I am wondering what, exactly, was the point of Nina Mollett's My Turn, which argues that the legitimacy of President Bush's election remains "on shaky ground" because of the way in which the Florida recount was resolved.
What Nina Mollett and other "democracy partisans" fail to address or establish is how a Gore victory, aided by a recount conducted according to the parameters of one local judge, would somehow stand on less shaky ground (or more solid ground) than does the Bush victory.
With that in mind, what's the point of dragging all this up now, unless Nina Mollett believes some sort of deliberate subterfuge robbed Al Gore of the presidency - a claim she doesn't offer any evidence of in her column.
The media conducted a careful count of questioned ballots and confirmed that Bush was in fact entitled to Florida's electoral votes. But Nina Mollett dismisses all this by invoking a conspiracy of some sort led by the pro-Gore New York Times.
The bottom line is that the election of 2000 was a statistical dead heat - meaning half the voters were bound to be disappointed. No counting method will ever be perfect, and a vast majority of Americans reject any implication that our democracy - or the Bush administration - is somehow "on shaky ground."
Add everything together and you get a very close vote, a winner declared according to the Constitution, and a nation's body politic that got over it and moved on.
Nina Mollett should move on, too.