Fellow Members and Colleagues,

In some way I am sad that Al Gore is not in the race. But in some other ways, I am glad he is not being dragged through the acidic and corrupt process once again.

(1) "the way the ballots are counted in New Hampshire, largely on Diebold optical-scan voting systems, wholly controlled and programmed by a very very bad company named LHS Associates."

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530

(2) "What the informal statistics show is that Hillary Clinton received a 4.5% boost in towns using Diebold voting machines compared to towns that didn't. Meanwhile, Obama was hurt in these towns showing a 2.5% decrease in the Diebold towns."

http://benmoseley.blogspot.com/2008/01/do-...w-election.html

(3) YOUTUBE: Silvestro the cat & the New Hampshire election
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs...log.com/?p=5529

2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary Results --Total Democratic Votes: 286,139

Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%

Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ro...hire_electi.htm

I am glad someone else is agreeing with this

Obama won fair and square
Like Gore did in 2000
Like Cleland did in 2002
Like Kerry did in 2004
Like Lieberman did in 2006
The fix is still in

From what I know, Optical Scan is one of the most accurate means of counting votes. It does not have the same pitfalls as touch screen machines or punch cards.

As far as fraud, it has been less than 24 hours since he polls closed, so there is no way a hand count can be done in that short a time to compare.

If Senator Obama feels there is evidence of fraud, he should request a recount. But so far this just sounds like a bunch bloggers being sore losers.

S.C. to use voting machines banned in other states
Associated Press
Monday, January 7, 2008


GREENVILLE — South Carolina election officials say they still plan to use touch-screen voting machines despite the fact that other states have banned the use of similar systems made by the same company.

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jan/07...other_sta26854/

Election fraud, will it ever end???? :bad: :bad: :bad:

Your love for Hillary seems to have put blinders on you

Surely you remember how Gore's vote was stolen and you agreed it was?
(that's a question for you, not a statement).

Something stinks and once again the recipient of the stink was either a Clinton or a Bush.

Ever notice it's never a Gore or a Dean or a good person?

What are the odds that it only can happen for the same two families for 38 years?

http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/

There is some effort going on in that direction. You can help, volunteer, and create awareness of this organization.

Well then stop blathering on the computer all day and go take a shower.

You might also think of taking some time to seek professional help as well. :laugh:

"From what I know, Optical Scan is one of the most accurate means of counting votes. It does not have the same pitfalls as touch screen machines or punch cards."


If I hear this again I'm going to puke.

The major advantage of Optical Scan is that you have a ballot, MARKED BY THE VOTER, that can be recounted. The problem is, they usually aren't.

Otherwise, it suffers from the same problems as other computer based systems- it's vote counting in secret. There is no way to verify the accuracy of the count unless the ballots are audited by hand.

If you don't think that Optical Scans can be manipulated, then you need to do some research regarding the Harri Hursti hack on Florida optical scan machines. Ion Sancho, the county voting head, was amazed. Hursti was able to change the totals in ways that could ONLY be detected by a hand count audit of the ballots. He did it with a memory card.

Now, even if you don't want to think about deliberate hacking, programs are not infallible, systems break down, etc.

We should never, in this country, abandon the concepts of checks and balances, especially in our elections. If we never audit the systems counting the votes, we have no checks and balances.

Do some reading. Punch cards were a problem in Florida in 2000 because they were allowed to be. Greg Palast found problems with optical scan tallies in certain counties. Dan Rather exposed that the punch cards may have been deliberately set up to fail and there's a report by him on that.

Optical scan, as previously stated, does produce original, voter documentation. But it is as subject to mistakes or "outside influence" as other voting systems depending on computers to count.

Touch screens are so bad they should be banned completely.

Optical scan has to be heavily audited to insure they are counting correctly.

The best method is hand counting and yes, when done properly, with witnesses and party representatives participating, is quite accurate and honest.

The next step with any voting system is to insure that the precinct totals, sub totals, and others that make up the grand outcome have not been fudged. Every step of the way has to be audited.

Prepare to puke then.

I didn't say they were infallible. No system is, even hand counting.

Can they be manipulated? Yes but all systems can including hand counting.

But optical scan ballots have proven to be the most accurate and they leave a paper trail. Of course they can be manipulated with the collusion of poll workers. But the same thing can be done (and has been done) with hand counted ballots.

If Senator Obama believes the results were manipulated or fraudulent, he should request a recount. Otherwise, Obama supporters are just being sore losers.

Also of Note ...this was the scene in NH on 7 Jan 2008:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1199690372...=googlenews_wsj

USA Today: Amid frenetic last-minute campaigning, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds the one-time front-runners in New Hampshire lagging as Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain have surged to leads before Tuesday's primary. Mr. Obama vaulted to a 13-percentage-point advantage over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton three weeks after they were tied in the state. Mr. McCain gained a four-point edge over Mitt Romney, a former governor of neighboring Massachusetts who has campaigned almost as a favorite son of the Granite State.

Politico: Sen. Hillary Clinton's strategists, desperate for a win in New Hampshire , have decided against unleashing attack ads against Sen. Barack Obama, concluding that negative advertising wouldn't work in the compressed time frame between Iowa and New Hampshire, which adds to their worries about their ability to change a media and political environment that is embracing Mr. Obama as a historic figure, Democratic sources said.

So far the evidence is circumstantial. Diebold machines just "happen" to favor Clinton across the state, and Zogby polls along with many others just "happen" to be wrong only in the case of Clinton. Everyone else was in the expected statistical range. This thread is created for keeping the records organized in one place, just in case! I will "agree" with certain members of this forum that election fraud has never occurred in this nation since 1776.

Well then why doesn't Senator Obama request a recount? If there was really fraud can anyone show any real evidence? In a country where that holds the principle of innocent until proven guilty, I find these guilt by association and innuendo tactics distasteful.

I am sure James you would love Obama to do something like that, so he is derailed right away.

Why didn't Al Gore ever say more than he did?
Why didn't John Kerry ever say more than he did?
Gore challenged, but he used polite words and never said the words THEFT
He just challenged that the count was wrong

WHAT ABOUT THE 60,000 votes no one even mentioned that DISAPPEARED election Eve 2000?
The ones that said Gore won by 60,000 votes.

We are not talking the hanging chads, the rumpled ballots, but the outright disappearance of the votes

Now in 2004, they have prooved how Ohio could have on a flip of a button by one person turned the 100000 around

Because Obama can't do it and you know that and still run a viable campaign

BUT-lets even say there was no theft- it was the racist campaign Terry McAuliffe and James KKKarl Rove Carville thought of in cahoots
To come out the minute Iowa was over and say NO Bounce, knowing full well
a big 2 day bounce was coming 2 days later (when there were only 5 days)

HILLARY was leading all polls Jan.1-4 by 8-25 percent.
So Hillaryy is not the comeback kid at all, she ended up winning by 2 or 3 percent meaning she dipped 22 to 6 percent and barely eked out a victory by the narrowest of margins

And Bill goes on tv and the convicted LIAR has the audacity to call Obama a liar on national tv???

Your right James to be in love with Hillary, but are you going to let another election get stolen and another democratic candidate swiftboated, like Bill and Hillary are doing to Obama

Using code words (roll of the dice is a term implying a non-working black shooting craps outside his apartment in Harlem against the wall with other non-working blacks...
The Clinton team knows full well every word they release and McAuliffe knew the bounce was coming when he deflated expectations

So you can have it either way- it was either stolen, or they are playing dirty pool

And supposedly, that is why Al Gore refused to run, because he knew the Clintons are the most vicious convicted impeached liars to ever run across him, and he knew what they are capable of.
So at best, he is hoping for a brokered bypassing them forever...

Don't you want better than the Clinton's James?Stop having blinders on when the Clinton's do the same thing you don't like the rightwing doing.

I for one pledge I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON for President due to her own actions. She has lost my vote.

"Now the January, 2008 election: dateline New Hampshire. Zogby International has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy. It's January 5 - 7 pre-election poll numbers showed Obama at 42% v. Clinton's 29% - an impossible gap to close in a few days or even weeks. Yet magically it happened. Clinton miraculously snatched victory from certain defeat with 39% of the vote to Obama's 36% with the loser saying no more than "I am still fired up and ready to go." Where to he should ask after this type reversal with obvious grim signs for his hopes."

"Consider final New Hampshire vote tallies for all candidates compared to Zogby's January 5 - 7 pre-election poll numbers. For Republican and Democrat candidates alike, they were dead-on right with one glaring exception. Something to ponder and question."

"On the Republican side, something fishy happened as well to its one outlier - Ron Paul. The candidate's "war room" hand count showed he got 15% of the vote, but official counting gave him 8% and 9% in total when electronically tabulated votes were included. His web site said he scored 10% or better in every township and listed percentages for them all. They ranged from 34% to 10.25%. If these numbers are accurate, Paul got a minimum of 10% of New Hampshire's vote for a third place finish."

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blo...08/01/10/p22481

With all due respect, Mr. JamesAquila, please keep your personal feelings to yourself. I intend to use this thread as a depository of links to assist building a case to investigate possible election fraud in NH. I appreciate if you do not interfere.

This is a very good site for tracking what's going on, information, and questions:

http://www.bradblog.com/

'Was Ahead an Average of 8 Points, Even in Our Own Exit Polls'

"Even the Exit Polls showed that Obama should have won, according to Chris Matthews on Hardball today. It's the first specific indication that we've seen that the raw, unadjusted Exit Poll data, which only corporate mainstream media folks, not mere mortals, are allowed to see, confirmed all of the pre-election polling which predicted an Obama win........"



Before anyone goes off about poll data, the important data, the data we don't get to see, is the RAW data. Matthews, who saw the raw data, saw something and said something about it, for once.

James, I'd appreciate it if when you make statements about voting systems, you include the caveats that you gave with it when you responded. The punch cards in 2000 were the smoke and mirrors for the most extensive fraud which took place with the optical scan. Or do you really believe the whole country voted for Bush, twice? Why was it so important to stop a recount of the votes? Not because of the punch cards although that needed to happen, but because a recount that got into the optical scan would show things were rotten to the core. And not just in Florida. Machines can count the ballots pretty well, if adjusted properly, etc., but it's not the counting that's the problem, per se, it's the recording of that count and the tallying of that count. No one ever checks that out and that is where Hursti, in a damning experiment, showed those tallies could be manipulated and in a way that could not be traced.

Strategically, Obama can't call for a recount because he's going to get blasted in the MSM. Same as if Ron Paul on the GOP side calls for one and he should because there is already evidence of people voting for Paul and not having those votes counted.

James, do a little research on state laws for recounts and you'll find they are written to make a recount hard- either financially or very narrowly written so only the candidate can call for it. Nice catch-22 as there are people outside of the campaign who could probably pay for the audit.

We need a random, 10% audit of all the ballots in all the races in all the precincts- not like they do it in Ohio where election officials "pre-audited" the ballots recount.

Since you dislike anyone on the losing side questioning the outcome, how about the winning camp doing an audit to prove the results?

Like that's going to happen.....

Meanwhile, besides the site above, go to Votersunite.org and begin reading.

I say we forget anthing electronic at this point and go "old school"!!!

Caucuses first to pick the candidates, hard to get an error in that format.
Then, abolish the electoral college, and just dip my finger in ink on election day! Use different colors for each candidate - no way to question exit polls then. :bad: :good:

Why do we need to fear announcing who we want to have as our President? We are suppose to be free in this country, but we are forced by society to conform in too many ways!!
Closet racists and sexists (etc :kenny: :turtle: :ph43r: ) be damned! It would certainly give a whole new meaning to "showing our true colors"!!!
:wub: :alien: :mad: :spidy: :chef: :tongue:

No, if there is a legitimate cause to believe the results were manipulated he should ask for a recount as is his right.

Because they are men of character who believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty and thus don't make unsupported accusations.

Blather that has nothing to do with the point at hand.

Yes he could if the accusations are true and it would put an end to Hillary's campaign right now.

So when you can't prove one accusation you just move on to the next. As usual you prove yourself to be intellectually dishonest.

Putting words in people's mouths, making unsupport accusations using innuendo and guilt by association tactic is what the rightwing does. Just like you.

Big surprize!

Trying to silence dissent. How very Bush of you.

Since this a free and open board, I intend to continue posting whether you like it or not.

Build your case since I believe in guilty until proven innocent, I intend to question it every step of the way.

Sorry if that offends you but that is the price you pay for living in a democracy.

You all want to 'project' this voting fraud onto the Democratic Party now! I have news for you...Hillary Clinton GOT emotional because of all the CRAP that was being piled upon her...VOTERS noticed it...and THEY WENT OUT AND VOTED FOR WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS THE MOST SINCERE! :!:

As James stated...It's VERY BU$H of you to want it YOUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY! :angry:

You all must WANT a McCaine WAR WAR Presidency! Because THAT is what you are going to GET if you don't quit making a BAD WOUND that BU$H put there EVEN BIGGER! :!:

What Hillary Clinton is getting 'bashed' by is a thing I call "stigma"...Karl Baby and his cronies paint Senator Clinton with a stigmatized 'ugly brush'...and YOU ALL pile it on with Election Fraud? DEMOCRATS DO NOT ENGAGE IN VOTER FRAUD!....THAT IS A GOP BU$H TACTIC! :mad:

We have been yelling voter fraud sooooo long that we look 'cracked in the skull' when we accuse OUR OWN DEMOCRATS OF DOING IT!...So take a dose of Thorazine...call for INTERNATIONAL OBSERVERS if you FEEL it is THAT BAD! And investigate to your hearts content!...BUT GET THE H#LL OVER IT! :mad:

Yeah like Chris Matthews is a credible source for anything having to do with the Clintons. I just read over at DU that the CNN exit polls match the final results. And as far as polling there is something called the "Bradley Factor" which often over estimates the polls numbers of African-American candidates.

Now you are obsucating and not discussing the issue at hand.

Total BS. If there were a credible case to be made Senator Obama would ask for a recount. People like Chris Matthews in the MSM who hate the Clintons would back him all the way.

Get off your high horse and don't lecture me. I've done plenty of research on the subject to assist a Commissioner on the New York state board of elections. I just like dealing in real facts not in one manufactured by innuendo.

Fine then Senator Obama should request one and I support his right to do so.

No the burden of proof is on those making the accusation not the other way around. Maybe you should try reading the constitution someday.

And I would have no problem with Senator Obama requesting a recount. That is his right. My problem is with whinny internet bloggers using innuendo and guilty by association tactic because they are sore losers.

By the way an AUDIT can ONLY be done by an impartial party...INTERNATIONAL OBSERVERS without a vested interest CAN DO IT! :!:

But NOT any of us... :dripple:

I agree with James...if Senator Obama requests a recount then that is all well and GOOD...but NOT because some Blogger is 'mad' because Hillary Clinton wizzed in his Cheerios! :angry:

Very true. Where is Jimmy Carter when you need him?

Wish I KNEW where he was James...The BEST way to put this to REST is for BOTH DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS TO AGREE TO IMPARTIAL OBSERVERS TO OUR ELECTION PROCESS! :!:

I am SURE both Senator Obama & Senator Clinton would be HAPPY to have observers in here to watch the process! ;)

The GOP and BU$H are SURE to OBJECT TO IT! ;)

"Get off your high horse and don't lecture me. I've done plenty of research on the subject to assist a Commissioner on the New York state board of elections. I just like dealing in real facts not in one manufactured by innuendo."


Well, if you have done so, then you know New York is set for legal action by the DOJ because they don't want the infernal touch screen machines in the state. (And I do mean, Good On New York!) New York does need to get rid of the lever machines because, like the touch screens, most of them provide no way to recount an election. I've heard of some elaborate paper schemes to create one but it's just not practical.

Just as you cannot prove a negative, neither can you prove a positive. While you sound like one of those that point to the "facts" as presented by the mainstream press, if you did some reading at Votersunite.org you'd find out just how messed up elections in our country are.

Do you support the catch-22 that we currently have? The vendors have proprietary code so you can't even look at it. Oh sure, it can be in escrow by the state but the state would have a long battle on their hands to actually get to look at it. Not that that takes care of the whole problem.

So you have vendors who won't let you look at the programs, some of whom literally run elections in our country because the counties outsource, running proprietary code, on machines that are vulnerable as a sieve. I mean, common, computer scientists have gotten their hands on these things and they are just garbage. New Hampshire does not write their own programming for the elections they are outsourced to a vendor.

Do you support corporate ownership of our voting process, on systems that are not audited, just because the MSM and the corporate vendors say we have no proof because not so incidentally, a simple program on a memory card can change vote totals and erase the evidence that anything ever happened? Isn't it great that a corporate vendor can then sit in a corner with a smug smile on his face and say, "Prove it," knowing the only way is with a hand recount and knowing that the election officials will fight tooth and nail to avoid that and that most election laws in the country are set up to trigger an automatic recount only if the percentage between candidates is something really tiny like 1/2 of 1 percent or 1/4 of 1 percent? Bingo, just make the difference bigger than that.

I'm glad you helped out New York. I worked for over four years to enact change at the state level via state law to outlaw non-paper voting. I've done my fair share of research too and the conclusion is that as long as we're depending on accurate counts from computer programs we're doomed.

And for the record, I don't support either Clinton or Obama in this race. I support an accurate vote count. And the point about Matthews, which you missed, was that he got a look at the RAW poll data. What the public gets has been "adjusted." If he happens to help put the first chink in the facade that our elections are all on the up and up, I don't care.

Your bias is showing. The Bradley effect has been pretty well dismissed and DU is not a bastion of democracy, far from it. CNN's exit poll has been massaged. Do a little of the reading I suggested, find out how the polling results are handled before the public gets to look at them.

If you are so sure that there is nothing to what happened in New Hampshire, then by all means, urge the Clinton camp to prove it. After all, they should have nothing to fear by a full audit, they would gain good PR- it's a win-win for them. They certainly have the bucks to do it. I'd want to know the chain of custody on those ballots.

But, alas, it will probably be some obscure candidate who calls for a recount, much as it was up to the Green Party to get to the bottom of Ohio in 2004 and there's still more to learn about that. As for Kerry in 2004, he lawyered up to fight vote fraud and then ordered them to stand down even though there were some valid investigations that needed to happen.

But really, if Clinton has nothing to fear, she should call for a recount.

Oh, I forgot, the burden of proof is always on the losing candidate....well, this is an election and not a courtroom. As for the constitution, it was written with deliberate checks and balances in place. There are no checks and balances when elections are not audited by hand. (Please, no machine counts, you can't audit using the same method you're checking on)

I would submit that our elections are not constitutional, because no check and balance exists to prove the will of the people was honored.

No verification = faith based voting
Please look the other way while the man behind the curtain works his magic and just believe what we tell you to believe.

For New York's sake, please make sure your commissioner works for a random, 10% hand audit in every election. Surely Clinton would support that? Maybe you can get her to write a letter doing just that.

Those who commit election fraud are the one who silence millions of free voices. My goal is to point out issues that need to be addressed. It is YOU who tries to silence me by calling names such as "sore losers". If Obama's campaign does not get grip of this situation, then it does not matter how many people turn out to vote. The constitution has no value when election is meaningless and our elected leaders are illegitimate. Voter fraud is becoming a norm than an exception, and a viable campaign strategy for some segments of our society. Strong statistical deviations are supposed to be alarming, and taken very seriously.

I never told you not to post. I'm just questioning your accusation which is my right to do. The burdon of proof is on you as the person making the accusations. I'm sorry if you don't like that. If there is real evidence of vote tampering than Senator Obama should request a recount and I would support his right to do so.

I happened to catch some of The News Hour last night on PBS,
and was surprised to see that most all of the panelists were
having a hard time even guessing as to why the nine polls just prior
to the election were wrong. Way wrong. They had Obama double digits
ahead of Clinton. One panelist stated that there was no way that all
these polls were wrong. The best explanation that he
could come up with was that a massive amount of voters had
'changed their minds', between the time of the poll and the time of
the election (one or two days). He said that there was a problem with
this also, though, because most polls had safeguards built in regarding
undecideds, etc..

And I think it's a bad idea to assume that any
democrat (candidate or otherwise) might be
involved in election fraud just because the
outcome favors a specific candidate. I wouldn't
like the idea of republicans 'choosing' which
democratic candidate I'll 'be allowed' to vote
for in November.

I am well aware of the situation in New York. And you're right we don't want touch screen machines that don't leave a paper trail.

I never said they weren't. But you're the one making the accusation. I'm just saying prove it. The principle is innocent until proven guilty not the other way around. And I don't just buy into the the mainstream press but I don't buy into an unsupported allegation made by anonymous people on the internet either.

You're being very dishonest here. You're turning my unwillingness to accept this single allegation of voting fraud into a referendum on the entire issue of electronic voting. I actually agree with most of what you say about electronic voting. But I also believe in innocent until proven guilty. The fact that you are obfuscating and trying to change the subject tells me that you can't prove it.

Which is why I don't support touch screen voting machines but that is not the point here since they didn't use touch screens in New Hampshire. They used optical scan ballots that have been prove to be the most accurate and leave a paper trail. I'm not saying they are perfect but no system is.

I didn't miss the point about Matthews but he has a well-known anti-Clinton bias. Anything he says in regard to them is suspect. He even accused New Hampshire voters of being racists because he didn't like that Hillary won.

No it is your bias that is showing. You are willing to accept any allegation of voting fraud as true and then dimiss anything that questions it. All I'm saying that if there real evidence of fraud, Senator Obama should ask for a recount.

First I have no connection with the Clinton campaign so I am not in a position to urge them to do anything.

In this country the burdon of proof is on those making the allegations not the other way around. You're beginning to sound like a Bushie defending warrantless wiretapping using the logic if aren't commiting a crime you have nothing to worry about.

The burdon of proof is on the person making the accusation. And people have the right to face there accusers. So far all I see is a bunch of anonymous people on the internet.

The check and balance is the right to ask for a recount. Until Senator Obama does that this is just a load of internet blather.

But there is verification when paper ballots exist as they do in this case. Now the question is why doesn't Senator Obama ask for a recount?

I'll suggest it.

Here's the lead from the list prepared by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org every day:

"It appears that Hart Intercivic has admitted that the optical-scan tabulators certified by the state of Colorado and used in that state show a significant error rate when a ballot has stray marks."

(If you don't audit, you don't catch this stuff and this is not election fraud but machine failure. Mandatory audits are essential)

James, why don't you ask to be put on his mailing list. He provides stories from across the country on voting concerns. You can get that list every day. And because that list is there every day, there is very definitely something wrong with elections in this country. What you never get is the MSM to report it. But when you see the stories generated every day on the local and state level, it's sad, really sad- and it's real.

It's not that Obama could or should ask for a recount- the recount should be an automatic part of the process in a system with genuine checks and balances.

Please do write a letter to Senator Clinton asking her to write in support of a 10% random hand audit of all ballots cast in New York, to give to your commissioner. Then ask her to do the same in support of the same audit requirements across the country. While you're at it, get her to ban touch screen voting. Last time she was involved in voting legislation, she definitely didn't get it.

Now, I'm not picking on Clinton here because most of those in Congress don't get it- otherwise, then they don't want to get it and I don't want to go there.

The sad truth is, in my state, it was some pretty outstanding Republicans who got the legislation finally passed after three long years of fighting. Yes, we had a few Democrats in there too but the real fighters were on the GOP side. Credit where credit is due. They stood up to a Republican Secretary of State who was gung ho on touch screens and fought us every step of the way.

Where voting is concerned, it's individual, not party that matters.

If it's not audited it's not verified. If it's not verified it's not democratic, it's not a system with checks and balances.

Oh, by the way, there are some election officials in Ohio who may finally be getting their just due for 2004. But you wouldn't know that if you just listened/read the MSM. Really, subscribe to John's list for a while. It's a real eye opener. Nothing made up there, you couldn't make this stuff up day after day.

I know Singht Junior is a level-headed member of our forum here and very active in his community. Please show him respect.

To suggest that any candidate should instigate a voter fraud challenge is ridiculous. That needs to come from outside sources. Once instigated (as it should be in this case) then a candidate can call for it. Otherwise it is suicide.

An automatic 10% recount is not unreasonable. The issue should really be it's own thread and not be confused with the issue of possible election fraud in New Hampshire.

Questioning someone's allegations is not disrespectful. That is part of democracy. His trying to silence those who question him is.

Candidate ask for recounts all the time. It is not suicide to ask for one. That is just an excuse. In the age of the internet there are too many anonymous people who want to throw out wild allegations without having to prove them. And the goal is not to prove them but cast doubt in the minds of other people.

Charging that there was election fraud in New Hampshire is a very serious allegation. But too many forget that the standard is innocent until proven guilty. If there is a legitimate case here then Senator Obama should request a recount. I'll even say that he is obligated to request a recount. If not, he should tell these anonymous bloggers to stop engaging in innuendo and guilt by association tactics.

Dennis Kucinich has ASKED FOR AND WILL GET A FULL RECOUNT OF THE NH PRIMARY VOTES

Please someone PUT UP THE LINK TO SHOW THIS

Kucinich wants all the votes to be re-counted, he will pay the $2000.00 fee (it is already on the way), and a full recount will be done

James- why after 2000 2002 2004 and 2006 do you wish to stop a full recount?
What is it you have to hide?

If the recount shows the exact same results, and can proove that the votes they are counting are the ones people voted on, then fine, we shall be relieved

BRAVO DENNIS KUCINICH!!!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

He is about the only candidate now who knows what is going on and is doing something concrete. He knows he cannot win (which is why in Iowa he told his supporters to back Obama).
NOW he should stay in the race til the end, and expose the hypocricy all the way through.

A fraudulent election, or the appearance of one only makes people think something indeed is wrong.
And both parties are in on it, and both are to blame.

James- if YOU think Chris Matthews is on the side of Al Gore, then YOU are , well,
you are nuttier than a peanutbutter sandwich.

Please look at the following on youtube about the

DIEBOLD SCANNER TYPE VOTING COUNTING MACHINES
These are for PAPER BALLOTS THAT are then inserted into the machines, and mechanically recorded
ONLY the candidates can demand a recount
here
http://www.solari.com/blog/
and then hit
SILVERSTRO THE CAT/NH VOTING
and it will come up

this is what we are up against

we meaning anyone who wants a full and accurate voting count regardless of which party or candidate is the one cheating.
And Hillary has not called for any investigation into this or for the fact that why in the world is a company that was found lacking in safe standards, now has their
scanners doing the job?

Kucinich Seeks New Hampshire Democratic Recount

Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, said Thursday he wants a recount to ensure that all ballots in his party's contest were counted. The Ohio congressman cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday results.

Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said Kucinich is entitled to a statewide recount. But, under New Hampshire law, Kucinich will have to pay for it. Scanlan said he had "every confidence" the results are accurate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/10/k...sh_n_81009.html


Kucinich Seeks NH Dem Vote Recount

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who won less than 2 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, said Thursday he wants a recount to ensure that all ballots in his party's contest were counted. The Ohio congressman cited "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" about the integrity of Tuesday results.

Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said Kucinich is entitled to a statewide recount. But, under New Hampshire law, Kucinich will have to pay for it. Scanlan said he had "every confidence" the results are accurate.

In a letter dated Thursday, Kucinich said he does not expect significant changes in his vote total, but wants assurance that "100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted."

Kucinich alluded to online reports alleging disparities around the state between hand-counted ballots, which tended to favor Sen. Barack Obama, and machine-counted ones that tended to favor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. He also noted the difference between pre-election polls, which indicated Obama would win, and Clinton's triumph by a 39 percent to 37 percent margin.

Candidates who lose by 3 percentage or less are entitled to a recount for a $2,000 fee. Candidates who lose by more must pay for the full cost. Kucinich's campaign said it was sending the $2,000 fee to start the recount.

Scanlon said his office had received several phone calls since Tuesday, mostly from outside the state, questioning the results. New Hampshire's voting machines are not linked in any way, which Scanlon says reduce the likelihood of tampering with results on a statewide level. Also, the results can be checked against paper ballots.

"I think people from out of state don't completely understand how our process works and they compare it to the system that might exist in Florida or Ohio, where they have had serious problems," he said. "Perhaps the best thing that could happen for us is to have a recount to show the people that ... the votes that were cast on election day were accurately reflected in the results. And I have every confidence that will be the case."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hI6F-Vh...HpqapAD8U3EBKG0

Clay once again you prove yourself to be a liar. I never said I was against a full recount. In fact I said Senator Obama should request one.

Nor did I ever say Matthews was on Al Gore's side. He hates Gore as much as he hates the Clintons.

But one thing I will say is

CLAY IS A LIAR. CLAY IS A DISHONEST BLOWHARD WHO CAN'T WIN AN ARGUEMENT BASED ON THE TRUTH SO HE HAS TO LIE AND LIE AND LIE.

YOUTUBE VIDEO FOR RECOUNT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbhiBhgm-dA...or-nh-vote.html

At approximately 7 PM EST, U.S. Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich wrote a letter to New Hampshire Secretary of State William M. Gardner asking Gardner to start recounting votes from Tuesday's hotly contested New Hampshire Primary. That Tuesday even saw Senator Hillary Clinton shock the media by pulling out a close vote, 40.1 percent to 35.7 percent for Senator Barack Obama, and about over 16 percent for John Edwards.



But trouble started the very next morning when voter watch-dog groups like The Citizen's for Legislative Government and a vast number of angry Ron Paul supporters poured over the hand ballots count data, and discovered a major difference between what they got and what the "official" Secretary of State numbers were. The hand count numbers are these: Obama 38.7, Clinton 34.9 percent, with Edwards, Richardson, and Gravel each picking up a higher percentage of the total vote. My video below shows this.


But the big news is that in the hand count Barack Obama comes out on top. Obama wins NH. And this news can throw not only the entire election into chaos, but the way the mainstream media has covered the results, with organizations like CNN and Pew Reseach saying the Obama lost because he was Black.

Well, how does one explain this hand-count result?

Well, we would have to go back to the initial story of the Obama magic. It's still there. I don't believe race was an issue this time around and the numbers do prove it. Also, this problem of the chance of a NH vote count mistake with the Diebold machines was known for several months; it's not sour grapes.

I really do not care if you ever agree with me
I am not trying to convince you because you are so steadfast in your belief
(for 4 years you told me there was NO evidence Hillary was a candidate or would be a candidate).


However, no matter how much YOU distract, Dennis Kucinich is doing just what you asked for and demanding a recount

So instead of whining, why not let's wait and see what happens

And if you did not watch the video posted about those machines, then do not argue about them