Did Minnesota Experience Significant Voter Fraud in 2008?

There have been many commentators including one in the Wall Street Journal this week who have noted the very strange manner, and the multiple inconsistencies involved in the conducting of the recount process in the Minnesota United States Senate race this year.

Strange things keep happening in Minnesota, where the disputed recount in the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken may be nearing a dubious outcome. Thanks to the machinations of Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a meek state Canvassing Board, Mr. Franken may emerge as an illegitimate victor.

And, there has been a lot of talk about the potential of fraud, but very little in the way of actual proof.

The proof of fraud may lie in the manner in which Minnesota conducts their elections, including the same day registration system, of which they are very proud. The fraud, in other words, may have involved large-scale voting by people who were illegitimately registered. Therefore, we have looked at the results from a different angle, focusing on some specific totals and asking the question, "Was this possible?"

In some cases, we think it simply was not possible.

The results of voter fraud -- the kind where someone casts an illicit ballot -- has precisely the same evil effect on other voters and candidates, as when an individual is unlawfully prevented from voting in the first place.

Depending on the choice marked in the unlawful ballot, one other voter's legitimate selection will either be improperly enhanced, or completely negated by the actual casting of that illegal vote. It just depends on for whom the unlawful vote was cast. Likewise, a legitimate voter's selection would either be improperly enhanced, or negated through the action of refusing to permit a lawful voter to cast a ballot in the first place. The result is the same.

If Joe, who is not legitimately registered in Happy Town, nevertheless cast a vote there, and he voted for Creepy Carl, Joe illegally enhanced Creepy Carl's chances. And in doing so, he also negated the entirely legal vote of Jill, who cast her ballot for Happy Harry.

But we Americans tend not to focus at all on the consequestional equivalence of those two somewhat different forms of voter fraud.

Our focus is almost always aimed at preventing some form of invidious discrimination, whereby someone is illegally prevented from voting in the first place. And even when there are valid actions taken by election officials to merely check identification to be sure someone is a legitimate voter, we are sometimes tempted to look on that as a hassle, perhaps even rising to the level of harassment. If it were in any way systematic, we would tag it as "voter suppression."

The fact is, however, that large, or even small scale voter suppression is nearly impossible today. And despite sometimes wild claims of incidents of "voter suppression," invariably made by one particular political party, not a single such instance has been documented in recent memory in this country.

But voter fraud involving illicitly registered voters is an entirely different thing. If a considerable number of ballots are cast by "registrants" who are not permitted to vote, the entire system can be and would be compromised. And it is our democratic system that is compromised, not just one candidate or the other.

Minnesota - 2008 Election

There were some strange anomalies that occurred in the voting system in Minnesota on November 4th of this year. The officials at the precinct and county levels who operated the system, all attended training courses in how to run the system at their levels, as it required under Minnesota law. But in the crush of filing their reports this year, it is clear that many committed errors that in some ways question the trustworthiness of the system. In a highly intense Presidential year, as this one was, even the best system can experience cracks under the pressure.

There is evidence that many such cracks occurred in Minnesota this year, and the result in the United States Senate race may well have been completely compromised.

Looking at the actual numbers reported this year, one has an unmistakable sense that some voter fraud was committed. That is certainly a conclusion that reasonable people could draw. In mid-October it was reported that ACORN, which claimed to have registered 43,000 of the new registered voters in Minnsota this year, was being investigated in Hennepin County (where Minneapolis is located) for possible criminal violations, given unexplained late registration reporting of new registrations -- or, as noted by Ed Morrissey at HotAir, suddenly dumping 1,000 or more new "registrations on the county board after the deadline."

One Minnesota watchdog group, called Minnesota Majority, has made a number of specific charges in regard to new registrants, some before and some since the election. Specifically, they have called for an end to "same day" registrations based on evidence they say they now have regarding bogus registration addresses, double voting, potential duplicate registrations, deficiencies in voter registration information, and other irregularities. They outlined their specific findings and objectives regarding the voting system in Minnesota on their website, and have recently sent their proof to the Secretary of State and numerous countys. In addition, they have called for an investigation of what they allege are violations of the federal "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA), modelled on the findings of a joint federal-state task force that conducted such an investigation (pdf) in 2005 in neighboring Wisconsin.

We have no way of assessing their information, or the validity of their claims. Nor do we have any connection whatsoever with Minnesota Majority. But what we have been able to put together, just based on data supplied to the Secretary of State this election, suggests that it has reported puzzling, and in some instances downright questionable data this year.

Minnesota currently has a "same day" registration system, one of the most liberal of it's kind in the nation, and one that has been in effect for many years. Here are the specific requirements for registering to vote on election day, as posted on the website of the Secretary of State of Minnesota.

It outlines the circumstances under which potential voters who, for whatever reason, had not registered 20 days or more prior to the election (on October 15th or earlier), could show up on election day itself, and register to vote. The number of people who did so statewide, was quite extraordinary.

For the purposes of this discussion, we focused primarily on one county -- St. Louis county.

In order to establish their residency in a municipality, applicants who are 18, have lived in a precinct for 20 days or more, and are not otherwise disqualified (alien, felon, etc.) are permitted to show any one of several forms of currently valid identification. Or, alternatively, they could show two pieces of identification, one of which could even be an expired driver license (as long as it has a photo), together with a current utility bill, in order to sign up and vote right then.

And even without presenting any identification, a voter may still be able to fully register and vote that day, so long as some pre-registered voter in the town or city "vouches" for him or her. In effect, any previously registered resident can file an affidavit swearing that you are a resident of that voting precinct. Or, as it is specified at the Secretary of State's office, an otherwise eligible voter is to be registered to vote if:

"A voter registered in the same precinct as you who can confirm your address with a signed oath."

Here is the full list of basic identification requirements, any one of which qualifies you to "same day" register, as they are posted at the website of the Secretary of State:

To register at your polling place on Election Day, you must have one of the following with your current name and address in the precinct to verify your residence:

• A valid Minnesota driver’s license, learner’s permit, Minnesota ID card, or receipt for any of these

• A valid student ID card including your photo, if your college has provided a student housing list to election officials

• A Tribal ID card that contains your picture and signature

• A valid registration in the same precinct under a different name or address

• A notice of late registration sent to you by your county auditor or city clerk

• A voter registered in the same precinct as you who can confirm your address with a signed oath

• An employee of the residential facility where you live who can confirm your address with a signed oath

There are also certain permissible "combinations" including less reliable ID that are permitted as well (e.g., an expired photo id, together with a current utility bill.)

Some local jurisdictions post their own versions of the requirements on their local websites as well. For example, here is a summary of those "requirements" as posted ("click" for pdf) on the website of the City Of Proctor, a small community with a current population of only 2,819 people (2007 Census estimate), located a few miles outside of Duluth.

But the point is that John Smith, pre-registered voter, says that Bill Jones, an unregistered applicant, lives in that precinct in that town, and if John signs a document to that effect, that's it. Bill is required to be registered by that jurisdiction, and he gets to vote there that very day.

Now to some, this sort of process encourages participation in democracy. Are their any safeguards? The promoters would say so, such as that a voter who is vouched for on election day cannot thereafter turn around and "vouch for" a new voter.

But there is nothing to stop a previously registered voter from "vouching" for several people. Perhaps if they did not want to draw too much attention, they would limit the number they would vouch for. According to one local official we interviewed in Proctor, Minnesota, a small town just west of Duluth, there is now a limit of 15 per pre-registered voter. But point is that a few rabid partisans, previously registered in a town, can easily corrupt the entire process by "vouching" for a significant number of new voters who are perhaps paid to come in and stuff the ballot box!

If you moved to a town 21 days prior to the election, and registered to vote, you could show up on election day and vouch for 15 new people on election day, and they would have to be given a ballot. In a close contest, such as this one was, just a few such instances could throw the election.

But what proof is there that people were registereed who should not have been?

For starters, lets take a look at this web page containing summary information for St. Louis County, listing all precincts in the various municipalities. You may want to leave it open in a separate tab as you read through this. And as you do, please try and think about whether these new registrations could have actually taken place, at least as they were reported there.

In particular, you should note three columns: Voters Registered at 7 AM; secondly, Registered on Election Day; and, third, Total Voters in Precinct. All columns are important for a full understanding what happened on election day, but those three in particular paint a very puzzling picture in examining a considerable number of jurisdictions.

Voters Registered at 7 AM: Exactly what it means. It is just the sum total of those voters who were fully registered to vote as of 7 AM on election day. It includes anyone who filed to register 20 days or more before the election.

It does not represent turnout.

Registered on Election Day: These are the new voters, those who were actually registered to vote on Election Day itself, November 4, 2008, and all of whom voted because they were handed ballots as they completed the process. A few are address changes within that precinct, but most are brand new voters to the precinct. Take a look at how many there were, and, in particular, the numerical relationship between the number of new voters and the number previously registered voters. You'll begin to see the problem.

Voters in Precinct: This is the total number of people who actually voted in that precinct on election day. It is a combination of those previously registered voters who actually showed up to cast a ballot on election day, plus those who registered that day and voted, i.e., "Signatures," and when added to whatever "absentees" were counted, is supposed to be the votes actually cast in that precinct.

Such a system practically invites error. This is especially so on a Presidential election day, in which resources are obviously stretched to the limit by the sheer volume of the turnout, the work of which is performed by people who do this job for only a few intense days in any given year. While the pressure to avoid error may be significant, the deadline forces shortcuts to be taken.

Whether they are trained to do the task or not, checking the identification of those coming in to register and vote on election day itself has special difficulties associated with it. No one, of course, wants to deny anyone the "right to vote." In fact, there is a huge disincentive for anyone who is a "challenger" questioning anyone's the eligibility to vote. A challenge must be in writing under oath. Thus, it is perjury, and therefore a felony in Minnesota to challenge anyone's ability to vote if you do not have "personal knowledge" that they do not live in a precinct, or are not otherwise eligible to vote! So from a practical point of view, no one working on the process challenges anyone who tries to register.

Those who are "approving" applications, people who are put in the position of making a judgment call, such as – "Is that really the photo of the person?" or, "Is it possible that the number address was "typed in" on the electric bill?" – will almost always err on the side of simply allowing the person to vote. They could be charged criminally if they challenge the person!

In that regard, especially given the "vouching" system, is literally an open invitation to those motivated by a desire to commit voter fraud, or even a willingness to allow questionable practices to slip by especially when subject to any form of peer pressure . One would think this would be easier in a crowded city environment, where it is not unusual to have never seen someone you come across on the street, though they may live no more than several hundred feet from your apartment.

Election Day, Duluth, MN, 2008

Consider the events of Election Day in Duluth, Minnesota . . . a port City* on the shores of Lake Superior, one having a rather droll nickname - "the air-conditioned City." Duluth is currently the fourth largest city in the State of Minnesota. It had a population, as of the 2000 Census, of 86,918 men, women and children. Unlike the State as a whole,* however, the population of Duluth has been dropping a bit, so that the latest Census estimate -- for 2007, was that 84,397 people now reside in Duluth, a drop in population of 2,521 people over 7 years, or down 2.9%.

Also keep in mind that somewhere between 22 and 23 percent of the residents in the City of Duluth are under the age of 18 -- that is, they cannot legally vote. That leaves a total potential voter pool of 65,830, using the lower percent figure of 22%.

So now, consider the possibility that each and every one of the 36 voting precincts in that city, added hundreds of new voters to the registration rolls, right on election day itself this year.

Well, it was not just a possibility. That is exactly what happened. According to the figures recorded at the website of the Secretary of State, Mark Richie, the average number of new voters for each and every one of those precincts was about three hundred new voters! Some added far more, some far less.

Leading the pack in that regard were the 10th, 11th, 13th and 14th precincts. Each one of those four added well over 600 new voters, with the 14th precinct setting the pace for Duluth -- that one precinct alone added 687 new voters on election day! The City as a whole added 10,833 new voters on election day itself. And, they were all handed ballots and they voted.

What a remarkable achievement! Almost too remarkable, it would seem.

You see, according to the current figures on the website for the Secretary of State's Office, the City of Duluth already had 61,074 fully registered voters, come 7 AM, at the very beginning of Election Day this year. Those numbers are also recorded on the website of the Secretary of State's office -- you just need to total them up (the site will not do it for you).

That is 92.78% of the entire potential voter pool for the City, who were already registered at 7 am on election day. And yet, they now report that just under 11,000 (10,833) new voters became registered and voted in Duluth, Minnesota on election day alone! Just add the figures for the "Registered On Election Day" column for 36 precincts of the City of Duluth (do not include Duluth Township -- it is a separate municipality.)

Bear in mind that this unlikely number of brand new voters is about 12.8% of the city's total population, as of last year! But more importantly, it represents 16.46% of the entire possible voting pool for the City of Duluth. That, in a City that already had a 92.78% voter registration figure!

How is that possible? It would seem that it is not.

And, there are other serious problems associated with the new numbers. How would it have been possible, particularly given the persistence and the high intensity of the voter registration efforts of both the Obama and Franken campaigns, and groups like ACORN throughout the entire campaign, for example?

Wouldn't any reasonable person think that most new voters would have already been scooped up by 20 days before, and included in the group already registered as of 7 AM on election day -- that is, included in the group of 61,074 already registered on election day morning?

Surely, the ACORNs and the other Obama registerees would have combed through all the local schools and colleges, probably many times over in the months and weeks leading up to the election! The University of Minnesota - Duluth, Lake Superior College, the College of St. Scholastica, and perhaps even Duluth Business University -- must have all had voter registration teams set up since early September, perhaps even over the summer. Plus, many of those students were likely already registered to vote in their own home towns, some in their home states.

In other words, is it not more likely that the ranks of the potential new voters were pretty much tapped out come election day? And as a consequence, is it not a complete mystery that this considerable hoarde of new voters just suddenly appeared on election day? It is simply not possible that most of them were just coming in to change their address! Apparently there was some mysterious "reserve."

Handling the Registration Process - How Did They Do It?

And here's another thing. As we all know, things are pretty busy on election day, at least in Presidential election years. Minnesota does have "same day registration" but how were all those applications verified and approved in the midst of all the confusion? Take, for example, the 14th Precinct of Duluth where 687 new voters were registered that day. Over the course of 13 straight hours (7 AM until 8 PM) that would be nonstop, completing approximately 53 approved processings per hour, or just under one per minute -- ensuring that applications are completed, checking any submitted identification proof, signing written oaths by "vouchers," checking any vouchers names on the pre-registered roll.

Now, it is true that many of the people may have obtained the forms in advance and filled them out. But there is always a significant percentage of people who do not understand the instructions, or who miss some key piece of information, and there are always even some who fail to follow the instructions even minimally.

Were voters able to "vouch" for someone simply by signature? Or did they require their "voucher" to be present? The business Administrator for Proctor, for example, stated that the "vouchers" are required to be present with the new voter when they sign the oath.

That is a huge amount of work to approve nearly 11,000 applications! Who did all that work? The regular poll workers, who perform that task one or two days out of every year?

Tomorrow: More Strange Results in Other Towns


* Acccording to the United States Census Bureau, the State of Minnesota had a population of 4,919,479 as of the 2000 Census. The latest estimate is for 2007, and holds that as of them, Minnesota had a population of 5,197,621, up by 278,142, or a 5.56% increase.

**The City of Duluth, MN is a separate incorporated municipality from Duluth Township, the latter of which is also located right along Lake Superior in St. Louis County. The Township lies between Duluth and the small City of Two Harbors, the county seat of neighboring Lake County. Two Harbors (2007 pop. 3,416) is where a significant portion of the numerical changes in the vote totals came from in the week following the 2008 election -- + 246 votes for Franken! Those numerical changes -- the ones from Two Harbors, and a few from other jurisdictions -- altered the initial "complete" vote tallies recorded with the Secretary of State, ultimately narrowing the difference between the two Senate candidates from an initial 726 vote advantage for Coleman (early Wednesday morning, 11/05) down to a much narrower 206 (as of Monday afternoon, 11/10).

In The Media Tank

Update: More from Ed Morrissey at HotAir.
Also, see below.

Since election day, there have been a few thoughtful articles, and even a Washington Post mea culpa by their ombudsperson, Deborah Howell, about the bias in critical media coverage during this year's Presidential campaign, especially focusing on uncritical coverage of the Obama Campaign. Day by Day Cartoonist, Chris Muir (above), has been all over the post election trend.

And also at the WaPo, media critic Howard Kurtz has uncomfortably pointed out that, post election, the bias has continued unabated, which now risks being turned into a merchandizing bonanza of "mythmaking" by a complicit and corrupted press, eager, and perhaps desperate to turn their own waning fortunes around!

Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit? Yes, they are.

What's troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing. The endless campaign is over, and there's nothing wrong with the country pulling together, however briefly, behind its new leader. But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking.

Will more and more in the press and media become, like MSNBC's gushing weeper, Chris Matthews, little more than sententious Obamaites? It was he who early on sprang himself free of any form of bipartisanship, by announcing a "furrowing" running up his leg. And he now insists that his job is to make Barack Obama's Presidency successful! Note that in the same sentence that he revealed his "furrowing feeling" Chris actually called what he does "reporting!"

A Pew Research Center poll-based study, released in the waning days of the campaign (Oct. 22nd), correctly identified that there was considerable media cheer-leading that favored Senator Obama during this campaign. Respondents said so by 70% - 9%, a considerably higher percentage during this Presidential election year, than the consistent media favoritism that has been shown for the Democrat candidate in prior Presidential campaigns.

From the opening graf of their release accompanying the study:

Voters overwhelmingly believe that the media wants Barack Obama to win the presidential election. By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama, not John McCain, win on Nov. 4. Another 8% say journalists don't favor either candidate, and 13% say they don't know which candidate most reporters support.

Now, I know the clip (below) only includes 12 people Obama voters interviewed right after voting. But this little preview of a "Documentary Finds Media Coverage Left Obama Voters Uneducated About Campaign Issues," which was posted by John Zeigler (of "The Path to 9/11" fame) at http://www.howobamagotelected.com/. It tracks closely with a post-election Zogby poll of Obama voters, the results of which will likely stun you. For example, in the Zogby poll, over half of the Obama voters (57.4%) could not correctly identify which party currently controls congress. A wild 50/50 guess would have yielded slightly better results! It gets worse.

The descriptive statement accompanying this Ziegler clip says:

"On Election day, twelve Obama voters were interviewed extensively right after they voted to learn how the news media impacted their knowledge of what occurred during the campaign. These voters were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience. The rather shocking video seeks to provide some insight into which information broke through the news media clutter and which did not."

Please, watch it all the way through.



If the press and other mainstream media in our country have so willingly thrown in with the new mantra of uncritical views as news, from whence will come actual tempered and tested news on which the voters, in the future, can draw on as a basis for their own views?

Even the senior correspondent at taxpayer-subsidized PBS, Ray Suarez, kept a straight face while he gave a speech in Michigan in early October, during which he seriously declared that virtually any criticism at all of Barack Obama, was really hidden racism. What crap!

What are we in for? Is the clip posted above our future?

Update: Tom McLaughlin, teacher & frequent commenter at HotAir noted the trend with his class about a week ago, in a guest column at Accuracy In Media.

Norm Coleman Squeezes Out A Thin Win In Minn.

(Update: 11/11 at 11:30 am.) as of yesterday afternoon, the final totals were posted at the Secretary of State's website, located here.

Until the recount actually begins later in the month, the race will stand as is, at 206 votes in favor of Norm Coleman. All "preliminary" changes and adjustments had to be sent in to the Secretary of State by yesterday, 11/10. We waited until mid-day today to be certain all final adjustments were posted on their website, before posting this as the "final" number before the recount begins.

This article by John Lott, published by Fox, nicely sums up some of the inherent problems associated with the vote in Minnesota this year, and the peculiar problems that have surfaced during the initial "corrections" phase that ended yesterday. This, before the recount begins later this month! And note the conclusion:

With ACORN filing more than 43,000 registration forms this year, 75 percent of all new registrations in the state, Minnesota was facing vote fraud problems even before the election. Even a small percentage of those registrations resulting in fraudulent votes could tip this election.

To many, it just seems like too much of a coincidence that Minnesota's one tight race just happens to be the race with the most "corrected" votes by far. But the real travesty will be to start letting election officials divine voter's intent. If you want to discourage people from voting, election fraud is one sure way of doing it.

We will have more on the topic of election day activities later.

(Update: 11/06 at 2:22 11/07 3:50.)
The current difference on Friday, at 3:50 PM, between Coleman and Franken is 337 239 votes.
It has been holding steady most of the day. More to come in a new post later.

Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman seems to have held on against the Democrat tide. Norm appears to have very narrowly edged out and defeated former comedian Al Franken in an extremely tight race for the United States Senate seat.

According to a CNN electronic tally, calculated after 100% of all precincts had been reported, the difference between the two men was a mere 571 votes! Update: That has since changed. The current difference now (11/07 4 PM) stands at 239 votes. See final paragraph below.

The Minnesota Secretary of State's Unofficial tally, as of 8:43.16 am Wednesday morning, indicated that all 4130 of 4130 precincts had reported, and that all 87 of 87 counties had complete numbers recorded. The Sec'y of State's vote tally listed Coleman as winning by 726 votes. Update: After reconciling totals and checked information sent them, the Secretary of State's tally (as of 2:20 Pm on 11/06) now stands at a mere 33 vote difference, with 1,211,527 votes recorded for Coleman, and 1,211,190 votes recorded for Franken. Both of their totals have flucuated a bit since the AP published a story about the recount yesterday, 11/05 at 5:23 pm. Update: Going into the weekend, and following a spate of corrections from around the State of Minnesota, the current difference is 239 votes. IMPORTANT: See also, this post from John at Powerline. There may be some indications of fraud -- see his update.

UPDATE: Hot off the press, the first apparent evidence of fraud. Last night at around 7:30, a precinct in Mountain Iron, St. Louis County, mysteriously updated its vote total to add 100 new votes--all 100 for Barack Obama and Al Franken.

Mountain Iron uses optical scanning, so the Coleman campaign asked for a copy of the tape documenting the ballots cast on election night. St. Louis County responded by providing a tape that includes the newly-added 100 votes, and is dated November 2--the Sunday before the election. St. Louis County reportedly denies being able to produce the genuine tape from election night, even though Minnesota law, as I understand it, requires that tape to be signed by the election judges and publicly displayed.

The CNN ticker and the Minnesota Sec'y of State's Office each claims to have 100% of the vote recorded for all three of the major candidates in the race -- Norm Coleman, Al Franken and Dean Barkley, but apparently small mathematical errors are being caught and reflected in the totals.

They both still agree that the winner by a hair is Norm Coleman! Update: The CNN ticker and the Sec'y of State's Office now have identical totals for the top three candidates, i.e., Coleman, Franken and Barkley. The Sec'y of State's office has some additional detail about minor candidates, including the Libertarian Party, and the Constitution Party candidates, as well as several write-in candidates.

Because of the tightness of the race, there will reportedly be an automatic recount, as the margin between the two will certainly be less that 1/2 of 1% of the vote. That, according to a 3:00 am story , later updated, and published in the Minneapolis paper, the Star Tribune. The two men held identical percentages of roughly 42% throughout the late evening, and on into the early hours of the morning, while Independence Party candidate, Dean Barkley, pulled a steady 15% of the vote throughout the evening.

The Star Tribune reported early on Wednesday morning that Coleman was the apparent winner, but they incorrectly reported that the margin was 601 votes. According to the Sec'y of State, Coleman received 1,211,627 votes, while Franken received 1,210,901 votes. Clearly, the difference is 726 votes. The Star Tribune also reports that Franken says will exercise his right to a recount. Update: 11/06 at 2:20 pm. The difference is now 239 votes. with Coleman having received 1,211,540 votes, and Franken having received 1,211,301 votes. Those have held steady much of the day friday (11/07).

And as the count came down to the wire, at about 5:15 am the results tabulator that CNN had posted on the web, showed the late returns were giving Coleman just a bit of a boost, at one point with a lead of 2,591 votes, out of a total of 2,844,571 that had been counted at that point -- i.e., the totals for all three candidates. But with only what we estimated as a little more than 13,000 votes remaining to be included in the totals for the three men, Franken was running out of potential votes to draw from in order to close the gap with Coleman.

Given the fact that Barkley was pulling a steady 15% of the vote, what it meant was that Coleman and Franken would have about 11,150 remaining votes that would be split between them. So making up 2,591 votes just seemed a bit too difficult at that point. Al would have had to get over 60% of the remaining votes, and that was not likely to happen.

As of an update on the CNN ticker at 5:58 am, Norm's lead had slightly increased to 3,753, with an 2,848,924 votes counted for all three. With there likely being only another 9,000 or so votes remaining to be included in the total for all three, Franken's chances of catching Coleman were fading very fast, even if the Democrats were holding back really good precincts.

We concluded with likely less than about 8,000 remaining votes to be split between the two leaders, the race could narrow significantly, but would not likely turn around.

A few of Al's best precincts were then reported with an update on the CNN ticker at 6:26 am, which closed the gap down to a breath-takingly close 676 votes. But since 2,857,578 total votes had been counted for the three leading contenders, and it was becoming less and less likely Franken could catch Coleman. By 8 am, a few more votes were added and the gap was up to 762 votes. The final few numbers favored Franken, but only brought him to 571.

The final total tally for the three contenders, according to the CNN ticker was 2,858,500 votes, very close to what we guessed as we were trying to project what would happen using the CNN running ticker. The Minnesota Sec'y of State's Office indicated that 2,859,836 votes were cast for those three candidates. Update: The Sec'y of State's Office now shows that a total of 2,860,095 votes were cast for just those three men. Including all minor candidates and write-ins, a total of 2,885,259 ballots were cast in that Senate race in Minnesota.

Update: After reconciling totals and checked information sent them, the Secretary of State's tally now stands at a mere 239 vote difference, with 1,211,540 votes recorded for Coleman, and 1,211,301 votes recorded for Franken. At a distant third, Dean Barkley received 437,377 votes. The last update of theirs that we examined was at 2:50:08 pm on 11/07. Both of the two leaders' totals have fluctuated a bit inn the past two days, but have held steady this afternoon. Just after noon yesterday, Franken's total reflected that 100 vote pickup -- from 1,211,089 to 1,211,189. Sometime yesterday, Coleman's total showed a 100 vote drop, from 1,211,627 down to 1,211,527. Thus, there have been several minor fluctuations in the totals of each.

Thus, the CNN ticker and the Sec'y of State's Office each claims to have 100% of the vote recorded for all three of the major candidates in the race -- Norm Coleman, Al Franken and Dean Barkley. And they both agree that the winner by 239 votes is Norm Coleman. Both have identical totals for the top three candidates, i.e., Coleman, Franken and Barkley. The recount is a certainty, according to Franken.

Did Hillary Clinton Violate New York Electioneering Law?
A Prima Facie Case

Mugging for the cameras this morning (embedded video, below), Senator Hillary Clinton displays her personal disregard for the New York State electioneering law, by stumping for Democrats visibly within a few feet of where people are casting ballots in voting booths in Chappaqua, NY.

New York State Law specifically prohibits any such activity within 100 feet of a polling place. A violation is a misdemeanor offense.

What would clearly seem to be the pertinent section of New York State law provides as follows:

§ 17-130. Misdemeanor in relation to elections. Any person who:
. . .
4. Electioneers on election day or on days of registration within one hundred feet, as defined herein, from a polling place. Said prohibition shall not apply to a building or room that has been maintained for political purposes at least six months prior to said election or registration days, except that no political displays, placards or posters shall be exhibited therefrom. For the purposes of this section, the one hundred feet distance shall be deemed to include a one hundred foot radial measured from the entrances, designated by the inspectors of elections, to a building where the election or registration is being held.

You can download the full election law at the New York State Board of Elections website (it is a large pdf file), or you can examine a much more convenient (unofficial) version of the specific section, §17 - 130, at the Justicia website, located here.



According to a recent piece in the NY City News Service, and reposted at Huffington Post, in New York State even "passive" advocacy for political candidates at a polling place could be a "misdemeanor" offense. The NY City News Service is a student publication at CUNY.

The writers of the piece were cautioning Obama supporters not to engage in "passive" electioneering by wearing campaign paraphernalia, such as Obama tee shirts, or buttons when they go to vote because they might be challenged. The story even notes that the New York Civil Liberties Union has said that they were going to include information about that law in their voter information packets.

The New York Civil Liberties Union plans – for the first time – to include a similar warning in its voter information materials.

Hillary's apparent violation, however, is not passive.

Here's betting, however, that there will be no charge for what seems to be her rather obvious violation of the state's election law.

Funny Comment Of The Day

Today's comment was appended to a post by Ed Morrissey at HotAir entitled, "Franken: You know what’s funny? Killing the President!" He posted a video, via Hugh Hewitt, here. We've posted it as well, below.

The video features a 2004 recording of Al Franken, former "comedian," and current United States Senate candidate from Minnesota. In the recording, which was made after the Republican convention in 2004, Al Franken is recorded on tape, showing a sign-language interpreter his sick idea of a "joke" -- i.e., that the interpreter had missed the "golden" opportunity to signal to al-Qaeda a way to "get to" the President.

Gee, that Al, he sure is a funny fellow, isn't he? Apparently, Al just couldn't resist the opportunity to make a Presidential assassination joke! At Hugh Hewitt's post, above, he also links to Franken's long history of really vicious anti-Christian "humor." And now Al he wants to be United States Senator.



Most of the comments on Ed's thread about this video at HotAir were about a mock "self-help" character Franken created years ago, named Stuart Smalley. This comment was as well.

But "Mulligan" -- the commenter -- did it in a unique way by neatly turning Franken's own Smalley schtick right on the candidate.

Doggone it, he’s not good enough to be a
senator, and people don’t like him.

Mulligan on October 31, 2008 at 8:00 PM

No need for a "mulligan" on that one, Mulligan! Good job!

Taking the Contribution Float:
Like Reneging on Public Financing, and ACORN Abuse,
another case of "fair is foul, and foul is fair?"

He has been caught in a few instances of redistribution chatter recently, beginning with his conversation with Joe the Plumber - "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody!"

And past audio tapes are now surfacing, including the Obama radio interview from 2001, bemoaning the failure of the court system to engage in "redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and, further, suggesting the need for refocusing on "the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change." We embeded that audio clip here (transcript here).

In reaction to the relevations, Senator Obama has tried to reemphasize what he has been saying throughout the campaign, that his taxation plan, to the extent that it incorporates additional requirements for the redistribution of wealth, is really just about "fairness." That, he insists, is the overriding factor, even if it would be harmful to the economy in the short run, or reduce revenues. He has also called his notion of fairness "neighborliness."

Three major Obama campaign-related incidents, however bespeak an utter disregard for any notion of fairness. One was his outright violation of the commitment he made to participate in the public financing of his campaign -- of which Cambell Brown of CNN has now starkly reminded viewers. This has given him a huge cash advantage in the campaign.

In recent weeks a second scandal has erupted over revelations about attempts at massive voter fraud, and the involvement of ACORN, an organization with which he has had very close ties since his days as a "community organizer.

Finally, when it came to putting together his system of collecting campaign donations, an apparent disregard of fairness was at stake. As reported in the lede of the Washington Post story on the subject, "Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations Contributions Reviewed After Deposits," printed in today's edition:

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

Well, fairness has always tended to be a relative term. The question always is, fair to whom?

As reported in today's WaPo story by Matthew Mosk, Senator Obama's campaign now concedes considerable campaign contribution irregularities. He was first caught at it by bloggers, as the paper noted. His campaign deliberately set up an open-ended contribution system, one that, because it did "not require front end screening," gave them the opportunity to accept millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions, including untraceable "cash" contributions from people using temporary credit cards, and for virtually anyone to "contribute" using the pre-paid cards, or the credit card numbers of others.

In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

In the aggregate, that deliberate choice has enabled the Obama campaign to take corrupt advantage of what financial folks call "the float" -- i.e., having all of that cash on hand for their use during the campaign, knowing that because much of it is illegal, they would eventually have to either return, donate or otherwise deal with much of that money.

But they only will have to do so after having helped themselves to the additional advantage of using the money, in order to win the election. Some bogus campaign contributions have worked their way into all major campaigns, including John McCain's campaign, requiring the campaign to address them. But the McCain camp had an up-front "screening process" in place that has prevented anything like the massively fraudulent influx of questionable donations in the Obama campaign.

Was that fair? To whom? Surely not his opponent, who played it straight by employing front end screening. Surely not the election process. Surely not the spirit of a system of regulating federal campaign contributions established in order to protect the American people from corrupt practices. And, by obvious extension, surely not the American people.

The Obama folks could have easily set up their system -- as did the campaign of Senator John McCain -- so that they would minimize such unlawful contributions. The Obama campaign intentionally chose not to.

When challenged about his lack of any real executive experience, Senator Obama's supporters have, from time to time, pointed to his running of his remarkably successful Presidential campaign as proof. Regardless of whether this is a "bootstrapping" argument, if one presumed the validity of it, then it is entirely legitimate to point to his decision to preside over a questionable, even sleazy fundraising operation as evidence of very bad judgment on his part.

He cannot, as they say, have it both ways! Corruption always strolls along shortcut paths, and it is obvious that the Obama campaign did little to keep it's own folks on track when it 1.) came to breaking his commitment on public financing, 2.) registering new voters, and 3.) in the entire process by which he raised money for his campaign. But at the same time, he would like us to somehow believe that the overriding concern for how he will handle the treasury of the United States and help guide the nation's economy, will be "fairness!"

Why should we not conclude that what he really wants, is for us to finally buy that Bridge to Nowhere?

"The Redistributing One"

(Updated: 10/29 AM)
While he was a state legislator a few years back (2001), Barack Obama was quite candid in describing what he saw as the failure of the federal Court process to effectively redistribute wealth, as a way to redress the grievances addressed during the Civil Rights era.

" . . . [O]ne of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was, because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.

"And in some ways we still suffer from that."

and, he further said:

" . . . I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistribute change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way."

So now, Senator Obama is running for President. As you'll recall, just two weeks ago, out slipped a very telling comment in a brief moment of candor. He had stopped to speak with a man named Joe Wurzelbacher as he was canvassing for support in Joe's neighborhood in Toledo, Ohio. Among other things, Senator Obama said to the man who quickly became known as Joe the Plumber:

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody!"

Seriously . . . is this really what we've been waiting for? Throughout the campaign, voters have indicated that they strongly oppose "redistribution" plans to deal with the economy. And they do not like what amounts to a "welfare plan" disguised as a "tax cut." This latest tape had to be a blow to the Obama campaign. And as noted in the Wall Street Journal, he also wants to further alter an "already progressive" Social Security system, turning that into a welfare system as well. And the ever-vertiginous Joe Biden now seems to have further muddied the waters about exactly where the waterline begins between "redistributees" and "redistributors."

Our take.

It's a bit of a take off on a John McCain line from a speech to a crowd in Kettering, Ohio (near Dayton) as was quoted in an article by Jack Torry and Mark Niquette published in the Dispatch Politics, a division of the Columbus Dispatch:

"That's what change means for the Obama administration, the 'redistributor': It means taking your money and giving it to someone else," McCain told a crowd of about 2,000 at the James S. Trent Arena.

Thomas Jefferson, who those in the Democratic party so frequently see as their favorite founding father, was very distrustful of big government because he thought it always led to tyranny.

Likewise, he was distrustful of "too active" government as well. In a letter written in 1787, he told his friend, James Madison,

"I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

And he even had an interesting argument against wasteful or undue government spending:

"The same prudence which in private life would forbid our paying our own money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the dispensation of the public moneys."

In his first Inaugural Address, in 1801, our third President framed his approach to how he would govern:

"With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

All of which makes Joe Biden's latest odd argument -- that criticisms of the policies and approach of Barack Obama are somehow comparable to those aimed at, among others, Thomas Jefferson -- seem strangely hollow indeed! And with all the "age" barbs being fired at John McCain, one can only guess that with his sense of humor, McCain might be tempted to paraphrase Lloyd Benston and say, "Joe the Senator, I knew Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was a friend of mine . . .

Transcription of the Radio Interview Portion of Clip
Barack Obama, Chicago Public Radio Interview, 2001

Here is a transcription of a portion of a morning interview, found here on YouTube, and which we embeded here, that was held with then-State Senator Barack Obama on the radio show, "Odyssey" at public radio station, WBEZ Chicago, 91.5 FM, back in 2001. We have eliminated only the fequent interjections of "uh" and "um" in order to facilitate the ease of reading. Dots . . . indicates a break in the tape. Paragraph breaks are ours, as are any transcription errors.

. . .

Announcer:"Good morning and welcome to 'Odyssey' on WBEZ, Chicago, 91.5 FM. And we're joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th District, and Senior Lecturer in the Law School at the University of Chicago."

Senator Obama: "You know, if you look at the victories and the failures of the Civil Rights movement, and it's litigation strategy in the Court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay.

"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

"And, to that extent, as radical as, I think, people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and more important, interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

"And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was, because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.

"And in some ways we still suffer from that."

. . .

Announcer: "Let's talk with Kiran. Good morning, Kiran. You're on Chicago Public Radio."

Questioner: (Kiran) "Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical. My question is -- with economic changes – my question, is it too late for that kind of repairative work economically, and is that the appropriate place for repairative economic work to take place?" (Announcer interjection:) "You mean the court?" (Kiran:) "The court, or would it be legislation at this point?"

Senator Obama: "You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator, as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistribute change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way."

. . .

"You know, you just, say, look at very rare examples during the desegregation era, the Court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local school districts, and the Court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring, or, or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time."

. . .

"You know, the Court is just not very good at it, and politically it's just that it's just very hard to legitimize opinions from the Court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts."

. . . .

End of radio interview portion of clip.)

Obama On Redistribution Of Wealth, Circa 2001:
Using The Courts and Legislature

Apparently, Barack Obama has done quite a lot of thinking about the redistribution of wealth, and how best to go about it! The Warren Court was apparently not "radical" enough, what with their exclusive focus on all those "negative rights," just focused on what the government could not do to you!

Just check out this audio clip at YouTube (ht Tigerhawk, here) from a radio interview back in 2001, which, as noted by Tigerhawk, was prior to the impact of the Bush tax cuts.

Maybe Joe Biden needs to eat a little humble pie and go back and update his answers to TV anchor Barbara West's questions.

"The Heart of the American Dream is Aspiration"

Others have said it, but few so persuasively as Mark Steyn, as he had also elaborated in an interview with Hugh Hewitt last Thursday. So, I'll say this. By damn, Mark Steyn is a great American, even if he is a Canadian! It was there where he and Macleans Magazine were recently officially accused by the Canadian authorities of . . . well, telling the truth! Now Mark points out that Joe the Plumber has managed, where all else had failed, to penetrate through the fog and, at least momentarily, induce Senator Obama to blurt out a little truth.

To Mark, the brief conversation between the two men revealed the contrast between Joe's world and the

hermetically-sealed environment that Obama lives in, in which his contact with the real world involves getting $50 million dollars from William Ayers through the Annenberg Challenge to spread, radicalizing Chicago schoolchildren. That’s not how real people spread the wealth around. And I would go back, you know, to Joe the Plumber’s point, that actually, if you just let people spread their own wealth around, they’ll make more sensible decisions than, for example, Congress interfering in the mortgage and credit market by making certain requirements of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and all the rest of it. Joe the Plumber, the three hundred million Joe the Plumbers across the land, will make better decisions on that than the federal government will.

Mark elaborates further in National Review Online:

The heart of the American Dream is aspiration. That’s why people came here from all over the world. Back in eastern Europe, the Joe Bidens and Diane Sawyers of the day were telling Joe the Peasant: "Hey, look, man. You’re a peasant in the 19th century, just like your forebears were peasants in the 12th century and your descendants will be peasants in the 26th century. So you’re never gonna be earning 250 groats a year. Don’t worry about it. Leave it to us. We know better." And Joe the Peasant eventually figured that one day he’d like to be able to afford the Premium Gruel with just a hint of arugula and got on the boat to Ellis Island. Because America is the land where a guy who doesn’t have a 250-grand business today might just have one in five or ten years' time.

I'm with Joe the Plumber, not Joe the Hair-Plugger. He's articulated the animating principles of America better than anyone on either side in this campaign. Which is why the O-Bots need to destroy him.

Months and months of examination by the campaign by John McCain, and by the campaign of Hillary Clinton before him, had fundamentally failed to penetrate to the core of what makes Barack Obama tick. And the mainstream press has largely provided him ample cover. As a result, in spite of all that probing, the candidate had essentially remained a mystery about what really motivates him, even regarding his plans for economic recovery.

But in one small, and actually very friendly conversation along a rope line in Ohio the other day, Joe the Plumber asked the candidate for a justification of his proposed tax plan. Mind you, he did not go seeking Obama. Obama's campaign came to Joe's neighborhood. At one point in the conversation, Joe even asked him why not a flat tax. Make no mistake, by what he asked, Joe was challenging the very core of Obama's economic "vision" for America. And Barack Obama uncharacteristically let his guard down just a little bit when he responded candidly and told Joe the Plumber at one point,

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody!"

Of course, what he meant by that is when the government spreads the wealth around, not when the economy grows because government gets out of the way.

I was curious to find out if any other well-known personality had slipped like that. You know, whether someone blurted out something similar.

So, I linked to Brainy Quote and searched for anyone who had made a similar comment, any quote containing the phrase, "spread the wealth around," or even "spread the wealth."

No dice.

Then I tried the "Quote Garden." Nothing there either.

Nor at "Quoteland." As for any matches, "none found" they said, to both searches.

Back in very early 2002, the leftwing site, The Democratic Underground, posted an opinion piece under this title: "Enron Spread the Wealth Around Washington" which obviously put any such activity in a very bad light indeed. Spreading the wealth to those in government -- nothing good about that!

About the closest I could come to a parallel quotation, was from famous utopian thinker ("New Atlantis"), Sir Francis Bacon, 1561-1626, who did contribute rather significantly to the development of the scientific method. On the general subject at hand -- spreading money -- he once reputedly said (ht. Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 2 Ed.):

"Money is like muck, not good except to be spread."

But that too does not really seem to be the exact point Barack Obama was making. Bacon , who was appointed the Lord Chancellor in 1621, certainly did not specify that the spreader-in-chief should be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in his day was one Fulke Grenville.

And, for all of his contributions to the development of scientific thinking, that negative sounding comment is entirely understandable, as Bacon was notoriously bad with money throughout his entire life. As pointed out at Wikipedia,

"In spite of a generous income, old debts and spendthrift ways kept him indebted."

Bacon's public career ended in disgrace when he was accused of bribery (there's that "spreading the wealth" to those in government again), for which he paid significant fines, and narrowly avoided being stripped of all his titles.

So, it would seem that we can conclude this particular formula of Obama's -- that governmental "spreading the wealth" that is "good for everybody," is an original characterization by our newly coined, "Senator Government."

He owns it.

Looks like Barack Obama did not inadvertently pull a Joe Biden plagiarism when he let that one rip!

Our Financial Crisis - A Video Explanation
What Caused it? Who Profited?

(Update: 09/29 pm, below)

This video (ht John at Powerline) is a fast paced explanation of the root causes of our current financial crisis. Please take the time to view it between now and the election, and you may want to encourage others to do so as well.

The video was posted on YouTube by a contributor there known as "The Mouth Peace." He has a Channel, with several other videos posted as well.

This one will really shock you. (Update: We have also included the the new embedded version,and upgrade. It runs just a bit slower, and is easier to follow.

Original:



New version:



Below is the url for the video on YouTube, if you want to copy it and e-mail it to any of your friends or co-workers.

Update: As noted above, The Mouth Peace has now posted an "upgrade"(II) that runs just a bit slower and is easier to follow.

The newer url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU6fuFrdCJY

The original url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

New Obama Tactic -- Fight Your Friends & Neighbors!
"I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
-- Barack Obama, September 16, 2008

Update: (Iowahawk take, below)

An AP story today featured the new and aggressive Barack Obama yakking away in a sarcastic snit, and reportedly "mocking" John McCain, at least according to the lede. It liberally quotes Barack Obama actually encouraging a large crowd of supporters to become his personal argumentative surrogates for the remainder of the campaign.

He is now spouting pure Saul Alinsky-style agitation, which, by the way, Obama actually taught back in his "community organizer" days.

Now, I am sure the AP reporter, Kathleen Hennessey, did not intend for her story, as was printed in the San Francisco Chronicle today (ht Drudge), to be received that way by so many of us. But it sounds a bit like the wheels are coming loose on the Obama Bus. Either that, or the new confrontational tactic will somehow succeed and we are all in for a very bumpy ride for years to come!

As was reported in the story, Obama actually told a group of his Democrat supporters in Elko, Nevada, to single out their Republican and Independent friends and neighbors, and to confront them point-by-point, to actually try to verbally intimidate them!

Folks, here come Obama's Brazen, Obnoxious, Mouthy, Belligerent Surrogates. We could call them "O-BOMBS" for short. Look out!

From the story:

In Elko, Obama tried to anticipate his critics and called on the crowd of about 1,500 to sharpen their elbows, too.

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said. (my emphasis)

Say what? Isn't that just a bit much? Now, we not only have to listen to the daily invasion of our personal spaces within our homes -- from the incessant ads, to the media TV talking heads who are predominantly in the tank for this guy? But now we also have to expect some of our neighbors "getting into our faces" on the street, or in the supermarket? Perhaps they'll even start knocking on our doors to try and bully us into voting for this boob?

Is there to be no sanctuary anywhere?

Personally, I am really so over this guy! Yet, here comes Barack Obama and his plan to turn some of my acquaintances and neighbors into a merry band of voluble intimidators! Let's break this down a bit.

THE ONE says: "I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors."

Sure he does. That's because what he says is not convincing anyone with any sense! The public is increasingly on to his scam. Only now are they learning, for example, the details of his 5 years of work at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) as a "community organizer," during which he and his band of Chicago-based ultra-leftie pals -- unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Maoist Mike Klonsky -- frittered away $150 million bucks or more, running their foundation-supported school "improvement" project.

In the original grant proposal, which was written by Bill Ayers, they had promised to create "a Renaissance in the classroom." But instead they produced absolutely nothing of value for students -- no measurable improvement in student skills or performance attributable to the project. That was the conclusion (pdf) from the 2003 Report of the Consortium of Chicago School Research (CCSR), whose sole purpose was to evaluate the success of the CAC funding over the years. Here are a few choice tidbits.

Re: Student Academic Achievement -- "There were no statistically significant differences between Annenberg schools and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain."
. . .

Re: Student Academic Engagement -- "Like student academic achievement, there were no statistically significant differences in these outcomes between Annenberg schools and non-Annenberg schools."

In other words, any improvements occurred across the board and, therefore, had nothing to do with the CAC, or Annenberg project.

As one writer recently put it, there was no "Annenberg effect" on student achievement in Chicago.

Basically, the CAC project consisted of little more than an expensive, and thinly disguised left-wing political organizing operation intended to shift power in the Chicago school system into the hands of "LSCs" or local school councils, including the active training and recruiting of candidates, and even running their campaigns.

THE ONE then said in this new story: "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican."

I'll be frank about this. Too many "active" Democrats I personally know -- from having worked next to many of them in State government -- were often pathetic party hacks who couldn't convince a sandbag to lay still! They will not talk me or anyone else into anything. I really do wish they would try, though. For the most part, it is hard to have much intellectual respect, given what they are currently promoting this year! When it comes to politics, they usually tend to be either group-think junkies, or, they have some financial iron in the fire that depends on Democrat rule for their continued success, i.e., they are in it for the dough.

FINALLY, THE ONE SAYS: "I want you to argue with them and get in their face."

Sure. That is just what your average sensible, law-abiding, taxpaying, patriotic American citizen wants . . . some wild-eyed or dim-witted do-nothing, a pugnacious, true-believer, nanny-state loving, demi-socialist getting "in their face" and trying to convince him or her to participate in just turning over the reins of the federal government -- and the entire future of the United States of America -- to an inexperienced, gutter-ball throwing, first term U.S. Senator, who spent several years agitating for "change" to no good effect in Chicago, and who is now running on an empty promise of change for the entire nation! THAT is chump change we do not need!

Now, that was grant money in Chicago. But if we foolishly put this lefty and his newly recruited "scream in your face pals" in charge of the federal government, consider the likelihood that there will be exponentially larger amounts of your tax dollars that will spill right down into that bottomless pit.

Given this new "get in their face" tactic you really have to wonder whatever happened to the guy who just last spring was "post-partisan" . . . somehow, above politics as usual. The answer seems to be that he is going back to his community organizer roots. Or, in the words of the "master,"

"In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."
--- Saul Alinsky, Community Organizer and Agitator

Update: Iowahawk posts an hilarious response to the AP story -- the Clockwork O-Rage retort -- to the Barack Obama vae victis declaration in Nevada. A sample:

"Me fine droogies, what we are after now is the old surprise visit," explained Obama. "A real kick and good for laughs and lashings of the old ultracampaigning. Stomp some hope and change into their filthy little rassoodocks for a nice, warm vibraty feeling all through your guttiwuts."

They're not going to like it!

"Lets make things nice and sparkling clear. This sarcasm - if I may call it such, is very unbecoming of you oh my brothers."
-- Alex, from A Clockwork Orange

Hillary Cancels Attendance At Event:
Complains Palin Appearance Makes It "Partisan"

Update: Sarah disinvited, huge controversy, below.

The Associated Press has reported that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, abruptly canceled her planned attendance at a New York City rally outside of the United Nations Headquarters set for this coming Monday, September 22nd, when she found out that Governor Sarah Palin, R-AK, might also appear.

Palin is the first Republican woman candidate on a presidential ticket. Clinton lost her bid to become the first woman presidential candidate this year, and she was passed over for any consideration as the Vice Presidential nominee by this year's Democrat nominee, Senator Barack Obama, D-IL.

The planned protest rally is aimed at Iran's highly controversial leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The event sponsors had apparently also extended an invitation to the Republicans, and the name of the Alaska governor was tentatively submitted. Palin is the Republican nominee for Vice President this year. According to the AP report, written by Devlin Barrett, several American Jewish groups, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, United Jewish Communities and the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, had planned this

"major rally outside the United Nations on Sept. 22 to protest against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Ahmadinejad, who attended a UN Session last year at about this time, is set to attend another UN session in New York next week at the opening of the new General Assembly session. Other protests are also planned for next, including another human rights protest set for Wednesday entitled the "Ahmadinejad Wall of Shame" protesting the executions of children in Iran.

Mr. Ahmadinejad, who was the first non-cleric elected President of Iran in 24 years in a run-off election held back on June 24, 2005, has made a series of virulent anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments in speeches over the years, including ones denying the historical fact of the Nazi Holocaust, and an expressed threat to "wipe Israel off the map."Just this past summer, on June 3rd, USA Today reported that Ahmadinejad said:

that Israel will soon be "erased" and that the "satanic power of the United States" will be "annihilated."

He reportedly made those latest hate-filled comments, according to the story, "at a ceremony marking the 19th anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini's death."

Khomeini was the "spiritual" leader of Iran during the violent 1979 over-running of the United States Embassy in Teheran by radical Islamic terrorist students -- of which Ahmadinejad was one -- during the former Presidency of Jimmy Carter, and the subsequent holding of 52 American embassy personnel as hostages for a total of 444 days. The hostages were released on January 20th, 1981, the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President. Reagan had defeated Carter in the 1980 presidential election. The Reagan election was won in a landslide, and was, in part, seen as a referendum on Carter's mishandling of that hostage crisis. In addition, the nation's economy had experienced years of considerable disruption under Carter.

Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iran has been actively pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, as well as delivery systems, in violation of U.N mandates.

The planned New York rally sponsors said yesterday that both Clinton and Palin would likely be attending the rally. It was so reported by several news services, including Fox. The news that Palin would likely be attending apparently then prompted the abrupt cancellation by Clinton.

Clinton's official excuse for canceling, flatly stated that the mere attendance by Sarah Palin would somehow make it a partisan political event, and that the New York politician would therefore not attend. As reported in the AP story:

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending."

There was no indication in the AP story why the Clinton camp believes the mere attendance of the Republican nominee at an event in New York would somehow turn it into a "partisan political event." Just last week on September 11th, for example, Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama both appeared together, and even walked together, during a 9/11 anniversary ceremony in New York at ground zero. It was billed as nonpartisan.

Moreover, the rally on Monday will also feature other public luminaries, including religious figures who are clearly not associated with partisan politics. According to a post by Colum Lynch on the Washington Post political blog, The Trail, the list of expected attendees also

includes prominent political and religious leaders, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel . . .

And the fact is that Senator Clinton herself is an active political partisan, having unsuccessfully battled for the Democrat nomination for president earlier this year. She conceded her loss to Obama at the beginning of the summer, and is currently a political surrogate for the Democrat nominee. She has made political several political campaign appearances, including joint appearances, on behalf of his campaign for president.

A response from the Palin camp to the Clinton claim of political partisanship, was reported today on the New York Times political blog, The Caucus earlier this morning:

A spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign swiftly replied that the rally should not be seen as a partisan event.

"Governor Palin believes that the danger of a nuclear Iran is greater than party or politics. She hopes that all parties can rally together in opposition to this grave threat," said the spokeswoman, Tracey Schmitt.

According to analysis in the earlier AP story, however, the appearance of both Clinton and Palin:

"would have set up a closely scrutinized and potentially explosive pairing in the midst of a presidential campaign, one in which the New York senator is campaigning for Democratic nominee Barack Obama while Palin actively courts disappointed Clinton supporters."

But as reported, there was no further indication at all of what was meant in the report meant by "potentially explosive pairing."

The AP-suggested headline for the story underscoring another possible explanation for the Clinton camp cancellation: "Clinton blindsided by scheduled event with Palin." Nothing in that story, however, indicated why Hillary Clinton would feel "blindsided" by merely appearing at the same event with the Republican Vice Presidential nominee.

The New York Times post at The Caucus today did raise that question -- why the event organizers themselves had not previously informed Clinton that Palin had been invited.

It was not immediately clear this morning why or when Ms. Palin was invited to the rally, and why the organizers did not inform Mrs. Clinton that the Alaska governor would be among the line-up of speakers. Phone messages for organizers of the event were not immediately returned.

But why would they? And, why is that an issue? Surely the Times is not suggesting that the organizers had a special obligation to help protect Hillary Clinton's political sensibilities, are they?

Even if they had given her a "heads-up," would she not have canceled regardless? Otherwise, the only other possible explanation for her canceling would be her fit of pique at the organizers over their failure to warn Clinton in advance of the invitation to Palin.

So, perhaps what it really comes down to is that Hillary Clinton has suddenly became concerned with appearances -- such as that the presence of Palin would lead to speculation about who ultimately attracted the larger number of spectators, or drew the most media attention at the event.

Maybe Hillary Clinton was simply unwilling to risk being perceived as coming in second again, this time in her own backyard!

Update: Unbelievable! Sarah Palin has been inexplicably "disinvited" from speaking at the rally by the sponsors. As reported by Marcia Kramer at CBS TV in New York, the uncorroborated rumor was that the tax status of the sponsoring groups would have been "threatened" if she attended! Local New York Democrats are even quoted in her story jumping ship on this one!

The question being asked by critics is, was that from a real opinion, or from a real threat?

Allahpundit at HotAir is all over this one!