Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Did Republicans Give Hillary Her Victory in Ohio?
Hilary Clinton's larger-than-expected victory in Ohio may have been won with votes from Republicans, and from independents who usually vote Republican.
Much has been made of Rush Limbaugh’s other far-right commentators’ pleas to Republicans to cast their ballots for her in open primary states like Ohio and Texas. Part of the strategy is to slow down Barack Obama, who analysts argue will be harder for John McCain to beat this fall. Others, like Ann Coulter, have gone so far as to say they actually PREFER Clinton to McCain. Such voters would certainly also prefer the former first lady to Obama.
Whatever the case, there is concrete evidence in Ohio that Republican cross-over voters did, in fact, play a significant role in delivering the Buckeye primary votes to the Senator from New York.
Ohio has a classic open primary. Party affiliation can be whatever a voter states upon entering the polls. Both of this article’s writers, who usually vote Democratic or independent, chose to vote Republican in the 2006 primary, essentially because of a desire to oppose J. Kenneth Blackwell, the sitting Secretary of State, because of his role in his voter suppression during the 2004 election. In 2006, though our previous party affiliations were Democratic, each writer merely informed poll workers that we wished to cast a Republican ballot. Raised eyebrows notwithstanding, there were no problems getting them. The same opportunity allowed voters to cross-over last week.
There is clear statistical evidence that many Republican voters did cross-over. The Democratic Party “won at least 141,785 new voters in the four-county region” of Warren, Clermont, Hamilton, and Butler counties according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told the New York Times that in Clermont and Summit Counties, paper ballots ran out mostly due to a large number of independent and Republican voters crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary.
In Warren and Clermont counties, in southwestern Ohio, the number of votes cast in the Democratic primary are telling. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that in Warren County, for example, there were 12,440 registered Democrats (9.49%) and 41,377 registered Republicans (31.57%) and 77,237 nonpartisan voters (58.94%). In Tuesday’s primary, 27,855 voters (48.53%) asked for Democratic ballots, representing 223.91% of the registered Democrats in that county.
Warren County is notorious for a “homeland security” alert called by county officials on Election Day 2004, causing the ballots to be diverted to and counted in a restricted unauthorized warehouse.
In Clermont County, there were 14,496 are registered Democrats and 37,714 registered Republicans, as reported by the Enquirer. In the primary, 26,279 people voted Democratic. One Clermont County presiding judge reported running out of Democratic ballots and turning away at least 30 people, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Election observers on 2004 claimed that 100 or so ballots in Clermont County has stickers over John Kerry’s name, that would have caused the vote scanner not to register a marked Kerry vote.
In 2004, Warren, Clermont and nearby Butler County gave Bush some 140,00 more votes than Kerry. Bush’s entire margin of victory in Ohio was less than 119,000 votes.
Dr. Richard Gunther, professor of political science at Ohio State University suggests that other factors are in play in Ohio. He sees a likely shift of independent voters, similar to the elections of 1930, 1932 and 1934. In those elections, spurred by the Great Depression, independent and Republican voters shifted their loyalties to the Democratic Party and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, causing a fundamental realignment in politics that lasted for fifty or so years.
There were some technical issues with voting machines in Tuesday’s election. The Enquirer reported on power outages in Darke and Hamilton counties and reports of electronic touch-screen voting machines problems in Montgomery County. Voters at one precinct in Lucas County (Toledo) voted on paper ballots after the electronic voting machines failed, according to the Toledo Blade.
Secretary of State Brunner has made significant strides toward guaranteeing freer, fairer and more transparent elections. In the wake of massive irregularities under Former Secretary of State Blackwell in the 2004 election, Brunner has committed the state to paper ballots. In Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), she forced the resignation of Republican Board of Elections (BOE) Chair Bob Bennett, along with the rest of the board. Bennett forced the county to spend $20 million on electronic touch-screen voting machines, which proceeded to crash in the 2005 primary. Among other things, they registered a 14% vote count error, according to a BOE study.
This spring Brunner ditched the machines in Cuyahoga County in favor of paper ballots. Ironically, the county ran out of the Democratic ballots, indicating a higher than expected turnout of voters for the Democratic primary. In response, a federal judge ordered several Cleveland polling stations to stay open until 9pm so everyone could vote.
In Franklin County (Columbus) a survey by the 16-member election protection team from the Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism showed that it took an average of 15 minutes to vote in inner city precincts such as ward #5 and #55. These two precincts had lines between three to seven hours long in 2004.
Restrictions on absentee and early voting were not present in this year's voting as they had been in 2004. Co-author Harvey Wasserman got his absentee ballot in the mail without incident this year, whereas it took four phone calls in 2004. The Franklin County Board of Elections opened with extended hours on the Monday before the primary to give voters greater flexibility.
Two days before primary election day, Brunner forced the resignation of Franklin County BOE Chair Matt Damschroder. Election officials told the Free Press that Damschroder met with Bush, Blackwell and Karl Rove on election day 2004. Misallocation of voting machines and other irregularities caused inner city residents to wait up to five hours to vote in his bailiwick. Prior to that election, in his BOE office, Damschroder accepted a $10,000 check for the Franklin County Republican Party from a representative of the Diebold voting machine company. Inexplicably, after Damschroder resigned, the Franklin County BOE, including two Democrats, voted to retain him as a "consultant" at over $11,000 per month salary.
Anecdotal evidence from Texas, where Clinton won the popular vote in the Democratic primary, also indicates Republican and Republican-leaning independent cross-over voting may have had an impact. While losing the popular vote by a narrow margin, Obama won that state's caucuses, and emerged from Texas with more Democratic delegates than did Clinton.
Evidence in general would suggest that the intrusion of normally Republican voters into the Democratic primary may signify what statisticians call an “asymmetrical entrance” of new voters. Such a phenomenon could signal malicious cross-over voters or signs of a Democratic realignment, or both. This would also cause errors in pre-election polls. The post-election exit polls may have been affected by the so-called "Bradley Effect," in which white voters casting ballots in an election where a white candidate is running against a black one tend to mislead exit pollsters about how they cast their actual vote.
This fall it is virtually certain that Ohio will once again play a key role in choosing the next president. Except for John Kennedy in 1960, no candidate has won the presidency without carrying the Buckeye State since the 1840s.
This spring, the Buckeye State has also played a critical part in the race for the Democratic nomination. And it would appear that Ohio Republicans and independents who generally vote Republican were key in handing the state to Hillary Clinton.





97 Comments so far
Show Allwonderful.
another hijacked election.
have you thanked a republican today?
There's evidence that the same thing happened in parts of Texas. So Hillary may not have legitimately won either Ohio or Texas. I wonder what'll happen now in Pennsylvania. The super delegates need to be kept aware of this. Write lots of letters!
It's hard to believe how screwed up our electoral system is.
I always like Mr. Wasserman's point of view. But his analysis always falls short with me.
In this case, he fails to take the last step. He points out the higher number of Democratic voters than expected in Republican areas. But he fails to take the next step which is to tell us which candidates got support in these areas. Did these Republican strongholds go for Clinton?
Given that the Republican race was basically already won by McCain before Ohio, its very, very predictable and not at all suspicious that voters would vote on the Democratic side. So, Mr. Wasserman spends his effort pointing out this bit of obviousness, then diverts his argument into old news about past elections. He fails to complete his analysis by looking at which candidates got the support from the Republican areas.
Now, I do feel primaries should not be open. I saw this in GA where I was working as a volunteer for Cynthia McKinney trying to defend herself in a primary against this same sort of action. But there you could look at the precinct totals and clearly see the Republican vote going for her opponent.
Now I live in a state which has closed caucuses in the Presidential race. That's much more fair. It really just should be the people who are the member of a party who decide who the nominee is.
PS ... I've done the same thing in the past. I voted for Pat Buchanan in a Republican primary in GA once. It was a vote really to slow down Bush Sr or Dole or one of those guys ... I'm not exactly a Buchanan supporter. :) If them's the rules, I'll play the game to what I think is my advantage. All it really meant was that I got way too much Republican literature in the mail for awhile after that!
PPS .... wow, is the comment above me really trying to take away people's right to vote and go back to the days of a literacy test? I believe in freedom and democracy, so I guess its always a good reminder that there's those on the left that oppose those ideals. Its not always the fascists on the right we have to watch out for.
These are the rules. You can't possibly say that 'Hillary didn't legitimately win'. If you go by the rules and win, then you legitimately won.
The only way to have a fair contest is to set the rules in advance, then follow them. The rules might not always be perfect, but at least everyone knows what they are. What is a truly disgusting political tactic is to try to say after the fact that you don't like the result so it should be thrown out.
If you don't like the rules, work to have them changed. But you can't possibly say that this result wasn't 'legitimate'.
-----------
The advantage of these rules is that it lets everyone participate. For instance, let say there are voters out there who've been Republican in the past, but now they are disgusting with that party. So in this election they are more interested in the Democratic candidates. If you have closed primaries, you tell these people they either have to have changed their registrations a month prior to election day or they can't participate in the race that interests them.
Like I said above, I think I approve of closed primaries. But there are reasons why someone might prefer this system.
Buried in the 19th paragraph:
"Evidence in general would suggest that the intrusion of normally Republican voters into the Democratic primary may signify what statisticians call an "asymmetrical entrance" of new voters. Such a phenomenon could signal malicious cross-over voters or signs of a Democratic realignment, or both."
In other words - they don't have a clue about what happened. Obama's pitch is based in part on his claim that he attracts support from Republican & Indy voters.
Could that factor be a work here? Hmmm?
There were Billary supportersclaiming republicans were voting for Obama because they felt he would be easier to beat(despite Limbaugh and others saying to vote for Clinton--the former Atwater supporter).
Its obvious that Obama is more of a challenge to McCain than Clinton.
The rules have been abused, therefore you can't call it legitimate. They were going on the honor system. Breaking the honor system doesn't make it legitimate, because you are expected to be honest. being honest is part of the rules too!
Catch:
As I understand it, the Pennsylvania primary is open only to registered Dems, not even independents/unaffiliateds. So the time to watch is now, in the window where people can change party registration. I gather at least the Obama campaign is doing voter education on this, so as not to lose the independent voters. Not being in the area, I have no idea if the Limbaugh sympathizers are doing the same.
So what if Rebublicans voted for Hillary?? I would think after their party has nearly ruined our country, all of them would vote for her or Obama. Either one will be a great change for the better as it is about as bad as it can get now.
If people could get over throwing mud at the only two candidates that we have that can do us some good, it might be helpful. If we cannot get a change of political administration we will watch our country go on over the cliff.
CoMarc: Riverman's idea is not as crazy as it sounds. It would be fair and democratic that voters be able to answer questions that show they have at least a fundamental knowledge of the issues. It would be fair and democratic, but totally unrealistic for our society. Better to advance the cause of proportional representation which would break the stranglehold of the trinity of dem-rep-military.
There is not a whit of substantive difference between Hillary and Obama. See the following -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/dems-m10.shtml
http://jokelibrary.net/yyPictures/m/2008b.html
Fitrakis and Wasserman present good evidence that Republicans crossed over and voted in the Democratic primary in Ohio. However, their assumption that the Republicans voted for Clinton is very suspect.
In Wisconsin, I know there was a concerted effort among Republicans (who were urged to call their friends and family members) to cross over and vote for Obama in the Democratic primary.
Republicans want Obama to win the Democratic primary because (1) they believe he will be the easiest Democrat to beat in November, and (2) if a Democrat is going to win in November they prefer Obama's moderate-Republican agenda to Clinton's more-traditional Democratic agenda.
I think it's likely that Republican cross-over voters helped Obama in Ohio and Texas, and I think the same is true in some other open-primary states like Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
If we had Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) we could do away with party based primaries altogether, and it makes it harder to "legitimately" game the system like Rush and Coulter want people to do.
During the CSPAN coverage of the Texas primary, a former Texas Republican House leader stated he'd NEVER WITNESSED so MANY Republicans crossing over to vote in the Democratic Primary. Particularly interesting he noted, because they were crossing over to vote for Hillary Clinton, who they universally despise. He stated it's because she is seen as more easily defeatable in the General Election. This guy was an Elder and insider.
There is more than anecdotal evidence to this FACT, as pointed out in the above article. Rush Limbaugh knew the score... that is NO JOKE.
Why people continue to assert there is no difference defies logic. One major difference is ELECTABILITY. I have to wonder if this irrational attitude isn't rooted in simple racism.
Republicans that are anti-war will prefer Obama in the General Election but in the primaries, the extremists that listen to Limbaugh, carried the day. This is obvious to anyone that's paying attention. Of course if YOU NEVER TALK TO PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH YOU, you wouldn't KNOW that there ARE anti-War Republicans.
Bob K your argument is without substantiation other than your theory regarding the motives of Republicans. NATIONAL POLLS have consistently given Obama the lead, and the recent diminution of those predictions are a direct consequence of your candidates LIES AND SMEARS.
How could ANYone support Clinton in view of her race baiting and fear mongering? The former DNC chair, Terry Mc whatsisname on TV only the other day talking about "This POST 9-11 world."
There ISN'T A WHIT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLINTON AND MCCAIN... but Clinton and Obama are WORLDs apart.
The DLC must be rooted out and delivered to the GOP where they belong so the Democratic Party can expand their tent-stakes to include the Progressive Majority.
Centrism, Clinton style Centrism, is a direct function of CORRUPTION. It's influence of the War Profiteers whose pocket they live in. AND it has been since 1967.
Wake up and smell the COFFEE.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer has an article on the cross-over voters, which references interviews the PD did with people who clearly were voting Democratic because Rush Limbaugh and other right wing media personalities urged them to:
(as reprinted in http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031008J.shtml)
According to this article:
A staggering 16,000-plus Republicans in Cuyahoga County switched parties when they voted in last week's primary. ... Those who crossed lines were supposed to sign a pledge card vowing allegiance to their new party.
In Cuyahoga County, dozens and dozens of Republicans scribbled addendums onto their pledges as new Democrats:
"For one day only."
"I don't believe in abortion."
A Plain Dealer review of thousands of records showed few of those who switched were challenged by poll workers.
----------
Also, according to Dennis Kucinich's campaign, 10,000 Republicans crossed over in the 10th District in an effort to unseat him and also influence the Democratic Presidential Primary. See his message on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WTEhYzEuzs
POST SCRIPT
In Ohio, EVERY REPUBLICAN that crossed over to vote for Clinton without supporting the ends and aims of the Democratic Party committed a FELONY by Ohio State Law.
Limbaugh should be prosecuted for inciting a wholesale, felonious enterprise.
The rules are illegitimate.
Cranky, that occurred to me also: could Limbaugh and the right wing radio host referred to in the Plain Dealer article be prosecuted for aiding and abetting election fraud? Hmmm - if Limbaugh's on probation for shopping pain killer meds, maybe they could violate his probation for that.
one problem with the scenario of crossover voters supporting clinton is that obama won hamilton county in southwest ohio which is just about as ultrarightwing in general as you can get in this country. seems to me that the crossover vote should have resulted in a clinton win there too.
The Clintons are thrilled to be working with republican racists and right wing democrats and must be denounced and rejected for the scum they are. She should run with Lieberman as an independent on the white war party ticket.
Bob K. sez: "I think it's likely that Republican cross-over voters helped Obama in Ohio and Texas, and I think the same is true in some other open-primary states like Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, **Washington** and Wisconsin.
Sorry, Robert, but you may have been misled in your research. In Washington, at least, the "primary" is open but awards no delegates. Its sole purpose is to create a list of potential saps, er, donors to the party.
ALL of Washington's Democratic delegates come from the caucuses held one week earlier, and they are most assuredly closed to Republicans.
Yes, Instant Runoff Voting.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama -- does it really matter?
Is there any substantive difference between these two political functionaries?
Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination and who, in turn, wins the presidency -- will any thing fundamentally change?
We all know the answer to that, don't we?
Obviously, the Democrats are not "the same" as the Republicans; the Democrats will always be somewhat better than the Republicans. But "somewhat better" isn't good enough.
One doctor may be somewhat better than another doctor, BUT IS THE PATIENT STILL ILL?
Is the medicine being prescribed appropriate to a recovery?
One doctor may be somewhat better than another doctor, but what if they're both quacks?
Obama is nothing more than a "safety valve" for the ruling class. Things get dicey for the ruling elite, the natives are restless, the pot steams and boils -- that is to say, the general population, grows increasingly discontent, and, wait now, wait a minutes what's this??? -- the ruled actually start thinking that the government is there for them! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, come on, do you really think those in charge, those with the power, are going to allow THAT thought to gain traction?
Tell me if you agree with the following political fact of life. ... Power is not given, it has to be taken. ... Therefore if those in power, the ruling class, are backing certain candidates -- as the ruling class are backing ALL the mainstream canddidates -- then they're not backing those mainstream candidates to GIVE AWAY the power they've accumulated, are they?
Do you really think that the corporate paymasters who've bankrolled Hillary and Obama and McCain's campaigns are going to allow them to fundamentally change anything; especially when the status quo has been oh-so-profitable for those in power?
If 40 years ago you had asked various corporate leaders to project their profits for the next four decades, they wouldn't have come CLOSE to the astronomical, obscene profits they've, in fact, realized.
They've garnered profits beyond their wildest dreams. And all by radically shifting the wealth upwards -- from the poor and the middle class to the rich.
And all with the help of people like Bill and Hillary, H.W. and Dubya, Obama and McCain. Political functionaries all cut from the same cloth.
Do you think their financial backers want real change? Of course they don't. If they did they'd be *voluntarily* giving away power. And that NEVER happens.
What's also obscene is how cyncially Obama is using the style and rhetoric of Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King, a man who truly wanted to change things -- to fundamentally change things -- and here's Obama useing King's style and rhetoric BUT TO WHAT END? Answer: to create the *illusion* of change.
And so when times get dicey, when the pot steam and boils, well, the ruling class can't just sit back and do nothing. So Obama, or some other pseudo-inspiring political functionary is sent out to safely channel, to co-opt, the growing popular discontent into the Democratic fold.
Harry Truman did it in 1948. Jimmy Carter did it in 1976. Jesse Jackson did in 1988. "Bill-the-Liberal" Clinton did it in 1992 (whereupon he moved sharply to the right in 1994). Howard Dean did it in 2004 (Dean now bought off and happy as a lark in the Democratic upper echelons).
Didn't these party functionaries faithfully serve the same political apparatchik that Hillary and Obama and McCain are also part of? They gave the public the impression that, if elected, they would "change things." Did they?
Hillary and Obama ... It's hard to say who's Fric and who's Frac, but, hopefully, these two articles will help:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/dems-m10.shtml
and
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/prim-f22.shtml
Thank you cranky_chatter. It's a relief to hear some sane thinking in here. Polls show Obama beating McCain by 6-8 points and Hillary running even with him, the right wing pays attention and urges Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary and then we have people saying there's no difference between Hillary and Obama and these Republicans are voting for Obama anyway. I pay attention and if there was no difference between Hillary and Obama I would be back refusing to vote for anyone but a Green or Nader. For heaven's sake Hilary was on the Wal-Mart board, a store I boycott! She FOUNDED the DLC, which has destroyed the middle class and completely corrupted Congress. I can't figure out why these people like Hillary. They don't care about the DLC sabotaging progressive campaigns or the destruction of the middle class? That's their business and maybe they're only pretending to be progressives. I can understand ignorant old women wanting to see a woman in office before they die. Not a very good reason but, unlike riverman and lizard, I accept that a democracy means we don't get to decide who votes and why.
I wouldn't go so far as to say there isn't a whit of difference between Clinton and McCain, but in many ways they do sound more alike than Clinton and Obama. I read that Obama is pretty unpopular in the halls of Congress right now for fighting for lobbyist transparency. Being that he's not accepting lobbyist money, he probably has more than that in mind. But, a start. And on this issue alone, a polar opposite of Clinton - and McCain, who might as well come out against lobbyist money since he's not getting any worth mentioning anyway, being a Republican; it's all going to Democrats.
kathyodat
riverman, I suppose you place yourself in the rarefied atmosphere of that elite group of logical thinkers?
kathyodat
If there were no difference between Clinton and Obama the corporate media wouldn't be hellbound determined to DEANSCREAM and MOONBEAM Obama.
It's as reliable as rain. It's as sure as the marginalization of Kucinich and Paul... it's as plain as day.
We may forgive and minimize the impact of Clinton's record of supporting the War and the Neocon agenda. We may let her get away with claiming she was misled, blah blah blah.
But the War Profiteers, Energy Transnationals, Megapharms and Insurance Industries KNOW. They are paying attention and they KNOW they can rely on Clinton to deliver what they want.
To them Obama is a loose cannon... all this talk about TALKING to our international adversaries etc. If they don't like him that is ALL the reference I need.
Obama is hired.
I only said the "there's not one whit of difference" thing in response to the person asserting the same regarding Clinton and Obama... The naysayers that think only a "pure" progressive is worth anything. Purists are incapable of forming a coalition.
They are the agents of division and failure. They ARE the problem, not the solution.
Rush Limbaugh has marshalled his forces to become Democrats-for-a-day to "bloody" Obama. Superdelegates, are you watching? Limbaugh and company want Hillary as their opponent(in which case even if McCain loses, the Repugs win somewhat).
Hillary, will you denounce and reject the support of Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter?
Also, will you return the campaign $ you have received from Murdoch?
BeForKids, it's true; while on the Walmart board, Hillary never spoke up for labor.
cranky_chatter, yes Obama is being Deanscreamed and Moonbeamed. This, plus the corporate media keep discussing the race as if it were tied. They refuse to clarify the NAFTA/Canada reality. They refuse to explore Limbaugh's slimy role. And, they and the Hillary camp keep claiming she won Texas, when he has received more delegates. Randi Rhodes is railing about this on Air America (on radio & web) at this very moment.
riverman, I think you're crazy.
If people get the education they should have, we would have a nation of critical thinkers. it's not that hard, it's just that our current educational system betrays our children.
kathyodat
I thought I was the only Democratic voter in the 2006 Ohio primary who voted for Jim Petro and against the odious Ken Blackwell!
I did have to sign a card that said I supported the Republican party's philosophy. I told myself that surely there was something in the tenets of their party, like fiscal responsibility, that I did actually believe in.
I thought perhaps the heavens would open up and lightning would strike me, but no, I signed the card and was allowed to vote for the Republican nominees. (My vote was noted as an "under vote" or something like that, since I only voted for one person. I wondered if that might have gotten my vote thrown out.)
Last Tuesday I voted in a different county as a newly registerd voter, having just moved within the last year. I was not asked to sign any pledge of loyalty, merely stating which party ballot I wanted.
The reason I crossed over was not that a radio host or other talking head urged me to, but because I had a conversation with a neighbor about it and decided it was a good idea. In other words, my vote was not a response to any efforts by the Democratic party or their media or other representatives.
It seems pretty clear to me that when one crosses over party lines the object is to vote against the person that is seen as the greatest threat.
The people who are crossing over are not new Democrats, but are still very much Republicans. They are not really voting FOR Clinton, but AGAINST the person they see as the greatest threat, Obama.
Goebbels sez,
Thank you for the correction about Washington state. I had relied on FairVote.org for information about open-primary states. http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1801
cranky_chatter,
You and others who are angry at Clinton for being a "Centrist" and believe that "Clinton and Obama are WORLDs apart" -- implying that Obama's agenda is to the Left of Clinton's agenda -- need to realize that Obama's campaign rhetoric is largely a fraud and his true agenda is to the Right of Clinton's agenda.
Of course, Obama's duplicity has been publicly revealed recently. In two instances his promises to voters were contradicted by his senior advisers' assurances that the promises were only campaign rhetoric. First, his senior economic adviser told Canadian officials that Obama's promise to renegotiate NAFTA was just rhetoric, and then his senior foreign policy adviser said in an interview with the BBC that Obama's promise to withdraw from Iraq was just rhetoric.
But, those examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
For another revealing look into Obama's true agenda, consider the bill he authored which would have required nuclear power plants to notify governments in the event of radiation releases. After meeting with his nuclear industry campaign contributors, Obama amended the bill's language so that the notification requirement became only an "advisory," thus turning the bill into a sham that never made it out of committee.
Read "OBAMA'S RHETORIC SMELLS OF NUCLEAR WASTE" on thisisby.us, or see the Feb. 3, 2008 NYT story.
Even more important to understanding Obama's real agenda is his voting record in the U.S. Senate. On twelve important issues which have come to a vote since Obama has been a Senator, he has voted the Progressive way just four times. By comparison, Hillary Clinton voted the Progressive way eight of twelve times, and McCain voted the Progressive way just one of twelve times.
See:
CANDIDATES' VOTING RECORDS COMPARED
Bob K. March 4th, 2008 2:10pm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/04/7465/
allyourbasearebelongtous March 10th, 2008 1:14pm, makes an excellent point about cross-over voters in Ohio:
"Obama won hamilton county in southwest ohio which is just about as ultra-rightwing in general as you can get in this country."
That would seem to indicate that the Republicans who crossed over were voting for Obama.
Published on Monday, March 10, 2008 by The Free Press
Did Republicans Give Hillary Her Victory in Ohio?
I would think many of the elections lately are fishy.
Bob K., Canada has explained that it was the Hillary campaign, NOT The Obama Campaign that stated that redoing NAFTA was campaign rheoric to be taken with a grain of salt. This disinformation will not go away.
rumiluv, your version of these events is false. What I said was accurate.
Of course Republican right wing nuts would vote for Hillary.
Hell, she places herself akin to McCain in terms of CIC toughness, and disses Obama ---- the disgusting MONSTER!
It is amazing how little MSM coverage there has been of Hillary Clinton's four (4) deceitful, back-stabbing attacks on the leading Democrat candidate (Obama) last week.
As Maureen Dowd said of Clinton's destructive trashing of the leading Democrat [which still goes unreported by the NY Times / Clinton machine], "What could be more shameless than suggesting to Democrats that John McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama?"
Several of the Sunday shows re-ran the video of Hillary earlier this week, saying that Obama is less qualified than McCain to be Commander in Chief ---- and take those 3AM crisis phone calls.
There is no way to spin this --- Hillary has said that the leading candidate of her party is not qualified to be the Commander in Chief.
Such a statement is beyond the pale (although I can think of many other descriptions, such as 'pond scum').
I just finished reading Susan Faludi's fabulous new book, "The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in post 9/11 America"
Hillary should read it. She would then realize how much harm she has done to her party.
Not only has she emasculated Obama, but in her selfish and totally misplaced attempt to 'go negative' on him she has likely handed McCain an insurmountable psychological edge over any Democrat ---- in that a contest based on macho toughness, applies at a deep sub-conscious level, an advantage to just the sort of tightly wound, vicious, vengeance / protector image that exactly matches the image of McCain that most Americans hold.
Hillary may not only have handed McCain an edge over Obama, but also herself.
Talk about 'going negative'?
Clinton is emasculating and destroying the leading Democratic candidate.
And for what?
Imagine if Clinton were to become president now, and dealing with foreign leaders.
Won't it be helpful for the US to have every foreign leader thinking, "Oh, yea, I'm going to trust this bitch who stuck a knife in the back of her own party's leading candidate, and only won, by saying that he would not be as capable a commander in chief as the Republican opponent"?
How could most foreign leaders ever trust someone that low?
rumiluv, you're wasting your time with these "Hillary can do no wrong" people. The story WAS corrected to reflect that, but it is more comfortable for these people to stick with the original version. Also, most people tend to believe what they first hear, and not consider any new information that may come up. Human nature. Look how many people still insist on believing Saddham caused 9/11.
From the LATimes:
"The Canadian Press story said Brodie (PM Harper's chief of staff) was asked about remarks by Clinton and Illinois Sen. Obama that they would seek to renegotiate NAFTA.
The source quoted Brodie as saying that "someone from Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt . . . that someone called us and told us not to worry," according to the Canadian Press report.
On Thursday, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said, "We flatly deny this report."
Brodie did not respond to a call seeking comment.
On Monday, the Associated Press released a leaked Canadian government memo that said Obama's senior economic advisor had told Canadian officials that Obama's NAFTA comments were "political positioning."
The news helped Clinton defeat Obama decisively in Tuesday's Democratic primary in Ohio, where the trade treaty is unpopular.
Some Democrats, as well as Canadian opposition parties, have accused Harper's Conservative government of meddling in the U.S. presidential election process.
Canadian opposition parties are demanding that Brodie be fired.
Harper told lawmakers that the government would investigate the entire affair.
The source of the leaked memo had not been determined."
The Clinton campaign took the memo and ran with it, not caring that it was untrue.
What is significant here is that Harper runs a tight ship and no one, especially his chief of staff, says anything publicly without his approval. This would be the only memo that ever leaked out of his administration, at a critical point in US elections, and affecting the outcome of an important race. Obama was pulling ahead of Clinton in Ohio polls until this came about. Fancy that.
kathyodat
Yes, but Obama won the majority (53%) of the "Republican" votes in Texas, and there is ample evidence that many of his earlier "Democratic" primary victories may have been won with "votes from Republicans and from independents who usually vote Republican."
So if you're looking for the Democrat most non-Democratic voters have been supporting this season, I'd say he's the obvious candidate--not Clinton.
Rory, there is a big difference! Obama was attracting moderate Republicans who are fed up with the neo-con direction of their party. Maybe, future Democrats.
Clinton received the votes of hard-core followers of Limbaugh, who dutifully marched from their radios to the voting booths. These voters will support McCain in the general election.
Hatred of Hillary is eating up the Democrat party from the inside. It doesn't deserve to rule the country, any more than the Republicans. I have never heard so much paranoid hysteria in my life as these attacks on Clinton by the Obama maniacs. But since I am old and female, and a feminist, obviously I am a wrinkly whose ideas do not count. Get a grip!
Ireland is baffled at Hillary Clinton's mendacity as she played absolutely no major role in brokering peace in Northern Ireland. She was merely a bystander.
Why does such a seemingly nice person insist on mortifying herself by incessantly telling lies and doing and saying anything she believes is necessary to win the nomination.
Are Hillary's inherent traits those Americans want in a Presidential candidate? The facts on the ground would suggest otherwise.
Please read this report.
Irish blast Clinton''''s foreign policy claim
BELFAST, Northern Ireland, March 9 (UPI) -- David Trimble, who helped broker peace in Northern Ireland said Sen. Hillary Clinton''''s role in those negotiations was that of a cheerleader, not a participant.
Presidential contender Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in exercising her wild imagination she expounded another of her fabrications when she told CNN Wednesday that she "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland" - simply because foreign policy experience has now become one of the latest issues in the Democratic presidential race.
"I don''''t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill (Clinton) going around," Trimble said, adding, "I don''''t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player," The Sunday Telegraph reported.
Conall McDevitt, who served as the chief negotiator during the Good Friday Agreement talks that ended the conflict between England and Northern Ireland, said there was "no contact with her" during the negotiating processes. "So in a classic woman politicky sort of way I think she was active ... She was certainly investing some time, no doubt about it. Whether she was involved on the issue side I think probably not," McDevitt said.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/To
p_News/2008/03/09/irish_blast_clintons
_f
oreign_policy_claim/9676/
Did Republicans....?
Maybe, and maybe in Texas, too. I know of at least one registered Republican who voted for Hillary in the Democratic primary. Doesn't seem fair somehow.... does it?
The GOP, plus the conspiracy between Clinton and the Canadian government to single out Obama in the so-called "Nafta-gate." If Obama makes it, I hope he never invites Harper to Washington nor accepts an invitation from him to visit Canada.
The issue of crossover voting is legal but galling. What we need is open primaries with all candidates, Republican and Democrat, in the mix. The two highest vote-getters, regardless of party will face off in the general elaction.
I was stunned in '04 by the way Kerry jumped from way back to being the front runner. I was sure then that it was just one more fix by the republicans. I'm sure the same fix is in now.
I knew just one democrat in the town I live in, and she's dead now. Of the republicans I know, about 1/4 of them would vote for Obama, as they would have voted for Edwards in '04; 1/4 will stay home, and the rest would vote for Clinton because that's what they've been told to do, and they follow along like the good little borgs the are. They're currently repeating all the negative lies about Obama they've been spoon fed, and if contradicted, will swear it's God's truth.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - they want Hillary to be the winning candidate because a lot of those who'd stay home because they won't cross party lines, and McCain affects them the same way Clinton does, will vote because they'd rather see McCain win than Clinton.
The biggest story, by a long shot, is Canada interfering in the election of Ohio and Texas.
The MSM goofs have fogged the story so badly that it's nearly impossible to get a clear picture.
But here's a try.
The Press Sec. to the Prime Minister of Canada told a group of reporters that were waiting at the Capitol for the budget to be released at 4 p.m. that the Clinton campaign called to tell them at her talk about NAFTA was all BS.
The PM of Canada does not let any of his staff talk to the press without his permission......that means anybody and he had a office from the Energy department who leaked a stroy to the press arrested and removed from is office in handcuffs.
Then one of Canada's TV networks released a story that Obama's campaign person made the statement not to believe his comments on NAFTA. That statment was not true. The campaign person did not say that, at a meeting with a low level Canadian offical in Chicago. He repeated Obama's position which was stated on the debate and in Obama's book.
The PM named Harper is a junior George Bush....loves him, uses the same pollng people that the GOP use in the US and has followed the Pretender in Chief down the same path.
What really annoys me is that another country can interfer in our elections and little is said about it, but of course we interfer in elections all over the world.
New rules for elections: (just a few)
1. you can only voted for the party you are registered too in a primary election. That's your right but only to the party you are alined with. Independents can not vote in the primary election. I can't in PA
2. Primary elections should be held by all states on the second weekend (yes weekend) of April. The could stop some of the crap like not enought machines or ballots or whatever and give people more open times to vote.
3. The winner should be by popular vote, not delegates. If they need a drunken party go to it but not for the picking of a candidate.
4. GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. This is a must... popular vote wins............period.
5. Change the general election to the first weekend in January so that we don't have such a lag time between election and swearing in. Again longer times periods to vote.
The point of electing a new administration would be to bring Americans together.
Hillary can't do that, and besides Bill would come with her and what would be the point of having a vice president, a secretary of state, secretary of the treasury, secretary of housing etc. Bill would be the entire cabinet, but only if meetings were held on a stage in a large auditorium filled with people.
The Clintons have already had 8 years in the White House. Bill was good as president; lousy as supporting spouse.
Many Democrats can't stand her after seeing her campaign. Republicans never could stand her.
So how would Hillary bring us together?
riverdebris101: As in all mammals- men compete, women choose. Which do you think requires more "logic"?
Given the fact that babies are the natural result of sexual pairings bewtween men and women and a man only has to invest 5 minutes (4?3?2?1?) and a tasblespoon of semen and a woman may have to invest years of her life and the blood and marrow of her body as the result of a coupling, who do you suppose is doing the more serious logical calculation as to what is a good male to copulate with?
You really should drop the facade of the bumkin and participate on this forum honestly, because honestly, no one takes you seriously.
Someone way up near the top was wondering what is likely to happen in Pa. Would be very surprised if Clinton did not win big there. Western Pa. has the most elderly population in the U.S. outside of Florida, though Philly is more affluent and upwardly mobile, not to mention a substantial black community. The rest of the state is largely rural and conservative (remember Rick fruitcake Santorim?)
What worries me most is that Obama himself seems to have lost confidence, but this may just be how the media is framing their coverage.
OldBadger (3:47), this is not about hating Hillary. That is an illogical reason to vote against someone. I can speak only for myself, but I'm betting there are a few posting here who will agree that we have REASONS, and very good ones, for not wanting Clinton to get the nomination. Those reasons may or may not be accompanied by strong feelings but they surely are couched in history--the history of her actions and alliances.
BeForKids points out the WalMart Connection. As a feminist, you need to research that. She failed to stand tall for her sisters who were employed by WalMart. Add the Tyson connection that included drug-running by a major Tyson family member. Add Whitewater. Add her voting record. Add presenting herself as personally more equipped to handle an emergency when neither she nor even one of her staff can come up with one--not one--instance when this has occurred.
Your comment that hatred of Hillary is tearing the Democratic Party up from the inside: Have you considered that HILLARY is tearing up the Party from the inside? She keeps changing the rules of what criteria makes whom ahead in the race. She has stated her admiration for herself and for McCain as capable to run the country but claims that Obama has only a speech delivered in 2002 to recommend him. How is this unifying to the Democratic Party? She has attempted to kill Obama with faint praise when she says she knows of no reason for anyone to label him a Muslim "that she knows of". This is extremely disingenuous and patently nasty. She condemns Obama's staff for name-calling, but says her own staff's name-calling ("Obama is like Ken Starr") is an "historical reference" and is a "true statement". There are different rules for Hillary: she doesn't HAVE to reveal her tax records--just everyone else who's running. How imperial is that?
If you can logically research her record and still support her, then in a democracy, you are welcome to do that, but that doesn't make the rest of us Obama maniacs. It quite possibly makes us thinkers. As a feminist, I would love to support a woman for President. But I won't vote for someone solely on the basis of their gender.
BTW, I am old and female, too, so get a grip yourself!
Here are the facts regarding Obama's promises to renegotiate NAFTA and his adviser's assurances that it was just campaign rhetoric. These facts have been confirmed and reconfirmed. No one denies them.
Anyone on this forum trying to spin this and say it somehow didn't happen, or if it did it happened to Hillary Clinton, should really be ashamed of yourself.
(1) Obama's senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with Canadian consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux, and political and economic affairs consular officer, Joseph DeMorain, on February 8, 2008, regarding NAFTA and Canada-U.S. trade.
(2) DeMorain took notes during the meeting and then wrote a memo for the Ottawa government, stating: "[Goolsbee] candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
(3) Goolsbee has since said his statements at the meeting were misunderstood.
(4) The Clinton campaign was not involved with any of this in any way.
(5) The Clinton campaign has never told the Canadian government that her promise to voters to renegotiate NAFTA was "political positioning," or any thing of the sort.
Here's the entire memo: http://www.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/20070303canmemo.pdf
Here's the latest news summary from Canada, stating that "Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday": http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNMJKvj5eQRQBNSeQj3bTyETSagQ
CLINTON FOR VICE.