I'd rather hear your opinions on the possibilities of voter fraud raised by people like Greg Palast. No details of how the fraud would take place; says the IFE is controlled by the PAN; talks about Mexico's history of voter corruption, ignoring the changes that have taken place.

I don't like Calderón and I don't like the PAN, but I am inclined to believe that if he wins, it will because he ran a good campaign and got more votes. If López-Obrador loses or wins by a small majority, it will because he ran an old-fashioned campaign that turned off a lot of very astute people. He could have won by a huge majority, but the more people saw him, the less it seemed they liked him.

Mexico is really a very conservative place that puts a high value on economic stability and social peace. The PAN wins because it presents a much more modern and cleaner image than either the PRI or the PRD, both of whose advertising was just pathetically amateur and unconvincing. They are stuck back in the era of mítines and acarreados and dispensas. Fiery rhetoric is old hat. People want practical plans, clearly presented. Calderón did that a lot better than his opponents.

Paranoid interpretations of the results serve only the interests of the United States, which favors chaos when it can't get a clear-cut victory for conservatives, because it believes that turmoil will cause people to accept any injustice in the interest of personal comfort and social order.

I'm not an Andrea Dworkin fan nor am I sympathetic to NOW-style feminism, but I heartily endorse this comment in an interview in New Statesman & Society:

Michael Moorcock: What do you think about the current shift to the right in US politics?

Andrea Dworkin: Here, in blaming and shaming the oppressed, the powerless, the left colludes with the right. There's no reason to look to the left for justice, so people look to the right for order.