Read other letters about this article
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.