Dear Editor: I had not had an opportunity to see your paper on Friday before sending you [an] e-mail and I wish to ensure your awareness that it was a pleasure to see something worthy of the office in print about the President-elect. However, the historical nature of the election should not have had to wait from Wednesday until Friday to be noted.
 I recognize that you do not publish daily, but with the magnitude and intensity of the campaign and the potential historical value of the outcome, a little more foresight could have been given in planning your Wednesday, November 5th edition. Specifically, the potential for McCain to win by a landslide in electoral votes was just as great as Obama and in either case it would have been appropriate to write about it whichever candidate won even noting more details were to follow in Friday's edition.
 The nation and the world waited to learn of the outcome and for your paper to seemingly ignore historical aspects of the election came across as insensitive and uncaring and I would like to believe that was not the intent. Although you did not publish headline news the day following the election '04, nothing like what we as a country just experienced was on the table. Using the sidebar with the two sentences and misspelled name just didn't make the grade.
 I just wanted to follow-up with thanks because you did ultimately publish as you had in the past and I had suggested an apparent distinction in reporting. Had I seen the Friday edition I would have held to my primary concern which was missing the "moment."

Nita Thompson
Covington