American Gomorrah--Did Palin Cost the GOP the 2008 Election?

That the prolonged contest for the American presidency last year marked one of the epoch political battles in U.S. history goes virtually without saying. Rarely has a national election been so fiercely challenged, so infused with meaning, so weighted by widely swinging dramatic arcs, and so blessed by such an engrossing cast of characters. It was, without question, what political insiders refer to as a "change election"--a significant, paradigmatic shift in the national polity.

A generation ago it would have been said that the campaign was fought out each evening on the network newscasts, but in the age of the Internet and 24/7 news cycles, the fact of the matter is that the combat was nearly incessant, seemingly without pause.

The highly contested nature of the 2008 election inevitably lent itself to sports metaphors, invoked not only by the media, but, apparently, by the candidates and political operatives themselves. In November 2006, Obama's sagelike campaign strategist David Axelrod drafted a memorandum in which he was brutally direct with the candidate:

"I don't know whether or not you are Muhammad Ali or Floyd Patterson when it comes to taking a punch. You care far too much what is written and said about you. You don't relish combat when it is personal and nasty."

This fascinating and revealing memorandum is explored at length in Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson's generally superb The Battle for America 2008: The Story of an Extraordinary Election, the only book yet published on the campaign that succeeds in capturing its entire dramatic arc.

Balz and Johnson, both veterans of the Washington Post's formidable national bureau, generally opt for the boxing metaphor in their reporting. In that respect, they view the real heavyweight battle in 2008 as the one fought between Hillary Clinton and Obama in the Democratic primaries.

The Battle for America opens with a telling vignette in which Obama and both Hillary and Bill Clinton appear at a memorial march in Selma, Ala., in the winter of 2007. Afterward, Obama is waiting in a small plane on the tarmac of the Selma airport as, first, Bill's motorcade pulls up to a Gulfstream jet, and the former president taxis down the runway.

Next it is Obama's turn--only the battery is dead in his plane. Hillary then emerges from her own, even larger motorcade, enters her Gulfstream and departs down the runway, while Obama is forced to wait for an electrical cord in order to jump-start his engine. The symbolic imagery of the situation is not lost on Obama, who declares, "I guess this really is a grassroots campaign."

Herein lies one of the two major historical questions of the 2008 election. How did Hillary Clinton, widely considered the frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination and ahead of Obama by as much as 33 points in October of 2007, lose her lead and her seemingly inevitable presidency to the junior senator from Illinois--a candidate who had been a national figure for less than four years and whose sole claim to fame was a single speech delivered at the 2004 Democratic national convention in Boston?

The simple answer is that Clinton and her campaign blew it. For all her steely posturing and assertion of leadership skills, Hillary Clinton was a hands-off manager, afraid to mix it up in the rough and tumble of interoffice infighting. The Clinton campaign, as Evan Thomas describes it in the compact though well-crafted and insightful The Inspiring, Combative 2008 Campaign and the Historic Election of Barack Obama, was defined by "crisis, chaos, deceit and subterfuge"--and that was putting it mildly. The Clinton team's confidence soon begat arrogance, complacency and a sense of entitlement--all deadly ingredients in a run for the White House.

But as Richard Wolffe argues in his elegant, if at times gushing, Renegade: The Making of a President, that was only half the answer to the question. The other half was that the Obama camp was simply masterful in its execution throughout the primaries. In this respect, Wolffe favors basketball metaphors in his intimate portrait of Obama:

Politics was no pastime for Barack Obama, but it tested him in similar ways to his beloved basketball. The campaign challenged his character and his strategy. To win, he needed to demonstrate what kind of game he could play. Was he a high-minded purist who never threw an elbow? Could he keep his cool while his opponents tried to rattle him? Was he all hope and no fight?

As the campaign wore on, Obama's--and Axelrod's--ability to keep their heads calm when those about them lost theirs enabled them to take advantage of every little mistake made by the Clintons.

The other major question lingering from the 2008 campaign is whether or not John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate cost him the election, or if his loss was a fait accompli, no matter whom he chose. This is a much more dicey matter, as McCain's political operatives try to salvage their reputations in the aftermath of their loss and as startling revelations about Palin's behavior on the campaign trail continue to leak slowly, albeit steadily, from McCain operatives.

In the aftermath of Obama's significant electoral victory, the McCain campaign has done its best to argue that the loss was inevitable, no matter who he chose, no matter what they did. The most vehement of these spin doctors has been Rick Davis, McCain's controversial lobbyist-cum-campaign manager, who was demoted not once, but twice, by McCain during the electoral process.

While the highly regarded Steve Schmidt--known as "The Bullet" in GOP circles--was eventually placed in charge of the campaign's day-to-day operations in July of 2008, it was Davis who was tasked with overseeing the vice-presidential selection process, and it was Davis who led McCain & Co. to Sarah Palin.

For those political junkies who crave the behind-the-scenes details of the various campaigns, it doesn't get much better than Campaign for President: The Managers Look at 2008, the transcripts of a two-day gathering convened at Harvard's Institute of Policy Studies in the immediate aftermath of the election. Many of the major players participated--including Davis and Bill McInturff from the McCain campaign and Axelrod and David Plouffe from Obama's--and their comments at the various sessions are transcribed essentially verbatim. It's the raw footage of the campaign, the nit and grit, without mediation by journalists or historians.

Davis and McIntuff did their best at Harvard to spin the Palin selection in a favorable light--"She was a maverick," Davis insisted--but the Obama camp would have none of it. Joel Benson, Obama's chief pollster, noted that after Palin's devastating performance in her now infamous interview with Katie Couric, "Palin went from having, in our poll, the highest favorable/unfavorable ratio to the worst of the four principals. By the time she got to the vice-presidential debate, in our polling, her negatives were almost as high as her positives."

Davis and McInturff argued that the economic crash on Sept. 15, 2008, is what did in their candidate. It's an interesting piece of revisionist history, especially since the GOP, by McInturff's own admission, had gained considerable ground on Obama in August and had even take a 3-point lead in early September. As one former McCain strategist has acknowledged, "That position is intellectually dishonest."

If McCain had someone with economic credibility at his side like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty during the financial meltdown in mid-September, rather than the economic neophyte like Palin hiding from the press, it remains uncertain what might have happened. This was the critical turn in the election. Obama was never particularly good at explaining his own economic policies, but compared to the seemingly hapless McCain, operating without a shotgun next to him, middle-of-the-road voters and independents swung toward the Democrats.

Shortly thereafter, Colin Powell--who questioned McCain's judgment in selecting Palin and who said, "I don't believe she is ready to be president of the United States"--announced his historic endorsement of Obama and Joe Biden. McCain never recovered from that point on.

In his classic work on the 1972 Presidential election, The Boys on the Bus, Timothy Crouse chronicled how gritty newspaper reporters helped to both shape and frame the national debate. In 2008, the real media vitality this time around was generated by bloggers across the country.

For far too many years, there's been a culture of "pack journalism" on the campaign trail, as embedded reporters feed off the same press releases and same handouts, fearing to break new ground. As Eric Boehlert notes in Bloggers on the Bus, his delightful chronicle of the progressive blogosphere (or "netroots nation," as it's known), independent voices from the Internet "influenced and altered the road to the White House." In particular, a rag-tag army of articulate progressive bloggers from Alaska did the public vetting of Sarah Palin that the mainstream media failed to do. They were ahead of the curve every step of the way.

As the dust from the 2008 race slowly settles--and as Obama struggles to forge new directions in health care and foreign policy in the face of vicious opposition from the conservative right--perhaps the most salient, long-distance analysis of the 2008 election is contained in the fascinating and brilliant Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party, by the young blogger, investigative journalist and videographer Max Blumenthal.

Blumenthal argues that "a culture of personal crisis" has transformed the Republican Party from a moderate-right coalition to one driven by extremists. Citing the work of psychoanalyst Erich Fromm (author of Escape From Freedom), Blumenthal asserts that the fear of freedom leads anxiety-ridden people to embrace a peculiar brand of Evangelical authoritarianism that has fueled the likes of Sarah Palin. It's a chilling portrait of the dark underbelly of right-wing politics in this country, one that is holding not only the Republican Party hostage (and held McCain hostage in making his VP selection), but as Blumenthal argues, the entire American polity.

It's a disconcerting thought that, after such a grueling and, in many ways, definitive election, an even nastier, more prolonged battle is waiting just around the corner.

Award-winning writer and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn's book The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power will be released by St. Martin's Press in spring 2010.
Books Reviewed in this Essay:

The Battle for America 2008: The Story of an Extraordinary Election; by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson; Viking; 415 pages; $29.95 cloth

Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press; by Eric Boehlert; Simon & Schuster; 304 pages; $26 cloth

Campaign for President: The Managers Look at 2008; by The Institute of Politics (Harvard); Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 272 pages; 49.95 cloth; 29.95 paper

The Inspiring, Combative 2008 Campaign and the Historic Election of Barack Obama; by Evan Thomas; Public Affairs; 220 pages; $22.95 cloth

Renegade: The Making of a President; by Richard Wolffe; Crown; 356 pages; $26 cloth

Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party; by Max Blumenthal;
 Nation Books; 352 Pages; $25 cloth

 

Comments

[Peleador]

......continued

The mistake McCain made wasn't Palin per se. It was the fact that Palin had little experience. I called this early on. I wrote Rick Davis and a whole bunch of McCain advisors saying that by picking an inexperienced candidate, even someone like Jindal, rather than someone like Huckabee or Romney was a critical mistake. By doing so, you legitimize Obama's entire lack of experience. The argument would be made that, if Palin had enough to be President, so did Obama. Sure, Palin had 3 times the experience that Obama had, but 3 times nothing is still nothing.

IOW, it wasn't Palin. Any VP with only a few years of experience legitimized Obama. Jindal would have done the same for McCain. And the blame for picking Palin goes to Davis who was an utter train wreck of a campaign manager. He's the real reason for McCain's loss, always was. I don't think there's any candidate he couldn't have tripped up into losing.

[Geoffrey Dunn - Huffpost Blogger]

It's never easy following multiple threads, but here you are agreeing with me that Rick Davis was a significant problem in the McCain campaign and then you're claiming that the issue is all about "race." That race was a significant issue in the campaign goes without saying, but whether it was a significant variable in the outcome, is another question; I don't think so. The polling numbers support that contention. The polling numbers also indicate that Palin was a factor. I think the most telling comment at the post-election conference held at Harvard was uttered by GOP pollster McInturff who stated: "If we run the race ten times, [the Democrats] are going to win seven or eight out of ten." I think that's about right. But 4-to-1 underdogs have won their share of horse races. The Republicans kept making decisions—most notably their selection of Sarah Palin—that took them out of the race. And, yes, we agree that the Palin selection negated the McCain narrative up until Aug. 29: Experience matters. After that, it was the Thrilla from Wasilla and Joe the Plumber discussing the economy. Puhleeze.

[Peleador]

PS - I know that came off a bit bipolar. What I mean is that Rick Davis was too ineffective to pull off an upset win against a popular affirmative action black candidate. Someone else might have been able to do it. Or a different candidate. McCain is no Ronald Reagan. In many ways, he's not even George Bush who didn't need to be managed. Davis seemed to confuse and muddle McCain's campaign rather than focusing it. Yes, someone else could have helped McCain beat Obama, even with Palin. In fact, at first, I thought it was a genius move. As soon at the press hammered her experience, you could slam Obama's hard. After all, she wasn't running for President. The *problem* was the third leg of the stool. The mainstream media was ALSO in love with the idea of a black candidate. So they NEVER took Obama to task for being inexperience. They were too excited by his 'meteoric rise'. But they viewed Palin as inexperience, despite having her own 'meteoric rise'. It was the first time that the press actively and unashamedly helped the Democrats beat a better Republican.

You can blame Davis. You can blame the main stream press. And you can blame the fact that white moderates wanted a black president. But Palin was just an excuse. I'd have voted for Palin over Obama in a nanosecond and would have been right to do so given how miserably Obama is doing.

[conservativelady]

What I found interesting is the complete denial of Palin supporters who refused to believe anything negative about Palin that was leaked from the campaign staffers who worked for McCain. You could see that she was a diva that way she was salivating to say something during McCain's defeat speech. It was so obvious just from her body language and facial expressions that she really wanted to talk. I don't need insiders to tell me something so obvious, yet it seems her supporters will even deny the obvious.

[Peleador]

I guess you need to change your moniker because there's no way you could be a conservative lady and not support Palin. If you know some of the idiots in McCain's camp, it's easy to come down on Palin's side. I don't think she's a diva at all. And she's way more conservative than McCain. I loved it when she didn't want to give up on Michigan or Minnesota, I forget which one. She had guts, she wasn't scripted, nor could she be. The McCain people thought they could mold her to be the prim and proper running mate for McCain, like a Jackie O. Oh, sure, she wasn't up to speed on national and international affairs, nor should she be. If you've got a state as big as Alaska to run, you don't have time to memorize the names of world leaders. Especially if you had no plans for national office at the time. I don't think she was a good pick to help McCain win because she's so unpolished and real, she scares away voters, even those claiming to be conservative. But I'd have rather had her as President than McCain even because you KNOW you'd get some real change. McCain has become an institutional politician. He is a maverick in that he is bipolar, but that is different from being a change agent.

[Peleador]

I disagree. This is a very superficial view of the election and completely omits one critical component.

Race. And by race, I mean the ultimate expression of race. Black skin versus white skin.

Obama beat Clinton on race alone. There is no way that a man with no experience and white skin would have been Clinton. Heck, Richardson was the most qualified and was hispanic. But hispanics were never slaves. Nor were women. Latinos are considered to be "minority lite". Not quite minority enough. Blacks, almost to a person, voted for Obama in the primary and who can blame them? Aside from this, guilty white people wanting to vindicate themselves voted for Obama. And, of course, there were the dreamy gullible types that simply liked the uber simplistic message that allows you to write in your own fantasy.

That explains Obama winning the primary. But McCain had infinitely more experience and now you had a whole lot more white folks and conservatives voting. Oh, sure, there might be a few people that vote against Obama because he is black, but that's a meaningless percentage of the population.

[2Bfair]

T"he Clinton campaign... was defined as as 'crisis, chaos, deceit and subterfuge'"

Bingo! Hillary is no leader.

[wreckdiver]

Evan Th0mas? So what?!? This is a guy who HATES the Clintons and said, QUOTE: "In a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

A fellow Clint0n-hater and worshiper criticizes Hillary's campaign and YOU agree?

wow.

[2Bfair]

Sorry, you have no credibility in discussing perspectives on the Clintons. You portray ANYONE who has ever critcized them as a "hater." Hillary led her campaign into messsage fog, istrategic blunders, internal staff warfare, desperate dishonest Rove-style tactics, deep debt, and defeat. It's all on record. Saying it means being honest. Oops... no wonder you attack it.

[2Bfair]

addressing wreckdiver*

and are you saying that both Geoffrey Dunn and Evan Thomas are Hillary "haters" since they agree on that assessment of her?

[wreckdiver]

No, not "anyone", but you (posting almost 12,000 attacks on the Clintons), Th0mas, and Dunn surely qualify.

BTW - Anyone who draws ANY kind of analogy between Obama and G0D is clearly a worshiper, and in need of help.

[QDP]

Three things are clear:

1. Men of all different backgrounds will simply not allow female leadership at the highest level. you just can't get those demographics to work, between blacvks, caucasians, Latin and Asian, by majority, NO
2. Clearly the special interests spins are only tolerated to a certain degree. PALIN'S RECORD WAS JUST WAY TOO MARGINAL to obfuscate and spin
3. THE VOTING PUBLIC HAS CHANGED, DRASTICALLY.

The youth vote, and " I'm fed up" vote, and the demographics of 30-60 age group vs 21-30 and 60+ majority changes were the single most pronounced surprises. O brought out the infectious youth vote, even those influencing their parents to a huge swing. The business-a­s-usual-ol­d-dog-repu­blican tactics could not measure up. The money was not following. Watch, it will become much more pronounced in coming years.

The SMS, DIGG, Twitter and FB crowd is a huge new uncontrollable menace/monster to the political game. Look at how cautiously they are reacting to specific, clear voting stances now! Very non-committal... it's clear, they are worried about what it will take to stay in office. The demography has changed, and with it the way we decide to talk about the issues between each other.

Btw, Palin just is not smart enough.

[Cosatjockomo]

I think McCain's only hope was Colin Powell, but he's not enough of a party person and thinks far too rationally for republican leadership to trust him. Hillary lost also because there has never been so large, vocal and well armed a "anyone but her" lobby in all of American politics. More of America strongly objected to her candidacy than any other candidate in history. The thought of her as president makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. TY O'bama for that reason alone!

[disgustedwithall]

While it might seem shocking to some, the R party that ran against Obama did NOT want to win! Most seem to have forgot the R's are very capable of winning, as "truths be damned, forward with fear" works just fine for them., The R';s KNEW what 2009-2012 would look like, economy, war, health care, jobs, recession (or a not so "great" still a "depression" by any standard). The sudden event of "Oh look John M came out of way behind and has that lovel Sarah P with him", well it seemed to me about the only way R could assure they would loose.

R's saved the super star R's for later, and such are even rather quite now. R;s that run things, KNEW what was going to be needed, whom would take heat, KNEW the D's as usaual would shoot selves in foot, again and again.Like it or not, R's did NOT "loose" election, they just stepped back to assure another 8 years of power after this mess is perhaps fixed. Sorry to damage ego;s but R's lost this one on purpose... and yet, even now seem able to run the show, as the D's simply are not capable or disciplined.

[Imagine]

"Blumenthal asserts that the fear of freedom leads anxiety-ridden people to embrace a peculiar brand of Evangelical authoritarianism that has fueled the likes of Sarah Palin."

I think this is a very true and telling comment. I have always felt it true and recent scientific research has shown that conservatives are driven in large measure by fear. It has always been clear to me that conservatives, especially Evangelicals fear personal freedom and especially don't want it for others.

[dieselis]

Palin may indeed get her chance since we don't really vote for president were forced to choose between 2individuals set before us and then a very controled MSM lifts or shatters either one. It was clear to me McCain wanted Lieberman the GOP said no way. Their partisan politics cost them the election. The hostage rescue in Columbia poll numbers shot up. I'm happy Obama won now I'm hoping blacks will keep voting like this in every election. Give us some folk that will rescue the country from the controlling Fatcats and they could be colored purple ripple I'd vote for them. How about you?

[gmlaster]

"I'm happy Obama won now I'm hoping EVERYONE will keep voting like this in every election. Give us some folk that will rescue the country from the controlling Fatcats and they could be colored purple ripple I'd vote for them."

I am so with you on that one. As long as the work keeps getting done, effective legislation gets passed (not obstructed) and this country can keep digging itself out of the hole the right has gotten us stuck in, I don't give two craps what color the President is...as long he's as competent as dedicated, diligent and brilliant as this President is. We need our best and brightest commanding the ship of state. Never again should we allow any C students with rich daddies into the WH as anything other than tourists.

[myoungholt]

Another perception: Had Obama been considered white instead of black--or had the Democratic candidate been an all white male instead of a "mutt"--I think the win would have been even bigger. Having lived in many different areas of the US (OR, AZ, IL, TN, SC, DE, PA, CT), I've seen way too much open racial bias and am fully convinced that it played a huge part in the election--a part that will never be admitted by many.

[Geoffrey Dunn - Huffpost Blogger]

A very apt thought. Any time racial issues came to the fore during the campaign, Obama's numbers dropped. Hence him not presently wanting to acknowledge race variables in opposition to his presidency. He's in a no-win situation on the matter of race.

There were several significant variables in the '08 election, of course, none of which singularly was determinant. But Palin was one of them, contrary to the post-election spin of Davis & Associates.

[myoungholt]

As long as he refuses to acknowledge a racial issue, it's a one-sided issue that he need not deal with. Acknowledging a racial issue would be almost akin to throwing down the gauntlet.

[gbw100]

That last paragraph gave me a chill. We won't be done with the far right until they do something so horrible they shame even themselves.

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

[Freesia2]

What is that quote from?

[gbw100]

That's from The Second Coming, Yeats.

[MacQ]

The far right, like the far left, will always be with us.
Until we live under a dictatorship that forbids independent thought and free speech, we will hear from them both.

[gbw100]

I don't mind independent thought. I admired Barry Goldwater, in fact, and John McCain prior to his nomination last summer. I'm not advocating suppression of free speech, either. Regardless, that doesn't mean I have to forgive lying, smearing, and intellectual dishonesty. I cringe when I hear the 9/11 truthers for the same reason. I'm saying that the way things are going on the right, they're headed for an "Oh my God, what have we become" moment, like the Sterling Hall bombing in Madison, WI in 1970.

[myoungholt]

Another thought I didn't put in my first comment is that Joe Biden was, and is, far better presidential material than SP. In 2008 that had to be considered by many.

[myoungholt]

I didn't get a chance to read this until today and decided to respond without reading the comments of others.

I have to say, Mr. Dunn, that you have expressed so well exactly the things that have been swirling in my brain, many of which I have said to others and been pooh-poohed for. So, firstly, thanks for making me realize I'm not alone!

Your comments about the Clinton campaign certainly match my own. Even though I am a woman who would like to have backed a woman candidate, I had the same feeling about her campaign and its derailing. Arrogance is a word I used fairly often, but I hadn't come up with entitlement. As I think back, yes, that's exactly the feeling I had and thank you for giving it a label that fits.

Poor Sarah was no match from day 1. and it only got worse. McCain and his history of not-a-good form of cancer might not have made it regardless of whom he chose as a running mate.

Thank you for your insightful writings--always a highlight.

[drdarkeny]

I really think McCain COULD have turned the economic crisis to his advantage, if he hadn't done what looked a LOT like panicking. I don' t know what he was REALLY trying to do, but he reminded me of a line about a cowardly general in Eric Flint's 1812: THE RIVERS OF WAR who "is fundamentally scared to fight will sometimes, facing a set-to, start waving his arms about and shout wildly in the attempt to assure himself that he is really a very bold fellow after all."

[QDP]

Myoung and Dunn are right. Too many non-decisive issues on their own, but the symposia of all made it so decisive.

That the conservative Rs lost this intentionally is such a joke (disgusted) This game is for keeps, intentional losing is not strategic, and yes, stupidity is infectious...

[Neopolitan]

Of course she did- she was totally unprepared. There is now so much historical footage of her mistakes along with Tina Fey's comedic routines on SNL, she will never be able to recover. The press easily turned her into a cartoon character that has become an American Icon. Tricky Dick had a better chance of being reelected.

[2Bfair]

I agree with that characterization, completly, except wasn't Amy Poehler portrayed laughable Hillary on SNL, not Tina Fey?

[wreckdiver]

No, it was Fred Armisen, portraying the laughable, "do-nothing" Obama on SNL.

[jackbutler5555]

I don't know what caused the McCain-Palin ticket to lose. But I think some scientific analysis might be able to establish what happened.

I think it's short sighted, however, to dismiss the electoral power that Sarah Palin has. Does she know enough to be President of the United States some day? Well, Did Ronald Reagan know enough? Did George W. Bush? This isn't the SATs. American politics is more akin to the campaign for President of your high school class. What Sarah Palin lacked was the advice and tutoring of the sort that kept Reagan and Dubya away from SAT-like testing. Sending Sarah Palin in to be interviewed by Couric and Charlie was dumb. They didn't have to do it. If, instead they took the hiding-fro­m-the-pres­s hit, she would have lived to fight another day. I should point out that's how Dan Quayle did it. And i think Quayle was not smarter but had more information than Bush or Reagan. But he laid low and got elected. Palin will memorize a lot of good talking points and the capitals of countries and will have a good shot come 2012 or 2016. "That was uncalled for, Sen. Bentsen."

[JudgeMoonbox]

"What Sarah Palin lacked was the advice and tutoring of the sort that kept Reagan and Dubya away from SAT-like testing."

For the record, Bush was not kept away from SAT-like testing--or if he had been, the test he was given was even less indicative.

I'm referring to that pop quiz where Dubya was asked to name the leaders of 4 countries: Taiwan, India, Pakistan, and Chechnya. He did know who was in charge in the first, but couldn't come up with the name of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pervez Musharraf. That Bush could only get 1 of the 4 (I think that Chechnya's leader was a figurehead and we shouldn't expect even presidential candidages to know that many.

We are fortunate that when Bush received his wake-up call on 9/11, he had an up to wake to. Still, his failure was a foretaste of the incompetence to come. Where's the Liberally biased media when we needed it?

[NoSillyName]

Thanks for reminding me of GWB's ignorant yet smug interview before he ever got to the WH the first time. I was shocked at how uninformed he was and yet how he didn't even bother to care. I thought to myself "how could anyone possibly vote for a presidential candidate who knows nothing about the world?" That they did was a wake up call for me.

That the media is "liberal" is a myth.

[gevan]

"Did Palin . . ?" Gawd! I had hoped that the American people wouldn't have been so facile as to seriously consider the prospect of a McCain Presidency even without the Palin albatross tied around the neck of the GOP. Sure, she probably tilted a few of the closest states (Indiana? North Carolina?) but if it was only the Governor that kept Ol' Captain John out ot the winner's circle then this country is in more delicate condition than I had thought.

[Lolly]

I believe North Carolina eventually went for Obama-close enough that it took days after the election was over to verify it.

[rpopstar]

obama won indiana and nc...interestingly enough, if no hispanics had voted in those states, he would have lost them both

[Sarielle Stroman]

what does that have to do with anything?

i could be wrong, but it sounds as if you are attempting to cheapen obama's victory in those states, simply because of the ethnicity of some voters.

hispanic americans are american citizens too, and their votes are just as valid as any other.

interestingly, if no caucasians had voted in 2008, obama would have won 100% of the electoral college.

see how silly that looks?