Clinton: Following Kenneth Blackwell's Election-Rigging Playbook in Ohio

UPDATE: This is turning into possibly the biggest story of the primary so far. First there was the Ohio press release you're about to read about. A little later there was a similar press release for Texas. Then, later tonight right just in time to make the newspaper deadlines, the Clinton camp surprised the media with an emergency telephonic press conference that accused the Obama campaign of widespread fraud in the caucus process (without any evidence, like witnesses, made available at the conference) and held open the possibility of Clinton bringing lawsuits challenging the election results and artificially stringing out the primary until the Democratic National Convention in August. So please read all three posts to get the full story, and I'll work on something more comprehensive pulling it all together. Thanks.
****************************


Tonight, political junkies are focused intently on the critical elections in Ohio and Texas, as well as the smaller ones in Vermont and Rhode Island. Voters in Ohio, however, have extra reason to look closely at how the election is handled, because the rule-bending shenanigans that have plagued several of their last elections seem to be happening there again. (Overview on how Ohio's primaries work here.)

Last election, Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, bent and sometimes broke all the rules to ensure Bush's victory in that critical state. Now Ohio's Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, is a Democrat -- but she's backing Hillary Clinton, and just like Blackwell, she's bending and breaking the rules to favor her candidate.

An early example: both campaigns have asked volunteers to go to each precinct and serve as poll watchers -- citizens who stand quietly and watch the proceedings to make sure no shenanigans are going on. It's a boring but essential task. The campaigns were asked to certify the individual poll watchers so that election officials knew who was who -- so the Obama campaign did so by issuing letters, signed by Obama's Ohio campaign director, identifying who their designees were and stating that "the bearer 'is hereby authorized to serve as a legal poll monitor on behalf of the Obama campaign."

Ah, but that's not enough in Kenneth Blackwell's Karl Rove's Hillary Clinton's BFF Jennifer Brunner's world:

An official in the office of the Ohio Secretary of State has written local election officials instructing them not to accept an Obama campaign letter as sufficient documentation for poll-watchers to polling places.

The state's rules require a formal certification process for poll monitors. The Obama campaign, however, has distributed a letter signed by its state director, Paul Tewes, which states that the letter's bearer is "hereby authorized to serve as a legal poll monitor."

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Farrell wrote that Obama supporters have been presenting the letter to officials at polling sites, and attached the letter to his email, which appears to have been sent to election officials around the state.

"Our office's legal interpretation is that this letter is not legally sufficient on its own to allow someone to gain access to polling places," Farrell writes. "To be allowed access to a polling location an observer must be duly appointed as an official observer and have an official observer certificate.... Someone who wants to observe may present the attached letter in addition to the official observer certificate, but they must have the official observer certificate to legally gain entry."

So the party that lost the last two elections due to election shenanigans, including flat-out cheating in vote counting that could have been caught by more careful citizen access to/oversight of the process, draws a distinction between a "letter of authorization" and an "official observer certificate." Translation: according to Ohio, Obama supporters aren't allowed to watch the vote-counting in Ohio. Period. Because the office of a major Clinton supporter says so.

Wanna hear something funny? The letters (a) appear to satisfy the law's requirement that the candidates "appoint" their poll watchers; the resulting "certificate" issued by the Secretary of State is what the law calls a "clerical" rather than discretionary act and, if missing, is de minimis and shouldn't matter; and (b) it looks like the Obama camp is only intending the letters to identify outside poll watchers, not the ones who actually are stationed inside and therefore need certification anyway. In other words, the Obama campaign's not breaking the law.

What does the Clinton campaign do, knowing that (a) the letter probably is legally sufficient, (b) it only applied to outside poll watchers, and (c) it's not a big deal, anyway -- c'mon, we're all Democrats?

Predictably, it pretends it doesn't know the truth, sends out a press release accusing Obama of violating election laws, and tops it off with a pair of fine whines: one about poll watchers wearing "campaign paraphernalia" (read: an Obama button they probably forgot to take off and probably did take off promptly once told they were against the rules), and the other about a single Obama volunteer who may have misbehaved.

(I say "single" because, despite earlier press reports of several problems, a Clinton campaign official later admitted that there was only one incident, not described, and even Brenner's office admits there are no widespread problems. And I say "may have" misbehaved because of personal experience: as a volunteer vote protection attorney for Kerry in '04, I had the local election supervisor threaten to call the sheriffs on me because I was -- can you believe how out of control I was? -- answering people's questions about their rights when they were wrongly given provisional, rather than normal, ballots. My crime? Disagreeing with the elected official about the law. She also tried to have a law professor with election law expertise arrested for the same reason. The sheriffs laughed it off, because even they knew we weren't doing anything wrong (OK, and my wearing a sheriff's department volunteer search and rescue hat didn't hurt, either). So being "removed" doesn't mean you actually did anything wrong. )

Besides, if we're not holding Clinton responsible for one of her supporters stabbing an Obama supporter, she should be able to let one, apparently mild, incident slide.

Here's Clinton's self-righteous press release, in full, issued about an hour ago:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 4, 2008
Contact: Press Office, ###-####
email@email.com

** MEDIA ADVISORY**

UPDATED STATEMENT FROM OHIO FOR HILLARY STATE DIRECTOR ROBBY MOOK ON TODAY’S VOTING
Voters Can Call (888) 472-9470 To Report Irregularities At The Polls

COLUMBUS, OH – Ohio for Hillary State Director Robby Mook issued the following statement regarding today's voting:

As Ohioans head to the polls today, we’re seeing high turnout across the state despite bad weather.

It is inspiring to see so many Democrats turning out to vote today, and we encourage everyone to make their voice heard in this election.

While we expect voting to run smoothly, we have heard troubling reports of irregularities and inappropriate behavior by Sen. Obama’s campaign across the state. We continue to monitor the situation closely to ensure that all voters’ rights are preserved.

According to the Atlantic Monthly web site, “Ohio's Secretary of State, an office held by a Democrat, has rebuked Sen. Barack Obama's campaign for trying to staff precincts with poll workers who presented insufficient credentials.”

In Akron, a certified Obama poll watcher was removed by the presiding judge from Akron’s 4M precinct for aggressively challenging voters.

In Cincinnati, we have numerous reports that Obama poll watchers have been reprimanded after wearing campaign paraphernalia into polling places, in clear violation of election law.

We encourage all of our supporters to head to the polls today, as we continue to work with local election officials and the Ohio Democratic Party to ensure that no voter is disenfranchised. There is too much at stake in this election for Democrats to stay home.

Voters who witness inappropriate behavior or other voting irregularities are asked to call (888) 472-9470 or log on to www.hillaryclinton.com and report their experiences.
###

Oh, did you notice something else funny? This press release says two things: (1) Obama's poll watchers are properly "certified" (the exact word used in the law), and (2) "In Akron, a certified Obama poll watcher was removed...". So which is it: are Obama's poll watchers certified, or not?

When Republicans do this, it's standard political blogspeak to call them "W.A.T.B."s -- Whiny Ass Titty Babies, as in, "waaah! I need my bottle!" When Democrats do this... well, Democrats aren't supposed to do this.

This is sad for Clinton, but standard operating procedure for her throughout this election. It's also sad for Jennifer Brunner, who seemed like a good one until now. Jennifer: people are watching; if you'd like to win re-election, this would be a very good time to do the right thing.

BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Live From New York: It's Hillary Clinton

I'm tired of being snarky about Hillary Clinton. I don't like being mean to people, and I think that once she puts her Presidential ambitions behind her and settles into being a Senator (and a liberal one, instead of constantly voting for the war, bankruptcy "reform", and other conservative causes as part of her triangulation for the Presidency), she'll do a great job for New York.

In the meantime, though, her previously inexorable campaign continues to sag, and her appearance tonight on Saturday Night Live -- which explains her mysterious disappearance from the campaign trail earlier today -- is yet another example of judgment that's just half a bubble off of level.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket. The SNL skit is a fun little piece. Clinton came across as pleasant, lighthearted, likable. It's always endearing when people who are supposed to be above such things have sufficient humor and humility to laugh at themselves, like Richard Nixon did when he deadpanned "Sock it to me!" on Rowan & Martin's "Laugh In." And on a personal level, after eleven straight losses to Obama, it had to be refreshing for her to get back in front of a friendly, home-town NYC audience.

Early in the primary season, a SNL appearance would have been a great tactical move (as Obama's November 2007 SNL appearance was). And after the primary was over, win or lose, it would have been simply fun (as ex-contender Rudy Giuliani's appearance later on tonight's show was). But was it smart doing this right now, with her candidacy on the ropes and the decisive primaries coming up in three days? Eh, not so much. It took her off the campaign trail for over half a day, and reminded everyone how she whined in the last debate about getting disparate treatment from the press (reinforced by a SNL skit making fun of that incident).

It doesn't help, either, that most of the press so far -- including media outlets in upcoming primary-election markets ranging from Cleveland and Dayton, OH to Houston, New Braunfels, and the Rio Grande Valley, TX to Carlisle and Pittsburgh, PA to Casper, WY, as well as NPR and USA Today nationwide -- is emphasizing the negative facts that Clinton's campaign isn't going well and that SNL is "absolutely not" endorsing Clinton. The skit made jokes out of these issues, but those facts were still reinforced.

Bottom line: her SNL detour was the right move at the wrong time, which makes it the wrong move. And poor timing is not the mark of the experienced, savvy campaigner Clinton claims to be.

Was it fun, both for viewers and for her? Sure. Does it demonstrate that HRC actually has a sense of humor, a human side? Absolutely, if we give her the benefit of the doubt and don't assume it was a purely calculated move by Harold Ickes (and we ignore the facts that while she was being oh-so-likable on-air, her campaign was simultaneously distributing negative ads about Obama and continuing to complain about getting negative treatment from the media).

Most imortantly, from her perspective: will appearing on SNL give her a boost with younger voters who currently are flocking to Barack Obama? I'm sure it will -- about as much of a boost as Mike Huckabee got from his SNL appearance just last week and his multiple Colbert Report appearances: specifically, a "bump" from back-bencher all the way up to second place.

The problem is, Hillary's not a back-bencher, she's not angling for a VP slot like Huckabee may be, and she's already in second place, so she doesn't have as much to gain from a good-natured detour like this as someone like Huckabee does. Tonight's bit of good fun was yet another error of judgment on Clinton's part, probably costing her more than it gains, which again underscores that she's not the sophisticated pol she claims to be. Hillary, no matter how hard she pretends otherwise, isn't Bill, and never will be.

But she'll be a great Senator, hopefully for a long time, once the primaries are over and she settles into the realization that being a great Senator from a great state is, after all, a tremendous honor, and more than enough. And, living in New York, it won't take her the best part of a critically important day to go play on Saturday Night Live.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME

Hillary Channels Reagan: "There's A Bear In the Woods. Some People Say It's Tame..."

Hillary Clinton's new campaign ad airing in Texas, which uses Bush/Cheney/Rovian tactics to scare voters into voting for her, should be enough to make everyone vote against her. Haven't we had enough fearmongering from the Bushies? Do we really want another President who will amp up the color-coded "be very very afraid" warning to Code Flashing Bright Red just before her next election? I don't think so.

But at least her ad -- and Obama's responding ad, which shows how much he learned from John Kerry's error in not swiftly rebutting Swiftboaters like Clinton -- give us the chance to do two things:

First, it lets us see Hillary's campaign for what it is -- a desperate effort to demoralize us into being afraid to take a chance on change, borrowing heavily from Karl Rove's "politics of fear" tactics and, especially, borrowing most heavily from another hawkish conservative, Ronald Reagan.

Second, it allows us to compare apples to apples by looking at two political commercials, first Hillary's attack, then Barack's truthful and measured response, and decide which candidate's approach we like best. Let's take these in turn:

First: Hillary Clinton ♥ Ronald Reagan (and Bush/Cheney). In the 1984 Presidential campaign, the candidates disagreed about how big a threat the USSR was. Then the Reagan-Bush campaign ran this famous ad, "Bear In The Woods", invoking American's fear of the Soviet Union (whose symbol was a bear):



As it turned out (and the CIA itself sheepishly admitted), the Soviet bear actually was tame, and collapsed under the weight of its own failings shortly afterward. But Reagan's "Bear" ad helped him win re-election, because it made people afraid to vote for change.

In 2004, Bush/Cheney copied Reagan's theme, updated to reflect terrorism as the new enemy, in their ad, "Wolves":



Now compare Reagan's and Bush/Cheney's fearmongering with Hillary's ad, "Children" (aka "3:00 AM"), aired in Texas early today:



Now ask: is Clinton appealing to your reason, or to your fear? Is she addressing a legitimate issue in a responsible way -- or channeling the spirit of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney?

Second: Who's Better Qualified to Answer the Red Phone, Clinton or Obama? Next, let's compare Hillary's attack ad (above) with Obama's response, "Ringing," prepared with lightning speed and released today (the same day as Clinton's ad!):



By the way, in case you're still thinking that Hillary "Experience" Clinton actually has answered the red phone to deal with a foreign policy emergency in the middle of the night -- her own campaign essentially says, um... no, actually, she hasn't. (H/T Yglesias.) So I'd say Obama's good judgment trumps Clinton's poor judgment on Iraq, given that neither one has ever been President before.

Finally, three questions (OK, three sets of questions):

1) Which candidate losing, flailing, and on the attack, and which candidate is responding with toughness, truth -- and class?

2) If Obama wins the nomination, do you think Clinton's ad will hurt his chances of winning against war hero John McCain? If so, what does that say about Hillary's commitment to the party and the country? Is she mainly interested in what's best for all of us, or just in winning for herself?

3) Democrats want a nominee who can actually win in November. Clinton claims she knows how to run a campaign, fight tough opponents -- and that those skills carry over into how she'll run the White House. But which candidate is flailing around, reaching back two decades to find dirty tricks in hopes of salvaging a victory, and which candidate is running an effective, efficient, on-message campaign -- managing money well, planning ahead, responding quickly and appropriately to attacks, and generally showing the kind of leadership and toughness we expect both in a candidate and in a President?

Relevant news stories from Time, Time again, CNN, CNN again. The Wall Street Journal reaches back, not to Reagan's 1984 "bear" ad, but to LBJ's 1964 "Daisy" ad -- almost as if the conservative paper now owned by Fox News' Rupert Murdoch, who threw Hillary a campaign fundraiser two years ago, doesn't want to admit that she's its preferred candidate, and is much more conservative than she pretends to be. Update, 3/1: NYTimes articles here and here; the Washington Post on the "dueling ads" here; and another Wall Street Journal piece here. Second update, 3/1: D'oh! Of course, Hillary's ad is almost identical to a 1984 Walter Mondale ad, "Red Phone," which isn't surprising since the same MadMan (adman) produced both ads. That doesn't change the Clinton ad's nature -- using the same fear-based campaigning as Reagan and Bush. It's also interesting that the same Hillary Clinton who criticized Obama for sharing the same speechwriter, and therefore similar language, as his friend Deval Patrick, turned around and hired the same adman as Walter Mondale used 24 years ago, to produce a similar ad. That's hypocrisy. And I'll also ask: hiring an adman from the 1980s to reprise a 24 year old smear ad? This is the "forward looking" candidate Clinton claims to be? Yow.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME