digg

Join DiggAbout

Busted! Clinton's misleading NV caucus handbook

obama.3cdn.net — 11:30 am: Deadline for standing in line to register to participate in the Caucus. Party rules say 12:00. In camparing candidates, notice how she misrepresents Edwards, Obama and Richardson to tear each other.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • theuniversal, on 01/21/2008, -8/+188Warning: it's a PDF.

    The part where she cheats by telling her supporters to cut off the registration deadline 30 minutes early is on page 7. The Clinton campaign lies about the other candidates are on pages 13 through 15.

    If Hillary is so experienced and "ready to lead from day 1", why is she unable to to implement a straightforward set of voting rules without denying a bunch of people their right to participate? If we vote the Clintons in again, we will deserve whatever we get.
    • zephyr42, on 01/21/2008, -3/+27Why the hell was she elected to anything in the first place? It's our own goddamn fault for electing these people in the first place... well not mine because i couldn't vote but you get the point. These politicians have to start somewhere.... Maybe, just maybe lawyers and big businessmen don't belong controlling our country.
      • norman619, on 01/22/2008, -0/+7Well the main problem is that these positions were never intended to be full time positions. The founding fathers wanted senators and congressman to be PART TIME positions and it was like this for a while. People who held these positions had day jobs. We have allowed it to become as perverted as it is today.
        • alby13, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3our founding fathers couldn't imagine the world in which we live in today. there are advantages as well as disadvantages to having them be full time.
          for the ones that are honest, i'm sure it allows them to make important decisions as best they can without being distracted with a "day job."
          • norman619, on 01/22/2008, -0/+6Term limits. They challenge them every time they come up for a vote. Last time they actually passed they fought them in court. Why the hell is it up to them anyway? They should not be able to vote themselves raises. I wish I could do that. WE are their employers so WE should be the ones voting on if they deserve a raise or not.
    • FerricOxide, on 01/21/2008, -0/+6Hmmm... page 17 is blank. That must be where they were going to print information about Kucinich, but revoked the decision immediately before printing.
    • ZenMojo, on 01/22/2008, -0/+10LOL, this is ***** ridiculous. I love how they tell their members "Be sure to show up before 11:00 a.m" on page 3 and then imply that it's okay to throw people out of line by 11:30 a.m.
      And it's very clever ... instead of contrasting her positions with the other two candidates, she contrasts her candidates AGAINST each other using quite a bit of disinformation while leaving the seed of doubt by adding, "Oh, I didn't say it, this is what they say about each other."
      Of course, Obama NEVER said anything about 527's in relation to Edwards (he called HILLARY out, though), nor did he call Edwards an "unconvincing populist." Those are just lies.
      • Bilabrin, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3Yeah, actually, digg me down but, I'm fairly impressed. This is a professional,well organized manual. This is the type of organization we need in the Paul campaign. I hate to say it but if the proposed purpose of this article was to make me like Hillary less, it backfired.

        Now excuse me but I have to go press my fingers onto a hot stove and dip them in lye for typing that!
      • chjb, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Of course, Obama never said anything about 527's in relation to Edwards. Except . . .
        http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008 ...
        FTA:
        "John said yesterday, he didn't believe in these 527s," Obama said. "You can't say yesterday, you don't believe in it and today three-quarters of a million dollars is being spent for you. You can't just talk the talk. Everybody talks change, but how did they act when it was not convenient, when it's hard?"
        Note also from the article that the Obama is referred to as criticizing Edwards as an (gasp!) "unconvincing populist". Now none of this is particularly bad on Obama, in fact I am an Obama supporter and agree with his critiques of Edwards for the most part. However, if Clinton is courting caucus votes from Edwards supporters, this is the way to do it.
    • Spudster, on 01/22/2008, -0/+8On Page 11: "Obama hasn't faced tough opponents before and has never faced a statewide re-election." Huh?! He WAS elected to the Senate afterall--a statewide race. Just because he hasn't been reelected again in his state doesn't mean anything as he hasn't had the chance to run for re-election. As it stands now, Obama is nearly guaranteed to be reelected into his senate seat if his presidential run fails. That attack isn't saying much in support of Clinton either, as Clinton has battled only two actual elections as a candidate: her senate seat twice. On the contrary, Obama has battled for the state legislature 3 times, LOST an attempt at a congressional seat, and finally, in 2004, grabbed his senate seat off of a Republican incumbent. In terms of battling tough opponents and elections, Obama completely outdoes Clinton in experience.

      All in all, a very misleading attack from Clinton on Obama.
  • kdanieli, on 01/21/2008, -48/+5Obama's claim about rules in Nevada is wrong.

    The Obama statement says that the Nevada Caucus cutoff time was noon. I went to the Nevada Caucus Official Rules and all the rules say that the cutoff was 11:30 AM.

    It's here:
    http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/images/draftdelselupda ...

    Page 9: "The caucus will be called to order by the temporary Chair at 11:30 a.m. At that time the Temporary Chair will announce the caucus rules...."
    "By 12:00 p.m. the Permanent Chair will determine viability..."

    Page 53:
    "Doors will open at 10:30 a.m. due to anticipated attendance..."
    "NSDP staff will call the Caucus to order at 11:30 a.m. If attendees are still in line at 11:30 a.m when the Caucus is called to order they will be allowed to sign in and participate in the Caucus. (This rule applies to all Caucus sites throughout Nevada.)

    Check the Caucus rules:
    http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/images/draftdelselupda ...
    • PeoplesChoice, on 01/21/2008, -4/+19Don't talk about something you do not know without speaking with people you are better informed. Even the Clinton camp is not disputing it the charge in the way you are. The rules allow you to keep registration up to noon, not shut the door and send away people WHO ARE ALREADY ON THE LINE.
    • caketank, on 01/21/2008, -0/+13Page 9, the paragraph right before the one you quote:

      "Caucus registration will remain open until viability is determined by 12:00 p.m."
    • CraigJ, on 01/22/2008, -4/+2So what's it like with your face all up in Hillary's snizz? Is there a snook up there?
    • CaymanCarpediem, on 01/22/2008, -1/+5No need to cut out parts of the quote. The internets can handle the full quotes ;-) Here they are:

      Official NV rules page 9:
      "The January 19th non-binding presidential preference caucus will open it’s doors
      for registration at 11:00 a.m. (with the exception of at-large caucuses) and be
      conducted in public venues and with limits on the amount of time allowed for
      candidate debates so that each caucus may be run efficiently and participants
      time respected. Caucus registration will remain open until viability is determined
      by 12:00 p.m.
      The caucus will be called to order, by the Temporary Chair, at 11:30 a.m. At that
      time the Temporary Chair will announce the caucus rules and read a letter from
      the State Chair and Senator Harry Reid.
      The first actionable order of business will be the election of the Permanent Chair.
      Following the election of the Permanent Chair the Secretary will be elected.
      By 12:00 p.m. the Permanent Chair will determine viability based on the total
      number of eligible caucus attendees and the number of delegates assigned to
      that precinct under the NRS. The ratios and formulas used to calculate the
      number of delegates for precincts follow NRS 293.133 [See Appendix A]"

      Official NV rules page 53:
      "NSDP staff will call the Caucus to order at 11:30 a.m.
      If attendees are still in line at 11:30 a.m. when the Caucus is called to
      order they will be allowed to sign in and participate in the Caucus. (this
      rule applies to all Caucus sites throughout Nevada)"

      Clinton mailing:
      "11:30 am Deadline for registering (or standing in line to register) to participate in the Caucus."

      One of those things don't match the others (hint its the last one).
      • CraigJ, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4Uh-oh. Facts. Don't try to combat the Hillary supporters with facts cause their heads might explode.
  • PeoplesChoice, on 01/21/2008, -12/+24Don't talk about something you do not know without speaking with people you are better informed. Even the Clinton camp is not disputing the charge in the way you are. The rules allow you to keep registration open till noon, not shut the door and send away people WHO ARE ALREADY ON THE LINE.
  • Grova, on 01/21/2008, -1/+40Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw:


    • orxor, on 01/21/2008, -2/+23“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
      • mashedup, on 01/21/2008, -1/+20"Don't give me others quotes. Tell me something YOU actually know" - Winston Churchill
        • norman619, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2Love that one.
        • SouthsideIrish, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3The United States is supposed to be a Republic, not a Democracy. This I know.
          • norman619, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3A true democracy is mob rule. This I know.
          • bizchris, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1In a perfect democracy, 49% of the people get shafted. It's the worst system in the world, except everything else out there.
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 01/21/2008, -4/+16Is this legit?
  • BeeArePro, on 01/21/2008, -23/+3Stupid crap pdf froze my firefox for five minutes. Burried.
    • Frosty122, on 01/21/2008, -0/+243 words, fox-it-reader.
    • Deveak, on 01/21/2008, -1/+20Man you beat me to it, god i love fox it reader, adobe can suck my caucus from now on.
    • bitspace, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4Don't blame the document for your ***** tools.
    • CraigJ, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2If you are using Adobe Acrobat Reader, you deserve to freeze...
    • tensuns, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0Better yet, disable the stupid plug-in. It's not worth it - always crashing. Set pdf's to open in the stand alone viewer. I never have any crashes that way.
  • wukillabee, on 01/21/2008, -27/+51how about a pdf warning you ass
    • kooknboo, on 01/21/2008, -9/+43How about checking out the URL before you click, ass licker?
    • Barbosa, on 01/21/2008, -4/+7Glad I read the first comment before clicking the story, but a PDF warning in the actual post would be nice.
    • getisboy, on 01/21/2008, -4/+22wtf is wrong with a pdf?
      • fkr3, on 01/22/2008, -2/+21This is the age of angst..... it's a terrible day when someone has to open a pdf. As a human rights violation it ranks right up there with genocide.
      • iiBeLiEvE, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3I'm allergic =(
    • daishin, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4OMG PDF THE INTERNETS IS DOOMED!! Chill out people and quit complaining about every little thing.
    • Larke2000, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3you sound like a typical frustrated adobe user. :)
  • JMilton, on 01/21/2008, -4/+15Well, if she wants to win, she has to play dirty.
  • alism, on 01/21/2008, -9/+18Death to the pdf.
    • schroeder, on 01/21/2008, -0/+10More like, "Death to Adobe Acrobat Reader!"
    • Gryffydd, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4In this case it kind of makes sense, being a scanned document and all....
  • Phillipmustache, on 01/21/2008, -17/+9good to see ron paul is still hitting the streets
  • arw371, on 01/21/2008, -2/+22you will never see this on the news

    shameful
    • orangefly, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4definitely not cnn....
    • nittanylion06, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2What's so newsworthy about this? It was a campaign booklet for precinct leaders, and I guarantee you that Obama and Edwards (as well as the clusterf*ck on the Republican side) all have similar items. Shocking!
      • arw371, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1if you guarantee it, then produce the evidence
        otherwise crawl into your hole
        • nittanylion06, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0You want me to provide evidence that campaigns use talking points? A first year political science student, or hell, someone who occasionally watches CNN knows what talking points are. Anyone who's involved in a campaign knows that memos are floated from the top-down to supporters. Is it that difficult for you to fathom that the campaign has a list of caucus leaders for Nevada, and e-mailed them a PDF of the schedule for the caucus, along with talking points to use while caucusing? Read the letter from Hillary... this was sent to volunteers.
        • arw371, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0how is this talking points?
          you are trying to make it out to be something innocuous when, as you can see by the reaction, it is something very different and more subersive
  • MaceSoul, on 01/21/2008, -19/+20I don't get how she votes against Yacca. That's the best, safest place for used fuel rods. Typical democrat though, bitch and moan about getting off oil and then ***** all over every other option.
    • CabesMojo, on 01/21/2008, -6/+7Being a Nevada resident we just typically aren't very excited about being a dumping ground for the rest of the countries nuclear waste when we don't produce any of our own. A lot of people here equate it to your neighbor just dumping their trash in your yard.
      • cspivack, on 01/21/2008, -5/+3BAWWWWWWWWW. We need to switch to nuclear energy soon to curb global warming. We don't have any places as suitable for storing the waste as Yucca Mountain. You need to deal with it.
        • CabesMojo, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3Oh wow you really stuck it to me there, guess I should just bend over and deal with it............I'm sure this is an issue you've looking into extensively.
        • fadeout, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3It's pretty easy to say that when you don't live there.
      • BadseedJR, on 01/21/2008, -2/+1What about Washington? We've got Hanford up here. Not just Nevada is the dumping grounds. I vote we put it in Iraq.
      • MaceSoul, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3And yet your state keeps a billion lights burning 24/7 for no reason. Hey, if you want to digg a hundred mile hole in my back yard and put it there, I don't care. You just happen to have a big empty mountain of rock out in the middle of nowhere. But no one should be bitching about it until they have a better solution.

        And I say if they don't want Yacca, they don't get Area-51 either. Move it and take the tax/job hit.
        • CabesMojo, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2I don't really see what the lights in Vegas and Reno have to do with Nuclear Waste at all, but thanks for the random worthless statement with no relevance, and honestly you don't think people have put up alternative sites and options? This has been a deal here for years, of course they've been presented, with Nevada not being a very populated state though it doesn't have the loud voice it would have needed to halt this.

          Area-51? I suggest you stop watching the X-files so much and I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're probably not even out of high school.


          • MaceSoul, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1Well if I wasn't out of high school I'd probably never have seen the X-Files, jackass.

            The lights have to do with energy, which we have a shortage of. You waste the ***** out of it in Nevada. And you still don't have a solution for what to do with the used fuel rods. You must be a ***** democrat.
          • CabesMojo, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1MaceSoul, it won't let me reply to you directly so I had to reply to myself.
            So all you can result to is name calling, extremely mature and grown up of you I can see the degree hanging on your wall now. Right I'm a democrat because I would rather not have waste we don't even produce dumped on us by the rest of the country. Las Vegas gets its power from the Hoover Dam, and much of northern Nevada uses Geothermal power. We don't have an energy shortage here so sighting the lights of our casinos as a huge waste is pointless. You realize that even if those casinos are huge energy sinks they are also a huge part of our economy here. Without the big attractions which dude include the flashy lights our state tanks.

            So glad to know you are more or less completely clueless on the situation. My solution? Would be to store the waste in a state that at least produces some of the waste, or even allowing more efficient use of our fuel rods and lifting the current restraints that there is on nuclear power.
      • CraigJ, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2do you have a better solution? We'd love to hear it.
        • CabesMojo, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Living in Northern Nevada I haven't really gave it much thought, its not my water table is has a chance of leaking into. I would suggest looking for a suitable storage site in a state that actually produces nuclear waste. I'm just voicing the opinions of many Nevadans. Its not like Nevada is the only state left in the union with open land and desert........
        • digidelia, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3load it into a rocket and shoot it into the sun
      • jon30041, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1NO ONE wants the dumping ground in their neighborhood, regardless of whether or not you produce it as well.

        Look at landfills. Currently, we need more of them. However, the towns that produce the most will not ALLOW landfills to be constructed in their area.
        • SouthsideIrish, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1I live in Chicago, and it IS a landfill. You know what is under Grant Park? The remains of the great Chicago fire. Chicago has landfills all over the place, so don't give me that crap. There just isn't a lot of open land available so they are out in the suburbs no.
        • CabesMojo, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1I know that no one wants it, but it when you aren't producing any of this waste and everyone else just wants to dump theirs on your it a lot worse then if we were at least producing some ourselves.
      • bemenaker, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Hey I grew up next to Fernald, so I can totally understand your whining, and at the same time say it's pretty baseless. That rock is not lived on now, it's incredibly stable, and nuclear waste isn't as dangerous as we were taught to believe. Look at Chernobyl. Scientist are absolutely astounded by how much life is there. They are having to totally rethink the dangers of radiation. Yes, it's dangerous, but not as bad as we thought.
    • wishninja, on 01/22/2008, -2/+7I didn't get that either. Nevada uses Nuke energy to power the strip, soaks up all of the cash US taxpayers have poured into digging into that mountain in the middle of an uninhabited dessert. It is the safest place in the united states to store the used waste. I say ***** 'em. We payed for the land the development and Nevada cashed the checks and had no problem with the revenue construction generated. Now they want to back out? Thats bull.
      • CabesMojo, on 01/22/2008, -1/+5We use Nuclear Energy to power the strip? Since when? Heard of a little something called the Hoover Dam?
    • CraigJ, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4Bunch of ***** kneejerk reactionary NIMBYs. Nevada is some of the most geologically stable bedrock in the US, and this site is about as good as we are going to find. Do they seriously think leaving the waste at the power plants is a good idea?
  • CabesMojo, on 01/21/2008, -0/+5Ok the stuff where it just pits the the other candidates against each other as the differences between Hillary and them is retarded, but it just seems like politics in motion, instead of saying where she disagrees with them it just says where they disagree with each other and doesn't really say anything about her avoiding making her look negative while making her opponents looks inconsistent and divided.

    Don't know how official this is, I was at the Nevada caucus but on the Republican side, my friend who went to the Democratic caucus went for Obama and didn't mention anything about Hillary supporters trying to shut stuff down or even approaching him.
    • ZenMojo, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2It's really retarded because there are lies in there. She finds five disagreements between Edwards and Obama and three of them are lies the Clinton campaign made up.
  • VaporBro, on 01/21/2008, -4/+7To the people asking for a PDF warning; why not see what extension the link is before you click it? A warning would be nice, yes...but just because the Walking Man says it's alright to walk doesn't mean you still shouldn't look both ways before crossing.

    Oh and Clinton FTL
  • subject117, on 01/21/2008, -13/+8It's weird how Digg users are so one-sided when it comes to politics.
    • orangefly, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1no it's not....
    • ZenMojo, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5We're not one-sided. We just hate Hillary. Newsflash: 25% of Democrats and ALL Republicans hate Hillary. She'd have a 47% disapproval rating if she took office today.
    • legendxx, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1How can anyone disagree with what subject117's statement.. digg is pro ron paul, kucinich, and obama.. and anti-everyone else. It's blatantly obvious.
  • soot, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1The .pdf won't load for me, but I can't tell if its because of the traffic or my adobe reader install is messed up.
    • sasquatchcrotch, on 01/21/2008, -0/+4The site seems fine to me. If it is your adobe reader install, you should try Foxit Reader. It's free and faster. http://tinyurl.com/349o6j
      • soot, on 01/21/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I downloaded the file and read it just fine. I can't find how to read it in safari though.
    • orangefly, on 01/21/2008, -0/+0acrobat bad foxit good....
  • SicKiller, on 01/21/2008, -10/+4You'll never see this on the news
    Support Obama!
    http://www.tshirtinferno.com/node/36
    • stfucupcake, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2dugg down for blatant marketing on digg
  • mitchandre, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2Mirror here (.pdf): http://www.chemistry-blog.com/Nevada_for_hillary.p ...
  • galleryfront, on 01/21/2008, -4/+11Yup. There it is plain as day. 11:30 on page 7. "Innocent mistake," her campaign has said. "Manipulative bitch-asses," I say.
  • zheisey, on 01/21/2008, -6/+11I hear she irons a mean shirt though...
    • atlex2, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3I hear she uses the tears of men to steam press her cloths!
  • retzed, on 01/21/2008, -2/+2Be authentic!
  • Devaney, on 01/21/2008, -11/+3pretty lame, how does stopping the lines 1/2 hour early create an unfair advantage to anyone? and trying to discredit other candidates, WOW, now there's a first....
    • PhantomPhoenix, on 01/21/2008, -1/+2Because if she tells her people to get there before her people close the doors then she will have a major advantage. What about the people that don't get off from lunch until say 11:45?
    • Devaney, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1the Nevada caucus rules that mrhart dug up say the same thing about start time being at 11:30 http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/images/draftdelselupda ...
      • Devaney, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2i read about 20 pages of those deadlines and now I'm just confused, disregard my previous comment, Clinton is probably a dirty cheater...
  • loaff, on 01/21/2008, -3/+4For those whinging about the pdf I recommend this Firefox add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/319 ... It tells what file type you are dealing with upon mouse hover over a link. I saw it was a pdf and steered clear.
  • bigfinger, on 01/21/2008, -4/+32Please understand that if Mrs. Clinton is elected that 2 families have been in the White House for up to 36 years if she does both terms. 8 years for George Bush senor as Vice President, 4 years as President, 8 years for Bill Clinton, 8 years for Gorge W. Bush as President, and Hilary Clinton has the potential to go 8 years. I say 28 years being ruled by just 2 families is enough.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 01/21/2008, -3/+3I don't care so much about being ruled by the same 2 families. All these people were more or less democratically elected. What bothers me is that all these politicians in general suck and that they can convince half the voting population to support them and the other half to stay home on voting day.

      I don't care that they are related.
    • MaceSoul, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3And then we'll get 8 years of Jeb Bush and 8 years of Chelsea. Maybe we can just start a little Ron Paul island somewhere to get away from the madness.
    • gabegrote, on 01/22/2008, -2/+0Bush - 4
      Clinton - 8
      Bush - 8
      Clinton - 8 (if and that's a big if)

      28 years.

      Vice President doesn't count. They don't live in the White House, nor do the work in the White House. They work in the OEB. Hardly Presidential Level work
      • PhantomPhoenix, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1No, they do not work nor live in the White House, but they are powerful figures none-the-less. The Vice President is the second in line for the Presidency (which is what makes Cheney so scary) and President of the Senate, which means that they get the deciding vote if there is a tie.
  • thestaton, on 01/21/2008, -3/+13What's the big deal about PDFs?
    • slapded, on 01/21/2008, -5/+5because they suck, and freeze my computer. oh yeah and they are slow
      • anogenic, on 01/21/2008, -8/+4use a mac
      • MaceSoul, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4They're also the standard for scanned documents and published materials. Don't cry to us if you stuck Adobe bloatware on your machine. Use FoxIT.
    • tgc1, on 01/21/2008, -3/+2By big, I assume you mean pain in the ass.
    • delgotit99, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3Because idiots still use adobe instead of foxit.
    • ryan83189, on 01/22/2008, -0/+5Loading... (firefox is not responding) ctrl alt del, ((firefox is not responding) is not responding) (end task ((firefox is not responding)is not responding)is not responding)
    • fxu1989, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3TIme to get a better computer .. I deal with PDFs all day ... part of the printing process ..

      If your pc can't handle PDFs .. shame on you.
      • qwerter, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Indeed. Shame on you for possibly not being able to afford shiny new things.
  • Picaroon, on 01/21/2008, -2/+2pdf;dnr
  • Makaveli604, on 01/21/2008, -2/+14PDF's should not be labelled as ***** images.
    • jellygraph, on 01/21/2008, -1/+1eh, its kinda like an image... you cant edit it unless you use the right software. otherwise its fairly static. and just as easy to open up, as well
  • fogster, on 01/21/2008, -3/+8I don't understand this. Don't get me wrong--I spent a week pounding pavement canvassing for Obama in New Hampshire, and I intensely dislike Hillary. But can someone present a better explanation of what she's "Busted" on? I don't see the big deal with the time -- yes, it's inaccurate, but maybe it's a typo, or maybe they wanted to make sure all of their caucus fans were there on time.

    As much as I dislike how Hillary's been running her campaign, I don't see how she's "Busted." Am I missing something?
    • nittanylion06, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2Thank you -- I have no idea what the BFD is about this. It's a booklet for caucus leaders, complete with talking points Oh Heaven forbid...
    • ZenMojo, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3A typo? How do you "typo" 12:00 am to 11:30 am? 3 and 0 are on opposite sides of the keyboard. Furthermore, she tells her members to show up in line at 11:00 a.m., which gives an unfair advantage.
      For instance, if you tell one group "Show up before 11:00 a.m. or you can't register" and the official rules say "Show up before noon or you can't register" then chances are that the people you get earlier in the line will be those who arranged their schedules to be there EARLIER. So when you cut the line off at 11:30, you are guaranteeing a far greater proportion of one group while increasing your chances of removing another group.
      It's hardly complicated.
      • nittanylion06, on 01/22/2008, -1/+4Are you kidding me? It's an unfair advantage to trick your own supporters to show up earlier just to ensure that they get in the door?
      • Knobbs, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2No, but doing that combined with getting your supporters, who happen to be there early, to CLOSE THE F-ING DOORS A HALF HOUR BEFORE THE LEGAL TIME, THUS SHUTTING OUT MORE OF YOUR OPPONENTS WHO ARE MORE LIKELY TO COME LATER sure is.

        Wow, I see how that's pretty hard to figure out.
        • Bilabrin, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2Yeah but shouldn't each campaign be responsible for having correct information? Furthermore, if poeple got shut out, wouldn't they be screaming bloody murder by now? It's not like Obama's supporters aren't computer saavy.
    • toastertester, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2ok, so maybe I'm an outsider(being a canadian), but this still seems huge to me. If that slip-up came from higher up, then they stuck it in there knowing that they could get off pretty much scott-free. Her supporters did all the dirtywork. A concerted and intential effort to keep the other candidate's supporters out of the building (a la 1800's politics), isn't really possible today, but they can have the same effect by way a deliberate typo such as this. Her supporters wouldn't knowingly be acting malicious, but it's the same end-result.

      This is worth investigating.
    • gabegrote, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1If Bush did this, Digg users would be up in arms calling for an end to the republic! I don't like the Idiot in Chief, but you Dems and Repubs don't like playing fair when it's "your candidate". You overlook "minor infractions" when it goes for your side.
    • catbraun, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0At the caucus room I was in, I witnessed the Hillary operative (who was wearing a Precinct Captain shirt, even though she was NOT from Nevada and did not cast a vote - at least I think she didn't. She told me she'd been at the Iowa caucus too) heckling non-Clinton supporters and not letting the Caucus Chair have the podium. I was later told by people (strangers, completely unsolicited) that the Clinton group called people all during the prior week telling them they had to be at the caucus room by 10:30 a.m. Also, at our location they sure as HECK weren't "helping people get registered" in fact they were trying to send Obama supporters away. Mainly, they told the Hillary supporters to go into the caucus room to register, but told everyone else to stay out in the lobby to register. And, gee, at 11:30 the Clintonite tried to have the doors shut and NOT let the people still out in the lobby into the room. (80-90% Obama supporters) The Hillaryites NEVER tried talking to any Obama supporters. They didn't really even try to speak to the 8 Edwards supporters who were non-viable (need 11 to reach 15%). They did, however, start chanting really loudly during the realignment period to try to drown out the people attempting to discuss the issues. What's saddest of all, however, is the Hillary supporters who stood behind the operative and watched her dirty tactics and yet STILL stayed standing in the Hillary group. They LITERALLY supported her campaign's dirty adverserial politics. HOW can they think she represents change? It's the same old dirty Clinton tricks that we've been hearing about for years. Sad.
  • PhantomPhoenix, on 01/21/2008, -2/+9Close the doors at 11:30! OMG What a cheating bitch.

    More people need to see this.
  • KungFuJesus, on 01/21/2008, -2/+6Why are you all bitching about PDF? oh ya, because most of you use adobe reader.

    Download Foxit reader or something and suddenly PDF stops being such a nightmare
  • jellygraph, on 01/21/2008, -2/+3notice how they skipped the section on talking with kucinich people, but have richardson in there... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
  • dreadful, on 01/22/2008, -2/+3Although Clinton is the devil how does a pdf prove anything it could of been made by anyone
  • elf25, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2re>P.7 I'm not a Hillary fan at all but i can see where this could be a rather unfortunate typo where the previous line was copied and pasted and not changed. Wet Noodles to the proof readers, which I'm sure, was not Hillary herself. Lies about other candidates... well that's another matter.
    • starlord1, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1"Lies about other candidates... well that's another matter." I think it's called electioneering ?
    • Devaney, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1Noun 1.electioneering - persuasion of voters in a political campaign
      2. electioneer - To work actively for a candidate or political party.
      ....yup, sounds pretty disgraceful
  • petebert, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2who dosnt register until the day of?
    • arw371, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1people who work several jobs maybe?
      the sort of people who the Democrats are supposed to defend, and who have been shown to be more supportive of Obama.
      That is why she doesn't want high turnouts.
  • sleepless, on 01/22/2008, -2/+1Two words - Jacked up!
  • FurklDaJerk, on 01/22/2008, -2/+2Anybody bitching about PDFs...

    Go download FOXIT READER, it's free, and you can download and install it, in the time your pdf will load.

    http://www.foxitsoftware.com/downloads/
  • mrhart, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2The caucus rules are very clear that the deadline for being in line to register for caucus is 11:30. Exactly what Hillary's handbook says.
    I dug up another PDF to prove it. page 52. http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/images/draftdelselupda ...
    • Lambeco, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2Not true. Check page 9:
      "The January 19 non-binding presidential preference caucus will open it’s doors for registration at 11:00 a.m. (with the exception of at-large caucuses) and be conducted in public venues and with limits on the amount of time allowed for candidate debates so that each caucus may be run efficiently and participants time respected. Caucus registration will remain open until viability is determined by 12:00 p.m."

      The key part is that "...viability is determined by 12:00pm."
    • PhantomPhoenix, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1That may be so but Hillary told her people to CLOSE THE DOORS at 11:30 and start sending people away.
      • catbraun, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0Yep. That's exactly what happened at the caucus room I was in. The Hillary operative said she was TOLD that's how it was supposed to be and that SHE knew what she was doing, cuz SHE'd been at the Iowa caucus too. The Caucus Chair reiterated afterwards that it is THE CHAIR'S authority / role to determine when the room's closed - NOT the Hillary operative. And, that the Hillary op had NO business doing ANYTHING to the doors.
  • GoKings, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2I'm quite confused as to how this limits the other candidates from getting votes. HER handbook given to her supporters have the deadline being a half an hour early. So wouldn't that affect he votes more? Perhaps I'm just ignorant or confused. If anyone is able to clear this up that would be helpful.
    • Lambeco, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2The theory is that Clinton told her supporters to be there by 11:30, while all other candidates (following the rules) told their supporters to be there by 12. Clinton's supporters attempted to close the doors to people coming in at 11:30. If they were successful, that means that all people supporting other candidates who arrived before 12 were turned away.

      Short answer: Clinton caused voters who were there on time for other candidates to be turned away, thus, less votes for the opposition.
      • catbraun, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0Actually, the people in our room said Hillary people called telling them they had to be at the caucus site at TEN-THIRTY a.m. These were calls that went out during the days leading up to the Sat. caucus. Clearly part of an ORGANIZED PLAN by their campaign, not an occasional "irregularity" on the part an over-eager supporter.
  • jsnchmpn, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1We are the Borg. Resistance is futile...
  • moduc, on 01/22/2008, -1/+2Lame!
    I just have to assume that 11:30 am is wrong. But telling people who read the handbook to go at 11:00 is not wrong. And tell people to shut the door at 11:00 could be wrong, but not cheating. Here's why: by someone's argument is that you tell your supporter to go early, then shut the door on others. Well, those that read the manual no matter her supporter or not would get the same information.
    So, if it's wrong, it's not cheating on the information. All get a same piece of information. For those that don't get the manual, assuming those are mostly not her supporter. If they show up later than 11:30 AM, there could be a problem there. Now, the question is does she have the authority to shut the door at 11:30 AM, given that it's 12:00 PM that when the door is shut? Given that, which means people support her would not come if they feel they're late after 11:30 am, and they won't show up. People who don't read the thing, would still show up, and get admitted, because it's not the close time yet. So, if anything, it ended up hurting her, not helping her.
  • dhils42621, on 01/22/2008, -1/+0If the Caucus Chair closed the doors at 11:30, as stated they should be in the document, than supporters of other candidates who thought they had until 12 would potentially be turned away. This probably wouldn't be Hillary backers as her material tells them they need to be there for a 11:30 deadline instead of 12.

    At best, she's trying to make sure her people are there early, but it could easily be interpreted as the Hillary campaign team trying to exclude late-comers who thought they had more time. It could be a typo too, but if this was widely distributed I'd be surprised if it wasn't thoroughly 'vetted'.
    • PhantomPhoenix, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1The doors were not supposed to be closed until 12.
  • chjb, on 01/22/2008, -1/+0OK, this is a little ridiculous. Presumably everyone realizes that the Caucus Chair is the person who closes the doors and stops letting people into the caucus. The Caucus Chair is not one of Hillary's volunteers, and is not getting their information from the "Nevadans for Hillary Caucus Guide". If you think there was some physical power struggle by Hillary's volunteers to forcibly shut the doors early, then I think it is reasonable to ask for real evidence of that taking place. I'm an Obama supporter, but this is just silly.
    • PhantomPhoenix, on 01/22/2008, -0/+2My aunt, who was at a location in Boulder City right outside of Las Vegas, said that there was so much confusion (caused by Hillary supporters) that two large men sporting Hillary shirts were able to close the doors and stand guard. My aunt got there at 11:35 and was lucky that two Barack supporters came to her aid and forced the doors back open.
    • catbraun, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0Hillary operatives shutting the doors of the room is EXACTLY what happened at our location (Las Vegas Library). The Caucus Chair had to threaten the Hillary operative THREE times with police intervention to keep the doors open till 12 (because the people in the line outside were being allowed in as long as they'd been in the line before 12 noon). And, yes, I am submitting my affidavit with exact names, places, times, events of what I witnessed to the Nevada Party, and various other officials. I'm curious to see if the national media covers this story. I'm betting it gets glossed over since it involves their darling.
  • Spudster, on 01/22/2008, -0/+4On Page 11: "Obama hasn't faced tough opponents before and has never faced a statewide re-election." Huh?! He WAS elected to the Senate afterall--a statewide race. Just because he hasn't been reelected again in his state doesn't mean anything as he hasn't had the opportunity to run for re-election. As it stands now, Obama is nearly guaranteed to be reelected into his senate seat if his presidential run fails. That attack isn't saying much in support of Clinton either, as Clinton has battled only two actual elections as a candidate: her senate seat twice. On the contrary, Obama has battled for the state legislature 3 times, LOST an attempt at a congressional seat, and finally, in 2004, snatched his senate seat off of a Republican-held seat. In terms of battling tough opponents and elections, Obama completely outdoes Clinton in experience.

    All in all, a very misleading attack from Clinton on Obama.
  • BluAardvark, on 01/22/2008, -3/+3Buried for pdf.

    You should at least give some indication that you are linking to an annoying document format.
    • snotrokit, on 01/22/2008, -0/+3buried for missing the ***** point
  • snotrokit, on 01/22/2008, -1/+3how the hell do people miss what she is doing and vote for this bitch? WTF!?
  • Entheoddity, on 01/22/2008, -1/+1Foxit Reader, get it and never fear .pdf again.
  • Yatata, on 01/22/2008, -2/+0from democracy to a fascist state in 10 easy steps:

    http://digg.com/political_opinion/A_Fascist_Americ ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9PulYpjGs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc&feature ...

    these are the most important things you will see, pass it on.
  • johnn11238, on 01/22/2008, -0/+1off topic warning, but I appear to be uninformed about the problem with PDFs. Enlighten, pls?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.