Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Ohio Elections Official Questions Obama Tactics

By Matthew Mosk
Ohio elections officials received complaints this morning from official poll workers about efforts by supporters of Democrat Barack Obama to serve as "legal poll monitors" who would be allowed to camp inside the voting stations.

Obama supporters have presented elections officials with a letter on campaign stationery signed by the senator's Ohio state director, Paul Tewes, which says, "The bearer of this letter is hereby authorized to serve as a legal poll monitor on behalf of the Obama campaign."

David M. Farrell, the state's director of elections, said in an interview that while Ohio does allow campaign supporters to serve as official observers in the polling stations, the Obama letters do not follow the established procedures for doing that. In fact, to be allowed access to the polling station as an official observer, a campaign's supporter would have to register with an election judge and be given an official certificate.

"In order to gain access to a polling location for a prolonged period of time, the law recognizes there is a process by which a campaign can appoint people to be observers," Farrell said. "We just wanted to make sure our officials knew, if someone has an observer certificate, go ahead, admit them. On the other hand, if someone hands a letter saying I am a monitor, that's not's sufficient."

Farrell said he sent out an e-mail to the field staff at polling locations today because "we were getting calls wanting for clarification when these [Obama] letters surfaced," he said. "They wanted to know, do we have to let them be there all day to monitor the polls? And the answer was no."

Obama's campaign lawyer disputed Farrell's finding.

"The secretary of state is wrong on the facts," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said. "We are correctly credentialed and are calling now to correct any misunderstanding to the contrary."

The idea behind having observers at the polls is for campaigns to make sure no one inside the voting stations is trying to exert influence on the outcome, either by electioneering, or by turning away people who have a right to be voting there. Farrell said state elections official did not want to inhibit campaigns from monitoring the elections, they merely wanted every campaign to use the proper procedures to stand in as observers.

"All political parties and candidates can have observers," Farrell said. "Having an open and transparent process is a good thing."

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 4, 2008; 3:27 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Barack Obama , Primaries , The Democrats , The Hidden Campaign  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: No Regrets From Obama
Next: Clinton Press Banished to Bathroom


I find it very interesting that supposedly intelligent people are on here arguing about issues that have nothing really whatever to do with the bottom line.

I knew it would come to this: the D's will be voting on the two fore-runners because one is black and the other has a vagina and labor will be voting for either of them because they simply have a "d" attached to their name.

Don't you think that is the most ignorant thing you have ever heard?

Put them in other species. I know this will offend, and I frankly do not care, because this is how base and ignorant it is and how childish this country has become:

dog: one has a black coat, one has a white coat and can be classified as a bi...(you know)

they both happen to be canines, but that doesn't meant that they are necessarily going to be the best pet for this country.

perhaps the old goat should be taken into consideration (the "r")

in other words.

just because someone is labeled a democrat or a republican, I don't party-line vote -- even though it was hammered into me from birth--being a union born central illnois girl that now resides in central ohio. Union's generally see a "d" on a ballot and , if they are worth their salt as a real union worker (not just a lip service union person), their hands have a hard time not punching that hole.

but to vote for someone because they are or ARE NOT----- BLACK----or----WHITE----or because they have---a Peg or a Hole is just about the most retarded thing I have ever heard, and to think I came to the Washington Post to check and see who won the primary and ran into this playground drivel!

If you are in Ohio, I hope you got more than the foot of snow I did. What ding dongs. And if you know me, I apologize for my outside voice.

ps - go ahead and flame me, I'm not coming back here. I don't hang out on boards. I googled myself here to see what the scoop was on the primary. I have a real life that is a little busy and doesn't revolve around playground snits and ignorant bigots.

Posted by: bobbibrown77 | March 8, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I bet there are a lot of people wondering how the Ohio victory for Clinton happened. The kind of people who actually voted for Obama in millions and millions, I am talking about. A lot of them might seriously wonder what happened to their VOTES which they cast for OBAMA, since it was he who started the phenomena of huge voter turn-outs, not Hillary, the tiring old establishment. We should all demand to look under the bins in the polling stations in Ohio for example, immediately.

Posted by: thisworld | March 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I kinda understand why they did that. They were probably afraid that Hillary supporters might pull dirty tricks inside the voting places, such as switching actual votes, destroying votes cast in favor of Obama etc., In a nutshell, they had a genuine concern, having seen what Hillary camp was capable of doing. Had Hillary played the game fairly, there would have been no concern for such things on the part of the Obama camp.

Posted by: thisworld | March 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

How did this happen and why did the state election director have the letters written? Doesn't sound good. Do they really think Hillary Clinton supporters were cheating? I don't think so. We won't be rioting and protesting at the DNC convention either. I fear the younger, more immature people who support Obama. They are the ones who will lose control.

Posted by: lynnellingw | March 7, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: tjfrmla | March 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Must reading for all Obama supporters to find out more about your candidate.

Barack Obama and Me
It was the year 2000 and I was a young hungry reporter in Chicago covering a young hungry state legislator
By Todd Spivak
Published: February 28, 2008, Houston Press

Posted by: David2007 | March 5, 2008 12:44 PM

I read the article referenced above by David2007 last week and it made me take off my rose-colored glasses in regards to Barack Obama. He is as political as they come.

Posted by: redhiker | March 7, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Now you think the director of elections is out to get Obama?The law is the law. He is saying they can be there but must follow the process. They did not follow the process. This is a nit and Obama's campaign should fix it or his supporters will not be allow to 'monitor' polls in other states.

Posted by: redhiker | March 7, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Pending Clinton Fraud Trial.. November 2008, perfect timing!

Posted by: biracial1 | March 7, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Obama has been lying from the getgo. He has denied his "yes" vote for the resolution to use military forces in Iraq.

Was obama in the U.S. Senate in October of 2002?
No. obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in November of 2004 and assumed office in January of 2005, nearly 2 full years AFTER our troops arrived in Iraq. He didn't vote for nor against the resolution because he was not a U.S. Senator. Obama has been eluding to this half-truth of his "no" vote in all of his stump speeches to coddle support. Any mature person knows a half-truth is far more dangerous than a bald faced lie mainly because of the assumption of trust in the liar and the plausible portion of the lie.
He's is a good liar but not a good leader.

Posted by: seedobecome | March 6, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Who is Mr. Farrell voting for? He says that "a campaign's supporter would have to register with an election judge and be given an official certificate." So, then this could be interpreted as one most tell an election judge they are there and get a nametag and make sure that they show the judge their official letter from the campaign. So, by being vague, Mr. Farrell is stirring up a whole lot of BS. This sounds like a Clinton specialty! Oh, to set the record straigh, Texas caucus rules don't allow someone to sign in and leave as has been stated on this blog. You must wait until the caucus is convened and vote then. Some, caucus' didn't end until 3 am. I really wish, all of these random unfounded arguments against Barack would cease. Just admit it, you all want a Clinton in the White House so that we can have the best reality TV show there is to offer. Billary and their Crazy White House Sexcapades!

Posted by: chaucharoo | March 6, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

According to the facts in the Post article, Obama's people are not properly credentialed under Ohio law.=====

You'd think his people would have learned about things like "credentials" before you get to vote, wouldn't you? Looks like, from the outcome, maybe he wasn't so far wrong after all.

Posted by: deucebollards | March 6, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey dyck21005 and david2007, I have a few interesting questions that are LEGITIMATE about Hillary and Bill.....that I hope the Press and all pundits elaborate on and bring to light to the American people: Read on:

Have any of Hillary's Democratic opponents, including Obama, sought more detailed answers from her about stories such as:
• Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?
• How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"
• Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?
• How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?
• How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?
• The fact that with all of these questionable financial dealings, the Clintons have been unwilling to release their tax returns, especially in light of Hillary Clinton claiming that the $5 million she lent the campaign was "her own money?"
• And, finally, though we, as Democrats, don't care who Bill schtupps (and, no, none of us believe he has kept his fly zipped the last seven years), you can be damn sure the Republicans will be digging hard (no pun intended) to see just what Bill has been up to since leaving office.

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 6, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

obama is very dishonest man, here is why Obama is a Christian now. He was born a Muslim because his father was Muslim and his step father was Muslim. According to Muslim religion, the father's religion determines the religion of the offspring. Therefore, Obama was truly once a Muslim although he denies he was ever a Muslim, which shows once again he doesn't have the backbone or honesty to recognize his heritage. When he came to the U.S to live with his maternal grandparents, is when he was introduced to Christianity. To hear him say that he's never been a Muslim his entire life is truly a lie since he spent his first 10 years in Indonesia, a Muslim country, living with a Muslim step father and don't forget the law in Islam called TAGIYEH which means you can lie about your religion in order to do good for Allah! My question to you is what good does obama plan to do for Allah! Since he has the public backing of Louis Farrakhan. Nation of Islam Minister, Obama agrees and highly respects the opinions of his spiritual advisor Rev. Wright who has recently awarded notorious Louis Farrakhan. Nation of Islam Minister with their churches highest award, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, in the form of anti-Semitism, record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road. Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. His anti-Semitism and false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans. Farrakhan has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes. He talks of Jewish conspiracies and reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Obama who HAS NOT distanced himself from Farraklhan as he wants the media to believe and Rev Wright heaped praise of Farrakhan. Applauding his "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation. They praised "his integrity and honesty and called him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose. And we should just trust our great country to a media made fairy tale which in last few days, several campaign financers, corrupt business and personal friends suck as indicted Rezko, former Dallas Mayor Hill, Rep. Rick Renzi and Mr. Auchi, leading supplier of arms to Saddam's regime convicted for corruption in France, the British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions and millions of dollars to Obama are coming out of the woodwork left and right, lies about side meetings with Canada going behind the American voters backs telling us one thing and them another. ALL this from the half black ex-Muslim man who touts change and claims to be a uniter of all people? Proof he is just another in-experienced Washington politician that the media gave a free pass at the risk of our great country!

Posted by: dyck21005 | March 5, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse


We are sick of the media pushing obama down our throats! Another indictment former Dallas Mayor Hill, Obama camp financial contributor and supporter charged with federal bribery, extortion and conspiracy. Again has their hand full with other publically indicted bankrollers like Rezko. A company related to Another Obama "financial friend" Rep. Rick Renzi indicted Friday on multiple federal charges, law enforcement sources tell CNN. In a 35-count indictment handed up by a grand jury in Arizona, Renzi is charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering extortion and insurance fraud. The indictment stem from Renzi's efforts to use his position in Congress to promote "land deals" Again more corrupt camp donations for Obama. Now two information leaks from the Canadian government rocked Barack Obama's campaign for the U.S. presidency showing he has been caught in a public lie again. The Government of Canada says it will only investigate one of them.

Obama and his team have ducked "legitimate questions" about Rezko, who faces federal corruption charges most centrally involved with Gov. Blagojevich's administration. "Now the trial is beginning, it will be more difficult for him to avoid these various serious questions. I can guarantee you that. Obama's Relationship with Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions from Accused Fixer's (REZKO) Wife and Others Analysis Shows. Obama opportuned Rezko to obtain jobs in the Blagojevich administration for Obama allies. For the third time in more than a year, Obama's presidential campaign announced it SO-CALLED shedding more donations
According to court documents, Mr Rezko's lawyer said his client had "longstanding indebtedness" to Mr Auchi's GMH. By June 2007 he owed it $27.9 million.

Posted by: dyck21005 | March 5, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

What Obama was doing regarding "Poll Monitors" in Ohio is just a continuation of what he did when he started his political career.

Here is an excerpt from a story by a reporter who covered Obama while he was in Chicago and knows him better than any other reporter.
"Obama has spent his entire political career trying to win the next step up. Every three years, he has aspired to a more powerful political position.

He was just 35 when in 1996 he won his first bid for political office. Even many of his staunchest supporters, such as Black, still resent the strong-arm tactics Obama employed to win his seat in the Illinois Legislature.

Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, a liberal activist who had held the seat for several years, according to an April 2007 Chicago Tribune report.

Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets -- to appear on the ballot, candidates needed 757 signatures from registered voters living within the district -- to knock off all the other Democratic contenders. He won the seat unopposed.

"A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career," wrote Tribune political reporters David Jackson and Ray Long. "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."
A more realistic picture of Obama that showed his ambitions for higher office, the lengths he went to achieve them, and how he did not hesitate to walk over people to accomplish his ends. Not quite the picture of Hope and Unity and Change that you expected to see from this candidate. He has warts and some of them ain't pretty.

Must reading for all Obama supporters to find out more about your candidate.

Barack Obama and Me
It was the year 2000 and I was a young hungry reporter in Chicago covering a young hungry state legislator
By Todd Spivak
Published: February 28, 2008, Houston Press

Posted by: David2007 | March 5, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Judging by the thought out and courteous and polite postings from the Obama supporters on these blogs...I find it shocking...just shocking that they would ever stoop to such levels... ( :

Posted by: badger3 | March 5, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Folks. Just because we have a president who served for the last 7 years without respecting the law, doesn't mean we have to disrespect the law. Just like the immigration law, we need to enforce it. If the current law doesn't work, then we need to change it. Until then, we need to respect the law whether we like it or not, or we go back to "wild wild west".

Posted by: prosperity168 | March 5, 2008 6:35 AM | Report abuse

I love the fact that Obama supporters accuse Hillary of being divisive and tearing the party apart. When in fact most of the hateful stuff is posted by the Obama supporters.

Case in point. . .

The Clintons are scum. They are the most horrible people -- really vicious enough to compete with GWB.

IT will be so wonderful when she is out of the campaign in...what? 7 or 8 hours?

Go Barack!

Posted by: drankland | March 4, 2008 06:29 PM

BTW Hillary just won Ohio!

Posted by: tessa2 | March 5, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Having just returned home having worked for the county as a pollworker, I think it is fair to question this tactic. Our Obama observer arrived wearing an Obama button which is in direct violation of campaign laws to have partisan attempts to influence voters within a circumscribed and clearly marked area around the polls. It may likely have been a reflection of her zeal for her candidate, and she was agreeable to removing the button when asked. That said, the campaign's failure to educate its official representatives of how to comply with the law, calls into question whether their true motives were to prevent undue influence or rather to exercise it.

Posted by: ljcurl | March 4, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

hey ordgobaltic do you know that those cowboys in Washington are borrowing 2 billion dollars a day from China for the war in Iraq. It's like pouring money down a porcelain chute. That is why the Bush administration, brought back the 30 year bond that Clinton got rid of, so they could hide all this debt. That is why China's vaults are bulging with the most foreign reserves then any country on the planet. Whiteagle38

Posted by: whiteagle38 | March 4, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Maybe they are there to help Obama's supporters VOTE TWICE!

Lord knows he has called for it! :-(

Posted by: rat-the | March 4, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Hillary can unhinge her jaw like an anaconda proves she is a reptilian!

That is not a smile, she is looking for pray with those bulging eyes!

Posted by: cyberbian | March 4, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Well, considering Ohio's record of suppressing votes, it really isn't too much to ask that a campaign be able to send in observers-- its a common practice, and out not to put people's noses out of line.

Posted by: hotpoet66 | March 4, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone out there say, "Much ado about nothing""

So if they are wrong, keep them out. No one is trying to steal votes. I've been an election judge just to ensure registered people are allowed to vote or cast provisionals if there is a question.

Chill out everyone. The fight is over in the four states and people have heard the whining and complaining from both sides. Let's tally them and see where we are at.

Posted by: amaikovich | March 4, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Bill twice and I will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS VOTE FOR THE LAWYER NAMED hillary.


Make no mistake - Machiavelli in a pantsuit will do ANYTHING to win including overriding the will of the voters by twisting arms behind the scenes, having Gov Strickland throw a monkey wrench into the vote, and probably deny voters the right to the polls.

ANYTHING is possible with hillary because she is a machine politics operator.

Posted by: onestring | March 4, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama the deceiver. He'll do anything to get elected, so he can ruin the country.

Posted by: autowx | March 4, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

In reference to the polling place observers and their credentials...

1. Check the Ohio Secretary of State's website! A nine day notice of a change in established procedure is hardly sufficient time, especially when the deadline has already passed!

2. Why would a newspaper with the excellent reputation of the Washington Post publish a poorly researched feature? As a young reporter, I was taught to write an unbiased balanced story covering both sides of a controversial issue. Have the rules changed or did Matthew Mosk in a rush to be to complete his research?

3. In these days of rapid internet technology....verification of facts takes only a few minutes of well directed research! Please don't let your readers down by abandoning the high standards of professional journalism which The Washingtn Post has always represented!

Ot is time for the age of dirty politics and the misleading of the public by poorly researched articles to end. This election is truly historic...Please report it accurately. The next generation (to which my grandson belongs) deserves accurate, balanced information.

Posted by: maestra353 | March 4, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama is just earning his stripes as yet another repulsive, manipulative political prevaricator. What else is new?

All of the four remaining "candidates" neatly fit into that category--the most egregiously unqualified bunch of clowns to run for president in the last 150 years. A sadass bunch of manipulative/manipulated pols without a shred of decency in the bunch. America is not ready for a purple president, nor a shrew, nor an uneducated bass-playing Christer, nor a shell-shocked old turnip who looks like he has neck cancer.

Jeebus wept.

Posted by: lambcannon | March 4, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Once again - Mr. Obama's "campaign" overrides group thought. They think THEY have the last word. Boy I like this guy less and less and less all the time.

Here's one. Today he "chided" "his" press.

I wish the press would be interested in the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism. Because I believe there is a story to be had in the Obama world. And as an added bonus we would all be saved from making a huge mistake in letting him head toward the Republican meat grinder.

It's obvious his "little strip of land" next to his house was purchased by Rezkos wife to hide money they had - then purchased by Obama from her. He was involved. He knew he was going to buy that land. The seller wouldn't sell the house without selling the land. Obama could have bought the land when he bought the house. But he did not. He was in cahoots to help Rezko hide money the feds were going to confiscate at the time because he was under investigation.

Do we really want to be stuck with the nominee against John McCain. This campaign going forward beyond tonight is a god send. So much more to know about this guy. We need to find it out before the Republicans. I know that bursts a lot of bubbles. But that's what happens when you follow people blindly and don't' ask hard question.

Obama today "chided" the press for thinking they were being easy on him. Hellooo? Is he living in a bubble like GW? 80% of Americans who were asked said "absolutely" obvious he's been babied by the press. But, of course, he takes out that magic wand that's going to change the world and thinks we should all ignore what we know and "believe" what he says. What a freaking egomaniac!

After Rezko, there is a week of lies about the NAFTA memo. Now it's in writing and he's still insisting it doesn't exist.

Geezus. I think we have a GW clone. Nothing is real unless he says so.


And of course, there is the matter of the resume. There isn't one. He as being so politically careful in Illinois that he did nothing. Except cater to business men and, for god knows what reason, voted to keep porn and strip joints open by NOT voting, voting "pass".

Well, I say we all "pass" on him.

The lights are now on. He can stop telling everyone to shut them off. Haven't we all gone looking for work? Someone tell him, this is the way it is in the interview room. Maybe he's been handed lots of things. Not this time. We the People will decide when this interview is over. It won't be controlled or rushed by the applicant. Or his press club. Maybe he'll offer them more wine and cheese. Don't be bought with cheese, crackers and a big smile !! Go for the Pulitzer Prize! Journalism is a respectable profession!! Sucking up never is !

Don't miss this video - it's Obama's resume - what he has of one:

Posted by: Thinker | March 4, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

If it's true that it's been customary to allow observers on election day without going through a lot of hoopla, then they were treated unfairly.

Posted by: zen99 | March 4, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

It's not a regulation, it's a statute.

And they aren't relying on the Directive on this point. Did you even read the Directive? The second sentence says, "While the Revised Code clearly articulates the process to become an observer, or who may and may not be an observer".

In other words, the Directive just repeats the law.

As for "Actionable", I'd love to see that lawsuit. You're saying they would sue the state for following the law?

Hey maybe next time I get a speeding ticket I can sue the state because I normally drive 5 miles over the limit and I've never gotten a ticket before.

Stop playing Internet lawyer.

Posted by: ghokee | March 4, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

He has deceived young people to campaign for him. But now that I know his deceptiveness I will move to Sen. Clinton's camp and work my heart out to support her campaign.

Posted by: utworcurious | March 4, 2008 04:21 PM
If you can be deceived by Obama, you can be deceived by Clinton. Your behavior reminds me of a pinball. What's the difference between an O and a C? C always leaves a way out. What is the difference between a B and a C? B-) wears glasses. :-C just got a 3 am red phone call.

Posted by: deucebollards | March 4, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

ghokee and zen99,

Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that, notwithstanding the regulations that ghokee so aptly quotes, the past practice has been to accept letters at the polling place from the campaign. For the Secretary of State to now rely on a "Directive" issued after the date on which it requires filings, is just plain silly, if not also actionable.

Posted by: todd | March 4, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

It's presumptuous to state that the secretary of state doesn't know what they're talking about. Elections are filled with bureaucratic procedures. Makes sense that you'd have to register with an election judge. Obama people demonstrate a real naiveté here. A desperate move on the part of Obama.

Posted by: zen99 | March 4, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse


Nice try. I wouldn't have guessed that such a convoluted reading of this was even possible.

Section 3505.21 of the Ohio Revised Code states,

The observer serving on behalf of a political party shall be appointed in writing by the chairperson and secretary of the respective controlling party committee. Observers serving for any five or more candidates shall have their certificates signed by those candidates. Observers appointed to a precinct may file their certificates of appointment with the presiding judge of the precinct at the meeting on the evening prior to the election, or with the presiding judge of the precinct on the day of the election. Upon the filing of a certificate, the person named as observer in the certificate shall be permitted to be in and about the polling place for the precinct during the casting of the ballots and shall be permitted to watch every proceeding of the judges of elections from the time of the opening until the closing of the polls.

According to the facts in the Post article, Obama's people are not properly credentialed under Ohio law.

Posted by: ghokee | March 4, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons are scum. They are the most horrible people -- really vicious enough to compete with GWB.

IT will be so wonderful when she is out of the campaign in...what? 7 or 8 hours?

Go Barack!

Posted by: drankland | March 4, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Are they all wear cheap Suits with Bow-Ties? ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 4, 2008 03:34 PM

I didn't know you had family in Ohio, rat-duh...

Posted by: LABC | March 4, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

BTW - I haven't heard anything about the NYC recount since around 20th Feb - what is going on there?

Posted by: JayKay2 |
Rest easy:
Now official results have been released by the city's Board of Elections, including emergency, absentee and other categories of votes that were not part of the original election day tally. How do the new results change things? Not so much.
Of course, the real question is not who took which borough by how much, but whether the official results will yield a change in delegate allocations. "So far from what we've seen, we don't expect the numbers to change," said Jonathan Rosen, a spokesman for the New York State Democratic Committee, whose own official results have yet to be released

Posted by: zukermand | March 4, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Listen to Clinton's response about Osama. You will be shock.......

Posted by: ordgobaltc | March 4, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Here are more facts:

Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State (and a Clinton supporter along with the Governer), issued a "clarifying directive" regarding the rules for appointing observers. Unfortunately, the directive was issued on Monday, February 25th (just eight days before the primary), but it requires that the relevant observer appointment forms be completed and submitted "no later than four p.m. on the eleventh (11th) day before the election in question and must provide the names and qualified voting addresses of the appointees, along with the precinct and/or board of elections at which each appointee will serve."

We are researching the question now, but it appears that this "clarification directive" changed the prior practice for appointing observers (which could be done with a letter from the campaign on the day of the primary) and it did so without providing notice for those who sought to comply, unless (of course), they knew about the clarifying directive in advance of its issuance.

Read it for yourself:

Posted by: todd | March 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Yes we can..intimidate voters! Obama is George Bush in democrat's clothing trying to bully his way to the nomination. He's got the machine, not Clinton. He's the one who is unethical, not Clinton.

Posted by: deminFLA | March 4, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

BTW - I haven't heard anything about the NYC recount since around 20th Feb - what is going on there?

Posted by: JayKay2 | March 4, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

The MEDIA manufactured that entire Hillary BIAS nonsense to get Hillary sympathy votes. Because like millions of other WHITES in this country, the MEDIA would rather see this country burn than elect Obama president! That's just the facts folks. But GOD Almighty is RIGGING the voting machines this time, Sorry!

Posted by: obama | March 4, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

what-ever... spin spin spin, whine whine whine. all this blather (from both sides) about something that will affect a few dozen votes, if that.

the Press and stupid readers with nothing better to do, obsess over any little problem like they are covering an auto accident at rush hour. Never mind that 99.999% of commuters made it to work just fine!

Meanwhile, they are losing their jobs and their homes, they have no health care due to $3 trillion wasted on war in Iraq, and no public transit so even those who would like to, can't avoid destroying the planet with the toxic global warming fumes from their cars. But God forbid anyone should report on something that matters.

Posted by: fairbalanced | March 4, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons sold US bonds to China to boost our economy in the 90s and they are still being praised for the economic miracle.
What most Americans don't understand is the unequal balance of trade that the deal came alongside with.
Presently China doesn't want US bonds, and guess what is about to happen- - - - - - STUPID FOLKS ARE ABOUT TO ELECT ANOTHER CLINTON.

Wait and see the economic devastation. NAFTA was nothing comparing to what is coming.......

Posted by: ordgobaltc | March 4, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse


To be fair, those could be instances of honest miscommunication about the rules rather than nefarious, intentional voter fraud.

Posted by: JakeD | March 4, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

That sounds a heck of a lot like obstructionism with an intent to deceive to me. Why should they care if someone is just observing - unless they intend to do the wrong thing?

Posted by: JayKay2 | March 4, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Poetic justice if Obama wins in Texas.
Clinton campaigned against Lydon Johnson
and Civil Rights back in 1964.
If Obama wins the nomination he will make his acceptance speech on Aug 28., 45 years to the day after the Martin Luther King's I have a dream speech.

America will have fullfilled the dream.

Posted by: uniteusnow | March 4, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

More NAFTA Nonsense
March 3, 2008
An Obama mailer uses dubious, disputed statistics about how much the trade deal hurt Ohio workers.
.Barack Obama's campaign is distributing a mailer in Ohio that plays upon anti-NAFTA feelings in the Buckeye State.
But the flyer is misleading: OHIO PRIMARY is TOMORROW (TUESDAY 3/4)Obama is quoted as saying that "one million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio." But those figures are highly questionable and from an anti-NAFTA source. Other economic studies have concluded the trade deal resulted in much smaller job losses or even a small net gain. The mailer quotes Hillary Clinton as saying "NAFTA has been good for New York and America." That quote, however, is taken out of context. She also said in that same news conference that NAFTA was flawed and old trade deals needed to be revisited.
visit website for details on additional MISLEADING or

Posted by: teddy21 | March 4, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"Questionable tactics" is the Post, not Farrell.
It's the Obama campaign flat out accusing the Clinton campaign of vote suppression without evidence.

What planet do you live on?

Posted by: zukermand | March 4, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Rovian. Farrell, the state's Director of Elections (Clinton Supporter?), accuses the Obama campaign of "questionable tactics" for doing something that is completely normal and routine. By the time it's straightened out, the impression is of nefarious doings by the Obama campaign so that any questions about Clinton activity looks normal. Puh-lease! How come the Press falls for this crap everytime??

Posted by: thebobbob | March 4, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary should win the nomination against Obama, we will never know if it was only because she is white, or because she is a woman.

Posted by: xira | March 4, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama's dirty tricks in Ohio and Texas show what type of HONEST AND TRANSPARENT candidate he is? Through his Association with the SLUMLORD AND TERRORIST show that he has no respect and credibility. He has deceived young people to campaign for him. But now that I know his deceptiveness I will move to Sen. Clinton's camp and work my heart out to support her campaign.

Posted by: utworcurious | March 4, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Mosk: Please help us here. Who is right about this? What does the law actually say? Have you done any background research?

Posted by: jchaney

From the article:
"In fact, to be allowed access to the polling station as an official observer, a campaign's supporter would have to register with an election judge and be given an official certificate."

You people would be sad if you weren't so mean.

Posted by: zukermand | March 4, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

That statement from the Obama campaign is a vile, repulsive smear. I find it hard to believe the campaign approved that communication.

Posted by: zukermand | March 4, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Mosk: Please help us here. Who is right about this? What does the law actually say? Have you done any background research?

Posted by: jchaney | March 4, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I don't think you can say it. Prove me wrong.

Posted by: zukermand | March 4, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

This is from the Obama site about voter irregularities in Ohio:

Statement from Ohio State Director Paul Tewes
by Sam Graham-FelsenTuesday, March 04, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Ohio State Director Paul Tewes:

Our campaign's goal today is to ensure that any registered voter in the state of Ohio can go to the polls and cast their ballot for their candidate of choice without interference. We understand that the Clinton campaign may want to depress turnout because Barack Obama has closed a 20-point gap over the course of this month as voters across the state got to know him.

It has been the hallmark of the Democratic party to educate and protect the rights of voters. If the Clinton campaign disagrees with that principle, they should say so today.

We have received reports from around the state of independents and Republicans who chose to vote in the Democratic primary receiving issue only or Republican ballots instead of the Democratic ballot they were entitled to. We have also had reports that the voter ID requirements have been misstated at various locations, causing some voters to be turned away.

We will take action when necessary to ensure that all eligible voters are able to cast their votes and to have their votes counted.

We will continue to monitor the polls to ensure that all Ohioans who choose to participate in today's election are able to do so regardless of who they choose to vote for.

Just to keep the record straight.

Posted by: DariMD | March 4, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"If it's well-established and on the state's website that poll monitors have to register with the state, then, yes, the Obama camp is wrong"

Well, is "the Obama camp wrong"?

Posted by: zukermand | March 4, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"We don't know the whole story here. What exactly is the policy in OH?"
Posted by: ericp331
From the article:
"In fact, to be allowed access to the polling station as an official observer, a campaign's supporter would have to register with an election judge and be given an official certificate."

Posted by: zukermand | March 4, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

From Taylor Marsh

MSNBC is covering this story right now.

I've been hearing this as well. But it seems the Obama campaign is trying to
stack the deck in Texas, but also in Ohio. Marc Ambinder and Jeralyn have
already written it up. Obama's campaign has been rebuked in Ohio, with
Ambinder having the letter:

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.

As was just reported on MSNBC, Ohio has very strict rules on poll workers.

In Texas, the reports get worse. Obama's team are evidently copying caucus
forms and having their supporters fill them out prior to the 7:15 p.m.
deadline when the caucus is called to order. This means the voter wouldn't
have to actually attend the caucus, but instead would simply have the Obama
team hand in the caucus forms for the voter, which is clearly against the
rules, which are very clear:

Participants may NOT begin signing in until the precinct convention has
been called to order. The call to order may not occur until 7:15 p.m. OR
whenever the last voter finishes voting at that polling location whichever
is later. If, after the convention has been called to order and participants
have signed in, any participant who wishes to leave may do so, and their
sign in WILL count toward the delegate allocation for each candidate. Sign-
In ends when the last person present waiting to sign in has done so.

This post brought to you by yet another example of Barack Obama's "change"
agenda, on the way to a different kind of politics. Chicago style, baby.

Posted by: hgogo | March 4, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

We don't know the whole story here. What exactly is the policy in OH? If it's well-established and on the state's website that poll monitors have to register with the state, then, yes, the Obama camp is wrong. But, if it's not that clear-cut, and a campaign can, at the last minute, have a letter in writing on campaign stationary with a specific person's name on it, then the state of OH is wrong. Having worked on a couple of campaigns, it's incredibly difficult to know before the day of the election exactly who your poll monitors are going to be, who is going to show up, where you might need people, etc.

Posted by: ericp331 | March 4, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Texas Primary Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Texas Democratic Presidential Primary?


Ohio Primary Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary?


Posted by: jeffboste | March 4, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Today is Independence Day. It is the day the voters will sign the Declaration of Independence from politics as usual. The question remains - independent from what (or who)?......

Posted by: glclark4750 | March 4, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Governor Strickland is throwing the kitchen sink at Obama as well.

Posted by: Republicus1 | March 4, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Maybe they have a reason to mistrust?

Clinton schedule release in late March:

"...has asked a judge to delay the release of thousands of her telephone logs for one to two years."

Posted by: davidmwe | March 4, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Ahem, "Wearing".

Posted by: rat-the | March 4, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Are they all wear cheap Suits with Bow-Ties? ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 4, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company