Hey, guys, let's read beyond the simplistic headlines.

Here is what it says: Bush's margin of victory in Florida would have as much as tripled had the Supreme Court allowed a hand recount of the undervotes to be completed (He would have expanded his 537-vote victory to a 1,6565 margin.)

OK- now read further:

Bush's 1665 vote margin was based on the assumption those numbers would stand but that in all the rest of the state the most generous standards would be applied. The newspapers also gave Bush the advantage under two more restrictive standards.

But the Herald reported the balance would have tipped to Al Gore if a recount of the undervotes had been started from scratch in all 67 Florida counties using the most inclusive standards. Under that hypothetical recount, free from the the fragnmented chronology of the post-election contest Gore would have won the the White House by 393 votes.

The USA Today's analysis focused exclusively on what might have happened if the recount had been allowed to continue.

The way I read that is that if the whole state had been hand recounted by the same standards, Gore would have won. What this paper did was to start in the middle- only those counties that were already counted and at issue.

But frankly, who the divil cares. Doesn't change the fact we got Bush! rah, rah, rah.

Ebbie