http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/30/11055/6499/141/506343

I was about to ask for her to reject and denounce, but your comments are facts and very incriminating. We shouldnt give the benefit of the doubt.

I met a Republican lawyer in Richmond, VA at a wedding a few years back and after a few drinks he started bragging about all of the "funny" tactics he has helped with for the GOP over the years.
- Posting flyers in black neighborhoods with
- The wrong date for the election
- The wrong polling locations
- Lies that voters needed Photo ID cards
- Lies that voters could not vote if they had

He started to talk more about mailings they sent people to confuse them about registrations and I couldn't take it anymore. I laid into him pretty good and told him if I ever saw him again, I'd kick the living shit out of him. Not just for his tactics but for how proud he was of his overt criminality and racism.

Even if Hillary Clinton is not directly associated with this group, I have to no longer support Podesta and others from this group who have sunk to the ugliest levels of political actions.

WVWV is saying this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/page-gardner/confusion-surrounding-rob_b_99427.html

Exactly.

Again, HRC has done little to earn the benefit of the doubt, but the GOP may have as good a reason to do this as her.

The GOP is not going to be behind a group that (genuinely it seems) tries to get young unmarried women to vote. Plus, the Clinton connections are right in front of your eyes.

WVWV says that oh my goodness, we were so busy mailing out forms to SO many states that we couldn't keep track of the primary dates!!

This means:
1) they're incompetent, which is just embarrassing; or
2) they're evil.

Disgusting.

I'm with the "evil" interpretation, too.
While trying to GOTV of young unmarried women (a demographic which goes for Obama, not Clinton, by the way), we accidentally sent out flyers that tend to trick African-Americans (including young unmarried African-American women) into not voting. By accident. Right before the primary. In 11 states. Whoops!

America has a long and dishonorable tradition of stopping black people from voting, whether by force, by law or by threat. The Republicans, and now a Clinton-linked Democratic 501(c), are continuing that shameful tradition. I hope this story makes a dent in the MSM, which still seems to be entranced by Rev. Wright.

Today I donated $100 to Election Protection -- an organization which fights vote-suppression across the country, and manages to sort out the correct voting rules in each state ...

How does this suppress voting? Now try to think this true without the usual hysteria, conspiracy theories and, well, stupidity.

If the voter receives the packet and signs the card and sends it back, the board of elections will not process the card in time for the primary - voter registration for the primary is closed. They were not registered to vote anyway, so not being able to vote in the primary is awash. If this is Clinton's chief demographic as is claimed, how is this going to hurt Obama? Wouldn't the person most likely to be materially damaged by this be Clinton? By filling out the card and sending it in, they will be registered to vote in the general election which is a good thing.

If the voter receives the packet and had already registered to vote, the logical response would be for the voter to set it aside, knowing they've already voted and have no doubt received their registration card with the precinct information on it.

So unless you're claiming that black people are especially gullible and stupid and a simple phone call will stop them from voting, how does this suppress black voting?

Pardon my double pasting and non gray block.

Here's the double standard. The Clintons use any and everything to win, and she gets credit for being tough and gritty.

Obama fights back and it's too late, or off his message.

Well you know, in Texas someone sent out emails and made robocalls to delegates that purported to be from the Texas Democratic Party, saying the conventions were cancelled, the day before.

I been sayin'

The Clintons had goons at all the conventions, filing protest after protest of credentials and holding the lines and the whole process up for hours.

Rove handed his playbook to Mary Matalin, is what I figure.

At last! A chance to make a very clear thinking comment on this issue:

Note that *women* in politics will act exactly in the same way as *men* if given the chance.

I say this because there are too many times I have heard during this campaign (not necessarily at TPM), that having a woman in the White House will give us a kinder, gentler form of governance. As in, a matriarchy is inherently superior than a patriarchy.

People are people and that's it. Anyone who makes it to the White House will have beaten tremendous odds and will therefore be more similar to other occupants of that position than less.

And, yes, I know men are also involved in this organization. It only proves my point more: people are people, politicians are politicians, there is no inherent gender difference in a White House occupation.

Saying anything else would be... is sexist.

Having a woman in the White House would be interesting for about a day. In fact, that was the same amount of time that having a woman as Speaker of the House was interesting -- the 2nd in line to the presidency. At the end of the day, they are simply people occupying a position -- and all are political animals.

damn tags!!!!

In fact Bev the Gentleman who reported this & actuially recorded it WAS REGISTERED TO VOTE!!!
In fact Bev The Attorney General in North Carolina has launched an investigation & all the spin in the world ain't gonna hide the fact that Maggie Williams & John Podesta are involved with this group & they are attempting to disinfranchise African American voters in order to improve Clinton's chances. Despite your innocent little act. We would ALL Love to see a Woman President but most all females I know would be disgusted with this kind of gaming of our system. It's exactly what Democrats are SUPPOSED TO BE AGAINST!!!

Her main defense seems to be that people should have been smart enough not to fall for a trick designed by Clinton supporters to suppress black vote. Sort of a 'serves them right' for trusting a group whose stated mission is to get people registered to vote. How could a Democrat even be paid to defend something so outrageous, and so criminal?