http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11202004.html
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/lets_get_real/
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/arti...ack_of_the_bus/
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?pid=2037

Having just finished reading recent issues of "The Nation" and "In These Times," two of the more prominent left-leaning news magazines published in the U.S., I am struck by the stark difference in the way they have approached the election fraud issue in their opinion columns. Alexander Cockburn of "The Nation" has summarily dismissed the issue as the whinings of the same kind of "conspiracy nuts" who previously asserted that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks. He provides no reason why he should lump proponents of these two very different issues together, but simply relies on the belief that his readers will take it as a given that anyone crazy enough to claim elections can be stolen must be as nutty as those other people. Of course, because of this, he does not wish to waste any precious space in his long column to examine the evidence -- space he could more responsibly use explaining more fully how he instinctively knows so much about why the Democrats lost the election, and everything else that's going on in the world.

Mark Crispin Miller of "In These Times," on the other hand, has given quite a convincing argument as to why the burden of proof in this case lies with those who claim no election fraud occurred at all. "In These Times" has also included an excellent investigative article by Greg Palast on anomilies in Ohio, demonstrating their interest in a careful examination of evidence before jumping to conclusions. Now, don't get me wrong -- there are many writers for "The Nation" who should be commended and are doing an excellent job of putting the increasingly Pravda-like mainstream media to shame. In fact, I had thought that one of them was seriously looking into Jeff Fisher's fraud allegations. And David Corn's article indeed does look into evidence, although in what I believe is an incomplete and mostly one-sided manner, leading the reader to basically the same prejudiced conclusion as Cockburn's. But incidentally, this is not the first time that "The Nation" has chosen to put unfounded opinion before careful examination of evidence. After all, in the late 1930's and early 1940's they consistently sided with those unquestioningly supporting Stalin's lies, even after the vast majority of those on the Left had long since given up their illusions of a benevolent Soviet Union in the face of the overwhelming evidence of his crimes.