Well, the wink at the end of the first message was supposed to show I was

talking tongue-in-cheek about Clinton. A better tongue-in-cheek word would

have been 'tricked' or 'fooled' his way in. Something like that. Not that

he fooled the system, but that he fooled the people into voting for him

(and, of course, that's just my opinion <g>). He legitimately won the

voting process.

And I did not say Bush won fair and square. I merely pointed out the actual

end results of the popular vote aren't known. I mentioned the results of

the final voting results of Florida as a passing comment since I thought

most people didn't know about it. I imagine, we'll never know the results

of the popular votes unless we get rid of the electoral college. At that

point, every vote will be more likely to be counted.

>>Nope. No typo. The original poster asked a question that sounded

>>ambiguous to me. But if the question were put to me as to how Bush got in

>>there, I'd be inclided to say "our good luck!"

>

> I still don't understand, after that lengthy explanation of why

> you think Bush won fair and square, that you claim that Clinton's TWO

> victories were not legitimate; that he "snuck in". I've heard that stated

> a lot, and it doesn't sound like anything except sour grapes.