Matt (4.00 / 1)

Obama ALREADY responded to the 3am ad by pointing to his superior judgment and the Iraq war vote.  Now, arguably his campaign should have spent more time on that angle and less time whining about how terrible it is to fearmonger, but either way he needs to find a more effective way of responding.  I think he has pretty much maxed out his potential with the segment of the electorate that believes the Iraq war vote trumps everything.

In reality, I think it's pretty obvious that Hillary's 3am ad was pretty mild ("something's happening in the world") compared to how the Republicans typically handle the national security issue.  Hillary shows your kids sleeping safely in bed, Republicans would show your kids getting blown up because we made the mistake of electing Obama.  Whether Hillary's ad was fair or unfair, it's clear that Obama needs to be able to deflect this sort of attack if we're to be confident he would beat McCain.  If you can't even handle attacks on national security from Hillary Clinton, with a friendly primary electorate as your audience, you're going to have a real problem when the attacks come from John McCain and the entire nation gets to decide.

---

by: Steve M @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:06:56 PM UTC

You guys are agreeing (4.00 / 2)

Matt said in his post that Obama's campaign "should come up with a response beyond the one emphasizing his no vote on Iraq," which is what you're saying as well.

I agree with you (Steve M) on the Hillary ad as well.  Yes, it was pretty lame (why, exactly, is SHE better equipped to handle that 3 AM call?  And what does handling that call even mean?), but it was also pretty mild, certainly compared to what the Republicans will throw at him.  

But the way so many of Obama's supporters (not so much his campaign) flipped out over it suggests to me that they completely forgot about Josh Marshall's theory about attack ads like this (and perhaps it should be re-named, considering the gender of one of the current candidates): the "bitch slap" theory of politics.  It's the aggressive attack-on-your-toughness ad that doesn't particularly concern itself with logic (like a decorated Vietnam war hero suddenly being portrayed as a prissy wimp, or a 7-year Senator trying to paint a 3-year Senator as a greenhorn); it just rears back for the "bitch slap" and dares you to respond without looking like a wuss in some way.  Screaming to the high heavens about how unfair it is for Hillary to run that ad is, shall we say, not a very effective way to respond.  Obama needs to be able to do WAY better against ads like that.      

---

by: Haggai @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:26:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

I appreciate Obama's rhetorical opposition to the initial invasion of Iraq, but it just doesn't work as the answer to every question about foreign policy and national security. Obama and his supporters vastly overestimate the power of a single speech he gave.

It makes him look really bad. Every time he's asked about some national security issue, he just punts by saying, hey I opposed the war to begin with. It's not going to cut it.

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:22:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He also... (0.00 / 0)

Is in favor of ending the idiotic doctrine of refusing to meet with adversarial foreign leaders to negotitate until they give in to our demands beforehand. I think those two combined, with his more progressive positions on other issues like nuclear weapons and easing the Cuba embargo, point that he will pursue a far more intelligent set of fp's than Clinton if he is our candidate

---

by: Max Fletcher @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 18:28:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

rhetorically (0.00 / 0)

it will also work better to have a very public argument about our place in the world by having someone who can attack mccain for voting for the Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman  

---

by: Max Fletcher @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 18:29:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama's best tack (4.00 / 2)

Is to explicitly run as the anti-war (Iraq War, that is) candidate.  As I've said previously, I think that in a general matchup that Hillary would try to out-hawk Mccain.  In fact, the subtext of her "3:00 in the morning" ad is that she would be more willing to pull the trigger at 3:00 am than he would be.  

The problem is, this deprives the Dems of their leading issue--the anti-war issue.  This is, of course, what the DC Dems and the national security establishment want, and Ken Pollack's statement" to the effect that Hillary would do what was in (his version of) what's best for the country regardless of camp[aign promises, i.e., leave the troops in Iraq is indicative.

Now Obama has to do this carefully, as in "who do you want making decisions whether to attack or not, someone who has read the intelligence and has been fully briefed or someone making a political calculation?"  He can also draw a contrast with McCain--someone who has thought the problem through or someone who advocates shooting first and asking questions later?

But I agree his speech last night just isn't enough.  he also needs to take her on on the issue of her vaunted "experience".  Just which fopo decisions did she participate in and in what capacity?  And he should resurrect the question of what role will Bill play, especially with talk of her offering him the VP slot.

And I love the "McSame" ads.

But generally I'm a bit depressed this am.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:12:18 PM UTC

And obviously in need of caffeine. (0.00 / 0)

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:13:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Overwhelming majority of Americans hate the war in Iraq (0.00 / 0)

they are sick and tired of it, it is continuing a mistake.

Obama needs to step up and sharpen his message with Clinton regarding the war and also it's economic implications to America's financial standing.  I think a strong tactic against Clinton would be her votes of political expediency, and voting for the IWR is an excellant example of that.  I also believe that the government's policy of easy credit has been a surrogate to try and finance an incredibly costly fiasco in Iraq.  This easy credit mess is being played out in the contraction of the equity of American's homes and I believe that the incredibly high cost of the war is highly responsible for the extraction of wealth from the average American to the deserts of Iraq.  I think that there is a strong association there and Obama has the skill set to communicate such a link and persuade undecided voters.
Clinton is selling hawkishness not national security experience.  The Iraq war has proven that a leader needs to judicious and prudent about the use of force.  PA is another state under great economic pain and I believe the fiasco in Iraq is the greatest cause of that pain.

---

by: gaspare @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:16:37 PM UTC

Fot God's sake (4.00 / 1)

Obama did NOT vote against Iraq.  He was a state legislator, and had no vote, either way, on Iraq.  

If you want to be seen as a credible analyst, or activist, perhaps you might want to stay reality-based.

---

by: drk @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:17:34 PM UTC

I imagine it's just an inadvertant mistake (4.00 / 1)

But it is one that's made with curious regularity. I can't tell you how many times I hear "Obama's vote against the Iraq war" or some such. In most cases, including the present one, the authors know full well that Obama didn't vote against the war, and they're just misspeaking. It's a telling mistake, though, as Obama has managed to draw an equivalence between actually voting against a war and giving a speech against it. This allows him to ignore the fact that as soon as his opinion DID begin to matter, i.e. when he was elected to the Senate, his opposition to the war became strictly backwards-looking.

---

by: Jason C. @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:26:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

Ezra Klein made the exact same "mistake" in a post just last week.  

I think anyone who wants to take the A-list blogosphere seriously has to ask whether, if its biggest names can't even keep themselves from parroting Obama's untrue talking points on an issue as important as this, whether they can remain credible as a "reality-based" movement.  I realize that I am sounding pretty hyperbolic here, but I think it really is a fundamental question.

---

by: drk @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 18:04:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is pretty hard (0.00 / 0)

to tell if it was NAFTA or the 3am ad, but Clinton clobbered Obama among late deciders, as the table below shows:

---

by: fladem @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:19:44 PM UTC

I'd say the wound was self-inflicted (0.00 / 0)

His economic advisor shouldn't have accepted that invitation in the middle of an election.  

---

by: illlaw @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:11:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the Canadians held meetings w/ both campaigns (0.00 / 0)

So, let's be square about this. Both campaigns met w/ the Canadians.

The story has also been refuted.

---

by: goldenstar @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 21:13:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More on 3:00 am (4.00 / 1)

I think Obama has placed too much reliance on his 2002 speech against the war.  This election, as he has said so many times, is about the future.  he needs to stress why his reaction would be better than hers--maybe, as I suggested above, because he would have read the intell and informed himself fully, maybe because he would have already opened a dialogue with whoever would otherwise be about to attack.  He also needs to stress his work on non-proliferation, one of his greatest Senate accomplishments, as making sneak nuclear attack mcuh less likely.  

He needs to stress that it is what you bring to the table to help avoid crises not just your "experience".  After all, we got through 40 nuclear years with the Soviet Union with only one really serious confrontation (Cuban missle crisis), and we talked to the Soviets, and then the Chinese, throughout.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:20:26 PM UTC

I don't think framing the "the politics of the past is" is negative (0.00 / 0)

It's a rejection of strategy... and embracing the 50 Strategy, but whatever.

I like the idea of sending out the message about her not reading the NIE.  I think he should also start showing her true bush-lite colors aswell... drawing a timeline and broadcasting her speeches and raised handclaps to reveal how much of a neocon she is.

Also, contrasting the flip-flops and lies when she said she was against the war -- but if you look at the timeline was in fact much for the war.

We'll see what happens... Obama has to hit back hard, but with finesse to recover from her trying to bring everyone down in the ditch.

---

by: SandThroughTheEyeGlass @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:20:44 PM UTC

I agree w/ you sand, (0.00 / 0)

Getting rid of the politics of the past is not a negative. In fact, it has nothing to do with old but with creating good government: transparency and accountability. That's why it is fresh or new.

To label this as negativity leaves me kinda dumb.

Not feeling it.
 

---

by: goldenstar @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 21:21:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disgusting (0.00 / 0)

It's sickening that this ad, or any ad, could make this kind of difference in who becomes president. But the gross stupidity and dishonest of this particular ad makes the pain worse. It has no connection to reality. What's the only argument it really makes: I was married to a president so I'll know what to do when "something happens" in the world? The ad has no content. It's pure Rove/Atwater fearmongering.

I think Obama should confront it directly: "Well, the 3am ad did Hillary some good, it looks like. It's a masterpiece of misleading, content free advertising. I think it also serves to give Democrats a choice in this primary season. Hillary says she's the candidate of change. I hope she'll explain how a talent for Rovian politics is good for our party or our country. I'm here because I believe we need and want real change in America. Voters will now have to decide whether a return to the days of Willie Horton ads is the kind of change we were hoping for."

---

by: DaveW @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:38:49 PM UTC

Good analysis by Steve Benen (4.00 / 2)

Steve Benen at Carpetbagger has a good analysis of Hillary's "kitchen sink" strategy--throw it all at him and see what sticks.  Obviously, some of it stuck.

I agree with the above commenter on Marshall's "bitchslap" theory here.  He has to hit back.  But one effective way might be to couple Hillary with McCain and say that with Hillary all you get is more of the same--more negative politics, more fear, more war, because neither of them really has any positive substantive vision to offer the country, a vision of how we can come together and be a better country.  He could also put more stress on global climate change to bring out the under-45 vote more, the folks who will have to live with the adverse consequences of a McCain Administration (which is not, folks, out of the realm of possibility).

I also think that the longer this goes on, the more irrelevant any "party elders" will be.  Gore and Edwards could have endorsed by now, but both are hedging their bets to play a prominent role in the next Admin.

Finally, I do worry about the Af-Am vote, especially the 91% of black women who voted for Obama.  They aren't going to vote for McCain, who was hugging Bush while New Orleans drowned, but seeing her savage him may just be too much.

 

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:46:39 PM UTC

Well (0.00 / 0)

But one effective way might be to couple Hillary with McCain and say that with Hillary all you get is more of the same--more negative politics, more fear, more war, because neither of them really has any positive substantive vision to offer the country, a vision of how we can come together and be a better country.

I hope a response of this sort of Obama would be a little more, um, truthful than that.  "Hillary and McCain are EXACTLY the same" is a very unfair thing to say, not to mention potentially damaging in a general election, one of the favorite tropes of Obama supporters of late.

Matt's suggestion of how Obama should hit back against the hawkish frame of Hillary's 3 AM ad is a more precise and more fair-minded approach.  Her comeback against a "Hillary = McCain on the war" attack is obvious: she'll withdraw troops from Iraq while McCain won't (no one really believes otherwise, do they?).  But an attack on the mindset informing her ad--i.e., hawkishness + "experience" should not be mistaken for effective leadership on national security--would be a lot more fair, and a lot more accurate.  It's also the path he'll need to take against McCain.  

---

by: Haggai @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:03:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That 's the connection (0.00 / 0)

We have a choice: the McCain-Clinton show with more Karl Rove, more Willie Horton, more reckless, thoughtless failures like Iraq, health care, and the misdirected war on terrorism. Or we can turn the page and live up to America's deepest ideals of fairness, openness, and honesty in government. The choice has never been clearer than it is right now.

---

by: DaveW @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:21:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hyprocrisy (0.00 / 0)

live up to America's deepest ideals of fairness, openness, and honesty in government.

Like the Harry and Louise ads.

If there's one thing I can't stand about Obama supporters, it's their sanctimony.

---

by: Taylor @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:36:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

t is Clinton who has not had a negative frame until recently, (0.00 / 0)

I guess if you ignore the drug-dealing, shucking and jiving, muslim, terrorist, criminal frame she's been playing from day one.

He hasn't yet pointed out the criminals in her midst. Nor has he pointed out that they went from broke to having 50 million in under a decade. Legitimate questions I'd say but negative she'd say.

---

by: illlaw @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 16:55:31 PM UTC

an odd approach (4.00 / 2)

So if Obama wins despite Clinton running the 3AM ad, the Republicans will... run the same ad?  This would be like the Patriots saying they'd copy the Packers game plan against the Giants.  I mean, I suspect this is more sowing dissension than anything else, but it still sounds pretty dumb.

---

by: Aaron Veenstra @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:00:02 PM UTC

LOL (0.00 / 0)

Good analogy.

Tom Brady is nothing but Favre-lite!  It's Eli's time!  Yes We Can!

---

by: Haggai @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:05:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um, (4.00 / 1)

they're talking to a different market.

---

by: DaveW @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:22:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Word from Obama Camp (0.00 / 0)

Via TPM is that he will be hitting back especially on the "experience" issue.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:13:15 PM UTC

I'd be very surprised... (4.00 / 1)

...if the 3:00 am ad had anything measurable to do with this last-minute resurgence the Clinton campaign had in the 3-4 days prior to voting.  It certainly wasn't her debate performance or her appeals for sympathy due to media unfairness (recall the audience reaction to her SNL remark in the debate).  Nope, I'd be willing to tack just about all of it on the NAFTA rumors from Canada.  Team Obama did a real bad job of damage-control on that, and worse, appeared to be totally unprepared to even answer questions decisively when put on the spot.  It probably isn't possible to overestimate the importance of NAFTA in Ohio, and in PA coming up, so I feel pretty sure that was the dog-whistle issue that turned Ohio around so quickly, and if Obama wants to compete in PA, he'd better get on top of this situation decisively, and PDQ.

It's always hard to judge these things b/c I tend to identify my own reactions with the general viewership (I thought Bush's "Wolves" ad in /04 was lame beyond belief, as did a great segment of our demographic segment here) and I viewed the 3:00 am ad as just stupid.  Not just the message, I thought it was paced badly, that the appeal to the protective parental instincts (and I have a baby son, so I'm not just a cynic on family appeals) was just hamfisted, hyperdramatic BS...I just can't believe that ad was a deciding factor in the late swing we just saw.  

NAFTA could have been it all on its own, though.  It's the first fragment of info to hit the mainstream that appears to negate Obama's to-date sincerity, honesty, and overall straight-shooter image among those who were just beginning to allow themselves to believe...

But we're in it until August, that's my one prediction here.


The Wages of Sin is about $5.15 an Hour.

---

by: hz @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:15:05 PM UTC

Bingo. (0.00 / 0)

It is possible that Clinton just got lucky.

The best scenario for Obama is that the incompetent Clinton team does believe that it was the 3am ad, and their strategy from now on is more of the same.

No matter where it comes from, I'm hoping we'll get more vetting of Obama before the party commits, though the Clinton campaign just appears too incompetent to be the agent of that vetting.  I expect more missteps from them than from Obama.

---

by: Taylor @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:42:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is all pretty silly (0.00 / 0)

I don't know, of course, but I would be dismayed if the 3 a.m. ad worked:  Hillary, drawing on her 8 years experience as First Lady and a few extra years in the Senate is the one we want answering the phone and making a decision like the decision she made to support an unnecessary war for political reasons, having not bothered to read the intelligence backup. I suppose the argument could be that once she is president she would make decisions like this on the merits, not for political cover.  I thought Obama's 3 a.m. ad response was sufficient.  

I must be naive.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.

---

by: MC @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:15:20 PM UTC

I think the whole point of the experience (0.00 / 0)

argument is that Bill Clinton will be answering the phone, or at least next to her when she answers the phone. They just can't say that.

It's clear she has zero experience of her own.  

---

by: illlaw @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:21:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your pessimism was warranted. (0.00 / 0)

   The most annoying scenario did in fact occur.  So much for the wisdom of Democratic primary voters.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:27:11 PM UTC

Matt, I think you're missing the big news from yesterday: (0.00 / 0)

In both Ohio and Texas, Hillary had landslide numbers against Obama in most of the rural counties. In spite of all the money Obama spent, especially in Texas, there were counties where John Edwards was pulling 13%, Obama was pulling only 23% and Hillary was getting the rest of the voters. The general election is almost always won outside of the big cities, and this year, in particular, these are the areas hardest hit by the economic recession. Like it or not, I think Hillary is showing herself to be the stronger general election candidate based on these voting patterns.

---

by: grayslady @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:37:42 PM UTC

You're making a false assumption... (0.00 / 0)

That votes for Hillary are not actually for her at all, but instead against Obama.  In Ohio, 66% said they'd be satisfied if Obama wins, which isn't much different than the 69% who'd be satisfied if Hillary won.  In Texas, the numbers were very similar, with 70% satisfied if Hillary was the nominee, and 66% if Obama was one.  

It's clear Hillary accomplished her wins in part by driving Obama's negatives higher than her own, but the difference is so small as to be within the margin of error.  Democratic primary voters in these two states liked them both - they just tended to like hILLARY MORE.  

---

by: telephasic @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 18:13:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry about the caps lock error... (0.00 / 0)

N/T

---

by: telephasic @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 18:14:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You didn't read the post very carefully (0.00 / 0)

I was discussing the voting patterns in the rural areas of the state, not the state voting totals in general. Additionally, the thousands of voters who continued to vote for John Edwards, in both states, suggests that voters are taking an opportunity to vote for a candidate, rather than against a candidate, so I'm not sure that you can justify your statement that those who voted for Hillary were actually voting against Obama.  

---

by: grayslady @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 19:55:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you misunderstood my reply... (0.00 / 0)

You claimed the big story was Clinton doing well in rural counties, and said the election is "always won outside the big cities."  Implicit in that argument is that Obama somehow will lose more of Clinton's primary voters (which include a large number of rural voters), than Clinton will lose of Obama's voters.  

We don't have a separate breakdown of rural voters from other Clinton voters as to their degree of unhappiness if Obama is the nominee, but without data we have no reason to think they're any less disgruntled at the idea of an Obama nomination than, say working-class whites in more urban areas.  

Maybe you meant your argument was that the sort of rationale which appeals to rural Democratic primary voters will also appeal to rural general election voters, but I think the jury's still out on this, as Obama did well with the rural vote in Wisconsin, Virginia, and Maryland.  

---

by: telephasic @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 20:54:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton and Obama should immediately agree that both will be on the ticket in the general election (0.00 / 0)

Coming in from left field on this, the best thing that Clinton and Obama could do now for the country and the party is to agree to run together in the general election -- without specifying who is at the top of the ticket.

The two of them have brought unprecedented numbers of voters to the polls to support them in the first ever primary election featuring a woman and an African American. A dual ticket with the two of them would be a winning ticket to defeat McCain, the Republican Party and the backers of the cabal in the White House since 2000 that has brought the nation to its knees.

They should pledge NOT to attack each other through the remaining primaries except in the context of point by point comparisons of their proposed policies.

But most importantly, they should agree that the one who has the highest number of votes cast (not delegates pledged) will be the presidential nominee. Florida and Michigan should hold primaries before the convention and their delegates should be seated.

If one of them refuses to agree to the above, then we know that he or she is in this to be the "top dog" rather than to serve the people or the party.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 17:44:27 PM UTC

here's some Clinton negativity for you (4.00 / 1)

I'm not sure I'm reading you right, Matt. Are you saying Clinton hasn't been negative? That all her arguments such as

- Obama wants to raise taxes by trillions of dollars
- Obama is against abortion rights
- Obama is a roll of the dice
- Obama/his position on Iraq are a fantasy
- hope and inspiration are bad things
- Obama doesn't want universal health care
- Obama only wins (states that don't matter) because of blacks/independents/Republicans/caucuses are unfair/the press loves him
- Obama is not as good as John McCain
- contests that were held against the rules and without active  campaigning by all the candidates and with not all the candidates on the ballot should now count

are positive arguments?

---

by: redwards95 @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 18:26:37 PM UTC

if he really (0.00 / 0)

wants to fight the 3AM ad, he has to go ahead and suggest that Clinton won't end the Iraq war.  And he has to explain exactly how he will, in other words taking on the residual forces debate.  That's his only way to win Pennsylvania.  Between the Ken Pollack and Jack Keane quotes, there's enough smoke.  He can make the same argument on Iraq that she made on NAFTA, that the policy and the rhetoric don't match.  It didn't matter that Clinton had pretty much the same NAFTA position, so I don't think it'll matter in the case of Obama's war policy.

It's the only way to put her on the defensive.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.

---

by: dday @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 20:28:53 PM UTC

Ammunition! (0.00 / 0)

The red phone ad struck me as odd, because, I believe the red phone is an anachronism. So, if there is no longer an actual red phone ...  why? What does RED mean? Who is she signalling? Well, I asked the universe and this dropped into my email box this morning:

NYT May 20, 1998: Concerned over allegations that the Clinton Administration had compromised national security by assisting China's procurement of sophisticated weapons technology, the United States House of Representatives on May 20 overwhelmingly approved several measures designed to limit the export of high-technology goods and information to China.

The votes came on the heels of a series of newspaper reports that the White House indirectly facilitated the transfer of military technology in exchange for contributions to President Bill Clinton's 1996
presidential campaign. In addition to the measures, both branches of Congress announced that they would launch separate inquiries into the swirl of allegations concerning the Clinton Administration and its dealings with the Chinese government.

What is the message? I would assume that China would be adverse to more of the same, as it's holding the bag on the U.S. economy. So, China might favor change, meaning Osama. So, what is she saying? It's very strange.

Also, the MSM with the exception of the LATimes has been deafeningly quiet about the Clintons upcoming criminal trial in LA.

Then, to top it off, there's this bit of thuggery and skullduggery coming out of Texas:

System Counties Hillary Obama
Hart 101        48.34% 51.66%
ES&S 145        56.37% 43.63%
Diebold 7        58.23% 41.77%

Information about each voting system:
Hart InterCivic
Election Systems & Software, Inc.
Diebold Election Systems, Inc.

Sources:
Voting systems used in Texas [pdf]
Texas primary results by county

System Counties Hillary Obama
Hart 101 48.34% 51.66%
ES&S 145 56.37% 43.63%
Diebold 7 58.23% 41.77%

Information about each voting system:
Hart InterCivic
Election Systems & Software, Inc.
Diebold Election Systems, Inc.

http://www.whoscounting.net/Th...

---

by: Anne @ Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 20:44:16 PM UTC