Wisconsin needs to more assertively use its drunk driving laws to protect the innocent rather than enabling repeat offenders.

It has to treat repeat OWI offenders the same way it deals with people who discharge firearms in public without regard for other people's safety: Lock 'em up and don't give their gun back.

It's a three-step reform of OWI laws, tougher than what is proposed by some legislators:

1. Criminalize a first offense, making it a misdemeanor, and no longer a ticket. Treat that first offense seriously. And make it clear that when it comes to OWI, two strikes and you're out.

2. Turn a second offense into a felony and make vehicle confiscation mandatory. That's how you help a repeat offender see sobriety as desirable and also how you profoundly help deter others from a first or second offense.

3. Turn one or two vehicle confiscations every month or so into very public salvage yard crushings, then auction off the other seized vehicles and turn the proceeds over to law enforcement to help finance equipment purchases, or operating expenses of check points and other anti-OWN actions.

Once again, during Wisconsin's February Presidential Primary Election, hundreds of voter registration forms were received late. And once again, the group responsible was Women's Voices. Women Vote.

WVWV has strong connections to the Clinton campaign, and what's more damaging is that the group's robo calls provided voting misinformation targeting women and African Americans.

And no, this isn't idle speculation, or the work of unskilled interns. It's a pattern of voter supression that's ignited tens of thousands of complaints across 23 states.

NPR has the whole story, and calls the association with the Clinton camp "beyond dubious."

UPDATE: DailyKos has the whole breakdown. And note that each time a state has complained about the practice to WVWV they've said they'll stop it ... but they don't.

Updated: WI State Journal Edit (May 2, 2008), No apology? You better find one. WI State Journal (p.1) (May 4, 2008) 2004 report warned of 911 Center problems; Co officials warned to increase staffing, change procedures

The first rule in crisis management for public servants is not Save your ass.

It's serve the public.

So when the public clamors for answers about why a 21-year-old UW-Madison student was murdered in early April, and asks what could have been done to prevent her death, the response ought to be openness, transparency and honesty.

Unfortunately, the Dane County 911 Center doesn't see it that way, and the stonewalling has begun.

Jason Shepard writing for the Madison weekly, Isthmus, has run into a brickwall in his reporting on the death of Brittany Zimmermann.

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.

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."

via MAL Contends

Most rational, honest observers (those are not whom we see on cable TV) know that absent a historic meltdown by Obama, Hillary Clinton has virtually no chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

Her nine-digit win in the quasi-machine state of Pennsylvania excites only those with a vested interest in seeing her continue in the race.

Here's an updated reposting of one rationale explaining why Hillary stays in, consistent with known facts: A third-party/independent run.

In Hillary Clinton's willingness to blow up a historic Democratic constituency (the African-American vote, now voting against here nine-to-one), her embrace of John McCain's national security credentials over Barack Obama's, and her utilization of rightwing media organs to smear Obama, right as her money is drying up, one sees at least the outlines of a rationale for the messianic Hillary to morph into Joe Lieberman and stage an independent run for the presidency.

via MAL Contends

The campaign reactions tell the story.

You can see the difference in the integrity of the two campaigns by their reactions to this inane, imbecilic forum last night by two manifestly unqualified debate moderators.

There was a serious debate last night and Hillary won, says Hillary's campaign.

Obama’s site offers Americans the opportunity to comment on this travesty, "Post Debate: Any thoughts? If you're tired of a slash and burn politics that trades distraction for real debate, you don't have to sit idly and watch anymore."

Clinton’s site pretends that this was a real, substantive debate, "Hillary's Reviews Are In: 'The Winner,' 'Strong Presence,' 'In Her Element'" [Just like Hillary is pretending there was a primary in Michigan and Fla.]

Hillary is still the same, old, lying politician to which more and more Americans are taking a dislike.

via MAL Contends - crossposted at Kos -

Update: Many readers have asked: Why are you quoting TNR? Good question. TNR is good on fiscal policy; and I believe this crap by Judis needs to be knocked down. [But I promise never to even bother with Jason Zengerle who is pure shit.] But Salon is pushing this story too, though more judiciously, in Michael Lind’s piece]. Update II: Maybe Hillary, Judis and Co are on to something; even Patrick Buchanan agrees with them.

John B. Judis knows better.

His piece in The New Republic, Woe Is He, asserts the necessity of the Democratic nominee garnering the white working class demographic.

via MAL Contends

When an American politician in the presidential general election campaign says his/her opponent is out-of-the-mainstream, it's a lie.

The losing opponent will garner at least some 45 percent of the vote, disconfirming out-of-the-mainstream status, though election votes are imprecise indicators of public opinion.

The complex reality of the American political culture sees support for universal health care, social security for our seniors, full employment, as well as a mass base for fascism, racist policies at home, a decided antipathy to civil liberties, and near-genocidal wars of aggression abroad, amid what can most accurately be described as a depoliticized electorate.

But the he's-not-like-us charge is aimed at the person; a personal attack that the opponent is somehow alien, out-of-touch, different, elitist, not-of-this-culture, even malicious and the related charge that he/she is dangerous and unpredictable.

Feingold calls them "on the carpet" regarding the Iraq fiasco.  Good work Feingold.  Screw the people who say "we" don't care.  From The Nation:

"So, as a senator, McCain failed the test Tuesday. But which Democrat offered the strongest challenge to the Petraeus-Crocker spin?

Clinton? Obama?

No, Russ Feingold.

The Democratic senator from Wisconsin, who is not running for president but probably should be, continued to take his job as a senator more seriously than any of his colleagues.

Feingold told Petraeus and Crocker: I hope you won't take it personally when I say that I wish we were also hearing today from those who could help us look at Iraq from a broader perspective. The participation at this hearing of those charged with regional and global responsibilities would have given us the chance to discuss how the war in Iraq is undermining our national security. It might have helped us answer the most important question we face – not "are we winning or losing in Iraq?" but "are we winning or losing in the global fight against al Qaeda?"

Spot on.