Obama Manager Accuses Clintons of Widespread Dirty Politics

David Plouffe, in a succinct statement appended to a released quotation from his boss, Barack Obama, said the Obama campaign was investigating more than 200 reporters of irregularities in Nevada.

“We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself."

Plouffe asks Nevadans to call a toll-free number, [phone], and report any other problems.

Obama, for his part, said he "ran an honest, uplifting campaign in Nevada that focused on the real problems Americans are facing, a campaign that appealed to people’s hopes instead of their fears."

Comments

So you're saying Karl Rove won in Nevada?

Posted by Callimaco | January 19, 2008 6:23 PM

Read this, it's a firsthand account:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573

Posted by Jason | January 19, 2008 6:32 PM

Sounds like sour grapes. And if you have been following the back and forth, BO is not exactly pure as the driven snow either.

Posted by Oslmjs | January 19, 2008 6:33 PM

This is how he won his race in Ill. He cried foul and had his opponents signature challenged. Yea, right a new kind of politics, Chicago style for the nation.

Posted by pamlobsp | January 19, 2008 6:39 PM

Hillary will lose to any GOP candidate, save possibly Huckabee.

If you can't see that, you've been blinded by your dream of occupying a little cubicle for yourself in a fantasy-Clinton 2 Administration.

Posted by blind | January 19, 2008 6:39 PM

Oslmjs - can you point out confirmed instances of voter suppression by Obama's surrogates or outright lying by Obama about opponents positions? There are clear examples of Clinton and her operatives doing both of those things.

To argue that Obama's not perfect and therefore Obama and Clinton are equal just doesn't cut it. The Clinton's play old school dirty, and I don't support that.

Posted by MP | January 19, 2008 6:41 PM

Obama is a whiner!

Posted by Democrat | January 19, 2008 6:45 PM

You Hillbots think Hillary will win SC? I think not! She won't win SC even with Bill down there telling them Barack is black, Muslim and can't win. He will win with >50% of the vote and Hill will get ~30%. Mark my words. Then we go on. She will get a declining share of black voters, so much so, that she will lose or come close to losing NY on Feb. 5, while Barack wins almost every contest except MAYBE California. All the senators on the sidelines will come off the bench for him, including Teddy Kennedy. Then some governors in swing states will come. Before Feb. 5, possibly this week, Al Gore will endorse Obama. None of which is to say Hill can't still win; it's just she'll have to do it with most of the party working for her opponent. She won't beat the Repubs in any case because the 90% of AAs not voting for her won't come in the same numbers for her.

Posted by Michael's Mom | January 19, 2008 6:50 PM

Has the Obama campaign totally lost it?

They were holding all the cards, as far as the casino union caucuses went, and Hillary still won them.

These kinds of vague accusations may keep the hard core supporters energized after the loss, fuel their paranoia. But noone else will buy it.

If they could prove it, fine. But the implication that Clinton was somehow behind all kinds of irregularities, is a real low. Then they follow it up with the contradiction that he ran an honest uplifting campaign. Ridiculous! There is so much of this on the web from Obama supporters, how dishonest and corrupt Hillary is, with no support whatsoever.

Posted by foxx | January 19, 2008 7:24 PM

Hillary's campaign staff was telling people they couldn't participate in the at-large caucuses unless they worked for one of the large casinos where they took place. NOT TRUE, but it discouraged turnout. Now are you going to tell me that the Clintons are really so stupid they'd have ignorant people in charge of their Nevada campaign?
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/17/clinton-camp-confused-over--large-caucus-sites/

Posted by Tom J | January 19, 2008 7:28 PM

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton was claiming the votes of the casino workers at the at-large sites would count 5X more than anyone else's - also NOT TRUE:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=5898176

Posted by Tom J | January 19, 2008 7:31 PM

Those damn "irregular reporters"!!

Posted by converse | January 19, 2008 7:33 PM

If Obama won 13 delegates and Clinton won 12, Didn't Obama win?

Posted by Walden Greenwood | January 19, 2008 7:35 PM

Hillary will be the nominee. She may lose SC, but she will win Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Colorodo, New York, New Jersey, etc. The Hispanics and whites are not playing Obama's game. He can have all of the black votes, but he is turning everyone else off. He has become the black candidate, and if 70-80percent of blacks vote for him in SC, it is over.

Posted by Bret | January 19, 2008 7:36 PM

South Carolina uses all-electronic DRE machines...known to be hackable, known to have other problems, too.
Outlawed in many states.

If a recount is necessary...too bad! Not posssible on those machines.

See todays Republican primary in S.C.....terrible problems with the machines...not enough paper ballots.

South Carolina to anyone who can hack the machines.

Posted by Barbara | January 19, 2008 7:40 PM

I am a black male that voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, the first year I could vote. I will under zero circumstances vote for Hillary in the GE if she gets the nom. Most of my African-American friends think the same. We feel so personally disrespected by the Clinton campaign it would be an act of self-loathing to support them.

Posted by Sunny | January 19, 2008 7:43 PM

I am a black male that voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, the first year I could vote. I will under zero circumstances vote for Hillary in the GE if she gets the nom. Most of my African-American friends think the same. We feel so personally disrespected by the Clinton campaign it would be an act of self-loathing to support them.

Posted by Sunny | January 19, 2008 7:43 PM

These tactics might win the nomination for Clinton, but the Democrats will lose in November if they reward this kind of scummy politics.

Posted by Donna | January 19, 2008 7:44 PM

Edwards supporters lost out the most by this, I'm sure there were viable precincts that were bullied away and cost him the most. A viable Edwards helps neither candidates, but of course, he's still running, remember?

Nice.

Posted by Ellinorianne | January 19, 2008 7:45 PM

Who knows who will win this thing but Hillary won tonight. Obama's manager can claim thier team had more strike outs or outpitched Hillary's side (the delegate count) but face facts: who got the W?
If he won one more delegate with less votes doesn't that point to an anomaly in how they assign delegates?
Didn't they want the win?
the headline?
Reports are Bill was an asset, not an ass.
My favorite scene in Good will hunting is when Matt Damon knocks on the window and asks the other guy, "do you like apples?"
Well Hillary got another state!
How do you like them apples!

Posted by Michael C. | January 19, 2008 7:48 PM

Bret (above) is right. This kind of message is too divisive for Hispanics and Democrats in general:

"A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief — I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper — that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one."

Stupid divisive Obama. He just can't stop dividing, can't keep Hillary's attack dog dogwhistle surrogates in line.

Posted by Sean | January 19, 2008 7:51 PM

If Clinton wins the general get ready for 4 more years of a Republican executive. Nothing motivates Republican voters more than being anti-Clinton. what national polls are failing to show right now is the sheer number of voters who will come out to vote purely against Clinton just because it's Clinton.
Democratic party, please, please, please, don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Nominate a candidate who isn't so ridiculously polarizing as to lose an election we should have in the bag.

hint: it's not Clinton

Posted by aeneas | January 19, 2008 7:51 PM

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a Republican President next year. It's that simple.

And the way she's flat out disgracing the Democratic Party for the nomination, when she gets it and DOES lose...where will we all be then?

Posted by Travis | January 19, 2008 7:57 PM

In regards to Obama holding all the cards, that's not really the case. In the beginning of December Hillary was killing Obama in the Nevada polls, by as much as 27% in some. While Obama received the largest union endorsement, Hillary had more union support overall, as well as the majority of the Nevada democratic establishment on her side.

I'm not an Obama fanboy, nor do I dislike Hillary, but if you look at the numbers and context, Obama almost pulled off an upset.

As far as the irregularities, who knows, except those that were there. Unless there's video evidence I'm not gonna get outraged over the accusations.

Posted by Amos Griffin | January 19, 2008 8:00 PM

It's also of note that Bill Clinton (with Terry McAuliffe in tow) spent the day trolling just outside casino caucus sites, telling people to vote for his wife.

Posted by GordonsGirl | January 19, 2008 8:03 PM

This is as stupid--but not as much fun--as arguing about yard signs.

Posted by rwm66 | January 19, 2008 8:08 PM

but face facts: who got the W?

Hm. According to the media or according to the Democratic National Committee?

If he won one more delegate with less votes doesn't that point to an anomaly in how they assign delegates?

Why, yes. Yes, it does.

Didn't they want the win? the headline?

Sure Obama's team wanted the popular vote. They probably would have rather won the popular vote than the delegate count. Doesn't change the fact that Obama came out on top where it counts.

Posted by Tractarian | January 19, 2008 8:09 PM

Bill Clinton (and Terry McAuliffe!!) Ignites Ruckus at Casino Caucus - Huff Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/19/bill-clinton-ignites-ruck_n_82327.html

Clinton was accompanied into the caucus room by long-time supporter and fundraiser Terry McAuliffe. "We were told that any of us could come to talk to voters," he told The Huffington Post. "We're encouraging people to vote. There is no intimidation," he said though there was no reference to intimidation in the reporter's question.

Posted by JenJen | January 19, 2008 8:33 PM

Hiilary Cinton is TOXIC as a national nominee: she will energize the Republican party as no other Dem nomineee would. The past four weeks of race-baiting by her surrogates is something I will never forget or forgive. This is a Republc, not a monarchy. We have a chance to nominate someone who can change our face as a country throughout the world when he is elected President. I have stupidly believed for many years that Democratic voters were better informed than Rep voters:stupid me.

Posted by beth | January 19, 2008 8:34 PM

I no longer respect the Clintons and fear Hillary is hurting her chances to win the general if she gets the nomination. Obama is a much better candidate to run in the general and increase the dem majority in congress.

Posted by noexpert | January 19, 2008 8:34 PM

All of my white, university educated friends who are married and live in Michigan, New York, Los Angeles, Iowa City, Boston, Chicago, and the East Bay in Calif are supporting Obama. The majority of these have kids. We think the Clinton campaign, with us, has been 95% unsuccessful in forcing Obama back down into a "black identity." Nearly all of us voted for Bill Clinton twice. None of us ever carried any negative feelings for Hillary. That is, until this campaign really got going last Autumn. That's when HRC went south in a big way for us. I know this is anecdotal. But, this meme that the Clinton camp is going to polarize black voters for Obama, well, we just don't see that happening.

Hillary Clinton as a structural machine behind her. Can't argue with that. But if that cracks, it all falls away.

Posted by Kenneth | January 19, 2008 8:35 PM

Guys hate to lose to a woman.

Posted by tib | January 19, 2008 8:39 PM

"""Hillary will lose to any GOP candidate, save possibly Huckabee.

If you can't see that, you've been blinded by your dream of occupying a little cubicle for yourself in a fantasy-Clinton 2 Administration."""

Ahhh..a concern troll. Buddy..not one poll supports that ' better vote for Obama' position. The only candidate I see in the Democratic race that is starting to piss me off is Obama. I was for the guy at the onset but no way now. Clue: Hillary is not a racist and calling her one will get you 13 %..the Black 13 %. Clue: Hillary did not file or have anything to do with the Vegas law Suit..the Teachers Union Filed it and I resent to the Core Obamma Lying to me to convince me otherwise. Clue : this is not about how Black Obama is..except to Obama. This is about Red White and Blue.

Posted by Richard | January 19, 2008 8:43 PM

The more that people see of Clinton, the more her numbers drop.

The more that people see of Obama, the more his numbers rise.

I am counting on that to continue. And I will never vote for HRC for president.

Posted by Michael | January 19, 2008 8:44 PM

Considering Obama was polling more than 20 points behind HRC just a couple of weeks ago this is quite a turnaround. Hillary was expected to win. Obama and his supporters should be happy with the results regardless of HRCs dirty campaign tricks.

Posted by evan | January 19, 2008 8:55 PM

It's a shame that such dirty tactics have to be undertaken against a fellow Democrat. It's why I'd go back to being an Independent after only becoming a D this election cycle.

I only became a Democrat to help fight the election fraud that is RAMPANT and we've known about for 7 years now. We need to insist on paper ballots with HAND COUNTS IN EACH PRECINCT!! Wake up, before it's too late. Contact your county and state auditors and find out what needs to be done to make this happen!

Posted by Mary, Iowa voter | January 19, 2008 9:18 PM

THEY USE SCARE TACTICS IN IOWA AGAINST STUDENTS...

THEY USE RACE CARD AGAINST BLACKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

THEY USE SMEAR TACTICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ABOUT DRUGS AND ABORTION...

THEY USE LAWSUITS IN NEVADA AGAINST HISPANICS...

THEY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR POWER!!!!WELCOME TO THE CLINTONS WORLD!!!

Posted by johnson | January 19, 2008 9:23 PM

Please, for all the venom from people's fingers just insert the other candidate's name (and gender/race) and see how you like the statement?

For all of you who claim you will vote repug ... I don't doubt you already have and will. No loss.

The Democratic primary is for Democrats. If you forget that then I suggest asking for a repug ballot, it is where you belong. (Okay maybe Green is more to your liking.)

Posted by Ann | January 19, 2008 9:26 PM

CLINTON SAYS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.

GOLWATER RAN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOHNSON...
SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER WHO WAS AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???

BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON'S RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

Posted by Johnson | January 19, 2008 9:26 PM

I am an Hispanic woman (over 50 - with a law degree, so I fit in lots of categories.) I will vote for Obama. It's about character and integrity, none of which appear present in Hillary's campaign.

Posted by mirabel | January 19, 2008 9:27 PM

Post script to my prior post:

I am based in California.

Mira

Posted by mirabel | January 19, 2008 9:28 PM

I don't understand how anyone can support Hillary Clinton when she encouraged (by her silence on the issue) the closing of the casino caucuses. Bill Clinton basically said they were unfair. Would of he said that if the CWU endorsed Hillary Clinton?

Politics over principles, no one complained about the casino caucuses at first because everyone thought Hillary would get the Culinary endorsement.

When Obama says he is for change, he doesn't just mean policy wise. He means campaigning in a positive way so as not to divide the people of the United
states. How can Hillary claim she is a 'change' candidate and a uniter when all she does is attack her rivals?

Posted by jim | January 19, 2008 9:29 PM

"Considering Obama was polling
more than 20 points behind HRC
just a couple of weeks ago this
is quite a turnaround."

A lot has happened in a few weeks so saying he was a head a few weeks ago is silly;
he won a state on the third and everything changed except it didn't. Everybody said it did but it didn't change everything. If I remember back with kerry and the national ticket losing a close one is still a loss AND losing close kerry and gore) hurts just as much or more as losing big (carter, mcgovern, mondale).
He's supposed to be doing better: the media loves him. The young love him. It's a movement right?
Have some decency when it comes to the clintons: lots of us support her and believe in her for all the right reasons. Lots of us love obama but love Hillary more. Obama's supporters are a little hateful though: a little thin skinned: a tad overconfident after one win in Iowa and quick to point fingers and believe the worst now.
I am college educated, have a kid and I like her.
It isn't gullibility or racism.
All you haters should go ahead and abandon the party and vote republican if that is what is in your hearts: threatening us if we don't vote your way is childish.

Posted by Michael C. | January 19, 2008 9:34 PM

The clintons have always lied--even to each other.

The clintons have always cheated--even on each other.

Is anyone really surprised?

Posted by bannie | January 19, 2008 9:37 PM

A Test!

"So you're saying Richard Daly won in Nevada?"

"Barrack will lose to any GOP candidate, save possibly Mitt.
If you can't see that, you've been blinded by your dream of occupying a little cubicle for yourself in a fantasy-Reagan 2 Administration."

"Oslmjs - can you point out confirmed instances of voter suppression by Hillary's surrogates or outright lying by Hillary's about opponents positions? There are clear examples of Barrack and his operatives doing both of those things.
To argue that Hillary's not perfect and therefore Barrack and Clinton are equal just doesn't cut it. The Barrack's play old chicago school dirty, and I don't support that."

"You Barrackbots think Barrack will win SC? I think not! She won't win SC even with Jessie Jr. down there telling them Hillary is woman, lesbian and can't win. She will win with >50% of the vote and Barrack will get ~30%. Mark my words. Then we go on. He will get a declining share of woman voters, so much so, that he will lose or come close to losing IL on Feb. 5, while Hillary wins almost every contest except MAYBE Minnesota. All the senators on the sidelines will come off the bench for her, including Russ Feingold. Then some governors in swing states will come. Before Feb. 5, possibly this week, Al Gore will endorse Hillary. None of which is to say Barrack can't still win; it's just he'll have to do it with most of the party working for his opponent. He won't beat the Repubs in any case because the 90% of women not voting for him won't come in the same numbers for him."

Anyone getting the picture?

Your angry rhetoric and absurd, non documented statements about other candidates are getting out of hand. Knock it off!

Only one candidates supporters have been this aggressive and down right vicious, but turnabout is available to all candidates.

Posted by P.A.M.B. | January 19, 2008 9:38 PM

Well, thank you very much David Plouffe, for sticking up for my rights, but please butt out my state.

I saw absolutely nothing untoward, and in my precinct, thanks to the flexibility of a couple of hillary supporters, we (I'm for Edwards) were actaully able to be viable.

In the process, Hillary cost herself a delegate.

Plouffe is such a toad.

Posted by JedReport | January 19, 2008 9:44 PM

Smearing Clinton is becoming a chic left passtime.
There are hate Hillary diaries from the Obama camp every single day in Daily Kos.
The Obama people are the dirty tactics guys. They'll go down as the biggest mud slingers in campaign history.

Posted by John Eilliot | January 19, 2008 10:00 PM

My considered take as a Republican:

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I just talked with Karl Rove, comfortably ensconced in his secret underground lair underneath the West Wing (he never really resigned, you know!). When I spoke with the Rovester, he was smoking a Cohiba, sipping a martini (shaken, not stirred), and checking with his "friends in New Jersey" about having Tom Brady take a dive against the Chargers in tomorrow's game. Karl gets VERY unhappy when he loses a bet.

Anyway, after exchanging pleasantries, Karl finished our conversation by noting, "I love it when a plan comes together. Nevada ain't nothing compared to what I've got in store on Super Tuesday. When I get done with Golden Boy and the Wicked West of the East, they'll wish to hell they'd never even thought about running."

That Karl, he's SUCH a cut-up.

Posted by MarkJ | January 19, 2008 10:01 PM

I sure hope that Atlantic.com will do some research to find out the truth of the allegations. What about that video, can it be found and posted?

Posted by Jeff Johson | January 19, 2008 10:01 PM

Bwahahahahahaha!

Posted by Wicked West of the East | January 19, 2008 10:16 PM

I just love the soearing rhetoric of this humble concession speech, from the hopeful "leader" who promises us that's he's "the only one" who can "bring us all together."
Gag.

Posted by Jan | January 19, 2008 10:29 PM

This is hilarious. How does it feel, democrats? I hope you enjoy it. We put up with eight years of it from you.

Posted by Yo Mamma | January 19, 2008 10:55 PM

but face facts: who got the W?

We all got the W, and we've had him for the last seven years. The reason? Voter suppression in Florida and Ohio.

Hillary shouldn't be going down this road.

Posted by DC Pol Sci | January 19, 2008 10:58 PM

The numbers just don't add up. It is so shameful that democrats will resort to these type of typical Republican tactics.

I have been saying that Hilary has been ruined by Washington, and it's proving to be true.

I will vote for Barrack in the primary and hope these irregularities will gets more press in the days to come. This will probably come back to haunt her.

Posted by pandora | January 19, 2008 11:13 PM

O now I get it. How would you turn Obama into the black candidate except by angering blacks so much that they go to you opponent in droves? He wins a decisive portion of that constituency and then they can use those results to brand him and then show that brand to other groups who you believe will never vote for the "black" candidate. You don't worry about losing a constituency that you can make up elsewhere. This is the strategy, this is how they win, this is how cynical they are. It is incredibly depressing. Maybe all their bad karma will somehow catch up with them sometime between now and the convention. I don't think pointing to the irregularities will do much good, not without concrete and sensational evidence. The only way Obama can win is if he can mobilize supporters to come out for him. Now that he is definitely the insurgent perhaps that will be easier.

Posted by JC | January 19, 2008 11:23 PM

I am not sure how this whining helps Obama. By calling the relatively tame stuff that has happened since the Clinton decided to go after him "dirty tricks", isn't Obama sending a loud and clear message that he is not ready to take on the 2008 version of Atwater/Rove Smear Machine that you can bet would be booted up in time for business as usual? Every time Hillary has won, the Obama camp and their supporters have attributed the win to the Clintons' "dirty tricks". Hello! Welcome to electoral politics as usual, and good bye to the "politics of hope"! What do you think the Republicans are going to do in the general election? Come and sit down with Obama and smoke a peace pipe or negotiate a deal that would put "dirty tricks" off-limit? Sheer naivete. Once the Repubs are through with him, not only will Obama lose the general election, he would also be rudely awakened from his fantastic dream that he has the power to take the partisan mentality out of the GOP and "unite" the country...

Posted by dcshungu | January 19, 2008 11:27 PM

I served as an Obama precinct captain today in Las Vegas, and can report that the dirty tricks, mindless bullying tactics, and bad imitations of Republican campaigning that are being alleged were in full evidence at my site.

I see that a lot of Hillary's defenders here in this thread have no idea what they are ranting about since they were not here today.

Here is the reality: the corrupt Clark County Democratic Party machine, with Harry Reid's son Rory at its head, did much to deliver the county to Hillary today... this includes putting the party's voter lists in her campaign's hands very early in the season, and sending us party precinct chairs who were overt Hillary supporters to oversee the caucus process, and who clearly allowed and even in some cases encouraged rulebreaking and intimidation.

I'm really trying to figure out how her supporters think they are going to win the general election, with a barely electable candidate to begin with who will have embittered a large chunk of the party - many of whom will never campaign for her and probably not vote for her either. I speak here not really for myself personally but for the many people I have observed and listened to lately. Winning the battle but losing the war is just a flat-out retarded way to run a campaign.... but then again Hillary's supporters have yet to demonstrate much ability for intelligent thinking... esp based on what I witnessed today.

Mark my words, if she becomes the nominee, and that is still in doubt, we will lose not only the White House but also the Senate. Good luck trying to govern then geniuses! More of that invented "35 years of change" clearly.

BillB

Posted by BillB | January 19, 2008 11:31 PM

Hillary has learned all her lessons well.

Barack in 2008.

Posted by kravitz | January 19, 2008 11:32 PM

Bret said: "[Obama] has become the black candidate, and if 70-80 percent of blacks vote for him in SC, it is over."

That was the Clinton's strategy all along. Paint Obama as the "black candidate," and thereby appeal to racists and throwbacks. And this is done on behalf of the candidate who claims to be the progressive? I will never, ever vote for Hillary Clinton. By her actions this week, she has proven herself unworthy to hold public office.

And Bill, I regret, once again, that I long ago taught my kids to like and respect you. You are not worthy of the position entrusted to you. Stop now, before you further destroy the Democratic party you so callously take for granted. You are the past, not the future. Slink away, please, with what little is left of your reputation.

Posted by spotter | January 19, 2008 11:33 PM

hahahahaha, this is great.

Hillary just got tagged with a significant amount of screwing around, and there are seriously people saying "Obama's an ass for pointing this out" I understand there are people committed to their choices, but when does it become so consuming you can't admit a single "my bad"?

All I see is one stupid Clark County manager screwing with the rules. I've heard nothing outside of Clark County. And instead of shooting this down like adults, you're going to go for the "it's not what you think"? Really?

Clinton may win this, but afterwards, she'll have the Sidam Touch BIG TIME. It'll be GREAT to have Rove back in the White House. THANKS!

Posted by chris | January 19, 2008 11:38 PM

I hope Obama's supporters will forgive me for regarding neither the statement of their campaign manager, nor the "first hand" account of an Obama supporter, however well-intentioned, as dispositive in this matter.

If there's anything substantive here, it will and should end up in court. Of course, similar allegations were made in NH, and, after the knobs were turned up to 11, a recount was initiated. Nothing, so far, has come of it.

If nothing comes of NH, and nothing comes of NV, then it's going to look like Obama and his supporters attempt to delegitimize any election where they don't like the outcome. Surely such tactics would be both inflammatory and short-sighted? And hardly Presidential?

Posted by lambert strether | January 20, 2008 12:02 AM

In the face of tough situations and defeat, it is disappointing to watch Obama's behavior contradict his rhetoric for positive change. He has been dismissive of Clinton while uplifting of Reagan. That instigates division among democrats. He was quick to acknowledge a black man's contribution to civil rights and totally unrecognizing of other white men's contribution and even spanned racist sentiment against Hillary for equalizing the contributions of MLK with Johnson's. That instigates division among Americans. When he lost in Nevada he lost his grace and whined, even suggesting the others did not run a clean campaign. His campaign even gave misleading statements about the delegate-winning process. If he's not ready, he's not ready. It's tougher in national elections. He cannot be whining and accusatory all the time. If he thinks being ordinarily candid about questions like "what's your weakness" is good, he's being naive. His answers is not wrong but it's not the kind that will come prudent and respectable in the world stage and even presidential league. No president can be perfect but America cannot go from one extreme (GWBush) to another extreme (BHObama). The experienced person can fail and there is greater probability that an inexperienced person would fail. Obama is running for the presidency now, not because he is called for a vision, but because he is compelled by a favourable condition. His candidacy is not about hope. His hope is about his candidacy.

Posted by MG1220 | January 20, 2008 12:43 AM

i always thought my Republican parents were lying about the Clintons. Well, I have seen some truly unsavory actions by both of the Clintons in the last few weeks that really turned my stomach. I was nearly 100% in Hillary's camp after Iowa, and what has transpired since inspired me to actually switch and donate to Obama. Coming from Texas, I can say for sure that if Hillary is the nominee, Republicans will come out in droves to see her defeated. My mother has told me, "no Southern woman will vote for Hillary." She is truly hated. I don't agree with the reasons for hating her (much of which is old school misogyny!), but I do take issue with her and Bill's nasty campigning.

Posted by bethyb | January 20, 2008 12:55 AM

Bret-

First, racial politics aren't as simple as that. Latinos in New York are mostly from Puerto Rico and the Caribbean, meaning they tend to be black latinos and don't take kindly to race-use politics, since that happens in New York all the time.

Second, Bill Clinton can walk every neighborhood of South Carolina; it will make no difference. They can't walk it back now.

Third, Hill doesn't seem to have much institutional memory: they were talking about how long it took for Bill to get a win in 1992 but they forget that now in the glare of a victory. She goes around saying, "We'll all be together in the general" as if she's already got it won. Big mistake to say, bigger mistake to think.

Posted by Michael's Mom | January 20, 2008 1:50 AM

MG, spit out the Kool-aid for a moment. Your post is loaded with untruths and half-truths. Again, though, par for the course in Hillaryland.

Here is what you and Lambert will have to consider, whether you like it or not, if your heroine wins the nomination: What next?

Means and ends matter. You can't run in the general as a progressive Dem if you've copied the Rove playbook in the primary. How will you complain about Republican voter suppression and intimidation tactics that you've eagerly engaged in yourselves? How about when the Repub attack machine blatantly lies about your heroine's statements and record when you've done same? (The idiotic misquoting of the Reagan statement by Bill Clinton and the Clinton minions is only the latest example).

Complaining about these things only constitutes "whining" when it either has no basis in fact or it is something that you've engaged in yourself. Good luck with those, Hillaryites. I'm sure the national media will be sympathetic, as they've been in the past to Dems. D'oh.

Another way this will absolutely bite you in the ass in the general: the sizable number of Obama and Edwards supporters who will not lift a finger to support her as a result. Many will probably not vote for her either (myself, I haven't decided, waiting to calm down). By the way good luck winning back the African American vote if your heroine and her surrogates continue to racialize the campaign. People will not come back to Hillary like sheep to vote for the lesser of two evils (again).

Even from a fully objective standpoint (and I'll readily admit I'm not objective), can you not see how stupid and short-sighted all of this is for the Dem party, for moving the country in the right direction? Even if she manages to eke out a narrow victory she will have no chance to actually govern.

Lambert, if it helps you to accept my eyewitness account as "dispositive," let me add that I'm fairly sure that Obama would have lost our precinct to Hillary even without the various dirty tricks. And it's been noted elsewhere that she ultimately didn't need to back the caucus lawsuit since she won 6 of the 9 sites.

But the fact remains that these things did take place and they reflect poorly on her character and on her husband's character. Although I supported and defended both of them in the 1990s, no way will I do so again after their actions these past couple of weeks.

The Clintons' own "fairy tale" has lost its lustre for me.

BillB, in Las Vegas

Posted by BillB | January 20, 2008 2:19 AM

FYI.. CLINTON DID NOT WIN IN THE CASINOS! SHE STOLE IT! I KNOW THIS BECAUSE IN Treasure Island 87 voters that were going to caucus for Obama were not allowed down to the caucus site.
2. Bill Clinton was standing outside caucus sites (which was not allowed)
3. Clintons were complaining about these caucuses in the casinos so they had to have a debate which confused the memebers of the culinary union.
4. Obama was not allowed to go into casinos UNTIL THE DAY OF THE CAUCUS when Clinton was allowed to go in THREE days before the caucus.

I know these are all facts. Im an EYEWITNESS.

Posted by ck | January 20, 2008 2:19 AM

I really hate that Kerry tried so hard in 04 to win his election, fighting back against every Rovian technique, Swift Boat smears, etc.

That was just so lacking in class.

/snark

Will those of you complaining about Plouffe's aggressiveness please just shut up?

Posted by KathyF | January 20, 2008 2:44 AM

Don't vote for the Democratic nominee and you'll get more New Orleans. You'll obamafreakazoids are retarded.

Civilized debate ends here. You are crazies.

Hillary will nominate prochoice judges to the courts and the scotus.

You hate her more than back alley abortions?

You hate her more than huckabee who wants to alter the constitution to be in line with god?

Are you people nuts? Take a pill. Go to sleep.

Posted by ken | January 20, 2008 2:51 AM

Folks -

The recount in New Hampshire was first instigated by Ron Paul voters and then launched by Kucinich in a bid to raise money for his campaign (and stand up for what he saw as irregularities). Sure, there were some Obama people who were interested as well, but the vast majority said "let's move on", just as the campaign did.

I don't know what happened in Nevada, but it does not concern me much. What I am interested in is how Clinton expects to win back fellow New Yorkers like me who voted for her for senate, only to lose faith in her thanks to her voting record.

Posted by Ruth | January 20, 2008 4:19 AM

The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. They have fallen into a tight race they surely did not expect, they are nearly out of money and so now they have resorted to the last bastion of any desperate campaign - name calling and dirty tricks.

The Obama campaign on the other hand is clearly staying on message of a need for a new type of politics that lifts everyone up and stays positive about the future of the company.

The Clintons are working very hard to win and in the process completely destroy the future of the party. I am sure Karl Rove is smiling.

Posted by Rob in DE | January 20, 2008 8:53 AM

All of this infighting is only going to weaken the party when the eventual winner is announced.

Posted by Mike C | January 20, 2008 10:32 AM

To the haters out there:
the secret of this campaign is that people who like and trust the clintons just do not alk about it with the haters in thier families, at their jobs, in the bars, the pollsters, etc. We just mostly don't. We know haters hate and that it is not rational. So when you all say that I don't know a soul that likes her, everybody I know hates her that just isn't true.
Look at the returns: A lot of us like her.
Take an empathy pill: the numbers don't lie: people do like them, people do vote for them, and people do believe in them.
That does not make them wrong. We live in a plurality. People believe different things. Sorry that simple fact is so hard for the hillary haters to get.

Posted by Michael C. | January 20, 2008 11:21 AM

Right, the Obama campaign is completely above smearing people. Perhaps those of you with limited reading comprehension will take a closer look at the press release. The Obama campaign talks about "200 instances" of vote irregularities, then says "This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations." In other words, try to plant the idea in everyone's mind that the voting irregularities were the Clinton's doing, but word the release in such a way that you can point out that you never actually accused them. And you yahoos eat it up, as usual, because you're willing to beleive any wild ass rumor about the Clintons.

And the lawsuit about voting in the casinos was denied. Can the Obama campaign provide any evidence whatsoever that the lawsuit caused a single casino worker not to go to the caucuses?

As far as the state party sending precinct chairs who were Hillary supporters, what did you expect? This is why candidates try to get the support of the party leadership. Is there a rule somewhere that says the only people who can be precinct chairs must be uncommitted to any candidate?

As far as the lawsuit goes, I wish the Clintons hadn't supported it, because it was politically unwise. But the Clintons didn't file the lawsuit, the teachers' union (which has not endorsed any candidate) did. And they had good reason to. The casino workers were the only voters in the state for whom special arrangements were made to let them vote at their workplace. Meantime, many teachers were required to work at their schools on Saturday, if they were being used as polling places. So teachers have to miss their caucuses to work at polling places, while casino workers have the voting sites brought to their workplace, because they can't be home. Doesn't there seem to be a little disparity there?

Putting aside for a minute who did or didn't support the measure, the fact remains that it was very undemocratic, as all caucuses are. Does it really seem to be the essense of democracy to require voters to stand up in front of their bosses and union stewards, and publicly state who they are voting for? Could this intimidaton factor have something to do with the low turnout at the casino sites?

And I'm still waiting for someone from the Obama campaign to apologize for the blatantly racist anti-Clinton ads that ran in the days leading up to the primary.

Posted by ChrisO | January 20, 2008 11:35 AM

Hillary will be the nominee. She may lose SC, but she will win Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Colorodo, New York, New Jersey, etc. The Hispanics and whites are not playing Obama's game. He can have all of the black votes, but he is turning everyone else off. He has become the black candidate, and if 70-80percent of blacks vote for him in SC, it is over.

I agree with this. The Clintons and their surrogates managed to turn Obama into the "black candidate," which is poison to him and the last thing he wants. A lifelong liberal Democrat, I'm now forced to choose between staying home on election day, voting for McCain, or voting for Bloomberg. (I now hope he does enter the race and drop $1 billiion of his own cash to win.) I absolutely, positively will never vote for the Clintons. Racebaiters are automatically disqualified in my book. Disgraceful and very disheartening to see what they are doing to MY party (not theirs).

Posted by john | January 20, 2008 11:47 AM

It's obvious the primary process needs to be nationally regulated. If we were not a two party system, then it's okay to let the parties figure it out themselves. The primaries need to be on the same day nationwide, using the same voting systems as the national elections. This state by state crap is crazy, and never before has it been more important.

We're watching an election stolen right under our noses, and there's nothing we can do because the system is set up to allow it. Sad sad day year for America, this is.

Posted by ChuckL | January 20, 2008 11:56 AM

The Clintons and the DLC/DNC built up a huge Shadow Party apparatus for the express purpose of getting Hillary elected this year.

Too many DC Democrat mansion payments are at stake to allow an upstart like Obama to win. Racism, Inc. (the Jesse and Al types) has no reason to exist and extort money if Obama becomes a serious threat.

Between this and the very undemocratic Super-Delegates of the Democratic Party, the drooling class of the far, FAR laeft, that have screamed "Stolen Election!" for years are finally realizing what the rest of us have known for years.

This is NOT a Party that JFK would recognize...

Posted by Freddie | January 20, 2008 12:24 PM

I think democrats need to calm down and be practical. This big news from yesterday is McCain's win. It changes things - he is the independent republican. If we go with the democrat only a democrat can love - Clinton - we lose. Obama is the indepenents democrat and a brilliant man. We don't have to compromise to select a winner in the General Election. I think Hillary is a smart and accomblished woman. I think Bill is a devisive and raving King Lear at this point however, and she can't or won't control him. Edwards and Kucinich supporters - I think you all get to decide at this point if you use your vote. Edwards and Kucinich can't win at this point, but the democrats can. Please help pick the guy who can lead the democrats to victory.

Posted by rg | January 20, 2008 2:26 PM

Here's an interesting scenario:

Billary, using the Rovian tactics (or was Rove using Clintonian tactics?) we've seen so far in Nevada and New Hampshire, secures the democratic nomination.

Many loyal Democrats, myself included, will not vote for her, and here's why:

1. She alone among the dems can lose the general election. If she loses (which she will, especially if McCain or Romney is the Repub nominee). . .

2.WE SHALL BE RID OF HER FOREVER, ALONG WITH BILL, BECAUSE SHE WOULD THEN HAVE THE TAINT OF THE LOSER ABOUT HER. Dems will look back on '08 as another instance of nominating the wrong person for the wrong reasons, a la Kerry and Al Gore 1.0. Perhaps most importantly, this scenario also provides the sweetly ironic ending that THIS IS EXACTLY HOW BILLARY THREW KERRY UNDER THE BUS, by offering no meaningful support to either, hoping for a Dem loss so the way would be clear for Hill 08.

Obama will then be clear to the nomination, as Reagan was in 1980. You know the rest.

ABC has a nice ring to it.

Posted by ched | January 20, 2008 2:49 PM

False, divisive attacks? You mean like refusing to denounce a race baiting ad in Spanish? Please. "Nuestra gente" does not simply translate into a generic group of people, but it means Latinos as a people. They knew that and that's why they didn't speak out against it.

Can't they take one loss without crying foul? God, even Clinton took one on the chin in Iowa. Hell, she even congratulated Obama for his win and he couldn't even manage that.

Anyways, haven't both camps cried foul? Have any of them filed charges? I mean, if they're both so bent out of shape about it why not bring it up with the courts?

Posted by Davidson | January 20, 2008 3:16 PM

john,

They actually didn't do that. The racial controversies included the following: Shaheen who was fired and Johnson who apologized; Kerrey who also apologized got slammed for praising Obama as every other op-ed does, especially Andrew Sullivan does: on his ethnicity and global appeal. However, most of the the "racist" charges against the Clintons were just...false: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/michelle-obama-reinforces_n_81318.html

Here's Bill Moyers' great take on the MLK/LBJ "controversy" that wasn't: http://youtube.com/watch?v=mFlXpoA-MQY

If Obama was truly hurt by the injection of race then why did he partake in it, especially in blatant, ugly ways? Because the press' was a double standard (i.e. they looked the other way). He sent Jesse Jackson, Jr. to launch a racial attack against Clinton after NH: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA&e
He never fired or apologized for Jackson.

His supporter, Michael Eric Dyson, made racial charges that Obama lost likely because Clinton voters were racist and accused Clinton of being indirectly racist for criticizing Obama's experience. Obama never apologized for Dyson's baseless remarks.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22598268/

And in Nevada, UNITE-HERE ran an ugly ad stating that Clinton doesn't respect "nuestra gente."

Honestly, the Clintons didn't paint him as a "black" candidate; hell, if anything, the press did. I hate that it's basically become accepted as truth because whoever is the nominee we need to have them be as strong as possible and even though she's certainly not my first choice, the hell she should be crippled by false accusations.

Posted by Davidson | January 20, 2008 3:29 PM

I should add: I know UNITE-HERE was not coordinated with the Obama camp, but he didn't denounce it. That's what I meant to add.

Posted by Davidson | January 20, 2008 3:33 PM

And I quote: "I come from Chicago politics. We're accustomed to rough and tumble. I don't expect this to be a cakewalk."
What a wuss! What's he gonna tell Iran when they confront him? "Gee, that's not fair, we didn't do it this way when I was in elementary school in Indonesia." What a hypocrite and liar. One word: Rezko

Posted by Iggy | January 20, 2008 4:26 PM

I am an Independent who is so turned off by the campaign being run by the Democrats that under no circumstance will I ever vote for the Democrat who wins their party's nomination. Our country deserves so much more than this blatant rascist, lying, dishonest, intimidation and suppression of voters by a former President who is running around demeaning the very office he held, and filty dirty political behaviors coming out of the Democratic Party. The party must approve of it or it wouldn't be happening. It screams to me that I do not want a Democrat running this country - they have shown no integrity or Presidential dignity - only a trailer trash mentality to get their opponent at any cost to the country and party. I am so angry that I am completely turned off and am no longer listening.

Posted by Janet | January 20, 2008 4:30 PM

Here's a photo of a Hillary team member training precinct workers for what to do, early December - note the "11:30" on the board. That was the time many people went by. Even 2 major Las Vegas newspapers put this out. It wasn't a secret. While you were complaining about the lawsuit, Obama, you could have paid attention to disputed time schedules and cleared those up as well. Ah well, I guess it's easier to blame it all on the Bradley Effect, soon to be renamed the Obama effect: "voters not as mesmerized and in awe as they were supposed to be".

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12065583@N05/2203933133/
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3330

Posted by Desider | January 20, 2008 5:55 PM

So I look back and see many, many Hillary defenders posted after my two long posts. Not a single one took on the questions I asked about how their candidate would fare in the general after running a Rovian campaign in the primary.

Instead, just a lot of mindless name calling, repeating of lies, taunting and gloating. Hm, a lot like their heroes, the Clintons.

I can only conclude that they really don't care, or haven't given an iota of thought, about how they are going to beat McCain or Romney. Just want to be right, man.

The "party of ideas" indeed. Never has the donkey seemed like a more appropriate symbol.

BillB

Posted by BillB | January 20, 2008 7:42 PM

BillB:
You simper about why no one answered your posts: gosh I didn't know we were required t but lets make a few points.
If you dismiss hillary's campaign with your inflamed slur -Rovian- why would anybody think you are rational enough or even minded enough to talk to, talk with or listen to. Clinton supporters have heard this nonsense name calling you indulge in for 16 years. Why do you think you can suddenly convince us to believe you or your candidate or your arguments.
The economic situation in america is almost perfect for a democrat to win. Who knows if its Hillary or Obama but its almost the perfect storm.
The republicans are in total disarray. Their fundraising is bizarrely behind -a situation thats never been existant before. Dems turn out at the polls and caucuses in record numbers and usually far greater numbers than the republicans.
But the ridicuals part of you premise that we won't stoop to is the rovian name-calling: hillary supporters don't accept that characterization and so there is no there to your question. Do Obama supporters accept the idea that they are running a biased cheap and tawdry campaign? no, even if some Hillary supporters do find his campaign cheap and with out substance.
peddle your hate as much as you want but not all of us are required to buy it, y'know?

Posted by Michael C. | January 20, 2008 9:04 PM

As a recovering Republican in my 12-step program back to decency,
Barack is step 2 for me. His book, "The Audacity of Hope", is a
prescription for a new politics and a new renewal for America, and is
full of policy specifics that the media wonks have forgotten to
mention. He has attracted many independents and others like me who
want the mandate only an electoral landslide can bring. This mandate
is required to end the divisiveness of the last 16 years