Was the New Hampshire vote on the up-and-up?
New Hampshire isn't over. Not quite.
Dennis Kucinich is asking for a recount of votes in that state's primary election, which was held Tuesday, saying he wants ''100 percent of the voters had 100 percent of their votes counted.''
Kucinich is going to spend at least $2,000 out of his campaign funds to conduct a recount based on Internet rumors. The total could run much higher than that, depending on the cost of the recount, and Kucinich -- who finished dead last --would not benefit from any adjustment in the vote totals. The one campaign that might, and who actually has the cash to pay for a recount, hasn't asked for one. Why not? Because the Barack Obama team doesn't make decisions by listening to the fever swamps.
There's tremendous arrogance and/or ignorance at play when people assume that Hillary Clinton's victory in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary is or might be explained by election fraud. Has it not occurred to those people who know little or nothing about voting patterns in New Hampshire that the hundreds of staffers on the Obama and Edwards campaigns, who've immersed themselves in past voting data and models of expected vote turnouts for Tuesday, wouldn't these staffers have noticed discrepancies that might warrant a recount? If Tuesday's results really were the likely result of malfeasance, the Obama and Edwards campaigns would be raising holy hell.
