home

How Dare You Register Women To Vote?

It is a bad thing now apparently:

[I]t should be pointed out that a non-profit group focusing efforts on registering unmarried women in presidential primaries has to know that their activities will almost certainly help Hillary Clinton, as that is probably her strongest demographic.

Unbelievable.

< Obama Files FEC Complaint Over 527 Group's Hillary Ad | The New Criminal Defense Lawyer in Town >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I haven't followed this story, because (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    I don't understand how encouraging people to register to vote is "voter supression".
    Am i missing something?

    Apparently we missed that the only (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:00:39 PM EST
    "good" voter registration is one where the voter goes for Obama.   :-)

    This is typical hypocrisy in Blogistan.


    Parent

    Packet is postage prepaid, so women in rural (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:13:39 PM EST
    areas don't have to run out for a stamp, can just drop in the mail.

    Per an article about the WVWV registration program in February --think it was NC, but not sure now.

    Has resulted in great increase in voter registration!

    Used to be a good thing!

    Parent

    Yes, but how is it voter suppression? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    Isn't that the charge? It sounds like a mistake.. and one that does not benefit Hillary.

    Parent
    Preventive psy-ops to explain lower than (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:35:11 PM EST
    expected Obama vote?

    Parent
    Heh, that actually sounds kinda (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:56:14 PM EST
    plausible. Better than having it be the-issue-that-won't-go-away-Wright  ;)

    Parent
    Oh I'm sure that's true, if nothing (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:14:34 PM EST
    else. They have complained of cheating in every major contested primary.

    Parent
    The registration is for the GE (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    where there is no April 11 deadline.  Thick as a brick.


    Parent
    You mean there is nothing wrong at all??? (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    Nope. (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:28:49 PM EST
    The group's efforts could use some better coordination, and their writers could use editors. But all they're trying to do is register unmarried women for the GE.

    Again, these women are very likely to vote Democratic, so if anyone should be upset, it should be John McCain.

    Parent

    Well, they have created voter confusion (none / 0) (#204)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:54:03 PM EST
    numerous times apparently so I think saying they need "some" better coordination is an understatement.

    Registering women to vote is a good thing, but...

    Robo-calling with blocked caller ID; not even identifying the organization or intent in the voice mail; failing to explain that if people are already registered they should disregard the call; AND doing the robo calling right before primaries and after the registration deadline for those primaries is not only poorly coordinated - it is also IMO completely incompetent.

    Some days I really wish everybody would just stop "helping".

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:13:12 PM EST
    I am the mistress of understatement!

    But honestly, I work as a project coordinator, and I am not surprised by this type of incompetence. Trust me, the people who created this communication were no more clueless than 50% of the people I deal with.

    Yes, I know it's a scary statement. ;-)

    Parent

    Is May 6 the last election ever? (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:19:27 PM EST
    If not, what's wrong with trying to register people to vote?

    Parent
    How on earth is this intrigue? (none / 0) (#220)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:19:21 PM EST
    It appears that an organization released an ill-timed robo-call.  The problem is the organization's for wasting money because of bad timing.

    The deadline for registering for the GE has NOT passed.  

    There certainly is no cause to imply a perfidious motive.

    Parent

    No cause?!???!?! (none / 0) (#221)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:30:29 PM EST
    But it could benefit Hillary!!! Don't you see?!?!?! What are you, a racist?

    Parent
    How are these calls "deceptive"? (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:17:52 PM EST
    I didn't know that Democratic female voters were a demographic to be avoided.

    Parent
    Looks like the Kossacks are starting to (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:04:32 PM EST
    worry just a bit.  

    But this is just stupid.  Makes one question the judgment of people who can be so easily duped.  I remember saying that about republicans who voted for Bush.

    Support Obama if you want, but leave the kindergarten highjinx in Room 104, please.

    I agree: it is worry rapidly into panic (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:02:18 PM EST
    Repug radio is still carrying on and on about Rev. Wright/Obama connection.  Democrats might give it a rest, but not the repubs.  How does these types of kneejerk reaction from the Obama support groups helping to redirect the discussion of policy?  I suppose it is enough that they muddle the discussion so that no one knows anymore what anybody is talking about.  

    Parent
    Where is the (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:07:47 PM EST
    sanity in this?  I am amazed at the logic of some people...  err...  I mean lack of logic...

    This is just another attempt to smear Hillary and her supporters.  Grasping attempt I might add.  

    The last thing Hillary needs are for this demographic of voters to be suppressed!!

    Anyone remember registering Independent voters? (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:31:17 PM EST
    or the Black's in Philadelphia?
    or the Hillary basher Republicans?

    ----

    Oh the women registration is the ONE that we need to pick on!! Can't wait to see how Chris Mathews/KO Obama News Networks play foul with this !!

    Parent

    What about the Dems for a Day (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:24:31 PM EST
    that Obama was touting so he could get votes in the primary that wouldn't go Dem in the GE?? Why aren't Democrats screaming about that?? Talk about asking the Republicans to pick our candidate for us!! And nowhere did I see a mention of a party preference being pushed in the registration drive. So what is the problem? Besides the fact that many women will vote for Hillary in the GE. Or in the remaining primaries where the date to register for them hasn't already passed. If Obama is such a sure thing, why is he so worried about Hillary?? I'll tell you..she is a come from behind horse. He is terrified she is going to nail him at the wire..hehehe.

    For an example of what I mean by that.. see this.  John Henry won it. Check out the other races of his on YouTube and you will see why I call Hillary the "John Henry of politics". Enjoy!!!

    Parent

    That Democrat for a Day (none / 0) (#218)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:59:26 PM EST
    registration drive in PA by Obama should have driven Democratic Superdelegates to support Hillary Clinton en masse.

    But no one raised a stink over that disgusting attempt to game the system.

    The trash about this seems like: 'you dare not breathe the very air reserved exclusively for the precious one.'

    Parent

    Defend the quote (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:10:52 PM EST
    if you want to.

    But stick to the quote please. As I said, the re is another post where you can accuse John Podesta and Mike Lux of voter suppression.

    There is a post below this one (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:13:15 PM EST
    where you can accuse Mike Lux and John Podesta of voter suppression.

    If you can not stick to discussing the quote I provide, then do not comment in this thread.

    Parent

    once again exactly what is wrong with (none / 0) (#22)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:14:51 PM EST
    the quote? I mean sure I don't know if its married or single women who are Hillary's strongest demographic.

    personally I think its married women, but um... once again this in no ways suggests that registering women to vote is bad.

    could you walk me through how you get that conclusion?

    Parent

    What's wrong is the implication (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:16:40 PM EST
    that registering women is wrong.

    You decided to play dumb on this one if you like.

    That is your perogative.

    There is no other purpose for the quote.

    It is bad to register women because it helps Hillary Clinton.

    You know and I know that is what is meant here.

    I have no patience for studied ignorance.

    Parent

    well maybe if we were allowed (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:19:13 PM EST
    to talk about more then just this quote, but one its own then no this quote is NOT what you say it is.
    and yes there was a point of the post, to better show the motives for WVWV action's, but you don't want us to discuss that you want to discuss this 1 quote

    which you are saying implies something that it does not. as the ENTIRE diary was not about registering women to vote, but about WVWV dubious actions for the last 5-6 months

    Parent

    you are truly a disingenuous person (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    the quote is singled out because it is outrageous.

    It implies that a group that is focused on registering women is doing something bad because such an effort helps Hillary Clinton.

    If such a suggestion was made about A-A voter registration drives, the cries, rightly so, would be immense in all quarters.

    You frankly are  . .  well, I will not say it.

    But I think ill of you right now.

    Parent

    Thanks.. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:25:04 PM EST
    Just donated some money to this group, without KOS I would not have known.  Can you tell them thank you on my behalf?  

    Parent
    no that 1 quote alone (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    suggests NO wrong doing, only that the group knows they are helping Hillary or they should no.

    now the rest of the diary may suggest wrong doing but that is different as you said, this is ONLY about that 1 quote you provided.

    so no I disagree on which one of us is the disingenuous one, that 1 quote suggests the group has done nothing wrong. and if so which actually words in that quote suggest wrong doing?

    the diarist correctly notes the group is helping Hillary and they must know it, but no where does it say this is bad.

    please you show me what words in that quote show that the diarist thinks this is bad.

    and are you saying that if obama tried to get AA's out to vote everyone would cry this is bad? we know he doing it everywhere because they vote for him, just like Hillary is trying to get the woman vote out.

    once again you show me what words in that quote express something negative is being done. it says the group is getting women out to vote and has to know this will help Hillary, from your 1 quote you can't say this is good or bad. you are using the rest of the diary to make assumptions but then say I am not allowed to talk about anything but this 1 quote which you are making your own conclusions for.

    so don't call me disingenuous unless you can show me how this quote and this quote alone express that as your title says "How Dare You Register Women To Vote?" or as your link says "It is a bad thing now apparently:" because I don't see any opinion in that quote besides that WVWV has to know they are helping Hillary

    but once again where does it show that this is negative.

    Parent

    Why do you need to be 'shown' anything here? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    No doubt the comments at the site of the posting / conspiracy theory contain a multitude of defenses and, it goes without saying by now, offenses.

    Parent
    Dumb as stumps... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jackyt on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:37:32 PM EST
    Give it up, Big Tent.The thick-as-bricks crowd is monotonizing the conversation!

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:51:30 PM EST
    re-read my response to you in last post (none / 0) (#197)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:35:24 PM EST
    It might ease your concern.

    Parent
    To make it simple for you (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    Imagine a post about the NAACP that stated that they knew their voter registration efforts focused on A-As helped Barack Obama.

    You'll excuse me for KNOWING you would not be so sanguine.

    the quote is outrageous.

    Parent

    WHY (none / 0) (#47)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:22:18 PM EST
    that is my question, why is it outrageous?

    because women are NOT her base of her demographic?
    once again your TITLE and your LINK makes it sound as if the diarist says this is bad, and I ask where do you get that from?

    and what? we ALL know a drive to register AA voters helps Obama, but simply saying that doesn't make it bad, or against registering AAs to vote.

    where do you get this diarist is against registering women to vote?

    Parent

    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:48:09 PM EST
    Because the suggestion that there could be something wrong about registering women for any reason should be offensive to any real progressive.

    But the Obama Kool Aid is strong.

    Parent

    but DailyO is saying (none / 0) (#172)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:48:38 PM EST
    the org is intentionally screwing up to SUPPRESS voting.

    Parent
    I don't think that's the implication (none / 0) (#40)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:20:33 PM EST
    The charge is that they are putting out misleading information. The quote about their focus is meant to identify their likely bias.

    Personally I think it is a dumb quote and far too abstract a connection to tie this to Clinton.  But your intimation that the quote was a complaint against registering women is simply bizarre.

    Parent

    The quote does nothing to add to the charge (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    It is there merely to denigrate the group for doing something, registering women, that favors Hillary clinton.

    That some Obama cultists are incapable of seeing what is wrong here is as telling as anything yet.

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#128)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:05:42 PM EST
    The intent (and I don't defend it), is clearly to tie these misleading robocalls to the Clinton campaign.  The notion is that if the group usually serves women, they probably favor Clinton.

    This is too tenuous a link to take seriously, but so is your assertion that the complaint is about registering women.  

    As for calling people "cultists" - such a thing used to be beneath you.

    Parent

    I had to (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:11:34 PM EST
    go there to read the post.

    That post is one of the more ridiculous bits of commentary I've read from the Obama crowd.  And that's saying a lot. BTD is correct.  There is a clear implication that WVWV has engaged in some nefarious act to suppress the vote.  The post never explains how the ill-timed robo calls could suppress the vote. Running through the post is a tone condemning any kind of activity that might in some way benefit Hillary Clinton. Even if it's registering unmarried women (by the way unmarried women vote overwhelmingly Democratic; at a higher rate than married women). The post is an indication of just how contorted some of the Obama camp has become.

    My take for what it's worth is that the post backhands efforts to register women since that would benefit Hillary Clinton.

    Some elements of the Obama crowd have gone so far around the bend that they're even condemning what should be applauded and I believe that's BTD's point.  A very good point IMO.

    Parent

    Let me add that one more comment (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:18:42 PM EST
    by you or anyone else that attempt to change the subject of this post will lead to suspension.

    Parent
    I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:12:53 PM EST
    Democrats don't suppress votes- not even in Michigan and Florida.

    Oh, wait a minute......

    BTD -- Maybe we need a section for rumor killing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:16:14 PM EST
    I thought I'd posted about it below, but may have not hit key properly.

    Anyway, there's this one and the Barbara Reynolds. Would be helpful to have the factual info all in one place.

    Is that doable?

    And thank goodness for all the great fact searching by folks here.

    Use the Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:17:05 PM EST
    Thanx. will do (none / 0) (#45)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:22:05 PM EST
    Awesome... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:17:00 PM EST
    way to go Hillary with having a super duper campaign.  Identify your voter base, register them and get them out.  That is how you will elections.  Do you hear that SDs?  Winning elections.  

    You're off message (none / 0) (#86)
    by AF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    These folks just screwed up big time.  Even accepting it was an honest mistake, it's hardly something the Clinton campaign wants to be associated with.

    Parent
    You don't tell me the message... (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:52:25 PM EST
    to be on.  I will choose.  

    Parent
    I'm not telling you what message to be on (none / 0) (#139)
    by AF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    But the whole reason we're having this discussion is that this group sent out misleading mailers and some folks are accusing the Clinton campaign of voter suppression.

    If you want to the Clinton campaign to take credit for these folks, that's your right, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    Parent

    Sigh... (none / 0) (#154)
    by tree on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:34:13 PM EST
    Now the story is that they sent out "misleading mailers'???? Wrong. There have been ambiguous robocalls that have confused some people about the purpose of the mailers. There have been absolutely no complaints about the mailers, which have been successfully returned by tens of thousands of people resulting in increased voter rolls.

    Parent
    Sorry, misleading calls (none / 0) (#158)
    by AF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    Exactly! (none / 0) (#121)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:58:17 PM EST
    Even accepting it was an honest mistake, it's hardly something the Clinton campaign wants to be associated with.

    Especially since the organization is so transparent!

    Gahhhhhhh!  Make it stop!

    Parent

    Jeralyn, Is That You (none / 0) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:08:47 PM EST
    Did you change your user name to AF?

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Marco21 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:18:06 PM EST
    I am also confused. If this groups purpose is to get women to vote and they're sending misleading info to  women, how in the hell does this help evil, evil, evil Hillary?

    Someone spiked the mix at the Orange Julius - again.

    Isn't the organization (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:18:54 PM EST
    Women Vote.. ?  OK, why is it that every time Obama takes a hit, this conspiracy stuff comes up.  Doesn't all that twisting hurt?  BTW, I didn't know it went to 'you know where' or I wouldn't have gone... but there are 710 comments on this piece.  710 comments!  People are just freaking out over the oddest stuff.  Someone's gonna have a huge hangover when this is all done.

    Where is the shower? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by tamens on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:23:13 PM EST
    I just clicked through the link and am in need of hosing off.  

    Daily Kos is now my daily dose of WTF?  Registering voters is a bad thing.  Blue is green.  Up is down.  The world has truly gone insane.

    Yum, kool-aid.

    This is just another example (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:23:38 PM EST
    of how the so-called progressive blogosphere does not take womens' issues seriously.

    The stated goal of these registration efforts is to help women register to vote in the general election, in order to promote issues like universal health care, the lack of which disproportionately affects unmarried women.

    Clearly, having these women vote would give them a bigger voice. You know, womens' voices, womens' votes?

    These so-called progressive bloggers are quite simply, disgusting.

    Yep, the General Election... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by alexei on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    I noticed that thw left's least objective (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:25:07 PM EST
    blogger had something non-inflammatory (cough cough) to say about the subject:
    Have a Bob Johnson on the house!

    She'll do ANYTHING to win (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:27:27 PM EST
    Will nothing stop her?!

    Even I never (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by DaytonDem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:34:10 PM EST
    thought the Clinton campaign would stoop to registering likely democratic voters for the fall.

    Parent
    No, Nothing. Her bus does not have a all bunch of (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by feet on earth on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:37:03 PM EST
    people under it, slowing her down. They sit on it, registering to vote.  Eh, eh, eh ...

    Parent
    Isn't Registering Single Women Good for Democrats (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:27:53 PM EST
    I thought part of the general election strategy was to register single women.  

    And do we know WVWV was even trying to make the primary deadline.  Maybe unlike the rest of us, they are simply focused on trying to get women registered to vote in the general election and believe that now is a good time since there's so much focus on politics in North Carolina.  I can believe that could be confusing, but do we care if a woman who is likely to be a democrat gets registered too late for the primary if she votes in the general election.  Sure, it would be better if she could participate in both, but isn't it still better to get her registered.  Indeed, I'd think Obama would prefer single women (at least non-AAs) not vote in the primary and only vote in the GE.  

    But, of course, I'm trying to take a progressive organization at its word instead of seeing nefarious Hillary maneuvering.  

    I'm confused... (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    Is this a problem because the group has made a bit of a jumble of a couple voter registration drives?

    Or is this a problem because they are trying to get people, specifically unmarried women, registered?

    If it's the former, there was no need for DH to bring up the HRC factor.

    Based on the quote (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:43:56 PM EST
    the latter.

    That is the point of my disgust with the quote.

    Obama Cultists will defend it however.

    Parent

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    Solved a BTD koan! :)

    Parent
    Haven't they heard (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    that the best defense is a good offense? Please, please, please form a nonprofit and register some prime Obama supporters to vote.

    Please!  Registering people to vote is never offensive (okay, I'll say Dems-for-a-day is offensive) but the rest is just great.
    Great, I tell you!  Rah-rah!

    Oh come on! (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:36:04 PM EST
    All DEMS want these people to register because they will vote heavy DEM.

    But why are they calling AA and White men? Are they just incompetent?

    They have been in serious trouble in other states over their calls and the confusion they cause. This is a case where it might be best to find out the WHOLE story which will happen soon.

    Stop changing the subject (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:42:18 PM EST
    this quote makes clear that not ALL DEMS wants women registered.

    That is the point of my post. It is outrageous.

    Parent

    The quote is from some poster (none / 0) (#213)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:17:08 PM EST
    it is not included in the diary referenced at Kos.

    So, now whole front page entries at TL are based on some jerk's comment???  It is one thing to call out a diarist but focusing on one quote from some anonymous poster is ridiculous.

    The person who wrote the comment is an idiot also because the reports say that this group was so bad at getting mailing lists that they were not calling unregistered unmarried women, but it looks like random names from a phonebook or something.  So the point the idiot commenter was making is not even a point.

    Parent

    Should be pretty simple (none / 0) (#155)
    by AlSmith on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:34:17 PM EST

    Since the premise is that the group is beneficial to Hillary, therefor they must also have expanded their mandate to benefiting her by any means possible, wouldn't it be rather easy to compare the mailer received by black etc and those received by women?

    If the mailers have the same or similar information then the organization couldnt have been intended this intentionally.

    Of course that would have caused Kos to wait an extra day before jumping to a conclusion.

    Parent

    An extra day? (none / 0) (#171)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:48:32 PM EST
    More like an extra second!

    The fact that the organization has been around for years and is focused on the GE, not the primaries, seems to escaped the Daily Obama.

    Unless we could read their concern as...an admission that HRC will be the nominee, and that the Obama bloggers are now pledging that they will do everything they can to elect McCain!!!1111!!!


    Parent

    Also... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:44:33 PM EST
    ...just for fun, I'm pretty sure the statement is just factually wrong, as well. I bet older married white women are actually her strongest demographic. Younger, single white women -- read: out of high school, college-bound, or 20-somethings -- would be more likely to go for Obama than their married grandmothers.

    It's also confusing since the problem here -- insomuch as there might be a problem -- was not that the group was registering a Hillary demographic. It was that non-Hillary voters would be suppressed. Any worth this story has hinges on the group SUPPRESSING votes, and specifically suppressing BLACK votes. So the passage quoted is irrelevant. For any reasonable purpose anyway, I won't speak to unreasonable ones.

    The unreasonable ones (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:50:13 PM EST
    are the basis of my objection.

    Parent
    As they should be. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    From the group itself their explanation (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:59:09 PM EST
    And the quote (none / 0) (#124)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:01:15 PM EST
    deliberately misstates the focus of the group as being registration for the primaries, not the GE.

    That's some really awesum resarch!!!!!!11111

    Parent

    Confusing, (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:53:13 PM EST
    but not nefarious.

    I thought Obamans were all about going to the website for clarification! Come on, go there and spend just a few seconds. It's quite obvious that they are all about getting unmarried women to vote.

    That goal should always be embraced and applauded by liberals and progressives.


    Parent

    And? (none / 0) (#207)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:09:44 PM EST
    Please read what Mike Lux, Obama supporter and Board member, has to say.

    There is no there there.

    Parent

    There is a transcript of the calls now? (nt) (none / 0) (#168)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:45:30 PM EST
    Thanks (nt) (none / 0) (#198)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:35:24 PM EST
    You would lose your bet. There are tons of (none / 0) (#162)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:39:22 PM EST
    not-young single women.

    Parent
    Right... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:43:20 PM EST
    ...but I'm not talking about absolute numbers. I'm clearly talking about what Clinton's best demographic is against Obama. And I bet it's older married women rather than unmarried women (young and old) as a group.

    Parent
    What's even funnier (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:53:03 PM EST
    is that they tagged this story with a "voter suppression" tag when it is just the opposite. But they are desperate to find something to take the heat off Wright. Yesterday didn't work I think. It is still in the news cycle.

    They jumped on Mike Easley for using the word "pansy" yesterday. And called on Hillary to "reject and denounce" Mike Easley for his gay slur. His crime was "Rocky Balboa was a pansy compared to Hillary Clinton." I don't know but I am gay and I don't see the slur. These people are so PC it disgusts me. This is one reason I worry about free speech under Obama.

    What I find funny is that they are (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    selectively PC.  To say someone is a pansy is Gay Bashing but to say that a whole demographic is Bitter and clinging is not Elitist.

    Parent
    Well BTD this post has given me (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:53:05 PM EST
    the opportunity to see another form of WORM.  Let me marvel at WKRM(what Kos really meant).

    Storm in a teacup (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    But it helps to divert attention from news of Obama's continuing slide in the polls.

    The Pitchfork paTrolls swarmed Digby (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    Due to the fact that I was voted favorite female blogger by people who read their site and participated in their PSA encouraging women to vote, I have been inundated with angry emails demanding that I disavow Women's Voices Women's Vote for their "campaign to disenfranchise voters in North Carolina."

    First of all, I have no affiliation with Women's Voices Women's Vote. I was asked to do a little Public Service Announcement last fall and there was nothing partisan about it. I did not do it to "pimp Hillary" as one of my concern trolls so pithily put it. Neither did I think there was any need to investigate or "vet" a well known organization that registers women to vote. So no, I didn't look into them to find out if I should agree to "lend my name to voter disenfranchisement." The production company asked and I said yes.

    I had nothing to do with the contest other than noting on my site that I had been nominated and that I'd won. If they have some sort of devious political agenda, I'm completely unaware of it. I know absolutely nothing about these robo calls. [... more ...] (digby 4/30/2008 10:23:00 AM)

    (embedded link within quoted portion left off due to formatting)

    OMG. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    These people have completely freaking lost their minds.

    Leave Digby Aloooooooooneeeeee!!!!!

    The He-Man Woman-Haters' Club strikes again.

    Parent

    Hope she isn't forced to shut down her comments (none / 0) (#205)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:58:18 PM EST
    again.

    When she was accused of being a "closet" Hillary supporter, she was Obamabot swarmed, and they do not say nice things to those who are perceived as not having "seen the light"!

    Parent

    Anyone who does not respect Digby (none / 0) (#206)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:06:50 PM EST
    is a complete schmuck.

    The woman is brilliant. You don't have to agree with her, but give credit where credit is due.

    Parent

    She became my Billmon replacement as (none / 0) (#209)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:12:19 PM EST
    must go to blog.

    (I still miss Billmon. Sob.)

    Parent

    Even if the registration date for a primary (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:45:15 PM EST
    has passed, a registration for the general election would still be valid, and I think this is where the confusion comes into play.

    From what I hear, the information in the phone calls did not make this clear, and I'm hard-pressed to understand why an organization that would think to provide stamped return envelopes would not think to make sure their messages did not alarm or confuse people.

    Obama summer voter program (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by jedimom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:12:49 PM EST
    But I thought Obama was organizing thousand of volunteers to spend their summer vacation from school going door to door and registering voters..he just doenst want women..

    he slammed the pro Edwards 527 and then one ran for him
    then he slammed another one in OH then they ran a bunch for him in PA
    now he slams another one

    just take off the change and new button already cause he is like every other pol.


    BTW: (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:31:23 PM EST
    From Mike Lux, an OBAMA supporter who is on the board of this women voter's organization:

    just made aware of the controversy regarding Women's Voices. Women Vote.  (Disclosure: I am on their board.) I called Page Gardner and have had a quick conversation with her as well as seen the statement that she released.  I am completely confident that this was an accident. As far as I can tell, I think it was more a consequence of trying to move on 24 states in a short amount of time, and having nothing to do with the upcoming primary.

    Link

    Certain concern-tr-uh-Obama supporters need to leave the hallucinogenics out of the koolaid.

    Stoller at MyDD posts a complete refutation (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:59:40 PM EST
    of all the smears here via Digby.

    This (2.00 / 4) (#67)
    by BooMan on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:31:56 PM EST
    has got to be the most dishonest thing you've ever posted, and you know how I feel about DHinMI.  

    You are seriously equating this campaign to confuse voters about the registration status that has been criticized in about a dozen states, that takes place always right before a primary and right after registration is closed, and you are suggesting that it is really about registering women to vote?

    How come it doesn't accomplish that task?  How come they use a male voice with a black sounding name?  How come they seem to target African-Americans, and even African-American men?  How come their information is consistently wrong and unhelpful?

    Give it up Armando. You've lost the last shred of your credibility.

    Did you even (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    go to the website?

    It's entitled "Women's Voices, Women's Votes."

    Somehow I think Armando's credibility remains intact.

    Parent

    What? Go the website? (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:42:39 PM EST
    What fun would that be?  What would they have to complain about then?

    There is something seriously wrong with some of these people.  

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    You, whose site was built upon the pie fight, seriously so in the tank that you have no problem with this?

    Imagine if I had writen a post which included an admonition to the NAACP because its efforts to register A-A voters was helpful to Barack Obama.

    I will leave your post up, simply because this is a perfect example of what being an Obama Cultist has done to you.

    It is not shocking of course. You choose to stand up for a post that decries voter registration efforts aimed at women. But as Miss Laura often stated, you never really had credibility as a feminist so you had none to shred.  

    Parent

    the problem is (none / 0) (#81)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:42:13 PM EST
    this quote contains NO "admonition" as you put it.

    and that is why this quote you are attacking makes no sense.

    once again like I have been asking now, where do you see an admonition to WVWV for trying to register women to vote?

    Parent

    What is the purpose of the quote? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:43:03 PM EST
    Just some nonsequitor that popped in the post?

    You are ridiculous.  Simply ridiculous.

    Parent

    DHinMi's insinuation (3.50 / 2) (#99)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    is that since this org. is obviously pro-women-voting, it's pro-Clinton, so controlled by her or willing to do her dirty work, or liable to be the above, so it requires extra investigation (which a pro-Obama group wouldn't).  You're flat mistaken about the reference, but it's still bad.

    Parent
    Say what? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    A pro-Clinton group because it registers women voters is exactly what he is saying and criticizing.

    though I must say your defense of it is just as damning.

    Parent

    You have no negative capability (none / 0) (#118)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:56:01 PM EST
    See it from DHinMI's perspective - the group is pro-Clinton, therefore suspect.  It's not bad to register women voters, it's suspicious to be pro-Clinton.  I'm  not defending the above stupidity, just trying to correct your reading.

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:07:14 PM EST
    If I had written A-A voter registration efforts were suspect because they help Obama, I would rightly and loudly be denounced for such a racist sentiment.

    this is a sexist sentiment that no progressive should even be explaining much less defending.

    Parent

    You're demanding more logic from DHinMI (none / 0) (#194)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:27:11 PM EST
    than he's prepared to provide in this context.  He's being stupid and paranoid, not sexist.

    And the explaining crack is beneath you.

    Parent

    The test to winnow Real Women from Fembots ... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:20:58 PM EST
    ... must be fascinating. I see a two-tiered sort: the free range women with independent brain functions, and the ones whose Artificial Intelligence taps directly into the HRC campaign Hive Mind.

    Presumably the latter can be adjusted with 1/4 turn of the screwdriver and resetting the switches.

    As for the first category ... well I hate to think what would happen if those women got a hold of a ballot and were left alone with it somewhere, a voter's booth, say.

    Parent

    now had you asked (3.00 / 2) (#95)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:49:30 PM EST
    what does this quote mean, I would say you are right its kinda confusing on whats its implying

    but YOU made this diary you are putting what YOU say it assumes all over the place. so I asked you where did you get this was about its bad to register women to vote? where did the diarist suggest that?

    to me the diarist was pointing out this was a pro-hillary group which becomes meaningful when you read into what this group has been up too.

    but you say its about women registering to vote is bad and I asked how?

    DHMI is basically asking what is this groups actual intentions with what they have been doing. NOT suggesting that registering women to vote is bad.

    Parent

    I have an idea. (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    DHMI is basically asking what is this groups actual intentions with what they have been doing. NOT suggesting that registering women to vote is bad.

    Why don't you and DH go to the website and see what they're up to?

    Parent

    I love how they brag (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:55:48 PM EST
    about their hours and hours of research on DK, but none of them seem to have actually, you know...looked at the website.

    "You keep saying that word, research. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    Parent

    Just Like The Great Research This Same FP Poster (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:20:35 PM EST
    did when she wrote a post d@mning Hillary for campaigning in Florida. When called on it, the excuse given was that after seeing these accusations in other diaries she accepted it as fact.

    Parent
    Um (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:54:07 PM EST
    He said their intention was to register women voters and that helps Hillary therefore it is ipso facto nefarious.

    Parent
    You think Obama would be interested (none / 0) (#133)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:10:09 PM EST
    in reacing out to 50+% of all voters, wouldn't you?

    Sorry - don't know what percentage of that 50+% is unmarried.  20+%?

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    ...I think you're reading causation into the statement when there's just a correlation. To alter your quote to make it more what DHinMI probably meant:

    He said their intention was to register women voters and that helps Hillary therefore [they are a likely pro-Clinton group] therefore [any potential] ipso facto nefarious [dealings by this group would likely be to benefit Clinton].

    Though, I've stated elsewhere why this interjection in the post was irrelevant to any possible worth the story has, factually and demographically incorrect, and included for no good reason.

    Parent

    The quote begins (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:45:42 PM EST
    "It should be pointed out..."

    Really?  Why?  

    Parent

    actually it starts with (none / 0) (#97)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:50:32 PM EST
    [Promoted by DHinMI: Robocalls in North Carolina are confusing voters and have the appearance of voter suppression.  It turns out the source of the calls is a Democratic-leaning non-profit.  The director of the organization apologizes for the "confusion" caused by her organization, but as this diary makes clear, the organization has had a series of problems prior to primaries.


    Parent
    But why should it be pointed out? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    At this point, I can only conclude you are a dishonest person. I have given you 20 chances to explain why it should be pointed out and you have red herringed me to death.

    Any more posts from you that do not answer that question will be deleted.

    Parent

    I think you have been (none / 0) (#184)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    patient BTD.  I have asked this person to please honor his/her posting name because truth does matter.

     

    Parent

    Appearance of (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by pie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:55:07 PM EST
    voter suppression?  Oh, brother.

    Give me facts, not appearances.

    Parent

    "Appearance of" is always a red herring. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by alexei on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:09:36 PM EST
    It really means we have no real facts but we will call out this (person, group, activity, etc.) on innuendo, false assumptions and slimy attacks because it is our purpose to (distract, deter, circumvent, etc.) people from things that are damaging to our (candidate, campaign, cause, etc.).

    This is a typical Freeper and Republican narrative that unfortunately has been adopted by so-called liberal blogs.  I find the practitioners of  this vile device despicable and much more.

    Parent

    CDS (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by lyzurgyk on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:54:31 PM EST
    The "credible" explanation is always to blame Hillary.  

    Parent
    Is it even possible (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:07:38 PM EST
    that there is no nefarious scheme, but instead a non-profit that might suffer from a bit of incompetence?

    And the Lamont reference, could it be that given that NC, is what, 30% AA? they're using an AA voice?  And maybe the voice is a man because people might be more likely to listen to a man?  You know, I've noticed lately that there's a bit of sexism in this country.  Just a bit.

    And BTW, if you find a blog's author utterly lacking in credibility, a great way to deal with it is to NOT VISIT the blog.  That's what I've done with KOS, AmericaBlog, TPM, Huffington Post, Raw Story, Booman Tribune (oops), etc.

    Tin foil is really in this spring.

    Just a thought.

    Parent

    Or may be they are a little pressed for staff? (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by alexei on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:13:31 PM EST
    Or a host of other innocuous reasons and really only want to get single women registered to vote for the General Election.  I would be trying to register voters at this time - the interest is not going to be any higher than now with two Presidential candidates, a former President and a daughter of said President and one of candidates visiting the state.  

    Parent
    THIS part is the problem (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:17:31 PM EST
    "And it should be pointed out that a non-profit group focusing efforts on registering unmarried women in presidential primaries has to know that their activities will almost certainly help Hillary Clinton, as unmarried white women is probably her strongest demographics."

    It should not matter whether or not their efforts help Clinton. What should matter is whether their efforts help empower voters. The methods are certainly debatable but to question whether or not to pillory a non profit simply because it favors one primary candidate is unacceptable.

    Parent

    Wow! (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:28:01 PM EST
    "How come they seem to target African-Americans?"  Please, just make the race-baiting stop.  I do not have the patience for another round of "Those Racist Clintons."

    Parent
    Well that comment (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:34:48 PM EST
    Should last a long time.


    Parent
    Is (none / 0) (#74)
    by BooMan on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    Armando going to delete my comments now, too?

    Parent
    they are supposed to be (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:41:06 PM EST
    But of course I will leave it up because it gave me a chance to eviscerate you. No more insults please.

    Parent
    I thought (none / 0) (#94)
    by BooMan on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    you were going to leave it up.

    Parent
    I did (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:54:38 PM EST
    Personal attacks like that (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:38:18 PM EST
    Are supposed to be deleted, yes.

    Parent
    Comments aren't usually hidden here... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    ...they're deleted. And a lot get deleted. Which is fine, and I like it as a moderation tool, but I wish Jeralyn or other admins could find a way to leave a stub or something, because it gets really confusing sometimes when the head of a conversation is deleted and the tail somehow remains.

    Parent
    Jeralyn Has Stated That She Is Doesn't Have The (none / 0) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:24:53 PM EST
    capacity to do what you recommend.

    Parent
    Right... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:31:14 PM EST
    ...the capacity would be nice, though, and something to work towards. Deleting comments without evidence of deleting them is confusing. It's just a technical point, not a critical one, since I agree with deleting things if the owner wants it gone.

    Parent
    Agree It Would Be Nice (none / 0) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:34:00 PM EST
    Wasn't judging your comment as criticism. Merely providing information.

    Parent
    Starting at "dishonest" (none / 0) (#123)
    by rilkefan on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:59:51 PM EST
    is plain stupid.  People get confused, people misread, people make illogical statements which others read incorrectly...  BTD is applying too much logic to the quote.  An honest response to what you perceive as his incorrect claim would be to say, "I read this as X, you've got it totally mixed up - consider Y. Please update the post."

    Parent
    Hi Boo... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:04:34 PM EST
    I think you're missing the point of the annoyance.

    Had it just been a comment on the screw ups re: the efforts of this group to GOTV, that'd be one thing.

    But DH (and I have no ill feelings towards him) turned around and tossed the HRC factor in there...thereby changing the implications of the statement. It went from being about a group's mistakes to being about the group trying to "push" registration of a specific demographic group that, according to him, favors HRC (which is apparently a not good thing).

    Question...Do you know if Yearly Carnacki is happening this year?

    Parent

    I know, I saw it (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:57:46 PM EST
    Don't ask me how the logic works because mine doesn't work that way either.  Bizarre!

    the headline is great (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:02:23 PM EST
    BREAKING: Source of deceptive NC robo-calls exposed

    still not as good as yesterdays (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    ablog headline about "Hillary standing by while gay slurs are uttered".
    but almost.

    Parent
    This post is about the quote I gave (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:05:37 PM EST
    If you want to discuss the "nefarious scheme" there si a post below for that.

    Do not even TRY to change the subject please.

    Ridiculous posts at dkos (none / 0) (#13)
    by BigB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:08:33 PM EST
    That is how bad it has gotten there! The posts are often incomprehensible, convoluted, and illogical in idiosyncratic ways.

    They share only one commom trait: their unadulterated hate for Hillary and Bill Clinton.

    I noticed which front pager promoted the story (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:38:37 PM EST
    and that's all one really needs to see in evaluating the story's credibility.

    Parent
    lets boil this down... (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:27:14 PM EST
    A not particularly brilliantly run voter registration drive aimed at unmarried women makes a couple of mistakes, and its a nepharious scheme?

    Does anyone remember the hyperventilating by the right over Acorn's voter registration efforts?

    That's exactly what the DK hysteria is like.  

    Parent

    There's a better slant (none / 0) (#136)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:16:35 PM EST
    one poster constantly rails at The Boomers for completely screwing up the economy, the nation and the world.  They then call for the Boomers so the NextGen can take over.  Whiny entitlement twaddle.

    Parent
    Just when even I want Wright Issue behind (none / 0) (#14)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:10:06 PM EST
    the Obama camp would come out with something as inane as this?  It may change the topic, but it only brings up the same thought processes at work with the Wright ouster from Obama's circle because it has become a political embarrassment and hurting his ratings.  Now this, because it tends to favor Hillary?  It makes me even more resolved not to vote for Obama.

    Can HRC 'make' Wright say new stupidities please? (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:18:29 PM EST
    Cause the staggering dumb@ss on the latest episode of Clinton Derangement Syndrome is making me nostalgic for the jaw-dropping spectacle of the Obama and Wright Show.

    (Which Sen Clinton also caused, oh yes she did!)  

    Parent

    Is it a fact? (none / 0) (#15)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:10:34 PM EST
    Are unmarried women "probably her strongest demographic?"

    And...if so...so what?

    I read it's otherwise (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:16:23 PM EST
    and they split better for Obama.  And there are plenty of Obama backers on the group's board.  But heck, don't let details and pesky facts take away the fun of the daily outrage from the Kos Kids.  It keeps them in front of their computers and off the streets, so it's better for the country, isn't it?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 9) (#44)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    But either way, unmarried women are a great DEMOCRATIC demographic.  Register them all!  Gosh, even if they commit the unpardonable sin of voting against Sen. Obama in this primary, they will help get Democrats elected up and down the ticket, year in and year out.

    I'm trying to imagine an analogous post, where someone like Taylor Marsh suggests it's a bad thing to register black voters because they'll probably vote for Obama, but somehow I just don't think that post would get written.

    Parent

    Precisely (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:23:37 PM EST
    the quote is outrageous and should be deleted immediately from a progressive site.

    Parent
    anyone have a list of Obama-backers on the board? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kempis on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:22:38 PM EST
    I'm trying to argue with someone online who's become convinced that this Clintonian nefariousness at its most evil. It would be helpful to be able to point to WVWV board members who've been vocal in their support of Obama.

    Grrrr.....

    Parent

    See previous; see also list in (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:26:42 PM EST
    comments at DKos story, if you dare to go there. :-)

    Parent
    At more than 800 comments (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:19:03 PM EST
    no thanks.

    Tedious.  If you do read the comments, I always scroll to the end and work backwards - it avoids most of the repetitive threads.

    Parent

    Gives a whole new meaning to (none / 0) (#32)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:18:07 PM EST
    the phrase "Don't drink and drive," tho....

    Parent
    I thought it was (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:19:22 PM EST
    frumpy middle-aged Latinas like me who were her ideal demographic?

    Parent
    Single women are one of the strongest pro-Dem (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:20:31 PM EST
    voter groups. They are also one of the groups least likely to vote or register.

    IIRC, if we had more of them turning out to vote in '04, Kerry would be prez.  Or in 2000, Gore would be prez.

    WVWV was created to try to remedy that.  Based on the numbers of increased registrations mentioned in news articles quoted below, they're doing a very good job.

    This group noted their registration attempts are having a much higher success rate this year than in '06, so they're been at it for several years.

    I'm impressed--good effort, good work.

    But, for some, women are a problem....

    Parent

    I Would Guess It Would Depend On Their (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:33:23 PM EST
    income level. IIRC this voter initiative was primarily designed to capture single women and single moms with lower incomes who don't vote but would be predisposed to vote Democratic based on economic issues. It was not particurly a candidate specific initiative.

    If the mailer referred to voting in the upcoming primary, then it was definitely a mistake but getting this group out to vote in the GE could be a plus for either candidate.

    Parent

    I would guess (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:45:36 PM EST
    it would also depend on their age.  Like me, many 'unmarried/single' women are widows or divorced, having outlived our SOs/husbands.

    We are one of the most reliable Democratic voting populations.  We're registered and we vote.

    Parent

    Then you're an outlier -- focus groups (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:51:40 PM EST
    and surveys and such have shown the group, according to media coverage, that most prefer "unmarried" to "single."

    Parent
    I must be particularly slow... (none / 0) (#18)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    I don't see how this would help Sen. Clinton. If indeed the calls are what the article reports them as being (and I'm inclined to dislike them just because I hate robocalls, no matter what their message), how does it benefit Sen. Clinton to depress turnout among women? Is there a logic leap I'm not getting here? Forgive me if I'm just being dense.

    Let me see if I have it... (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    WVWV is a nonprofit org that tries to get single women registered to vote.  Some of their attempts to do so have confused some people in various states.  I have to admit, they need to do a better job.  Each state has different rules, so it is a big endeavor.

    Some people are now saying the mistakes made are a deliberate scheme to suppress votes.  Then, people look at Hillary and her connections and contrive stories and ascribe blame.  

    Let's disregard the fact that the demographic that would be suppressed actually favors Hillary and jump on the bandwagon (of, to me, fools) that will leap at any excuse to accuse her and her associates of evil.

    That is how I interpret this story, anyway.    

    At first glance I was puzzled about this too.  Then I considered the source and reactions...This is craziness that should end by midnight tonight, right?  The end of silly season should be near!  ;)

    Parent

    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by janarchy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:37:44 PM EST
    Yanno, some of us might actually think there was some credence in these so-called conspiracies if there was ever any logic behind, well, any of them.

    But then again, logic and kool-aid drinking never go hand and hand. Up is Down, Right is Wrong, Winning is Losing, etc. because some people say so and if you question that, you're an evil low information racist (blah blah blah)

    Parent

    If Obama wins the primary, these single (none / 0) (#42)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    women will also vote for him. That should be seen as a good thing.

    And, sorry for spouting off BTD, I have a headache and let it get the best of me.

    Of course it is (none / 0) (#54)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:24:15 PM EST
    And as an Obama supporter - I welcome voter registration in all its forms.

    I don't think this quote says what BTD claims it says.  The mention of the groups mission as a (lame IMO) attempt to establish motive for making misleading calls - not a complain against registering women.  

    Parent

    Hold up (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    "The mention of the groups mission as a (lame IMO) attempt to establish motive for making misleading calls - not a complain against registering women."

    That is almost worse. so if you are for registering women voters you must be willing to nefariously suppress voters for Obama?  

    You Cultists have lost your mind.

    Parent

    WTF???? (none / 0) (#135)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:13:30 PM EST
    That comment makes literally no sense.

    Again...let us take this slower:

    Misleading calls were made.  Their origin has been identified as a group that generally serves women.  The charge over at Dkos is that any group with this mission sending out these kinds of calls must be doing so to support the Clinton campaign as a  group serving women is likely to support Clinton.  This may be true, but IMO it proves nothing.

    Your assertion is that the complaint is about registering women.  I challenge you to substantiate that.  The only complaint I see is about making misleading robocalls.  The mention of the group's mission exists to try to establish motive.

    I don't know where you go from that to, "if you are for registering women voters you must be willing to nefariously suppress voters for Obama".

     

    Parent

    Taken directly from the site (none / 0) (#145)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:25:59 PM EST
    "And it should be pointed out that a non-profit group focusing efforts on registering unmarried women in presidential primaries has to know that their activities will almost certainly help Hillary Clinton, as unmarried white women is probably her strongest demographic."

    This speaks directly to the charge that they are whining, yes, I said whining, about the female demographic being encouraged to register to vote rather than this just being a commentary on how the registering is being done.

    Parent

    Re "misleading calls were made" (none / 0) (#177)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:53:58 PM EST
    there is evidence that some nonvoters were misled -- but is there a transcript yet of the script?  (I have a penchant about presumptions that messages sent are the same as messages received; it's my years of studying communication theory and models.)

    Parent
    Where (none / 0) (#43)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    did that come from?  It is always good to know.  Of course, if if should be one individual's ramblings, never mind.

    We should all pitch in (none / 0) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    and send KOS a case of aluminum foil.  He must be running on short supply with all the spring hats he's had to make himself.

    No one except the person I quoted (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    If you can just disagree with that quote then we can talk.

    Question here... (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:39:48 PM EST
    "The fact that there are indications that the calls were targeting AA voters makes one a tad suspicious and as such deserves a more critical look."

    Aren't some AA voters women?

    Parent

    That's a quote from the following article... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:41:52 PM EST
    ...I think. NOT a quote from DHinMI.

    Parent
    The quoted person did not write that (none / 0) (#169)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:47:08 PM EST
    Why don't you get your facts straight.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#211)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:13:38 PM EST
    Because there is SO LITTLE overlap between the category of single women and the category of black people.

    Never mind that we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the black community was targeted with these calls in any disproportionate way.  Black and female are not antonyms.

    Parent

    I notice you left out (none / 0) (#170)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:47:41 PM EST
    the part that is in question.

    "And it should be pointed out that a non-profit group focusing efforts on registering unmarried women in presidential primaries has to know that their activities will almost certainly help Hillary Clinton, as unmarried white women is probably her strongest demographic."

    Since when does it matter which primary candidate a particular demographic favors as to whether or not to pillory a non profit that is attempting to get folks registered?

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#193)
    by tamens on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    the ratings system here does not encourage (or discourage) participation, but if I could give you 100 5's for this:

    Since when does it matter which primary candidate a particular demographic favors as to whether or not to pillory a non profit that is attempting to get folks registered?

    I would!


    Parent

    Claims Seems Rather Confusing (none / 0) (#212)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:14:29 PM EST
    On one hand people are claiming that this organization is targeting AA households and OTOH this quote claims that this is organization registering unmarried women in presidential primaries has to know that their activities will almost certainly help Hillary Clinton, as unmarried white women is probably her strongest demographic. Not to mention the fact that they provided no proof that unmarried white women are one of Hillary's strongest demographic.

    Statistics do show that there are unmarried AA women. The exit polls also show that the AA community is voting 9 to 1 for Obama.

    You have to really twist yourself into a pretzel to follow their logic.

    Parent

    In my case (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:48:35 PM EST
    I'd have to simultaneously twist myself into a pretzel while banging my head against the wall. I don't mind a little yoga but if it isn't goin to be relaxing I'm just not going there.

    Parent
    If they're targeting unmarried women (none / 0) (#110)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:54:22 PM EST
    and they're exercising voter suppression...then aren't they suppressing Hillary's voters?  

    Now ,now (none / 0) (#156)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    Stop with that logic stuff. You don't get t rie on the Unity pony if you are going to start using logic.

    Parent
    the quote is not saying (none / 0) (#127)
    by po on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:05:30 PM EST
    what you are alleging it says.  The quote, as quoted and even in context, questions the motivations (and timing) behind WVWV NC activities.  The sentence after it reads:  "Clearly we need to hear more of an explanation about this pattern of problems."  No where do I see anything in or around the quote that suggests that the person who wrote it believes registering women is a bad thing. If you'd like to quote the actual quote making the statement you claim is meant, please do.  Otherwise, this apprears to be much ado about nothing but angering women with the idea that some Democrats (who support Obama, of course) don't want women to be registered.  I dare say, nothing could be further from the truth.

    We have to hear more about the motivations (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:11:08 PM EST
    BECAUSE this is  movement to register women to vote.

    And you are fine with that.

    That is disgusting.

    Parent

    you're still reading too much into it (none / 0) (#150)
    by po on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:32:22 PM EST
    there are 2 candidates left in the D primaries - a white woman and a black man.  There is a group running calls in NC (a place where the black man is expected to do rather well) with a guy named Lamont saying fill this out and send it in and you'll be registered.  this group has had problems in the past and has a problem here, such that state election officials are getting calls.  The problem, the registration is closed.  The group placing the calls we're told has, as its main focus, registering women to vote in presidential elections.  Putting 2 and 2 together, one can reasonably think that WVWV might be doing something for HRC and if you don't support her you might want to know a little more about it and their explanation.  Reasonable?  Gee, why not.  but not here.  It's just some darn man not wanting women to be registered.  The short fuse is getting shorter all the time.  Can't wait to see what another 2 weeks brings us.

    Parent
    Do you not get that registration for the (none / 0) (#173)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    general election is still open?  And that even if one has not registered before the deadline to vote in the primary, one can still register to vote in the general?

    It would have been less confusing if they had sent the mailers before the primary deadline, but the fact that they did not in no way indicates an attempt at voter suppression.

    Parent

    I understand (none / 0) (#180)
    by po on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:02:17 PM EST
    but the good people of NC who called in confusion apparently didn't and from what I've read it's not entirely clear what race WVWV is trying to register folks to vote for.  In the end, I don't care.  I'm commenting on what has flowed from someone reading the quote.  To me, it seems plain that this "fact" (if it is a fact) should be pointed out -- it's an election after all and bias (or perceived bias) permeates most everything now.

    It's all in the timing, everything is until a nominee is picked, and then it'll be all in the timing for the general election.  Very little happens in a vacuum and given the divisiveness that permeates the current democratic primary, suspicion abounds.  

    this is all likely much ado about nothing, but quoting what was quoted and divining that the author must have meant that registering women to vote is wrong is absurd.  The author just wants to know what's motivating them, given certain facts (i.e., primary registration recently closed, Lamont (I know few Lamonts and those that I do are not women) is the voice of the calls, and the group appears to target a subsection of the population which most polls indicate favor HRC.      In an age of conspiracy theories, the quote really is unremarkable.  That is really all I wanted to say.  

    Parent

    headache with your volumes of convoluted, gibberish blah blah ...

    Parent
    there will always be confused people... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:36:10 PM EST
    the idea that 'some people were confused' by the phone calls is evidence of voter supression is sheer nonsense.

    DKos is doing the Voter Integrity Project work for them.  Who needs enemies with "friends" like these?

    Parent

    Clearly... (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:18:03 PM EST
    except that the HRC demographic/support part of the sentence is unnecessary in the context you suggest. It's filler...and confusing filler at that in that it implies wrong doing with an association factor mixed in for good measure.

    If mistakes are being made by the group, it needs to figure out what it's doing wrong and fix it.

    But even then the HRC part is irrelevant.

    Parent

    I think it's possible for all of us (none / 0) (#131)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:07:40 PM EST
    to get so carried away with our support for a candidate that we could end up trashing a good thing - registering more voters - for no other reason than that it could possibly help the candidate we do not support.

    The quote had no place in the diary, unless the diarist truly believes that expanding the voter base is bad if it means more votes for someone he does not support.


    It is a bad thing (none / 0) (#159)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:36:44 PM EST
    if you are consistantly screwing up your own registration effort.  Apparently they have given out misleading information in many primaries this year.  There's no need to fault them for going after new voters, but they are rather incompentent about it.

    According to NC newspaper reports (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by tree on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:06:48 PM EST
    in February and March, they have been quite competent about it, having signed up over 25,000 new voters. As for the complaints about robocalls in other states, apparently none of them were alleging "voter suppression" but simply reflected confusion from a skeptical public about whether the mailings were legitimate or not. Here's the Virginia State Police press release:  

    Virginia State Police special agents have tracked down and identified the source of the mass mailing of voter registration applications to Virginia households across the Commonwealth.

    The investigation was initiated Thursday (Feb. 7, 2008) after State Police was contacted by the State Board of Elections. On Wednesday and Thursday of this week, Virginia citizens began receiving recorded phone messages notifying them that a voter registration packet would be arriving in the mail. The individuals were then advised to complete, sign and mail in the application. Concerned because the messages did not specify who or where the packets were coming from, many of the citizens contacted their local registrar to find out if it was legitimate.

    The investigation revealed that the phone calls and packets were generated by Women's Voices Women Vote, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based out of Washington, DC. The organization is targeting more than 228,000 unmarried women in Virginia and 22 other states in an effort to increase voter registration and participation.

    The voter registration application contained in the packet is a legitimate voter registration form commonly accepted by the State Board of Elections. The organization provided prepaid envelopes addressed to the State Board of Elections.

    "Those individuals who may have completed this form and sent it in, do not have to worry," said Nancy Rodrigues, Secretary of the State Board of Elections. "The personal information provided in the application is safe. Upon receipt of their application, it will be sent to their local registrar's office for processing. Once the voter has successfully registered they will receive a voter registration card in the mail."

    No charges will be placed against the organization, as neither the statewide phone solicitations nor mass mailings violate state law.  



    Parent
    Certainly (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:09:38 PM EST
    The point BTD is making isn't about the efforts though. It appears to be more about the fact that the reason that DK members are up in arms about the efforts is the demographic being targeted may favor Clinton.

    Parent
    Dumb just dumb (none / 0) (#187)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:13:45 PM EST


    And BTW, also-too (none / 0) (#196)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:33:56 PM EST
    This is being carried as a tin foil conspiracy on all of the major "progressive" blogs.  I'd like to turn the tables around and say THEY'RE the Rovian conspirists, and possibly could be accused of playing that incidious RACE card.

    I keep coming up with things (none / 0) (#203)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    Okay, so this robocall goes indiscriminately to voters, some Hillary supporters, some Obama supporters.

    And now, the Obama supporters are claiming voter suppression, due to confusion about who is registered and who is not?  Could it be that they don't think their fellow latte-drinking, highly educated legions of supporters are as smart as Hillary supporters? and that they're unable to figure out that the little card in their wallet is a voter registration?

    Are they saying they have no respect for the brain cells of fellow Obama supporters?  Now THERE is a conspiracy.

    There is a pattern of the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#208)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:10:28 PM EST
    accusing the Clinton campaign of working some kind of voter suppression ploys prior to primaries.

    In CA, it was written up in the WaPo by a lib blogger/reporter there, some kind of calls specifically to suppress black voters.  Oh, the name is on the tip on my tongue, but those darn aging gray cells....

    Anyway, the call was supposedly made to a black voter who was a friend of the writer who then wrote about it and said it had to be from the Clinton camp. It could never have been from some RNC-related group trying to stir up confusion! Anyway, it was not at all the WVWV call.

    Must search for the entry.

    Parent

    If you look at the quote (none / 0) (#215)
    by CA JAY on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:35:29 PM EST
    alone, without considering the rest of what DHinMI wrote or the theme of the original diary, it is implying that registering women is bad because they could end up voting for Hillary.

    On another note (and this could get me suspended). I think DH could be responsible for a lot of "transformation" last year.