Obama Camp Alleges Voter Suppression, Claims Delegate Victory

In the wake of a loss to Sen. Clinton in the Nevada caucus, the Obama campaign is floating the idea that dubious electoral contrivance may have influenced the results. The first hint came via an email from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe at 3:10 pm.

"We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion," wrote Plouffe. "This is in addition to the Clinton campaign's efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week's worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself."

Twenty minutes later Plouffe was on a conference call with reporters, again offering recriminations about possible Election Day shenanigans.

"There have been a lot of reports of issues today," said Plouffe. "Caucus sites being closed at 11:30, a half-hour early; people not being able to register to vote because registration forms had run out; some ID issues... So we are going to collect all that information and we're talking to everybody. You know we had a couple hundred people who contacted us with issues so we want to get to the bottom of that. We'll decide what to do with that once we've done a full review of it."

As Plouffe cast doubt on the accuracy of the caucus results, he also claimed electoral victory. Senator Obama, he argued, actually wound up winning more delegates (13) than Clinton (12).

"On one very important measure, we had a slight lead," said Plouffe. "Just as important as the number is why that is: we showed real strength statewide."

The Associated Press was reporting the numbers flipped, but an AP official on the conference call suggested that Obama's campaign could be right. [Update: The AP has changed its count to reflect a delegate win for Obama, 13-12.]

Earlier in the day, it should be noted, the roles of the two campaigns were completely reversed. Then it was the Clinton's staff, led by former president Bill Clinton, which was charging voter suppression. He said Obama's union supporters were intimidating staffers to back the Illinois Democrat and pressing Clinton supporters not to vote.

So the two candidates have found an area of agreement: the purity of the Nevada caucus is in doubt and they both won.

Comments

[kdeen]

12:01 AM on 01/23/2008

Edwards is USA ONLY hope!! Been thru 12 Presidents, please pay attention, especially younger voters..Don't let a "FAD" do your choosing.

[Heaphy]

11:42 PM on 01/22/2008

According to Vegas witnesses I trust, the Clinton campaign resorted to hardball tactics to the very edge of voter suppression, rulebreaking and deception of caucus-goers in Clark County (Las Vegas and environs). They were a bit less agressive in other parts of the state where Obama had broad majority support.
Here are some relevant facts that illustrate how differently Las Vegas voted compared with the rest of the state. Clinton won Clark County, which consists of Las Vegas and environs, with 53% of the delegates. Obama got 43% and Edwards got only 1.5%. In all of the rest of the state, Obama won with 49% to Clinton’s 42% and Edwards ran almost six times stronger, winning 9% of those delegates. Obama won 11 of the other 16 counties in the state, including broad swaths of remote rural areas. He won every significant city outside of Clark County, including Reno, Sparks, Virginia City, Elko, Fallon, Hawthorne and Winnemucca. In the state capital, Carson City, Obama won 11 precincts to Clinton’s 4, and the delegate count was tied in ten precincts. Obama won 51% of the delegates there to Clinton’s 44%, in a neat reverse of the statewide tally. In remote, mountainous Esmeralda County, Obama trounced Clinton 63% to 26%. How many of the stories in the national media mentioned any of that?
I observed the caucus at Precinct 303 in Carson City.

Jim Heaphy

[tkk]

09:00 PM on 01/22/2008

you know, it 's funny but when Hillary lost Iowa, no one in the Clinton camp claimed fraud or rigged or voter suppression or tried to place any blame anywhere. Hillary Clinton gave a very coherent speech and said "it's my fault. We lost because I didn't work hard enough."

Can you imagine Barack Obama EVER saying anything was his fault?
LOL!

[blackwell98]

06:18 PM on 01/21/2008

So how come no media in the US is covering this?
What Cheney is covering up.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece

[RaptureHelper]

03:22 PM on 01/21/2008

Of course all pols want to win, the difference here is that Hill and Bill are prepared to do real and significant damage to the Democratic party in order to attain their personal goal of power. It's a shame to see two people who seemed to care about the black community stoop to such levels in order to destroy the first truly viable black candidate. If Kennedy and Emmanuel are already on the phone calling for the Clinton's to tone it down I think it's clear the damage to the Democratic party is already underway. Let's just hope it's not permanent.

[ChristopherLib]

01:34 PM on 01/20/2008

Cry me a river Obama supporters. This kind of attempted swiftboating of the Clintons, saying they were involved in voter fraud, is not going to help your guy any more than his praising of Reagan did. It makes you look frankly desperate.

Obama said he's bringing Chicago style politics into the fray, and we're seeing what that means: playing the race card, making wild accusations of his opponent about voter fraud, using unions to create a disgusting Spanish language ad. As the Obama campaign gets more desperate I think we'll see more of this stuff. If there ever was a politics of hope it has gone out the door. Fellow Clinton supporters do not rest easy yet. The Obama campaign is going to keep swinging with dirty politics until they're down for the count.

[Orikinla]

11:51 AM on 01/20/2008

Barack Obama had 13 delegates to Hillary Clinton's 12 delegates, but even heaven knows that Hillary Clinton won more votes and has more Super delegates.

Barack Obama has a delegate more, because some locations of the caucuses have more delegates than others.

In elections, votes count most.

Barack Obama is a bad loser, he did not congratulate Hillary Clinton and sulkingly left town to revive his racist smear campaign against the Clinton in South Carolina.

Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Caucuses, because the majority of the Latinos, women and low income workers voted en-masse for her.
She has addressed their pressing economic problems, housing emergencies and healthcare. But Barack Obama's campaign billboard on his opposition to the war in Iraq is no longer the primary issue, because of the looming fears of recession.

Simple analytical comprehension of the state of America would suffice.

Barack Obama and his camp are just bitter and disappointed that they lost, when they thought the Culinary workers would vote for them. The majority of the members of the Culinary Union are Latinos and women and they preferred Hillary Clinton.
Identity Cards were also required at the caucuses.
Lest you forget, Barack Obama is against gambling and his plans against gambling will make thousands of Casino workers to lose their jobs.

What makes African Americans think they deserve to become President before the American Latinos?

Black Americans need a Reality Check.
They must stop thinking that Whites are oppressing or suppressing them.
They are always whining over spilt milk.

"Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it."
~ Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[gevan]

12:21 AM on 01/20/2008

Some ten or eleven thousand caucus goers pick an entire state's convention delegation? Pathetic.

[Advocate123]

10:51 PM on 01/19/2008

I find it interesting that Democrats are preventing blacks from voting.

[bvb720]

10:24 PM on 01/19/2008

I wouldn't put it past HRC and BJ Clinton. They have their ways.

But if she happens to win the nomination, she will lose in the General election.

[SCharb]

09:42 PM on 01/19/2008

Goddamn, it sounds just like Florida 2000!!

Oh, well. This is Nevada's first early caucus... I'm not surprised there are problems.

[Serfie]

08:59 PM on 01/19/2008

I remember the 90's.

There seems to be a striking resemblance between the Gingrich Right and the Obama Left.

Their hatred of the Clintons, their politics of destruction, and the wild accusations are identical.

[Zenpilot]

08:42 PM on 01/19/2008

The ironic thing about Hillary is that personally, she's been against the war since day one, maybe even more than Obama. But because she's programmed and constantly poll-testing for general election appeal, she had to move right and side with the President, even though she was personally opposed to the vote. That's what you get with Hillary. She'll move right, just like her husband did, for political expediency over morals at the drop of a hat.

[LastDaysCafe]

08:27 PM on 01/19/2008

Maybe the Clintons have enlisted Obama's help?

Hilliary couldn't win any of these caucuses unless she had lots of "underhanded & behind the scenes" help! But who knows just how far that "help" extends? Its not out of the question that Barak Obama himself could be "in on" this Clinton engineered fraud!
Why would he do it? Maybe he's been shown that the deck is so stacked in the Clinton's favour there's no way he can win - so instead he'll take a big "payoff" and a promise of a cabinet position just to acquiesce and pretend to the public that this Democratic "Presidential Nomination" is a for real race and not just a big con job that the Clinton-Bush Mafia have fixed - and good!