  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Back to the Drawing BoardPosted on Jan 9, 2008By E.J. Dionne MANCHESTER, N.H.—Maybe the signs pointing to Hillary Clinton’s victory in the New Hampshire primary were there all along, hidden in plain sight by the blur of Obamamania and a stack of flawed polls. There was that moment in the ABC News debate Saturday when Barack Obama and John Edwards ganged up on Clinton and she fought back. Later, when Scott Spradling, a local political reporter, suggested that voters didn’t find her likable, she replied, “Well, that hurts my feelings.” It looked like a genuine reaction from someone so often cast as a stick figure. Obama then made trouble for himself by offering a comment many saw as snarky. “You’re likable enough, Hillary,” he said. Obama insisted later that he intended it as a “gesture of graciousness.” Gestures of graciousness shouldn’t have to be explained. And then, on the eve of the election, Clinton choked up about the difficulties of the campaign. “This is very personal for me, it’s not just political,” she said, defying another stereotype about her. The media did Clinton the only favor they rendered her all week, playing the video over and over. It was a clip in which she managed to include her basic lines of attack on Obama ("Some of us are ready and some of us are not") without seeming to be attacking at all. Did she win the primary on the basis of such episodes rather than policies, on anecdotes rather than data? These were “moments when she finally peeled back the veneer,” said Clinton’s adviser and friend Paul Begala. And this helped build her large lead among women. For it was women, and voters of modest means, who pulled Clinton back from the abyss. Women rejected Clinton in Iowa but not in New Hampshire. And the people Edwards courts were the ones Clinton connected with here. She defeated Obama soundly among voters in families earning less than $50,000 a year, and among those who never attended college. She also stole the mantle of empathy from Edwards. Voters who told exit pollsters that they made their choice on the basis of which candidate “cares about people like me” went strongly for Edwards in Iowa. On Tuesday, Clinton narrowly defeated Edwards in this group—and overwhelmed Obama in their ranks by 2 to 1. Perhaps Hillary played the same trick on her critics her husband, Bill, did in his epic State of the Union addresses that went on and on about one specific policy after another. Those speeches often got bad reviews but good poll ratings. At one campaign stop last week, as Hillary droned on learnedly about health care, family and medical leave, and global warming, a colleague in the press section leaned over to dismiss her for offering nothing but “a laundry list of wonkery.” But especially for less well-off voters, the specific things government can do to relieve a few of the burdens they bear may be more important than Obama’s soaring and prophetic rhetoric that moved the young and the affluent. To eat some of my own words, maybe prose wins elections after all. Just to be straight up about it, I have never been so certain and so wrong in many years of watching elections, anticipating as I did a solid Obama victory here. Apparently the Clinton camp was surprised, too, as some in their ranks candidly acknowledged. The pollsters will have a lot of work to do in figuring out what went wrong. But there are more than enough lessons for the rest of us. Both campaigns—Clinton’s before Iowa, Obama’s since—learned how dangerous it is to assume that victory is inevitable. Candidates who seem certain they’ll win may give off a feeling of arrogance that invites voters to deliver a comeuppance. Yet New Hampshire does not make Clinton’s problems disappear. There are many voters, even in Democratic primaries, who want to move beyond the 1990s and have doubts about her. She found a voice in New Hampshire that can win a primary. It’s still not clear whether she has a voice that can move a nation. Obama has the problem that has confronted many idealistic reformers before him: He has a powerful appeal to the young and the well-educated, but he has yet to convince the less affluent that his crusade is for them. “A lot of people are being motivated by his inspirational talk,” Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., said in an interview at a Clinton event. “But he doesn’t really talk about what he’ll do.” The campaigns—and, yes, the media—need to go back to the drawing boards. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: The Broadcasters' Big Payday Next item: Shadows Trump Hope Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
Washington’s Overrated ‘Old Hands’
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By PatrickHenry, January 11 at 3:00 pm #
Regarding your vote.
Dennis Kucinich Asks for Recount in New Hampshire Primary due to Unusual Anomalies in the Results
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/
VelvetRevolution Offers $100,000 Reward for Evidence of Election Fraud in New Hampshire Primary
VelvetRevolution.us
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 — Last night, Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich formally requested a hand-recount of the votes in New Hampshire. He sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday’s election because of “unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.”
He added, “Ever since the 2000 election—and even before—the American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes were actually counted. This recount isn’t about who won 39% of 36% or even 1%. It’s about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of their votes counted exactly the way they cast them.” Kucinich wrote, “This is not about my candidacy or any other individual candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process.”
“New Hampshire is in the unique position to address—and, if so determined, rectify—these issues before they escalate into a massive, nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their President. Based on the controversies surrounding the Presidential elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the benefit of the entire nation,” Kucinich wrote in his letter. “Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively early point in the Presidential nominating process,” said Kucinich.
VelvetRevolution.us ("VR"), The Brad Blog and Progressive Democrats of America have been working together to gather and report as much information as possible on the problems associated with the NH primary. VR requested an official investigation and yesterday posted a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person or persons who caused a manipulation of the Diebold machines used in the New Hampshire primary election sufficient to flip the Obama/Clinton race, or information that results in an official change of the first place winner of that Democrat race. Kucinich reviewed the material and decided that democracy is best served by a recount.
We believe that such a recount will help restore faith in our elections, and that it will deter any planned fraud in the future. In fact, our position at VR is that all votes should be cast on ballots and all ballots should be counted and audited and, in close elections, there should be an automatic hand recount with independent observers.
VelvetRevolution.us is a non-profit organization dedicated to clean government and honest elections.
It appears that even more strange anomalies have been found late tonight as noted on The Brad Blog:
Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:
Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95% Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%
Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05% Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%
The percentages appear to be swapped. That seems highly unusual, to say the least.
SOURCE VelvetRevolution.us
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/
Report thisBy Paracelsus, January 11 at 9:45 am #
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTIC LE_ID=39333
ELECTION 2004
Bilderberg ‘performance’
key to Edwards VP pick
‘He reported back directly to Kerry’ said participant in super-secret conference
Posted: July 8, 2004
2:49 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.
Sen. John Edwards’ standout “performance” at the super-secret Bilderberg meeting in Italy last month may have been a key reason for his selection as John Kerry’s vice presidential running mate, according to the New York Times.
The 50th anniversary conference of the elite group – which many believe conspires semi-annually to foster global government – met June 3 through June 6 in Stresa, Italy, at the Grand Hotel des Iles Borromees.
SPONSORED LINKS
Fast Working Diet Pills
Now Available Without a Prescription. As Seen on CNN, NBC, & Fox News
Phenocerin.com
“Back and Nerve Relief”
Get relief with clinically proven solution, free and guaranteed
backandnerverelief.com
Among the attendees from the U.S., according to a list obtained by WND, were Senators John Edwards, D-N.C. and Jon Corzine, D-N.J., Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle, Melinda Gates (wife of Bill Gates), David Rockefeller, Timothy F. Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Donald Graham, chairman and CEO of the Washington Post Company, and even Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition.
(Here is the entire Bilderberg attendance list as published previously by WND.)
According to a report in yesterday’s New York Times by Jody Wilgoren, analyzing why Kerry chose Edwards over the other 24 serious contenders for the No. 2 spot:
Several people pointed to the secretive and exclusive Bilderberg conference of some 120 people that this year drew the likes of Henry A. Kissinger, Melinda Gates and Richard A. Perle to Stresa, Italy, in early June, as helping win Mr. Kerry’s heart. Mr. Edwards spoke so well in a debate on American politics with the Republican Ralph Reed that participants broke Bilderberg rules to clap before the end of the session. Beforehand, Mr. Edwards traveled to Brussels to meet with NATO officials, brandishing his foreign-policy credentials.
“His performance at Bilderberg was important,” said a friend of Mr. Kerry who was there. “He reported back directly to Kerry. There were other reports on his performance. Whether they reported directly or indirectly, I have no doubt the word got back to Mr. Kerry about how well he did.”
Since 1953, the Bilderberg group has convened government, business, academic and journalistic representatives from the U.S., Canada and Europe with the express purpose of exploring the future of the North Atlantic community.
According to sources that have penetrated the high-security meetings in the past, the Bilderberg meetings emphasize a globalist agenda and promote the idea that the notion of national sovereignty is antiquated and regressive.
‘Shadowy aura’
“It’s officially described as a private gathering,” noted a BBC report last year, “but with a guest list including the heads of European and American corporations, political leaders and a few intellectuals, it’s one of the most influential organizations on the planet.”
Excerpted…
Report thisBy Ron, January 11 at 5:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Years ago, I worked briefly for the Louis Harris Poll. I was amazed at how the suits would sit around a table for hours discussing the wording that went into each question. If you word the question just right and call the right people, you can get almost any outcome you desire.
Report thisBy Ron, January 11 at 5:04 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Like they say, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t meant they’re not out to get’cha. Seems to especially apply here.
Report thisBy Ron, January 11 at 5:02 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Enough with the polling! This campaign has 11 months to go and I’m sick of it already. The news networks (this does include Faux News, which is not really a news organization, but more of a propaganda machine for the GOP)are milking this story to death.
I’m also really tired of all the Hillary-bashing. Hating Hillary has become a cottage industry, especially in the South and West. In recent years, I have been in a position to hear a lot of it from those “good ole boys” (mostly uneducated Fundies) who think “Hill’ry” belongs barefoot and in the kitchen.
I’ve been voting since 1960, but I may not waste my time this year - or until they replace those corrupt voting machines in Ohio and Florida. It’s all fixed!
Report thisBy Sharon Ash, January 10 at 2:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
When they ask, “Would you mind if I ask you a few questions?” just say “Yes, yes I would.” Pollsters most likely fill in a lot of the blanks anyway. Everyone seems to have all the information in the world on us so it would be nice to have something we know about ourselves that ‘they’ don’t.
Report thisBy lawlessone, January 10 at 11:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
It is becoming increasingly clear that perhaps the only thing less competent than political reporters and the Bush Administration officials is pollsters.
Report thisBy Juanito, January 9 at 10:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
regarding the fact that she took the vote of those with family income of less than fifty thousand a year. Remember: Iowa and New Hampshire have how many, what percentage minority population? Super Tuesday will be a different story on this aspect.
Report thisBy Louise, January 9 at 9:58 pm #
jeff in chicago
“Sorry, Louise .... a little too paranoid for me.’
***
What’s a little too paranoid for you?
And what is paranoid?
Fear or distrust that is NOT based on fact.
So what do we call fear or distrust that IS based on fact?
And what do we call fear of LOOKING at the facts?
Denial, delusion, out of touch with reality?
Would that be schizophrenic?
And what do we call denial of fact for fear of being labeled paranoid or conspiratorial?
I’m not sure what to call that, but I’m pretty sure I know who does that.
The folks who believe Bush was elected.
The folks who believe the Twin Towers melted.
The folks who believe we know where Saddam’s WMD are.
[Rather than use them to stop an invasion, Saddam snuck them into another country and spent countless hours, days, possibly weeks burying them, so he could sneak back across the border and get captured in his now defenseless country. Yeh ... that’s what happened.]
They probably also deny global warming, because Santa and his reindeer DID come this year.
But most important, they know ... absolutely know ... no-one cheats at the voting polls.
Report thisBecause our government would never allow it.
By mackTN, January 9 at 9:15 pm #
Cyrena--
I think you might be wrong. Actually, I agree that the polls were right and, if so, then Obama didn’t barely lose, he lost by a huge margin, done in from his soft support that switched back to Hillary.
I know you think the analysis of Obama/Clinton in a class image struggle a bunch of malarkey, but it all depends on where you stand. Obama’s workers are largely white college students, reformed privileged, and they are also inexperienced. They don’t get how to relate to people and get overly agressive with their enthusiasm. These workers are his proxy, and I could see that they were way over the top after Iowa.
Obama is being increasingly perceived as the upper class candidate who is supported by all the yuppies and the black professionals. Of course in reality they are no different from Hillary’s crowd, but the perceptions are masking realities. The Clintons will lead the march against the corporatocracy if Obama doesn’t do crowd control and tell Michelle to stop bragging about her Jimmy Choos.
I’m going to pull back here. This is way too delicate a topic for me to get into so deeply in public. But Obama should know that the Clintons don’t give up, and he cannot afford to miscalculate down here in the south. (These people are truly different.) And he does not want to take those students to SC like they are working “mississippi freedom summer.”
Report thisBy H.C. Mooningham, January 9 at 8:53 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have worked at the polls on election day the last two elections in my state,Kentucky, one primary and one general election. We attempt to have two Democrats and two Republicans working at each precinct. We jointly tabulate and sign off on the result from each machine. The total number of votes counted by the machine must match the number of voters who have signed the the voting rolls. I know fraud can and does take place, but I don’t see it happening at the precinct level.
Report thisSecondly, I hate to see Democrats beating up
on each other as some do in the comments I have seen here. My personal choice, John Edwards, may not even be in the running by the time our very belated May primary comes around, but I find any of the Democratic candidates infinitely preferable to the past seven years of national disaster and disgrace of Bush and company or anyone now seeking the Republican nomination.
By jeff in chicago, January 9 at 7:29 pm #
We must have been watching different channels. On MSNBC the difference between Clinton and Obama varied from 2 to 6 points. I also kept refreshing my New York Times web site and saw pretty much the same variations. Not huge changes, but not the constancy you’re claiming. As for Edwards, I must admit I didn’t watch his numbers as closely. There’s my two cents worth.
Report thisBy cyrena, January 9 at 7:13 pm #
You’re absolutely correct here. Very odd. Yes, very, very, odd.
Louise noticed it too. The dirty bastards. SOS!
And, ya know what else? As I read EJ’s thing about Obama only appealing to the young and the affluent, and Hillary allegedly appealing to the under $50k crowd, who feel she is more like them, or more representative of them, I knew right then it was a crock of shit.
I knew it because while it’s true that Obama’s campaign has indeed come to encompass a large number of the younger generation…the ones we’ve sent off to die in a war to steal oil, and the ones who’ve birthrights have been stolen, leaving them with a debt so enormous it will take multiple generations of the ‘yet to be conceived’ to repay it, these are NOT affluent, nor are they any more ‘educated’ than the Hillary crowd. Not by a flippin’ long shot EJ!!
Barak Obama got his support, from the very beginning, from the grassroots of this country, who have been more and more disenfranchised, as they’ve watched whatever dreams they may have ever entertained, laundered through the sands of Iraq, while the corps steal the rest, and leave them virtually enslaved. Obama has been talking to these people for over a year now. He’s been in more churches than I can count; More barbershops, and beauty salons, YMCA’s, union halls, and the list goes on. None of this is ‘secret’ or old information. He’s been in these communities for a long time now, just talking to the people. They are neither affluent, particularly young, nor are they a majority of intellectuals or holders of advanced degrees. They are everyday people trying to have at least a modest piece of the faded American dream.
So, EJ has this totally reversed, and we all know it. This description belongs to the corporate Hillary crowd, and it pisses me off, that anyone thinks we’re that stupid.
So, this is a gross misconception in this article, and I have to assume that it is in fact very intentional, because EJ is not that stupid either. Affluent may ass. Since when have college professors or State legislators become ‘affluent’ and why does his education, (a law degree the same as Hillary’s) somehow put him more ‘above’ the average person than a Clinton, born and bred of and in the Corpotocracy? No doubt he got some ‘affluent’ supporters, seeing as Oprah certainly has some bucks, and so does the Hollywood crowd. But, Oprah isn’t some intellectual or highly educated person, she just happened to luck out. And, his grassroots support is what has put him in the ranks that nobody ever expected, and ONLY because American’s have come to reject the very status quo Corptocracy that the Clintons represent.
So, I take offense to this obvious and intentional distortion. I’m sick of these short memories, and blatant attacks.
And here’s more of the same:
Later, when Scott Spradling, a local political reporter, suggested that voters didn’t find her likable, she replied, “Well, that hurts my feelings.”… Obama then made trouble for himself by offering a comment many saw as snarky. “You’re likable enough, Hillary,”…. Obama insisted later that he intended it as a “gesture of graciousness”…
See what I mean? Why did it have to be ‘snarky’. Why couldn’t it just be what it was? And why does it have to be interpreted as something requiring an explanation?
I hate petty bullshit in politics. It’s not like there aren’t enough substantial issues to discuss. So yeah, for what it’s worth, I wish Obama WOULD come out with a detailed plan similar to the one Edwards finally came up with. Tell us when our kids are coming home, (and our spouses, and our parents, and all the rest) and tell us that you’re gonna see that they are taken care of when they get back. And tell us what you’re gonna do to put this economy at least back on some sort of track, starting with a bona fide plan for the Robinhood concept, and some jobs and education. And tell us you will break this empire down, and get us back to the rule of law…for ALL.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, January 9 at 6:55 pm #
Or we could take the idea of the secret ballot seriously and just all refuse to say who we will or did vote for.
Polls are for the media so that they can follow the horse race. Polls are for the politicians so that they can win the horse race. You are right, poll watching is a sorry excuse for discussing the issues.
If we must answer polls, we should at least have some fun. Tell ‘em you wrote in Marvin the Martian. Better yet, actually write in Marvin the Martian. It doesn’t matter which fictional character you vote for in the end...they’re all fictional characters.
Report thisBy Enemy of State, January 9 at 6:53 pm #
This business about Diebold throwing the election is paranoid. It is possible the DNC had a small part in things, the ballots reportedly had the candidates listed in alphabetical order, which studies show would give the names near the top (HRC in this case) a couple of point advantage. Of course the other campaigns should have been watching for this and objected. In any case it would have been pretty close either way.
IMO Hillary has seemed kinda like a machine, with a single goal. Displaying a little bit of emotion may well have swayed some voters.
Report thisBy jeff in chicago, January 9 at 6:45 pm #
Sorry, Louise....a little too paranoid for me.
Report thisBy Louise, January 9 at 6:32 pm #
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The republicans want Hillary as the Democrat Candidate!
Why? Because they know they can sling enough mud so when the final fix comes in and Hillary is defeated, nobody will question it!
Remember Kerry?
And more than likely Giuliani will be president, in spite of the way it looks now.
It’s payback time.
And I’m shopping for a home in ... well I’m not sure yet where I can go to escape the republicans filthy empire. But the one thing I know for sure. I just cant stomach another rigged election!
And I absolutely can not stomach another year of everybody pushing their heads up their derrieres, so they don’t have to admit, once again they have been made to look like absolute fools!
Third world nations march in the streets when they know their election outcome is a fraud. Even at the risk of inprisonment or death!
But not us. Guess we haven’t yet fallen quite enough to grasp we are becoming a third world nation!
“ALL Diebold, ALL the Time
It’s the New Hampshire Primary “1st in the Nation” with Corporate Controlled, Secret Vote Counting
Does Obama’s highly favorable corporate media image stack up against reality? Is this the end of Hillary, or at least the beginning of the end? Can Edwards kick in the door with a strong showing and demand coverage? Will Ron Paul embarrass Giuliani by edging him out for fourth?
We’ll never know for sure. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0801/S00057.htm
Why? It’s been nearly eight years since the debacle of Florida and nearly six since the miracle Chambliss win against Cleland. Surely we have reliable, verifiable voting systems in place? It’s been almost four years since the nationwide disaster of the 2004 election with irregularities still emerging.
Hasn’t all this been fixed?
You’d think so. But, the answer is definitely no. Votes are still taken by voting machines produced by vendors highly sympathetic to the Republican Party. The machines are still off limits to those who want to examine how they operate and observe real vote counting. And good luck if your candidate loses and there’s fraud or voting machine problems suspected.
You’re out of luck. You can’t hire outside experts to look at the mission critical software in the optical scanners (Sec. 1.5). You’ll have a great deal of difficulty examining the paper records with voter marked choices. Don’t count on seeing any recounts either. Almost all the states have high hurdles before you can request and get one of these simple verification tools (See Appendix 2).
Even with a relatively accommodating state like New Hampshire, only candidates can request a recount, but recounts are almost unheard of in presidential primaries. Citizens are not allowed to request and get recounts in the “granite state.”
We may have ‘paper records’ with the paper forms counted by New Hampshire’s optical scan voting machines, all made by Diebold. We surely don’t have access to those forms unless there’s a recount. The presence of ‘paper records’ with optical scans means nothing if citizens can’t examine them directly; if citizens can’t request and get a recount quickly. It’s all in the hands of the candidates and parties despite the fact that the election belongs to the citizens.”
Report thisBy cyrena, January 9 at 6:29 pm #
Well Jeff,
This just really isn’t a new idea. Nope..not at all. Americans have been lying to pollsters for years. It’s standard.
Report thisBy Louise, January 9 at 6:23 pm #
And here’s another one. How about mainstreammedia abandon watching the polls and start watching HOW the votes are being TABULATED at the POLLS!
And WHOSE doing the tabulating!
Naw ... they’d rather “LIE FOR AMERICA!”
Report thisBy jeff in chicago, January 9 at 5:59 pm #
I have no problem with some polls. Those that measure what issues people care about can be important. But I wish the media would spend less time covering the horse race and devote more coverage to the candidates’ positions.
Ergo, my plan. Lie to the pollsters. Mind you, I only want people to lie when they are asked about who they are going to vote for. And I don’t even want people to lie about that all the time. I don’t think it would take many lies to skew enough polls to a degree that they would become meaningless, thus forcing coverage back to the issues.
I see no downside to this. We’d get more and better coverage of the issues. We’d probably be introduced to more outside-the-mainstream candidates who may have some darn good ideas.
So my new motto is: LIE FOR AMERICA!
Report thisBy rbrooks, January 9 at 5:34 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Is it just me, or does this surprise Diebold-counted victory, and the MSM’s next-day breathless exit-polling rationalization, have a familiar ring to it?
How about examining the relationship between the Diebold scanners that tabulated the much-touted paper ballots, and the DLC governor and his board of elections (whose candidate shocked, SHOCKED everyone by winning the election in an astonishing 17%-37%-39% display of state-wide, night-long consistency)? Don’t you think it was, to say the least, odd? Clinton, 39. Obama, 37. Edwards, 17. All night? What are the chances?
Remember the good old days when we had elections, when the totals showed constant, sometimes dramatic, movement as the numbers came in from the rural areas, from the wealthy suburbs and the inner cities? Trending, sooner or later, but always in motion? And the commentators would say stuff like “looks like the southern counties are starting to come in”?
Well, hey. Maybe those New Hampshire voters just happened to maintain their relative percentages with perfect precision and consistency, all over the state. All night. I’m sorry, I can’t see it. For me, it’s a real strain to believe that all over the state as the vote tallies were reported, exactly 37% coming in were Obama, 39% for Clinton, and 17% for Edwards. All night long. Not changing. That was where they started out early in the evening, and where they ended up. Doesn’t that just sound like something a lazy programmer would do, or maybe one who only had a few minutes to get in and get out - punch in the outcome and let ‘er ride?
Here’s a link to a table that may be the best circumstantial evidence of election-tampering:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/9/181852/2086/306 /433947
I’m amazed at the chorus of “what was wrong with the polls?” This country needs to grow up. We’re not in Kansas any more. Where’s the question “what if the polls were right?” and the logical follow-up: “Did Diebold and the DLC hack the New Hampshire primary?”
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, January 9 at 5:21 pm #
EJ, You Screwed Up!
Why don’t you just admit it? You got it COMPLETELY wrong!
Be a mensch and ‘fess up.
Report thisBy BobZ, January 9 at 3:58 pm #
Clinton showed her human side at the diner and that appealed to woman who perhaps felt she was too cold in the past. Plus she knows the issues and can speak in detail about them. Also with Barak and Edwards hitting her so hard, there was a feeling of unfairness. I thought the Barak comment about her being “nice enough” was gracious. Barak needs to keep talking to his strengths but start putting some “meat” on them. The rhetoric is great but voters were blindsided by the current president who was anything but a “compassionate conservative”. Voters want change and they want to see the roadmap leading to change. As much as I admire Edward’s and contributed to his campaign, he should bow out and through his support to Obama or Clinton. Edwards fought the good fight and has a great populist message that many Democrat’s have forgotten about in their quest to be Republican-lites.
Report this