May Be. Maybe Not.

That's the wrong chapter. (0.00 / 0)

Look here.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:12:45 AM CST

I just saw that comment from you. (0.00 / 0)

Why does the Clinton campaign itself cite the one posted?  And does that language exclude prez primary calls?

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:15:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I haven't tracked down the campaign's statement. (4.00 / 1)

Maybe they pointed to the wrong law.

There are at least two issues being conflated:

1. The requirement for callers to identify themselves quickly. That is RSA 664 and doesn't apply to national primaries.
2. The requirement to honor the Do Not Call list for political robocalls. That is RSA 559 and does apply to national primaries.

Whether the campaign cited the correct law or not - the calls violate 559.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:21:01 AM CST

Argh. 359, not 559. (0.00 / 0)

It is in the telecom regulation section of law - not the political campaign section.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:22:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Clintion Press relases cited 664 (0.00 / 0)

2. The call does not identify its sponsor -- the Obama campaign -- for 38 seconds. State law requires the sponsor to be named within 30 seconds. The robocall implies that it is sponsored by Planned Parenthood Northern New England. [RSA 664:14 http://www.sos.nh.gov/rsa664.htm

Dean has it in the open thread

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:19:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Okay. Here's my understanding. (4.00 / 1)

1. It started with the Clinton campaign's dishonest attack on Obama's record on reproductive rights.
2. The Obama campaign responded by hiring a firm to send out robocalls explaining that Planned Parenthood fully supported Obama's actions.
3. The Clinton campaign then accused Obama of violating two state laws:
4. RSA 664, which requires recorded calls to identify the calling party within 30 seconds. This law is explicitly NOT applicable to presidential primaries. That is called right out in the chapter. And the call included identification 38 seconds into it anyway. This charge by the Clinton campaign was entirely bogus.
5. RSA 359, which requires telemarketers - explicitly including those making political calls - to abide by the federal Do Not Call registry. The Obama campaign seems to concede that they should have, and intended to, honor the Do Not Call list. There is now a claim that federal law pre-empts New Hampshire law on this point - but I have seen no concession from the state AG on that. IMO, this is a legitimate charge. And any reputable telemarketing firm should make zero calls to the Do Not Call registrants.

The Monitor covers it in detail, but gets an important point wrong. The claim that "both those state laws fall under the same chapter, which explicitly does not apply to presidential primaries" is incorrect.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 07:18:57 AM CST

Federal pre-emption (0.00 / 0)

That appears to be bogus. The AG's office got the RNC to stop robocalls to Do Not Call registrants in 2006.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:06:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not really federal pre-emption, it's freedom of speech (0.00 / 0)

RSA 359 is at least potentially vulnerable to a challenge on 1st Amendment freedom of speech grounds.  Political speech is protected and is clearly in a different category from your typical telemarketing.  Limiting such speech, even just by barring political robo-calls to people who are on the Do Not Call list, may be unconstitutional.  

Now, it may be that no one will ever challenge RSA 359 on these grounds b/c to do so would presumably be wildly unpopular.  

---

by: ohiomeister @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 13:01:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You can say what you want; (0.00 / 0)

you can't force me to listen.  I'm paying for the phone.

---

by: hannah @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 13:17:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hang up! (0.00 / 0)

If it's a landline, presumably you aren't paying for incoming calls.  

Look, I know that robo-calls of any kind are not very sympathetic, even when they have political content, but you do have to think about how much you want government blocking political speech.  Say what you will, but robo-calls are actually a pretty good way to quickly distribute political information to a large number of people these days, along with direct mail and TV ads.  Not everyone reads the newspaper any longer.  Think about why these calls were made in the first place -- Hillary made unfair charges in her mailer, and there isn't enough time to send everyone a new piece of mail rebutting the charges.  It would be really expensive to buy a bunch of TV ads to rebut Hillary's hit piece.

---

by: ohiomeister @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 15:53:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That isn't what Obama's counsel claimed. (0.00 / 0)

He claimed pre-emption.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 14:05:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So I can't point out another argument? (0.00 / 0)

Now that I think about it, it is potentially vulnerable on federal pre-emption grounds as well, possibly more so given that GOP-leaning federal judges may like that argument even better than the argument for freedom of political speech I made above.  The federal government passed a law directly on point that sets up the Do-Not-Call registry and specifically excludes political calls.  A NH law that claims to take away the exemption for political calls would appear to directly conflict with the federal law.

At least part of the reason the federal Do-Not-Call legislation exempts political calls in the first place is likely due to the 1st Amendment argument (the less noble reason being incumbent protection since they usually have more money to robo-call than challengers).

Calling the federal pre-emption argument bogus just because the GOP backed down from robo-calling in 2006 is a mistake. The issue was never contested in any court; the GOP eventually just backed down unilaterally, probably b/c having the AG go after them for their robo-hang-up calls made them look very bad, regardless of the merits.  

---

by: ohiomeister @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 15:43:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm calling it bogus because (0.00 / 0)

there is no such provision in the law. If there had been, there would be no Free Speech issue - and it would be so clearcut that the RNC (IMO) would have laughed at the NH DOJ.

There could have been such a provision. It could have included language stating, "No state shall use this database to extend the restrictions herein to political campaigns or charitable organizations." But it didn't.

Yes, you can point out another argument. But you didn't seem to understand that it IS a different argument - one the Obama campaign has not made.

Would it survive a court challenge on Freedom of Speech grounds? I think so - restricting only automatic, recorded calls doesn't seem too invasive to me. But I agree there is a case to be argued.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 15:53:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's complicated. What about implied pre-emption? (0.00 / 0)

The feds can pre-empt in certain situations without any express provision in the law.  Read my post below replying to you and pasting a summary of implied pre-emption.

---

by: ohiomeister @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 16:05:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well now isn't the time to challenge it (0.00 / 0)

and it is the law on the books.

---

by: okamichan13 @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 14:52:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I definitely agree (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: ohiomeister @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 15:43:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let the cards fall where they may? (4.00 / 1)

From the CM article cited by elwood.

-snip
In a conference call with reporters, Clinton's New Hampshire campaign co-chairwoman, Kathy Sullivan, accused the Obama campaign of violating New Hampshire election laws.

"The last place that I would expect to see games being played and the rules not being followed when it comes to telephones is in the Democratic primary," Sullivan said.

But according to state law, the chapter Sullivan cited does not apply to presidential primaries.

"What's remarkable is they promoted a point of view directly contrary to the express order of this law," said Bob Bauer, general counsel to the Obama campaign.
-snip

Sullivan said the calls appear to violate state statute because they were made to voters on the federal do-not-call registry and also failed to identify their sponsor - Obama for America - in a timely manner.

She cited state law that prohibits calls with recorded political messages from being made to voters on the do-not-call list, even though federal law exempts political calls from those restrictions.

The Obama campaign does try not to call those on the federal list. Last night, New Hampshire Obama campaign co-chairman Ned Helms said in a prepared statement, "Our vendor has assured us that he scrubbed the list for people on the Do Not Call registry. However, if this call went to someone who should not have received it, we will make sure the vendor takes every step to make sure this doesn't happen again."
-snip

Sullivan dismissed the possible federal exemption. "Let's not play legalistic games of saying the federal law might say this," Sullivan said. "We have New Hampshire laws, (and) they need to be followed."

Sullivan also cited a state law that requires that the group paying for calls disclose its identity within the first 30 seconds of the message. In a recording of the call, posted on the website Politico, the Obama campaign took 38 seconds to include the disclosure.
-snip

Helms said: "Our disclaimer absolutely complies with the federal law."
-snip

Both campaigns tried to use the call to attack the other side. "Every hour since Hillary Clinton lost in Iowa, her attacks have become more and more desperate," Helms said.

Sullivan said, "When you're a campaign that talks about changing . . . in fact what they're doing here is using the same old tricks that have been used by the Republican campaigns here in our state."

Does it strike anyone else, how ODD it is that a heartfelt plea of "Let's not play legalistic games" be made in defense of the Clintons?

Or is this a plea to save to honor of the NH primary?
That certainly would be 1000 times more plausible.
Though far fetched in this instance.


SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:22:27 AM CST

What's really odd (0.00 / 0)

is hearing that heartfelt plea coming from Kathy Sullivan.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:14:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow, that statement from the Clinton campaign... (0.00 / 0)

is just politics as usual - exactly why people are moving away from Hillary in such large numbers.

So, if Hillary lies about Obama's record -
And Obama's campaign hires a firm to place calls to correct that misinformation -
And that firm calls a handful of people on the do-not-call list -
Then Obama is using the "same old tricks that have been used by the Republican campaigns"?

What voter in their right mind would ever fall for that?  It's one of the most absurd lines of reasoning I've ever heard. It reeks of desperation and smear.

~~
I'm an Obama/Edwards/Kucinich/Gravel Democrat.  1968-2008: Hoping this year is different.

---

by: eightfold @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:44:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't care (4.00 / 2)

Did the calls break state law?  Did the robo call company not scrub its list as well as it claimed?

It doesn't really matter.

This is very very dirty politics and it leaves the Clinton campaign reeking of something foul.

They put out a very misleading mailer about Obama's record on choice, and now they are going after him for trying to set the record straight?

Is this Clinton's record of change we should be using as a guide to understand what she will be doing as president?

If it is, I don't want any.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:31:37 AM CST

Yes, and yes. (0.00 / 0)

The robocall did break state law: RSA 359.

The telemarketing company did not scrub its list, according to a poster here.

The Obama campaign's general counsel claims federal law pre-empts state law. There seems to be no basis for that claim. The federal Do Not Call law explicitly exempts political calls from federal law - but it does not prevent state laws from adding further restrictions.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:40:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It looks like (0.00 / 0)

the Obama campaign has asked its vendor to re-scrub the list:

The Obama campaign, responding through a statement from New Hampshire co-chair Ned Helms, says that their vendors "scrubbed" the list to confirm that no voters were on the Do Not Call List. "However if this call went to someone who should not have received it, we will make sure the vendor takes every step to make sure this doesn't happen again," Helms' statement read.

---

by: taylormattd @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Federal law could still pre-empt (4.00 / 1)

Given how federal pre-emption works, it doesn't necessarily matter if the federal law is silent as to whether states can add further restrictions.  

This is a rather technical and complex area of law.  You shouldn't just dismiss this claim as having no basis.  Here's a relevant part of the wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Types of preemption

Two situations where preemption claims might arise: express preemption and implied preemption.

  1. Express preemption occurs where Congress says within the statute 'we hereby preempt' or uses words of similar import. Here, federal laws are explicitly precluding state and local regulations.
  2. Implied preemption has, within itself, three sub-categories: conflicts preemption, preemption because state law impedes the achievement of a federal objective, and preemption because federal law occupies the field.
         * Conflicts preemption is where it is impossible to comply with both the federal statute and the state or local law. In this situation, the federal statute must be followed. It is, however, appropriate to have two laws, one federal and one state, that differ. The federal law, in this case, may be a minimum standard, while the state enacts a law to be more strict. State law, therefore, would not be preempted. Preemption would only occur if the federal and state laws were mutually exclusive.
         * The second type of implied preemption is preemption because state law impedes the achievement of a federal objective. This type of preemption occurs when a state or local law interferes with a goal or objective Congress was trying to attain with a federal statute. The purpose of each law must be determined and compared to each other. If both laws are trying to achieve the same goal, federal law will preempt the state or local regulation.
         * The final type of implied preemption is preemption because federal law occupies the field. In this situation, one must look at Congress's intent, and whether the federal law was meant to be exclusive in that area. The most common examples are in areas of foreign policy and immigration. Implied preemption has also been held to apply to the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), giving the federal government the exclusive jurisdiction to resolve Labor Union versus Employer contract disputes, as well as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), giving the federal government exclusive jurisdiction (with minor exceptions) over enforcement of the substantive provisions of employer-sponsored Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (Cigna v. Calad, 2004).

Case law

Courts have developed an enormous and complicated body of case law to resolve conflicts between federal and state laws. As a general rule, there is a presumption in favor of the validity of a state law; thus, courts will attempt to reconcile seemingly inconsistent state and federal laws where possible. If the laws are truly irreconcilable, then the federal law will generally preempt the state law only to the extent of the inconsistency. There are many exceptions to these general rules, however. For example, Congress may declare its intent to make the federal government the primary source of law in a particular area, which will result in state laws regulating that area being preempted even if they are not inconsistent with the federal law. Even in the absence of any indication that Congress intended to "occupy the field" of a particular subject matter, courts will be more likely to find a state law to be preempted by federal law if it touches upon an area where there has historically been a strong federal interest, such as banking, interstate commerce, or foreign affairs.

Examples of Supreme Court cases involving the preemption doctrine include Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963), Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88 (1992); Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000); and Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001).

---

by: ohiomeister @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 16:02:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Verb tense. (4.00 / 1)

Implicit preemption is an argument to make before a court that the court may buy, despite a general presumption for the state law.

No court has yet heard and ruled on that claim.

So yes, that argument can be a basis for the claim that the law may be found invalid when it is litigated. But it cannot be a basis for a claim that the law is currently, today, preempted.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 16:19:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hmmm... (0.00 / 0)

What if it were really obvious, for instance if the federal law expressly preempted the state law?  Could you say it was preempted today, despite the lack of a court ruling on the matter?  I think you could, at least in the vernacular if not in a technical legal sense.  Anyway, since it's unclear, that's not the case here.

Also, saying that it's not yet pre-empted is different from saying the argument or claim has "no basis" or is "bogus."  I'm not saying it would win, just that the Obama campaign can advance it in good faith, although I'm sure they will do everything possible to avoid calling anyone on the Do-Not-Call list today and tomorrow, and they most definitely aren't going to go to court over it.

---

by: ohiomeister @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 16:37:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's why I said "implicit" (4.00 / 1)

Yes, I believe that a federal law that expressly preempted state laws, on grounds that had previously been found reasonable for other laws, would mean we could fairly say "Federal law preempts" before it ever hit the courts.

And this is a bit of a semantic point, but for the implicit case, IMO:

1. The claim that state law would likely be overturned is NOT bogus or without basis.

2. The claim that state law is CURRENTLY preempted is bogus and without basis.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 16:57:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: ohiomeister @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 17:23:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I Agree Completely (0.00 / 0)

And Kathy Sulliven looks just as bad as the Clinton's on this one.  I know that the Obama campaign had explicitly asked that no call be made to people on the Do Not Call Registry.

By making false attacks, first on policy and then on method, the Clinton Campaign look desperate.  It is the politics of slash and burn and fear mongering that Obama is fighting against.  

By taking this course, Clinton and her supporters are running down the path to total destruction.

I too am sad to see this happening.  Clinton seems to have lost sight of what is best for her party and her country and is consumed with how to pull herself out of a pit that she only digs deeper and deeper.  God help us all if she keeps this up through February 5th.

---

by: Helenann @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:53:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

More desperation (4.00 / 2)

This is so sad. How desperate are these people? Obviously, quite desperate.

Hillary Clinton is the most divisive political figure of our time and it is coming through in spades right now. These false, fraudulent attacks, the need to robocall to Boston Democrats to attend Hillary rallies. If anyone needed any reason not to vote for Hillary, you're seeing it right now.

And Kathy, what were you thinking? For all the talk of you "knowing the political landscape" in New Hampshire, how could you think this wouldn't get vetted thoroughly?  

Politizine.com

---

by: Tony Schinella @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 08:50:31 AM CST

I wouldn't go that far... (0.00 / 0)

Hillary Clinton is the most divisive political figure of our time

Lets not forget about Commander Coo Coo Brains, shall we?

Lets keep a little perspective.

---

by: Nicholas Gunn @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:14:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, let me rephrase (0.00 / 0)

Hillary Clinton is one of the most divisive political figures of our time ...  

Politizine.com

---

by: Tony Schinella @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:35:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A great independant ad to keep our eye on the ball (0.00 / 0)

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

---

by: poetsandpatriots @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:23:11 AM CST

Follow up (4.00 / 1)

1. The mail piece that was sent out was not deceptive, nor misleading. Senator Obama voted present on seven choice votes; we've talked about that before on this site.  Again, for me, and for others, voting present on choice is not an option. I have heard the rational for his votes, but it does not work for me. There are some issues where you have to draw the line, and for me, this is one of them.

2. The call, in my opinion, sounded like it came for an organization, and not the campaign. Was that intentional? You need to ask the Obama campaign that question. We heard about this because several women who received it called and asked why Planned Parenthood was making this call about Hillary. I'm not blaming the person who made the call; I believe the Obama campaign gave her a script to read, without talking about where the disclosure was, and to whom it was going (including the do not call registry individuals).  Here are the statements from the person who made the call, and the organization, that were released last night:

STATEMENT BY WENDY FROSH:

"As an individual citizen, I am committed to supporting pro-choice candidates and take seriously the importance of the New Hampshire primary in shaping national elections. Planned Parenthood Northern New England, Planned Parenthood Northern New England Action Fund, and the national Planned Parenthood Action Fund have not endorsed any candidate in the presidential primary. I regret any confusion that may have been caused by my actions."

STATEMENT BY PLANNED PARENTHOOD NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND PRESIDENT AND CEO NANCY MOSHER:

"Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE) is committed to educating voters about the importance of reproductive health and rights in the 2008 election, however as a charitable organization we do not endorse candidates. PPNNE takes seriously the importance of the New Hampshire primary in shaping national elections. Our board chair  was acting as an individual citizen, not on behalf of PPNNE or the PPNNE Action Fund, when taping the call for Senator Obama and regrets any confusion this caused. She has taken a temporary leave from the board. The national Planned Parenthood Action Fund has not endorsed any candidate in the 2008 presidential primary."

###

The bottom line is, the mailer was accurate, not misleading, and I believe the Obama call was designed to mislead the recipients into believing this was a call from the organization, not the campaign.
And now I have to run - got campaign work to do!!!



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:09:47 AM CST

The ad says: (4.00 / 5)

"Barack Obama. Unwilling to take a stand on choice."

That is a lie.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:23:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It is misleading (4.00 / 1)

We received the mailer at my house today.

It insinuates that Obama is "unwilling to take a stand on choice" when you know damn well he is pro-choice. As well, you can be "pro-choice" and not support abortion. And a candidate can be pro-choice, personal against abortion, and women and couples have nothing to fear because abortion will remain safe and legal with that elected official.

So, let's not play this crap out the way you are Kathy. The campaign is divisive, nasty, and desperate, and shows all the signs of a campaign which is totally clueless - all the more reason Hillary should not be the nominee. You're no better than Giuliani or W. using fear as a weapon to win. You all know better than this.  

Politizine.com

---

by: Tony Schinella @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:40:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hillary hears nothing but (4.00 / 2)

the echo of parrots.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:43:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

They are not calling the Do Not Call list (0.00 / 0)

I have it on good authority that they got approval to make these calls and specifically would not be calling anyone on the do not call lists.  It is the Clinton campaign that violated the do not call provision.

---

by: Helenann @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:03:05 AM CST

See above. (0.00 / 0)

We have someone on BlueHampshire who is on the Do Not Call list and received the call.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Your good authority is wrong (0.00 / 0)

We have verified the phone numbers of people who told us they got the call who are on the registry; I heard the call myself on the voice mail of one of them, and personally saw the verification of the person's number on the do not call. We have always instructed our vendors from day one to scrub the list.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:28:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

She shouts, "due diligence" (4.00 / 1)

The room is empty.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:40:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

what one asks for (4.00 / 2)

and what one gets, are not always the same thing, Kathy.

Guess you never have hired anyone to do a job for you.

I am so glad that we move beyond NH tomorrow.  I love New Hampshire, always have and always will.  But I am sick at seeing what Hillary Clinton is doing to her campaign in NH and to the Democratic primary process.  She is the one who is acting like the Republicans with her attack, attack, attack.  It is painful to watch. And now you are defending it.  And you must be feeling desperate too, watching "the best candidate in the race" go down the tubes.

Might I recommend you leave the campaign of attacks and fear and join the campaign of hope?  It feels much better over here and we are winning.

---

by: Helenann @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:59:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Look, you claimed the calls weren't being made. (0.00 / 0)

They are. You got called out on it.

Ned Helms admitted it was possible and said the campaign would doublecheck. You went further.

You were wrong.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:03:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I did not (0.00 / 0)

I said that the campaign had asked that the Do Not Call Registry be honored.  If the firm they hired had not fully scrubbed their lists, then that is bad.  But that is NOT what the campaign asked for.

---

by: Helenann @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:04:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Re-read your words. (0.00 / 0)

"They are not calling the Do Not Call list."

Wrong.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:07:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here is what I got from the campaign (0.00 / 0)

Every hour since Hillary Clinton lost in Iowa, her attacks have  
> become more and more desperate.  This call was in direct response to  
> one of many 11th-hour false attacks Clinton has made at the end of  
> the New Hampshire campaign. Our disclaimer absolutely complies with  
> the federal law and

our vendor has assured us that he scrubbed the  
> list for people on the Do Not Call registry

.  However, if this call  
> went to someone who should not have received it, we will make sure  
> the vendor takes every step to make sure this doesn't happen again."  

The above statement was made by Ed Helms.  They asked the firm not to call people on the registry. If the firm did, they violated the terms of their contract.

My point is that it never was and still is not the intention of the Obama campaign to call people on the registry.

If you want to spin it otherwise feel free.  Who was it that said that the Clintons lie so easily that they don't even know when they are doing it?
>
>

---

by: Helenann @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:13:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That isn't what you said. (0.00 / 0)

Ned Helms spoke correctly. You did not.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:21:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are right. (0.00 / 0)

I said they are not calling.  And the firm they hired did call.  But the intent all along by the campaign was not to violate the registry.  So there is nothing sinister here.  And I would like to correct what I said to "They explicitly asked the firm they hired that no one on the Do Not Call Registry be called.  If the firm violated this, it is the firm's bad, not the Obama Campaign.

Gosh, a lot to do about nothing.  The Obama campaign did not ever intend to call anyone on the registry.  period.  end of story.

---

by: Helenann @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:55:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Even Handed (0.00 / 0)

is Elwood.

He isn't bustin your chops out of partisanship.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:59:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

learn from our mistakes and apologize (0.00 / 0)

we must, when say thing out of anger we do!  hmmm... yes....

~~
I'm an Obama/Edwards/Kucinich/Gravel Democrat.  1968-2008: Hoping this year is different.

---

by: eightfold @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 13:09:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

thanks, yoda (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Helenann @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 13:36:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed, it is a great thing... (4.00 / 1)

That the Obama campaign did the right thing.  As soon as they were made aware that there might have been calls to people on the Do Not Call list, they apologized and agreed to look into it and promised it wouldn't happen again.

Unfortunately, Hillary's campaign didn't live up to their responsibility when it comes to owning up.  As soon as they were made aware that Obama is pro-choice and has always been pro-choice, and received a 100% rating from Illinois Planned Parenthood for 8 years in the Senate - they should have apologized for the mailing and promised it wouldn't happen again.

They didn't - another instance that Hillary has been tested, and failed.


~~
I'm an Obama/Edwards/Kucinich/Gravel Democrat.  1968-2008: Hoping this year is different.

---

by: eightfold @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:08:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow... (4.00 / 3)

...is this what we're going to do in this campaign?  Politics as usual?  I though Hillary was "ready for change"?

Forget 'where's the beef'?  I want to know, in this Clinton campaign 'where's the change'?  It sounds like the same old tired, baseless attacks to me - and if it sounds like that to me, it sounds like that to a lot of other voters.

I think NH would prefer that we return to the issues.

Again - let's remember that Hillary's mailer attacked Obama for acting in line with a progressive plan developed by the pro-choice community in Illinois.  He was then and continues to be pro-choice.

~~
I'm an Obama/Edwards/Kucinich/Gravel Democrat.  1968-2008: Hoping this year is different.

---

by: eightfold @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]