Well of coure it would be easier if Calderon just said "Ok, since you want the presidency so bad, here it is - I can handle the loss".
But, democracies do not work that way and whether the liberal tantrum thrower likes it or not - the winner does not forfiet the leadership because the other side is a poor loser.
Let them go to war, let them fight it out. You cannot turn over the country to the tyrants just because they will not honor an election.
You sound like one who considers elections worthwhile if both sides agree to the results only.
And what happens to the rights of the people when the newly elected leader will turn over a country just because the spoiled brats want it?
Give me a break. Liberty and elections are not so easily kept - they often have to be fought for - will not be the first or last time.
You have made some assumptions about my political philosphy that I consider invalid.
I was not expressing my belief in what should happen there. I was describing the fact that I believe Obrador is desparate enough to push his case until Calderon has no choice but to put it down with force, and they are so far down that road that there is little that can be done to stop it. They will have to fight it out in the streets unless one of them gives up on what he sincerely believes in.
My mention of a coalition (did you not see my play on that word, working the idea of coercion?) was not the ideal solution, nor even one that I wanted to see. It would be the result of the two of them considering peace for a bit longer prefereable to bloodshed in the streets. Unfortunately, Fox has set the precedent for that by relinquishing the podium, and at that moment he lost his country, and perhaps abandoned it to the likes of Obrador.
I'm glad you had an opportunity to express your opinion, though. We are in agreement, even if you didn't think so when you posted.