by that guy
        • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3John Kerry wasn't president so your comparison makes no sense.
          • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1neither is Hillary, context matters.
    • bigturns, on 03/13/2008, -2/+10F THE CLINTONS
    • acroyear2, on 03/13/2008, -0/+11Hillary - Commander in chief! The future:

      "My vote to authorize the previous president to invade Iraq was really a vote to send inspectors. Also, when I said all those other states in the union were not important what I was actually saying is they're more important. Additionally, al-Quaeda in Iraq is proof my decision to authorize Bush to invade Iraq was a great idea! One last thing, the only reason Barack became the head of the U.N. is because he's black. Thanks, you've been great!"
      • Kyan, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3I totally read that as "Hillary - Commander and Thief".
    • rkho, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5I'd rather not.
    • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -11/+3In case you're too young to remember we already had a Clinton in the white house 8 years ago and everything went fine.
      • hackiavelli, on 03/13/2008, -1/+7Hillary's proved she isn't a tenth the politician Bill is.
      • barnett25, on 03/13/2008, -0/+7So if my last name were Clinton would you vote for me?
      • acroyear2, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2went fine? well, yeah, he wasn't disastrous like bush but not everything went "fine".

        • netant, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1The best that could be reasonably expected from an American president.

          After all, even Ronald Reagan withdrew from Lebanon after ~241 Marines got blow up.
    • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -3/+5Republicans can. They're voting for her in droves. They apparently respond well to her brand of empty-headed jingoism after 8 years of Booosh.
      • Fragowell, on 03/13/2008, -0/+11Republicans are voting for her because they know McCain has a better chance against her than Obama.
        • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6Republicans are voting for her because Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter told them to
        • str1fe, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Now now, there's no reason you can't both be right.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6Yeah I can, were you alive in the 90's?
    • agarwalgr, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0how does she think she is going to get away with such stuff? Does she think Obama's is going to drop dead or something?
      • TreDubZedd, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't be surprised to find out she already has that lined up, and is just waiting for the opportune moment.
    • rmassie, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1If there was ever a comment I wanted to digg more than once it's this one. Kinda like what I would do in Florida if I ever got the chance to vote for Obama again like I did in January.
    • boner79, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Exactly. Hillary's consistent stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality when it is inconvenient to her reminds me way too much of dubya. I ain't got time to live in another 8 years of the dark ages.
  • dvallone, on 03/13/2008, -3/+178Seriously. This is Bush/Cheney level spin and dilusionment. If their campaign is this far out in left field now, what will it be like with 4 years of Hillary in the White House? I would hope that whoever our next president is, we will not have to fact-check every single statement put out by their office.
    • munen123, on 03/13/2008, -8/+2you mean like the bush administration?

      clinton would not lie as much as gorgie boy has and continues to do...
      • badqat, on 03/13/2008, -1/+9yeah, she'd lie even more...
      • theaceoffire, on 03/13/2008, -0/+8She is trying though, don't fault her for that. If she could lie more, she would.
      • Agrunt007, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Going by what she's shown so far, you really believe that? It's just more of the pandering w/ fallacies and half truths to the half wits amongst us.
    • hansonc, on 03/13/2008, -0/+12Don't worry if Hillary gets nominated by the Dems it'll be 4 years of McCain before the country elects Obama in 2012
      • Jwoey, on 03/13/2008, -1/+7"Dont worry, only 4 more years of this"

        I seem to remember that sentiment from 2000... and 2004.
    • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -7/+2It would be just like it was with Bill in office. Just fine.
    • Hacbarton, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I know some pseudo-witty douche is gonna call Godwin's on this, but isn't she pulling the "Big Lie"? I understand hers is no where near the scope of the Nazis, but it follows the same principle: Say a lie so big and so far from reality, and people will begin to accept it.

      I was watching Joe Scarborough this morning and they were talking about the whole Ferraro racial comment thing. They kept saying how horrible it is for Obama. Wait, a Clinton supporter makes a semi-racist comment (Olbermann was out of line comparing it to David Duke) and it hurts Obama more than Hillary? Her Lie is already taking effect.
      • logpony, on 03/13/2008, -3/+0Lulz. ***** you, I still invoke Godwin's Law. Just because a politician talks some big game is no reason to bring up the Nazis. Jesus you're all tools.
        • Fafnir43, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2*bzzt* Comparison to propaganda tool that originated with the Nazis != comparison to the Nazis.

          Thank you for playing, have a nice day!
      • magus_melchior, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1It's not very close to the infamous Big Lie tactic of the Nazis (repeat a big lie loudly and incessantly from a position of power, whereby you arrived by saying what people wanted to hear), but the idea is similar. Clinton is trying to tell her supporters what they want to hear so they remain polarized against Mr. Obama.
    • thedragon4453, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I have to agree. My first though was that how bushesque this whole thing is. She is just trying to spin this is just so she can win a few more states and then steal the nomination in the courts. Don't let it happen. Just like Iraq didn't have wmds, obama is not losing. ***** Christ people, stop believing everything on tv. Ill seriously consider leaving this country if we elect someone like mccain or Clinton. Not just because I hate them as candidates, but because I won't want to be surrounded by the idiots that make up the general population.
    • citizenme, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Great point. I want to be able to rest if Obama wins and not have to scrutinize and cross reference every statement that comes out of my president's mouth
    • DeFex, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1You have had a hundred years or so to practice!
  • NoDrama, on 03/13/2008, -10/+25Well, Clinton only has a double-digit lead in the polls and the support of the PA Governor and the states largest city Mayor going for her, I can see why they'd want to start managing expectations and redefining the narrative now rather than risk waiting for objective reporting. Is there an emoticon to show me rolling my eyes? @@

    No no he's not dead, he's... he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, isn't it?
    Beautiful plumage!
    • martalli, on 03/13/2008, -1/+19They have a chance in PA, so they are trying to spin the entire race as if PA is all that matters. Plenty of others feel that the other states matter, too. Just how dismissive of this baloney would Clinton be if she was the one in the lead?
      • Hacbarton, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Precisely! Same thing with MI and FL. If Obama had one those states, would she give a damn whether their votes were counted?
        • xaxxon, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Yes, she would give a damn. She'd be fighting against counting the votes tooth and nail!
        • poxonyou, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Kind of hard to win states when his name wasn't even on the ballot.
    • staxofmax, on 03/13/2008, -1/+31Even if Hillary wins PA getting two votes for every one vote for Barack, she still ends up behind in the overall delegate count....
    • beakerwimp, on 03/13/2008, -1/+17"risk waiting for objective reporting"?
      Let me just ask you this: If Hillary wins by a large margin in Pennsylvania will she be in the delegate lead? Most likely she will still be behind in delegates. You have to admit, the press release put out by her campaign uses language that frames the contest in an extremely inaccurate way. That's a nice way of putting it. The reason she has to keep using this kind of misleading framing is because she hasn't done as well as Obama has in most of the primaries and caucuses so far. That is the bottom line. I don't mind framing yourself as the new underdog who has to make a comeback using only your own integrity on the issues. I do mind framing the issue in a misleading way to take attention away from the fact that the other candidate has out-campaigned you and won more delegates so far.
      • Jwoey, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2"Most likely she will still be behind in delegates"

        She'll have to win 86% of the vote (Every single delegate) to takeover the delegate lead (by 1) ini Pennsylvania. Then she has to withstand May, which should favor Obama.
        • Hacbarton, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3In fact, almost every state between now and PA (and the ones afterwards) are slated for Obama. Even minor net delegate gains by him will keep him well in the lead, even after counting Superdelegates.

          Meanwhile, John McCain is working on his tan in Europe.
          • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2FYI as far as I know PA is the next primary
    • offspring06, on 03/13/2008, -0/+14Obama doesn't have to win PA. He just has to keep it close.
      • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -2/+10He doesn't even really have to do that.
      • magus_melchior, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4In terms of pledged delegates, this is true. However, if he doesn't at least tie her, Clinton will pound the "big blue states" argument into the DNC's skulls (which is fallacious, given that Obama can draw Republican votes). It might not turn very many superdelegates to her cause, but it'll be a world of hurt for the convention and the Democrats' chances in the general election.
        The best solution for the Democrats this year is to abandon the Clintons. There simply is no other way to win the White House for them.
      • poxonyou, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1No, he could totally blow it in PA and still win. It's a Clinton and media lie that this is close and PA will somehow even the score, or even put Clinton in the lead. It's complete and utter BS. She needs to blow out Obama in PA and every remaining contest, which is not going to happen. She has NEVER trounced Obama, yet Obama has continuously done so to Clinton.
    • slickriven, on 03/13/2008, -1/+9One thing to remember is that PA is a closed primary. Meaning that registered Independents and Republicans can't vote for her. If she's going to win she'll need to win only the Democratic vote and not 25% or more of the Rep or Indep vote... something I don't think and hope she can't do.
    • Paranoidmarvin, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Dugg for Dead Parrot reference
    • Buddhaismybuddy, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2dugg for the monty python reference.
    • birdly, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Hillary is an EX-PARROT!
  • vishcool1, on 03/13/2008, -1/+321If you find Hillary's campaign's memo funny, make sure to check out the Obama campaign's response:
    http://thepage.time.com/obama-campaign-annotates-c ...
    • Hillsfar, on 03/13/2008, -0/+101That was absolutely Hillaryous!

      My favorite quote: "If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November."

      And the response: "If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us – I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House."
    • jotate, on 03/13/2008, -11/+31There is absolutely no way in hell that Obama's campaign released that response. It's snarky, sarcastic, condescending, and absolutely everything that his campaign is NOT about and has NOT been at any point. That response fell into ALL CAPS LOCK GOGOGO mode at one point, for *****'s sake. That response is pretty hilarious as most jokes are, but a joke nonetheless.
      • br0ck, on 03/13/2008, -2/+21NPR disagrees with you: http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/obama_campai ...
        • r00fus, on 03/13/2008, -1/+10Still no confirmation that Obama's campaign released that response.
      • awills, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4Yeah, I agree. There was even small errors, like missing punctuation. I don't think the Obama campaign would put something that sloppy out. It was hilarious though.
      • magus_melchior, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Maybe it was meant to be a quick and funny rejoinder by a staffer rather than an official response from Mr. Obama?

        Or the guy forgot to check his CC: and BCC: lists when he mashed Send?
        I'll admit that the response drew the best laugh I had today.
    • staxofmax, on 03/13/2008, -2/+27It was a funny response, if in a childish kind of way. I doubt the response was officially endorsed by the Obama campaign in any way what so ever.
      • Tanishh, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2 I rather hope that Obama at least says that he agrees with much of what they wrote if not endorses it, whether or not it really came from his campaign. It may be sarcastic and snarky at times but with the ***** the Clinton campaign is doling out these days it's about time someone brought them and future voters looking at this stuff back into reality.
    • lewhich, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Thanks! That just made my day.
    • Pilot85, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6lol, some fresh outta college intern took some initiative with the press releases.
    • Hacbarton, on 03/13/2008, -0/+7"[I don’t think Clinton’s strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]"

      Wasn't this Giuliani's tactic? Consistently losing? Combine that with fear-mongering red-phone moments (which there have been, what, 2 of in the last 5 decades?), her love of secrecy, and her pseudo-experience (As Chris Rock said: "My wife has been married to me for 20 years but she wouldn't be very funny up here"), and I'm seeing eerily similar tactics between Hillary, the fear of the Right, and Rudy, someone deemed near fascist.
      • r00fus, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Maybe it's something in the New York elite watering hole... where Clinton and Ghoulliani both hung out?
    • misdirekted, on 03/13/2008, -2/+0Hey dude.
    • sofro123, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1I agree that the tone of the response (while I find hilarious) is definitely not one of an official campaign response.
      Her campaign's logic is what is truly funny, though. I think they have gone insane!
  • yellowcakewalk, on 03/13/2008, -9/+102Hillary = G.W. Bush in a skirt.
    We don't need another hallucinating warmonkey in the White House.
    • 1gunners4, on 03/13/2008, -1/+33False. Hillary = G.W. Bush in a female pant-suit.
      • badqat, on 03/13/2008, -2/+10False again... Hillary = G.W. Bush in a female pant-suit, but with bigger testicles.
      • 1gunners4, on 03/13/2008, -2/+5Touche, salesman.
    • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -18/+2Obama = Bush with no experience.
      • ronaldinho, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4have you looked at his policies? he's totally different from Bush
      • vade79, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6You = need to understand how the equal sign works
      • dudeguy1234, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5plhearn = fail, because A. They are completely different and B. Bush didn't HAVE experience...
    • xaxxon, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3that was a mental image I didn't need. Though I think it made me laugh. Not sure.
    • sotopheavy, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1Obama is in his last throws! Wake up sheeple! lol
  • gmvasey, on 03/13/2008, -1/+10I'm still waiting for the royal 'we' to come out of her mouth... http://www.rant-here.com/drupal/royalty
    • wilcocola, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1I'm still waiting for Obama to come "in" her mouth...
  • Ell3, on 03/13/2008, -88/+5Don't count the Clintons out just yet. No Really!

    It's highly unlikely that the DNC is going to allow an ultra-liberal black man with a Muslim name and an Islamic background to become the Democrat nominee for President of the United States. Do your homework on the Democrat's Super-Delegates. The Democrats developed the concept of Super-Delegates after McGovern lost in a landslide to Nixon. Obama has been successful so far because Democrat delegates tend to be ultra-liberal, even Socialist. They're government workeres and union activists and they tend to elect liberal nominees, like McGovern and Obama. But liberals do not win national elections in America. Look at your history.

    The Super-Delegates are there to put the brakes on some runaway effort for a popular candidate who, through some mass hysteria or popularity, would sweep the elected delegates but lose in the general election. (Obama)

    It's highly unlikely that the Democrat Party leaders, the Super-Delegates, will allow Obama to become the Democrat nominee.
    • jtbndy, on 03/13/2008, -3/+44How many times were you dropped on your head as a kid?
      • masterm1nd, on 03/13/2008, -29/+1How many times did you add value to the discussion as a kid?
        • ninsei, on 03/13/2008, -1/+16Comedic value is important :)
          • masterm1nd, on 03/13/2008, -15/+1It wasn't funny, it was a copout counter argument. Not only does it not add value, it takes away value (we're now talking about this stupid *****)
          • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4masterm1nd, you totally ruined the joke,
      • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -9/+0How would he know, and what makes you know that he was? Personal experience?
      • Jwoey, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5hey hey hey now.. i really was dropped; got two stitches. Didn't have to wash my hair for a month.
    • theaceoffire, on 03/13/2008, -1/+20I would like to pretend that the Democratic party would rather have an Honest, gifted, and talented African American than a Dishonest, manipulative person like Hillary Clinton.
      • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -13/+0Pretending get you a lose, Democrats, America, and the world needs a win.
      • Ell3, on 03/13/2008, -6/+1It's not about "who they would rather have", it's about winning. They'll go with the candidate that they think has the best chance of winning the general election. I'm no fan of Hillary, but you're naive if you think Obama has a better chance in the general election than Hillary.
    • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -15/+1As Ed McMahon said to Johnny: You are correct sir!
      Obama will get the VP slot if he wants it. If he doesn't he's done, Iowa doesn't like has beens.
    • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -18/+3As an Obamabot I'm not going to look at evidence but instead just tell you you're stupid because I don't want to believe what you're saying is true.
    • enclaved, on 03/13/2008, -5/+13Ell3 you're retarded, and racist, and retarded.
      • Ell3, on 03/13/2008, -7/+1Do you always respond with name calling when you can't use logic to counter the argument?
        • reinventit, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1When the logic has no merit.
        • m0neybags, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1Seriously though, you're ridiculous. Your posts are trashier than the ramblings of a conservative talk radio caller, without even attempting to filter the racism out.
    • jgzman, on 03/13/2008, -0/+17If the super delegates force a candidate upon the party that the party did not select, it will mean the end of the democratic party. At the very least, it will mean that John McCain will be president.
      And please, do not attempt to explain the super-delegate process to me, and the fact that they are well within their rights to do so. If the nomination is decided by the Super delegates, not the voters, the party will collapse.
      • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -6/+0Take a look at how Hubert Humphrey was nominated in 1968. Superdelegates are the leaders of the party, they decide which direction the party goes, if you want to change the direction you can become a leader of the party, or you can get a bunch of people to vote the same way you do, in which case you'd be a party leader, Too bad you can't understand that.
        • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Ahh, yes. I remember well the Hubert Humphrey presidency. Good times.
          • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -3/+0Uh, no you don't?
          • Mejari, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2good job g0k50, you win the 'me no get sarcasm' award! For the 5 of you in the world who didn't get my sarcasm , my point was that people nominated by the superdelegates and not the people could never get elected.
          • g0k50, on 03/14/2008, -2/+0That comment wasn't as nearly as sarcastic as the first one. Right?
            The superdelegates are also known as your party leaders, if you don't like what they do, remove them, get involved in the party and become one of them, walk a mile in Harry Reid's shoes, (undecided). Then lay out some sarcasm about them not knowing what they are doing. (like Obama? Why hasn't he put her away yet? Don't know how would be my guess, but she knows how to put him away, ala 8 mile, check out the last 15 minutes)
        • Fafnir43, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3That's interesting. His post: "I understand the superdelegates are within their rights to choose Clinton, but if they do so they will fracture the party beyond recognition." Your post: "I don't think you understand the position of the superdelegates. You see, they can choose Clinton if they want."

          *facepalm*
        • g0k50, on 03/14/2008, -0/+0Last I checked the Democratic Party survived 1968.
      • Ell3, on 03/13/2008, -5/+1I agree. It will cause a lot of disenfranchisement among the liberal Democrat voters. It's possible that Nader may be the person that saves Obama. If the Super-Delegates do what they're supposed to do, and send a lot of liberal Democrat voters over to Nader, then they've won the battle but lost the war.

        The Democrat leadership is definitely between a rock and a hard place.
    • ronaldinho, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2I will still say that Hillary still has a chance, but at the same time, the situation was different. The truth is that the previous administrations and their era has an impact too. When McGovern lost in a landslide, do you know who was president? LBJ, and he was very VERY popular, and that will carry over to the election because voters would like to see change, and it's most likely to come from the other party (Nixon was a Republican and LBJ was a Dem). Since McGovern wasn't all that distinguished, Nixon easily gets the nod.

      This time it's different. Bush really wracked his party's chances with his years at the helm already, and unless McCain is really distinguished, the Reps don't stand a chance simply because people feel so negative about Bush and the party he belongs to. Obama has the popular vote so far across the country, and I don't see that changing. The past couple years has already given Obama and the Dems an advantage, whereas for McGovern back then it was the opposite. I really think some voter would vote for one candidate simply based on what party they are in. It's simple-minded, but well, we do have enough of those people to have these things happening.

      Besides, the superdelegates system is stupid away. They should have realize that the McGovern blowout loss was an aberration (and in a way, to be expected). Odds are against them anyway. At the very least, they still went with the popular candidate back then (McGovern). If they go with Hillary though, that will really fracture the party (when Obama is clearly the favorite here).
      • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0LBJ was not that popular, not very VERY popular, because he escalated the Vietnam War. McGovern lost because he was a pussy, he should have been all over the WH when the burglars got caught in the Watergate. McGovern was to left to win. So nixon got the win because he fought for it, he broke laws to win it for Gosh Sakes. Obama could take a lesson from each of these campaigns, McGovern on how to lose and Nixon on how to win. Long story short Obama gets to live on the Naval Observatory for 8 years then moves to 1600 Penn.
    • tomvale13, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3So what you're saying is, the superdelegates are there to prevent the people getting who they voted for?
      ***** so stoked I live in Australia, seriously if John McCain (sp?) or Hillary get in I am washing my hands of the US, I cannot keep believing in a Country that continually has dissapointed me for the better part of a decade. please realise that the world is watching and expecting a colossal ***** up, prove them wrong, please.
      • Ell3, on 03/13/2008, -4/+1Why are you complaining to us? Go complain to the Democrat Party. They are the ones that initiated the concept of Super-Delegates.

        If you're so opposed to them, become a Republican. At least they are democratic about the whole process. They don't use Super-Delegates. They let the people pick the nominee, even if it is the wrong guy. like McCain.
    • lougoose, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Go ***** yourself you racist pig.
    • psylent, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2hahahahahahahahahahah!
  • jtbndy, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6Didn't need a drink to read that, but it did provide a great laugh.
  • smackjack, on 03/13/2008, -1/+50I got this in my email:

    (see reply)
    • smackjack, on 03/13/2008, -3/+164When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."
      When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.
      When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.
      When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.
      When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.
      And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.
      But the facts are clear.
      For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.
      Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.
      We're ready to take on John McCain. But we also need to build operations in places like Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, and Oregon that will hold their primaries in April and May.
      Barack Obama needs your support to fight this two-front battle. Please make a donation of $25 right now:

      https://donate.barackobama.com/math

      Thank you for your support and for everything you've done to build a movement that is engaging voters and winning contests in every part of this country.

      David

      David Plouffe
      Campaign Manager
      Obama for America
      • theaceoffire, on 03/13/2008, -3/+11I don't know if this is a valid email, but I agree with what it says.
        • PhillyVu, on 03/13/2008, -1/+23It's valid. I got the same one. It was sent before the March 4th primaries.
          • mrASSMAN, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1I got the email as well.. it was sent yesterday (Mar 12th) ..
        • catachip, on 03/13/2008, -0/+24It's a "valid" email sent to those who have donated to Obama's campaign. I received it to. It's all true. Obama has been criticized for every state he has won because the Clinton campaign has decided that those state's are not important in the election.
        • dudeguy1234, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Me too.
        • BrendanSheehan, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1"I don't know if it's valid" ?
          F.U.D. in i's most pure form.
      • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -29/+2no one wants to read your email spam
        • dinot, on 03/13/2008, -2/+13But I'm sure everyone here wants to know how a blindy devoted, fact-hating Clinton supporter like you feels about email.
      • birdly, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4I've never donated a dime to a political campaign in my life, until right now. Thanks for the push.
    • g0k50, on 03/13/2008, -17/+0It's not over until it's over, Yogi Berra
    • purzzzell, on 03/13/2008, -0/+26I'm digging you just for putting the excessively long post in the reply. Awesome idea, and thank you.
  • SheilaNoya, on 03/13/2008, -0/+54We already have a president who constantly lies to us and refuses to face the truth. Hillary is exactly like Bush in that regard. Her own ego is more important than telling the truth. Let's not repeat the same mistake we made with Bush by putting another megalomaniac in the White House.
    • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -27/+1Hillary is very anti bush. Obama is a lot closer to Bush IMO. Obama could never win against McCain anyway. Hillary is the only real chance the democrats have. Plus Obama is a *****.
      • AgentMull, on 03/13/2008, -5/+4LOLHOMO
      • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -0/+7I have a serious question, plhearn. I would really like an answer because I have this question a lot:
        Why is it that Clinton supporters believe that she is the only hope against McCain? It has been shown in every single poll that Obama has a much better chance against him. McCain is much more liberal than normal Republicans so he can bring in a lot of the independent voters, as can Obama, but Hillary has shown that she cant.
        (By the way, I buried/reported the idiot yelling LOLHOMO, so don't lump me in with him, of course i buried you for calling someone a ***** too)
        • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -4/+1Polls don't mean anything. I can show you polls that say Hillary is winning by a landslide. Go to foxnews.com and you'll find polls saying the same about McCain. A lot of Hillary supporters believe Obama is full of talk that he can't back up, and Hillary would be better at getting the job done. No one here, mind you. There are also many that think she has a stronger healthcare plan, among other issues. But I was just kind of trolling for fun because I'm bored at work.
        • yacks, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3@plhearn: If you truly believe Hillary has a better chance at beating McCain, you really do not understand politics and the American public. There is no way a seemingly polarizing candidate will win against one that will draw votes from all areas.. There is a reason you need a candidate to get the independent vote. McCain has that. Obama has that.. Hillary... good luck finding independents that will vote for her.. without the independent vote Hillary has no chance. At best, she'll take only the Democrat vote whereas McCain will draw some votes from Democrats.. Obama will draw some votes from Republicans.. I really don't see how Hillary will draw votes from republicans.. They simply dislike her.
      • BruceDude, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Obama is not *****.

        You think so because you want his dick in your mouth. You flaming ass pirate : P
      • AgentMull, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1Sorry, forgot the
  • ElGanyan, on 03/13/2008, -3/+19Hillbeast must die!
    • lewhich, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5I usually call here HillBilly but I think Hillbeast is just awesome...bisides, I don't want to offend any hill billies
      • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2for some reason the phrase Hillbeast makes me think of manbearpig. a maurading monster tearing swathes of destruction in it's path
        • xaxxon, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Well, there you go. You're getting the idea.
      • Fafnir43, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Meh, I prefer "the Hildebeast" myself.
  • bitfreak, on 03/13/2008, -0/+37This makes me question reality. What planet do they live over there in the Clinton War room?
    • DangerCollie, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Whatever planet it is apparently has much better narcotics than we do. We should try to negotiate a trade agreement with them.
  • dreamfamous, on 03/13/2008, -0/+9*slaps forehead
    • kevincannon, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2They must be taking PR lessons from the HD-DVD folks"
    • mrloco, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2the correct term is /facepalm
  • wrongonce, on 03/13/2008, -0/+15Really, the only votes that matter are the ones for me....
    Hubris has been personified!
  • BigManOnCampus, on 03/13/2008, -0/+34LOL... this is an outright lie... ahahahaha

    "In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans – all of which point to a candidacy past its prime."

    wow... just wow...
    • MysticSavage, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5The frightening thing is that there are some who will believe this load of BS. Those are the people that scare the hell out of me.
    • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -17/+1You Obamabots sure do have a hard time accepting the truth.
      • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3link?
      • xbirdmanx, on 03/13/2008, -0/+11You Hilldiots sure do have a hard time admitting defeat
      • BigManOnCampus, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4See, the problem with your comment is that I almost completely disagree with Obamas goals/platform. I actually agree more with RP than anybody. But *EVEN I* can see that Hillary is flailing around like a wacky-wiggly-inflatable-flapping-arm-man. She's lost and she can't take it.
      • yacks, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1She may have been onto something until she included that he's losing support of Republicans.. Because at this point if you are a Democrat gaining support of Republicans.. that is saying that Republicans are seeing you has an easier target to beat in November since there Primaries are over and have nothing to lose to vote on the other side.
  • thedogfatherx, on 03/13/2008, -0/+37Bill and Hillary need to just "go away."
    • davidkeithjones, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5How long until they have Obama killed by a "terrorist?"
  • wukillabee, on 03/13/2008, -37/+1Submitter Opinion on Title or Description = Auto Bury
    • Yesplease, on 03/13/2008, -0/+10Jackass comments citing made-up 'rules of digg' + hangover= i just threw up a little in my mouth.
      • bigsteve, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1I have a hang-over, and everything makes me want to throw up!
        This street sign...makes me want to throw up!
        This random guy... makes me want to throw up!

        ...
  • effedup, on 03/13/2008, -2/+79The rest of the world begs you not to choose Hillary. Please.
    • plhearn, on 03/13/2008, -14/+2The rest of the world doesn't give a damn about American politics.
      • Shopko, on 03/13/2008, -0/+15Actually they do. When I lived in Denmark, we cared very much about who the American president would be. Funny enough, I now live in the U.S. and it seems Americans are actually LESS interested in American politics than people in the rest of the world.
        • Fafnir43, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Same thing over in the UK - a lot of us are following US politics more closely than we follow our own right now.
      • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5yeah, plhearn, you're right. why would people care who wins an election that puts them next to a little button that blows up the world. That's why the U.S. payed no attention to who got 'elected' in Russia. Oh wait, it was all over the news!
      • diggduggDOOM, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3Pshaw! We live in the Empire. We're too busy feasting off the riches taken from our vassal states to care about anything as silly as actually running the Empire. It's you vassal states that must care about how our leadership effects you.

        What's that you say? Barbarians at the gates? Just throw more money and legions at them. Our Empire will live on FOREVAH!
    • BigManOnCampus, on 03/13/2008, -12/+2The rest of the world can STFU about a country they do not live in. Take care of your own problems and then maybe you won't need to complain to a superpower when bad things happen because of evil men.
      • Mattja, on 03/13/2008, -1/+9Are you being saracastic? I'm a Brit and even I can't tell...
        • BigManOnCampus, on 03/13/2008, -6/+1No, I'm really not. Do I tell you who to vote for in your election? No, so keep your opinions to your f-ing self.
        • mrASSMAN, on 03/14/2008, -0/+3Just ignore him.. he's a moron and an embarrassment to the rest of us.
      • magus_melchior, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6It's hardly patriotic to priortize hubris over diplomacy. And if you don't realize just how much the USA affects the world, you're either delusional or deceptive.
        • BigManOnCampus, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1This isn't diplomacy. Our president doesn't have anything to do with them or their governments. Maybe if they spent more time paying attention to their own politics instead of watching ours, their countries would be in better shape than ours.
          • Fafnir43, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4I live in the UK.

            First, my country *is* in better shape than yours. It has a better educational system, its economy isn't going down the crapper, torture is not a controversial issue, we have actual health care, we have very few religious whackjobs, and while Orwellian tendrils are starting to make themselves known we have not as yet reached the point at which illegal, nationwide surveillance of Internet access is considered the norm. We're hardly perfect, but the general attitude over here is that even /travelling/ to America provokes a sense of dread, never mind moving there.

            Second, whoever gets to be President has access to the most powerful military in the world (and given what's been happening in the last eight years we care a /lot/ about that). He gets to determine just how much your coming economic recession is going to ***** the rest of us over. He gets to determine just how much your carbon emissions are going to ***** the rest of us over. And American views tend to be contagious.

            I do not hate Americans in general, but I do hate the majority of American politicians and I hate Americans like you /almost/ as much as I hate the people who fly planes into buildings.

            Rant over.
      • cambob76, on 03/14/2008, -0/+6The US has created the biggest messes on Earth, so your politics do matter to the rest of us. ***** you for thinking otherwise. I'll stop caring about American politics when America stops invading countries and meddling in other countries' affairs. *****.
  • offspring06, on 03/13/2008, -0/+24WTF Hillary, WTF
  • GoEKniGhtofNi, on 03/13/2008, -21/+3Nice add at the bottom *lol*:

    Alternative to Open Back Surgery
    The World Leader of Arthroscopic Procedures for Back and Neck Conditions
    www.laserspineinstitute.com
  • KyleRayner, on 03/13/2008, -0/+7Id like to see the job description and requirements for one of these kool-aid making PR people.
    • ronaldinho, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3though to be honest, if they pay me six-digit figure to spin PR for them, I would do it too, I will just be a freaking hypocrite for doing so
  • HeDiggMe, on 03/13/2008, -0/+15Somehow reminds me of http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
    • KnockItOff, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6OMG! Now we know where he is currently working! He works for the Clinton Campaign!
  • velvetx, on 03/13/2008, -1/+94I love this memo sent from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe:

    When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."
    When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.
    When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.
    When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.
    When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.
    And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.
    But the facts are clear.
    For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.
    Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.
    • hchdzl, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5Yeah, I sent this text to all of my friends when I received it also.

      If you haven't already, sign up for the Obama newsletter!
    • mrblister, on 03/13/2008, -0/+8Clinton's people showed how desperate they really are when, from second place, they offer the vice-presidency to the front runner. How insulting.
  • LordReichel, on 03/13/2008, -0/+38Hillary = COBRA COMMANDER
    • mythicflux, on 03/13/2008, -0/+13Cobra Commander was lovably inept and ineffective. Hillary is disturbingly inept and ineffective.
      • magus_melchior, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1At least they're both PHBs...
    • Sansui, on 03/13/2008, -0/+12Plus Cobra Commander had a much more pleasant speaking voice.
    • zombie66, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1LOLZ! I sense an new internet meme on the way (hope, hope)!
    • trp5023, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Don't insult Cobra Commander like that
    • bigturns, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Ha, you will love this... My favorite Robot Chicken episode: Joint Point. The entire episode is good, however pay particular attention to the Terrordome segment which starts at 4:32 into the vid. http://www.kewego.com/video/iLyROoaftn6p.html
  • Eldorian, on 03/13/2008, -25/+7I love how diggers are all about saying that Obama won more delegates in Texas when Hillary won the the popular vote there.
    But then will bitch about the electoral vote of election year 2000.
    All I'm saying is stop being hypocritical and spinning things so that they fit your opinion. With that said, I am totally hoping Obama pulls out a victory come November.
    • offspring06, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6What about the caucus? Obama won the Texas caucus.
      • Eldorian, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1What about the Primary? Or the overall popular vote.
        Yes, he won the caucus, congrats for pointing that out.
    • Spuds2600, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1Agreed. I'm all for Obama... but it's the POPULAR VOTE that should count. Now and forever. When WE... THE PEOPLE.. elect a president, it should be US, not some delegates, not some "electoral congress"... US.
      • rottencod, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5Actually if it were a direct election, a candidate could get away with completely ignoring everyone except New York, Florida and California, and still pull off a presidential election.
        • atszyman, on 03/13/2008, -1/+0Only if it were feasible to win 100% of the vote in those states. Given the more purple make up of the country than strict red and blue areas, a direct popular vote election would force candidates to campaign in the whole country rather than a few swing states. When they win they have to represent the whole country, why shouldn't they have to run a truly national campaign?
    • x1soundgarden1x, on 03/13/2008, -0/+8Democrats don't complain solely about the electoral vote, they complain that in a GOP run state with an election supervised by Katherine harris, with results too close to call, that the Supreme Court, appointed mostly by George H.W. Bush, denied the opportunity for a recount and appointed George W. Bush president of the United States.

      The controversy in 2000 was about disenfranchised voters, not delegates or the electoral college. Your analogy is flawed.
    • Menoats, on 03/13/2008, -3/+1Digg is biased. Half these idiots don't even know what Obama is about they just want to feel like they're on the same train as fellow diggers.
  • natgem, on 03/13/2008, -23/+3This is like choosing between dumb and dumber. Both candidates are not qualified and have no idea where they stand on anything.
    • offspring06, on 03/13/2008, -0/+10Who, Clinton and McCain?
    • bigturns, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5really? you're going to drag this old bit into the streets? this is all you got?
    • lamprey187, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1wow, good argument, well articulated, you swayed hundreds of voters with your highly useful comment on digg.
  • Pinhedd, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5meh, I needed a drink anyway.
  • SketchaMPM, on 03/13/2008, -1/+30I really want Obama to win, but it's frustrating to see these opinion pieces constantly dugg as if Hillary has already lost. She's completely bonkers and already has several small scandals surrounding her, but she still has a chance...sadly. I want Obama to win, but I also don't want to get my hopes up yet.

    Because we need Obama if we're going to beat John McSame.
    • amirman, on 03/13/2008, -0/+8hillary's dirty politicking and use of rovian propaganda needs to see the light of day so the American people will know who they are voting for.
      (or hopefully not voting for)
    • Yatata, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1NICE. John McSame.... *snort*
    • forsight, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Obama! Obama! Obama!
    • mustbepatient, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Are you sure she has a chance? As far as I can tell (I'm a Libertarian, so I dislike both and am mostly just watching for entertainment value), her only chance is to convince superdelegates that she is more electable. This is highly unlikely because polls consistently are showing Obama as being more electable in a matchup against McCain. As far as I can tell, it's over.
    • purzzzell, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1she needs like 60% in every remaining primary contest to have any sort of CHANCE. Slate had an article on it last week. The only chance she does have is to schmooze superdelegates and go over the will of the people.

      But she's trying to spin it as if Obama's hurting - how was Texas a disappointment for him, he expanded his lead on her?
    • Tanishh, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1 By MSNBC calculations on the night of the Mississippi primary, he needs less than 50% of the remaining pledged/undeclared superdelegates and she needs about 64%. With every state he wins that 64% goes up and his 50% goes down; I don't expect that his number will go up while hers goes down by the time this is over. After Pennsylvania she's got nothing.
  • pond70, on 03/13/2008, -5/+8Ah...... the downward spiral of the American Empire continues ...
  • TheLastFreeMan, on 03/13/2008, -1/+14You know you're drunk when you have to hold on to grass to keep from falling off the Earth.
  • logicalnoise, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4OMG this is hilarious. All of these "arguments" are negated by the fact that clinton still had less votes that obama except in ohio and texas during his streak.
    • yellowsnowcone, on 03/13/2008, -0/+412,164,019: That's Obama's total votes so far in all Dem state primaries.

      11,777,608: That's Hillary's total votes so far in all Dem state primaries.



      When it comes to popular vote, Obama leads by 386,411 votes, or 3.2%.
      • fedupamerica, on 03/13/2008, -1/+0Yeah. Maybe we should be good Dems and change the process so it can be based on popular vote. That will teach them!
    • barkus, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Well, I think it's safe to say that if Clinton was winning the popular vote her campaign would be running with that angle instead of their current pathetically desperate "our states count more than his" angle.
  • fedupamerica, on 03/13/2008, -55/+3OSAMA 08!
    • catachip, on 03/13/2008, -1/+15You sir, are what is wrong with America.
      • fedupamerica, on 03/13/2008, -14/+1My statement is as accurate as 90% of the Liberal pontification in this blog. Americans who profess to know what they are talking about and THEN present it in a way that sounds accurate is whats wrong with this country. Innacurate journalism is whats wrong with this country. People giving too much credit to the media is whats wrong with this country. Propoganda is whats wrong with this country.

        People who cant take a joke is whats wrong with this country!
        • dougintexas, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5That's RIGHT boys and girls. Now be good little sheep and agree with the angry man 'cuz, like his wet dream prez W, he's a "decider".. (seriously, this crap you spew is EXACTLY the definition of what you criticize. Wow...how does your head just not explode?)
        • vade79, on 03/13/2008, -0/+11Make better jokes.
      • fanshanable, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1You sir, need to recognize a joke when you see one
  • buttle, on 03/13/2008, -0/+13she is on crack
  • noahhoward, on 03/13/2008, -0/+51But remember "Barack is only doing so well because hes a black man".
    ***** campaign from hell.
    • catachip, on 03/13/2008, -0/+11It's the same criticism of every black man or woman that has ever held a position of power. Doctors, lawyers, CEOs - well, he's only in that position because he's black, a woman, etc., etc. It's pathetic.
      • exomni, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2"You let him work on you even with the whole affirmative action thing?" - Larry David
    • mrblister, on 03/13/2008, -6/+3I'm a big Obama supporter, phone banks and donations, but for ANYone to call Ferrarro a racist, is just bs. She's done some incredible work for women and minorities throughout her career. Obama quickly dismissed the fact, and said that her comments were taken out of context.
      Next.
      • r00fus, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5Uhm, I accidentally dugg you up.
        Gerry has a history of race baiting:
        http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2008/03/12/c ...
        She may have done good things, but when it down to it, she's bought and sold.
      • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2You can do all the good you want but you can still be racist. It's not like she's being taken out of context. She said what she said, she's admitted it, she's repeated it countless times. She honestly thinks that he is where he is solely because of his skin color, which is racist. Hilariously, she also thinks she's getting attacked because she's a woman. Yeah, I mean, women are so downtrodden that none of them could ever become a serious contender for the democratic nomination. Wait, hold on, I'm getting some late-breaking news. Yes it does appear that Hillary Clinton is still (technically) in the race to becoming America's Next Top Nominee! So there goes ferraro's whole argument.
        • magus_melchior, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I think Mr. Obama's judgment is sound. She's already off the other team, don't beat her while she's down, move on.
      • pizzas, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2she is racist, and you are too. racism doesnt mean you HATE BLAKC PEOPEL... it's that you have ignorant beliefs based on the illusion of race, which she obviously does
        • mrblister, on 03/15/2008, -1/+1ok, calling me a racist is just ***** stupid. You don't know me, or anything about me. Racism is actually defined as hating or being intolerant of people because of their race, based on a belief that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement. I don't believe that. So yes, racism doesn't ONLY mean that you "HATE BLAKC PEOPEL" (sic), but it still represents one of hatreds many faces.
          As for calling race an illusion, you obviously are white. I urge you to travel around the country with someone that is another race and color. You'll get an up-close and personal experience that indeed racism is still a part of some people.
          What bothers me just as much is that most of the women I hear from are voting for Hillary - wait for it - Just because it's time for a woman in the white house. Again, another bias that comes from gender, race, and financial status. That isn't very different from being a racist, if you ask me.
      • lucentgem, on 03/16/2008, -0/+0You are so right about women voting for Hilary because she is a woman. I am a woman and I wouldn't vote for Hillary if I was paid to do it, the woman is crazy. I wouldn't vote for a christian (assuming I was one) just because I was christian or a black person (assuming I was) just because I was black. Unfortunately this is the first true candidacy where we have the two genders and multiple races involved and people have made it into a gender/race war, as anyone intelligent knew it would become. I really like Obama and I think he has a lot of potential and I hope that he continues to do well. I hope that the ignorant women out there only voting for Hillary because she is a woman will wake up and get a clue, though I'm not counting on it. And gender bias is just as bad in many cases as racism is. It may not get as violent but it can be just as harmful in the long run.
  • JavanSClark, on 03/13/2008, -4/+3um.. wow.
  • aanthon1, on 03/13/2008, -0/+11Wow, what reality is that... no really, has the Clinton campaign completely lost it? The spin they are trying to create is REALLY hard to swallow. What a bunch of crap that article was.
  • madfrogurt, on 03/13/2008, -1/+10This is run of the mill spin from her (highly competent) PR company. Her PR company has been able to set the bar for winning vs losing and what the outcome of a win means in Texas and Ohio, and hope to do the same thing for Pennsylvania. I know its crazy, but it works very well.

    Thank back to the last Big Tuesday. Her PR group got everyone to believe that a slight win in the popular vote in Texas was more important than actual total delegate count from Texas after the caucus is taken into account. That's some really excellent work.
  • drowningfish, on 03/13/2008, -1/+9Billary is speaking to that "other 50%" of Americans that aided Bush's 2004 election win. We all know how well informed those people are...........
    • amirman, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2people who eat up the self fulfilling prophecies of the propaganda mill? well gladly i think that era in american politicks is over. i Don't think people are buying the ***** anymore.
      • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Hillary's campaign hopes you're wrong
      • Yatata, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1i'd love to agree, but they still ign'nt
  • hamobu, on 03/13/2008, -0/+24these BS statistics remind me of the quote from the movie Mr Baseball :

    Jack Eliot: I'm a World Series MVP!
    Skip: That was four years ago, Jack. Last season, you hit .235.
    Jack Eliot: LAST SEASON, I led this team in ninth-inning doubles in the month of August!
  • jspania, on 03/13/2008, -0/+8Did anyone else read: "The Clinton campaign has officially lost."?

    even with the typo in the heading.
    • blahblahmoose, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Until I read this, I still thought that's what it said.
  • danielsan79, on 03/13/2