acanuck's picture

    Lamontgate: blessing in disguise

    By acanuck on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 7:28pm |
    Everyone quoted today as rushing to vouch for WVWV's bona fides is a member of its board of directors -- the group that has oversight responsibility for its actions.
    Why is this supposed to persuade anyone?
    Especially when, confronted by prima facie evidence of illegal acts, the directors' response is simply assert the "mistake" was not malicious.
    It's clear they do not intend to come clean, or even do a thorough internal investigation. The party's dirty linen must stay hidden.
    Look at Podesta's statement: he has "been assured by Page Gardner, President of WVWV, that the organization will conduct a full and prompt accounting of the circumstances of the voter registration program for its board of directors."
    Not a probe, not a housecleaning -- an "accounting." And most crucially, "for its board of directors."
    NOT FOR THE PUBLIC.
    And certainly not for those netroot jackals.
    Maybe the N.C. attorney general can get to the bottom of it all, but don't hold your breath.
    Now, some might find the Obama camp's muted response to this scandal puzzling: After calling it a classic case of voter suppression, they appeared to express satisfaction with assurances it would stop.
    That's their public stance, anyway.
    I would suggest instead that the phone lines have been burning up among the Democratic powers-that-be, with the Obama camp citing this scandal as one more toxic example of what the party risks in its divisive internal clash.
    Former DNC chairman Joe Andrew didn't bring up the robocalls today in explaining his jump from the good ship Hillary to Obama.
    But there's a good chance it was the final straw. 
    And if other superdelegates buy into his message that it's finally time to stick a fork in the Clinton campaign, Lamontgate will have proved the most positive thing WVWV has ever done.

    Comments

    ...its board of directors -- the group that has oversight responsibility for its actions.

    Obviously there wasn't a whole lot of oversightin' going on, was there.


    by Liberal_Elite (not verified) on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 7:51pm

    What makes you think not? They seem to have been doing exactly what they intended to.


    by Larry Geater (not verified) on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 8:30pm

    I agree, fellow Canuck. I hardly think this story is going to inspire any wavering supers to choose Clinton over Obama.

    Suppressing African-American or other Democratic votes helps the GOP. We're Democrats. We don't believe in vote suppression. Also, from a political perspective, vote suppression hurts us. To the extent that WVWV's lapses in judgment are designed to help Clinton win NC so she can win the GE, the strategy seems extraordinarily short-sighted.

    As I said elsewhere, WVWV should adopt this slogan: "Cut nose, spite face."


    by scofflaw (not verified) on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 9:56pm

    I could be wrong, but I thought that one of the board members was an Obama supporter.


    by BH (not verified) on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 9:59pm

    At least two. And, yes, they're defending WVWV as good people who've done lots of good work, etc.
    Standard CYA procedure if they now realize the board was asleep at the switch.
    I'm not suggesting directors knew that WVWV robocalls would be used for voter suppression; just that, even if they now suspect the horrible truth, their instinct is still to circle the wagons and try to keep the scandal in-house.
    And I am suggesting there might be a quid-pro-quo here. Team Obama could have chosen to go ballistic on this, embarrassing the whole party establishment, or let it die a quiet death -- as long as the party elders finally act to put an end to Hillary's water-torture campaign.
    I think Joe Andrew's defection is a sign the Dem establishment has finally decided this scandal was the final straw, and enough is enough.
    One last thing: the voter suppression doesn't have to trace directly back to Hillary or her campaign staff.
    It's sufficient that some of her diehard supporters took it on themselves to freelance for her in what clearly appears to be illegal fashion.
    The circunstantial evidence points to that.


    by acanuck (not verified) on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 10:48pm

    Perhapse you are right about the board or part of it. But who ever was actualy running this operation is accountable even if it was incompetence.


    by Larry Geater (not verified) on Fri, 05/02/2008 - 1:15pm

    Latest Comments