Still confused (the election, again)

Joshua Holland, at alternet.org has a good readable overview of the electorial process -- much better than anything I could throw together. His "spin" is that what's fashionably called by the U.S. right and left the "mainstream media" (i.e., the corporate media) is buying the line that Calderón won... which he hasn't -- yet.

It's already become fashionable to compare Mexico's 2006 vote with the impasse that followed Florida's contested race in 2000. There are many differences, but one stands out... Andre [sic] Manuel López Obrador, of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), is not going to go down without a fight. Millions of frustrated Mexicans who had pinned their hopes on "AMLO" will have his back. The media have been dutiful stenographers for the Calderón campaign and reported that López Obrador's call for massive (but peaceful) protests demanding a fair count is somehow bad for Mexican democracy. ... Crucial to the mainstream narrative is that conservative candidate Felipe Calderón has won the election -- that the National Action Party (PAN) candidate took it in a squeaker. Yes, there are reports of "irregularities," we're told, but the vote was clean and López Obrador's protests only prove that he's a sore loser who simply won't accept the outcome of a close loss (sound familiar?). That narrative is wrong for one simple reason: nobody has won Mexico's presidential election. Regardless of what the New York Times or Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) claim, the results aren't in. Under Mexican law, only the Federal Electoral Tribunal, know by its Spanish acronym TRIFE, can say who will serve as Mexico's next president.

(and more)