What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- life38, on 05/06/2008, -44/+11Wake up media. Since people feel that the end result of the election is going to be Obama, they feel comfortable to vote for Clinton to show their support and to keep Obama working for it. It is great to be able to support both candidates.
And by the way any buck in a persons pocket counts even if it is make believe.- alanflores, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5booooo
- futureb, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7like your make believe voters...you know, people who vote for clinton just to keep obama "working for it"
- Briandrews15, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1IE: devious republicans.... Rush limbaugh is urging replicans to vote for Hillary so this race keeps going, so the party is further torn apart by her.
- forgiste, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Repli*cants*, FIXED
- GeekyGerge, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Republicans more like Republi******* amiriteamirite
/donthurtme - Pirius, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Replicants? As in Nexus Six?
- GeekyGerge, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Republicans more like Republi******* amiriteamirite
- forgiste, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Repli*cants*, FIXED
- Briandrews15, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1IE: devious republicans.... Rush limbaugh is urging replicans to vote for Hillary so this race keeps going, so the party is further torn apart by her.
- OwdenBowden, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1Obama - you just lost the Presidential race where are you going?
I'm Going to Disneyland.
- twtmc, on 05/06/2008, -12/+160Clinton better not ***** win. We have had enough of the Bushes and the Clintons. One member of each family has been either President or Vice President since 1981. It's time for a change.
- aussiejan, on 05/06/2008, -5/+66Good point. I think many people forget that George H. W. Bush was vice-president under Reagan. If Clinton should win the presidency that would be 3 decades of the same two families in the White House. That's not a democracy, that's just two families sharing a dynasty.
- aebo06, on 05/06/2008, -14/+9It's still a democracy.
- WasabiBomb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12Technically, it's a democratic republic.
- stizz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4representative aristocracy
- jgtg32a, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3It's a Republic
- SanTe, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2No, it's a republic.
- Matteos, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8It's A Trap!
- cjshamrock, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1It's all in our heads.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4It's a schooner
- OwdenBowden, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Do you forget that under the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton - we were prospering as a nation. NO debt. I didn't think it was that bad.
- Matteos, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Until the dot com bubble burst, but lets just sweep that under the carpet.
- netant, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Don't forget that Hillary Rodham Clinton is not Bubba. And she doesn't have Rubin for Treasury secretary. And until the US gets out of Iraq, which Hillary by published history, is not determined to do, we can't even think about righting our economic house.
- WasabiBomb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12Technically, it's a democratic republic.
- lava, on 05/06/2008, -7/+2I don't understand why it matters so much that it's the same two families. What if Cheney decided to run for the presidency and win. You wouldn't be able to say anything about a dynasty, but it'd still be the same *****.
- wrathchilde, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6Buried for the untinkable " What if Cheney decided to run for the presidency and win."
- DephexTwin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9It's a HELL of a coincidence that George Bush's son, of all the people in the USA, and now Clinton's wife, out of all the politicians and private citizens in our country, just happen to be *the* best people for the job of president. Particularly when the current presidential offspring is enjoying one of the absolute lowest approval rates in the history of the country, and has put us into a war that (finally) basically everyone agrees was a bad idea.
- acknotSW, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4It would still be the same problem lava. It's not so much the person himself (herself); the problem is the people who surround them. When people from the same family or administration get elected over and over again, you have the same people in some very powerful positions for long periods of time. It gives them time to build power bases and manipulate things in ways that our constitution never intended.
- aebo06, on 05/06/2008, -14/+9It's still a democracy.
- alk509, on 05/06/2008, -1/+38Well, in reality, Clinton already lost. If she somehow gets the nomination, it will be through a reversal of the popular will by the superdelegates, which would represent a much, much bigger threat to America, our values and our democracy, than just the fact that all our leaders are related.
- jgtg32a, on 05/06/2008, -3/+6Thats true, but you do kinda have to consider that the super delegates could "protect" the party if something crazy would come out about Obama, which is perfectly legit. suppose if it was found out that he fathered a couple of black children ;-)
Its also not a treat to America just the Democratic party- jgtg32a, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Wow I fail at grammar and spelling
- jgtg32a, on 05/06/2008, -3/+6Thats true, but you do kinda have to consider that the super delegates could "protect" the party if something crazy would come out about Obama, which is perfectly legit. suppose if it was found out that he fathered a couple of black children ;-)
- SilverStandard, on 05/06/2008, -22/+2Obama will not bring change. Obama is related to Hillary Clinton, Dick Cheney, and George Bush. Facts are facts. Time to get Dugg down :)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23797072/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/200710 ...
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/FOX_Obama_related_to ...- elint6, on 05/06/2008, -0/+14You and I share 99.6% of the same genetic code as chimps. I'm ashamed.
- Nougat, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10I'm ashamed for the chimps.
- whereiseljefe, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Oh wow, 8 generations back, that's like, so related!
- brstilson, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3If you go back far enough, everyone's related. You're probably related to Hitler 8 generations back.
- aebo06, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Godwin's law!
- elint6, on 05/06/2008, -0/+14You and I share 99.6% of the same genetic code as chimps. I'm ashamed.
- bicyclethief, on 05/06/2008, -6/+20I don't care about the family dynasties. That's really a superficial reason not to vote for them. Meanwhile there are plenty of valid and good reasons not to vote for Clinton.
- DephexTwin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Actually, I would argue that in the world of politics, symbolism and precedent mean a whole lot. The reason not to continue the Bush/Clinton line is kind of the same reason that we set up term limits. Why have term limits? If the people want to elect the president for longer than two terms, why stop them? It is to prevent "presidents for life", because they run the risk of evolving into dictatorships.
Familial dynasties are the next best thing to getting around term limits, and even though there are two opposing families, it is still a sort of two-family oligarchy, swapping power back and forth to keep up the facade of democracy. It's a bad thing, and simply saying "it's time for someone totally new" is important, just like saying "two terms is enough and it doesn't matter if you think you could do a lot with four more years."- bicyclethief, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2So if Chelsea turns out to be a great political leader, you wouldn't vote for her just because she has the wrong last name?
Your constraint is too rigid and superficial.- DephexTwin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5If Clintons and Bushes have recently been in the White House, then yes, that is exactly what I am saying. It's dangerous.
What if Obama turns out to be the next FDR? Should we continue to elect him until he dies? - honesttussey, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't vote for her if she runs for president after (theoretically) HRC wins and runs for 2 terms then it goes to Jeb Bush (GW's brother) then back to Chelsea ***** no I wouldn't vote for her.
- bicyclethief, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Bottom line: You are too caught up in protecting against dynasties when you should be assessing the quality of the candidate.
There's already term limits which prohibits a person from serving forever. And just because another person has the same last name doesn't mean they'll govern the same way. Is your dad, mother, sisters, and brothers all exactly alike in their world view? - DephexTwin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Show me a candidate that is really amazingly great who also happens to be the relation of a president, and then we can assess this most extreme case piece by piece and see if the candidate's qualities outweigh this huge negative.
As I said, I feel it *is* important, extremely so, and your "bottom line" is merely you stating your opinion that it is not as much of a thing to be worried about as me.
Furthermore, my family doesn't have all the same opinion as me, but if my older sister became the CEO of Microsoft, guess who would suddenly have an inside influence on the goings-on of Microsoft? - bicyclethief, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1If your older sister became the CEO of Microsoft and you'd suddenly had an inside influence, how is that situation even parallel to our conversation? It would be relevant only if you were up for the CEO position and the board denied you simply because your sister was the last CEO. The board doesn't consider your past experience, your qualifications, your education-- nope, they turn you away just because you had the wrong last name. That'd be bad business.
Now if you were arguing that the electorate has very few options for candidates-- a symptom of which is that the same family kept coming up for candidacy-- then that'd be something else altogether.
- DephexTwin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5If Clintons and Bushes have recently been in the White House, then yes, that is exactly what I am saying. It's dangerous.
- bicyclethief, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2So if Chelsea turns out to be a great political leader, you wouldn't vote for her just because she has the wrong last name?
- DephexTwin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Actually, I would argue that in the world of politics, symbolism and precedent mean a whole lot. The reason not to continue the Bush/Clinton line is kind of the same reason that we set up term limits. Why have term limits? If the people want to elect the president for longer than two terms, why stop them? It is to prevent "presidents for life", because they run the risk of evolving into dictatorships.
- plhearn, on 05/06/2008, -14/+1This country was fine under Bill Clinton and it will be fine under Hillary Clinton but Obamabots are too busy having wet dreams about Obama's dick to acknowledge this.
- markdall, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5I was in the military while Clinton was president, and NO, the country was not ***** fine. We had mid-level NCOs buying mission critical supplies out of pocket - these people make less than you could make pumping gas - in order to keep the mission going.
This was the unit: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:k-MNIaME1JYJ: ... (Google cache)- plhearn, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Well that sucks balls but you gotta admit it was better than the ***** going on in Iraq now. And its not like Barack can wave his magic wand and make everything better with his pitiful foreign policy experience. And Hillary wants to withdraw the troops too, ya know.
- netant, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2No stupid, she SAYS she wants to withdraw the troops NOW. She has supported the occupation every year, only this year did she even express a desire to get out of Iraq, and she talks about nuking Iran.
Are you an idiot or a LYING Hillary supporter? - plhearn, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1rofl you've been sucking too much Obama *****. Clinton is going to withdraw the troops day 1 of her presidency. Too bad you've been too brainwashed by the Obamabot groupthink on Digg to see that shes the superior candidate.
- netant, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2No stupid, she SAYS she wants to withdraw the troops NOW. She has supported the occupation every year, only this year did she even express a desire to get out of Iraq, and she talks about nuking Iran.
- plhearn, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Well that sucks balls but you gotta admit it was better than the ***** going on in Iraq now. And its not like Barack can wave his magic wand and make everything better with his pitiful foreign policy experience. And Hillary wants to withdraw the troops too, ya know.
- markdall, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5I was in the military while Clinton was president, and NO, the country was not ***** fine. We had mid-level NCOs buying mission critical supplies out of pocket - these people make less than you could make pumping gas - in order to keep the mission going.
- forgiste, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2If Clinton wins, I'm never voting again, because that would prove that the system doesn't work.
- marx2k, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Already proved in 2004 and 2000
- netant, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, you need to vote for McCain or Nader in order to show you won't put up with chicanery.
The only excuse for not voting is if you plan on resisting the corporatocrasy with violent resistance. THAT I could understand.
- krait, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1How can she win when shes endorsing the other candidate?
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Clinton_ ...
- aussiejan, on 05/06/2008, -5/+66Good point. I think many people forget that George H. W. Bush was vice-president under Reagan. If Clinton should win the presidency that would be 3 decades of the same two families in the White House. That's not a democracy, that's just two families sharing a dynasty.
- onetimer, on 05/06/2008, -5/+208Spoiler Alert: Obama wins NC, but loses Indiana. Hillary spins this as a mandate to move on, and the race continues.
Can I be a pundit now?- flossdaily, on 05/06/2008, -5/+31You already are, grasshopper. You already are.
- tzisc, on 05/06/2008, -2/+47Stating the obvious? Check
General sense of disdain for target audience? Check
Despicable, immoral, mind-numbing idiocy?
hm, still a little short - macweirdo42, on 05/06/2008, -1/+70Something tells me that Obama could win both, and Hillary would still spin this as a mandate to move on.
- HyperJack, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2A little birdie told you eh?
/listening to Three Little Birds - forgiste, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2She's infected, she's a zombified donkey. Our weapons are useless against it.
- HyperJack, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2A little birdie told you eh?
- JlmAWP, on 05/06/2008, -3/+29Depends. Do you have any other qualifications? The less the better.
- whereiseljefe, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11I'm sorry sir, but you are overqualified for this job. We have already offered it to a mold colony growing in our basement.
- JlmAWP, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Great, now all the Penicillin stories will be horribly biased. You've ruined our country!
- whereiseljefe, on 05/06/2008, -1/+11I'm sorry sir, but you are overqualified for this job. We have already offered it to a mold colony growing in our basement.
- plarp, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3this is a little too technical for pundit speak..
- exronin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6Where are the shiny graphics that you spend 4 hours with when you could use one simple line statement to sum it all up?
- jgtg32a, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Don't forget the touchable interface
- kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3those who cant do, teach. those who cant teach are pundits.
- Bigzz, on 05/06/2008, -6/+24Yes thats great. BUT, it still means:
1) He has to win North Carolina by more than the polls are showing
2) He has to keep Indiana closer than the polls are showing
If this is what you want you better get on the phones tomorrow and make some calls.- wrongonce, on 05/06/2008, -0/+18In order to do what? Is he somehow losing in electoral votes? I'm not in the US, so a lot of this isn't making any sense to me. He is in the lead and most people think there is no way mathmatically possible for Hillary to beat him. What ever way you run it, he wins.
- tehsuck1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8He wins the Democratic party nomination. Whoever wins has to go up against John McCain (the Republican Party nominee) in the proper election in November. The longer the battle between Hillary and Obama drags on, the more damage they do to each other and divert each other's attention away from the real election, helping John McCain.
- KSUdesigner, on 05/06/2008, -0/+15Don't worry, a lot of it isn't making much sense to those of us who actually live in the US either.
- whereiseljefe, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13Agreed. Why a party who was given a golden boy almost guaranteed the general election would instead prefer to shoot itself in the foot is beyond me.
- DephexTwin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8I think it might have been on the Daily Show that I heard, "The Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
- netant, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2@Dephex
The quote was originally attributed to the Palestinians.
@whereiseljefe
Answer is simple. Clinton is a narcissistic ***** that would sooner bring down the Democratic party than relinquish a chance to be president. Throw in racists, feminists, and Republicans, and there's Hillary's numbers. There's not much the party leadership can do about it.
- whereiseljefe, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13Agreed. Why a party who was given a golden boy almost guaranteed the general election would instead prefer to shoot itself in the foot is beyond me.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7I understand your confusion. In the US Democratic Primary, it doesn't matter who gets the most votes. The process is designed to give the illusion that the democrats are actually voting for their candidate. But that doesn't reflect reality. The reality for this election is that the Democratic party bosses (Super-delegates) will be deciding who the Democratic candidate is. The "reasoning" for this is complicated but basically the Democratic party decided that they couldn't trust the people to pick their candidate so they implemented the "Super-Delegate" system as a way to maintain control over their constituents and remove the responsibility and trust normally given to voters.
- jgtg32a, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Funny thing is its not that different than the general election.
- barfooz, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1If enough superdelegates support her at the convention she wins the nomination. That's within the scope of the rules. You need 2025 delegates to wrap it up, Clinton has 1336 pledged delegates from the prior contests, and there are 796 superdelegates. We're not even counting the hundred-something that she will gain today from IN and NC. Whoever says it's not mathematically possible for her to win the nomination doesn't understand how the system works. The popular vote is not going to decide this nomination, the oligarchy is.
- kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3no, you dont understand the process. Hillary needs to come up with a huge number of superdelegates. more than what are available. the only way she can do this is to get supers to go against the will of the people the represent. since they are all (for the most part) elected officials, they will do what their constituents want. it would be crazy not to as they would likely lose their offices if the did go against the population.
secondly, the only way she could win this is if the powers that be decide to count MI and FL. that wont happen for two reasons: 1.) the party bosses went ahead with their primaries even though they were told what the comsequences were, and B.) Hillary would need 70-30 victories to catch up with Obama on the delegate count. do the math--impossible? pretty much.
finally, its not an oligarchy, its elected officials who are performing one of their elected position's tasks defined in their job descriptions. being an elected offical does not mean you are a member of small elite group but rather, a representative of a segnment of the population. they seem elite since there are so few (compared to the regular population) and they have the word 'super' in their title. but they are not elite. they are simply few, and with what now appears to be extraordinary powers. its not an oligarchy but rather, representative republicanism. look it up on wikipedia. or your civics book. or poli-sci 101.- Irishjack, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I don't about you but the way the government is run I don't think doing what one's constituents wants ranks high on elected officials list of priorities.
- barfooz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You just said that I don't understand the process when I say that it is clearly mathematically possible for her to win the nomination, and then presented not one but two ways in which Clinton could win the nomination. I think you are confused about the definition of "mathematically possible". Mathematically impossible means that there is no way that Clinton could accumulate 2025 delegates. Mathematics does not address political issues or "it would be crazy to do such-and-such" issues or "what do the constituents want" issues. It is a simple calculation. Clinton needs the support of 689 more delegates to get the nomination. There are more than 689 delegates who are yet to be decided. Therefore she is mathematically still in the race.
I appreciate your condescending definition of oligarchy by the way. I was being facetious. Perhaps you should be clear on your facts before pulling out the Webster's on me.
- brstilson, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It's mathematically unlikely. One after one, Clinton's superdelegates are endorsing Obama. It's extremely unlikely that Clinton will get the votes of all 796 superdelegates. It's just not going to happen, but if it does, it's the end of the Democratic Party. It think the superdelegates and party leaders know that. I predict most of them are going to go with the popular vote.
- ssn697, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I am saying it again: Hillary is staying in, and she has her staff of detectives working round the clock to come up with that scandal of all scandals on Obama. She hopes she can either make the super delegates switch sue to some devastating scandal, or damage him so much, he loses the general election. If she can't win now, she still wants that shot in 2012.
- saikyan, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Look, even if a majority of the remaining "oligarchy" supports her she STILL looses. She must win ALL remaining contests, and she must gain more than 60% of the remaining superdeligates. Sure, it's not literally impossible for it to happen, but it's so outrageously unlikely that it might as well be.
- dagamer34, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1It is not mathematically possible for her to overtake Barack Obama in elected delegates. Combine that with the fact that superdelegates are not going to overturn the vote of the people. Thus, Clinton cannot fairly take the nomination without using the nuclear option, which will destroy the Democratic party.
- kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3no, you dont understand the process. Hillary needs to come up with a huge number of superdelegates. more than what are available. the only way she can do this is to get supers to go against the will of the people the represent. since they are all (for the most part) elected officials, they will do what their constituents want. it would be crazy not to as they would likely lose their offices if the did go against the population.
- baldr, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4No it doesn't mean those things. wrongonce is right, if the polling info is reflected in the actually voting Obama will net more delegates today. Which means his lead will be strengthened. He doesn't have to beat expectations, he just needs to continue to be ahead in popular and delegate counts (despite what the media wants you to believe).
- wrongonce, on 05/06/2008, -0/+18In order to do what? Is he somehow losing in electoral votes? I'm not in the US, so a lot of this isn't making any sense to me. He is in the lead and most people think there is no way mathmatically possible for Hillary to beat him. What ever way you run it, he wins.
- Strokemouth, on 05/06/2008, -12/+29Was I the only one that thought a "North Carolina Surprise" was going to be something along the lines of a "Dirty Sanchez" or something like that?
- Conwaysb0718, on 05/06/2008, -4/+8Yes.
- Nougat, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Cleveland Steamer
- wrathchilde, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Sloppy Carl
- snotrokit, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2rusty trombone
- kipmartin, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2no, i believe your mother thought that too. shes always thinking along the lines of a 'Dirty Sanchez'.
- StuPudaso, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Dog in the bathtub
- johnnyrotten, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It is, but it involves BBQ sauce and a can of Skoal.
Go Heels!
- AshamedAmerican, on 05/06/2008, -8/+58Does it really matter? Barack could win both North Carolina and Indiana and the bitch would still keep going.
It should be pretty clear by now that she's going to lie, cheat, steal, spin, and lie some more all the way to the ***** convention.- LloydBentsen, on 05/06/2008, -16/+9I don't understand what makes it acceptable to use a derogatory word referring to a female while using a derogatory term for a black man would most likely be deemed inappropriate by yourself and other like-minded individuals.
- tzisc, on 05/06/2008, -8/+10bitch
–noun
1. a female dog.
2. a female of canines generally.
3. Slang.
a. a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman.
b. a lewd woman.
4. Slang.
a. a complaint.
b. anything difficult or unpleasant: The test was a bitch.
given the context, any of these seem to apply
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bitch- LloydBentsen, on 05/06/2008, -2/+8My point was not to question whether the term, "bitch", was applicable. There can be no arguing that, for it is a matter opinion. However, my point was that the word is a derogatory term against a gender, females. Obama is a black man. There are a few equally derogatory terms that Obama could be called, but most choose not to because they genuinely do not feel compelled to do so, or at the very least, have the decency not to say it at all. I was trying to convey an idea that perhaps you Obama backers should attempt at least that level of decency.
Oh, thanks for the definition.- romistrub, on 05/06/2008, -2/+6To put it in a linguistic manner, "bitch" has not yet become so vulgar as to be deemed unacceptable. That's about the only explanation there is. Based on your comment, though, it seems as though it might go the way of "*****".
- Methodius, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I would like to argue that thanks to the PC movement, most derogatory terms for blacks are not considered anywhere near as acceptable as "bitch."
- DephexTwin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1If you get rid of the word "bitch" then it will just become a semantic gap that will be filled with some other word. The concept is just something that people want to say. It's just like when they keep changing the word for someone with cognitive disabilities... the new word just keeps becoming derogatory. First things like "idiot", then "retarded", and now you can actually imply that someone is mentally challenged by saying that they are "special". Words are just the tools for expression, they aren't the concepts themselves.
Women can be "bitches" and guys can be "dicks". Sometimes these can be used for the opposite genders, but it is not that common. Why we label things differently based on gender is a very fundamental sociolinguistic question.
- stizz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Because Hillary is Bitch, and Obama is not a *****. It is plain as day.
- LloydBentsen, on 05/06/2008, -2/+8My point was not to question whether the term, "bitch", was applicable. There can be no arguing that, for it is a matter opinion. However, my point was that the word is a derogatory term against a gender, females. Obama is a black man. There are a few equally derogatory terms that Obama could be called, but most choose not to because they genuinely do not feel compelled to do so, or at the very least, have the decency not to say it at all. I was trying to convey an idea that perhaps you Obama backers should attempt at least that level of decency.
- DreKor, on 05/06/2008, -2/+12If Obama was being a whiny bitch, I'd call him on it too.
- tzisc, on 05/06/2008, -8/+10bitch
- tomasII, on 05/06/2008, -14/+4Obama is beginning to compile an impressive list of lies himself. There will be more to come...
weatherman, Wright, disavowed grandmothers, there will be more.- whereiseljefe, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Oh no, you mean Obama is a politician? I NEED TO REEVALUATE MY LIFE!
- jgtg32a, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I find that interesting, I was under the impression that everyone wanted Obama was because he wasn't a "politician."
- johnpaul191, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6as opposed to the weathermen that Bill Clinton pardoned? What about the south american freedom fighting bomb makers he pardoned (from murder convictions), and then were caught making bombs again less than a year later? If she is going to take his 8 years of the presidency as experience, she should be held accountable for it too. She supported those pardons at the time, it's on record.
- whereiseljefe, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Oh no, you mean Obama is a politician? I NEED TO REEVALUATE MY LIFE!
- Vohu, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3One would hope that if Obama pulls off a best case scenario here that the superdelegates will come out en masse and give him the nomination. I'm not counting on them being reasonable considering their lack of action after Hillary's failure to win Pennsylvania by the required margin to actually be competitive.
- Zipko, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Remember when her aids were saying the race was over if she didn't win Texas and Ohio by large margins?
- saikyan, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4I sure do. And then the media spun it like she won Texas just because she won the primary... completely ignoring Obama's win in the caucus and the fact that he won more a lot more delegates from the state.
- mzx639, on 05/06/2008, -10/+1Obama is liar, stealer, cheater, racist, and hates America, loser. Buried.
- LloydBentsen, on 05/06/2008, -16/+9I don't understand what makes it acceptable to use a derogatory word referring to a female while using a derogatory term for a black man would most likely be deemed inappropriate by yourself and other like-minded individuals.
- SqueakyWheel, on 05/06/2008, -37/+4Sexism is alive and well as seen by these comments and GTA4
- tzisc, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6lucky for us overgeneralizing idiocy is alive and well to call us out on it
- fadeout, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5And so is politically correct whining on the intarwebs!
- Lyk4n, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Hillary is a poor candidate, I don't care if she has a dick or not (insert transgendered joke here).
- Yesplease, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5Oh man, did you just insult Obama supporters AND GTA in one comment?? Should have called Steve Jobs gay or something too, then it would have been perfect. I predict -100 diggs.
- smacksaw, on 05/06/2008, -2/+15I agree about the whole "Obama can't close the deal" thing. That logic is stupid. When you're winning by ANY margin or mathematical advantage, that's closing the deal. If someone rewrites the rules to steal your support, that's not a failure to close the deal any more than locking your car and setting the alarm is a failure to prevent it from being stolen. This is painfully stupid. I mean, by this logic we should have not had Bush or Gore in 2000 since their wins were even narrower and they couldn't close the deal. Actually, I think I'm undoing my argument here.
- elhaf, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Why can't Hillary close the deal? Or even really have a shot at the deal?
- jgtg32a, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I think it has more to do with him not winning as much any more.
Slow and Steady wins the race? - DephexTwin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah, this whole argument is like saying that King Arthur couldn't close the deal in his fight with the Black Knight.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-collis/dame-hil ...
- NCSUspoon, on 05/06/2008, -2/+12Clinton isn't even really campaigning in NC. I live in Raleigh, NC and everything is Obama plastered. Even the signs that say Vote have Obama's face on them; and they don't even say vote for Obama. Maybe Clinton is campaigning more in Charlotte or something, but it's not as much in Raleigh.
- Turambar, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5yup, i gotta go out and vote on the way home.
- jgtg32a, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I think that it has more to do with the fact that there were more Obama posters made than CDs that were ever sent out by AOL
- credence, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Over here on UNCC it's also all about Obama. There was some chalk graffiti that was pro Hillary earlier last month, but it was replaced by Obama graffiti and never really reappeared after that. As to how will carry over to the rest of Charlotte, who knows.
- mirunit, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Is that because you guys live on a college campus? Yes. He will not win by 20pts, I promise you this. Also, alot of young voters do not vote to backup their beliefs.
- JlmAWP, on 05/06/2008, -3/+13Obama will more-than-likely have a 150 delegate lead with about 200 to go after today. It's over.
- LomasLou, on 05/06/2008, -14/+7Obama Supporters & the Magical Moving Goal Post
Limited engagement- Taciturn, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7Erm... Obama's ahead by every measure except "votes where he wasn't on the ballot."
- Vohu, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8Except that Obama need only maintain the status quo and come out the ultimate victor. It isn't his team that keeps moving the goalposts.
- sqwirl, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Clinton tactic #312 - Accuse opponents of doing exactly what you're doing.
- brstilson, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Clinton is moving the goalposts. She said Florida and Michigan wouldn't matter, until she won both elections (by breaking party rules and campaigning there). Her husband said South Carolina doesn't matter because Jesse Jackson once won the primary there. Her political advisor said Iowa and Missouri don't matter because they've never elected a woman for governor or congress. Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia don't matter because they're going to go "red" in the general election anyway.
Obama has won more states because his campaign knows that this country is made up of more than just "the big states."
- OffPiste, on 05/06/2008, -12/+1I think it's time for the monkey to solve the Stiefel–Whitney class integral.
- alanflores, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1booooo
- elhaf, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I'm dismayed at how many hits the query "Stiefel–Whitney class integral monkey" turned up on Google.
- JohnDBandit, on 05/06/2008, -27/+4As a Southerner, I'd like to apologize for what I did Feb. 5th. I voted without using my head, but with my heart. If the primary was today, I wouldn't have voted the way I did then and I hope Southerners in NC use their heads and don't vote for this dangerous man.
I have come to realize that Obama is just another in a long line of RACE-BASED politicians . He is no better than Jackson, Sharpton, Kwame Kilpatrick or Bill Campbell. I had hoped and prayed that he was different, but it is now obvious that he isn't. And for that I apologize to everyone AND pray to God that it isn't too late to save our country from this demagogue.- Brian47126, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12well, thats nice... thank you for voting for Obama, and I don't believe you... This is some made-up BS from a Rightwing nutball... NO thinking dem would lump him with those people....
- alanflores, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2bandit boooo
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1He's not as bad as Sharpton.
- inajeep, on 05/06/2008, -9/+4What a horrible description. Both sentences say the same thing from two different points with a "not so fast" in between. Neither sentance is contradicting the other.
- renagadex2, on 05/06/2008, -4/+9I heavily dislike Senator Clinton
- Mejari, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1I concur with you, and were I under the impression that any intelligent discourse on the subject would be listened to I would engage in a vigorous defense of my position using published facts, statistics and quotes. However, the supporters of the candidate I dislike that appear at this location often seem to be of below-par debating ability, although that is a generalization and by no means true 100% of the time.
- sandiegodude, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Wait! I see what you did there... You should write speeches my friend!
- Mejari, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1I concur with you, and were I under the impression that any intelligent discourse on the subject would be listened to I would engage in a vigorous defense of my position using published facts, statistics and quotes. However, the supporters of the candidate I dislike that appear at this location often seem to be of below-par debating ability, although that is a generalization and by no means true 100% of the time.
- rancemo, on 05/06/2008, -14/+27I'm in Indiana. The buzz has been all about Obama for the last couple weeks. You don't hear anyone supporting Clinton outside of her organized events and advertisements.
I went to vote about an hour ago. There were 4 or five Obama supporter waving signs, but not one hillary supporter.
Thankfully, nobody forced me to vote for either of them and I was able to kick a "wasted" vote in Ron Paul's direction.- representDLV, on 05/06/2008, -9/+2But you have to remember that normal people don't stand around waving signs for their candidate. The average person in this country isn't obsessed with any of the candidates enough to stand around all day and waves signs. Jobless nuts do that. I questions anyone's judgment that is obsessed with any of the candidates.
- provost, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6yah, to hell with them for trying to improve the government of the country they love. Its much better to just bitch about it and complain about people who have initiative. screw them.
- sircomix, on 05/06/2008, -8/+16Yeah, it certainly is true that Ron Paul votes are about as useful as a vote in the trash can. Well done.
- credence, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Right, because if you don't vote for the person who wins, why vote at all right?
I mean, you shouldn't vote based on who matches your values and goals, obviously.- proh4m, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Perhaps in an ideal democracy I would agree with your sentiment, but the fact is ours isn't ideal. It would be nice if our votes were expressive enough that you could say candidate z best represents your values, and you'd support x over y if it came down to it, but when you can only pick one and it's neck and neck you might be better served going with your second or third choice because they actually have a chance.
You could argue that voting for your first choice might be beneficial in the long run, but that's not an easy argument.
- proh4m, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Perhaps in an ideal democracy I would agree with your sentiment, but the fact is ours isn't ideal. It would be nice if our votes were expressive enough that you could say candidate z best represents your values, and you'd support x over y if it came down to it, but when you can only pick one and it's neck and neck you might be better served going with your second or third choice because they actually have a chance.
- chesbo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1well, atleast you can't blame him on how messed up our country is when Obama or McCain get elected.. because he voted for someone who would actually send our country in the right direction..unlike Obama. Well done. :ugh:
- ATLien74, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Why is it a wasted vote? This isn't the lottery! We aren't just trying to pick the winner! I am just so sick of hearing that B.S.! Don't ever apologize for voting for someone you actually like, and makes sense, and is honest, and consistent. Thank you for voting for Ron Paul, and thank you for not being an easily manipulated fool like all of these other idiots that actually believe there is any difference between the "other" 3 candidates. At some point we have to stop this pick-the-lesser-of-two-evils crap! We have been doing that for years and years and years... and look where it's got us!
- credence, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5Right, because if you don't vote for the person who wins, why vote at all right?
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Too bad they don't base votes on the number of sign wavers. I also live in IN and all I'm hearing about is the record high number of voter turn-out and the record "low Republican" turnout which could mean a high cross-over vote of "Operation Chaos" people. In fact, there are so many "Democrats" showing up that some precincts have ran out of the Democratic voting forms and had to have more delivered while people voted on the machines for elderly and handicapped people.
- dagamer34, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2I was pretty sure that state laws prohibit signs around voting stations. I know that's how it was when I voted.
- gothrus, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1There is a boundary. 50 feet from the polling place in Illinois I think. When I was a poll worker, we would have the police chase people to outside the 50 foot boundary. It was usually marked with chalk or cones or something too.
- ramenite, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Well, I'm in Pittsburgh, and before the PA primary, I saw a lot more support for Obama than for Hillary. People waiving signs, buttons, yard signs, etc. I think I saw one Hillary yard sign.
What was the vote? Hillary won the county. - irni, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6Unfortunately I don't see what you're seeing. I am in Indianapolis and I keep running into Clinton supporters. I ask them why they support her and most of them say "Experience" which just drives me nuts. I give up on people being sane. I voted for Obama so I guess we'll just see what happens tonight.
- rancemo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Layflats here...
- netant, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Indianapolis is not considered an Obama stronghold, so what you see probably reflects that. As for answer, "experience" sounds a lot better than "I only vote for white people".
- representDLV, on 05/06/2008, -9/+2But you have to remember that normal people don't stand around waving signs for their candidate. The average person in this country isn't obsessed with any of the candidates enough to stand around all day and waves signs. Jobless nuts do that. I questions anyone's judgment that is obsessed with any of the candidates.
- mobislink, on 05/06/2008, -3/+44Finish Her..
- Xanrez, on 05/06/2008, -4/+6dugg for Mortal Kombat reference.
- ifire, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5dugg down for stating the obvious (@Xanrez)
- santaliqueur, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2dugg down for acting like you're the only one who knows what Mortal Kombat was.
- jlcotton1968, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2FATALITY!
- Xanrez, on 05/06/2008, -4/+6dugg for Mortal Kombat reference.
- JoeyShabadoo, on 05/06/2008, -12/+4"...effectively end Clinton's futile intramural battle against Obama."
At least your not being biased....The Obamaganda continues. - leerayIG88, on 05/06/2008, -7/+8I swear...if she wins. Im gonna.....***** freak out. Heads will start rolling.
- Digger1218, on 05/06/2008, -1/+21Translation: I'm gonna bitch on the internet.
- leerayIG88, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7it works...the internet caught that kid who stole an xbox and was all over the news.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3There will be riots for sure. I already got my eye on a big screen TV.
- kss42, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Leeray mad!
LEERAY SMASH!!
- Digger1218, on 05/06/2008, -1/+21Translation: I'm gonna bitch on the internet.
- Equinox1, on 05/06/2008, -10/+2Tired of seeing all this Obama - Hillary ***** on my front page. On another note, my bets on Obama.
- Hypersapien, on 05/06/2008, -1/+20This will be over when the media invites Obama and McCain to a debate, but not Clinton.
- keymanjim2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6I get the feeling that if she looses the nomination she'll run as an independent.
- every2ndcounts, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1She doesn't have any money. Although I would not put it past her.
- keymanjim2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6I get the feeling that if she looses the nomination she'll run as an independent.
- exronin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+29I voted so hard i tore through the ballot.
- JointVenture, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Did you blow a load?
- calipan, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2No chance of a hanging chad then, huh?
- DTJunkie07, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Funniest ***** I read all day lol
- gwellington, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10Wait, what did I miss? I thought Obama was a mathematical certainty to win this.
- provost, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4he is. the main stream media and clinton campaign are trying to make it look like he isnt though. the benefit of underfunding public schools is that the general populace cant do math on their own and thus, have to be told what the answers are by someone else.
clinton and msm know this so they are trying to feed them wrong answers. - johnpaul191, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1in theory she could sway a load of super-delegates and eek out a victory on the floor of the convention. Unless something massively shifts, there is no way she will flat out have enough delegates to get the nomination.
I heard a Clinton campaign guy on NPR a few weeks ago (even before PA), and he said Clinton's camp does not acknowledge the term super-delegate... they consider them all delegates. I guess some can more easily be swayed up till the last minute (meaning the convention). They definitely intend to run this race till the last minute if they have to. - Mejari, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3HIllary's too busy holding her hands over her ears and yelling "La La La! I can't hear you!" to notice.
- provost, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4he is. the main stream media and clinton campaign are trying to make it look like he isnt though. the benefit of underfunding public schools is that the general populace cant do math on their own and thus, have to be told what the answers are by someone else.
- CrudE, on 05/06/2008, -1/+13I'm taking bong rips now, then going to the fire station to vote! Go Obama!
- gnimsh, on 05/06/2008, -5/+1Except obama wants to increase funding for the war on terror, throwing your bong ripping self in jail.
- Mejari, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1LOL
- elhaf, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Isn't it more that Hillary "must win" Indiana? How does the front runner have to win anything? He just has to hold his own at this point.
- keymanjim2, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2The only true way this can be settled is here:
http://www.joecartoon.com/blenderpoll- keymanjim2, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1OH COME ON PEOPLE! You can't tell me you don't like joecartoon.com
- ncc74656m, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3I think that this article really does embody the campaign up to this point, and it may be the reason Obama has stopped gaining. His followers in the field have become more about being anti-Hillary than pro-Obama, and that kind of negativity just breeds dissent.
Let's all remember what Obama is about, and not what Hillary is or isn't. We're on the same side of the fence. It's just a matter of marking out where we sit in the yard. Remember that if we keep flinging poo at each other, the Republicans yard winds up nice and clean. - LokitheComplex, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Can we put this in the 2008 election section?
- JointVenture, on 05/06/2008, -7/+1The fact that at this stage in the game he can not win every state says something about his campaign in the general election.
You can deny it all you want, but its true.- grapesofbaath, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1....So what does it say about Hillary's campaign that at this stage in the game she is hopelessly behind in the delegate count and popular vote. Nothing about her campaign in the general election since she won't be in it.
- grapesofbaath, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1....So what does it say about Hillary's campaign that at this stage in the game she is hopelessly behind in the delegate count and popular vote. Nothing about her campaign in the general election since she won't be in it.
- jayscot, on 05/06/2008, -12/+2This so fun to watch! Obama is such a noob...you think he's getting hammered now...you just wait.
Obama is severely damaged goods, and Hillary is...well she's Hillary.
Never in my life have I seen the democratic party in such a mess.- calantus, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0the economy is more fun to watch, but thats just me. Blantant manipulation, i guess it takes a different type of sense of humor
- sipofsoma, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Democrats are a mess right now, but let's not even get started on the Republicans...
- 140Suffolk, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1Obama's got several more skeletons waiting to be noticed. Not to mention all the pathetic racial identity stuff he reveals about himself in his books.
- chesbo, on 05/06/2008, -9/+2lol @ all the Obama sackriders on digg.. I can't wait 'til he gets elected so I can blame all you ignorant people on how ***** up our country is :)
- sipofsoma, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3The way I see it, Obama = least *****. The thought of Clinton or McCain running this country just gives me nightmares (the same ones I currently have with Bush in charge). Sure Obama wasn't my first choice...or second, or third...but he's up there with the ones that don't scare the ***** out of me.
- defwheezer, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2chesbo: go. *****. yourself.
- Idiggapony, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9Friends, the Obamaspam is obnoxious to those of us who aren't interested. Please continue to digg it to your heart's content, but please put it in the "2008 U.S. Elections category." That way, those of us who want to read today's reasons for why Obama is wonderful can find them easily. And those of us who don't can filter it off our our front page. That way, everyone will be happy.
- grapesofbaath, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1That is a reasonable request, but guest what? OBAMA RULES AND HILLARY DROOLS YAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
- cjshamrock, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1poor clintonians. just like dangerfield they just don't get no respect here on digg
- grapesofbaath, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1That is a reasonable request, but guest what? OBAMA RULES AND HILLARY DROOLS YAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
- Hesei, on 05/06/2008, -2/+8Well, I did my part today. C'mon Carolinians, vote Obama!
- cjshamrock, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3good work
- TheObviousChild, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Just got back from voting for Obama...got the "I Voted" sticker to prove it. Surprisingly, a lot of my co-workers who are contractors and not US Citizens have been asking me who I voted for and very happy with my answer. It's nice to see that they really care about our country's future.
- IMJGalt, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2
- TheObviousChild, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Not Mexican. Tech industry - 95% of contractors are from India.
- IMJGalt, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2
- sleepingcitizen, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3he already won, the percentage she has to win in every state from now on is upwards of 60%. he wins NC or IN and there is absolutely no way for hillary to win. The media needs to cover something and sell newspapers. get with it
- RRJackson, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1There's no way for either of them to win. The spread is less than 2%. Neither of them can secure the nomination before Denver which means that Clinton's DNC connections make the decision.
- TFG1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I agree - a big win in NC (15% or more) and keeping it close in Indiana (losing by less than 5%) should be enough to close out Clinton but... that's only if Clinton is being reasonable - and we haven't seen much sign of that!
- netant, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1No, a +15% win in NC seals the deal. NC has enough delegates to really make Clinton's race look ridiculous. And would potentially mathematically finish the race. But Obama has been reported to have lost his edge there, ala Clinton in PA.
- BXRWXR, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Why do I think that a NC Surprise involves a tree, a pickup and a noose?
/One first class. I'll have the kosher meal./ - cjshamrock, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4NC, terminate Billary at my command. Execute.
- dmadzak, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Considering he was up 20+ points only an Obama fanboy can spin any Obama margin as a surprise. With that said though, a double digit win there would put a lot of pressure on Clinton, high singles keeps the status quo, low singles gives Clinton more ammunition, a loss really creates chaos. My guess is a mid to high single digit win for Obama in NC and the same for Clinton in Indiana (more of a mid single digit win).
- epborden, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I'm an NC resident, have several friends who voted for Obama today.
- BluesFan, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1It doesn't matter who wins,this will go down to wire becasue it's all a show to keep peoples mind on the election and off Iraq,Afghanastan, Iran and Bush and his crimes in general.
Get ready for more of the same regardless who wins,,,,Sorry that's just the way I feel about it all.- orlandorays, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1But why would the Democrats be in on this conspiracy theory?
- Becca4RonPaul, on 05/07/2008, -1/+1I just voted for RON PAUL.
- fabiofifa, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Clinton hopefully will drop out.
But...to paraphrase Colbert, when Obama is giving his inaugural address, will Clinton still be campaigning against him? - orlandorays, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3North Carolina has more delegates than Indiana, and Obama is winning it bigger than Clinton is winning Indiana.
Sorry, Obama wins. - 140Suffolk, on 05/07/2008, -1/+2Yes, hurry up and get Obama nominated so we can talk .
Let's talk about Obama's cousin in Kenya, Raila Odinga. Odinga ran for president in Kenya. Obama made speeches for him in Nairobi, at Odinga's rallies. Well, when Odinga lost last fall, he turned his minions loose and they killed 1.000 people. Mostly burned to death.
If Obama had done the least bit of research he'd have learned that Odinga was a bad guy. Educated in communist East Germany. Named his kids after Fidel "firing squad" Castro and Winnie "the torturer" Mandela. Odinga was involved in an unsucessful violent coup in the past. And, according to the Christian churches in Kenya, Odinga made a deal with Muslims in Kenya. To get their vote, he promised that if he won he would make Kenya an Islamic sharia state within 12 months. They have a document posted with Odinga's signature to prove it!
Obama could have easily learned this and stayed away. But instead, Obama used his "good judgment" to support this violent monster and make speeches at his rallies!
And wait til America hears what Barack says about slavery reparations!
" After his election [to Senate], Obama [stated] he was against "just signing over checks to African-Americans," leaving open the possibility of other forms of reparations would be acceptable to him (Chicago Tribune 11/14/2004)."
Get it? That means Barack is in favor of milking Americans for trillions in "reparations". Then giving the money to guys like Jesse Jackson and Sharpton to do "good works".
Want more: Obama sponsored a bill that would give BILLIONS of new American tax dollars to the United Nations to alleviate "world poverty". Right. That'll work.
Oh, and he has Nation of Islam apparatchniks on his campaign committee payroll. And he has made speeches at Palestinian fundraisers (you lefties may not know where that money really goes but Obama certainly does).
Look, he's got connections with socialist and communists going back to his Hawaii days. - alphonseragusa, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1Proof that Obama is a socialist? Try this:
Obama was a co-sponsor of the Global Poverty Act. "We can – and must – make … a priority," he said. It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs. Obama also said: "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world."
I wonder how many of those US dollars will go into the hands of militants (who then will shoot at and kill American soldiers)?
Having the IRS take my money (with the threat of force) to help other Americans is one thing. But if you support the idea of the American government taking your tax dollars (or printing more/borrowing more) to give to poor countries, then I question your sanity. - dannymears, on 10/20/2008, -0/+0It won't be a surprise.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/North_Carolina_P ...
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is