Clinton Launches Obama Attack Web Sites

[IDemo]

Source: ABC News

By JAKE TAPPER
DES MOINES, Iowa, Dec. 20, 2007

ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton Web sites, such TheHillaryIKnow.com, which was launched with much fanfare this week.

The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. That is a lie. It is no an "attack" website.

It is a website that shows Obama's RECORD. Since when is the record off limits?

[flordehinojos]

4. records are not off limits ... but what is off the stratosphere limit are the distortions tweety and

others are making of hillary and her campaign. i personally think (and i said it before on a post or two here) that obama is bush in make-up-clothing. "cowardly" might be a common denominator between both men.

[Windy]

11. Hillary is playing dirty. Hillary supporters on DU sound like bush supporters

Bush could literally shoot someone and they would find a way to rationalize his actions.

The same mentality has permeated Clinton followers.

[indimuse]

16. Presidential contender Senator Barack Obama released The cheapest shot on Edwards 12/11

Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Obama Goes Negative



Presidential contender Senator Barack Obama released an opposition research paper on John Edwards in response to requests from a local union (United Auto

Workers Region 4.) It was full of cheap shots; one of which may come back to haunt the "positive" candidate. From an ABC News blog;

The cheapest shot ... that Edwards somehow has something to do with Whirlpool when the company was closing down Maytag plants in Iowa, Illinois, and Arkansas.

Why is that a cheap shot? Because the link is that Edwards worked for the controversial Fortress Hedge Fund while it owned stock in Whirlpool as it was shutting

down those plants.

But some argue a far more direct link exists between Obama and those plants shutting down.

The Crown family -- Lester, Renee, James, Paula -- have been supporters, fundraisers, and bundlers for Obama.

Lester Crown was on the board of Maytag when it decided to shut down a plant in Galesburg, Illinois, and sent those jobs to Mexico.
n August 2005, Crain's Chicago Business reported that the Crowns stood "to reap an estimated $86 million from the sale of appliance maker Maytag Corp. to rival

Whirlpool Corp. After a bidding war, Newton, Iowa-based Maytag agreed Monday to sell to Whirlpool for $21 a share in cash and stock. Maytag has said the Crowns

hold about 4.1 million shares."

Shortly after that merger was announced, Whirlpool shut down those plants in Iowa, Illinois, and Arkansas.

Do I think Obama is responsible for the plants shutting down? Nope.

But he should know better than to attack Edwards on the same subject.

You'll find out what real trashing is if Obama is the nominee. The right wing attack machine is alive and well and all too ready for JR.
AND I'm soooo sick of these campaigns who when their past voting record is called into question, call it an attack/swiftboating..ect.

Obama was using PAC money secretly to pay- YES PAY other members of congress who would endorse him. For all those "feelings voters" - this meant quid pro quo

i.e. I'll contribute to your future election if you endorse me.

Now what did the media do?

[FiveGoodMen]

18. I could not agree more!

:applause:

[mallard]

41. Re: "Hillary supporters on DU sound like bush supporters"

You've really hit on something here. The unwavering 'loyalist' formation/alignment and the sneaking-around-back approach of Hillary's main movers is looking more and more like a manipulative neocon tactic.

The people putting her into power have their own unstated agenda - especially when it comes to Israel, Iraq and Mid East affairs. If and when they win they'll want more than favors, they'll want policy-making authority.

[9119495]

12. I'm in Iowa and I think I'm caucusing for Obama

and I think Tweety (and his panel's) treatment of Hillary Clinton tonight is horrible. They ought to be ashamed.

[earthlover]

17. Obama did not support IWR or Kyl-Lieberman....Hillary and Bush did.

On the most important issue facing us today, Hillary and Bush were on the wrong side. So hundreds of thousands died as a result.

Politically, Iraq is an issue that SHOULD be on our side. After all, it was Bush who led us into that tar pit. It is the number one issue on Democrats' minds, if you believe the polls. So let's look at this issue with regard to the general election.....If we nominate Hillary or Edwards, both of whom voted for the IWR, we won't be able to use the Iraq War against the Republicans. Worse still, the Reps will be able to argue that they only changed their views on Iraq when public opinion changed, and they will be called flip floppers. Game. Set. Match.

Obama is the only candidate of the top three who opposed Iraq from the start. They wont be able to criticise his votes for funding, because he was only supporting the troops that were already there. What's more, Obama is in the position to argue forcefully about the foolishness of the iraq War and take this issue to the Republicans.

So the question is, do we want to make Iraq a campaign issue in November, or do we want to nominate a candidate where we will be trying to run away from it?

Another question is, do we want to make an issue of the chest-thumping about Iran and the Kyl-Lieberman vote in light of the intelligence finding that Iran didn't pose a threat, showing how foolish the rush-to-war mentality without negotiating is? Or do we want to nominate a candidate who herself endorsed the Kyl-Lieberman farce? With Hillary, this is yet another issue off the table.

So if we nominate Hillary we will have yet another campaign where the Dems will be on the defensive about foreign policy, instead of being able to be on the attack of Bush's blunders.

[Evergreen Emerald]

19. Obama did not even make it for the vote--his MO is to avoid votes

so he does not have to take responsiblity for them. He can then say anything he wants about his position. If the vote was a vote for war as Obama NOW suggests, why was he not shouting from the rooftops about it?

Iran: he and Edwards gave speeches condeming the Iran guards as terrorists and talking about the threat Iraq posses with regards to nuclear weapons...his position is the same as Clintons'.

He and Clinton and Edwards, Biden, And Dodd all have the same stance on Iraq and Iran.

[earthlover]

21. You seem to be following the Hillary talking point of the day, but in this case it is BS

Obama spoke out AGAINST the war during a time where it was an unpopular position to make. He could have been silent, as you imply. But fact of the matter he opened his mouth and let his views be heard. Again, at a time when the war was popular, and opposition to the war was considered politically risky.

With Kyl-Lieberman, Obama also made his views known in advance, and the vote was, by the way, rescheduled so he could not attend. Hillary folks I think enjoy cheap shots. They make them a lot, anyhow.

So there is a stark contrast between a candidate who spoke out, making an unpopular position about opposing Iraq and Hillary's compliance with the Bush rush to war.

By the way, could you name a war Hillary has spoken out AGAINST....EVER? EVER? EVER?

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. Clinton has spoken out against the war time and again.

Obama did not speak out against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, until after the vote: and HE DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO VOTE. What the hell?

[Windy]

24. Your candidate termed the Kyl/Lieberman amendment a 'diplomatic move"

Since when is labeling the military of another country a terrorist organization at diplomtic move. Under international law, that could be considered an act of war....

And she NEVER I repeat NEVER stated that she made the wrong move when authorizing the war in Iraq like Edwards did...
Oh sure, she nuanced, but never stated that she made a mistake.

Your candidate also plans on having a long term combat force present in Iraq unlike any of the others.

You need to do some research on Mrs. Clinton.

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. windy: no--you need to do some research

I have a significant amount of research, which allows me to say unequivocally that she would be the best democratic candidate for President.

Your superficial look is insufficient to get you past the hype. And, unfortunately, that attitude is what got us in this mess in the first place: people just agreeing with the right-wing propaganda machine--the media--as they choose our candidate for us.

I would have thought we learned our lesson the last time.

[Windy]

37. I've stated FACTS...you responded with SPIN

Defend her positions? site specifically examples where she is solidly against the war, was always against the war, etc....

Defend her with facts please. Anything else is a wasted exercise, serves no purpose and is a disservice to the country!

[sendero]

55. talking against the war..

.. and voting for it fools only morons like you must be. God you people are stupid.

[earthlover]

26. Hillary was against the war after she was for it!

Her position on iraq is an impossible one to run on in November. She endorsed the war. Voted against all the amendments that would have delayed it. Never said her vote was wrong. But you now say she opposes the war. But she doesn't want to take our troops out in the foreseable future. Well...the reps will take her apart on this crap. They will call her a flip flopper, and she IS one on Iraq! Iraq is the number one issue of this election, and Hillary cannot make it an issue because she endorsed it and cheerleaded for it from the start. If she opposes it she will be seen as a flip flopper. This is pathetic.

You say Hillary has spoken out against the war time and time again....can you furnish a quote where she said her vote was wrong? Can you show me when she will ge us the f*** out of that mess? It is not enough to speak against a war....what is she going to do about it and when?

And Obama made his feelings known about kyl-lieberman in advance of the vote.

You can play this fantasy world game of attacking Obama, but you haven't come to grips with the reality that Hillary voted FOR the kyl-lieberman dumbshit bill. Even after she voted for the IWR. Again...when has Hillary voted against a war? When has she spoken out against a war before it was too late?

[Critters2]

31. She's not a flip-flopper, because she's never come out against the war.

She's supported it wholeheartedly from day one. She's a neo-con. Talks like one. Votes like one.

[Windy]

39. All I can say in response is:

:applause:

[saracat]

5. Its called attacktime and Hillary attacks.Sheesh.

[ccpup]

8. one is not supposed to question

The Holy One Who Walks On Water (and votes Present 130-some times)'s record. Much too, too sensitive for that, he is. Might qualify him for the Most Scrutinized Candidate in History, or somesuch, and, really, it's just very mean for anyone to question his Politics of Hope and Change.

Now, watch him turn this water into non-alcoholic whine. Oops, sorry 'bout that. Mean to write whine. Damn! Did it again!

My bad.

[earthlover]

14. So it is not negative? Orwell would be proud....

If your side has to resort to attack sites, that is their choice. But don't try to pretend they are not attack sites. If you can justify attack sites in your mind, so be it. But don't pretend they are anything other than what they are. I am tired of politicians and followers of politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Apparently you feel the need to hide the truth....when the truth hurts, and you have to try to hide it, perhaps you should have chosen a different direction. Just an observation.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. Tell me what the attack site is?

You are spewing the talking points with no knowledge of what the hell it even is.

1. there are no sites.
2. the article says they want to "attack" Obama on his 130 "present" votes. They actually used the word "attack." As if talking about Obama's record is off limits and below the belt.

It is a shame that people on this "progressive" board, simply nod in lemming like fashion as they repeat the talking points as if fact.

Lies, distortions. I thought we were smarter than that


And notice: as the Iowa caucus gets closer the media gets more and more aggressive towards Clinton.

[earthlover]

23. You need to get a grip...there are TWO, count them, TWO sites set up

They do not do anything except spread dirt on Obama. You call it his record. But that is so much bullshit you should be ashamed of yourself! Obama has done a lot of good things. He has lots of positive points. But the site is NOT about Obama's record in total. It is ONLY about that part of Obama's record that the Hillary campaign wants to malign.

If you don't like a candidate who uses attack sites, move away from Hillary. Your denial is showing.

So here we have it folks....the Hillary campaign sets up two attack sites exclusively about Obama. But if anyone notices that they are attack sites...we are fed the BS that they are just sites about Obama's record and we are fools for noticing.

I ain't buying what you are selling. Sorry.

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. Did you read the story? Cause the two hillaryattack sites are OBAMA'S

attacking Clinton. The story suggests that she will set up two sites designed to show the 130 "present" votes that Obama gave.

Is his record off limits? Is it disallowed to show his record?

what the hell is wrong with you ?

Double standard: Obama can set up attack sites about Clinton: a-ok
Clinton cannot SHOW THE RECORD of Obama. Attacking.

Dang, it is so easy to fool people that only repeat talking points WITHOUT THINKING.

[earthlover]

28. No they are sponsored by hillary...they are Hillary's

You really seem to be into denial. Hillary's websites. Sponsored by Hillary. Get it yet?

And they ATTACK Obama.

So don't give me this elephant shit that these sites are Obama'.

I point out the obvious that these are Hillary attack sites.

No, Obama's record is not off limits. You can find all kinds of articles about it on the web.

The specific issue here is Hillaryland's sponsorship of attack websites specifically to attack Obama.

Sites, apparently you are so ashamed of that you want to pass off as Obama's sites.

I have a great idea. Why don't you tell my what vision Hillary has for the future, why is she the best candidate. Don't give me platitudes about "experience", electability yadayada. Tell me what she would do that is any different than any of the rest of the candidates. And don't give me a list of interest group ratings. Just tell me why you like her without platitudes. Maybe if the Hillary campaign just said what it was for it would not have to be against so much....and then try to tell us that it is not really negative. F*** this S***!

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. Dude, really. Have you gone to the sites?

The Hillaryattack sites are obamas. The story suggests that Clinton has set some up--but has not. They are not there.

[earthlover]

32. so you say they are not up and they are obamas not hillary's

how dishonest of you!

They are set up and they have been announced as such. Everyone knows about them, that Hillaryland has sponsored them. If you have a problem with that reality, call hillaryland not me!

But the sites you claim do not exist are not sponsored by obama, they are sponsored by hillary.....

so, in a nutshell, your arguements are that these sites do not exist and they are obamas.

Oh...really?

[Evergreen Emerald]

34. Perhaps we are talking about two different things?

There are no sites up of Clinton attacking Obama. There are two sites up Hillaryattacks: those are sponsored by Obama.

The story references the idea that Clinton has bought domains for a couple of sites that would highlight Obama's voting record.

Are we on the same page?

[earthlover]

35. Hillary has sponsored two attack sites.

Hillary has sponsored two attack sites. They are not up yet. They are specifically for attacking Obama. That is what I am pointing out.

I am still waiting for any talk about why Hillary is so good....I am tired of all this negative crap. If you want to run for president, is it asking too much for me to ask you why you are good instead of why the other guy is bad?

[Evergreen Emerald]

38. That is the problem. You are buying the lies and distortions.

Obama is in a race for the nomination. How is discussing his record an attack? How is that negative?

Stop buying the talking points. The story suggests that by talking about Obama's record, Clinton is attacking him. That is a load of bull designed to bring Clinton down--but it only works if people don't look deeper than the headline.

I honestly thought we were smarter than that.

You don't want negative? Then complain about ABC's negative and distorted story about Clinton.

[earthlover]

56. I would be willing to bet that the hillary attack sites are even more "negative and distorted" !

But, when Hillary attack sites do it, it is just stating Obama's record, not an attack.

Look yourself in the mirror.

Hillary's campaign is hurting itself by pretending that their shit doesn't stink. While at the same time taking anything short of praise as being hate.

[Evergreen Emerald]

61. hello?! THERE ARE NO SITES

[sendero]

54. Every time we talk about HRCs...

... record, and it is ABYSMAL, well that is an attack according to you deludinoids.

What goes around comes around.

[Ignis]

64. So it shows the entire record, good and bad?

That's mighty nice of Hillary, if so.

But we both know that's not the case, don't we?

[global1]

2. How Rovian......

Elect HRC for 4 to 8 more years of the same old crap. Haven't we learned our lesson with * and Rove?

[saracat]

3. How very "above the fray of her". Are some still defending her as a "clean candidate' Feh.Her

Campaign is vile.It has to be said.This is repugnant. Ugh.

[ClarkUSA]

6. Politics as usual (for the GOP, that is). Talk about taking a page out of the Republican handbook...

I guess HillaryHub, HillaryIs44, Taylor Marsh, {aul Krugman, The Left Coaster, Daily Howler, swift boating madrssa emails by Clinton regional directors,
Bill Shaheen "wondering" if Obama is a drug dealer, and Kerrey's "compliment" about Obama's "Muslim/madrassa" background aren't enough?

Fuck. The. Clintons.

[gateley]

7. The link to the story doesn't work -- and when I try the two websites I get

Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)

:shrug:

[IDemo]

13. The link works for me, and the two url's are just domain names for now

I'm frankly surprised the Clinton camp announced anything about this unless and until there was actually something to see.

[earthlover]

30. they wanted to publicize the sites, and they got free advertising for them....

so when they are up....like the swift boat sites....they will have enjoyed free publicity in advance. Life is good for swift boaters....

Gees....now Democrats swift boat Democrats. I bet the Reps are happy as hell

[msongs]

9. so ABC now knows the "intent" of all political candidates? how....all knowing nt

[truthisfreedom]

10. My DNS servers aren't finding it. Hmph.

[dapper]

15. not voting for hillary

I might as well vote republican. HRC is in the back pocket of big business.

[earthlover]

33. So far, I would vote for Hillary in the general...but more of this crap and I might change my mind!

Maybe an enemy I know is an enemy is better than an enemy I think is a friend.

[GOPNotForMe]

36. Desperation is so unattractive in a candidate. Well in anyone really.

Definitely not voting for her in the primary now. Not that it mattered anyway since I'm in Florida! (thanks DNC :)

[Maryland Liberal]

40. The Bigger question is ...

The Bigger question is - should we fellow DEMs be attacking Fellow DEMS?

[LiberalFighter]

42. This is a cheap shot by ABC

They state that Hillary has launched the websites. NOT TRUE!! Until they are up and running they have not been launched.

If they have the same IP address wouldn't someone trying to go to those websites end up being directed to Hillary's website once it is activated?

The TheHillaryIKnow.com does not have the same IP address as HillaryClinton.com. And the TheHillaryIKnow.com is hosted by bluebird.mayfieldstrategy.com.

[madrchsod]

43. freerepublic could`t figure out the domain names

some can`t believe hillary is that stupid not to cover her tracks. but the big question remains unknown...who told abc they were going to be attack sites?
much to do about very little

[aquart]

44. "Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)" is what I get. You?

[JMDEM]

45. Clinton Launches Obama Attack Web Sites

Source: ABC News (web)

ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton Web sites, such TheHillaryIKnow.com, which was launched with much fanfare this week.

The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly.

Much more at link...



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659&page=1

[aquart]

46. "Launches"? Do the sites exist?

Because this is what I get: Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)

Not nice to peddle lies.

[Nailzberg]

47. In fairness to the OP, the headline is ABC's not the poster.

ABC News obviously doesn't know the difference between a website launch and registering a domain name.

[MADem]

50. Oh yes they do. But hey, it "sounds better" the way they wrote it. Facts are luxuries these days.

ABC news is GOP Central--don't expect them to be fair or accurate.

[JMDEM]

48. You pointing the finger at me or ABC? I just reported what I read.

Maybe the Clintonites pulled the plug when they knew their cover had been blown.

If you don't like this news, then blast ABC, not me. Why would Clinton, the darling of the right wing media, be smeared by ABC, the second most conservative MSM outlet out there? Hell, I don't know -- the knife cuts both ways.

[JMDEM]

49. Whoops -- Dupe. Someone beat me by 4 minutes. Please Delete. Nt

[liberalnurse]

51. Shades of Swiftboat Tactics

I hope that the Clinton Campaign pulls all advertising from ABC....for the duration.

[indimuse]

52. Lobbyists on Obama’s ’08 payroll Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin

Lobbyists on Obama’s ’08 payroll
By Alexander Bolton and Brittney Moraski
December 20, 2007
Three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.


The presence of political operatives with long client lists on Obama’s campaign contrasts with his long-held stand of campaigning against the influence of special interests. Obama has even refused to accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees (PACs).




Obama was using PAC money secretly to pay- YES PAY other members of congress who would endorse him. For all those "feelings voters" - this meant quid pro quo

i.e. I'll contribute to your future election if you endorse me. Please review Obama's statements about not taking any PAC money. This was a direct contridiction to the fact, let alone using it to push monies to other

cnadidates who ONLY chose to endorse him.

[blogslut]

53. Here's a site, registered to her campaign that is launched

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

[earthlover]

57. that site could be named "hillary's whinefest"

Read the articles....she is complaining about her opponents talking about the issues and how they differ from her.

The timeline also left out Hillary's attack in JULY calling Obama "irresponsible and frankly naive"

Pathetic.

You know, I didn't find a single positive reason to vote for Hillary on the entire site! And even though asked above, we haven't seen one here either to my knowledge.

Why is it that Hillary folks don't just tell us how good she is?

[Gman]

58. Sounds like a facts web site to me

publicizing a voting record is an attack? How weak can you get?

[soundguy]

59. After Obama Has His Flash In The Pan

Are you guys (and gals) going to support the fruntrunner, and turn your attention to the likely Republican nominee? Or are going to continue to hobble her and have even less chance to affect some sort of change?

And please will all of you stop this ignorant lie that keeps getting repeated over and over again. HRC did not vote yea on a declaration of war...would you get that out of your heads. How can you expect anyone to know how badly this idiot would blunder? After all, there were some seasoned employees left. I knew, but then again I am clairvoyant :) I was physically attacked twice for telling it how it was going to be :( But hey I have broad shoulders. There was no way out. Seriously, Iraq had been a problem for what a decade? Clinton 1 had his hands full in Europe as well as the rising Alqueda thing. If the Bush administration had not been so corrupt, in one fell swoop a lot could have been accomplished. Unfortunately only a few of us moon bats could actually fathom the evil that had hoodwinked our Country. Just think for 6 Billion Saddam would have left...An orderly transformation could have happened. We could have focused on Afghanistan and put a lot of farm subsidies in play to help them get started on a new path. And focused on Pakistan's nukes.

Everyone likes to focus on the micro, when you need to look at the larger picture. For gods sakes man have any of you ever been part of the government? You can't even get a pencil with out an hour of paperwork and three signatures. So you think you can send some neophyte to the White house and get something done? You are delusional. I am not endorsing it, I am only pointing out the reality of the situation. He would be proceedured into a circle that was drawn by someone else. With that said I would rather have discussion based on the platitudes of the candidates rather than who said what.

[Binka]

63. Platitudes Of The Candidates? WTF?

Your entire post reads like a 14 year posturing with big words without a clue as to what they mean. Get off your fucking high horse MR 4 posts. Jesus where the fuck do you get the right to try and school seasoned activists?

FYI a PLATITUDE is this:

an overused, dull, or trivial remark; hackneyed expression; cliché.


You want to base the choice of your candidate on this? Again :wtf:

[mps]

60. Phantom web sites- Jake Tapper LIES!!!!

Why would JAKE TAPPER write an article about phantom web sites? Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org DO NOT EXIST! Are there any consequences for reporters who lie?

mps

[OhioChick]

62. I Smell Desperation. n/t

[blogslut]

65. WHOIS

Registrant:
Hillary Clinton for President
4420 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
US

Domain Name: VOTINGPRESENT.COM

Administrative Contact:
Hillary Clinton for President
4420 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
US
703-469-2008 fax: [phone]

Technical Contact:
Hostmaster
Counterpoint Networking
3023 N. Clark St. #328
Chicago, IL 60657-5200
US
888-627-6468

Record expires on 04-Dec-2008.
Record created on 04-Dec-2007.
Database last updated on 21-Dec-2007 04:11:36 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS.CPOINT.NET 207.97.212.140
NS2.CPOINT.NET 204.10.48.76
NS3.CPOINT.NET 204.10.51.44

link: http://whois.domaintools.com/votingpresent.com

and


Whois Record

Domain ID:D150175566-LROR
Domain Name:VOTINGPRESENT.ORG
Created On:04-Dec-2007 15:49:17 UTC
Last Updated On:04-Dec-2007 15:49:20 UTC
Expiration Date:04-Dec-2008 15:49:17 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:39300990-NSI
Registrant Name:Hillary Clinton for President
Registrant Organization:Hillary Clinton for President
Registrant Street1:4420 North Fairfax Drive
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Arlington
Registrant State/Province:VA
Registrant Postal Code:22203
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:[phone]
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:[phone]
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:
Admin ID:39300990-NSI
Admin Name:Hillary Clinton for President
Admin Organization:Hillary Clinton for President
Admin Street1:4420 North Fairfax Drive
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Arlington
Admin State/Province:VA
Admin Postal Code:22203
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:[phone]
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:[phone]
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:
Tech ID:33834545-NSI
Tech Name:Hostmaster
Tech Organization:Hostmaster
Tech Street1:Counterpoint Networking
Tech Street2:3023 N. Clark St. #328
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Chicago
Tech State/Province:IL
Tech Postal Code:60657-5200
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:[phone]
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:
Name Server:NS.CPOINT.NET
Name Server:NS2.CPOINT.NET
Name Server:NS3.CPOINT.NET

link: http://whois.domaintools.com/votingpresent.org

[Infinite Hope]

66. If she sticks strictly to his record, or lack of voting, it's legitimate. n/t