Clinton NH tactics require LAWSUITS and CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS!

This is enough! We've spent almost a decade fighting passionately against Karl Rove and fellow Republican criminals for these kinds of tactics, with some of them (as in Ohio) going to jail for it. Yet now, the Hillary Clinton campaign does the same thing to Edwards, Richarson, Obama and other fellow Democrats?

The details are in the other threads:
http://tinyurl.com/ysvz4h
http://tinyurl.com/yoovf4

It doesn't matter which candidate we're supporting, this sort of blatantly criminal behavior destroys the integrity of the democratic process itself. If you do not have elections that are fair, transparent, auditable and free of voter fraud, in which people can express their voice at the ballot box and know that their votes were counted, then inevitably a country's government winds up being chosen by "other" means, such as violence as we see in Kenya. The whole point of having elections is to have an alternative to things like monarchy and war as a way to select our leadership! Lawsuits, and criminal prosecutions against the perpetrators are required as a response to this.

:hi:

since it helps to actually read the post and look at the links that are referenced. Everything you need right there.

Nashua and another town polls. misleading voters about Obama's record on Abortion legislation in Illinois and then lying to the public about what are legal calls as his campaign tried to correct the blatant mailed distortions. You really need to read the links he's given here. This is just not going to do justice to whats been printed already.

he used his efforts in the Chicago Dems 1992 voter registration drive to get info for a 1995 run for State Rep. It was/is a heavy Dem seat and the general election is between Dems despite primary results as the GOP does not put up a candidate.

The former Democratic state senator from Obama's district, Alice L. Palmer, decided to run for the open State Senate seat. Obama had his campaign's legal team challenge not only Ms Palmer but every other Democrat that filed for the race - claiming that their campaign petitions were not properly done. Without good legal resources the other candidates could not get on the ballot and Obama ran unopposed — which for a rookie is unheard of.

Now that is good "voter suppression" :-)

and the Clinton campaign team's actions were directed as much at the Edwards campaign as at Obama.
Second, in the case you cited:
That was a contesting of the signatures *in an electoral commission* and thus transparent, in the light of day and with the nod of the authorities. I have worked on campaigns and signature-gathering for petitions before, and the challenging of signatures on petitions is routine and common. Furthermore, Obama had received the support of Palmer to run in the first place, it was only the special election that changed things around. (And no, I didn't know that off the top of my head, I can actually look these things up-- the newspapers have archives.)

Third, at no point did Edwards, Obama or anyone else seek to actively block registered voters from going into the voting booths and actually voting on the day of a primary or election. That is not transparent, not in the light of day, and not in any way legal, either-- it is a transparent attempt to disenfranchise voters.

In fact, perhaps the most offensive aspect of the Clintons' behavior is that their ultimate target was not Edwards or Obama, but the voters themselves. It is this disenfranchisement which cannot stand.

does know how to beat Hil at her own game?It doesn't make it better. I still support Edwards. But damn, it would be better if dems acted better than this. We are all on a sinking ship if this doesn't get cleaned up.

I was really mad at Hillary over that Obama/abortion votes letter. Obama has the head of one pro-choice movement defending him. But Hillary has a head of NOW on her side. So who is right?

Obama said before that those votes were tactical votes to help the pro-choice movement. But now he says the purpose of the tactic was to fend off pressure he'd get for taking a controversial vote.

What kind of tactic is that? Its controversial so don't vote? Sounds to me like exactly what Hillary said it was, failure to stand up for pro-choice when it was tough.

Other one second

Hillary wasn't running a voter suppression effort in New Hampshire. What happened in several towns was nothing more than a mix up. Unfortunately, GOTV efforts at one ward were harmed, but only at one ward.

...is the ONLY way to determine criminality.
You file a suit.
This goes before a judge or jury.
They decide guilt or innocence.


I thought you knew that!

That's, like, the whole point here. In the midst of a political campaign, you can't just snap fingers and push a case like this, you have to raise the issue among a broad group of people and reach a critical mass of focus so that the legal arguments are broadly hashed out and a feasible route of further inquiry is ascertained. These aren't just individuals here, these are big campaigns under the guidance of multiple big institutions, and we have to work within that framework.

should still be undertaking our own efforts to do the same. Make no mistake, this is criminal behavior, and any Clinton campaign workers involved in it should be hit extremely hard.

Keep in mind, I am not a clinton supporter, haven't made my mind up who to vote for in the primary, but already know it will be anyone but Clinton, based on her voting recored alone

C'mon.

otherwise it is bulls*it

"But it gets worse

But the Clinton intervention at Ward 9 in Nashua nonetheless persuaded the moderator to ban the Obama observers. And the disputes, which dragged on for hours and grew quite heated, generally scrambled the Obama efforts to keep track of who was and wasn't voting, said Obama supporter Andrew Edwards, a rookie state representative assigned to observe the polls in Nashua, where Clinton ran up a big margin in her favor.

and worse...

Edwards was confronted by Lasky and by another veteran Democrat, state representative and Nashua Democratic chairwoman Jane Clemons, who he said issued a veiled threat during the dispute that he would face a stiff primary challenge in Nashua if he ran for reelection.

The denial?

Clemons denied that she had threatened Edwards with a primary challenge, saying that she simply asked him whether he was planning to run for re-election, which he may have wrongly interpreted as a threat.

Did these tactics have an effect?

"The effect of it was that it basically disrupted our get out the vote operation," said Edwards. "My effectiveness that day was less than 50 percent as a result of the people who kept coming in" to protest the observers..."

Now, I may be wrong, but this is in my mind the kind of Republican tactic that Democrats scream about - and justifiably. What does this mean when Democrats to this to other Democrats?

What kind of campaign sends out cynically misleading mailings and then tries to stop the other campaign from setting the record straight?

What kind of campaign tries to stop another campaign from getting voters to vote?

The margin of victory was less than 8,000 votes. That's it."

That is voter suppression on which, the law is very clear, there is NO ALLOWANCE for activities by one campaign to disrupt voters associated with another campaign. The law in every state is written very stringently because of that. Blocking observers from a campaign from the voting and monitoring process is strictly illegal.

Poll workers for parties have faced jail time. The integrity of our voting process is sacrosanct for a democracy, and judges thus have no hesitation at throwing the book at any official who disrupts the right of voters to vote at the ballot box.

in the accompanying links. Take a look.

Just some friendly advice: Don't quit your day job.

You might try to read rather than asking us to spoon-feed you.

If you are talking about clinton distorting and lying about Obama's record, that is not voter supression

are you talking about Lasky involved in the attempt by Clinton officials to remove Obama volunteers who had been sent to many polling places in NH? I have no idea what NH law says on that, but was anyone prevented from voting?

You want to know something, Obama is an adult, if he has a problem with it then he should make it an issue

"But it gets worse

But the Clinton intervention at Ward 9 in Nashua nonetheless persuaded the moderator to ban the Obama observers. And the disputes, which dragged on for hours and grew quite heated, generally scrambled the Obama efforts to keep track of who was and wasn't voting, said Obama supporter Andrew Edwards, a rookie state representative assigned to observe the polls in Nashua, where Clinton ran up a big margin in her favor.

and worse...

Edwards was confronted by Lasky and by another veteran Democrat, state representative and Nashua Democratic chairwoman Jane Clemons, who he said issued a veiled threat during the dispute that he would face a stiff primary challenge in Nashua if he ran for reelection.

The denial?

Clemons denied that she had threatened Edwards with a primary challenge, saying that she simply asked him whether he was planning to run for re-election, which he may have wrongly interpreted as a threat.

Did these tactics have an effect?

"The effect of it was that it basically disrupted our get out the vote operation," said Edwards. "My effectiveness that day was less than 50 percent as a result of the people who kept coming in" to protest the observers..."

Now, I may be wrong, but this is in my mind the kind of Republican tactic that Democrats scream about - and justifiably. What does this mean when Democrats to this to other Democrats?

What kind of campaign sends out cynically misleading mailings and then tries to stop the other campaign from setting the record straight?

What kind of campaign tries to stop another campaign from getting voters to vote?

The margin of victory was less than 8,000 votes. That's it.

That is voter suppression on which, the law is very clear, there is NO ALLOWANCE for activities by one campaign to disrupt voters associated with another campaign. The law in every state is written very stringently because of that. Blocking observers from a campaign from the voting and monitoring process is strictly illegal.

That is my point

Incidently, if you are trying to present an argument, and persuade someone to subscribe to you point of view, it is far better to provide the exact point your making than trying to be antagonistic, and say "you want to be spoon fed"?

I did read the links. Were you talking about the distortions and lies, or about the polling workers?

All I am saying is you want to convience me, show me where you think it was improper or illegal, and I appreciated you doing so in this thread

Without question it is unethical, and doesn't surprise me in the least, especially based on her triangulations and voting record, but I do not believe it is illegal.

In the other articles Obama's record is also being lied about in Nevada. That is why it is imperitive that Obama respond as quickly and harshly as possible, and expose the Clinton campaign for what it perceives as a misrepresentation

Clinton volunteers and local lawyers acting on behalf of the campaign demanded in Nashua, Concord and at least one other town that poll moderators ban the Obama volunteers from the polls, saying that their presence violated a state law stating that only the state party chairmen can delegate people to monitor the polls.

The Obama campaign countered that that law applied only to monitors who are at the polls to challenge potentially invalid voters, a practice that is usually limited to general elections and which their volunteers were not engaged in. The attorney general and Nashua city clerk confirmed this when they were called about the dispute, saying that the Obama volunteers were allowed as members of the public to observe the polls, as long as they didn't get in the way.

But the Clinton intervention at Ward 9 in Nashua nonetheless persuaded the moderator to ban the Obama observers. And the disputes, which dragged on for hours and grew quite heated, generally scrambled the Obama efforts to keep track of who was and wasn't voting, said Obama supporter Andrew Edwards, a rookie state



This isn't much different from phone jamming in that GOTV was harmed for the Obama campaign in a similar way.

This is just street level people getting confused about the rules.

by Bush lawyers in the recount, they did this in south Florida voting precincts as well.
They would stand in your way and threaten poll workers of other candidates and scream at them until they left if fear.

Assuming you are correct, then the next question is, WHY aren't charges being pursued?

help yourself
Millions Blocked from Voting in U.S. Election
In other swing states, 4.6 percent of voters in Iowa, but 25 percent of blacks, were disenfranchised in 2000 as ex-felons. In Nevada, it was 4.8 percent of ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0922-03.htm - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
Center for Policy Alternatives: VoterProtection.xml
Voter intimidation tactics are employed across the nation. ... In 2000, a million more votes would have been cast or counted if voters and precinct ...
www.stateaction.org/issues/issue.cfm/issue/VoterProtection.xml - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
People For the American Way - The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter ...
The Historical Roots of Voter Intimidation and Suppression .... four million American voters in 2000 elections cast a harsh spotlight on flaws in our voting ...
www.pfaw.org/go/Jim_Crow/ - 55k - Cached - Similar pages

National Network on State Election Reform
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Immigrants subject to intimidation and insult. In 2000, immigrant voters in Florida. were intimidated. Many were prevented from voting or insulted at ...
www.azadvocacy.org/images/Decptive_Practices_handout_part_II.PDF - Similar pages
The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - DRUDGE: Charge ...
We saw the same thing in Florida 2000. Hundred of charges of voter intimidation, but not one credible example panned out. ...
www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/015964.html - 51k - Cached - Similar pages
New investigation uncovers more racism, voter intimidation and ...
New investigation uncovers more racism, voter intimidation and faulty from ... in Florida - the state at the centre of the 2000 voting debacle - has spent ...
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20041003/ai_n12591759 - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in ...
As this report details, voter intimidation and suppression is not a ... some four million American voters in 2000 elections cast a harsh spotlight on flaws ...
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Jim-Crow-Intimidation26aug04.htm - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
DNC encourages false claims of voter intimidation - America's Debate
With allegations of Jim Crow, "dogs and hoses," voter intimidation and black disenfranchisement, ... coff Nobody was disenfranchised in 2000. If you can. ...
www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8227&mode=threaded&pid=129990 - 113k - Cached - Similar pages
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Florida: Getting out the vote
After the counting debacle in Florida in the 2000 presidential poll, ... "The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today. ...
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3685968.stm - 48k - Cached - Similar pages
Groups Say GOP Moves to Stifle Vote (washingtonpost.com)
A similar, 2002 plan provoked cries of voter intimidation after a recruitment flier became public. The flier asked for volunteers to protect Ernie ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33798-2004Aug25.html - Similar pages
News archive results for voter intimidation 2000
2000 » … Squatters Target Black Farm Hands; Mugabe's Critics Charge Voter Intimidation - Subscription - Washington Post
2000 » … Farm Hands; Mugabe's Critics Charge Voter Intimidation - The Washington Post - Subscription - Washington Post
2000 » THE MEDIA AND VOTER INTIMIDATION - $2.95 - Boston Globe

encouraged to vote didn't vote. If they wanted to vote, and could get to the polls, they would have.

It sounds rather like where I was a poll worker in NY state. We kept the official list of who voted; but we also kept an official listing, broken down by party. If party workers showed up and wanted "their" list, they got it. They could then look over the list of registered voters (dem or repub) that they had and determined who hadn't yet voted. The party workers would then make calls, make sure that people knew where to vote and had transportation; if they didn't have transportation, some would be provided.

Where I was, we had the option of not assisting the party workers. I had the option of just helping those in my party. But it seemed dishonest to do just one list, so both repubs and dems did both. And it didn't hurt anybody to keep them.

Disgusting :puke:!

with the qualified one incase the country has an emergency and needs immediate attention. Besides the charges that I have read sound like it's just another smear toward the other's candidate. Parties have their own inspectors and don't let just anyone in to look at the voting records. I have made many calls for candidates from phones set up off site. Logs came from the courthouse. No particular candidate's names was given to us, we asked for the voter to vote for our person. Are the Obama people going to want a fight continuously? I don't think Obama will be helped by all this hysteria, and I don't think he wants this type of notoriety.

regardless of which candidate I'm supporting, I'm hopping furious about the Clintons' vote suppression tactics. My candidate's supporters were suppressed, but Obama's even more, and apparently Richardson's as well. Here, I mean-- independently of whatever other views I have of the candidates-- I'm just focusing on the issue of free and fair elections, which are sacrosanct to any democracy and which were grossly flouted in this case.

Shady Dems in NH pulling out ANY Stop fer HillBill!! :headbang::smoke:

So this advances further.

But their hatred towards Hillary is such, that they react to allegations of a diarist named "there will be blood" in dailykos with threats of lawsuits because they, too, according to the diarist, were misleading about Obama regarding his abortion stance.

There have been very few incendiary things said or done -- but those that have, have been quite effective. And they have been recirculated as efficiently as possible.

"An Obama campaign spokesman who requested anonymity" ... "A long-time Clinton confidante who declined to be named" ... you know the story.

It's almost as if some invisible outside force was messing with our process, trying to get the Democratic Party to split apart before the convention. It's just a shame that I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

--p!

And that demands prosecution. And BTW, I'm an Edwards supporter.

Only the facts, please, only the facts.

I don't know what NH law states, but from what I can see, no one was turned away from voting at those places

I do not like people's record being distorted, but that is politics, and it is up to the respective campaigns to defend themselves, and specifically tell use what they are going to do, and why they are better than their opponents

SEC. 11. (a) No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote under any provision of this Act or is otherwise qualified to vote, or willfully fail or refuse to tabulate, count, and report such person's vote.

(b) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=100&page=transcript

Read for yourself.

I didn't click on your links because I couldn't tell the source. But if you are talking about the Washington Post article that describes how Clinton supporters in three NH precincts complained to election officials that Obama poll watchers didn't have permission to be there, I don't see what law was broken.

To me, it looks like some of Clinton's people misunderstood the rules about poll watchers and then threw a hissy fit when they saw that Obama's people didn't. Arguably sleazy, but blatantly criminal? I don't think so.

I don't know what NH law says, but the squabble with the poll workers, I don't see anyone being turned away from voting. I also read the AP link

Obviously, the Obama campaign isn't pressing charges

No, I do not like Clinton, but none of those stories showed me where someones votes was not counted, or they were NOT allowed to vote

prove your point to get the conviction? or is interfering with a candidates GOTV in such a direct and obvious way using a false assertion about a law a reason to assume people did not vote? Why are you picking that one element as if unless you get what your asking for none of this matters?

about poll watchers, even though those complaints were unjustified. If, say, an election worker denied access to Obama watchers while letting Clinton watchers in, I'd see where that election worker might be guilty of something. But it doesn't seem like that's the case. It seems like Clinton people complained in three precincts, and in one precinct, the election worker listened to them.

It still sounds more like a hissy fit based on misinterpretation of the law than a criminal act. But, like still_one says in another post, if Obama wants to complain, let him. I'd listen to what he had to say.

by Edwards and Obama supporters. There was clear, outright disruption of voters' access to booths and even setting up the ballot boxes, not just complaints and delays, by the Clinton campaign. That is fraud.

I repeat: Election days for primaries or any other kind of polling place have extremely strong legal protection, since the temptation for one side to interfere with the vote is very high. So courts set a low threshold for prosecuting anything that smacks of disrupting voters' access to the polls. And physical disruption of GOTV and even ballot access is not just unethical, it is frankly criminal and liable to prosecution by the authorities.

And the threat, which I take with a big grain of salt. I didn't click on your tinyurl link, so if there is evidence of blocking voter access, this is the first I've heard of it.

That was more direct voter suppression-- disobeying the open and fully-received ruling of the Election Commission to allow the Obama poll workers in. The laws are tough on that, if they weren't, then campaigns would try all kinds of end-runs around it to delay another teams GOTV efforts. That was just flatly illegal.

I'll guess we'll see if charges are filed, but I don't believe whining is illegal, flatly or otherwise. If laws were broken, which I still doubt, blame the election official who listened to their whining. The Clinton people didn't have any authority to kick anyone out and they don't see to have done so bodily.

I see despicable dirty tricks that would make KKKarl proud (gee, what a shock! Not!), but nothing "blatantly criminal."

If it's criminal, sue. Otherwise, shaddup!

There's one thing even worse than dirty politics. Whining about dirty politics.

Bringing action like this first requires drawing attention to the acts, so that enough people are moved to take the collective action this requires. Here's the specific info:

"But it gets worse

But the Clinton intervention at Ward 9 in Nashua nonetheless persuaded the moderator to ban the Obama observers. And the disputes, which dragged on for hours and grew quite heated, generally scrambled the Obama efforts to keep track of who was and wasn't voting, said Obama supporter Andrew Edwards, a rookie state representative assigned to observe the polls in Nashua, where Clinton ran up a big margin in her favor.

and worse...

Edwards was confronted by Lasky and by another veteran Democrat, state representative and Nashua Democratic chairwoman Jane Clemons, who he said issued a veiled threat during the dispute that he would face a stiff primary challenge in Nashua if he ran for reelection.

The denial?

Clemons denied that she had threatened Edwards with a primary challenge, saying that she simply asked him whether he was planning to run for re-election, which he may have wrongly interpreted as a threat.

Did these tactics have an effect?

"The effect of it was that it basically disrupted our get out the vote operation," said Edwards. "My effectiveness that day was less than 50 percent as a result of the people who kept coming in" to protest the observers..."

Now, I may be wrong, but this is in my mind the kind of Republican tactic that Democrats scream about - and justifiably. What does this mean when Democrats to this to other Democrats?

What kind of campaign sends out cynically misleading mailings and then tries to stop the other campaign from setting the record straight?

What kind of campaign tries to stop another campaign from getting voters to vote?

The margin of victory was less than 8,000 votes. That's it.

That is voter suppression on which, the law is very clear, there is NO ALLOWANCE for activities by one campaign to disrupt voters associated with another campaign. The law in every state is written very stringently because of that. Blocking observers from a campaign from the voting and monitoring process is strictly illegal.

I have no dog in this hunt, and if I had to choose between Obama and Clinton, I'd definitely choose Obama.
Even so, this seems like pathetic whining to me.

That's loser stuff. Strike back or shut up.

and then building a critical mass that draws media interest and pushes the move. This is the first step in the process. I'm an Edwards supporter myself, but no matter who's in the race, we need to bring attention to this to push the issue and bring about action.

from the Obama campaign, as well as the disruption that was documented in that link in the Edwards and Obama camps, is frank tampering with the voting process and with the right to franchise of specific voters.

The law on elections is written to be extremely stringent to forbid anything like what the Clinton volunteers did there-- you especially cannot disrupt election monitors from another camp, since this is a direct attack on the trustworthiness of the election process itself. It's the very stringency of the laws that provides the best check on the workers for any campaign, to succumb to the very high temptation (considering the prize at stake) to disenfranchise voters at the polls. It's only the threat of that punishment that provides a deterrent, as the 2004 Ohio Republican poll workers learned to their own dismay.

If anything, thanks to the last two stolen presidential elections, there's an extra concern about poll watchers intimidating voters. My guess is that the Clintonistas picked this particular scab and used it to unfairly implicate apparently legitimate Obama poll watchers. It was a clever, effective, profoundly cynical strategy. And given the source, it doesn't surprise me in the least, alas. But I don't think it was illegal. The Obama folks just got outfoxed.

the specific disruption of the monitors in particular, along with physical interference in the camps of the other candidates, is regarded as frankly illegal. IIRC there was some case in Oregon where this had come up, where a poll worker had put up obstructions in a precinct where an opposing candidate had broader support. He was found guilty of felony election obstruction and served some jail time for it. It's an issue that the courts take very seriously since the survival of our system depends on this.

Spread the word!

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=100&page=transcript

SEC. 11. (a) No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote under any provision of this Act or is otherwise qualified to vote, or willfully fail or refuse to tabulate, count, and report such person's vote.

(b) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).

They were making preparations so they could do that later. I don't know if that makes a difference or not.

Probably nothing but :puffpiece: though :eyes::puke:

uninformed about, guess if its not their guy its not illegal? I support Edwards. But what they have done to Obama is wrong and I think illegal. But I'll let others decide that. I posted the Daily Kos thread to inform, not argue the case.

I just left this out: :sarcasm:

it was your brain that you left out. Try to actually at least pretend to give a rat's ass about election integrity, and maybe your candidate might start getting at least a modicum of respect from the rest of us. Not much, but a little.

Or that conspiracy about how Bush was lying about the WMD's in Iraq?

Here's a big hint-- it ain't conspiracy if it's well-documented, and here, it definitely is.

Millions Blocked from Voting in U.S. Election
In other swing states, 4.6 percent of voters in Iowa, but 25 percent of blacks, were disenfranchised in 2000 as ex-felons. In Nevada, it was 4.8 percent of ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0922-03.htm - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
Center for Policy Alternatives: VoterProtection.xml
Voter intimidation tactics are employed across the nation. ... In 2000, a million more votes would have been cast or counted if voters and precinct ...
www.stateaction.org/issues/issue.cfm/issue/VoterProtection.xml - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
People For the American Way - The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter ...
The Historical Roots of Voter Intimidation and Suppression .... four million American voters in 2000 elections cast a harsh spotlight on flaws in our voting ...
www.pfaw.org/go/Jim_Crow/ - 55k - Cached - Similar pages

National Network on State Election Reform
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Immigrants subject to intimidation and insult. In 2000, immigrant voters in Florida. were intimidated. Many were prevented from voting or insulted at ...
www.azadvocacy.org/images/Decptive_Practices_handout_part_II.PDF - Similar pages
The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - DRUDGE: Charge ...
We saw the same thing in Florida 2000. Hundred of charges of voter intimidation, but not one credible example panned out. ...
www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/015964.html - 51k - Cached - Similar pages
New investigation uncovers more racism, voter intimidation and ...
New investigation uncovers more racism, voter intimidation and faulty from ... in Florida - the state at the centre of the 2000 voting debacle - has spent ...
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20041003/ai_n12591759 - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in ...
As this report details, voter intimidation and suppression is not a ... some four million American voters in 2000 elections cast a harsh spotlight on flaws ...
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Jim-Crow-Intimidation26aug04.htm - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
DNC encourages false claims of voter intimidation - America's Debate
With allegations of Jim Crow, "dogs and hoses," voter intimidation and black disenfranchisement, ... coff Nobody was disenfranchised in 2000. If you can. ...
www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8227&mode=threaded&pid=129990 - 113k - Cached - Similar pages
BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Florida: Getting out the vote
After the counting debacle in Florida in the 2000 presidential poll, ... "The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today. ...
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3685968.stm - 48k - Cached - Similar pages
Groups Say GOP Moves to Stifle Vote (washingtonpost.com)
A similar, 2002 plan provoked cries of voter intimidation after a recruitment flier became public. The flier asked for volunteers to protect Ernie ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33798-2004Aug25.html - Similar pages
News archive results for voter intimidation 2000
2000 » … Squatters Target Black Farm Hands; Mugabe's Critics Charge Voter Intimidation - Subscription - Washington Post
2000 » … Farm Hands; Mugabe's Critics Charge Voter Intimidation - The Washington Post - Subscription - Washington Post
2000 » THE MEDIA AND VOTER INTIMIDATION - $2.95 - Boston Globe

bolding mine

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/tough-guy-pol-1.html

he can laugh you laugh you out of court.

or I just might come and steal your lunch money. :evilgrin:

are criminal and destroy our country. the novel idea that this is about hating a candidate or candidate jealousy is for the bush league. Its about laws and the almost dead Constitution. Its about saving this democracy one vote at a time. But if you need to keep it simple, okay.


Ps I have already declred for Edwards. Open a** insert head.

Do you seriously have a Stupidity Attack every time you go into Insult Mode?

Leaves me with one question: "Huh?"


Edit to add that this is being added to the ignore threads PILE that I have accumulated recently. Clinton and Edwards supporters could just have easily questioned things in Iowa and accused Obama of dirty tricks but they didn't - they MOVED ON! There are 48 more states and nobody here has proven anything close to voter suppression. Please.....

we have some confidence in the integrity of the election process to reflect the will of the people, rather than the results of Rovian tactics. Again, take a look at what occurred in Ward 9-- the election commission absolutely cleared the Obama observers to come in and do their jobs, as well as conduct their GOTV efforts, yet the Clinton campaign still took part in deliberate disruption. This is a criminal offense. :thumbsdown:

The law is absolute on this, not only with regard to physical obstacles but lodging false claims and delaying tactics of any sort-- such as making patently false accusations and defying the decision of the election commission after it has been made, as was done here by the Clinton campaign workers. The laws obviously cast a wide net to prohibit these kinds of actions, since a campaign that really wanted to disrupt another wouldn't resort to anything too obvious, but would try precisely such delaying tactics to block GOTV and other efforts.

Again, the law with primaries or elections of any kind is extremely strict against any kind of disruption of another campaign, and there is wide latitude to prosecute such disruptions especially when the final ruling of an Election Commission has been patently disobeyed as it was here by the Clinton team. There are a set of rules going into the process that must be followed with exactitude, as that is the only means to assure that all voters feel their vote and their voice has been counted.

And oh BTW, I am an Edwards supporter for what that's worth.

since this is far more than an issue of mere "election reform," it's an issue of the way we conduct our democracy, of the way campaigns should and should not be run and even of legality itself. I wouldn't be in the least-bit surprised to see the Clintonites take desperate tactics to attempt to banish threads unfavorable to them into sub-categories, but you take both us and the moderators for idiots if you think that any of us are going to fall for it.

The whole point of having a forum like DU is so that Democrats from various strands can come together and hash out issues, some of them difficult. If we feel that we are being disenfranchised from this forum, then we'll be pushed to go elsewhere. Indeed, it's precisely this type of thing that has been pushing many of my friends away from the party altogether.

Nah. He'll probably see them himself. :shrug:

maintains a neutral stance in the midst of these discussions. It's because of him and the other moderators that we as Dems have a forum to discuss these things at all, and they deserve a total hats-off from all of us. I'm becoming convinced that you Clintonites are so desperate to get a life that all you can ever do is to try lame acts of manipulation and outright fraud when things don't go your way.

Well then you're digging a hole that's about to swallow you up Buffy, because we are not that stupid. I'm not that stupid, and Skinner is smarter than any of us here. He is a giant compared to a pathetic mud-slinger like yourself, and he has more intelligence in his pinky finger than you have all over.

You know, for a while, as critical as I was of Hillary, I and most of my friends were still planning to vote for her in the general election if Edwards (our first choice) or Obama were not nominated.

But you can forget about it.

Insulting the basic intelligence of those around you is a surefire strategy to make a million enemies who will devour you Buffy, and you're reaping the whirlwind for these tactics. And it's only gonna get worse for you. You've alienated just about every single aspect of the Democratic base and we will never support your candidate. Or you, for that matter. Ever. Don't come begging to us, because we will kick you right out on your ass again. You reap what you sow, and you're not gonna like it.

So you can take your threats, your barbs and your condescending attitude and shove them...well, wherever you prefer.

Oh, and actually try and read the cited material before drivelling first. You can actually learn something.

overstep legality. Most of the time they are ignored. In what way did these Obama workers approach the voters? Were they wearing Obama regalia: hats, buttons, sashes, or other means of identifying themselves to the people they were approaching.

How close to the precinct were they...and in each precinct, how many were stationed?

These are factors that also should be discussed. I don't see any discussion in the above thread. Could some voters have felt intimidated? Could some, only wanting privacy, been insulted by the approach?

There are usually laws that deal with candidate advertising close to voting places. There are usually laws that restrict campaigning close to precincts. Uncontolled campaign staffs, usually relatively untrained volunteers, have been known to violate the primary purpose of the precinct--that of allowing voters to enter and vote.

Anyone shed light on any of these questions/statements?

instances of vote suppression or voter or electoral fraud as they occur. Demand calibration of every machine, confirmation of every vote, and carefully document and take note of any attempts to interfere with GOTV efforts and/or voting itself.

Whenever any such instance occurs, note it, document it and put the videos on Youtube. Any instances of fraud have to be brought into the sunshine and made obvious to the world. This is by far our best deterrent.