View Story | 931 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
"WOMEN'S VOICES WOMEN VOTE ACTION FUND"
This is one of the MANY groups the Clinton Machine created for the the Presidential run.
That they are burning one of these throwaways now shows me how desperate they are becoming.
by IndianaDemocrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:24:37 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Here he is, pushing for young women, especially single women, to start voting so that the Dems don't need to cater to bigots to win elections -- and here this sleazy astroturf group just set back his efforts a good five years.
John McCain will end Roe v. Wade if he's president.
by Phoenix Woman on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:29:09 AM PDT
And overlooked the creation of these networks when REPUBLICANS were the Target.
Now, we get to pay a price for our Arrogance and Avarice regarding the Clintons....
by IndianaDemocrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:38:31 AM PDT
I refuse to believe that "many here cheered" any tactics at any time that interfered with legitimate voting.
This isn't a perfect community, God knows, but I've never seen scams like this endorsed here.
Give me a link or take it back.
Alleluia, the great storm is over, lift up your wings and fly! -Bob Franke
by Montco PA Dem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:48:50 AM PDT
promote voter registration fraud. Not even in jest.
Show of hands... who would join Kucinich's effort to impeach VP Cheney?
by Mogolori on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:24:53 AM PDT
We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/
by anastasia p on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:02:27 AM PDT
He wrote a book called Whistling Past Dixie arguing that instead of jettisoning core Democratic concepts in a futile effort to win white votes in the South, Democrats should concentrate on the far easier, and demographically growing, groups, such as women and single people.
by Phoenix Woman on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:18:00 PM PDT
-7.63, -6.56
by fotyc on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:33:17 AM PDT
surveys regarding single women and voting. I don't know what is going on, but this isn't a throwaway group created last year.
by msanthrope on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:46:19 AM PDT
They've done good work in the past - including a lot of registration in 2006.
I'd hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater and marginalize a good, progressive organization.
That said, we're really left with 3 possibilities -- none of them especially appealing:
1)Their campaign is legit - and they're just inept at implementing it... This is an organizational problem that I would think WVWV's benefactors would want to see investigated and resolved.
2)WVWV has exceeded its shelf-life. It happens to plenty of orgs founded with the best intention. They cease to serve the purpose of the formation -- and morph into a "feed the beast" paradigm, where the "intent" (register voters) takes a back seat to building donor bases, mailing lists, etc that can then be sold to campaigns and other organizations.
3)Certain elements within the org are trying to help a friend via underhanded tactics.
I frankly don't think ANYONE should be going so far as to claim this an organized effort out of the Clinton campaign... we simply don't have any evidence of that.
Personally - I hope it's case 1 -- that's resolvable. I suspect it's a combination of case 1 and case 2 (2 breeds 1 in many instances).
I guess everyone's got their own blog now.
by zonk on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:50:11 AM PDT
consistent, not to mention at odds with how any real effort would look, to allow much room for your case 1), it's sad to say. See the discussion above about the unlikelihood that a voter registation group would be unaware of the filing deadline. In state after state.
I appreciate your level-headed comment. But from a logical perspective, I would say this being an organized effort out of the Clinton campaign is a much more likely explanation than your case 1). At this point, it's only speculation, as you say.
The constitutional crisis was over two years ago. It's been full-scale erosion since then.
by geomoo on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:45:10 AM PDT
*that the diarist got the police to tell him anything cogent in 24 hours...heh
*that they lists are oddly including white men and women as well.....is this just cover for an attempt to show them as bumbling instead of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the voters with carefully timed misinformation?
That's my take, that they include a lot of chaff in the lists to cover for the actual focused targets.
Great work by all who have advanced this story! We'll stay tuned....
by KenBee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:52:10 AM PDT
It's not like phone numbers have specific "race digits," and you don't have to put your race in the phone book. I imagine they focused on area codes and exchanges with relatively high Black populations and took whatever they got.
by catfood on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:16:58 AM PDT
the focus should be on their call list... How was it generated? Was it just random number selection or cold combing of phone numbers?
Did they purchase a list?
Did someone provide them a list? If so - who?
by zonk on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:51:37 AM PDT
As we've seen in the push by Repubs to disenfranchise black voters in Florida and other states there are several ways you can do this. The easiest one is to buy lists of voters in certain zip codes that are heavily populated by black voters.
Remember this is a numbers game. If you call 1 white voter for every 8 black voters you call, that's not a bad ratio of success.
Targeting mostly black voters has been proven to be easy to do.
by ruscle on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:52:48 AM PDT
It's impossible to target calls exclusively to black voters -- the phone book doesn't include info on race. You have to target to geographic areas with a high concentration of black population. You'll get some white people in there as well, but you're going for disproportion. Also, by using a caller who seems to be black, you're hoping that black recipients will be more likely to take the call seriously.
Stayin' Alive
by therealcervantes on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:20:01 AM PDT
your lists by race...they may not be exact, but area code, zip codes are way off. The zip I'm in has gazillionares and mixed race working neighborhoods.. but that still supports what I said, that they can claim they weren't targetting AA voters, when in fact precinct workers could have developed these very lists, by precinct...to some degree better than zip code/area codes....but I get your point too.
My wording was arch...'odd' means: 'hmmm, suspicious', rather than odd, my bad. And of course there's nothing 'odd' about precinct level lists being used, if in fact they were, and enough white people mixed in to avoid conspiracy felony charges. Nothing odd about criminality.
by KenBee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:45:10 AM PDT
in the runup to the 2006 election because I posted a link to their site on my blog. It presented information about encouraging more women to vote.
by fotyc on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:34:11 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 931 comments