Well I hope Election Integrity people DO become involved and have a look at this. From what I have read it looks like this WVWV outfit had promised to indentify themselves in the robocalls back in Feb 08.

It's not about right and left, it's about right and wrong" and this "looks" wrong from what I have read.

There were "at least" three incidents before NC that the WVWV did the very same thing. Shouldn't all "alleged" cases of voting suppression be looked into?

Phoenix Nov. 13, 2007

MADISON, WI–February 17, 2008 http://elections.state.w...docid=13193&locid=47

RICHMOND – Virginia Feb 08

Info from www.obsidianwings.blogs.com

Oh I missed a few ...at least seven more States. See I don't trust Hillary AT ALL and if that makes me partisan to crooks that's ok by me.

This Looks Ugly
by hilzoy

"this is neither the first time they've gotten in trouble for this sort of thing nor the first time they've said they will stop. In addition to the aforementioned problems in Virginia, the Institute for Southern Studies cites problems in Arizona, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Ohio."

There is a constant effort to divide and disenfranchise citizens of the USA, using every trick possible. It has been going on since we began fighting for our Liberty. One version is, create a smear, hoping that the mud will stick before people take a closer look at what is really going on. Let's you and him fight.

Digby's comment thread on the WVWV topic is filled with ugly smears against her, and the refrain, Clinton did it.

Sneaky Malthusian free-trade newspaper, The Guardian:

The Clinton campaign has succeeded in boxing him in as the black candidate, rather than one who transcends race, as he prefers to see himself. The Clinton camp denies adopting the tactic though it has been apparent since January.

Joe Cannon has this "divide and conquer" story pegged to a useful degree, and he let a couple drive-by smears through the comment moderation just to show how that works. He and Brad disagree on the usefulness or permissibility of robocalls. He's critical (in the wrong tone, imo) of Brad's yesterday comment . Brad wants to be nonpartisan and focus on his work. Joe rails against attacks on, and corruption within, the progressive Democrats. Others support their candidates. Fine.

But let us reason together, because we have a common enemy which is trying to destroy the United States of America because it stands against fascism, corporatism, and their contempt for basic human dignity.

This is not a high school football game. I applaud those who see that; and I try, within my limits, to improve those who don't.

I'd say America is well and thoroughly destroyed already, and the few who can see this and want our country back badly enough have a LOT of work to do. Splitting hairs over the always assholish, even when friendly, robocalls is NOT going to get it done. The point about the Hillary camp making Obama about race cannot reasonably be denied by anyone yet clinging to their last shreds of objectivity. It was low. It was dirty. It was REgressive in the extreme, and it lost the Clintons what respect for them I had tried hard to retain. I keep trying, but I can't see even a tenth as much difference between the candidates and the incumbents as we, and the rest of the planet, life-and-death need.

Gary McGowan said: (re: Joseph Cannon)

He and Brad disagree on the usefulness or permissibility of robocalls. He's critical (in the wrong tone, imo) of Brad's yesterday comment . Brad wants to be nonpartisan and focus on his work.

For the record, if Cannon disagreed with anyone, it's with John Gideon, who collects and writes the "Daily Voting News" each day. Not me. The DVN is John's, and I have little to do with it, other than providing the space at The BRAD BLOG for him to post his important daily collection of news stories and quick opinion at the top.

"The point about the Hillary camp making Obama about race cannot reasonably be denied by anyone yet clinging to their last shreds of objectivity."

Brad, I can't figure out that grammar. I mess up too sometimes, so not poking at you, but may I ask you to restate it so my tired brain can be sure what you are saying?

I stated Cannon's position poorly. To be fair, he said, "I am particularly disappointed in Brad Friedman, who allowed writer John Gideon to run the O-bot line on WVWV without double-checking the facts."

My Dear Wonderful Mr. Gideon~
Although I did not hear the report myself this evening, my father told me that NPR they picked up on this disturbing story...and at the risk of PISSING OFF MR. McGOWAN, here: they have evidence the WVWV is connected to the HILLARY campaign.

I am so upset by this I'm unable to sleep tonight...again. This whole time I was giving her the benefit of the doubt, even when she got freaky-mean; assuming this woman I once admired and respected, a woman who got me the only health care I ever saw after my time working in lower Manhattan, could stoop to such fascist, disgusting VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT TACTICS. It seems the reports are ALSO turning up true that HILLARY-HEADS were behind inviting REV. WRIGHT to address the press club last week...

I'd hate to see the EI group fall prey to the same divisive drive set upon us by the fascists backing this ONE PARTY SYSTEM, spinning the hamster wheel on us at a time when if we don't have OUR shit together, we lose all.

And I'd like to add, I am very disturbed that while BRAD/ JOHN GIDEON must go out of their way to be so VERY CAREFUL about how "partisan" they APPEAR, somehow it's not enough for some--even when the tactics SO CLEARLY align with the footprint of fraud all of us here should know very well.

Mr. Gideon, I am hoping that if you have regrets about posting this story, this info will help set your mind at ease. Watch out for those so blind that whatever a candidate must do to win is fine with them, as long as it is THEIR candidate...

This is what they are calling the "new, REALITY BASED, PROGRESSIVE wing of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY."
(On record, some have stated this outright. I have also filmed FL. DEMS as they point to REPUBLICAN DIRTY TACTICS as if they are something to be admired, learned from, and proliferated.

I'm with GWN on this one...

Boy, Gary, your brain really is tired. That wasn't Brad, that was me. And you will do fine with it after you've gotten some sleep.

Fine, citizen. I'm unfamiliar with the formatting here and incorrectly took Brad's name under the comment as it's author. My mistake. So could you please translate your. "The point about the Hillary camp making Obama about race cannot reasonably be denied by anyone yet clinging to their last shreds of objectivity" into English?

Formatting differences across blogs may be as potentially confusing to some people as robocalls to others.

Thank you for pointing out my error in reading them as Brad's words, because I was shocked imagining they came from Brad (was thinking HE should get some well-deserved rest!). I agree with you there's a lot of work to be done. I'm out of touch with the robo call reality because here on the other side of the planet where I'm living they are few and far between (usually from the phone co. about getting your bill paid.) and I've always hung up on them anyway. I have no stand on the issue, and others making theirs is fine by me.

I'm still curious what you were trying to say, and wondering why you haven't clarified.

Jeannie Dean in FL-13,

You needn't worry about pissing me off. I couldn't read for laughing. That's the best parody of agitprop I've ever read.

You needn't have stated you were with GWN. That's obvious.

Good luck with your career.

WVWV broke the law, says NC Attorney General Roy Coooer.

IF Women's Voices, Women Vote really wanted to register North Carolina voters and help them vote, they would have:

1. checked with our NC SBoE for current laws, regulations and yes - training,

2. the robo call script would advise listeners that they could register NOW during early voting up through May 3rd

3. the robo caller would not have used caller id blocking, and would have provided the name of their organization and how to contact them. In this part, they broke the law.

This group that says its goal is to register women voters - instead was targeting black voters with misleading information using a fictious black male voice - for "Lamont Williams".

This group made these calls telling the voter they would get a registration form in the mail and that after they filled it out and mailed it in - "THEN THEY COULD VOTE."

This group made these calls 2 weeks after deadline to do register by mail.

Why didn't they have "Lamont Williams" tell the black voters that they could register and vote NOW???????

WVWV has been blanket mailing pre filled registration forms to voters, many who are already registered, and often AFTER the deadline to return the registration forms for the current election.

This happened to Oregon.

Book mark Facing South for updates

http://www.southernstudies.org/facingsouth/

Like to remind everyone here, they have a "Just Do it" card. (do I need to photoshop a graphic?) Look you got common sense, You know what's up.

FOCUS.

The problem is with these god damned machines that tabulate votes and the "ignore filter" of our "representatives." Forget the "fascist media" for a minute.

Time is running out in North Carolina people can still register and vote from now through May 3rd.

Remember, if you are not registered, you can still go to an early voting site to both register and vote through May 3rd. Register and vote at a One-Stop Site during the One-Stop Absentee Voting period.
see http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/content.aspx?id=32

I'll blame the late hour (1am ET)and insomnia for this sentence # 3
"if that makes me partisan to crooks that's ok by me."

Also...Maggie Williams used to be on the board of WVWV and WVWV President Page Gardner and Integral Resources CEO (telemarketer) Ron Rosenblith are MARRIED. Integral Resources was paid $770,000 in 07

It stinks! Hillary Clinton "may" not be aware of this but "someone" wants her to win the nomination by hook or by crook. IMO

Gary # 7
"The point about the Hillary camp making Obama about race cannot reasonably be denied by anyone yet clinging to their last shreds of objectivity"

I am not from the US (but share a continent with you) and did try to stay objective regarding H Rodham-Clinton. If she had stuck to what she would or could do to help the US get out of this quagmire I would have listened and being objective but she HAS made it about race, elitism, Obama not being qualified, like McCain and herself, to be Commander in Chief. (That is the quote that turned me against her completely) She's f@###%g rooting for the Repug over Obama. My first choice was Kucinich and then Edwards.
Your quote I would allot to Ms Rodham, "create a smear, hoping that the mud will stick before people take a closer look at what is really going on."
I am non-partisan btw

My Dear Wonderful Mr. Gideon~ as Ms Jeannie says...not picking on you John but I had no where else to post last night and I was perturbed. No pussy footing around though just because it's a Dem who "may be" doing the dirty work. IMO

Gary McGowan -

You might request that Cannon allow the two comments I left at his site to be posted. Not sure why he has not let them go through. The first posted last night. Both speaking to his original error in coverage which requires the courtesy of a correction over there on his part.

GWN @ #16 [also see comments #7, #10]:

Re the sentence,
1. The point about
2. the Hillary camp
3. making Obama
4. about race
5. cannot reasonably be denied
6. by anyone yet clinging to their last shreds of objectivity

1. "The argument regarding" - What argument? Where? The writer presumes the reader’s familiarity with it. He “adds authority” by using the definite article, the, at the beginning. He would have been off to a stronger start had he said Points already made about…, or made the phrase a live link to the argument having actually been made.

2. The Hillary supporters? The Hillary campaign?

3. Making?/claiming [that]?/attempting to define?

4. Obama himself? The Obama campaign? Obama supporters? Some Obama supporters?

5. This assertion is thankfully unambiguous. “It has been fairly established that…” going into 1,2,3 would be equivalent. Again, a link or reference documenting the argument would be helpful.

6. this rhetorical flourish only tends to insult someone who is unfamiliar with, or disagrees with the argument. If that’s the intention, so be it. But as I have tried to point out in 1-4, the argument there is unclear.

It is not unknown for people to write or speak like above to exhaust the opposition or create confusion. If one understands that the Obama campaign is just a grand and expensive ploy to knock Senator Clinton out of contention for the presidency (because she is the only one who might employ, and put together a team/administration to employ, the very necessary FDR-type solutions to save our nation) things become much clearer.

If the sentence you quote is referring to Hillary having made a perfectly accurate statement: "Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," Please be informed that Obama's hacks have tried to misrepresent these words as some sort of attack on King and on Obama personally.

Hillary is not a racist and did not appeal to racism. This argument is made and documented here.

As to one candidate claiming that another is not qualified, that’s common, not at all unusual for 200 years or more. If you’re holding that against Hillary, that’s silliness or worse.

You are claiming now that Hillary is unqualified to be Commander in Chief (along with Obama and McCain). I disagree, but that’s for another day.

As for creating smears against your opponent of the same (Democratic) Party during a primary race, Senator Clinton has more sense and moral integrity than to do something so foolish and helpful to the Republican Party. She has plenty of very powerful ones she could unleash. Here and here just for starters.

Should disaster strike and Obama get the nomination, these and others will be, as planned, unleashed to destroy him as a candidate and we will almost have a truly fascist presidency before we are another two years older (there are various scenarios.)

There’s a difference between defeating your opponent or enemy and winning the peace. It’s a difference Hillary has demonstrated she understands. And any Commander-in-Chief must understand it just as one of many basic qualifications.

To see the principle widely practiced in blogs soon is perhaps too much to hope for.

Hi Brad,

I’ve no “pull” with Mr. Cannon (I just post comments there.) I think that all my comments so far have gone through. I’ll copy your comment with some words of my own after I re-find which thread.

You might be interested in my last link in my post just above if you haven’t seen “Texas Caucus Fraud” at MyDD night of May 2. (A post by Cannon drew my attention to it.)

...clinging to their last shreds of objectivity....

This seems to be the kernel, the very crux, the meditation point that could be most effective....

or try...

clinging to their last shreds of childish rhetoric

In my opinion, Brad is doing his site a serious disservice allowing partisan comments. My suggestion would be to just to delete any and all of them in the future, rather than play games with those who post the majority of them. Focus on what the site is most worthily intended for.

Yes, it is oft forgotten by many that this is an American blog, with a Constitution junky winking from its masthead. I sometimes even wish for the pleasures of totalitarianism to enable me to happily disappear idiot opinions, and other aggravations. Freedom is not ease, I remind myself daily.

Yep, those partisan people should be taken outback and shot!!

I will say I was wrong in saying that Hillary has played the race card. I was accusing her by association, you know like people do regarding Obama and Rev. Wright. Not good.

Not to be inflammatory, but I don't think you need to say that, GWN, there are plenty of solid grounds for that assertion, and just because people don't like to hear you mention it, doesn't change that. Just because people can say it was Bill or others of her supporters or she didn't mean it that way, does not unring the bell or even put a solid disavowal of the tactic in her mouth, let alone her heart. It's not "partisan" to speak truthfully. It's "partisan" to use speech for partisan ends. There's a world of difference. It is a partisan tactic to try to accuse someone speaking truthfully of partisan speech when they are saying something the accusers don't like. Don't bite.

Well, and, I ought to add, partisanship is not always awful. It is sometimes good, depending on conditions. That's something we tend to forget as well. For instance: It's partisan to uphold truth at the expense of lies.

Gary McGowan said:

In my opinion, Brad is doing his site a serious disservice allowing partisan comments. My suggestion would be to just to delete any and all of them in the future

As it turns out, partisans are people too, Gary (at least some of 'em )

We also believe in free speech around here (within boundaries, set by the very few rules for posting at The BRAD BLOG.)

While I'm at it, as you may have noticed, I think democracy (small "d") is a swell thing too. So I see no problem with folks respectfully enganging each other in debate and discussion. And just so's ya know, I don't agree with any damned one of 'em!

I suspect most folks can tell the difference between something posted by the blog owner, and commenters at the blog (Bill O'Reilly notwithstanding). I remain endlessly perplexed when blog owners, usually right wingers, are unable to allow comments which disagree with them on their own pages. Must not have much of an opinion if it can't stand up to scrutiny, it seems to me.