This is an important piece. It adds to other articles about the Hillary Clinton campaign. She and the former President appear to be willing to do anything to stop Obama and win despite being behind enough to almost statitically not able to win.

Provides little hard evidence to back up its claims. I am marginally familiar with Womens Voices Womens Vote from their voter reg efforts back in 2003, and this description of the group does not jibe with my experience (although I suppose it could have changed since that time). Also, why is this post unsigned? It doesn't appear to be the editorial opinion of the Economist, so whose opinion is it?

Look for it in the Times tomorrow.

If you are in business it is advisable to read the Economist for information about the market, et cetera. But the editorial direction of the Economist is too predictable. A quick perusal of their own reader's comments show intelligent, educated, moneyed class responses. That's fine, but we should be aware just as left leaning mags appeal to a particular readership and we note that. The content of this report is a very disgusting bit of trickery regardless of source so I feel that we ... More »

Garbage. This reads like an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. The Economist (just like the WSJ) just can't seem to manage to keep its editorial nose out if politics or social issues in which it has neither expertise nor experience, but only a right wing, pro-corporate ideological position.

Yes, it builds a convincing case to believe that this is a deliberate vote-suppression campaign on behalf of Clinton.