From this article
(among many I've seen in the past few days, although The Economist should be a pretty reputable news source):
SIX days ahead of the North Carolina primary comes a story of real sleaze—not Jeremiah Wright-style buffoonery, but Nixon-style illegality designed to dupe and disenfranchise voters—that should surprise precisely nobody who has been following and covering this campaign. A group called Women's Voices Women's Vote (WVWV), which claims to have been "created to activate unmarried Americans in their government and in our democracy" has been placing robocalls to voters across North Carolina that seem designed to fool them into thinking they have not yet registered to vote. Many of the voters who received those calls are black. Voters in 11 states have complained about similarly deceptive calls and mailings that have been traced back to WVWV this primary season.
Guess which Democratic candidate WVWV's founder and president, Page Gardner, has donated $6,700 to (hint: it's not Barack Obama). Guess whose election campaign Joe Goode, WVWV's executive director, worked for (hint: it was in 1992, and it was a winning campaign). Guess whose chief of staff sits on WVWV's board of directors (hint: it was the president who served between two Bushes). And guess whose campaign manager was a member of WVWV's leadership team (hint: it's Hillary Clinton).
It's an odd story: a recording of someone named Lamont Williams calls voters to tell them a voter-registration packet is on its way. It's unclear whether anything arrives; what isn't unclear is that the call is well after the registration deadline. It's not too hard to imagine this call coming to an unsophisticated voter (and let me make this clear: I am in no way saying black voters, who seem to have received the lion's share of the calls, are all unsophisticated; I'm simply positing a scenario), and that voter becoming confused. Perhaps he thinks he's not registered, and calls his state's board of elections who tells him it's too late so he stays home on election day. Perhaps the board of elections doesn't know what he's talking about, and he gets frustrated and stays home, assuming he's unregistered.
In 2004, Rob and I went to Nevada and canvassed Democratic houses, clearing up a mis-informative mailing stating that voters' polling place had changed. Others there had to deal with organizations which would run "non-partisan" voter registration drives and then throw away Democratic registrations.
In this case, this voter fraud has closer and more documented ties to the candidate. It's difficult to say whether Hillary had anything to do with this directly (although I would suspect she probably didn't), but does this "get her elected at all costs," combined with the jingoism, patronizing, and fear tactics she's used, really make her more "electable?" If there's any campaign that has the balls to attempt to beat the Republicans at their own game, it's Hillary's. But, with a sitting Republican president with the highest disapproval rate ever
and a weak candidate like McCain on the other ticket, do we need to play these games? And if we're playing them between two Democrats, are we disenfranchising the very voters we're going to need in November?