Nov. 3, 2004 | COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The real scandal of this election became clear to me at 6.30 p.m. on Election Day as I drove a young African- American voter, a charming business student, seven months pregnant, to her polling place at Finland Elementary School in south Columbus. We arrived in a squalling rain to find voters lined up outside for about a hundred yards. Later the line moved indoors. We were told that the wait had averaged two hours for the entire day. By the time the doors closed at 7:30 p.m., it was considerably longer.

Why such a line? Yes, turnout was a factor. But the real problem was a grotesque shortage of voting machines. Finland Elementary serves three precincts: Ward 37, A, B and C. The election officer at the door told me that the smallest of these precincts has some 400 registered voters, the middle-sized one has more than 800 and the largest "thousands." Because of the length and complexity of the ballot, voters were being limited to five minutes to finish their ballot, and most were using all that time.

Each precinct had two functioning voting machines. The largest precinct was

I worked for 3 days, including Election Day, on the statewide voter protection hotline run by the Ohio Democratic Party in Columbus, Ohio.

I am writing this because the media is inexplicably whitewashing what happened in Ohio, and Kerry's concession was likewise inexplicable.

Hundreds of thousands of people were disenfranchised in Ohio. People waited on line for as long as 10 hours. It appears to have only happened in Democratic-leaning precincts, principally (a) precincts where many African Americans lived, and (b) precincts near colleges.

Before the election I went on a date with a young lady and the topic of politics reared its ugly head. The woman, who I will call Nikki, said she was voting for George W Bush. This was one week from Election Day and emotions in America were riding high. I was not only backing Kerry but was also very enamored with him as my generation’s answer to George McGovern. Many times this past election I compared this election to McGovern versus Nixon. Unfortunately, I was given the displeasure of suffering the same crushing blow as McGovern supporters had to endure. When I heard her profess her devotion for President Bush I knew there would not be another date. I am no James Carville and cannot fathom seriously dating someone from across the aisle especially during these divisive political times. I can share a friendship with a right winger but not a romance. After almost gagging on my Filet Mignon while she spoke of her admiration for President Bush the dreaded question I was waiting for finally came; who are you voting for? I lied and told her that I was voting for President Bush.

"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

I just wanted to thank you for not only writing discrimination into the Ohio Constitution, but also for undermining the benefits and rights of straight couples who have enjoyed long-term, unmarried relationships spanning not just years, but decades.

Driven by the fear, ignorance and prejudice of a few, you have cheerfully damaged, if not ruined, the lives and relationships of many. Some might even be friends, or former friends now, of yours.

So, rest easy Ohio, while the spectres of terrorism, poverty, inadequate health care and a crumbling social safety net still haunt us, you've saved us from the horrors of same-gender couples enjoying the same rights and priviledges as married couples.

As seen below, two of the four current lead-ins on The New York Times website (http://nytimes.com) at 2:12AM ET mention a "mandate" for the president and a third states that the country is "center right". Let's stop and think about this. President Bush was just elected in a tremendously close election.

He had 3 percentage points more votes than Kerry.

He won with 51% of the vote.

I don't know about you, but the support of only half the country and the dissent of the other half doesn't seem like a mandate to me. The words I'd use to characterize a president who only has half of the country's support are tenuous, fragile, delicate, and, perhaps, weak.

Why is the New York Times (and countless other mainstream media outlets) using such strong language for Bush and his political agenda?

President Bush has a weak hold over our country. Let's flex some political muscle and break his grip.


From NYTimes.com:

TOP HEADLINE: Bush and Republicans Celebrate Victory; Mandate Is Seen for the Next Four Years