View Story | 497 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
because I'm disgusted.
oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.
My blog. Come visit.
by hekebolos on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM PDT
Oh, that is sour grapes. Sound familiar?
by Yoshimi on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:07:32 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
but she didn't win the delegates.
A Clinton's word is worth exactly as much as the check that it's written on.
"It's the planet, stupid."
by FishOutofWater on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:09:50 PM PDT
by Empower Ink on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:12:11 PM PDT
Can she steal the votes in Congress too to pass National Heath Care and real Energy Policy?
She's setting an awefully high bar to hit her head on later.... once a thief, better ride them thievin ways to victory
by kubla000 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:21:12 PM PDT
Clinton's exactly the type of person we need because we need to learn how to break the law better than they do!
by hekebolos on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:22:14 PM PDT
Bauer said the campaign is not challenging the outcome of the caucuses at the precinct level
Why the hell not? If the Obama campaign really believes the election was stolen, let's see the challenge.
Come November, I don't want to see crap like this, bitching about stolen electoral votes but refusing to challenge the outcome. Do you?
by Califlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:31:44 PM PDT
on Clinton's campaign telling their operatives to lie, cheat and steal?
by hekebolos on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:38:22 PM PDT
Prove it.
Even the article cited doesn't go so far as to say the Clinton campaign told people to lie, cheat and steal.
by Califlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:50:14 PM PDT
... from Edward R. Murrow:
We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
If the Obama camp has the goods on the Clinton camp, and there are no skeletons in their own Nevada closet, bring the challenge.
by Califlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:57:20 PM PDT
taken and the media get around to interviewing everyone and getting out with their story, it'll already be too late, and Karl Rove-lite will be sitting at the head of the Democratic Party.
Time is of the essence here. We know what happened.
And I'm not waiting for the media to to publish their full exposes on page A12 of their newspapers well after Super Tuesday.
Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!
by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM PDT
because you were fucking there!
Send this Turn Maine Blue blogger to Denver! Click here to donate.
by Eddie in ME on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:13:06 PM PDT
by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:31:36 PM PDT
Or maybe this is fakery/f*ckery, sexist, Clinton-bashing, vast right wing conspiracy....
Nasty n_____ wanting to break up our coronation.
damn him.
Obama do be sayin' something good about Ronald Reagan. The Clintons want us all to believe that Regan was such a Hell Hound.
Now that he's dead, literally. reagan in Hell.
BTW: the reason the Clintons are attacking Obama dishonestly is that they know this will be tagged "racist."
Of course, the attacks themselves are not racist.
Its that the media get stupid, yell "racist," and miss the lying.
What is wrong is the immorality. The lying. The efforts to play the La Raza card.
Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Rev. Wright. Overcome our evil with good.
by vets74 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:37:04 PM PDT
Texas. Please, go back and be a minion for your chimp leader.
by Antifish on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:45:53 PM PDT
"It's not illegal unless they tell you so."
There is no walk of life in which a self-respecting person can take such a cavalier attitude to the law. Whether or not someone tells you something is illegal is not a good touchstone for whether it is. They might have not told anyone to lie, cheat, or steal, but--hey, what do you know, if know one told them it was illegal to do those things, then they granted them license.
Incendiado para arriba, listo para irme.
by gobacktotexas on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:29:05 PM PDT
"It's not illegal unless they tell you so" sounds like something out of his testimony to congress a few months back. What's he been doing with himself lately, anyway?
The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake
by beltane on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:35:21 PM PDT
Just a theory.
When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.
by clonecone on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:41:30 PM PDT
What other answer would you expect?
She said that she was working for the ABC News It was as much of the alphabet as she knew how to use
by Paolo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:06:40 PM PDT
Sounds just like old Alberto
It's the constitution, stupid
by CTMET on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:17:59 PM PDT
Go into any courtroom in America. The rules are all laid out in black and white, and yet there's still a judge to tell you what they mean. And if the judge says you can't do something, you can't do it ... unless you get a higher judge to say you can.
by Califlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:47:49 PM PDT
and I can't tell you how many clients I've gone to court with who've told me, "I didn't know it was illegal," apparently no one told them what they were doing was illegal which under Hillary's rules, made it okay. For them, it often meant jail time.
by gobacktotexas on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:56:02 PM PDT
... that you were out of line asking a certain question, and to discontinue that line of inquiry, you did it, too, even though another judge might have let you ask away.
That's why we have presiding officers: to tell people what the rules are, and to decide close calls and differences of opinion.
by Califlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:29:06 PM PDT
if these charges are true (and they do have numberous witnesses in many reports and diarys and so on,) what do you say to the fact that these directives were given?
Is voter fraud and suppression OK with you if it benefits your candidate?
Grandpa is mean and he smells funny.
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:04:06 PM PDT
... on the part of either candidate.
Remember, there are many, many complaints that were filed with the Clinton campaign about Obama supporters closing precincts early (which, as I've said numerous times, was a predictable problem because of the differing guidance in the documents issued by the party), intimidating voters, and so on. Do you believe those actions were okay?
I'm willing to let both camps put on their claims against each other and let the party sort it out. Are you?
by Califlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:26:36 PM PDT
and Bill Clinton said he saw supression or something yet he didn't file any reports.
If you have any links or first hand accouts from blogs or diaries newspaper accounts regarding any wrong doing by Obama NV caucus workers I would love to see them because I have not heard of a single one.
Please provide links.
Thanks!
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:30:05 PM PDT
Right there, a first-hand account: "On Sunday, Clinton senior adviser Dave Barnhart said he witnessed an enormous "gantlet" of Obama supporters at the Mirage casino-hotel caucus site who tried to intimidate Clinton backers."
Dispute it, disparage it, but don't claim you haven't seen it.
If you think you've got a grievance, and you're sure your side is clean, bring it on.
by Califlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:39:43 PM PDT
or the Secretary of State?
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:43:13 PM PDT
.. the reports, from both sides, were not reported to the party?
In fact, there were hundreds of complaints, from both sides, made as the caucuses were taking place. The Obama camp has decided to memorialize what they claim happened in a letter and release it to the press: that's their right. The Clinton camp hasn't elected to do so. Upstream, there are several posts arguing that Obama shouldn't challenge the causes because he'd be seen as a sore loser; the only thing worse, I suppose, would be to be seen as a sore winner.
Regardless of who you think has the better claim to victory: if the Obama campaign is sure that the Clinton camp is dirty, and sure they're clean, challenge the results.
by Califlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:58:04 PM PDT
from the Clinton Camp. I can send you to all the first hand account diaries from people here and other sites but I have not seen nor heard of any voter suppression done by Obama workers.
If you have anything at all please provide a link or two or 1600.
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:02:28 PM PDT
Clinton campaign charges Obama campaign with "systematic corruption" in Nevada caucuses [PDF].
by Califlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:54:29 PM PDT
so safeguards can be in place for the future. It probably took awhile for Iowa to go as smoothly as it does now.
It would make it clearer for possible future investigation if the Clinton campaign had gotten written statements at the time but at least they kept some record.
by joynow on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:03:08 PM PDT
that since Hillary won she doesn't care enough about voter's rights to take the trouble??
by eltee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:02:15 PM PDT
Bill saying he "wittnessed" voter suppression
There is this whole business of the new politics. Well I got a taste of the new politics today. We need a new politics where we all love each other. You’ve heard all that. There’s a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn’t sound like the new politics to me. Today when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us telling us they didn’t care what the union told them to do, they were gonna caucus for Hillary. There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying 'if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.' So, is this the new politics? I haven’t seen anything like that in America in 35 years. So I will say it again – they think they're better than you. (The transcript was provided by one source with a recording of the event, and confirmed by another.) To go over the facts here, the only publicly reported radio ad anything like what Clinton refers to is one that encourages Republicans and independents to caucus, but doesn't mention Hillary.
There is this whole business of the new politics. Well I got a taste of the new politics today. We need a new politics where we all love each other. You’ve heard all that. There’s a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn’t sound like the new politics to me.
Today when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us telling us they didn’t care what the union told them to do, they were gonna caucus for Hillary.
There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying 'if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.' So, is this the new politics? I haven’t seen anything like that in America in 35 years. So I will say it again – they think they're better than you.
(The transcript was provided by one source with a recording of the event, and confirmed by another.)
To go over the facts here, the only publicly reported radio ad anything like what Clinton refers to is one that encourages Republicans and independents to caucus, but doesn't mention Hillary.
http://www.politico.com/...
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:00:07 PM PDT
by fmrgop on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:53:34 PM PDT
"Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America."
by lizah on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:56:24 PM PDT
Perjury change.
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:01:27 PM PDT
especially those of us who chose in the past to believe him about so much, Bill has a bit of a credibility problem. Not just about blow jobs, either -- he's shown no hesitate to distort the truth (some would say lie) if that's what it takes to get his wife elected.
by droy20 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:07:44 PM PDT
any claims or charges anywhere, and the Obama camp has.
The problems of the world are far too complex to have John McCain as President.
by Blogvirgin on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:16:28 PM PDT
Clinton campaign charges Obama with "systematic corruption" in Nevada [PDF].
by Califlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:57:28 PM PDT
filed after, in response to the Obama filing. A chess move to protect their exposed flank.
by Blogvirgin on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:46:40 PM PDT
Questionable choice of words.
But, nevertheless, I'd say that by filing the complaint, the Obama campaign has (as you might say) brought it on.
by droy20 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:01:39 PM PDT
Perhaps not a glorious moment for either side, but now both camps have their charges out in the open.
by Califlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:03:55 PM PDT
both sides will cool themselves down -- probably wishful thinking.
by droy20 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:15:59 PM PDT
this is what ethics and honor have become in America today. We have the government and politicians we deserve when people begin to say its not wrong until someone can show me a law that proves it is wrong.
by Blogvirgin on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:12:47 PM PDT
At least he limited the non-illegalityness to the President.
by lizah on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:53:44 PM PDT
kind of BS with knowledge to the top of the campaign or in a broad and systemic manner, they should revoke the delegates of that campaign in the state - period! Before anyone goes apeshit nuts over the comment, I believe this should apply to ANY candidate. The Party must punish candidates who cheat and send a clear message to all current and future candidates that the nominee of the Democratic Party must be selected by an honest vote of Democratic Party members, not some sleazy corruption of the process. Campaigns should be entirely disqualified if they conduct themselves in such manner in more than one state.
In that way, the other candidates will not be penalized for not cheating since they will retain whatever delegates they won, and candidates won't be forced to become better cheaters to win.
And that's not to say we shouldn't aggressively and vigorously counter the inevitable Republican efforts at cheating that will occur in the general election.
"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." ~ Barack Obama
by Reality Bites Back on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:54:04 PM PDT
If you've got the goods, bring it on.
by Califlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:58:00 PM PDT
time for all the evidence to be provided, examined and a determination made based on the facts. I hope we can still support a system of innocent until proven guilty which is part of the problem I have with the way much of this discussion in these diaries have gone. Allow time for the system to work.
Check out ePluribus Media Community and now Timelines too!
by standingup on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:02:31 PM PDT
and it will all be irrelevant.
Quite convenient for you.
by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:16:18 PM PDT
So it's fine to possibly tilt the scales to one side as long as that is the side you support, heh?
by standingup on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:30:11 PM PDT
before the media takes two weeks to report the story, and the Clintons muddy the waters with their own bullshit allegations.
by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:31:03 PM PDT
you prefer what you believe to be the truth be reported in advance of an examination of all the information? It is fine for you to muddy the waters as long as it happens before the Clintons can do the same.
All I am saying is keep it on a level field and don't assume anything more than can be established.
by standingup on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:40:44 PM PDT
this has nothing to do with any convenience for me. If you are implying that I am an avowed Clinton supporter and would allow that to interfere with my sense of fairness, you are wrong. You can check my comment history and see for yourself.
by standingup on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:43:57 PM PDT
let them off the hook for all their crimes??? I'd take it all the way to the convention if necessary. This isn't some junior high school election. We don't need to give control of a $2 trillion budget and nuclear weapons to lying cheats.
This isn't entirely criminal either - it’s also a party matter and they can certainly go through the process a hell of a lot faster than the looong drawn out legal system and then later pursue the criminal aspects in their due corse.
Not to mention, if things were done at a corrupt state party level, they can prevent a state from having their delegates counted for the next election.
They can't just tolerate this shit and let the 'run out the clock' game favor the criminals.
by Reality Bites Back on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:46:23 PM PDT
but your rambling makes no sense. Simple request from me. Report what is known. Allow time sufficient time for that to be investigated, in a fair and objective manner, before implying anything beyond what can be established.
by standingup on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:36:25 PM PDT
immediate action on the part of the Party if not a permanent commission established to rapidly get to the bottom of these issues. Further, the standard of proof can be a "preponderance of the evidence" and there can be a range of punitive measures, and these measures should be enforceable right up to the convention so that if an investigation reveals cheating or highly unethical conduct in a state by a campaign then those delegates should be taken away even one day before the convention.
To maintain the integrity of the Party, it is necessary to demand a standard of conduct from its members - otherwise they are more than free to go find some other party.
by Reality Bites Back on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:17:59 AM PDT
have a problem with any candidate giving those instructions. However, have you provided us sufficient proof that the Clinton's campaign told their operatives to lie, cheat and steal?
by standingup on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:04:21 PM PDT
Where is the attribution? There's no evidence this played out the way you think it has. I would be less disturbed by the ethical implications than the idea that any official campaign designate would be stupid enough to pass it around, let alone do so in a way that could be traced.
If there's fire here, where's your candidate? He's the one that should be screaming from the rooftops, not his "helpful" surrogates.
Intelligent Designer Laments Lapse in Intelligence
by mrblifil on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:30:03 PM PDT
I would be less disturbed by the ethical implications than the idea that any official campaign designate would be stupid enough to pass it around, let alone do so in a way that could be traced.
Very high ethical standards, eh?
by maineiac on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:04:29 PM PDT
Passing judgement goes two ways. Glad I could give you the warm feeling of self-righteousness for 30 seconds or so. Unfortunately you abrogated your exalted position by hewing to the most select reading of my comment you could possibly construct. That's known as intellectual dishonesty. I'm sure I'm not the first to acquaint you with the term.
by mrblifil on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:14:00 PM PDT
You've got to be kidding - he quoted about 70% of your comment, in which you quite plainly say that the crime troubles you less the clumsiness of letting it be discovered. Maineiac's comment is intellectually accurate and pithy to boot.
Help Russ Feingold help progressive candidates - support the Progressive Patriots Fund.
by scardanelli on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:23:19 PM PDT
I don't care how many words he cited, the conclusion drawn was selective. My point was that the stupidity was MORE bothersome than the ethical lapse. I never said I approved of the (hypothetical) ethical lapse.
Are you all caught up now?
by mrblifil on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:30:26 PM PDT
You wrote something ethically despicable and now, given the chance to explain how maineiac misconstrued it, you've instead reiterated it.
That's all I need to know.
by scardanelli on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:39:41 PM PDT
except that's not what happened. Glad you consider yourself edified.
by mrblifil on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:06 PM PDT
I'd think if they published that crap in their freakin' manual it was more like ARROGANCE.
(And if they're not stupid then that means they somehow knew that even if caught nothing bad would happen)
by eltee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:11:27 PM PDT
several in person reports at DKos alone, reports filed, and instructions from the Clinton Camp to break the law.
How do you justifiy that?
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:05:45 PM PDT
Caucuses are clusterfucks to begin with. It's not even a secret ballot ferchrissake. So much for transparent elections. Also, to quote the judge who quashed the case the teacher's union's lawyers brought, "we're not voting here." State election laws don't apply, only party rules, so district operatives are going to be even more apt to blur the lines. That's why I'm not in politics. I couldn't take the hardball tactics, I'm in a competitive line of work as is.
by mrblifil on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:16:50 PM PDT
now if what has been witnessed, reported and complaints filed are true and are deemed accurate, what do you have to say about the Clinton Campaign?
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:26:53 PM PDT
they lost control of the process, and that there needs to be a full accounting of that process.
by mrblifil on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:28:39 PM PDT
(my guess is) that Obama is more concerned about voter's rights than any altered outcome. I would hope that he would have challenged these tactics even if he'd been first or even if Edwards had been first. I think he would have...if you go back into his history that's where he started his law career -- voter's rights.
by eltee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:57:05 PM PDT
Shockingly, the Republicans willbe able to silence all of our legitmate claims about vote suppression by pointing to our Presidential candidate. how can Democrats possibly be blind to the fact that Clinton will do as Edwards says "Trade our insiders for their insiders" and run everything like Republicans. The Clinton machine represents so much of what is wrong with politics and as a direct consequence, the failure of government.
by Miss Snarkypants on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:28:39 PM PDT
If it's all legal. She'll do it. Check those Diebold machines, please. I do not trust the Clinton.
by opedn on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:53:31 PM PDT
Sounds like "Sore Loserman."
I'm not saying there definitely was cheating. I'm just saying it should be looked into.
Live every week like it's Shark Week.
by droogie6655321 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:10:10 PM PDT
called Gore after he complained about having the election stolen from him in Florida. Are you saying that the Supreme Court made a good call in that case?
by gobacktotexas on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:35:15 PM PDT
I think he was making the same point you wish too, though with thick irony. His point is that the rebuttal of 'sour grapes' to these charges is like the rethug rebuttal to Gore, and that both rebuttals were wrong. Check the parent comment if you think I'm mistaken.
by scardanelli on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:44:13 PM PDT
Reminds me of "Sore Loserman".
Fuck that.
Yes we can.
by play jurist on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM PDT
Barack is whining...... for telling the truth.
Or it must be the presses fault. Why? Because Bill Clinton said so.
Overthrow the Government ~Vote~
by missliberties on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:14:54 PM PDT
The Clinton's are the victims here!
bleh
Also, I can kill you with my brain.
by Puffin on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:47:22 PM PDT
an apology from all of my detractors when I broke this story.
I'm so fucking angry at these assholes.
by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:23:35 PM PDT
by Yoshimi on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:32:19 PM PDT
but my contact info is one of those contacts that the campaign said it was providing to the press.
Maybe I'll get a call, maybe I won't.
Seeing as how my brother and I broke this goddamn story, I hope I do get a call. I've got some choice words for the media.
by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:50:50 PM PDT
There's nothing worse than being expected to defend "the media" to a hostile interview.
I would bet my shoes that any Nevada reporter who contacts you would have killed to get the story the night it broke.
(-5.88, -6.46) Democracy is what happens between elections.
by autoegocrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:16:04 AM PDT
The Clintons have proven in the 90's that having two parties warring in scorched-earth politics wasn't good for governance. I admire Bill for withstanding the full onslaught of Gingrich-era Republicanism, but that doesn't mean we need to adopt their tactics.
I know you trust Obama's transcendentalist rhetoric, tins, while I'm more partial to Edwards' bare-knuckle style. But until we get the liars and corrupt operatives out of Washington politics nothing will ever change. How we do this is open to debate, but going back to the champions of the corrupt operatives is unlikely to do the job.
Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.
by Dallasdoc on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:42:53 PM PDT
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:06:58 PM PDT
Yes, I am experiencing deja vu, and a nauseating sense of "here we go again". I already have Clinton fatigue; she's just a bad idea all around and I must say Barack has done a good job exposing her, er, them as the instigators.
Olbermann had a great comeback line to Hillary. His spouse supports him as well, but I haven't heard her say anything negative about Hillary.
-6.88, -3.44
by Bluesee on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:44:34 PM PDT
Surely you have to acknowledge that the "evidence" as stated above, in the case of this instruction sheet, is slim.
by mrblifil on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:31:33 PM PDT
you think they didn't give the media all the contacts for the 1,6000 reports they got?
You think all these people wouldn't swear under oath as to what happened?
And you would defend a camp that says "it's not illegal unless they tell you so"?
At what point does shame come into play for you?
by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:11:46 PM PDT
It's an instruction sheet. Obama's lawyer is alleging - that's alleging - that it's from the Clinton campaign. The actual paper says "Cheer for Hillary" yet there isn't any campaign icon or letterhead or anything. This could have been created by one of the unions supporting her. It could have been created by an overzealous precinct captain.
Get 50 of these and you'll prove a coordinated campaign. Get something with the signature of a campaign official and you have proof that this was coordinated by Clinton.
You have neither. This isn't proof, only conjecture and second hand reports from voters who obviously see Obama's point of view with rose colored glasses.
by TheSilence on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:58:48 PM PDT
...when reporting Bill's allegations the day before election day in NV when it would have the greatest effect. An instance of implied vote suppression which couldn't have logically been overheard by Bill anyway was reported based on hearsay, with no further attribution at all and no actual illegal act even reported, just the (made-up) threat.
Based on your standard here you must please join me in calling BS on Bill Clinton's claims and the media reports.
by Blue Letter on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:32:46 PM PDT
The widespread use of nearly identical tactics, leading to 1600 complaints, is no proof of a coordinated effort to suppress voters.
The Clinton precinct captains just independently came up with these tactics, all by themselves.
This spontaneous and uncoordinated expression of groupthink was nothing more than an extraordinary stroke of luck.
