Hillary is so concerned that every vote is counted. WHERE WAS SHE IN '04 WHEN WE FOUGHT IN OH

[mod mom]

FOR A REVOTE?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having every vote count but I see a little selection into which votes she is interested in making sure count-hers. Has she ever reprimanded her buddy James Carville for his role in helping Bush overcome uncounted votes in Ohio:




Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg - October 7, 2006, 9:11AM
I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.

On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.

The rest is history.

Does something about this story stink to high heaven!

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

[beachmom]

1. Hillary does not care about OTHER Democrats getting elected. Just her.

And really, she only cares about getting HER votes counted, like in the Soviet style election in Michigan.

[roseBudd]

2. She was nowhere to be found, I know I was all over Ohio for at least 3 months after Nov. 7, not a

Clinton to be found.

[mod mom]

8. Thank God for Sen Barbara Boxer. It sure would have helped our case to get the Clintons

into the fight, but I guess that would have hurt the chances for a Clinton victory this year (remember she thought she was going to have a cake walk).

[murielm99]

43. Yeah, thank God for her all right.

She was the one who stood with the Black Caucus when they challenged the certification of the election, right?

What did you say? I can't hear you.

BLAME BOXER!!! She didn't help!!!!

[havocmom]

3. bookmarking

to see if this one gets put into the election dungeon too.

[Medusa]

4. They weren't electing HER

If it would have been a NY state election, be very assured Hillary would be screaming about the "injustice" just as she is now. But care about anyone else? Not so much.

[marmar]

5. She's concerned that every vote be counted.....for Hillary.

n/t

[baldguy]

6. Where was she in 2000?

[billyoc]

7. Why would they have counted then?

She wasn't even running!

Try to keep up. :evilgrin:

[xchrom]

9. where were a lot of people? -- it's bizarre the number of events

that people want to lay blame at her door step for.

[mod mom]

12. 1. Her buddy James Carville was directly involved (per Bob Woodward) 2. The Clintons

were the most powerful Dems at the time-they would have gotten more media attention than the very honorable Sen Boxer.

[xchrom]

18. what the fuck? -- carville is an independent human being -- hillary isn't responsible

for him -- and you're being bizarre.

[mod mom]

21. who would benefit from Carville providing this info the the * WH? Why would a Dem

share this info w the * WH unless for some ulterior motive?

[xchrom]

45. carville answers for carville -- not clinton. nt

[rox63]

78. Carville has always been a Clinton loyalist

More like a Clinton flunky, I think.

[murielm99]

15. Just like the republicans have always done to Bill.

Anything that goes wrong...."But Clinton....."

You have to wonder how many of them doing that to HRC these days are actually Democrats.

Did you ever think you would see this kind of divide and conquer bullshit at DU?

[xchrom]

19. it's nutty is what it is. nt

[mod mom]

34. Do you have links to facts to back up your statement? Why not read Conyers & RFK Jrs

analysis instead of dismissing information without any analysis?

or are they "nutty" as well?

[xchrom]

49. what the fuck is wrong with you -- do you have anything else

besides speculation and bizarre rumour that clinton is involved in ANY way with this dissemination of info from carville to the white house?

something that specifically states there is a dog collar going from hill's hands to carville's neck and that she has been negligent in jerking around carville's lead?

out with it, k?

i mean you need to spill the fuckin reality beans right here and now that says hill is responsible for carville's behavior at that time.

[bigdarryl]

10. thats the question RandyRhodes has been asking also in fact where were the Clintons in 2000 ....

with the Florida bullshit that went down with Gore getting the election stolen from him. I don't remember hearing nothing from either of them.

[roseBudd]

13. She was against worrying about disenfranchisement before she was for it

[mod mom]

22. maybe the OH voters disenfranchised weren't "hard working"

:sarcasm:

[roseBudd]

73. Well they certainly were not the white ones, in OH a large percentage of the white ones vote R

So when HRC touts her win in OH, but doesn't acknowledge the help she got from Limbaugh she is being disengenuous.

[murielm99]

36. Gore deliberately distanced himself from Clinton during

that campaign. If he had wanted Clinton to step in during the Florida mess, he could have asked. But what do you think Clinton could have done at that point? Taking it to court seemed like the best solution. I know that is what I thought at the time.

And I am sure you saw Fahrenheit 911. Did you see what happened when the Black Caucus tried to challenge the election? Was that the Clinton's fault, too? Any Senator could have helped them. None did. And I saw Gore standing there with his bare face hanging out. Did he do anything? He decided to abide by the Supreme Court decision, even though it was a travesty and what we have had over the last eight years has been a nightmare. But of course all of that is Clinton's fault too, at least according to some of you fools.

Get over yourselves, haters. We have a country to heal, and if you can't figure out that the republicans are the real culprits here, you are beyond help.

[mod mom]

40. The clintons were the most prominent/powerful Dems in both 2000 and 2004. If they would have

cried foul over disenfranchisement then the media would have not buried the story. Read Conyers & RFK Jr's analysis-I posted links on this thread.

MY POINT IS THIS: Why the silence over disenfranchised Dem votes on a major scale in 2000 and 2004 but the loud uproar now?

[murielm99]

46. Could it be that you are comparing apples and oranges?

All the howling hysteria here is ridiculous. We are talking about a primary, not the 2000 and 2004 general elections. We are talking about the rules made by the DNC, not a Supreme Court decision and a nationwide scandal caused by voter disenfranchisement and rigged voting machines. The two are not the same.

The DNC and Dean have to sort this out. The 2000 and the 2004 general elections had nothing to do with the Clintons. They were not running for anything. It was up to the candidates to stand up for themselves. Did they as the Clintons for help? Did anyone ask the Clintons what they thought?

These are apples and oranges, two different types of elections, one a primary and one a general election. Do you know the difference, or is it just so much fun to blame the Clintons for everything that you can't stop the hate?

[mod mom]

51. I received a letter from Howard Dean after hand writing one on this very subject.

In his response he wrote:

"I want to emphasize that the Democratic Nominee will be determined in accordance with Party rules. Out of respect for the presidential campaigns and the states that did not violate party rules, we are not going to change the rules in the middle of the game."



I find this very comforting and fair!

[murielm99]

54. Well goodie goodie for you.

I hope now that you and everyone else can leave the DNC rules committee alone to decide what to do about Florida and Michigan. And don't tell us "But Clinton...this...but Clinton...that." You are becoming tedious.

This still does not address the comparison of apples and oranges and the blame-Clinton mentality in several of your posts here.

[mod mom]

57. Actually Gov Dean's statement is good for the whole party.

As far as blaming the Clintons' for Carville's actions-well since they never condemned his traitorous actions I hold them partially accountable. If they cared about Democratic voters then they should have fought for them in the past not only when it is advantageous to benefit them personally. True leaders don't turn on the leadership qualities only when they personally benefit from it.

[beac]

64. Hillary is becoming BEYOND tedious.

As are you.

[murielm99]

70. Address the subject of the post without personal attack,

please. Or, you could put me on ignore. My heart will not be broken.

[beac]

72. You're a laugh riot... HOW many people have you snarked on in this thread alone???

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[murielm99]

76. I was trying to make some points here,

but it is impossible to talk to people who hate with such fervor.

I asked several times for people to consider another point of view and to tone down the hate.

See that as snark if you like. You seem to have a closed mind.

Politics should not get personal. You need to find another hobby if you think this is personal.

[beac]

62. There is no "sorting" needed and I am SICKENED

that Dean and the DNC are even considering doing anything but following the rules (that 15 Hillary-supporters, including Ickes) agreed to before the primaries even began.

The people that voted in FL and MI KNEW that their votes were garbage when they cast them.

They will have the opportunity to vote in the GE and are NOT in any way disenfranchised. Period.

[murielm99]

65. Your outrage is noted.

That is about all DU is used for any more - voicing outrage.

Maybe we can get back to discussion, education, sharing information and fun among like-minded people. I hope so.

Oh, and don't bother to blame the Clintons. That has become such a cliche.

[beac]

66. Um, so which one of your dozen snarky posts in this thread is the "fun" one???

:eyes:

[murielm99]

68. I didn't claim that any of them were fun. n/t

[roseBudd]

74. Oh but Hillary says it's just like Florida in 2000 a GE BTW and Zimbabwe!!

[truedelphi]

60. Glad to be seeing this come down the pike as a well recommended thread

ANd I'll leave your last question unanswered because many of us know the answer.

[PoliticalAmazon]

77. ITA. The Clintons, and other powerful polliticians, who get their power....

from our votes, could not be bothered to stand up for our votes in 2000 or 2004 when there was a successful attempt to steal the election.

Hillary is trying to steal the primary. I can see it no other way.

[murielm99]

37. Randy has turned into nothing more than a screaming hater.

She has lost any credibility she ever had. And isn't she supposed to be a comedian? Her stuff is not funny.

[NJSecularist]

11. Might as well blame Hillary for Hurricane Katrina while you are at it.

Hell, I hear Hillary was responsible for Gore losing in 2000. I also heard she was responsible for the U.S.S. Cole and the first World Trade Center attack.

[bigdarryl]

16. The point is if she talks all this bullshit about voters being disrespected and all votes should ...

count then we hear have a right to ask her where were you in 2000 or 2004

[mod mom]

17. Actually GORE WON! and here is what the DLC said about it:

'Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful"

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

[Yael]

14. Where was she before March of 2008 to "protect the voters"?

[mod mom]

20. BTW bush ended up ahead in OH by 118,000 and Provisional votes are concentrated in urban areas.

[NJSecularist]

23. That assumes most of the 250,000 provisional votes were valid.

Which is a big leap of faith.

It's unlikely that half of them were valid.

[mod mom]

26. Perhaps you should READ JOHN CONYERS & House Judiciary's "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in

OH":

Preserving Democracy:
What Went Wrong in Ohio
Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff

Wednesday 05 January 2005

Executive Summary



First, in the run up to election day, the following actions by Mr. Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens, predominantly minority and Democratic voters:

The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters. This was illustrated by the fact that the Washington Post reported that in Franklin County, "27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for Kerry." (See Powell and Slevin, supra). Among other things, the conscious failure to provide sufficient voting machinery violates the Ohio Revised Code which requires the Boards of Elections to "provide adequate facilities at each polling place for conducting the election."

Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and Democratic voters. Mr. Blackwell's decision departed from past Ohio law on provisional ballots, and there is no evidence that a broader construction would have led to any significant disruption at the polling places, and did not do so in other states.

Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter registration applications based on paper weight may have resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in time for the 2004 election.

The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in preelection "caging" tactics, selectively targeting 35,000 predominantly minority voters for intimidation had a negative impact on voter turnout. The Third Circuit found these activities to be illegal and in direct violation of consent decrees barring the Republican Party from targeting minority voters for poll challenges.

The Ohio Republican Party's decision to utilize thousands of partisan challengers concentrated in minority and Democratic areas likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of legal voters, who were not only intimidated, but became discouraged by the long lines. Shockingly, these disruptions were publicly predicted and acknowledged by Republican officials: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican Party, admitted the challenges "can't help but create chaos, longer lines and frustration."

Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested absentee ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis from being able to receive provisional ballots 6 likely disenfranchised thousands, if not tens of thousands, of voters, particularly seniors. A federal court found Mr. Blackwell's order to be illegal and in violation of HAVA.

Second, on election day, there were numerous unexplained anomalies and irregularities involving hundreds of thousands of votes that have yet to be accounted for:

There were widespread instances of intimidation and misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection, Due Process and the Ohio right to vote. Mr. Blackwell's apparent failure to institute a single investigation into these many serious allegations represents a violation of his statutory duty under Ohio law to investigate election irregularities.

We learned of improper purging and other registration errors by election officials that likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters statewide. The Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition projects that in Cuyahoga County alone over 10,000 Ohio citizens lost their right to vote as a result of official registration errors.

There were 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast for president, the vast majority of which have yet to be inspected. The problem was particularly acute in two precincts in Montgomery County which had an undervote rate of over 25% each - accounting for nearly 6,000 voters who stood in line to vote, but purportedly declined to vote for president.

There were numerous, significant unexplained irregularities in other counties throughout the state: (i) in Mahoning county at least 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown number of Kerry votes to the Bush column; (ii) Warren County locked out public observers from vote counting citing an FBI warning about a potential terrorist threat, yet the FBI states that it issued no such warning; (iii) the voting records of Perry county show significantly more votes than voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one ballot; (iv) in Butler county a down ballot and underfunded Democratic State Supreme Court candidate implausibly received more votes than the best funded Democratic Presidential candidate in history; (v) in Cuyahoga county, poll worker error may have led to little known thirdparty candidates receiving twenty times more votes than such candidates had ever received in otherwise reliably Democratic leaning areas; (vi) in Miami county, voter turnout was an improbable and highly suspect 98.55 percent, and after 100 percent of the precincts were reported, an additional 19,000 extra votes were recorded for President Bush.

Third, in the post-election period we learned of numerous irregularities in tallying provisional ballots and conducting and completing the recount that disenfanchised thousands of voters and call the entire recount procedure into question (as of this date the recount is still not complete):

Mr. Blackwell's failure to articulate clear and consistent standards for the counting of provisional ballots resulted in the loss of thousands of predominantly minority votes. In Cuyahoga County alone, the lack of guidance and the ultimate narrow and arbitrary review standards significantly contributed to the fact that 8,099 out of 24,472 provisional ballots were ruled invalid, the highest proportion in the state.

Mr. Blackwell's failure to issue specific standards for the recount contributed to a lack of uniformity in violation of both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clauses. We found innumerable irregularities in the recount in violation of Ohio law, including (i) counties which did not randomly select the precinct samples; (ii) counties which did not conduct a full hand court after the 3% hand and machine counts did not match; (iii) counties which allowed for irregular marking of ballots and failed to secure and store ballots and machinery; and (iv) counties which prevented witnesses for candidates from observing the various aspects of the recount.

The voting computer company Triad has essentially admitted that it engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in numerous counties to provide "cheat sheets" to those counting the ballots. The cheat sheets informed election officials how many votes they should find for each candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law.

-SNIP

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml

IT SURE WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IF THE CLINTONS HAD CARED TO FIGHT FOR THESE VOTES THAT WHERE DISENFRANCHISED!

[NJSecularist]

27. Even with 75% turnout in Cuyahoga (there was only 68% turnout)...

there still wasn't enough votes there for Kerry to win the state.

He got killed in Southeast and Western Ohio. That was the reason he lost the state.

[mod mom]

30. The provisional ballots were concentrated in 6 urban Ohio counties (out of 88)

Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus), Hamilton (Cincinnati), Lucas (Toledo), Montgomery (Dayton) and Summit (Akron). All Democratic strongholds.

[NJSecularist]

31. Yes, but there still weren't enough votes in those counties to put him over the top.

As I said, Kerry got beaten badly in Western Ohio and Southeastern Ohio. That was the state.

[mod mom]

33. You should read the House Judiciary Report as well as RFK Jr's:

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.Posted Jun 01, 2006 5:02 PM

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

[NJSecularist]

48. I've read that article.

There are a lot of generalities in that article. And it is long.

Care to dispute any of my points or are you just going to repeat your talking points?

[Richard Steele]

35. Kinda like Hillary and the remaining Primary races, no?

nm

[murielm99]

39. Show me where Conyers blames the Clintons anywhere in

his writings.

[mod mom]

41. I never said Conyers blamed Clinton. I said massive disenfranchisement occurred in 2000 & '04

but silence from the Clintons. Why the uproar now? Does she value some votes (directed at her ) over others?

[murielm99]

50. She is allowed to speak now, just as she was allowed to

stay out of the fray in 2000 and 2004. You do not make the rules.

I seem to remember that Clinton was being criticized over a lot of the pardons, and Bill was defending himself for that. It was all over the news. They were also being accused of leaving the family quarters in the White House in a shocking mess, something that turned out to be untrue. They were house hunting and preparing to move out of D.C.

Of course she is going to say something about an election she is involved in personally. How silly of you to think otherwise. Why the uproar now? It is her future, and your rhetorical question is foolish.

You are one of the people here who needs to step back and take a deep breath. This is a primary, not a witch hunt.

[mod mom]

53. You make my point perfectly-thank you.

They care about it when it concerns them-the rest of the party-not so much.


As to those pardons...come on even you must be appalled at Marc Rich's pardon-any Democrat or citizen for that matter should be.

[murielm99]

59. You do not get to twist my words for your own hateful purposes.

I did NOT say that they care about it when it concerns them and not the rest of the party. I gave you possible reason for their silence.

You know that an outgoing lame duck President does not really have any power, don't you? I am not going to repeat my point because you are obviously too full of hate to understand anything.

I do NOT make your point perfectly. You have no point, only mindless hatred for the Clintons.

[beac]

63. Yes, house-hunting and defending shady pardons.... SO important.

You just made the OP's point.... the Clintons put THEMSELVES first ALWAYS. Before the good of the country and before the good of the party and before any Democrat who'd dare to try and be President before it was "her time."

[murielm99]

71. Oh, another word twister. n/t

[patrice]

24. Is there also a reference in Woodward's book to a phone call from HC to Edwards? nt

[Jerseycountryman]

25. Good point

Or in 2000. Where was she when the Florida debacle occured?

[patrice]

32. Getting ready to fun for the Senate, right? nt

[jenmito]

28. She was busy preparing for her '08 run (which is why Carville was so quick to "concede" he was wrong

saying Kerry would win.) I still remember him on Crossfire putting a garbage can over his head. :eyes:

[David Zephyr]

29. Excellent question you posed, mod mom.

And let's remember that Bill Clinton was the President of the United States in November of 2000 and he could have ordered the National Guard into Florida to count the votes if he'd really wanted to help Al Gore.

He could have had the Justice Department crawling all over Katherine Harris' Department, but Bill Clinton did not lift a finger.

You posed an excellent question, but it also reminds me of Florida, too.

Bill and Hillary Clinton sat in the White House with all the powers of the Executive Branch and did absolutely nothing.

[murielm99]

42. So the outgoing President was supposed to

call out the National Guard to challenge the count in Florida, because someone was challenging the incumbent Vice President and the candidate representing his own party? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? At the time, Gore seemed to be making the right decision by taking everything to court. Did you think they would vote along party lines? Did you really? I know that most people did not.

Your post is naive and ridiculous.

[backscatter712]

38. Where was she when Bush was making the case for war?

If she's such a fighter, she could have put up a fight against Bush's campaign of lies and opposed the war.

If she's such a fighter, where was she when Kyl-Lieberman was being debated?

Oh yeah, she was with them...

[Toucano]

44. Senators Clinton and Boxer, Representative Tubbs Jones...to Unveil Major Election Reform Bill

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2005/2005217501.html

February 17, 2005
Legislation Would Enact Sweeping Reforms by Next Major Election Cycle in 2006

WASHINGTON, DC— U.S. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today unveiled comprehensive voting reform legislation to make sure that every American is able to vote and every vote is counted. Senators Clinton and Boxer announced the legislation today in a press conference joined by Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), who will sponsor the legislation in the House of Representatives, and voting rights advocates.

"Voting is the most precious right of every citizen, and we have a moral obligation to ensure the integrity of our voting process," said Senator Clinton. "The smooth functioning of our democracy depends on voters having faith in the fairness and accuracy of our voting system, and the Count Every Vote Act is an important step toward restoring this covenant. We must be able to easily and accurately count every vote so that every vote counts."

Added Senator Boxer: "Every citizen of this country should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that their vote is counted, and that in the voting booth, their vote has a much weight as that of any CEO, any member of Congress, or any President. Our democracy is the centerpiece of who we are as a nation, and we must take action to ensure that the American people have full confidence in our electoral system."

"I am pleased to join with Senators Clinton and Boxer in introducing companion legislation in the House as we continue our efforts to ensure that every American is afforded their Constitutional right to vote," said Representative Tubbs Jones. "This legislation seeks to combat the tremendous voting irregularities that plagued both the 2000 and 2004 elections. If in fact we see it is our obligation to secure democracy around the world, to monitor and oversee free and fair elections in other countries, most recently in Iraq, then we must ensure, protect and guarantee the right to vote right here at home."

The Count Every Vote Act of 2005 will provide a voter verified paper ballot for every vote cast in electronic voting machines and ensures access to voter verification for all citizens, including language minority voters, illiterate voters and voters with disabilities. The bill mandates that this ballot be the official ballot for purposes of a recount. The bill sets a uniform standard for provisional ballots so that every qualified voter will know their votes are treated equally, and requires the Federal Election Assistance Commission to issue standards that ensure uniform access to voting machines and trained election personnel in every community. The bill also improves security measures for electronic voting machines.

To encourage more citizens to exercise their right to vote, the Count Every Vote Act designates Election Day a federal holiday and requires early voting in each state. The bill also enacts "no-excuse" absentee balloting, enacts fair and uniform voter registration and identification, and requires states to allow citizens to register to vote on Election Day. It also requires the Election Assistance Commission to work with states to reduce wait times for voters at polling places. In addition, the legislation restores voting rights for felons who have repaid their debt to society.

The Count Every Vote Act also includes measures to protect voters from deceptive practices and conflicts of interest that harm voter trust in the integrity of the system. In particular, the bill restricts the ability of chief state election officials as well as owners and senior managers of voting machine manufacturers to engage in certain kinds of political activity. The bill also makes it a federal crime to commit deceptive practices, such as sending flyers into minority neighborhoods telling voters the wrong voting date, and makes these practices a felony punishable by up to a year of imprisonment.

Today, representatives from civil rights organizations and voting rights advocates praised the legislation, including People For the American Way, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, NAACP, Common Cause, the National Voting Rights Institute, DEMOS and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. The leaders emphasized the urgent need for the bill.

"Every American citizen should be able to cast a vote that counts, and it should not be difficult," said Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way, one of the founding members of the Election Protection coalition. "This bill provides practical, secure accessible solutions at the ballot box for Americans with disabilities, those who speak languages other than English, and other Americans who face hurdles in exercising their voting rights. It's a great bill."

"The Count Every Vote Act will go a long way toward restoring dignity to our nation's electoral system and will provide citizens across the nation with an opportunity to effectively participate in democratic decision-making," said Barbara R. Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee.

Senators Clinton and Boxer first introduced election reform legislation in the 108th Congress, together with former Senator Bob Graham. In the meantime, another election cycle showed evidence of problems in the Federal election system, including long wait times to vote, erroneous purging of voters, voter suppression and intimidation and unequal access to the voting process. The Count Every Vote Act requires that all provisions be in place for the next major election cycle in 2006.

"We cannot let another Election Day go by without doing everything we can to make sure that voters have confidence in our voting system and exercise their right to vote," underscored Senator Clinton. "This shouldn't be a Republican or Democratic issue. This is a voter issue, plain and simple. I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us to implement these common sense measures."

Senators Clinton and Boxer and Representative Tubbs Jones will work in the 109th Congress to keep attention to this issue and urge action.

[mod mom]

47. Will Pitt's "Conyers to Object to Ohio Electors, Requests Senate Allies" 12/30/04:

Conyers to Object to Ohio Electors, Requests Senate Allies
By William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Report
Thursday 30 December 2004

Representative John Conyers, ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, will object to the counting of the Ohio Electors from the 2004 Presidential election when Congress convenes to ratify those votes on January 6th. In a letter dispatched to every Senator, which will be officially published by his office shortly, Conyers declares that he will be joined in this by several other members of the House. Rep. Conyers is taking this dramatic step because he believes the allegations and evidence of election tampering and fraud render the current slate of Ohio Electors illegitimate.

"As you know," writes Rep. Conyers in his letter, "on January 6, 2005, at 1:00 P.M, the electoral votes for the election of the president are to be opened and counted in a joint session of Congress. I and a number of House Members are planning to object to the counting of the Ohio votes, due to numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and state law."

The letter goes on to ask the Senators who receive this letter to join Conyers in objecting to the Ohio Electors. "I am hoping that you will consider joining us in this important effort," writes Conyers, "to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters. I will shortly forward you a draft report itemizing and analyzing the many irregularities we have come across as part of our hearings and investigation into the Ohio presidential election."

There are expected to be high level meetings with high ranking Democratic officials next week to coordinate a concerted lobbying effort to convince Senators to challenge the vote. The Green Party and David Cobb, as has been true all along, will be centrally involved in this process, as will Rev. Jesse Jackson.

The remainder of the Conyers letter reads:

3 U.S.C. §15 provides when the results from each of the states are announced, that "the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any." Any objection must be presented in writing and "signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received." The objection must "state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof." When an objection has been properly made in writing and endorsed by a member of each body the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each body meets separately to consider the objection. "No votes...from any other State shall be acted upon until the (pending) objection...(is) finally disposed of." 3 U.S.C. §17 limits debate on the objections in each body to two hours, during which time no member may speak more than once and not for more than five minutes. Both the Senate and the House must separately agree to the objection; otherwise, the challenged vote or votes are counted.

Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for objecting to the counting of electoral votes. The language of 3 U.S.C. §15 suggests that objection may be made on the grounds that (1) a vote was not "regularly given" by the challenged elector(s); and/or (2) the elector(s) was not "lawfully certified" under state law; or (3) two slates of electors have been presented to Congress from the same State.

Since the Electoral Count Act of 1887, no objection meeting the requirements of the Act have been made against an entire slate of state electors. In the 2000 election several Members of the House of Representatives attempted to challenge the electoral votes from the State of Florida. However, no Senator joined in the objection, and therefore, the objection was not "received." In addition, there was no determination whether the objection constituted an appropriate basis under the 1887 Act. However, if a State - in this case Ohio - has not followed its own procedures and met its obligation to conduct a free and fair election, a valid objection -if endorsed by at least one Senator and a Member of the House of Representatives- should be debated by each body separately until "disposed of".

-snip
http://www.oriondems.com/Ohio%20Recount.htm

SHE COULD HAVE ACTED TO BENEFIT THE OHIO (& ELSEWHERE) VOTERS WHO WERE DISENFRANCHISED INSTEAD OF JUST LOOKING AHEAD TO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN FUTURE ELECTIONS (she knew she was going to run in '08)

[murielm99]

56. So could any number of other Democratic Senators.

There were many of them from safe states who were not up for re-election. If Senator Durbin of my state had done this, he would have been regarded as a hero, no matter what the outcome. He is up for re-election this year, and he is a shoo-in. I am sure other DUers can think of additional Senators who could have done this. The would have been vilified by the republicans, but what else is new?

There is no reason for you to single Clinton out in this instance. Stop the hysteria and hate.

[roseBudd]

75. Clinton is suddenly concerned about votes that she was against before she needed them, does make her

germane to this topic.

It shows her hypocrisy.

[murielm99]

55. Thank you. This deserves a separate thread. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

52. I'm still trying to figure out where she gets off not counting caucus states.

[MrSlayer]

58. At home laughing and plotting this year's debacle.

She didn't want Kerry to win.

[TexasObserver]

61. If she ain't runnin', she ain't interested!

[iconicgnom]

67. that coincides with the connection Penn Black

It is totally indefensible.

Esp. so quickly following Holy Joe Lieberman. What do you think of a Clinton/Lieberman ticket? Lieberman would have to be pried away from McCain's ass, of course, to do it - but who knows, perhaps she and he could duke it out for who's P and who's VP? OK, I admit, that's my dream ticket.

[ecdab]

69. The BS of the Clinton position should become very clear after

Saturday. The DNC will award her at least 49.77% of the delegates in Florida and 55.23% of the delegates in Michigan (which is the % she won in the sham contests) which end up being awarded. After that it will be all about making sure potential Obama votes in Florida and Michigan don't get counted - which is what this has always been about.