I m tempted to start this topic, perhaps because of the ever rising popularity obama is generating in nairaland, mostly because of his black skin colour.

For a fact, I m not eligible to vote because as a Nigerian, resident in London, no way for that. but given the chance I will vote Hillary Clinton. y? the reasons are obvious.

She is experienced. Having been an "active" first lady during the 8 prosperous years of her hubby`s presidency. an incubent senator who has made a niche for her self, considering her clout in propagating pro-people, African and intellectual policies. In fact she is offering us a two in one package. vote for her and you have two lovely presidents.

Her action in forgiving husband bill`s "sexual atrocities" 14 years ago, when others in similar positions would have opted for divorce (considering the incessant break-down of the marriage and family institutions) has made me her admirer over the years.

Hillary will make a better president when compared to Obama.
and if you think otherwise state your reasons but please don't remind us he is black from Africa blah blah blah.

I think I share same thot. Obama may not be the right man. If he gets Democrats nomination then Repoblican might have it one more time

noetic:

She is expirienced. Having been an "active" first lady during the 8 prosperous years of her hubby`s presidency

what did she do to make her active. and what precisely is this "active" and how did it contribute to making her hubby's presidency prosperous? i remember clinton saying during the 2000 campaign for al gore that al gore was behind the greatness of his 8 yr presidency. today we hear it's hilary who was behind it.

noetic:

. an incubent senator who has made a niche for her self, considering her clout in propagating pro-people, african and intellectual policies. Infact she is offering us a two in one package. vote for her and you have two lovely presidents.

what are the pro people , african and intellectual policies she pushed in the senate. she voted for the irak war, she voted to fund it,  so what are those people and african policies she moved for.

noetic:

Her action in forgiving husband bill`s "sexual attrocities" 14 years ago, when others in similar positions would have opted for divorce (considering the incessant break-down of the marriage and family institutions) has made me her admirer over the years.

you think she actually forgave him? are you sure? she might have kept him b/c of her ambitions. everytime i see two of them in public, i really dont find that affection that you would see in bush/laura, kerry/theresa, al gore/his wife, edwards/elisabeth, otele/ifyalways  . . . . etc .

Frankly do not care who becomes president.  There is a bi-partisan system in place that works for the best interest of the American people.  Unlike in Nigeria were only a privileged few run the country--for their pockets.  Americans work for Americans.  Nigerian officials work for God knows who or what.

My life has not changed since I have been here and I have only voted once.  Republican or Democrat, my life would become better because there are facilities and opportunities to guide me into making the right choices.  Governmental policies have only minimal bearing in my life. 

I can deal with the taxes since the quality of life I live is worth every red cent.  Let the politicians play on.  Cheap entertainment for me.

almondjoy:

Frankly do not care who becomes president. There is a bi-partisan system in place that works for the best interest of the American people. Unlike in Nigeria were only a privileged hand few runs the country.

My life has not changed since I have been here and I have only voted once. Republican or Democrat, my life would become better because there are facilities to guide me into making the right choices. Governmental policies have only minimal bearing in my life.

I can deal witht he taxes since the quality of life I live is worth every red cent. Let the politicians play on. Cheap entertainment for me.

You know what?? I happen to feel the same way. LMAO!!!

You know what?? I happen to feel the same way

Bros you can't say this you live in colombus! i think it affects you or on't you think so? Don't get me wrong just kind of curious

you are in support of obama, you are not telling us why, u re only picking on hillary.
let us examine your points

otele:

what did she do to make her active. and what precisely is this "active" and how did it contribute to making her hubby's presidency prosperous? i remember clinton saying during the 2000 campaign for al gore that al gore was behind the greatness of his 8 yr presidency. today we hear it's hilary who was behind it.

she headed the clinton`s presidency national health scheme. which includes the insurance and the general welfare package. the success or failure of which is subject to debate. courtesy of her approach, administrative staff of white house, most especially the office of the first lady was reduced.

courtesy of her we did not have a gallivanting first lady, busy with philantropic projects at the detriment of the tax payers. she offered a career minded first lady approach which should be emulated by by our numerous state and national first ladys _{they are draining the national treasury}

If u are conversant with political tenses, u will agree with me that what bill clinton said in 2000 about al-gore was only a political statement, because Gore saw bill as a political liability because of the monica lewinsky scandal and as such he never gave clinton an integral role in his campaign for presidency. to me, thats he why he lost. but of course u know the african adage "beside every successfull man, there is a woman".

otele:

what are the pro people , african and intellectual policies she pushed in the senate. she voted for the irak war, she voted to fund it,  so what are those people and african policies she moved for.

you can research that online. google search will be useful.

otele:


you think she actually forgave him? are you sure? she might have kept him b/c of her ambitions. everytime i see two of them in public, i really don't find that affection that you would see in bush/laura, kerry/theresa, al gore/his wife, edwards/elisabeth, otele/ifyalways  . . . . etc .

that is subject to your opinion.

Hillary Clinton strikes me as the kind of person who will do or say anything for political reasons. I don't think she has any personal convictions or elements of moral fibre in her soul. I believe she's going to run things just like GW Bush. We need someone who has sincerity and a moral compass.

Seun:

Hillary Clinton strikes me as the kind of person who will do or say anything for political reasons. I don't think she has any personal convictions or elements of moral fibre in her soul. I believe she's going to run things just like GW Bush. We need someone who has sincerity and a moral compass.

that remains your opinion and you are entitled to it cos u only tink so but cant prove it ^{don't take it personal and ban me ooooooooo}

I have nothing against Hillary, and if she wins the ticket, I don't think it will be a bad bet, but I'd love America to have a black president, so if I had the chance to vote I'll vote for Obama. Whatever happens, I hope the Democrats win.

Seun:

Hillary Clinton strikes me as the kind of person who will do or say anything for political reasons. I don't think she has any personal convictions or elements of moral fibre in her soul. I believe she's going to run things just like GW Bush. We need someone who has sincerity and a moral compass.

I have no fear since one man or woman does not run a country like America.  With all it's flaws, the American system of government still remains one of the best in the world.  Even with George Bush there, the country did not evaporate.  It can only get better.The American economy has it's ups and downs and one president can not take the blame for that.  Regardless of who becomes president, America will remain great.

An American is an American.  They all love America. I trust whoever wins the presidency, so no need to vote.

My choice will not count
The system has checks and balances
But I still prefer Obama
Because he is black
Is that not enough reason?

Seun:

Hillary Clinton strikes me as the kind of person who will do or say anything for political reasons. I don't think she has any personal convictions or elements of moral fibre in her soul. I believe she's going to run things just like GW Bush. We need someone who has sincerity and a moral compass.

This shows your ignorance of the lady and the American system. Clinton has been in the public service even before her husband became president. She a lot of pro-bono work in Arkansas and championed a lot or pro-peple projects as the fist lady.
When her husband became president, she championed health care system for all, but was defeated by the Republicans, Insurance and Pharmacitical companies, who knew they could no longer gouge the people as they have done for decades.
Health care scheme is now adopted by Republians and the general public of Americans as a progressive step for America, which in the long run, will promote health and production.

A Fulbright scholar like her husband Bill, Hillary is a very smart and shrewd lawyer, politician and nationalist, who will make a good, logical and very good president for America, even without imput from Bill (who happened the best president of the last three decades.

Even though I think her handlers are making her appear to hate Obama and making her campaign too negative, she is a better person than that.
She voted to fund the Iraqi war because that is what the American people wanted. The people believed approving the funding is akin to support for the soldiers and not necessary the war effort itself.
The war is clearly Bush's baby and his alone. The American people nowknow what a mistake it was and are clamouring to have the soldiers brought back home and Hillary will do just that.

Bankole01:

This shows your ignorance of the lady and the American system. Clinton has been in the public service even before her husband became president. She a lot of pro-bono work in Arkansas and championed a lot or pro-peple projects as the fist lady.
When her husband became president, she championed health care system for all, but was defeated by the Republicans, Insurance and Pharmacitical companies, who knew they could no longer gouge the people as they have done for decades.
Health care scheme is now adopted by Republians and the general public of Americans as a progressive step for America, which in the long run, will promote health and production.

A Fulbright scholar like her husband Bill, Hillary is a very smart and shrewd lawyer, politician and nationalist, who will make a good, logical and very good president for America, even without imput from Bill (who happened the best president of the last three decades.

Even though I think her handlers are making her appear to hate Obama and making her campaign too negative, she is a better person than that.
She voted to fund the Iraqi war because that is what the American people wanted. The people believed approving the funding is akin to support for the soldiers and not necessary the war effort itself.
The war is clearly Bush's baby and his alone. The American people nowknow what a mistake it was and are clamouring to have the soldiers brought back home and Hillary will do just that.

I couldnt have stated it better.
cheers

oldie:

My choice will not count
The system has checks and balances
But I still prefer Obama
Because he is black
Is that not enough reason?

I am not surprised

This shows your ignorance of the lady and the American system. Clinton has been in the public service even before her husband became president. She a lot of pro-bono work in Arkansas and championed a lot or pro-peple projects as the fist lady.
When her husband became president, she championed health care system for all, but was defeated by the Republicans, Insurance and Pharmacitical companies, who knew they could no longer gouge the people as they have done for decades.
Health care scheme is now adopted by Republians and the general public of Americans as a progressive step for America, which in the long run, will promote health and production.

A Fulbright scholar like her husband Bill, Hillary is a very smart and shrewd lawyer, politician and nationalist, who will make a good, logical and very good president for America, even without imput from Bill (who happened the best president of the last three decades.

Even though I think her handlers are making her appear to hate Obama and making her campaign too negative, she is a better person than that.
She voted to fund the Iraqi war because that is what the American people wanted. The people believed approving the funding is akin to support for the soldiers and not necessary the war effort itself.
The war is clearly Bush's baby and his alone. The American people nowknow what a mistake it was and are clamouring to have the soldiers brought back home and Hillary will do just that.

'Cos you are there I think this is the major post on this topic, I have soft spots for her, that I cannot deny

noetic:


I am not surprised

You can humour yourself

america is not ready for a female president whose husband ruled within the last decade neither are they ready for a black president yet. from the look of things, i think obama will pick the democrats ticket, though i think hillary is a better candidate, but her being a woman a wife to bill will work against her. americans are very sentimental.
i will be very surprised if the republicans dont continue in office after bush, very suprised.

america is not ready for a female president whose husband ruled within the last decade neither are they ready for a black president yet. from the look of things, i think obama will pick the democrats ticket, though i think hillary is a better candidate, but her being a woman a wife to bill will work against her. americans are very sentimental.
i will be very surprised if the republicans don't continue in office after bush, very suprised.

Americans are not ready for a female president, nor are they ready for a black president? I see. Have you conducted an empirical study that underlines your "opinion". Why do I think so? It is because your opening statement is based on opinion. Only the outcome of the eventual presidential election in favour of the republicans can prove you right. But it is still early days to make that kind of unguarded assertion.

onavae:

america is not ready for a female president whose husband ruled within the last decade neither are they ready for a black president yet. from the look of things, i think obama will pick the democrats ticket, though i think hillary is a better candidate, but her being a woman a wife to bill will work against her. americans are very sentimental.
i will be very surprised if the republicans don't continue in office after bush, very suprised.

Uninformed opinions should be kept to the chest only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bankole01:

Uninformed opinions should be kept to the chest only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you
cheers

noetic,
i'm not in support of obama either. I just wanted sound argument, not all this experience, change jargon. all showmanship but no real substance.

good she reduced irrelevant white house staff.
beside every successful man. . . . . . true. . but is it always. . . . . . sometimes women help make their husbands succesful when the husbands would have been very succesful without them

anyway, i hate politicians with a passion. they are all a bunch of liars. it will ake the hosts of heaven to come down to my room physically to convince me that a politician is sincere. hilarry's tears were crocodile tears. obama's campaign reminds me of some sweet mouthed religious crooks in nigeria. edwards looks like a sore looser, thay are all the same to me.

like churchill said, democracy is the worst form of govt . . . . only that the other forms are worse

well, i wish them luck.

otele:

noetic,
i'm not in support of obama either. I just wanted sound argument, not all this experience, change jargon. all showmanship but no real substance.

If u read the first post u will understand that sentiments were not invited only sound arguments.

otele:

good she reduced irrelevant white house staff.
beside every successful man. . . . . . true. . but is it always. . . . . . sometimes women help make their husbands succesful when the husbands would have been very succesful without them

you still havent made a sound point, to either butress ur sentiments or dispute my earlier arguments.

otele:

noetic,
anyway, i hate politicians with a passion. they are all a bunch of liars. it will ake the hosts of heaven to come down to my room physically to convince me that a politician is sincere. hilarry's tears were crocodile tears. obama's campaign reminds me of some sweet mouthed religious crooks in nigeria. edwards looks like a sore looser, thay are all the same to me.

politics is too serious a business to be left in the hands of politicians. do something and stop being pathetic, especially about ur own country.

otele:

noetic,
like churchill said, democracy is the worst form of govt . . . . only that the other forms are worse

well, i wish them luck.

uhmn! i rest my case

noetic,
the fact is, there is nothing i can do now to affect the politics of my country(naija) b/c i dont have the wherewithal to do so. spitting fire on nairaland will not make any change. . . . will it?

the statement about women/husbands/succeful men was a joke . . . . sorry you didnt get it.

it is unfortunate that all i can do is hope things change for the better. for me, things will get better only when politicians are less influencial in the society. . . . like reagan said, i agree, govt is not the solution, govt is the problem. you can extend it to be. . . .politicians are the problem. but like churchill suggested. . . .there may be no better alternative.

but i had wanted you to simple state out what hillary did(since you seem to suport her) and apart from reducing irrelevant staff, all you did was to refer me to google. haba. cant you make a concise statement about her african policies, people oriented policies etc then give me the links to go for them? that is how to convince people and not asking someone arguing with you to go and look for the evidence of your statement. . .

anyway, do i care? no. neither obama nor hillary, nor indeed any president of america is expected to significantly affect my life and more often than not american foreing policy is usually the same regardless the party . . . . . the gulf war will continue for sometime(dont mind all those talking about withdrawal. na lie) visas will still be hard to get, racism go still dey, xenophobia go still dey, american arrogance will still be there, neo-colonialism will still be there, so basically na the same foreign policy as far as i am concerned.

I think black people need to support black people, and stop slavishly following this white woman who tries to act like the black messiah. Throw off your chains, before our ancestors in heaven become too ashamed.
I'll be damned If I vote for a Clinton, trying to be black always at election time, but when it comes to changing racial politics, all we can get out of the Clinton's is a little more welfare money.Wake the hell up!!.Vote Barack Obama!!,not because he is black,but because Senator Barack Obama seems to be the HEALTHIEST of the whole lot.

Horus:

I think black people need to support black people, and stop slavishly following this white woman who tries to act like the black messiah. Throw off your chains, before our ancestors in heaven become too ashamed.
I'll be damned If I vote for a Clinton, trying to be black always at election time, but when it comes to changing racial politics, all we can get out of the Clinton's is a little more welfare money.Wake the hell up!!.Vote Barack Obama!!,not because he is black,but because Senator Barack Obama seems to be the HEALTHIEST of the whole lot.

you should have read the opening text before commenting, especially the last paragraph.
thank u all the same,
your intelligence is reflected

Why are you suporting this white Bitch?

Hillary clinton is a very calculative and manupulative person that will do and say anything to get into power. she lies about having 35 years of experience when all she has is 7 years as an elected official(senator) with nothing to show for it  she has never authored any major bill of her own that has been signed into law. She changes position all the time as far as it is politically convienient,voted for the war in iraq (without even reading the national intellegience estimates) when it was popular to do so and went against it when it became unpopular.voted against the use of ethanol then voted for it when it became popular, she was for NAFTA when it was popular and now she is against it after it has become unpopular, voted against the patriot act and now supports it(she totally lacks good judgement), changed her campaign slogan about 4 times in a year from "experience"  to "change"  now to "experience to bring about change", (always coping what barack obama does) infact she is part of the system that needs to be changed since she has been part of the system for 35 years as she claims and was unable to change it what makes her think she can change it in 4 years.

She can't take any decision on her own, from planting questions in the campaign trail to spewing unsubstantiated vemon at her opponents when she feels threatened to bringing bill to help her answer questions at the campaign trail. She still collects money from federal lobbyist(drugs, insurance and oil companies) knowing fully well that they are the obstacle to change in washington,they helped in sinking her health care plan back in the 90s but she still dines and wines with them on the same table and still goes ahead promising change(i wonder what kind of change she will bring to the system).

She has the highest negatives of any presidentail candidate ever, about half of Americans said they will never vote for her no matter what so i wonder why she is still running because its already a lose, lose situation for her, the republicans and their attack machine are seriously praying and hoping that she wins the nomination so that they will bring her and her campaign down with all the dirt they have piled up against her. the republicans know that she is the only one they can run against and beat completely, she is their only hope of retaining the white house.

She is a very polarizing figure that will never work to get anything done in washington she will prefer to spend all her years in the white house fighting the left wing machine instead of working for the people, she will invigorate the republican base and they will come all out and vote against her if she becomes the nominee, The woman is'nt qualified and is not a uniter, she has so many personal flaws she is cold and not a nice person, she would'nt have been known by any one if she were'nt the wife of bill, every other candidate running is running on his own record, she has spent 7 years in the senate with no bill of her while own obama has spent about 4 years in the senate with 2 bills of his that have been signed into law. she touts about spending 35 years serving the people yet she refuses to release those documents of her work in the white house to show the people what was really going on at that time. Hillary is against change because she and her people are the forces of status quo.

I saw this comment in one of the other blog posts, and I really like it so I'm posting it again here.

Let's keep our eye on the ball and not get suckered back into the divisive politics. Let's also point it out to others when they start going down that road.

"I'm saddened to see gender and racial politics get greater play in the press these past couple of days. The Clinton campaign's comeback strategy after Iowa is getting clearer to me: portray Hillary as a victim of sexism and goad black voters into claiming racism to alienate white voters. Divide and conquer. The gender game started to work in New Hampshire thanks to Hillary's tears and the hyperventilating press reaction.

They are now hoping to see galvanized black commentators and organizers accuse the Clintons of racism on TV so that they can associate Obama with the "angry black man" who finds racism in such "innocent," "misunderstood" comments. This will also give them a chance to get self-righteous and brag about all the good things they've done in their political careers on behalf of civil rights (while at the same time sharing a disappointed shake of the head with "good white people out there" who feel so misunderstood by black people like Obama). The Clintons know the media and they know that American politics has always been about identity politics. Getting past that style/rule is the revolutionary basis of Obama's campaign -- and the Clintons are trying their mightiest to change the game back to what they're most comfortable with, bare-knuckled, divisive, win at all cost politics. They'll lose South Carolina, but they're hoping to win the war.

This assumes that Americans are dumb and won't catch onto their game. I'm confident that they're underestimating the electorate.

One of the fascinating aspects of Obama's first book was his remarkably nuanced/refined understanding of American perceptions of race. He is as well prepared to manage through this as anyone. Good luck sir. The country needs you now!"

I will vote for a republican than vote for Hilary Clinton. Tell me, when did she acquire 35 years of experience as a politician. Oh, wait a minute, she was the first lady of Arkansas and later on the first lady of the USA, who would later on win the NY senatorial position. Abeg, those are not experience at all. Her cries only depicted her as a lady who craves political power at nearly all cost. Never would vote for her!

And would you believe that a former classmate of mine told me that they were holding a fund raising ceremony for her campaign in Nigeria? Goodness Gracious!

Ndipe:

And would you believe that a former classmate of mine told me that they were holding a fund raising ceremony for her campaign in Nigeria? Goodness Gracious!

thats a joke right?

Did Hillary Really Win New Hampshire?

Could someone have messed with the vote in New Hampshire?

That is what some people are wondering, after looking closely at the totals in the votes for surprise Democratic primary victor Hillary Clinton, and for Barack Obama, who placed instead of winning as all the polls had predicted he would. And thanks to candidate Dennis Kucinich, we are likely to find out. Kucinich today filed a request, and a required $2000 fee, to order up a manual recount of the machine ballots cast in the state.
Polls taken as late as the day before the Tuesday vote showed Obama up by 10 to 15 points over Clinton, whom he had just beaten the week before in Iowa, but when the votes were counted, Clinton ended up beating Obama in New Hampshire 39.4 per cent to 36.8 per cent. In a replay of what happened in Ohio in 2004, exit polling reportedly also showed Obama to be winning the New Hampshire primary.
When that's not what happened, shocked polling firms and surprised pundits, all of whom had been expecting a big Obama win, were left stumbling for explanations for the Hillary comeback from an 8 per cent drubbing in Iowa (even the Clinton campaign, whose own internal polling had predicted her defeat, were at a loss). Explanations ranged from her teary eyed final public appearance before primary day and some sexist heckling she had received, to dark talk about a wave of hidden racism in the voting booth.
But there were anomalies in the numbers that have some people suggesting something else: vote fraud.
What has had eyebrows raised is a significant discrepancy between the vote counts done by voting machine, and the ones done by hand.
In New Hampshire, 81 per cent of the voting was done in towns and cities that had purchased optical scan machines from the Diebold Election Systems (now called Premiere Election Solutions), a division of Diebold Corp., a company founded by and still linked to wealthy right-wing investors. In those towns, all voting was done on the devices, called Accuvote machines, which read paper ballots completed by voters who use pens or pencils to fill in little ovals next to the candidate of their choice. The ballots are then fed into, read, and tallied by the machines. The other 19 per cent of voting was done in towns that had opted not to use the machine, and to use hand-counted paper ballots instead.
The machine tally was Clinton 39.6 per cent, Obama 36.3 per cent - fairly close to the final outcome. But the hand-counted ballot count broke significantly differently: Clinton 34.9 per cent, Obama 38.6 per cent.
Could something have happened in those machines to shift some votes away from Obama or some of the other candidates in the race, and over to the Clinton total?
If all the votes cast had split the way the hand counts split, Obama would have won New Hampshire by over 10,000 votes, instead of losing to Clinton by about 5500 votes.
"My suspicion is that nothing untoward happened here," says Doug Jones, a professor of computer sciences at the University of Iowa and a member of the board of examiners that approved the use of the same Diebold optical scanning machines in Iowa. "But at the same time, the Diebold machines are vulnerable to viruses that can be spread through the machines by the PCMCIA memory cards, and there are other things that can go wrong too. I'd be much happier if they had a routine random audit procedure in New Hampshire."
A random audit, he says, would involve doing hand counts of some towns' optical scan ballots, and comparing those results with the results of the machine reading of those same ballots, as recorded election night.
While California does conduct such random audits as a matter of course, most states, including New Hampshire, do not. According to the New Hampshire Secretary of State's office, any recount of ballots would have to be requested by a candidate, and would have to be paid for by the candidate making the request.
An official in the press office of Obama's campaign in Chicago, contacted on Wednesday, claimed not to know about the discrepancy between the machine and hand-counted ballots. She said that there was no plan to call for a hand count of machine ballots.
As Prof. Jones notes, requiring a candidate to initiate any hand count makes such hand counts unlikely, since unless the evidence of vote tampering or fraud is overwhelming, such a call would open the candidate to charges of "poor loser."
Kucinich, in making his recount request, resolved that problem.
There is good reason to be suspicious of the results. The counting of the machine totals, in New Hampshire as in all states using the Diebold machines, is handled by a private contract firm, in this case Massachusetts-based LHS Associates, which controls and programs the machines' memory cards. Several studies have demonstrated the ease with which the memory cards in the Accuvote machines can be hacked, with some testers breaking into the system in minutes.
There are, to be sure, alternative quite innocent possible explanations for the discrepancy between the machine and hand votes for Clinton and Obama. All the state's larger towns and cities, like Nashua, Concord and Portsmouth, have gone to voting machines. While there are many small communities that have also opted for machines, it is almost exclusively the smaller towns and villages across the state that have stayed with hand counts-most of them in the more rural northern part of the state. So if Obama did better than Clinton in the small towns, and Clinton did better in the large ones, that could be the answer.
But that explanation flies in the face of logic, historic voting patterns, and most of the post ­election prognosticating.
If it is true that there was "behind the curtain" racism involved in people saying to pollsters that they were for Obama, while privately voting against him, surely it would be more likely that this would happen in the isolated towns of northern New Hampshire where black people are rarely to be seen. Clinton was also said to have fared better among people with lower incomes-again a demographic that is more prominent in the rural parts of the Granite State. Finally, Obama, in New Hampshire as in Iowa, did better among younger voters, and that is the demographic group that is typically in shorter supply in small towns, where job opportunities are limited. Furthermore, in Iowa, it was in the larger municipalities that Obama fared best, not in the rural towns, so how likely is it that his geographic appeal would be reversed in New Hampshire?
David Scanlan, New Hampshire's deputy secretary of state for elections, whom I contacted Thursday, said that while town election officials are required to do test runs of the Diebold machines in the days before an election, "to make sure that they are reading the ballot markings accurately," and that at that point the machines and the memory cards are sealed until the actual election day, there is no way for his office to independently conduct a post balloting test. The ballot boxes are sealed and the only way they can be opened if for a candidate to request (and pay for) a manual recount, or for a court to order one." Scanlan says that the same is true for the voting machines and the memory cards. While the sealed ballots are retained "for years," however, the memory cards will be back in the hands of the contractor, LHS Associates, in "a few months," to be erased and prepared for use in the general election next November.
Scanlan says that the state legislature is currently considering legislation to provide for routine audits of machines after elections, but that won't help this election cycle.
Scanlan said that because the machines are freestanding, there is no chance of their being hacked from the outside, but critics note that the hacking can be done in advance to the memory cards, which can pass changes to each other like a virus as each is programmed for a particular election.
Jonathan Simon, an attorney and co-founder of the group Election Defense Alliance, says that the vote discrepancies between machine and hand counts in New Hampshire's Democratic primary are troubling, and defy easy explanation.
"The trouble is, whenever you have a surprise result in an election, and it runs counter to the polls, the media always say the problem is the polling, not the counting." But he adds, "The thing is, these things always work in one direction-in favor of the more conservative candidate, and that defies the law of quantum mechanics."

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's newest book is "The Case for Impeachment", co-authored by Barbara Olshansky.

He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com

Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01112008.html

No comments on that article but I was shocked to see Hilary win New Hampshire

Shedding tears is counter productive If Al Qaeda strikes and the American president that should be strong and decisive now breaks down in tears wailing who would now give hope to the populace

Even Condoleeza Rice can't be that weak in such circumstances