This may come as news to you, since Gore's win was thickly obfuscated in the press
reports, which cast it as a victory for Bush. That's the Big Lie that we got from The
New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CBS News et al.,
which is especially weird, since those very institutions were all part of the consortium that carried out that vote-count. They lied about Gore's win because, by the time the vote-count was complete, it was two months since 9/11, and the nation was "at war," so that it would have been just too damn troublesome to tell the truth.

And, once having lied, it was impossible for those outlets to redeem themselves by
coming clean; and so they keep on variously claiming, even now, that Bush beat Gore.
A few weeks ago, for instance, the Times's Nicholas Kristof wrote a column likening
Hillary's diehard drive against Obama to Ralph Nader's theft of Al Gore's victory in
2000. The column resonated strongly all throughout the media and cyberspace, with
everybody and his brother parroting that line, and nobody (unless I missed it) pointing out that Nader could not possibly have made Gore lose, because Gore didn't lose; and if the Democrats were too damn cowardly to fight on his behalf, that's not Ralph Nader's fault.