...because I can get some differing views of the news. I'm glad Salon published Manjoo's article about Kennedy's RS article.

I've a little trouble with "conspiracies", because like another writer who published up the line a few pages, a conspiracy must involve lots of people who can stay quiet.

And, that's very difficult to pull off.

I mean, lots of people in 1963 might have wanted to see John Kennedy dead - Texas oilmen, the Mafia, Castro, LBJ, the CIA, the FBI come to mind - but I still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald - and he alone - got off three lucky shots with his old rifle.

I also believe Kerry - who I worked for and voted for - lost because he ran a lousy campaign and couldn't fend off the Swift Boaters and other dirty campaigning, engineered by Karl Rove.

I also have a little trouble with RFK's objectivity. As with still another writer, I questioned his previous articles on autism. AND, he's still out there, trying to convince the public that Michael Skakal is innocent of the Martha Moxley killing.

So, here we are with a bunch of people arguing over an election that was never really close. Kerry did it to himself, if you just look at the facts. The sailboarding was such a great touch (and so thematic of his political history) that one can readily see why he lost.

The fact that Mr. Kennedy Jr. could not get his facts correct should be no surprise. The article was probably ghost written by Mikie Moore. Other than Caroline and Jackie, has there been a Kennedy that you could believe on any subject???

We Dems lost because we couldn't field a winner. We need to get over it and put up a candidate that can win (not Clinton).

RFK Jr is a flake who damages democrats. His perpetuation of the junk science theory of an autism/thimerosal link is a disgrace that has been repeatedly debunked by scientists who have no connection to Big Pharma. It disgusts me that Kennedy repeatedly gets published with his sloppy research and slanted analysis. It makes democrats no different than rightwing morons who carry liars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter on their shoulders.

Kennedy's position on autism's causes are just as ridiculous as a fundamentalist preacher's position is on "creationism." Both Kennedy and the fundamentalist preacher will ignore the bulk of sane scientific evidence (and in Kennedy's case, he will ignore the results of a an entire country's child population -- thimerosal was taken out of vaccines in Denmark and autism rates did not drop but in fact, rose) and rail against the conspirators out there who are trying to silence them. In RFK's mind, it's the World of Science against Robert Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy fancies himself the only truthteller. Except that Kennedy has to deliberately slant his research, or find research that is ready-made slanted, and ignore the majority of work that shows him to be wrong in order to push his conspiracy theories. That is pure unadulterated egotism, just like a fundamentalist preacher, just like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

Has RFK taken graduate level statistical analysis, research theory and research critique courses? If not, no periodical should be publishing his fevered junk as analysis. If so, I want to know what school he attended.

I'm all for the truth coming to light but it just occured to me that the Rolling Stone article I believe was available online thurs. June 1st. Manjoo rebuts the whole piece a day later. Even if he had access to the Kennedy piece a week earlier it seems amazing that he can research and rebut almost the whole article. And even if he had the voter research results months or a year before, wouldn't it be prudent to go over the facts again?

This article was a rush job and unnecessary. Salon should have waited to do the right piece instead of riding the coattails of Rolling Stone in order to get subscribers. I liked this place before the new editor took over.

London Chic asks: “Why not simply accept that a majority of Americans VOTED Bush in the 2nd time around?”

Firstly: Because the President is elected by the Electoral College, not a majority of Americans - that same Electoral College that elected Bush in 2000 after a majority of Americans voted for Gore – so the popular majority is legally irrelevant. More is the pity.

Secondly, and far more importantly, because disenfranchising voters on partisan grounds and other forms of electoral fraud are inherently wrong and destructive of democratic legitimacy whether or not they actually affect the outcome of an election.

Thirdly, and most importantly, because if after election officials are known to have acted in a partisan and abusive manner and everyone is happy to pretend otherwise or just “let bygones be bygones” because it didn’t really make a difference, such conduct becomes all the more likely future elections when it really could make a difference (consider Election 2000). The speculations about Ohio's 2004 election may seem like hairsplitting, but sometimes splitting hairs has serious consequences; the 516 votes that split the 2000 Florida vote, for example.

Yes, the Americans have the democratic right to choose the neo-cons as their leaders, no matter how much others don't like the results. And yes, that is what a democracy is; but a democracy is – or at least should also be about following the rules and fairly and transparently determining who the electorate does in fact choose as a leader.

The exasperated "let us head once again into this breach" with which Mr. Manjoo opens his article gave me artificially high hopes that the piece might include a few words on what can be done about the problem.

Whether we witnessed a bona fide conspiracy in the outcome of the election -- involving vote-switching, purging, and systematic tampering with machines -- and whether it was enough to swing the results, OR NOT, the laundry list of dirty tricks, questionable money trails, and downright incompetence is enough to make any American sick. RFK Jr.'s conclusion, no matter which way you look at it, is a sincere and alarming call to action.

Why waste more time with the back-and-forth between these arguments? So if you subscribe to "2004 was stolen" theories, you're a tin foil hat-wearing loony tune, and if you point out the flaws in these theories, you're a shill for the right wing. Very productive. Stop savaging each other, do some homework, and tell us, your readers, what can be done to be sure that we have a fair election next time. There's a point on which we can all agree ...