In a bit of exciting news (which also tends on personal-level to give me some confidence that I I voted correctly), Green Party presidential candidate, David Cobb --- who was on the ballot in all 50 states, I'm sure you're surprised to learn --- and Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik will likely be calling for a full recount in the state of Ohio!

KPFK (90.7 FM in Los Angeles) broke the news yesterday in an interview with Mr. Cobb...

The full radio interview can be heard here...

They have issued a Press Release on the matter this morning with further details.

Well, this could be it folks! As a presidential candidates in Ohio, Cobb and Badnark are within their rights to demand a recount! And I'd hope that there's enough folks with a few dollars left in their pockets to cover those costs for the Ohio recount!

This is big (and very encouraging) news for a number of reasons, the least of which will be the ability to give all of the many punch-card ballots in the state a fresh look.

One of the stories I haven't covered here, while many others have, is Greg Palast's "Kerry Won..." article. Palast discussed the sizeable number of potentially "spoiled" ballots that were not counted for Kerry in Ohio during the initial count. A recount, and I don't know yet if that means it'll be a "manual" recount or not, may likely shake out as many as 93,000 possible new Kerry votes (by Palasts reckoning anyway). It's unlikely that all of the spoiled ballots would go for Kerry, of course, many are likely for Bush, or have no vote or more than one vote on them and "spoiled" for good reason. But the idea of a carefully monitored recount is good news by any definition.

(Perhaps we'll even get to figure out what the hell went on in Warren County on Election Night!)

On this blog, I've mainly been focusing on the many computer-related counting errors and/or possible cases of fraud, since those are the issues that I find most haunting as the country moves towards its mandated 2006 deadline for all-electronic voting. So, I've not bothered to point out the more speculative nature of reports like Palast's until now, because until a re-count possibility came into play, his theory was mostly unprovable speculation. That may all now be changing...

DONATIONS can be made for the recount to either of the following sites. They're working together...Can you imagine that?!:

Third parties are good for America...don't ya think?

UPDATE: 11/15/04 Recount fundraising goal has been met! Now seeking funds for "mobilization" costs and also volunteers to serve as "recount witnesses"! Click here for more info...

(Blogged by Brad on the road...)

No doubt you've already heard of Swiftie John O'Neill being hoisted on his own petard, on tape, in Nixon's oval office telling Tricky Dick that he was "in Cambodia". Such a thing was to have been impossible according to O'Neill in his own book of dirty tricks known as "Unfit for Command".

You've also heard that O'Neill claimed not to be a Republican, and not to have been involved in politics for 30 years. Both lies quickly illuminated to the contrary as it was revealed that O'Neill has given some $15,000 to Republican campaigns over the last decade, and worked for Nixon, Rehnquist and other "not Republicans" during that time.

As well, Guest Blogger Jaime was quick to report here on Co-Author Jerome Corsi's habit of referring to the Democratic Nominee for President as "John Fucking Commie Kerry", Hilary "the fat pig" Clinton and other "ragheads" on various internet hate sites like FreeRepublic.com.

The lies and dirty tricks of these guys go on and on.

So it's probably not a suprise to see a story such as "And Yet Another Anti-Kerry Swift Boat Vet Caught Lying" revealing yet another of the "Swifties for Truth" as being...um...less than truthful by having sworn to an affadavit which he now admits contains only information that relied "on the account of war buddies, not what he witnessed" and that he himself lied about an extra-marital affair with a colleague.

And now I've learned that Regenry, who published "Unfit for Command" after most reputable publishers turned it down, pushes a White Supremacy Agenda! Yet for some reason, I'm still not surprised:

And if Bush wins in November, who will he have to thank for that now that this book and those ads and this nonsense has finally helped turn around a few of his polls?

Just a note of advice to the John F. Notbush Media Team from someone you'll pay no attention to whatsoever:

In your Campaign Commercials, such as the one you released yesterday, when the Senator is speaking to the camera --- telling us "We need to get some things done in this country" and "Really investing in our kids" --- it'd be wise if he wasn't nodding "NO" while hoping to convince us that he actually means what he's saying.

You can thank me later.

Yes, the BRAD BLOG is endorsing Howard Dean for today's "Super Tuesday" Primary Election.

Why vote for a man who has unofficially left the race? Let's take a look...

At this time, it seems that John Kerry, the Media-Endorsed, Party-Approved candidate is likely to win California (where I live) and just about every other state hosting a primary today. With these wins, he will become the Candidate Apparent for the Dems in 2004.

If you or anyone you know, is actually personally excited by or interested in John Kerry - beyond the fact that you believe he is currently the quickest route to disposing of The Shrub please COMMENT below and tell me why. I'd love to know. And, while we're at it, I'd love to meet anyone - anyone - who actually likes John Kerry. That meeting ought to be a load of fun.

But I digress...

So John Kerry will likely win everywhere today, and will become the nominee soon enough. And yet, some Former Deaniacs are considering voting for John Edwards today. For some reason. I suppose, since it's not a vote for John Kerry.

But if you're going to vote for "a loser" anyway, why not vote for someone who may end up with enough Delegates (Super and otherwise) to affect the way the Party is run at the Convention and/or beyond?

A vote for Dean may mean a change for the better in the Democratic Party. Whereas a vote for Edwards is nothing more than a vote for the guy who's going to come in second place, and probably end up as Kerry's Veep anyway.

If you ever had any interest in what Dean had to say, if you ever felt he was given a raw deal by the Party and/or the Media, if you are able to recognize how enormously he has already effected the entire Party Platform, now is your only chance to say or do anything about it. As little as it may be.

If you're really concerned about removing Bush from office, and if you're not, you should have your priorities examined, you can always vote for Kerry on November 2nd. But for today, if you want to say anything with your vote, stand up and say something for your party by voting for Howard Dean.

Here endeth the endorsement.