And it isn’t a Republican effort. Chris Kromm of Facing South broke this story yesterday and has done more investigative digging and it’s not pretty — there will be calls for an answer to this. The source of the calls, which is a D.C.-based nonprofit called Women’s Voices Women Vote, which says it is trying to reach “unmarried women voters.” You’ll recall that the deceptive message told voters that they had to wait for a packet to fill out before they could vote.
“Hello, this is Lamont Williams. In the next few days, you will receive a voter registration packet in the mail. All you need to do is sign it, date it and return your application. Then you will be able to vote and make your voice heard. Please return the voter registration form when it arrives. Thank you.”Chris got a hold of a press release from the group, and questions about ties to Hillary Clinton. More below the fold.
Chris:
So who is Women’s Voices Women Vote, and why are they making shadowy and legally-questionable calls that are causing North Carolina voters so many headaches?I don’t know what, if anything, the following ties mean, but considering the deceptive calls, at least a statement should be forthcoming to clarify any biases or relationships.The D.C.-based nonprofit, led by well-connected Washington operatives, claims in a press release they sent to Facing South [PDF] that the North Carolina calls are part of a 24-state effort targeted at a list of 3 million voters, especially unmarried women. The robo-calls, which never mention Women’s Voices, are followed by mailings that include information on how to register to vote. They plan to mail some 276,000 packets in North Carolina alone.
But since last November, in at least 11 states nationwide, Women’s Voices — sometimes working through its Voter Participation Center project — has developed a checkered reputation, drawing rebukes from leading election officials and complaints from thousands of would-be voters as a result of their secretive tactics, deceptive mailings and calls, and penchant for skirting or violating the law.
Some have also questioned the ties between Women’s Voices operatives and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton. Gardner, for example, contributed $2,500 to Clinton’s HILLPAC on May 4, 2006, and in March 2005 she donated a total of $4,200 to Clinton, according to The Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org. She has not contributed to the Obama campaign, according to the database.Women’s Voices Executive Director Joe Goode worked for Bill Clinton’s election campaign in 1992 as a pollster; the group’s website says he was intimately involved in “development and implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general election campaigns” for Clinton.
Women’s Voices board member John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, donated $2,300 to Hillary Clinton on April 19, 2007, according to OpenSecrets.org. Podesta also donated $1,000 to Barack Obama in July 2004, but that was well before Obama announced his candidacy for president.
“The reports from other states are very disturbing, especially the pattern of mass confusion among targeted voters on the eve of a state’s primary,” Democracy North Carolina’s Bob Hall tells Facing South. “These are highly skilled political operatives — something doesn’t add up. Maybe it’s all well-intended and explainable. At this moment, our first priority is to stop the robo-calls and prevent the chaos and potential disenfranchisement caused by this group sending 276,000 packets of registration forms into North Carolina a few days before a heated primary election. We need their immediate cooperation.”
While Hall says his group has “begged” the group to stop the mailings, but as if this writing, Women’s Voices has not done so — even though the mail-in voter registration deadline for the primaries passed April 11.
70 Responses to “Breaking: source of deceptive NC robo-calls exposed”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
This seems to be pretty nasty for Hill if it is true.
Does that group doing voter-suppression calls in North Carolina have ties to the Clinton campaign?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/192166.php
——————
” Women’s Voices Executive Director Joe Goode worked for Bill Clinton’s election campaign in 1992 as a pollster; the group’s website says he was intimately involved in “development and implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general election campaigns” for Clinton.
Women’s Voices board member John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, donated $2,300 to Hillary Clinton on April 19, 2007, according to OpenSecrets.org.”
What. The. Fuck. Yeah. That pretty much seals the deal as to where my undecided vote is going. I have absolutely fucking had it with god-damned racist shit from Clinton and her surrogates. Considering all the misogyny directed at her throughout, it is even more disappointing that she (and her surrogates) are stooping so damn low.
(Also, does anyone else have lots of trouble commenting b/c of the anti-spam box? I am rarely able to get my comments through.)
Democracy North Carolina, a government watchdog, cried foul, saying that the calls went out to “black neighborhoods” and was evidently a vote suppression tactic since the registration deadline for the presidential primary has already passed. The North Carolina state elections board got involved and asked for the public’s help in determining the source of the calls, which apparently blocked caller ID from showing the number. You can listen to the call here (wav).
Now Facing South reports that a Washington nonprofit called Women’s Voices Women Vote is behind the calls.
The group’s spokeswoman Sarah Johnson confirmed to me that those were the group’s calls and said that they were part of an effort to register three million women voters in 24 states. The fact that the calls came shortly before the North Carolina primary, potentially confusing voters, was unfortunate mistake, she said. We’re “incredibly apologetic about the timing of this.” The group was simply working at such a “high volume” that it was “extremely difficult to tailor the mailing to every single state’s schedule,” she said. The calls precede the mailers, she said, because it increases the rate of response.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/nonprofit_womens_voices_women.php
If you read the Facing South link, you can see that Sarah Johnson has on several previous occasions expressed her surprise and upset and deepest apologies in other states where WVWV has employed similar tactics.
I just don’t understand why, if this was on the up-and-up, why caller ID would be blocked, why a man’s voice was being used (if the organization hopes to target single women), and why they didn’t clearly state the name and purpose of their message in the robo-call.
As long as you can come up with the slenderest possible “justification”, and/or the most minimal/miserable excuse for an apology, all is well with the world.
And then if you can top it off with a thin frosting of “…but we asked them to stop and they just won’t listen!…” - you’ve got it made.
No wonder people hate politicians and everything surrounding them…
Oh hell no.
Ah yes, “ties.” The fact that people who support this group have also supported Bill and Hillary Clinton doesn’t actually mean that Teh Klintonz are behind this. It doesn’t help, but it doesn’t prove much. It’d be nice if supporters of both candidates would quit this “surrogate” gambit.
My only question: what lame excuse will Hillary’s supporters come up with for this one? Given the nature of the WVWV organisation and its executives, and given the nature of the robo-calls, they’re not going to get past the “cui bono?” question on this one.
I swear, Hillary and her team are still stuck in a pre-Internet mindset if they think they can get away with this Rovian nonsense.
I would generally agree; however, Hillary has pushed her campaign on the central principle that she is more experienced with DC politics than her opponent. Her central case to the DNC was that she has the organization and political chops in win in November. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that she has all this experience and connections, and then suggest that she has no control over what her friends and supporters do. Her campaign has been a very traditional top-down operation with big donors and consultants - a strategy which helped Bill Clinton immensely in the 90s.
“(Also, does anyone else have lots of trouble commenting b/c of the anti-spam box? I am rarely able to get my comments through.)”
I always did, Terri, but then I registered and am a happier man for it. There’s a link up there on the top right “register/site admin.” Of course, now Pam can send her stormtroopers to get me…
I’m not going to go overboard and claim Clinton was involved with this, but does it seem plausible that this group just decided to do this all on its own, without some involvement from somebody invovled with the campaign? Some ’splainin and followed by some resignin’ and some sort of effort to use Official Clinton Resources to counteract this misinformation would be the minimum to be.
On those actually involved, this is the kind of thing for which people should have to do a lot of crawling and groveling to for before they can so much as get into a Democratic Party event.
That goes quadruple for any actual liberal groups.
My only question: what lame excuse will Hillary’s supporters come up with for this one?
Don’t You Want a Fighter™?
Politics Ain’t Beanbag®!
The GOP Will Do Outrageous Crap in the Fall, So This is a Fair Test™!
Yes, of course, Hillary’s campaign is running the behind the scenes activity of a group who’s leader gave them $2500. They have plenty of time for that. Come on people. Show some critical skills here.
THe group’s page claims that Goode was involved in planning her husband’s campaign in 1992! Not her campaign in 2008. Way to make her ancillary to her husband again.
If the connections are there fine, but your evidence here is a $2500 donation from an individual and a connection to her husband’s campaign with the same individual. Overstating the connection is irresponsible (and bad faith?)
Remember the enemy: McCain and the corporatocracy, not other dems.
witless chum wrote:
Ahhh, yes, the old concept of plausible deniability. Would you have been so open-minded in your statements that the opposing candidate might not be responsible for this had the ties been to a Republican organization?
Excellent, Ben. Don’t forget:
“Obama did it, too (but he’s still a wimp who didn’t do it)”™
“Misogyny! No true liberal would attack a feminist organisation like WVWV”®
“This transparently sleazy GOP-style tactic may benefit Hillary, but she’d never directly approve of it or orchestrate it herself.”™
and
“Ignore this gaffe — McCain (the guy who Hillary endorsed over Obama) is the real enemy.”®
I’m sure there are more pathetic excuses to come.
oi.
oi, oi, oi.
This is so devious, its perfect!
Pose a s a left wing group to sabotage other left wing groups! Purrrfect!
“Ahhh, yes, the old concept of plausible deniability. Would you have been so open-minded in your statements that the opposing candidate might not be responsible for this had the ties been to a Republican organization?”
Sure. I don’t think George W. Bush was personally responsible for the famous South Carolina robocalls from 2000 about John McCain’s supposed black child. Nor do I think he called up the odious John O’Neill personally to tell him it was time to dust off his Nixon-era Kerry smears. But somebody who worked for him? I kinda think so, just like I think the odds are that someone from the Clinton campaign was in some way involved in instigating this group’s activities. As you say, plausible deniability.
Was I unclear in saying that I thought it likely someone from the Clinton ‘camp’ was involved in this somewhere along the lines?
Word to 8 and 13.
I don’t like the syllogism Pandagon’s promoting here:
1. Leaders of a side organization once worked for the Clintons and donated less than $10,000 total to the Clintons.
2. Said side organization is running robocalls designed to systematically deprive voters of the right to vote on the eve of a state’s primary.
3. The Clintons want to deprive voters of the right to vote on the eve of the state’s primary.
By that logic, Obama must be making a hefty side profit running Urban Outfitters, since its leaders donated more than $7000 to his campaign.
Here’s another faulty syllogism from this posting:
1. Joe Goode and John Podesta worked (in the past) for Bill Clinton.
2. Hillary Clinton is married to Bill Clinton.
3. Joe Goode and John Podesta must still be working for Hillary Clinton.
More eloquent things have been said about how it erases Hillary as a person to conflate her potential for the presidency with what Bill did during his..
I hafta admit, i don’t think two members slightly contributing to the Clinton campaign is much of a link.
I’m unhappy with her for a lot f reasons, i see no need to make another one up.
Now, if we find out a much more skewed pattern of who’s votes were being suppressed i might believe it. But as it stands now this is probably something else.
Not sure, what though.
Now, if we find out a much more skewed pattern of who’s votes were being suppressed i might believe it. But as it stands now this is probably something else.
From Pam’s earlier post on the topic:
The logic runs more like this:
1. Leaders of a side organization once worked for the Clintons and donated less than $10,000 total to the Clintons.
1. Executives (i.e. decision-makers) of a DC-based side organisation focused on national electoral initiatives (unlike, say, Urban Outfitters) have shown by past and current actions (not only donations but also application of core competencies) a great deal of political support for the separate election of both Clintons to the office of President.
2. Said side organization is running robocalls designed to systematically deprive voters of the right to vote on the eve of a state’s primary.
2. One of said side organisation’s current electoral efforts is running robocalls designed to systematically deprive certain (i.e. African-American) voters of the right to vote on the eve of a state’s primary.
3. The Clintons want to deprive voters of the right to vote on the eve of the state’s primary.
3. Taking into account that there is only one other Presidential candidate in this primary besides HRC, and that there is a perception (especially among DC-based side organisations) that African-American voters would cast their ballot for that candidate, it is easy to ascertain said side organisation’s efforts were aimed at benefiting Hillary Clinton’s campaign (very much in line with point 1, above)
That’s a nice way of saying they were acting as cut-outs for the Clinton campaign. Whether the campaign approved it or not is beside the point: if Hillary’s not willing to publically condemn and disavow this organisation, return any individual donations from executives or bundled donations from its membership, and declare that a sleazeball outfit WVWV and K-Streeters like Podesta no longer have a place in the Democratic Party, she’s basically saying that Rove-style tactics and Beltway BS are acceptable.
I’m willing to wait for that uneqivocal statement until the Friday night black hole, and I’d expect no less from Obama if he benefited from a similar dirty trick operation. Until then, no FUD or pre-emptive excuses.
Wasn’t this covered at the end of Animal Farm?
“The creatures outside looked from Rove to Clinton, and from Clinton to Rove, and from Rove to Clinton again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
I have some deep skepticism that this will ever be tied firmly to the Clintons. Part of her ‘experience’ is the know-how to surround herself by supporters who will do this crap for her without actually conferring with her.
Did anyone read Page Gardner’s (the leader of WVWV) terrible post at HuffPo? It was on the front page, but now you have to search for it. Entirely obfuscatory and so full of grammatical errors, she has to be very, very nervous and wanted some quick cover.
This reminds me depressingly of the Cold War. One of the perennial worries during the cold war was that some US corporal or some Soviet junior sergeant would panic, do something stupid, and start something that would kill everyone everywhere.
Similarly here we have two mutually hostile factions inside the Democratic Party. This looks suspiciously like an idiotic ally of the Clintons doing something idiotic and threatening to start WW III inside the party, thus electing John McCain.
Ehh, withholding judgement for now. I really need to hear a bit more about this before I can feel comfortable saying either “Hillary’s behind the whole thing” or “Hillary’s innocent of all charges.”
I do think that WVWV sounds like they’ve enjoyed Claude Raines’ performance in “Casablanca” a bit too much…
And Podesta donated 1000$ to Obama in ‘07, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
If this is really a bunch of dirty tricksters, they sound more like the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight than the Mob. Why would they be sending out packets telling people to register for the primary when that date has already come and gone?
When you actually look at their website and find out that they’re registering voters for the GENERAL, not the primary, then it all becomes clear.
Clinton supporters could just as easily shout “Aha! Mike Lux is on the board of the WVWV too, and he’s been a backer of Obama since his Illinois days! This is obviously an Obama smear!!!!”
Please, people, get a grip. This isn’t helping anybody but the Republicans.
Blue Jean April 30, 2008 at 6:34 pm
And Podesta donated 1000$ to Obama in ‘07, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Clinton political gangs are the same operative again and again. It’s the same names different days.
The very reason why Hillary’s campaign is in trouble in the beginning remember? Because it’s filled with old clique. Proven loyal, but not at all best decision makers.
Sigh. Put down the stupid, please, walk away from the stupid. If a race-baiting, dishonest, for catssakes ILLEGAL voter-suppression drive wins you the election, you *stole* the election. Katherine Harris. Ken Blackwell. Swiftboat Vets for Truth. It’s been done.
The leaders of this org have donated money to HRC’s campaign and they use her in their talking points. Whether or not Hillary Clinton pulls the strings, she doesn’t deserve to win a single delegate if these tactics are the basis for her gains.
I don’t care if Hillary Clinton isn’t personally aware of/behind this, that’s the kind of bullshit Bush-administration “I don’t remember” rationale. I care if this kind of crap is being used to push black people away from the polls, and I care that we don’t have a politics that knows how to do anything but scorch the earth when it comes to drumming up votes from a certain group. If WVWV really want to make gains and cut into Obama’s substantial support from black voters in NC, and not break the law, they could fucking come up with something that appeals to black women. Legally. But instead, this two-bit Swiftboat operation decides to screw black voters and give us McCain. Our politics is a failure of imagination.
Hillary now promises to break the OPEC. This after promises she will obliterate Iran.
She is a complete kook.
Does she even realize that she just pissed of third biggest US treasury buyers and number one US energy supplier? All OPEC country has to do is unppeg their currency, let dollar sink and move to euro.
We’ll die argentina style in 6 month, if not less. (incidentally anybody know fed reserve only has $500B in it? China has $1.7, Japan has $900B, Saudi has about $800B.)
Any of those country can win economic war against us without sweating. And Hillary wants to break up OPEC? lol.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080430/wl_afp/usvote
She vowed to break the monopoly of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), cartel which produces 40 percent of the world’s oil.
“I am tired of OPEC setting the price and determining how much supply there is, by any definition that is a monopoly,” Clinton said.
“We are going to use every tool at our disposal as a nation to try to break that up.”
Interesting. When some preacher runs his mouth, suddenly Obama is responsible.
When some fundraisers and allies consistently lie, confuse, and intimidate voters of a certain demographic in a manner that could throw an election, Clinton has no connection to them?
Lets have a fair standard, shall we?
It might be viewed differently if Clinton didn’t act like a microbe and surround herself with a coat of slime.
MsFeasance April 30, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Word to 8 and 13.
I don’t like the syllogism Pandagon’s promoting here:
1. Leaders of a side organization once worked for the Clintons and donated less than $10,000 total to the Clintons.
What’s the problem? Hillary makes a big deal about pastor, personally insinuating all sort of connection.
This is direct money connection by old operative. Something that the clintons are notoriously known for. (lying about money, sex and scandal.)
Can we finally admit that Hillary IS a monster?
I have some deep skepticism that this will ever be tied firmly to the Clintons. Part of her ‘experience’ is the know-how to surround herself by supporters who will do this crap for her without actually conferring with her.
I was skeptical too, but the Facing South update says that her campaign manager was on the board.
I thought it was outlets like Townhall, Instapundit, and Fox News — and Aravosis — that specialized in the “Looks bad, if true” maneuver, which instantly turns into “Definitely true, and damningly bad.” Bring your skepticism back, folks.
Sirkowski April 30, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Can we finally admit that Hillary IS a monster?
She is Bush with boobs.
Same belligerent aipac fed foreign policy. Hawkish cowboy talk. Lobbyists happy. And MUCH better liar.
I thought it was outlets like Townhall, Instapundit, and Fox News — and Aravosis — that specialized in the “Looks bad, if true” maneuver, which instantly turns into “Definitely true, and damningly bad.” Bring your skepticism back, folks.
Er, FlipYrWhig, her campaign manager was on the “Leadership Team” for the organization. That doesn’t mean that Clinton was overseeing the operations, but she would have had to have known about their practices, given that the complaints about the org she was running go back to before Clinton appointed her.
There are quite a few strong links between WVWV and Emily’s List, which is supporting Clinton, of course.
I know a bit about history of WVWV through various work connections — and all of this comes as a huge shock to me. The organization is officially non-partisan, but founded a few years ago on the premise that unmarried women (young, divorced, widowed, or otherwise) are less likely to vote, but more likely to vote democratic when they do vote. Unmarried women are also thought to be more likely than the general public to vote for women candidates. From the outset, I’d say that at least some funders of the group had a possible Hillary candidacy in mind when they lent their initial support.
I think this primary has presented a real bind for WVWV — after all, they can’t endorse a candidate. Yet significant funders and staff are clinton supporters. And it’s clear that a large part of their unmarried woman demographic (young women, women of color) lean towards obama. succeeding in their registration goals could mean defeating “their” candidate.
The people behind this are seasoned pros and this is by no means a shoestring operation, so mistiming mailings/calls w/r/t primary deadlines is totally inexcusable (not to mention a waste of a huge amount of money) — at best gross incompetence. I know some of these people professionally, so I don’t want to go further than that.
That being said, the goal of registering more women voters and bringing a traditionally disenfranchised group into the political process is admirable, and women voters will totally play a big part in defeating McCain come November. But if this is how they go about it — goddess help us all.
Can we finally admit that Hillary IS a monster?
No. Monster isn’t really the thing. She’s human, smart, and is surrounding herself with people to do her dirty work. Sounds like a typical corporate board member and old news to me.
The problem is that more of the same isn’t the answer to problems caused by others like her. Doesn’t make her a monster, but it makes her my last choice for the democratic nominee.
I think the Wright thing has killed Obama’s chances in the general election. The right wing smear machine will be able to get real traction with it, and the corporate media will go along like the lapdogs they are.
I’m seeing a perfect storm of Democrat self-annihilation brewing. The party insiders will select Clinton despite Obama’s lead in elected delegates, and the resulting party split will put McCain into office, probably with Huckabubbles as VP.
togolosh April 30, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I think the Wright thing has killed Obama’s chances in the general election.
Minor. There was tactical mistake in the beginning. That’t about it. Obama weakness is to discount Hillary mass media asset (Newspaper, TV talking heads, website like Salon, etc)
The outrage factory.
At this very moment, the last remaining Hillary holdout is fighting. And it is not pretty. This is the true believers.
OT.
for all Hillary fans. Ask this question about her warmongering with Iran/stick around in Iraq:
(remember how she puts her campaign in debt?)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7493511
The Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee — made up of 22 primary government bond dealers — said in a report to the Treasury that a recent survey showed the deficit for fiscal 2008 will average a record $414 billion, with some economists forecasting the gap would exceed $500 billion — more than tripling last year’s $163 billion deficit.
In addition to lower revenues from a slowing economy and increased spending, the Federal Reserve has redeemed Treasury holdings and made some outright sales in recent months to support its efforts to boost financial market liquidity and ease the worst credit crisis in decades.
AnnaO April 30, 2008 at 8:57 pm
The people behind this are seasoned pros and this is by no means a shoestring operation, so mistiming mailings/calls w/r/t primary deadlines is totally inexcusable (not to mention a waste of a huge amount of money) — at best gross incompetence. I know some of these people professionally, so I don’t want to go further than that.
I still can’t chart precisely hillary supporter blogs. It’s all over, and primarily operate on “comment” rather than direct political posts.
That being said, the goal of registering more women voters and bringing a traditionally disenfranchised group into the political process is admirable, and women voters will totally play a big part in defeating McCain come November. But if this is how they go about it — goddess help us all.
DNC should come down hard on this. Voter suppression is not acceptable. (This is the part I always thought the entire idea baout “superdelegates” as some sort of guardian of party, and will keep party’s interest in mind is utter and complete BS. They are politicians. They go by the highest bidder.
Wow. The Clintons prove they really are just race-baiting schmucks who will gladly end the Democratic party if they don’t get their way.
Sickening.
What AnnaO said (about the background of WVWV, anyway).
IIRC, it was formed before the 2004 elections to get women to register and vote, the idea being that the younger and singler they were, the more likely they were to a) not be voters, and b) vote Democratic if they do. And as the old saying goes, “The more people vote, the more Democratic the vote.”
If that is indeed their goal, why the fuck are they using time-tested—ostensibly and traditionally Republican—voter-suppression techniques?
Furthermore, how did African-American males suddenly wind up on their phone lists? That ain’t mission creep, and it ain’t a lack of organization.
It’s a violation of core Democratic Party principles (and self-preservation techniques).
What is it that indicates that this is a “voter suppression tactic”? Because someone blogged about a blog about a blog about the underlying story, which is that a somewhat cryptic robocall went out in North Carolina. The racial angle is innuendo, the Clinton connection is innuendo, and the racist-Clinton nexus is just compounded innuendo. I think it’s well nigh time to distrust blogs by default, just the way we’ve learned to distrust the corporate media by default. If you like, start by distrusting this very comment.
We’ve been falling for this kind of foolishness all primary season. it’s getting old.
Because sombody cought Hillary’s proxy trying to mislead AA voters in NC with wrong voting place information. Audio recording is posted.
And amazingly Hillary supporter is spinning and trying to explain away this very rovian tactic. What’s next you spin about caging and voters credential fight?
This is the very thing that people are fighting agaisnt during Kerry election. And now Hillary is doing it? What will their supporter say if Rove does the same for McCain?
(not to mention this is very illegal in NC)
WVWV also has a history of similarly misleading (dis)information campaigns.
There is no way this looks good for WVWV. The only harmless explanation is gross incompetence. But these aren’t a bunch of naive kids. These are people who have been around politics for a very long time. It’s really hard to see these tactics as some sort of innocent mistake.
Especially since the “mistakes” have happened over and over again in state after state.
How is that necessarily faulty? Remember the Clinton camp’s outrage when Bill Richardson endorsed Obama. He worked for Bill, was boosted up and mentored by Bill, and yet his failure to endorse Bill’s wife is some sort of betrayal. It sure seems like, if you worked for Bill Clinton anytime in the past, you better be working for Hillary Clinton now.
This looks like a full frontal legal action is going to happen. Hillary team better spinning hard, before this explodes. Even if they win, this is going to keep rolling until her presidency.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/30/11055/6499/141/506343
at TPM, where commenter six13 points out:
“I do not claim to know who supports Women’s Voices.Women Vote, but please take a look at the group’s Directors/Leadership Team as posted on the WVWV website.
1. John Podesta — Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton 98-01.
2. Mimi Mager — Member Clinton-Gore Transition team.
3. Michael Lux — Member of the Board of the Clinton Gore Alumni Association (ClintonGoreAlumni.org (CGA) is member-driven organization that seeks to maintain an ongoing network among those former political appointees of the Clinton-Gore Administration, the national ‘92 and ‘96 campaigns and Democratic Party activists around the country.)
4. Joe Goode — the Senior Analyst on company CEO Stan Greenberg’s work for the Clinton for President campaign in 1992.
(http://www.wvwv.org/about/board-and-bios)”lease
FlipYrWhig:
Please read the article. There are complaints about this organization from election officials in several states: Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
Furthermore, the lack of attribution and contact information violate North Carolina election laws (as well as Federal telecommunications laws).
The specific complaint is that the calls provide misleading information about what is required to vote (i.e. responding to their mailing) and the mailings themselves contain inaccurate information about registration deadlines, and are often sent after the registration deadline to people who are already registered–leading them to believe they are ineligible to vote.
If they did it one time, it’d be an accident, but a pattern of such activity makes it clear this is voter suppression. That they leave out identification and contact information makes it all the more clear. They’re trying to make it hard to trace back from the robocall itself.
The racial angle is no less clear. This is an organization dedicated to registering women to vote using a robocall with a man’s voice…who “sounds” black…and has a “black sounding” name…and by the accounts of the state election officials who are complaining, are primarily calling voters in black neighborhoods. Given the history of suppression of black voting rights and WVWV’s continued use of the same procedure that has drawn complaints from election officials in multiple states (as well as being illegal), there’s no reason for them to do this *except* to suppress black votes.
the Clinton connection is innuendo,
Her campaign manager was on the Leadership Team as late as July 8, 2007, according to the Center for Media and Democracy’s SourceWatch. That doesn’t mean that Clinton approved or even knew of this behavior (though, as it was her campaign manager, it seems unlikely she didn’t know), but pretending that this isn’t voter suppression is outrageous.
Are you saying that the Clinton campaign would be as affected by Podestra announcing he supported Obama as they were by Richardson’s announcement? Richardson is not the same thing. Richardson was a a cabinet official and ambassador for Bill Clinton, and then a competing Democratic candidate for president, not a professional pollster or political operative. A candidate who withdraws from the race and makes a public endorsement of a former rival, regardless of his or her previous association, is not the same as the loyalty of a hired campaign official. (For one thing, they’re being paid.)
I doubt it would even make one MSM news cycle. The only ones who would even notice would be Obama bloggers.
I feel like I’ve stumbled into a Republican bar here. I have a hard time believing that half of you aren’t here to stir up sh*t and try to set Dems one against another.
1. Has anyone looked at the WVWV’s ties to the Obama camp (I mean besides Podesta’s donations to Obama)? It seems unsurprising that an organization trying to get single women to vote has connections to the last Democratic presidential administration. You know, one of two in the past 35 years. (and the only two term one). When you attack “themz sleazeballs Clintuns,” you’re basically insulting a huge swaths of the Democratic party. It’s pretty much us, folks. But then again, half of Obama’s team is made up of “sleazy Clintun surrounders,” so I guess it doesn’t matter.
2. What’s with the a “BLACK MAN’S VOICE WAS UZED!!!” innuendo? News flash. If you are trying to get black voters out, don’t have teh whitey as your voice. People are sliding by the fact that these calls go out to WOMEN. There is also a suppression of women’s voting. But I guess if Hillary voters got the wrong information, it would still be some sort of conspiracy against Obama. Please don’t bore me with offensive stereotypes about who automatically votes for whom.
If this turns out to be more than monumental stupidity, I would be surprised. Is it any shock that ANY political organization is running ragged and stupid during primary season?
If your only purpose is to further splinter the Democratic party, go straight to hell. I’ll vote for McCain right after I write in Dubya for a third term. I don’t care if they take the worst parts of Obama and Clinton and merge them into a frankencandidate–I’m looking forward to President Shrillary Hussein Obama. When McCain replaces two centrist Supreme Court judges with Alito clones who rubber stamp the “Women and Minorities are 1/3 People Restore America Act” as Constitutional, you can come back here and bitch how it was all Hillary’s fault for being such a monster.
Please.
Just a little data to curb the speculation (and BTW, I am a firm Obama supporter and this is in no way meant to be support for Hillary). I got one of these calls last week, and I live in Wisconsin, which voted on February 19. The voice on my message was a woman. I don’t think I’ll get the mailer, since I believe the call was intended for the previous person who had this phone number (I’m married and registered to vote, so that would be bad targeting). I’m also white, in a pretty white city, so I’m guessing that the call was also not racially targeted. Since WI has same-day voter registration that is as easy as I’ve experienced anywhere (and I have lived and voted in 5 other states) this seems like a waste of time and money–in WI you could do GOTV and registration as a single act.
So although it is possible for the same organization to do BOTH voter suppression in NC AND poorly organized voter registration drive in WI, my bet is that this is just a poorly run organization that didn’t check registration deadlines and procedures. Colossally stupid and a big waste of money, but not nefarious.
Hillary camp is spinning hard. very hard. They know this gonna bite their behind.
Good lord, you people are pathetic. Someone donates money to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and by virtue of that, and Hillary’s political savvy, she is suddenly behind a devious, nationally planned, illegal movement to deprive voters of their rights? Proof, please. Proof. Not b.s. speculation and “she’s so horrible she WOULD do this, so I bet she did!”
Get a grip. And use your brilliant minds for something other than bending and twisting all over yourselves to make Hillary Clinton the most evil candidate ever.
Do you actually read what you’re posting?
I’ve donated money to campaigns. Are those candidates responsible if I go around ripping other candidates’ signs out of the ground or sending out misleading mailers about the other candidate?
As a lurker, I have to say that squashed is making the Pandagon comment threads completely unreadable on virtually every topic these days. The inverse relationship between volume and quality is off the charts.
One very interesting phenomena on Pandagon when it comes to Hillary crews: The amount of hush down/spin attempt is proportional to flab size.
I should try this in several pro hillary blog, just to compare metric.
Has anyone done “Hillary 2012″ stickers yet?
She’s running for president then anyway…
Squashed:
Not that you’ll listen, but insinuating that Hillary supporters are fat is well over the line for a variety of reasons.
What “unreadable” said.
Tinfoil Hattie, at least you demonstrate some minimal self-awareness in your handle. Did you not read this, posted shortly before your “insightful” minimization of reality?
Kind of a major difference between “campaign manager participating on leadership team during earlier campaigns with legal problems” and “small donation”, doncha think?
William McNary, closer personal friend of Barack Obama, is on the board of WVWV. He would never serve on the board of an organization that was anti-Obama and has made a public statement saying this was a mistake and not a deliberate attempt to decrease voting.
Certainly, if Obama gets the nomination, he will benefit from WVWV doing turnout and registration.
And I must say that Pandagon describes the call deceptively. It’s a call alerting people to the fact they have a voter registration card coming in the mail they should fill out and vote that is not the same as saying they have to wait for it before they can vote.
Moreover, @ a cost of 0.090 per call if performed by the usual marketing group, they would have ordered a call list of UNREGISTERED voters, that some may have registered inbetween their request and the call is unfortanate, but they are not making this calls to voters -but to unregistered single women - a demographic seriously underrespresented.
That’s my suspicion. George W. Bush didn’t give one thin dime to the Swiftboaters, but does anyone really doubt that they were trying to get him elected?
It may well be that Clinton has no connection to this group. That doesn’t mean that they’re not working to get her elected, even if it takes dirty tricks to do it.
Given that WVWV promised back in February to change the way they were doing the calls and did not, are you still willing to give them the full benefit of the doubt? Not to mention the investigations by 10 other attorneys general into their election practices. This isn’t about one series of calls in one state — they’ve done this repeatedly in multiple states despite multiple warnings from attorneys general and haven’t changed the way they’re operating. That’s suspicious, to say the least.
Again, I don’t care if Hillary is personally giving them the money to do this or not. I just care that a Democratic-identified organization is using racially-based voter suppression tactics, which is about the lowest thing you can do in an election short of physically barring the doors.
Thom May 1, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Not that you’ll listen, but insinuating that Hillary supporters are fat is well over the line for a variety of reasons.
ooops… (flap, controversy, whopper)
It all depends on distance.
How would this be unlike the racist ad by the North Carolina GOP? McCain says ‘I’m shocked’ calling attention to it, the NC GOP says ‘it’s not about him (wink wink)’ the national GOP fellating media dutifully airs said racist attack ad on the major networks. Result: Pretty much zero distance and everyone is behind backing this racist attack on Obama.
Underhanded? Yes. Nasty? Yes. Cowardly? Hell yes. Brazen? Hell yes.
Hillary realizes that the only way that she can win (and Bush before her, ironically) is to ‘control’ the vote. Very unamerican and fascistic but, well in this corporate dominated time that we are in, it’s not only tolerated but actively supported…
It did happen here and it’s probably too late to recover from it. Something has to break the mainstream media fellating to those in the Bush wing of the republican party and to a lesser extent, Hillary…
Sorry, let me finish a point…
Result: Pretty much zero distance and everyone is behind backing this racist attack on Obama and everyone standing around acting all concerned at the ‘attack’ while covertly pushing the ‘he’s scary because he’s a black man’ meme. Not unlike Tonya Harding and the battered knee incident…
The media are the GOP’s Tonya Harding…
“Hillary realizes that the only way that she can win (and Bush before her, ironically) is to ‘control’ the vote. Very unamerican and fascistic but, well in this corporate dominated time that we are in, it’s not only tolerated but actively supported…”
“Democracy” is a concept from pre-9/11 America v1.0.
In the new America v2.0, it’s the rule of the strong over the weak. And how sneaky, manipulative, and how much your message diverges from your actions determine your “fitness” for office.
We’re basically turning into Spartans/Klingons/Soviet-Russians with healthy doses of 1984 and The Handmaid’s Tale thrown in for good measure…