The Clinton’s: Using Karl Rove’s playbook

I didn’t want to write this post. In fact, I’ve been avoiding posting this, but it’s gotten to be too much.

There were a lot of concerns of voter fraud in New Hampshire. After all, all the polls had Obama winning by a 2 digit margin. Lots of people were worried beforehand because New Hampshire uses Diebold voting machines and have not upgraded the security of the machines. Dennis Kucinich immediately requested a recount. Kucinich is one of the few elected officials who actually care about the integrity of our voting system. (I’m not even going to mention the frozen PayPal account/Clinton relation here.) The Clinton supporters are convinced that the Obama campaign made Kucinich ask for the recount. The recount was illuminating:

Several blogs have analyzed the votes by precinct, made available by Black Box Voting, The Boston Globe, the New Hampshire Department of State, and The Politico, and noted that Obama led Clinton in both rural and urban precincts that used hand counting, but Clinton led Obama in precincts that used machine counting. Several news sources, including Citizens for Legitimate Government, The Dallas Morning News, Malta Star, and Slashdot have covered their analyses.

In New Hampshire, The Clinton’s have pushed the lie that Sen. Obama, with his 100% rating from NARAL is anti-choice. In fact, as the Washington Post reports:

Katie Wheeler, a former state senator, said the Clinton campaign had not given her background information about Obama’s record on abortion rights when it asked her to sign the letter calling him weak on the issue, and said that, as a result, she did not understand the context of the votes that the letter was attacking him over.

“It should never have gotten to the point where anyone thought Obama was not pro-choice. I don’t think the Clinton campaign should have done that. It was divisive and unnecessary…I think it was a mistake and I’ve spoken to the national [Clinton campaign] and told them it caused problems in New Hampshire, and am hoping they won’t do it again.”


One of the Obama supporters who signed the reconciliation e-mail, Mary Rauh, said she did so because she was very worried that the rift created by the primary could seriously harm abortion rights efforts in the state if it was left unadressed. But she said that she remained aggrieved by the Clinton attack and by the willingness of so many Democratic leaders in the state to go along with it, and worried by reports that similar e-mails attacking Obama on abortion rights have gone out in other states preparing to vote.

This is pretty important, because the Clinton’s are using this same letter in South Carolina right now. More on that later. But this letter caused problems in New Hampshire. One has to wonder if those same people who voted for the Clinton’s on Jan. 8th, would be willing to do it again on Nov. 4th.

Let’s move on to Nevada.

As I mentioned in an early post, I thought that Bill Clinton had lost his mind when he started in with the lie about the Culinary Union Workers being coerced to vote for Obama. You’d think that a former president running for a 3rd term with all those cameras around, someone would have video of it. Someone. Needless to say, the media people dutifully reported the lie, without actually, um verifying it. Maybe they still feel bad over The Clenis escapade and have decided to give Billy a pass on yet another lie.

But the stories coming out of NV on the day of the caucus were worrying. People were blogging that the the Clinton people had taken over registration and leading the caucus. There are way too many reports (yes that’s a link to DK, only because thereisnospoon didn’t put any of this on his own blog–I used this link because one, I know TINS and think he’s pretty trustworthy, and two he had more links in his diary) all of the Clinton people filling out the voter cards before people voted, telling Obama and Edwards supporters they were in the wrong room or location, or counting non-residents in their tallies.

It’s hard to believe. This is just a primary. These are supposed Democrats doing this to other Democrats Those are the same exact tactics used by the Republicans in the last 1000 election cycles. We all know that Rove thinks that Sen. Clinton is a great choice for president, the older Bush is like BFF with Bill Clinton, is there any reason to assume that Rove isn’t working with the Clinton’s on their 3rd term campaign? The Clinton Attacks Obama wiki shows that Rovean tactics are in full effect within the Clinton’s campaign.

See, the Clinton’s spent December and January trying to remind voters that Barack is a black man. They did the racist robo-calls in NV and they’re running them again in South Carolina, right now. Then they got a blogger (her name is Taylor Marsh), who must be cut from the same moth-ridden cloth as Michelle Malkin, to make unvalidated and wild allegations against Obama, actually blaming the Clinton’s racist remarks on Obama himself. Now, Sen. Clinton has spent 2 days now telling us what a great “talented young man” Sen. Obama is. xP

In South Carolina, the Clinton’s are doing the whole “oh, we just may lose again” thing. They’re calling pro-choice voters and spreading the same lies they did in New Hampshire.


Wait…while I’m here, do you voters actually believe all this bullshit that comes through the phone or your mailbox? Don’t you do any kind of research? I mean, beyond talking to your equally uninformed neighbor/parent/coworker/cashier? Really. I was raised to have a great respect for the choices I get to make in the voting booth. Don’t you people care at all?

</end rant>


South Carolina is upon us. My aunt’s sister says that the Clinton people are saying everything bad about Obama short of he ate a live baby while taking a dump on someone’s grandma (Wait was that R. Kelly. You know to the Clinton’s “they all look alike”.). Bill Clinton is going crazy again, accusing everyone of being Obama plants, from people in audiences* to CNN reporters. And this guy wants a 3rd term? We done already had a crazy president, we want a sane one this time around. Preferably one who hasn’t been president twice already.

But I’m keeping my eye on South Carolina. I’m so used to blogging or sending emails reminding people to be on the lookout for GOP election shenanigans. I never in a million years, thought I’d have to tell people to watch out for the Clinton’s. After all, it seems they inherited Rove’s playbook.

*I wonder if the “young man” was a black and that was why Clinton accused him of being a plant.


6 thoughts on “The Clinton’s: Using Karl Rove’s playbook

  1. You’re right, of course. And it will continue through the whole campaign. Since it’s looking like Obama will probably lose (I’m speaking as an Obama supporter, here), my question is: Now what? What do we do with this information? The Clintons are running a campaign that is corrupt by my personal standards, and I want no part of it. I can already hear the demands to vote for the nominee no matter what because of the Supreme Court. But Hillary Clinton’s playing games on choice in this very primary. What’s a girl to do?


  2. Well, as I said, I’m not voting for them if the Senator is on the ballot. If I wouldn’t vote for a Republican using these slimy tactics, I sure as shit won’t vote for the Clinton’s. I know that I’m not alone in this.

    The Clinton’s are running on the chance that people just want a Dem. in the WH any old Dem. They don’t get that there are people who are principled. Who won’t vote for them period. The Supreme Court argument wasn’t enough in 2000, nor 2004. I can’t pretend that even now in 2008, with the Clinton’s on the ballot in Nov. that it will be enough again.


  3. I apologize ahead of time for my rambling. 😉

    “Now what? What do we do with this information?”

    Keep doing what you can to spread the info. And hold out hope that this race is not yet over. One objective of this kind of bullshit is to wear people down so that they just give up. I like to think of myself as a jaded, cynical optimist. In this situation, I am not being unrealistic, as I know it looks like the odds are stacked in Hillary’s favor. However, I also think there is a chance she can be stopped short of the nomination.

    I am another Democrat that will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. Period. At least two years ago, I started telling people that if Hillary got the nomination, it could split the Democratic party. I have seen signs of that happening. Four years ago I was a big Wes Clark supporter. You can imagine my disappointment when he endorsed Hillary. That endorsement caused a great deal of consternation in the Clark Community Network. There were LOTS of folks there that loved Wes but could not stand Hillary. The CCN was a truly remarkable collection of people, and I am afraid it might never be the same, which saddens me greatly.

    Being in Texas, I know many Republicans. Four years ago, there were many Republicans who were looking for any reason not to vote for Bush. And there were plenty of such Republicans that became part of the CCN. I don’t want to turn this into a discussion about Clark. I’m simply trying to say that I know for a fact that lots of Republicans were looking for someone else for whom to vote. However, most of those Republicans simply could not bring themselves to vote for Kerry. This phenomenon will be 100 times stronger with Hillary, which means that NO Republicans are going to vote for Hillary, but the point I am trying to make now is that there are plenty of Democrats who will not be able to bring themselves to vote for Hillary.

    Obama has already started discussing this, and Edwards has also done so indirectly. We need to do the same, and keeping hope and spreading this info is something we can do.


  4. It’s a wonder that the Clinton’s are unaware of this. From my standpoint, the game they’re playing is this:

    They can afford to alienate black and LGBT voters now because they’re going to go after Latinos. Then when the GE happens, they “know” that black and LGBT are largely Democrats and will hold their noses and vote for the Clinton’s anyway.

    I really don’t see that happening. No matter how pissed off the LGBT community is with Obama over the McClurkin fuck up, it was the Clinton’s that threw them under the bus back in the 90s. It was Bill Clinton who blamed Kerry’s loss on gays.

    I see a generational/technological divide in the black community. We younger ones saw what happened in the 90s. We know that the Clinton’s used black people then. We’re sick and tired of seeing the same old faces on TV presuming to speak for us. When someone like Andrew Young is telling the Clinton’s that black voters will flock to them anyway, that shows Young’s disconnect with the 2 generations after him.

    If the Clinton’s want to fracture the Democratic party, fine…just as long as they take people like Andrew Young with them, I’m completely okay with it.


Comments are closed.