The 2004 presidential contest between Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry and the Republican incumbent, President Bush Jr., amounted to another stolen election. This has been well documented by such investigators as Rep. John Conyers, Mark Crispin Miller, Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, Bev Harris, and others. Here is an overview of what they have reported, along with observations of my own.

Some 105 million citizens voted in 2000, but in 2004 the turnout climbed to at least 122 million. Pre-election surveys indicated that among the record 16.8 million new voters Kerry was a heavy favorite, a fact that went largely unreported by the press. In addition, there were about two million progressives who had voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 who switched to Kerry in 2004.

Yet the official 2004 tallies showed Bush with 62 million votes, about 11.6 million more than he got in 2000. Meanwhile Kerry showed only eight million more votes than Gore received in 2000. To have achieved his remarkable 2004 tally, Bush would needed to have kept all his 50.4 million from 2000, plus a majority of the new voters, plus a large share of the very liberal Nader defectors.

Join the movement for free and fair elections in Ohio! Stop Secretary of State Ken Blackwell from supervising his own election. We know what happened when he worked as the co-chair for Bush and Cheney in 2004. Lines at the polls in the inner cities, purging voters, suppressing the vote with provisional ballots, suspicious vote counts in Republican counties... Here's your chance to sign a petition to put a halt to the corruption of Blackwell and stealing of elections in Ohio. Go to this website Stop Blackwell petition

Lopez Obrador is saying in Mexico what the Democratic Party should have been saying in the United States since November 2000: WE DO NOT CONCEDE. And no Democrat should ever again be nominated for any public office without first pledging to guarantee a full and thorough recount, as is being attempted in Mexico.

We do not yet know the final official outcome of the Mexican presidential election. We do know the vote casting and counting have been plagued with some of the same kinds of intimidation, theft, fraud and electronic manipulation that have become the staples of Rove-run elections here in the United States.

The Mexican outcome is hugely important for a wide range of reasons. The Mexican presidency in the hands of a leftist like Lopez Obrador would have a major effect on the immigration issue currently being used by the Bush/Rove Republicans to whip up racist division and diversion. A leftist victory would also underscore the sea change in Latin American politics being led by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and other populists rising from the southern grassroots.

This isn't the first time Joe Lieberman's placed loyalty to his career above all other allegiances. Afraid that Connecticut's Democratic voters will reject him in the primary, he's now hedging his bets by planning to run as an independent if he loses. "I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party," he says, and tries to make this sound noble.

Lieberman made a similar choice in the 2000 election. He hedged his bets then as well, by running for reelection as Connecticut Senator while also running for Vice President. It sent a great message of confidence for the ticket he was part of, but worse yet, had Gore won (as he would have without the Florida machinations), Lieberman would have had to resign his Senate seat, and be replaced by a Republican appointed by Republican Governor John Rowland. Given that the Senate ended up split 50/50 (until Senator Jeffords left the Republican party), this would have brought about a major political loss. But none of that mattered to Joe. His prime loyalty has always been to himself, from the first time he took money from William F. Buckley to run against moderate Republican Lowell Weickert.