Wisconsin Election Commission Is Knee-Deep in CYA Following Feds' Alert Russia Targeted State

Nothing to see here, nothing happened, but we're beefing up
security because of vulnerabilities, say Wisconsin election pols.

Clean Wisconsin elections give way to partisans and bureaucrat's hollow assurances of 'nothing to see here' after feds alert 21 states hackers targeted their systems.

Madison, Wisconsin — In November 2016, the Wisconsin Election Commission, (WEC), Chair, Mark L. Thomsen, declared there is no need for a hand recount of the Wisconsin presidential election because Thomsen said he knew the recount would not change the electoral results.

This was an inappropriate statement for the WEC Chair to make as recounts are governed by Wisconsin statutes and are supposed to guard the liberty and suffrage interests of Wisconsin citizens and candidates in assuring clean, fair and impartial elections.

Explaining his position, Thomsen said, "It, [Trump's margin of victory over Clinton in Wisconsin], may not be 22,177 [after the requested hand recount]. But I don’t doubt that the president-elect is going to win that."

Who cares what Thomsen thinks or doubts? Thomsen's was a political position, devoid of consideration of citizens' rights and interests in the electoral processes.

The right to a recall in Wisconsin was given a new, extra-statutory standard by a host of self-serving Wisconsin pols, Donald Trump and one Dane County Circuit Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn: If there is no clear evidence that a hand recount will produce a difference result, there is no need for a hand recount.

Wrote James Rowen in reaction in November 2016:

It is disappointing that the [Election] commission with no third-party representation is signaling premature and self-serving assurance while ruling out the hand recount sought by Stein, and supported by Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Worse, it reinforces the partisan cast of a state where the GOP's candidate narrowly won the state's electoral votes, and Wisconsin is run as a one-party state by an autocratic legislature in league with an imperial Governor and State Supreme Court that sacrificed its impartiality when it had a 4-3 conservative majority that has now risen to an even harder-edged 5-2 right tilt.

As noted here, Judge Bailey-Rihn, in upholding the partisan Election Commission decision, said clear and convincing evidence is needed to order a statewide hand recount over the decision of the Commission, without addressing whether voter intent remains a paramount principle underlying Wisconsin election law.

Opined John Nichols commenting on the opposition of Wisconsin pols to the requested recount:

Unfortunately, in an age of hyperpartisan spin and know-nothing media, there is a tendency to see demands for recounts as the burdensome expressions of sore losers. Sometimes they are that. But for those of us who concern ourselves with the functioning of the elections that confer authority on executives and legislators, recounts are understood as fundamental underpinnings of democracy. They only rarely overturn initial results. But even when they simply confirm those results, they give us all greater confidence in systems that can only serve their purpose if citizens see those systems as fair and functional.

The abbreviated, don't-look-too-closely recount was begun. [Wisconsin recount information, governing Wisconsin state statute, and ARTICLE III, Suffrage (voting) text in the Wisconsin Constitution are indicated and explained in updated online Wisconsin public websites, in accordance with Wisconsin's historic open-government commitment and the Wisconsin Idea.]

Feds in 2107: Russia Hacked 21 States

Now comes news in September 2017 that Wisconsin along with 20 other states were specifically targeted by Russian cyber hackers in 2016:

WEC Administrator Michael Haas has informed WEC Chair Mark Thomsen, who directed Commission staff to investigate why election officials were not notified earlier and report to the Commission at its meeting Tuesday.

'This scanning had no impact on Wisconsin’s systems or the election,' Haas said. 'Internet security provided by the state successfully protected our systems. Homeland Security specifically confirmed there was no breach or compromise of our data.'

In 2016, Haas offered public assurances that because Wisconsin's is "the most decentralized election system" in the nation, hence safe, and that cyber-tampering would require "unfettered access" to municipalities throughout the state.

Haas is wrong. To swing a close election in Wisconsin, hackers just need access to a handful of Wisconsin's 1,853 municipalities' "Internet-facing election infrastructure." Decentralization in itself does not protect the integrity of elections.

The whole point of Jill Stein's requested hand recount was to make sure the number of ballots cast for presidential candidates matched what was tabulated in the results. But the Wisconsin Elections Commission's adamant and bizarre position was a hand recount was not needed because they knew the results already.

In retrospect, and in light of the Russia cyber-hack, does the WEC now concede Jill Stein, (and Hillary Clinton's), position that a hand recount was needed for confidence in the integrity of the 2016 electoral results?

Turns out decentralization is not such a great protection from hacking after-all, Haas now acknowledges, contradicting his 2016 position:

The Wisconsin State Journal reports today:

Meanwhile, the state is moving ahead with implementing a new election security plan by early 2018.

The challenges are particularly acute in Wisconsin, Haas said earlier Friday, where elections are not centrally run but instead handled locally by 1,853 municipal clerks. One local security breach where a key password is divulged could cause problems statewide, Haas said.

One thing the state is considering is whether to mandate that local clerks meet minimum security requirements for hardware and software they use, Haas said. 

The next Wisconsin elections will take place in the 2018 Spring Primary election in February.

Below is a reproduction of the Wisconsin Elections Commission's Sept 22, 2017 public announcement of the 2016 Russian cyber-attack.

Wisconsin Notified of Unsuccessful Russian Hacking Attempt

Date: September 22, 2017

MADISON, WI – This afternoon, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security notified the Wisconsin Elections Commission for the first time that “Russian government cyber actors” unsuccessfully targeted the state’s voter registration system in 2016.

WEC Administrator Michael Haas has informed WEC Chair Mark Thomsen, who directed Commission staff to investigate why election officials were not notified earlier and report to the Commission at its meeting Tuesday.

"This scanning had no impact on Wisconsin’s systems or the election," Haas said. "Internet security provided by the state successfully protected our systems. Homeland Security specifically confirmed there was no breach or compromise of our data."

Wisconsin is one of 21 states whose chief election officials were notified Friday by DHS officials that their systems were targeted by Russians, said Haas. DHS did not disclose which other states were notified, but said the states were free to disclose the information.

According to DHS, it appears that Internet-facing election infrastructure in Wisconsin was targeted by Russian government cyber actors. They scanned internet-connected election infrastructure likely seeking specific vulnerabilities such as access to voter registration databases, but the attempt to exploit vulnerabilities was unsuccessful.

Haas said the Commission is seeking more specific information, including when the scanning activity occurred in 2016.

The news that 21 states were targeted was first announced by DHS at a U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on June 21, 2017. Coincidentally, Haas also testified at that hearing and said in response to questions that the Elections Commission had not been notified by DHS and concluded that Wisconsin was not one of the targeted states.

Wisconsin Pols Jettison Voter Intent, Republicans Say They're "Very Pleased"

Update - The rejection of a petition to order a hand recount does not offer high hopes for the intent and liberty interests of Wisconsin voters seeing elections as a means of protecting their interests.

Jill Stein, joined by the Hillary Clinton campaign, sought a judicial order in state district court, mandating a hand recount in the Wisconsin presidential recount.

The campaigns want voter intent to guide the recount, are vigilant against election shenanigans, and call for a rigorous, precise hand recount to verify the 2016 presidential election results.

This week political appointees in the newly politicized Wisconsin Elections Commission joined the Chair who declared his personal knowledge of the recount results prior to the inception in a bizarre statement.

Chair Mark Thomsen also joined a unanimous six-member Commission, and rejected the Stein-Clinton call for a hand recount.

Neither election bureaucrats nor Dane County Circuit Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn are impressed with arguments appealing to the liberty interests of voters.

Report Mark Sommerhauser and Matthew DeFour in the Wisconsin State Journal this morning: "Clinton’s attorney, Josh Kaul, wrote in a memo to the court that a hand recount is 'preferable to a machine recount because human beings can assess voter intent in a way that machines cannot.'"

Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn, upholding the partisan Commission decision, says more evidence is needed to order a statewide hand recount over the decision of the Commission, without addressing whether voter intent remains a paramount principle underlying Wisconsin election law.

Wisconsin Republicans immediately praised the decision, saying the Republican Wisconsin Dept of Justice is "very pleased" with the ruling. Republicans want blood though.

Today, the Republican Party of Wisconsin said it will "file a federal elections complaint against both Stein and Democrat Hillary Clinton," (Stein, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel), a complaint widely viewed as a PR stunt.

Meanwhile, the Wisconsin press neglects noting the liberty interests of citizens as a check on bureaucracy and partisanship even as the foundational basis of Wisconsin democracy is disregarded in the partisan Elections Commission.

The Green Bay Press Gazette, a Republican paper in northeastern Wisconsin, misreports recount costs that will be spent by the Stein campaign as tax-payer dollars. This is factually incorrect, but representative of the USA Today-Gannett Co newspapers dominating Wisconsin media.

Wisconsin Elections Commission Under Reign of Clowns

Mark L. Thomsen, chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission,
declared the results of the Wisconsin presidential recount prior
to the recount's inception. Thomsen is the political hack Democrats
offered up for appointment to new Elections Commission.

Updated - As national political eyes cast a glance at Wisconsin, the democratic ethos in our political culture is dissipating.

With nary a beep from the moribund Democratic Party.

So, it is no surprise to read the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) (formerly the Governmental Accountability Board until its independence offended Wisconsin Republicans), decided the best way to conduct the presidential recount is to avoid ordering a rigorous and precise hand-recount in Republican-led counties, and to then offer the public prior assurance of what the recount results will be.

Wisconsin Elections Commission, (WEC), chair Mark L. Thomsen, a Democrat and doofus, declared the recount will not change the some 22,000 Trump victory margin over Clinton.

Does anyone see anything wrong with Thomsen? [Update: John Nichols has something out at The Capital Times.]

Why is the state commission chair charged with administering Wisconsin elections offering predictions and assurance on what the results of statutorily prescribed electoral recounts will be?

Because Thomsen is a political hack, who has given $10,000s to Democrats the last two years, and knows nothing about the concerns of free and fair elections activists.

Thomsen has his gig at the WEC, and his tenure will be good for his law practice so Thomsen is careful not to step on any toes with democratic niceties like the impartial administration of free and fair elections.

Republicans destroyed an independent Wisconsin elections agency last year, and Wisconsin Democrats are going along, declaring money is the currency that matters most in administering elections, and meet Mr. Mark L. Thomsen.

Clinton Allies Still Cold to Recounts, Bernie Sanders Applauds and Acclaims Civil Rights

The Recount effort in Wisconsin faced ridicule by pro-Hillary Clinton political sites, Wisconsin Republicans and Donald Trump since the inception of the successful fund-raising effort last week.

Now, an unequivocal ally, Bernie Sanders, has stepped forward. Figures.

Informed of Republican objections to the Wisconsin Recount, Sanders on Sunday bluntly replied, "Nobody cares," (NBC News).

Sanders offered several times rejoinders to objections to the recounts, fanned by Hillary Clinton sites and Republicans.

It's their "right," Sanders pointed out.

Contrast this appeal to liberty and rights with the Clintonesque, liberal response to the recount, and one can see why Bernie Sanders would have made a much stronger general election candidate than Clinton on every issue.

Democrats screwed-up badly. Told you so, and so and so, dumb Dems, as did millions of Americans.

For more information on the Wisconsin Recount, see Wisconsin recount information, governing Wisconsin state statute, and ARTICLE III, Suffrage (voting) text in the Wisconsin Constitution, indicated and explained in updated online Wisconsin public websites, in accordance with Wisconsin's historic open-government commitment and the Wisconsin Idea.The Wisconsin Elections Commission Board (formerly the GAB) 2015-2016 calendar is also online.

Recounts in Wisconsin and Two States Go Forward

Jill Stein campaign's check on election integrity is successful

Updated - Clinton campaign attentive to concerns animating recount, vows to take part in recount effort, reports Reuters. Damn well better.
 ---
Recount petitions addressing the presidential general election in Wisconsin were received today by the Wisconsin Elections Commission, reports Steve Hanson in the Uppity Wisconsin political site.

The Jill Stein and Rocky Roque De La Fuente 2016 presidential campaigns have both filed recount petitions in Wisconsin. Recount petitions are expected to be filed in Michigan and Pennsylvania next week.

Opposition to the Jill Stein recount petition, paid by the Stein campaign supporters, has come from Wisconsin Republicans and some liberal political sites editorially supportive of, [see update above], but separate from, the Hillary Clinton campaign.

As noted in the Wisconsin Elections Commission website, Wisconsin is composed of 72 counties that will be the authorities for the recount. Municipalities in the counties will conduct the actual processes, with the state Commission offering logistical, legal, and other support in a partnership capacity.

Wisconsin recount information, governing Wisconsin state statute, and ARTICLE III, Suffrage (voting) text in the Wisconsin Constitution are indicated and explained in updated online Wisconsin public websites, in accordance with Wisconsin's historic open-government commitment and the Wisconsin Idea.The Wisconsin Elections Commission Board (formerly the GAB) 2015-2016 calendar is also online.

From the Wisconsin Elections Commission website, a press release announcing the recount petitions and the current popular votes for president are posted.

Wisconsin Elections Commission Receives Two Presidential Election Recount Petitions

Date: November 25, 2016

MADISON, WI – The Wisconsin Elections Commission today received two recount petitions from the Jill Stein for President Campaign and from Rocky Roque De La Fuente, Administrator Michael Haas announced.

“The Commission is preparing to move forward with a statewide recount of votes for President of the United States, as requested by these candidates,” Haas said.

“We have assembled an internal team to direct the recount, we have been in close consultation with our county clerk partners, and have arranged for legal representation by the Wisconsin Department of Justice,” Haas said. “We plan to hold a teleconference meeting for county clerks next week and anticipate the recount will begin late in the week after the Stein campaign has paid the recount fee, which we are still calculating.”

The last statewide recount was of the Supreme Court election in 2011.  At that time, the Associated Press surveyed county clerks and reported that costs to the counties exceeded $520,000, though several counties did not respond to the AP’s survey.  That election had 1.5 million votes, and Haas said the Commission expects the costs to be higher for an election with 2.975 million votes.  “The Commission is in the process of obtaining cost estimates from county clerks so that we can calculate the fee which the campaigns will need to pay before the recount can start,” Haas said.  The Commission will need to determine how the recount costs will be assessed to the campaigns.

The state is working under a federal deadline of December 13 to complete the recount. As a result, county boards of canvassers may need to work evenings and weekends to meet the deadlines. “The recount process is very detail-oriented, and this deadline will certainly challenge some counties to finish on time,” Haas said.  

A recount is different than an audit and is more rigorous, Haas explained.  More than 100 reporting units across the state were randomly selected for a separate audit of their voting equipment as required by state law, and that process has already begun.  Electronic voting equipment audits determine whether all properly-marked ballots are accurately tabulated by the equipment.  In a recount, all ballots (including those that were originally hand counted) are examined to determine voter intent before being retabulated. In addition, the county boards of canvassers will examine other documents, including poll lists, written absentee applications, rejected absentee ballots, and provisional ballots before counting the votes.

Haas noted that the Commission’s role is to order the recount, to provide legal guidance to the counties during the recount, and to certify the results.  If the candidates disagree with the results of the recount, the law gives them the right to appeal in circuit court within five business days after the recount is completed.  The circuit court is where issues are resolved that may be discovered during the recount but are not resolved to the satisfaction of the candidates.

“Wisconsin has the most decentralized election system in the United States,” Haas said. “The system has strong local control coupled with state oversight, resting on the partnership between the Wisconsin Elections Commission, the 72 county clerks, and the 1,854 municipal clerks. State law clearly gives each county’s Board of Canvassers the primary authority to conduct the recount, and to decide which ballots should and should not be counted.  Recounting votes is an open, transparent process in which each of the candidates may have representatives present to raise objections, and where the public may be present to observe.” ...

Recounts Should Proceed

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and myriad Americans want a recount of three swing states comprising the Scranton-to-Oshkosh 'rust belt' corridor.

The white working-class, (among other demographics), voted differently than many voting models had predicted, amid unprecedented foreign intervention in our presidential campaign by Russian hackers, so many Americans want a recount to ensure the election was not hacked.

However, the specific reasons Dr. Stein and supporters have for requesting a recount are beside the point.

The election rules of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin afford opportunities for a recount, and do not condition a recount on the concerns of the petitioner(s) other than a broad stated belief that, for example, a "mistake or fraud has been committed in a specified ward or municipality in the counting and return of the votes cast for the office or upon the question or that another specified defect, irregularity, or illegality occurred in the conduct of the election," (Wisconsin State Statute).

The post-election conventional wisdom, collectively devoid of irony as an industry of experts deride the recount petition with the same certainty presented in falsely predicting the 2016 election results, does not address the rights and rules of the recount processes, (Wisconsin Elections Commission).

Correct?

Worth noting is the fact recounts are also a project with the added benefit of promoting confidence in the 2016 election, a plank of the Green Party platform calling for "publicly-owned, open source voting equipment [deployed] across the nation to ensure high national standards, performance, transparency and accountability; [a process using] verifiable paper ballots; and [instituting] mandatory automatic random precinct recounts to ensure a high level of accuracy in election results," (Green Party).

Recounts will continue because state statutes were drafted contemplating the broad election-administration concerns of Jill Stein, free and fair election activists and the voters.

With respect to 538.com and other anti-recount political sites, if you do not want a recount, don't petition for one.

Bizarre Opposition to Verifying Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania Presidential Results

Don't verify election results, just trust polling experts, argues 538.com

Update II: Jill Stein confirms intention to request recount in three swing states.
 
Update: Green Party raises $2.5 Million for recount in Wisconsin as corporate media and Clinton campaign throw wet blanket over recount-verification effort, (O'Brien, Reuters). What excuse could anyone possibly have to not verify the results of this election?
 ---
After Jill Stein joined the effort to verify the presidential elections in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania with a paper ballot recount, the project has drawn an unlikely opponent—538.com.

Recount proponents make a persuasive case for a recount of three swing states, and pointedly do not make specific hypotheses positing the states were hacked or the election results otherwise improperly tabulated.

Recount advocates do wish to ensure confidence and accuracy in the election results, which represent the will of the American voters.

In reaction, 538.com in a perverse column by Carl Bialik and Rob Arthur states with certainty, Demographics, Not Hacking, Explain The Election Result, and cautions recounts should be discouraged because they subvert confidence.

What?

Bialik and Arthur's concluding bizarre paragraph reads in part, "It’s possible nonetheless that the election was hacked, in the sense that anything is possible. ... The paradox is that in our current electoral system, without routine audits, seeking proof requires calling for a recount, which in itself can undermine confidence in the vote."

So in campaign 2016 we have foreign agents that all agree imposed a foreign power into the American presidential election, we have a major political party that was hacked by a foreign power, we have results almost no one saw coming determining the election, and we have election and statistical experts as well as a presidential candidate, Jill Stein, calling for a recount; therefore Bialik and Arthur conclude: No recount because the precision obtained in a recount will undermine confidence in the election.

Bialik and Arthur may have penned the dumbest column yet of campaign 2016.

Below is the press release by Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president 2016 calling for a recount:

Election Integrity depends on YOU!

The Stein/Baraka Green Party Campaign is launching an effort to ensure the integrity of our elections. We are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- three states where there is a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals. Please donate to this initiative today.
To give you a sense of the problem, the voting machines used in Wisconsin were banned in California after they were shown to be highly vulnerable to hacking and malicious programming due to lacking security features.

"After a divisive and painful presidential race, in which foreign agents hacked into party databases, private email servers, and voter databases in certain states, many Americans are wondering if our election results are reliable. That's why the unexpected results of the election and reported anomalies need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified. We deserve elections we can trust." -- Dr. Jill Stein.

This is about more than the results of this one election. This is about protecting our democracy and ensuring that "We the People" can have confidence in reported results.

We need your help to make sure your votes were counted accurately on Election Day. Please donate now to help maintain integrity in our elections. Please donate to this effort to protect our democracy.
This effort to ensure election integrity is in your hands! In order to make this happen, we need to raise over $2 million by this Friday, 4pm central. In true grassroots fashion, we're turning to you, the people, and not big-money corporate donors to make this happen.

Click Here to Donate Today! We hope to do recounts in all three states. If we only raise sufficient money for two, we will demand recounts in two states. If we only raise enough money for one, we will demand a recount in one state. If we do not raise enough for any recount (which is highly unlikely) we pledge to use the money for election integrity efforts and to promote systemic voting system reform.

Let Voters Stay on the Rolls

'A whopping 37% voted in none of the elections,'
(Ansolabehere and Schaffner)

Every presidential general election many voters wait in long lines only to be told at the polling table that their names have been scrubbed [purged] off the voting rolls as inactive voters, and they have to go to the lines for registering and then get back in line to vote.

Most people are depoliticized and even voting is frequently restricted to presidential elections.

As noted today at the Democratic Strategist, using data across four elections, (2006 and 2012), a new research paper offers some guidance for state party chairs:

At Demos Policy Shop Sean McElwee reports on a new study 'by political scientists Stephen Ansolabehere and Brian Schaffner, the most comprehensive examination of voters and nonvoters that has ever been performed,' reveals serious problems regarding voter turnout and the data behind it, including:

...Very few Americans vote regularly, in fact, only 25% of Americans voted in all four elections. A whopping 37% voted in none of the elections. The other 39% of the population participated with varying frequency: 13% voted in only one election (generally Presidential), 12% in two, and 14% voted in three (most missed a single midterm)... Ansolabehere and Schaffner find that a stunning 63% of those who did not actually vote in 2010 reported that they did vote on [Cooperative Congressional Election Study Panel] CCES. 

Recent down-ballot domination by Republicans is a consequence of this phenomenon.

Encouraging the electorate to vote should be 365 days/year project by local and state Democratic Parties, provided the Dems are tiring of getting their asses kicked in elections.

And it would not be the most terrible thing in this democracy for state election officials to take it easy on purging voters.

Americans—They Don't Know

The Intercept has a piece on "the full-scale political disengagement of a substantial chunk of the American population"

It's not pretty. But the data does explain the ascendency of Scott Walker and assorted lunatics to elected office.

Writes Glenn Greenwald:

The data on American political apathy is rather consistent, and stunning. Begin with the fact that even in presidential election years, 40 to 50 percent of the voting-age public simply chooses [to] not participate in the voting process at all, while two-thirds chooses not to vote in midterm elections.

Even more striking is what they do and do not know. An Annenberg Public Policy Center poll from last September found that only 36 percent of Americans can name the three branches of government, and only 38 percent know the GOP controls the House. The Center’s 2011 poll 'found just 15 percent of Americans could correctly identify the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, while 27 percent knew Randy Jackson was a judge on American Idol.'

A 2010 Findlaw.com poll found that almost two-thirds of Americans — 65 percent — were incapable of naming even a single member of the U.S. Supreme Court. A 2010 Pew poll discovered that 41 percent of Americans are unable to name the current vice president of the U.S; in other words, [John] Oliver could just as easily (if not more easily) compile a video of Times Square visitors looking stumped when asked if they knew who Joe Biden, or Antonin Scalia, is.

As 2016 approaches, any voter not believing in the consequences of who is running Congress or the presidency is foolish to a degree worthy of harsh derision.

Look at what Scott Walker and the Republicans have done to Wisconsin.

I still recall the thoughts of the young, 20-something black man at a Madison neighborhood center on the day before the 2014 general election that reelected Scott Walker.

I asked him his thoughts on the Wisconsin governor's race. His response: I'm not voting, "they're all crooks," is revealing, revealing of ignorance and foolish political disengagement.

No, Mary Burke (Scott Walker's opponent) is not a crook. And she surely would not have taken a wrecking ball to the University of Wisconsin System, K-12 public schools, the DNR, community control, one can go on.

Fact is Burke ended up spending over $5 million of her own money on the election. Doesn't sound like a crook to me, no matter how often this site has castigated her ineffective communications team.

It needs to be said, this kid like so many across Wisconsin is foolish and knows virtually nothing about public policy.

Hillary Clinton's convincing the electorate in 2016 to engage, specifically the demographics represented by this kid, will determine if America is to become a plutocracy. Plutocracy, look it up, kid.

Even NBC's Russert Says It's Over, But Not Hillary ... Yet

Update III: David Plouffe: An Update on the Race for Delegates, Obama Needs 36 Percent of Remaining Delegates to Win Nomination [Those Obama elitists are sooo into math.]

Update II: Hillary doesn't say it's over. This morning's press release: As West Virginia Takes Center Stage, Clinton Campaign Ramps Up Statewide Get Out The Vote Effort

Update: It's All Over Now, Baby Blue by John Judis, a big Clinton supporter -

Even the major networks are admitting it's over.

From AmericaBlog: Russert: "It's over for Hillary. She just lost the nomination."
That's a big step for the pretend-to-know-nothings on broadcast TV, next thing you know, maybe we'll have a campaign about substantive issues.

Maybe we'll hear the refrain of questions that were posed to Jesse Jackson in 1988 and Jerry Brown in 1992 when they overstayed their welcome from the talking heads in the Democratic primary: What do you want?

John Aravosis at AmericaBlog:

NBC declares Hillary the winner, barely, in Indiana. Hillary may get one delegate more than Obama in Indiana. Chuck Todd says Obama will get 13 more delegates than Hillary tonight, and that wipes out the 12 delegates more than him that she got in Pennsylvania. Obama now has a pledged delegate lead of over 160, he's got a popular vote lead of over 700,000, per Todd.

There is simply no path to victory for Hillary. Now she's just screwing around and hurting the party. Look at what Chuck Todd just said, again - even with Michigan and Florida, she has lost ...

Russert's quote in response to the question "Did it just end tonight?" from Olbermann:

(Russert): 'We now know who the democratic nominee is going to be and no one is going to dispute it.'

This is it. The media finally turned on her. It's over. It's finally freaking over. I say this because the race was over 2 months ago. But the media kept it alive by pretending as though Hillary had a chance, when they knew she didn't.

But, their pretending permitted her to keep going with a straight face. Now that the media is turning on her, she's going to have an impossible time continuing. If she continues to run the only question she will be asked from now on is 'you've lost, why are you still in this race?' There is nothing she can do now. Yes, she can stay in the race, says she's not quitting until the convention in August. But now that the media has turned on her, good luck with that.

NC, Indiana Primaries' Breaking News - Obama Takes NC., IN Too Close to Call

Updated - Obama looks to net some 16 pledged delegates, (200,000) margin in popular vote count. Hillary advisers expect contributors and staffers to call for Hillary to bow out. Hillary's speech lacked recent fire and tone.

**** Live Election Results in Indiana ***
**** Live Election Results in North Carolina ***

FIRST EXIT POLLS: HILLARY +7 in INDIANA; OBAMA +12 in NORTH CAROLINA, via Huffington Post

Huge turn-out in both states; in Indiana , its vote-suppressing voter ID law and Rush Limbaugh-inspired GOP crossover votes for Hillary should help contribute to a Clinton victory.

Multiple sources report anecdotal data indicating huge black turn-out in NC, possibly in response to Hillary's friendly (to her) and publicized voter suppression group.

Barring an independent run in the general, Hillary is history and is just stirring the ashes of her slash-and-burn campaign. [Note: Exit polls are often off a few points, but these number are consistent with the most recent polling and trends.]

CNN: Black voters in Indiana: Obama 92%, Clinton 8%.
Black voters in North Carolina: Obama 91%, Clinton 6%. This is slightly above Hillary's horrendous performance with blacks in other primary states.

Best guess: Big Obama double-digit win in NC, toss-up or Hillary win in Indiana.

Sources for breaking news throughout day:

The Primary Source (Charlotte, North Carolina)

Huffington Post

Kos IN/NC (see comments section)

Indy Star

Talking Points Memo

Time

Americablog

Drudge and NRO, The Corner often have leaked exit polling, worth checking.

- By the way. Gingrich warns of ‘real disaster' for GOP this fall. -

Rev. John Hagee Is a Bigoted Whack Whose Endorsement McCain Sought and Received

How can a complete whack like the Rev. John Hagee whose endorsement of and political relationship with John McCain are a matter of public record not dominate the airwaves?

The apocalyptic-minded and anti-Catholic Rev. John Hagee was pursued by John McCain, and Hagee ultimately endorsed McCain in late February when they appeared together in San Antonio. (picture at right)

Hagee is a bigoted nut, but also a major Republican political player whose specific foreign policy prescriptions are seen by him as preparing the way for the Second Coming, and are identical to the controversial policy positions taken by McCain on Iran and Iraq, now.

Turns out that Hagee, of the let’s-bomb-Iran corner of the rightwing, is also a prominent signer of the Forgotten American Coalition's statement proclaiming that we need to stay in Iraq and that the “… Iraq War must be seen in the broader context of Islamo-fascism's war on America and Western Civilization. It is one front in a global conflict fought from Europe and the Middle East to Africa, the Balkans, the Indian Subcontinent and, finally, to the streets of our cities. ...”

If those words sound familiar, it’s because McCain had been repeating them in substance in his stump speech for months.

What has not been repeated for months is Hagee's venom coming from the Founder and National Chairman of the religious right's Christians United for Israel.

As Frank Rich writes this morning of Hagee:

Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is 'the Great Whore,' Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking 'the blood of the Jewish people.' That’s because the Great Whore represents 'the Roman Church,' which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.

Have a look at this video and you'll get the picture.

Wisconsin and the White Working Class

via MAL Contends

Madison, Wisconsin - Salon has a piece by Mike Madden explaining the importance of Wisconsin's primary and probing why this perfectly composed demographic state for Hillary handed her a 17-point thrashing on Feb. 19.

Why did Obama do so well with Wisconsin's white working class, but not with Ohio and Pennsylvania's?

So well-received was Obama's victory here that many secular progressives were smitten with whimsical rumination of metaphysics. But Madden reasonably attributes the win to Wisconsin's progressive history.

Writes Madden:

... 'I think Democrats do have questions about whether or not [Obama] is going to be able to reach out and successfully win over the kind of blue-collar voters that Democrats need to win in order to take the White House back in November," Clinton strategist Howard Wolfson reiterated on CBS's 'Face the Nation' on Sunday.

But that's not what Wolfson was saying back in February, when Obama clobbered Clinton by 17 points in Wisconsin, another state whose largely white, working-class demographics should have made it Clinton country. Census figures show the state is only 6 percent black, barely a quarter of residents have college degrees, and the median income hovers around the national average. But Obama won Wisconsin across the board, according to exit polls, taking almost every demographic group and subgroup. ...

... 'You could put the same demographics together and the same kind of community together, and I guarantee you that a liberal or African-American candidate will do about 5 to 10 points better' in Wisconsin than in other Rust Belt states, said (Paul Maslin, a neutral Democratic pollster based in Madison, Wisc., who helped run Howard Dean's 2004 campaign).

See also Wisconsin More Important than Pennsylvania Machine-State.

Vote-suppressing, Pro-Hillary Group StoneWalls

More Clinton connections come to light as the voter suppression story breaks, and the voter suppression group apologizes for the "confusion". From Facing South:

In our earlier investigation revealing the outfit behind the misleading and illegal robo-calls made to North Carolina voters just days before a critical primary election, we reported that questions have been raised about the connections between that group -- the D.C.-based nonprofit Women's Voices Women Vote -- and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

We noted, for example, that WVWV Founder and President Page Gardner has donated generously to Clinton and to HILLPAC, but has given nothing to the Obama campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org. We also noted that WVWV Executive Director Joe Goode previously worked as a pollster for Bill Clinton, and that WVWV board member John Podesta is the former chief of staff for President Clinton as well as a Hillary Clinton donor.

There are other connections that we did not mention, but that have been pointed out in comments here and at other sites. For example, Maggie Williams is a former member of WVWV's leadership team, according to Sourcewatch.org; she also served as chief of staff to First Lady Hillary Clinton and to the Clinton Foundation in New York, and she was named the manager of Clinton's campaign in February. And Holly Schadler, WVWV's attorney, helped set up the Back to Business Committee in 1994 to defend Bill and Hillary Clinton from attacks by political enemies.

But one of the most striking connections between WVWV and the Clinton campaign -- and one particularly relevant to a story involving what appear to be voter suppression efforts right before an election -- was pointed out to us by a reader. He notes that the firm in charge of voter outreach for WVWV is MSHC Partners, whose president is Hal Malchow.

Sourcewatch.org reports that Malchow was a member of WVWV's leadership team.At the same time, MSHC also does direct mail and outreach for the Hillary Clinton campaign. In fact, the campaign owes MSHC $807,000, according to Politico.com.

Chris Kromm, author of the original piece has published a "Statement on Women's Voices Women Vote's failure to address facts of Facing South investigation" (run at Kos as well), and reproduced below.

Chris Kromm
Facing South

Women's Voices Women Vote has responded in several forums to the issues we raised in yesterday's investigation about their illegal and deceptive voter outreach activities. The main response came from group founder and president Page Gardner, in a statement titled: "Confusion Surrounding Robo-Calls in North Carolina."

First, it's important to note that Gardner's statement in no ways refutes, or even addresses, any of the basic facts put forward by our investigation:

* In North Carolina, Women's Voices has been conducting a robo-call and mailing campaign that the state Attorney General yesterday confirmed is illegal, that has been secretive and deceptive, and will likely have the effect of confusing and discouraging North Carolina voters.

* Our report documents that, in at least 10 other states -- Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin -- Women's Voices has drawn condemnation from election officials and voters. The group has been accused of misrepresenting election law, using secretive and dishonest tactics and generating widespread confusion among voters -- again, threatening to dampen voter participation.

* The role Women's Voices has played in the Virginia and North Carolina primaries has been especially disruptive. In both cases, they launched deceptive robo-calls -- some apparently targeting African-American zip codes -- just before major primaries, leading residents to think they weren't registered to vote.

* Women's Voices has a number of ties to Sen. Hillary Clinton; we provide additional examples here. We don't suggest, and have no evidence to suggest, that Women's Voices is formally connected to the Clinton campaign. However, we do believe such close ties deserve scrutiny.

Ms. Gardner's statement addresses none of these documented issues. Confronted with evidence of repeated deceptive and even illegal actions, Gardner says only, "We apologize for any confusion our calls may have caused."

Unfortunately, this is typical: As we found in our investigation spanning 10 states, every time problems have emerged, Women's Voices responds by "apologizing for confusion." A Google search of "Women's Voices Women Vote" and "confusion" brings up 412 hits. A newspaper in Michigan quipped that Women's Voices media staffer Sarah Johnson seemed "confused by the confusion."

But chalking serious election law violations and misleading practices to "mistakes" and "confusion" doesn't answer the questions; it just raises more of them. Women's Voices is doing itself no favors by refusing to directly address the facts and issues at hand.

For example, does "confusion" explain Women's Voices' illegal and deceptive robo-calls in multiple states? Does it pardon the group's misleading and legally inaccurate mailings to hundreds of thousands of voters?

Does "confusion" account for their disruption of the primaries in North Carolina and Virginia? I asked Johnson why the group launched its confusing voter registration campaign in Virginia when they did -- two weeks before the big primary, but two weeks too late for anyone to actually register. She stumbled through several explanations before landing on, "We wanted to make sure they were registered for the general [election] in November." Really? The first week in February, probably the worst time to be dropping a misleading robo-call and mailing campaign in Virginia, was the only week available?

Also: Is it really a "mistake" or "confusion" when you get the same complaints in 10 or more states across the country over the course of at least five months? After a while, the "confusion" defense runs out of steam.

But in this case, it's never been a strong defense. Women's Voices is made up of some of the most seasoned and sophisticated political operatives in Washington. Their staff bios show decades of experience at the highest levels, all the way up to presidential campaigns for Bill Clinton.

Does such a well-connected, deeply-funded and All-Star cast of high-level operatives really make "mistakes" like carrying out illegal robo-calls and forgetting the presidential primary calendar?

At some point, that explanation is no longer plausible, and Women's Voices Women Vote owes voters a real explanation.

Vote-suppressing, Pro-Hillary Group Operated in Wisconsin

Update: at Kos by stefanielaine

via MAL Contends

A voter-suppression group operating in North Carolina, exposed in the journal Facing South (see also Talking Points Memo), was operating in Wisconsin before its primary on Feb. 19 as part a national voter deception strategy.

And with the same apparent motive: To suppress voter turnout and minimize the margin of an expected Clinton defeat.

The story, broken by Chris Kromm, and aired on CNN, exhibits another example of Hillary Clinton borrowing from the Karl Rove playbook; and Hillary can expect a serious backlash.

Writes Kromm:

Who's behind the mysterious 'robo-calls' that have spread misleading voter information and sown confusion and frustration among North Carolina residents over the last week?

Facing South has confirmed the source of the calls, and the mastermind is Women's Voices Women Vote, a D.C.-based nonprofit which aims to boost voting among 'unmarried women voters.'

'What's more, Facing South has learned that the firestorm Women's Voices has ignited in North Carolina isn't the group's first brush with controversy. Women's Voices' questionable tactics have spawned thousands of voter complaints in at least 11 states and brought harsh condemnation from some election officials for their secrecy, misleading nature and likely violations of election law. ...

In Wisconsin, state officials singled out Women's Voices for misleading and possibly disenfranchising voters, stating in a press release [PDF]: 'One group in particular -- Women's Voices. Women Vote, of Washington, D.C. -- apparently ignored or disregarded state deadlines in seeking to register voters,' sending in registrations past the January 30 deadline and causing 'hundreds of Wisconsin voters who think they registered in advance' to actually not be.

Idiot Wind

‘Couldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land where justice is a game.’
- Hurricane, Bob, 1975

The statement by Sen. Obama’s wife, Michelle, that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country,” has been invoked by Republicans in an effort to portray Mr. Obama as culturally unlike the people he is asking to vote for him—a historically potent line of attack.

This will continue, no matter if the Rev. Wright controversy dissipates.

“What pathetic, little, delicate flowers Americans and political pundits are," wrote the Liberal Street Fighter.

Amen.

Obama, an American success story if there ever were one, gets skewered for being associated in any way with anyone who ever said anything critical of American society.

But Obama need not apologize for anyone, or be on the defensive.

Obama needs to get on the offensive and challenge every moronic pundit that unity, rights, equality, liberty and freedom from economic want comprise the foundation upon which American society has progressed the last 75 years.

And fighting for this foundation ought be the basis of his campaign for the presidency.

A major address laying out a vision is called for as the corporate media remains obsessed with trivia, but not in front of a staid audience, but rather a loud, lively crowd of 1,000s of Americans to whom Obama presents his ideas for approval.

Rev Wright Isn’t Running for President

Update: Obama Says He’s Outraged by Ex-Pastor’s Comments

via mal contends - The Rev. Wright has offended a lot of people lately—including liberal commentators.

Rev. Wright, who made a series of interviews/addresses the past week, has “devolved into self-pity and self-glorification (Walsh),” has been “inflating his importance in a pride-goeth-before-the-fall kind of way, (Robinson), is ”living a narcissist’s dream” (Herbert),” and so on.

It’s worth noting then that whatever one believes of the ex-Marine’s oratory, Rev. Wright is not running for president and absolutely nothing has been presented to suggest that Obama is/has been/will be carrying on Wright’s views in any policy.

That’s likely because Wright has not made any policy pronouncements.

He just likes to spout off at what makes him angry; maybe some talking heads like to do the same thing at times, maybe we do too. But Marines and black preachers can be a bit heavy-handed, unlike the judicious and thoughtful folks on cable TV.

John McCain and the corporate media love smearing Obama when a smear looks doable; and doubt persists about whether a black man like Obama can ever really love our country like a white man/woman can.

No doubt that McCain has never uttered an intemperate remark or said anything objectionable during his tenure in elected office, and McCain will be held to the same standard and scrutiny as Obama’s retired pastor by the muckraking American corporate media.

The American media do not exactly have a first-rate record when it comes to discussing matters of substance in presidential elections. This sad history ought to be the focus of liberal commentators.

But for now, even Salon is asking: What should Obama do about Rev. Jeremiah Wright? And not: What should Obama do about the inane corporate media and our vapid political culture.

Now is the time for Obama to make a major address on real needs of real people v. corporate media obsession on the inane. Regain control and make the foolish react to message of change and substance.

Wisconsin More Important than Pennsylvania Machine-State

Updated - An afterthought on Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania is a quasi-Democratic machine state. Thus one expected the machine-backed candidate, Hillary Clinton, to do well with the most established demographics there: Whites and older citizens.

No doubt then that Hillary's expected win on Tuesday (nine points) and her turning-the-tide spin generated a round of media ridicule and explicit reference to the Pennsylvania machine-state status, minimizing the significance of the Clinton victory. Not what happened.

As Chuck Todd: (Hardball, April 7) had put it, "...Pennsylvania is a machine state. You know it‘s a machine democratic state. It is an old school machine state and she has the entire machine behind her, other than the Casey family. She‘s got the state party officially behind her."

The media's reaction, including Chris Matthews and Norah O‘Donnell, who know better, is to exclaim that Hillary did well with whites and older citizens, from which is extrapolated "huge" significance and alarm about how well Obama can perform with whites in a general election.

So why is Pennsylvania, which votes reliably Democratic in general elections in part owing to the effectiveness of the Democratic machine, more significant than Wisconsin (Feb. 19), which votes narrowly Democratic in general elections? It's not.

In Wisconsin, Obama brought out 10,000s of politically casual voters who didn't even show up at the polls six weeks later in a historic, high-profile Supreme Court race; and Obama clobbered Hillary in February, prevailing "by a wide margin among men, 67-31 percent. (His win among white men, 63-34 percent, was surpassed only in Utah)." (ABC News)

See also For Obama, a Struggle to Win Over Key Blocs (NYT, April 26) in which Adam Nagourney asks ,"Why has (Obama) been unable to win over enough working-class and white voters to wrap up the Democratic nomination?"

Like Obama did in Wisconsin and the other 29 states in which he won, Nagourney could have added, though that would have had the effect of killing his story.

Hillary is desperate to pretend the race is still on; and the corporate talking heads and political media are desperate to engage Hillary's pretension.

One last note on the exit polling from Pennsylvania, pertaining to Hillary and blacks.
Blacks: 92-Obama - 8-Hillary.

Questions worth pursuing: Why is Hillary doing so horribly among blacks? And using the same primary-general election demographic logic applied to Obama, what does this mean for a prospective Hillary nomination and her performance in the general election? Can Hillary win without black support?

Wisconsin's Obama Delegate Win Equals Clinton's Penn Win

Wisconsin Obama Delegate Win - 10

Pennsylvania Clinton Delegate Win - 10

The question is not if but when Obama wins the nomination.

Faced with Obama's inevitability, and apparently intent on stretching the primary out as long as possible, what will Hillary do?

Obama Hits Back

If they don't get it here, they gonna it out there with the Republicans.

Such is the occasional justification offered for Hillary's tactics when her campaign veers into lies and sleaze against Obama that go against conceptions of fair play and justice.

But the 'gonna get it out there' sounds a lot like the muttered idiocies of an abuser.

Barack Obama neither fights, flees nor freezes in the face of the assault of arguably the most inane presidential campaign debate of modern politics, as Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos delivered a pathetic performance, with a civil but typical Hillary on display.

He offers an agrument in rebuttal ande speaks to people as though they were adult voters.

In North Carolina yesterday, Obama delivers so reasonably and effectively that Obama's over-the-top critics have made mockeries of themselves, and implanted a meme in the political consciousness of what are the ridiculous charges next that they are going to try to sell.

“That was the roll-out of the Republican campaign against me in November. That is what they will do,” Mr. Obama said. “They will try to focus on all these issues that don’t have anything to do with how you pay your bills at the end of the month.” (NYT. Jeff Zeleny)

Obama brings it all back home to substance with a cool that is a pleasure to watch viz a vis Gibson, Stephanopoulos, and Hillary.

NYT Video of Obama at a town meeting today in North Carolina: