Part of the controversy here, as Joan Walsh attempts to point out, is that many of the emotionally fueled responses are conflating the issues of electoral fairness and journalistic integrity. That there were numerous attempts by Blackwell and cronies to bias the vote in Ohio is beyond serious question, and is agreed by many sources. Had Kennedy's article focussed on the qualitative aspects of those abuses, I would have applauded it. But Kennedy went beyond qualitative analysis of various dirty tricks - he tried to make a quantitative argument that there was outright fraud, and that the election could have been stolen. Having followed this controversy off and on for more than a year, I was immediately dismayed to see Kennedy using statistics and analysis which had already been shown to be questionable under even semi-rigorous review.

Manjoo's original article - and his follow up - amount to a devastating critique of Kennedy's journalistic standards and integrity. If what Manjoo says is factually correct, then Kennedy is guilty of misusing data and biasing his analysis toward his desired conclusion. He is guilty, in some sense, of what the Bush administration was guilty of in analysing WMD. There are a tremendous number of resources for each reader to use in reaching his or her own conclusion on this, but extensive, careful reading of data and statistical analysis (not polemical blog entries) is required. Start with the mystery pollster site. My conclusion, partly conditioned by my previous study, is that Manjoo is largely correct in his analysis of the claims in question.

This is important to me, because there are so many issues important to progressives which are dependent on accurate data and scientific standards of analysis. The budget deficit, social security, wage and income standards, global warming, and health care costs, to name just a few issues, are all being obfuscated with junk statistics by various powerful special interests. If us liberals and progressives are also percieved as thinking we're entitled to our own set of facts, and not just opinions, we lose the moral high ground. To have such an iconic figure as RFK jr potentially caught out casually misusing information to support his cause is not to be taken lightly. That's why this is worth more studied reaction than a two sentence flame out, regardless of your ultimate conclusion.

Whether it was Salon Editors or Farhad Manjoo the headline categorically claiming that "NO" the election wasn't stolen, was ham handed at best and left little room for discussion or debate. Whether Farhad Manjoo has some history with Robert Kennedy I don't know, but the tone of his article was dismissive and condescending.

But to digress a little, since the county is in mood for amending the Constitution, why doesn't someone suggest an amendment guaranteeing the right to vote so that the when there are more shenanigan as we were treated to in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2006 then there could be a legal means to to redress grievances.

I'm rapidly losing faith in the ability of people to debate fairly. Sad to say, I'm going to be putting RFK, Jr., into this category.

First of all, his response to Farhad Manjoo on this issue did nothing to rebut what Manjoo said. In fact, it proves that Kennedy himself played fast and loose with the facts.

The perfect example can be found in the very beginning of the piece when Kennedy attempts to slam-dunk Manjoo but ends up getting slam-dunked himself. In his article in Rolling Stone, Kennedy flatly asserted that 174,000 voters "who showed up to vote on Election Day were forced to leave without casting a ballot."

Now we find out that that is not exactly true. By Kennedy's own admission, we find out that 48,000 of those 174,000, "were also suppressed because of the lines and other factors."

Other factors? Excuse me? Kennedy categorically stated that 174,000 people showed up to vote and were turned away. But this assertion is just plain false. As Manjoo points out, and according to the DNC report, almost 48,000 of those 174,000 never went to the polls. Say what you will about why they didn't go to vote, but the fact remains that Kennedy flat-out got the numbers wrong.

And I'm sorry, but that's just either shoddy work, or a poor attempt to twist some numbers. And Kennedy's bid to make up for this mistake by adding in the 'other factors' phrase is pretty transparent.

As to the issue with the judges, Kennedy blithely explains away Manjoo's 2000 election contrast by referring to Alice Resnick as “wildly popular.” I'm sorry, but Kennedy stating that a judge is quite popular does not wipe away the fact that the same type of anomaly occurred in 2000 as it did in 2004. In fact, maybe it's not an anomaly at all. So one has to ask, why was this rather pertinent fact left out of Kennedy's piece in the first place? One can only guess, but Kennedy calling a judge wildly popular as the be all and end of all to explain getting caught in the sin of omission is not particularly valid in my line of thinking.

Furthermore, Kennedy's line about Manjoo creating a "cottage industry" to debunk supposed problems in Ohio is disingenuous on two fronts. First, Manjoo has done nothing of the sort. He's consistently argued a position that Kennedy doesn't agree with. How is that a cottage industry? I mean really, can I accuse Kennedy of creating his own cottage industry after he's argued his side for a while, which I'm sure he'll do? It's simply ridiculous and it smacks of the kind of trite dismissal we've come to expect from Republican debate tactics.

Second, that phrase might give some people the impression that Manjoo has never really addressed Republican voter chicanery. He has -- on many occasions. Here are just three:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/21/sproul/index.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/15/florida_voters/index.html

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/21/intimidation/index.html

So cottage industry? I think not. And for Kennedy to say that is pretty unfair to Manjoo.

Finally, Kennedy accuses Manjoo of "outrage" over this issue. That's pretty funny. I found Manjoo's piece to be rather clinical. As was his reply to Kennedy. Accusing Manjoo of "outrage" is just another example of Kennedy's shoddy work. It's another cheap rhetorical ploy worthy of the Republican Party, not the son of RFK.

In the end, Manjoo has made some pretty valid arguments to rebut Kennedy. That's all that's happened. And to all the folks who are going apoplectic here on the letters page, stop all the vitriol. I, for one, am tired of reading it. If you want to debate, debate substantively, and not like a pack of Limbaughs and Hannitys.