Obama campaign tries a new tactic- Telling the truth

The Obama campaign held a conference call to announce the South Carolina Truth Squad “to respond forcefully” to “the incredible distortions that are coming from the Clinton campaign in particular and our desire to set the record straight,” said former Sen. Tom Daschle, an Obama supporter, from Greenville, S.C., where Obama is expected to speak at Furman College later today.

==snip==

e campaign also announced a hotline (877-622-6228) for supporters to call if they get robo-calls or negative mailers, which the campaign has said happened in Iowa, New Hampshire and alluded to it now taking place in South Carolina.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/22/598186.aspx

Too bad the Obama team (and his supporters) see the truth as relative.

by telling the truth."

That would be more accurate, rather than YOUR poor attempt at yet another smear (you imply that he hasn't been telling the truth up till now... and you know that's a smear).

However, Hillary's campaign is sticky with the old strategy... distort, smear, lie, and when that doesn't work, try to keep potential Obama voters from voting.

Maybe a distortion or two -- but no more than Obama has distorted some of the things the Clintons have been saying (such as attempting to make them appear racist).

I wonder where in hell all the Obama supporters have BEEN for the past 20 years. Have they never observed an American political campaign before? Don't they understand the difference between an actual lie (such as, Gore said he invented the internet) and political ju-jitsu? (such as Obama bragged on Reagan.)

There is no one associated with the Obama campaign who can point to a single (actual) lie or smear that has come from Bill or Hillary. Instead, all they do is whine, whine, whine that the big boys are playing too rough for them.

But if you Obama supporters think the Clintons play rough, you'd better hope you DON'T win the nomination -- or else you'll find out what playing 'rough' really means.

And when the Republicans start hurling their mud, you can bet that neither neither Kerry or Daschle will DARE lift their heads to take them on. (Because Kerry and Daschle DO know how rough Republicans play.)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Let's see... Start with Bill... he said that the At-Large caucus in Nevada would unfairly provide a 5 to 1 advantage over that afforded to other caucus goers. (Why he didn't go with the whole "10 to 1" lie of the motion for the TRO, I don't know, but he thought it was too much to say with a straight "I didn't have sex with that woman" face).

Anyway, the reasoning that provides the 10 to 1 (or 5 to 1) number is just silly... and horribly flawed. Any lawyer that reads the TRO motion can see it (end of page 3 of the motion in the "example" given). Bill is still a lawyer, right?


Yeah, I think the Clintons employ the same tactics as KKKarl.

and NO, I don't like it when anyone, especially a Democrat, uses these tactics.

You may think it's "tough politics" or "clever" or whatever... I just think it's sleazy.

Well I am no Clinton supporter but as someone who is part of CWA I can tell you that having "rolling caucuses" was a terrible idea, and should be considered illegal in my book. I know dozens (literally) of union members who would of showed up for Edwards if they were not working the day of the caucus, by having only select "rolling caucuses" it caused a huge advantage (not to candidates) but to a small block of voters that were allowed to caucus where others were not... to be fair maybe they should have held 3 or 4 shifts of caucuses to allow for the 24 working schedules here in Nevada. You seem so biased in your support for your candidate that you seem tickled that probably thousands of people were denied their right to participate, if your candidate did worse then he did you would be saying the only reason they beat us was because of those "rolling caucuses". Get real. The Clintons were actually right for complaining about this even though it might of helped them. Wrong is wrong. It seems the only thing the democratic party does right is wrong. Good luck to your candidate.... we can all breathe easier when the next republican takes his office.

All the caucuses were held at fixed locations. All the caucuses were held at the same time. (11am on Saturday)

The At-Large caucuses were for workers who were registered voters in their HOME precincts, but could not afford the time away from work to attend the HOME caucus (at your local school or library or meeting hall). So the Democratic Party decided, because of the day and time they chose to have the caucus (11am on a Saturday), they would make it possible for workers in the large casinos to caucus at the selected casinos. You had to have 4,000 workers/potential caucus goers within a 2.5 mile radius of the At-Large location (there were exactly 9 of these, all at strip casinos). The delegates awarded to the the At-Large caucus was exactly the same ratio as other urban HOME caucus locations. The ratio was 50 registered Democratic voters to 1 state convention delegate.

Rural locations got MORE representation because they did not have to meet the 50 to 1 ratio! (but that has nothing to do with anything in the lawsuit, other than it showed that unequal representation was already in effect!)

So, if your HOME district had 250 registered Democratic voters, no matter HOW MANY SHOWED UP, and if you were within a larger city, you would vote to split up 5 delegates.

If you decided to caucus in the At-Large caucus location, no matter HOW MANY SHOWED UP, you would split up 80 delegates (if the number of registered voters canvassed weeks before the caucus was 4000, more if there were more than 4000).

If your HOME district had 4000 registered Democratic voters, no matter HOW MANY SHOWED UP, you would split 80 delegates, same as the At-Large.

In the motion for the TRO, the lawyers for the plaintiff painted an example, but in the At-LARGE they used the number of caucus goers that SHOWED UP versus the number of REGISTERED VOTERS in an example HOME precinct. And because of the numbers they used, they came up with a 10 to 1 discrepancy in the number of delegates. But they didn't compare apples to oranges. They ASSUMED that EVERYONE in the HOME district showed up and caucused... whereas 1/10th to the workers in the casinos showed up to caucus.
It's all there in the motion for the TRO... bottom page 3, top of page 4.

Here is the excerpt:
end of page 3, top of page 4 of the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
extraordinary scenario, likely to occur on January 19:

John and Jane Voter, each registered Party voters living in the same home in the Clark County Precinct 1001, are shift workers as a casino located on the Las Vegas Strip. John is scheduled to work at his place of employment on January 19, 2008, with his work schedule including the time of the caucus. He make the necessary arrangements to attend his assigned At-Large caucus. Two hundred-sixty other eligible shift workers also attend this At-Large caucus. The At-Large caucus participants choose 52 delegates to the Clark County Convention. John's voice in the At-Large caucus could be assigned a value of 0.19%.

Jane, by seeming good fortune, is not scheduled to work on the day of the caucus, so she is able to attend her home precinct caucus. Because Precinct 1001 has 261 registered delegates, she and the other participants at this precinct caucus choose 5 delegates to the Clark County Convention. Jane's influence in her home caucus could be assigned a value of 0.019%

Thus, pursuant to the Plan, this couple, both of whom live in the same house and work for the same employer, would have their caucus votes treated in vastly different manners. Jane's voice would be ONE-TENTH the value of her husband's, for no other reason than that her employer did not schedule her to work during the time of the caucus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

see where the flaw is... it's right here "Because Precinct 1001 has 261 registered delegates, she and the other participants at this precinct caucus choose 5 delegates to the Clark County Convention. Jane's influence in her home caucus could be assigned a value of 0.019%" versus "Two hundred-sixty other eligible shift workers also attend this At-Large caucus. The At-Large caucus participants choose 52 delegates to the Clark County Convention. John's voice in the At-Large caucus could be assigned a value of 0.19%." SEE... 260 eligible workers attend to select 50 delegates, whereas in Jane's case it's "Precinct 1001 has 261 registered voters!" (260 attending the At-Large versus 260 registered voters in Precinct 1001)

The assigned values are indeed a ration of 10 to 1... but how they arrived at those numbers is bogus. To compare apples to apples, we have to know HOW MANY REGISTERED VOTERS ATTEND the caucus at Precinct 1001. Suppose only 20 voters showed up to caucus... what would Jane's assigned "value" of her vote be then??? Hmmm?







I know you won't bother to read through all this.

But Bill Clinton LIED about it. And he IS a lawyer... the TRO motion is only a few pages long. Took me all of about 10 minutes to scan it, find the flaw, and another 15 minutes writing up a counter argument. Bill should have read the details before he shot off his mouth... even if Hillary DIDN'T file the lawsuit... Bill lied about the contents. And misled the Democrats in Nevada about the fairness issue.



There is video tape of him uttering this lie.

the things they, themselves, and their surrogates do.

I just wonder how this is going to help either one of them.

But it sure will help John Edwards!!!

You are good at reporting and letting us decide.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A lot of great Dems back Barack, video link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZhAQh3kWrw

against johnson and got beat....you mean that tom daschle, ex majority.minority leader in the senate.....uh huh hey if obama wants to use kerry and dashcle as examples of those you fight, then all hrc will have to do is shout BOO and both will be down for the count......

The obama truth squad.......:grouphug: investigating themselves