A Call For A Revolution In Mexico

By an American member of the American Democratic party.

For the presidential campaign of Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador, narrowly declared the loser to Felipe Calderòn in Mexico's much-disputed returns, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that he has avoided the two biggest problems that confronted Al Gore in Recount 2000: being forced to contest the election in a jurisdiction where the governor was his opponent's brother, and being tormented by a chief election official who was a partisan operative with a bizarre Queen Esther complex. The bad news, however, is that, where Gore trailed in the initial tally in Florida by fewer than 2,000 votes, Lopez Obrador is more than 200,000 votes behind. It's only a matter of time before the Mexican equivalent of our pundit class begins its demands for "finality."

For Lopez Obrador, the clock is ticking loudly. If he wants to keep his candidacy alive, he must take decisive — and quite divisive — action. He must bring meaningful and documented claims of fraud in the election. He must call his supporters to the streets and question the legitimacy of the vote casting and counting process. He must demand that, notwithstanding Mexican law, every ballot be recounted, by hand, to ensure an accurate tally. Above all, he must reject any suggestion that Calderòn received more votes — indeed, he must insist that any fair count would show that he is the rightful winner. (Emphasis added)

This is, as the author must full well know, a completely irresponsible thing to write. Screw the legal system, you must insist you won, regardless of the actual outcome. When a revolution starts will Mr. Klain take responsibility for the deaths that occur? Or will that be the fault of someone's brother?

From that low point, Mr. Klain proceeds to excavate and tries valiantly to rewrite history. Neglecting the fact that the New York Times and the Washington Post - hardly tools of the administration – concluded that Gore lost.

Mr. Klain, you are so badly out of line that words fail me. That the Washington Post chose to run an op-ed that flatly contradicts their own analysis of the outcome of the 2000 election says rather a lot about them.

None of it good.

UPDATE: And The Influence Peddler does a rather handy dismemberment of another attempt to rewrite history from EJ Dionne.

UPDATE: Others: Publius Pundit, Chequerboard,