WaPo: How Hillary Stole NH From Obama: Illegally Challenged Obama Observers, Disrupting GOTV!!!!!!!

[Dems Will Win]

Now we know, the Hillary Campaign Did Steal NH, That's Why the Polls Were So Off!

I'm not making this up. This is from the Washington Post!

Please recommend immediately so everyone knows what dirty players the Clintons are and that Obama might have won NH but appears to have had it stolen by the Clintom camp disrupting O's GOTV and suppressing the vote!!! Bastards!

Lasky was also involved in the attempt by Clinton officials to remove Obama volunteers who had been sent to many polling places on primary day to check off the names of voters as they arrived so that the campaign's get out the vote workers would know which of their supporters had and hadn't voted. Clinton volunteers and local lawyers acting on behalf of the campaign demanded in Nashua, Concord and at least one other town that poll moderators ban the Obama volunteers from the polls, saying that their presence violated a state law stating that only the state party chairmen can delegate people to monitor the polls.

The Obama campaign countered that that law applied only to monitors who are at the polls to challenge potentially invalid voters, a practice that is usually limited to general elections and which their volunteers were not engaged in. The attorney general and Nashua city clerk confirmed this when they were called about the dispute, saying that the Obama volunteers were allowed as members of the public to observe the polls, as long as they didn't get in the way.

But the Clinton intervention at Ward 9 in Nashua nonetheless persuaded the moderator to ban the Obama observers. And the disputes, which dragged on for hours and grew quite heated, generally scrambled the Obama efforts to keep track of who was and wasn't voting, said Obama supporter Andrew Edwards, a rookie state representative assigned to observe the polls in Nashua, where Clinton ran up a big margin in her favor. Edwards was confronted by Lasky and by another veteran Democrat, state representative and Nashua Democratic chairwoman Jane Clemons, who he said issued a veiled threat during the dispute that he would face a stiff primary challenge in Nashua if he ran for reelection.

"The effect of it was that it basically disrupted our get out the vote operation," said Edwards. "My effectiveness that day was less than 50 percent as a result of the people who kept coming in" to protest the observers.

Clemons, whose son Nick Clemons managed Clinton's campaign in the state, said she objected to the Obama observers because she said she had been told by the Nashua City Clerk the day before that such observers would not be allowed and that letting the Obama use them conferred an "unfair advantage." In an interview Friday, the city clerk, Paul Bergeron, said this was not the case, that the discussion before the election had regarded volunteers challenging voters, not those checking names off lists.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/taken_for_granite.html

Do Hillary supporters here agree with this voter suppression tactic, illegal as it is??

[dkf]

1. I KNEW IT!!

Dirty rotten scum bastards!

[catnhatnh]

2. JEDNE.....N/T

[Mojorabbit]

5. What does JEDNE mean? Thanks. n/t

[catnhatnh]

15. It indicates posts that apply to Clinton AND Obama....

as in "John Edwards Does NOT EXIST" and is tagged to posts by Edawards supporters to make DUers aware that this is not a two way race.

[Mojorabbit]

Ah, I see now...thanks! n/t

[sandnsea]

29. Oh dear god, whhaaaaaaaa

Where's the great vote counter and election protector now???

:shrug:

[peabody71]

204. No. Stolen by Diebold.

This may have had an effect but I beleive Hillary camp wasn't the players who stole it.
It was Diebold.
We have such a short memory.
Obama was causing a populist uprising.
It was crystal clear he had it won by a landslide.
I saw the original reporting at 1% of the votes counted. Obama had some 59% of the vote and two seconds later he was loosing.
Clinton is the establishment candidate. At least to the point that it wouldn't be a populist driven change. AHHHHHHH says the powers that be.
A black man that sounds like Martin Luther. Can't let it happen.

[Teaser]

222. Also HAOSAALA.

"Hilary and Obama supporters are acting like assholes"

[MethuenProgressive]

31. No one really likes Spam, not even Edwards Spam...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

37. I know what this means and I read your post introducing this.

But, interjecting it into posts that clearly are only about Obama and Clinton legitimately is just an annoyance.

[George II]

183. Not as annoying as posts bashing Democrats, which the OP is!

[Occam Bandage]

48. FAIAP.

[cali]

61. That's inappropriate in a thread about such a serious

matter. In fact, it's the poster child for spamming.

[0007]

193. Irascibility has spoken ....... drum roll please

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. Depends where they stood. I wouldn't want to be checked off by

anybody at my polling place.

[Dems Will Win]

6. These Obama Observers were just checking off people who had already voted so at 6:30

they could call the ones who had not voted yet. Standard GOTV. They were NOT challenging voters at all.

This is a truly dirty trick and this is going to really sink Hillary when it hits the fan. THis is worse than the Republicans in Ohio almost!

[Fredda Weinberg]

14. Where I vote, there are rules where you can electioneer. Before or after,

someone voting has a right to be left alone and that's left to the local authorities. The rules are there ... if the Clinton people enforced 'em ... hurray for our side!

[sandnsea]

22. See #12

I remember this being reported on election day and that they were told to let the Obama observers stay. But I have long given up the idea that DU Clinton supporters will ever see the Clinton corruption. Three states, 3 different methods of voter suppression.

[Fredda Weinberg]

36. And for the second time, the Obama people *were* in the way

And I've given up on Obama supporters acting in a civil way. This will not be the last election, so we must behave accordingly.

[alteredstate]

How do you know they were in the way?

Were you there?

[Fredda Weinberg]

56. The article explains what they were doing. If they'd kept quiet, the

Clinton people would have had no cause for complaint. The whole point of being there was to find out who voted after they cast their ballots ... it's in the article.

[alteredstate]

82. Poll watchers don't talk to voters

They check off voters on a list of supporters. Period.

[Fredda Weinberg]

92. Period doesn't begin to untangle the illogic ... how do they know who's voting?

If they want to stand outside and do their thing ... fine. I can avoid anyone I don't want to talk to. But where the monitors stand? No thanks ... the rules are there to protect me.

[elizm]

94. Perhaps you missed the part where the AG said it was perfectly legal...

The attorney general and Nashua city clerk confirmed this when they were called about the dispute, saying that the Obama volunteers were allowed as members of the public to observe the polls, as long as they didn't get in the way.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/taken_for_granite.html

[alteredstate]

96. Poll watchers don't have to stand near the voters.

There are several ways to check their list.

By law, anyone can look at the sign-in log of voters. And anyone can look at the poll manager's list during lull periods on primary day. So, unless they've broken the rules, there's no reason to remove poll watchers from a polling place.

[alteredstate]

108. The rules weren't broken.

There's no law against monitoring the voting process.

[RaleighNCDUer]

110. Wrong.

There are voter lists. People sign in as they get their ballot. The checkers were comparing lists of declared supporters against people who signed in, with the intent of contacting those known supporters who had not as yet showed up as the day went on.

At no point, before or after voting, were the watchers approaching the voters.

[JTFrog]

188. There is no end to the cognitive dissonance and justifications are there?

How else could one defend this crap. Just like trying to defend her Profit trumps healthcare, Profit trumps domestic jobs, Power trumps peace platform.

[0007]

194. Power trumps humanity and humans kill one another for this right, 'eh?

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Usrename]

79. How do you manage to vote without someone checking off your name?

That doesn't sound like a very good system. Can you just return to the end of the line and vote again if you want to?

[femmedem]

187. There are people unaffiliated with party GOTV efforts checking off names.

Where I live, they then say those names out loud. The people working to GOTV sit behind them, listen, and check those names off their own supporter lists. Sometimes they pass those lists to other volunteers who bring them to campaign HQ, or sometimes they send them via computer. I've been one of those people. It doesn't involve speaking to voters.

[hedda_foil]

49. Fredda, rules for observers vary dramatically from state to state ... however ...

All states permit candidates to credential observers who quietly check off each voter on their candidate's precinct list. In a well-organized campaign, the list is handed off to another volunteer at a pre-determined time so supporters who haven't shown up by can be called (or door-knocked) by other volunteers away from the polling place. The Repubs can get extremely aggressoive as observers, especially in states where observers are called challengers. This behavior by the NH Clinton team against a fellow Dem's observers is totally unacceptable.

[MH1]

104. As an election inspector, I've been challenged for not reading the voter's info loud enough

so that the other party's checker could hear the name and address.

I checked the rules, and yes, in PA I am required when the voter comes to the table and gives their name, to read the street out loudly enough that it can be heard throughout the room.

That bothers me so I usually just work with the checker if they don't know the person, and make sure they get the name and address, if they ask.

The point is, what is legally required in PA is to enable the checking-off process.

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. That is not electioneering. They were not urging people how to vote

on the way in.

What they were doing was perfectly legitimate.

[MH1]

99. Checking off voters is not electioneering, it's poll-watching.

And as far as I know it's legal, it is a standard election technique used by both major parties.

[MH1]

114. Read the article. Based on the article, Obama volunteers did NOT break the rules.

The Clinton people interfered with volunteers who were doing exactly what the law permits.

And then they say, "get over it".

Get over it, my ass.

[rateyes]

170. They didn't enforce the rules...

they cheated.

[Rageneau]

89. There's no way to 'check off' Obama voters without asking EVERY voter who they're voting for.

Which is really nobody's business -- and which could be done as people are LEAVING the polls instead of entering them. But noooooooo.

Where were all these Obama workers in the REST of New Hampshire?

Were they in other precincts? Did this conflict happen everywhere, or just it Nashua?

If this conflict did not happen in EVERY, SINGLE precinct, then I think we can assume that this Obama "GOTV" effort was actually designed to discourage Hillary voters from entering the voting booth.

[MH1]

107. Uh, no. You check off everyone who shows up.

From canvassing they know what voters said they were voting for Obama. If some of those don't show up, they can call them.

No, it is not necessary to ask who the voter is voting for.

[elizm]

109. I'm guessing it happened in the precincts where Hillary won. Not all of them.. nt

[alteredstate]

115. Poll watchers do not speak to voters

inside or outside of the polling place.

[creeksneakers2]

147. Sounds like just a mixup

Harm was only done in one precinct.

[JTFrog]

191. Did you say the same thing when it was the Rethugs disenfranchising voters?

"Sounds like just a mixup".

Hypocritical BS.

[liberalnurse]

181. Do you really have evidence that it's worse than Ohio?

New Hampshire needs to clean up this fraud like we here in Ohio have addressed.

Now I'm disappointed in the New Hampshire SOS.

Obama, what is he doing about all this mess?

He is so KOOL! I know he will be out there getting all his votes back. He is for CHANGE! and Oh, my, we do need change.

[alteredstate]

64. I think it's safe to say the when you vote,

you will not be "checked off" by Obama poll watchers. You can trust me on this.

[elizm]

85. Doesn't matter....It's public knowledge. nt

[MethuenProgressive]

4. state law stating that only the state party chairmen can delegate people to monitor the polls"

The law is the law.
The Swiftboating of the Clintons continues...

[Konza]

7. I'll remember that

when Team Clinton attempts to seat delegates won in the Michigan Primary

[DemCam]

8. It sure does.

[Imagevision]

200. K&R...

[Mojorabbit]

10. The article says

different.

[Dems Will Win]

13. Read it again For voter challenges only! These Obama volunteers were just there for GOTV

Take it back. read it again - they were only there to see who had voted yet.

NO VOTER CHALLENGES SO THAT STATE LAW ON CHAIRMEN DOES NOT APPLY

[MethuenProgressive]

30. You don't GOTV by lurking about the polling places.

The people voting at the polling places have already GOTV...

[Selatius]

39. Besides the point. The Clinton camp was wrong in its application of relevant law.

The Attorney General of the state agreed with the Obama camp in the final call.

[MethuenProgressive]

52. The Attorney General was wrong? That's The Clinton Camp's fault?

Why wasn't The Obama Camp prepared to defend their tactic right from the start - or even preemptively?

[Heywood J]

241. You managed to turn

the line from the article where the Attorney General says the Clinton camp was in the wrong into the Attorney General being wrong.

I'm impressed, and not in a good way. You really need to reread the article, not just summarizing it.

[Konza]

43. But you see who still hasn't shown up...

That's the whole point of having GOTV workers in the polling places!
Even here in podunk Kansas we check off who has shown up and who hasn't.
You don't interfere or monkey around with oither folks, you just keep an eye out to make sure people who have said they are voting for you actually show up.
You know who your people are in a precinct. If you see that Grandma Jones, an ardent supporter of your candidate, hasn't voted yet,then by golly you step outside and give her a phone call. See if she needs a ride, someone to watch her dog, anything, etc to get to the vote.

So the way it reads to me is the Clinton folks weren't "suppressing" votes, they were just sabotaging the Obama efforts to get their votes out.

Classy, as always.

[Joe the Revelator]

Once again you show a complete lack of knowledge to how campaign operations work.

nt

[Dems Will Win]

55. You obviously don;t know what you are talking about. But I will be nice and explain it to you so

you know from here. In NH, Volunteers are allowed to sit at a table and record who has voted. I did it myself at my precinct once. Then at 6:30 you call your tagged supporters who haven't shown up yet.

You never talk to the voters coming in.

That's all the Obama people were doing

[MethuenProgressive]

68. "Volunteers are allowed to sit at a table and record who has voted. " No shit? Just like everywhere?

So the Clinton people sitting there checking off names complained the Obama people sitting there checking off names shouldn't be allowed to sit there and check off names? And the Obama people sitting there checking off names were removed while the Clinton people sitting there checking off names were allowed to remain - and cackle, no doubt?
That's a silly thing to believe, even for Obama supporters.

[alteredstate]

118. Perhaps the Clinton folks didn't have any poll watchers. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

120. No one has said that Clinton was doing the same thing.

But no one would object if she HAD been. It's a perfectly legitimate activity.

[mortfrom]

233. And all the Clinton People were doing

was enforcing what they were told: that this would not be permitted. Since it was not permitted, apparently the Clinton team did not have such observers. So it was a clearly unfair advantage for Obama; simply tbecause the Clinton team thought to check with the relevant authorities ahead of time.

One precinct was affected. It didn't sway the result. That's just silly.

[jefferson_dem]

86. You were really keen on disenfranchising students in IA too, if I recall.

Not a fan of democracy, eh. Check the name of this site.

[MethuenProgressive]

91. Heck yeah! Bus in those kids from out of state! Disenfranchise real Iowa voters!

:rofl: at my stalker

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. Well, that's just the point.

They were comparing lists to see who had NOT showed up yet, to get THOSE people to the polls -- IOW, GOTV.

[rateyes]

172. Obviously you've never done this kind of work..

you show that you don't know what you are talking about.

[EFerrari]

180. Yes, you do. That's one of the most important things to do

on election day.

[rateyes]

171. Again you misread the law...

The "I'll defend the Clintons regardless of whether they cheat or not" continues.

[Inspired]

9. JEDNE n/t

[cali]

67. this is a serious issue

and posting spam in it is not helpful. Posting that in Obama/Clinton "spat" threads is one thing, this is not such a thread.

[RaleighNCDUer]

132. True, but not relevant here. nt

[indimuse]

11. this sounds like RW Bull...

let me ask is that the picture they ran in the article as well...you slime!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. He Got That Picture From Rush

I wonder what he had to give Rush to get it...

[indimuse]

76. well...

I was going to post something very crude...kinda like this post...had to put myself in check! we can only imagine...hhmm

[dkf]

12. The AG supported Obama's side of the argument. Hillary's people were WRONG.

The attorney general and Nashua city clerk confirmed this when they were called about the dispute, saying that the Obama volunteers were allowed as members of the public to observe the polls, as long as they didn't get in the way.

[Fredda Weinberg]

16. Trying to find out who voted is getting in the way. Sorry, but I don't like

this one bit.

[Selatius]

23. Getting in the way would be preventing them from voting. What Obama did doesn't amount to that.

And the AG of the state sided with Obama's camp in the dispute.

[Fredda Weinberg]

32. Read the article again ... the dispute isn't about what was discussed

We're not even talking about GOTV - the "effort" here was to find out who voted and personally, I don't want that to happen to me.

As for observers, of course they could monitor. No, they couldn't challenge, but asking voters questions before they left the electioneering area bothers me. The media has to stand outside to conduct exit polling ... doesn't this sound wrong to you?

[Selatius]

45. I generally see no issue with it. Because nobody forces you to identify whom you voted for.

That's the crux of the argument. Nobody has violated anybody's freedom not to answer questions.

[Fredda Weinberg]

59. Have we abandoned every civil liberty for political expediency?

Electioneering is not permitted near the polling area. Why suspend the rules because you want to get information to which you're not entitled?

[Selatius]

73. What?

Can you define "electioneering"? Are you using a legal definition that, say, the Civil Rights Division inside the Justice Department uses?

Is coming up and asking voters whether they voted for Obama or not illegal? That depends. If they were intimidated, coerced, or somehow forced into answering, then we definitely have a serious violation. In any other case, I would say no. People have as much right to observe elections as they do to cast ballots.

[Fredda Weinberg]

84. It's not ... it's where. Monitors stand in the electioneering area as they should

But everyone else is supposed to stay away to protect the privacy of the voters.

Look, the accusation isn't really against the Clinton people ... you're accusing the local elections officials of misusing their authority for partisan gain. Without cause!!! Misreading the article doesn't impress me ... I can see what the Obama people were trying to do and it was wrong. The AG never got involved, nor should he/she.

[Selatius]

90. Again, you're missing the point. Nobody compels a voter to answer a question.

Unless you can demonstrate to me that they were forcing, coercing, or intimidating voters into divulging exactly whom they voted for, I can't be convinced into seeing that it is a problem.

[alteredstate]

117. You really don't get it, do you?

There's nothing illegal about poll watching.

[tsuki]

235. And watched they should be. nt

[MH1]

119. Sheesh, have you ever worked at a poll?

Maybe they do it different in your state but what is described here is what is done in PA, and I have seen the process referred to by others and assumed it was common - and based on other responses in this thread, it is.

On the chance that your state really actually doesn't allow this activity at the poll, then my apologies. But I will be really surprised to find there is any state where voter check off by poll watchers isn't allowed.

[Rageneau]

143. How do inconspicuous, silent observers KNOW who has voted and who hasn't?

People keep saying that these poll observers are normal, and that it is customary for biased monitors to keep track who has voted and who hasn't.

But how in the world do they find that out?

If they don't actually interview people, the only way they can know who came to vote is to know every one of those people by sight. That may work in rural Kansas, where only 200 people ever come to a polling place, but the precinct in question was in Nashua, a major city with thousands of voters, and there's no way observers could have recognized or kept track of Obama voters except by finding out the name of ALL the voters who voted in the Democratic Primary.

How could they do that?

Can observers peek over the shoulders of poll workers as voters sign in? Watch to see what type ballot they take and then ask them their name after they leave the polling place?

I don't see anyway that supporters of one candidate can find out whether their supporters are showing up or not without knowing their names. Enlighten me someone.

[bettyellen]

152. they ask you to state your name.... and confirm your address, pollwatcher is within

earshot, and they check your name against the list of voters. this has always been the way in my town. it's totally legal.

[freefall]

185. Your continued ignorance is appalling especially given that the process has been

explained to you again and again in this thread. Poll watchers to not ask voters who they voted for. They are not allowed to speak to voters at all. It is the legal right of any citizen of any party to learn who voted in any election both during the election and afterwards. This has been explained to you many times by many people who actually work for their candidates and parties.

Perhaps the only way you will be able to understand how the process works is to participate. I suggest you volunteer to work as a poll watcher for a candidate of your choice and learn what a GOTV effort involves.

Peace,

freefall

[rateyes]

217. That's public record.

[Fredda Weinberg]

41. Again, the dispute was over what was discussed ... and it's not a dispute

People remember things differently, but the issue here is whether anyone was prevented from voting ... Clinton didn't do anything wrong and the Obama people did enough to get local election officials to enforce existing rules. If you want to make a federal case, then we can talk about the real dispute: asking voters before they leave the electioneering area if they were Obama supporters. Sorry, where I come from, that's simply not allowed, before or after I vote.

[indimuse]

88. only at a certain distance right?

50'???

[gtar100]

208. That's not what they did. This needs to be made clear.

asking voters before they leave the electioneering area if they were Obama supporters

1) Your campaign has a list of people who previously expressed support for your candidate days or weeks before the election.

2) You watch the voter registration roster and check off your list the people in that precinct who showed up.

3) Near the end of the day, you look for people on your list who have not shown up.

4) You call those people to remind them to get out and vote and ask if they need assistance to get to the polls.

5) You help them to get to the poll to vote if they need it.

Point #1: They don't ask voters before they leave if they were Obama supporters.

Point #2: They are using a standard tactic used by Democrats and Republics alike.

Point #3: You showed up, your name was checked off, no need to contact you.


Bottom line, they are playing the odds by getting as many people in a precinct to vote who in the past expressed support. There's no guarantee that they actually did. But it does increase the chances that your candidate did get more votes because of it. No coercion, no "electioneering" near the polls. That would be breaking the rules and destroy all the work you did prior to the election...not good.

Campaigns do more than just call people to get statistics on how well their ad campaign is working. They want to know names, addresses and telephone numbers and in what precinct. It's election strategy and it is a game of playing the odds that you do all you can to get people to the voting booth who expressed support for your candidate. Once in the sanctity of the booth, a voter can do as he or she wishes. And for the campaign's side, they don't have to try to get "everyone" out to vote, they can focus on the people they know expressed support in the days and weeks before the election. It maximizes their potential for gain. Though there's no guarantee, you get better results in the long run.

What? You thought campaigns ask for volunteers to call and go door-to-door just to encourage people to vote for their candidate? No. They want your name and address and who you're supporting. That's why the division into precincts and the detailed voter roles are so important. And its the value of a well-organized campaign.

[Joe the Revelator]

51. EVERY campaign has people checking off who's voted

Its an intrical, accepted part of election day.

[dkf]

66. Yup. This is normal in elections.

Hillary's people made up bogus arguments then threatened Obama's people with political revenge.

This is how Clinton operates.

What a disgrace.

[alteredstate]

106. What about the general election?

Do you object to the idea of having Democratic poll watchers monitoring general elections?

[aquart]

163. I've been a poll watcher.

I never asked a name. I was there to make sure nobody fudged the process. I was NOT there to record votes until everyone was gone and then we went to each machine and got the count.

Obviously, rural states are different from NY, but if anybody had the brass flaming balls to accost me at the voting booth I would have yelled for the cop.

I've also done exit polling (for AALDEF) and we wait outside the voting area.

[indimuse]

166. I've also done exit polling forJohn Kerry and we wait outside the voting area.

I think..50' away...as to not interfere with the process. AND they were quite adamant about this rule!

[elizm]

112. It's how it's done Fredda. And perfectly legal. nt

[Dems Will Win]

19. THAN YOU!!! So Hillary's people blatantly stole it! Obama might have actually won NH!!!

That's what I'll be investigating from now on.

Jeez! Tell all your friends and neighbors. Obama won NH.

[indimuse]

38. no!

I will telleverybody Obama's FANS are idiots!

[jazzjunkysue]

184. No accusation of vote tampering was made. You're not helping Obama

by being irrational.

This is where "knee-jerk librul" comes from, and it doesn't help democracy when people just make up an alternate reality.

No one messed with the actual vote: There is a dispute about counting who showed up but not about the actual vote.

This story doesn't matter unless you can prove more wrong-doing in the Hillary camp in other votes.

[maddiejoan]

17. I'm not seeing anything illegal here.

and the pic you posted of Hillary doesn't exactly help you create the image that this isn't anything more than a slime piece.

Sheeesh --Half the case is made by Siroti --and Obama supporter --big shocker.

[Dems Will Win]

40. This is Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple, and against Federal Law

I would refer you to the Voting Rights Act and the use of misinformation to suppress the vote.

Congress determined that the existing federal anti-discrimination laws were not sufficient to overcome the resistance by state officials to enforcement of the 15th Amendment. The legislative hearings showed that the Department of Justice's efforts to eliminate discriminatory election practices by litigation on a case-by-case basis had been unsuccessful in opening up the registration process; as soon as one discriminatory practice or procedure was proven to be unconstitutional and enjoined, a new one would be substituted in its place and litigation would have to commence anew.

The administration of elections is chiefly a function of state government. However, federal authorities sometimes become involved in election fraud matters when a state prosecutor asks for federal assistance. In addition, the Justice Department can become involved when allegations arise that criminal vote fraud has occurred in a federal election. And, in some exceptional cases, where voting fraud or intimidation involving racial bias occurs in local or state elections, federal criminal charges may also be brought are handled by the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division.

If you have information about vote fraud, you should contact the nearest office of the FBI or your local U.S. Attorney's office. If you know of vote fraud that was driven by racial animus, you can either contact the Voting Section, or contact the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division:

Chief, Criminal Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. - PHB
Washington, D.C. 20530

[phone]

Because Obama is of a minority group himself, and voter suppression occurred to prevent votes for a black candidate, there might be a further triggering of the law. Be interesting to see where this goes. Obama has not brought it up yet. But it voter suppression on a wide scale.

[maddiejoan]

44. How did it suppress voters?

I don't get it.

[elizm]

113. No way to argue with the totals at end of the day....

You check off supporters when they come in to vote and match it with results at the end of the day. If machine count doesn't match supporter vote count, then there is a problem??? But of course, we have no way of knowing now because Hillary stopped the process. Maybe if you understood the process you would get it. What they were doing was perfectly legit...Hillary stopped it. Soooo...if the machine was hacked, who the hell can know, right??? I'm guessing this only happened in the precincts where the votes were on machines. Remember...Obama won in all precincts where votes were hand counted. Is it starting to make sense to you now?

[maddiejoan]

129. No it doesn't

because NH has paper ballots. They can be recounted by hand if need be,

[RaleighNCDUer]

135. So, recount them.

Besides, that's only PART of the problem. Because of the interference, the Obama poll workers could not be kept aware of who had not showed up, and seen to getting them to the polls. How many Obama supporters, confident in the bogus projected 10pt lead, shrugged it off? Would they have, if someone had known to give them a call?

THAT is where the vote suppression was.

[maddiejoan]

136. They had to be right there at the polls?

I'm assuming that if they backed up whatever minute distance away --they could have still done their jobs?

[RaleighNCDUer]

144. No. Their job was to check the names on the public records of

those who show up to vote. That, of course, can only be done at the tables where those lists are.

But it has nothing to do with electioneering - there's no need to ever talk to a voter, coming or going.

They go in with a list of pledges supporters for their candidate (and any candidate can do this). They compare their list to the voter list. If someone hasn't showed up, they have someone give him a call, see if they need a ride, whatever. Basic GOTV. Nothing more.

[maddiejoan]

161. and you know for a fact that this was all they were doing?

[JMDEM]

138. But only on challenge by a candidate, which was not expected to happpen. NT.

[George II]

189. How was it "voter suppression"?

And who would have cared or said anything about it if Clinton's campaign wasn't involved?

Why do "democrats" here continue to bash Democrats instead of promote the candidate they prefer? This is precisely what everyone has complained about for a decade with respect to republicans, and now they're gleefully imitating what they claimed to hate.

Disgusting!

[elizm]

102. Without verification of Obama supporters voting, no way to argue vote was hacked. nt

[maddiejoan]

134. really?

No way? It seems you are wrong --as there are plenty of people arguing that it was hacked.

Not that I think it was.

The check-ins are not for voter verification anyway --it's to make sure Aunt Bea got to the polling place --it's GOTV.

[Kittycat]

18. I'm confused

So were clinton's people allowed to be there? And what benefit would there be to Obama for having his people there if they were just checking off names? They can't actually talk to them, or encourage them in any manner, can they? Doesn't that violate some law about campaigning at voting centers?

Or does checking off the names, help them know who to follow up with, to help encourage them or arrange for them to get to the polls (ie. Joe's car is broken down, so the Obama campaign - or any campaign for that matter arranges for private or helps them get to public transportation to place their vote).

[Adelante]

46. That's it, plain old GOTV

They weren't electioneering, as some in this thread would like to claim. They were checking off after voting had taken place, so they knew who on their list had not yet voted and they could go get 'em. Plain old GOTV.

[Kittycat]

50. Isn't that what we've faught for all these years? GOTV?

If we had the republicans way (and what now appears to be the Clinton's way) - where would we be today?

ETA: It is shocking that HRC is doing this. Given that Bill was credited for helping promote the whole Rock the Vote thing, to get youth charged up and involved in politics.

[DURHAM D]

81. Let me tell you what I got from the article -

Clinton's people were told before election day they would not be allowed at the polls. Take that to mean they can not look to see who has voted or not voted already on election day. In other words, the GOTV process could not include checking in the afternoon to see who has not voted and giving them a call to remind them to go vote. Calls are only made to the non-voters that have previously indicated support for your candidate. However, Obama's people were allowed to examine the voting lists in at least three areas. Sounds like favoritism to me. Anyone who has ever worked at the polls knows that people demanding to see the voting lists can indeed be a nuisance on election day.

As for the guy pushing the story about the emails, etc - sounds like a very small time wanker who backed the wrong horse and has a grudge against the females in power/elected positions in N.H. Ummh...

[MH1]

125. Here's the relevant paragraph

Clemons, whose son Nick Clemons managed Clinton's campaign in the state, said she objected to the Obama observers because she said she had been told by the Nashua City Clerk the day before that such observers would not be allowed and that letting the Obama use them conferred an "unfair advantage." In an interview Friday, the city clerk, Paul Bergeron, said this was not the case, that the discussion before the election had regarded volunteers challenging voters, not those checking names off lists.

If the Clinton people misunderstood, oops. What was done here looks very, very bad.

[Selatius]

20. I don't view it as voter suppression as much as disrupting Obama's internal operations.

Voter suppression would be challenging not Obama workers checking names on their lists of supporters but challenging people who are there to cast ballots in terms of questioning whether they can legally vote or not.

[IndianaGreen]

24. It is the same thing William Renhquist did as a young GOP operative

to suppress minority votes back in the 1960s.

[sandnsea]

28. Observers have a right to be there

Keeping them out is illegal. Period. The reason isn't particularly relevant, it's just flat illegal.

The fact that the reason was to keep them from organizing voter turnout is just despicable.

[RaleighNCDUer]

127. If it gets in the way of people voting, it's voter suppression.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Pretty sad if it's Dems supressing Dem votes.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Obviously the Clinton camp is using Karl Rove's playbook

and many of us have been saying this long before Iowa.

Bill Clinton's use of covert racist language during his Charlie Rose interview was also noted in DU by several progressives, myself included.

The Obama supporters say the accusation, which was laid out nearly a year ago and has cropped up from time to time since then, is unfair, noting that Democrats in the Illinois Senate often voted "present" on controversial legislation, not to duck issues, but as a tactical response to Republican efforts to force Democrats into unpopular votes that could be used against them in the future.

An Illinois Planned Parenthood official backed Obama up on this score over the summer, in response to an earlier round of questions about his record, and Obama has a 100 percent rating with both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. To try to defuse the e-mail and mailing, the Obama campaign on Sunday rushed out an automated phone call from a New England Planned Parenthood official vouching for Obama -- which the Clinton campaign in turn challenged by saying that the call had gone out to at least two people on the do-not-call list, against state rules.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/taken_for_granite.html

[indimuse]

25. ahhh

you might wanna flip that!!

[indimuse]

26. ahhh

you might wanna flip that!!

[0007]

192. How true!!

junior & Hillary are twins to say the least.

[RufusTFirefly]

27. Uh, you ARE kind of making this up

And believe me, I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton.

If you read the article, you'll see that the Clinton campaign did too highly questionable things.

* It sent out an e-mail that highlighted Obama's vote of "present" on abortion rights legislation and implied that his commitment to choice was suspect.
* It unfairly protested the presence of Obama campaign workers at polling places who were keeping track of Obama voters so they'd be able to figure which voters who indicated they were Obama supporters had voted and which had not yet voted.

Both tactics are aggressive if not downright dirty, but you are completely overselling these points when you say that Clinton "stole" New Hampshire.

[Adelante]

53. I agree with that nt

[Joe the Revelator]

58. You're failing to see the importance of those poll watchers to ANYONE'S GOTV efforts.

[cloudythescribbler]

60. No, this issue, along with exit poll discrepancy, helps us see the larger picture nt

[elizm]

121. Exactly. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

128. When the voting turns on a mere two points, it is a very legitimate

fear.

[DJ13]

33. Hillary's campaign sounds more.......

......Republican than Democrat.

No surprise, lets hope the recount shows fraud so Hillary can be outed.

[IndianaGreen]

42. The Bushes and the Clintons share a lot in common

and they have both stuck it to the working class and to LGBT community.

[Adelante]

34. Looks like they left a mess behind them

What a shame.

[madrchsod]

65. a big mess that`s going to be a divide in the democratic party

up there in new hampshire. clinton`s people sent out a e-mail that was a distortion and an out right lie. if the people of new hampshire are comforable knowing they were lied to then that`s ok. but for those who realized they were ...clinton`s people created enough doubt and distraction that the obama people were not able to do there job then that is a big big problem....but hey that`s ok, it`s just politics, and everybody will be forgiven...someday

[hayu_lol]

72. At the risk of making some sense out of this thread,

lets start with this:

Anyone, monitors or supporters or exit polling takes a chance of being accused of electioneering when their activities take place within a certain number of feet of a polling precinct.

Overzealous volunteer folks can make such a fuss that they do interfere with the ability of folks who are voting to vote.

That is why many states have specific laws(different in every state)to set limits on how close these people can be.

Many of you do not remember, obviously, the Repugnant operatives who surrounded voting precincts in the 2000 Florida election. Tom DeLay's Brownshirts for just one flagrant example.

Do so many of you really want Huckabee or McCain as your president?

Keep the polling places clear. Keep volunteer away from voters. Give the people a quiet chance for privacy when they vote.

One more reason that I'm proud of Oregon's Vote By Mail. This problem is eliminated.

[madrchsod]

47. wow.... what a big story about nothing.....

hey get over it!

[JMDEM]

139. I bet if the tables were reversed, you'd be singing a different tune. NT.

[Joe the Revelator]

57. The only people I've seen employ this tactic in the past

Were GOP candidates in highly liberal precincts. This is complete dirty pool, and should not be tolerated, no matter what candidate you support.

[TeamJordan23]

62. Not surprising. nm

[OHdem10]

63. Can we hear the other side????

Unfortunately I have heard so many people called Racists.

We cannot have an election without the accusation of Voter Suppression.
It is usually the GOP being accused.

I find it most interesting the accusations in this campaign.

[dkf]

69. Exactly...Clinton uses dirty GOP tactics

I hate these things when the GOP uses them and I hate them now.

[Rageneau]

130. It was OBAMA's team that was using GOP tactics.

Clinton's team was only trying to keep the polls free of electioneering (by whatever name you want to call it). Remember, it was the GOP who started showing up at polling places asking people their names and who they intended to vote for (as Obama's folks were doing here). If that person answered 'wrong,' the GOP opperative would check the records to see if there wasn't some reason to disqualify that voter.

This happened so much around the country that many states, including NH, passed laws against campaign operatives polluting the polling place. But Obama's team doesn't seem to care about the spirit of that law, or about fair play, for that matter.

They want to use the 'letter' of the law to sneak around its spirit -- thereby repeating exactly the obnoxious Republican behavior these very laws were enacted to restrict.

Their excuse? That the laws were written to apply to the General Election, not to primary elections -- ignoring the fact that this underhanded tactic had never before been resorted to in a mere primary election. Prior to Obama, the potatoes were too amall, and the people and candidates were usually still too amicable to indulge in such dirty tricks.

Then, to compound their perfidy, the Obama people, after violating the spitrit of the law, are using their allies in the rightwing press to assault Hillary for insisting that the SPIRIT of the law applies, and it applies to everyone.

Obama's campaign is beginning to show lese and less class.

[indimuse]

178. as are his supporters...no class.

:hurts:

[Heywood J]

242. "Remember, it was the GOP who started showing up at polling places asking people their names

and who they intended to vote for (as Obama's folks were doing here)."

Do you even read the article? Do you even read the thread? Bitwit, is that you?

[Rageneau]

70. This article says NOTHING except that Obama supporters are morphing into Republicans.

A quick reading of this article (from the Hillary-hating WP, BTW) reveals that the ONLY charge it contains is that Hillary workers in a single precinct, acting in accordance with the law, prevented Obama people from monitoring who was voting for whom in that precinct. (Which, because it was a heavilly pro-Hillary precinct, could EASILY have been interpreted as an attempt to intimidate Hillary voters into turning away.)

Therefore, all this article reveals is whaa-whaa-whaa whining by the Obama people, as well as some unwarranted sniping, and some nasty attempts to make legal activities look unsavory in order to poison the well against a fellow Democratic candidate.

Then, of course, it's topped off with a deliberately insulting, sexist, photo of Hillary.

What this article shows is that some Obama supporters are going to treat Hillary the same way the GOP will do in the GE -- which is dishonestly, sexistly, unfairly and underhandedly.

[Joe the Revelator]

71. They were acting opposite of in accordance with the law

Did you even read the artcile? The NH's SoS agreed that Hillary's tactics were out of bounds.

[RaleighNCDUer]

131. Question:

are you lying, or merely completely misreading the article?

Curious minds want to know.

EDIT:
That's not a sexist photo - that would be a bikini. This was an ageist photo. Get your isms straight.

[indimuse]

167. you are exactly right!

I have a feeling this will only get worse...if this board is an indication of how the Obama people act.This a RW tactic...and it IS the Obama people who no grace! sad sad behavior.:grr:
:nuke:
:grr:
:nuke:
:grr:
:nuke:
:grr:
:nuke:
:grr:
:nuke:
v

[Botany]

74. If this is true she should drop out.

Harris, Blackwell, & now Clinton.

They had every right to be @ the polls.

[Joe the Revelator]

77. Amen- Democrats have spend too long fighting against this type of bullshit

to have the so called matriarch of the party pull the same thing is amazingly disgusting.

[Botany]

95. I am from Ohio and boy do I remember Blackwell pulling this shit in 04.

On election day in N.H.:

* Her staff was talking about keeping the loss @ less than double didgits
* Bill was busy blaming the media for Hillary's vote that night
* Talk of a "staff shake up" was on the news to counter Obama's expected win

And now we find out Diebold counted the vote except in 20% of the State where the
vote was on paper and hand counted which Obama won.

Again if this is true Clinton should drop out now. The Obama people were just doing
a GOTV program.

[George II]

190. THAT is what people here spreading these lies are hoping for!!!!

Spreading false accusations to get uninformed people to start clamoring to have a candidate drop out.

This is politics, folks. All sides do it. It is NOT illegal, it is NOT unethical, it is NOT "voter suppression" - this thread is only an unfair attack on a Democrat by others who call themselves "democrats" but don't pass the sniff test.

[Orangepeel]

75. I don't see this as voter suppression

frankly, it sounds like a blown out of proportion misunderstanding to me. (btw, I'm an Edwards supporter who has Obama as a second choice).

It is a standard GOTV practice to have election observers check off the names of identified supporters as they come in so that the campaign can call the ones who haven't shown up and nag them into voting. I've been a poll watcher myself. I couldn't say anything or wear any campaign materials. I just stood behind the people checking people in to vote and marked names off a list as people came in. The campaign would send a runner every few hours to pick up my lists so they would know who had voted (whether or not one votes in public information -- this was a way to get it on election day instead of months afterward).

Anyway, the Clinton campaign shouldn't have tried to stop it if it is legal in NH. But from the article, it doesn't look to me like this was a concerted effort. It looks like Clinton people at three precincts thought that they weren't allowed to do it and then got upset when it turns out that Obama was doing it. In such a case, they should have complained and they should have been told by the election monitors to pound sand.

In any case, this may have resulted in Obama losing two or three votes. It isn't the reason Hillary won. I think that Andrew Edwards is making excuses.

[Joe the Revelator]

87. You're down playing the significance of these precincts

Lets say, for sake of argument, that the illegal activities by the Clinton people were isolate to Nashua only. There are enough votes in that township alone to make up the difference in the race, many times over. Spread that out over 3 or 4 equally sized precincts and you should begin to see why this is a HUGE deal.

[Orangepeel]

97. but it would only result in a few extra votes

Let's say that Obama's GOTV effort had gone flawlessly. Some people who hadn't gone to vote on their own would be called by the campaign, reminded to vote, and gone to vote.

But since it didn't go flawlessly, for whatever reason, he might have lost vote from
1) people who didn't go vote on their own, AND
2) who were not called by the campaign because their resources were tied up calling people who had voted, AND
3) who would have gone to vote if they had been called and reminded by the Obama campaign

The higher turnout is, the less likely that someone was nagged into voting under these circumstances. Most people who were going to vote went without a reminder call. Once the GOTV efforts were disrupted, the Obama campaign should have started calling everyone, so some people were nagged anyway. And, most people who didn't vote wouldn't have been nagged into it.

If the campaign was allowed to be there, they should have been there, no question. But it is highly unlikely that this would have changed the election. It still sound like a misunderstanding and excuse making to me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

140. Don't forget, the polls projected a very confortable 10pt lead for

Obama. How many novice voters were so convinced that they didn't show, who MIGHT have showed had someone known to call them? That could be a differene in hundreds, not a few as you suggest.

[HooptieWagon]

202. You have made your point well

and others have do so also earlier in the thread. Yet, the Hillarybots still don't get it.... Are they unable to grasp basic reading comprehension, or are they just sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "nah, nah, I can't hear you!" ?

[Sparkly]

78. This is NOT about "stealing" or suppressing votes.

It's about checking who's come to vote against a list. That's to measure GOTV, not affect it.

I can understand being upset at the argument that seems to have ensued (this is the first I heard about it) or being upset about the fliers. But please, let's be honest about what's really at issue and not inflate it into something it isn't.

There's way too much erroneous paraphrasing and headline-rewriting here these days, and it's not helpful to anybody.

[RufusTFirefly]

133. Thank you Sparkly. A voice of reason

Destined to be drowned out, I suspect. :-(

No one seems capable of nuance these days. Harassing poll watchers is despicable, but it's not election theft.

[elizm]

80. No way for Obama campaign to validate votes of identified supporters...

Guessing this tactic was used in places where there was electronic voting...Just a great big hunch.

[CoffeeCat]

83. This was an Obama strategy...

...used in Iowa.

I was supposed to check people in to the caucuses, and 20 minutes before voting began,
I was to call those who did not show--and ask them if they needed a ride, etc.

I wonder what happened here...were these volunteers precinct captains at the polls? Or
were they extra volunteers who were checking lists of supporters and calling no shows?

It's absolutely horrible if the Clinton camp prevented the Obama people from doing this,
because it's a standard campaign action. There's nothing controversial about it.

I imagine Hillary's people engaged in this effort as well.

More dirty tricks from the dirty Clintons. Do they ever stop?

[journalist3072]

93. Get your head out your ass with these flame baiting headlines....You're pissed your candidate didn't

win in New Hampshire. Fucking get over it already.

[IndianaGreen]

103. "Fucking get over it already." This is what we were told about Florida and Ohio

What a coincidence!

[rateyes]

174. Exactly what we have been told about Ohio and Florida...

Nah, I'm not over it, and won't get over this kind of slime ball politics.

[Colobo]

100. Thanks for the information. It can expect this and much more

from the Clinton camp. They dissapoint me.

[marbleann]

101. Party Chairman very powerful

"saying that their presence violated a state law stating that only the state party chairmen can delegate people to monitor the polls."



That is the law. The party chairman of each particular party has their own poll watchers. You have to be given approval and you have to a id. Now just because it is a Democratic Charmian doesn't mean he supports Obama.

People need to get privy about polls. That is where all of the funky stuff happens at, that is not illegal. Most people will be shocked to know the laws. Also when something is illegal at the polls very rarely is it rectified. That is what happened in the last election. But believe me it is widespread in local politics.
If Obama's people did not get the chairman of the Democratic party to appoint some of their people Poll watchers, well that is tough luck. It stinks but that is why it is very important to understand how elections are run.
1)First the people who run the elections are the party in charge in that area. So if the Republicans run that area , the Board of Elections are republican. If it is Democrat the Democrats run the election. It is a political appointment. That is the first hurdle people have to get over.

2)The highest person of each legitimate party gets to choose the poll watchers. You have to go to he/she to get approval and and a id. If your candidate's campaign does not go to him to get credentials as a poll watcher it is illegal for you to be there. There is a limit of the amount of poll watchers there is too. Simple as that. I know it stinks but Obama's people should of known that. You have to have a official id. So during primaries all of the candidates have to get separate poll watchers. and they all have to go through the head Democratic leader in the area. If he does not support your candidate you have to be vigilant to get your poll watchers Obama's people should of known that also. You cannot assume just because the leader of the Democratic party is Democrat he supports your candidate.
I am not s Clinton supporter, I am just person who knows a little about voting and polls. I feel most people should at least acquaint themselves in what happens and what is legal and illegal. Enough people just go to the polls and vote and leave Not knowing anything else that goes on. Like I said that is the place most of the funky stuff happens. Legal or illegal and it happens because very few people are privy to the laws. When you vote be there when the poll closes at least you can see some of the things that happen. Like counting poll lists against the votes on the booth, Do you know anything about that? Did you know who runs your Board of Elections ask your friends. Who your party leader is? And the power they have? Ask people and see if they know, I bet most don't. The should the Clinton people knew.

One last thing people have to be very careful about electioneering. If you wear a button, hat, card anything with the candidate name anywhere near the polling place it can be electioneering. You cannot mention his/her name other then in general conversations. Any where near the polling place is set by whoever runs the election. I have seen it as far away as 5 city blocks. Most people do not even know they are doing it. So you really have to be careful about that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

142. I think you're misunderstanding the situation.

This is not about poll workers, or poll monitors working with the BOE. It is about citizens working for the candidates checking the public records to see who has showed up. It's not electioneering, as they never contact the actual voters. They just compare the lists, and call the candidate's phone bank to contact those who have not showed up.

And, BTW, welcome to DU. Sorry you showed up in the silly season - we are really, actually, pretty nice people as a whole.

[creeksneakers2]

149. You need a certificate in Pennsylvania

But candidates and party chairman and maybe some others I can't remember can provide certificates. I'm not just talking about the official people checking in and processing voters, I'm talking about poll watchers just like we are talking about here, who just check the names off a list to be used for GOTV.

[BeyondGeography]

105. This is what winning at all costs really means

==In 2000, bad feelings that lingered among some Bill Bradley supporters about tactics used by Al Gore in the primary - including misleading charges about Bradley's health care plan - were seen as one reason why Gore lost the state to George W. Bush in November, thereby giving Bush just enough Electoral College votes to take the presidency.==

[BenDavid]

111. Excuse me but the polls about Obama's number were not

that far off....Many polls had obama 35, 37, 36, 35 percentages.that is what obama reveived 36%....The clinton polls were off but one has to consider and the mediawhores did not take into account the large undecided voters.....Even the pollsters had undecideds voters high in obama and edwards polling as well as hrc's....so there was nothing irregular....So if you take into account that half broke for obama and half for hrc and add that to the mix then you have HRC added to her polling 28, 29% and add that then you have hrc's number about right with obama's....

[IndianaGreen]

122. Somehow I knew this thread was going to disappear into this forum

just as it happens in the I/P forum for any article that mentions the humanity of those that live under oppression.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maven]

126. You're right.

It's an excuse to post an unflattering photograph of a Dem candidate.

[EFerrari]

137. It could have been had the OP not been so partisan in overstating

the case. This isn't about the mods.

[Junkdrawer]

145. Yes. Keep the GD-P trash out of election reform. n/t

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JMDEM]

141. Of course they agree with it. Anything to get their candidate elected. NT.

[althecat]

146. This is a very cheap hatchet job and a disgrace to the Wapo

From what is disclosed in the OP it ammounted to a small scrap at one polling place. Its causes were possibly/probably related to personality clashes and it could have in no way possibly effected the outcome on the scale that it diverged from the pre-election polls and exit polls.

[EFerrari]

148. Disgrace to the WaHo? I don't think disgrace means what you think it means.

[althecat]

239. My view...

Its a disgrace to be concentrating on this (partisan bickering) when there is a serious issue - vote hacking and the hackability of the vote in NH which the WaHo has largely ignored.

[EFerrari]

245. I think you're looking at the paper as if it was a journalistic enterprise

and not a propaganda outlet. I wish I could do that.

Of course, you're right, al.

[mod mom]

151. Disgrace to WaPo? Was it a disgrace when we howled about the RNC utilizing

similar tactics in OH? Anyone ever involved in GOTV will recognize this practice. This is was my husband did in our Ward in 2004. Lists are posted with names of voters who have cast their votes. Campaigns, know from these lists who HASN'T voted and send out volunteers to see if they can get those votes. We called this position a "runner" as they run between the precincts and back to the staging sites. It is an important aspect of a campaign's GOTV efforts. Attempting to disrupt another candidate's efforts, while allowing other candidates access to these lists give an unfair advantage.

[juajen]

207. I believe the point was that the Hillary campaign was not allowed

to have volunteers there to do the same thing Obama volunteers were doing; so, they objected to Obama's people being allowed to be there when they weren't allowed. Unfair advantage being claimed by the Hillary people.

I agree that confusion at the polls is exacerbated by allowing volunteers from all campaigns to be present to pick out voters who have not voted. Frankly, I will no longer tell anyone how I will vote. I do not want to be pestered on election day by anybody. This is American and it's nobody's business if I've voted or who I've voted for. Sheesh, much ado about nothing.

[althecat]

228. But is there any evidence that this is systematic... if so I agree... if not....

The nevada thing is interesting. Seems to me there is a potential serious problem for HRC if we have a rovian plan emerging here.


Lawsuit Over Precincts in Nevada
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011308D.shtml
Reporting for The New York Times, Steve Friess says, "In what has become a
proxy battle between the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the large hotel workers union in Nevada on
Saturday attacked a lawsuit by another major union that would make it more
difficult for hotel workers to vote in this state's hotly contested
Democratic caucuses."

[mod mom]

150. Straight out of rOVE'S handbook-DESPICABLE!

[McCamy Taylor]

153. And we should trust the paper that gave us "The Good Lie" and "Pelosi Knew" why exactly?

Divide and conquer is the GOP's favorite strategy and the corporate media desperately wants a GOP president so the FCC will continue to hand out media favors.

I can not get over how people at DU keep letting the media whores arrange them into the same old Circular Firing squad over and over again...

Solidarity!

[wisteria]

154. This piece says nothing about obstruction of votes. It does say politics can be a dirty business.

These kinds of slams and misrepresentations happen all the time in political elections. Obama supporters are going to have to get a thicker skin. I am sure his camp has resorted to dirty tricks too.
And, no, I am not a Clinton supporter. This post is misleading.

[elizm]

209. If you are sure Obama's campaign has resorted to dirty tricks too, provide a link please...

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true....Although Republicans do think so.

[wisteria]

218. I am only suggesting that it happens in all campaigns. Unfortunately campaigns have been full of

dirty tricks throughout history. I have no specific accounts of what the Obama campaign may have or may not have done. I am only pointing out what I consider the obvious after the OP'ers over the top voter suppression charges. This was in no way meant as a slam at Obama.

[elizm]

231. You said you were SURE his campaign had resorted to dirty tricks...

If you are going to make those kind of accusations you should back it up with links/proof.

[wisteria]

244. My definintion of sure must be different than yours.

How could I actually and accurately be certain of any of this. It was more of a probability I was aiming at.
Therefore, I suppose I meant to state that Senator Obama's camp probably has resorted to some dirty tricks too. Campaigns are filled with them. Now if you know for certain that Senator Obama has not used any dirty tricks, please provide proof and links.

[grizmaster]

155. General Rules for Poll Observers

That article is so poorly written you can't really tell what the objection was, but here is a post I bookmarked that started from a similar discussion last election cycle.

more links on post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2922810

General Rules and Guidelines for Observing at Polling Places:

1. Make no contact with any voter inside the polling place.

2. Wear no political gear or buttons, nor partisan insignias of any kind. Do not wear candidate buttons, candidate t-shirts or candidate hats. (DO WEAR your TechWatch T-shirt!) Don’t carry or distribute materials which may have partisan or candidate information. Keep to this rule even if credentialed by a party or candidate.

3. Remember that the election judge or poll worker is in charge, and can decide where you are permitted to sit or stand, and how many observers or poll monitors can be in the location at a time. They also may decide whether you can be permitted to come and go, or switch off with another poll monitor.

[muryan]

156. reading this article and coming to that conclusion

requires such a huge leap of faith, it makes me wonder if theres an intelligence left when that decision is made. this is political zealotry and its very depressing to see it in such large quanitites

[dieselrevolver]

157. as an Obama supporter...

This NH issue is tearing the democratic party apart and I'm not sure we'll be able to regroup after the convention. Voter fraud is a serious accusation and I hope we get to the bottom of this soon because I fear the GOP is enjoying watching us rip each other apart while they prepare for a McCain reich.

[Horse with no Name]

158. Election fraud.

The voters had nothing to do with it. The process was corrupted.

[laconicsax]

159. I must have missed something when I read the article.

The actions of the Clinton campaign, though arguably illegal, did not 'steal' the election unless it was incredibly successful at preventing Obama supporters from voting. Even if the Obama volunteers were able to contact every single supporter who didn't vote, it would have taken an additional 7,600 votes just to tie. Additionally, the article only mentions the Clinton campaign interfering with Obama volunteers keeping records of which supporters haven't voted in Nashua Ward 9. Here are the results from Nashua.

Note the number of voters in ward 9 where this took place. There were a total of 2,129 votes in the Democratic primary with Clinton getting 879 and Obama getting 786. Nashua Ward 9 only accounts for 12.6% of the total vote in Nashua, and less than 1% (about 0.56%) of total votes in the state. Even if every last voter in Nashua Ward 9 had voted for Obama, the net gain in the statewide election would have been about 1,300 votes.

There is no way that Obama volunteers from this ward being prevented from carrying out their GOTV effort in full significantly changed the election results.

[aquart]

165. Save your breath. There's only room for hysteria here.

I'd say they were planning to lynch Hillary, but I'd be called a racist for saying "lynch".

[stopfascism]

175. Darn it! I so wanted to kick

this article.
:rofl:

[Texas_Kat]

160. It may be legal in NH

It's certainly not legal in Texas. If you're not a poll watcher or an election worker, you're not allowed to loiter at the polling place -- regardless of the reason.

Hard-core Republicans who checked names off a 'list' as people went in and out of the polls were finally banned. It was also a tactic used to surpress the vote.

Consider the chilling effect of having an 'off duty' cop or Texas Ranger standing around in the polling place (they were particularly obnoxious in minority precincts -- BTW). Here, loiterers have to stand (at least 100 ft from the door.

I'm really surprised that there's such a furor over this whole thing. Set a precedent allowing 'just anyone' to 'work' the election inside the polling place and in the fall you'll have Republican intimidation and voter supression out the wazoo.

What are you thinking?

[acmavm]

162. There was not voter supression, there was nothing done illegally. Except

maybe by the Obama bunch. If they had known what they were doing in the first place and registered ahead as monitors, things would have been fine, right? Was anyone turned away from the polls? I want to see where the Hillary crowd made it so that people couldn't vote and therefore the election was thrown in her direction.

It was sooooo amusing for so long, but the Obama crowd is making a royal pain in the ass out of themselves. Every cry of "we been robbed" and racism proves that Obama is not the right candidate in such an important election. He can use homophobes, lie about his voting record, change stories from day to day, and feel that he's entitled to those tactics, he should get a pass. But he's gonna pitch a bitch about EVERYTHING, every slight real or no, every remark whether it was wrong or not, every loss and claim he was robbed apparently. WE don't need this shit in this country, in this party. Especially now when the stakes are so high.

[indimuse]

169. And how is Obama a UNITER again???

:grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke:

[aquart]

164. There is no such headline in WaPo.

But you did your damnedest to make it look like one.

[newfie11]

168. Oh and we believe everything the washington post says

I don't

[rateyes]

177. .

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/taken_for_granite.html

[rateyes]

173. Someone in NH in Nashua--an Obama Supporter---

should file suit against the Clinton campaign.

[bowens43]

176. Hillary is more of the same.

She learned everything she knows from Karl Rove. Disgusting.

[Tarc]

179. More desperation from the Obamamania Camp

One minor dust-up at one voting station is suddenly magnified to be the next Hanging Chad Controversy. And to say that a blurb in the blog section is on par with a WPost article, as the OP implies, is a increduous stretch of reality. :eyes:

To crib on a bit of Freud, "sometimes a loss is just a loss". Get over it already.

[droidamus2]

182. Yeah right...

New Hampshire had record turnout for this primary so obviously this disagreement on the letter of the law had a huge impact. Another note that pre-primary poll that showed Obama way ahead had a 40% undecided on the Democratic side. Come on people though there are large questions about voting machines every election that doesn't turn out the way you want isn't necessarily being rigged. Besides didn't Obama and Clinton end up getting the same number of delegates.

[katmondoo]

186. How many Hillary haters posted here

[Imagevision]

195. And how many Hillarey employee's posted here- the Clinton camp is using Karl Rove's playbook

[Imagevision]

196. It appears we'll be having another Bush 2004 (Ohio) type of election come November...!

[comradebillyboy]

197. "Gone From the Granite State, But Tactics Not Forgotten"

is the actual headline, and nowhere is illegal voter suppression alleged. The Op's view of reality appears clouded by his personal bias and what I would characterize as complete intellectual dishonesty. 2 key signs: 1-the picture he chose to use, 2-the completely rewritten headline.

[Geek_Girl]

198. One has to wonder is Karl Rove working behinds the scenes for Hillary?

nt

[comradebillyboy]

199. with the completly rewritten headline and doctored picture

it looks more like Obama's bots are reading KKKarls play book. The actual wapo headline from the OP was "Gone From the Granite State, But Tactics Not Forgotten"

[George II]

226. This isn't the first time an anti-Clintonite has rewritten a headline here

[George II]

214. Actually I think Rove is behind the OP...it's his style

[mistertrickster]

201. Okay . . . I didn't believe the Diebold vote scam stories, but THIS I believe.

As a frequent poll watcher myself and someone who defeated a long-time incumbent with exactly this strategy of GotV, Clinton's people would definintely hinder Obama's base (by not allowing them to call non-voters as described above).

It also helps explain the discrepancy between pre-election polls and post-election official results.

[Mickdaddy]

203. Let's not forget the important point...

We want a Democrat to win in November. I would prefer Obama or Edwards, but Clinton would still be orders of magnitude better than any Republican who is running. And considering the dirty tricks the Republicans will certainly pull, I want a candidate now who is willing to fight to win the nomination.
So please end the histrionics, understand that this is a campaign and that all of the candidates are CAMPAIGNING, which by necessity involves doing some things which are otherwise frowned upon. This does not mean that this challlenge of the GOTV workers was "worse than Ohio", nor does it mean that Karl Rove is working for the Clinton campaign; that's naive at best. But everybody is campaigning: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Huckabee, etc. This does not reduce the Democratic candidates to the level of the Republicans; we are still vastly better and more honest than they are. However, it would be nice to worry less about being perfect, and worry more about winning in 2008 (even if the candidate is not your first choice) and stopping a continuation of the Republican nightmare.

[frogcycle]

205. Holy Crap! Let's just all commit suicide now!

Regardless of who was incorrect in interpreting who could do what where and when, there is no way in hell this constitutes Hillary "stealing the election."

At the very most it is a misunderstanding by local folks. Or, just maybe, some local foks being overzealous and knowingly bending the rules. If so, well, naughty naughty; let's move on. There is no frigging way that a 50% impairment of the GOTV effort at one precinct constitutes stealing a freaking election. Geez, louise, what idiocy. If we were to try to tote up every misstep we'd have to go back and scrutinize every out-of-stater in Iowa and check whether they had actually been in state the full ten days in order to caucus, among myriad other potential anomalies.

This inflammatory post with the photo selected is inexcusable.

There is support of a candidate and then there is childish sandbox squabbling. This is far, far lower on the scale even then that!

Obama supporters continue to reinforce my opinion that he is the Pied Piper of Hamlin, playing a vacuous tune of "hope" with a bunch of children following in a hypnotized daze.

The really sad part is I think he has a lot to offer and these tactics which seem to permeate his campaign (not just this meaningless discussion board) reflect poorly on him, and, more importantly, demonstrate what absolute mincemeat the pugs would make of him and his supporters in the GE.

[ProudDad]

206. Old News -- The Democrat Party

has been pulling this kind of shit forever -- just like the pukes and the Whigs, etc. etc.

Lyndon Johnson and Box 13...

http://www.eiu.edu/~historia/1999/texas99.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Ballot-box-13-Johnson-contested/dp/0899500935


There is NO democracy in USAmerika -- never has been, never will be as long as the corporate capitalist masters are in charge.

[George II]

238. The "Democrat Party"? Nice post, Freeper!

[sallyseven]

210. You people are a bunch of jerks.

she would not do that. The Wash Post has fallen a long way since they were a real newspaper. They lie and people that report have fallen a long way too. Your so wrapped up in your hatred that you sound delusional.

[jgraz]

211. Wow, that's some enlightening political discourse right there

:eyes:

Should we assume "seven" stands for your age or your current grade level?

[George II]

213. ???

Would you be able to recognize political discouse if you saw it?

If this article was true, why isn't anyone in the Obama campaign filing a formal complaint?

And was that photograph REALLY necessary or part of the article?

You people are just itching to destroy a DEMOCRAT's campaign, feeding into the hands of the republicans (or, perhaps you ARE republicans?)

[jgraz]

215. And so it goes...

When I had less than 200 posts, I used to hate it when people would point out what a hopeless noob I was. So I'll refrain from doing it here.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[George II]

223. And.....

I guess when they did that you never got the point. 800+ posts later you haven't gotten the point.

[jgraz]

224. That's it, just get in there and start swinging

You'll catch on eventually (we hope).

[George II]

227. I hope not - I am a DEMOCRAT

[jgraz]

229. OK, random non-sequitor. No prob, it happens to everyone.

You go get right back on that horse.

[George II]

240. You?

[ProudDad]

212. "she would not do that"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[jgraz]

216. Leave Hillary Alone!!

You're lucky she even campaigns for you BASTARDS!!!



(had to be said)

[Caoimhe]

219. Congratulations

My first ignored poster of the day.

[Catherine Vincent]

220. Can't believe this is on the homepage. nt

[mckeown1128]

221. How does Hillary plan on getting people

like me to vote for her in the GE when she uses dirty tactics against my candidate of choice. Hmm...Maybe I will vote bloomberg in the GE...

[ooglymoogly]

225. Repukes are using the Lieberman M.O. (supporting a "democrat" for their own ends)

and because they know they have a good chance at beating her and if they don't it is not the worst of worlds for them.

[DemCam]

230. Incredibly erroneous misrepresentation of the WaPo story.

[NeonDog]

232. Drudge could not have said it better

Did you get that picture of Hillary from Drudge or NewsMax????

[bear425]

234. It's very interesting that you should grab that unflattering pic

from a website that's supporting Fred Thompson...

What's that about?

xxxx

edit: I broke the html for the link

[George II]

236. Here's the WaPo REAL Headline:

Gone From the Granite State, But Tactics Not Forgotten

Big difference from the one posted, eh folks?

[Seabiscuit]

237. This OP is unmitigated horse manure.

The dispute only allegedly affected how many Obama voters in Ward 9 in Nashua the Obama observers were able to count for their own records.

That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH STEALING AN ELECTION, AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM VOTING, OR HAVING THEIR VOTES COUNTED BY THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE!!!

Look, I'm an Edwards supporter, and I'm not partial to either Obama or Hillary, but this kind of CRAP has got to STOP on DU.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

243. I'm curious Dems Will Win,

Do you post at Brutally Honest dot org/?

What is your "handle" there? I want to read some of your genuine opinions.

Or, did you just stumble onto that picture of Hillary while you were "investigating" RW sites?

Please do reply.

[mhatrw]

246. How Republican! n/t