From that day forward, I wanted to know more about this man who had just inspired me; a man who had given an amazing speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.
What I have learned is that Barack Obama exemplifies all that is possible and good in America. Since immigrants first came to America, we have become a country of people of all colors, religions, cultures, and beliefs. I believe Barack Obama will help America to advance its tolerance and acceptance of others who may not look the same or believe in the same things.
For me, Barack Obama speaks to our better angels. He is a great father and a role model for other Dads. He has led a positive, ethical campaign from the start. He has sought to unify us for a common purpose. As he reached out to poor families in need as a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago, he has said that each of us needs to be each other's keeper, being there for each other in times of need.
Barack Obama will be a strong voice for the struggling Middle Class, offering a tax cut for families making less than $250,000 a year (that's 95% of working families!); the elimination of income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 a year; savings for families of up to $2,500 every year on health insurance; $4,000 a year tuition assistance for students who choose community or national service. These are all important things to my family.
In the last two years, Barack Obama has shown that he has the temperament, judgment, morals, and leadership to be one of the greatest presidents of all time. He has proven that he can successfully organize, coordinate and manage one of the largest political campaigns in history, offering a glimpse in the way he will run our government.
Even after November 4 has come and gone, thanks to the inspiration of Barack Obama, my enthusiasm and interest in politics, at all levels, will not. Please vote on Election Day. Every voice, every vote is important and counts.
Factcheck.org, an independent, non-partisan organization, recently reviewed mailers and TV ads that the NRA is spending millions of dollars on and found that “its advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition.”
Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what Barack Obama has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."
Factcheck.org finds that the NRA has “cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus 'plan.'”
Most recently, the American Hunters and Shooters Association endorsed Barack Obama. The President of the AHSA stated, “We believe recent attacks on Senator Obama's stand on the 2nd Amendment and his commitment to our hunting and shooting heritage are unfair and American Hunters and Shooters Association is stepping up to set the record straight...Senator Obama will be a strong and authentic voice for America's hunters and shooters and it is with great pleasure that we endorse his candidacy.”
Mike Dombeck, former Chief of the United States Forest Service and Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and an avid sportsman, said that “gun ownership is the top issue for most hunters I know. They want their Second Amendment right to possess and use firearms. Contrary to a highly inaccurate flyer sent out by the National Rifle Association, there is virtually no difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on guns. Senator Obama has said repeatedly that the Second Amendment created an individual right to own and use firearms and that as president he would protect the rights of hunters and law abiding Americans to own and use firearm for sport and to protect their families.”
At a recent economic Town Hall in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama stated, “The bottom line is this: You got a rifle, you got a shotgun, you got a gun in your house, I'm not taking it away.” In the end, Obama told the group, that if voters believe he can help them on economic issues such as health care, energy and education, "this can't be the reason not to vote for me. This can't be the reason not to vote. Your guns, we're not going to mess with them."
Election after election, the Republican Party and the National Rifle Assocation try to pull the wool over gun owners' eyes. Please don't fall for this old political scam. Barack Obama will not only protect Americans' right to bear arms, he will cut taxes for 95% of working families so that they can go out and buy a new handgun or rifle.
Barack Obama will Save You Money
Smear e-mails about Barack Obama have been floating around on the internet for some time. Every single one of them is made to play on upon people's fears and is false. One e-mail in particular is about taxes, titled, “Important Read, Taxes.” This e-mail was sent to www.factcheck.org (a non-partisan organization) who debunked its content, stating, “This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.”
So, what is Barack Obama's tax plan? He will roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 5% and provide a tax cut to 150 million workers. Families earning less than $250,000 (individuals, $200,000) will see a substantial tax cut and only a marginal increase for those making between $250,000 and $600,000 (averaging $12). Those making over $600,000 will essentially return to the same rates they had during the Clinton administration. Seniors making less than $50,000 will not have to pay any federal taxes. His plan will also create a new universal mortgage interest credit that will benefit low and middle-income homeowners, and simplify tax filings so they can be done in less than 5 minutes.
In addition to lowering our taxes, Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, beyond already planned increases; expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit; remove some of the government penalties on married families; and offer students $4,000 per year of a college education in return for 100 hours of community service in a hospital, nursing home, shelter, veteran's center.
Barack Obama knows the struggles of working families trying to make it in tough times. He was raised by a single mom and his grandparents, and put himself through college on student loans. After law school, he could have taken a high-paying job on Wall Street, but became a community organizer to help the poor in neighborhoods in the South side of Chicago.
Most Republicans describe themselves as “Fiscal” Conservatives who will not raise our taxes and save the country money. Democrats are generally described as “Tax and Spend” Liberals. Here is some data that I think you'll find interesting. The only President in 28 years who left his successor with a $200 budget surplus was Bill Clinton. Ronald Reagan left the country with a $300 billion deficit; George Bush, Sr., a $200 billion deficit; and it is estimated that George Bush, Jr., will end his term with an astounding $428 billion deficit.
John McCain claims to be a maverick, but he has voted with Bush and Cheney 90% of the time in 2007 and 100% of the time in 2008. We can't afford for more years of the same failed policies which have left us struggling to pay our bills.
Barack Obama is offering the change in Washington that we need to put change back into our pockets.
The Center for Responsive Politics has found that the bona fide war hero is garnering far less financial support from the troops than the Harvard-trained lawyer.
"Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely antiwar Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain's haul," the report said.
The report also included this surprise: "Members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008. . . . Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel have gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama."
The analysis of campaign records found Obama has raised more than $60,000 from 134 men and women deployed overseas. McCain has raised $10,665 from 26 deployed donors.
A RETURN TO GOOD GOVERNANCE is the title we chose for the Planks submitted for the National Democratic Party Platform as developed and agreed to on July 20, 2008 in Littleton, NH. Turnout was excellent (especially for a hot, rainy, “school night”) and energy was high. 38 people ranging in age from 18 to 88 came from area mill towns and villages to discuss ideas that are important to is. There was a good sampling of North Country residents including locals and “flatlanders”, many of whom had supported other candidates in the primaries, but are all strongly behind Barack Obama now and moving forward. The planks appear below, followed by a description of how this energy- and idea-filled evening transpired.
Joe Biden was going to be John Kerry's secretary of State. "That was what we were led to believe" before Kerry lost to George W. Bush in '04, says an aide to the Delaware senator, who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Now Biden, who has been to foreign policy in the Senate what Ted Kennedy has been to domestic policy (almost anyway!), is emerging as a major consigliere to Barack Obama—perhaps with his eye on State once again. Among the top items on Biden's agenda: making sure that Obama has better luck in November than Kerry did. That means, first, relentlessly attacking and counterattacking the Republicans on the campaign trail, especially on national-security issues. And, second, relentlessly defining John McCain as "joined at the hip" to Bush, as Biden put it in a speech in Washington on Tuesday.
In an interview, Biden said that he and other leading Democrats are "absolutely, thoroughly, totally" making a conscious effort to ensure that Obama doesn't become the next Kerry. The failure of Kerry and the Dems of '04 to seize control of the national-security agenda and counterattack Bush was a mistake "that was emblazoned in my mind," Biden says. Hence this week's onslaught of Democratic ripostes to Bush's seeming suggestion, in a speech to the Israeli Knesset, that Obama was guilty of "appeasement" for indicating he would negotiate with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other U.S. adversaries. Biden called Bush's remarks a "long-distance Swift Boat attack" and said that the president seemed unaware that his secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, had "the day before" called for engagement with Iran and that Bush had previously "struck a deal with Libya's [Muammar] Kaddafi and wrote polite letters to North Korea's Kim Jong Il."
On Friday, Biden will fire back at another McCain proxy, Sen. Joe Lieberman, on the pages of The Wall Street Journal. In a Journal op-ed piece Wednesday, Lieberman repeated the appeasement charge against Obama, saying he has "not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing" and that the Democratic Party had drifted away from "Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy," succumbing instead to "the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price." Though the Democrats have been divided throughout the primary season, attacks like these may help bring them together. Biden was among the first Democratic foreign-policy leaders to champion Obama aggressively—though he has not officially endorsed anyone
So is Biden running to be President Obama's secretary of State? He denies it, saying he's worked with Hillary Clinton "much longer" than with Obama. That's a politician's non-answer, of course. To a striking degree, Biden and Obama seem to be achieving a mind meld on foreign policy. While some differences remain—Obama is more forthrightly opposed to future Iraq funding than Biden—both senators have been out in front calling for two brigades to be moved from Iraq to Afghanistan. And in his speech Tuesday, Biden echoed Obama's much-quoted effort to define down success in Iraq during testimony last month by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker—when the Democratic candidate suggested it was unrealistic to stay in Iraq until every vestige of Al Qaeda or Iranian influence was wiped out. The similarity was no accident, Biden indicated. "I discussed with Senator Obama how to proceed with Petraeus and Crocker," Biden told me. "He asked for my advice." Biden adds that one condition of his taking the State job would be that he doesn't turn into Colin Powell—someone marginalized by taking a different viewpoint than the president. "I wouldn't stay in a Powell role," he said. "I would want to make sure I was on same page as the president."
Obama campaign advisers say that the Illinois senator does seek out Biden's counsel quite often. While the two don't have a "warm personal friendship," says a Biden aide, their relationship has "evolved dramatically" from the early days when Biden watched with some skepticism as Obama rocketed to national renown and eclipsed his own presidential ambitions, as well as those of other more senior senators. "I can tell you that Senator Obama has the highest respect for Senator Biden," says Obama foreign-policy coordinator Denis McDonough. "It's obviously vital to have an open line to somebody who has been a key player in critical national-security debates for some time." Adds Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton: "At this point there's no list [for secretary of State], but when one is drawn up Senator Biden would be on anyone's short list."
Obama, of course, has made his early opposition to the war in Iraq a key talking point; it's a comfort to him that Biden, though he voted for the Iraq War resolution in 2002, was aggressive in urging that the Democratic Caucus "had to take its time on Iraq debate, and couldn't just let president dictate the timing of it," says one Obama adviser. "That whole summer, and in the fall, he said we've got to make sure we kick tires on this. He is a real pro."
THE CORRUPTION WE ARE TRYING TO GET OUT OF WASHINGTON. PLEASE WATCH AND LET ME KNOW UR TAKE...........................................................................................................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=related for Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&feature=related for part 2
and supporting document below
http://www.hillcap.org/images/fec_conciliation_letter.bmp
I had the opportunity to review an interesting documentary about the lady that may well become our first woman president. Hillary Uncensored, is a very unflattering look at this woman and her modus operandi.
I contacted Peter Paul about his documentary with an interview in mind. We don’t have the interview yet, but what he had to say was illuminating.
It certainly gave me pause for thought, enjoy….
An abbreviated time line of the whole thing may help- Please keep in mind that the DOJ Prosecutor Schwager told Rosen’s jury that it was a felony to deny the people the right to know that Peter Paul gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary’s campaign” And it is a crime for a candidate or their agent to solicit and coordinate excessive contributions knowingly accepting more than $25,000.
Kelly Craighead and Jim Levin- agents of Hillary and Bill- conceived of the Gala Event 39, to coincide with the DNC convention, on June 23, 2000 after a Hillary fundraiser in Chicago when Hillary detailed them to vet my agent, Aaron Tonken who I had paid the expenses for him to supply Olivia Newton John to entertain the fundraising event at Howard Tulman’s apartment.
June 24, 2000- Jim Levin as an agent for President Clinton who was acting as Hillary, the candidate’s agent, called me in my office to solicit my underwriting and producing of the Gala fundraiser they conceived of the night before on Hillary’s behalf
June 25, 2000 Levin calls back saying he will be seeing President Clinton on July 4 weekend if I would pay for the event he will discuss my interests with Clinton- I say if Clinton will work with me (as both Hillary and Tonken personally advised him from June 9 and in a limo ride with the President on June 16) I will pay for and produce event. (Levin confirmed in his Rosen trial testimony he called me June 24 and said he would meet with President and come and see me)
July 5, 2000- Levin visits with me in LA vetts me and my company July 11, 2000 he arranges a conference call with Kelly Craighead he and Rosen in my office and Howard Wolfson on the phone where we discussed the $1.1 million budget and that I would pay at least $525k, and the structure of event- This is how Wolfson and Hillary knew two days after the event that the event cost more than $1 million as Hillary was quoted through Wolfson in the Washington Post)
July 14, 2000- Levin flew to Washington where he saw the President at Camp David and got Clinton to confirm he would accept my $17 million employment package for 1 yr of post White House rainmaking for SLM and my other company Mondo English. Levin called from Washington to confirm the deal.
Sunday - July 16, 2000 - Rosen and event producers have meeting at my house to begin deciding on printing and sending out 25.000 invitations etc- I begin paying for the event.
Monday, July 17, 2000- Hillary calls me at my office where Stan Lee and others are present to thank me for agreeing to pay for and produce the event and she discusses her role in helping produce and ensure the success of the event.( I video taped that conversation and the videotape was subpoenaed by the US Attorney for the Eastern Dist of NY in 2001 and withheld from every investigation, grand jury and the criminal trial of David Rosen until April, 2007 enabling the Rosen federal judge and prosecutor and the FEC and Senate Ethics Committee, and all Clinton apologists and media supporters to conclude there was no evidence that Hillary was involved in any direct way!)
August 12, 2000 - Hillary, Bill and Chelsea confirm at the Gala when I spent over 6 hours with them that we had a deal
August 13, 2000 - At a Clinton Library fundraising brunch at Barbara Streisand’s, Chelsea spends 45 minutes sitting with me, my wife, Oto and Haim Saban describing the nite before when she played Scrabble with her parents after the Gala and they were excited about working with us when they left the White House. Hillary introduced my wife to Barbara Streisand as the wife of the man who underwrote the Gala, Bill speaks to Oto about his agreement to share the $17 million employment package with me.
Aug. 13 - Tendo Oto and SLM make their deal for Asian partnership - Oto gives $5 mil and promises another $5-7 mil in November for the American joint venture…On Aug. 12 he had paid $27K to attend the federal fundraiser gala. Giving money was illegal. Attending was illegal. Since Oto had no social security number to check out when he showed up at the event with his camera crew, the Secret Service said no way. Clinton had the Secret Service stand down, and Oto sat directly behind the president and first lady.
Aug 14 - Ed Rendell calls Peter Paul in a panic. Lloyd Grove is preparing a story for the WASHPOST about Paul’s felony record for “The Cuban Coffee Caper” two decades previous when he was an international attorney in Miami. Rendell tells Paul to deny he gave any money and just play along. Shortly after the warning call, Grove called. Here is the callsheet from SLM, certified by the government as evidence.
Aug 15 - Lloyd Grove writes the story in the WASHPOST about Paul’s felony past from two decades previous involving the Cuban Coffee Caper and defrauding Fidel Castro of $8.7 million … Howard Wolfson vows that they would never take any money from Peter Paul
Aug 17 - Grove writes a second story about $2,000 given by Paul at Spago … Wolfson says they will return the money, and a check is immediately cut and sent to Paul … Wolfson actually admits Hillary knew the gala cost over a million dollars when he says to Grove on Hillary’s behalf that Paul gave no money to the event and that “it cost more than $1 million but was an in-kind contribution.”
Aug 18 - behind the scenes, while disavowing him in public, the Clintons write personal notes to Paul, dated Aug 18, and sent Aug 21, almost a week after the Washington Post disavowals, espressing their gratitude … Hillary: “We will remember it always”… Bill’s note… Even Chelsea got into the act.
Aug 24 - Campaign Finance Chairman David Rosen is directed by Hillary to send a fax to Paul asking for another $100,000 (actually, one of several faxes)as payment for the $150,000 pledge he made to host the unreported Spago lunch fundraiser for her (videotaped by Paul but never reported to the FEC according to the FBI)… Hillary had promised the money for the Working Families Party in New York … Paul will send no more money until he hears it face to face from Bill Clinton that they still have a deal (second document shows Gordon’s acknowledgement that it was “done”)
Sept. 22, 2000 - Clinton steps off AF-1 in Los Angeles (we have photo) and assures Paul that the deal is still a go … Paul has Steven Gordon send a stock transfer of $55K to the Working Families Party for Hillary… we can find no evidence that they ever declared that donation. If the Clintons were disavowing Paul in public, claimed he gave no money, and had no business arrangement with the President as claimed by Hillary, why would the President of the United States be meeting Paul in public as he stepped off AF-1? For what possible purpose? That’s not hard to figure out, is it?<
Nov 7 - Hillary is elected
Nov 13 - just six days after Hillary's election, an agreement for Venture Soft USA Inc is recorded in Illinois between Jim Levin, Clinton’s business adviser, and Tendo Oto … Levin was Clinton’s “eyes and ears” in dealing with Paul, got proprietary business information, and with Clinton’s knowing assistance stole the Japanese partner for their own deal
Dec 2000 - Stan Lee Media collapses when Clinton’s interference with his business partner… the additional $5-7 million promised in November from partner Tendo Oto was not invested due to the Clinton/Levin interference by convincing Oto to reneg on his promise and incorporate his US subsidiary with Clinton through his agent Jim Levin in Illinois instead of Hollywood, it will be proven that Oto’s money would have kept the company solvent until Clinton came aboard as he had promised Peter Paul.
Early 2001 - Paul discovers that the campaign has filed two fraudulent FEC reports, only reporting 366K for the cost of Event 39 … he spent over a million dollars on it. Paul hires Judicial watch in March, 2001 at the request of the US Attorney in new Jersey to proffer Paul’s evidence against the Clintons to 4 AUSA’s from NY, CA and NJ.
June 18, 2001 - Paul files initial civil fraud lawsuit against the Clintons and several others for business fraud>
July 3 - Treasurer Andrew Grossman is served with the lawsuit that includes documentation for $1.6 million spent by Paul
July 11 - David Kendall accepts service for Hillary along with the exhibits that corroborate more than $1.6 million documented expenses paid by Paul as an in kind contribution to Hillary’s campaign
July 18 - press conference at National Press Club . Paul has messenger hand deliver a demand letter to Hillary’s senate office
July 30 2001 - despite Paul’s demand letter to Hillary Clinton, the ABC 20/20 expose on Paul’s claims, and all of the documentation attached to the civil complaint, a third false FEC report is filed by Hillary’s campaign… this time they declare $401K to be the final cost for Event 39 … continuing what the FEC itself found to be the fabrication that Stan Lee Media donated the money.
October 17, 2003- Paul refiled the Civil Fraud suit against the Clintons and the AP reported that Hillary’s office stonewalled their questions for two days, never oproviding any comment about Paul’s suit or claims. Hillary has never denied Paul’s claims and in her sworn Declaration in the case.
Jan 2005 - criminal indictment of David Rosen is unsealed.
May 2005 - Rosen acquitted in criminal trial in Los Angeles…the perjury in this trial was astounding…the judge (appointed by the Clintons) and prosecutor (directed by Chief of Public Integrity Noel Hillman who protected Bill and Sandy Berger in the destruction of National Security documents) went out of their way to condemn Paul and claim that Hillary had nothing to do with it… FBI affidavit during the trial documenting $1.2 mil from Paul that was not declared was confirmed by the prosecutor as the basis of the prosecution of Rosen- Denying the public’s right to know what peter Paul gave to Hillary’s campaign. The prosecution does not call Paul, Aaron Tonken, or key witness Kelly Craighead (Craighead was also never called by the FEC - she will be a key witness in Paul v Clinton) or Howard Wolfson whose quote on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the Washington Post Aug 17, 2000 confirms Hillary knew the Gala cost more than $1million, was an in kind contribution- …. The prosecution does not use damaging evidence against Rosen obtained while Ray Reggie (brother in law of Ted Kennedy) was wearing a wire. In Tonken’s book, KING OF CONS, he tells how he sat in a van with Hillary detailing all of the money that was being spent on her.
Dec 2005 - FEC determines that Hillary’s campaign deliberately under reported $721,000, but finds no evidence Hillary personally knew of the illegal contribution and fines the campaign treasurer a mere $35,000, and orders a new amended FEC filing in exchange for immunity from further investigation for everyone connected with the campaign…treasurer Andrew Grossman signs conciliation agreement with the FEC, the equivalent of a nolo contendre plea.
Jan 2006 - the fourth fraudulent FEC report is filed … among the false statementsare that Stan Lee (whom we have on tape in a deposition swearing that he gave no money) is credited with a 225K personal donation and two of Paul’s holding companies are credited with RECIVING $839,000 rather than paying $1.2 million that the DOJ Prosecutor told the Rosen jury Paul personally paid. Paul is still never named personally as the donor of ANY money as he has demanded- This leads to the conclusion that the FEC has aided and abetted what the DOJ prosecutor described as a felony- denying the public again the right to know what peter Paul donated to Hillary’s campaign! This time the crime was done 6 months after it was described by the DOJ and with the apparent complicity of the FEC NO MEDIA OUTLET REPORTED on this FEC report being filed or that it omitted any mention of peter Paul’s contributions again.
April 7, 2006 - Hillary removed as defendant but judge made clear to Kendall that she would be testifying … Hillary’s sworn declaration turned into the court by Kendall can only be described as a work of fiction … no reporters attended the hearing and not one mainstream media source wrote that a trial date had been set for defendant Bill Clinton (trial date postponed until appeal is hear to bring Hillary back in as a defendant) … Chelsea will be one of the witnesses called … although her mom claims no knowledge of the business deal, if Chelsea testifies honestly, she will tell how the family stayed up late after the gala playing scrabble and discussing the excitement of daddy going to work for the creator of Spiderman … from a private fundraiser at Zev Braun’s house in early 2000, Paul has home video of Hillary laughing and discussing with him how he had arranged in 1993 for Fabio to chase her around the room and pick her up in a romance pose…the president referenced that event the next year at the Italian-American Foundation Dinner…. her declaration claiming that she met Paul in early 2000 is simply a lie.
June 2006 - Senate Ethics Committee announces it will not investigate Hillary on Ethics charges because the Judge, prosecutor in the Rosen case and the FEC failed to find any culpability of Hillary they refuse Paul’s offer to appear and testity.
is delivered to Hillary’s DC office with copy delivered to Sen. Voinovich, chair of the Senate Ethics Committee.
Jan. 10, 2007 - Paul counsel files Appellate Brief to bring Hillary back into the case as a defendant (that delays the trial date for Bill, set for March 27, 2007…it also delays depositions)….no mainstream media source had reported that defendant Bill Clinton had a trial date in a case involving the collapse of Spiderman Stan Lee’s company).
April 2007 - after a two-year battle for the return of evidence, including home videos, an assistant US atty provides Paul with a list of items they will return to him…..included was the “smoking gun video”: July 17, 5-minute conference call, Hillary Clinton….. when the numerous pieces of evidence were finally sent, the shipment did not include that video…..Paul’s counsel argues vehemently for that to be sent….Paul believes that a low-level functionary screwed up by putting that piece of evidence on the manifest — Hillary never thought it would see the light of day…that video was finally sent because they could not deny its possession.
http://checkthevotes.com/index.php?party=DEMOCRATS
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01112008.html
For more information read the Antlantic free press
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3220/81/
Could someone have messed with the vote in New Hampshire?
That is what some people are wondering, after looking closely at the totals in the votes for surprise Democratic primary victor Hillary Clinton, and for Barack Obama, who placed instead of winning as all the polls had predicted he would. And thanks to candidate Dennis Kucinich, we are likely to find out. Kucinich today filed a request, and a required $2000 fee, to order up a manual recount of the machine ballots cast in the state.
Polls taken as late as the day before the Tuesday vote showed Obama up by 10 to 15 points over Clinton, whom he had just beaten the week before in Iowa, but when the votes were counted, Clinton ended up beating Obama in New Hampshire 39.4 per cent to 36.8 per cent. In a replay of what happened in Ohio in 2004, exit polling reportedly also showed Obama to be winning the New Hampshire primary.
When that's not what happened, shocked polling firms and surprised pundits, all of whom had been expecting a big Obama win, were left stumbling for explanations for the Hillary comeback from an 8 per cent drubbing in Iowa (even the Clinton campaign, whose own internal polling had predicted her defeat, were at a loss). Explanations ranged from her teary eyed final public appearance before primary day and some sexist heckling she had received, to dark talk about a wave of hidden racism in the voting booth.
But there were anomalies in the numbers that have some people suggesting something else: vote fraud.
What has had eyebrows raised is a significant discrepancy between the vote counts done by voting machine, and the ones done by hand.
In New Hampshire, 81 per cent of the voting was done in towns and cities that had purchased optical scan machines from the Diebold Election Systems (now called Premiere Election Solutions), a division of Diebold Corp., a company founded by and still linked to wealthy right-wing investors. In those towns, all voting was done on the devices, called Accuvote machines, which read paper ballots completed by voters who use pens or pencils to fill in little ovals next to the candidate of their choice. The ballots are then fed into, read, and tallied by the machines. The other 19 per cent of voting was done in towns that had opted not to use the machine, and to use hand-counted paper ballots instead.
The machine tally was Clinton 39.6 per cent, Obama 36.3 per cent - fairly close to the final outcome. But the hand-counted ballot count broke significantly differently: Clinton 34.9 per cent, Obama 38.6 per cent.
Could something have happened in those machines to shift some votes away from Obama or some of the other candidates in the race, and over to the Clinton total?
If all the votes cast had split the way the hand counts split, Obama would have won New Hampshire by over 10,000 votes, instead of losing to Clinton by about 5500 votes.
"My suspicion is that nothing untoward happened here," says Doug Jones, a professor of computer sciences at the University of Iowa and a member of the board of examiners that approved the use of the same Diebold optical scanning machines in Iowa. "But at the same time, the Diebold machines are vulnerable to viruses that can be spread through the machines by the PCMCIA memory cards, and there are other things that can go wrong too. I'd be much happier if they had a routine random audit procedure in New Hampshire."
A random audit, he says, would involve doing hand counts of some towns' optical scan ballots, and comparing those results with the results of the machine reading of those same ballots, as recorded election night.
While California does conduct such random audits as a matter of course, most states, including New Hampshire, do not. According to the New Hampshire Secretary of State's office, any recount of ballots would have to be requested by a candidate, and would have to be paid for by the candidate making the request.
An official in the press office of Obama's campaign in Chicago, contacted on Wednesday, claimed not to know about the discrepancy between the machine and hand-counted ballots. She said that there was no plan to call for a hand count of machine ballots.As Prof. Jones notes, requiring a candidate to initiate any hand count makes such hand counts unlikely, since unless the evidence of vote tampering or fraud is overwhelming, such a call would open the candidate to charges of "poor loser."
Kucinich, in making his recount request, resolved that problem.
There is good reason to be suspicious of the results. The counting of the machine totals, in New Hampshire as in all states using the Diebold machines, is handled by a private contract firm, in this case Massachusetts-based LHS Associates, which controls and programs the machines' memory cards. Several studies have demonstrated the ease with which the memory cards in the Accuvote machines can be hacked, with some testers breaking into the system in minutes.
There are, to be sure, alternative quite innocent possible explanations for the discrepancy between the machine and hand votes for Clinton and Obama. All the state's larger towns and cities, like Nashua, Concord and Portsmouth, have gone to voting machines. While there are many small communities that have also opted for machines, it is almost exclusively the smaller towns and villages across the state that have stayed with hand counts-most of them in the more rural northern part of the state. So if Obama did better than Clinton in the small towns, and Clinton did better in the large ones, that could be the answer.
But that explanation flies in the face of logic, historic voting patterns, and most of the post election prognosticating.
If it is true that there was "behind the curtain" racism involved in people saying to pollsters that they were for Obama, while privately voting against him, surely it would be more likely that this would happen in the isolated towns of northern New Hampshire where black people are rarely to be seen. Clinton was also said to have fared better among people with lower incomes-again a demographic that is more prominent in the rural parts of the Granite State. Finally, Obama, in New Hampshire as in Iowa, did better among younger voters, and that is the demographic group that is typically in shorter supply in small towns, where job opportunities are limited. Furthermore, in Iowa, it was in the larger municipalities that Obama fared best, not in the rural towns, so how likely is it that his geographic appeal would be reversed in New Hampshire?
David Scanlan, New Hampshire's deputy secretary of state for elections, whom I contacted Thursday, said that while town election officials are required to do test runs of the Diebold machines in the days before an election, "to make sure that they are reading the ballot markings accurately," and that at that point the machines and the memory cards are sealed until the actual election day, there is no way for his office to independently conduct a post balloting test. The ballot boxes are sealed and the only way they can be opened if for a candidate to request (and pay for) a manual recount, or for a court to order one." Scanlan says that the same is true for the voting machines and the memory cards. While the sealed ballots are retained "for years," however, the memory cards will be back in the hands of the contractor, LHS Associates, in "a few months," to be erased and prepared for use in the general election next November.
Scanlan says that the state legislature is currently considering legislation to provide for routine audits of machines after elections, but that won't help this election cycle.
Scanlan said that because the machines are freestanding, there is no chance of their being hacked from the outside, but critics note that the hacking can be done in advance to the memory cards, which can pass changes to each other like a virus as each is programmed for a particular election.
Jonathan Simon, an attorney and co-founder of the group Election Defense Alliance, says that the vote discrepancies between machine and hand counts in New Hampshire's Democratic primary are troubling, and defy easy explanation.
"The trouble is, whenever you have a surprise result in an election, and it runs counter to the polls, the media always say the problem is the polling, not the counting." But he adds, "The thing is, these things always work in one direction-in favor of the more conservative candidate, and that defies the law of quantum mechanics."
I am in a bit of shock. I continued to tell myself that we can't trust the polls, yet, I allowed myself to be misled by them. I was, relatively, confident...
We (and our field coordinator) didn't allow that confidence to take over, however. I know that we ALL worked our butts off yesterday visiting doors, making phone calls and talking the talk! Many of us walked more than we had EVER in one day - Wolfeboro may not have a high population, but we got a lotta land :) I am not looking back and wondering what else I could have done in our town, because I know that I did it - we all did it!
And looking at the overall picture, according to CNN, with 96% of the precincts reporting, Obama took 37% of the votes, Clinton took 39%. That is a VERY small gap. This was an AMAZING feat considering, 6 months ago, there was still talk about him not being a viable candidate.
I am incredibly proud of out town and our group. We had amazing volunteers, amazing interns and an amazing field coordinator! You all were inspiring to me with your tireless efforts, your incredible passion and your knowledge!
You all made my first campaign experience an amazing one!
So, while last night was hard and not what any of us wanted, this was all worth it. I would do it again in a second!
USA TODAY/GALLUP: OBAMA LEADS HILLARY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE 41%-28%
(Sunday, January 6, 2008)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-06-poll-newhampshire_N.htm
CNN/WMUR: OBAMA LEADS HILLARY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE 39%-29%
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/06/nh.poll/index.html
"We are choosing hope over fear. We're choosing unity over division,and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America." Barack Obama, Iowa 1/3/2008
Americans have started to turn out in numbers never before seen in the history of the elections. There were more people under the age of 25 who voted in the Iowa cauces then ever before, by far! These are actions that we have witnessed in Iowa and are signs of a greater movement taking place right here in New Hampshire. Democrats, Independant and yes even Republicans have been building our voice of change against the status quo politics of Washington by getting out and speaking to their neighbors about why Senator Obama is not only the right person for the job but is without a doubt the man that can pick this country up from the terrible spiral downward that this current political system has left us with. Iowa has shown that your vote does not need to wasted on a canidate that will prove to be innefective in leading America to any change that will truly represent the concerns of America, campaign finance reform, the war, healthcare, and our moral standing in the world. Iowa has shown us that "unelectable senator from Illinois" is really not only electable but is the voice of hope for all Americans. Iowa has shown us that we can defeat the current system and we can do so in greater numbers than ever before seen in the history of the United States of America.
We have never before been given the opportunity to turn this country around as we now have. But these changes will only come when we get out and vote on Tuesday, January 8th. When we take the time to help those around us to get to the polls and cast their vote. when we take the time to help those that are working hard to make this change happen. We as a nation have never had a more important task then what faces us on January 8th. That task is to make sure that everyone that has ever voiced an opinion about where they feel this nation is going shows up and votes for that canidate that they not only agree with but more than that, the canidate they trust to work as hard as they can to balance the negative shift in the nation back to one of unity, back to one that is truly American. Not one that has only one path dictated by a limited number of people but one that accepts that the way to a successful people is not a new way but one that is tried and true, one that America has been following since we formed together as a Nation. one that accepts that it is the blending of ideas, and understanding that to be successful we have to sometimes help others to be successful even at a cost to ourselves. Though this approach a sence of balance is obtained and this sense of balance helps us each to continue to work hard to improve our world. That is what we voting for. That is why it is vital that we turn out in record numbers here in New Hampshire and vote for the canidate that can lead us to this future. And that is why I will be working hard on Feburary 8th canvasing, covering co-workers who need to vote and feeding hard working volunteers. That is why I will makle sure that every person I touch will be supported to get out and vote. Will you do the same on January 8th? You can. there are many ways to serve. Start by voting on the 8th. You can also serve through your local campaign office. So take the time to give a littlet bit of your life for the future of America at a critical time in it's history and get out and Vote. Help us to show the world that New Hampshire will "not go gently into this good night, but will rage, rage against the dying of the light"
Proudly, Bill Demers, Bethlehem NH
