Advertisement

Hilary Clinton's larger-than-expected victory in Ohio may have been won with votes from Republicans, and from independents who usually vote Republican.

Much has been made of comments by Rush Limbaugh and other far-right commentators asking that Republicans cast their ballots for her in open primary states like Ohio and Texas. Part of the strategy seems centered on slowing down Barack Obama, who analysts argue will be harder for John McCain to beat this fall. Others, like Ann Coulter, have gone so far as to say they actually PREFER Clinton to McCain. Such voters would certainly also prefer the former first lady to Obama.

Whatever the case, there is concrete evidence in Ohio that Republican cross-over voters did, in fact, play a significant role in delivering the Buckeye primary votes to the Senator from New York.

By Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman

Hilary Clinton's larger-than-expected victory in Ohio may have been won with votes from Republicans, and from independents who usually vote Republican.

Much has been made of Rush Limbaugh’s other far-right commentators’ pleas to Republicans to cast their ballots for her in open primary states like Ohio and Texas. Part of the strategy is to slow down Barack Obama, who analysts argue will be harder for John McCain to beat this fall. Others, like Ann Coulter, have gone so far as to say they actually PREFER Clinton to McCain. Such voters would certainly also prefer the former first lady to Obama.

Whatever the case, there is concrete evidence in Ohio that Republican cross-over voters did, in fact, play a significant role in delivering the Buckeye primary votes to the Senator from New York.

Co-written with Ron Baiman
The good news is that visible strides were made in re-enfranchising Ohio’s Franklin County (Columbus) inner city urban voters in the March 4, 2008 primary. Voting machines and paper ballots were plentiful and equally distributed.
But,the bad news is that the discrepancy between the preliminary exit poll data and the unofficial vote tallies was reminiscent of the improbable results of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio between John Kerry and George W. Bush.
While the Clinton-Obama results are more probable than the Kerry-Bush results of 2004, they are still highly suspect and suggest statistically significant flaws in the exit polling or in the recording of Ohio votes.

In their "day after" analysis, the Washington Post reported (on page A9) that the Ohio Democratic presidential primary "preliminary exit poll results show the makeup of the electorate and how it voted."

The preliminary exit poll information showed Clinton beating Obama by 3.26% -- Clinton with 51.13% and Obama with 47.87%.

Join us at the Monday, March 17 Columbus City Council meeting in solidarity to three speakers who will introduce the resolution "City for Peace" to Columbus City Council.
Hundreds of other local municipalities have passed resolutions for peace in Iraq, to bring the troops home and to protest an attack on Iran.
Taxpayers in Columbus, Ohio have paid $1.1 billion for the Iraq War thus far. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
376,665 People with Health Care OR
1,190,162 Homes with Renewable Electricity OR
24,063 Public Safety Officers OR
16,271 Music and Arts Teachers OR
122,614 Scholarships for University Students OR
97 New Elementary Schools OR
9,911 Affordable Housing Units OR
639,060 Children with Health Care OR
165,452 Head Start Places for Children OR
16,935 Elementary School Teachers OR
18,660 Port Container Inspectors

Senator Russ Feingold (D., Wisc.) is preparing to give the Republicans in the Senate two more opportunities this week to grandstand and filibuster in favor of the occupation of Iraq. They will, of course, do so; and they will, of course, win.

Feingold cannot possibly have any doubt of that as he introduces his bills. As far as I know, he's not even trying to get the House to pass the same things, since they're guaranteed not to pass the Senate.

One of Feingold's bills proposes a delayed partial beginning of a withdrawal from an occupation that the vast majority of Americans (not to mention Iraqis) want completely ended. The other asks Bush to produce a report on his strategy for accomplishing the mythic mission that he uses to justify that same occupation. Both bills are written in Bush-Cheney vocabulary, promoting the very ideas they are intended to oh-so-weakly oppose.

COLUMBUS, OH I arrived at the Free Press office with two six-packs of Newcastle and a flask full of good bourbon whiskey, prepared for whatever ill assignments may be levied in my direction. Dr. Bob was hurrying off to school, declining the beer, but they sent me to the Sullivant Gardens to cover the polling. Today is March 4th and, by all counts, the most important day of the campaign since Super Tuesday. Perhaps it is even more important, because for those of us who were paying attention, the results of Super Tuesday were a foregone conclusion, but today all the weirdness really manifested itself and the race for the presidency is in full swing. If Hillary Clinton can hang on to any of these critical states, Texas, Ohio, Vermont or Rhode Island, than she will almost certainly press on until the final stupidity and those of us hungry for Political Entertainment will get a brokered convention.

A certain reverence is required just to approach the book’s title: “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict” by noted economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes. I can see why they understated it.

The pulse of outrage beats behind the cold calculations in this concise volume, newly published by Norton. We’re not just “losing” this tragic, arrogantly unplanned war in the conventional sense of failing to subdue our enemies — we’re committing slow socioeconomic suicide with its open-ended pursuit, losing, as we plunge recklessly into debt over it, our options, our ability to choose. We’re losing the future.

“Because of the war, the national deficit is $2 trillion higher,” Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, told me. “At 5 percent interest, that’s $100 billion a year, year after year after year — forever!”

Such numbers are beyond the scope of the human imagination. To begin putting the war into financial perspective, Stiglitz suggested that we need a new unit of account: “Think of what things would cost in terms of hours, days, weeks of fighting.”

Maybe it sounded good when politicians, pundits and online fundraisers talked about American deaths as though they were the deaths that mattered most.

     Maybe it sounded good to taunt the Bush administration as a bunch of screw-ups who didn’t know how to run a proper occupation.

     And maybe it sounded good to condemn Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush for ignoring predictions that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to effectively occupy Iraq after an invasion.

     But when a war based on lies is opposed because too many Americans are dying, the implication is that it can be made right by reducing the American death toll.

     When a war that flagrantly violated international law is opposed because it was badly managed, the implication is that better management could make for an acceptable war.

I don't know when Hillary Clinton and her advisors started channeling Karl Rove, but it's happened and it's ugly. If you want to stop them from tearing the Democratic Party apart, then get on the phones today and volunteer to turn out the Obama vote in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Her campaign's been sleazy since Obama first emerged as a serious challenger. I've written about it here and here. But in the past week, it's escalated. She's just run a radio ad on NAFTA that pretends to be a news report. Meanwhile, Canadian television reported that Clinton's campaign offered the same disavowals she just accused an Obama advisor of making. Her 3:00 AM ad echoed the worst of Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani. When asked if she'd "take Senator Obama on his word that he's not a Muslim," she left the door open to the right wing lies by saying "there's nothing to base that on. As far as I know."

She just handed McCain his campaign script by saying,  "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

Pages

Subscribe to ColumbusFreePress.com  RSS