« Texas Precincts To Watch | Main | Too Late, Baby, Now, It's Too Late »

Ohio Secretary Of State's Office Rebukes Obama Campaign

04 Mar 2008 01:24 pm

Ohio's Secretary of State, an office held by a Democrat, has rebuked Sen. Barack Obama's campaign for trying to staff precincts with poll workers who presented insufficient credentials.

Obama's campaign calls this charge "wrong."

In a memo sent late this morning to county election directors by David M. Farrell, Ohio's
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, a letter carried by Obama supporters -- signed by Obama state director Paul Tewes -- is deemed "not legally sufficient on its own to allow someone to gain access to polling places."

Farrell notes that state law requires that polling observers must be "duly appointed" and have been previously issued a certificate.

The letter from Tewes states the bearer 'is hereby authorized to serve as a legal poll monitor on behalf of the Obama campaign."

The alleged infraction seems minor, but the Clinton campaign has seized on the e-mail from the Secretary of State's office as evidence that the Obama campaign is trying to game the system in Ohio.

Lynn Utrecht, chief campaign counsel for Sen. Hillary Clinton, said that she'd recieved reports from the field of Obama poll workers being kicked out of precincts for aggressively challenging voters. Adding it up, she said, "and it's a pattern."

And Tina Flournoy, a Clinton campaign adviser, compared the conduct to that of Republicans in the 2004 election.

"It’s a pretty sad thing that people we now have to worry about are fellow Democrats," she said.

"The Secretary of state is wrong on the facts," said Obama spokesperson Dan Pfeiffer. "We are correctly credentialed and are calling now to correct any misunderstanding tot he contrary."

Here's the Tewes letter.

tewesletter.JPG

Farrell's letter is after the jump.

From: Farrell, David
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:01:04 AM
To: BOE Contacts; All Counties
Cc: Field Staff; Elections Attorneys; Elections
Subject: Sen. Obama "Poll Monitor" Letter Info
Auto forwarded by a Rule

Dear Boards of Elections Directors, Deputy Directors, and Members:

Attached is a copy of a letter being presented by Sen. Obama supporters to election officials at polling locations. Our office's legal interpretation is that this letter is not legally sufficient on its own to allow someone to gain access to polling places.

To be allowed access to a polling location an observer must be duly appointed as an official observer and have an official observer certificate issued pursuant to R.C. 3505.21, which in part states: “Observers appointed to a precinct may file their certificates of appointment with the presiding judge of the precinct at the meeting on the evening prior to the election, or with the presiding judge of the precinct on the day of the election.” Someone who wants to observe may present the attached letter in addition to the official observer certificate, but they must have the official observer certificate to legally gain entry.

Please refer to SOS Directive #2008-29 (Rights And Limitations on Election Observers) for more detailed information.

If you have additional questions, please contact a member of the SOS Election Legal Counsel staff at (614) 466-2585.

Sincerely,

David M. Farrell
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
and Director of Elections
Office of the Ohio Secretary of State
180 E. Broad Street - 15th Floor

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ohio Secretary Of State's Office Rebukes Obama Campaign:

» March primary madness: TX, OH, VT, and RI (BUMP TO THE TOP) from Sister Toldjah
(Photo on the right courtesy of Stanford Kay for Newsweek)**This post will be updated often, with the newest updates on top** Update 1 - 6:02 PM: MSNBC’s First Read reports that the weather stinks in Ohio, but that people are turning out nevert... [Read More]

Comments (78)

Every election both candidates yell DISENFRANCHISMENT to try and score up points in minority communities. Its terribly silly.

I'm confused -- is there anything legally wrong with Obama's campaign sending people out with this? Or is this an example of the Sec of State's Office nitpicking, along the lines of "Well, you have a form, but it doesn't name you directly."

Basically, I guess I'm asking: is there some sort of official form the Obama folks are MEANT to be handing in? Or was there an open rule of "just be credentialed", and when Obama's team created credentials (as you would have to, if there's not an existing form), the Sec of State responded "Well, actually, we want something more than that (despite not outlining exactly what that would be)"?

4 years ago it was the Bush campaign that had the Ohio Secretary of State in its back pocket. In 2008, The Clinton campaign seems to have stolen yet another page from the Bush playbook and bought the SOS for their own purposes. Democrats across Ohio and elsewhere should be ashamed of how Rovian the Clinton campaign has been in the last several days. First, using fear tactics that all decent Democrats should scoff at and now buying off elected officals to help them do their dirty work. If Ohio elects Clinton it will mark two elections in a row where they have screwed this country royally!

By doing Marc's job and actually looking up R.C. 3505.21, it appears to me that:

1. Groups of five or more candidates are entitled to certificate one observer per precinct.
2. Such certificates are signed by the candidates (or, presumably, their agents or representatives), and the certificates are filed with the presiding judge.
3. The Obama cert does contain the signatures of five candidates, so I imagine it's invalid.

Seems like a rare rules-related misstep by the Obama campaign -- if I'm reading the law correctly, someone plain messed up. The question is, do they have their own grown men crying about this? ;)

I hope invalid observers of all parties and candidates are properly excluded from the polling places.

The entire state Democratic party machine in Ohio is behind HRC. Is anyone really surprised to see this development?

Talk about grasping at straws...if I'm reading this correctly is this just saying that one or more Obama poll workers were missing a form? There doesn't appear to even be an allegation that they were not, in fact, duly credentialed.

Ok...with the OH Governor & Dem machine in cohoots with Clinton, are we to believe that the Sec of State has no bias in this case?

The Clintons' raising of the issue is a dead give away...right out of Rove's playbook of accusing your opponent of something you're actually guilty of?

I've said it before, but even if she manages to pull out victories in OH & TX today as a result of these gutter tactics, the backlash from those watching it unfold & others yet to vote in upcoming elections is on its way...but HRC's tunnel vision is blinding her to that fact.

This isn't the 90s. Between internet blogs & youtube, you can't hide & spin this stuff away.

Thanks for that, Jeff -- though it's not precisely clear.

Would Obama's team had to club in with four other Democrats in Ohio, all of them signing on this form, to qualify the observer? And if so, why didn't the Sec of State's office make that clear in the email? From the email, it sounds like there's some secondary filing that was missed, not that there are signatures missing on the initial letter.

The idea that Obama poll workers would aggressively challenge voters eligibility is laughable. How exactly would they target voters to challenge? Random older white voters? The entire tactic of challenging voters' eligibility is premised on knowing that a certain group is extremely likely to vote for a particular candidate -- that's why it works when Republicans try these tactics against African Americans, for example. This is so obviously a made up story to paint Obama as "just another politician" and attempt to drag him down into the mud with Hillary.

Grace, that's correct according by my understanding (and your reading of the letter was the same as my own, but I can't find in the law the other credential evidently referenced). I would hope the OH SOS would have a better idea of the law, but from what I hear, it's a pretty hacktastic state, but maybe that's changed since the Republicans were evicted.

If anyone else wants to take a crack at being "Ambinder for a Day," have at it:

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3505.21

Okay, looking closer at this, it seems that this is potentially the tripping point:

"Any political party or group of candidates appointing observers shall notify the board of elections of the names and addresses of its appointees and the precincts at which they shall serve. Notification shall take place not less than eleven days before the election on forms prescribed by the secretary of state and may be amended by filing an amendment with the board of elections at any time until four p.m. of the day before the election. The observer serving on behalf of a political party shall be appointed in writing by the chairperson and secretary of the respective controlling party committee."

Is THIS what's missing? In which case, did no one in the entire Sec of State office think it a bit odd that Obama's campaign didn't file for a single observer?

I'll admit that I'm in the weeds when it comes to the distinction between a "political party" appointing observers and "five or more candidates" -- except that I'd assume that the five candidate thing doesn't apply to the giant parties, and more to local efforts in little-known parties (to prevent the Slightly Silly Party, with one member, shoehorning an observer in).

CAN SOMEONE PRESS THIS IDIOT HUSSEIN OSAMA/OBAMA ON THIS :

No one has ever said anything about.....Obama's Kenyan MUSLIM FAMILY
BACKROUND IN PUBLIC.... the MEDIA is all tight lip about it...THE FACT, that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA was asked to CHANGE his REAL name several yrs back and decline because, HE WAS PROUD OF HIS FATHER MUSLIM FAITH !!!!!!!!!!!
AND THIS AFTER 9/11 ????????????? WOW !!!!!!

HOW CAN THIS MAN BE SO POPULAR IN OUR COUNTRY??????
HAVE U ALL GONE CRAZY ????!!!

Brunner is as corrupt as they come. I would be extremely wary of anything she does. It should be noted that Hillary raised a lot of money for Brunner's election campaign.

Everywhere I have ever lived, to be a poll watcher required attending some sort of class on the rules and laws of elections. Also involved were registring etc. I have never heard of campaigns just sending someone over with a note. There are valid reasons to challenge, and invalid. Which are covered in the class. This random, causeless challenging looks really phony.

It is not the job of the Secretary of State to question why a candidate did not ask for observers. It is the responsibility of Obama’s campaign to follow the laws and procedures of elections IF he wishes to have observers. No one is required to have them.

The procedure is public information, the correct forms are available, and the requirements are clearly outlined. This has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign.

Here in Ohio, the board of elections has been working for months to re-build the voting system from the crappy, hackable mess the Republican leadership left.

Obama and Hillary are ultimately on the same side. We have enough hate mongering from the right wing, give the anti- Hillary crap a rest.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Who really cares about this? Honestly. The longer the media tries to keep Hillary in this thing, the more ridiculous and insignificant the stories become. Please, somebody stop the madness!!!

It seems you need an additional piece of paper to go along with the letter. It's bureaucracy. It's what we deal with in all aspects of any city,county or federal government. It's simple really, get the additional piece of paper required and problem is solved.

"The idea that Obama poll workers would aggressively challenge voters eligibility is laughable. How exactly would they target voters to challenge?"

HRC leads Obama among Hispanic votyers and women by about 60-38. If Obama's poll watchers really are agressively challenging likely voters for Hillary, it wouldn't be hard to pick them out.

If you believe everything "jacksmith" just said... YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT!

and the Governor of Ohio thinks he is going to be Hillary's VP

Please I live in Florida -- we know from disenfranchisement

THIS IS THE STATE OF OHIO TRYING TO STOP OBAMA POLL OBSERVERS --

and the wheels on the bus go round and round

Jo, I agree with the bulk of your post, but it's sometimes hard to tell they're on the same side with arguments like this:

"I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002."

-Hillary Clinton, Toledo, OH

Oh woe is Obama - wah - he wins a string of Red States he can't win in the general, and now the chips are down in a state he has to win in the General - and typical agressive bum rush Obama tactics are in full swing today in Ohio. Good thing they could not bring in more people from Illinois to vote like they did at the Iowa caucus.

If Obama can't win his own parties primary in Ohio, and can't win in state like Massachusetts where two Senators and the Guv endorsed him- then he needs to bow out. The road to the White House still clearly leads through Ohio and he will not be able to win among Ohio's moderates.

Democrats in Ohio should be proud the "machine" is behind Hillary. Why not? Have we forgotten the darkeness they brought us out of in 2006? I think they know who can work with them going forward to make Ohio a better place. That person is Hillary Clinton.

Hunh. It looks like this might be the smoking gun, or flaming parchment, or whatever:

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/OhioElections.aspx?Section=3406

Again, I stumble across the parties v. 5 candidates thing. I have no idea where Obama's team went wrong.

And of course the electoral committee isn't responsible for chasing candidates for observers. But then again, if they saw this coming, surely they'd've put into the email "Obama's campaign did not register any observers before the mid-Feb deadline. Thus, no Obama observers will be allowed". So I just assume there's something else in all this I'm missing...

I'm not saying one candidate did this to another -- I'm saying that this is a process issue, and the Sec of State's done a shoddy job explaining exactly what went wrong.

The Clinton response to this is just laughable.

Some Obama poll workers may have been missing a form. OH NO, THAT MEANS OBAMA WILL NOW BE PRESIDENT!

And to all the racist remarks on here, find something else to do. Dig some holes or something.

And get your facts straight, Barack Obama is a Christian.

Also, Bill Clinton signed NAFTA in and both Hillary and Bill said it was good for America. Just thought I'd add that.

This seems to be the latest buying off from the Clinton team, it is pure nit picking, if the Grand of The Democrat Party and Superdelegates go against the Majority of the Voters the party may come to regret their actions!

People, people, people, you cannot be serious? How is it possible that every time Sen. Obama or his campaign makes a blunder, his supporters run out and blame Sen. Clinton? Come on! This is ridiculous. I'm starting to think that some of these commentors are 12 years old.

First, get a grip on the whole Ohio Machine for Hillary meme. Strickland is team Hillary, and the Obama folks have voiced complaints about ODP leadership, but the very popular State treasurer is publicly Obama and the AG has done everything to endorse Obama without actually coming out and doing so.

Next, it appears some Obama-sponsored monitors are attempting to present the letter as their sole set of credentials. From what's been presented here, it is certainly possible that scattered individuals did not bring their certification with them, and the majority are following procedure. I didn't find a "rebuke" of the "Obama Campaign" in Farrel's letter.

Finally, I've heard plenty of negative adjectives used to describe Jennifer Brunner. There is certainly a contingent that believes her incompetent, naive, and overly partisan. Corrupt hasn't typically been on that list.

JP, jacksmith, RE and Jo,

Look who you're in bed with? K H! Really? Is that the side of history you want to share? It's not too late to realize Obama really is all his supporters believe him to be. I know it's hard.

Grassroots change always looks silly from the grasstops!

Jacksmith:

You may be an idiot

If you think the first woman president should be a woman whose chief claim to "experience" is standing by her man...watching.

If you think its fair for her to claim credit for every good thing her husband did while taking no responsibility for his mistakes.

If you change your mind and support Obama --- who has even less experience than her.

I guarantee you this, if the Dems don't rebuke HRC over her "kitchen sink" strategy, THEY WILL LOSE. Do you HRC supporters think that you are going to inherit "the movement" if HRC steals this nomination? Mark my words, I can deal with McCain for four years because I know what I am getting with McCain...four years of more war and some major pocket-pinching for me and my family. But there is no way in hell I would vote for HRC. If you think this is 'rhetoric', ask "the movement." At this point, I figure Clinton supporters are one of three things...(1)old women who want a woman president before they die...(2)racists who don't have the courage to admit it...(3)abused voters who aren't tired of being lied to.

"HRC leads Obama among Hispanic votyers and women by about 60-38. If Obama's poll watchers really are agressively challenging likely voters for Hillary, it wouldn't be hard to pick them out."

I realize that, but you just don't challenge members of a group that are 60:40 against you. It makes no sense -- the risk/reward balance is completely against you. No one thinks "let's challenge members of a group that is 60% likely to vote for my opponent and run the risk of negative press and, if I lose the challenge, maybe even making someone who might have voted for my candidate change his/her mind." There's a reason voter ID challenges are typically made against Afriacn Americans by Republicans -- because they know that is a group that is very unlikely to vote for them.

In 2006, I volunteered in Ohio on election day in November to do whatever was needed to help out the Democratic party in my hometown. I had been a registered Republican for six years.

I was handed some door hangers and was given a neighborhood to canvass. The second thing I was asked to do was visit a particular precinct and simply ask the election OFFICIALS to relay how many people had voted between certain hours. These numbers are then compared at the end of the day to make sure the ballot and number of voters match.

While I was quietly and not in anybody's way waiting for there to be no one in line to vote, a presiding election official came over to where I was standing and yelled at me - accusing me of doing something illegal - and in doing so she interrupted those who were trying to concentrate on their ballots.

WHAT ON EARTH HAS HAPPENED TO THE TRANSPARENCY OF OUR ELECTION PROCESS? It isn't the best idea if there are so many observers that voters can't actually vote, but why can't impartial observers make sure that no one is getting turned away without a legitimate reason?

WE SHOULD ADVOCATE FOR AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT ELECTION! If the person who gets the most votes wins an election, how is that a bad thing?

Rather than observers and their documents, I am more dubious about SOS Brunner allowing local election officials to take voting machines HOME before the election. That's what really smells.

Yes. The Clintons are like starving dogs just waiting in the alley for a piece of red meat.

God help us if they are elected into office again. We should have seen the writing on the wall and will only have ourselves to blame!

If this campaign is stolen by the Clintons I for one will solicit Obama to run as an independent!

This is a Democracy! Enough of the Bush's and Clinton's

Hillary Clinton has conducted her campaign, particularly in Texas and Ohio like a true GOP Republican with attack ads, smear campaigns and innuendos. I'm wondering, doesn't anyone think that HRC has any chance (at all!) of beating McCain?

I am SO GLAD Jennifer Brunner is on top of this wild democracy thing getting in the way of installing the Honorable Senator Clinton as our next Supreme Ruler of the United States! Thank goodness!

Big shocker, considering that the governor and big wigs in Ohio are Clinton supporters.

Heyyyyyy, hold on -- I've just noticed that the directive noted above (SOS Directive #2008-29) was issued on February 25th. The segment of that directive that I thought MIGHT be the issue was that poll-watchers have to be registered 11 days before the election. That directive is issued NINE days before the election.

Anyone know if the directive changed any rules, or was it just emphasising a point?

why is it that Hillary supporters always trundle out the 35 years of experience as things that Bill Clinton did and for which she had no roll on? About the only thing she did in the White House was to try and steam-roll Hillary-care through Congress without any tact or regard for consensus in a "it's my way or the highway" mentality. And yet for all her 'bona fides' in the White House as First Lady we don't have universal health care. She hasn't accomplished squat in her one and half-terms as a senator except voting for the Iraq war, helping to pass a flag-burning bill and tack so far right she should change her name to McCain. She panders, she obfuscates, and during her experience in the WH only administered enough scandals to last a life time.

Regardless of the dirty politics she's playing to get her votes, she'll lose nonetheless.

As for the issue of supposed Obama "voter harassment" I'll wager that it comes to nothing because it's a crass, last-minute charge by the Hillary crew and there wouldn't be a reason to intimidate voters.

Hillary is throwing the kitchen sink and all the mud in her backyard at Obama, and unfortunately with the US, some of these lies and smears seem to stick. The Clinton dynasty may win the nomination yet with the very negative tear-down politics taken straight out of the Swiftboat Republican team. We can look forward to a general campaign when Hillary will have to explain all the corruption hidden in her and Bill's tax returns, and there will be zillions of shows and ads featuring women who have been assaulted by the first Clinton. This is what Obama refuses to publicize, as he is only talking about issues and playing defense against negative lies but not attacking the Clintons' many many flaws. The Democratic party and the nation will face a decade and more of divisive ruinous politics and the country will spiral faster down to its decline.

JACKSMITH = IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!
Hillary is nothing but a George Bush Democrat...Those Clintons R the Most Corrupted Democrats This Country have Seen...

JACKSMITH = IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!
Hillary is nothing but a George Bush Democrat...Those Clintons R the Most Corrupted Democrats This Country have Seen...

JACKSMITH = IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!
Hillary is nothing but a George Bush Democrat...Those Clintons R the Most Corrupted Democrats This Country have Seen...

Considering Barack Obama won his first race for elected office by aggressively challenging the credentials (by way of signatures on petitions) of his primary opponents, thereby disqualifying them and running unopposed, I find this quite ironic.

Both the Obama and Clinton speeches regarding going to war in Iraq can be found on Michael Moore's website today. I urge every reader to take a look. I think good judgement and intelligent foresight are key ingredients that America needs in a new leader.

The Clinton campaign used the same tricks in NH. I was present on the morning of the primary there at the 4th Ward polling station in Keene. A young man, the student body President at Colby College as it turned out, was kept out of the polling station until nearly 11:30 a.m. because the Clinton-supporting Polling Station Director refused to allow him inside. Lawyers eventually corrected this problem.
Having formally observed elections in places as disparate as Belarus and Albania for the USG, I cannot believe that the Clinton campaign consistently pulls these nasty little tricks & even has the chutzpah to blame the Obama people for the issue.
The Clinton people are losing this election because they really don't get the idea of integrity in process and politics.

WOW! So this is more 'proof' being cited by the Clinton machine that Sen. Obama is trying to 'steal' the election?!?!? This from the person who has mentioned trying to steal his delegates at the convention, and who has considered litigating her own party to ruin?!?!?

While throwing the kitchen sink at Sen. Obama, Hillary, you might want to be mindful of your own glass house.

And also remember that John McCain and other GOP members are DEEPLY looking forward to your victory, so they can bury both you and this country in November.

I fully support Sen. Barack Obama for President, and if Hillary winds up being the Democratic nominee, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER!!!

Sure Obama has his flaws, but he's 10 times cleaner politician than Clinton. If Clinton wins the DNC nomination, McCains wins the presidency, it's that simple. If McCain wins the presidency, we're in Iraq for 95 more years spending 12 billion a month. The rich with get richer, our economy will go down the tubes and the supreme court will be packed with Scalia, Roberts and Alito type judges. If McCain wins, I'm moving to CANADA!!!!

Besides the fact Hillary has the entire Ohio establishment for her including the Governor who is auditioning for VP, is there any question which candidate has a cleaner record as far as elections.

In Nevada where I served as a volunteer precinct captains at every single precinct for Hillary were given explicit written instructions in their packets to get their supporters their a half our early and make sure the doors to the caucus are shut at 11:30 when it is well advertised people can enter any time before noon.

The locations shut early, she won all of them, even ones heavily favored for Obama to win.

The is doing the same thing with the Texas caucus..The booklets I have seen for her supporters say that if Hillary supporters are outnumbered to insist a Hillary supporter be the "secretary" which is the one counting the votes. This is documented.

Am I alone in seeing that there is no way Hillary can win the majority of delegates in the state primaries and she clearly wants to just get close enough to overturn the peoples vote with the superdelegate vote. She says explicitly on the site that is her intention, regardless how many more delegates Obama gets in the states she will take it to the Democratic Convention.

The Obama campaign is smart by making sure observors are placed their.

Hillary stole Nevada, is expicit in trying to steal Michigan and Florida elections that were never sanctioned and in Michigan where Hillary was the only one on the ballot. All these bs rumors have been traced back to Hillary, the muslim one and him refusing to pledge allegiance began by 3 of her top people in NH who had to resign, the recent photos with him with a Turbin it is well documented and confirmed Hillary was personally behind.....Her campaign head has misquoted Obama's statements about the Palestinians to sound anti-semetic which they weren't. It was her supporter a LA Times writer that started the debate about whether he is black enough.

The biggest thing Hillary can do for change is get the hell out of the race. People democrat and republican have their biggest concern that the government is not listening to us...If Obama wins the state elections and that is the peoples voice and this is reversed by the political establishment of Governors, Senators and Congressman that act as super delegates we will not have a movement of change and defiantely will not have a Democrat in the white house.

Hillary's 35 years of experience is in being a liar, manipulative and morally corrupt..She has shown this in the campaign and will show it if given the chance to be president.

Her voting record in the Senate is appaling...she voted the wrong way on the 10 most significant votes during her time and didn't pass any substantice legislation....just naming libraries after people, and stuff like that.

Obama did more in his first 8 months than she has done in 7 years. This woman wants to steal the election, she is explicit about it.

Another thing...if Given the nomination the three months leading up to her Presidency and her first month in office she will be in a court house in Los Angeles, Federal Court for the biggest case of campaign finanace fraud in Senate history, 3 felony counts and the documentations is sufficient that if their is a fair trial she will be declared guilty. Even if she can fool the jury the evidence is suficient to let the people know she is a crook.

Shawn:

You have no evidence of any of that. There are things about Barack Obama's past that would make reasonable people ask questions, except most people are not aware of them. There have been plenty of questions asked about Senator Clinton's past (no one I know of in politics has been as investigated as Hillary and Bill Clinton)and yet nothing came of it. The only thing that did come of all of those investigations - impeachment - had nothing to do with Hillary except her public humiliation which she handled with great courage and grace. That's the only reason anyone can say Obama is "cleaner", because nobody knows him.

Obama is not nearly as clean as Clinton. If anyone is paying attention, it's clear that the Rezko connection is going to sink his campaign. He is more thoroughly compromised than can be imagined:
http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-obama-should-withdraw-now.html

If that isn't bad enough, rumors are floating around Chicago that "illegal campaign financing, outright theft of American taxpayer money, and shady connections to a country who's economic and physical future is dependent upon who will be the next President." are just the tip of the iceberg. Even if none of it is true, Obama is toast. It's time for him to drop out and back Clinton for the general.

Even without his history of corruption coming to light, Obama has no chance. The exit polls show Clinton racking up double digit wins in Texas and Ohio. That, the superdelegates and FL and MI delegates give Clinton more than enough delegates for the nomination. The fairy tale is over.

From a friend in the know.

EARLY EXITS:

OH: 58 Clinton, 37 Obama, 4 JRE
TX: 56 Clinton, 43 Obama

Disclaimer: This is only first round of EE polling, so beware, HRC #'s could be lower, or even higher. Either way looking very good for hillary.....

Tre': "I guarantee you this, if the Dems don't rebuke HRC over her 'kitchen sink' strategy, THEY WILL LOSE."

"Spoken like a man who had just been hit on the head with a heavy piece of porcelain."
- Dana Milbank, "Ask Tough Questions? Yes, They Can!" (Washington Post, 03/04/08)

These numbers are horseshit. Pure horseshit. Who's your source and what's his position in the Clinton campaign?

Jeff: just posting what I know - but let's just say I'm an Obama supporter with similiar (and more officially) swayed friends.

here's hoping they are wrong.

Jeff:

Don't panic. Those seem to be a little bit too bullshit for Clinton to me as well. Although I do expect her to win Ohio and probably Texas.

No, that wasn't panic -- I mean the numbers are horseshit. Literally fabricated. They have no correspondence with any early exits that actually have a basis in reality, at least not from any exit polling operation that matters. I would love to hear a little more about James's source.

Besides, I think the 4% for Edwards gives it away as a troll or a very oddly placed bit of HRC spin.

I think Hillary can win by 5-10% in Texas, but those numbers James posted have nothing to do with that.

K.H.

I am soooo glad that you believe everything that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh says. Barack Huusein Obama is not a Muslim, never has been.

"Even if none of it is true, Obama is toast"

hahaha - and there we have a strategy in a nutshell.

Jeff:

Yeah, like I said, I also doubt the accuracy of those numbers (minus your colorful language).

From what I can gather from blogs I've visited they seem to be hinting at a stronger than expected day for Hillary Clinton.

I think you would agree that most of the signs are pointing to a better than expected Hillary showing. In Texas all, repeat ALL, of the latest polls have her gaining ground, and taking the lead in nearly all. In Ohio all of the polls have her with a lead, and usually with an expanding lead.

In addition, the Gallup daily tracking poll has the nationwide race tied (it was Obama 50-43 yesterday, so this is all one strength of yesterday's numbers)... and she is now ahead by 2 points in Rasmussen's daily numbers for the first time in 3 weeks.

What say you?

P.S. I still think Barack Obama has a better chance of being the nominee in the end, by the way.

Jack Smith, ask yourself why you feel the need to be superior to and angry with voters who are making decisions diffently than you. This country will be much better off when the Republican Party and Democrats such as you are out of the picture. Get a life.

Jack Smith, ask yourself why you feel the need to be superior to and angry with voters who are making decisions diffently than you. This country will be much better off when the Republican Party and Democrats such as you are out of the picture. Get a life.

No link, but I just heard from a friend in a campaign that these numbers are essentially correct.

Take the anonymous internet guy's words for what little you will, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some sizable wins for Hillary tonight.

Just another example of Hillary trying to fix things in her favor while loudly accusing Obama of doing exactly what it is that she is doing. Over the primaries the Clinton camp have had a long history of dirty tactics for disenfranchising voters. This charge against Obama poll workers is nuts!

BTW - does anyone know how the recounting from the last farce in NY is going? You know - the one where human error omitted to record a single vote for Obama in 80 different electoral polls in a heavily black area?

Yeah, sounds like they're trying to block poll observers.

Since both Clinton and Obama voters would be requesting a Dem ballot Ultrect's remarks do not have validity on their face. My sense is the Clinton camp picked up on something they could use war-room style, i.e. Obama's letter from the SOS.

HUGE NEWS!!

EARLY EXITS FROM AN INSIDE SOURCE:

OH: 51 Clinton, 49 Obama
TX: 54 Obama, 51 Clinton

Hillary looks to be toast

an HRC troll trying to lower expectations for tonight. ironic that ken's spin involves the same sort of convoluted math as the official campaign's.

Here are more facts:

Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State (and a Clinton supporter along with the Governer), issued a "clarifying directive" regarding the rules for appointing observers. Unfortunately, the directive was issued on Monday, February 25th (just eight days before the primary), but it requires that the relevant observer appointment forms be completed and submitted "no later than four p.m. on the eleventh (11th) day before the election in question and must provide the names and qualified voting addresses of the appointees, along with the precinct and/or board of elections at which each appointee will serve."

We are researching the question now, but it appears that this "clarification directive" changed the prior practice for appointing observers (which could be done with a letter from the campaign on the day of the primary) and it did so without providing notice for those who sought to comply, unless (of course), they knew about the clarifying directive in advance of its issuance.

Read it for yourself:

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/OhioElections.aspx?Section=3406

What goes on in the minds of Obama supporters? His team is clearly not following the rules that have been set down. When they get caught Its Hillary's fault. Sounds like something a five year old might say when he gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Obama supporters say "oh the kitchen thing" because instead of Obama giving honest answers to press questions all he could do was blame Hillary Clinton - which is what he has always done. The children from Obama do the same because like children it's easier to blame the other than using their brain. Remember kindergarden tactics? It's Billy's fault...he made me do it! bwaaaaa

Come on, when questions are asked we need better answers. Mature anwers. You can't be sooo in love with a candidate without questioning what looks like dirty pool.

I just voted in Texas for Hillary. Texans vote with their brain, not their emotions.

After a careful and thoughtful observation in the chase to win the votes and elections to the white house from Ohio, I strongly believe that OBAMA would win the overall democratic nomination, even without an overwhelming percentage score from the state of Ohio.

I must ask if I may repeat the "you might be an idiot" from Jack Smith. Its the best words I've heard regarding the "movement", the movement in the wrong direction that is.

I was just reading through this thread for the first time. The Repugs must love this in-fighting! This is why they beat us, even when they shouldn't!! Whether Hillary or Barrack carries the day is not as important as getting a Democrat in the White House and a majority in the Houses so we can begin trying to repair 8 years of GWB&Co's irrational and self-centered policies/laws/relationships. PLEASE PEOPLE. Let's not be typical Dems and shoot ourselves in the foot. If you believe HRC is a Repug in Dem clothing...fine. But she'll still be a better Repug than McCain who will follow in GWB's footsteps. If you believe BHO can't possibly run this country with the level of experience he has...fine. But he IS intelligent and would have other Dems working with him and could do better than GWB&Co. with one hand tied behind his back. Bicker all you want, but when it comes down to a candidate, don't cut off your nose to spite your face! PLEASE! People are DYING because of GWB and McCain wants to continue that indefinitely. Our teachers need to get out from under NCLB so they can really teach again. And NAFTA needs reform so our economy can begin to recover. All three of these items will happen under either DEMOCRAT. Think about it...

The issue of retroactive rules being applied to observers is currently being litigated in Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, see http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/OhioDemocraticPartyv.Blackwell-PollingObserversSuit.php.

I was not aware of the custom (prior practice) of permitting campaigns to place observers in the polls with a letter from the campaign, which Todd references above: “We are researching the question now, but it appears that this ‘clarification directive’ changed the prior practice for appointing observers (which could be done with a letter from the campaign on the day of the primary) and it did so without providing notice for those who sought to comply, unless (of course), they knew about the clarifying directive in advance of its issuance.”

That this was the custom in primaries makes sense to me, though, because ORC 3504.21 is silent on how campaigns may place observers at the polls. It enumerates the three groups who can, and how (parties, a group of five candidates, and the issues committee). I don’t read ORC 3504.21 as excluding all other types of observers, and I think in practice the BOEs do permit other entities to observe if they notify the BOE at the meeting the evening before.

The SOS really needs to deal with this issue as well as others: The recount directive, http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/directives/2007/Dir2007-30.pdf, is flawed, and this issue has been brought to the attention of her office. It does not prescribe a random recount. The advisory on media access also needs rewritten: it unnecessarily complicates the court’s ruling on media access, see http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/OhioElections.aspx?Section=3411 and then take a look at the Beacon case: http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/beacon.php.

I tend to give her the benefit of a doubt and believe she just does not have the best election counsel inhouse. I am also concerned about the number of holdovers from Blackwell’s office she kept, especially since they appear to have a record of incompetence in some of these areas.

zcgjxtbyq hbryu hvlyjsqe iudlm tcyqrwl clvah qlbe