Clinton Campaign Responds To Obama's In Nevada

Read the response letter here.

Lawyers for Hillary Clinton urge Nevada Democratic Party's chair Jill Derby to reject what they call the "minor procedural problems" brought to light by Barack Obama's lawyer and instead ask her to focus on the Obama campaign's "premeditated and predesigned" plan to "engage systematic corruption" of the party's caucus procedures.

The Clinton team alleges that caucus cards were "premarked" for Obama, that Obama precinct chairs delibaretly miscounted votes, that young children were counted as having voted for Obama, that Clinton caucus goers were asked to leave before official counts were taken.

Comments

Ouch. That's got to hurt.

Posted by Michael C. | January 23, 2008 9:38 PM

I can see the unauthorized biography now:

"Billary - the couple that took American politics from fiction to perjury and back again".

Posted by sashaqz | January 23, 2008 9:53 PM

After reading that detailed indictment I only have one thing to say:

Barack Obama gives dirty politics a bad name.

Posted by ken | January 23, 2008 10:02 PM

One quick word. John Edwards for President. Now. Want to win a working majority? John Edwards. Now!

Posted by InitforEdwards | January 23, 2008 10:12 PM

Hillary is getting awfully desperate these days. Who's gonna cry before South Carolina, Hillary or Bill?

Posted by BobP | January 23, 2008 10:13 PM

I could be wrong on this, but it seems like if there actually are legit reports of Obama vote fixing, then I haven't heard them. Am I crazy to think that this sort of back and forth is designed to get reporters to write a story that paints both sides as potentially culpable even though it seems like the Clinton camp behaved far worse? It's the sort of thing the GOP did in '04 and '06 in terms of corruption and negative campaigning, and we already see the results in Ambinder's short blurb here (which reads as a he-said-she-said with no actual analysis of whether either side is full of it).

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | January 23, 2008 10:52 PM

So, the Clinton campaign is (belatedly) registering their support for an investigation, but is that the same as making a formal complaint? I wouldn't be at all surprised by some malfeasance on both sides, but the Obama campaign seems to have put far more on the line here. Maybe that's just because they lost in Nevada, but they seem to think they might have something to gain by registering a formal complaint-- and it's not generally in their interest to call attention to the dirtiness of politics (the Clinton campaign is fine with that, because part of their argument is that Hillary can play that game and win, supposedly-- by the way, I find that one of her campaign's more persuasive arguments, though ultimately I support Obama). That inclines me to think that the Obama campaign is confident the other side will come out looking noticeably worse.

Well, time will tell. Maybe.

Posted by PJ | January 23, 2008 11:01 PM

"Am I crazy to think that this sort of back and forth is designed to get reporters to write a story that paints both sides as potentially culpable even though it seems like the Clinton camp behaved far worse?"

You are not crazy, you are astute. It's a play out of the Rove handbook that increasingly appears to have found its way into Hillary's hands.

Posted by Bob | January 23, 2008 11:02 PM

Are you kidding me?

Posted by GUs | January 23, 2008 11:14 PM

I'm with Bob here. The Clintons are increasingly using the Rovian tactics that the Clintons supporters have decried when the republicans used them.
Kind of hypocritical.
Either you don't condone them or you don't criticize when it's someone besides the Clintons.
It will be very interesting to learn of the results when the investigation is done.
I thought the DNC was also called in to investigate. What about that, Marc?

Posted by vwcat | January 24, 2008 1:12 AM

Marc, commenters Bob and Michael are onto something; the Clintons seem to just want a "tit for tat" narrative. There is a major, major distinction between the Obama complaint and the Clinton complaint. The Obama complaint includes two smoking gun documents.

The first is a document distributed to Hillary's caucus workers, which -- and I am not kidding -- says, that conduct at the caucus site "is not illegal unless the temporary chair[person of the caucus location] tells you so." Wow, that restores my faith that Clinton will restore a respect for the rule of law to the Executive Branch!

The second is an official Hillary Clinton bound precinct captain handbook (complete with an introduction signed by Hillary herself), which falsely states that caucus doors were to close at 11:30, rather than the correct time, which was 12. Harmless error? Not on your life, because the Clinton campaign told their supporters to get to sites before 11, and many of the caucus chair persons were hounded by Hillary people (sometimes successfully) to close the doors at 11:30. (At the very least, if Hillary's official bound precinct captain book gets something so fundamental as the time wrong, how can she claim to be the competent managerial one whose bureaucracy will be more efficient than Obama's?).

In contrast, the HRC complaint cites alleged random acts of Obama supporters, with no evidence remotely like Obama's to suggest that the mischief came from the campaign itself.

Posted by RaymondA | January 24, 2008 1:18 AM

Gotta love the "punch & judy" campaign of the
first white/black President and his white/black/
hispanic mate to regain their rightful role
as Commanders-in-Chief. Arrogance, ambition
and chutzpah are laid on the table for all to
see, yet the "INDEPENDENT PRESS" openly and
repeatedly marvels at their shennanigans and
implies that couple should be rewarded for
their tactics of scorching the political earth.

Some of the old guard, and some of the new
guard in the political press are questioning
sainthood for this dysfunctional duo...but
too few and too weakly...and most would love
to relive the drama of these "star-crossed"
lovers, front and center on the political
stage. Love 'em or hate 'em....Bill and Hill..
may be what America must accept...or else.

Posted by interferon | January 24, 2008 1:36 AM

Does America really need another 4-8 years
of Bill-Hill to lead us out of the wilderness
that in some ways he led us inexorably into?
He's shamelessly hogging the stage to promote
his co-dependent spouse. He needs our votes
to vindicate his very essence as a triumphant
giant of the ages...promoting the somewhat
mechanical, strident, shamed yet shameless
spouse as the "best person" to lead our country..
this from a man that treated her like dirt not
many moons ago..and begs us to now forget the
years of mendacity, manipulation, and ME FIRST..
and vote him into ME SECOND! P.T. Barnum was
Bill's mentor.

Posted by interferon | January 24, 2008 2:17 AM

The French get Carla Bruni and we get a harridan like Hillary.
Is God mad at America?

Posted by fougasseu | January 24, 2008 6:15 AM

the inherent bias is evident here: obama supporters/Hillary haters support one campaigns claims of wrong doing at the NV primary and completely discount the opponent's claims of wrong doing. One side pretends that they are principled and that the other side is craven.
that's pathetic.

Posted by Michael C. | January 24, 2008 7:36 AM

the inherent bias is evident

Some people refer to that as reality... Just because it disfavors your candidate doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

Posted by J.B. | January 24, 2008 8:54 AM

Its a goose and gander situation: obama's people screamed abouty problems at the polls and Clintons people screamed about problems at the polls. Then a few days later Obama's people file a complaint and the same day hillary's people write a letter and/or file a complaint. Both release these moves to the press.
AND the obama supporters and the Hillary bill haters (you all act so similar that its hard to tell you apart) all blog here that the clintons are lying, working the press, full of BS and they have no credibility. Its reality JB says
Rovian says VW CAT. awfully desperate says BobP.
Don't you haters recognise bias when you see it in the mirror?
In addition the clinton side in this registered concerns before the primary and you supporters and haters said that had no merit.
the lack of consistancy in your positions and your self-serving ability to prejudge one side innocent and prejudge the other side guilty or a sham or whining is textbook case of denial:
your hatred is astounding even if you mislabel it hope.

Posted by Michael C. | January 24, 2008 10:28 AM

It astounds me how the Obama supporters have been acting. It is this crybaby immature wing of the Party that so disgusts the rest of America. "We are so principled and we know what is best."

You are all a bunch of jokers who ALWAYS lose: Hart, Tsongas, Bradley, Dean etc. Losers all. Obama seems like a good guy but he doesn't have the stomach for it all and is not ready. So what we get is bitter interecine warfare that hurts the party.

If you look at what you are doing and saying it should really disgust you. You are attacking the only Democrat to win the White House twice in 60 years. He lead the country to the greatest economic expansion of all time not to mention compentently and expertly guiding the government. You attack that and throw it aside like frothing right wingers! Shape up and be a stalwart of the party; stop acting like children.

You are embarrassing and soon you will lose like you ALWAYS do. The sooner you realize it the better. Pathetic.

Posted by Rifle | January 24, 2008 12:12 PM

CLASSIC ATWATER: Cheat. When your opponent complains, accuse them of cheating.

Very similar to the previously played: Lie. When your opponent complains, accuse them of lying.

Posted by converse | January 24, 2008 12:54 PM

Michael C, were you even in Nevada?

The quote from the Clinton campaign's caucus manual, "it's OK unless they tell you it's illegal", is precisely how they behaved at the caucus sites, not only my own, but several others about which I have heard from trusted friends (some of whom were undecided voters, not Obama partisans).

I won't say that some Obama people may have misbehaved (although I didn't see one instance of it), but a "win at all costs even if you have to cheat a little" attitude was not systematically encouraged in any way as it clearly was by the Clinton campaign here. We were very clearly instructed to follow the rules.

Many of the specific examples of rulebreaking given in the Obama complaint happened before my very eyes. Others have been cited by close friends of mine whom I trust. We all agree that she probably would have won anyway, so our complaints are not exactly "sour grapes." But it reveals alot about the character of Hillary, her campaign, and her supporters.

Oh, and Rifle? Which candidate cried in public after losing an election this season?

As for "the only Dem to win the WH twice in the last 60 years" - this becomes a fairy tale when one looks more closely. He won a plurality, not a majority, of votes both times. He lost Congress and, if anything, shrank the Dem voting constituency.

And there is some debate about how much his policies really drove the economic growth of the 90s.

Rightly or wrongly, the fact is that his blowjob gave us GW Bush for 8 years... and now we're going to reward him for essentially sodomizing all of us with another nomination that will probably destroy what was a sure-fire victory in November.

Democrats seem to be in the thrall of a variant of battered spouse syndrome - they are pathologically addicted to losing even when they should win. They are the Buffalo Bills... good enough to nose out the team that SHOULD make it to the big game, but lame and compromised enough to get their asses kicked once they get there. And they feel good and righteous about this insanity.

BB

Posted by BillB | January 24, 2008 1:22 PM

What the hell is happening to my party???????

Posted by Jayhawk Max | January 24, 2008 1:47 PM

The difference between the Obama and Clinton complaints is that there is lots of evidence to back up the Obama complaints, and none backing up the Clinton complaints. As someone said above, they are just trying to muddy the waters. I voted in Nevada myself, and while I didn't see any rule-breaking, the Clinton people were far more aggressive and shady than any other campaign. And I've heard first person accounts of the Clinton people bending rules, whereas I haven't heard any about the Obama people.

But my question is, even without the Clinton attempt to muddy the waters, what is Obama's campaign hoping to get out of this complaint? Do they actually think the Nevada Democratic Party is going to censure the Clinton campaign, especially since nearly every high-ranking member endorsed the front-runner months ago?

Posted by crazymonk | January 24, 2008 2:47 PM

Her campaign manual instructed, contrary to party rules, that her organizers close the doors at 11:30.

That's premeditated.

To talk about voter suppression by Obama:

a) she has to prove it
b) she has to prove it came from his campaign directly

Posted by yiannis | January 24, 2008 3:31 PM

crazymonk,

I'm not sure what it will accomplish, really, since the entire Clark County and Nevada Dem machine backed Hillary, and has already hinted that they will do whatever it takes to rig the delegate count in her favor if needed.

And the complaint isn't challenging the results.

Only thing I can think is that they want an official acknowledgement of cheating to use in the campaign later... i.e., "they will do or say anything to win" meme now being run in SC.

Or, frankly, that they got over 1600 written accounts, maybe the Obama campaign is just being responsive to its supporters.

BB

Posted by BillB | January 24, 2008 3:38 PM

BillB. The american people gave America the 8 years of George Bush: too many of us bought into his silly outsider i'm a uniter not a divider BS and we got a neophyte who did us all wrong. And then we as a country voted for him again.
Bill Clinton was chomping at the bit to help gore defeat the republicans and give us four more years of dems but Gore was too much of an asshole and had too weak of an ego to let someone as popular as Bill help him win: instead he did the stupidist thing possible: picked bill's bigggest weasel critic in the senate to help him lose it.

To be crude and say it was a sex act thaqt did that is BS: its our fault: we let gore lose and we let Bush win twice.
That Bill is willing to go all out to support the candidate he believesw in after two really weak dems blowing close elections is no surprise.

Posted by Michael c. | January 24, 2008 6:58 PM

BillB:
I have to have been in NV to have a valid opinion: I thought I only had to be a obama supporter or Hillary hater to have my opinion be valid here in these threads.
I read the articles and read the times and read the links here and the statements posted by each campaign and I'm willing to wait and see what investigations assert after all due diligence.
Obama's supporter's total monopoly on the truth is really funny: Mr. O's supporters are turning into crazy-ass loons who never let the truth get in the way of what you assert on this blogosphere.
Have you ever watched campaigns before? people accuse people of this stuff but luckily due process exists and the campaigns can wait for that.
Obama's campaign is dying on the vine in some ways and I understand your disappointment: rookies often hit a wall before the playoffs just like storms blow themselves out sometimes.
So far its a movement that not enough of us are moved by: maybe it'd be a better strategy to have a campaign instead of a movement.
1oo million and still he can't convince a lefty like me?

Posted by Michael C. | January 24, 2008 7:10 PM