home

Will CAP's John Podesta Be Attacked Too?

NOTE - Page Gardner responds. I am curious about this story, via Atrios:

N.C. residents have reported receiving peculiar automated calls from someone claiming to be "Lamont Williams." The caller says that a "voter registration packet" is coming in the mail, and the recipient can sign it and mail it back to be registered to vote. No other information is provided. The call is deceptive because the deadline has already passed for mail-in registrations for North Carolina's May 6 primary.

(Emphasis supplied.) As far as political dirty tricks go, this is a pretty bad one. If the deadline for registering has passed, either someone has registered or they haven't. How does "tricking" them into thinking they can still register help any candidate? My point is this sounds like incompetence, not malevolence.

But when Hillary Clinton is involved, the search for malevolence is relentless:

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.

So Center for American Progress' John Podesta is now a dirty trickster too? Do the Obama bloggers want to go down that road? Really? On such sketchy and illogical nonsense? Really?

< Superdelegate Endorsements Today | Obama Files FEC Complaint Over 527 Group's Hillary Ad >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    New voters can still register (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:11:41 PM EST
    and vote at one-stop locations but this story makes no sense to me

    They are getting them to mail it in (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:24:30 PM EST
    so they think they don't have to go to an office to register.  

    Very deceptive.

    Parent

    Obama was running for senate in 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:17:18 PM EST
    Jeez, this is really stretching it.  We ALL wanted Obama to win 2004.  Duh!  And I'll contribute to his 2010 campaign if he promises to stay in the senate.  

    He promised to to stay in the Senate. . . (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:21:25 PM EST
    last time, too.

    Parent
    Look at the Women's Voices, Women Vote... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    ... website. It seems like they're a voter registration group that targets unmarried women.

    http://www.wvwv.org/

    This appears to be something they're doing that's been misinterpreted. It sounds like they're trying to register voters for the general election.

    If they're trying to register people for the (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:34:12 PM EST
    general election, that sort of changes this.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Silly me! (none / 0) (#60)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:49:07 PM EST
    I see Republicans everywhere! LOL

    Parent
    And doing it badly ;) (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:34:39 PM EST
    Unfortunately. (none / 0) (#38)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:36:27 PM EST
    Trying to blame this on Hillary or her supporters is, well, you know.

    Parent
    necessary? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:53:44 PM EST
    I wonder (none / 0) (#88)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:27:15 PM EST
    if WKJM (aka Josh Marshall) has donned his tinfoil hat to track this one down as he did so eagerly regarding passportgate.

    Parent
    Typical? (none / 0) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:32:14 PM EST
    This is just throwing a little mud (none / 0) (#42)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:39:03 PM EST
    at the wall to see if it might stick with a few people.  It might, provided they've ingested enough kool-aid.


    Parent
    You are right! (none / 0) (#48)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:43:38 PM EST
    Here is part of their statement about this.

    "We understand concerns have been raised about the source of phone calls placed by Women's Voices, Women Vote. These calls were our sincere attempt to encourage voter registration for those not registered for the general election this fall. We understand North Carolina's primary registration effort deadline was April 11, (other than those participating in early voting who may register and vote at the same time this week). We apologize for any confusion our calls may have caused. Our intent and purpose was solely to call attention to the registration applications we hope will be completed and returned to the Board of Elections office making thousands more North Carolinians participants in one of the most important elections of our lifetimes.

    Women's Voices. Women Vote has been in contact with the North Carolina State Board of Elections to work together to resolve any confusion regarding our voter registration efforts. Women's Voices. Women vote is also working with its mail vendor and postal officials in North Carolina in an attempt to delay the delivery of the voter registration applications until after the primary.

    "Women's Voices. Women Vote is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to bringing the voices of unmarried women to our democracy. Our goal in this election cycle is to register 1 million of these women on their own, in turn helping to bring their concerns regarding making affordable health care, equal pay for equal work and a brighter future for themselves and the lives of their families, to the forefront of the election this fall.

    "Already this cycle, our voter registration efforts have generated more than 26,600 registration applications in North Carolina. Women's Voices. Women Vote first registered voters in North Carolina in 2004. Nationally, Women's Voices Women Vote registered over 100,000 new voters in both 2004 and 2006. Since July of 2007, almost 400,000 additional individuals have returned our applications in anticipation of participating in the 2008 general election.

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama or Clinton, since their goal is to register women for the GE.

    Parent

    Then they should wait after primaries (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM EST
    in these states.  They did it during the weeks before the primary in my state, too.  Why then, if their purpose is to promote voting in the GE?

    It doesn't wash.  Maybe they're just dumb, but then who gave them all the money to be this dumb?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    considering the time before the primaries is when people are paying the most attention to politics, it seems like a great time to get people signed up.

    Parent
    I understand that, I thought of that (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    and it doesn't outweigh the problems it creates.  People will be thinking of politics right after their states' primaries, too.  And again before the general election.

    And it still just doesn't make sense in same-day registration states like mine.  That money from the group's donors could have been put to much better use in Wisconsin.

    Parent

    This is an "oh!" read - per Atrios, (none / 0) (#91)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:30:33 PM EST
    this group was the lowest of the low.

    Oh my.  Getting one's enthusiasm up for a candidate does tend to skew one's perceptions -- and patience for digging out the facts.

    I was pretty upset reading the brief, but damning intro at Eschaton.

    Oh my.  Gonna have to double check everyone's posts nowadays.

    I tend to agree that pre-primary is a really good time to get people's attention about registering, espeicially if they're kicking themselves for not having registered in time to vote! And single women are a group, who tend to favor Dems, which has a large percentage who do not even register.

    This group is trying to a good thing, for the unregistered voters and the Dem Party -- too bad someone messed up the copy for the robocalls.

    Is there a transcript?

    Parent

    I just think they're overenthusiastic (none / 0) (#62)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:51:06 PM EST
    and incompetent.

    This combination is not unusual. ;-)

    Parent

    I had a call like this on my machine (none / 0) (#101)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:53:57 PM EST
    before my state primary. It was a woman but she didn't identify any group. Funny that the packet never arrived. Seemed fishy to me.

    Parent
    Cream City, I am so happy (none / 0) (#120)
    by independent voter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:59:02 PM EST
    that I agree with you on something! I sincerely mean it, it gives me hope for the future.
    Thank you for being the voice of reason on this topic.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#58)
    by tree on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:47:55 PM EST
    Press release is here:

    LINK

    Parent

    Well that makes more sense. (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:25:35 PM EST
    Hope they are telling people it is not for the primary however.

    Parent
    Voter Registration (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:45:11 PM EST
    I found this in an article in the News-Record.com dated MARCH 9, 2008:

    "We had been receiving, for the last couple of weeks or so, about 1,500 to 2,200 voter registration applications daily," said Johnnie Mclean, deputy director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

    In 2004, her office received only a few hundred a day, she said.

    "This is, by far, the largest we've seen," Mclean said.

    One reason for the state's uptick are prefilled voter registration applications from a Washington-based voting advocacy group that were mailed to thousands of private mailboxes in North Carolina. Recipients can verify their information and mail the cards to the state elections office.

    So the story seems to be that Women's Voices, Women Vote has been mailing out these packets to encourage voter registration for several months.  Where the confusion arises is when the date for mail-in registration has passed, but same day registration and voting is occuring.  It sounds like they are rather inept at knowing what the individual state laws regarding registration are.  Here in Texas, you can register after the deadline passes so that you become eligible to vote in the following election.  No confusion here because there is no such thing as same day registration.  Also, same day registration was first passed in 2007 in North Carolina.  Not a very old law.


    Hey! Fact-based! Cool! Thanx. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:49:26 PM EST
    I'm disappointed Atrios made a post, based on, seemingly, a source he usually trusts -- but has brought into the circular firing squad this group which has been working for some years to increase single women's turnout to vote.

    Sheesh.

    Obamamania is tiring. And dangerous.

    Parent

    It's good to see that, as Obama sugested, (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST
    we finally get back to talking about the issues of Hilary's being bad.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    This is probably a reverse-psy ops by Obamabots (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by jerry on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:58:16 PM EST
    Look at CAP.  We have John Podesta, Clintonista.  But look down further and we have clear and obvious Obamabots: Ezra Klein, Scott Lemiuex, Ann Friedman, and many many others.

    My guess is that Obamabots Klein and Lemieux are running this campaign and making it intentionally clumsy so that everyone will find out about it, linking it to Hillary via Podesta.  There motive is obvious: smirch Clinton while wresting control of CAP out of Podesta's hands and into the hands of newly podded Robert Reich.

    Don't go to sleep people without checking to make sure your doors and windows are locked and closed, and checking your bed to make sure there are no pods underneath them.

    They're out there.  Beware!

    CDS issue? ODS issue? Or just a DS issue? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    Snark issue... (none / 0) (#115)
    by tree on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:57:25 PM EST
    and failure to recognize.

    As I don my own tin-foil hat, let me say that the best way to detect the pod-people is through their inability to detect snark.  (For all those wondering, yes, that last sentence was snark...)

    Parent

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:02:24 PM EST
    Oh boy, here we go.

    [adjusts tin foil hat, looks carefully under bed]

    Parent

    From the Department of Changing the Subject... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:26:11 PM EST
    That's all this is. Thanks for the continuing use of evidence and reasoning, BTD.

    Of course, this is a process issue, not a policy issue, so it's aimed directly at keeping Obama's base fired up, but I doubt very much it will have any larger impact, though the OFB will tell themselves differently, having a relentless ability to confuse their own set with the set of all sentient beings.

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:29:08 PM EST
    What's the intersection of those sets??

    Seriously, I think the answer to the question that forms the title of BTD's post "Why, of course. What else did you expect?"

    This is silly.

    Parent

    Re-thinking, this is about delegitimizing... (none / 0) (#94)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:44:19 PM EST
    ...a Hillary win or better-than-expected in NC (which is good news, when you come to think about it, since it means she's doing well.)

    There's a disturbing tendency by the OFB to consider any outcome that does not equal a win for Obama as not legitimate. That was the message of the now long-forgotten disputes over both NH and NV, where the OFB went ballistic over anti-Hillary voter fraud accusations that all came to nothing. (Unless you consider the effect these false stories will have in poisoning the narrative well in the general, where the Republicans do actually steal elections.)

    So, if Hillary does well in NC, there is now a ready-made narrative to delegitimize her. Nice, eh?

    Parent

    Yuck (none / 0) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:03:28 PM EST
    Stop making me think so much about evil things!:)

    Parent
    Strange (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:15:18 PM EST
    I don't like the sound of this group one bit.

    It's a very strange story (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:15:57 PM EST
    The politics of (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:25:26 PM EST
    destruction in action.  We need to stop and ask ourselves what is really going on here??

    There are too many back room deals with Obama already.  

    Now we have these crazy schemes to discredit people who are out there trying to make a difference for others.  

    Trying to peg this on Hillary or her supporters feels so familiar now.  UGH.

    Parent

    The group discredits itself through (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:34:32 PM EST
    its incompetence and the illegality of its conduct.  

    I see no evidence to suggest it is malicious or connected with any one campaign, but it is objectively bad and counterproductive to the organization's very reason for being.

    Parent

    Did you listen to recording? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    You're probably too young but it sounds like an episode of 'Night Gallery'.  It's very strange.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:20:04 PM EST
    never even heard of Night Gallery.

    Parent
    Here's a youtube link to Rod Serling (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:27:07 PM EST
    ahh, from the Twilight Zone (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:30:08 PM EST
    no night gallery (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    the later color show

    Parent
    I was talking about Sterling. (none / 0) (#114)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:46:06 PM EST
    Sounds like the Board members (none / 0) (#10)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:21:21 PM EST
    might be there in name only.

    I doubt Podesta would have anything to do with the group if he knew what they were doing.

    Parent

    But what were they doing? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:22:54 PM EST
    How were they trying to influence the primary?  It sounds like they didn't have their act together to accomplish much of anything.

    Parent
    They sound (none / 0) (#14)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:24:29 PM EST
    like they're trying to suppress the vote to me.

    Very sketchy.

    Parent

    Suppress it for whom? (none / 0) (#17)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    Republicans, ultimately. (none / 0) (#22)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    The fewer people vote, the better it is for them. We know they like to game the primaries.

    That's why I think that the more liberal/progressive folks like Podesta don't know what they're doing.

    Parent

    Reports by whom? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:31:05 PM EST
    Not even this report says that.

    I call BS on your comment.

    Parent

    Oh, someone at Kos has a link. (none / 0) (#45)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:42:21 PM EST
    Hilarious.

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:45:48 PM EST
    The call transcript does not indicate it is directed at A-A voters.

    You are making sh*t up.

    It is a CDS issue.

    Parent

    Just ask yourself this (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    Why do you not accept that you made sh*t up about the call being directed at A-As?

    Parent
    Democracy North Carolina (none / 0) (#76)
    by libfighter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    is claiming the robo calls targeted AA areas...

    Link to story

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:52:24 PM EST
    Bob Hall is talking out of his a**. that is one of my points here.

    Parent
    Closest thing I've been able to find (none / 0) (#119)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/nonprofit_womens_voices_women.php

    But I don't know anything about the group making the assertion that it's targeted at A-A voters.

    Parent

    A link from DK, and a dime... (none / 0) (#125)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:38:55 PM EST
    ... will get you a cup of coffee.

    The link alone, alas, will get you nothing at all.

    Parent

    Good grief. (none / 0) (#33)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:32:47 PM EST
    And this was never going to come to light, so I can see why they would attempt something like this.

    Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!  Silly season, indeed.

    Parent

    Suppress (none / 0) (#34)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:33:00 PM EST
    potential pro Hillary female votes??

    Parent
    I don't think unmarried women... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:30:09 PM EST
    ...were the main target group getting the calls from the group supposedly empowering unmarried women. From above:

    Bob Hall, executive director of Democracy North Carolina, said in a news release that the calls were being made to African American households. The good government watchdog posted audio of the call

    Obviously some black households include married women.

    So the question is were the calls being made to black households AND white ones? Predominantly black households? ONLY black households? The wording is ambiguous. But it sounds like Hall is mentioning this because it was specifically targeted at black households (which would be weird).

    If he doesn't mean that his statement is nonsense and misleading.

    Parent

    Bob Hall has no effing clue (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    who the calls went to.

    He is as irresponsible as anyone on this.

    For example, Hall can not bring forward a person who got the calls.

    And if he could bring forth 10, how would he know wo the majority of the calls went to? This is ridiculous and I thought you were better than thisd frankly.

    Now I see you are just as capable of stupidity as all your Orange friends.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:23:32 PM EST
    Huh?

    So the question is were the calls being made to black households AND white ones? Predominantly black households? ONLY black households? The wording is ambiguous. But it sounds like Hall is mentioning this because it was specifically targeted at black households (which would be weird).

    If he doesn't mean that his statement is nonsense and misleading.

    Obviously in my subject line sentence I misspoke and made something into a declarative that should've been in the conditional.

    However, my comment's point should be clear:

    Obviously there is an absence of information about where Bob Hall possibly got this information if there even IS information, but it's now on the table.

    So I was discussing the statement in terms of who Bob Hall said the calls went to, the possible meanings of his ambiguous and confusing statement, and the consequences of the various meanings. Specifically, that if Bob Hall didn't intend his statement to mean that blacks were specially targeted, he was speaking nonsense and being misleading. Hardly a charitable assessment.

    True, I didn't go into attempting to determine whether Bob Hall had enough information to make this statement. That's because obviously some black households got the call -- as I said, "obviously some black households include married women" -- and therefore his statement, as quoted, was almost certainly technically "correct" that black households were getting these calls. But what kind of correct?

    Parent

    Also... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:31:03 PM EST
    ..."orange friends?" I mean, I know it's a reference to Daily Kos, but, huh?

    Also -- and take this in good humor, please -- you've told me you think/thought I'm "better than this" one too many times before for me to really believe that.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:32:28 PM EST
    ...how could he? Where would he be getting his information from? And he hasn't really proved anything (with actual voters) yet.

    Parent
    Uh, trying and succeeding in increasing (none / 0) (#121)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:22:18 PM EST
    voter registration?

    Just a thought. Based on their objectives mission.

    Parent

    Trying to hide this group's (none / 0) (#117)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:57:22 PM EST
    incompetence and/or misdeeds behind John Podesta is a silly effort at smoke-blowing.  If BTD is trying to say Womens' Voices can't be criticized without tarring Podesta.....does that reopen the whole Hillary/Wal-Mart issue?

    Parent
    they did it (none / 0) (#4)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:16:34 PM EST
    in more then 1 state, so maybe once you can say its incompetence, not malevolence.

    but 11 states? 11 states they have accidentally done things to confuse voters?

    To what end? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:17:37 PM EST
    I have a feeling (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:18:24 PM EST
    that we're not going to get a good answer.

    Parent
    facing south talks about the other (none / 0) (#13)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:23:22 PM EST
    situations in the article you linked

    In Arizona last November, election officials were "inundated with complaints" after Women's Voices sent a mailing erroneously claiming that recipients were "required" to mail back an enclosed voter registration form. Many who received the mailing were already registered; the mailing also gave the wrong registration date. Secretary of State Jan Brewer denounced the group's tactics as "misleading and deceptive." A similar mailing in Colorado that month "[drew] fire and caused confusion," according to a state press release.

    • In Wisconsin, state officials singled out Women's Voices for misleading and possibly disenfranchising voters, stating in a press release [PDF]: "One group in particular -- Women's Voices. Women Vote, of Washington, D.C. -- apparently ignored or disregarded state deadlines in seeking to register voters," sending in registrations past the January 30 deadline and causing "hundreds of Wisconsin voters who think they registered in advance" to actually not be.

    • Michigan officials ended up "fielding tons of calls from confused voters" after Women's Voices did a February mailing to "380,000 unmarried women" -- including numerous deceased voters and even more that were already registered. Sarah Johnson of Women's Voices "seemed confused by the confusion," the Lansing State Journal reported.

    • A 1.5 million-piece Women's Voices mailing in Florida falsely stated: "To comply with state voting requirements, please return the enclosed application." Pasco County's elections supervisor called it "disingenuous"; another said it created "a lot of unnecessary panic on behalf of the voters," reported local newspapers. Sarah Johnson of Women's Voice said, "I'm sorry to hear that."

    • By March, Women's Voices was backing off the erroneous "registration is required" language, but there were still problems. For example, a mailing in Arkansas allowed that "registering to vote is voluntary," but a clerk in Washington County reported that "the majority [of forms] sent back to the county come from registered voters, causing needless labor for office employees."


    Parent
    So the end is to (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:26:25 PM EST
    get State voting agencies "inundated with complaints?"

    That is a pretty lousy voter suppression scheme.

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#25)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    Sounds more about state agencies complaining about extra work than a nefarious scheme to influence a primary.

    Much ado about nothing?

    Parent

    Looked Up Several of the Complaints (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:42:51 PM EST
    and they make no sense.  Wisconsin allows Election Day registration so those who mistakenly thought they were registered "can still register just before voting" if they weren't.

    In Arizona, the state says "The fact of the matter is the law does not require anyone to register to vote in Arizona".  So even if they weren't registered properly, they can still vote.

    At worst, Women's Voices is trying to register people to vote even though they don't need to.

    Parent

    Truth Matters -- Why yes it does! (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    The arguement about Wisconsin:
    "In Wisconsin, state officials singled out Women's Voices for misleading and possibly disenfranchising voters, stating in a press release [PDF]: "One group in particular -- Women's Voices. Women Vote, of Washington, D.C. -- apparently ignored or disregarded state deadlines in seeking to register voters," sending in registrations past the January 30 deadline and causing "hundreds of Wisconsin voters who think they registered in advance" to actually not be."

    Guess what!  Wisconsin has same day registration.  If you didn't receive your card because you registered after the date, you just register when you vote.  What supression?  Confusion maybe, but supression?  Please.

    The arguement about Arkansas:
    "By March, Women's Voices was backing off the erroneous "registration is required" language, but there were still problems. For example, a mailing in Arkansas allowed that "registering to vote is voluntary," but a clerk in Washington County reported that "the majority [of forms] sent back to the county come from registered voters, causing needless labor for office employees."

    Wow! The county registrar was angry because some people registered who were already registered, causing unnecessary work.  Oh my!  Guess what?  It happens all the time.  I help out with elections in Texas and there are many people who have multiple voter registration numbers because they think for whatever reason, that they need to reregister.  We deal with it.

    The arguement with Florida:
    "A 1.5 million-piece Women's Voices mailing in Florida falsely stated: "To comply with state voting requirements, please return the enclosed application." Pasco County's elections supervisor called it "disingenuous"; another said it created "a lot of unnecessary panic on behalf of the voters," reported local newspapers."

    There's another WOW! Somebody got a voter registration packet who was probably already registered and it caused the county officials to have to answer their phones.  Oh my!

    This is NOT supression folks.

    Parent

    Never heard of it in Wisconsin -- and (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    it would have had hardly any effect, anyway, since we have same-day registration.  And there always are voters showing up who find themselves not on the rolls for all sorts of reasons, especially since the recent (poor) attempts at computerization, etc.

    I didn't see reports of problems from this in Wisconsin.  I do find the news release from the state elections board, maybe it got some ink -- but again, it wouldn't have made much if any difference.

    It all sounds pretty stupid from an organization with an impressive board (I looked it up).  What the heck, who gave money to such a screwed-up outfit?

    Parent

    they've confused voters in 11 states? (none / 0) (#111)
    by kempis on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:33:08 PM EST
    Really?

    Where did you read that?

    Parent

    Read an article on this story (none / 0) (#16)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:25:34 PM EST
    The other day. It said these tactics (using the same Lamont name was also used in other states prior to NC. The article seemed to put out a theory of voter intimadation rather than actually trying to get people to vote. It gave the impression to those that got the call that if they hadn't done this they wouldn't be allowed to vote.

    Hm (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:27:24 PM EST
    Since the transcript of the call does not say that, I am hard pressed to see how that could be.

    Parent
    This would lead me to believe (none / 0) (#35)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    That perhaps I had to register again.   "To comply with state voting requirements, please return the enclosed application." After 9/11 states have done some very strange things. I've had a drivers license at the same address for 25 yrs and yet when I went to renew I had to bring SS card and birth certificate to prove I existed.

    Parent
    And suppose you did reregister (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:37:00 PM EST
    How does that keep you from voting?

    Parent
    It could really screw up pollworkers (none / 0) (#46)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:42:24 PM EST
    and slow down registration and voting, there is that -- at least in my state named here, which has same-day registration.  And that can discourage voters who just go home.  As this is aimed at single women wanting to vote, who would they vote for, who wants them not to do so, and why?  Additionally, it can discourage other voters waiting to register, and who would most typically be doing so for the first time or having to do because of recent moves, etc.?

    In states without same-day registration, it really could suppress the vote.  It totally stinks, even if not intentional, and I want to know who is funding this outfit.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:44:19 PM EST
    Due respect that is not very convincing to me.

    The mail in registrations are too late.

    They would be tossed.

    Parent

    Your reply doesn't address (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:53:38 PM EST
    problems at the polls, as I did, not problems at the offices that get registration forms.

    Parent
    Not tossed (none / 0) (#77)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:14:35 PM EST
    I don't think the registration would be tossed.  If they registered late, they would just have to wait for the following election to be able to vote.

    Parent
    Tossed? Really? (none / 0) (#103)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:58:31 PM EST
    In my state, late registrations for any 'current' election would be processed and would make the registrant eligible to vote in the NEXT election.

    Other states?  Dunno...

    Parent

    People don't know (none / 0) (#21)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:27:38 PM EST
    whether they're registered or not?

    Well, I guess if people can be taken in by Nigerian princes, they can be taken in by this.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:29:32 PM EST
    The call does not imply that you can not vote at all.

    Parent
    Yes, I see that you (none / 0) (#29)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:30:48 PM EST
    posted that very fact.

    Parent
    I'm not sure of the rules everywhere, but if (none / 0) (#30)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:30:58 PM EST
    you skip too many years, they zap you and you have to re-register.

    Parent
    Voter deception of any kind (none / 0) (#54)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:46:24 PM EST
    done by any group should be investigated and brought to the light, NOT poo-poo'ed because it might reflect badly on a candidate.

    There are some things that cannot and should not be tolerated in the name of winning.

    Parent

    It is PRECISELY what I am criticizing here.

    Your CDS is showing yet again.

    Parent

    No, just saying not to shrug it off (none / 0) (#71)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    regardless of who is at fault or who might be behind it. Any kind of voter intimidation or confusion is WRONG and we should find out who is doing it, as we should with ALL of these kinds of calls and mailings.

    Just don't shrug it off because it MAY BE connected to a candidate.

    Parent

    then you shopuld use the proper words (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    deception is the wrong word here.

    Parent
    and if they intended to deceive voters (none / 0) (#112)
    by kempis on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:37:39 PM EST
    They were pretty dumb. From the news release on the Women's Voices website:

    In advance of the mail, a letter was sent and calls were made to Gary Bartlett in the North Carolina Board of Elections Office notifying them of the intent and content of our mailing effort. A copy of the letter and a press release sent to North Carolina media announcing the registration effort is attached.


    Parent
    Oops. There is no letter attached to read (none / 0) (#124)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:08:59 PM EST
    The press release only says a letter was sent about the registration effort. it does not say that the actual call script was given them or any specific.

    And I am not sure the groups Press Release could be considered credible without corroboration!

    Parent

    Intent should not matter (none / 0) (#93)
    by manys on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:40:14 PM EST
    If it is a fact that these actions have produced confusion and contained false information, then yes they should be investigated. Don't get all Bush on us and say that the context matters, because it doesn't. A nation of laws...

    Parent
    It maters to the definition of the word (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:48:12 PM EST
    deception.

    I am heartily sick of people trying to strip words of meaning.

    Parent

    And obviously if there's no intent... (none / 0) (#126)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:42:36 PM EST
    ... then the whole episode isn't part of a grand scheme by the Hillary campaign.

    Unless the Clintonian Mind Control™ theory is operative, but that's a subject for another post.

    Parent

    My question on this is (none / 0) (#23)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    If the government wanted to know who was behind this, they would. They could tell you what you had for breakfast if they wanted to!

    It's no secret (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:30:08 PM EST
    Puzzled ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:36:30 PM EST
    State Officials seem equally confused:

    Because of the horrible timing and their secretive nature, state officials assumed the calls and mailings were part of an identity theft scheme.

    I'm not sure what this group was trying to do.  But clearly state officials did not initially see a political motive, and jumped to a more nefarious one.

    Occam's Razor suggests (as does BTD) that this group might just be clueless.

    Of course, because of the horrible syntax (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:44:27 PM EST
    in that sentence quoted, it tells me that it's the state officials with horrible timing and secretive natures.  No wonder we're all confused -- the communication about this is adding to the chaos.

    Parent
    Yup, where was the red pencil ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:47:25 PM EST
    on that one?

    Parent
    state officials jumped to wrong conclusion (none / 0) (#59)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    I've posted below where the deputy director of the State Board of Elections was praising the group's activities because it increased turnout.  I guess the "concerned officials" just neglected to talk to someone at the Board of Election.

    Parent
    Ok, so I listened to the call (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:40:55 PM EST
    it's ambiguous and stupid.

    I think this is stupid (none / 0) (#69)
    by tarheel74 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:02:57 PM EST
    NC elections has multiple loopholes which all parties are trying to go around.

    1. Registration: Although registration deadline is 25 days before primary voters can still register and vote at ONE STOP sites till the last saturday before the primaries (the Obama campaign is doing it in Chapel Hill...they even have registration forms ready for that)

    2. Absentee ballots: An absentee ballot can be requested from the Board of Elections by mail or in person. Your spouse, parent, grandparent, legal guardian, child, grandchild, or sibling can make the request for you. Absentee ballots are available by mail between 50 days before an election (30 days if municipal election) and 5 p.m. on the Tuesday before the election. If the voter is permanently disabled or serving in the military, and the situation is stated in the request, a single request will be sufficient for all elections to be held that year. The ballot must be completed, witnessed, returned to and received by the Board by 5 p.m. on the day before the election

    3. The problem with not finding registered people: Cities like Chapel Hill and Durham overlap in counties. For a long time I lived in city of Chapel Hill but Durham county and did not know that, my friend lives in Chapel Hill Alamance county. I know people who live in Durham, Orange county. So to accuse someone of malfeasance is a stretch. I will wager that some people who received these calls were in cities in overlapping counties and they are in for a shock come election day.


    Repeatedly wasting money, even after notification (none / 0) (#78)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    I agree in that I don't quite understand how confusing people about their registration status is the most effective dirty trick. Obviously it creates minor chaos at a very low, personal, level. If people are waiting for packets that don't come that's a problem. If the packets contain (fake) registration forms that ask things the people don't want to write, and so they don't (fake) register and don't vote, that's a problem. Generally confusing people isn't beneficial to the voting process, so that's not good. But I don't think that will really be an issue that suppresses many votes in NC.

    However...

    The registration forms talked about and sent are worthless. Do you really believe 276,000 postmarked packets of worthlessness are the result of mere incompetence? That's a million dollar mistake, all told (printing, stuffing, postmarks, etc.). As a lone event that's perfectly possible. But after 11 previous money losing acts of incompetence? Followed by apologies and recalls that should've alerted competence people in the organization if the issue was incompetence? I think, in light of the very real financial issues and the repeated notifications the group has gotten from state organizations, you dismiss malevolence -- albeit incompetent malevolence -- too quickly.

    I don't really think this is necessarily Clinton-connected. But to me, solely because of the history of this group, it's more shady than stupid.

    I'll note that the reports are all over the map... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:25:32 PM EST
    ...as to whether they are registering people for the primary in some late registration loophole, trying to register people but failing because the deadline has passed (this is the assumption of almost all the reporting), or registering people for the general election (the group, I think, might be doing this, but is waiting until a few days before the state's primary to do it?).

    That would make a difference.

    I suppose the forms would be the same, if there are forms and they're official, but the literature might point one way or another? Confusing. I want to see the contents of these packets, I guess.

    Parent

    Not necessarily picking on you in particular (none / 0) (#98)
    by tree on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:50:52 PM EST
    but, in general, I wish that before people start putting on their Sherlock Holmes hat and cape that they would first go to the source. Many of your questions are answered in the WVWV press release. They've apparently been doing the voter registration for this election cycle since July 2007. And according to  the NC election officials quoted below( in February and March, 2008) its been pretty successful. The only problem seems to be that between the end of the registration deadline on April 11th and now, it is confusing some people, but there is no indication that this is resulting in any thing other than more phone calls to the election officials, and, of course, stirring up conspiracy stories for people who are looking for them.

    But then, some people are so invested in finding nefarious intent, they won't seek the answers that are right in front of their noses.(Again, not directing this at you necessarily.)

    "Already this cycle, our voter registration efforts have generated more than 26,600 registration applications in North Carolina. Women's Voices. Women Vote first registered voters in North Carolina in 2004. Nationally, Women's Voices Women Vote registered over 100,000 new voters in both 2004 and 2006. Since July of 2007, almost 400,000 additional individuals have returned our applications in anticipation of participating in the 2008 general election.

    Bryant (Ethel Bryant, Edgecombe County Board of Elections) agreed the method seems to be working. "They send out the voter's applications in a pre-packaged envelope with postage paid," she said. "Many are female and from rural areas, where it is harder to run out and get a stamp to post a letter. Since it doesn't need a stamp, they are able to drop it right in the mail."

    "Voter Registration Cards Pour In," The Daily Southerner, February 29, 2008

    "This is, by far, the largest we've seen," Johnnie Mclean (deputy director of the State Board of Elections)said. One reason for the state's uptick are prefilled voter registration applications from a Washington-based voting advocacy (WVWV) group that were mailed to thousands of private mailboxes in North Carolina. Recipients can verify their information and mail the cards to the state elections office.

    "Young Voters: Sign Us Up", Greensboro News-Record, March 9, 2008



    Parent
    Left off the link (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by tree on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    Well... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:05:01 PM EST
    ...again, as I've noted elsewhere it's mostly the previous problems this group has had in other states that makes me wonder. Also, the accusation of targeting is strange, but not necessarily anything because Bob Hall's statement, as quoted, was completely ambiguous.

    Going to the source here wasn't enlightening in the whole because there are strange things such as the above, that could not be resolved by the group themselves in their press release. So.

    I would say that the history in NC does make me more comfortable with the whole process, though according to one report they're sending out 276,000 packets and that seems like a big, special push (perhaps THE big push). But perhaps the number is 276,000 total since last year. I think the reporting is probably really inaccurate on this right now.

    Parent

    But this was your earlier post (none / 0) (#113)
    by tree on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:40:09 PM EST
    The registration forms talked about and sent are worthless. Do you really believe 276,000 postmarked packets of worthlessness are the result of mere incompetence? That's a million dollar mistake, all told (printing, stuffing, postmarks, etc.). As a lone event that's perfectly possible. But after 11 previous money losing acts of incompetence? Followed by apologies and recalls that should've alerted competence people in the organization if the issue was incompetence? I think, in light of the very real financial issues and the repeated notifications the group has gotten from state organizations, you dismiss malevolence -- albeit incompetent malevolence -- too quickly.

    According to news reports from earlier in the year, they have not been "packets of worthlessness" but have successfully registered new voters. Even now, any packets that are sent in from someone who is not registered will add another voter to the roles for the general. You are ignoring or mis-characterizing what is proven (that the new voter packets have successfully increased voter registration in NC by tens of thousands) in order to promote a sense of "malevolence". When you have to resort to falsifying the record to promote a story of nefariousness, then its time to take a step back and ask yourself if you aren't simply "going there" because its emotionally satisfying to do so, rather than because its right.  

    Parent

    The election officials in NC said the registration (none / 0) (#122)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:26:12 PM EST
    packets were proper and met requirements for registering to vote in NC.

    Why are they worthless?

    Parent

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:18:17 PM EST
    ...that's interesting, can you elaborate on that? What was in the call that directed yuo to loopholes in late registration?

    Dog whistle? (none / 0) (#116)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:46:57 PM EST
    To me, the weirdest aspect of this is "Lamont Williams."  Why doesn't the group identify itself?  If this is a group named Womens' Voices and the targeted voters are women, why are the calls placed by a deep-voiced male with a generically African-American name?

    I'm not sure exactly what pyschology may be at work here, but it all smells fishier than a week-old mackerel.

    I'm going with Clintonian Mind Control (none / 0) (#127)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:48:46 PM EST
    Clearly, the very phrase "Lamont Williams," when the proper subsonic subliminals are incorporated, will drive the hapless recipient to pull the lever or x the box or pencil in the bubble or touch the screen for She Who Cannot Be Named. It's way beyond nefarious; it's awesomely nefarious.

    Why don't the people who keep moaning for the primaries to stop ever moan for this kind of cr*p to stop?

    Maggie Williams (none / 0) (#128)
    by Waitaminute on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:35:30 AM EST
    Mrs. williams took Penn's place in the Clinton campaign. She sits on the leadership board for women's voices women vote. This organization has pulled the same trick 11 other times. The trick, to make people think they haven't registered. If it was for the general election all they had to do, is say so. Why would you mail 250,000 voter registration applications to people already registered, if it's not an attempt to confuse?

    Complete refutation of the smear, (none / 0) (#129)
    by tree on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:35:00 AM EST
    posted on the later thread, needs to be in this thread as well.

    From Becky Bond of Credo Mobile, via Matt Stoller.

    this is information i know first hand. working assets has funded WVWV since it started in 2004.  we've seen the research and the field plans grow over time.

    WVWV is the only voter registration group with two cycles of replicable randomized control studies showing the impact and cost efficiency of their mail and call based voter registration and GOTV work. here are a few things you may not know about WVWV.

    1. WVWV doesn't just target unmarried women. they target hispanics and african americans. so it's not surprising at all that they are targeting black voters in n.c. they've done this in partnership with organizations like the NAACP in 2004 and National Council of La Raza more recently. they use their methods and infrastructure from the unmarried women work to get minorities on the roll. for instance, field groups and funders will pay them to do mail-based voter reg on african americans who don't live in the urban core where they can be cost efficiently registered via door knocking and mass site registration (at bus stops for example). so where minority voters may be more geographically dispersed, WVWV is employed to do that registration by mail order.

    2. there is always a spike in voter registration around primaries AFTER the registration deadline has passed. this is the best time to register voters. research confirms this.  around primaries people are reminded that they need to register in time for the general. WVWV has done a lot of research in this area. they know when people are most likely to register. unfortunately, what makes sense in registering the largest aggregate number of voters for the general election at the lowest cost is having a confusing effect in the N.C. primary which is hotly contested and very charged.

    3. WVWV has done a lot of research on how to layer communications so as to have the greatest registration rate at the lowest cost from its mail in programs. the calls increase the open rate of the envelopes with the voter registration forms. i've seen research they have done looking at volunteer calls before registration packets arrive v. robocalls. also i've seen research on the effect of who the call is from based on the gender and ethnicity of the targeted voter. are calls from a generic voter participation organization the most effective? or from an individual with a name and way of speaking that is similar to the target demographic.

    4. WVWV is not a clinton-associated organization. yes john podesta is on the board, but so is mike lux and william mcnary -- both obama people.

    WVWV has made big gains in turning out african american men and married hispanic women in the last two years. i think what is a general election strategy which has caused a wrinkle via misunderstanding in a primary context.


    Parent