I think everyone agrees that the election of 2004 generated results that are suspicious, and that a multitude of facts, when put together, suggest the Repubs rigged the election.

But as was hashed out in the previous round of name-calling here on Salon, what can be done with these accusations? Legally, nothing. As long as those in power have some sort of "explanation" for the discrepancies, no matter how unrealistic, they will easily succeed at painting any challenger of the result as a liberal whiner. Kerry and Dean and the Dems already know this, and without tangible proof of their case, they have decided to move on.

Yes, we know in our hearts the Repubs rigged the election, probably in more ways than even imagined at this point, but without concrete evidence of such an intention, we're just spinning our wheels.

I took that to be the theme of Mr. Manjoo's original article, and I believe it still to be true.

And though I have absolute respect for the writings of both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Freeman, I don't find in those writings any sign of a "smoking gun" in the hand of at least one election official--at least not a gun big enough to have made a difference in the outcome. Yes, there might be evidence to suggest lots of little guns, all in different hands, but that still gets us nowhere, unless evidence arises of group intention (AKA a conspiracy to commit election fraud).

As far as I can see, sadly, all we can take from the election of 2004 is a mandate to be more vigilant come next election, and learn to combat the tricks that were pulled on us so far. I wouldn't have though that would need to be said now, given what happened in 2000 and 2002, but apparently the Dems still haven't accepted it. In 2004, they were outmaneuvered by the Repubs once again.

I'm not shocked to see such emotional, thoughtless letters on this topic, because I've seen it before from a select group of Salon readers, attacking news stories, opinions, and movie reviews. In the five years I've been a subscriber though, this seems to be the worst.

Ms. Walsh, I fear you have broached a topic which is simply too complicated to be understood by many of your readers. In response, you receive personal attacks and "threats" of subscriber cancellation, representing the type of emotional, reactionary thinking which long kept humans living in caves and worshipping sticks.

Attention--fellow Salon Readers: This is how science works. It is evidence-based thinking, and when disagreements occur, they are argued and debated. If you believe Kennedy has better evidence than Manjoo, then fine, believe what you will. But don't attack the intentions or motivations of the other side, or of those who presented the debate to you, or you'll be joining the ranks of Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter.

The crux of the current argument centers on statistics; it seems though that the technical end is beyond many readers, and so they fall back on emotionalism, believing what their "hearts" tell them. I suspect though, that statisticians familiar with these data, including those hired by Kerry and the Dems, feel that there simply is not enough evidence to pursue this matter legally. So Kerry and the Dems have moved on.

To those who seem certain the evidence exists to prove that Ohio was stolen, why not pursue it? I'm no lawyer, but I believe those who live in Ohio can file suit for infringement of civil rights. Oh, you don't think you'll get very far? That's probably how Kerry and the Dems feel, too. So shut up about it, or go out and dig up better evidence than what's already there.

Articles like Mr. Manjoo's (and Mr. Kennedy's) are exactly the reason I subscribe to Salon. I strive always to hear both sides of an issue.

Having lived in the Bible Belt for eight years, I can say that a Democrat with a pro-choice agenda has essentially no chance of being elected there, or re-elected, unless he/she is both a well-established and well-liked incumbent. Blanco is not either of those, and if she wants any chance at re-election, she will have to sign the bill.

And we, as Democrats (presumably), should shut-up about Democratic leaders who, from this point on, follow the wishes of the majority of their constituents. Though a slight majority of people, even in the South, are pro-choice, a slight majority of PEOPLE WHO VOTE are anti-choice, as has been shown in many recent elections there.

I myself am as vocally pro-choice as you will ever find, but the harsh reality is that a politician's pro-choice position is a huge liability in conservative states, and that single issue alone likely accounts for the consistent losses the Dems have experienced there. I know many people whose sole criterion for whom they vote is the politican's stand on abortion. I applaud the Dems holding on to the pro-choice ideal only as long as it doesn't single-handedly hand the gov't over to the Republicans, which sadly it has.

So if Blanco must sign the bill to keep her job come re--election, then let her sign it. Let the Repubs have their way on this issue, let them own it, even reverse Roe. In the end, it will blow up in their faces. Smart Dems will be standing by to make political hay from it.