But this is just stupid.  Makes one question the judgment of people who can be so easily duped.  I remember saying that about republicans who voted for Bush.

This is just another attempt to smear Hillary and her supporters.  Grasping attempt I might add.  

Anyway, there's this one and the Barbara Reynolds. Would be helpful to have the factual info all in one place.

Is that doable?

Daily Kos is now my daily dose of WTF?  Registering voters is a bad thing.  Blue is green.  Up is down.  The world has truly gone insane.

The stated goal of these registration efforts is to help women register to vote in the general election, in order to promote issues like universal health care, the lack of which disproportionately affects unmarried women.

Clearly, having these women vote would give them a bigger voice. You know, womens' voices, womens' votes?

And do we know WVWV was even trying to make the primary deadline.  Maybe unlike the rest of us, they are simply focused on trying to get women registered to vote in the general election and believe that now is a good time since there's so much focus on politics in North Carolina.  I can believe that could be confusing, but do we care if a woman who is likely to be a democrat gets registered too late for the primary if she votes in the general election.  Sure, it would be better if she could participate in both, but isn't it still better to get her registered.  Indeed, I'd think Obama would prefer single women (at least non-AAs) not vote in the primary and only vote in the GE.  

Or is this a problem because they are trying to get people, specifically unmarried women, registered?

But why are they calling AA and White men? Are they just incompetent?

Due to the fact that I was voted favorite female blogger by people who read their site and participated in their PSA encouraging women to vote, I have been inundated with angry emails demanding that I disavow Women's Voices Women's Vote for their "campaign to disenfranchise voters in North Carolina."

First of all, I have no affiliation with Women's Voices Women's Vote. I was asked to do a little Public Service Announcement last fall and there was nothing partisan about it. I did not do it to "pimp Hillary" as one of my concern trolls so pithily put it. Neither did I think there was any need to investigate or "vet" a well known organization that registers women to vote. So no, I didn't look into them to find out if I should agree to "lend my name to voter disenfranchisement." The production company asked and I said yes.

I had nothing to do with the contest other than noting on my site that I had been nominated and that I'd won. If they have some sort of devious political agenda, I'm completely unaware of it. I know absolutely nothing about these robo calls. [... more ...] (digby 4/30/2008 10:23:00 AM)

he slammed the pro Edwards 527 and then one ran for him
then he slammed another one in OH then they ran a bunch for him in PA
now he slams another one

just made aware of the controversy regarding Women's Voices. Women Vote.  (Disclosure: I am on their board.) I called Page Gardner and have had a quick conversation with her as well as seen the statement that she released.  I am completely confident that this was an accident. As far as I can tell, I think it was more a consequence of trying to move on 24 states in a short amount of time, and having nothing to do with the upcoming primary.

Link

You are seriously equating this campaign to confuse voters about the registration status that has been criticized in about a dozen states, that takes place always right before a primary and right after registration is closed, and you are suggesting that it is really about registering women to vote?

How come it doesn't accomplish that task?  How come they use a male voice with a black sounding name?  How come they seem to target African-Americans, and even African-American men?  How come their information is consistently wrong and unhelpful?