Unless you absolutely can not bear to relive the ordeal, be sure not to miss seeing Recount, showing all this month on HBO.

It's gotten rave reviews, and indeed, even though I knew how it came out, it had my palms sweating. Kevin Spacey is great as usual.

Made me a little crazy though, to be reminded how the US Supreme Court first stopped the hand recount, then ultimately ruled that Ms. Harris' certification of W stood ... because there was not enough time to complete the recount.

The irony (which I thought they'd mention at the end of the film, but did not) is that, if they had simply recounted the disputed over- and under-votes in FL, it would not have even mattered which standard was used. If the rule applied were the loosest 'every faintly dimpled chad counts,' then Gore won it by 107 -- If the rule were the strictest 'only completely punched holes count,' then Gore won it by 115. And under any standard in between, same result - "If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards ... Mr. Gore would have won."

But no ... the Supremes ordered the counting stopped, and handed the Presidency to Bush. I wonder if any of that Court's majority lose any sleep these nights over the millions of Iraqis who are refugees, not to even mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Americans who today are dead, all directly as a result of the Court's dishonest opinion.

I tell ya, if I had been a Justice in that majority back in 2000, and knew today that all of this suffering and death were caused by my own personal dishonesty, I do not know whether I could literally live with myself any longer - Public seppuku might be the only decent response.

How can the west tell Zimbabwe how to run their elections with a straight face when ours is just as corrupt?

Hey, if the McBushites couldn't get that little bitty lie out without giggling, they'd never have been able to sell us a whole unnecessary war!

And now, even the top-drawer fascists are running for the hills and telling tales out of school - See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121198457525625977.html?mod=googlenews_wsj -

This book should be hugely damaging to the GOP, but I've almost given up on the media. Daily, it seems we get headlines simply parroting McBush's press releases, each one headlined "McCain breaks with Bush on (insert here a meaningless or historical W position, which McCain blithely supported back when it actually mattered)"

It was not so long ago that if a candidate made a statement that was patently absurd, the media would call him on it. Now, no lie is too outlandish - Everything is merely a matter of opinion, of political differences. It's like in the Bush/Kerry race, where someone pointed out that the media's attempts to be 'balanced' had led them more and more to simply ignore reality. The example offered was that if Bush, after prolonged consideration, one day publicly announced his firm and unshakable belief that the Earth was not spherical, but flat, the next day's headlines would not be: "Bush loses last remnant of mind," but rather they would reflect this new, 'balanced' approach: "Candidates differ on Earth's shape."

Perhaps the most revealing and damaging part of McClellan's book is the admission that Bush personally "decided to pursue a political propaganda campaign to sell the war to the American people. It was all part of the way the White House operated and Washington functioned, and no one seemed to see any problem with using such an approach on an issue as grave as war. A pro-war campaign might have been more acceptable had it been accompanied by a high level of candor and honesty, but it was not."

The 'reaction' stories coming out of the White House to the McClellan book this morning describe them as 'sad' and 'puzzled.' I'm guessing, though, that 'sad and puzzled' would not in fact accurately describe Karl Rove or Darth Cheney's reaction this morning - I think 'furious, panicked and vengeful' would be much more accurate. (Note that I do not include Georgie here - 'sad and puzzled' are and have always been accurate descriptors for him.)

W got into the White House as a result of dishonesty, and it has characterized his every act since then. I do wonder though to what extent the rest of the world really understands how much of America is every bit as appalled about W as they are. Do they view their enemy as being 'Bush' or 'America'?

If Obama wins, it does seem like it may shock a great deal of the Islamic world - How will they explain to themselves that the US would elect white oil millionaire 'George W. Bush,' and then immediately follow him up with a black 'Barack Hussein Obama'?

HBO has been one of the best production houses for a long time now. Aside from excellent dramatic series like "The Sopranos," they've also given us outstanding movies and documentaries like "The Rat Pack," "Angels in America," Spike Lee's "When the Levees Broke" etc. I don't subscribe but will be sure to see this on DVD. I'm glad to see that someone is keeping the story alive. It disgusts me that there are so many Americans whose partisan blind faith disallows them from taking a hard look about the facts of what was basically a stolen presidential election. The status quo line seems to be "you only think it was stolen if you're a whiny liberal." I'd prefer to think that any true patriot regardless of party affiliation would care.

The media have bent over and taken it from this administration for way too long. If people think we had a bullseye on us back in '01, the current administration's policies have only made us a bigger target for extremists and crackpots.

I don't have cable or satellite but am realy looking forward to viewing Recount on dvd as well.

On another note, I hope that War, Inc., the new movie by John Cusack makes it here. It focuses on the war profiteering currently happening in certain circles around the world. If you live in LA or New York, you should check it out.

The sad part is W. won legitimately in the second election.

I am not sure if using the media to lie can be considered legitimate. Remember the daily orange alerts that stopped immediately following Bushes reelection? I cannot understand why things like that are not taking them to court.

Tens of thousands in Ohio would disagree ... It's often much more subtle than the open dogfight in 2000.

In 2004, it was as simple as placing most of Ohio's voting machines in GOP precincts, and not nearly enough machines in Democratic areas. That way every GOP voter is done voting in five minutes, but when Dems arrive to vote they face massive, hours-long lines, and many just give up - People still have to get home and deal with dinner, children, etc., and most people don't have a 'spare' three or four hours in any day.

But, I would agree that W was closer to a legitimate win in 2004 than he was in 2000. It baffles me, but I expect a lot of those swing voters have by now abandoned in disgust their dalliance with the GOP - Reagan brought 'em in 30 years ago, but W finally took things far enough to make it apparent to even the densest where GOP priorities lie. The recent Mississippi race was very revealing.

I had a chance to watch a bit of it last night. Definitely grabbed my attention but I eventually fell asleep. I'll have to catch on demand.

If you believe that, I suggest you read this:

http://harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696

The really sad thing is, the Democratic party is so totally lame and fucked up, the Republicans won't have to bother with stealing elections much longer, because they won't have anything even coming close to resembling a legitimate foe. Just look at the insane Clinton supporters who are saying they will vote for McCain to spite Obama. I mean GEEZ you idiots, Obama and Clinton have almost identical policy stances?!?! Are you so obsessed with one personality over another that you would vote for a Republican? Also this primary has, IMHO, really shown how much racism still exists even within "progressive" sectors of our society. Ridiculous. It's a damn shame the Libertarians are so whack, we need a real party that generally supports free market principals, non-militaristic intervention, and the right for people to do whatever the hell they want so long as it's not hurting anyone else.

I really think (/hope) that this is largely bluff, bluster and bullshite. Notice that the percentage of HC supporters taking this position seemed to grow by leaps and bounds with each successive primary - I drew from this trend the conclusion that the HC supporters simply thought this might be a winning strategy. "If we can convince them we'll all go to McCain otherwise, well then golly gee willikers, they'll just have to nominate Hillary!"

Ummmm, no.

Hillary's main tactical problem (aside from the larger strategic issue of her 40-50% 'unfavorables' going into the fall of '07) was that she put all her eggs in one Super Tuesday basket - Sort of similar to the Giuliani-FL shortsightedness. She was widely quoted as saying repeatedly "It'll all be over by Feb. 5." She had essentially zero plan for her campaign for any days after Feb. 6 - No offices at all in many of those later states, no plan to win very many caucus-generated delegates, etc.

But, if Obama does indeed get the nomination I don't see many voters really planning, as a result, to vote instead for McCain. Anti-choice, anti-gun control, anti-environment, but pro-war, pro the Bush tax cuts on the megarich, etc. - That's the choice that the Hillary 'true believers' are gonna make? I don't buy it for a second.

The more serious risk is that HC's supporters, often the grass-roots backbone people of the local Democratic parties, will decide to simply sit this one out - Not raise $, not knock on doors and make phone calls, etc. But, even if that happens, I think that the GOP has some of the same problems, in that the fundamentalist religious right does not really believe that John McCain is a true believer, because he has only voted with them 95% of the time for the last eight years, instead of 100% through his entire career.

And in any event, both the disgruntled Hillary folks and the disgruntled religious right are likely to be dwarfed by the masses of the newly-gruntled. New Democratic voter registrations have been huge.

Right now, the odds are good for a sweep - Obama, Dem House and Dem Senate. The challenge will then be how that circumstance is handled. Do the Dems accomplish anything, or do they spend their time punishing the GOP for all the years the Dems have been excluded from the process? As much as I personally would enjoy the latter, I think the public is thoroughly fed up and would punish the Dems in the '10 midterm elections if they do so. It will be interesting!

It's interesting to look further into Clinton's claim that she does better with "working class" voter than Obama. If you look at the results, what is really true is that Clinton does better than Obama with Appalachian voters. Obama has no problems with working class voters anywhere else. And even in the states where Obama did well, if they include Appalachian districts, Clinton did well there.

It is sad to have to say that racism is still alive and well in that area...I saw some interviews with locals on TV right after WV, and many of them said outright that they would never vote for a black man.